Donald Trump is inheriting the scariest tools of aggression imaginable. A new book explores their dark legacy.
Journalist Mark Danner explores how Washington's disastrous policies in the Middle East became standard operating procedure.
(Photo: Berkeley School of Journalism)
"We have fallen into a self-defeating spiral of reaction and counterterror," writes Mark Danner in his new book Spiral: Trapped
in the Forever War. "Our policies, meant to extirpate our enemies, have strengthened and perpetuated them."
Danner - an award winning journalist, professor, and member of the Council on Foreign Relations who has covered war and revolutions
on three continents - begins Spiral with the aftermath of a 2003 ambush of U.S. troops outside of Fallujah, Iraq.
The insurgents had set off a roadside bomb, killing a paratrooper and wounding several others. "The Americans promptly dismounted
and with their M-16s and M-4s began pouring lead into everything they could see," including a passing truck, he writes. "By week's
end scores of family and close friends of those killed would join the insurgents, for honor demanded they kill Americans to wipe
away family shame."
The incident encapsulates the fundamental contradiction at the heart of George W. Bush's - and with variations, Barack Obama's
- "war on terror": The means used to fight it is the most effective recruiting device that organizations like Al Qaeda, the Taliban,
the Shabab, and the Islamic State have.
Targeted assassinations by drones, the use of torture, extra-legal renditions, and the invasions of several Muslim countries have
combined to yield an unmitigated disaster, destabilizing several states, killing hundreds of thousands of people, and generating
millions of refugees.
Putting War Crimes on the Menu
Danner's contention is hardly breaking news, nor is he the first journalist to point out that responding to the tactic of terrorism
with military force generates yet more enemies and instability. But Spiral argues that what was once unusual has now become
standard operating procedure, and the Obama administration bears some of the blame for this by its refusal to prosecute violations
of international law.
Torture is a case in point.
In the aftermath of the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, the Bush administration introduced so-called "enhanced interrogation"
techniques that were, in fact, torture under both U.S. and international law. Danner demonstrates that the White House, and a small
cluster of advisers around Vice President Dick Cheney, knew they could be prosecuted under existing laws, so they carefully erected
a "golden shield" of policy memos that would protect them from prosecution for war crimes.
In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, Obama announced that he had "prohibited torture." But, as Danner points out, "torture
violates international and domestic law and the notion that our president has the power to prohibit it follows insidiously from the
pretense that his predecessor had the power to order it. Before the war on terror official torture was illegal and an anathema; today
it is a policy choice."
And president-elect Donald Trump has already announced that he intends to bring it back.
There is no doubt that enhanced interrogation was torture. The International Committee of the Red Cross found the techniques "amounted
to torture and/or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment." How anyone could conclude anything else is hard to fathom. Besides the
waterboarding - for which several Japanese soldiers were executed for using on Allied prisoners during World War II - interrogators
used sleep deprivation, extreme confinement, and "walling." Abu Zubaydah, who was waterboarded 83 times, describes having a towel
wrapped around his neck that his questioners used "to swing me around and smash repeatedly against the wall of the [interrogation]
room."
According to a 2004 CIA memo, "An HVD [high value detainee] may be walled one time (one impact with the wall) to make a point,
or twenty to thirty times consecutively when the interrogator requires a more significant response to a question." There were, of
course, some restraints. For instance, the Justice Department refused to approve a CIA proposal to bury people alive.
And, as Danner points out, none of these grotesque methods produced any important information. The claim that torture saved "thousands
of lives" is simply a lie.
There was a certain Alice in Wonderland quality about the whole thing. Zubaydah was designated a "high official" in Al Qaeda,
the number three or four man in the organization. In reality he wasn't even a member, as the Justice Department finally admitted
in 2009. However, because he was considered a higher up in the group, it was assumed he must know about future attacks. If he professed
that he didn't know anything, this was proof that he did, and so he had to be tortured more. "It is a closed circle, self-sufficient,
impervious to disobedient facts," says Danner.
The logic of the Red Queen.
Through the Looking Glass
The Obama administration has also conjured up some interpretations of language that seem straight out of Lewis Carroll.
In defending his use of drone strikes in a 2014 speech at West Point, the president said he only uses them "when we face a continuing,
imminent threat." But "imminent" means "likely to occur at any moment" and is the opposite of "continuing." A leaked Justice Department
memo addresses the incongruity by arguing, "Imminent does not require the U.S. to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S.
persons and interests will take place in the immediate future."
Apparently the administration has now added "elongated" to "imminent," so that "a president doesn't have to deem the country under
immediate threat to attack before acting on his or her own." As Humpty Dumpty says to Alice in Through the Looking Glass
, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean."
Danner turns the phrase "American exceptionalism" on its head. The U.S. is not "exceptional" because of its democratic institutions
and moral codes, but because it has exempted itself from international law. "Americans, believing themselves to stand proudly for
the rule of law and human rights, have become for the rest of the world a symbol of something quite opposite: a society that imprisons
people indefinitely without trial, kills thousands without due process, and leaves unpunished lawbreaking approved by its highest
officials."
The war has also undermined basic constitutional restrictions on the ability of intelligence agencies and law enforcement to vacuum
up emails and cell phone calls, and has created an extra-legal court system to try insurgents whose oversight and appeal process
in shrouded in secrecy.
Failure by Any Measure
The war on terror - the Obama administration has re-titled it a war on extremism - hasn't been just an illegal and moral catastrophe.
It's a failure by any measure. From 2002 to 2014, the number of deaths from terrorism grew 4,000 percent, the number of jihadist
groups increased by 58 percent, and the membership in those organizations more than doubled.
The war has also generated a massive counterterrorism bureaucracy that has every reason to amp up the politics of fear. And yet
with all the alarm this has created, a total of 24 Americans were killed by terrorism in 2014, fewer than were done in by lighting.
Terrorism, says Danner, is "la politique du pire," the "politics of the worst" or the use of provocation to get your enemy to
overreact. "If you are weak, if you have no army of your own, borrow you enemy's. Provoke your adversary to do your political work
for you," he says. "And in launching the war on terror, eventually occupying two Muslim countries and producing Guantanamo and Abu
Ghraib celebrating images of repression and torture, the United States proved all too happy to oblige."
Danner argues that idea you can defeat terrorism - which is really just a tactic used by the less powerful against the more powerful
- with military force is an illusion. It can and does, however, make everything worse.
Even the Department of Defense knows this. In 2004, the Pentagon's Defense Science Board found that:
American direct intervention in the Muslim world has paradoxically elevated the stature and support for radical Islamists
while diminishing support for the United States.
Muslim do not "hate our freedoms." They hate our policies, including one-sided support for Israel and for tyrannies in the
Arab world.
American talk of bringing democracy to Muslim countries is self-serving hypocrisy.
The occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan hasn't brought democracy to those countries, only chaos and destruction.
Increasingly the war on terrorism (or "extremism," if you prefer) is a secret war fought by drones whose targets are never revealed,
or by Special Operations Forces whose deployments and missions are wrapped in the silence of national security.
And as long as Obama calls for Americans "to look forward as opposed to looking backward," the spiral will continue.
As Danner argues, "It is a sad but immutable fact that the refusal to look backward leaves us trapped in a world without accountability
that [Obama's] predecessor made. In making it possible, indeed likely, that the crimes will be repeated, the refusal to look backward
traps us in the past."
"... And while I am not as focused on the poverty ve wealth dynamic. this century has revealed something very disappointing that you address. That the elites have done a very poor job of leading the ship of state, while still remaining in leadership belies such a bold hypocrisy in accountability, it's jarring. The article could actually be titled: "The Myth of the Best and the Brightest." ..."
"... They are teaching the elite how to drain all value from American companies, as the rich plan their move to China, the new land of opportunity. When 1% of the population controls such a huge portion of the wealth, patriotism becomes a loadstone to them. The elite are global. Places like Harvard cater to them, help train them to rule the world .but first they must remake it. ..."
"... In my high school, there were roughly 15 of us who had been advanced two years ahead in math. Of those, 10 were Jewish; only two of them had a 'Jewish' last name. In my graduate school class, half (7) are Jewish. None has a 'Jewish' last name. So I'm pretty dubious of the counting method that you use. ..."
"... Regarding the declining Jewish achievement, it looks like it can be primarily explained through demographics: "Intermarriage rates have risen from roughly 6% in 1950 to approximately 40–50% in the year 2000.[56][57] This, in combination with the comparatively low birthrate in the Jewish community, has led to a 5% decline in the Jewish population of the United States in the 1990s." ..."
"... Jewish surnames don't mean what they used to. And intermarriage rates are lowest among the low-performing and highly prolific Orthodox. ..."
"... A potentially bigger issue completely ignored by your article is how do colleges differentiate between 'foreign' students (overwhelmingly Asian) and American students. Many students being counted as "Asian American" are in reality wealthy and elite foreign "parachute kids" (an Asian term), dropped onto the generous American education system or into boarding schools to study for US entrance exams, qualify for resident tuition rates and scholarships, and to compete for "American" admissions slots, not for the usually limited 'foreign' admission slots. ..."
"... As some who is Jewish from the former Soviet Union, and who was denied even to take an entrance exam to a Moscow college, I am saddened to see that American educational admission process looks more and more "Soviet" nowadays. Kids are denied opportunities because of their ethnic or social background, in a supposedly free and fair country! ..."
"... Actually, Richard Feynman famously rejected genetic explanations of Jewish achievement (whether he was right or wrong to do so is another story), and aggressively resisted any attempts to list him as a "Jewish scientist" or "Jewish Nobel Prize winner." I am sure he would not cared in the slightest bit how many Jews were participating in the Physics Olympiad, as long as the quality of the students' work continued to be excellent. Here is a letter he wrote to a woman seeking to include him in a book about Jewish achievement in the sciences. ..."
"... It would be interesting to know how well "true WASPS" do in admissions. This could perhaps be estimated by counting Slavic and Italian names, or Puritan New England last names. I would expect this group to do almost as well as Jews (not quite as well, because their ability would be in the lower end of the Legacy group). ..."
"... The missing variable in this analysis is income/class. While Unz states that many elite colleges have the resources to fund every student's education, and in fact practice need-blind admissions, the student bodies are skewed towards the very highest percentile of the income and wealth distribution. SAT scores may also scale with parents' income as well. ..."
"... Having worked with folks from all manner of "elite" and not so elite schools in a technical field, the main conclusion I was able to draw was folks who went to "elite" colleges had a greater degree of entitlement. And that's it. ..."
"... My own position has always been strongly in the former camp, supporting meritocracy over diversity in elite admissions. ..."
"... The Reality of American Mediocrity ..."
"... The central test of fairness in any admissions system is to ask this simple question. Was there anyone admitted under that system admitted over someone else who was denied admission and with better grades and SAT scores and poorer ? If the answer is in the affirmative, then that system is unfair , if it is in the negative then the system is fair. ..."
"... Harvard ranks only 8th after Penn State in the production of undergrads who eventually get Doctorates in Science and Engineering. Of course Berkeley has the bragging rights for that kind of attribute. ..."
"... There is an excellent analysis of this article at The Occidental Observer by Kevin MacDonald, "Ron Unz on the Illusory American Meritocracy". The MSM is ignoring Unz's article for obvious reasons. ..."
"... Could it be that the goal of financial, rather than academic, achievement, makes many young people uninterested in competing in the science and math competitions sought out by the Asian students? I ..."
"... America never promised success through merit or equality. That is the American "dream." ..."
"... Anyone famliar with sociology and the research on social stratification knows that meritocracy is a myth; for example, if one's parents are in the bottom decile of the the income scale, the child has only a 3% chance to reach the top decile in his or her lifetime. In fact, in contrast to the Horatio Alger ideology, the U.S. has lower rates of upward mobility than almost any other developed country. Social classses exist and they tend to reproduce themselves. ..."
"... The rigid class structure of the the U.S. is one of the reasons I support progressive taxation; wealth may not always be inherited, but life outcomes are largely determined by the class position of one's parents. In this manner, it is also a myth to believe that wealth is an individual creation;most financially successful individuals have enjoyed the benefits of class privilege: good and safe schools, two-parent families, tutors, and perhaps most important of all, high expecatations and positive peer socialization (Unz never mentions the importants of peeer groups, which data show exert a strong causal unfluence on academic performance). ..."
"... And I would challenge Unz's assertion that many high-performing Asians come from impovershed backgrounds: many of them may undereport their income as small business owners. I believe that Asian success derives not only from their class background but their culture in which the parents have authority and the success of the child is crucual to the honor of the family. As they assimilate to the more individualist American ethos, I predict that their academic success will level off just as it has with Jews. ..."
"... All I can say is see a book: "Ivy League Fools and Felons"' by Mack Roth. Lots of them are kids of corrupt people in all fields. ..."
Just before the Labor Day weekend, a front page New York Times story broke the news of the largest cheating scandal in Harvard University
history, in which nearly half the students taking a Government course on the role of Congress had plagiarized or otherwise illegally
collaborated on their final exam.
[1] Each year, Harvard admits just 1600 freshmen while almost 125 Harvard students now face possible suspension over this single
incident. A Harvard dean described the situation as "unprecedented."
But should we really be so surprised at this behavior among the students at America's most prestigious academic institution? In
the last generation or two, the funnel of opportunity in American society has drastically narrowed, with a greater and greater proportion
of our financial, media, business, and political elites being drawn from a relatively small number of our leading universities, together
with their professional schools. The rise of a Henry Ford, from farm boy mechanic to world business tycoon, seems virtually impossible
today, as even America's most successful college dropouts such as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg often turn out to be extremely well-connected
former Harvard students. Indeed, the early success of Facebook was largely due to the powerful imprimatur it enjoyed from its exclusive
availability first only at Harvard and later restricted to just the Ivy League.
During
this period, we have witnessed a huge national decline in well-paid middle class jobs in the manufacturing sector and other sources
of employment for those lacking college degrees, with median American wages having been stagnant or declining for the last forty
years. Meanwhile, there has been an astonishing concentration of wealth at the top, with America's richest 1 percent now possessing
nearly as much net wealth as the bottom 95 percent.
[2]
This situation, sometimes described as a "winner take all society," leaves families desperate to maximize the chances that their
children will reach the winners' circle, rather than risk failure and poverty or even merely a spot in the rapidly deteriorating
middle class. And the best single means of becoming such an economic winner is to gain admission to a top university, which provides
an easy ticket to the wealth of Wall Street or similar venues, whose leading firms increasingly restrict their hiring to graduates
of the Ivy League or a tiny handful of other top colleges.
[3] On the other side, finance remains the favored employment choice for Harvard, Yale or Princeton students after the diplomas
are handed out. [4]
As a direct consequence, the war over college admissions has become astonishingly fierce, with many middle- or upper-middle class
families investing quantities of time and money that would have seemed unimaginable a generation or more ago, leading to an all-against-all
arms race that immiserates the student and exhausts the parents. The absurd parental efforts of an Amy Chua, as recounted in her
2010 bestseller Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother , were simply a much more extreme version of widespread behavior among her
peer-group, which is why her story resonated so deeply among our educated elites. Over the last thirty years, America's test-prep
companies have grown from almost nothing into a $5 billion annual industry, allowing the affluent to provide an admissions edge to
their less able children. Similarly, the enormous annual tuition of $35,000 charged by elite private schools such as Dalton or Exeter
is less for a superior high school education than for the hope of a greatly increased chance to enter the Ivy League.
[5]
Many New York City parents even go to enormous efforts to enroll their children in the best possible pre-Kindergarten program,
seeking early placement on the educational conveyer belt which eventually leads to Harvard.
[6] Others cut corners in a more
direct fashion, as revealed in the huge SAT cheating rings recently uncovered in affluent New York suburbs, in which students were
paid thousands of dollars to take SAT exams for their wealthier but dimmer classmates.
[7]
But given such massive social and economic value now concentrated in a Harvard or Yale degree, the tiny handful of elite admissions
gatekeepers enjoy enormous, almost unprecedented power to shape the leadership of our society by allocating their supply of thick
envelopes. Even billionaires, media barons, and U.S. Senators may weigh their words and actions more carefully as their children
approach college age. And if such power is used to select our future elites in a corrupt manner, perhaps the inevitable result is
the selection of corrupt elites, with terrible consequences for America. Thus, the huge Harvard cheating scandal, and perhaps also
the endless series of financial, business, and political scandals which have rocked our country over the last decade or more, even
while our national economy has stagnated.
Just a few years ago Pulitzer Prize-winning former Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Golden published The Price
of Admission , a devastating account of the corrupt admissions practices at so many of our leading universities, in which every
sort of non-academic or financial factor plays a role in privileging the privileged and thereby squeezing out those high-ability,
hard-working students who lack any special hook.
In one particularly egregious case, a wealthy New Jersey real estate developer, later sent to Federal prison on political corruption
charges, paid Harvard $2.5 million to help ensure admission of his completely under-qualified son.
[8] When we consider that Harvard's
existing endowment was then at $15 billion and earning almost $7 million each day in investment earnings, we see that a culture of
financial corruption has developed an absurd illogic of its own, in which senior Harvard administrators sell their university's honor
for just a few hours worth of its regular annual income, the equivalent of a Harvard instructor raising a grade for a hundred dollars
in cash.
An admissions system based on non-academic factors often amounting to institutionalized venality would seem strange or even unthinkable
among the top universities of most other advanced nations in Europe or Asia, though such practices are widespread in much of the
corrupt Third World. The notion of a wealthy family buying their son his entrance into the Grandes Ecoles of France or the top Japanese
universities would be an absurdity, and the academic rectitude of Europe's Nordic or Germanic nations is even more severe, with those
far more egalitarian societies anyway tending to deemphasize university rankings.
Well, legacy programs are alive and well. According to the read, here's the problem:
"The research certainly supports the widespread perception that non-academic factors play a major role in the process,
including athletic ability and "legacy" status. But as we saw earlier, even more significant are racial factors, with black
ancestry being worth the equivalent of 310 points, Hispanics gaining 130 points, and Asian students being penalized by 140
points, all relative to white applicants on the 1600 point Math and Reading SAT scale."
These arbitrary point systems while well intended are not a reflection of AA design. School lawyers in a race not be penalized
for past practices, implemented their own versions of AA programs. The numbers are easy to challenge because they aren't based
on tangible or narrow principles. It's weakneses are almost laughable. Because there redal goal was to thwart any real challenge
that institutions were idle in addressing past acts of discrimination. To boost their diversity issues, asians were heavily recruited.
Since AA has been in place a lot of faulty measures were egaged in: Quotas for quotas sake. Good for PR, lousy for AA and issues
it was designed to address.
I think the statistical data hides a very important factor and practice. Most jews in this country are white as such , and
as such only needed to change their names and hide behaviors as a strategy of surviving the entrance gauntlet. That segregation
created a black collegiate system with it's own set of elite qualifiers demonstrates that this model isn't limited to the Ivy
league.
That an elite system is devised and practiced in members of a certain club networks so as to maintain their elite status, networks
and control, this is a human practice. And it once served as something to achieve. It was thought that the avenues of becoming
an elite were there if one wanted to strive for it. Hard work, honesty, persistence, results . . . should yield X.
And while I am not as focused on the poverty ve wealth dynamic. this century has revealed something very disappointing
that you address. That the elites have done a very poor job of leading the ship of state, while still remaining in leadership
belies such a bold hypocrisy in accountability, it's jarring. The article could actually be titled: "The Myth of the Best and
the Brightest."
I don't think it's just some vindictive intent. and while Americans have always known and to an extent accepted that for upper
income citizens, normal was not the same as normal on the street. Fairness, was not the same jn practice nor sentiment. What may
becoming increasing intolerant has been the obvious lack of accountability among elites. TARP looked like the elites looking out
for each other as opposed the ship of state. I have read three books on the financials and they do not paint a pretty portrait
of Ivy League leadership as to ethics, cheating, lying, covering up, and shamelessly passing the buck. I will be reading this
again I am sure.
It's sad to think that we may be seeing te passing of an era. in which one aspired to be an elite not soley for their wealth,
but the model they provided od leadership real or imagined. Perhaps, it passed long ago, and we are all not just noticing.
I appreciated you conclusions, not sure that I am comfortable with some of the solutions.
Since I still hanker to be an elite in some manner, It is interesting to note my rather subdued response to the cheating. Sadly,
this too may be an open secret of standard fair - and that is very very sad. And disappointing. Angering even.
The shifting social demography of deans, house masters and admissions committees may be a more important metric than the composition
of the student body, as it determines the shape of the curriculum, and the underlying culture of the university as a legacy in
itself.
If Ron harrows the literary journals of the Jackson era with equal diligence. he may well turn up an essay or two expressing
deep shock at Unitarians admitting too many of the Lord's preterite sheep to Harvard, or lamenting the rise of Methodism at Yale
and the College of New Jersey.
Harvard is a university, much like Princeton and Yale, that continues based on its reputation, something that was earned in
the past. When the present catches up to them people will regard them as nepotistic cauldrons of corruption.
Look at the financial disaster that befell the USA and much of the globe back in 2008. Its genesis can be found in the clever
minds of those coming out of their business schools (and, oddly enough, their Physics programs as well).
They are teaching the elite how to drain all value from American companies, as the rich plan their move to China, the new
land of opportunity. When 1% of the population controls such a huge portion of the wealth, patriotism becomes a loadstone to them.
The elite are global. Places like Harvard cater to them, help train them to rule the world .but first they must remake it.
• Replies: @Part White, Part
Native I agree, common people would never think of derivatives , nor make loans based on speculation
First, I appreciated the length and depth of your article.
Having said that, to boil it down to its essence:
Subconcious bias/groupthink + affirmative action/diversity focus + corruption + innumeracy = student bodies at elite institutions
that are wildly skewed vis-a-vis both: 1) the ethnic makeup of the general population; and 2) the makeup of our top-performing
students.
Since these institutions are pipelines to power, this matters.
I rather doubt that wage stagnation (which appears to have begun in ~1970) can be pinned on this – that part stuck out, because
there are far more plausible causes. To the extent you're merely arguing that our elite failed to counter the trend, ok, but I'm
not sure a "better" elite would have either. The trend, after all, favored the elite.
Anyway, I find your case is plausible.
Your inner/outer circle hybrid option is interesting. One (perhaps minor) thing jumps out at me: kids talk. The innies are
going to figure out who they are and who the outies are. The outies might have their arrogance tempered, but the innies? I suspect
they'd be even *more* arrogant than such folks are now (all the more so because they'd have better justification for their arrogance),
but I could be wrong.
Perhaps more significantly, this:
But if it were explicitly known that the vast majority of Harvard students had merely been winners in the application
lottery, top businesses would begin to cast a much wider net in their employment outreach, and while the average Harvard student
would probably be academically stronger than the average graduate of a state college, the gap would no longer be seen as so
enormous, with individuals being judged more on their own merits and actual achievements
Is a very good reason for Harvard, et al. to resist the idea. I think you're right that this would be a good thing for the
country, but it would be bad for Harvard. I think the odds of convincing Harvard to do it out of the goodness of their administrators
hearts is unlikely. You are basically asking them to purposefully damage their brand.
All in all, I think you're on to something here. I have my quibbles (the wage stagnation thing, and the graph with Chinese
vs USA per capita growth come on, apples and oranges there!), but overall I think I agree that your proposal is likely superior
to the status quo.
Don't forget the mess one finds after they ARE admitted to these schools. I dropped out of Columbia University in 2010.
You can "make it" on an Ivy-league campus if you are a conservative-Republican-type with all the rich country-club connections
that liberals use to stereotype.
Or you can succeed if you are a poor or working-class type who is willing to toe the Affirmative Action party line and be a
good "progressive" Democrat (Obama stickers, "Gay Pride" celebrations, etc.)
If you come from a poor or working-class background and are religious, or culturally conservative or libertarian in any way,
you might as well save your time and money. You're not welcome, period. And if you're a military veteran you WILL be actively
persecuted, no matter what the news reports claim.
It sucks. Getting accepted to Columbia was a dream come true for me. The reality broke my heart.
Regarding the overrepresentation of Jewish students compared to their actual academic merit, I think the author overstates
the role bias (subjective, or otherwise) plays in this:
1) , a likely explanation is that Jewish applicants are a step ahead in knowing how to "play the admissions game." They therefore
constitute a good percentage of applicants that admission committees view as "the total package." (at least a higher percentage
than scores alone would yield). Obviously money and connections plays a role in them knowing to say precisely what adcoms want
to hear, but in any case, at the end of the day, if adcoms are looking for applicants with >1400 SATs, "meaningful" life experiences/accomplishments,
and a personal statement that can weave it all together into a compelling narrative, the middle-upper-class east coast Jewish
applicant probably constitutes a good percentage of such "total package" applicants. I will concede however that this explanation
only works in explaining the prevalence of jews vs. whites in general. With respect to Asians, however, since they are likely
being actively and purposefully discriminated against by adcoms, having the "complete package" would be less helpful to them.
2) Another factor is that, regardless of ethnicity, alumni children get a boost and since in the previous generation Jewish
applicants were the highest achieving academic group, many of these lesser qualified jews admitted are children of alumni.
3) That ivy colleges care more about strong verbal scores than mathematics (i.e., they prefer 800V 700M over 700V 800M), and
Jewish applicants make up a higher proportion of the high verbal score breakdowns.
4) Last, and perhaps more importantly we do not really know the extent of Jewish representation compared to their academic
merit. Unlike admitted Asian applicants, who we know, on average, score higher than white applicants, we have no similar numbers
of Jewish applicants. The PSAT numbers are helpful, but hardly dispositive considering those aren't the scores colleges use in
making their decision information.
@Bryan– Getting accepted to Columbia was a dream come true for me. The reality broke my heart.
I'm touched by this. I've spent tons of time at Columbia, a generation ago -- and my background fit fine -- the kind of WASP
background Jews found exotic and interesting. But I can see your point, sad to say. There are other great schools -- Fordham,
where my wife went to law school at night, has incredible esprit de corps - and probably, person for person, has as many lawyers
doing good and interesting work as Columbia.
"There are other great schools–Fordham, where my wife went to law school at night, has incredible esprit de corps - and
probably, person for person, has as many lawyers doing good and interesting work as Columbia."
"Tiffany was also rejected by all her other prestigious college choices, including Yale, Penn, Duke, and Wellsley, an outcome
which greatly surprised and disappointed her immigrant father.88″
In the fall of 1990, my parents had me apply to 10 colleges. I had the profile of many Indian kids at the time – ranked in
the top 10 of the class, editor of school paper, Boy Scouts. SAT scores could have been better, but still strong. Over 700 in
all achievement tests save Bio, which was 670.
Rejected by 5 schools, waitlisted by 3, accepted into 2 – one of them the state univ.
One of my classmates, whose family was from Thailand, wound up in the same predicament as me. His response, "Basketball was
designed to keep the Asian man down."
The one black kid in our group – got into MIT, dropped out after one year because he could not hack it. The kid from our school
who should have gone, from an Italian-American family, and among the few who did not embrace the guido culture, went to Rennsealer
instead, and had professional success after.
As a University of Chicago alum, I infer that by avoiding the label "elite" on such a nifty chart we can be accurately categorized
as "meritocratic" by The American Conservative.
Then again, this article doesn't even purport to ask why elite universities might be in the business of EDUCATING a wider population
of students, or how that education takes place.
Perhaps, by ensuring that "the best" students are not concentrated in only 8 universities is why the depth and quality of America's
education system remains the envy of the world.
In my high school, there were roughly 15 of us who had been advanced two years ahead in math. Of those, 10 were Jewish;
only two of them had a 'Jewish' last name. In my graduate school class, half (7) are Jewish. None has a 'Jewish' last name.
So I'm pretty dubious of the counting method that you use.
Also, it's clear that there are Asian quotas at these schools, but it's not clear that Intel Science Fairs, etc, are the best
way to estimate what level of talent Asians have relative to other groups.
I was curious so I google High School Poetry Competition, High School Constitution Competition, High School Debating Competition.
None of the winners here seem to have an especially high Asian quotient. So maybe a non-technical (liberal arts) university would
settle on ~25-30% instead of ~40% asian? And perhaps a (small) part of the problem is a preponderance of Asian applicants excelling
in technical fields, leading to competition against each other rather than the general population? Just wonderin'
Regarding the declining Jewish achievement, it looks like it can be primarily explained through demographics: "Intermarriage
rates have risen from roughly 6% in 1950 to approximately 40–50% in the year 2000.[56][57] This, in combination with the comparatively
low birthrate in the Jewish community, has led to a 5% decline in the Jewish population of the United States in the 1990s."
Jewish surnames don't mean what they used to. And intermarriage rates are lowest among the low-performing and highly prolific
Orthodox.
Jewish birth rates have been falling faster than the white population, especially for the non-Orthodox:
"In contrast to the ongoing trends of assimilation, some communities within American Jewry, such as Orthodox Jews, have significantly
higher birth rates and lower intermarriage rates, and are growing rapidly. The proportion of Jewish synagogue members who were
Orthodox rose from 11% in 1971 to 21% in 2000, while the overall Jewish community declined in number. [60] In 2000, there were
360,000 so-called "ultra-orthodox" (Haredi) Jews in USA (7.2%).[61] The figure for 2006 is estimated at 468,000 (9.4%).[61]"
"As against the overall average of 1.86 children per Jewish woman, an informed estimate gives figures ranging upward from 3.3
children in "modern Orthodox" families to 6.6 in Haredi or "ultra-Orthodox" families to a whopping 7.9 in families of Hasidim."
These statistics would suggest that half or more of Jewish children are being born into these lower-performing groups. Given
their very low intermarriage rates, a huge portion of the secular, Reform, and Conservative Jews must be intermarrying (more than
half if the aggregate 43% intermarriage figure is right). And the high-performing groups may now be around 1 child per woman or
lower, and worse for the youngest generation.
So a collapse in Jewish representation in youth science prizes can be mostly explained by the collapse of the distinct non-Orthodox
Jewish youth.
Incidentally, intermarriage also produces people with Jewish ancestry who get classified as gentiles using last names or self-identification,
reducing Jewish-gentile gaps by bringing up nominal gentile scores at the same time as nominal-Jewish scores are lowered.
The center of power in this country being located in the Northeast is nothing new. Whether it be in it's Ivy League schools
or the ownership of natural resources located in other regions, particularly the South, the Northeast has always had a disproportionate
share of influence in the power structures, particularly political and financial, of this nation. This is one of the reasons the
definition of "white" when reviewing ethnicity is so laughably inaccurate. There is a huge difference in opportunity between WASP
or Jewish in the Northeast, for instance, and those of Scots Irish ancestory in the mountain south. Hopefully statistical analysis
such as this can break open that stranglehold, especially as it is directly impacting a minority group in a negative fashion.
Doing this exercise using say, white Baptists compared to other white subgroups, while maybe equally valid in the results, would
be seen as racist by the very Ivy League system that is essentially practicing a form of racism.
Yeah, my ultimate goal was to attend law school, and a big part of the heartbreak for me–or heartburn, the more cynical would
call it–was seeing how skewed and absurd the admissions process to law school is.
I have no doubt that I could have eventually entered into a "top tier" law school, and that was a dream of mine also. I met
with admissions officers from Duke, Harvard, Stanford, Fordham, etc. I was encouraged. I had the grades and background for it.
But–and I'm really not trying to sound corny 0r self-important here–what does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his
soul? I really don't feel that I'm exaggerating when I say that that's exactly how it felt to me.
The best experience I had while In New York was working as an after-school programs administrator for P.S. 136, but that was
only because of the kids. They'll be old and bitter and cynical soon enough.
At one point it occurred to me that I should have just started claiming "Black" as my ethnicity when I first started attending
college as an adult. I never attended high-school so it couldn't have been disproved. I'm part Sicilian so I could pass for 1/4
African-American. Then I would have received the preference toward admission that, say, Michael Jordan's kids or Barack Obama's
kids will receive when they claim their Ivy-league diplomas. I should have hid the "white privilege" I've enjoyed as the son of
a fisherman and a waitress from one of the most economically-depressed states in America.
The bottom line is that those colleges are political brainwashing centers for a country I no longer believe in. I arrived on
campus in 2009 and I'm not joking at all when I say I was actively persecuted for being a veteran and a conservative who was not
drinking the Obama Kool-aid. Some big fat African-American lady, a back-room "administrator" for Columbia, straight-up threw my
VA benefits certification in the garbage, so my money got delayed by almost two months. I had no idea what was going on. I had
a wife and children to support.
The fact that technology has enabled us to sit here in real-time and correspond back-and-forth about the state of things doesn't
really change the state of things. They are irredeemable. This country is broke and broken.
If Abraham Lincoln were born today in America he would wind up like "Uncle Teardrop" from Winter's Bone. Back then, in order
to be an attorney, you simply studied law and starting trying cases. If you were good at it then you were accepted and became
a lawyer. Today, something has been lost. There is no fixing it. I don't want to waste my time trying to help by being "productive"
to the new tower of Babel or pretending to contribute.
Perhaps only one thing you left out, which is especially important with regard to Jewish enrollment and applications at Ivy
leagues, and other schools as well.
Jewish high school graduates actively look out for campuses with large Jewish populations, where they feel more comfortable.
I don't know the figures, but I believe Dartmouth, for example, has a much smaller Jewish population than Columbia, and it will
stay that way because of a positive feedback loop. (i.e. Jews would rather be at Columbia than Dartmouth, or sometimes even rather
be at NYU than Dartmouth). This explains some of the difference among different schools (and not solely better admission standards).
This is also especially relevant to your random lottery idea, which will inevitably lead to certain schools being overwhelmingly
Asian, others being overwhelmingly Jewish, etc., because the percentage of applicants from every ethnicity is different in every
school. This will necessarily eliminate any diversity which may or may not have existed until now.
I like the lottery admissions idea a lot but the real remedy for the US education system would be to abandon the absurd elite
cult altogether. There is not a shred of evidence that graduates of so-called elite institutions make good leaders. Many of them
are responsible for the economic crash and some of them have brought us the disaster of the Bush presidency.
Many better functioning countries – Germany, the Scandinavians – do not have elite higher education systems. When I enrolled
to University in Germany, I showed up at the enrollment office the summer before the academic year started, filled out a form
(1), and provided a certified copy of my Abitur certificate proving that I was academically competent to attend University. I
never wasted a minute on any of the admissions games that American middle class teenagers and their parents are subjected to.
It would surely have hurt my sense of dignity to be forced to jump through all these absurd and arbitrary hoops.
Americans, due to their ignorance of everything happening outside their borders, have no clue that a system in which a person
is judged by what "school" they attended is everything but normal. It is part of the reason for American dysfunction.
Since they are the pool from which tomorrow's governing elites will be chosen, I'd much rather see Ivy League student bodies
which reflected the full ethnic and geographic diversity of the US. Right now rural and small town Americans and those of Catholic
and Protestant descent who live in the South and Mid-West - roughly half the population - are woefully under-represented, which
explains why their economic interests have been neglected over the last forty years. We live in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic
representative democracy and our policy-making elites must reflect that diversity. Else the country will come apart.
Thus I recommend 'affirmative action for all' in our elite liberal arts colleges and universities (though not our technical
schools). Student bodies should be represent 'the best and the brightest' of every ethnic group and geographical area of the country.
Then the old school ties will truly knit our society together in a way that is simply not happening today.
A side benefit - and I mean this seriously - is that our second and third tier colleges and universities would be improved
by an influx of Asian and Ashkenazi students (even though the very best would still go to Harvard).
I believe that this article raises – and then inappropriately immediately dismisses – the simplest and most likely reason for
the over-representation of Jewish students at Ivy League Schools in the face of their declining bulk academic performance:
They apply to those schools in vastly disproportionate numbers.
Without actual data on the ethnicity of the applicants to these and other schools, we simply cannot rule out this simple and
likely explanation.
It is quite clear that a large current of Jewish American culture places a great emphasis on elite college attendance, and
among elite colleges, specifically values the Ivy League and its particular cache as opposed to other elite institutions such
as MIT. Also, elite Jewish American culture, moreso than elite Asian American culture, encourages children to go far away from
home for college, considering such a thing almost a right of passage, while other ethnic groups tend to encourage children to
remain closer. A high performing Asian student from, say, California, is much more likely to face familial pressure to stay close
to home for undergrad (Berkeley, UCLA, etc) than a high performing Jewish student from the same high school, who will likely be
encouraged by his or her family to apply to many universities "back east".
Without being able to systematically compare – with real data – the ethnicities of the applicants to those offered admission,
these conclusions simply cannot be accepted.
Different expectations for different races should worry traditional Americans.
If we become comfortable with different academic standards for Asians will we soon be expected to apply different laws to them
also? Will we apply different laws or at least different interpretations of the same laws to blacks?
The association of East Asians with CalTech is now as strong as the association of blacks with violent crime. Can not race
conscious jurisprudence be far behind?
Around a millenium ago in England it mattered to the court if you were a commoner or a noble. Nobles could exercise 'high justice'
with impunity. They were held to different standards. Their testimony counted for more in court. The law was class concious.
Then we had centuries of reform. We had 'Common Law'. By the time of our revolution the idea that all were equal before the
law was a very American kind of idea. We were proud that unlike England we did not have a class system.
Today we seem to be on the threshold of a similar sytem of privileges and rights based on race. Let me give an example. If
there were a domestic riot of somekind and a breakdown of public order, the authorities might very well impose a cufew. That makes
good sense for black male teens but makes little or no sense for elderly Chinese women. I can envision a time when we have race
specific policies for curfews and similar measures.
It seems to be starting in schools. It could be that the idea of equality before the law was an idea that only flourished between
the fifteenth century and the twenty first.
"But filling out a few very simple forms and having their test scores and grades scores automatically forwarded to a list of
possible universities would give them at least the same chance in the lottery as any other applicant whose academic skills were
adequate."
They get a lot of applications. I am guessing they chuck about 1/2 or more due to the application being incomplete, the applicant
did not follow instructions, the application was sloppy, or just obviously poor grades/test scores. The interview and perhaps
the essay and recommendations are necessary to chuck weirdos and psychopaths you do not want sitting next to King Fahd Jr. So
the "byzantine" application process is actually necessary to reduce the number of applicants to be evaluated.
I have a friend who went to Stanford with me in the early 80s. She has two sons who recently applied to Stanford. The older
son had slightly better grades and test scores. The younger son is gay. Guess which one got in?
If you were in Columbia's GS school, (or even if you were CC/SEAS/Barnard) you ought to reach out to some of on-campus and
alumni veteran's groups. They can help you maneuver through the school. (I know there's one that meets at a cafe on 122 and Broadway)
CU can be a lonely and forbidding place for anyone and that goes double for GSers and quadruple for veterans.
You ought to give it another go. Especially if you aren't going somewhere else that's better. Reach out to your deans and make
a fuss. No one in the bureaucracy wants to help but you can force them to their job.
Mr. Unz, the issues of jewish/gentile intermarriage and the significance of jewish-looking names do indeed merit more consideration
than they were given in this otherwise very enlightening article.
What would the percentage of jews in Ivy-League universities look like if the methodology used to determine the percentage
of jewish NMS semifinalists were applied to the list of Ivy League students (or some available approximation of it)?
For background: I'm an Asian-American who worked briefly in legacy admissions at an Ivy and another non-Ivy top-tier, both
while in school (work-study) and as an alum on related committees.
Mendy Finkel's observations are spot on. Re: her 1st point, personal "presentation" or "branding" is often overlooked by Asian
applicants. An admission officer at another Ivy joked they drew straws to assign "Night of a 1000 Lee's", so accomplished-but-indistinguishable
was that group.
A few points on the Asian analysis:
1. I think this analysis would benefit from expanding beyond HYP/Ivies when considering the broader meritocracy issue. Many
Asians esteem technical-leaning schools over academically-comparable liberal arts ones, even if the student isn't a science major.
When I was in college in the 90′s, most Asian parents would favor a Carnegie Mellon or Hopkins over Brown, Columbia or Dartmouth
(though HYP, of course, had its magnetic appeal). The enrollment percentages reflect this, and while some of this is changing,
this is a fairly persistent pattern.
2. Fundraising is crucial. The Harvard Class of '77 example isn't the most telling kind of number. In my experience, Jewish
alumni provide a critical mass in both the day-to-day fundraising and the resultant dollars. And they play a key role, both as
givers and getters, in the signature capital campaign commitments (univ hospitals, research centers, etc.). This isn't unique
to Jewish Ivy alumni; Catholic alumni of ND or Georgetown provide similar support. But it isn't clear what the future overall
Asian commitment to the Ivy "culture of fundraising" will be, which will continue to be a net negative in admissions.
Sidenote: While Asians greatly value the particular civic good, they are uneasy with it being so hinged to an opaque private
sector, in this case, philanthropy. That distinction, blown out a bit, speaks to some of the Republican "Asian gap".
3. I would not place too much weight on NMS comparisons between Asians and Jews. In my experience, most Asians treat the PSAT
seriously, but many established Jews do not – the potential scholarship money isn't a factor, "NMS semifinalist" isn't an admissions
distinction, and as Mendy highlighted, colleges don't see the scores.
On a different note, while the "weight" of an Ivy degree is significant, it's prestige is largely concentrated in the Northeast
and among some overseas. In terms of facilitating access and mobility, a USC degree might serve you better in SoCal, as would
an SMU one in TX.
And like J Harlan, I also hope the recent monopoly of Harvard and Yale grads in the presidency will end. No doubt, places like
Whittier College, Southwest Texas State Teachers' College, and Eureka College gave earlier presidents valuable perspectives and
experience that informed their governing.
But thank you, Ron, for a great provocative piece. Very well worth the read.
Hey Ron, your next article should be on the military academies, and all those legacies that go back to the Revolutionary War.
How do you get into the French military academy, and do the cadets trace their family history back to the soldiers of Napoleon
or Charles Martel or whatever?
"Thus, there appears to be no evidence for racial bias against Asians, even excluding the race-neutral impact of athletic recruitment,
legacy admissions, and geographical diversity."
Yes, at UCLA, at least up to 2004, Asian and white admits had nearly identical SATs and GPAs.
Further, it just isn't the case that Asians are so spectacular as people seem to think. Their average on the SAT Verbal is
slightly less than whites, their average on SAT Writing is slightly more. Only in math do they have a significant advantage, 59
points or .59 standard deviation. Total advantage is about .2 over the three tests. Assuming that Harvard or Yale admit students
at +3 standard deviations overall, and plugging the relative group quantiles +(3, 2.8) into a normal distribution, we get that
.14% of white kids would get admitted, versus .26% of Asian kids. Or, 1.85 Asian kids for every one white kid.
But, last year 4.25 times as many whites as Asians took the SAT, so there still should be about 2.28 times as many white kids
being admitted as Asians (4.25/1.85).
On GPA, whites and Asians are also pretty similar on average, 3.52 for Asians who took the SAT, 3.45 for whites who took the
SAT. So that shouldn't be much of a factor.
I am a Cadet at the US Military Academy at West Point and generally pretty familiar with trans-national Academy admissions
processes. There's an excellent comparative study of worldwide military academy admissions that was done in the late '90′s you
might find interesting (IIRC it was done by a group in the NATO Defence College) and I think you will find that although soldiers
are often proud of their family histories to a fault, it is not what controls entrance to the officer corps in most countries.
"Legacy" is definitely meaningless in US Military Academy admissions, although can be very helpful in the separate process
of securing a political appointment to attend the Academy once accepted for admission and in an Army career. West Point is not
comparable to the Ivy League schools in the country, because (ironically) the admissions department that makes those comparisons
lets in an inordinate number of unqualified candidates and ensures our student body includes a wide range of candidates, from
people who are unquestionably "Ivy League material" to those who don't have the intellect to hack it at any "elite" institution.
Prior the changes in admissions policies and JFK ordering an doubling of the size of the Corps of Cadets in the '60′s, we didn't
have this problem. But, I digress. My point is, the Academy admissions system is very meritocratic.
I am a Jewish alum of UPenn, and graduated in the late 90s. That puts me almost a generation ago, which may be before the supposed
Jewish decline you write about. I was in an 80%+ Jewish fraternity, and at least 2/3 of my overall network of friends at Penn
was also Jewish. As was mentioned earlier, I have serious qualms with your methods for counting Jews based upon last name.
Based upon my admittedly non-scientific sample, the percentage of us who had traditionally Jewish last names was well under
half and closer to 25%. My own last name is German, and you would never know I am Jewish based solely upon my name (nor would
you based upon the surname of 3/4 of my grandparents, despite my family being 100% Jewish with no intermarriages until my sister).
By contrast, Asians are much easier to identify based upon name. You may overcount certain names like Lee that are also Caucasian,
but it is highly unlikely that you will miss any Asian students when your criterion is last name.
Admittedly I skimmed parts of the article, but were other criterion used to more accurately identify the groups?
The Jewish presence is definitely understated by just looking at surnames. As is the American Indian.
My maternal grandfather was Ashkenazi and his wife was 1/2 Ashkenazi and 1/4 Apache. He changed his name to a Scots surname
that matched his red hair so as to get ahead as a business man in 20s due to KKK and anti-German feelings at the time. Their kids
had two PHDs and a Masters between them despite their parents running a very blue collar firm.
My surname comes from my dad and its a Scottish surname although he was 1/4 Cherokee. On that side we are members of the FF
of Virignia. Altogether I am more Jewish and American Indian than anything else yet would be classified as white. I could easily
claim to be
Jewish or Indian on admissions forms. I always selected white. I was NMSF.
Both my sister and I have kids. Her husband is a full blood Indian with a common English surname. One of my nieces made NMSF
and another might. My sisters kids do not think of themselves as any race and check other.
My wife is 1/4 Indian and 3/4 English. My kids are young yet one has tested to an IQ in the 150s.
Once you get West of the Appalachians, there are a lot of mutts in the non-gentile whites. A lot of Jews and American Indians
Anglicized themselves a generation or two ago and they are lumped into that group – as well as occupy the top percentile academically.
Interesting article with parts I would agree with but also tinged with bias and conclusions that I would argue are not fully
supported by the data.
I think more analysis is needed to confirm your conclusions. As others have mentioned there may be problems with your analysis
of NMS scores. I think graduate admissions and achievements especially in the math and sciences would be a better measure of intellectual
performance.
Now, I didn't attend an Ivy League school, instead a public university, mainly because I couldn't afford it or so I thought.
I was also a NMS finalist.
But I always was of the opinion that except for the most exceptional students admission to the Ivies was based on the wealth
of your family and as you mentioned there are quite a few affluent Jews so I imagine they do have a leg up. Harvard's endowment
isn't as large as it is by accident.
It is interesting that you didn't discuss the stats for Stanford.
Lastly, I think your solution is wrong. The pure meritocracy is the only fair solution. Admissions should be based upon the
entrance exams like in Asia and Europe.
There are plenty of options for those who don't want to compete and if the Asians dominate admissions at the top schools so
be it.
Hopefully, all of this will be mute point n a few years as online education options become more popular with Universities specializing
in graduate education and research.
Ron Unz on Asians (ie Asian Americans): "many of them impoverished immigrant families"
Why do you twice repeat this assertion. Asians are the wealthiest race and most of the wealthiest ethnic groups tracked by
the Census Bureau, which includes immigrants.
A potentially bigger issue completely ignored by your article is how do colleges differentiate between 'foreign' students
(overwhelmingly Asian) and American students. Many students being counted as "Asian American" are in reality wealthy and elite
foreign "parachute kids" (an Asian term), dropped onto the generous American education system or into boarding schools to study
for US entrance exams, qualify for resident tuition rates and scholarships, and to compete for "American" admissions slots, not
for the usually limited 'foreign' admission slots.
Probably people from non-Asian countries are pulling the same stunt, but it seems likely dominated by Asians. And expect many
more with the passage of the various "Dream Acts"
So American kids must compete with the offspring of all the worlds corrupt elite for what should be opportunities for US Americans.
Am I the only one that finds the comparison of Asians (a race) to Jews (a religion) as basis for a case of discrimination completely
flawed? I got in at Harvard and don't remember them even asking me what my religion was.
The value of diversity is absolutely key. I have a bunch of very good Asian friends and I love them dearly, but I don't believe
a place like CalTech with its 40% demographics cannot truly claim to be a diverse place any more.
Regarding the SAT, we do know more than just differences of averages between whites and Asians. We have some years of
score distributions . As recently
as 1992, 1.2% of whites and 5.1% of Asians scored between 750 and 800 on the math subtest. As recently as 1985, 0.20% of whites
and 0.26% of Asians scored in that range on the verbal/critical reading subtest.
On a different form of the writing subtest than is currently used, 5.0% of whites and 3.0% of Asians scored greater than 60
in 1985. We also know that, as the white-Asian average verbal/critical reading gap shrank to almost nothing and the average math
gap grew in Asians' favor, the standard deviations on both for Asians have been much higher than every other group but have stayed
relatively unchanged and have become, in fact, slightly lower than in 1985.
Therefore, Asians probably greatly increased their share of top performers.
@Milton F.: "Perhaps, by ensuring that "the best" students are not concentrated in only 8 universities is why the depth and
quality of America's education system remains the envy of the world."
Hardly. America's education system is "the envy" because of the ability for minorities to get placement into better schools,
not solely for the education they receive. Only a very select few institutions are envied for their education primarily, 90% of
the colleges and universities across the country are sub-standard education providers, same with high schools.
I would imagine you're an educator at some level, more than likely, at one of the sub-standard colleges or even perhaps a high
school teacher. You're attempting to be defensive of the American education system, when in reality, you're looking at the world
through rose colored glasses. Working from within the system, rather than from the private sector looking back, gives you extreme
tunnel vision. That, coupled with the average "closed mindedness" of educators in America is a dangerous approach to advancing
the structure of the American education system. You and those like you ARE the problem and should be taken out of the equation
as quickly as possible. Please retire ASAP or find another career.
Aside from the complete lack of actual ivy league admission data on jewish applicants, a big problem with unz's "jewish affirmative
action" claim is how difficult such a policy would be to carry out in complete secrecy.
Now, it would be one thing if Unz was claiming that jews are being admitted with similar numbers to non-jewish whites, but
in close cases, admissions staff tend to favor jewish applicants. But he goes much further than that. Unz is claiming that jews,
as a group, are being admitted with lower SAT scores than non-jewish whites. Not only that, but this policy is being carried out
by virtually every single ivy league college and it has been going on for years. Moreover, this preference is so pervasive, that
it allows jews to gain admissions at many times the rate that merit alone would yield, ultimately resulting in entering classes
that are over 20% Jewish.
If a preference this deep, consistent and widespread indeed exists, there is no way it could be the result of subjective bias
or intentional tribal favoritism on the part of individual decision makers. It would have to be an official, yet unstated, admissions
policy in every ivy league school. Over the years, dozens (if not hundreds) of admission staff across the various ivy league colleges
would be engaging in this policy, without a single peep ever leaking through about Jewish applicants getting in with subpar SAT
scores. We hear insider reports all the time about one group is favored or discriminated against (we even have such an insider
account in this comment thread), but we hear nothing about the largest admission preference of them all.
Remember, admissions staffs usually include other ethnic minorities. I couldn't imagine them not wondering why jews need to
be given such a big boost so that they make up almost a quarter of the entering class. Even if every member of every admissions
committee were Jewish liberals, it would still be almost impossible to keep this under wraps.
Obviously, I have never seen actual admission numbers for Jewish applicants, so I could be wrong, and there could in fact be
an unbreakable wall of secrecy regarding the largest and most pervasive affirmative action practice in the country. Or, perhaps,
the ivy league application pool contains a disproportionate amount of high scoring jewish applicants.
As some who is Jewish from the former Soviet Union, and who was denied even to take an entrance exam to a Moscow college,
I am saddened to see that American educational admission process looks more and more "Soviet" nowadays. Kids are denied opportunities
because of their ethnic or social background, in a supposedly free and fair country!
But this is just a tip of the iceberg. The American groupthink of political correctness, lowest common denominator, and political
posturing toward various political/ethnic/religious/sexual orientation groups is rotting this country inside out.
"Similarly, Jews were over one-quarter of the top students in the Physics Olympiad from 1986 to 1997, but have fallen to just
5 percent over the last decade, a result which must surely send Richard Feynman spinning in his grave."
Actually, Richard Feynman famously rejected genetic explanations of Jewish achievement (whether he was right or wrong to
do so is another story), and aggressively resisted any attempts to list him as a "Jewish scientist" or "Jewish Nobel Prize winner."
I am sure he would not cared in the slightest bit how many Jews were participating in the Physics Olympiad, as long as the quality
of the students' work continued to be excellent. Here is a letter he wrote to a woman seeking to include him in a book about Jewish
achievement in the sciences.
Dear Miss Levitan:
In your letter you express the theory that people of Jewish origin have inherited their valuable hereditary elements from their
people. It is quite certain that many things are inherited but it is evil and dangerous to maintain, in these days of little knowledge
of these matters, that there is a true Jewish race or specific Jewish hereditary character. Many races as well as cultural influences
of men of all kinds have mixed into any man. To select, for approbation the peculiar elements that come from some supposedly Jewish
heredity is to open the door to all kinds of nonsense on racial theory.
Such theoretical views were used by Hitler. Surely you cannot maintain on the one hand that certain valuable elements can be
inherited from the "Jewish people," and deny that other elements which other people may find annoying or worse are not inherited
by these same "people." Nor could you then deny that elements that others would consider valuable could be the main virtue of
an "Aryan" inheritance.
It is the lesson of the last war not to think of people as having special inherited attributes simply because they are born
from particular parents, but to try to teach these "valuable" elements to all men because all men can learn, no matter what their
race.
It is the combination of characteristics of the culture of any father and his father plus the learning and ideas and influences
of people of all races and backgrounds which make me what I am, good or bad. I appreciate the valuable (and the negative) elements
of my background but I feel it to be bad taste and an insult to other peoples to call attention in any direct way to that one
element in my composition.
At almost thirteen I dropped out of Sunday school just before confirmation because of differences in religious views but mainly
because I suddenly saw that the picture of Jewish history that we were learning, of a marvelous and talented people surrounded
by dull and evil strangers was far from the truth. The error of anti-Semitism is not that the Jews are not really bad after all,
but that evil, stupidity and grossness is not a monopoly of the Jewish people but a universal characteristic of mankind in general.
Most non-Jewish people in America today have understood that. The error of pro-Semitism is not that the Jewish people or Jewish
heritage is not really good, but rather the error is that intelligence, good will, and kindness is not, thank God, a monopoly
of the Jewish people but a universal characteristic of mankind in general.
Therefore you see at thirteen I was not only converted to other religious views but I also stopped believing that the Jewish
people are in any way "the chosen people." This is my other reason for requesting not to be included in your work.
@Rob Schacter – your last point is basically spot-on. The Ivies are fairly unique in the high proportion of Jewish applicants.
History, geographical bias, and self-selection all play a role. I think the overall preference distortion is probably not as wide
as Unz claims, but you will see similar tilts at Stanford, Northwestern, etc. that reflect different preference distortions.
@Leon, two quick points.
1st – the census tracks by household, which generally overestimates Asian wealth. Many families have three generations and
extended members living in one household (this reflects that many of them work together in a small family business).
2nd – most of the time, it's clear in the application (the HS, personal info, other residency info, etc.) which Asian applicants
are Asian-American and which are "Parachute Kids". But the numbers are much smaller than one might think, and the implication
depends on the school.
At Ivies, parachute kids (both Asian and not) tend to compete with each other in the application pool, and aren't substantially
informing the broader admissions thesis in this article. I'm not saying that's right, just saying it's less material than we might
think.
They more likely skew the admissions equation in great-but-not-rich liberal arts colleges (like Grinnell) and top public universities
(like UCLA), which are both having budget crises and need full fare students, parachute or not. And for the publics, this includes
adding more higher-tuition, out-of-state students, which further complicates assertions of just whose opportunities are being
lost.
I will bring this back to fundraising and finances again, because the broader point is about who is stewarding and creating
access: so long as top universities are essentially run as self-invested feedback loops, and position and resource themselves
accordingly (and other universities have to compete with them), we will continue to see large, persistent discrepancies in who
can participate.
When I applied to Harvard College back in 1976, I was proud of my application essay. In it, I proposed that the US used the
Israeli army as a proxy, just as the Russians were using the Cuban army at the time.
Alas, I wasn't admitted (I did get into Yale, which didn't require free-form essay like that).
This, of course, illustrates the point that coming from an Application Hell instead of from central Illinois helps a student
know how to write applications. It also illustrates what might help explain the mystery of high Jewish admissions: political bias.
Jews are savvier about knowing what admissions officers like to hear (including the black and Latino ones, who as a previous commentor
said aren't likely to be pro-semite). They are also politically more liberal, and so don't have to fake it. And their families
are more likely to read the New York Times and thus have the right "social graces" as we might call them, of this age.
It would be interesting to know how well "true WASPS" do in admissions. This could perhaps be estimated by counting Slavic
and Italian names, or Puritan New England last names. I would expect this group to do almost as well as Jews (not quite as well,
because their ability would be in the lower end of the Legacy group).
The missing variable in this analysis is income/class. While Unz states that many elite colleges have the resources to
fund every student's education, and in fact practice need-blind admissions, the student bodies are skewed towards the very highest
percentile of the income and wealth distribution. SAT scores may also scale with parents' income as well.
Tuition and fees at these schools have nearly doubled relative to inflation in the last 25-30 years, and with home prices in
desirable neighborhoods showing their own hyper-inflationary behavior over the past couple of decades (~15 yrs, especially), the
income necessary to pay for these schools without burdening either the student or parents with a lot of debt has been pushed towards
the top decile of earners. A big chunk of the upper middle class has been priced out. This could hit Asian professionals who may
be self made harder than other groups like Jews who may be the second or third generation of relative affluence, and would thus
have advantages in having less debt when starting their families and careers and be less burdened in financing their homes. Would
be curious to see the same analysis if $$ could be controlled.
I would also like to add that I am a late '80′s graduate of Wesleyan who ceased his modest but annual financial contribution to
the school after reading The Gatekeepers.
If I had a penny for every Jewish American I met (including myself) whose first and last name gave no indication of his religion
or ethnicity, I'd be rich. Oh–and my brother and I have four Ivy League degrees between us.
I almost clicked on a different link the instance I came across the word "elite" , but curiosity forced my hand.
Just yesterday my mom was remarking how my cousin had gotten into MIT with an SAT score far below what I scored, and she finished
by adding that I should have applied to an ivy-league college after high school. I as always, reminded her, I'm too "black for
ivy games".
I always worked hard in school, participated in olympiads and symposiums, and was a star athlete. When it came to applying
for college I found myself startled when forced to "quantify" my achievements in an "application package". I did not do or engage
in these activities solely to boost my chances of gaining admission into some elite college over similarly-hardworking Henry Wang
or Jess Steinberg. I did these things because I loved doing them.
Sports after class was almost a relaxation activity for me. Participating in math olympiads was a way for me to get a scoop
on advanced mathematics. Participating in science symposiums was a chance for me to start applying my theoretical education to
solve practical problems.
The moment I realized I would have to kneel down before some admissions officer and "present my case", outlining my "blackness",
athleticism, hard work, curiosity, and academic ability, in that specific order I should point, in order to have a fighting chance
at getting admitted; is the moment all my "black rage" came out in an internal explosion of rebellion and disapproval of "elite
colleges".
I instead applied to a college that was blind to all of the above factors. I am a firm believer that hard work and demonstrated
ability always win out in the end. I've come across, come up against is a better way to put it, Ivy-league competition in college
competitions and applications for co-ops and internships, and despite my lack of "eliteness" I am confident that my sheer ability
and track record will put me in the "interview candidate" pool.
Finally, my opinion is: let elite schools keep doing what they are doing. It isn't a problem at all, the "elite" tag has long
lost its meaning.
The difficulty with using Jewish sounding last names to identify Jewish students works poorly in two ways today. Not only,
as others have pointed out, do many Jews not have Jewish sounding last names, but there are those, my grandson for example, who
have identifiably Jewish last names and not much in the way of Jewish background.
Interesting reading. The article opens a deceptively simple statistical window into a poorly understood process - a window
which I would guess even the key participants have never looked through. I especially appreciated the insights provided by the
author's examination of Asian surname-frequencies and their over-representation in NMS databases.
Though this is a long and meticulously argued piece, it would have benefited from a more thorough discussion of the statistical
share of legacies and athletic scholarships in elite admissions.
Perhaps, though, it would be better to focus on increasing meritocracy in the broader society, which would inevitably lead
to some discounting of the value of educational credentials issued by these less than meritocratic private institutions.
It is precisely because the broader society is also in many key respects non-meritocratic that the non-meritocratic admissions
practices of elite institutions are sustainable.
Despite the very long and detailed argument, the writer's interpretation of a pro-Jewish admissions bias at Ivy-league schools
is worryingly flawed.
First, he uses two very different methods of counting Jews: name recognition for counting various "objective" measures such
as NMS semifinalists and Hillel stats for those admitted to Harvard. The first is most likely an underestimate while the latter
very possibly inflated (in both cases especially due to the very large numbers of partially-Jewish students, in the many interpretations
that has). I wonder how much of his argument would just go away if he simply counted the number of Jews in Harvard using the same
method he used to count their numbers in the other cases. Would that really be hard to do?
Second, he overlooks the obvious two sources that can lead to such Asian/Jewish relative gaps in admissions. The first is the
different groups' different focus on Science/Math vs. on Writing/Culture. It is very possible that in recent years most Asians
emphasize the former while Jews the latter, which would be the natural explanation to the Caltech vs Harvard racial composition
(as well as to the other stats). The second is related but different and it is the different group's bias in applications: the
same cultural anecdotes would explain why Asians would favor applying to Caltech and Jews to Harvard. A natural interpretation
of the data would be that Jews have learned to optimize for whatever criteria the Ivy leagues are using and the Asians are doing
so for the Caltech criteria.
Most strange is the author's interpretation of how a pro-Jewish bias in admissions is actually put into effect: the application
packets do not have the data of whether the applicant is Jewish or not, and I doubt that most admission officers figure it out
in most cases. While it could be possible for admissions officers to have a bias for or against various types of characteristics
that they see in the data in front of them (say Asian/Black/White or political activity), a systematic bias on unobserved data
is a much more difficult proposition to make. Indeed the author becomes rather confused here combining the low education level
of admissions officers, that they are "liberal arts or ethnic-studies majors" (really?), that they are "progressive", and that
there sometimes is corruption, all together presumably leading to a bias in favor of Jews?
Finally, the author's suggestion for changing admittance criteria is down-right bizarre for a conservative: The proposal is
a centralized solution that he aims to force upon the various private universities, each who can only loose from implementing
it.
Despite the long detailed (but extremely flawed) article, I am afraid that it is more a reflection of the author's biases than
of admissions biases.
Both the article and the comments are illuminating. My takeaways:
1) Affirmative action in favor of blacks and Hispanics is acknowledged.
2) Admissions officers in the Ivy League appear to limit Asian admissions somewhat relative to the numbers of qualified applicants.
3) They may also admit somewhat more Jewish applicants than would be warranted relative to their comparative academic qualifications.
The degree to which this is true is muddled by the difficulty of identifying Jews by surnames, by extensive intermarriage, by
changing demographics within the Jewish population, by geographic factors, and by the propensity to apply in the first place.
4) (My major takeaway.) White Protestants and Catholics are almost certainly the sole groups that are greatly under-represented
relative to their qualifications as well as to raw population percentages.
5) This is due partly to subtle or open discrimination.
6) I would hypothesize that a great many of the white Protestants and Catholics who are admitted are legacies, star athletes,
and the progeny of celebrities in entertainment, media, politics, and high finance. White Protestant or Catholic applicants, especially
from the hinterlands, who don't fit one of these special categories–though they must be a very large component of Mr Unz's pool
of top talent–are out of luck.
7) And everyone seems to think this is just fine.
The inner and outer ring idea seems to me an excellent one, though the likelihood of it happening is next to nil, both because
some groups would lose disproportionate access and because the schools' imprimatur would be diminished in
value.
The larger point, made by several respondents, is that far too many institutions place far too much weight on the credentials
conferred by a small group of screening institutions. The great advantage of the American system is not that it is meritocratic,
either objectively or subjectively. It is that it is–or was–Protean in its flexibility. One could rise through luck or effort
or brains, with credentials or without them, early in life or after false starts and setbacks. And there were regional elites
or local elites rather than, as we increasingly see, a single, homogenized national elite. Success or its equivalent wasn't something
institutionally conferred.
The result of the meritocratic process is that we are making a race of arrogant, entitled overlords, extremely skilled at the
aggressive and assertive arts required to gain admission to, and to succeed in, a few similar and ideologically skewed universities
and colleges; and who spend the remainder of their lives congratulating each other, bestowing themselves on the populace, and
destroying the country.
This article is the product of careful and thoughtful research, and it identifies a problem hiding in plain sight. As a society,
we have invested great trust in higher education as a transformative institution. It is clear that we have been too trusting.
That the admissions policies of elite universities are meritocratic is hardly the only wrong idea that Americans have about
higher education. Blind faith in higher education has left too many people with largely worthless degrees and crushing student-loan
debt.
Of course, the problems don't end with undergraduate education. The "100 reasons NOT to go to grad school" blog offers some
depressing reading:
The higher education establishment has failed to address so many longstanding internal structural problems that it's hard to
imagine that much will change anytime soon.
"I believe that this article raises – and then inappropriately immediately dismisses – the simplest and most likely reason
for the over-representation of Jewish students at Ivy League Schools in the face of their declining bulk academic performance:
They apply to those schools in vastly disproportionate numbers."
Here's the problem with that point. What Ron Unz demonstrates, quite effectively, is that today's Jews simply don't measure
up to either their Asian or their White Gentile counterparts in terms of actual performance when they get into, say, Harvard.
The quite massive difference in the proportions of those groups who get into Phi Beta Kappa renders this quite undeniable. What
is almost certain is that policies that favored Asians and White Gentiles over the current crop of Jewish students would create
a class of higher caliber in terms of academic performance.
If indeed it's true that Jews apply to Harvard in greater numbers, then, if the desire is to produce a class with the greatest
academic potential, some appropriate way of correcting for the consequent distortion should be introduced. Certainly when it comes
to Asians, college admissions committees have found their ways of reducing the numbers of Asians admitted, despite their intense
interest in the Ivies.
One way of understanding Unz's results here might be not so much that today's Jewish student is far less inclined to hard academic
work than those of yesteryear, but rather that others - White Gentiles and Asians - have simply caught up in terms of motivation
to get into elite schools and perform to the best of their abilities.
Certainly among members of the upper middle class, there has been great, and likely increasing, emphasis in recent years on
the importance of an elite education and strong academic performance for ultimate success. This might well produce a much stronger
class of students at the upper end applying to the Ivies.
It may be that not only the Asians, but upper middle class White Gentiles, are "The New Jews".
I don't always agree with, Mr. Unz, but his expositions are always provocative and informative. As far as the criticisms of
his data set go, he openly admits that they are less than ideal. However, the variances are so large that the margin of error
can be excused. Jews are 40 TIMES more likely to be admitted to Harvard than Gentile whites. Asians are 10 times more likely.
Of course, it could be possible that Jews, because of higher average IQs, actually produce 40 times as many members in the upper
reaches of the cognitive elite.
Given Richard Lynn's various IQ studies of Jews and the relative preponderance of non-Jewish and Jewish whites in the population,
however, whites ought to have a 7 to 1 representation vis-a-vis Jews in Ivy League institutions, assuming the IQ cutoff is 130.
Their numbers are roughly equivalent instead.
Because Ivy League admissions have been a hotbed of ethnic nepotism in the past, it seems that special care should be taken
to avoid these improprieties (or the appearance thereof) in the future. But no such safeguards have been put in place. David Brooks
has also struck the alarm about the tendency of elites to shut down meritocratic institutions once they have gained a foothold:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/opinion/brooks-why-our-elites-stink.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
Clannish as the WASPs may have been, they were dedicated enough to ideals of fairness and equality that they opened the doors
for their own dispossession. I predict that a new Asian elite will eventually eclipse our Jewish elite. Discrimination and repression
can restrain a vigorously ascendant people but for so long. When they do, it will be interesting to see if this Asian cohort clings
to its longstanding Confucian meritocratic traditions, embodied in the Chinese gaokao or if it too will succumb to the temptation,
ever present in a multiethnic polity, of preferring ethnic kinsmen over others.
Does anyone know how a minority such as the Uighurs fares in terms of elite Chinese university admissions?
This may sound like special-pleading, but it's not clear that full-scale IQ measures are meaningful when assessing and predicting
Jewish performance. Jewish deficits on g-loaded spatial reasoning task may reflect specific visuo-spatial deficits and not deficits
in g. As far as I know, no one doubts that the average Jewish VIQ is at least 112 (and possibly over 120). This score may explain
jewish representation which seems to exceed what would be projected by their full-scale iq scores. Despite PIQ's correllation
to mathematical ability in most populations, we ought also remember that, at least on the WAIS, it is the VIQ scale that includes
the only directly mathematical subtest. We should also note that Jewish mathematicians seem to use little visualization in their
reasoning (cf. Seligman
That said, I basically agree that Jews are, by and large, coasting. American Jews want their children to play hockey and join
'greek life' and stuff, not sit in libraries . It's sad for those of us who value the ivory tower, but understandable given their
stigmatiziation as a nerdish people.
I wonder if it would be at all possible to assess the political biases of admissions counselors at these schools by assessing
the rates at which applicants from red states are admitted to the elite universities. I suppose you would have to know how many
applied, and those data aren't likely to exist in the public domain.
One major flaw with this article's method of determining Jewish representation: distinctive Jewish surnames in no way make
up all Jewish surnames. Distinctive Jewish surnames happen to be held by only 10-12% of all American Jews. In fact, the third
most common American Jewish surname after Cohen and Levy is Miller. Mr. Unz' methodology does not speak well for itself, given
that he's comparing a limited set of last names against a far more carefully scrutinized estimate.
I'm not suggesting his estimate of national merit scholars and the like is off by a full 90%, but he's still ending up with
a significant undercount, possibly close to half. That would still mean Jews may be "wrongfully" over-represented are many top
colleges and universities, but the disproportion is nowhere near as nefarious as he would suggest.
@Nick – the "red state" application and admission rates isn't useful data.
Short answer: There are many reasons for this, but basically, historical momentum and comfort play a much bigger role in where
kids apply than we think. I assure you, far more top Nebraska HS seniors want to be a Cornhusker than a Crimson, even though many
would find a very receptive consideration and financial aid package.
Long answer: 1st, although this article and discussion have been framed in broad racial/cultural terms, the mechanics of college
admissions are mostly local and a bit like athletic recruiting – coverage (and cultivation) of specific regions and districts,
"X" high school historically deliver "X" kinds of candidates, etc. So to the degree we may see broader trends noted in the article
and discussion, some of that is rooted at the HS level and lower.
2nd, in "red states", most Ivy applicants come from the few blue or neutral districts. E.g.: the only 2 Utah HS's that consistently
have applicants to my Ivy alma mater are in areas that largely mirror other high-income, Dem-leaning areas nationwide rather than
the rest of Utah.
3rd, but, with some variation among the schools, the Ivy student body is more politically balanced than usually assumed. Remember,
most students are upper-income, Northeastern suburban and those counties' Dem/Rep ratio is often closer to 55/45 than 80/20.
But to wrap up, ideology plays a negligible role in admissions generally (there's always an exception); they have other fish
to fry (see below).
"Quota against Asians" is not entirely wrong, but it's too strong because it implies the forward intent is about limiting their
numbers.
Put another way, Unz believes the Ivies are failing their meritocractic mission by over-admitting a group that is neither disadvantaged
nor has highest technical credentials; and this comes at the expense of a group that is more often disadvantaged and with higher
technical credentials. The Ivies would likely reply, "well, we define 'meritocractic mission' differently".
That may be a legitimate counter, but it's also what needs more expansion and sunlight.
But Unz' analysis has a broader causation vs correlation gap. Just because admissions is essentially zero-sum doesn't mean
every large discrepancy in it is, even after allowing for soft biases. I've mentioned these earlier in passing, but here are just
a couple other factors of note:
Admissions is accountable for selection AND marketing and matriculation – these are not always complementary forces. Essentially,
you want to maximize both the number and distribution (racial, geographic, types of accomplishment, etc.) of qualified applicants,
but also the number you can safely turn down but without discouraging future applications, upsetting certain stakeholders (specific
schools, admissions counselors/consultants, etc.) or "harming" any data in the US News rankings. And you have a very finite time
to do this, and – not just your competition, but the entire sector – is essentially doing this at the same time. You can see how
an admissions process would develop certain biases over time to limit risks in an unpredictable, high volume market, even if rarely
intended to target a specific group. Ivy fixation (but especially around HYP) is particularly concentrated in the Northeast –
a sample from several top HS' across America (public and private) would show much larger application and matriculation variations
among their top students than would be assumed from Unz's thesis. Different Ivies have different competitors/peers, which influences
their diversity breakdowns – to some degree, they all co-compete, but just as often don't. E.g.: Princeton often overlaps with
Georgetown and Duke, Columbia with NYU and Cooper Union, Cornell with SUNY honors programs because it has some "in state" public
colleges, etc.
There's much more, of course, but returning to Unz's ethnographic thesis, I have this anecdote: we have two friends in finance,
whose families think much of their success. The 1st is Asian, went to Carnegie Mellon, and is a big bank's trading CTO; the 2nd
is Jewish, went to Wharton, and is in private equity.
Put another way, while both families shared a pretty specific vision of success, they differed a lot in the execution. The
upper echelon of universities, and the kinds of elite-level mobility they offer, are much more varied than even 25 years ago.
While the relative role of HYP in our country, and their soft biases in admission, are "true enough" to merit discussion, it's
probably not the discussion that was in this article.
While you may have a point as to the difficulty in some cases of identifying a Jewish surname, the most important thing methodologically
is that the criteria be performed uniformly if one is comparing Jewish representation today vs. that of other periods. I can't
think, for example, of any reason that Cohens or Levys or Golds should be any less well represented today as opposed to many years
ago if indeed there has not been an underlying shift in numbers of Jews in the relevant categories. (Nor, for that matter, should
issues like intermarriage affect the numbers much here - for every mother whose maiden name is Cohen who marries a non-Jew with
a non-Jewish surname, and whose half Jewish child will be counted as non-Jewish, there is, on average, going to be a man named
Cohen who will marry a non-Jew, and whose half Jewish child will be counted as Jewish.)
One might suppose that all this "inequity" and "discrimination" matters if we're keeping score. However, seems to me that too
much emphasis is typically placed on equality whereas real criteria in productive and satisfying lives are neglected. Kind'a like
some people wanting bragging rights as much, if not more, than wanting positive reality.
I guess I just went about my way and lived a pretty god life (so far). Who knows?; maybe those "bragging rights" are meaningful.
Ditto to many comments about the "last name problem", even if its correction weakens but doesn't invalidate the argument. (One
imagines, chillingly, a new sub-field: "Jewish last name theory", seeking to determine proportionalities of classic names validated
against member/donor lists of synagogues and other Jewish organizations.)
Regarding the 20% inner ring suggestion, it suffers from its harsh transition. Consider a randomized derating scheme: a random
number between some lower bound (say 0.90) and 1.00 is applied to each score on the ranked applicant list.
The added noise provides warmth to a cold test scores list. Such an approach nicely captures the directive: "study hard, but
it's not all about the grades".
By adjusting the lower bound, you can get whatever degree of representativeness relative to the application base you want.
That it's a "just a number" (rather than a complex subjectivity-laden labyrinth incessantly hacked at by consultants) could
allow interesting conversations about how it could relate to the "top 1% / bottom 50%" wealth ratio. The feedback loop wants closure.
You missed my point, candid. A relatively small proportion of Jews, intermarried or otherwise, have distinctive Jewish names.
I didn't make that 10-12% figure up. It's been cited in numerous local Jewish population studies and is used in part (but certainly
far from whole) to help estimate those populations. It's also been significantly dragged down over the years as the Jewish population
(and hence the surname pool) has diversified, not just from intermarriage, but in-migration from groups who often lack "distinctive
Jewish surnames" such as Jews from the former Soviet Union. Consider also that for obvious reasons, Hillel, which maintains Jewish
centers on most campus, has an incentive to over-report by a bit. Jewish populations on college campuses in the distant past were
easier to gather, given that it was far less un-PC to simply point blank inquire what religious background applicants came from.
Again, I'm not saying there isn't a downward trend in Jewish representation among high achievers (which, even if one were to
accept Unz's figures, Jews would still be triple relative to were they "should" be). But Unz has made a pretty significant oversight
in doing his calculations. That may happen to further suit his personal agenda, but it's not reality.
This is interesting, but I suspect mostly bogus, based on your not having a decent algorithm for discovering if someone's Jewish.
I'm not sure what exact mechanism you're using to decide if a name is Jewish, but I'm certain it wouldn't have caught anyone,
including myself, in my father's side of the family (Sephardic Jews from Turkey with Turkish surnames), nor my wife's family,
an Ellis Island Anglo name. Or probably most of the people in her family. And certainly watching for "Levi, Cohen and Gold*" isn't
going to do anything.
Isn't the point about Jewish over representation in the Ivy League about absolute numbers?
Yes the Jewish demographic has a higher IQ at 115 to the Goyishe Kop 100 but Jewish people are only 2% of the population so
you have 6 million Jewish people vying with 200 million white Goys for admission to the Ivy League and future control of the levers
of power. That is a 33 times larger Bell curve so the right tail of the Goys' Bell curve is still much larger than the Jewish
Bell curve at IQ levels of 130 and 145, supposedly there are seven times more Goys with IQs of 130 and over 4 times more Goys
with IQs of 145. So why the equality of representation, one to one, Jewish to white Goy in the Ivy Leagues?
Russell K. Nieli on study by Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Radford (mentioned by Unz):
"When lower-class whites are matched with lower-class blacks and other non-whites the degree of the non-white advantage becomes
astronomical: lower-class Asian applicants are seven times as likely to be accepted to the competitive private institutions as
similarly qualified whites, lower-class Hispanic applicants eight times as likely, and lower-class blacks ten times as likely.
These are enormous differences and reflect the fact that lower-class whites were rarely accepted to the private institutions Espenshade
and Radford surveyed. Their diversity-enhancement value was obviously rated very low."
Having worked with folks from all manner of "elite" and not so elite schools in a technical field, the main conclusion I was
able to draw was folks who went to "elite" colleges had a greater degree of entitlement. And that's it.
If all of the author's suspicions are correct, the most noteworthy takeaway would be that Jewish applicants have absolutely
no idea that they are being given preferential treatment when applying to Ivys.
Not that they think they are being discriminated against or anything, but no Jewish high school student or their parents think
they have any kind of advantage, let alone such a huge one. Someone should tell all these Jews that they don't need to be so anxious!
Also, I know this is purely anecdotal but having gone to an ivy and knowing the numbers of dozens of other Jews who have also
gone, I don't think I have ever witnessed a "surprise" acceptance, where someone got in with a score under the median.
I don't doubt for a minute that it's increasingly difficult for Asian students to get into so-called "elite" universities.
Having grown up in that community, I know a lot of people who were pressured into applying at Harvard and Yale but ended up *gasp*
going to a very good local school. My sarcasm aside, we can't really deny that having Harvard on your CV can virtually guarantee
a ticket to success, regardless of whether or not you were just a C student. It happens.
But what worries me about that is the fact that I know very well how hard Asian families tend to push their children. They
do, after all, have one of the highest suicide rates and that's here in the US. If by some means the Asian population at elite
universities is being controlled, as I suspect it is, that's only going to make tiger mothers push their children even harder.
That's not necessarily a good thing for the child's psyche, so instead of writing a novel here, I'll simply give you this link.
Since the author brought up the subject of Amy Chua and her book, I think it's a pretty fitting explanation of the fears I have
for my friends and their children if this trend is allowed to continue.
As a former admissions staff person at Princeton, I always sigh when I read articles on elite college admissions processes
which build cases on data analysis but which fail to consult with admissions experts on the interpretation of that data.
I am neither an expert in sociology, nor am I a statistician, but I have sat in that chair, reading thousands of essays, and
I have a few observations:
The most selective part of any college's admissions process is the part where students themselves decides whether or not to apply.
Without data on the actual applicant sets, it is, at the least, misleading to attribute incongruities between the overall population's
racial/ethnic/income/what-have-you characteristics and the student bodies' make-ups entirely to the admission decisions. The reality
is that there is always a struggle in the admission offices to compensate for the inequities that the applicant pool itself delivers
to their doorsteps. An experienced admission officer can tell you that applicants from cultures where academics and education
are highly valued, and where the emphasis on a single test is quite high, will generally present with very high SAT scores. Race
does not seem to be correlated, but immigrant status from such a culture is highly correlated. (This may partially explain Unz's
observation of a "decline" in Jewish scores, although I also do not believe that the surname tool for determining which scores
are "Jewish" holds much water.) One of the reasons that such students often fare less well in holistic application processes is
that the same culture that produces the work ethic and study skills which benefit SAT performance and GPA can also suppress activities
and achievement outside of the academic arena. Therefore, to say that these students are being discriminated against because of
race is a huge assumption. The true questions is whether the students with higher test scores are presenting activity, leadership
and community contributions comparable to other parts of the applicant pool which are "overrepresented". All of these articles
seem to miss the point that a freshman class is a fixed size pie chart. Any piece that shrinks or grows will impact the other
slices. My first thought upon reading Unz' argument that the Asian slice shrank was, "What other pieces were forced to grow?"
Forced growth in another slice of the class is the more likely culprit for this effect, much more likely than the idea that all
of the Ivies are systematically discriminating against the latest victim. I could go on and on, but will spare you! My last note
is to educate Mr. Unz on what an "Assistant Director" is in college admissions. Generally that position is equivalent to a Senior
Admission Officer (one step up from entry level Admission Officer), while the head of the office might be the Dean and the next
step down from that would be Associate Deans (not Assistant Directors). So while Michelle Hernandez was an Assistant Director,
she was not the second in charge of Admissions, as your article implies. A minor distinction, but one which is important to point
out so that her expertise and experience, as well as my own, as AN Assistant Director of Admission at Princeton, are not overstated.
A last personal note: During Princeton's four month reading season, I worked 7 days a week, usually for about 14 hours a day,
in order to give the fullest, most human and considerate reading of each and every applicant that I could give. I am sure that
the admission profession has its share of incompetents, corruptible people and just plain jerks, and apparently some of us are
not intelligent enough to judge the superior applicants . . . . But most of us did it for love of the kids at that age (they are
all superstars!), for love of our alma maters and what they did for us, and because we believed in the fairness of our process
and the dignity with which we tried to do it.
The sheer numbers of applicants and the fatigue of the long winters lend themselves to making poor jokes such as the "Night
of 1000 Lee's", but a good dean of admission will police such disrespect, and encourage the staff, as mine did, to read the last
applicant of the day with the same effort, energy and attention paid to the first. We admission folk have our honor, despite being
underpaid and playing in a no-win game with regard to media coverage of our activities. I am happy to be able to speak up for
the integrity of my former colleagues and the rest of the profession.
My own position has always been strongly in the former camp, supporting meritocracy over diversity in elite admissions.
When these Ivy League institutions were first begun in the colonial period, they were not strictly speaking meritocratic. The
prevailing idea was that Christocentric education is the right way to go, both from an eschatological and a temporal perspective,
and the central focus was on building and strengthening family ties. The Catholic institutions of higher learning took on the
vital role of preserving Church tradition from apostolic times and were thus more egalitarian and universalist. The results went
far beyond all expectations.
Nothing lasts forever. Your premise misses the essential point that the economy is for man and not vice-versa.
Many of the statements in this article relating to Jews are rather misleading: for while the Hillel data regarding percentage
of students who self-identify as Jews may be fairly accurate, the numbers the author cites based upon "likely Jewish names" are
a gross under-count of the real numbers, leading to the appearance of a large disparity between the two which, in reality, does
not exist. The reason for the under-count is that a large percentage of American Jews have either Anglicized their family name
or intermarried, resulting in their being mistaken for non-Hispanic whites. Thus, one ends up with incorrect statements such as
"since 2000, the percentage (of Jewish Putnam Fellows) has dropped to under 10 percent, without a single likely Jewish name in
the last seven years". The reality is that Jews, by Hillel's definition of self-identified students, have continued to be prominent
among the Putnam Fellows, US IMO team members, and high scorers in the USA Mathematical Olympiad. I have published a careful analysis
of the true ethnic/racial composition of the very top-performing students in these math competitions from recent years (see, Andreescu
et al. Notices of the AMS 2008; http://www.ams.org/notices/200810/fea-gallian.pdf
). For example, Daniel Kane, a Putnam Fellow in 2002-2006, is 100% of Jewish ancestry; his family name had been Cohen before
it was changed. Brian Lawrence was a Putnam Fellow in 2007, 2008, 2010, and 2011; his mother is Jewish. Furthermore, many of the
non-Jewish Putnam Fellows in recent years are Eastern European or East-Asian foreigners who matriculated to college in the US;
they were not US citizen non-Jewish whites or Asian-Americans, respectively. Rather, my data indicate that in recent years both
Jews and Asians have been 10- to 20-over-represented in proportion to their percentage of the US population among the students
who excel at the highest level in these math competitions. The authors conclusions based upon data from other types of competitions
is likely similarly flawed.
The title of this piece captured me to read what it was all about. What was discussed was admissions into elite colleges as
the only focus on "meritocracy" in America. That leaves the tail of the distribution of high IQ people in America, minus those
that make it into elite colleges, to be ignored, especially those that managed to be admitted to Cal Tech, or MIT, or a number
of other universities where significant intellectual power is admitted and fostered. this seems to further the meme that only
the elite graduates run the nation. They may have an early advantage through connections, but I believe that the Fortune 400 CEO's
are fairly evenly spread across the university world.
(1) Jews are better at verbal IQ, Asians at math. Your measures are all math. That woudl be OK if all else were equal across
time, but especially because Jews care a lot about admissions to Ivies, what we'd expect is that with growing Asian competition
in math/science, Jews would give up and focus their energy on drama/writing/service. I wonder if Jewish kids are doing worse in
music competitions too? Or rather- not even entering any more.
(2) For college numbers, adjustment for US/foreign is essential. How many Asians at Yale are foreign? It could well be that
Asian-Americans are far more under-represented than it seems, because they face quota competition from a billion Chinese and a
billion Indians. Cal Tech might show the same result as the Ivies.
(3) A separate but interesting study would be of humanities and science PhD programs. Different things are going on there,
and the contrast with undergrads and with each other might be interseting.
I also learned that Jews are no longer as prominent in math and science achievement, and that's not surprising to me at
all, because everyone in the elite knows that STEM is for Asians and middle-class kids. Jewish parents have learned that colleges
value sports and "leadership" activities more than raw academic achievement and nerdy activities like math olympiads, and that
the most prestigious careers are value transference activities which don't require science or high-level math.
The higher representation of Jews in the Ivies compared to Asians who have better average academic records compared to Jews
(applicants that is ) in the Ivies is due to the greater eligibility of Jews for preferences of every kind in the Ivies. In a
typical Ivy school like Harvard, at least 60% of the freshman class will disappear because of the vast system of preferences that
exists. There is no doubt that there is racial animus involved despite the denials of the Ivies and other private universities
despite the constant denials involved like that of Rosovsky who happens to be a historian by training. Jews are classified as
white in this country, hence there would presumably greater affinity for them among the white Board of Trustees and the adcom
staff. This is in contrast to Asians who do not share the same culture or body physiogonomy as whites do.
I had read the Unz article and the Andrew Goldman response to it. I just do not agree with Unz with his solutions to this problem.
First of all private schools are not going to give legacy preferences and other kinds of preferences for the simple reason that
it provides a revenue stream. Harvard is nothing but a business just like your Starbucks or Mcdonald's on the corner.
Around the world private universities regarded as nothing but the dumping ground of the children of the wealthy, the famous
and those with connections who cannot compete with others with regards to their talent and ability regardless of what anyone will
say from abroad about the private universities in their own country. Bottomline is in other countries , the privates simply do
not get the top students in the country, the top public school does. People in other countries will simply look askance at the
nonsensical admissions process of the Ivies and other private schools, the system that the Ivies use for admission does not produce
more creative people contrary to its claims.
The Goldman response has more to do with the humanities versus math . My simple response to Andrew Goldman would be this :
a grade of A in Korean history is different from a grade of A in Jewish history, it is like comparing kiwis and bananas. The fast
and decisive way of dealing with this problem is simply to deprive private schools of every single cent of tax money that practices
legacy preferences and other kinds repugnant preferences be it for student aid or for research and I had been saying that for
a long time. I would like to comment on the many points that had been raised here but I have no time.
The solution to a lot of problems would be transparency. I'd love to see the admissions and grade data of even one major university.
Public universities should be required to post publicly the names, SAT scores, and transcripts of every student. Allowing such
posting should be a requirement for admission.
The public could then investigate further if, for example, it turned out that children of state senators had lower SAT scores.
Scholars could then analyze the effect of diversity on student performance.
Of course, already many public universities (including my own, Indiana), post the salaries of their professors on the web,
and I haven't seen much analysis or muckraking come out of that.
One factor hinted at in the article, but really needing to be addressed is the "school" that is being attended.
By this, I mean, you need philosophy students to keep the philosophy department going. When I was in college 20 years ago,
I was a humanities major. I took 1 class in 4 years with an Asian American student. 1 class. When I walked through the business
building, it was about 50% Asian.
Could Asian-American students only wanting to go to Harvard to go into business, science, or math be skewing those numbers?
I don't know, but it's just a thought to put out there.
You are preaching to the choir! I blog on this extensively on my Asian Blog: JadeLuckClub. This has been going on for the last
30 years or more! All my posts are here under Don't ID as Asian When Applying to College:
All private schools basically practice legacy prefrences and other kinds of preferences and this practice has been going on
in the Ivies since time immemorial. The income revenue from these gallery of preferences will certainly not encourage the Ivies
to give them up.
In many countries around the world, private universiites are basically the dumping ground for the children of the wealthy ,
the famous and the well connected who could not get into the top public university of their choice in their own country. This
no different from the Ivies in this country where these Ivies and other private universities are just a corral or holding pen
for the children of the wealthy, the famous and the well connected and the famous who could not compete with others based on their
won talent or ability.
Abroad you have basically 3 choices if you could not get into the top public university of that country , they are:
Go to a less competetive public university
Go to a private university
or go abroad to schools like the Ivies or in other countries where the entrance requirements to a public or private university
are less competetive compared to the top public universities in your own home country.
You can easily tell a top student from another country, he is the guy who is studying in this country under a government scholarship
( unless of course it was wrangled through corruption ). the one who is studying here through his own funds or through private
means is likely to be the one who is a reject from the top public university in his own country. That is how life works.
I am generally satisfied with the data that Ron provided about Jews compared to Asians where Jews are lagging behind Asians
at least in grades and SAT scores in the high school level, from the data I had seen posted by specialized schools in NY like
Stuy , Bronx Sci, Brook Tech, Lowell (Frisco ) etc.
Ron is correct in asserting that the Ivies little represents the top students in this country. Compare UCLA and for example.
For the fall 2011 entering freshman class at UCLA , there were 2391 domestic students at UCLA compared to 1148 at Harvard who
scored above 700 in the Math portion of the SAT and there were 439 domestic students who scored a perfect 800 in the Math portion
of the SAT at UCLA, more than Harvard or MIT certainly. For the fall 2012 freshman classs at UCLA the figure was 2409 and 447
respectively.
We can devise a freshman class that will use only income, SATS,grades as a basis of admissions that will have many top students
like UCLA has using only algorithms.
The central test of fairness in any admissions system is to ask this simple question. Was there anyone admitted under that
system admitted over someone else who was denied admission and with better grades and SAT scores and poorer ? If the answer is
in the affirmative, then that system is unfair , if it is in the negative then the system is fair.
I like the comments from Chales Hale. (Nov. 30, 2012) He says: "Welcome to China". It said all in three words. All of these
have been experienced in China. They said there is no new things under the sun. History are nothing but repeated, China with its
5000 years experienced them all.
I meant that there were 439 domestic students in the fall 2011 freshman class at UCLA and 447 domestic students in the fall
2012 freshman class at UCLA who scored a perfect score of 800 in the Math portion of the SAT. In either case it is bigger than
what Harvard or MIT has got.
In fact for the fall 2011 of the entire UC system there were more students in the the freshman class of the entire UC system
who scored above 700 in the Math portion of the SAT than the entire fall 2011 freshman of the Ivy League (Cornell not included
since it is both a public and a private school )'
As I mentioned earlier there were 2409 domestic students in the fall 2012 UCLA freshman class who scored above 700 in the Math
portion of the SAT. We know that Harvard had only 1148 domestic students in its fall 2011 freshman class who scored above 700
in the Math portion of the SAT, why would Harvard ever want to have that many top students like Berkeley or UCLA have ? The answer
to that is simple , it has to do with money. For every additional student that Harvard will enroll it would mean money being taken
out of the endowment .
Since the endowment needs constant replenishment. Where would these replenishment funds come from ? From legacies,from the
children of the wealthy and the famous etc. of course . It would mean more legacy admits, more children of the wealthy admitted
etc.
That would mean that the admission rate at Harvard will rise, the mean SAT score of the entering class will be no different from
the mean SAT scores of the entering freshman classes of Boston University and Boston College
down the road. With rising admission rates and lower mean SAT scores for the entering freshman class that prospect will not prove
appetizing or appealing to the applicant pool.
Harvard ranks only 8th after Penn State in the production of undergrads who eventually get Doctorates in Science and Engineering.
Of course Berkeley has the bragging rights for that kind of attribute.
In the scenario I had outlined above, it would mean that the mean SAT score of the Harvard freshman class will actually go
down if it tried to increase the size of its freshman class and that kind of prospect ia unpalatable to Harvard and that is the
reason as to why it wants to maintain its current " air of exclusivity ".
There is another way of looking at the quality of the Harvard student body. The ACM ICPC computer programming competition is
regarded as the best known college competition among students around the world , it is a grueling programming marathon for 2 or
3 days presumably. Teams from universities around the world vie to win the contest that is dubbed the "Battle of the Brains "
What is arguably sad is that Ivy schools, Stanford and other private schools teams fielded in the finals of the competition are
basically composed of foreign students or foreign born students and foreign born coaches.
The University of Southern California team in this competition in its finals section was made up of nothing but foreign Chinese
students and a Chinese coach. The USC team won the Southern California competition to win a slot in the finals. Apparently they
could not find a domestic student who could fill the bill. However the USC team was roundly beaten by teams from China and Asia,Russia
and Eastern Europe. The last time a US team won this competition was in 1999 by Harvey Mudd, ever since the US had gone downhill
in the competition with the competition being dominated by China and Asia and by countries from Eastern Europe and Russia. Well
I guess USC's strategy was trying to fight fire with fire (Chinese students studying in the US versus Chinese students from the
Mainland ), and it failed.
Thank you Mr. Unz for scratching the surface of the various forms of corruption surrounding elite college admissions. I hope
that your next article further discusses the Harvard Price (and Yale Price and Brown Price etc). The recent press surrounding
the Hong Kong couple suing the person they had retained to pave their children's way into Harvard indicates the extent of the
problem. This Hong Kong couple just were not savvy enough to lay their money down where it would produce results.
Additionally, a discussion of how at least some North Eastern private schools facilitate the corrupt process would be illuminating.
Finally, a more thorough discussion of whether the Asian students being admitted are US residents or nationals or whether they
are foreign citizens would also be worth while and reveal. I suspect, an even lower admit percentage for US resident citizens
of Asian ethnicity.
For these schools to state that their acceptances are need blind is patently untrue and further complicates the admissions process
for students who are naive enough to believe that. These schools should come clean and just say that after the development admits
and the wealthy legacy admits spots are purchased, the remaining few admits are handed out in a need blind fashion remembering
that many of admit pools will already be filled by the development and wealthy legacy admits resulting in extraordinarily low
rates for certain non-URM type candidates (I estimate in the 1% range).
"By contrast, a similarly overwhelming domination by a tiny segment of America's current population, one which is completely
misaligned in all these respects, seems far less inherently stable, especially when the institutional roots of such domination
have continually increased despite the collapse of the supposedly meritocratic justification. This does not seem like a recipe
for a healthy and successful society, nor one which will even long survive in anything like its current form."
I completely agree that it is not healthy for one tiny segment of our population to basically hold all the key positions in
every major industry in this country. If Asians or Blacks (who look foreign) all of a sudden ran education, media, government,
and finance in this country, there would be uproar and resistance. But because Jewish people look like the majority (whites),
they've risen to the top without the masses noticing.
But Jewish people consider themselves a minority just like blacks and Asians. They have a tribal mentality that causes stronger
ethnic nepotism than most other minority groups. And they can get away with it because no one can say anything to them lest they
be branded "jew-hunters" or "anti-semists."
The question is, "where do we go from here?" True race-blind meritocracy will never be instituted on a grand scale in this
country both in education and in the work force. One group currently controls most industries and the only way this country will
see more balance is if other groups take more control. But if one group already controls them all and controls succession plans,
how will there ever be more balance?
If Jews become presidents or regents of universities, that's a credit to their ability. Nothing sinister there.
But when Jews (or anyone) buy into an institution to create the 'Goldman School of Business', or when they give large donations,
that is not a credit to anyone's ability and there may well be something sinister there.
It is no secret that corporations and individuals look for influence, if not control, in return for cash. The same thinking
can easily affect admissions policy.
It's always the same. In spite of all the jingoism about "democracy" and "freedoms" and the "free market capitalist system",
the trail of money obfuscates and corrupts. It is still very true that whoever pays the piper, calls the tune. And naive to believe
otherwise.
How recent was it that Princeton cancelled its anti-Semitism classes for lack of participation, and at least one Jewish organisation
was screaming that Princeton would never get another penny from any Jew, ever.
That is close to absolute control of a curriculum. I give you money, and you teach what I want you to teach.
How far is that from I give you money and you admit whom I want you to admit? Or from I give you money and you hire whom I
want?
A university that is properly funded by the government – "the people" – doesn't have these issues because there is nothing
you can buy.
Operating educational institutions as a business, just like charities and health care, will always produce this kind of corruption.
Two other points:
1. It occurred to me that the lowly-paid underachiever admissions officers might well have been mostly Jewish, and hired for
that reason, and that in itself could skew the results in a desired manner.
2. I think this is a serious criticism of the othewise excellent article:
At the end, Ron Unz wants us to believe that a $30-billion institution, the finest of its kind in the world, the envy of the
known universe and beyond, the prime educator of the world's most prime elites, completely abandons its entire admissions procedures,
without oversight or supervision, to a bunch of dim-witted losers of "poor human quality" who will now choose the entire next
generation of the nation's elites. And may even take cash payments to do so.
Come on. Who are you kidding? Even McDonald's is smarter than this.
Some of the comments suggest major problems with estimating who is Jewish. But the authors information is underpinned by data
collected by Jewish pressure groups for the purpose of ensuring the gravy train keeps flowing. It's either their numbers, or the
numbers are consistent with their numbers.
This article, to me, is shocking and groundbreaking. I don't think anyone has gone this in-depth into this biased and un-meritocratic
system. This is real analysis based on real numbers.
Why is this not getting more coverage in the media? Why are people so afraid to talk about this?
There is an excellent analysis of this article at The Occidental Observer by Kevin MacDonald, "Ron Unz on the Illusory
American Meritocracy". The MSM is ignoring Unz's article for obvious reasons.
I don't know if there's any truth behind the idea that Japanese Americans have become lazy relative to their Korean and Chinese
counterparts. I've grew up in Southern California, a part of the country with a relatively high percentage of Japanese Americans,
yet I've know very few other Japanese Americans in my life. I can recall one Japanese American classmate in jr. high, and one
Japanese classmate in my high school (who returned to Japan upon graduating). Even at the UC school I attended for undergrad,
I was always the only Japanese person in the every class, and the Japanese Student Association, already meager in numbers, was
almost entirely made up of Japanese International students who were only here for school.
If, in fact, 1% of California is made up of Japanese Americans, I suspect they are an aging population. I also think many 2nd
and 3rd generation Japanese Americans are only partially Japanese, since, out of necessity, Japanese Americans have a very high
rate of out marriage.
The carefully researched article makes a strong case that there is some discrimination against Asian-Americans at the Ivy League
schools.
On the other hand, I don't see how a percentage of 40-60% Asian-Americans at the selective UC schools, even given the higher
percentage of Asian-Americans in California, does not perhaps reflect reverse discrimation, or at least affirmative action on
their behalf. To be sure one way or the other, we would have to see their test scores AND GPA, apparently the criteria that the
UC schools use for admission, considered as well in the normalization of this statistical data.
The replies to date make some good points but also reflect precisely the biases pointed out in the article as likely causing
the discussed distortions.
1) use of name data in achievement vs use of Hillel data for Ivy admits: definitely an issue but is this only one of the measures
used in this study. Focusing only on this obscures the fact that Jewish enrollment as measured over time by Hillel numbers (apples
to apples) increased significantly over the past decade while the percent of Jewish high school age students relative to other
groups declined. One explanation for this surge could be that Jewish students became even more academically successful than they
have been in the past. The achievement data using Jewish surnames is used to assess this thesis in the absence of other better
data. Rejecting the surname achievement data still leaves a huge enrollment surge over time in Jewish attendance at the Ivies
relative to their percentage of the population.
2) many comments accept that the numbers show disproportionate acceptance and enrollment growth but simply then go on to assert
that Jewish students really are smarter (absolutely or in gaming the system) relying on anecdotal evidence that is not at all
compelling. All definitions of "smarter" contain value judgments". Back in the '20s the argument was that the Ivies should rely
more on objective testing to remove bias against the then high testing Jewish students; now the writers argue conveniently wthat
the new subjective tests that are applied to disproportionately admit Jewish students over higher scoring Asians and non-Jewish
Caucasians are better measures. In both cases, there is still an issue of using a set of factors that disproportionately favors
one group. In all such cases of significant disproportionate admits, the choice of the factors used to definemmerit and their
application should be carefully evaluated for bias. The burden of proof should shift to those defending the status quo in this
situation. In any event, it is clear that given the large applicant pool, there is no shortage of non-Jewish caucasians and Asians
who are fully qualified, so if the desire was there for a balanced entering class, the students are available to make it happen
3) the numbers don't break down admissions between men and women. When my child was an athletic recruit to Harvard, we received
an ethnic breakdown of the prior year's entering class. I was surprised to discover that the Caucasian population skewed heavily
male and the non-white/Asian population skewed heavily female. It seemed that Harvard achieved most of its ethnic diversity that
year by admitting female URMs, which made being a Caucasian female the single most underrepresented group relative to its percentage
in the school age population. I'm curious if this was an anomaly or another element of bias in the admissions process.
I will note that there is one flaw in this whole argument, and that flaw is thus:
Harvard and Yale aren't the best universities in the country. As someone who went to Vanderbilt, I knew people who had been
to those universities, and their evaluation was that they were no better – and perhaps actually worse – than Vanderbilt, which
is "merely" a top 25 university.
While there is a great deal of, shall we say, "insider trading" amongst graduates of those universities, in actuality they
aren't actually the best universities in the country today. That honor probably goes to MIT and Caltech, which you note are far
more meritocratic. But most of the other best universities are probably very close in overall level, and some of them might have
a lot of advantages over those top flight universities.
Or to put it simply, the Ivy League ain't what it used to be. Yeah, it includes some of the best universities in the country,
but there are numerous non-Ivy League universities that are probably on par with them. This may indeed be in part a consequence
of some of what you have described in the article, as well as a sense of complacency.
I suspect that in twenty or thirty years a lot of Ivy League graduates are going to feel a lot less entitled simply because
there has been an expansion of the top while they weren't paying attention.
I'm against the Ivies going up to 30-50% Asian but I'm also against the over-representation of a tiny minority group. This
country is going to go downhill if we continue to let one group skirt a fair application process just because they possess money
and influence. Who will stand up for fairness and equality?
Many of those commenting above don't seem to be picking up on Unz's evidence of bias against white Gentiles, which by meritocratic
measures is far worse than the bias against Asian Americans.
A drop of 70 PERCENT??? What's going on? Why is so much of the discussion that this article has spawned focused only on Asian
Americans and (secondarily) Jews?
National Merit Scholarship semifinalists are chosen based on per-state percentiles.
What this means is that NMS semifinalist numbers would be skewed _against_ a high-performing demographic group to the extent
that group's demographics concentrate geographically. Mr. Unz acknowledges that geographical skewing of Jewish populations is
huge. However, he ignores its effect on the NMS semifinalist numbers he uses as a proxy for academic performance on a _national_
level to predict equitable distributions at _national_ universities.
Please somebody explain to me how this oversight isn't fatal to his arguments
Surely the author must be aware that approximately half the children with "Jewish" names are not fully Jewish. Over half of
the marriages west of the Mississippi are reportedly mixed. Many non-Jews have last names that start with "Gold". Just these two
facts make the entire analysis ridiculous. Hillel does not keep statistics on how Jewish a student is, while many of Levys and
Cohens are not actually Jewish. What would we call Amy Chua's daughters? Jewish or Asian? It is therefore impossible to tease
out in a multi-racial society who is who.
I am an elementary school teacher at a Title One school in northern California. I supported your "English for the Children"
initiative when it was introduced.
However, the law of unintended consequences has kicked in, and what exists now is not at all what you (or anyone else, for that
matter) had intended.
The school day was not lengthened to create a time slot for English language instruction. Instead, history and science classes
were elbowed aside to make way for mediocre English language instruction. These usually worthless classes have crowded out valuable
core academic instruction for English language learners.
To make matters worse, while English language learners are in ESL classes, no academic instruction in science or history can
be given to "regular" students because that would lead to issues of "academic inequity." In other words, if the Hispanic kids
are missing out on history, the black kids have to miss out on it, too.
As a teacher, I hope you will once again consider bringing your considerable talents to focus on the education of low-income
minority children in California.
Could it be that the goal of financial, rather than academic, achievement, makes many young people uninterested in
competing in the science and math competitions sought out by the Asian students? I wonder about the different percentages
of applicants to medical school versus law or business.
I must also add that I am surprised that the author used the word "data" as singular, rather than plural. Shouldn't he be stating
that the data ARE, not IS; or SHOW, not SHOWS.
The author perhaps pays an incredible amount of attention to those with strengths in STEM fields (Science, technology, engineering,
and math), even though the proportion of all native-born white students majoring in these fields has plummetted in recent decades.
That means that he overlooks a shift in what kinds of training is considered "prestigious," and that this might be reflected in
the pursuits of students in high school. Perhaps there is a movement away from Jewish students' focus on Math Olympiad because
they are in no way interested in majoring in math or engineering fields, instead preferring economics or business. Is that the
fault of the students, or of the rewards system that corporate America has set up?
Jobs in STEM fields pay considerably less than do jobs in numerous professions - investment banking and law. So that is why
~ 40% of the Harvard graduating class - including many of its Jewish students - pursue that route. But to rely on various assessments
of math/science/computing as the measure of intelligence fails to incorporate how the rewards structure in our society has changed
over time.
I teach at an Ivy League university, and believe that many of the authors' arguments have merit, but there are also many weaknesses
in his argument. He sneers at Steinberg and the other sociologists he cites for not quite getting how society has changed - but
he clearly doesn' tunderstand how other aspects of our society have changed. Many of our most talented undergrads have no desire
to pursue careers in STEM fields. Entrance into STEM jobs even among those who majored in those fields is low, and there is very
high attrition from those fields, among both men and women. Young adults and young professionals are voting with their feet. While
our society might be better off with more Caltech grads and students interested in creating our way to a better future rather
than pursuing riches on wall street, one cannot fault students for seeking to maximize their returns on their expensive education.
That's the system we have presented them with, at considerable cost to the students and their families.
Personally, what I found profoundly disturbing is not the overrepresentation of Jewish students or the large presence of Asians
who feel they are discriminated against, but the fact that Ivy League schools have not managed to increase their representation
of Blacks for the last 3 decades. We all compete for the same talent pool. And until the K-12 system is improved, Black representation
won't increase without others screaming favoritism. The other groups - high performing Asians, middle class Jews - will do fine,
even if they don't get into Ivy League schools but have to "settle" for elite private schools. But if the Ivy Leagues are the
pathway to prestige and power, than we're not broadening our power base enough to adequately reprewsent the demographic shifts
reshaping our nation. more focus on that, please.
I've been an SAT tutor for a long time in West Los Angeles (a heavily Asian city), and I feel that at least some of Asians'
over-representation in SAT scores and NMS finalists is due to Asian parents putting massive time and money into driving their
children's success in those very statistics.
In my experience, Asian parents are more likely than other parents to attempt to ramrod their kids through test prep in order
to increase their scores. For example, the few students I've ever had preparing for the PSAT - most students prepare only for
the SAT - were all Asian.
Naturally, because it's so strange to be preparing for what is supposed to be a practice test, I asked these parents why their
9th or 10th grade child was in this class, and the answer was that they wanted to do well on the PSAT because of its use in the
NMS! Similarly, many Asian immigrants send their children to "cram school" every day after regular school lets out (and I myself
have taught SAT at one of these institutions), essentially having their students tutored in every academic subject year-round
from early in elementary school.
Because whites are unlikely to do this, it would seem to me that the resulting Asian academic achievement is analogous to baseball
players who use steroids having better stats than baseball players who do not.
It seems reasonable that the "merit" in "meritocracy" need not be based solely on test scores and grades, and that therefore
a race-based quota system is not the only conclusion that one can draw from a decrease in the attendance rate of hard-driving
test-preppers. Maybe the university didn't want to fill its dorms with grade-grubbers who are never seen because they're holed
up in the library 20 hours a day, and grade-grubbers just happen to be over-represented in the Asian population?
Unz's piece analyzes only the data that lead up to college - when the Asian parents' academic influence over their children
is absolute - whereas the Ivy League schools he criticizes are most concerned with what their students do during and after college.
Is the kid who went to cram school his entire life as likely to join student organizations? To continue practicing his four instruments
once his mom isn't forcing him to take lessons 4 days a week? To start companies and give money to his university? Or did he just
peak early because his parents were working him so hard in order to get him into that college?
However, the remedies considered are not. It is silly to believe that all abilities can be distilled into a small set of numbers,
and anyway, no one knows what abilities will succeed in marketplaces. The source of the problem is the lack of competition in
education, including higher education, a situation written in stone by current accreditation procedures. The solution to the problem
is entry. Remember Brandeis U? With sufficient competition, colleges could take whomever they pleased, on whatever grounds, and
everyone would get a chance.
Concerning the drop in non-Jewish white enrollment:
I am a recent graduate of a top public high school, where I was a NMS, individual state champion in Academic Decathlon, perfect
ACT score, National AP Scholar, etc. etc. Many of my friends – almost exclusively white and Asian – had similar backgrounds and
were eminently qualified for Ivy. None of us even applied Ivy, let alone considered going there. Why? At $60,000/yr, the cost
is simply not worth it, since none of us would have been offered anything close to substantial financial aid and our parents were
unable/unwilling to fully fund our educations. Meanwhile, my Asian friends applied to as many Ivies as they could because it was
understood that (a) their parents would foot the bill if they got in or (b) they would take on a large debt load in order to do
it.
This article discounts financial self-selection, which (at least based on my own, anecdotal evidence) is more prevalent than
we tend to think.
The author ignores the role that class plays in setting kids up for success. At one point he notes, "Given that Asians
accounted for just 1.5 percent of the population in 1980 and often lived in relatively impoverished immigrant families. . ."
When I was at Harvard in the mid-1980s, there were two distinct groups of Asian students: children of doctors, academics, scientists
and businesspeople who came from educated families in China, Korea and Vietnam, and therefore grew up with both strong educational
values and parental resources to push them; and a much smaller group of kids from Chinatown and Southeast Asian communities,
whose parents were usually working class and uneducated. The second group were at a severe disadvantage to the first, who were
able to claim "diversity" without really having to suffer for it.
I would expect you'd see the same difference among higher-caste educated South Asian Brahmins and Indians from middle and
lower castes or from places like Guyana. It is ridiculous to put South Asians and East Asians in the same category as "Asian."
They have different cultural traditions and immigration histories. Ask any Indian parent what race they are and they'll answer
"Caucasian." Grouping them without any kind of assessment of how they might be different undermines the credibility of the
author.
The takeaway is not that affirmative action is damaging opportunities for whites, but that whites are losing against Asians.
The percentage of Hispanic and Black students at leading schools is still tiny. Hence, if invisible quotas for Asians are lifted,
there will be far fewer white students at these schools. This isn't because of any conspiracy, but because white students are
scoring lower than the competition on the relevant entry requirements. I would love to see an article in this publication titled,
"Why White Students Are Deficient." How about some more writing about "The White Student Achievement Gap?"
As parents of 2 HYP grads, We can tell you from experience that Asian students are not under-represented in the Ivies today.
(In fact, I think they are slightly over represented, for the same reasons and stats the author cited).
True, if one looks at stats, such as SAT, scientific competition awards etc, it seems to imply that a +35% enrollment of Asian
students is warranted. However, these indicators are just a small part of a "holistc" approach in predicting the success of a
candidate not only in the next 4 years, but the individual's success in life and be able to impact and contribute to society later.
I have seen candidates of Asian background, who score almost full mark in SAT but was less than satisfactory in all other aspects
of being a potential achiever in life.
Granted, if one wants to be an achiever in science and technology, by all means go with Caltech and MIT. But if one wants an
real "education" and be a leader later on in life, one has to have other qualities as well (skin color is NOT one of them). Of
course, history, and current cultural and political climate may influence the assessment of such qualities because it is highly
subjective. (Is is unfair to pick a pleasant looking candidate over a lesser one, if the rest are the same?)
That is why an interview with the candidates is a good way to assess a potential applicant. I always encourage my children
to conduct interviews locally for their alma mater.
I just hope that the Ivies do not use this holistic approach to practice quota policies.
Here's a quote from a friend just today about this related topic: "Just like the Catholic church in the middle ages recruited
the smartest peasants in order to forestall revolutionary potential, and to learn mind bending religious dogma to befuddle the
remaining peasants, current practice is much the same. To twist Billy Clinton's mantra, "its the economy stupid", No ,"its the
co opted brains"! "
We can substitute economics dogma to the befuddlement mix. The bottom line is every ruling elite has co-opted the top 1%-5%
of high wage earners, to make the pyramid work. Sociology writing is all over this. Veblen, Weber, etc. We can see this little
group created everywhere minerals or natural resources are coveted by private empires.
The universities are doing exactly what they are supposed to do to protect the interests of the Trustees and Donors who run
them for a reason. They are a tool of, not a cause of, the inequality and over-concentration. It is interesting how the story
goes into hairsplitting and comparing Asians to others, etc. But, the real story is a well understood sociology story. This article
explains why Napoleon established free public education after the French Revolution.
This is a fascinating article. So much data. So many inferences. It's hardly surprising to any parent of high school students
that college admissions are only marginally meritocratic. Whether that's a good a thing or a bad thing is an open question. I
think meritocracy has a place in college admissions. But not the only place. Consider athletics, which are themselves almost exclusively
meritocratic. Only the best among the best are offered Division I scholarships. The same, I think, applies to engineering schools,
the physical sciences, and (to a lesser degree), elite law schools. It also applies to auto-mechanics, plumbers, and electricians.
Regarding the humanities (a field in which I hold a PhD), not so much. I think Unz's beef is less with admissions policies per
se (which I agree are mind-bogglingly opaque) than with the status of elite institutions. I also think, and I may be wrong, that
Unz appears heading down the Bobby Fisher highway, intimating that those pesky Jews are
America never promised success through merit or equality. That is the American "dream." America promises freedom of
religious belief and the right to carry a gun.
This is a fascinating and extremely important article which I am very eager to discuss privately with the author, having spent
my whole life in higher education, albeit with a unique perspective. I was flabbergasted the findings about Jewish and non-Jewish
white representation, and intrigued, all the more so since my own ancestry is evenly divided between those two groups. I do want
to make one criticism, however of something the author said about the 1950s which I do not think is correct.
At one point in the article the author makes the claim that the breakdown of Ivy League Jewish quotas in the 1950s reflected
the power of Jews in the media and Hollywood. The statistics he gives about their representation there may be correct, but the
inference, I believe, is unsustainable. The Proquest historical database includes the Washington Post, New York Times, and many
other major newspapers. I did a search for "Harvard AND Jewish AND quota" for the whole period 1945-65 and it turned up only 20
articles, not one of which specifically addressed the issue of Jewish quotas at Harvard and other Ivy League schools. The powerful
Jews of that era had reached their positions by downplaying their origins–often including changes in their last names–and they
were not about to use their positions overtly on behalf of their ethnic group. (This could be, incidentally, another parallel
with today's Asians.) Those quotas were broken down, in my opinion, because of a general emphasis on real equality among Americans
in those decades, which also produced the civil rights movement. The Second World War had been fought on those principles.
I could not agree more that the admissions policies of the last 30 years have produced a pathetic and self-centered elite that
has done little if any good for the country as a whole.
It is really refreshing to see in print what we all know by experience, but I have to wonder out loud, what is our higher purpose?
Surely, you have a largely goal than merely exposing corruption in the academy. Lastly, I have to wonder out loud, how would the
predicament of the working class fit into your analysis? I thank you for this scathing indictment of higher ed that has the potential
to offer us a chillingly sobering assessment.
This is why we need to reinstate a robust estate tax or "death tax" as conservatives derisively call it. To break the aristocracy
described in this article. No less than Alexis de Tocqueville said that the estate tax is what made America great and created
a meritocracy (which now is weaker and riddled with loopholes, thus the decline of America). Aristocracies dominated Europe for
centuries because they did not tax the inheritance.
The day when I learned so many Chinese ruling class' offspring are either alumni or current students of Harvard (the latest
example being Bo GuaGua), it was clear to me Harvard's admission process is corrupt. How would any ivy college determine "leadership"
quality? Does growing up in a leader's family give you more innate leadership skills? Harvard obviously thinks so.
Therefore, it's not surprising that Ron said the following on this subject. " so many sons and daughters of top Chinese leaders
attend college in the West ..while our own corrupt admissions practices get them an easy spot at Harvard or Stanford, sitting
side by side with the children of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and George W. Bush." I hope world peace will be obtained within reach
in this approach.
The chilling factor is a hardworking Chinese immigrant's child in the U.S. would have less chance of getting into ivies than
these children of privileged.
It was also very disappointing to see another Asian parent whose children are HYP alumni saying too many Asians in ivies, despite
the overwhelming evidence showing otherwise.
Perhaps it's to be expected given the length of the article (over 22,000 words), but so many of the objections and "oversights"
raised in the comments are in fact dealt with – in detail and with a great deal of respect – by Unz in the article itself.
For example, this:
National Merit Scholarship semifinalists are chosen based on per-state percentiles.
What this means is that NMS semifinalist numbers would be skewed _against_ a high-performing demographic group to the extent
that group's demographics concentrate geographically. Mr. Unz acknowledges that geographical skewing of Jewish populations
is huge. However, he ignores its effect on the NMS semifinalist numbers he uses as a proxy for academic performance on a _national_
level to predict equitable distributions at _national_ universities.
Please somebody explain to me how this oversight isn't fatal to his argument
because geographical skewing of Asian populations is also huge, yet we don't witness the same patterning in admissions data
pertaining to Asian students. As the article states: "Geographical diversity would certainly hurt Asian chances since nearly half
their population lives in just the three states of California, New York, and Texas."
Unz goes on to note: "Both groups [Jews and Asians] are highly urbanized, generally affluent, and geographically concentrated
within a few states, so the 'diversity' factors considered above would hardly seem to apply; yet Jews seem to fare much better
at the admissions office."
So there's your answer.
And aside from the fact that your "basic question" has a very simple answer, it's just ludicrous in any case to suggest that
the validity of the entire article rests on a single data point.
There is no doubt this is more of a political issue than the academic one. If only merit is considered then asian american
would constitute as much as 50% of the student population in elite universities. Politically and socially this is not a desired
outcome. Rationale for affirmative action for the african americans and hispanics is same – leaving a large population is in elite
institution is not desired, it smacks of segregation.
But the core issue remains unsolved. Affirmative action resulted in higher representation but not the competitiveness of the
blacks. I am afraid whites are going the similar path.
Anyone famliar with sociology and the research on social stratification knows that meritocracy is a myth; for example,
if one's parents are in the bottom decile of the the income scale, the child has only a 3% chance to reach the top decile in his
or her lifetime. In fact, in contrast to the Horatio Alger ideology, the U.S. has lower rates of upward mobility than almost any
other developed country. Social classses exist and they tend to reproduce themselves.
The rigid class structure of the the U.S. is one of the reasons I support progressive taxation; wealth may not always be
inherited, but life outcomes are largely determined by the class position of one's parents. In this manner, it is also a myth
to believe that wealth is an individual creation;most financially successful individuals have enjoyed the benefits of class privilege:
good and safe schools, two-parent families, tutors, and perhaps most important of all, high expecatations and positive peer socialization
(Unz never mentions the importants of peeer groups, which data show exert a strong causal unfluence on academic performance).
And I would challenge Unz's assertion that many high-performing Asians come from impovershed backgrounds: many of them
may undereport their income as small business owners. I believe that Asian success derives not only from their class background
but their culture in which the parents have authority and the success of the child is crucual to the honor of the family. As they
assimilate to the more individualist American ethos, I predict that their academic success will level off just as it has with
Jews.
1. HYP are private universities: the success of their alumni verifies the astuteness of their admissions policies.
2. Mr. Unz equates "merit" with "academic". I wonder how many CalTech undergrads would be, or were, admitted, to HYP (and vice-versa).
3. I would like ethnic or racial stats on, for several examples, class officers, first chair musicians*, job holders, actors^,
team captains, and other equally valuable (in the sense of contributing to an entering freshman class) high-school pursuits.*By
17, I had been a union trombonist for three years; at Princeton, I played in the concert band, the marching band, the concert
orchestra, several jazz ensembles, and the Triangle Club orchestra.^A high school classmate was John Lithgow, the superb Hollywood
character actor. Harvard gave him a full scholarship – and they should have.
What if we were one homogeneous ethnic group? What dynamic would we set up then?
I suggest taking the top 20% on straight merit, based on SAT scores, whether they crammed for them or not, and take the next
50% from the economically poorest of the qualified applicants (1500 – 1600 on the SAT?) by straight ethnicity percentages to directly
reflect population diversity, and 30% at random to promote some humility, and try that for 20 years and see what effects are produced
in the quality of our economic and political leadership. And of course, keep them all in the dark as to how they actually got
admitted.
Maybe one effect is that more non-ivy league schools will be tapped by the top recruiters.
"Surely the author must be aware that approximately half the children with "Jewish" names are not fully Jewish. Over
half of the marriages west of the Mississippi are reportedly mixed. Many non-Jews have last names that start with "Gold". Just
these two facts make the entire analysis ridiculous. Hillel does not keep statistics on how Jewish a student is, while many
of Levys and Cohens are not actually Jewish. What would we call Amy Chua's daughters? Jewish or Asian? It is therefore impossible
to tease out in a multi-racial society who is who."
Well, there are several arguments to be made. First, unless you are advocating that there has been a mass adoption of words
like "Gold" in non-Jewish last names these past 10, 15 years, that argument sinks like a stone. Second, by selecting for specifically
Jewish last names, intermarriage can be minimized but not eliminated. How many kids with the lastname "Goldstein" was a non-Jew
in the last NMS? Not likely a lot of them.
Intermarriage can account for some fog, but not all, not by a longshot. Your entire argument reeks of bitter defensiveness.
You have to come to grips that Jews have become like the old WASPs, rich, not too clever anymore, and blocking the path forward
for brighter, underrepresented groups.
With all due respect, I was worried that I would get an answer that lazily points to the part of the essay that glosses over
this point (which mind you I had combed through carefully before posting my question). However, I was hoping that in response
someone might respond who had thought a little more carefully about the statistical fallacy in Unz's essay: that far-reaching
statements about nation-wide academic performance can be drawn directly from per-state-percentiles.
Yes, Asian Americans, like Jews, have concentrations. But their geographical distributions differ. Yes, it might be possible
that upon careful analysis of relative distributions of populations and NMS semifinalists in each state Unz might be able to draw
a robust comparison: he might even come up with the same answer. The point that I made is that he doesn't even try.
Given the lengths Unz goes to calculate and re-calculate figures _based_on_ the assumption of _equal_ geographic distributions
among Asians and Jews, it is - and I stand by this - a disservice to the reader that no effort (beyond hand-waving) is made to
quantitatively show the assumption is at all justified.
The statistical analysis used in this article is flawed. The author uses last names to identify the religion (or birth heritage)
of NMS semifinalists? Are you serious? My son was a (recent) National Merit Finalist and graduated from an ivy league university.
His mother is Jewish; his father is not, thus he has a decidedly WASP surname and according to the author's methods he would have
been classified as WASP. With the growing numbers of interfaith and mixed-race children how can anyone draw conclusions about
race and religion in the meritocracy or even "IQ" argument? Anecdotally, my son reported that nearly half his classmates at his
ivy league were at least one-quarter Jewish (one or more parents or one grandparent). To use last names (in lieu of actual demographic
data) to make the conclusion that Jews are being admitted to ivies at higher rates than similarly qualified Asians is irresponsible.
Essentially, the leftist forces in this country are trying to put the squeeze on white gentiles from both directions.
Affirmative action for underachieving minorities to take the place of white applicants.
Meritocracy for highly achieving Asians to push down white applicants, while never mentioning that full meritocracy would push
out other minorities as well (that's not politically correct).
The whole thing has become more about political narrative than actual concern for justice. I want you to know that as an Asian
man who graduated from Brown, I sympathize with you.
Very interesting article. The case that East Asian students are significantly underrepresented and Jewish students overrepresented
at Ivy League schools is persuasive, although not dispositive. The most glaring flaw in the analysis is the heavy reliance on
performance on the PSAT (the discussion of the winners of the various Olympiad and Putnam contests has little informational value
relevant to admissions, since those winners are the outliers on the tail of the distribution), which is a test that can be prepped
for quite easily. Another flaw is the reliance on last names to determine ethnicity, which I doubt works well for Jews, although
it probably works reasonably well for East Asians.
Unfortunately, the article is also peppered with (very) thinly supported (and implausible) claims like Asians are better at
visuospatial skills, worse at verbal skills, and that the situation is reversed for Jews. This kind of claim strikes me as racial
gobbledygook, and at least anecdotally belied if one considers the overrepresentation of Jews among elite chess players, both
in the US and worldwide.
In any event, the fundamental point is that the PSAT (as is the case with all standardized tests) is a fixed target that can
be studied for. Whether one chooses to put in 100s of hours studying for the PSAT is not, and should not be, the only criterion
used for admissions.
I find the relative percentage of East Asians and Jews at schools like MIT (and also Caltech and Berkeley, although obviously
those are in part distorted by the heavy concentration of East Asians in California) as compared to HYP as strong evidence that
the admissions process at HYP advantages Jews and disadvantages East Asians.
I suspect, though, that the advantages Jews enjoy in the admissions process are unconscious and unintentional, whereas the
disadvantages suffered by East Asians are quite conscious and intentional.
The graph entitled "Asians Age 18-21 and Elite College Enrollment Trends, 1990-2011″ is misleading. It contrasts percentage
of enrolled Asian students vs. the total number of the eligible Asian applicants. Therefore, it led to a flawed argument
when comfusing number vs. percentage . For proof, if a similar graph of Hispanic student percentage vs. eligible applicants
were drawn, it would appear that they were discriminated against as well. So would be the Black!
well, even a fair and objective admission criteria can have devastating consequences. here at IIT, we admit about 1 in 100.
this has the same effect on student ethics, career options and so on. in fact, even worse, since IIT is an engineering college,
the very definition of engineering in India has now distorted as serving international finance or distant masters in a globalized
world. our own development problems remain unattended.
also, the above is a part of the current trend of knowledge concentration, i.e., a belief that only a few universities can
impart us "true" knowledge or conduct "true" research.
see http://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/~sohoni/kpidc.pdf
This is a very valuable article. It deals with a subject that has received too little attention. I believe that cultural bias
in many cases outweighs the racial bias in the selection program. Time and again, I have seen young people with great potential
being selected against because they are culturally different from what the selectors are looking for (often people who are like
them culturally). The article's mentioning that students who participated in R.O.T.C., F.F.A. and/or 4H are often passed over
is a good illustration.
It was interesting to note that the girl who wrote an essay on how she dealt with being caught in a drug violation found acceptance.
I suspect that a student with similar academic qualifications who wrote an essay on the negative aspects of drug use would not
be so lucky.
comes news that Yale President Levin's successor will be Peter Salovey, tending to confirm Unz's observations regarding the
grossly disproportionate number of Jewish presidents at Ivy League schools.
All very interesting but I am among the National Merit Scholars from California who has a not obviously Jewish name despite
having two Jewish parents. It was changed in the 1950s due to anti-Semitism and an urge to assimilate. A lot of other names can
be German or Jewish for example. I suspect in light of that and intermarriage cases where the mom is Jewish and the dad is not,
not to mention a lot of Russian names, you may be undercounting Jews among other things. Although to be fair, you are probably
also undercounting some half-Asians given most of those marriages have a white husband and Asian wife.
I'm an Asian HYP grad. I applaud this article for being so extremely well researched and insightful. It's an excellent indictment
of the arbitrariness and cultural favoritism concentrated in the hands of a very small group of unqualified and ideologically
driven admissions officers. And I hasten to add that I am a liberal Democratic, an avid Obama supporter, and a strong proponent
of correcting income inequality and combating discrimination in the workplace.
To me, the most compelling exhibit was the one towards the end which showed the % relative representation of enrolled students
to highly-qualified students (I wish the article labeled the exhibits). This chart shows that in the Ivies, which administer highly
subjective admission criteria, Jews are overrepresented by 3-4x, but in the California schools and MIT, which administer more
objective criteria, Jews are overrepresented by only 0-50%, a range that can easily be explained by methodology or randomness.
This single exhibit is unequivocal evidence to me of systematic bias in the Ivy League selection process, with Jews as the
primary beneficiary. I tend to agree with the author this this bias is unlikely to be explicit, but likely the result of cultural
favoritism, with a decision-making body that is heavily Jewish tending to favor the activities, accomplishments, personalities,
etc. of Jewish applicants.
The author has effectively endorsed one of the core tenets of modern liberalism – that human beings tend to favor people who
look and act like themselves. It's why institutions dominated by white males tend to have pro-white male biases. The only twist
here is that the decision-making body in this instance (Ivy League admissions committees) is white-Jewish, not white-Gentile.
So if you're a liberal like me, let's acknowledge that everyone is racist and sexist toward their own group, and what we have
here is Jews favoring Jews. We can say that without being anti-semitic, just like we can say that men favor men without being
anti-male, or whites favor whites without being anti-white.
Just some puzzling statistics: In p. 32, second paragraph, it is mentioned "The Asian ratio is 63% slightly above the white
ratio of 61 percent", then in the third paragraph "However, if we separate out the Jewish students, their
ratio turns out to be 435 percent, while the residual ratio for non-Jewish whites drops to just 28 percent, less than half of
even the Asian figure", leading to the conclusion that "As a consequence, Asians appear under-represented relative to Jews by
a factor of seven, while non-Jewish whites are by far the most under-represented group of all". Not very clear on the analysis!
Let me try to make a guess on the calculation of this statistics ratio: Assume that all groups in NMS will apply, with mA=Asians,
mJ=Jews, mW=Whites be the respective numbers in NMS. Suppose that nA, nJ, and nW are those Asians, Jews, and Whites finally admitted.
Then if the statistics ratio for G means ((nG)/(mG))/(mG/mNMS), where mNMS is the total number in the NMS, then the ratio will
amplify the admission rate (nG/mG) by (mNMS/mG) times and becomes very large or very small for small group size. For example,
for a single person group, being admitted will give a ratio as large as mNMS, and a zero for not being admitted. Why can this
ratio be used for comparing under-representation between different groups?
Very well. Loved the fact that the author put a lot into reseaching this piece. But i would like to know how many asians who
manage to attend this ivy schools end up as nobel leaurets and professors?? This demonstrates the driving force behind the testscore
prowess of the asians-financial motivation. The author talks about asians being under-represented in the ivies but even though
they manage to attend then what?? do they eventually become eintiens and great nobel leurets or great cheese players. Also what
is the stats like for asian poets, novelist, actors.etc Pls focus should be given on improving other non-ivy schools since we
have a lots of high SAT test scores than high running universities.
Look at Nobel prizes, field medals and all kind of prizes and awards that recognize lifetime original academic contributions.
Not many asians there yet. Perfect grades or SAT scores does not guarantee creativity, original thinking, intelectual curiosity
or leadership. The problem is that those things are hard to measure and very easy to fake in an application.
Loved all the research in the article and I am on board with the idea that moving in the tiger mother direction will kill creativity
in young people. And I agree with the observation that our country's top leadership since 1970 or so has been underwhelming and
dishonest especially in the financial services industry which draws almost entirely from the Ivies.
However, I am not so convinced that the over representation of Jewish students in the Ivy league is created by intentional
bias on the part of Jewish professors or administrators at these institutions. Is it possible that admissions officers select
Jewish applicants at such a high rate because they are more likely to actually attend? Once a family of four's income exceeds
$160k the net price calculation for a year at Harvard jumps up pretty quickly. By the time you hit annual income of $200k you
are looking at $43k/yr or $172k for 4 years. And at the lower income levels, even if a family has to pay just $15k a year, how
will they do that if they are struggling to make it as it is? Do they want/does their student want to graduate with $60k worth
of debt? Why not choose a great scholarship offer from a state university to pay nothing at all or go to community college for
2 years and then on to the state public institution?
There are many options for top students who can compete at the Ivy level. If I am an admissions officer looking to fill slots
left over after minority admissions (ones poor enough to get the education for free and thus to say yes), legacies, athletic recruits,
and the few super special candidates, wouldn't I choose those most likely to take me up on the admissions offer and protect my
yield number? Might an easy way to get this done be to consult a demographic tool showing net worth by zip code? And to stack
the yield odds a little more in my favor might I also choose families with Jewish appearing last names knowing they would be extremely
likely to accept my offer since I obviously have recent history to show me that these families say yes to our prices? I think
this is a much more plausible explanation then assuming some secret quota in force at these schools.
I am a conservative but I cannot believe Jewish liberals would go that far just to ensure more Jewish liberals attend their
institutions or to keep conservative white non Jewish middle income students out. Dollars and cents and the perception a yield
number conveys about the desirability of a school are what is at work here in my humble opinion.
There is a very simple solution. There is no legal definition of race. Simply check the "Negro" (or "African-American" or whatever
it is called today) box on the application form. You don't look it? Neither do many others, because your ancestry is really mixed.
This may get you in. It won't hurt your chances, which are essentially zero before you check that box. At the very least, it will
make it harder for the bigots in the admissions office to exercise their bigotry.
"Look at Nobel prizes, field medals and all kind of prizes and awards that recognize lifetime original academic contributions.
Not many asians there yet. Perfect grades or SAT scores does not guarantee creativity, original thinking, intelectual curiosity
or leadership. The problem is that those things are hard to measure and very easy to fake in an application."
Last year, 75% of Ph.D candidates where foreign born, most of which were either Indian or Chinese. You should rely on statistics
that are more current and relevant.
Wow, another article on how corrupt higher eduation is.
Folks, open your eyes a bit. Online education is growing massively; sharing this growth are websites that write academic papers
(even Ph.D. theses) on demands .these websites in toto have nearly as many customers as there are online students.
Harvard is unusual in that they actually banned students for cheating. Every investigation of cheating on campus shows it exists
on a massive scale, and reports of half or more of a class cheating are quite common in the news.
The reason for this is simple: administrators care about retention, nothing else. Faculty have long since gotten the message.
I've taught in higher education for nearly 25 years now, and I've seen many faculty punished for catching cheaters; not once has
there been any reward.
Over 90% of remedial students fail to get a 2-year degree in three years, yet administration sees no issue with talking them
into loans that will keep them in debt forever. Admin sees no issue with exploiting the vulnerable for personal gain, of course.
Here's what higher education is today: desperate people take out loans to go to college. They use the money to pay the tuition,
and they use the money to buy academic papers because they really aren't there for college, they're there for the checks. Their
courses are graded by poorly paid faculty (mostly adjuncts), again paid by those checks. The facutly are watched over by administrators
to make sure there is no integrity to the system and again, admin is paid by those checks (in fact, most of the tuition money
goes to administrators).
Hmm, what part of this could be changed that would put integrity back into the system?
I think your sources who claim to be familiar with China are very wrong concerning entrance into Chinese universities, especially
those so-called upper tier unis. It is well known amongst most Chinese students who take the gaokao, the all-or-nothing university
entrance examination, bribes, guanxi (connections) and just being local, are often better indicators of who will be accepted.
• Replies: @KA Same and
some more in India.
In India it is politics of the gutter. Someone can get to medical school and engineering school even if he or she did not qualify,if
scored say 3 points out of 1000 points as long as he or she belonged to lower caste of Hindu. The minimum requirements they have
to fulfill is to pass the school leaving examinations with science subjects .A passing level is all that matters . The process
then continues (in further education -master , training, post doctoral, and in job and in promotion)
While upper caste Hindu or Christian or Muslim may not be allowed despite scoring 999 out of 1000. It is possible and has happened.
Unfortunately the lower caste has not progressed much. Upper caste Hindus have misused this on many occasions and continue to
do do by selling themselves as lower caste with legal loopholes .Muslim or Christians can't do that for they can't claim to be
Hindu
Ron Unz is a brilliant man. He created software that made him rich, and has written articles on all kinds of subjects. But
apparently, Ron shares a problem with a very tiny number of humanity. Ron is one of those oddball characters, that, no matter
where the truth leads him, he simply has to express it, regardless of political correctness. He did this in California with the
debate on English,etc.
Compared to the administrators of these Ivy League Institutions, Ron is a mental giant, not even near being in the same class
as these supposedly important but in reality, worthless beurocrats.
If ten million Gentile whites and Asians changed their surname to Kaplan, Levy, Golden, Goldstein, Goldman, it obviously would
throw a monkey wrench into the process of ethnic favoritism.
To paraphrase Unz - the "shared group biases" of Ivy League college admission officers that have "extreme flexibility and subjectivity",
does harm white Gentiles and Asians, but only because the process lacks objective, meritocratic decision making, and in its place
is a vile form of corrupt cronyism and favoritism.
An Asian speaking here, I agree that America isn't a meritocracy, but has it ever been? It seems like this article's falling
for the oldest trick in the book - looking back at the "good old days". I'd argue that now more than ever, the barrier to entry
is lower than ever, and that every individual can rise to the occasion and innovate for the better. Places like Exeter (my alma
mater) aren't just playgrounds for the rich - I'm not extremely wealthy, and neither were my classmates. Most of us were even
on financial aid. Don't just point fingers at institutions to account for shortcomings - if you had the stroke of fortune to be
born in a nation with such opportunity, with hard work and CREATIVITY and INNOVATION, anything is possible.
Has anyone thought about why the test-prep business has expanded so much? It's to feed into the very same system that you're
complaining about. Be the change you wish to see in the world, not a victim of it. To many of the Asians out there, I'd say get
over your 4.0 GPA and 2400 SAT score and be unique for once.
To put Unz's findings in social and historical perspective, it is important to understand where Jewish academics come from.
The Eastern European Jews who immigrated to Northeast US in the Twentieth Century ran into an immigrant world dominated by Catholics
and particularly Irish Catholics. The Irish, who were as "hungry" as the Jews got control over government and its ancillary economic
benefits. I wasn't there at the time, but I imagine we Irish did not do much to help Jewish immigrants compared with Catholic
immigrants.
One area abandoned by the Catholic Church was public and secular education. The Church formed its own educational Catholic
ghetto. Jewish immigrants adopted the public-secular educational world as their own and became strong adherents of education as
the key to Americanization. Education became their small piece of turf. The only memorable political conflict between Jews and
AfricanAmericans in New York City was over control of the public schools.
Just as the Irish react against affirmative action for non-Irish in government jobs, the descendants of these Jewish immigrants
react to the plagiarism of their assimilation plan by the Chinese/Koreans. When you have de facto Irish affirmative action you
don't want de jure African American affirmative action. When you have Jewish "meritocracy" you don't want Asian meritocracy.
The result is what you see today. The Irish still have a stranglehold on government related jobs in the Northeast with a smattering
of minorities ("New Irish") and the Jews try to protect their secular education turf from the "New Jews". It's just business.
Don't take it personally.
All I can say is see a book: "Ivy League Fools and Felons"' by Mack Roth. Lots of them are kids of corrupt people in all
fields.
But I disagree that opportunity is being closed off to most Americans. Here in North Dakota I work for a high school graduate,
self made trucking millionaire. Five years ago she was a secretary in Iowa. But she got off her butt and went to where the money
is circulating. Just my 2 cents
Sorry, but quick correction regarding rankings (and I only have to say this because I go to MIT). Technically, MIT and Caltech
are *both* ranked the same. The only reason why Caltech appears on the list before MIT is because it come before it alphabetically
to suggest otherwise would be untrue. When you look at individual departments, you'll find that MIT consistently ranks higher
than that of Caltech in all engineering disciplines and most scientific disciplines. Also, personally speaking, MIT has a far
better humanities program that Caltech (especially in the fields of economics, political science, philosophy, and linguisitics).
We do have a number of Pulitizer Prize winners who teach here.
Also generally, in academic circle, MIT is usually viewed with higher regard than Caltech, although that isn't to say Caltech
isn't a fantastic school (it really and truly is–I loved it there and I wish more people knew more about it)
One observation about methodology that struck me while reading this:
The Jewish population of universities is being evaluated based on Hillel statistics, with the "Non-Jewish white" population
being based on the white population minus the Jewish population.
This can be problematic when you consider that these population are merging at a pretty high rate. (I don't have much information
here, but this is from the header of the wikipedia article: "The 1990 National Jewish Population Survey reported an intermarriage
rate of 52 percent among American Jews.")
What percentage of partially Jewish students identify as "Jewish" or does Hillel identify as Jewish? If you're taking a population
that would have once identified as "white" and now identifying them as Jewish, obviously you'll see some Jewish inflation, and
white deflation. And when a large percentage of this population bears the names "Smith", "Jones", "Roberts" etc., you're obviously
not going to see a corresponding increase in NMS scores evaluated on the basis of last names.
Of course, I have no idea what methodology Hillel is using, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it's an inflated one.
Thank you Mr. Unz for this provocative article. It isn't the author's first one on Jewish & Asian enrollment at Ivy League
colleges. I remember another one, in the 1990s I believe.
According to what I read, less and less American Jews apply for medical school nationwide, and Jewish women are very educated,
but it comes also with a low birthrate and high median age. It makes the recent spike in Jewish admissions at Harvard College
all the more curious, intriguing.
This month, the NY Times published a list of the highest earners in the hedge fund industry in 2012, and 8 out of 10 were Jewish.
Are certain universities aggressively seeking donations from this super rich demographic since the 2000s?
The young American Jew is not like his grandparents. They are just as fun loving and lazy as any other. This is the result
of a lack of perceived persecution that use to keep the group together. In the major cities, half of the young people leave the
tribe through intermarriage. This is human nature. The Rabbis changed the rules some time ago to define a Jew as coming from the
mother, so the Jewish man would marry a Jewish woman, instead of a woman outside of the tribe. Read the Bible. In David's time,
the men had an eye for good looking women outside of the tribe(like all men). Now days, the young people just laugh at the Rabbi's
words.
Instead of the old folks liberal ideas of race and ethnic divisions, let us change it to go by economic class. According to
liberal thought, intelligence is equally distributed throughout all economic classes, so higher education admissions should be
by economic class, and not the old divisive ideas of race and ethnic background. After all, affirmative action programs are institutionalized
racism and racial profiling.
• Replies: @KA Yes . You
have points . This is one of the fears that drove the Zionist to plan of Israel in 1880 . It was the fear of secular life free
from religious persecution and freedom to enjoy life to its fullest in the post industrial non religious Europe guided by enlightenment
that drove them embrace the religious ethnic mix concept of statehood.
These and many other ills would be alleviated if government would stop: (a) banning aptitude tests or even outright discrimination
as determinants of employment; (b) subsidizing private institutions such as Harvard; and (c) close down all government schools,
starting with state institutions of "higher learning."
I know, pie in the sky. But the author's suggestions by comparison are mere Band-Aids.
Great analysis, but pie-in-the-sky prescription, which was presumably just intended to be thought provoking. If you want to
know why Harvard would never adopt the author's recommendation, just read what he wrote:
"But if it were explicitly known that the vast majority of Harvard students had merely been winners in the application lottery,
top businesses would begin to cast a much wider net in their employment outreach, and while the average Harvard student would
probably be academically stronger than the average graduate of a state college, the gap would no longer be seen as so enormous,
with individuals being judged more on their own merits and actual achievements. A Harvard student who graduated magna cum laude
would surely have many doors open before him, but not one who graduated in the bottom half of his class."
I wonder why Harvard officials would desire this outcome?
So a lot of ivy league presidents with Jewish-sounding names somehow influence admissions staff who may not have Jewish-sounding
names to favor undeserving applicants because they also have Jewish-sounding names? And this is because of some secret ethnic
pride thing going on? And nobody's leaked this conspiracy to the outside world until our whistle blowing author? The guy's a nut
job.
All of your statistics are highly suspect due to the enormous, and rapid annual increase in Jewish intermarriage. I do not
have the statistics, but over many years, it certainly appears that Jewish men are far more likely to intermarry than Jewish women
(the lure of the antithesis to their Jewish mother??) and to complicate matters further, Jewish men seem to have a predilection
for Asian women, at least in the greater NY Metro Area. But that still does not represent the majority of Jewish men marrying
Christians. QED. More Jewish last names, for children who are DNA wise only half Jewish than non Jewish names for the intermarried.
And if one wanted to get really specific, the rapidly rising intermarriage is diluting the "Jewish" genetic pool's previously
demonstrable intelligence superiority., strengthened by the fact that most couples use the Jewish fathers last name.
These observations are in no way associated with how the various Jewish denominations define 'Jewish"
In short: Unz substantially overestimated the percentage of Jews at Harvard while grossly underestimating the percentage of
Jews among high academic achievers, when, in fact, there is no discrepancy.
In addition, Unz's arguments have proven to be untenable in light of a recent survey of incoming Harvard freshmen conducted
by The Harvard Crimson, which found that students who identified as Jewish reported a mean SAT score of 2289, 56 points higher
than the average SAT score of white respondents.
First. I was thrilled to see your advocacy of admissions by lottery. I have advocated such a plan on various websites that
I participate in, but you have written the first major article advocating it that I have seen. Congratulations.
Just a small quibble with your plan, I would not allow the schools any running room for any alternatives to the lottery. They
have not demonstrated any willingness to administer such a system fairly. After a few years of pure lottery it would be time to
evaluate it and see if they should be allowed any leeway, but I wouldn't allow any variation before that.
I would hypothesize that one effect of a lottery admissions plan would be a return to more stringent grading in the class rooms.
It would be useful to the faculty to weed out the poor performers more quickly, and the students might have less of an attitude
of entitlement.
Second, I am glad that you raised the issue of corruption of the admissions staffs. It would be a new chapter in human history
if there was no straight out bribe taking of by functionaries in their positions. My guess is that the bag men are the "high priced
consultants". Pay them a years worth of tuition money and a sufficient amount will flow to the right places to get your kid in
to wherever you want him to go.
Third, three observations about Jewish Students.
First, Jews are subject to mean reversion just like everybody else.
Second, the kids in the millennial generation were, for the most part, born into comfortable middle class and upper class homes.
The simply do not have the drive that their immigrant grandparents and great-grandparents had. I see this in my own family. My
wife and I had immigrant parents, and we were pretty driven academically (6 degrees between us). Our kids, who are just as bright
as we were, did not show that same edge, and it was quite frustrating to us. None of them have gone to a graduate or professional
school. They are all working and are happy, but driven they aren't.
Third, Hillel's numbers of Jewish students on their website should be taken cum grano salis. All three of our kids went to
Northwestern U. (Evanston, IL) which Hillel claimed was 20% Jewish. Based on our personal observations of kids in their dorms
and among their friends, I think the number is probably 10% or less.
Finally, the side bar on Paying Tuition to a Hedge Fund. I too am frustrated with the current situation among the wealthy institutions.
I think that it deserves a lot more attention from policy makers than it has received. The Universities have received massive
benefits from the government (Federal and state) - not just tax exemptions, but grants for research and to students, subsidized
loans, tax deductions for contributions, and on, and on. They have responded to this largess by raising salaries, hiring more
administrators, spending billions on construction, and continually raising tuitions far faster than the rate of inflation. I really
do not think the tax payers should be carrying this much of a burden at a time when deficits are mounting without limit.
Henry VIII solved a similar problem by confiscating assets. We have constitutional limits on that sort of activity, but I think
there a lot of constitutional steps that should be considered. Here a few:
1. There is ample reason to tax the the investment gains of the endowments as "unrelated business taxable income" (UBTI, see
IRS Pub 598 and IRC §§ 511-515) defined as income from a business conducted by an exempt organization that is not substantially
related to the performance of its exempt purpose. If they do not want to pay tax on their investments, they should purchase treasuries
and municipals, and hold them to maturity.
2. The definition of an exempt organization could be narrowed to exclude schools that charge tuition. Charging $50,000/yr and
sitting on 30G$ of assets looks a lot more like a business than a charity.
3. Donations to overly rich institutions should be non deductible to the donors. Overly rich should be defined in terms of
working capital needs and reserves for depreciation of physical assets.
Is the proposed mechanism that Jewish university presidents create a bias in the admissions department?
That could be tested by comparing Jewish student percentages between schools with Christian and Jewish presidents. If Christian
presidents produce student bodies with a high proportion of Jews, then Jewish ethnocentrism is not the cause. (We'd have to find
a way to control for presidents' politics.)
If admissions departments are discriminating in favor of liberals, that will boost the proportion of all liberals, including
many Jews, but it will be political discrimination, not ethnic discrimination. (Both are bad, but we should be accurate.)
Liberals see a discrepancy in ethnic outcomes and consider it proof of ethnic discrimination. Are we doing the same thing?
After Russian emancipation, the Jews from Pale settlement spread out and took up jobs in government services, secured admissions
in technical and medical schools, and established positions in trade in just two decades. Then they started interconnecting and
networking more aggressively to eliminate competition and deny the non-Jews the opportunities that the non Jews rightfully claimed.
This pattern was also evident in Germany after 1880 and in Poland between interwars .
The anti-Jewish sentiment seen in pre revolutionary Russia was the product of this ethnic exclusivisity and of the tremendous
in-group behaviors .
@Ira The young American
Jew is not like his grandparents. They are just as fun loving and lazy as any other. This is the result of a lack of perceived
persecution that use to keep the group together. In the major cities, half of the young people leave the tribe through intermarriage.
This is human nature. The Rabbis changed the rules some time ago to define a Jew as coming from the mother, so the Jewish man
would marry a Jewish woman, instead of a woman outside of the tribe. Read the Bible. In David's time, the men had an eye for good
looking women outside of the tribe(like all men). Now days, the young people just laugh at the Rabbi's words.
Instead of the old folks liberal ideas of race and ethnic divisions, let us change it to go by economic class. According to
liberal thought, intelligence is equally distributed throughout all economic classes, so higher education admissions should be
by economic class, and not the old divisive ideas of race and ethnic background. After all, affirmative action programs are institutionalized
racism and racial profiling.
Yes . You have points . This is one of the fears that drove the Zionist to plan of Israel in 1880 . It was the fear of secular
life free from religious persecution and freedom to enjoy life to its fullest in the post industrial non religious Europe guided
by enlightenment that drove them embrace the religious ethnic mix concept of statehood.
@Anonymous I think your
sources who claim to be familiar with China are very wrong concerning entrance into Chinese universities, especially those so-called
upper tier unis. It is well known amongst most Chinese students who take the gaokao, the all-or-nothing university entrance examination,
bribes, guanxi (connections) and just being local, are often better indicators of who will be accepted.
Same and some more in India. In India it is politics of the gutter. Someone can get to medical school and engineering school
even if he or she did not qualify, if scored say 3 points out of 1000 points as long as he or she belonged to lower caste of Hindu.
The minimum requirements they have to fulfill is to pass the school leaving examinations with science subjects .A passing level
is all that matters . The process then continues (in further education -master , training, post doctoral, and in job and in promotion)
While upper caste Hindu or Christian or Muslim may not be allowed despite scoring 999 out of 1000. It is possible and has happened.
Unfortunately the lower caste has not progressed much. Upper caste Hindus have misused this on many occasions and continue to
do do by selling themselves as lower caste with legal loopholes .Muslim or Christians can't do that for they can't claim to be
Hindu
Takeaways:
Jews are really good at networking and in-group activity. They have centuries of practice, and lived a meritocratic existence
of self-sorting in the Pale and elsewhere.
That is evident to all who look.
Other groups have different approaches, and different organizational or affiliation bonds, based on their history, culture
and other factors.
NE Asians share some traits, and both value education as a way to improve themselves and to some extent their groups.
S Asians will demonstrate their own approach, focusing heavily on STEM.
Expect demographics to win out, given 2.5B Asians versus a smaller NAM or NE European-base populace.
Thanks for the informative article. Your proposal sounds reasonable. Another option would be to attempt to vastly decrease
the significance of these elite private schools. Why should we allow undemocratic little fiefdoms to largely control entry into
our country's ruling class? It would probably be considerably more fair, more transparent and more efficient to pour a lot of
resources into our public universities. If Berkeley, Michigan, UVA, UMass, etc. were completely free, for instance–or if they
provided students with living expenses as well as free tuition, the quality of their students would conceivably surpass that of
the Ivy League's, and over time the importance and prestige of Harvard, Stanford, etc. would diminish. Instead, we are subsidizing
students at elite private colleges more than those at public colleges–an absurd state of affairs (see this article, whose author
is a bit of an ideologue but who is right on this issue:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich/2014/1014/How-the-government-spends-more-per-student-at-elite-private-universities-than-public
).
Mr. Unz; thank you for the long, informational and scholarly article. I read the whole thing, and from Sailer I am familiar
with your reputation as a certified genius. I must admit however, after the 5-10,000 words you had written, I was a bit shocked
that your answer to how to improve elite University enrollment, was to FLIP A FIGURATIVE COIN.
I expected some chart with differential equations that I would have to consult my much more intelligent brother, the electrical
engineer to explain to me. Not that it does not make a lot of sense.
The issue with your solution is that you go from a three class university:
1) Legacy Admits
2) Non athletic, black admits
3) everyone else
to a much-more rigid, two class university:
1) academic admits
2) coin-flip admits
One tier being one of the smartest 15-18 year olds in the world, the other being "somewhat better than good student at Kansas
State."
My brother works at a little ivy league school. Well endowed because the parents Dun and Bradstreet reports are at the top
of the selection sheets with parents jobs also. Extra points for finance and government jobs at executive levels.
This article was excellent and reinforced everything he has told me over the years. One thing he did mention i would like to
add. Asians, which for years were their choice for filling minority quotas, are horrible when it comes to supporting the alma
mater financially during the fund drives. This information was confirmed by several other schools in the area when they tried
a multi-school drive in the far east and south east asia to canvas funds and returned with a pitiful sum.
Diversity is a scheme that is the opposite of a meritocracy. Diversity is a national victim cult that generally demonizes gentiles,
and more specifically demonizes people that conform to a jewish concocted profile of a nazi.
Why would anyone use the word diversity in the same sentence as the word meritocracy?
"Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?" Why would anybody claiming to be intelligent
include meritocracy and diversity in the same sentence?
@Sean Gillhoolley Harvard
is a university, much like Princeton and Yale, that continues based on its reputation, something that was earned in the past.
When the present catches up to them people will regard them as nepotistic cauldrons of corruption.
Look at the financial disaster that befell the USA and much of the globe back in 2008. Its genesis can be found in the clever
minds of those coming out of their business schools (and, oddly enough, their Physics programs as well). They are teaching the
elite how to drain all value from American companies, as the rich plan their move to China, the new land of opportunity. When
1% of the population controls such a huge portion of the wealth, patriotism becomes a loadstone to them. The elite are global.
Places like Harvard cater to them, help train them to rule the world....but first they must remake it.
I agree, common people would never think of derivatives , nor make loans based on speculation .
"Tiffany Wang['s] SAT scores were over 100 points above the Wesleyan average, and she ranked as a National Merit Scholarship
semifinalist "
"Julianna Bentes her SAT scores were somewhat higher than Tiffany's "
Did Ms. Wang underperform on her SATs? NMS semifinalist status depends purely on the score on a very SAT-like test being at
a 99.5 percentile level, as I understand it (and I was one, albeit a very long time ago) and I gather from the above that her
SAT scores did not correspond to the PSAT one. That is, merely " 100 points above the Wesleyan average" doesn't seem all that
exceptional. Or am I wrong?
Mr. Unz several times conflates NMS semifinalist status with being a top student. Which I most definitely was not. It's rather
an IQ test. As was the SAT.
"... And while I am not as focused on the poverty ve wealth dynamic. this century has revealed something very disappointing that you address. That the elites have done a very poor job of leading the ship of state, while still remaining in leadership belies such a bold hypocrisy in accountability, it's jarring. The article could actually be titled: "The Myth of the Best and the Brightest." ..."
"... They are teaching the elite how to drain all value from American companies, as the rich plan their move to China, the new land of opportunity. When 1% of the population controls such a huge portion of the wealth, patriotism becomes a loadstone to them. The elite are global. Places like Harvard cater to them, help train them to rule the world .but first they must remake it. ..."
"... In my high school, there were roughly 15 of us who had been advanced two years ahead in math. Of those, 10 were Jewish; only two of them had a 'Jewish' last name. In my graduate school class, half (7) are Jewish. None has a 'Jewish' last name. So I'm pretty dubious of the counting method that you use. ..."
"... Regarding the declining Jewish achievement, it looks like it can be primarily explained through demographics: "Intermarriage rates have risen from roughly 6% in 1950 to approximately 40–50% in the year 2000.[56][57] This, in combination with the comparatively low birthrate in the Jewish community, has led to a 5% decline in the Jewish population of the United States in the 1990s." ..."
"... Jewish surnames don't mean what they used to. And intermarriage rates are lowest among the low-performing and highly prolific Orthodox. ..."
"... A potentially bigger issue completely ignored by your article is how do colleges differentiate between 'foreign' students (overwhelmingly Asian) and American students. Many students being counted as "Asian American" are in reality wealthy and elite foreign "parachute kids" (an Asian term), dropped onto the generous American education system or into boarding schools to study for US entrance exams, qualify for resident tuition rates and scholarships, and to compete for "American" admissions slots, not for the usually limited 'foreign' admission slots. ..."
"... As some who is Jewish from the former Soviet Union, and who was denied even to take an entrance exam to a Moscow college, I am saddened to see that American educational admission process looks more and more "Soviet" nowadays. Kids are denied opportunities because of their ethnic or social background, in a supposedly free and fair country! ..."
"... Actually, Richard Feynman famously rejected genetic explanations of Jewish achievement (whether he was right or wrong to do so is another story), and aggressively resisted any attempts to list him as a "Jewish scientist" or "Jewish Nobel Prize winner." I am sure he would not cared in the slightest bit how many Jews were participating in the Physics Olympiad, as long as the quality of the students' work continued to be excellent. Here is a letter he wrote to a woman seeking to include him in a book about Jewish achievement in the sciences. ..."
"... It would be interesting to know how well "true WASPS" do in admissions. This could perhaps be estimated by counting Slavic and Italian names, or Puritan New England last names. I would expect this group to do almost as well as Jews (not quite as well, because their ability would be in the lower end of the Legacy group). ..."
"... The missing variable in this analysis is income/class. While Unz states that many elite colleges have the resources to fund every student's education, and in fact practice need-blind admissions, the student bodies are skewed towards the very highest percentile of the income and wealth distribution. SAT scores may also scale with parents' income as well. ..."
"... Having worked with folks from all manner of "elite" and not so elite schools in a technical field, the main conclusion I was able to draw was folks who went to "elite" colleges had a greater degree of entitlement. And that's it. ..."
"... My own position has always been strongly in the former camp, supporting meritocracy over diversity in elite admissions. ..."
"... The Reality of American Mediocrity ..."
"... The central test of fairness in any admissions system is to ask this simple question. Was there anyone admitted under that system admitted over someone else who was denied admission and with better grades and SAT scores and poorer ? If the answer is in the affirmative, then that system is unfair , if it is in the negative then the system is fair. ..."
"... Harvard ranks only 8th after Penn State in the production of undergrads who eventually get Doctorates in Science and Engineering. Of course Berkeley has the bragging rights for that kind of attribute. ..."
"... There is an excellent analysis of this article at The Occidental Observer by Kevin MacDonald, "Ron Unz on the Illusory American Meritocracy". The MSM is ignoring Unz's article for obvious reasons. ..."
"... Could it be that the goal of financial, rather than academic, achievement, makes many young people uninterested in competing in the science and math competitions sought out by the Asian students? I ..."
"... America never promised success through merit or equality. That is the American "dream." ..."
"... Anyone famliar with sociology and the research on social stratification knows that meritocracy is a myth; for example, if one's parents are in the bottom decile of the the income scale, the child has only a 3% chance to reach the top decile in his or her lifetime. In fact, in contrast to the Horatio Alger ideology, the U.S. has lower rates of upward mobility than almost any other developed country. Social classses exist and they tend to reproduce themselves. ..."
"... The rigid class structure of the the U.S. is one of the reasons I support progressive taxation; wealth may not always be inherited, but life outcomes are largely determined by the class position of one's parents. In this manner, it is also a myth to believe that wealth is an individual creation;most financially successful individuals have enjoyed the benefits of class privilege: good and safe schools, two-parent families, tutors, and perhaps most important of all, high expecatations and positive peer socialization (Unz never mentions the importants of peeer groups, which data show exert a strong causal unfluence on academic performance). ..."
"... And I would challenge Unz's assertion that many high-performing Asians come from impovershed backgrounds: many of them may undereport their income as small business owners. I believe that Asian success derives not only from their class background but their culture in which the parents have authority and the success of the child is crucual to the honor of the family. As they assimilate to the more individualist American ethos, I predict that their academic success will level off just as it has with Jews. ..."
"... All I can say is see a book: "Ivy League Fools and Felons"' by Mack Roth. Lots of them are kids of corrupt people in all fields. ..."
Just before the Labor Day weekend, a front page New York Times story broke the news of the largest cheating scandal in Harvard University
history, in which nearly half the students taking a Government course on the role of Congress had plagiarized or otherwise illegally
collaborated on their final exam.
[1] Each year, Harvard admits just 1600 freshmen while almost 125 Harvard students now face possible suspension over this single
incident. A Harvard dean described the situation as "unprecedented."
But should we really be so surprised at this behavior among the students at America's most prestigious academic institution? In
the last generation or two, the funnel of opportunity in American society has drastically narrowed, with a greater and greater proportion
of our financial, media, business, and political elites being drawn from a relatively small number of our leading universities, together
with their professional schools. The rise of a Henry Ford, from farm boy mechanic to world business tycoon, seems virtually impossible
today, as even America's most successful college dropouts such as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg often turn out to be extremely well-connected
former Harvard students. Indeed, the early success of Facebook was largely due to the powerful imprimatur it enjoyed from its exclusive
availability first only at Harvard and later restricted to just the Ivy League.
During
this period, we have witnessed a huge national decline in well-paid middle class jobs in the manufacturing sector and other sources
of employment for those lacking college degrees, with median American wages having been stagnant or declining for the last forty
years. Meanwhile, there has been an astonishing concentration of wealth at the top, with America's richest 1 percent now possessing
nearly as much net wealth as the bottom 95 percent.
[2]
This situation, sometimes described as a "winner take all society," leaves families desperate to maximize the chances that their
children will reach the winners' circle, rather than risk failure and poverty or even merely a spot in the rapidly deteriorating
middle class. And the best single means of becoming such an economic winner is to gain admission to a top university, which provides
an easy ticket to the wealth of Wall Street or similar venues, whose leading firms increasingly restrict their hiring to graduates
of the Ivy League or a tiny handful of other top colleges.
[3] On the other side, finance remains the favored employment choice for Harvard, Yale or Princeton students after the diplomas
are handed out. [4]
As a direct consequence, the war over college admissions has become astonishingly fierce, with many middle- or upper-middle class
families investing quantities of time and money that would have seemed unimaginable a generation or more ago, leading to an all-against-all
arms race that immiserates the student and exhausts the parents. The absurd parental efforts of an Amy Chua, as recounted in her
2010 bestseller Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother , were simply a much more extreme version of widespread behavior among her
peer-group, which is why her story resonated so deeply among our educated elites. Over the last thirty years, America's test-prep
companies have grown from almost nothing into a $5 billion annual industry, allowing the affluent to provide an admissions edge to
their less able children. Similarly, the enormous annual tuition of $35,000 charged by elite private schools such as Dalton or Exeter
is less for a superior high school education than for the hope of a greatly increased chance to enter the Ivy League.
[5]
Many New York City parents even go to enormous efforts to enroll their children in the best possible pre-Kindergarten program,
seeking early placement on the educational conveyer belt which eventually leads to Harvard.
[6] Others cut corners in a more
direct fashion, as revealed in the huge SAT cheating rings recently uncovered in affluent New York suburbs, in which students were
paid thousands of dollars to take SAT exams for their wealthier but dimmer classmates.
[7]
But given such massive social and economic value now concentrated in a Harvard or Yale degree, the tiny handful of elite admissions
gatekeepers enjoy enormous, almost unprecedented power to shape the leadership of our society by allocating their supply of thick
envelopes. Even billionaires, media barons, and U.S. Senators may weigh their words and actions more carefully as their children
approach college age. And if such power is used to select our future elites in a corrupt manner, perhaps the inevitable result is
the selection of corrupt elites, with terrible consequences for America. Thus, the huge Harvard cheating scandal, and perhaps also
the endless series of financial, business, and political scandals which have rocked our country over the last decade or more, even
while our national economy has stagnated.
Just a few years ago Pulitzer Prize-winning former Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Golden published The Price
of Admission , a devastating account of the corrupt admissions practices at so many of our leading universities, in which every
sort of non-academic or financial factor plays a role in privileging the privileged and thereby squeezing out those high-ability,
hard-working students who lack any special hook.
In one particularly egregious case, a wealthy New Jersey real estate developer, later sent to Federal prison on political corruption
charges, paid Harvard $2.5 million to help ensure admission of his completely under-qualified son.
[8] When we consider that Harvard's
existing endowment was then at $15 billion and earning almost $7 million each day in investment earnings, we see that a culture of
financial corruption has developed an absurd illogic of its own, in which senior Harvard administrators sell their university's honor
for just a few hours worth of its regular annual income, the equivalent of a Harvard instructor raising a grade for a hundred dollars
in cash.
An admissions system based on non-academic factors often amounting to institutionalized venality would seem strange or even unthinkable
among the top universities of most other advanced nations in Europe or Asia, though such practices are widespread in much of the
corrupt Third World. The notion of a wealthy family buying their son his entrance into the Grandes Ecoles of France or the top Japanese
universities would be an absurdity, and the academic rectitude of Europe's Nordic or Germanic nations is even more severe, with those
far more egalitarian societies anyway tending to deemphasize university rankings.
Well, legacy programs are alive and well. According to the read, here's the problem:
"The research certainly supports the widespread perception that non-academic factors play a major role in the process,
including athletic ability and "legacy" status. But as we saw earlier, even more significant are racial factors, with black
ancestry being worth the equivalent of 310 points, Hispanics gaining 130 points, and Asian students being penalized by 140
points, all relative to white applicants on the 1600 point Math and Reading SAT scale."
These arbitrary point systems while well intended are not a reflection of AA design. School lawyers in a race not be penalized
for past practices, implemented their own versions of AA programs. The numbers are easy to challenge because they aren't based
on tangible or narrow principles. It's weakneses are almost laughable. Because there redal goal was to thwart any real challenge
that institutions were idle in addressing past acts of discrimination. To boost their diversity issues, asians were heavily recruited.
Since AA has been in place a lot of faulty measures were egaged in: Quotas for quotas sake. Good for PR, lousy for AA and issues
it was designed to address.
I think the statistical data hides a very important factor and practice. Most jews in this country are white as such , and
as such only needed to change their names and hide behaviors as a strategy of surviving the entrance gauntlet. That segregation
created a black collegiate system with it's own set of elite qualifiers demonstrates that this model isn't limited to the Ivy
league.
That an elite system is devised and practiced in members of a certain club networks so as to maintain their elite status, networks
and control, this is a human practice. And it once served as something to achieve. It was thought that the avenues of becoming
an elite were there if one wanted to strive for it. Hard work, honesty, persistence, results . . . should yield X.
And while I am not as focused on the poverty ve wealth dynamic. this century has revealed something very disappointing
that you address. That the elites have done a very poor job of leading the ship of state, while still remaining in leadership
belies such a bold hypocrisy in accountability, it's jarring. The article could actually be titled: "The Myth of the Best and
the Brightest."
I don't think it's just some vindictive intent. and while Americans have always known and to an extent accepted that for upper
income citizens, normal was not the same as normal on the street. Fairness, was not the same jn practice nor sentiment. What may
becoming increasing intolerant has been the obvious lack of accountability among elites. TARP looked like the elites looking out
for each other as opposed the ship of state. I have read three books on the financials and they do not paint a pretty portrait
of Ivy League leadership as to ethics, cheating, lying, covering up, and shamelessly passing the buck. I will be reading this
again I am sure.
It's sad to think that we may be seeing te passing of an era. in which one aspired to be an elite not soley for their wealth,
but the model they provided od leadership real or imagined. Perhaps, it passed long ago, and we are all not just noticing.
I appreciated you conclusions, not sure that I am comfortable with some of the solutions.
Since I still hanker to be an elite in some manner, It is interesting to note my rather subdued response to the cheating. Sadly,
this too may be an open secret of standard fair - and that is very very sad. And disappointing. Angering even.
The shifting social demography of deans, house masters and admissions committees may be a more important metric than the composition
of the student body, as it determines the shape of the curriculum, and the underlying culture of the university as a legacy in
itself.
If Ron harrows the literary journals of the Jackson era with equal diligence. he may well turn up an essay or two expressing
deep shock at Unitarians admitting too many of the Lord's preterite sheep to Harvard, or lamenting the rise of Methodism at Yale
and the College of New Jersey.
Harvard is a university, much like Princeton and Yale, that continues based on its reputation, something that was earned in
the past. When the present catches up to them people will regard them as nepotistic cauldrons of corruption.
Look at the financial disaster that befell the USA and much of the globe back in 2008. Its genesis can be found in the clever
minds of those coming out of their business schools (and, oddly enough, their Physics programs as well).
They are teaching the elite how to drain all value from American companies, as the rich plan their move to China, the new
land of opportunity. When 1% of the population controls such a huge portion of the wealth, patriotism becomes a loadstone to them.
The elite are global. Places like Harvard cater to them, help train them to rule the world .but first they must remake it.
• Replies: @Part White, Part
Native I agree, common people would never think of derivatives , nor make loans based on speculation
First, I appreciated the length and depth of your article.
Having said that, to boil it down to its essence:
Subconcious bias/groupthink + affirmative action/diversity focus + corruption + innumeracy = student bodies at elite institutions
that are wildly skewed vis-a-vis both: 1) the ethnic makeup of the general population; and 2) the makeup of our top-performing
students.
Since these institutions are pipelines to power, this matters.
I rather doubt that wage stagnation (which appears to have begun in ~1970) can be pinned on this – that part stuck out, because
there are far more plausible causes. To the extent you're merely arguing that our elite failed to counter the trend, ok, but I'm
not sure a "better" elite would have either. The trend, after all, favored the elite.
Anyway, I find your case is plausible.
Your inner/outer circle hybrid option is interesting. One (perhaps minor) thing jumps out at me: kids talk. The innies are
going to figure out who they are and who the outies are. The outies might have their arrogance tempered, but the innies? I suspect
they'd be even *more* arrogant than such folks are now (all the more so because they'd have better justification for their arrogance),
but I could be wrong.
Perhaps more significantly, this:
But if it were explicitly known that the vast majority of Harvard students had merely been winners in the application
lottery, top businesses would begin to cast a much wider net in their employment outreach, and while the average Harvard student
would probably be academically stronger than the average graduate of a state college, the gap would no longer be seen as so
enormous, with individuals being judged more on their own merits and actual achievements
Is a very good reason for Harvard, et al. to resist the idea. I think you're right that this would be a good thing for the
country, but it would be bad for Harvard. I think the odds of convincing Harvard to do it out of the goodness of their administrators
hearts is unlikely. You are basically asking them to purposefully damage their brand.
All in all, I think you're on to something here. I have my quibbles (the wage stagnation thing, and the graph with Chinese
vs USA per capita growth come on, apples and oranges there!), but overall I think I agree that your proposal is likely superior
to the status quo.
Don't forget the mess one finds after they ARE admitted to these schools. I dropped out of Columbia University in 2010.
You can "make it" on an Ivy-league campus if you are a conservative-Republican-type with all the rich country-club connections
that liberals use to stereotype.
Or you can succeed if you are a poor or working-class type who is willing to toe the Affirmative Action party line and be a
good "progressive" Democrat (Obama stickers, "Gay Pride" celebrations, etc.)
If you come from a poor or working-class background and are religious, or culturally conservative or libertarian in any way,
you might as well save your time and money. You're not welcome, period. And if you're a military veteran you WILL be actively
persecuted, no matter what the news reports claim.
It sucks. Getting accepted to Columbia was a dream come true for me. The reality broke my heart.
Regarding the overrepresentation of Jewish students compared to their actual academic merit, I think the author overstates
the role bias (subjective, or otherwise) plays in this:
1) , a likely explanation is that Jewish applicants are a step ahead in knowing how to "play the admissions game." They therefore
constitute a good percentage of applicants that admission committees view as "the total package." (at least a higher percentage
than scores alone would yield). Obviously money and connections plays a role in them knowing to say precisely what adcoms want
to hear, but in any case, at the end of the day, if adcoms are looking for applicants with >1400 SATs, "meaningful" life experiences/accomplishments,
and a personal statement that can weave it all together into a compelling narrative, the middle-upper-class east coast Jewish
applicant probably constitutes a good percentage of such "total package" applicants. I will concede however that this explanation
only works in explaining the prevalence of jews vs. whites in general. With respect to Asians, however, since they are likely
being actively and purposefully discriminated against by adcoms, having the "complete package" would be less helpful to them.
2) Another factor is that, regardless of ethnicity, alumni children get a boost and since in the previous generation Jewish
applicants were the highest achieving academic group, many of these lesser qualified jews admitted are children of alumni.
3) That ivy colleges care more about strong verbal scores than mathematics (i.e., they prefer 800V 700M over 700V 800M), and
Jewish applicants make up a higher proportion of the high verbal score breakdowns.
4) Last, and perhaps more importantly we do not really know the extent of Jewish representation compared to their academic
merit. Unlike admitted Asian applicants, who we know, on average, score higher than white applicants, we have no similar numbers
of Jewish applicants. The PSAT numbers are helpful, but hardly dispositive considering those aren't the scores colleges use in
making their decision information.
@Bryan– Getting accepted to Columbia was a dream come true for me. The reality broke my heart.
I'm touched by this. I've spent tons of time at Columbia, a generation ago -- and my background fit fine -- the kind of WASP
background Jews found exotic and interesting. But I can see your point, sad to say. There are other great schools -- Fordham,
where my wife went to law school at night, has incredible esprit de corps - and probably, person for person, has as many lawyers
doing good and interesting work as Columbia.
"There are other great schools–Fordham, where my wife went to law school at night, has incredible esprit de corps - and
probably, person for person, has as many lawyers doing good and interesting work as Columbia."
"Tiffany was also rejected by all her other prestigious college choices, including Yale, Penn, Duke, and Wellsley, an outcome
which greatly surprised and disappointed her immigrant father.88″
In the fall of 1990, my parents had me apply to 10 colleges. I had the profile of many Indian kids at the time – ranked in
the top 10 of the class, editor of school paper, Boy Scouts. SAT scores could have been better, but still strong. Over 700 in
all achievement tests save Bio, which was 670.
Rejected by 5 schools, waitlisted by 3, accepted into 2 – one of them the state univ.
One of my classmates, whose family was from Thailand, wound up in the same predicament as me. His response, "Basketball was
designed to keep the Asian man down."
The one black kid in our group – got into MIT, dropped out after one year because he could not hack it. The kid from our school
who should have gone, from an Italian-American family, and among the few who did not embrace the guido culture, went to Rennsealer
instead, and had professional success after.
As a University of Chicago alum, I infer that by avoiding the label "elite" on such a nifty chart we can be accurately categorized
as "meritocratic" by The American Conservative.
Then again, this article doesn't even purport to ask why elite universities might be in the business of EDUCATING a wider population
of students, or how that education takes place.
Perhaps, by ensuring that "the best" students are not concentrated in only 8 universities is why the depth and quality of America's
education system remains the envy of the world.
In my high school, there were roughly 15 of us who had been advanced two years ahead in math. Of those, 10 were Jewish;
only two of them had a 'Jewish' last name. In my graduate school class, half (7) are Jewish. None has a 'Jewish' last name.
So I'm pretty dubious of the counting method that you use.
Also, it's clear that there are Asian quotas at these schools, but it's not clear that Intel Science Fairs, etc, are the best
way to estimate what level of talent Asians have relative to other groups.
I was curious so I google High School Poetry Competition, High School Constitution Competition, High School Debating Competition.
None of the winners here seem to have an especially high Asian quotient. So maybe a non-technical (liberal arts) university would
settle on ~25-30% instead of ~40% asian? And perhaps a (small) part of the problem is a preponderance of Asian applicants excelling
in technical fields, leading to competition against each other rather than the general population? Just wonderin'
Regarding the declining Jewish achievement, it looks like it can be primarily explained through demographics: "Intermarriage
rates have risen from roughly 6% in 1950 to approximately 40–50% in the year 2000.[56][57] This, in combination with the comparatively
low birthrate in the Jewish community, has led to a 5% decline in the Jewish population of the United States in the 1990s."
Jewish surnames don't mean what they used to. And intermarriage rates are lowest among the low-performing and highly prolific
Orthodox.
Jewish birth rates have been falling faster than the white population, especially for the non-Orthodox:
"In contrast to the ongoing trends of assimilation, some communities within American Jewry, such as Orthodox Jews, have significantly
higher birth rates and lower intermarriage rates, and are growing rapidly. The proportion of Jewish synagogue members who were
Orthodox rose from 11% in 1971 to 21% in 2000, while the overall Jewish community declined in number. [60] In 2000, there were
360,000 so-called "ultra-orthodox" (Haredi) Jews in USA (7.2%).[61] The figure for 2006 is estimated at 468,000 (9.4%).[61]"
"As against the overall average of 1.86 children per Jewish woman, an informed estimate gives figures ranging upward from 3.3
children in "modern Orthodox" families to 6.6 in Haredi or "ultra-Orthodox" families to a whopping 7.9 in families of Hasidim."
These statistics would suggest that half or more of Jewish children are being born into these lower-performing groups. Given
their very low intermarriage rates, a huge portion of the secular, Reform, and Conservative Jews must be intermarrying (more than
half if the aggregate 43% intermarriage figure is right). And the high-performing groups may now be around 1 child per woman or
lower, and worse for the youngest generation.
So a collapse in Jewish representation in youth science prizes can be mostly explained by the collapse of the distinct non-Orthodox
Jewish youth.
Incidentally, intermarriage also produces people with Jewish ancestry who get classified as gentiles using last names or self-identification,
reducing Jewish-gentile gaps by bringing up nominal gentile scores at the same time as nominal-Jewish scores are lowered.
The center of power in this country being located in the Northeast is nothing new. Whether it be in it's Ivy League schools
or the ownership of natural resources located in other regions, particularly the South, the Northeast has always had a disproportionate
share of influence in the power structures, particularly political and financial, of this nation. This is one of the reasons the
definition of "white" when reviewing ethnicity is so laughably inaccurate. There is a huge difference in opportunity between WASP
or Jewish in the Northeast, for instance, and those of Scots Irish ancestory in the mountain south. Hopefully statistical analysis
such as this can break open that stranglehold, especially as it is directly impacting a minority group in a negative fashion.
Doing this exercise using say, white Baptists compared to other white subgroups, while maybe equally valid in the results, would
be seen as racist by the very Ivy League system that is essentially practicing a form of racism.
Yeah, my ultimate goal was to attend law school, and a big part of the heartbreak for me–or heartburn, the more cynical would
call it–was seeing how skewed and absurd the admissions process to law school is.
I have no doubt that I could have eventually entered into a "top tier" law school, and that was a dream of mine also. I met
with admissions officers from Duke, Harvard, Stanford, Fordham, etc. I was encouraged. I had the grades and background for it.
But–and I'm really not trying to sound corny 0r self-important here–what does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his
soul? I really don't feel that I'm exaggerating when I say that that's exactly how it felt to me.
The best experience I had while In New York was working as an after-school programs administrator for P.S. 136, but that was
only because of the kids. They'll be old and bitter and cynical soon enough.
At one point it occurred to me that I should have just started claiming "Black" as my ethnicity when I first started attending
college as an adult. I never attended high-school so it couldn't have been disproved. I'm part Sicilian so I could pass for 1/4
African-American. Then I would have received the preference toward admission that, say, Michael Jordan's kids or Barack Obama's
kids will receive when they claim their Ivy-league diplomas. I should have hid the "white privilege" I've enjoyed as the son of
a fisherman and a waitress from one of the most economically-depressed states in America.
The bottom line is that those colleges are political brainwashing centers for a country I no longer believe in. I arrived on
campus in 2009 and I'm not joking at all when I say I was actively persecuted for being a veteran and a conservative who was not
drinking the Obama Kool-aid. Some big fat African-American lady, a back-room "administrator" for Columbia, straight-up threw my
VA benefits certification in the garbage, so my money got delayed by almost two months. I had no idea what was going on. I had
a wife and children to support.
The fact that technology has enabled us to sit here in real-time and correspond back-and-forth about the state of things doesn't
really change the state of things. They are irredeemable. This country is broke and broken.
If Abraham Lincoln were born today in America he would wind up like "Uncle Teardrop" from Winter's Bone. Back then, in order
to be an attorney, you simply studied law and starting trying cases. If you were good at it then you were accepted and became
a lawyer. Today, something has been lost. There is no fixing it. I don't want to waste my time trying to help by being "productive"
to the new tower of Babel or pretending to contribute.
Perhaps only one thing you left out, which is especially important with regard to Jewish enrollment and applications at Ivy
leagues, and other schools as well.
Jewish high school graduates actively look out for campuses with large Jewish populations, where they feel more comfortable.
I don't know the figures, but I believe Dartmouth, for example, has a much smaller Jewish population than Columbia, and it will
stay that way because of a positive feedback loop. (i.e. Jews would rather be at Columbia than Dartmouth, or sometimes even rather
be at NYU than Dartmouth). This explains some of the difference among different schools (and not solely better admission standards).
This is also especially relevant to your random lottery idea, which will inevitably lead to certain schools being overwhelmingly
Asian, others being overwhelmingly Jewish, etc., because the percentage of applicants from every ethnicity is different in every
school. This will necessarily eliminate any diversity which may or may not have existed until now.
I like the lottery admissions idea a lot but the real remedy for the US education system would be to abandon the absurd elite
cult altogether. There is not a shred of evidence that graduates of so-called elite institutions make good leaders. Many of them
are responsible for the economic crash and some of them have brought us the disaster of the Bush presidency.
Many better functioning countries – Germany, the Scandinavians – do not have elite higher education systems. When I enrolled
to University in Germany, I showed up at the enrollment office the summer before the academic year started, filled out a form
(1), and provided a certified copy of my Abitur certificate proving that I was academically competent to attend University. I
never wasted a minute on any of the admissions games that American middle class teenagers and their parents are subjected to.
It would surely have hurt my sense of dignity to be forced to jump through all these absurd and arbitrary hoops.
Americans, due to their ignorance of everything happening outside their borders, have no clue that a system in which a person
is judged by what "school" they attended is everything but normal. It is part of the reason for American dysfunction.
Since they are the pool from which tomorrow's governing elites will be chosen, I'd much rather see Ivy League student bodies
which reflected the full ethnic and geographic diversity of the US. Right now rural and small town Americans and those of Catholic
and Protestant descent who live in the South and Mid-West - roughly half the population - are woefully under-represented, which
explains why their economic interests have been neglected over the last forty years. We live in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic
representative democracy and our policy-making elites must reflect that diversity. Else the country will come apart.
Thus I recommend 'affirmative action for all' in our elite liberal arts colleges and universities (though not our technical
schools). Student bodies should be represent 'the best and the brightest' of every ethnic group and geographical area of the country.
Then the old school ties will truly knit our society together in a way that is simply not happening today.
A side benefit - and I mean this seriously - is that our second and third tier colleges and universities would be improved
by an influx of Asian and Ashkenazi students (even though the very best would still go to Harvard).
I believe that this article raises – and then inappropriately immediately dismisses – the simplest and most likely reason for
the over-representation of Jewish students at Ivy League Schools in the face of their declining bulk academic performance:
They apply to those schools in vastly disproportionate numbers.
Without actual data on the ethnicity of the applicants to these and other schools, we simply cannot rule out this simple and
likely explanation.
It is quite clear that a large current of Jewish American culture places a great emphasis on elite college attendance, and
among elite colleges, specifically values the Ivy League and its particular cache as opposed to other elite institutions such
as MIT. Also, elite Jewish American culture, moreso than elite Asian American culture, encourages children to go far away from
home for college, considering such a thing almost a right of passage, while other ethnic groups tend to encourage children to
remain closer. A high performing Asian student from, say, California, is much more likely to face familial pressure to stay close
to home for undergrad (Berkeley, UCLA, etc) than a high performing Jewish student from the same high school, who will likely be
encouraged by his or her family to apply to many universities "back east".
Without being able to systematically compare – with real data – the ethnicities of the applicants to those offered admission,
these conclusions simply cannot be accepted.
Different expectations for different races should worry traditional Americans.
If we become comfortable with different academic standards for Asians will we soon be expected to apply different laws to them
also? Will we apply different laws or at least different interpretations of the same laws to blacks?
The association of East Asians with CalTech is now as strong as the association of blacks with violent crime. Can not race
conscious jurisprudence be far behind?
Around a millenium ago in England it mattered to the court if you were a commoner or a noble. Nobles could exercise 'high justice'
with impunity. They were held to different standards. Their testimony counted for more in court. The law was class concious.
Then we had centuries of reform. We had 'Common Law'. By the time of our revolution the idea that all were equal before the
law was a very American kind of idea. We were proud that unlike England we did not have a class system.
Today we seem to be on the threshold of a similar sytem of privileges and rights based on race. Let me give an example. If
there were a domestic riot of somekind and a breakdown of public order, the authorities might very well impose a cufew. That makes
good sense for black male teens but makes little or no sense for elderly Chinese women. I can envision a time when we have race
specific policies for curfews and similar measures.
It seems to be starting in schools. It could be that the idea of equality before the law was an idea that only flourished between
the fifteenth century and the twenty first.
"But filling out a few very simple forms and having their test scores and grades scores automatically forwarded to a list of
possible universities would give them at least the same chance in the lottery as any other applicant whose academic skills were
adequate."
They get a lot of applications. I am guessing they chuck about 1/2 or more due to the application being incomplete, the applicant
did not follow instructions, the application was sloppy, or just obviously poor grades/test scores. The interview and perhaps
the essay and recommendations are necessary to chuck weirdos and psychopaths you do not want sitting next to King Fahd Jr. So
the "byzantine" application process is actually necessary to reduce the number of applicants to be evaluated.
I have a friend who went to Stanford with me in the early 80s. She has two sons who recently applied to Stanford. The older
son had slightly better grades and test scores. The younger son is gay. Guess which one got in?
If you were in Columbia's GS school, (or even if you were CC/SEAS/Barnard) you ought to reach out to some of on-campus and
alumni veteran's groups. They can help you maneuver through the school. (I know there's one that meets at a cafe on 122 and Broadway)
CU can be a lonely and forbidding place for anyone and that goes double for GSers and quadruple for veterans.
You ought to give it another go. Especially if you aren't going somewhere else that's better. Reach out to your deans and make
a fuss. No one in the bureaucracy wants to help but you can force them to their job.
Mr. Unz, the issues of jewish/gentile intermarriage and the significance of jewish-looking names do indeed merit more consideration
than they were given in this otherwise very enlightening article.
What would the percentage of jews in Ivy-League universities look like if the methodology used to determine the percentage
of jewish NMS semifinalists were applied to the list of Ivy League students (or some available approximation of it)?
For background: I'm an Asian-American who worked briefly in legacy admissions at an Ivy and another non-Ivy top-tier, both
while in school (work-study) and as an alum on related committees.
Mendy Finkel's observations are spot on. Re: her 1st point, personal "presentation" or "branding" is often overlooked by Asian
applicants. An admission officer at another Ivy joked they drew straws to assign "Night of a 1000 Lee's", so accomplished-but-indistinguishable
was that group.
A few points on the Asian analysis:
1. I think this analysis would benefit from expanding beyond HYP/Ivies when considering the broader meritocracy issue. Many
Asians esteem technical-leaning schools over academically-comparable liberal arts ones, even if the student isn't a science major.
When I was in college in the 90′s, most Asian parents would favor a Carnegie Mellon or Hopkins over Brown, Columbia or Dartmouth
(though HYP, of course, had its magnetic appeal). The enrollment percentages reflect this, and while some of this is changing,
this is a fairly persistent pattern.
2. Fundraising is crucial. The Harvard Class of '77 example isn't the most telling kind of number. In my experience, Jewish
alumni provide a critical mass in both the day-to-day fundraising and the resultant dollars. And they play a key role, both as
givers and getters, in the signature capital campaign commitments (univ hospitals, research centers, etc.). This isn't unique
to Jewish Ivy alumni; Catholic alumni of ND or Georgetown provide similar support. But it isn't clear what the future overall
Asian commitment to the Ivy "culture of fundraising" will be, which will continue to be a net negative in admissions.
Sidenote: While Asians greatly value the particular civic good, they are uneasy with it being so hinged to an opaque private
sector, in this case, philanthropy. That distinction, blown out a bit, speaks to some of the Republican "Asian gap".
3. I would not place too much weight on NMS comparisons between Asians and Jews. In my experience, most Asians treat the PSAT
seriously, but many established Jews do not – the potential scholarship money isn't a factor, "NMS semifinalist" isn't an admissions
distinction, and as Mendy highlighted, colleges don't see the scores.
On a different note, while the "weight" of an Ivy degree is significant, it's prestige is largely concentrated in the Northeast
and among some overseas. In terms of facilitating access and mobility, a USC degree might serve you better in SoCal, as would
an SMU one in TX.
And like J Harlan, I also hope the recent monopoly of Harvard and Yale grads in the presidency will end. No doubt, places like
Whittier College, Southwest Texas State Teachers' College, and Eureka College gave earlier presidents valuable perspectives and
experience that informed their governing.
But thank you, Ron, for a great provocative piece. Very well worth the read.
Hey Ron, your next article should be on the military academies, and all those legacies that go back to the Revolutionary War.
How do you get into the French military academy, and do the cadets trace their family history back to the soldiers of Napoleon
or Charles Martel or whatever?
"Thus, there appears to be no evidence for racial bias against Asians, even excluding the race-neutral impact of athletic recruitment,
legacy admissions, and geographical diversity."
Yes, at UCLA, at least up to 2004, Asian and white admits had nearly identical SATs and GPAs.
Further, it just isn't the case that Asians are so spectacular as people seem to think. Their average on the SAT Verbal is
slightly less than whites, their average on SAT Writing is slightly more. Only in math do they have a significant advantage, 59
points or .59 standard deviation. Total advantage is about .2 over the three tests. Assuming that Harvard or Yale admit students
at +3 standard deviations overall, and plugging the relative group quantiles +(3, 2.8) into a normal distribution, we get that
.14% of white kids would get admitted, versus .26% of Asian kids. Or, 1.85 Asian kids for every one white kid.
But, last year 4.25 times as many whites as Asians took the SAT, so there still should be about 2.28 times as many white kids
being admitted as Asians (4.25/1.85).
On GPA, whites and Asians are also pretty similar on average, 3.52 for Asians who took the SAT, 3.45 for whites who took the
SAT. So that shouldn't be much of a factor.
I am a Cadet at the US Military Academy at West Point and generally pretty familiar with trans-national Academy admissions
processes. There's an excellent comparative study of worldwide military academy admissions that was done in the late '90′s you
might find interesting (IIRC it was done by a group in the NATO Defence College) and I think you will find that although soldiers
are often proud of their family histories to a fault, it is not what controls entrance to the officer corps in most countries.
"Legacy" is definitely meaningless in US Military Academy admissions, although can be very helpful in the separate process
of securing a political appointment to attend the Academy once accepted for admission and in an Army career. West Point is not
comparable to the Ivy League schools in the country, because (ironically) the admissions department that makes those comparisons
lets in an inordinate number of unqualified candidates and ensures our student body includes a wide range of candidates, from
people who are unquestionably "Ivy League material" to those who don't have the intellect to hack it at any "elite" institution.
Prior the changes in admissions policies and JFK ordering an doubling of the size of the Corps of Cadets in the '60′s, we didn't
have this problem. But, I digress. My point is, the Academy admissions system is very meritocratic.
I am a Jewish alum of UPenn, and graduated in the late 90s. That puts me almost a generation ago, which may be before the supposed
Jewish decline you write about. I was in an 80%+ Jewish fraternity, and at least 2/3 of my overall network of friends at Penn
was also Jewish. As was mentioned earlier, I have serious qualms with your methods for counting Jews based upon last name.
Based upon my admittedly non-scientific sample, the percentage of us who had traditionally Jewish last names was well under
half and closer to 25%. My own last name is German, and you would never know I am Jewish based solely upon my name (nor would
you based upon the surname of 3/4 of my grandparents, despite my family being 100% Jewish with no intermarriages until my sister).
By contrast, Asians are much easier to identify based upon name. You may overcount certain names like Lee that are also Caucasian,
but it is highly unlikely that you will miss any Asian students when your criterion is last name.
Admittedly I skimmed parts of the article, but were other criterion used to more accurately identify the groups?
The Jewish presence is definitely understated by just looking at surnames. As is the American Indian.
My maternal grandfather was Ashkenazi and his wife was 1/2 Ashkenazi and 1/4 Apache. He changed his name to a Scots surname
that matched his red hair so as to get ahead as a business man in 20s due to KKK and anti-German feelings at the time. Their kids
had two PHDs and a Masters between them despite their parents running a very blue collar firm.
My surname comes from my dad and its a Scottish surname although he was 1/4 Cherokee. On that side we are members of the FF
of Virignia. Altogether I am more Jewish and American Indian than anything else yet would be classified as white. I could easily
claim to be
Jewish or Indian on admissions forms. I always selected white. I was NMSF.
Both my sister and I have kids. Her husband is a full blood Indian with a common English surname. One of my nieces made NMSF
and another might. My sisters kids do not think of themselves as any race and check other.
My wife is 1/4 Indian and 3/4 English. My kids are young yet one has tested to an IQ in the 150s.
Once you get West of the Appalachians, there are a lot of mutts in the non-gentile whites. A lot of Jews and American Indians
Anglicized themselves a generation or two ago and they are lumped into that group – as well as occupy the top percentile academically.
Interesting article with parts I would agree with but also tinged with bias and conclusions that I would argue are not fully
supported by the data.
I think more analysis is needed to confirm your conclusions. As others have mentioned there may be problems with your analysis
of NMS scores. I think graduate admissions and achievements especially in the math and sciences would be a better measure of intellectual
performance.
Now, I didn't attend an Ivy League school, instead a public university, mainly because I couldn't afford it or so I thought.
I was also a NMS finalist.
But I always was of the opinion that except for the most exceptional students admission to the Ivies was based on the wealth
of your family and as you mentioned there are quite a few affluent Jews so I imagine they do have a leg up. Harvard's endowment
isn't as large as it is by accident.
It is interesting that you didn't discuss the stats for Stanford.
Lastly, I think your solution is wrong. The pure meritocracy is the only fair solution. Admissions should be based upon the
entrance exams like in Asia and Europe.
There are plenty of options for those who don't want to compete and if the Asians dominate admissions at the top schools so
be it.
Hopefully, all of this will be mute point n a few years as online education options become more popular with Universities specializing
in graduate education and research.
Ron Unz on Asians (ie Asian Americans): "many of them impoverished immigrant families"
Why do you twice repeat this assertion. Asians are the wealthiest race and most of the wealthiest ethnic groups tracked by
the Census Bureau, which includes immigrants.
A potentially bigger issue completely ignored by your article is how do colleges differentiate between 'foreign' students
(overwhelmingly Asian) and American students. Many students being counted as "Asian American" are in reality wealthy and elite
foreign "parachute kids" (an Asian term), dropped onto the generous American education system or into boarding schools to study
for US entrance exams, qualify for resident tuition rates and scholarships, and to compete for "American" admissions slots, not
for the usually limited 'foreign' admission slots.
Probably people from non-Asian countries are pulling the same stunt, but it seems likely dominated by Asians. And expect many
more with the passage of the various "Dream Acts"
So American kids must compete with the offspring of all the worlds corrupt elite for what should be opportunities for US Americans.
Am I the only one that finds the comparison of Asians (a race) to Jews (a religion) as basis for a case of discrimination completely
flawed? I got in at Harvard and don't remember them even asking me what my religion was.
The value of diversity is absolutely key. I have a bunch of very good Asian friends and I love them dearly, but I don't believe
a place like CalTech with its 40% demographics cannot truly claim to be a diverse place any more.
Regarding the SAT, we do know more than just differences of averages between whites and Asians. We have some years of
score distributions . As recently
as 1992, 1.2% of whites and 5.1% of Asians scored between 750 and 800 on the math subtest. As recently as 1985, 0.20% of whites
and 0.26% of Asians scored in that range on the verbal/critical reading subtest.
On a different form of the writing subtest than is currently used, 5.0% of whites and 3.0% of Asians scored greater than 60
in 1985. We also know that, as the white-Asian average verbal/critical reading gap shrank to almost nothing and the average math
gap grew in Asians' favor, the standard deviations on both for Asians have been much higher than every other group but have stayed
relatively unchanged and have become, in fact, slightly lower than in 1985.
Therefore, Asians probably greatly increased their share of top performers.
@Milton F.: "Perhaps, by ensuring that "the best" students are not concentrated in only 8 universities is why the depth and
quality of America's education system remains the envy of the world."
Hardly. America's education system is "the envy" because of the ability for minorities to get placement into better schools,
not solely for the education they receive. Only a very select few institutions are envied for their education primarily, 90% of
the colleges and universities across the country are sub-standard education providers, same with high schools.
I would imagine you're an educator at some level, more than likely, at one of the sub-standard colleges or even perhaps a high
school teacher. You're attempting to be defensive of the American education system, when in reality, you're looking at the world
through rose colored glasses. Working from within the system, rather than from the private sector looking back, gives you extreme
tunnel vision. That, coupled with the average "closed mindedness" of educators in America is a dangerous approach to advancing
the structure of the American education system. You and those like you ARE the problem and should be taken out of the equation
as quickly as possible. Please retire ASAP or find another career.
Aside from the complete lack of actual ivy league admission data on jewish applicants, a big problem with unz's "jewish affirmative
action" claim is how difficult such a policy would be to carry out in complete secrecy.
Now, it would be one thing if Unz was claiming that jews are being admitted with similar numbers to non-jewish whites, but
in close cases, admissions staff tend to favor jewish applicants. But he goes much further than that. Unz is claiming that jews,
as a group, are being admitted with lower SAT scores than non-jewish whites. Not only that, but this policy is being carried out
by virtually every single ivy league college and it has been going on for years. Moreover, this preference is so pervasive, that
it allows jews to gain admissions at many times the rate that merit alone would yield, ultimately resulting in entering classes
that are over 20% Jewish.
If a preference this deep, consistent and widespread indeed exists, there is no way it could be the result of subjective bias
or intentional tribal favoritism on the part of individual decision makers. It would have to be an official, yet unstated, admissions
policy in every ivy league school. Over the years, dozens (if not hundreds) of admission staff across the various ivy league colleges
would be engaging in this policy, without a single peep ever leaking through about Jewish applicants getting in with subpar SAT
scores. We hear insider reports all the time about one group is favored or discriminated against (we even have such an insider
account in this comment thread), but we hear nothing about the largest admission preference of them all.
Remember, admissions staffs usually include other ethnic minorities. I couldn't imagine them not wondering why jews need to
be given such a big boost so that they make up almost a quarter of the entering class. Even if every member of every admissions
committee were Jewish liberals, it would still be almost impossible to keep this under wraps.
Obviously, I have never seen actual admission numbers for Jewish applicants, so I could be wrong, and there could in fact be
an unbreakable wall of secrecy regarding the largest and most pervasive affirmative action practice in the country. Or, perhaps,
the ivy league application pool contains a disproportionate amount of high scoring jewish applicants.
As some who is Jewish from the former Soviet Union, and who was denied even to take an entrance exam to a Moscow college,
I am saddened to see that American educational admission process looks more and more "Soviet" nowadays. Kids are denied opportunities
because of their ethnic or social background, in a supposedly free and fair country!
But this is just a tip of the iceberg. The American groupthink of political correctness, lowest common denominator, and political
posturing toward various political/ethnic/religious/sexual orientation groups is rotting this country inside out.
"Similarly, Jews were over one-quarter of the top students in the Physics Olympiad from 1986 to 1997, but have fallen to just
5 percent over the last decade, a result which must surely send Richard Feynman spinning in his grave."
Actually, Richard Feynman famously rejected genetic explanations of Jewish achievement (whether he was right or wrong to
do so is another story), and aggressively resisted any attempts to list him as a "Jewish scientist" or "Jewish Nobel Prize winner."
I am sure he would not cared in the slightest bit how many Jews were participating in the Physics Olympiad, as long as the quality
of the students' work continued to be excellent. Here is a letter he wrote to a woman seeking to include him in a book about Jewish
achievement in the sciences.
Dear Miss Levitan:
In your letter you express the theory that people of Jewish origin have inherited their valuable hereditary elements from their
people. It is quite certain that many things are inherited but it is evil and dangerous to maintain, in these days of little knowledge
of these matters, that there is a true Jewish race or specific Jewish hereditary character. Many races as well as cultural influences
of men of all kinds have mixed into any man. To select, for approbation the peculiar elements that come from some supposedly Jewish
heredity is to open the door to all kinds of nonsense on racial theory.
Such theoretical views were used by Hitler. Surely you cannot maintain on the one hand that certain valuable elements can be
inherited from the "Jewish people," and deny that other elements which other people may find annoying or worse are not inherited
by these same "people." Nor could you then deny that elements that others would consider valuable could be the main virtue of
an "Aryan" inheritance.
It is the lesson of the last war not to think of people as having special inherited attributes simply because they are born
from particular parents, but to try to teach these "valuable" elements to all men because all men can learn, no matter what their
race.
It is the combination of characteristics of the culture of any father and his father plus the learning and ideas and influences
of people of all races and backgrounds which make me what I am, good or bad. I appreciate the valuable (and the negative) elements
of my background but I feel it to be bad taste and an insult to other peoples to call attention in any direct way to that one
element in my composition.
At almost thirteen I dropped out of Sunday school just before confirmation because of differences in religious views but mainly
because I suddenly saw that the picture of Jewish history that we were learning, of a marvelous and talented people surrounded
by dull and evil strangers was far from the truth. The error of anti-Semitism is not that the Jews are not really bad after all,
but that evil, stupidity and grossness is not a monopoly of the Jewish people but a universal characteristic of mankind in general.
Most non-Jewish people in America today have understood that. The error of pro-Semitism is not that the Jewish people or Jewish
heritage is not really good, but rather the error is that intelligence, good will, and kindness is not, thank God, a monopoly
of the Jewish people but a universal characteristic of mankind in general.
Therefore you see at thirteen I was not only converted to other religious views but I also stopped believing that the Jewish
people are in any way "the chosen people." This is my other reason for requesting not to be included in your work.
@Rob Schacter – your last point is basically spot-on. The Ivies are fairly unique in the high proportion of Jewish applicants.
History, geographical bias, and self-selection all play a role. I think the overall preference distortion is probably not as wide
as Unz claims, but you will see similar tilts at Stanford, Northwestern, etc. that reflect different preference distortions.
@Leon, two quick points.
1st – the census tracks by household, which generally overestimates Asian wealth. Many families have three generations and
extended members living in one household (this reflects that many of them work together in a small family business).
2nd – most of the time, it's clear in the application (the HS, personal info, other residency info, etc.) which Asian applicants
are Asian-American and which are "Parachute Kids". But the numbers are much smaller than one might think, and the implication
depends on the school.
At Ivies, parachute kids (both Asian and not) tend to compete with each other in the application pool, and aren't substantially
informing the broader admissions thesis in this article. I'm not saying that's right, just saying it's less material than we might
think.
They more likely skew the admissions equation in great-but-not-rich liberal arts colleges (like Grinnell) and top public universities
(like UCLA), which are both having budget crises and need full fare students, parachute or not. And for the publics, this includes
adding more higher-tuition, out-of-state students, which further complicates assertions of just whose opportunities are being
lost.
I will bring this back to fundraising and finances again, because the broader point is about who is stewarding and creating
access: so long as top universities are essentially run as self-invested feedback loops, and position and resource themselves
accordingly (and other universities have to compete with them), we will continue to see large, persistent discrepancies in who
can participate.
When I applied to Harvard College back in 1976, I was proud of my application essay. In it, I proposed that the US used the
Israeli army as a proxy, just as the Russians were using the Cuban army at the time.
Alas, I wasn't admitted (I did get into Yale, which didn't require free-form essay like that).
This, of course, illustrates the point that coming from an Application Hell instead of from central Illinois helps a student
know how to write applications. It also illustrates what might help explain the mystery of high Jewish admissions: political bias.
Jews are savvier about knowing what admissions officers like to hear (including the black and Latino ones, who as a previous commentor
said aren't likely to be pro-semite). They are also politically more liberal, and so don't have to fake it. And their families
are more likely to read the New York Times and thus have the right "social graces" as we might call them, of this age.
It would be interesting to know how well "true WASPS" do in admissions. This could perhaps be estimated by counting Slavic
and Italian names, or Puritan New England last names. I would expect this group to do almost as well as Jews (not quite as well,
because their ability would be in the lower end of the Legacy group).
The missing variable in this analysis is income/class. While Unz states that many elite colleges have the resources to
fund every student's education, and in fact practice need-blind admissions, the student bodies are skewed towards the very highest
percentile of the income and wealth distribution. SAT scores may also scale with parents' income as well.
Tuition and fees at these schools have nearly doubled relative to inflation in the last 25-30 years, and with home prices in
desirable neighborhoods showing their own hyper-inflationary behavior over the past couple of decades (~15 yrs, especially), the
income necessary to pay for these schools without burdening either the student or parents with a lot of debt has been pushed towards
the top decile of earners. A big chunk of the upper middle class has been priced out. This could hit Asian professionals who may
be self made harder than other groups like Jews who may be the second or third generation of relative affluence, and would thus
have advantages in having less debt when starting their families and careers and be less burdened in financing their homes. Would
be curious to see the same analysis if $$ could be controlled.
I would also like to add that I am a late '80′s graduate of Wesleyan who ceased his modest but annual financial contribution to
the school after reading The Gatekeepers.
If I had a penny for every Jewish American I met (including myself) whose first and last name gave no indication of his religion
or ethnicity, I'd be rich. Oh–and my brother and I have four Ivy League degrees between us.
I almost clicked on a different link the instance I came across the word "elite" , but curiosity forced my hand.
Just yesterday my mom was remarking how my cousin had gotten into MIT with an SAT score far below what I scored, and she finished
by adding that I should have applied to an ivy-league college after high school. I as always, reminded her, I'm too "black for
ivy games".
I always worked hard in school, participated in olympiads and symposiums, and was a star athlete. When it came to applying
for college I found myself startled when forced to "quantify" my achievements in an "application package". I did not do or engage
in these activities solely to boost my chances of gaining admission into some elite college over similarly-hardworking Henry Wang
or Jess Steinberg. I did these things because I loved doing them.
Sports after class was almost a relaxation activity for me. Participating in math olympiads was a way for me to get a scoop
on advanced mathematics. Participating in science symposiums was a chance for me to start applying my theoretical education to
solve practical problems.
The moment I realized I would have to kneel down before some admissions officer and "present my case", outlining my "blackness",
athleticism, hard work, curiosity, and academic ability, in that specific order I should point, in order to have a fighting chance
at getting admitted; is the moment all my "black rage" came out in an internal explosion of rebellion and disapproval of "elite
colleges".
I instead applied to a college that was blind to all of the above factors. I am a firm believer that hard work and demonstrated
ability always win out in the end. I've come across, come up against is a better way to put it, Ivy-league competition in college
competitions and applications for co-ops and internships, and despite my lack of "eliteness" I am confident that my sheer ability
and track record will put me in the "interview candidate" pool.
Finally, my opinion is: let elite schools keep doing what they are doing. It isn't a problem at all, the "elite" tag has long
lost its meaning.
The difficulty with using Jewish sounding last names to identify Jewish students works poorly in two ways today. Not only,
as others have pointed out, do many Jews not have Jewish sounding last names, but there are those, my grandson for example, who
have identifiably Jewish last names and not much in the way of Jewish background.
Interesting reading. The article opens a deceptively simple statistical window into a poorly understood process - a window
which I would guess even the key participants have never looked through. I especially appreciated the insights provided by the
author's examination of Asian surname-frequencies and their over-representation in NMS databases.
Though this is a long and meticulously argued piece, it would have benefited from a more thorough discussion of the statistical
share of legacies and athletic scholarships in elite admissions.
Perhaps, though, it would be better to focus on increasing meritocracy in the broader society, which would inevitably lead
to some discounting of the value of educational credentials issued by these less than meritocratic private institutions.
It is precisely because the broader society is also in many key respects non-meritocratic that the non-meritocratic admissions
practices of elite institutions are sustainable.
Despite the very long and detailed argument, the writer's interpretation of a pro-Jewish admissions bias at Ivy-league schools
is worryingly flawed.
First, he uses two very different methods of counting Jews: name recognition for counting various "objective" measures such
as NMS semifinalists and Hillel stats for those admitted to Harvard. The first is most likely an underestimate while the latter
very possibly inflated (in both cases especially due to the very large numbers of partially-Jewish students, in the many interpretations
that has). I wonder how much of his argument would just go away if he simply counted the number of Jews in Harvard using the same
method he used to count their numbers in the other cases. Would that really be hard to do?
Second, he overlooks the obvious two sources that can lead to such Asian/Jewish relative gaps in admissions. The first is the
different groups' different focus on Science/Math vs. on Writing/Culture. It is very possible that in recent years most Asians
emphasize the former while Jews the latter, which would be the natural explanation to the Caltech vs Harvard racial composition
(as well as to the other stats). The second is related but different and it is the different group's bias in applications: the
same cultural anecdotes would explain why Asians would favor applying to Caltech and Jews to Harvard. A natural interpretation
of the data would be that Jews have learned to optimize for whatever criteria the Ivy leagues are using and the Asians are doing
so for the Caltech criteria.
Most strange is the author's interpretation of how a pro-Jewish bias in admissions is actually put into effect: the application
packets do not have the data of whether the applicant is Jewish or not, and I doubt that most admission officers figure it out
in most cases. While it could be possible for admissions officers to have a bias for or against various types of characteristics
that they see in the data in front of them (say Asian/Black/White or political activity), a systematic bias on unobserved data
is a much more difficult proposition to make. Indeed the author becomes rather confused here combining the low education level
of admissions officers, that they are "liberal arts or ethnic-studies majors" (really?), that they are "progressive", and that
there sometimes is corruption, all together presumably leading to a bias in favor of Jews?
Finally, the author's suggestion for changing admittance criteria is down-right bizarre for a conservative: The proposal is
a centralized solution that he aims to force upon the various private universities, each who can only loose from implementing
it.
Despite the long detailed (but extremely flawed) article, I am afraid that it is more a reflection of the author's biases than
of admissions biases.
Both the article and the comments are illuminating. My takeaways:
1) Affirmative action in favor of blacks and Hispanics is acknowledged.
2) Admissions officers in the Ivy League appear to limit Asian admissions somewhat relative to the numbers of qualified applicants.
3) They may also admit somewhat more Jewish applicants than would be warranted relative to their comparative academic qualifications.
The degree to which this is true is muddled by the difficulty of identifying Jews by surnames, by extensive intermarriage, by
changing demographics within the Jewish population, by geographic factors, and by the propensity to apply in the first place.
4) (My major takeaway.) White Protestants and Catholics are almost certainly the sole groups that are greatly under-represented
relative to their qualifications as well as to raw population percentages.
5) This is due partly to subtle or open discrimination.
6) I would hypothesize that a great many of the white Protestants and Catholics who are admitted are legacies, star athletes,
and the progeny of celebrities in entertainment, media, politics, and high finance. White Protestant or Catholic applicants, especially
from the hinterlands, who don't fit one of these special categories–though they must be a very large component of Mr Unz's pool
of top talent–are out of luck.
7) And everyone seems to think this is just fine.
The inner and outer ring idea seems to me an excellent one, though the likelihood of it happening is next to nil, both because
some groups would lose disproportionate access and because the schools' imprimatur would be diminished in
value.
The larger point, made by several respondents, is that far too many institutions place far too much weight on the credentials
conferred by a small group of screening institutions. The great advantage of the American system is not that it is meritocratic,
either objectively or subjectively. It is that it is–or was–Protean in its flexibility. One could rise through luck or effort
or brains, with credentials or without them, early in life or after false starts and setbacks. And there were regional elites
or local elites rather than, as we increasingly see, a single, homogenized national elite. Success or its equivalent wasn't something
institutionally conferred.
The result of the meritocratic process is that we are making a race of arrogant, entitled overlords, extremely skilled at the
aggressive and assertive arts required to gain admission to, and to succeed in, a few similar and ideologically skewed universities
and colleges; and who spend the remainder of their lives congratulating each other, bestowing themselves on the populace, and
destroying the country.
This article is the product of careful and thoughtful research, and it identifies a problem hiding in plain sight. As a society,
we have invested great trust in higher education as a transformative institution. It is clear that we have been too trusting.
That the admissions policies of elite universities are meritocratic is hardly the only wrong idea that Americans have about
higher education. Blind faith in higher education has left too many people with largely worthless degrees and crushing student-loan
debt.
Of course, the problems don't end with undergraduate education. The "100 reasons NOT to go to grad school" blog offers some
depressing reading:
The higher education establishment has failed to address so many longstanding internal structural problems that it's hard to
imagine that much will change anytime soon.
"I believe that this article raises – and then inappropriately immediately dismisses – the simplest and most likely reason
for the over-representation of Jewish students at Ivy League Schools in the face of their declining bulk academic performance:
They apply to those schools in vastly disproportionate numbers."
Here's the problem with that point. What Ron Unz demonstrates, quite effectively, is that today's Jews simply don't measure
up to either their Asian or their White Gentile counterparts in terms of actual performance when they get into, say, Harvard.
The quite massive difference in the proportions of those groups who get into Phi Beta Kappa renders this quite undeniable. What
is almost certain is that policies that favored Asians and White Gentiles over the current crop of Jewish students would create
a class of higher caliber in terms of academic performance.
If indeed it's true that Jews apply to Harvard in greater numbers, then, if the desire is to produce a class with the greatest
academic potential, some appropriate way of correcting for the consequent distortion should be introduced. Certainly when it comes
to Asians, college admissions committees have found their ways of reducing the numbers of Asians admitted, despite their intense
interest in the Ivies.
One way of understanding Unz's results here might be not so much that today's Jewish student is far less inclined to hard academic
work than those of yesteryear, but rather that others - White Gentiles and Asians - have simply caught up in terms of motivation
to get into elite schools and perform to the best of their abilities.
Certainly among members of the upper middle class, there has been great, and likely increasing, emphasis in recent years on
the importance of an elite education and strong academic performance for ultimate success. This might well produce a much stronger
class of students at the upper end applying to the Ivies.
It may be that not only the Asians, but upper middle class White Gentiles, are "The New Jews".
I don't always agree with, Mr. Unz, but his expositions are always provocative and informative. As far as the criticisms of
his data set go, he openly admits that they are less than ideal. However, the variances are so large that the margin of error
can be excused. Jews are 40 TIMES more likely to be admitted to Harvard than Gentile whites. Asians are 10 times more likely.
Of course, it could be possible that Jews, because of higher average IQs, actually produce 40 times as many members in the upper
reaches of the cognitive elite.
Given Richard Lynn's various IQ studies of Jews and the relative preponderance of non-Jewish and Jewish whites in the population,
however, whites ought to have a 7 to 1 representation vis-a-vis Jews in Ivy League institutions, assuming the IQ cutoff is 130.
Their numbers are roughly equivalent instead.
Because Ivy League admissions have been a hotbed of ethnic nepotism in the past, it seems that special care should be taken
to avoid these improprieties (or the appearance thereof) in the future. But no such safeguards have been put in place. David Brooks
has also struck the alarm about the tendency of elites to shut down meritocratic institutions once they have gained a foothold:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/opinion/brooks-why-our-elites-stink.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
Clannish as the WASPs may have been, they were dedicated enough to ideals of fairness and equality that they opened the doors
for their own dispossession. I predict that a new Asian elite will eventually eclipse our Jewish elite. Discrimination and repression
can restrain a vigorously ascendant people but for so long. When they do, it will be interesting to see if this Asian cohort clings
to its longstanding Confucian meritocratic traditions, embodied in the Chinese gaokao or if it too will succumb to the temptation,
ever present in a multiethnic polity, of preferring ethnic kinsmen over others.
Does anyone know how a minority such as the Uighurs fares in terms of elite Chinese university admissions?
This may sound like special-pleading, but it's not clear that full-scale IQ measures are meaningful when assessing and predicting
Jewish performance. Jewish deficits on g-loaded spatial reasoning task may reflect specific visuo-spatial deficits and not deficits
in g. As far as I know, no one doubts that the average Jewish VIQ is at least 112 (and possibly over 120). This score may explain
jewish representation which seems to exceed what would be projected by their full-scale iq scores. Despite PIQ's correllation
to mathematical ability in most populations, we ought also remember that, at least on the WAIS, it is the VIQ scale that includes
the only directly mathematical subtest. We should also note that Jewish mathematicians seem to use little visualization in their
reasoning (cf. Seligman
That said, I basically agree that Jews are, by and large, coasting. American Jews want their children to play hockey and join
'greek life' and stuff, not sit in libraries . It's sad for those of us who value the ivory tower, but understandable given their
stigmatiziation as a nerdish people.
I wonder if it would be at all possible to assess the political biases of admissions counselors at these schools by assessing
the rates at which applicants from red states are admitted to the elite universities. I suppose you would have to know how many
applied, and those data aren't likely to exist in the public domain.
One major flaw with this article's method of determining Jewish representation: distinctive Jewish surnames in no way make
up all Jewish surnames. Distinctive Jewish surnames happen to be held by only 10-12% of all American Jews. In fact, the third
most common American Jewish surname after Cohen and Levy is Miller. Mr. Unz' methodology does not speak well for itself, given
that he's comparing a limited set of last names against a far more carefully scrutinized estimate.
I'm not suggesting his estimate of national merit scholars and the like is off by a full 90%, but he's still ending up with
a significant undercount, possibly close to half. That would still mean Jews may be "wrongfully" over-represented are many top
colleges and universities, but the disproportion is nowhere near as nefarious as he would suggest.
@Nick – the "red state" application and admission rates isn't useful data.
Short answer: There are many reasons for this, but basically, historical momentum and comfort play a much bigger role in where
kids apply than we think. I assure you, far more top Nebraska HS seniors want to be a Cornhusker than a Crimson, even though many
would find a very receptive consideration and financial aid package.
Long answer: 1st, although this article and discussion have been framed in broad racial/cultural terms, the mechanics of college
admissions are mostly local and a bit like athletic recruiting – coverage (and cultivation) of specific regions and districts,
"X" high school historically deliver "X" kinds of candidates, etc. So to the degree we may see broader trends noted in the article
and discussion, some of that is rooted at the HS level and lower.
2nd, in "red states", most Ivy applicants come from the few blue or neutral districts. E.g.: the only 2 Utah HS's that consistently
have applicants to my Ivy alma mater are in areas that largely mirror other high-income, Dem-leaning areas nationwide rather than
the rest of Utah.
3rd, but, with some variation among the schools, the Ivy student body is more politically balanced than usually assumed. Remember,
most students are upper-income, Northeastern suburban and those counties' Dem/Rep ratio is often closer to 55/45 than 80/20.
But to wrap up, ideology plays a negligible role in admissions generally (there's always an exception); they have other fish
to fry (see below).
"Quota against Asians" is not entirely wrong, but it's too strong because it implies the forward intent is about limiting their
numbers.
Put another way, Unz believes the Ivies are failing their meritocractic mission by over-admitting a group that is neither disadvantaged
nor has highest technical credentials; and this comes at the expense of a group that is more often disadvantaged and with higher
technical credentials. The Ivies would likely reply, "well, we define 'meritocractic mission' differently".
That may be a legitimate counter, but it's also what needs more expansion and sunlight.
But Unz' analysis has a broader causation vs correlation gap. Just because admissions is essentially zero-sum doesn't mean
every large discrepancy in it is, even after allowing for soft biases. I've mentioned these earlier in passing, but here are just
a couple other factors of note:
Admissions is accountable for selection AND marketing and matriculation – these are not always complementary forces. Essentially,
you want to maximize both the number and distribution (racial, geographic, types of accomplishment, etc.) of qualified applicants,
but also the number you can safely turn down but without discouraging future applications, upsetting certain stakeholders (specific
schools, admissions counselors/consultants, etc.) or "harming" any data in the US News rankings. And you have a very finite time
to do this, and – not just your competition, but the entire sector – is essentially doing this at the same time. You can see how
an admissions process would develop certain biases over time to limit risks in an unpredictable, high volume market, even if rarely
intended to target a specific group. Ivy fixation (but especially around HYP) is particularly concentrated in the Northeast –
a sample from several top HS' across America (public and private) would show much larger application and matriculation variations
among their top students than would be assumed from Unz's thesis. Different Ivies have different competitors/peers, which influences
their diversity breakdowns – to some degree, they all co-compete, but just as often don't. E.g.: Princeton often overlaps with
Georgetown and Duke, Columbia with NYU and Cooper Union, Cornell with SUNY honors programs because it has some "in state" public
colleges, etc.
There's much more, of course, but returning to Unz's ethnographic thesis, I have this anecdote: we have two friends in finance,
whose families think much of their success. The 1st is Asian, went to Carnegie Mellon, and is a big bank's trading CTO; the 2nd
is Jewish, went to Wharton, and is in private equity.
Put another way, while both families shared a pretty specific vision of success, they differed a lot in the execution. The
upper echelon of universities, and the kinds of elite-level mobility they offer, are much more varied than even 25 years ago.
While the relative role of HYP in our country, and their soft biases in admission, are "true enough" to merit discussion, it's
probably not the discussion that was in this article.
While you may have a point as to the difficulty in some cases of identifying a Jewish surname, the most important thing methodologically
is that the criteria be performed uniformly if one is comparing Jewish representation today vs. that of other periods. I can't
think, for example, of any reason that Cohens or Levys or Golds should be any less well represented today as opposed to many years
ago if indeed there has not been an underlying shift in numbers of Jews in the relevant categories. (Nor, for that matter, should
issues like intermarriage affect the numbers much here - for every mother whose maiden name is Cohen who marries a non-Jew with
a non-Jewish surname, and whose half Jewish child will be counted as non-Jewish, there is, on average, going to be a man named
Cohen who will marry a non-Jew, and whose half Jewish child will be counted as Jewish.)
One might suppose that all this "inequity" and "discrimination" matters if we're keeping score. However, seems to me that too
much emphasis is typically placed on equality whereas real criteria in productive and satisfying lives are neglected. Kind'a like
some people wanting bragging rights as much, if not more, than wanting positive reality.
I guess I just went about my way and lived a pretty god life (so far). Who knows?; maybe those "bragging rights" are meaningful.
Ditto to many comments about the "last name problem", even if its correction weakens but doesn't invalidate the argument. (One
imagines, chillingly, a new sub-field: "Jewish last name theory", seeking to determine proportionalities of classic names validated
against member/donor lists of synagogues and other Jewish organizations.)
Regarding the 20% inner ring suggestion, it suffers from its harsh transition. Consider a randomized derating scheme: a random
number between some lower bound (say 0.90) and 1.00 is applied to each score on the ranked applicant list.
The added noise provides warmth to a cold test scores list. Such an approach nicely captures the directive: "study hard, but
it's not all about the grades".
By adjusting the lower bound, you can get whatever degree of representativeness relative to the application base you want.
That it's a "just a number" (rather than a complex subjectivity-laden labyrinth incessantly hacked at by consultants) could
allow interesting conversations about how it could relate to the "top 1% / bottom 50%" wealth ratio. The feedback loop wants closure.
You missed my point, candid. A relatively small proportion of Jews, intermarried or otherwise, have distinctive Jewish names.
I didn't make that 10-12% figure up. It's been cited in numerous local Jewish population studies and is used in part (but certainly
far from whole) to help estimate those populations. It's also been significantly dragged down over the years as the Jewish population
(and hence the surname pool) has diversified, not just from intermarriage, but in-migration from groups who often lack "distinctive
Jewish surnames" such as Jews from the former Soviet Union. Consider also that for obvious reasons, Hillel, which maintains Jewish
centers on most campus, has an incentive to over-report by a bit. Jewish populations on college campuses in the distant past were
easier to gather, given that it was far less un-PC to simply point blank inquire what religious background applicants came from.
Again, I'm not saying there isn't a downward trend in Jewish representation among high achievers (which, even if one were to
accept Unz's figures, Jews would still be triple relative to were they "should" be). But Unz has made a pretty significant oversight
in doing his calculations. That may happen to further suit his personal agenda, but it's not reality.
This is interesting, but I suspect mostly bogus, based on your not having a decent algorithm for discovering if someone's Jewish.
I'm not sure what exact mechanism you're using to decide if a name is Jewish, but I'm certain it wouldn't have caught anyone,
including myself, in my father's side of the family (Sephardic Jews from Turkey with Turkish surnames), nor my wife's family,
an Ellis Island Anglo name. Or probably most of the people in her family. And certainly watching for "Levi, Cohen and Gold*" isn't
going to do anything.
Isn't the point about Jewish over representation in the Ivy League about absolute numbers?
Yes the Jewish demographic has a higher IQ at 115 to the Goyishe Kop 100 but Jewish people are only 2% of the population so
you have 6 million Jewish people vying with 200 million white Goys for admission to the Ivy League and future control of the levers
of power. That is a 33 times larger Bell curve so the right tail of the Goys' Bell curve is still much larger than the Jewish
Bell curve at IQ levels of 130 and 145, supposedly there are seven times more Goys with IQs of 130 and over 4 times more Goys
with IQs of 145. So why the equality of representation, one to one, Jewish to white Goy in the Ivy Leagues?
Russell K. Nieli on study by Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Radford (mentioned by Unz):
"When lower-class whites are matched with lower-class blacks and other non-whites the degree of the non-white advantage becomes
astronomical: lower-class Asian applicants are seven times as likely to be accepted to the competitive private institutions as
similarly qualified whites, lower-class Hispanic applicants eight times as likely, and lower-class blacks ten times as likely.
These are enormous differences and reflect the fact that lower-class whites were rarely accepted to the private institutions Espenshade
and Radford surveyed. Their diversity-enhancement value was obviously rated very low."
Having worked with folks from all manner of "elite" and not so elite schools in a technical field, the main conclusion I was
able to draw was folks who went to "elite" colleges had a greater degree of entitlement. And that's it.
If all of the author's suspicions are correct, the most noteworthy takeaway would be that Jewish applicants have absolutely
no idea that they are being given preferential treatment when applying to Ivys.
Not that they think they are being discriminated against or anything, but no Jewish high school student or their parents think
they have any kind of advantage, let alone such a huge one. Someone should tell all these Jews that they don't need to be so anxious!
Also, I know this is purely anecdotal but having gone to an ivy and knowing the numbers of dozens of other Jews who have also
gone, I don't think I have ever witnessed a "surprise" acceptance, where someone got in with a score under the median.
I don't doubt for a minute that it's increasingly difficult for Asian students to get into so-called "elite" universities.
Having grown up in that community, I know a lot of people who were pressured into applying at Harvard and Yale but ended up *gasp*
going to a very good local school. My sarcasm aside, we can't really deny that having Harvard on your CV can virtually guarantee
a ticket to success, regardless of whether or not you were just a C student. It happens.
But what worries me about that is the fact that I know very well how hard Asian families tend to push their children. They
do, after all, have one of the highest suicide rates and that's here in the US. If by some means the Asian population at elite
universities is being controlled, as I suspect it is, that's only going to make tiger mothers push their children even harder.
That's not necessarily a good thing for the child's psyche, so instead of writing a novel here, I'll simply give you this link.
Since the author brought up the subject of Amy Chua and her book, I think it's a pretty fitting explanation of the fears I have
for my friends and their children if this trend is allowed to continue.
As a former admissions staff person at Princeton, I always sigh when I read articles on elite college admissions processes
which build cases on data analysis but which fail to consult with admissions experts on the interpretation of that data.
I am neither an expert in sociology, nor am I a statistician, but I have sat in that chair, reading thousands of essays, and
I have a few observations:
The most selective part of any college's admissions process is the part where students themselves decides whether or not to apply.
Without data on the actual applicant sets, it is, at the least, misleading to attribute incongruities between the overall population's
racial/ethnic/income/what-have-you characteristics and the student bodies' make-ups entirely to the admission decisions. The reality
is that there is always a struggle in the admission offices to compensate for the inequities that the applicant pool itself delivers
to their doorsteps. An experienced admission officer can tell you that applicants from cultures where academics and education
are highly valued, and where the emphasis on a single test is quite high, will generally present with very high SAT scores. Race
does not seem to be correlated, but immigrant status from such a culture is highly correlated. (This may partially explain Unz's
observation of a "decline" in Jewish scores, although I also do not believe that the surname tool for determining which scores
are "Jewish" holds much water.) One of the reasons that such students often fare less well in holistic application processes is
that the same culture that produces the work ethic and study skills which benefit SAT performance and GPA can also suppress activities
and achievement outside of the academic arena. Therefore, to say that these students are being discriminated against because of
race is a huge assumption. The true questions is whether the students with higher test scores are presenting activity, leadership
and community contributions comparable to other parts of the applicant pool which are "overrepresented". All of these articles
seem to miss the point that a freshman class is a fixed size pie chart. Any piece that shrinks or grows will impact the other
slices. My first thought upon reading Unz' argument that the Asian slice shrank was, "What other pieces were forced to grow?"
Forced growth in another slice of the class is the more likely culprit for this effect, much more likely than the idea that all
of the Ivies are systematically discriminating against the latest victim. I could go on and on, but will spare you! My last note
is to educate Mr. Unz on what an "Assistant Director" is in college admissions. Generally that position is equivalent to a Senior
Admission Officer (one step up from entry level Admission Officer), while the head of the office might be the Dean and the next
step down from that would be Associate Deans (not Assistant Directors). So while Michelle Hernandez was an Assistant Director,
she was not the second in charge of Admissions, as your article implies. A minor distinction, but one which is important to point
out so that her expertise and experience, as well as my own, as AN Assistant Director of Admission at Princeton, are not overstated.
A last personal note: During Princeton's four month reading season, I worked 7 days a week, usually for about 14 hours a day,
in order to give the fullest, most human and considerate reading of each and every applicant that I could give. I am sure that
the admission profession has its share of incompetents, corruptible people and just plain jerks, and apparently some of us are
not intelligent enough to judge the superior applicants . . . . But most of us did it for love of the kids at that age (they are
all superstars!), for love of our alma maters and what they did for us, and because we believed in the fairness of our process
and the dignity with which we tried to do it.
The sheer numbers of applicants and the fatigue of the long winters lend themselves to making poor jokes such as the "Night
of 1000 Lee's", but a good dean of admission will police such disrespect, and encourage the staff, as mine did, to read the last
applicant of the day with the same effort, energy and attention paid to the first. We admission folk have our honor, despite being
underpaid and playing in a no-win game with regard to media coverage of our activities. I am happy to be able to speak up for
the integrity of my former colleagues and the rest of the profession.
My own position has always been strongly in the former camp, supporting meritocracy over diversity in elite admissions.
When these Ivy League institutions were first begun in the colonial period, they were not strictly speaking meritocratic. The
prevailing idea was that Christocentric education is the right way to go, both from an eschatological and a temporal perspective,
and the central focus was on building and strengthening family ties. The Catholic institutions of higher learning took on the
vital role of preserving Church tradition from apostolic times and were thus more egalitarian and universalist. The results went
far beyond all expectations.
Nothing lasts forever. Your premise misses the essential point that the economy is for man and not vice-versa.
Many of the statements in this article relating to Jews are rather misleading: for while the Hillel data regarding percentage
of students who self-identify as Jews may be fairly accurate, the numbers the author cites based upon "likely Jewish names" are
a gross under-count of the real numbers, leading to the appearance of a large disparity between the two which, in reality, does
not exist. The reason for the under-count is that a large percentage of American Jews have either Anglicized their family name
or intermarried, resulting in their being mistaken for non-Hispanic whites. Thus, one ends up with incorrect statements such as
"since 2000, the percentage (of Jewish Putnam Fellows) has dropped to under 10 percent, without a single likely Jewish name in
the last seven years". The reality is that Jews, by Hillel's definition of self-identified students, have continued to be prominent
among the Putnam Fellows, US IMO team members, and high scorers in the USA Mathematical Olympiad. I have published a careful analysis
of the true ethnic/racial composition of the very top-performing students in these math competitions from recent years (see, Andreescu
et al. Notices of the AMS 2008; http://www.ams.org/notices/200810/fea-gallian.pdf
). For example, Daniel Kane, a Putnam Fellow in 2002-2006, is 100% of Jewish ancestry; his family name had been Cohen before
it was changed. Brian Lawrence was a Putnam Fellow in 2007, 2008, 2010, and 2011; his mother is Jewish. Furthermore, many of the
non-Jewish Putnam Fellows in recent years are Eastern European or East-Asian foreigners who matriculated to college in the US;
they were not US citizen non-Jewish whites or Asian-Americans, respectively. Rather, my data indicate that in recent years both
Jews and Asians have been 10- to 20-over-represented in proportion to their percentage of the US population among the students
who excel at the highest level in these math competitions. The authors conclusions based upon data from other types of competitions
is likely similarly flawed.
The title of this piece captured me to read what it was all about. What was discussed was admissions into elite colleges as
the only focus on "meritocracy" in America. That leaves the tail of the distribution of high IQ people in America, minus those
that make it into elite colleges, to be ignored, especially those that managed to be admitted to Cal Tech, or MIT, or a number
of other universities where significant intellectual power is admitted and fostered. this seems to further the meme that only
the elite graduates run the nation. They may have an early advantage through connections, but I believe that the Fortune 400 CEO's
are fairly evenly spread across the university world.
(1) Jews are better at verbal IQ, Asians at math. Your measures are all math. That woudl be OK if all else were equal across
time, but especially because Jews care a lot about admissions to Ivies, what we'd expect is that with growing Asian competition
in math/science, Jews would give up and focus their energy on drama/writing/service. I wonder if Jewish kids are doing worse in
music competitions too? Or rather- not even entering any more.
(2) For college numbers, adjustment for US/foreign is essential. How many Asians at Yale are foreign? It could well be that
Asian-Americans are far more under-represented than it seems, because they face quota competition from a billion Chinese and a
billion Indians. Cal Tech might show the same result as the Ivies.
(3) A separate but interesting study would be of humanities and science PhD programs. Different things are going on there,
and the contrast with undergrads and with each other might be interseting.
I also learned that Jews are no longer as prominent in math and science achievement, and that's not surprising to me at
all, because everyone in the elite knows that STEM is for Asians and middle-class kids. Jewish parents have learned that colleges
value sports and "leadership" activities more than raw academic achievement and nerdy activities like math olympiads, and that
the most prestigious careers are value transference activities which don't require science or high-level math.
The higher representation of Jews in the Ivies compared to Asians who have better average academic records compared to Jews
(applicants that is ) in the Ivies is due to the greater eligibility of Jews for preferences of every kind in the Ivies. In a
typical Ivy school like Harvard, at least 60% of the freshman class will disappear because of the vast system of preferences that
exists. There is no doubt that there is racial animus involved despite the denials of the Ivies and other private universities
despite the constant denials involved like that of Rosovsky who happens to be a historian by training. Jews are classified as
white in this country, hence there would presumably greater affinity for them among the white Board of Trustees and the adcom
staff. This is in contrast to Asians who do not share the same culture or body physiogonomy as whites do.
I had read the Unz article and the Andrew Goldman response to it. I just do not agree with Unz with his solutions to this problem.
First of all private schools are not going to give legacy preferences and other kinds of preferences for the simple reason that
it provides a revenue stream. Harvard is nothing but a business just like your Starbucks or Mcdonald's on the corner.
Around the world private universities regarded as nothing but the dumping ground of the children of the wealthy, the famous
and those with connections who cannot compete with others with regards to their talent and ability regardless of what anyone will
say from abroad about the private universities in their own country. Bottomline is in other countries , the privates simply do
not get the top students in the country, the top public school does. People in other countries will simply look askance at the
nonsensical admissions process of the Ivies and other private schools, the system that the Ivies use for admission does not produce
more creative people contrary to its claims.
The Goldman response has more to do with the humanities versus math . My simple response to Andrew Goldman would be this :
a grade of A in Korean history is different from a grade of A in Jewish history, it is like comparing kiwis and bananas. The fast
and decisive way of dealing with this problem is simply to deprive private schools of every single cent of tax money that practices
legacy preferences and other kinds repugnant preferences be it for student aid or for research and I had been saying that for
a long time. I would like to comment on the many points that had been raised here but I have no time.
The solution to a lot of problems would be transparency. I'd love to see the admissions and grade data of even one major university.
Public universities should be required to post publicly the names, SAT scores, and transcripts of every student. Allowing such
posting should be a requirement for admission.
The public could then investigate further if, for example, it turned out that children of state senators had lower SAT scores.
Scholars could then analyze the effect of diversity on student performance.
Of course, already many public universities (including my own, Indiana), post the salaries of their professors on the web,
and I haven't seen much analysis or muckraking come out of that.
One factor hinted at in the article, but really needing to be addressed is the "school" that is being attended.
By this, I mean, you need philosophy students to keep the philosophy department going. When I was in college 20 years ago,
I was a humanities major. I took 1 class in 4 years with an Asian American student. 1 class. When I walked through the business
building, it was about 50% Asian.
Could Asian-American students only wanting to go to Harvard to go into business, science, or math be skewing those numbers?
I don't know, but it's just a thought to put out there.
You are preaching to the choir! I blog on this extensively on my Asian Blog: JadeLuckClub. This has been going on for the last
30 years or more! All my posts are here under Don't ID as Asian When Applying to College:
All private schools basically practice legacy prefrences and other kinds of preferences and this practice has been going on
in the Ivies since time immemorial. The income revenue from these gallery of preferences will certainly not encourage the Ivies
to give them up.
In many countries around the world, private universiites are basically the dumping ground for the children of the wealthy ,
the famous and the well connected who could not get into the top public university of their choice in their own country. This
no different from the Ivies in this country where these Ivies and other private universities are just a corral or holding pen
for the children of the wealthy, the famous and the well connected and the famous who could not compete with others based on their
won talent or ability.
Abroad you have basically 3 choices if you could not get into the top public university of that country , they are:
Go to a less competetive public university
Go to a private university
or go abroad to schools like the Ivies or in other countries where the entrance requirements to a public or private university
are less competetive compared to the top public universities in your own home country.
You can easily tell a top student from another country, he is the guy who is studying in this country under a government scholarship
( unless of course it was wrangled through corruption ). the one who is studying here through his own funds or through private
means is likely to be the one who is a reject from the top public university in his own country. That is how life works.
I am generally satisfied with the data that Ron provided about Jews compared to Asians where Jews are lagging behind Asians
at least in grades and SAT scores in the high school level, from the data I had seen posted by specialized schools in NY like
Stuy , Bronx Sci, Brook Tech, Lowell (Frisco ) etc.
Ron is correct in asserting that the Ivies little represents the top students in this country. Compare UCLA and for example.
For the fall 2011 entering freshman class at UCLA , there were 2391 domestic students at UCLA compared to 1148 at Harvard who
scored above 700 in the Math portion of the SAT and there were 439 domestic students who scored a perfect 800 in the Math portion
of the SAT at UCLA, more than Harvard or MIT certainly. For the fall 2012 freshman classs at UCLA the figure was 2409 and 447
respectively.
We can devise a freshman class that will use only income, SATS,grades as a basis of admissions that will have many top students
like UCLA has using only algorithms.
The central test of fairness in any admissions system is to ask this simple question. Was there anyone admitted under that
system admitted over someone else who was denied admission and with better grades and SAT scores and poorer ? If the answer is
in the affirmative, then that system is unfair , if it is in the negative then the system is fair.
I like the comments from Chales Hale. (Nov. 30, 2012) He says: "Welcome to China". It said all in three words. All of these
have been experienced in China. They said there is no new things under the sun. History are nothing but repeated, China with its
5000 years experienced them all.
I meant that there were 439 domestic students in the fall 2011 freshman class at UCLA and 447 domestic students in the fall
2012 freshman class at UCLA who scored a perfect score of 800 in the Math portion of the SAT. In either case it is bigger than
what Harvard or MIT has got.
In fact for the fall 2011 of the entire UC system there were more students in the the freshman class of the entire UC system
who scored above 700 in the Math portion of the SAT than the entire fall 2011 freshman of the Ivy League (Cornell not included
since it is both a public and a private school )'
As I mentioned earlier there were 2409 domestic students in the fall 2012 UCLA freshman class who scored above 700 in the Math
portion of the SAT. We know that Harvard had only 1148 domestic students in its fall 2011 freshman class who scored above 700
in the Math portion of the SAT, why would Harvard ever want to have that many top students like Berkeley or UCLA have ? The answer
to that is simple , it has to do with money. For every additional student that Harvard will enroll it would mean money being taken
out of the endowment .
Since the endowment needs constant replenishment. Where would these replenishment funds come from ? From legacies,from the
children of the wealthy and the famous etc. of course . It would mean more legacy admits, more children of the wealthy admitted
etc.
That would mean that the admission rate at Harvard will rise, the mean SAT score of the entering class will be no different from
the mean SAT scores of the entering freshman classes of Boston University and Boston College
down the road. With rising admission rates and lower mean SAT scores for the entering freshman class that prospect will not prove
appetizing or appealing to the applicant pool.
Harvard ranks only 8th after Penn State in the production of undergrads who eventually get Doctorates in Science and Engineering.
Of course Berkeley has the bragging rights for that kind of attribute.
In the scenario I had outlined above, it would mean that the mean SAT score of the Harvard freshman class will actually go
down if it tried to increase the size of its freshman class and that kind of prospect ia unpalatable to Harvard and that is the
reason as to why it wants to maintain its current " air of exclusivity ".
There is another way of looking at the quality of the Harvard student body. The ACM ICPC computer programming competition is
regarded as the best known college competition among students around the world , it is a grueling programming marathon for 2 or
3 days presumably. Teams from universities around the world vie to win the contest that is dubbed the "Battle of the Brains "
What is arguably sad is that Ivy schools, Stanford and other private schools teams fielded in the finals of the competition are
basically composed of foreign students or foreign born students and foreign born coaches.
The University of Southern California team in this competition in its finals section was made up of nothing but foreign Chinese
students and a Chinese coach. The USC team won the Southern California competition to win a slot in the finals. Apparently they
could not find a domestic student who could fill the bill. However the USC team was roundly beaten by teams from China and Asia,Russia
and Eastern Europe. The last time a US team won this competition was in 1999 by Harvey Mudd, ever since the US had gone downhill
in the competition with the competition being dominated by China and Asia and by countries from Eastern Europe and Russia. Well
I guess USC's strategy was trying to fight fire with fire (Chinese students studying in the US versus Chinese students from the
Mainland ), and it failed.
Thank you Mr. Unz for scratching the surface of the various forms of corruption surrounding elite college admissions. I hope
that your next article further discusses the Harvard Price (and Yale Price and Brown Price etc). The recent press surrounding
the Hong Kong couple suing the person they had retained to pave their children's way into Harvard indicates the extent of the
problem. This Hong Kong couple just were not savvy enough to lay their money down where it would produce results.
Additionally, a discussion of how at least some North Eastern private schools facilitate the corrupt process would be illuminating.
Finally, a more thorough discussion of whether the Asian students being admitted are US residents or nationals or whether they
are foreign citizens would also be worth while and reveal. I suspect, an even lower admit percentage for US resident citizens
of Asian ethnicity.
For these schools to state that their acceptances are need blind is patently untrue and further complicates the admissions process
for students who are naive enough to believe that. These schools should come clean and just say that after the development admits
and the wealthy legacy admits spots are purchased, the remaining few admits are handed out in a need blind fashion remembering
that many of admit pools will already be filled by the development and wealthy legacy admits resulting in extraordinarily low
rates for certain non-URM type candidates (I estimate in the 1% range).
"By contrast, a similarly overwhelming domination by a tiny segment of America's current population, one which is completely
misaligned in all these respects, seems far less inherently stable, especially when the institutional roots of such domination
have continually increased despite the collapse of the supposedly meritocratic justification. This does not seem like a recipe
for a healthy and successful society, nor one which will even long survive in anything like its current form."
I completely agree that it is not healthy for one tiny segment of our population to basically hold all the key positions in
every major industry in this country. If Asians or Blacks (who look foreign) all of a sudden ran education, media, government,
and finance in this country, there would be uproar and resistance. But because Jewish people look like the majority (whites),
they've risen to the top without the masses noticing.
But Jewish people consider themselves a minority just like blacks and Asians. They have a tribal mentality that causes stronger
ethnic nepotism than most other minority groups. And they can get away with it because no one can say anything to them lest they
be branded "jew-hunters" or "anti-semists."
The question is, "where do we go from here?" True race-blind meritocracy will never be instituted on a grand scale in this
country both in education and in the work force. One group currently controls most industries and the only way this country will
see more balance is if other groups take more control. But if one group already controls them all and controls succession plans,
how will there ever be more balance?
If Jews become presidents or regents of universities, that's a credit to their ability. Nothing sinister there.
But when Jews (or anyone) buy into an institution to create the 'Goldman School of Business', or when they give large donations,
that is not a credit to anyone's ability and there may well be something sinister there.
It is no secret that corporations and individuals look for influence, if not control, in return for cash. The same thinking
can easily affect admissions policy.
It's always the same. In spite of all the jingoism about "democracy" and "freedoms" and the "free market capitalist system",
the trail of money obfuscates and corrupts. It is still very true that whoever pays the piper, calls the tune. And naive to believe
otherwise.
How recent was it that Princeton cancelled its anti-Semitism classes for lack of participation, and at least one Jewish organisation
was screaming that Princeton would never get another penny from any Jew, ever.
That is close to absolute control of a curriculum. I give you money, and you teach what I want you to teach.
How far is that from I give you money and you admit whom I want you to admit? Or from I give you money and you hire whom I
want?
A university that is properly funded by the government – "the people" – doesn't have these issues because there is nothing
you can buy.
Operating educational institutions as a business, just like charities and health care, will always produce this kind of corruption.
Two other points:
1. It occurred to me that the lowly-paid underachiever admissions officers might well have been mostly Jewish, and hired for
that reason, and that in itself could skew the results in a desired manner.
2. I think this is a serious criticism of the othewise excellent article:
At the end, Ron Unz wants us to believe that a $30-billion institution, the finest of its kind in the world, the envy of the
known universe and beyond, the prime educator of the world's most prime elites, completely abandons its entire admissions procedures,
without oversight or supervision, to a bunch of dim-witted losers of "poor human quality" who will now choose the entire next
generation of the nation's elites. And may even take cash payments to do so.
Come on. Who are you kidding? Even McDonald's is smarter than this.
Some of the comments suggest major problems with estimating who is Jewish. But the authors information is underpinned by data
collected by Jewish pressure groups for the purpose of ensuring the gravy train keeps flowing. It's either their numbers, or the
numbers are consistent with their numbers.
This article, to me, is shocking and groundbreaking. I don't think anyone has gone this in-depth into this biased and un-meritocratic
system. This is real analysis based on real numbers.
Why is this not getting more coverage in the media? Why are people so afraid to talk about this?
There is an excellent analysis of this article at The Occidental Observer by Kevin MacDonald, "Ron Unz on the Illusory
American Meritocracy". The MSM is ignoring Unz's article for obvious reasons.
I don't know if there's any truth behind the idea that Japanese Americans have become lazy relative to their Korean and Chinese
counterparts. I've grew up in Southern California, a part of the country with a relatively high percentage of Japanese Americans,
yet I've know very few other Japanese Americans in my life. I can recall one Japanese American classmate in jr. high, and one
Japanese classmate in my high school (who returned to Japan upon graduating). Even at the UC school I attended for undergrad,
I was always the only Japanese person in the every class, and the Japanese Student Association, already meager in numbers, was
almost entirely made up of Japanese International students who were only here for school.
If, in fact, 1% of California is made up of Japanese Americans, I suspect they are an aging population. I also think many 2nd
and 3rd generation Japanese Americans are only partially Japanese, since, out of necessity, Japanese Americans have a very high
rate of out marriage.
The carefully researched article makes a strong case that there is some discrimination against Asian-Americans at the Ivy League
schools.
On the other hand, I don't see how a percentage of 40-60% Asian-Americans at the selective UC schools, even given the higher
percentage of Asian-Americans in California, does not perhaps reflect reverse discrimation, or at least affirmative action on
their behalf. To be sure one way or the other, we would have to see their test scores AND GPA, apparently the criteria that the
UC schools use for admission, considered as well in the normalization of this statistical data.
The replies to date make some good points but also reflect precisely the biases pointed out in the article as likely causing
the discussed distortions.
1) use of name data in achievement vs use of Hillel data for Ivy admits: definitely an issue but is this only one of the measures
used in this study. Focusing only on this obscures the fact that Jewish enrollment as measured over time by Hillel numbers (apples
to apples) increased significantly over the past decade while the percent of Jewish high school age students relative to other
groups declined. One explanation for this surge could be that Jewish students became even more academically successful than they
have been in the past. The achievement data using Jewish surnames is used to assess this thesis in the absence of other better
data. Rejecting the surname achievement data still leaves a huge enrollment surge over time in Jewish attendance at the Ivies
relative to their percentage of the population.
2) many comments accept that the numbers show disproportionate acceptance and enrollment growth but simply then go on to assert
that Jewish students really are smarter (absolutely or in gaming the system) relying on anecdotal evidence that is not at all
compelling. All definitions of "smarter" contain value judgments". Back in the '20s the argument was that the Ivies should rely
more on objective testing to remove bias against the then high testing Jewish students; now the writers argue conveniently wthat
the new subjective tests that are applied to disproportionately admit Jewish students over higher scoring Asians and non-Jewish
Caucasians are better measures. In both cases, there is still an issue of using a set of factors that disproportionately favors
one group. In all such cases of significant disproportionate admits, the choice of the factors used to definemmerit and their
application should be carefully evaluated for bias. The burden of proof should shift to those defending the status quo in this
situation. In any event, it is clear that given the large applicant pool, there is no shortage of non-Jewish caucasians and Asians
who are fully qualified, so if the desire was there for a balanced entering class, the students are available to make it happen
3) the numbers don't break down admissions between men and women. When my child was an athletic recruit to Harvard, we received
an ethnic breakdown of the prior year's entering class. I was surprised to discover that the Caucasian population skewed heavily
male and the non-white/Asian population skewed heavily female. It seemed that Harvard achieved most of its ethnic diversity that
year by admitting female URMs, which made being a Caucasian female the single most underrepresented group relative to its percentage
in the school age population. I'm curious if this was an anomaly or another element of bias in the admissions process.
I will note that there is one flaw in this whole argument, and that flaw is thus:
Harvard and Yale aren't the best universities in the country. As someone who went to Vanderbilt, I knew people who had been
to those universities, and their evaluation was that they were no better – and perhaps actually worse – than Vanderbilt, which
is "merely" a top 25 university.
While there is a great deal of, shall we say, "insider trading" amongst graduates of those universities, in actuality they
aren't actually the best universities in the country today. That honor probably goes to MIT and Caltech, which you note are far
more meritocratic. But most of the other best universities are probably very close in overall level, and some of them might have
a lot of advantages over those top flight universities.
Or to put it simply, the Ivy League ain't what it used to be. Yeah, it includes some of the best universities in the country,
but there are numerous non-Ivy League universities that are probably on par with them. This may indeed be in part a consequence
of some of what you have described in the article, as well as a sense of complacency.
I suspect that in twenty or thirty years a lot of Ivy League graduates are going to feel a lot less entitled simply because
there has been an expansion of the top while they weren't paying attention.
I'm against the Ivies going up to 30-50% Asian but I'm also against the over-representation of a tiny minority group. This
country is going to go downhill if we continue to let one group skirt a fair application process just because they possess money
and influence. Who will stand up for fairness and equality?
Many of those commenting above don't seem to be picking up on Unz's evidence of bias against white Gentiles, which by meritocratic
measures is far worse than the bias against Asian Americans.
A drop of 70 PERCENT??? What's going on? Why is so much of the discussion that this article has spawned focused only on Asian
Americans and (secondarily) Jews?
National Merit Scholarship semifinalists are chosen based on per-state percentiles.
What this means is that NMS semifinalist numbers would be skewed _against_ a high-performing demographic group to the extent
that group's demographics concentrate geographically. Mr. Unz acknowledges that geographical skewing of Jewish populations is
huge. However, he ignores its effect on the NMS semifinalist numbers he uses as a proxy for academic performance on a _national_
level to predict equitable distributions at _national_ universities.
Please somebody explain to me how this oversight isn't fatal to his arguments
Surely the author must be aware that approximately half the children with "Jewish" names are not fully Jewish. Over half of
the marriages west of the Mississippi are reportedly mixed. Many non-Jews have last names that start with "Gold". Just these two
facts make the entire analysis ridiculous. Hillel does not keep statistics on how Jewish a student is, while many of Levys and
Cohens are not actually Jewish. What would we call Amy Chua's daughters? Jewish or Asian? It is therefore impossible to tease
out in a multi-racial society who is who.
I am an elementary school teacher at a Title One school in northern California. I supported your "English for the Children"
initiative when it was introduced.
However, the law of unintended consequences has kicked in, and what exists now is not at all what you (or anyone else, for that
matter) had intended.
The school day was not lengthened to create a time slot for English language instruction. Instead, history and science classes
were elbowed aside to make way for mediocre English language instruction. These usually worthless classes have crowded out valuable
core academic instruction for English language learners.
To make matters worse, while English language learners are in ESL classes, no academic instruction in science or history can
be given to "regular" students because that would lead to issues of "academic inequity." In other words, if the Hispanic kids
are missing out on history, the black kids have to miss out on it, too.
As a teacher, I hope you will once again consider bringing your considerable talents to focus on the education of low-income
minority children in California.
Could it be that the goal of financial, rather than academic, achievement, makes many young people uninterested in
competing in the science and math competitions sought out by the Asian students? I wonder about the different percentages
of applicants to medical school versus law or business.
I must also add that I am surprised that the author used the word "data" as singular, rather than plural. Shouldn't he be stating
that the data ARE, not IS; or SHOW, not SHOWS.
The author perhaps pays an incredible amount of attention to those with strengths in STEM fields (Science, technology, engineering,
and math), even though the proportion of all native-born white students majoring in these fields has plummetted in recent decades.
That means that he overlooks a shift in what kinds of training is considered "prestigious," and that this might be reflected in
the pursuits of students in high school. Perhaps there is a movement away from Jewish students' focus on Math Olympiad because
they are in no way interested in majoring in math or engineering fields, instead preferring economics or business. Is that the
fault of the students, or of the rewards system that corporate America has set up?
Jobs in STEM fields pay considerably less than do jobs in numerous professions - investment banking and law. So that is why
~ 40% of the Harvard graduating class - including many of its Jewish students - pursue that route. But to rely on various assessments
of math/science/computing as the measure of intelligence fails to incorporate how the rewards structure in our society has changed
over time.
I teach at an Ivy League university, and believe that many of the authors' arguments have merit, but there are also many weaknesses
in his argument. He sneers at Steinberg and the other sociologists he cites for not quite getting how society has changed - but
he clearly doesn' tunderstand how other aspects of our society have changed. Many of our most talented undergrads have no desire
to pursue careers in STEM fields. Entrance into STEM jobs even among those who majored in those fields is low, and there is very
high attrition from those fields, among both men and women. Young adults and young professionals are voting with their feet. While
our society might be better off with more Caltech grads and students interested in creating our way to a better future rather
than pursuing riches on wall street, one cannot fault students for seeking to maximize their returns on their expensive education.
That's the system we have presented them with, at considerable cost to the students and their families.
Personally, what I found profoundly disturbing is not the overrepresentation of Jewish students or the large presence of Asians
who feel they are discriminated against, but the fact that Ivy League schools have not managed to increase their representation
of Blacks for the last 3 decades. We all compete for the same talent pool. And until the K-12 system is improved, Black representation
won't increase without others screaming favoritism. The other groups - high performing Asians, middle class Jews - will do fine,
even if they don't get into Ivy League schools but have to "settle" for elite private schools. But if the Ivy Leagues are the
pathway to prestige and power, than we're not broadening our power base enough to adequately reprewsent the demographic shifts
reshaping our nation. more focus on that, please.
I've been an SAT tutor for a long time in West Los Angeles (a heavily Asian city), and I feel that at least some of Asians'
over-representation in SAT scores and NMS finalists is due to Asian parents putting massive time and money into driving their
children's success in those very statistics.
In my experience, Asian parents are more likely than other parents to attempt to ramrod their kids through test prep in order
to increase their scores. For example, the few students I've ever had preparing for the PSAT - most students prepare only for
the SAT - were all Asian.
Naturally, because it's so strange to be preparing for what is supposed to be a practice test, I asked these parents why their
9th or 10th grade child was in this class, and the answer was that they wanted to do well on the PSAT because of its use in the
NMS! Similarly, many Asian immigrants send their children to "cram school" every day after regular school lets out (and I myself
have taught SAT at one of these institutions), essentially having their students tutored in every academic subject year-round
from early in elementary school.
Because whites are unlikely to do this, it would seem to me that the resulting Asian academic achievement is analogous to baseball
players who use steroids having better stats than baseball players who do not.
It seems reasonable that the "merit" in "meritocracy" need not be based solely on test scores and grades, and that therefore
a race-based quota system is not the only conclusion that one can draw from a decrease in the attendance rate of hard-driving
test-preppers. Maybe the university didn't want to fill its dorms with grade-grubbers who are never seen because they're holed
up in the library 20 hours a day, and grade-grubbers just happen to be over-represented in the Asian population?
Unz's piece analyzes only the data that lead up to college - when the Asian parents' academic influence over their children
is absolute - whereas the Ivy League schools he criticizes are most concerned with what their students do during and after college.
Is the kid who went to cram school his entire life as likely to join student organizations? To continue practicing his four instruments
once his mom isn't forcing him to take lessons 4 days a week? To start companies and give money to his university? Or did he just
peak early because his parents were working him so hard in order to get him into that college?
However, the remedies considered are not. It is silly to believe that all abilities can be distilled into a small set of numbers,
and anyway, no one knows what abilities will succeed in marketplaces. The source of the problem is the lack of competition in
education, including higher education, a situation written in stone by current accreditation procedures. The solution to the problem
is entry. Remember Brandeis U? With sufficient competition, colleges could take whomever they pleased, on whatever grounds, and
everyone would get a chance.
Concerning the drop in non-Jewish white enrollment:
I am a recent graduate of a top public high school, where I was a NMS, individual state champion in Academic Decathlon, perfect
ACT score, National AP Scholar, etc. etc. Many of my friends – almost exclusively white and Asian – had similar backgrounds and
were eminently qualified for Ivy. None of us even applied Ivy, let alone considered going there. Why? At $60,000/yr, the cost
is simply not worth it, since none of us would have been offered anything close to substantial financial aid and our parents were
unable/unwilling to fully fund our educations. Meanwhile, my Asian friends applied to as many Ivies as they could because it was
understood that (a) their parents would foot the bill if they got in or (b) they would take on a large debt load in order to do
it.
This article discounts financial self-selection, which (at least based on my own, anecdotal evidence) is more prevalent than
we tend to think.
The author ignores the role that class plays in setting kids up for success. At one point he notes, "Given that Asians
accounted for just 1.5 percent of the population in 1980 and often lived in relatively impoverished immigrant families. . ."
When I was at Harvard in the mid-1980s, there were two distinct groups of Asian students: children of doctors, academics, scientists
and businesspeople who came from educated families in China, Korea and Vietnam, and therefore grew up with both strong educational
values and parental resources to push them; and a much smaller group of kids from Chinatown and Southeast Asian communities,
whose parents were usually working class and uneducated. The second group were at a severe disadvantage to the first, who were
able to claim "diversity" without really having to suffer for it.
I would expect you'd see the same difference among higher-caste educated South Asian Brahmins and Indians from middle and
lower castes or from places like Guyana. It is ridiculous to put South Asians and East Asians in the same category as "Asian."
They have different cultural traditions and immigration histories. Ask any Indian parent what race they are and they'll answer
"Caucasian." Grouping them without any kind of assessment of how they might be different undermines the credibility of the
author.
The takeaway is not that affirmative action is damaging opportunities for whites, but that whites are losing against Asians.
The percentage of Hispanic and Black students at leading schools is still tiny. Hence, if invisible quotas for Asians are lifted,
there will be far fewer white students at these schools. This isn't because of any conspiracy, but because white students are
scoring lower than the competition on the relevant entry requirements. I would love to see an article in this publication titled,
"Why White Students Are Deficient." How about some more writing about "The White Student Achievement Gap?"
As parents of 2 HYP grads, We can tell you from experience that Asian students are not under-represented in the Ivies today.
(In fact, I think they are slightly over represented, for the same reasons and stats the author cited).
True, if one looks at stats, such as SAT, scientific competition awards etc, it seems to imply that a +35% enrollment of Asian
students is warranted. However, these indicators are just a small part of a "holistc" approach in predicting the success of a
candidate not only in the next 4 years, but the individual's success in life and be able to impact and contribute to society later.
I have seen candidates of Asian background, who score almost full mark in SAT but was less than satisfactory in all other aspects
of being a potential achiever in life.
Granted, if one wants to be an achiever in science and technology, by all means go with Caltech and MIT. But if one wants an
real "education" and be a leader later on in life, one has to have other qualities as well (skin color is NOT one of them). Of
course, history, and current cultural and political climate may influence the assessment of such qualities because it is highly
subjective. (Is is unfair to pick a pleasant looking candidate over a lesser one, if the rest are the same?)
That is why an interview with the candidates is a good way to assess a potential applicant. I always encourage my children
to conduct interviews locally for their alma mater.
I just hope that the Ivies do not use this holistic approach to practice quota policies.
Here's a quote from a friend just today about this related topic: "Just like the Catholic church in the middle ages recruited
the smartest peasants in order to forestall revolutionary potential, and to learn mind bending religious dogma to befuddle the
remaining peasants, current practice is much the same. To twist Billy Clinton's mantra, "its the economy stupid", No ,"its the
co opted brains"! "
We can substitute economics dogma to the befuddlement mix. The bottom line is every ruling elite has co-opted the top 1%-5%
of high wage earners, to make the pyramid work. Sociology writing is all over this. Veblen, Weber, etc. We can see this little
group created everywhere minerals or natural resources are coveted by private empires.
The universities are doing exactly what they are supposed to do to protect the interests of the Trustees and Donors who run
them for a reason. They are a tool of, not a cause of, the inequality and over-concentration. It is interesting how the story
goes into hairsplitting and comparing Asians to others, etc. But, the real story is a well understood sociology story. This article
explains why Napoleon established free public education after the French Revolution.
This is a fascinating article. So much data. So many inferences. It's hardly surprising to any parent of high school students
that college admissions are only marginally meritocratic. Whether that's a good a thing or a bad thing is an open question. I
think meritocracy has a place in college admissions. But not the only place. Consider athletics, which are themselves almost exclusively
meritocratic. Only the best among the best are offered Division I scholarships. The same, I think, applies to engineering schools,
the physical sciences, and (to a lesser degree), elite law schools. It also applies to auto-mechanics, plumbers, and electricians.
Regarding the humanities (a field in which I hold a PhD), not so much. I think Unz's beef is less with admissions policies per
se (which I agree are mind-bogglingly opaque) than with the status of elite institutions. I also think, and I may be wrong, that
Unz appears heading down the Bobby Fisher highway, intimating that those pesky Jews are
America never promised success through merit or equality. That is the American "dream." America promises freedom of
religious belief and the right to carry a gun.
This is a fascinating and extremely important article which I am very eager to discuss privately with the author, having spent
my whole life in higher education, albeit with a unique perspective. I was flabbergasted the findings about Jewish and non-Jewish
white representation, and intrigued, all the more so since my own ancestry is evenly divided between those two groups. I do want
to make one criticism, however of something the author said about the 1950s which I do not think is correct.
At one point in the article the author makes the claim that the breakdown of Ivy League Jewish quotas in the 1950s reflected
the power of Jews in the media and Hollywood. The statistics he gives about their representation there may be correct, but the
inference, I believe, is unsustainable. The Proquest historical database includes the Washington Post, New York Times, and many
other major newspapers. I did a search for "Harvard AND Jewish AND quota" for the whole period 1945-65 and it turned up only 20
articles, not one of which specifically addressed the issue of Jewish quotas at Harvard and other Ivy League schools. The powerful
Jews of that era had reached their positions by downplaying their origins–often including changes in their last names–and they
were not about to use their positions overtly on behalf of their ethnic group. (This could be, incidentally, another parallel
with today's Asians.) Those quotas were broken down, in my opinion, because of a general emphasis on real equality among Americans
in those decades, which also produced the civil rights movement. The Second World War had been fought on those principles.
I could not agree more that the admissions policies of the last 30 years have produced a pathetic and self-centered elite that
has done little if any good for the country as a whole.
It is really refreshing to see in print what we all know by experience, but I have to wonder out loud, what is our higher purpose?
Surely, you have a largely goal than merely exposing corruption in the academy. Lastly, I have to wonder out loud, how would the
predicament of the working class fit into your analysis? I thank you for this scathing indictment of higher ed that has the potential
to offer us a chillingly sobering assessment.
This is why we need to reinstate a robust estate tax or "death tax" as conservatives derisively call it. To break the aristocracy
described in this article. No less than Alexis de Tocqueville said that the estate tax is what made America great and created
a meritocracy (which now is weaker and riddled with loopholes, thus the decline of America). Aristocracies dominated Europe for
centuries because they did not tax the inheritance.
The day when I learned so many Chinese ruling class' offspring are either alumni or current students of Harvard (the latest
example being Bo GuaGua), it was clear to me Harvard's admission process is corrupt. How would any ivy college determine "leadership"
quality? Does growing up in a leader's family give you more innate leadership skills? Harvard obviously thinks so.
Therefore, it's not surprising that Ron said the following on this subject. " so many sons and daughters of top Chinese leaders
attend college in the West ..while our own corrupt admissions practices get them an easy spot at Harvard or Stanford, sitting
side by side with the children of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and George W. Bush." I hope world peace will be obtained within reach
in this approach.
The chilling factor is a hardworking Chinese immigrant's child in the U.S. would have less chance of getting into ivies than
these children of privileged.
It was also very disappointing to see another Asian parent whose children are HYP alumni saying too many Asians in ivies, despite
the overwhelming evidence showing otherwise.
Perhaps it's to be expected given the length of the article (over 22,000 words), but so many of the objections and "oversights"
raised in the comments are in fact dealt with – in detail and with a great deal of respect – by Unz in the article itself.
For example, this:
National Merit Scholarship semifinalists are chosen based on per-state percentiles.
What this means is that NMS semifinalist numbers would be skewed _against_ a high-performing demographic group to the extent
that group's demographics concentrate geographically. Mr. Unz acknowledges that geographical skewing of Jewish populations
is huge. However, he ignores its effect on the NMS semifinalist numbers he uses as a proxy for academic performance on a _national_
level to predict equitable distributions at _national_ universities.
Please somebody explain to me how this oversight isn't fatal to his argument
because geographical skewing of Asian populations is also huge, yet we don't witness the same patterning in admissions data
pertaining to Asian students. As the article states: "Geographical diversity would certainly hurt Asian chances since nearly half
their population lives in just the three states of California, New York, and Texas."
Unz goes on to note: "Both groups [Jews and Asians] are highly urbanized, generally affluent, and geographically concentrated
within a few states, so the 'diversity' factors considered above would hardly seem to apply; yet Jews seem to fare much better
at the admissions office."
So there's your answer.
And aside from the fact that your "basic question" has a very simple answer, it's just ludicrous in any case to suggest that
the validity of the entire article rests on a single data point.
There is no doubt this is more of a political issue than the academic one. If only merit is considered then asian american
would constitute as much as 50% of the student population in elite universities. Politically and socially this is not a desired
outcome. Rationale for affirmative action for the african americans and hispanics is same – leaving a large population is in elite
institution is not desired, it smacks of segregation.
But the core issue remains unsolved. Affirmative action resulted in higher representation but not the competitiveness of the
blacks. I am afraid whites are going the similar path.
Anyone famliar with sociology and the research on social stratification knows that meritocracy is a myth; for example,
if one's parents are in the bottom decile of the the income scale, the child has only a 3% chance to reach the top decile in his
or her lifetime. In fact, in contrast to the Horatio Alger ideology, the U.S. has lower rates of upward mobility than almost any
other developed country. Social classses exist and they tend to reproduce themselves.
The rigid class structure of the the U.S. is one of the reasons I support progressive taxation; wealth may not always be
inherited, but life outcomes are largely determined by the class position of one's parents. In this manner, it is also a myth
to believe that wealth is an individual creation;most financially successful individuals have enjoyed the benefits of class privilege:
good and safe schools, two-parent families, tutors, and perhaps most important of all, high expecatations and positive peer socialization
(Unz never mentions the importants of peeer groups, which data show exert a strong causal unfluence on academic performance).
And I would challenge Unz's assertion that many high-performing Asians come from impovershed backgrounds: many of them
may undereport their income as small business owners. I believe that Asian success derives not only from their class background
but their culture in which the parents have authority and the success of the child is crucual to the honor of the family. As they
assimilate to the more individualist American ethos, I predict that their academic success will level off just as it has with
Jews.
1. HYP are private universities: the success of their alumni verifies the astuteness of their admissions policies.
2. Mr. Unz equates "merit" with "academic". I wonder how many CalTech undergrads would be, or were, admitted, to HYP (and vice-versa).
3. I would like ethnic or racial stats on, for several examples, class officers, first chair musicians*, job holders, actors^,
team captains, and other equally valuable (in the sense of contributing to an entering freshman class) high-school pursuits.*By
17, I had been a union trombonist for three years; at Princeton, I played in the concert band, the marching band, the concert
orchestra, several jazz ensembles, and the Triangle Club orchestra.^A high school classmate was John Lithgow, the superb Hollywood
character actor. Harvard gave him a full scholarship – and they should have.
What if we were one homogeneous ethnic group? What dynamic would we set up then?
I suggest taking the top 20% on straight merit, based on SAT scores, whether they crammed for them or not, and take the next
50% from the economically poorest of the qualified applicants (1500 – 1600 on the SAT?) by straight ethnicity percentages to directly
reflect population diversity, and 30% at random to promote some humility, and try that for 20 years and see what effects are produced
in the quality of our economic and political leadership. And of course, keep them all in the dark as to how they actually got
admitted.
Maybe one effect is that more non-ivy league schools will be tapped by the top recruiters.
"Surely the author must be aware that approximately half the children with "Jewish" names are not fully Jewish. Over
half of the marriages west of the Mississippi are reportedly mixed. Many non-Jews have last names that start with "Gold". Just
these two facts make the entire analysis ridiculous. Hillel does not keep statistics on how Jewish a student is, while many
of Levys and Cohens are not actually Jewish. What would we call Amy Chua's daughters? Jewish or Asian? It is therefore impossible
to tease out in a multi-racial society who is who."
Well, there are several arguments to be made. First, unless you are advocating that there has been a mass adoption of words
like "Gold" in non-Jewish last names these past 10, 15 years, that argument sinks like a stone. Second, by selecting for specifically
Jewish last names, intermarriage can be minimized but not eliminated. How many kids with the lastname "Goldstein" was a non-Jew
in the last NMS? Not likely a lot of them.
Intermarriage can account for some fog, but not all, not by a longshot. Your entire argument reeks of bitter defensiveness.
You have to come to grips that Jews have become like the old WASPs, rich, not too clever anymore, and blocking the path forward
for brighter, underrepresented groups.
With all due respect, I was worried that I would get an answer that lazily points to the part of the essay that glosses over
this point (which mind you I had combed through carefully before posting my question). However, I was hoping that in response
someone might respond who had thought a little more carefully about the statistical fallacy in Unz's essay: that far-reaching
statements about nation-wide academic performance can be drawn directly from per-state-percentiles.
Yes, Asian Americans, like Jews, have concentrations. But their geographical distributions differ. Yes, it might be possible
that upon careful analysis of relative distributions of populations and NMS semifinalists in each state Unz might be able to draw
a robust comparison: he might even come up with the same answer. The point that I made is that he doesn't even try.
Given the lengths Unz goes to calculate and re-calculate figures _based_on_ the assumption of _equal_ geographic distributions
among Asians and Jews, it is - and I stand by this - a disservice to the reader that no effort (beyond hand-waving) is made to
quantitatively show the assumption is at all justified.
The statistical analysis used in this article is flawed. The author uses last names to identify the religion (or birth heritage)
of NMS semifinalists? Are you serious? My son was a (recent) National Merit Finalist and graduated from an ivy league university.
His mother is Jewish; his father is not, thus he has a decidedly WASP surname and according to the author's methods he would have
been classified as WASP. With the growing numbers of interfaith and mixed-race children how can anyone draw conclusions about
race and religion in the meritocracy or even "IQ" argument? Anecdotally, my son reported that nearly half his classmates at his
ivy league were at least one-quarter Jewish (one or more parents or one grandparent). To use last names (in lieu of actual demographic
data) to make the conclusion that Jews are being admitted to ivies at higher rates than similarly qualified Asians is irresponsible.
Essentially, the leftist forces in this country are trying to put the squeeze on white gentiles from both directions.
Affirmative action for underachieving minorities to take the place of white applicants.
Meritocracy for highly achieving Asians to push down white applicants, while never mentioning that full meritocracy would push
out other minorities as well (that's not politically correct).
The whole thing has become more about political narrative than actual concern for justice. I want you to know that as an Asian
man who graduated from Brown, I sympathize with you.
Very interesting article. The case that East Asian students are significantly underrepresented and Jewish students overrepresented
at Ivy League schools is persuasive, although not dispositive. The most glaring flaw in the analysis is the heavy reliance on
performance on the PSAT (the discussion of the winners of the various Olympiad and Putnam contests has little informational value
relevant to admissions, since those winners are the outliers on the tail of the distribution), which is a test that can be prepped
for quite easily. Another flaw is the reliance on last names to determine ethnicity, which I doubt works well for Jews, although
it probably works reasonably well for East Asians.
Unfortunately, the article is also peppered with (very) thinly supported (and implausible) claims like Asians are better at
visuospatial skills, worse at verbal skills, and that the situation is reversed for Jews. This kind of claim strikes me as racial
gobbledygook, and at least anecdotally belied if one considers the overrepresentation of Jews among elite chess players, both
in the US and worldwide.
In any event, the fundamental point is that the PSAT (as is the case with all standardized tests) is a fixed target that can
be studied for. Whether one chooses to put in 100s of hours studying for the PSAT is not, and should not be, the only criterion
used for admissions.
I find the relative percentage of East Asians and Jews at schools like MIT (and also Caltech and Berkeley, although obviously
those are in part distorted by the heavy concentration of East Asians in California) as compared to HYP as strong evidence that
the admissions process at HYP advantages Jews and disadvantages East Asians.
I suspect, though, that the advantages Jews enjoy in the admissions process are unconscious and unintentional, whereas the
disadvantages suffered by East Asians are quite conscious and intentional.
The graph entitled "Asians Age 18-21 and Elite College Enrollment Trends, 1990-2011″ is misleading. It contrasts percentage
of enrolled Asian students vs. the total number of the eligible Asian applicants. Therefore, it led to a flawed argument
when comfusing number vs. percentage . For proof, if a similar graph of Hispanic student percentage vs. eligible applicants
were drawn, it would appear that they were discriminated against as well. So would be the Black!
well, even a fair and objective admission criteria can have devastating consequences. here at IIT, we admit about 1 in 100.
this has the same effect on student ethics, career options and so on. in fact, even worse, since IIT is an engineering college,
the very definition of engineering in India has now distorted as serving international finance or distant masters in a globalized
world. our own development problems remain unattended.
also, the above is a part of the current trend of knowledge concentration, i.e., a belief that only a few universities can
impart us "true" knowledge or conduct "true" research.
see http://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/~sohoni/kpidc.pdf
This is a very valuable article. It deals with a subject that has received too little attention. I believe that cultural bias
in many cases outweighs the racial bias in the selection program. Time and again, I have seen young people with great potential
being selected against because they are culturally different from what the selectors are looking for (often people who are like
them culturally). The article's mentioning that students who participated in R.O.T.C., F.F.A. and/or 4H are often passed over
is a good illustration.
It was interesting to note that the girl who wrote an essay on how she dealt with being caught in a drug violation found acceptance.
I suspect that a student with similar academic qualifications who wrote an essay on the negative aspects of drug use would not
be so lucky.
comes news that Yale President Levin's successor will be Peter Salovey, tending to confirm Unz's observations regarding the
grossly disproportionate number of Jewish presidents at Ivy League schools.
All very interesting but I am among the National Merit Scholars from California who has a not obviously Jewish name despite
having two Jewish parents. It was changed in the 1950s due to anti-Semitism and an urge to assimilate. A lot of other names can
be German or Jewish for example. I suspect in light of that and intermarriage cases where the mom is Jewish and the dad is not,
not to mention a lot of Russian names, you may be undercounting Jews among other things. Although to be fair, you are probably
also undercounting some half-Asians given most of those marriages have a white husband and Asian wife.
I'm an Asian HYP grad. I applaud this article for being so extremely well researched and insightful. It's an excellent indictment
of the arbitrariness and cultural favoritism concentrated in the hands of a very small group of unqualified and ideologically
driven admissions officers. And I hasten to add that I am a liberal Democratic, an avid Obama supporter, and a strong proponent
of correcting income inequality and combating discrimination in the workplace.
To me, the most compelling exhibit was the one towards the end which showed the % relative representation of enrolled students
to highly-qualified students (I wish the article labeled the exhibits). This chart shows that in the Ivies, which administer highly
subjective admission criteria, Jews are overrepresented by 3-4x, but in the California schools and MIT, which administer more
objective criteria, Jews are overrepresented by only 0-50%, a range that can easily be explained by methodology or randomness.
This single exhibit is unequivocal evidence to me of systematic bias in the Ivy League selection process, with Jews as the
primary beneficiary. I tend to agree with the author this this bias is unlikely to be explicit, but likely the result of cultural
favoritism, with a decision-making body that is heavily Jewish tending to favor the activities, accomplishments, personalities,
etc. of Jewish applicants.
The author has effectively endorsed one of the core tenets of modern liberalism – that human beings tend to favor people who
look and act like themselves. It's why institutions dominated by white males tend to have pro-white male biases. The only twist
here is that the decision-making body in this instance (Ivy League admissions committees) is white-Jewish, not white-Gentile.
So if you're a liberal like me, let's acknowledge that everyone is racist and sexist toward their own group, and what we have
here is Jews favoring Jews. We can say that without being anti-semitic, just like we can say that men favor men without being
anti-male, or whites favor whites without being anti-white.
Just some puzzling statistics: In p. 32, second paragraph, it is mentioned "The Asian ratio is 63% slightly above the white
ratio of 61 percent", then in the third paragraph "However, if we separate out the Jewish students, their
ratio turns out to be 435 percent, while the residual ratio for non-Jewish whites drops to just 28 percent, less than half of
even the Asian figure", leading to the conclusion that "As a consequence, Asians appear under-represented relative to Jews by
a factor of seven, while non-Jewish whites are by far the most under-represented group of all". Not very clear on the analysis!
Let me try to make a guess on the calculation of this statistics ratio: Assume that all groups in NMS will apply, with mA=Asians,
mJ=Jews, mW=Whites be the respective numbers in NMS. Suppose that nA, nJ, and nW are those Asians, Jews, and Whites finally admitted.
Then if the statistics ratio for G means ((nG)/(mG))/(mG/mNMS), where mNMS is the total number in the NMS, then the ratio will
amplify the admission rate (nG/mG) by (mNMS/mG) times and becomes very large or very small for small group size. For example,
for a single person group, being admitted will give a ratio as large as mNMS, and a zero for not being admitted. Why can this
ratio be used for comparing under-representation between different groups?
Very well. Loved the fact that the author put a lot into reseaching this piece. But i would like to know how many asians who
manage to attend this ivy schools end up as nobel leaurets and professors?? This demonstrates the driving force behind the testscore
prowess of the asians-financial motivation. The author talks about asians being under-represented in the ivies but even though
they manage to attend then what?? do they eventually become eintiens and great nobel leurets or great cheese players. Also what
is the stats like for asian poets, novelist, actors.etc Pls focus should be given on improving other non-ivy schools since we
have a lots of high SAT test scores than high running universities.
Look at Nobel prizes, field medals and all kind of prizes and awards that recognize lifetime original academic contributions.
Not many asians there yet. Perfect grades or SAT scores does not guarantee creativity, original thinking, intelectual curiosity
or leadership. The problem is that those things are hard to measure and very easy to fake in an application.
Loved all the research in the article and I am on board with the idea that moving in the tiger mother direction will kill creativity
in young people. And I agree with the observation that our country's top leadership since 1970 or so has been underwhelming and
dishonest especially in the financial services industry which draws almost entirely from the Ivies.
However, I am not so convinced that the over representation of Jewish students in the Ivy league is created by intentional
bias on the part of Jewish professors or administrators at these institutions. Is it possible that admissions officers select
Jewish applicants at such a high rate because they are more likely to actually attend? Once a family of four's income exceeds
$160k the net price calculation for a year at Harvard jumps up pretty quickly. By the time you hit annual income of $200k you
are looking at $43k/yr or $172k for 4 years. And at the lower income levels, even if a family has to pay just $15k a year, how
will they do that if they are struggling to make it as it is? Do they want/does their student want to graduate with $60k worth
of debt? Why not choose a great scholarship offer from a state university to pay nothing at all or go to community college for
2 years and then on to the state public institution?
There are many options for top students who can compete at the Ivy level. If I am an admissions officer looking to fill slots
left over after minority admissions (ones poor enough to get the education for free and thus to say yes), legacies, athletic recruits,
and the few super special candidates, wouldn't I choose those most likely to take me up on the admissions offer and protect my
yield number? Might an easy way to get this done be to consult a demographic tool showing net worth by zip code? And to stack
the yield odds a little more in my favor might I also choose families with Jewish appearing last names knowing they would be extremely
likely to accept my offer since I obviously have recent history to show me that these families say yes to our prices? I think
this is a much more plausible explanation then assuming some secret quota in force at these schools.
I am a conservative but I cannot believe Jewish liberals would go that far just to ensure more Jewish liberals attend their
institutions or to keep conservative white non Jewish middle income students out. Dollars and cents and the perception a yield
number conveys about the desirability of a school are what is at work here in my humble opinion.
There is a very simple solution. There is no legal definition of race. Simply check the "Negro" (or "African-American" or whatever
it is called today) box on the application form. You don't look it? Neither do many others, because your ancestry is really mixed.
This may get you in. It won't hurt your chances, which are essentially zero before you check that box. At the very least, it will
make it harder for the bigots in the admissions office to exercise their bigotry.
"Look at Nobel prizes, field medals and all kind of prizes and awards that recognize lifetime original academic contributions.
Not many asians there yet. Perfect grades or SAT scores does not guarantee creativity, original thinking, intelectual curiosity
or leadership. The problem is that those things are hard to measure and very easy to fake in an application."
Last year, 75% of Ph.D candidates where foreign born, most of which were either Indian or Chinese. You should rely on statistics
that are more current and relevant.
Wow, another article on how corrupt higher eduation is.
Folks, open your eyes a bit. Online education is growing massively; sharing this growth are websites that write academic papers
(even Ph.D. theses) on demands .these websites in toto have nearly as many customers as there are online students.
Harvard is unusual in that they actually banned students for cheating. Every investigation of cheating on campus shows it exists
on a massive scale, and reports of half or more of a class cheating are quite common in the news.
The reason for this is simple: administrators care about retention, nothing else. Faculty have long since gotten the message.
I've taught in higher education for nearly 25 years now, and I've seen many faculty punished for catching cheaters; not once has
there been any reward.
Over 90% of remedial students fail to get a 2-year degree in three years, yet administration sees no issue with talking them
into loans that will keep them in debt forever. Admin sees no issue with exploiting the vulnerable for personal gain, of course.
Here's what higher education is today: desperate people take out loans to go to college. They use the money to pay the tuition,
and they use the money to buy academic papers because they really aren't there for college, they're there for the checks. Their
courses are graded by poorly paid faculty (mostly adjuncts), again paid by those checks. The facutly are watched over by administrators
to make sure there is no integrity to the system and again, admin is paid by those checks (in fact, most of the tuition money
goes to administrators).
Hmm, what part of this could be changed that would put integrity back into the system?
I think your sources who claim to be familiar with China are very wrong concerning entrance into Chinese universities, especially
those so-called upper tier unis. It is well known amongst most Chinese students who take the gaokao, the all-or-nothing university
entrance examination, bribes, guanxi (connections) and just being local, are often better indicators of who will be accepted.
• Replies: @KA Same and
some more in India.
In India it is politics of the gutter. Someone can get to medical school and engineering school even if he or she did not qualify,if
scored say 3 points out of 1000 points as long as he or she belonged to lower caste of Hindu. The minimum requirements they have
to fulfill is to pass the school leaving examinations with science subjects .A passing level is all that matters . The process
then continues (in further education -master , training, post doctoral, and in job and in promotion)
While upper caste Hindu or Christian or Muslim may not be allowed despite scoring 999 out of 1000. It is possible and has happened.
Unfortunately the lower caste has not progressed much. Upper caste Hindus have misused this on many occasions and continue to
do do by selling themselves as lower caste with legal loopholes .Muslim or Christians can't do that for they can't claim to be
Hindu
Ron Unz is a brilliant man. He created software that made him rich, and has written articles on all kinds of subjects. But
apparently, Ron shares a problem with a very tiny number of humanity. Ron is one of those oddball characters, that, no matter
where the truth leads him, he simply has to express it, regardless of political correctness. He did this in California with the
debate on English,etc.
Compared to the administrators of these Ivy League Institutions, Ron is a mental giant, not even near being in the same class
as these supposedly important but in reality, worthless beurocrats.
If ten million Gentile whites and Asians changed their surname to Kaplan, Levy, Golden, Goldstein, Goldman, it obviously would
throw a monkey wrench into the process of ethnic favoritism.
To paraphrase Unz - the "shared group biases" of Ivy League college admission officers that have "extreme flexibility and subjectivity",
does harm white Gentiles and Asians, but only because the process lacks objective, meritocratic decision making, and in its place
is a vile form of corrupt cronyism and favoritism.
An Asian speaking here, I agree that America isn't a meritocracy, but has it ever been? It seems like this article's falling
for the oldest trick in the book - looking back at the "good old days". I'd argue that now more than ever, the barrier to entry
is lower than ever, and that every individual can rise to the occasion and innovate for the better. Places like Exeter (my alma
mater) aren't just playgrounds for the rich - I'm not extremely wealthy, and neither were my classmates. Most of us were even
on financial aid. Don't just point fingers at institutions to account for shortcomings - if you had the stroke of fortune to be
born in a nation with such opportunity, with hard work and CREATIVITY and INNOVATION, anything is possible.
Has anyone thought about why the test-prep business has expanded so much? It's to feed into the very same system that you're
complaining about. Be the change you wish to see in the world, not a victim of it. To many of the Asians out there, I'd say get
over your 4.0 GPA and 2400 SAT score and be unique for once.
To put Unz's findings in social and historical perspective, it is important to understand where Jewish academics come from.
The Eastern European Jews who immigrated to Northeast US in the Twentieth Century ran into an immigrant world dominated by Catholics
and particularly Irish Catholics. The Irish, who were as "hungry" as the Jews got control over government and its ancillary economic
benefits. I wasn't there at the time, but I imagine we Irish did not do much to help Jewish immigrants compared with Catholic
immigrants.
One area abandoned by the Catholic Church was public and secular education. The Church formed its own educational Catholic
ghetto. Jewish immigrants adopted the public-secular educational world as their own and became strong adherents of education as
the key to Americanization. Education became their small piece of turf. The only memorable political conflict between Jews and
AfricanAmericans in New York City was over control of the public schools.
Just as the Irish react against affirmative action for non-Irish in government jobs, the descendants of these Jewish immigrants
react to the plagiarism of their assimilation plan by the Chinese/Koreans. When you have de facto Irish affirmative action you
don't want de jure African American affirmative action. When you have Jewish "meritocracy" you don't want Asian meritocracy.
The result is what you see today. The Irish still have a stranglehold on government related jobs in the Northeast with a smattering
of minorities ("New Irish") and the Jews try to protect their secular education turf from the "New Jews". It's just business.
Don't take it personally.
All I can say is see a book: "Ivy League Fools and Felons"' by Mack Roth. Lots of them are kids of corrupt people in all
fields.
But I disagree that opportunity is being closed off to most Americans. Here in North Dakota I work for a high school graduate,
self made trucking millionaire. Five years ago she was a secretary in Iowa. But she got off her butt and went to where the money
is circulating. Just my 2 cents
Sorry, but quick correction regarding rankings (and I only have to say this because I go to MIT). Technically, MIT and Caltech
are *both* ranked the same. The only reason why Caltech appears on the list before MIT is because it come before it alphabetically
to suggest otherwise would be untrue. When you look at individual departments, you'll find that MIT consistently ranks higher
than that of Caltech in all engineering disciplines and most scientific disciplines. Also, personally speaking, MIT has a far
better humanities program that Caltech (especially in the fields of economics, political science, philosophy, and linguisitics).
We do have a number of Pulitizer Prize winners who teach here.
Also generally, in academic circle, MIT is usually viewed with higher regard than Caltech, although that isn't to say Caltech
isn't a fantastic school (it really and truly is–I loved it there and I wish more people knew more about it)
One observation about methodology that struck me while reading this:
The Jewish population of universities is being evaluated based on Hillel statistics, with the "Non-Jewish white" population
being based on the white population minus the Jewish population.
This can be problematic when you consider that these population are merging at a pretty high rate. (I don't have much information
here, but this is from the header of the wikipedia article: "The 1990 National Jewish Population Survey reported an intermarriage
rate of 52 percent among American Jews.")
What percentage of partially Jewish students identify as "Jewish" or does Hillel identify as Jewish? If you're taking a population
that would have once identified as "white" and now identifying them as Jewish, obviously you'll see some Jewish inflation, and
white deflation. And when a large percentage of this population bears the names "Smith", "Jones", "Roberts" etc., you're obviously
not going to see a corresponding increase in NMS scores evaluated on the basis of last names.
Of course, I have no idea what methodology Hillel is using, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it's an inflated one.
Thank you Mr. Unz for this provocative article. It isn't the author's first one on Jewish & Asian enrollment at Ivy League
colleges. I remember another one, in the 1990s I believe.
According to what I read, less and less American Jews apply for medical school nationwide, and Jewish women are very educated,
but it comes also with a low birthrate and high median age. It makes the recent spike in Jewish admissions at Harvard College
all the more curious, intriguing.
This month, the NY Times published a list of the highest earners in the hedge fund industry in 2012, and 8 out of 10 were Jewish.
Are certain universities aggressively seeking donations from this super rich demographic since the 2000s?
The young American Jew is not like his grandparents. They are just as fun loving and lazy as any other. This is the result
of a lack of perceived persecution that use to keep the group together. In the major cities, half of the young people leave the
tribe through intermarriage. This is human nature. The Rabbis changed the rules some time ago to define a Jew as coming from the
mother, so the Jewish man would marry a Jewish woman, instead of a woman outside of the tribe. Read the Bible. In David's time,
the men had an eye for good looking women outside of the tribe(like all men). Now days, the young people just laugh at the Rabbi's
words.
Instead of the old folks liberal ideas of race and ethnic divisions, let us change it to go by economic class. According to
liberal thought, intelligence is equally distributed throughout all economic classes, so higher education admissions should be
by economic class, and not the old divisive ideas of race and ethnic background. After all, affirmative action programs are institutionalized
racism and racial profiling.
• Replies: @KA Yes . You
have points . This is one of the fears that drove the Zionist to plan of Israel in 1880 . It was the fear of secular life free
from religious persecution and freedom to enjoy life to its fullest in the post industrial non religious Europe guided by enlightenment
that drove them embrace the religious ethnic mix concept of statehood.
These and many other ills would be alleviated if government would stop: (a) banning aptitude tests or even outright discrimination
as determinants of employment; (b) subsidizing private institutions such as Harvard; and (c) close down all government schools,
starting with state institutions of "higher learning."
I know, pie in the sky. But the author's suggestions by comparison are mere Band-Aids.
Great analysis, but pie-in-the-sky prescription, which was presumably just intended to be thought provoking. If you want to
know why Harvard would never adopt the author's recommendation, just read what he wrote:
"But if it were explicitly known that the vast majority of Harvard students had merely been winners in the application lottery,
top businesses would begin to cast a much wider net in their employment outreach, and while the average Harvard student would
probably be academically stronger than the average graduate of a state college, the gap would no longer be seen as so enormous,
with individuals being judged more on their own merits and actual achievements. A Harvard student who graduated magna cum laude
would surely have many doors open before him, but not one who graduated in the bottom half of his class."
I wonder why Harvard officials would desire this outcome?
So a lot of ivy league presidents with Jewish-sounding names somehow influence admissions staff who may not have Jewish-sounding
names to favor undeserving applicants because they also have Jewish-sounding names? And this is because of some secret ethnic
pride thing going on? And nobody's leaked this conspiracy to the outside world until our whistle blowing author? The guy's a nut
job.
All of your statistics are highly suspect due to the enormous, and rapid annual increase in Jewish intermarriage. I do not
have the statistics, but over many years, it certainly appears that Jewish men are far more likely to intermarry than Jewish women
(the lure of the antithesis to their Jewish mother??) and to complicate matters further, Jewish men seem to have a predilection
for Asian women, at least in the greater NY Metro Area. But that still does not represent the majority of Jewish men marrying
Christians. QED. More Jewish last names, for children who are DNA wise only half Jewish than non Jewish names for the intermarried.
And if one wanted to get really specific, the rapidly rising intermarriage is diluting the "Jewish" genetic pool's previously
demonstrable intelligence superiority., strengthened by the fact that most couples use the Jewish fathers last name.
These observations are in no way associated with how the various Jewish denominations define 'Jewish"
In short: Unz substantially overestimated the percentage of Jews at Harvard while grossly underestimating the percentage of
Jews among high academic achievers, when, in fact, there is no discrepancy.
In addition, Unz's arguments have proven to be untenable in light of a recent survey of incoming Harvard freshmen conducted
by The Harvard Crimson, which found that students who identified as Jewish reported a mean SAT score of 2289, 56 points higher
than the average SAT score of white respondents.
First. I was thrilled to see your advocacy of admissions by lottery. I have advocated such a plan on various websites that
I participate in, but you have written the first major article advocating it that I have seen. Congratulations.
Just a small quibble with your plan, I would not allow the schools any running room for any alternatives to the lottery. They
have not demonstrated any willingness to administer such a system fairly. After a few years of pure lottery it would be time to
evaluate it and see if they should be allowed any leeway, but I wouldn't allow any variation before that.
I would hypothesize that one effect of a lottery admissions plan would be a return to more stringent grading in the class rooms.
It would be useful to the faculty to weed out the poor performers more quickly, and the students might have less of an attitude
of entitlement.
Second, I am glad that you raised the issue of corruption of the admissions staffs. It would be a new chapter in human history
if there was no straight out bribe taking of by functionaries in their positions. My guess is that the bag men are the "high priced
consultants". Pay them a years worth of tuition money and a sufficient amount will flow to the right places to get your kid in
to wherever you want him to go.
Third, three observations about Jewish Students.
First, Jews are subject to mean reversion just like everybody else.
Second, the kids in the millennial generation were, for the most part, born into comfortable middle class and upper class homes.
The simply do not have the drive that their immigrant grandparents and great-grandparents had. I see this in my own family. My
wife and I had immigrant parents, and we were pretty driven academically (6 degrees between us). Our kids, who are just as bright
as we were, did not show that same edge, and it was quite frustrating to us. None of them have gone to a graduate or professional
school. They are all working and are happy, but driven they aren't.
Third, Hillel's numbers of Jewish students on their website should be taken cum grano salis. All three of our kids went to
Northwestern U. (Evanston, IL) which Hillel claimed was 20% Jewish. Based on our personal observations of kids in their dorms
and among their friends, I think the number is probably 10% or less.
Finally, the side bar on Paying Tuition to a Hedge Fund. I too am frustrated with the current situation among the wealthy institutions.
I think that it deserves a lot more attention from policy makers than it has received. The Universities have received massive
benefits from the government (Federal and state) - not just tax exemptions, but grants for research and to students, subsidized
loans, tax deductions for contributions, and on, and on. They have responded to this largess by raising salaries, hiring more
administrators, spending billions on construction, and continually raising tuitions far faster than the rate of inflation. I really
do not think the tax payers should be carrying this much of a burden at a time when deficits are mounting without limit.
Henry VIII solved a similar problem by confiscating assets. We have constitutional limits on that sort of activity, but I think
there a lot of constitutional steps that should be considered. Here a few:
1. There is ample reason to tax the the investment gains of the endowments as "unrelated business taxable income" (UBTI, see
IRS Pub 598 and IRC §§ 511-515) defined as income from a business conducted by an exempt organization that is not substantially
related to the performance of its exempt purpose. If they do not want to pay tax on their investments, they should purchase treasuries
and municipals, and hold them to maturity.
2. The definition of an exempt organization could be narrowed to exclude schools that charge tuition. Charging $50,000/yr and
sitting on 30G$ of assets looks a lot more like a business than a charity.
3. Donations to overly rich institutions should be non deductible to the donors. Overly rich should be defined in terms of
working capital needs and reserves for depreciation of physical assets.
Is the proposed mechanism that Jewish university presidents create a bias in the admissions department?
That could be tested by comparing Jewish student percentages between schools with Christian and Jewish presidents. If Christian
presidents produce student bodies with a high proportion of Jews, then Jewish ethnocentrism is not the cause. (We'd have to find
a way to control for presidents' politics.)
If admissions departments are discriminating in favor of liberals, that will boost the proportion of all liberals, including
many Jews, but it will be political discrimination, not ethnic discrimination. (Both are bad, but we should be accurate.)
Liberals see a discrepancy in ethnic outcomes and consider it proof of ethnic discrimination. Are we doing the same thing?
After Russian emancipation, the Jews from Pale settlement spread out and took up jobs in government services, secured admissions
in technical and medical schools, and established positions in trade in just two decades. Then they started interconnecting and
networking more aggressively to eliminate competition and deny the non-Jews the opportunities that the non Jews rightfully claimed.
This pattern was also evident in Germany after 1880 and in Poland between interwars .
The anti-Jewish sentiment seen in pre revolutionary Russia was the product of this ethnic exclusivisity and of the tremendous
in-group behaviors .
@Ira The young American
Jew is not like his grandparents. They are just as fun loving and lazy as any other. This is the result of a lack of perceived
persecution that use to keep the group together. In the major cities, half of the young people leave the tribe through intermarriage.
This is human nature. The Rabbis changed the rules some time ago to define a Jew as coming from the mother, so the Jewish man
would marry a Jewish woman, instead of a woman outside of the tribe. Read the Bible. In David's time, the men had an eye for good
looking women outside of the tribe(like all men). Now days, the young people just laugh at the Rabbi's words.
Instead of the old folks liberal ideas of race and ethnic divisions, let us change it to go by economic class. According to
liberal thought, intelligence is equally distributed throughout all economic classes, so higher education admissions should be
by economic class, and not the old divisive ideas of race and ethnic background. After all, affirmative action programs are institutionalized
racism and racial profiling.
Yes . You have points . This is one of the fears that drove the Zionist to plan of Israel in 1880 . It was the fear of secular
life free from religious persecution and freedom to enjoy life to its fullest in the post industrial non religious Europe guided
by enlightenment that drove them embrace the religious ethnic mix concept of statehood.
@Anonymous I think your
sources who claim to be familiar with China are very wrong concerning entrance into Chinese universities, especially those so-called
upper tier unis. It is well known amongst most Chinese students who take the gaokao, the all-or-nothing university entrance examination,
bribes, guanxi (connections) and just being local, are often better indicators of who will be accepted.
Same and some more in India. In India it is politics of the gutter. Someone can get to medical school and engineering school
even if he or she did not qualify, if scored say 3 points out of 1000 points as long as he or she belonged to lower caste of Hindu.
The minimum requirements they have to fulfill is to pass the school leaving examinations with science subjects .A passing level
is all that matters . The process then continues (in further education -master , training, post doctoral, and in job and in promotion)
While upper caste Hindu or Christian or Muslim may not be allowed despite scoring 999 out of 1000. It is possible and has happened.
Unfortunately the lower caste has not progressed much. Upper caste Hindus have misused this on many occasions and continue to
do do by selling themselves as lower caste with legal loopholes .Muslim or Christians can't do that for they can't claim to be
Hindu
Takeaways:
Jews are really good at networking and in-group activity. They have centuries of practice, and lived a meritocratic existence
of self-sorting in the Pale and elsewhere.
That is evident to all who look.
Other groups have different approaches, and different organizational or affiliation bonds, based on their history, culture
and other factors.
NE Asians share some traits, and both value education as a way to improve themselves and to some extent their groups.
S Asians will demonstrate their own approach, focusing heavily on STEM.
Expect demographics to win out, given 2.5B Asians versus a smaller NAM or NE European-base populace.
Thanks for the informative article. Your proposal sounds reasonable. Another option would be to attempt to vastly decrease
the significance of these elite private schools. Why should we allow undemocratic little fiefdoms to largely control entry into
our country's ruling class? It would probably be considerably more fair, more transparent and more efficient to pour a lot of
resources into our public universities. If Berkeley, Michigan, UVA, UMass, etc. were completely free, for instance–or if they
provided students with living expenses as well as free tuition, the quality of their students would conceivably surpass that of
the Ivy League's, and over time the importance and prestige of Harvard, Stanford, etc. would diminish. Instead, we are subsidizing
students at elite private colleges more than those at public colleges–an absurd state of affairs (see this article, whose author
is a bit of an ideologue but who is right on this issue:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich/2014/1014/How-the-government-spends-more-per-student-at-elite-private-universities-than-public
).
Mr. Unz; thank you for the long, informational and scholarly article. I read the whole thing, and from Sailer I am familiar
with your reputation as a certified genius. I must admit however, after the 5-10,000 words you had written, I was a bit shocked
that your answer to how to improve elite University enrollment, was to FLIP A FIGURATIVE COIN.
I expected some chart with differential equations that I would have to consult my much more intelligent brother, the electrical
engineer to explain to me. Not that it does not make a lot of sense.
The issue with your solution is that you go from a three class university:
1) Legacy Admits
2) Non athletic, black admits
3) everyone else
to a much-more rigid, two class university:
1) academic admits
2) coin-flip admits
One tier being one of the smartest 15-18 year olds in the world, the other being "somewhat better than good student at Kansas
State."
My brother works at a little ivy league school. Well endowed because the parents Dun and Bradstreet reports are at the top
of the selection sheets with parents jobs also. Extra points for finance and government jobs at executive levels.
This article was excellent and reinforced everything he has told me over the years. One thing he did mention i would like to
add. Asians, which for years were their choice for filling minority quotas, are horrible when it comes to supporting the alma
mater financially during the fund drives. This information was confirmed by several other schools in the area when they tried
a multi-school drive in the far east and south east asia to canvas funds and returned with a pitiful sum.
Diversity is a scheme that is the opposite of a meritocracy. Diversity is a national victim cult that generally demonizes gentiles,
and more specifically demonizes people that conform to a jewish concocted profile of a nazi.
Why would anyone use the word diversity in the same sentence as the word meritocracy?
"Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?" Why would anybody claiming to be intelligent
include meritocracy and diversity in the same sentence?
@Sean Gillhoolley Harvard
is a university, much like Princeton and Yale, that continues based on its reputation, something that was earned in the past.
When the present catches up to them people will regard them as nepotistic cauldrons of corruption.
Look at the financial disaster that befell the USA and much of the globe back in 2008. Its genesis can be found in the clever
minds of those coming out of their business schools (and, oddly enough, their Physics programs as well). They are teaching the
elite how to drain all value from American companies, as the rich plan their move to China, the new land of opportunity. When
1% of the population controls such a huge portion of the wealth, patriotism becomes a loadstone to them. The elite are global.
Places like Harvard cater to them, help train them to rule the world....but first they must remake it.
I agree, common people would never think of derivatives , nor make loans based on speculation .
"Tiffany Wang['s] SAT scores were over 100 points above the Wesleyan average, and she ranked as a National Merit Scholarship
semifinalist "
"Julianna Bentes her SAT scores were somewhat higher than Tiffany's "
Did Ms. Wang underperform on her SATs? NMS semifinalist status depends purely on the score on a very SAT-like test being at
a 99.5 percentile level, as I understand it (and I was one, albeit a very long time ago) and I gather from the above that her
SAT scores did not correspond to the PSAT one. That is, merely " 100 points above the Wesleyan average" doesn't seem all that
exceptional. Or am I wrong?
Mr. Unz several times conflates NMS semifinalist status with being a top student. Which I most definitely was not. It's rather
an IQ test. As was the SAT.
Comey was a part of the coup -- a color revolution against Trump with Bremmen (possibly assigned by Obama) pulling the strings. That's right. This is a banana republic with nukes.
Notable quotes:
"... "Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election," the message said, according to officials who have seen it. ..."
"... Comment: The FBI now flip-flops from its previous assessment: FBI rejects CIA assessment that Russia influenced presidential election ..."
FBI and National
Intelligence chiefs both agree with the CIA assessment that Russia interfered with the 2016 US presidential elections partly in an
effort to help Donald Trump win the White House, US media report.
FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper are both convinced that Russia was behind cyberattacks
that targeted Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign chairman, John Podesta,
The Washington Post and reported Friday, citing a message sent by CIA Director John Brennan to his employees.
"Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among
us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election," the message said, according to officials
who have seen it.
"The three of us also agree that our organizations, along with others, need to focus on completing the thorough review of this
issue that has been directed by President Obama and which is being led by the DNI," it continued.
"... Politics must not be subject to the economy, nor should the economy be subject to the dictates of an efficiency-driven paradigm of technocracy. Today, in view of the common good, there is urgent need for politics and economics to enter into a frank dialogue in the service of life, especially human life. ..."
"... Production is not always rational, and is usually tied to economic variables which assign to products a value that does not necessarily correspond to their real worth. This frequently leads to an overproduction of some commodities, with unnecessary impact on the environment and with negative results on regional economies.[133] The financial bubble also tends to be a productive bubble. The problem of the real economy is not confronted with vigour, yet it is the real economy which makes diversification and improvement in production possible, helps companies to function well, and enables small and medium businesses to develop and create employment. ..."
"... Whenever these questions are raised, some react by accusing others of irrationally attempting to stand in the way of progress and human development. But we need to grow in the conviction that a decrease in the pace of production and consumption can at times give rise to another form of progress and development. ..."
"... The principle of the maximization of profits, frequently isolated from other considerations, reflects a misunderstanding of the very concept of the economy. As long as production is increased, little concern is given to whether it is at the cost of future resources or the health of the environment; as long as the clearing of a forest increases production, no one calculates the losses entailed in the desertification of the land, the harm done to biodiversity or the increased pollution. In a word, businesses profit by calculating and paying only a fraction of the costs involved. Yet only when "the economic and social costs of using up shared environmental resources are recognized with transparency and fully borne by those who incur them, not by other peoples or future generations",[138] can those actions be considered ethical. An instrumental way of reasoning, which provides a purely static analysis of realities in the service of present needs, is at work whether resources are allocated by the market or by state central planning. ..."
I'm an environmental scientist, not an economist, but it seems to me that Pope Francis has some
sensible things to say, as in the following from Laudato si:
IV. POLITICS AND ECONOMY IN DIALOGUE FOR HUMAN FULFILMENT
189. Politics must not be subject to the economy, nor should the economy be subject to
the dictates of an efficiency-driven paradigm of technocracy. Today, in view of the common good,
there is urgent need for politics and economics to enter into a frank dialogue in the service
of life, especially human life. Saving banks at any cost, making the public pay the price,
foregoing a firm commitment to reviewing and reforming the entire system, only reaffirms the absolute
power of a financial system, a power which has no future and will only give rise to new crises
after a slow, costly and only apparent recovery. The financial crisis of 2007-08 provided an opportunity
to develop a new economy, more attentive to ethical principles, and new ways of regulating speculative
financial practices and virtual wealth. But the response to the crisis did not include rethinking
the outdated criteria which continue to rule the world. Production is not always rational,
and is usually tied to economic variables which assign to products a value that does not necessarily
correspond to their real worth. This frequently leads to an overproduction of some commodities,
with unnecessary impact on the environment and with negative results on regional economies.[133]
The financial bubble also tends to be a productive bubble. The problem of the real economy is
not confronted with vigour, yet it is the real economy which makes diversification and improvement
in production possible, helps companies to function well, and enables small and medium businesses
to develop and create employment.
190. Here too, it should always be kept in mind that "environmental protection cannot be assured
solely on the basis of financial calculations of costs and benefits. The environment is one of
those goods that cannot be adequately safeguarded or promoted by market forces".[134] Once more,
we need to reject a magical conception of the market, which would suggest that problems can be
solved simply by an increase in the profits of companies or individuals. Is it realistic to hope
that those who are obsessed with maximizing profits will stop to reflect on the environmental
damage which they will leave behind for future generations? Where profits alone count, there can
be no thinking about the rhythms of nature, its phases of decay and regeneration, or the complexity
of ecosystems which may be gravely upset by human intervention. Moreover, biodiversity is considered
at most a deposit of economic resources available for exploitation, with no serious thought for
the real value of things, their significance for persons and cultures, or the concerns and needs
of the poor.
191. Whenever these questions are raised, some react by accusing others of irrationally
attempting to stand in the way of progress and human development. But we need to grow in the conviction
that a decrease in the pace of production and consumption can at times give rise to another form
of progress and development. Efforts to promote a sustainable use of natural resources are
not a waste of money, but rather an investment capable of providing other economic benefits in
the medium term. If we look at the larger picture, we can see that more diversified and innovative
forms of production which impact less on the environment can prove very profitable. It is a matter
of openness to different possibilities which do not involve stifling human creativity and its
ideals of progress, but rather directing that energy along new channels.
192. For example, a path of productive development, which is more creative and better directed,
could correct the present disparity between excessive technological investment in consumption
and insufficient investment in resolving urgent problems facing the human family. It could generate
intelligent and profitable ways of reusing, revamping and recycling, and it could also improve
the energy efficiency of cities. Productive diversification offers the fullest possibilities to
human ingenuity to create and innovate, while at the same time protecting the environment and
creating more sources of employment. Such creativity would be a worthy expression of our most
noble human qualities, for we would be striving intelligently, boldly and responsibly to promote
a sustainable and equitable development within the context of a broader concept of quality of
life. On the other hand, to find ever new ways of despoiling nature, purely for the sake of new
consumer items and quick profit, would be, in human terms, less worthy and creative, and more
superficial.
193. In any event, if in some cases sustainable development were to involve new forms of growth,
then in other cases, given the insatiable and irresponsible growth produced over many decades,
we need also to think of containing growth by setting some reasonable limits and even retracing
our steps before it is too late. We know how unsustainable is the behaviour of those who constantly
consume and destroy, while others are not yet able to live in a way worthy of their human dignity.
That is why the time has come to accept decreased growth in some parts of the world, in order
to provide resources for other places to experience healthy growth. Benedict XVI has said that
"technologically advanced societies must be prepared to encourage more sober lifestyles, while
reducing their energy consumption and improving its efficiency".[135]
194. For new models of progress to arise, there is a need to change "models of global development";[136]
this will entail a responsible reflection on "the meaning of the economy and its goals with an
eye to correcting its malfunctions and misapplications".[137] It is not enough to balance, in
the medium term, the protection of nature with financial gain, or the preservation of the environment
with progress. Halfway measures simply delay the inevitable disaster. Put simply, it is a matter
of redefining our notion of progress. A technological and economic development which does not
leave in its wake a better world and an integrally higher quality of life cannot be considered
progress. Frequently, in fact, people's quality of life actually diminishes – by the deterioration
of the environment, the low quality of food or the depletion of resources – in the midst of economic
growth. In this context, talk of sustainable growth usually becomes a way of distracting attention
and offering excuses. It absorbs the language and values of ecology into the categories of finance
and technocracy, and the social and environmental responsibility of businesses often gets reduced
to a series of marketing and image-enhancing measures.
195. The principle of the maximization of profits, frequently isolated from other considerations,
reflects a misunderstanding of the very concept of the economy. As long as production is increased,
little concern is given to whether it is at the cost of future resources or the health of the
environment; as long as the clearing of a forest increases production, no one calculates the losses
entailed in the desertification of the land, the harm done to biodiversity or the increased pollution.
In a word, businesses profit by calculating and paying only a fraction of the costs involved.
Yet only when "the economic and social costs of using up shared environmental resources are recognized
with transparency and fully borne by those who incur them, not by other peoples or future generations",[138]
can those actions be considered ethical. An instrumental way of reasoning, which provides a purely
static analysis of realities in the service of present needs, is at work whether resources are
allocated by the market or by state central planning.
196. What happens with politics? Let us keep in mind the principle of subsidiarity, which grants
freedom to develop the capabilities present at every level of society, while also demanding a
greater sense of responsibility for the common good from those who wield greater power. Today,
it is the case that some economic sectors exercise more power than states themselves. But economics
without politics cannot be justified, since this would make it impossible to favour other ways
of handling the various aspects of the present crisis. The mindset which leaves no room for sincere
concern for the environment is the same mindset which lacks concern for the inclusion of the most
vulnerable members of society. For "the current model, with its emphasis on success and self-reliance,
does not appear to favour an investment in efforts to help the slow, the weak or the less talented
to find opportunities in life".[139]
197. What is needed is a politics which is far-sighted and capable of a new, integral and interdisciplinary
approach to handling the different aspects of the crisis. Often, politics itself is responsible
for the disrepute in which it is held, on account of corruption and the failure to enact sound
public policies. If in a given region the state does not carry out its responsibilities, some
business groups can come forward in the guise of benefactors, wield real power, and consider themselves
exempt from certain rules, to the point of tolerating different forms of organized crime, human
trafficking, the drug trade and violence, all of which become very difficult to eradicate. If
politics shows itself incapable of breaking such a perverse logic, and remains caught up in inconsequential
discussions, we will continue to avoid facing the major problems of humanity. A strategy for real
change calls for rethinking processes in their entirety, for it is not enough to include a few
superficial ecological considerations while failing to question the logic which underlies present-day
culture. A healthy politics needs to be able to take up this challenge.
198. Politics and the economy tend to blame each other when it comes to poverty and environmental
degradation. It is to be hoped that they can acknowledge their own mistakes and find forms of
interaction directed to the common good. While some are concerned only with financial gain, and
others with holding on to or increasing their power, what we are left with are conflicts or spurious
agreements where the last thing either party is concerned about is caring for the environment
and protecting those who are most vulnerable. Here too, we see how true it is that "unity is greater
than conflict".[140]
"... The technocratic paradigm also tends to dominate economic and political life. The economy accepts every advance in technology with a view to profit, without concern for its potentially negative impact on human beings. Finance overwhelms the real economy. The lessons of the global financial crisis have not been assimilated, and we are learning all too slowly the lessons of environmental deterioration. Some circles maintain that current economics and technology will solve all environmental problems, and argue, in popular and non-technical terms, that the problems of global hunger and poverty will be resolved simply by market growth. ..."
From Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' of the Holy Father Francis, On Care For Our Common Home:
The basic problem goes even deeper: it is the way that humanity has taken up technology and its development according to an undifferentiated
and one-dimensional paradigm. This paradigm exalts the concept of a subject who, using logical and rational procedures, progressively
approaches and gains control over an external object. This subject makes every effort to establish the scientific and experimental
method, which in itself is already a technique of possession, mastery and transformation. It is as if the subject were to find
itself in the presence of something formless, completely open to manipulation. Men and women have constantly intervened in nature,
but for a long time this meant being in tune with and respecting the possibilities offered by the things themselves. It was a
matter of receiving what nature itself allowed, as if from its own hand. Now, by contrast, we are the ones to lay our hands on
things, attempting to extract everything possible from them while frequently ignoring or forgetting the reality in front of us.
Human beings and material objects no longer extend a friendly hand to one another; the relationship has become confrontational.
This has made it easy to accept the idea of infinite or unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to economists, financiers
and experts in technology. It is based on the lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth's goods, and this leads to the
planet being squeezed dry beyond every limit. It is the false notion that "an infinite quantity of energy and resources are available,
that it is possible to renew them quickly, and that the negative effects of the exploitation of the natural order can be easily
absorbed"
"The technocratic paradigm also tends to dominate economic and political life. The economy accepts every advance
in technology with a view to profit, without concern for its potentially negative impact on human beings. Finance overwhelms the
real economy. The lessons of the global financial crisis have not been assimilated, and we are learning all too slowly the lessons
of environmental deterioration. Some circles maintain that current economics and technology will solve all environmental problems,
and argue, in popular and non-technical terms, that the problems of global hunger and poverty will be resolved simply by market
growth.
They are less concerned with certain economic theories which today scarcely anybody dares defend, than with their actual
operation in the functioning of the economy. They may not affirm such theories with words, but nonetheless support them with their
deeds by showing no interest in more balanced levels of production, a better distribution of wealth, concern for the environment
and the rights of future generations. Their behavior shows that for them maximizing profits is enough. Yet by itself the market
cannot guarantee integral human development and social inclusion. At the same time, we have "a sort of 'superdevelopment' of a
wasteful and consumerist kind which forms an unacceptable contrast with the ongoing situations of dehumanizing deprivation", while
we are all too slow in developing economic institutions and social initiatives which can give the poor regular access to basic
resources. We fail to see the deepest roots of our present failures, which have to do with the direction, goals, meaning and social
implications of technological and economic growth."
"... The "Obama Doctrine" a continuation of the previous false government doctrines in my lifetime, is less doctrine than the disease,
as David Swanson points out . But in the article he critiques, the neoconservative warmongering global planning freak perspective (truly,
we must recognize this view as freakish, sociopathic, death-cultish, control-obsessed, narcissist, take your pick or get a combo, it's
all good). Disease, as a way of understanding the deep state action on the body politic, is abnormal. It can and should be cured. ..."
"... The deep state seems to have grown, strengthened and tightened its grip. Can a lack of real money restrain or starve it? I
once thought so, and maybe I still do. But it doesn't use real money, but rather debt and creative financing to get that next new car,
er, war and intervention and domestic spending program. Ultimately it's not sustainable, and just as unaffordable cars are junked, stripped,
repossessed, and crunched up, so will go the way of the physical assets of the warfare–welfare state. ..."
"... Because inflated salaries , inflated stock prices and inflated ruling-class personalities are month to month, these should
evaporate more quickly, over a debris field once known as some of richest counties in the United States. Can I imagine the shabbiest
of trailer parks in the dismal swamp, where high rises and government basilicas and abbeys once stood? I'd certainly like to. But I'll
settle for well-kept, privately owned house trailers, filled with people actually producing some small value for society, and minding
their own business. ..."
"... Finally, what of those pinpricks of light, the honest assessments of the real death trail and consumption pit that the deep
state has delivered? Well, it is growing and broadening. Wikileaks and Snowden are considered assets now to any and all competitors
to the US deep state, from within and from abroad – the Pandora's box, assisted by technology, can't be closed now. The independent
media has matured to the point of criticizing and debating itself/each other, as well as focusing harsh light on the establishment media.
Instead of left and right mainstream media, we increasingly recognize state media, and delightedly observe its own struggle to survive
in the face of a growing nervousness of the deep state it assists on command. ..."
"... Watch an old program like"Yes, Minister" to understand how it works. Politicians come and go, but the permanent state apparatchiks
doesn't. ..."
"... The "deep state" programs, whether conceived and directed by Soros' handlers, or others, risks unintended consequences. The
social division intended by BLM, for example could easily morph beyond the goals. The lack of law due to corruption is equally susceptible
to a spontaneous reaction of "the mob," not under the control of the Tavistock handlers. There's an old saying on Wall St; pigs get
fat, hogs get slaughtered. ..."
So, after getting up late, groggy, and feeling overworked even before I started, I read
this article . Just
after, I had to feed a dozen cats and dogs, each dog in a separate room out of respect for their territorialism and aggressive desire
to consume more than they should (hmm, where have I seen this before), and in the process, forgot where I put my coffee cup. Retracing
steps, I finally find it and sit back down to my 19-inch window on the ugly (and perhaps remote) world of the state, and the endless
pinpricks of the independent media on its vast overwhelmingly evil existence. I suspect I share this distractibility and daily estrangement
from the actions of our government with most Americans .
We are newly bombing Libya and still messing with the Middle East? I thought that the wars the deep state wanted and started were
now limited and constrained! What happened to lack of funds, lack of popular support, public transparency that revealed the stupidity
and abject failure of these wars?
Deep state. Something systemic, difficult to detect, hard to remove, hidden. It is a spirit as much as nerves and organ.
How do your starve it, excise it, or just make it go away? We want to know. I think this explains the popularity of infotainment
about haunted houses, ghosts and alien beings among us. They live and we are curious
and scared.
The "Obama Doctrine" a continuation of the previous false government doctrines in my lifetime, is less doctrine than the
disease, as David Swanson points out . But in the article he critiques, the neoconservative warmongering global planning freak
perspective (truly, we must recognize this view as freakish, sociopathic, death-cultish, control-obsessed, narcissist, take your
pick or get a combo, it's all good). Disease, as a way of understanding the deep state action on the body politic, is abnormal. It
can and should be cured.
My summary of the long Jeffrey Goldberg piece is basically that Obama has become more fatalistic (did he mean to say fatal?) since
he won that Nobel
Peace Prize back in 2009 . By the way, the "Nobel prize" article contains this gem, sure to get a chuckle:
"Obama's drone program is regularly criticized for a lack of transparency and accountability, especially considering incomplete
intelligence means officials are often unsure about who will die. "
[M]ost individuals killed are not on a kill list, and the government does not know their names," Micah Zenko, a scholar at
the Council on Foreign Relations told the New York Times."
This is about all the fun I can handle in one day. But back to what I was trying to say.
The deep state seems to have grown, strengthened and tightened its grip. Can a lack of real money restrain or starve it? I
once thought so, and maybe I still do. But it doesn't use real money, but rather debt and creative financing to get that next new
car, er, war and intervention and domestic spending program. Ultimately it's not sustainable, and just as unaffordable cars are junked,
stripped, repossessed, and crunched up, so will go the way of the physical assets of the warfare–welfare state.
Because
inflated salaries ,
inflated
stock prices and inflated ruling-class personalities
are month to month, these should evaporate more quickly, over a debris field
once known as some of richest
counties in the United States. Can I imagine the shabbiest of trailer parks in the dismal swamp, where high rises and government
basilicas and abbeys once stood? I'd certainly like to. But I'll settle for well-kept, privately owned house trailers, filled with
people actually producing some small value for society, and minding their own business.
Can a lack of public support reduce the deep state, or impact it? Well, it would seem that this is a non-factor, except for the
strange history we have had and are witnessing again today, with the odd successful popular and populist-leaning politician and their
related movements. In my lifetime, only popular figures and their movements get assassinated mysteriously, with odd polka dot dresses,
MKULTRA suggestions, threats against their family by their competitors (I'm thinking Perot, but one mustn't be limited to that case),
and always with concordant pressures on the sociopolitical seams in the country, i.e riots and police/military activations. The
bad dealings toward, and genuine fear
of, Bernie Sanders within the Democratic Party's wing of the deep state is matched or exceeded only by the genuine terror of
Trump among the Republican deep state wing. This reaction to something or some person that so many in the country find engaging and
appealing - an outsider who speaks to the growing political and economic dissatisfaction of a poorer, more indebted, and
more regulated population – is
heart-warming, to be sure. It is a sign that whether or not we do, the deep state thinks things might change. Thank you, Bernie and
especially Donald, for revealing this much! And the "republicanization" of the Libertarian Party is also a bright indicator blinking
out the potential of deep state movement and compromise in the pursuit of "stability."
Finally, what of those pinpricks of light, the honest assessments of the real death trail and consumption pit that the deep
state has delivered? Well, it is growing and broadening. Wikileaks and Snowden are considered assets now to any and all competitors
to the US deep state, from within and from abroad – the Pandora's box, assisted by technology, can't be closed now. The independent
media has matured to the point of criticizing and debating itself/each other, as well as focusing harsh light on the establishment
media. Instead of left and right mainstream media, we increasingly recognize state media, and delightedly observe its own struggle
to survive in the face of a growing nervousness of the deep state it assists on command.
Maybe we will one day soon be able to debate how deep the deep state really is, or whether it was all just a dressed up, meth'ed
up, and eff'ed up a sector of society that deserves a bit of jail time, some counseling, and a new start . Maybe some job training
that goes beyond the printing of license plates. But given the destruction and mass murder committed daily in the name of this state,
and the environmental disasters it has created around the world for the future generations, perhaps we will be no more merciful to
these proprietors of the American empire as they have been to their victims. The ruling class deeply fears our judgment, and in this
dynamic lies the cure.
LIST OF DEMANDS TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM FINANCIAL CATASTROPHE
I.CURB CORRUPTION AND EXCESSIVE POWER IN THE FINANCIAL ARMS OF THE US GOVERNMENT
A. FEDERAL RESERVE
1. Benjaman Bernanke to be removed as Chairman immediately
2. New York Federal Reserve Bank and all New York City offices of the Federal Reserve system will be closed for at least 3
years
3. Salaries will be reduced and capped at $150,000/year, adjusted for official inflation
4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels
5. Interest rate manipulation to be prohibited for at least five years
6. Balance sheet manipulation to be prohibited for at least five years
7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years
B. TREASURY DEPARTMENT
1. Timothy Geithner to be removed as Secretary immediately
2. All New York City offices of the Department will be closed for at least 3 years
3. Salaries will be reduced and capped at $150,000/year, adjusted for official inflation
4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels
5. Market manipulation/intervention to be prohibited for at least five years
7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years
II. END THE CORRUPTING INFLUENCE OF GIANT BANKS AND PROTECT AMERICANS FROM FURTHER EXPOSURE TO THEIR COLLAPSE
A. END CORRUPT INFLUENCE
1. Lifetime ban on government employment for TARP recipient employees and corporate officers, specifically including Goldman
Sachs and JP Morgan Chase
2. Ten year ban on government work for consulting firms, law firms, and individual consultants and lawyers who have accepted
cash from these entities
3. All contacts by any method with federal agencies and employees prohibited for at least five years, with civil and criminal
penalties for violation
B. PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM FURTHER HARM AT THE HANDS OF GIANT BANKS
1. No financial institution with assets of more than $10billion will receive federal assistance or any 'arm's-length' bailouts
2. TARP recipients are prohibited from purchasing other TARP recipient corporate units, or merging with other TARP recipients
3. No foreign interest shall be allowed to acquire any portion of TARP recipients in the US or abroad
III. PREVENT CORPORATE ACCOUNTING AND PENSION FUND ABUSES RELATED TO THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS
A. CORPORATE ACCOUNTING
1. Immediately implement mark-to-market accounting rules which were improperly suspended, allowing six months for implementation.
2. Companies must reserve against impaired assets under mark-to-market rules
3. Any health or life insurance company with more than$100 million in assets must report on their holdings and risk factors,
specifically including exposure to real estate, mortgage-backed securities, derivatives, and other exotic financial instruments.
These reports will be to state insurance commissions and the federal government, and will also be made available to the public
on the Internet.
B. PENSION FUNDS
1. All private and public pension funds must disclose their funding status and establish a plan to fully fund accounts under
the assumption that net real returns across all asset classes remain at zero for at least ten years.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: You know what happens when politicians get into Number 10; they want to take their place on the
world stage.
Sir Richard Wharton: People on stages are called actors. All they are required to do is look plausible, stay sober,
and say the lines they're given in the right order.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Some of them try to make up their own lines.
The "deep state" programs, whether conceived and directed by Soros' handlers, or others, risks unintended consequences.
The social division intended by BLM, for example could easily morph beyond the goals. The lack of law due to corruption is equally
susceptible to a spontaneous reaction of "the mob," not under the control of the Tavistock handlers. There's an old saying on
Wall St; pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.
The failed coup in Turkey is a significant indication of institutional weakness and also vulnerability. The inability to exercise
force of will in Syria is another. The list of failures is getting too long.
An interesting article on John McCain. I disagree with the contention that McCain hid knowledge that many American POWs were left
behind (undoubtedly some voluntarily choose to remain behind but not hundreds ). However, the article touched on some ideas that
rang true:
Today when we consider the major countries of the world we see that in many cases the official leaders are also the leaders
in actuality: Vladimir Putin calls the shots in Russia, Xi Jinping and his top Politburo colleagues do the same in China, and
so forth. However, in America and in some other Western countries, this seems to be less and less the case, with top national
figures merely being attractive front-men selected for their popular appeal and their political malleability, a development that
may eventually have dire consequences for the nations they lead. As an extreme example, a drunken Boris Yeltsin freely allowed
the looting of Russia's entire national wealth by the handful of oligarchs who pulled his strings, and the result was the total
impoverishment of the Russian people and a demographic collapse almost unprecedented in modern peacetime history.
An obvious problem with installing puppet rulers is the risk that they will attempt to cut their strings, much like Putin
soon outmaneuvered and exiled his oligarch patron Boris Berezovsky.
One means of minimizing such risk is to select puppets who
are so deeply compromised that they can never break free, knowing that the political self-destruct charges buried deep within
their pasts could easily be triggered if they sought independence. I have sometimes joked with my friends that perhaps the best
career move for an ambitious young politician would be to secretly commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard
evidence of his guilt ended up in the hands of certain powerful people, thereby assuring his rapid political rise.
The gist is that elite need a kill switch on their front men (and women).
Seems to be a series of pieces dealing with Vietnam POWs: the following linked item was interesting and provided a plausible explanation:
that the US failed to pay up agreed on reparations…
Remarkable and shocking. Wheels within wheels – this is the first time I have ever seen McCain's father connected with the infamous
Board of Inquiry which cleared Israel in that state's attack on USS LIBERTY during Israel's seizure of the Golan Heights.
Another stunning article in which the author makes reference to his recent acquisition of what he considers to be a reliably authentic
audio file of POW McCain's broadcasts from captivity. Dynamite stuff. The conclusion regarding aspiring untenured historians is
quite downbeat:
Also remarkable; fantastic. It's hard to believe, and a testament to the boldness of Washington dog-and-pony shows, because this
must have been well-known in insider circles in Washington – anything so damning which was not ruthlessly and professionally suppressed
and simply never allowed to become part of a national discussion would surely have been stumbled upon before now. Land of the
Cover-Up.
"... So, if the period when he was a good econometrician exists it is limited to pre-war and war years. As he was born in 1912, he was just 33 in 1945. His "A Theory of the Consumption Function" was published in 1957. And "A Monetary History of the United States, 1867–1960" in 1963, when he was already completely crooked. ..."
"... Mont Pelerin Society was founded in 1947 with the explicit political goal of being hatching place for neoliberal ideology as alternative to communist ideology. He served as a President of this Society from 1970 to 1972. ..."
"... So what Krugnam is saying is a myth. And he is not an impartial observer. He is a neoliberal himself. I still remember Krugman despicable attacks on John Kenneth Galbraith and his unhealthy fascination with the usage of differential equations in economic modeling, the epitome of mathiness. ..."
Ironic isn't it? "Why didn't ... exhibit the same restraint in his role as a public intellectual?
The answer, I suspect, is that he got caught up in an essentially political role. Milton Friedman the great economist could
and did acknowledge ambiguity. But Milton Friedman the great champion of free markets was expected to preach the true faith, not
give voice to doubts. And he ended up playing the role his followers expected. As a result, over time the refreshing iconoclasm
of his early career hardened into a rigid defense of what had become the new orthodoxy."
Krugman should have stuck to economics...
likbez -> JohnH...
Yes, this is pretty nasty verdict for Krugman too.
But, in reality, Milton Friedman was an intellectual prostitute of financial oligarchy most of his long life, starting from
his days in Mont Pelerin Society ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Pelerin_Society)
, where he was one of the founders.
So, if the period when he was a good econometrician exists it is limited to pre-war and war years. As he was born in 1912,
he was just 33 in 1945. His "A Theory of the Consumption Function" was published in 1957. And "A Monetary History of the United
States, 1867–1960" in 1963, when he was already completely crooked.
Mont Pelerin Society was founded in 1947 with the explicit political goal of being hatching place for neoliberal ideology
as alternative to communist ideology. He served as a President of this Society from 1970 to 1972.
Capitalism and Freedom that many consider to be neoliberal manifesto similar to Marx and Engels "Manifesto of the Communist
Party" was published in 1962.
So what Krugnam is saying is a myth. And he is not an impartial observer. He is a neoliberal himself. I still remember
Krugman despicable attacks on John Kenneth Galbraith and his unhealthy fascination with the usage of differential equations in
economic modeling, the epitome of mathiness.
This was written in 2011 but it summarizes Obama presidency pretty nicely, even today. Betrayer
in chief, the master of bait and switch. That is the essence of Obama legacy. On "Great Democratic betrayal"...
Obama always was a closet neoliberal and neocon. A stooge of neoliberal financial oligarchy, a puppet,
if you want politically incorrect term. He just masked it well during hist first election campaigning
as a progressive democrat... And he faced Romney in his second campaign, who was even worse, so after
betraying American people once, he was reelected and did it twice. Much like Bush II. He like
another former cocaine addict -- George W Bush has never any intention of helping American people, only
oligarchy.
Notable quotes:
"... IN contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. ..."
"... We (yes, we) recognise that capitalism is the most efficient way to maximise overall prosperity and quality of life. But we also recognise that unfettered, it will ravage the environment, abuse labor, and expand income disparity until violence or tragedy (or both) ensues. ..."
"... These are the lessons we've learned since the industrial revolution, and they're the ones that we should be drawing from the past decade. We recognise that we need a strong federal government to check these tendencies, and to strike a stable, sustainable balance between prosperity, community, opportunity, wealth, justice, freedom. We need a voice to fill the moral vacuum that has allowed the Koch/Tea/Fox Party to emerge and grab power. ..."
"... Americans know this---including, of course, President Obama (see his April 13 speech at GW University). But as this article by Dr. Westen so effectively shows, Obama is incompetent to lead us back ..."
"... he is not competent to lead us back to a state of American morality, where government is the protector of those who work hard, and the provider of opportunity to all Americans. ..."
"... I've heard him called a mediator, a conciliator, a compromiser, etc. Those terms indicate someone who is bringing divergent views together and moving us along. That's part of what a leader does, though not all. Yet I don't think he's even lived up to his reputation as a mediator. ..."
"... Almost three years after I voted for Obama, I still don't know what he's doing other than trying to help the financial industry: the wealthy who benefit most from it and the technocrats who run it for them. But average working people, people like myself and my daughter and my grandson, have not been helped. We are worse off than before. And millions of unemployed and underemployed are even worse off than my family is. ..."
"... So whatever else he is (and that still remains a mystery to me), President Obama is not the leader I thought I was voting for. ..."
"... I knew that Obama was a charade early on when giving a speech about the banking failures to the nation, instead of giving the narrative Mr. Westen accurately recommended on the origins of the orgy of greed that just crippled our economy and caused suffering for millions of Americans ..."
"... He should have been condemning the craven, wanton, greed of nihilistic financial gangsters who hijacked our economy. Instead he seemed to be calling for all Americans not to hate rich people. That was not the point. Americans don't hate rich people, but they should hate rich people who acquire their wealth at the expense of the well being of an entire nation through irresponsible, avaricious, and in some instances illegal practices, and legally bribe politicians to enact laws which allow them to run amok over our economy without supervision or regulation. ..."
"... I knew then that Obama was either a political lemon, in over his head, an extremely conflict averse neurotic individual with a compulsive need for some delusional ideal of neutrality in political and social relations, or a political phony beholden to the same forces that almost destroyed the country as Republicans are. ..."
When Barack Obama rose to the lectern on Inauguration Day, the nation was in tatters. Americans
were scared and angry. The economy was spinning in reverse. Three-quarters of a million people lost
their jobs that month. Many had lost their homes, and with them the only nest eggs they had. Even
the usually impervious upper middle class had seen a decade of stagnant or declining investment,
with the stock market dropping in value with no end in sight. Hope was as scarce as credit.
In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what
they had just been through, what caused it, and how it was going to end. They needed to hear that
he understood what they were feeling, that he would track down those responsible for their pain and
suffering, and that he would restore order and safety. What they were waiting for, in broad strokes,
was a story something like this:
"I know you're scared and angry. Many of you have lost your jobs, your homes, your hope. This
was a disaster, but it was not a natural disaster. It was made by Wall Street gamblers who speculated
with your lives and futures. It was made by conservative extremists who told us that if we just eliminated
regulations and rewarded greed and recklessness, it would all work out. But it didn't work out. And
it didn't work out 80 years ago, when the same people sold our grandparents the same bill of goods,
with the same results. But we learned something from our grandparents about how to fix it, and we
will draw on their wisdom. We will restore business confidence the old-fashioned way: by putting
money back in the pockets of working Americans by putting them back to work, and by restoring integrity
to our financial markets and demanding it of those who want to run them. I can't promise that we
won't make mistakes along the way. But I can promise you that they will be honest mistakes, and that
your government has your back again." A story isn't a policy. But that simple narrative - and the
policies that would naturally have flowed from it - would have inoculated against much of what was
to come in the intervening two and a half years of failed government, idled factories and idled hands.
That story would have made clear that the president understood that the American people had given
Democrats the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress to fix the mess the Republicans
and Wall Street had made of the country, and that this would not be a power-sharing arrangement.
It would have made clear that the problem wasn't tax-and-spend liberalism or the deficit - a deficit
that didn't exist until George W. Bush gave nearly $2 trillion in tax breaks largely to the wealthiest
Americans and squandered $1 trillion in two wars.
And perhaps most important, it would have offered a clear, compelling alternative to the dominant
narrative of the right, that our problem is not due to spending on things like the pensions of firefighters,
but to the fact that those who can afford to buy influence are rewriting the rules so they can cut
themselves progressively larger slices of the American pie while paying less of their fair share
for it.
But there was no story - and there has been none since.
In similar circumstances, Franklin D. Roosevelt offered Americans a promise to use the power of
his office to make their lives better and to keep trying until he got it right. Beginning in his
first inaugural address, and in the fireside chats that followed, he explained how the crash had
happened, and he minced no words about those who had caused it. He promised to do something no president
had done before: to use the resources of the United States to put Americans directly to work, building
the infrastructure we still rely on today. He swore to keep the people who had caused the crisis
out of the halls of power, and he made good on that promise. In a 1936 speech at Madison Square Garden,
he thundered, "Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate
as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me - and I welcome their hatred."
When Barack Obama stepped into the Oval Office, he stepped into a cycle of American history, best
exemplified by F.D.R. and his distant cousin, Teddy. After a great technological revolution or a
major economic transition, as when America changed from a nation of farmers to an urban industrial
one, there is often a period of great concentration of wealth, and with it, a concentration of power
in the wealthy. That's what we saw in 1928, and that's what we see today. At some point that power
is exercised so injudiciously, and the lives of so many become so unbearable, that a period of reform
ensues - and a charismatic reformer emerges to lead that renewal. In that sense, Teddy Roosevelt
started the cycle of reform his cousin picked up 30 years later, as he began efforts to bust the
trusts and regulate the railroads, exercise federal power over the banks and the nation's food supply,
and protect America's land and wildlife, creating the modern environmental movement.
Those were the shoes - that was the historic role - that Americans elected Barack Obama to fill.
The president is fond of referring to "the arc of history," paraphrasing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King Jr.'s famous statement that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
But with his deep-seated aversion to conflict and his profound failure to understand bully dynamics
- in which conciliation is always the wrong course of action, because bullies perceive it as weakness
and just punch harder the next time - he has broken that arc and has likely bent it backward for
at least a generation.
When Dr. King spoke of the great arc bending toward justice, he did not mean that we should wait
for it to bend. He exhorted others to put their full weight behind it, and he gave his life speaking
with a voice that cut through the blistering force of water cannons and the gnashing teeth of police
dogs. He preached the gospel of nonviolence, but he knew that whether a bully hid behind a club or
a poll tax, the only effective response was to face the bully down, and to make the bully show his
true and repugnant face in public.
IN contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic
inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack
Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. Instead of indicting the
people whose recklessness wrecked the economy, he put them in charge of it. He never explained that
decision to the public - a failure in storytelling as extraordinary as the failure in judgment behind
it. Had the president chosen to bend the arc of history, he would have told the public the story
of the destruction wrought by the dismantling of the New Deal regulations that had protected them
for more than half a century. He would have offered them a counternarrative of how to fix the problem
other than the politics of appeasement, one that emphasized creating economic demand and consumer
confidence by putting consumers back to work. He would have had to stare down those who had wrecked
the economy, and he would have had to tolerate their hatred if not welcome it. But the arc of his
temperament just didn't bend that far.
Michael August 7, 2011
Eloquently expressed and horrifically accurate, this excellent analysis articulates the frustration
that so many of us have felt watching Mr...
Bill Levine August 7, 2011
Very well put. I know that I have been going through Kübler-Ross's stages of grief ever since
the foxes (a.k.a. Geithner and Summers) were...
AnAverageAmerican August 7, 2011
"In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of
what they had just been through, what caused it,...
Unfortunately, the Democratic Congress of 2008-2010, did not have the will to make the economic
and social program decisions that would have improved the economic situation for the middle-class;
and it is becoming more obvious that President Obama does not have the temperament to publicly
push for programs and policies that he wants the congress to enact.
The American people have a problem: we reelect Obama and hope for the best; or we elect a Republican
and expect the worst. There is no question that the Health Care law that was just passed would
be reversed; Medicare and Medicare would be gutted; and who knows what would happen to Social
Security. You can be sure, though, that business taxes and regulation reforms would not be in
the cards and those regulations that have been enacted would be reversed. We have traveled this
road before and we should be wise enough not to travel it again!
Brilliant analysis - and I suspect that a very large number of those who voted for President
Obama will recognize in this the thoughts that they have been trying to ignore, or have been trying
not to say out loud. Later historians can complete this analysis and attempt to explain exactly
why Mr. Obama has turned out the way he has - but right now, it may be time to ask a more relevant
and urgent question.
If it is not too late, will a challenger emerge in time before the 2012 elections, or will
we be doomed to hold our noses and endure another four years of this?
Very eloquent and exactly to the point. Like many others, I was enthralled by the rhetoric
of his story, making the leap of faith (or hope) that because he could tell his story so well,
he could tell, as you put it, "the story the American people were waiting to hear."
Disappointment has darkened into disillusion, disillusion into a species of despair. Will I
vote for Barack Obama again? What are the options?
This is the most brilliant and tragic story I have read in a long time---in fact, precisely
since I read when Ill Fares the Land by Tony Judt. When will a leader emerge with a true moral
vision for the federal government and for our country? Someone who sees government as a balance
to capitalism, and a means to achieve the social and economic justice that we (yes, we) believe
in? Will that leadership arrive before parts of America come to look like the dystopia of Johannesburg?
We (yes, we) recognise that capitalism is the most efficient way to maximise overall prosperity
and quality of life. But we also recognise that unfettered, it will ravage the environment, abuse
labor, and expand income disparity until violence or tragedy (or both) ensues.
These are the lessons we've learned since the industrial revolution, and they're the ones
that we should be drawing from the past decade. We recognise that we need a strong federal government
to check these tendencies, and to strike a stable, sustainable balance between prosperity, community,
opportunity, wealth, justice, freedom. We need a voice to fill the moral vacuum that has allowed
the Koch/Tea/Fox Party to emerge and grab power.
Americans know this---including, of course, President Obama (see his April 13 speech at
GW University). But as this article by Dr. Westen so effectively shows, Obama is incompetent to
lead us back to America's traditional position on the global economic/political spectrum.
He's brilliant and eloquent. He's achieved personal success that is inspirational. He's done some
good things as president. But he is not competent to lead us back to a state of American morality,
where government is the protector of those who work hard, and the provider of opportunity to all
Americans.
Taxes, subsidies, entitlements, laws... these are the tools we have available to achieve our
national moral vision. But the vision has been muddled (hijacked?) and that is our biggest problem.
-->
I voted for Obama. I thought then, and still think, he's a decent person, a smart person, a
person who wants to do the best he can for others. When I voted for him, I was thinking he's a
centrist who will find a way to unite our increasingly polarized and ugly politics in the USA.
Or if not unite us, at least forge a way to get some important things done despite the ugly polarization.
And I must confess, I have been disappointed. Deeply so. He has not united us. He has not forged
a way to accomplish what needs to be done. He has not been a leader.
I've heard him called a mediator, a conciliator, a compromiser, etc. Those terms indicate
someone who is bringing divergent views together and moving us along. That's part of what a leader
does, though not all. Yet I don't think he's even lived up to his reputation as a mediator.
Almost three years after I voted for Obama, I still don't know what he's doing other than
trying to help the financial industry: the wealthy who benefit most from it and the technocrats
who run it for them. But average working people, people like myself and my daughter and my grandson,
have not been helped. We are worse off than before. And millions of unemployed and underemployed
are even worse off than my family is.
So whatever else he is (and that still remains a mystery to me), President Obama is not
the leader I thought I was voting for. Which leaves me feeling confused and close to apathetic
about what to do as a voter in 2012. More of the same isn't worth voting for. Yet I don't see
anyone out there who offers the possibility of doing better.
This was an extraordinarily well written, eloquent and comprehensive indictment of the failure
of the Obama presidency.
If a credible primary challenger to Obama ever could arise, the positions and analysis in this
column would be all he or she would need to justify the Democratic party's need to seek new leadership.
I knew that Obama was a charade early on when giving a speech about the banking failures
to the nation, instead of giving the narrative Mr. Westen accurately recommended on the origins
of the orgy of greed that just crippled our economy and caused suffering for millions of Americans,
he said "we don't disparage wealth in America." I was dumbfounded.
He should have been condemning the craven, wanton, greed of nihilistic financial gangsters
who hijacked our economy. Instead he seemed to be calling for all Americans not to hate rich people.
That was not the point. Americans don't hate rich people, but they should hate rich people who
acquire their wealth at the expense of the well being of an entire nation through irresponsible,
avaricious, and in some instances illegal practices, and legally bribe politicians to enact laws
which allow them to run amok over our economy without supervision or regulation.
I knew then that Obama was either a political lemon, in over his head, an extremely conflict
averse neurotic individual with a compulsive need for some delusional ideal of neutrality in political
and social relations, or a political phony beholden to the same forces that almost destroyed the
country as Republicans are.
"... Trump told a significant fraction of the population that he understood their problems and that he would fix them. He told enough people what they wanted to hear - and did so with a convincing tone - that he got himself elected. That's how you win. You sell people on your vision. If you tell a good story most people aren't going to reality-check it. Sad but true. ..."
"... On the importance of narrative: Drew Westen, "What Happened to Obama?" http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html ..."
"... Matt Taibbi in 2011: "I simply don't believe the Democrats would really be worse off with voters if they committed themselves to putting people back to work, policing Wall Street, throwing their weight behind a real public option in health care, making hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates as ordinary people, ending the pointless wars abroad, etc." ..."
"... Unfortunately, there are at best a handful of Democrats who've been doing that. That should have been our message 24/7/365 for the past eight years. (That and the story Westen laid out.) It was not. ..."
"... Yup. And that is how you lose the Presidency, the House, the Senate, 30-someodd (?) governorships, and 900-someodd state legislative seats over the past eight years. ..."
And this is telling us something significant: namely, that supply-side economic theory is and
always was a sham.
Urgh. That it is and always a sham is irrelevant. It is THE NARRATIVE that matters! They had
a compelling story and they stuck to it. That's how you sell politics in this country.
Trump told a significant fraction of the population that he understood their problems and that
he would fix them. He told enough people what they wanted to hear - and did so with a convincing
tone - that he got himself elected. That's how you win. You sell people on your vision. If you
tell a good story most people aren't going to reality-check it. Sad but true.
Manned the phone banks and held signs for my state rep again this year. (Bowed out of going door-to-door
this election though.) Tough race against a right-wing jerk. My guy won - in no small part because
he's incredibly engaged with the community. I'll be back out for him again in 2018. That stated,
I'm not sure how to make an impact at the national level - in part I think because I live in a very
blue state. Keeping the goons from a establishing a local foothold seems a good place to start. Building
resilient local networks feels like it will be essential for getting through the next four years.
Matt Taibbi in 2011: "I simply don't believe the Democrats would really be worse off with voters
if they committed themselves to putting people back to work, policing Wall Street, throwing their
weight behind a real public option in health care, making hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates
as ordinary people, ending the pointless wars abroad, etc."
Unfortunately, there are at best a handful of Democrats who've been doing that. That should have
been our message 24/7/365 for the past eight years. (That and the story Westen laid out.) It was
not.
Taibbi continued: "That they won't do these things because they're afraid of public criticism,
and "responding to pressure," is an increasingly transparent lie. This "Please, Br'er Fox, don't
throw me into dat dere briar patch" deal isn't going to work for much longer. Just about everybody
knows now that they want to go into that briar patch."
Yup. And that is how you lose the Presidency, the House, the Senate, 30-someodd (?) governorships,
and 900-someodd state legislative seats over the past eight years.
"... Trump told a significant fraction of the population that he understood their problems and that he would fix them. He told enough people what they wanted to hear - and did so with a convincing tone - that he got himself elected. That's how you win. You sell people on your vision. If you tell a good story most people aren't going to reality-check it. Sad but true. ..."
"... On the importance of narrative: Drew Westen, "What Happened to Obama?" http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html ..."
"... Matt Taibbi in 2011: "I simply don't believe the Democrats would really be worse off with voters if they committed themselves to putting people back to work, policing Wall Street, throwing their weight behind a real public option in health care, making hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates as ordinary people, ending the pointless wars abroad, etc." ..."
"... Unfortunately, there are at best a handful of Democrats who've been doing that. That should have been our message 24/7/365 for the past eight years. (That and the story Westen laid out.) It was not. ..."
"... Yup. And that is how you lose the Presidency, the House, the Senate, 30-someodd (?) governorships, and 900-someodd state legislative seats over the past eight years. ..."
And this is telling us something significant: namely, that supply-side economic theory is and
always was a sham.
Urgh. That it is and always a sham is irrelevant. It is THE NARRATIVE that matters! They had
a compelling story and they stuck to it. That's how you sell politics in this country.
Trump told a significant fraction of the population that he understood their problems and that
he would fix them. He told enough people what they wanted to hear - and did so with a convincing
tone - that he got himself elected. That's how you win. You sell people on your vision. If you
tell a good story most people aren't going to reality-check it. Sad but true.
Manned the phone banks and held signs for my state rep again this year. (Bowed out of going door-to-door
this election though.) Tough race against a right-wing jerk. My guy won - in no small part because
he's incredibly engaged with the community. I'll be back out for him again in 2018. That stated,
I'm not sure how to make an impact at the national level - in part I think because I live in a very
blue state. Keeping the goons from a establishing a local foothold seems a good place to start. Building
resilient local networks feels like it will be essential for getting through the next four years.
Matt Taibbi in 2011: "I simply don't believe the Democrats would really be worse off with voters
if they committed themselves to putting people back to work, policing Wall Street, throwing their
weight behind a real public option in health care, making hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates
as ordinary people, ending the pointless wars abroad, etc."
Unfortunately, there are at best a handful of Democrats who've been doing that. That should have
been our message 24/7/365 for the past eight years. (That and the story Westen laid out.) It was
not.
Taibbi continued: "That they won't do these things because they're afraid of public criticism,
and "responding to pressure," is an increasingly transparent lie. This "Please, Br'er Fox, don't
throw me into dat dere briar patch" deal isn't going to work for much longer. Just about everybody
knows now that they want to go into that briar patch."
Yup. And that is how you lose the Presidency, the House, the Senate, 30-someodd (?) governorships,
and 900-someodd state legislative seats over the past eight years.
Ironic isn't it? "Why didn't ... exhibit the same restraint in his role as a public intellectual?
The answer, I suspect, is that he got caught up in an essentially political role. Milton Friedman the great economist could
and did acknowledge ambiguity. But Milton Friedman the great champion of free markets was expected to preach the true faith, not
give voice to doubts. And he ended up playing the role his followers expected. As a result, over time the refreshing iconoclasm
of his early career hardened into a rigid defense of what had become the new orthodoxy."
Krugman should have stuck to economics...
likbez -> JohnH...
Yes, this is pretty nasty verdict for Krugman too.
But, in reality, Milton Friedman was an intellectual prostitute of financial oligarchy most of his long life, starting from
his days in Mont Pelerin Society ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Pelerin_Society)
, where he was one of the founders.
So, if the period when he was a good econometrician exists it is limited to pre-war and war years. As he was born in 1912,
he was just 33 in 1945. His "A Theory of the Consumption Function" was published in 1957. And "A Monetary History of the United
States, 1867–1960" in 1963, when he was already completely crooked.
Mont Pelerin Society was founded in 1947 with the explicit political goal of being hatching place for neoliberal ideology
as alternative to communist ideology. He served as a President of this Society from 1970 to 1972.
Capitalism and Freedom that many consider to be neoliberal manifesto similar to Marx and Engels "Manifesto of the Communist
Party" was published in 1962.
So what Krugnam is saying is a myth. And he is not an impartial observer. He is a neoliberal himself. I still remember
Krugman despicable attacks on John Kenneth Galbraith and his unhealthy fascination with the usage of differential equations in
economic modeling, the epitome of mathiness.
"... My criticism of Krugman is far more fundamental. I do not believe the profit motive is superior to the mutual benefit motive
when it comes to organizing economies. ..."
1. His refusal to acknowledge the central role of consumption in our economy. As Keynes said, ""Consumption - to repeat
the obvious - is the sole end and object of all economic activity." The General Theory, p. 104.
And Adam Smith agreed: "Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production." The Wealth of Nations, Book IV Chapter
VIII, v. ii, p. 660, para. 49.
2. Krugman's refusal to endorse fiscal stimulus unless the economy is at ZLB. That is not only anti-Keynesian, it plays
directly into the hands of the debt fear mongers. (Krugman is also worried about the debt.)
"Krugman's refusal to endorse fiscal stimulus unless the economy is at ZLB."
That is a strawman, and a bad one.
PS: My criticism of Krugman is far more fundamental. I do not believe the profit motive is superior to the mutual benefit
motive when it comes to organizing economies.
An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of The Wealth of Nations
By Adam Smith
On Systems of Political Economy
Conclusion of the Mercantile System
Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so
far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer. The maxim is so perfectly self evident that it would be absurd
to attempt to prove it. But in the mercantile system the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the
producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce.
The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money
By John Maynard Keynes
The Propensity to Consume: The Objective Factors
Consumption - to repeat the obvious - is the sole end and object of all economic activity. Opportunities for employment are
necessarily limited by the extent of aggregate demand. Aggregate demand can be derived only from present consumption or from present
provision for future consumption. The consumption for which we can profitably provide in advance cannot be pushed indefinitely
into the future. We cannot, as a community, provide for future consumption by financial expedients but only by current physical
output. In so far as our social and business organisation separates financial provision for the future from physical provision
for the future so that efforts to secure the former do not necessarily carry the latter with them, financial prudence will be
liable to diminish aggregate demand and thus impair well-being, as there are many examples to testify. The greater, moreover,
the consumption for which we have provided in advance, the more difficult it is to find something further to provide for in advance,
and the greater our dependence on present consumption as a source of demand. Yet the larger our incomes, the greater, unfortunately,
is the margin between our incomes and our consumption. So, failing some novel expedient, there is, as we shall see, no answer
to the riddle, except that there must be sufficient unemployment to keep us so poor that our consumption falls short of our income
by no more than the equivalent of the physical provision for future consumption which it pays to produce to-day.
anne -> Paul Mathis... , -1
Krugman's refusal to endorse fiscal stimulus unless the economy is at zero lower bound. That is not only anti-Keynesian, it plays
directly into the hands of the debt fear mongers. (Krugman is also worried about the debt.)
[ Only correct to a degree, economic weakness is recognized. ]
"What's odd about Friedman's absolutism on the virtues of markets and the vices of government is that in his work as an economist's
economist he was actually a model of restraint. As I pointed out earlier, he made great contributions to economic theory by emphasizing
the role of individual rationality-but unlike some of his colleagues, he knew where to stop. Why didn't he exhibit the same restraint
in his role as a public intellectual?
The answer, I suspect, is that he got caught up in an essentially political role. Milton Friedman the great economist could
and did acknowledge ambiguity. But Milton Friedman the great champion of free markets was expected to preach the true faith, not
give voice to doubts. And he ended up playing the role his followers expected. As a result, over time the refreshing iconoclasm
of his early career hardened into a rigid defense of what had become the new orthodoxy.
In the long run, great men are remembered for their strengths, not their weaknesses, and Milton Friedman was a very great man
indeed-a man of intellectual courage who was one of the most important economic thinkers of all time, and possibly the most brilliant
communicator of economic ideas to the general public that ever lived. But there's a good case for arguing that Friedmanism, in
the end, went too far, both as a doctrine and in its practical applications. When Friedman was beginning his career as a public
intellectual, the times were ripe for a counterreformation against Keynesianism and all that went with it. But what the world
needs now, I'd argue, is a counter-counterreformation."
In an interview with Public Broadcasting System on Oct. 1, 2000, Dr. Milton Friedman said, "Let me emphasize [that] I think
Keynes was a great economist. I think his particular theory in The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money is a fascinating
theory. It's a right kind of a theory. It's one which says a lot by using only a little. So it's a theory that has great potentiality."
Brilliant economist? Not exactly. For monetarists who believe as Dr. Friedman did that "inflation is always and everywhere
a monetary phenomenon," the nearly $4 trillion added to the money supply by the Fed since 2008 should have produced raging hyper-inflation.
For Friedman, the answer was not debatable: "A steady rate of monetary growth at a moderate level can provide a framework under
which a country can have little inflation and much growth." The Counter-Revolution in Monetary Theory (1970).
this graph, which should have been labelled but was not, depicts the monetary base from October 2012 to December 2015 for reasons
that are a mystery to me.
So Friedman has vanished from the policy scene - so much so that I suspect that a few decades from now, historians of economic
thought will regard him as little more than an extended footnote.
Who Was Milton Friedman?
By Paul Krugman - New York Review of Books
1.
The history of economic thought in the twentieth century is a bit like the history of Christianity in the sixteenth century.
Until John Maynard Keynes published The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money in 1936, economics-at least in the English-speaking
world-was completely dominated by free-market orthodoxy. Heresies would occasionally pop up, but they were always suppressed.
Classical economics, wrote Keynes in 1936, "conquered England as completely as the Holy Inquisition conquered Spain." And classical
economics said that the answer to almost all problems was to let the forces of supply and demand do their job.
But classical economics offered neither explanations nor solutions for the Great Depression. By the middle of the 1930s, the
challenges to orthodoxy could no longer be contained. Keynes played the role of Martin Luther, providing the intellectual rigor
needed to make heresy respectable. Although Keynes was by no means a leftist-he came to save capitalism, not to bury it-his theory
said that free markets could not be counted on to provide full employment, creating a new rationale for large-scale government
intervention in the economy.
Keynesianism was a great reformation of economic thought. It was followed, inevitably, by a counter-reformation. A number of
economists played important roles in the great revival of classical economics between 1950 and 2000, but none was as influential
as Milton Friedman. If Keynes was Luther, Friedman was Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Jesuits. And like the Jesuits, Friedman's
followers have acted as a sort of disciplined army of the faithful, spearheading a broad, but incomplete, rollback of Keynesian
heresy. By the century's end, classical economics had regained much though by no means all of its former dominion, and Friedman
deserves much of the credit.
I don't want to push the religious analogy too far. Economic theory at least aspires to be science, not theology; it is concerned
with earth, not heaven. Keynesian theory initially prevailed because it did a far better job than classical orthodoxy of making
sense of the world around us, and Friedman's critique of Keynes became so influential largely because he correctly identified
Keynesianism's weak points. And just to be clear: although this essay argues that Friedman was wrong on some issues, and sometimes
seemed less than honest with his readers, I regard him as a great economist and a great man....
It's one of Ben Bernanke's most memorable quotes: at a conference honoring Milton Friedman on his 90th birthday, he said: *
"Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say
to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do
it again."
He was referring to the Friedman-Schwartz argument that the Fed could have prevented the Great Depression if only it has been
more aggressive in countering the fall in the money supply. This argument later mutated into the claim that the Fed caused the
Depression, but its original version still packed a strong punch. Basically, it implied that no fundamental reforms of the economy
were necessary; all it takes to avoid depressions is for central banks to do their job.
But can we say that recent events appear to disprove that claim? (So did Japan's experience in the 1990s, but that lesson failed
to sink in.) What we have now is a Fed that is determined not to "do it again." It has been very aggressive about monetary expansion.
Here's one measure of that aggressiveness, banks' excess reserves:
[Bank excess reserves, 1990-2009]
And yet the world economy is still falling off a cliff.
Preventing depressions, it turns out, is a lot harder than we were taught.
"... Therefore, the neoliberal project, considered under the aspect of justice, was destined to implode, and known to be so destined from the very beginning, since ultimately for popular acceptance it depends on redistribution, but "winners seldom, if ever, compensate the losers." So why throw good money after bad? ..."
"... Second, neoliberalism puts markets first . Always. So there's no reason to think that losers will ever be compensated, because there's no market in doing that. In any case, how do you put a price on a destroyed Main Street or a child dead from opiates? ..."
"... The neoliberal project has finally failed. It cannot secure a popular mandate, and by its nature cannot ever secure one. Therefore, anyone dedicated to an open society should not fund it. One might argue that alternatives to that project should be funded, but I think (see above) that only small-d democratic projects can create such alternatives, and they should be self-funded. ..."
"... Everything Lambert states he is correct, but as much as Soros's money is amplified by and mirrors NED and USAID money, it might be his job to invest in Democrat, Neoliberal, and Regime Change projects. He seems to function as a front/shell company like Chaz T. MAIN (Confessions of an Economic Hitman, John Perkins) or Business International Corp. ( http://johnpilger.com/articles/power-illusion-and-americas-last-taboo ) ..."
"... Soros and the State Department (or the dominant faction thereof) have roughly the same prescription for Russia and Eastern Europe. So no need at all to hypothesize one as a front for the other. ..."
"... It's not inconceivable. Think of Pierre Omidyar and USAID in Ukraine ..."
"... Agreed. Just a dumb excuse to persuade people we can't have nice things. Obama may have campaigned on "Yes We Can" in 2008 but Hillary in 2016 was the soaring voice of "No, You Can't." ..."
"... Pretty clear from the rich people and a few very rich people I have encountered, professionally and personally (once shared a secretary with Bill Gates Sr.) that the empathy and comity and decency drivers never got installed with the original programming. ..."
"... Everything Soros does is to line his own pockets I'm afraid. This will fall on deaf ears. For them, it's never enough money. That is what this is really about. Behind the curtains, you are dealing with a bunch of people who care nothing about the collective good and everything about their own net worth. Nothing else matters to them. ..."
I find the current moment in history very painful. Open societies are
in crisis, and various forms of closed societies – from fascist
dictatorships to mafia states – are on the rise. How could this happen?
The only explanation I can find is that
elected leaders failed to
meet voters' legitimate expectations and aspirations
and that this
failure led electorates to become disenchanted with the prevailing
versions of democracy and capitalism. Quite simply, many people felt that
the elites had stolen their democracy.
Not to mention their money, as the foreclosure crisis showed.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US emerged as the sole
remaining superpower, equally committed to the principles of democracy
and free markets. The major development since then has been the
globalization of financial markets, spearheaded by advocates who argued
that globalization increases total wealth. After all, if the winners
compensated the losers, they would still have something left over.
The argument was misleading, because it ignored the fact that the
winners seldom, if ever, compensate the losers
. But the potential
winners spent enough money promoting the argument that it prevailed .
Globalization has had far-reaching economic and political
consequences. It has brought about some economic convergence between poor
and rich countries; but it increased inequality within both poor and rich
countries. In the developed world,
the benefits accrued mainly to
large owners of financial capital
, who constitute less than 1% of
the population. The
lack of redistributive policies is the main
source of the dissatisfaction
that democracy's opponents have
exploited. But there were other contributing factors as well,
particularly in Europe.
Therefore, the neoliberal project, considered under the aspect of
justice, was destined to implode, and known to be so destined from the very
beginning, since ultimately for popular acceptance it depends on
redistribution, but "winners seldom, if ever, compensate the losers." So why
throw good money after bad?
Now, to be fair, some more fair-minded mainstream academics are trying to
improve neoliberalism by bringing redistribution forward. First, why - after
forty years of neoliberalism - would anyone trust them? For example, a
current popular topic is the replacement of all wage work by robots. And
sometimes the topic "How to help all those poor
losers
workers"
is vaguely discussed. Are we really to believe any help will be forthcoming?
Or that, if it comes, it won't be gate-keepered and means-tested to death?
History says no. Experience says no.
Second,
neoliberalism puts markets first
. Always. So there's no reason to think
that losers will ever be compensated, because there's no market in doing
that. In any case, how do you put a price on a destroyed Main Street or a
child dead from opiates?
The neoliberal project has finally failed. It cannot secure a popular
mandate, and by its nature cannot ever secure one. Therefore, anyone
dedicated to an open society should not fund it. One might argue that
alternatives to that project should be funded, but I think (see above) that
only small-d democratic projects can create such alternatives, and they
should be self-funded.
Conclusion
I think philanthropy even on the Nineteenth Century Robber Baron model -
Carnegie Libraries, the Frick Museum, or genuine scholarship[1] - would be
preferable to continuing to fund Democrats, or neoliberal projects
generally. Soros should consider those alternatives. Short neoliberalism.[2]
Lambert Strether has been blogging, managing online communities, and
doing system administration 24/7 since 2003, in Drupal and WordPress.
Besides political economy and the political scene, he blogs about
rhetoric, software engineering, permaculture, history, literature, local
politics, international travel, food, and fixing stuff around the house.
The nom de plume "Lambert Strether" comes from Henry James's The
Ambassadors: "Live all you can. It's a mistake not to." You can follow
him on Twitter at @lambertstrether. http://www.correntewire.com
mothyGeithner
,
December 30, 2016 at 1:26 pm
I'm reminded of Dan Snyder, the owner of the football team from
Landover, Maryland.
Snyder is a guy who sold three business ventures for crazy valuations
for companies that didn't exist in any capacity a few years later or
didn't have anything beyond pizzazz. Yet, Snyder is a billionaire. Why?
What good is he? Why shouldn't the government say, "hey, we will leave
you with $25 million, but we are taking the rest."? There is no rationale
reason for billionaires to exist, so billionaires have to come up with a
reason for why their billions are justified without giving the money
away. Dan Snyder runs a football team into the ground. George Soros tries
to fight villains of his youth, Nazis and Communists under the bed before
people realize they should just get rid of billionaires.
Snyder has to run the football team because he has to prove he's worth
it and not the by product of inane Fed and tax policies that turned two
bit operations into over night IPO bonanzas. Why isn't the guy who
invented synthetic diamonds a billionaire or even a millionaire?
Wallace
: [while eating some Chicken McNuggets]
Man, these s****s is right, yo.
Malik 'Poot' Carr
: [with his mouth full] Mm-hmm.
Wallace
: Good with the hot sauce too, yo.
Malik 'Poot' Carr
: Most definitely.
Wallace
: Yo, D, you want some nuggets?
D'Angelo Barksdale
: Nah, go ahead, man.
Wallace
: Man, whoever invented these, yo, he off the
hook.
Malik 'Poot' Carr
: What?
Wallace
: Mm. M********* got the bone all the way out
the damn chicken. 'Til he came along, n****s been chewin' on
drumsticks and s***, gettin' they fingers all greasy. He said, " Later
for the bone. Let's nugget that meat up and make some real money."
Malik 'Poot' Carr
: You think the man got paid?
Wallace
: Who?
Malik 'Poot' Carr
: Man who invented these.
Wallace
: S***, he richer than a m*********.
D'Angelo Barksdale
: Why? You think he get a
percentage?
Wallace
: Why not?
D'Angelo Barksdale
: N****, please. The man who
invented them things? Just some sad-ass down at the basement at
McDonald's, thinkin' up some s*** to make some money for the real
players.
Malik 'Poot' Carr
: Naw, man, that ain't right.
D'Angelo Barksdale
: F*** "right." It ain't about
right, it's about money. Now you think Ronald McDonald gonna go down
in that basement and say, "Hey, Mista Nugget, you the bomb. We sellin'
chicken faster than you can tear the bone out. So I'm gonna write my
clowny-ass name on this fat-ass check for you"?
Wallace
: S***.
D'Angelo Barksdale
: Man, the n**** who invented them
things still workin' in the basement for regular wage, thinkin' up
some s*** to make the fries taste better or some s*** like that.
Believe.
[pause]
Wallace
: Still had the idea, though.
Everything Lambert states he is correct, but as much as Soros's money
is amplified by and mirrors NED and USAID money, it might be his job to
invest in Democrat, Neoliberal, and Regime Change projects. He seems to
function as a front/shell company like Chaz T. MAIN (Confessions of an
Economic Hitman, John Perkins) or Business International Corp. (
http://johnpilger.com/articles/power-illusion-and-americas-last-taboo
)
Soros and the State Department (or the dominant faction
thereof) have roughly the same prescription for Russia and
Eastern Europe. So no need at all to hypothesize one as a front
for the other.
Isn't he a frontman for the pretense of democracy? and the pretense
that billionaires are concerned with the working class in general
rather than a resource to be exploited and discarded?
I see Soros useful in that he feeds the myth that there are two
parties and is a pr funder marketing the myth of choice to the voters.
His words are counter to the vast majority of what he funds. I try to
focus on what people are doing not what they say.
He could personally build vast swaths of manufacturing plants and
hand them over to the workers. He could leave his wealth to a
volunteer co-op board that only grants funds to employee owned
start-ups. He could build vast swaths of non-profit public housing and
hand them over to the communities.
Also, this is not a criticism, but it looks like your argument
is for lesser evilism. Your first proposal that he stop investing
in D elections as they are losers seems merely to be a capitalist
argument that he isn't getting a return on his investment.
I'm not to sure what your second proposal of supporting small d
institions refers to maybe think tanks and media? but supporting
lower level elections is again back to the 'more and better Ds'.
I get your strategy is to take over the D party but it seems
that 'more and better Ds' that just failed to get traction with the
2016 election. Promoting that billionaires could fine tune their
influence looks like an amelioration strategy of conservatism
rather than an affirmative policy platform in opposition to the Rs.
The problem for Soros and all billionaires interested in the politics
game is that they cannot fathom voting against their own interests and they
must pick credentialed and vetted candidates. Somebody like Hillary is great
for them. For example, when she stated during the primary against Bernie
that we can't just have outright free public higher education because rich
people would benefit unfairly. That is coding to say that we won't
redistribute ill gotten gains for the purposes of building a stable and
functioning society.
> we can't just have outright free public higher education becuase
rich people would benefit unfairly
Agreed. Just a dumb excuse to persuade people we can't have nice
things. Obama may have campaigned on "Yes We Can" in 2008 but Hillary in
2016 was the soaring voice of "No, You Can't."
Especially since, in the not too distant past, we actually
had
"nice things" like tuition-free state universities but we
allowed them to be taken away from us.
Pretty clear from the rich people and a few very rich people I have
encountered, professionally and personally (once shared a secretary with
Bill Gates Sr.) that the empathy and comity and decency drivers never got
installed with the original programming.
And I "follow" Gates Jr. on Twitter, when I can stand to look in, and
what a piece of work he, or his Twavatar, is. Always on his book and on his
game. And it seems like just a game to him, from the way he plays his
position.
Now Trumpunist stars are in the ascendant. And the planet gets more heat
load, every moment of every day Too bad the looters are on the way to
"conquering death" for themselves, while "dealing death" to the rest of us
> Too bad the looters are on the way to "conquering death" for
themselves, while "dealing death" to the rest of us
I wonder what they'll do once they realize they've been had by a bunch
of grifting con artists, hardly different from themselves. When the
billionaires realize Mars is a death trap worse than Earth, will they
feel any remorse about destroying the planet? Or has the "market"
whittled that away, along with the rest of the human emotions like shame,
guilt, and compassion for their fellow man? When they realize eternal
youth and immortality isn't ever going to happen, partly because they've
hollowed out their own civilization and corrupted its science, will they
regret forcing so many others into destitution and an early grave? Maybe
for about 30 seconds, I reckon. The rest cower in self-protective
ignorance.
It's fun to look to pop culture for illustrative myths and
potentially illuminating analogies. I like "Wall-e" and "Elysium" and
"Terminator" and "Robocop" and for dessert, a big helping of "Soylent
Green "
The dillusionati always drown in their own vomit it has been that way
for the last 2 million sunsets all the technology in the world wont
change that if one can not find peace and happiness with a few million
dollars, chasing billions to spend more money 4 monets on the wall in the
hall is a losing proposition
As to georgi sore-ohs redirecting his money the klown princes will
soon be abandoning their givings with the coming removal of the estate
tax putting many non profits out of business
"non profit" hospitals will now be able to convert to for profit
dividend paying entities instead of consultant skim capital kiting
enterprises
The rober baron era existed before income taxes so I expect sow-oats
to slowly melt away now that he can hand out his remaining assets
directly and enjoy the rest of his youth with his robobabe .
Despite the best efforts of the dillusionati these past 5 – 10
thousand years once they run out of people to prey with they turn on each
other
these are weak creatures, power hungry and control crazy based on
their own fears and limitations
The bernaze sauce isnt spicy enough anymore
the rewind button on vcrs killed the soviet union and youtube and the
capacity of the average shmoe to cut, paste, edit and freeze frame has
reduced the mesmerization to a near stand still
The game is up and there is no more room left to squeeze more gold
tips on a chip no matter how much cooling one throws into the mix
The iPhone is just newton with the security state release of tech that
has been aroud for over 20 years
The programs still have bugs/features that can not be fixed based on a
unix/linux platform from over 50 years ago designed to exist in a closed
loop circuit decades of patch and pray can not be fixed by decree
one of the funders of one of the fake news "overseers"(u of penn/annanb)
runs an outfit in nyc that prices out derivatives out over 150 years from
now but all the tech can't tell me if it is going to rain or snow in 72
hours
The dillusionati are running on fumes
What is amusing is watching the panic as they fear resistance and
revolution that will never develop people just want to eat, breath and
live a reasonable life these weak dillusionati contemplate and imagine
how "they" in their weakness and fears would react but many parts of
america have already seen and lived thru an economic apocalypse
even manhattan was a dead zone on the west side when all their
shipping moved to LA and all the piers were left open and abandoned with
jokes about the only place to find nypd was at donut shops abounding
Living in the south bronx or coney island was living a real life
version of madmax
Anyhoot methinx, in respects to the original posting sore-oats just
does his freedom and democracy funding to tip the scales on his out of
the money tail risk currency options investing he just games the system
with a smile
Onto a wondrous and pleasant 2017
The fun has just begun
Less fences and more dances let 2017 be the year we talk past our
differences with our neighbors and get on with the being of being
(Damn that was long winded I thought I gave that up )
Everything Soros does is to line his own pockets I'm afraid. This
will fall on deaf ears. For them, it's never enough money. That is what this
is really about. Behind the curtains, you are dealing with a bunch of people
who care nothing about the collective good and everything about their own
net worth. Nothing else matters to them.
They'd rather watch the world burn than lose money.
Hope this isn't dinged as an
ad hominem,
but I recall that old
central European expression: "Anybody with a Hungarian for a friend doesn't
need an enemy."
Now that can be read in several ways - but always to the same end, some
allies you don't want. Soros may be a Dark Side conduit for neocon or neolib
instincts and pelf; or he may just be pissing away his own money,
a la
Snyder, just in a less benign enterprise. Neither scenario undercuts the
"bootstrap" metaphor for progressive funding. We should, therefore, be
prepared to see increased efforts to diminish "self-funding" mechanisms that
leave too much power in the hands of the little people. Not an
ad hom,
I'm not talking about Munchkins.
Soros need not be worried. Even without his money funding all these
projects, plenty of people will join him in hell afterwards. Once his Open
Ideas have been tested there, then he is welcomed to port those here, the
lesser hell.
The argument was misleading, because it ignored the fact that the
winners seldom, if ever, compensate the losers.
Yep, which is why sources of unjust wealth inequality – such as
government privileges for private credit creation – should be precluded at
their SOURCE.
In other words, ethical financing is needed to insure that increases in
productivity and wealth are justly shared.
One thing all Americans should believe in is "Thou shall not steal" –
even if by subtle means such as implicit privileges for a usury cartel.
I would argue that the U.S. hasn't been interested in democracy since, at
least, WWII. They have performed coups and assassinations and other
destabilizations in other countries (and, I would argue, here with JFK, RFK,
MLK, Jr., and who knows how many others in those "freak" small plan
accidents over the years) in favor of "friendly" dictators and tyrants.
Although Soros claims to hate Nazis and Communists, Allen Dulles was quite
partial to Nazis and made sure many of them did not face trial at Nuremberg
but instead were employed in the U.S., West Germany and other places.
If Soros wanted to put his money to good use, he could invest in getting
some transparency and cohesiveness to our election system. Had he done that
after 2000, John Kerry would have been president and probably Hillary also.
And many Dem senators, congress critters, etc. To pretend that the elections
are honest and represent the people's will has pretty much been discredited,
as far as I'm concerned.
My understanding is that Soros likes instability. It's good for his
market plays.
Call an annihilation an annihilation. Auschwitz was NOT a "resettlement
to the East". The 1931 Ukrainian Famine was NOT a "Collectivization". Using
our precious language to lie and obscure .
Despicable
There is a recording out today of Hillary Clinton talking to her
biggest donors, laying blame for her loss entirely on the shoulders
of Putin and Comey.
Let's break this down, shall we?
In the first place, she is talking to her "donors." There's your
first problem right there. Hers was always a campaign of the donors,
by the donors and for the donors. That's exactly what the American
people were turned off by. At no time did she actually talk to and
connect with them.
But more fundamentally, there was never a chance of her winning
unless she won the popular vote by MORE than 2 1/2 million. As we
have already pointed out, the last four presidential elections that
Democrats have won in the electoral college were associated with a
MINIMUM popular vote margin of about 5 million and an average of 7
million.
Let's take WI for example. The governor, lieutenant governor,
attorney general and state treasurer are all Republicans, as are 5 of
8 members of the US House, and the senators are split. By what
delusional political consultant standard is WI to be seen as an
inherently blue state? And she never set foot in WI to campaign after
the primaries.
What blue wall where?
If you win the popular vote by a minimum of 5 million, OK then
sure,
there's your blue wall, otherwise all you have is blue tissue paper.
So the day Clinton locked up the Democratic nomination, question
number one, two and three should have been, "How the hell can I, the
Democratic nominee with the highest negatives ever, win by at least 5
million in the popular vote count?"
She told her donors then that the general election was going to be
close. The general election was lost right there.
Where could all those extra votes have come from?
At that very moment we were pleading with you to rally behind an
initiative to tap Bernie Sanders for VP. The Clinton people shouted
us down. The Bernie people told us to shut up. Bernie can still win
it all they claimed, totally detached from the reality of even the
pledged delegate count.
But Bernie still got more than 13 million votes in the primaries.
There's your general election victory right there, including taking
back the Senate and bigger gains in the House.
Just as they are doing now, the Clinton's political genius dream
team
came up with the wrong answers last July. Not only have they learned
nothing, they are perversely determined to learn nothing.
Clinton had a 65% negative approval rating before Putin did a
thing.
If Comey was the big problem that should have been known on July 5th
when he called her out for being extremely careless. The "good news"
that she was not going to be indicted did not give her a big positive
bump. The tone deaf Kaine VP pick was more than 2 weeks later.
She had more than 2 weeks to come up with the answer to the
question,
"How the hell do we overcome all these negatives by a WIDE margin?"
And her answer was a corporate TPP supporter for VP?
Are you kidding us?
As unpopular as she was, Trump was only MARGINALLY more unpopular.
That was not a wide margin in her favor, and a wide margin was
mandatory. That was why she lost.
The blame list does not stop with Putin and Comey. Also this week
she
accused President Obama of not doing enough. If Obama actually
retained the power to substantially rally anyone, he would have
rallied people to demand confirmation of Merrick Garland for the
Supreme Court, and THAT would have positively impacted Hillary's
chances by highlighting Republican disrespect and obstructionism.
Some blame Bernie for not doing enough. Bernie never had the power
to
MAKE his supporters like her. By doing what . . . standing on stage
next to her more? We guarantee you she did not want him standing on
stage with her more times that he did.
But all his 13 million votes, not just a begrudging part, would
have
been hers if she had genuinely embraced him and his supporters by
putting him on the ticket too as VP in a display of unity. His
popularity, the highest of any candidate, would have rubbed off on
her big time.
The White House was hers and she threw it away to appease her
donors,
to raise an extra 100 million dollars to burn.
How are we so sure of this?
We did a private outreach to the Bernie or Bust people at the time.
What if she picks Bernie for VP, would you go for it? The answer was
not hell no. It was, we'll consider it.
That's called a yes.
And tomorrow we will talk about how to reconstruct the big tent
that
was lost by people too busy condemning people on the other side of
the tent to actually win an election.
Making money is a knack usually with some very modest intellectual input.
These guys know this and that's why once they have their big pile they start
meddling in politics using the clout ( read power ) that their billions
gives them. The politicians on the other hand know little, or nothing about
making money, but are enthralled by the billionaires . What they have in
common is that they all crave kudos to justify their position and its
maintenance. That they are a bunch of vain, self-aggrandising sociopaths is
beyond question; it's just that it took the Great Financial Crash of 2008
for most of us to realise this and that realisation has now spread to large
numbers of the populations in most of the West . So now they have a problem,
but how to deal with it they have no idea because there isn't a scintilla of
empathy in those minds of theirs. And so now we have Trump and Brexit etc.
From a Guardian article on insecure "smart Meters" put up by
Jerri-Lynn in the 12/31 Links, the humors line of the year: "The Power
[players] have to understand that with great power comes great
responsibility." Nyuk nyuk nyuk Should read, "with great power comes
great power "
democracy with a small d is a fine idea for your schools and other issues
that affect your local community. Alas, for everything else, you are living
in a complex post-agrarian society in which your very ability to eat depends
on the amorphous structure called "the economy". Which in turn depends on
central banks, trade, national policies, etc. One could deconstruct this
economy, but I somehow doubt that such deconstruction would lead to
exceptional prosperity for all. There are multiple examples of deconstructed
countries around the world, and they are not exactly an inspiration.
Soros is one of the few bright spots among billionaires, though I am sure
he is not perfect. He understands that, through generational forgetting, the
world is now facing a resurgence of fascism. He understands it better than
most, because he is one of the very few survivors of the holocaust that are
still alive. Fascism is so dangerous because, as a method of political
advancement, it works well. Appeal to emotion, particularly fear, works
better that appeal to reason. It has always been thus. You can second guess
him all you want, but you have to give this to him: he is one of the very
few left that are trying to do something to stop this wave before it plunges
the world into a sequence of wars with nukes on day one.
You would do well to join him, rather than dis him.
As far as neoliberalism goes, one should also be careful throwing this
label around indiscriminately. Human population more than doubled in my
lifetime, and all these new people are competing for resources. The US will
not escape unscathed. Governments can mitigate to some degree, but they
cannot fully stop some decline in the living standard until technologies
catch up and reduce pressures on resources. Furthermore, US relies on
imports for 50% of her oil, which also means US needs to trade and be
competitive on world markets. There are no free lunches and easy solutions
that will magically make everything better overnight. Thinking there are is
unrealistic in its own right.
Hillary Clinton, for all her faults, was a center left politician. She
was defeated by a con artist who was riding a wave of about 10-15 years
worth of fascist propaganda emanating from increasingly radicalized
Republican party. The greatest danger now is actually radicalization of the
left, as this will put the US on the path to become another South American
permanent disaster. So, when you attack those "Democratic elites", be
careful what you wish for, and be careful not to become part of the problem,
rather than part of the solution.
"Hillary Clinton, for all her faults, was a center-left politician."
Her record at State, not to mention most of the policy positions she has
supported throughout her career, is a vehement refutation of that
assertion.
We are living in the twilight of the ideologues. Whatever proves to be
practical will now prevail. Soros always had one wheel stuck in the ditch.
And Hillary, for all her experience, wound up knowing nothing. It was
amazing. Very wizard of oz. Capitalism can morph – but it can't go back. We
have all new, complex circumstances now and free marketeering in an open
society BS just hasn't got a chance of fixing things anymore. Soros should
try to understand this. So should Trump.
All I can say is, if Soros's Quantum Fund performed the way the Democrats
had the last 8 years, heads would definitely be rolling. Odd that he doesn't
demand the same accountability for his dollars when it comes to his Open
Society Foundation.
All I can say is that if Soros's fund, Quantum, delivered performance
comparable to what the Democrats had delivered over the last 8 years
electorally, heads would definitely roll and there would be no more dollars
forthcoming. Interesting that this accountability doesn't apply here.
This was written in 2011 but it summarizes Obama presidency pretty nicely, even today. Betrayer
in chief, the master of bait and switch. That is the essence of Obama legacy. On "Great Democratic betrayal"...
Obama always was a closet neoliberal and neocon. A stooge of neoliberal financial oligarchy, a puppet,
if you want politically incorrect term. He just masked it well during hist first election campaigning
as a progressive democrat... And he faced Romney in his second campaign, who was even worse, so after
betraying American people once, he was reelected and did it twice. Much like Bush II. He like
another former cocaine addict -- George W Bush has never any intention of helping American people, only
oligarchy.
Notable quotes:
"... IN contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. ..."
"... We (yes, we) recognise that capitalism is the most efficient way to maximise overall prosperity and quality of life. But we also recognise that unfettered, it will ravage the environment, abuse labor, and expand income disparity until violence or tragedy (or both) ensues. ..."
"... These are the lessons we've learned since the industrial revolution, and they're the ones that we should be drawing from the past decade. We recognise that we need a strong federal government to check these tendencies, and to strike a stable, sustainable balance between prosperity, community, opportunity, wealth, justice, freedom. We need a voice to fill the moral vacuum that has allowed the Koch/Tea/Fox Party to emerge and grab power. ..."
"... Americans know this---including, of course, President Obama (see his April 13 speech at GW University). But as this article by Dr. Westen so effectively shows, Obama is incompetent to lead us back ..."
"... he is not competent to lead us back to a state of American morality, where government is the protector of those who work hard, and the provider of opportunity to all Americans. ..."
"... I've heard him called a mediator, a conciliator, a compromiser, etc. Those terms indicate someone who is bringing divergent views together and moving us along. That's part of what a leader does, though not all. Yet I don't think he's even lived up to his reputation as a mediator. ..."
"... Almost three years after I voted for Obama, I still don't know what he's doing other than trying to help the financial industry: the wealthy who benefit most from it and the technocrats who run it for them. But average working people, people like myself and my daughter and my grandson, have not been helped. We are worse off than before. And millions of unemployed and underemployed are even worse off than my family is. ..."
"... So whatever else he is (and that still remains a mystery to me), President Obama is not the leader I thought I was voting for. ..."
"... I knew that Obama was a charade early on when giving a speech about the banking failures to the nation, instead of giving the narrative Mr. Westen accurately recommended on the origins of the orgy of greed that just crippled our economy and caused suffering for millions of Americans ..."
"... He should have been condemning the craven, wanton, greed of nihilistic financial gangsters who hijacked our economy. Instead he seemed to be calling for all Americans not to hate rich people. That was not the point. Americans don't hate rich people, but they should hate rich people who acquire their wealth at the expense of the well being of an entire nation through irresponsible, avaricious, and in some instances illegal practices, and legally bribe politicians to enact laws which allow them to run amok over our economy without supervision or regulation. ..."
"... I knew then that Obama was either a political lemon, in over his head, an extremely conflict averse neurotic individual with a compulsive need for some delusional ideal of neutrality in political and social relations, or a political phony beholden to the same forces that almost destroyed the country as Republicans are. ..."
When Barack Obama rose to the lectern on Inauguration Day, the nation was in tatters. Americans
were scared and angry. The economy was spinning in reverse. Three-quarters of a million people lost
their jobs that month. Many had lost their homes, and with them the only nest eggs they had. Even
the usually impervious upper middle class had seen a decade of stagnant or declining investment,
with the stock market dropping in value with no end in sight. Hope was as scarce as credit.
In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what
they had just been through, what caused it, and how it was going to end. They needed to hear that
he understood what they were feeling, that he would track down those responsible for their pain and
suffering, and that he would restore order and safety. What they were waiting for, in broad strokes,
was a story something like this:
"I know you're scared and angry. Many of you have lost your jobs, your homes, your hope. This
was a disaster, but it was not a natural disaster. It was made by Wall Street gamblers who speculated
with your lives and futures. It was made by conservative extremists who told us that if we just eliminated
regulations and rewarded greed and recklessness, it would all work out. But it didn't work out. And
it didn't work out 80 years ago, when the same people sold our grandparents the same bill of goods,
with the same results. But we learned something from our grandparents about how to fix it, and we
will draw on their wisdom. We will restore business confidence the old-fashioned way: by putting
money back in the pockets of working Americans by putting them back to work, and by restoring integrity
to our financial markets and demanding it of those who want to run them. I can't promise that we
won't make mistakes along the way. But I can promise you that they will be honest mistakes, and that
your government has your back again." A story isn't a policy. But that simple narrative - and the
policies that would naturally have flowed from it - would have inoculated against much of what was
to come in the intervening two and a half years of failed government, idled factories and idled hands.
That story would have made clear that the president understood that the American people had given
Democrats the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress to fix the mess the Republicans
and Wall Street had made of the country, and that this would not be a power-sharing arrangement.
It would have made clear that the problem wasn't tax-and-spend liberalism or the deficit - a deficit
that didn't exist until George W. Bush gave nearly $2 trillion in tax breaks largely to the wealthiest
Americans and squandered $1 trillion in two wars.
And perhaps most important, it would have offered a clear, compelling alternative to the dominant
narrative of the right, that our problem is not due to spending on things like the pensions of firefighters,
but to the fact that those who can afford to buy influence are rewriting the rules so they can cut
themselves progressively larger slices of the American pie while paying less of their fair share
for it.
But there was no story - and there has been none since.
In similar circumstances, Franklin D. Roosevelt offered Americans a promise to use the power of
his office to make their lives better and to keep trying until he got it right. Beginning in his
first inaugural address, and in the fireside chats that followed, he explained how the crash had
happened, and he minced no words about those who had caused it. He promised to do something no president
had done before: to use the resources of the United States to put Americans directly to work, building
the infrastructure we still rely on today. He swore to keep the people who had caused the crisis
out of the halls of power, and he made good on that promise. In a 1936 speech at Madison Square Garden,
he thundered, "Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate
as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me - and I welcome their hatred."
When Barack Obama stepped into the Oval Office, he stepped into a cycle of American history, best
exemplified by F.D.R. and his distant cousin, Teddy. After a great technological revolution or a
major economic transition, as when America changed from a nation of farmers to an urban industrial
one, there is often a period of great concentration of wealth, and with it, a concentration of power
in the wealthy. That's what we saw in 1928, and that's what we see today. At some point that power
is exercised so injudiciously, and the lives of so many become so unbearable, that a period of reform
ensues - and a charismatic reformer emerges to lead that renewal. In that sense, Teddy Roosevelt
started the cycle of reform his cousin picked up 30 years later, as he began efforts to bust the
trusts and regulate the railroads, exercise federal power over the banks and the nation's food supply,
and protect America's land and wildlife, creating the modern environmental movement.
Those were the shoes - that was the historic role - that Americans elected Barack Obama to fill.
The president is fond of referring to "the arc of history," paraphrasing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King Jr.'s famous statement that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
But with his deep-seated aversion to conflict and his profound failure to understand bully dynamics
- in which conciliation is always the wrong course of action, because bullies perceive it as weakness
and just punch harder the next time - he has broken that arc and has likely bent it backward for
at least a generation.
When Dr. King spoke of the great arc bending toward justice, he did not mean that we should wait
for it to bend. He exhorted others to put their full weight behind it, and he gave his life speaking
with a voice that cut through the blistering force of water cannons and the gnashing teeth of police
dogs. He preached the gospel of nonviolence, but he knew that whether a bully hid behind a club or
a poll tax, the only effective response was to face the bully down, and to make the bully show his
true and repugnant face in public.
IN contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic
inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack
Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. Instead of indicting the
people whose recklessness wrecked the economy, he put them in charge of it. He never explained that
decision to the public - a failure in storytelling as extraordinary as the failure in judgment behind
it. Had the president chosen to bend the arc of history, he would have told the public the story
of the destruction wrought by the dismantling of the New Deal regulations that had protected them
for more than half a century. He would have offered them a counternarrative of how to fix the problem
other than the politics of appeasement, one that emphasized creating economic demand and consumer
confidence by putting consumers back to work. He would have had to stare down those who had wrecked
the economy, and he would have had to tolerate their hatred if not welcome it. But the arc of his
temperament just didn't bend that far.
Michael August 7, 2011
Eloquently expressed and horrifically accurate, this excellent analysis articulates the frustration
that so many of us have felt watching Mr...
Bill Levine August 7, 2011
Very well put. I know that I have been going through Kübler-Ross's stages of grief ever since
the foxes (a.k.a. Geithner and Summers) were...
AnAverageAmerican August 7, 2011
"In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of
what they had just been through, what caused it,...
Unfortunately, the Democratic Congress of 2008-2010, did not have the will to make the economic
and social program decisions that would have improved the economic situation for the middle-class;
and it is becoming more obvious that President Obama does not have the temperament to publicly
push for programs and policies that he wants the congress to enact.
The American people have a problem: we reelect Obama and hope for the best; or we elect a Republican
and expect the worst. There is no question that the Health Care law that was just passed would
be reversed; Medicare and Medicare would be gutted; and who knows what would happen to Social
Security. You can be sure, though, that business taxes and regulation reforms would not be in
the cards and those regulations that have been enacted would be reversed. We have traveled this
road before and we should be wise enough not to travel it again!
Brilliant analysis - and I suspect that a very large number of those who voted for President
Obama will recognize in this the thoughts that they have been trying to ignore, or have been trying
not to say out loud. Later historians can complete this analysis and attempt to explain exactly
why Mr. Obama has turned out the way he has - but right now, it may be time to ask a more relevant
and urgent question.
If it is not too late, will a challenger emerge in time before the 2012 elections, or will
we be doomed to hold our noses and endure another four years of this?
Very eloquent and exactly to the point. Like many others, I was enthralled by the rhetoric
of his story, making the leap of faith (or hope) that because he could tell his story so well,
he could tell, as you put it, "the story the American people were waiting to hear."
Disappointment has darkened into disillusion, disillusion into a species of despair. Will I
vote for Barack Obama again? What are the options?
This is the most brilliant and tragic story I have read in a long time---in fact, precisely
since I read when Ill Fares the Land by Tony Judt. When will a leader emerge with a true moral
vision for the federal government and for our country? Someone who sees government as a balance
to capitalism, and a means to achieve the social and economic justice that we (yes, we) believe
in? Will that leadership arrive before parts of America come to look like the dystopia of Johannesburg?
We (yes, we) recognise that capitalism is the most efficient way to maximise overall prosperity
and quality of life. But we also recognise that unfettered, it will ravage the environment, abuse
labor, and expand income disparity until violence or tragedy (or both) ensues.
These are the lessons we've learned since the industrial revolution, and they're the ones
that we should be drawing from the past decade. We recognise that we need a strong federal government
to check these tendencies, and to strike a stable, sustainable balance between prosperity, community,
opportunity, wealth, justice, freedom. We need a voice to fill the moral vacuum that has allowed
the Koch/Tea/Fox Party to emerge and grab power.
Americans know this---including, of course, President Obama (see his April 13 speech at
GW University). But as this article by Dr. Westen so effectively shows, Obama is incompetent to
lead us back to America's traditional position on the global economic/political spectrum.
He's brilliant and eloquent. He's achieved personal success that is inspirational. He's done some
good things as president. But he is not competent to lead us back to a state of American morality,
where government is the protector of those who work hard, and the provider of opportunity to all
Americans.
Taxes, subsidies, entitlements, laws... these are the tools we have available to achieve our
national moral vision. But the vision has been muddled (hijacked?) and that is our biggest problem.
-->
I voted for Obama. I thought then, and still think, he's a decent person, a smart person, a
person who wants to do the best he can for others. When I voted for him, I was thinking he's a
centrist who will find a way to unite our increasingly polarized and ugly politics in the USA.
Or if not unite us, at least forge a way to get some important things done despite the ugly polarization.
And I must confess, I have been disappointed. Deeply so. He has not united us. He has not forged
a way to accomplish what needs to be done. He has not been a leader.
I've heard him called a mediator, a conciliator, a compromiser, etc. Those terms indicate
someone who is bringing divergent views together and moving us along. That's part of what a leader
does, though not all. Yet I don't think he's even lived up to his reputation as a mediator.
Almost three years after I voted for Obama, I still don't know what he's doing other than
trying to help the financial industry: the wealthy who benefit most from it and the technocrats
who run it for them. But average working people, people like myself and my daughter and my grandson,
have not been helped. We are worse off than before. And millions of unemployed and underemployed
are even worse off than my family is.
So whatever else he is (and that still remains a mystery to me), President Obama is not
the leader I thought I was voting for. Which leaves me feeling confused and close to apathetic
about what to do as a voter in 2012. More of the same isn't worth voting for. Yet I don't see
anyone out there who offers the possibility of doing better.
This was an extraordinarily well written, eloquent and comprehensive indictment of the failure
of the Obama presidency.
If a credible primary challenger to Obama ever could arise, the positions and analysis in this
column would be all he or she would need to justify the Democratic party's need to seek new leadership.
I knew that Obama was a charade early on when giving a speech about the banking failures
to the nation, instead of giving the narrative Mr. Westen accurately recommended on the origins
of the orgy of greed that just crippled our economy and caused suffering for millions of Americans,
he said "we don't disparage wealth in America." I was dumbfounded.
He should have been condemning the craven, wanton, greed of nihilistic financial gangsters
who hijacked our economy. Instead he seemed to be calling for all Americans not to hate rich people.
That was not the point. Americans don't hate rich people, but they should hate rich people who
acquire their wealth at the expense of the well being of an entire nation through irresponsible,
avaricious, and in some instances illegal practices, and legally bribe politicians to enact laws
which allow them to run amok over our economy without supervision or regulation.
I knew then that Obama was either a political lemon, in over his head, an extremely conflict
averse neurotic individual with a compulsive need for some delusional ideal of neutrality in political
and social relations, or a political phony beholden to the same forces that almost destroyed the
country as Republicans are.
"... You can't go all Ayn Rand/Gordon Gekko on the importance of greed as a motivator while claiming that wealth insulates ... from
temptation. ... ..."
"... And this is telling us something significant: namely, that supply-side economic theory is and always was a sham. It was never
about the incentives; it was just another excuse to make the rich richer. ..."
"... "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is, the search for a superior
moral justification for selfishness." ..."
"... choosing a cabinet of billionaires, because rich men are incorruptible"...kind of like showering ZIRP on the Wall Street banking
cartel and letting them how to ration credit to the rest of economy...mostly their wealthy clientele, who use it for stock buy-backs
and asset speculation. ..."
"... Of course, 'liberal' economists see nothing wrong with trickle down, supply side economics, as long as it's the Wall Street
banking cartel who's in charge of it... ..."
"... Stiglitz: "I've always said that current monetary policy is not going to work because quantitative easing is based on a variant
of trickle-down economics. The lower interest rates have led to a stock-market bubble – to increases in stock-market prices and huge
increases in wealth. But relatively little of that's been translated into increased and broad consumer spending." ..."
"... But pgl and many other '[neo[liberal' economists just can't get enough of the trickle down monetary policy...all the while
they vehemently condemn trickle down tax policy. ..."
"... You all think Trump can do worse than the sitting cabal adding $660B from Sep 2015 to the federal debt quietly keeping the
economy going for the incumbent party? ..."
"... The losers think the winners are as crooked as they! ..."
To belabor what should be obvious: either the wealthy care about having more money or they don't. If lower marginal tax rates
are an incentive to produce more, the prospect of personal gain is an incentive to engage in corrupt practices. You can't go
all Ayn Rand/Gordon Gekko on the importance of greed as a motivator while claiming that wealth insulates ... from temptation. ...
And this is telling us something significant: namely, that supply-side economic theory is and always was a sham. It was never
about the incentives; it was just another excuse to make the rich richer.
In one sentence, you still can't beat John Kenneth Galbraith's assessment: "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's
oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
Nothing is more admirable than the fortitude with which millionaires tolerate the disadvantages of their wealth. -- Nero
Wolfe
You need to know nothing else to understand the entirety of the conservative edifice.
JohnH :
"choosing a cabinet of billionaires, because rich men are incorruptible"...kind of like showering ZIRP on the Wall Street
banking cartel and letting them how to ration credit to the rest of economy...mostly their wealthy clientele, who use it for stock
buy-backs and asset speculation.
Of course, 'liberal' economists see nothing wrong with trickle down, supply side economics, as long as it's the Wall Street
banking cartel who's in charge of it...
But pgl and many other '[neo[liberal' economists just can't get enough of the trickle down monetary policy...all the while
they vehemently condemn trickle down tax policy.
yuan -> JohnH...
and few liberal economists have been more skeptical of QE's economic impact than Krugman.
You all think Trump can do worse than the sitting cabal adding $660B from Sep 2015 to the federal debt quietly keeping the
economy going for the incumbent party?
The losers think the winners are as crooked as they!
yuan -> ilsm...
when we can borrow over the long-term at 3% and have truly massive infrastructure and clean energy needs we should be borrowing
like military Keynesian republicans...
"... And this is telling us something significant: namely, that supply-side economic theory is and always was a sham. ..."
"... That it is and always a sham is irrelevant. It is THE NARRATIVE that matters! They had a compelling story and they stuck to
it. That's how you sell politics in this country. ..."
And this is telling us something significant: namely, that supply-side economic theory is and always was a sham.
Urgh. That it is and always a sham is irrelevant. It is THE NARRATIVE that matters! They had a compelling story and they
stuck to it. That's how you sell politics in this country.
Trump told a significant fraction of the population that he understood their problems and that he would fix them. He told
enough people what they wanted to hear - and did so with a convincing tone - that he got himself elected. That's how you win.
You sell people on your vision. If you tell a good story most people aren't going to reality-check it. Sad but true.
If such attempts were really registered, the question is were those attempts to hack US sites from
Russian IP space a false flag operation, probably with participation of Ukrainian secret services?
'
As one commenter noted: "The Ukrainian government have been trying to drive a wedge between the West
and Russia for years for their own political advantage."
If so what is the agenda outside obvious attempt to poison Us-Russian relations just before
Trump assumes presidency. Neocon in Washington are really afraid losing this plush positions.
And there is the whole colony of such "national security professionals" in Washington DC. For
example Robert Kagan can't do anything useful outside his favorite Russophobic agenda and would be an
unemployed along with his wife, who brought us Ukrainian disaster.
Notable quotes:
"... President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails. "These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote. ..."
"... The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up. ..."
"... Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating from the Obama administration. ..."
"... Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max. But the press right now is flying blind. ..."
"... Maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone else? There is even a published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's any more believable than anything else here. ..."
"... We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find to get a point across. ..."
"... The Joint Analysis Report from the FBI contains an appendix that lists hundreds of IP addresses that were supposedly "used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services." While some of those IP addresses are from Russia, the majority are from all over the world, which means that the hackers constantly faked their location. ..."
"... "If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization," McAfee said, adding that, in the end, "there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack." ..."
"... I have a problem understanding why the powers that be can't understand the widening gap between their on podium statements and the average persons view. Are they hoping to brainwash, or really believe it, or just leaving a video record for posterity that might sway historical interpretation of the current time? ..."
"... A little OT, but how many people realize that Israel (less than half the population of the former Palestine) has taken complete control of ALL water and has decreed that 3% of that water may be directed to the Palestinians! ..."
"... It's been said that on average Americans are like mushrooms – "Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em shit!" ..."
"... And THAT, from what I've read in OPEN literature (obviously) about what is known by our cyber threat intel community, read on tech sites, and seen on the outstanding documentary program CyberWar about the Eastern European hacking community, is a OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE. ..."
"... NOTE that he may actually believe that because that is what he may have been TOLD, just as Bush was told there were WMDs in Iraq, but as I've pointed out, the clumsy errors allowing the malware to be so very EASILY traced back to "supposedly" Russia are beyond belief for any state-sponsored outfit, especially a Russian effort. ..."
"... Note that the user info for TWO BILLION Yahoo email accounts was stolen and they left no traces which then led the FBI to conclude that it must have been "state sponsored." ..."
"... We are left with two basic options. Either they are simply stupid or their is a larger agenda at hand. I don't believe they are stupid. They have been setting fires all around this election for months, none of them effective by themselves, but ALL reinforcing the general notion that Trump is unfit and illegitimate. ..."
"... I do not believe this is just random panic and hyperbole. They are "building" something. ..."
"... This is what is must have been like being a Soviet Citizen in 1989 or so. The official media was openly laughed at because its lies were so preposterous. ..."
"... Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." ..."
"... WORSE than "delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." It should have said "by just about anyone using 'in the wild' malware tools." ..."
"... The Russians probably have a lot of information about USG employees, contractors, etc, via hacking, recording, etc than Wikileaks. But, as a general rule, intelligence agencies do not dump it into the public domain because you don't want a potential adversary know what you know about him lest he investigate and close off the means of obtaining that information. The leaks came from elsewhere. ..."
"... Smells like a "false flag" operation, like the USA/NATO Operation Gladio in Europe. ..."
"... McCain and the War Hawks have had it out for Russia for a long time, and the Neo-cons have been closing in on the borders of Russia for some time. What will be interesting is when Trump meets with the CIA/NSA et al. for intel briefings on the alleged hacking. Hopefully, Trump will bring along VP Pence, Mad Dog and the other Marine generals (appointees) for advice. I suspect that the "false flag" nature of the hacking excuse will be evident and revealed as the pretext for the Neo-con anti-Russia agenda moving forward. ..."
"... McCain is the real thug, and an interferer in foreign elections (Kiev) and seems to have no real scruples. ..."
"... After Victoria Nuland brags about the USA spending $5 billion to overthrow the elected Ukraine government, how these Russia-phobes have any credibility is beyond me. Just shows that the consolidation of the media into a few main propaganda outlets under Bill Clinton (who also brought the Neo-cons into foreign policy dominance) has reached its logical apex. The Swamp is indeed a stinking, Corrupt miasma. ..."
"... Russia a country of 170 million surrounded by NATO military bases and 800 million people in the EU and USA is the threat? The US alone spends 12 times as much on its military annually than Russia. It's not Russia invading and overthrowing secular governments in the Muslim world. ..."
"... If I remember correctly the CIA claimed their intelligence sources came from unspecified 'allies'. It seems rather crucial to establish who these allies actually are. If it were Germany that would be one thing, however it is more than likely to be the Ukraine. ..."
"... So if Obama had actually produced evidence that the Russians had hacked Hilary's illegal, unprotected email setup in her Chapaqua basement/closet how would that change the ***content*** of the emails? It wouldn't. ..."
"... Obama is failing to convince the world that Russia is a bunch of whistle blowers on his corrupt regime. All of the emails detailing corruption and fraud are true (unchallenged), however Obama wants to suggest they were obtained illegally from an illegal email server? That is Obama's bullshit defense for the corrupt behavior? ..."
Is there any evidence those expelled are "intelligence operatives"? Any hard evidence Russia was
behind the Hillary hacks? Any credible evidence that Putin himself is to blame?
The answers are No, No, and No. Yet, once again the American press is again asked to co-sign a
dubious intelligence assessment.
In an extraordinary development Thursday, the Obama administration announced a series of sanctions
against Russia. Thirty-five Russian nationals will be expelled from the country. President
Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National
Committee emails. "These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by
the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote.
The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle
of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect.
Nothing quite adds up.
If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized
campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling
a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices
in both parties are saying this now.
Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham
noted the "small price" Russia paid for its "brazen attack." The Democratic National Committee,
meanwhile, said Thursday that taken alone, the Obama response is "
insufficient " as a response to "attacks on the United States by a foreign power."
The "small price" is an eyebrow-raiser.
Adding to the problem is that in the last months of the campaign, and also in the time since
the election, we've seen an epidemic of factually loose, clearly politically motivated reporting
about Russia. Democrat-leaning pundits have been unnervingly quick to use phrases like "Russia
hacked the election."
This has led to widespread confusion among news audiences over whether the Russians hacked
the DNC emails (a story that has at least been backed by some evidence, even if it
hasn't always been great evidence ), or whether Russians hacked vote tallies in critical states
(a far more outlandish tale backed by
no credible evidence ).
As noted in The Intercept and other outlets, an Economist/YouGov poll conducted this month
shows that 50 percent of all Clinton voters believe the Russians hacked vote tallies.
And reports by some Democrat-friendly reporters – like Kurt Eichenwald, who has birthed some
real head-scratchers this year, including what he admitted was a
baseless claim that Trump spent time in an institution in 1990 – have attempted to argue that
Trump surrogates may have been liaising with the Russians because they either visited Russia
or appeared on the RT network. Similar reporting about Russian scheming has been based entirely
on unnamed security sources.
Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large
segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating
from the Obama administration.
Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max.
But the press right now is flying blind.
Maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone
else? There is even a
published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's
any more believable than anything else here.
We just don't know, which is the problem.
We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they
won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find
to get a point across.
The Joint Analysis Report from the FBI contains an appendix that lists hundreds of IP addresses
that were supposedly "used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services." While some
of those IP addresses are from Russia, the majority are from all over the world, which means that
the hackers constantly faked their location.
McAfee argues that the report is a "fallacy," explaining that hackers can fake their location,
their language, and any markers that could lead back to them. Any hacker who had the skills to
hack into the DNC would also be able to hide their tracks, he said
"If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use
Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization,"
McAfee said, adding that, in the end, "there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack."
Question of Patriotism
It's not patriotic to accept accusations as facts, given US history of lies, deceit, meddling,
and wars.
The gullibility and ignorance of the typical media lapdog is appalling, and whores like McCain
and Graham will use them shamelessly to promote their twisted, warmongering agenda. The same old
story, over and over again.
I have a problem understanding why the powers that be can't understand the widening gap between
their on podium statements and the average persons view. Are they hoping to brainwash, or really
believe it, or just leaving a video record for posterity that might sway historical interpretation
of the current time?
Net control very likely in Europe soon with public administration of the web/content. Might at
least help reduce the unemployment rate. Looked over the 2016 Bilderberg attendees too. MSM attendees
interesting vs political bias they exhibit.
Whoever thinks there aren't people behind the scenes with a plan is naive and woe betide anyone
upsetting that plan.
Unemployment rate read last refuge from the official economy. Not the alt. web that takes away
motivation, it is a pressure valve for people who find the official direction nothing short of
insulting. The majority of social media users won't be distracted.
Noticed zh on Italy for you if you had not picked it up
A little OT, but how many people realize that Israel (less than half the population of the
former Palestine) has taken complete control of ALL water and has decreed that 3% of that water
may be directed to the Palestinians!
Over ten million get running water for 12 hrs a week, while in Israel (borders move
every day as the world says nothing) there are no water restrictions zero!
So, while Palestinians
struggle to live in hot barren desert conditions (food and medicine is also denied children die
of treatable cancer often as medication is blocked), a 5 min drive away millions of gallons are
used to create a green, lush paradise for the Jewish Masters!
Did you know US laws were changed in 1968 to allow "Dual Citizens" to be elected and appointed
to government positions and today many of the top posts are citizens of Israel and America WTF?
Trump needs to make a daily dose of Red Pills the law
Oops the 10M fig is a bit high but it's at least double the Jewish population, yet they get 97%
this is slow moving genocide yet it's never even acknowledged
Syria is about gas pipelines. Corporations want to profit from the gas pipeline through the region
and wr the people are supposed to send our children to war over it and pay taxes tpbsupport the
effort. Rissia wants pipelines from their country under the Black sea and Irans pipelines to the
north. The US is supporting Qatar pipeline and LNG from our own shores to the EU.
"These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels
of the Russian government," (Obama) wrote.
And THAT, from what I've read in OPEN literature (obviously) about what is known by our
cyber threat intel community, read on tech sites, and seen on the outstanding documentary program
CyberWar about the Eastern European hacking community, is a OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE.
NOTE that he may actually believe that because that is what he may have been TOLD, just as
Bush was told there were WMDs in Iraq, but as I've pointed out, the clumsy errors allowing the
malware to be so very EASILY traced back to "supposedly" Russia are beyond belief for any state-sponsored
outfit, especially a Russian effort.
Note that the user info for TWO BILLION Yahoo email accounts was stolen and they left no
traces which then led the FBI to conclude that it must have been "state sponsored."
We are left with two basic options. Either they are simply stupid or their is a larger agenda
at hand. I don't believe they are stupid. They have been setting fires all around this election
for months, none of them effective by themselves, but ALL reinforcing the general notion that
Trump is unfit and illegitimate.
I do not believe this is just random panic and hyperbole. They are "building" something.
Well, it is an established and accepted fact that Richard Nixon was a very intelligent guy. None
of Nixon's detractors ever claimed he was stupid, and Nixon won reelection easily.
Tricky Dick was just a tad "honesty challenged", and so is Obama. They were/are both neo-keynesians,
both took their sweet time ending stupid wars started by their predecessors even after it was
clear the wars were pointless.
Then again, I doubt Obozo is as smart as Nixon. Soros is clearly the puppeteer controlling
what Obama does. Soros is now freaking out that his fascist agenda has been exposed.
This is what is must have been like being a Soviet Citizen in 1989 or so. The official media
was openly laughed at because its lies were so preposterous.
"While security companies in the private sector have said for months the hacking campaign was
the work of people working for the Russian government, anonymous people tied to the leaks have
claimed they are lone wolves. Many independent security experts said there was little way to know
the true origins of the attacks.
Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate.
Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely
restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even
worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into
Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out
by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups."
WORSE than "delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking
groups." It should have said "by just about anyone using 'in the wild' malware tools."
2015 Bilderberg. Looking down the attendees and subjects covered. Interesting some of the main
anti-Brexit groups had representatives there, suggests HC picked for 2016 US election, Cyber-security
and etc. Look at the key topics. How they all helped define 2016. So many current intertwined
themes.
The Russians probably have a lot of information about USG employees, contractors, etc,
via hacking, recording, etc than Wikileaks. But, as a general rule, intelligence agencies do not
dump it into the public domain because you don't want a potential adversary know what you know
about him lest he investigate and close off the means of obtaining that information. The leaks
came from elsewhere.
Smells like a "false flag" operation, like the USA/NATO Operation Gladio in Europe.
McCain and the War Hawks have had it out for Russia for a long time, and the Neo-cons have
been closing in on the borders of Russia for some time. What will be interesting is when Trump
meets with the CIA/NSA et al. for intel briefings on the alleged hacking. Hopefully, Trump will
bring along VP Pence, Mad Dog and the other Marine generals (appointees) for advice. I suspect
that the "false flag" nature of the hacking excuse will be evident and revealed as the pretext
for the Neo-con anti-Russia agenda moving forward.
The CIA it is now widely believed was part of the Deep State behind the JFK assassination when
JFK took an independent view, so Trump will need the USA Marines on his side. McCain is the
real thug, and an interferer in foreign elections (Kiev) and seems to have no real scruples.
After Victoria Nuland brags about the USA spending $5 billion to overthrow the elected
Ukraine government, how these Russia-phobes have any credibility is beyond me. Just shows that
the consolidation of the media into a few main propaganda outlets under Bill Clinton (who also
brought the Neo-cons into foreign policy dominance) has reached its logical apex. The Swamp is
indeed a stinking, Corrupt miasma.
Perhaps the Clinton Foundation and nascent Obama foundation feel it in their financial
interests to nurture the misma.
Cha-ching, cha-ching. Money to be made in demonizing Russia.
"The CIA it is now widely believed was part of the Deep State behind the JFK assassination when
JFK took an independent view "
All the circumstantial evidence pointed to Oswald. No one has ever proven otherwise, in over
50 years.
After 50 years of being propagandized by conspiracy book writers, it isn't surprising that
anything is widely believed at this point. The former curator of the 6th Floor Museum, Gary Mack,
believed there was a conspiracy, but over time came to realize that it was Oswald, alone.
When liberal Rolling Stone questions the Obama/DNC propaganda, you know for certain that they
have lost even their base supporters (the ones that can still think). The BS has just gotten too
stupid.
Why is the WSJ strongly supporting Obama here but also saying he waited way to long to make this
move? I don't always agree with them nor do I with you.
Ok I haven't read the comments but would only say that when Vladimir Putin the once leader
of the KGB becomes a preacher and starts criticizing the West for abandoning its Christian roots,
it's moral dignity, that for me doesn't just stink, it raises red flags all over the place. I
think Trump and some of the rest of u r being set up here-like lambs to the slaughter. Mish your
naďveté here surprises me!
Russia a country of 170 million surrounded by NATO military bases and 800 million people
in the EU and USA is the threat? The US alone spends 12 times as much on its military annually
than Russia. It's not Russia invading and overthrowing secular governments in the Muslim world.
If I remember correctly the CIA claimed their intelligence sources came from unspecified 'allies'.
It seems rather crucial to establish who these allies actually are. If it were Germany that would
be one thing, however it is more than likely to be the Ukraine.
The Ukranian government have been trying to drive a wedge between the West and Russia for years
for their own political advantage. If I was Trump then when I took office I would want an extremely
thorough investigation into the activities of the CIA by a third reliable party.
Excerpt: But was it really Russian meddling? After all, how does one prove not only intent
but source in a world of cyberespionage, where planting false flag clues and other Indicators
of Compromise (IOCs) meant to frame a specific entity, is as important as the actual hack.
Robert M. Lee, CEO and founder of cybersecurity company Dragos, which specializes in threats
facing critical infrastructure, also noted that the IOCs included "commodity malware," or hacking
tools that are widely available for purchase.
He said:
1. No they did not penetrate the grid.
2. The IOCs contained *commodity malware* – can't attribute based off that alone.
So if Obama had actually produced evidence that the Russians had hacked Hilary's illegal,
unprotected email setup in her Chapaqua basement/closet how would that change the ***content***
of the emails? It wouldn't.
Obama is failing to convince the world that Russia is a bunch of whistle blowers on his
corrupt regime. All of the emails detailing corruption and fraud are true (unchallenged), however
Obama wants to suggest they were obtained illegally from an illegal email server? That is Obama's
bullshit defense for the corrupt behavior?
And as "proportional retaliation" for this Russian whistle blowing, Obozo is evicting 35 entertainment
staff from the Russian embassy summer camp?
I doubt Hollywood or San Francisco has the integrity to admit they backed the wrong loser when
they supported Obozo but they should think about their own credibility after January 20th. Anyone
who is still backing Obozo is just too stupid to tie their own shoes much less vote
"... White House/StateDep press release on sanctions is ORWELLIAN: corruption within the DNC/Clinton's
manager Podesta undermines the democracy, not its exposure as claimed (let alone the fact that there
is still no evidence that the Russian government has anything to do with the hacks). ..."
"... The press release also talks about how the security of the USA and its interests were compromised,
so Obama in effects says that national security interest of the country is to have corrupt political
system, which is insane. ..."
"... You may be sure that the Americans will commit all the stupidities they can think of, plus
some that are beyond imagination." ~Charles de Gaulle. ..."
"... United States are not united I guess. Guess, that Merkel is the next on the list... ..."
"... Obama will be making to many paid speeches to be doing anything of the sort. And frankly I
suspect he be silent, because Trump is soon going to know where all the bodies were buried under Obama,
just like Obama knows where all the bodies are buried from the Bush area. ..."
On Friday, the Kremlin responded to the moves, including the expulsion of 35 suspected intelligence
operatives and the closing of two Russian facilities in the US, with a shrug. Putin, it seems,
is willing simply to wait until Trump moves into the Oval Office. Trump's tweet suggested he is
too.
But such provocative words could not distract the media and public from another domestic concern
for Trump – the growing perception that his predecessor has acted to
his disadvantage .
"The sanctions were clearly an attempt by the Obama administration to throw a wrench into –
or [to] box in – the next administration's relationship with Russia," said Boris Zilberman, a
Russia expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
"Putin, in part, saw through that and sidestepped it by playing good cop to [Russian foreign
minister Sergey] Lavrov and the [state] Duma, who were calling for a reciprocal response."
vgnych 8h ago
All Obama does with his clumsy movements is just attempting to blame Russians for Democrat's
loss of elections. Also he is obscuring peaceful power transition while at it.
All what Trump needs to do is to just call the looser a loser a move on.
White House/StateDep press release on sanctions is ORWELLIAN: corruption within the DNC/Clinton's
manager Podesta undermines the democracy, not its exposure as claimed (let alone the fact that
there is still no evidence that the Russian government has anything to do with the hacks).
The press release also talks about how the security of the USA and its interests were
compromised, so Obama in effects says that national security interest of the country is to
have corrupt political system, which is insane.
This argumentation means that even if Russian government has done the hacking, it was a
good deed, there is nothing to sanction Russia for even in such case.
'Fraid both Putin and Trump are a lot smarter than Barry. Putin's move in not retaliating and
inviting US kids to the Kremlin New Year party was an astute judo throw. And Barry is sitting
on his backside wondering how it happened.
Reply
.. Probably Obama's "exceptionalism" made him so clumsy on international affairs stage..
.. just recently.. snubbed by Fidel.. he refused to meet him..
.. humiliated by Raul Castro, he declined to hug president of USA..
.. Duterte described.. hmm.. his provenance..
.. Bibi told him off in most vulgar way.. several times..
.. and now this..
..pathetic..
P.S. You may be sure that the Americans will commit all the stupidities they can think of, plus
some that are beyond imagination." ~Charles de Gaulle.
Obama knew about Russian involvement in July. Look it up. He ignored it because it was seen
as having no effect, and they didn't want the appearance of the government favoring Hillary,
because they thought she was in line for a landslide victory.
After the election, "RUSSIA" has become a fund raising buzz word for Democrats.
The election should have taught our "betters" that people do think for themselves, albeit occasionally.
I've been frustrated enough with Obama since he pardoned Bush and Cheney... now he wants
to sacrifice whatever shreds of reputation the Democratic party has... to be a white knight
for miserable candidate, warmonger, and incompetent Hillary Clinton.
He figured the republicans would love him when he took Bush et al. off the hook and (clumsily)
implemented Romney's health plan. They didn't.
Now he thinks leftists will love him because he's going "all in" on Hillary didn't lose
this all on her own. They won't.
The guy doesn't have a fraction of the insight he credits himself with.
Simple solution, publish the commenter geolocation and ban proxy, clean the comment section
from putinbots. Putin like ASBO's must stop to do more harm against democracy.
Reply Share
Yes, the so-called liberals are losing all over. They blame everyone but themselves. The problem
is that they have been found out. They were not real liberals at all. They had little bits
of liberal policies like "Gay rights" and "bathrooms for Transgenders" and, of course, "Anti-Anti-Semitism
Laws" and a few other bits and pieces with which they constructed a sort of camoflage coat,
but the core of their policies was Corpratism. Prize exhibits: Tony Blair and Barak Obama.
The extreme Left and extreme Right ("Populists") are benefiting by being able to say what
they mean, loud and apparently clear. People are not, on the whole, politically sophisticated
but they do realise that they have been lied to for a very long time and they are fed up. That
is why "Populists are making such a showing in the polls. People don't believe in the centre's
"Liberalism" any more.
You just know these people, like Johnny boy, who are pointing fingers at Russia are doing so
based upon long laid plans to bind up Trump from building a healthy relationship with Russia
which would put an end to terrorism and likely all of these petty little wars that are tearing
the world to pieces. These people want war because division keeps them in power and war makes
them lots of money. I hope that Trump and Putin can work together and build a trust and foundation
as allies in that together we can stamp out terrorism and stabilize the worlds conflicts. Everything
these people do in the next 20 days has a single agenda and that is to cause instability and
roadblocks for Trump and his team. Hope is just around the corner people so let's help usher
it in.
First... let's see some actual evidence/proof. Oh, that's right, none has been offered up.
Second... everyone is upset that the DNC turd was exposed, but no one upset about the existence
of the turd. ?
Obama acting like a petulant child that has to leave the game and go home now, so he's kicking
the game board and forcing everyone else to clean up his mess. Irresponsible.
Hundred times repeated lie will become the truth... that's the US officials policy for decades
now. In 8 years, they did nothing, so they are trying to do "something" in the last minute.
For someone, who's using his own brain is all of this just laughable.
United States are not united I guess. Guess, that Merkel is the next on the list...
Hopefully now this will enable senate and congress republicans to prevent these crazy ideas
of russian appeasement take hold and prusue a hardline against Russia, Hamas, Iran and Cuba.
They'll probably do that. Business as usual. To pursue a hard line against Isis enablers like
Saudi and Qatar, now that would be a surprise.
Reply Share
Obama will be making to many paid speeches to be doing anything of the sort. And frankly
I suspect he be silent, because Trump is soon going to know where all the bodies were buried
under Obama, just like Obama knows where all the bodies are buried from the Bush area.
You are a wishful thinker, if you think Obama is going anything after he leaves office.
The foreign power did the American people a favor when it exposed the corruption within the
Democratic Party; something the establishment media was apparently unable or unwilling to do.
Rather than sanctioning Putin, Americans should be thanking him!
Seems a no brainer, reverse Obama's ridiculous posturing gesture. As if the US doesn't have
a long track record of interfering in the affairs of other countries.
Personally I think the US should do as it wishes but it's extremely hypocritical to act shocked
when the same meddling is returned by others. Obama is acting foolishly as if the final weeks
of his presidency have any genuine traction on future events.
Krugman was clearly a neoliberal propagandist on payroll. He
should not be even discussed in this context because his
columns were so clearly partisan.
As for "Centrist Democrats" (aka Clinton wing of the
party) their power is that you have nowhere to go: they rule
the Democratic Party and the two party system guarantees that
any third party will be either squashed or assimilated.
In no way they need that you believe them: being nowhere
to go is enough.
Remember what happened with Sanders supporters during the
convention? They were silenced. And then eliminated. That's
how this system works.
Cal -> likbez...
, -1
Krugman is a polarizing agent here in RiverCity...to our
collective loss IMHO...as you know I don't have the Nobel.
But you might be giving him some hope with that "was"?
Clearly he does not need $.
He is writing for our....yes, American, maybe even Global
citizenship, which he thinks is in peril.
It is. Otherwise I'd be out fishing.
And you?
What's in it for you? Are you familiar with the history of
political party systems that transition in and out of 2
parties?
Is this little forum an example of the 2 party system:
pro/con Krugman?
Americans believe crazy things, yet they are outdone by
economists
Comment on Catherine Rampell on 'Americans - especially but
not exclusively Trump voters - believe crazy, wrong things'#1
Americans are NOT special. Since more than 5000 years people
believe things JUST BECAUSE they are absurd - in accordance
with Tertullian's famous dictum "credo quia absurdum".#2
As a matter of principle, almost everybody has the right
to his own opinion no matter how stupid, crazy, wrong, or
absurd; the only exception are scientists. The ancient Greeks
started science with the distinction between doxa (= opinion)
and episteme (= knowledge). Scientific knowledge is
well-defined by material and formal consistency. Knowledge is
established by proof, belief or opinion counts for nothing.
Opinion is the currency in the political sphere, knowledge
is the currency is the scientific sphere. It is extremely
important to keep both spheres separate. Since the founding
fathers, though, economists have not emancipated themselves
from politics. They claim to do science but they have never
risen above the level of opinion, belief, wish-wash,
storytelling, soap box propaganda, and sitcom gossip.
The orthodox majority still believes in these Walrasian
hard core absurdities: "HC1 economic agents have preferences
over outcomes; HC2 agents individually optimize subject to
constraints; HC3 agent choice is manifest in interrelated
markets; HC4 agents have full relevant knowledge; HC5
observable outcomes are coordinated, and must be discussed
with reference to equilibrium states." (Weintraub)
To be clear: HC2, HC4, HC5 are NONENTITIES like angels,
Spiderman, or the Easter Bunny.
The heterodox minority still believes in these ill-defined
Keynesian relationships: "Income = value of output =
consumption + investment. Saving = income - consumption.
Therefore saving = investment."
Until this day, Walrasians, Keynesians, Marxians,
Austrians hold to their provable false beliefs and claim to
do science. This is absurdity on stilts but it is swallowed
hook, line and sinker by every new generation of economics
students. Compared to the representative economist the
average political sucker is a genius.
Did not William Casey (CIA
Director) say, "We'll know
our disinformation program is
complete when everything the
American public believes is
false."?
Notable quotes:
"... The media should certainly shoulder some blame for parroting militarist propaganda but ordinary USAnians who continue to reward these scoundrels with their votes. And with Trump ordinary USAnians appear to have elected someone even more willing to shamelessly lie and loot than his predecessors. ..."
Americans are also led to believe a lot of crazy, wrong
things, such as Saddam had WMDs, or Iran had a nuclear
weapons program, to cite only the most outrageous lies
dutifully propagated by the mainstream media.
Before
Catherine Rampell criticizes ordinary Americans, she should
have the Washington Post engage in a little serious
introspection and self-criticism...
The media should certainly shoulder some blame for
parroting militarist propaganda but ordinary USAnians who
continue to reward these scoundrels with their votes. And
with Trump ordinary USAnians appear to have elected someone
even more willing to shamelessly lie and loot than his
predecessors.
It is time for ordinary USAnians to
engage in a lot of serious introspection and self-criticism.
I doubt this will happen until it's too late. (Very thankful
that I am not tied to this nation!)
>It is time for ordinary USAnians to engage in a lot of
serious introspection and self-criticism.
Don't hold your breath. Introspection and self-criticism
aren't our strong suits. They run counter to that whole
"American exceptionalism" thing.
> I doubt this will happen until it's too late.
I doubt that it will ever happen but, if it does, I have
no doubt that it will happen until after its too late to
salvage what currently passes for civilization in these
parts.
"There's a big difference between the task of trying to
sustain "civilisation" in its current form... and the task of
holding open a space for the things which make life worth
living. I'd suggest that it's this second task, in its many
forms, which remains, after we've given up on false hopes." (
http://dark-mountain.net/blog/what-do-you-do-after-you-stop-pretending/)
"... But there are other flavors too. For example Trump introduced another flavor which I called "bastard neoliberalism". Which is the neoliberalism without neoliberal globalization and without "Permanent revolution" mantra -- efforts for enlargement of the US led global neoliberal empire. Somewhat similar to Eduard Bernstein "revisionism" in Marxism. Or Putinism - which is also a flavor of neoliberalism with added "strong state" part and "resource nationalism" bent, which upset so much the US neoliberal establishment, as it complicates looting of the country by transnational corporations. ..."
"... Neoliberalism also can be viewed as a modern mutation of corporatism, favoring multinationals (under disguise of "free trade"), privatization of state assets, minimal government intervention in business (with financial oligarchy being like Soviet nomenklatura above the law), reduced public expenditures on social services, and decimation of New Deal, strong anti trade unionism stance and attempt to atomize work force (perma temps as preferred mode of employment giving employers "maximum flexibility") , neocolonialism and militarism in foreign relations (might makes right). ..."
"... The word "elite" in the context of neoliberalism has the same meaning as the Russian word nomenklatura. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura, -- the political establishment holding or controlling both public and private power centers such as media, finance, academia, culture, trade, industry, state and international institutions. ..."
At this point, when I hear people use the words "neoliberal," "elites" and "the media" in unspecified
or highly generalized terms to make broad characterizations ... I know I'm dealing with an
unserious person.
It's a lot like when someone says "structural reform" without specification in an economic
discussion: An almost perfect indicator of vacuity.
likbez -> sanjait... , -1
Let's define the terms.
Neoliberals are those who adhere to the doctrine of Neoliberalism (the "prohibited" word
you should not ever see in the US MSM ;-)
In this sense the term is very similar to Marxists (with the replacement of the slogan of
"proletarians of all nations unite" with the "financial oligarchy of all countries unite").
Or more correctly they are the "latter day Trotskyites".
Neoliberalism consists of several eclectic parts such as neoclassic economics, mixture of
Nietzscheanism (often in the form of Ann Rand philosophy; with the replacement of concept of
Ubermench with "creative class" concept)) with corporatism. Like with Marxism there are different
flavors of neoliberalism and different factions like "soft neoliberalism" (Clinton third way)
which is the modern Democratic Party doctrine, and hard neoliberalism (Republican party version),
often hostile to each other.
But there are other flavors too. For example Trump introduced another flavor which I called
"bastard neoliberalism". Which is the neoliberalism without neoliberal globalization and without
"Permanent revolution" mantra -- efforts for enlargement of the US led global neoliberal empire.
Somewhat similar to Eduard Bernstein "revisionism" in Marxism. Or Putinism - which is also
a flavor of neoliberalism with added "strong state" part and "resource nationalism" bent, which
upset so much the US neoliberal establishment, as it complicates looting of the country by
transnational corporations.
Neoliberalism also can be viewed as a modern mutation of corporatism, favoring multinationals
(under disguise of "free trade"), privatization of state assets, minimal government intervention
in business (with financial oligarchy being like Soviet nomenklatura above the law), reduced
public expenditures on social services, and decimation of New Deal, strong anti trade unionism
stance and attempt to atomize work force (perma temps as preferred mode of employment giving
employers "maximum flexibility") , neocolonialism and militarism in foreign relations (might
makes right).
Like for any corporatist thinkers the real goals are often hidden under thick smoke screen
of propaganda.
The word "elite" in the context of neoliberalism has the same meaning as the Russian word
nomenklatura. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura,
-- the political establishment holding or controlling both public and private power centers
such as media, finance, academia, culture, trade, industry, state and international institutions.
[As if] protectionist Japan is now backward and poverty stricken; free trade Africa is soaring
on the wings of giant trade deficits :
Economists lead the way in silly beliefs that defy empirical reality and common sense. The most glaring
example of this is the view that free trade is beneficial. All evidence points in the opposite direction,
but no matter - our fake economists are happy to say/believe whatever so long as their foreign government
paymasters and banks write the ten thousand dollar checks for "consulting" and "academic reports".
You are probably wrong. Free trade is a delicate instrument, much like tennis racket. If you hold
it too tightly you can't play well. If you hold it too loose you can't play well either.
Neoliberals promote "free trade" (note "free" not "fair") as the universal cure for all nations
problems in all circumstances. This is a typical neoliberal Three-card Monte.
The real effect in many cases is opening market for transnationals who dictate nations the
rules of the game and loot the country.
But isolationism has its own perils. So some middle ground should be fought against excessive
demands of neoliberal institutions like IMF and World Bank. For example, any country that take
loans from them (usually on pretty harsh conditions; with string attached), has a great danger
that money will be looted via local fifth column. And will return in no time back into Western Banks
leaving the country in the role of the debt slave.
The latter is the preferred role neoliberals want to see each and every third world country
(and not only third world countries -- see Greece and Cyprus). Essentially in their "secret" book
this is the role those counties should be driven into.
Recent looting of Ukraine is the textbook example of this process. The majority of population
now will live on less then $2 a day for many, many years.
At the same time, balancing free trade and isolationism is tricky process also. Because at some
point, the subversion starts and three letter agencies come into the play. You risk getting color
revolution as a free present for your refusal to play the game.
Neoliberals usually do not take NO for the answer.
That's when the word "neoliberal" becomes yet another dirty word.
The poll found that, when asked whether increasing or
decreasing America's military presence abroad would make the country safer, 45 percent
of respondents chose a reduction in military activity, while 31 percent favored
increasing it (while 24 percent didn't know). Asked if there should be more U.S.
democracy promotion abroad or less, 40 percent said less, while 31 said more (with 29
percent not sure).
The poll overall seemed to
suggest Americans favor a smaller U.S. footprint abroad than we have seen in recent
years. Fully 55 percent of respondents opposed deployment of U.S. troops to Syria,
compared to 23 percent who favored it (and 23 percent who weren't sure). A plurality of
35 percent opposed the idea of a greater U.S. military presence in the Middle East,
while 22 percent favored it and 29 percent favored no change.
But the poll also indicated the American people don't
want to retreat from the world into any kind of isolationism. A plurality of 40 percent
favored increased military spending compared to 32 percent who wanted to keep it
constant and 17 percent who favored reductions.
And the poll suggested Americans view China with a
certain wariness. Asked if China should be viewed as a U.S. ally, 93 percent said no.
But a like number-89 percent-said China should not be viewed as an enemy either. Some 42
percent favored the term competitor.
Did William Casey (CIA
Director) really say, "We'll know
our disinformation program is
complete when everything the
American public believes is
false."?
Americans are also led to believe a lot of crazy, wrong
things, such as Saddam had WMDs, or Iran had a nuclear
weapons program, to cite only the most outrageous lies
dutifully propagated by the mainstream media.
Before
Catherine Rampell criticizes ordinary Americans, she should
have the Washington Post engage in a little serious
introspection and self-criticism...
The media should certainly shoulder some blame for parroting
militarist propaganda but ordinary USAnians who continue to
reward these scoundrels with their votes. And with Trump
ordinary USAnians appear to have elected someone even more
willing to shamelessly lie and loot than his predecessors.
It is time for ordinary USAnians to engage in a lot of
serious introspection and self-criticism. I doubt this will
happen until it's too late. (Very thankful that I am not tied
to this nation!)
A Wikileaks envoy today claims he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington
D.C. after they were leaked by 'disgusted' whisteblowers - and not hacked by Russia.
Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder
Julian Assange, told Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off
with one of the email sources in September.
'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' said Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com
on Tuesday. ' The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks,
not hacks.'
His account contradicts directly the version of how thousands of Democratic emails were published
before the election being advanced by U.S. intelligence.
Americans steeped in a culture of 'politics' are again being fooled, this election wasn't about
party or state lines, "Republicans" didn't win over "Democrats" - this election was about a wild
card, a non-politician, non-Establishment candidate winning by a landslide if going by the polls
(Trump was given 5% chance of winning up until the night of election).
When Peńa Nieto won, Sepúlveda began destroying evidence. He drilled holes in flash drives,
hard drives, and cell phones, fried their circuits in a microwave, then broke them to shards with
a hammer. He shredded documents and flushed them down the toilet and erased servers in Russia
and Ukraine rented anonymously with Bitcoins. He was dismantling what he says was a secret history
of one of the dirtiest Latin American campaigns in recent memory.
For eight years, Sepúlveda, now 31, says he traveled the continent rigging major political
campaigns. With a budget of $600,000, the Peńa Nieto job was by far his most complex. He led a
team of hackers that stole campaign strategies, manipulated social media to create false waves
of enthusiasm and derision, and installed spyware in opposition offices, all to help Peńa Nieto,
a right-of-center candidate, eke out a victory. On that July night, he cracked bottle after bottle
of Colón Negra beer in celebration. As usual on election night, he was alone.
Sepúlveda's career began in 2005, and his first jobs were small-mostly defacing campaign websites
and breaking into opponents' donor databases. Within a few years he was assembling teams that
spied, stole, and smeared on behalf of presidential campaigns across Latin America. He wasn't
cheap, but his services were extensive. For $12,000 a month, a customer hired a crew that could
hack smartphones, spoof and clone Web pages, and send mass e-mails and texts. The premium package,
at $20,000 a month, also included a full range of digital interception, attack, decryption, and
defense. The jobs were carefully laundered through layers of middlemen and consultants. Sepúlveda
says many of the candidates he helped might not even have known about his role; he says he met
only a few.
His teams worked on presidential elections in Nicaragua, Panama, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia,
Mexico, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Venezuela. Campaigns mentioned in this story were contacted
through former and current spokespeople; none but Mexico's PRI and the campaign of Guatemala's
National Advancement Party would comment.
The point here, well there are several points. One, Sepulveda is not the only guy in the world
doing this. The CIA even has a team of social media trolls and the NSA has a department that only
develops robots to do the same thing Sepulveda was doing and better. The age of 'spies' has transformed
into an electronic, digital, online version - much like the internet has transformed life and business
it has also changed the way the intelligence establishment deals with controlling the population.
Oh how the FBI has evolved since the days of Hoffman and Cointelpro!
Many of Sepúlveda's efforts were unsuccessful, but he has enough wins that he might be able
to claim as much influence over the political direction of modern Latin America as anyone in the
21st century. "My job was to do actions of dirty war and psychological operations, black propaganda,
rumors-the whole dark side of politics that nobody knows exists but everyone can see," he says
in Spanish, while sitting at a small plastic table in an outdoor courtyard deep within the heavily
fortified offices of Colombia's attorney general's office. He's serving 10 years in prison for
charges including use of malicious software, conspiracy to commit crime, violation of personal
data, and espionage, related to hacking during Colombia's 2014 presidential election. He has agreed
to tell his full story for the first time, hoping to convince the public that he's rehabilitated-and
gather support for a reduced sentence.
Usually, he says, he was on the payroll of Juan José Rendón, a Miami-based political consultant
who's been called the Karl Rove of Latin America. Rendón denies using Sepúlveda for anything illegal,
and categorically disputes the account Sepúlveda gave Bloomberg Businessweek of their relationship,
but admits knowing him and using him to do website design. "If I talked to him maybe once or twice,
it was in a group session about that, about the Web," he says. "I don't do illegal stuff at all.
There is negative campaigning. They don't like it-OK. But if it's legal, I'm gonna do it. I'm
not a saint, but I'm not a criminal." While Sepúlveda's policy was to destroy all data at the
completion of a job, he left some documents with members of his hacking teams and other trusted
third parties as a secret "insurance policy."
We don't need a degree in cybersecurity to see how this was going on against Trump all throughout
the campaign. Not only did they hire thugs to start riots at Trump rallies and protest, a massive
online campaign was staged against Trump.
Rendón, says Sepúlveda, saw that hackers could be completely integrated into a modern political
operation, running attack ads, researching the opposition, and finding ways to suppress a foe's
turnout. As for Sepúlveda, his insight was to understand that voters trusted what they thought
were spontaneous expressions of real people on social media more than they did experts on television
and in newspapers. He knew that accounts could be faked and social media trends fabricated, all
relatively cheaply. He wrote a software program, now called Social Media Predator, to manage and
direct a virtual army of fake Twitter accounts. The software let him quickly change names, profile
pictures, and biographies to fit any need. Eventually, he discovered, he could manipulate the
public debate as easily as moving pieces on a chessboard-or, as he puts it, "When I realized that
people believe what the Internet says more than reality, I discovered that I had the power to
make people believe almost anything."
Sepúlveda managed thousands of such fake profiles and used the accounts to shape discussion
around topics such as Peńa Nieto's plan to end drug violence, priming the social media pump with
views that real users would mimic. For less nuanced work, he had a larger army of 30,000 Twitter
bots, automatic posters that could create trends. One conversation he started stoked fear that
the more López Obrador rose in the polls, the lower the peso would sink. Sepúlveda knew the currency
issue was a major vulnerability; he'd read it in the candidate's own internal staff memos.
While there's no evidence that Rendon or Sepulveda were involved in the 2016 election, there is
also no evidence that Russian hackers were involved in the 2016 election. There's not even false
evidence. There isn't a hint of it. There isn't a witness, there isn't a document, there's nothing
- it's a conspiracy theory! And a very poor one.
Russian hackers would have had the same or better (probably much better) tools, strategies, and
resources than Sepulveda. But none of this shows up anywhere. If anything, this is an example of
how NOT to hack an election.
Thanks. Right. Hillary's official electronic communications is more correct than Hillary's emails.
(And the "wipe them, you mean like with a rag?" from Hillary, after having been in government
all her adult life and after having presented herself as a modern Secretary of State who knew
all about how government and modern technology worked would have been a funny joke if it hadn't
obviously been intended to cover up enormous crimes.)
Whoever is running the world with all of this fake stuff and all of the monitoring of people and
petty false propganda, they pretty much suck at it. it is as if they are claiming to be running
the world using "training wheels". As a substitute for God they stink! Grade D-!
The tale doesn't have to be a good one for the TV addicted masses to believe it, it only has to
be presented by the only sources these imbeciles are willing to use: their fucking TV sets. Most
people are so deluded by their main source of entertainment and information that they wouldn't
give a shit if incontrovertible evidence that their TV information source was lying was presented
to them.
Most people I know don't want to know anything that can't be spoonfed to them on a TV screen.
"The tale doesn't have to be a good one for the TV addicted masses to believe it..."
Like the tale that the only steel highrise buildings to ever collapse due to fires (turning
into dust at near freefall speed) ocurred on a single day 15 years ago, orchestrated, along with
everything else on that fateful day, by a man in a cave half a world away.
and that after every airport was closed and every single commercial plane was grounded, that man's
entire extended family resident in the u.s., some two dozen individuals, was given fbi protection,
rented cars and chartered planes, and flown out of the country without ever being interviewed,
at all, by any law enforcement branch of the government of the united states which, needless to
say, had absolutely no involvement with the deadliest foreign attack on u.s. soil since the war
of 1812, killing nearly 600 more than died at pearl harbor.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bin-laden-family-evacuated/
this was known at the time it happened. what took longer to discover was that the source of
the foreign attack was not a cave in afghanistan or even saudi arabia or the muslim world generally.
all along it was our trusted ally, brave little israel.
Anti-semitism enables one to ignore the elephant in the room, namely the Saudis who have been
spending billions promoting Wahhabism and terrorism, to blame a tiny little country for everything,
without ever having to bother about evidence. Seek help.
(Does this have something to do
with Jon Stewart's retirement &
Stephen Colbert 'going legit'?)
Wielding Claims of 'Fake News,' Conservatives
Take Aim at Mainstream Media http://nyti.ms/2iuFxRx
NYT - JEREMY W. PETERS - December 25, 2016
WASHINGTON - The CIA, the F.B.I. and the White House may all agree that Russia was behind
the hacking that interfered with the election. But that was of no import to the website Breitbart
News, which dismissed reports on the intelligence assessment as "left-wing fake news."
Rush Limbaugh has diagnosed a more fundamental problem. "The fake news is the everyday news"
in the mainstream media, he said on his radio show recently. "They just make it up."
Some supporters of President-elect Donald J. Trump have also taken up the call. As reporters
were walking out of a Trump rally this month in Orlando, Fla., a man heckled them with shouts
of "Fake news!"
Until now, that term had been widely understood to refer to fabricated news accounts that are
meant to spread virally online. But conservative cable and radio personalities, top Republicans
and even Mr. Trump himself, incredulous about suggestions that fake stories may have helped swing
the election, have appropriated the term and turned it against any news they see as hostile to
their agenda.
In defining "fake news" so broadly and seeking to dilute its meaning, they are capitalizing
on the declining credibility of all purveyors of information, one product of the country's increasing
political polarization. And conservatives, seeing an opening to undermine the mainstream media,
a longtime foe, are more than happy to dig the hole deeper.
"Over the years, we've effectively brainwashed the core of our audience to distrust anything
that they disagree with. And now it's gone too far," said John Ziegler, a conservative radio host,
who has been critical of what he sees as excessive partisanship by pundits. "Because the gatekeepers
have lost all credibility in the minds of consumers, I don't see how you reverse it."
Journalists who work to separate fact from fiction see a dangerous conflation of stories that
turn out to be wrong because of a legitimate misunderstanding with those whose clear intention
is to deceive. A report, shared more than a million times on social media, that the pope had endorsed
Mr. Trump was undeniably false. But was it "fake news" to report on data models that showed Hillary
Clinton with overwhelming odds of winning the presidency? Are opinion articles fake if they cherry-pick
facts to draw disputable conclusions?
"Fake news was a term specifically about people who purposely fabricated stories for clicks
and revenue," said David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, the myth-busting website. "Now it includes
bad reporting, slanted journalism and outright propaganda. And I think we're doing a disservice
to lump all those things together."
The right's labeling of "fake news" evokes one of the most successful efforts by conservatives
to reorient how Americans think about news media objectivity: the move by Fox News to brand its
conservative-slanted coverage as "fair and balanced." Traditionally, mainstream media outlets
had thought of their own approach in those terms, viewing their coverage as strictly down the
middle. Republicans often found that laughable.
As with Fox's ubiquitous promotion of its slogan, conservatives' appropriation of the "fake
news" label is an effort to further erode the mainstream media's claim to be a reliable and accurate
source. ...
Martin Sklar's disaccumultion thesis * is a restatement and reinterpretation of passages in Marx's
Grundrisse that have come to be known as the "fragment on machines." Compare, for example, the following
two key excerpts.
Marx:
...to the degree that large industry develops, the creation of real wealth comes to depend
less on labour time and on the amount of labour employed than on the power of the agencies set
in motion during labour time, whose 'powerful effectiveness' is itself in turn out of all proportion
to the direct labour time spent on their production, but depends rather on the general state of
science and on the progress of technology, or the application of this science to production. ...
Labour no longer appears so much to be included within the production process; rather, the
human being comes to relate more as watchman and regulator to the production process itself. (What
holds for machinery holds likewise for the combination of human activities and the development
of human intercourse.)
Sklar:
In consequence [of the passage from the accumulation phase of capitalism to the "disaccumlation"
phase], and increasingly, human labor (i.e. the exercise of living labor-power) recedes from the
condition of serving as a 'factor' of goods production, and by the same token, the mode of goods-production
progressively undergoes reversion to a condition comparable to a gratuitous 'force of nature':
energy, harnessed and directed through technically sophisticated machinery, produces goods, as
trees produce fruit, without the involvement of, or need for, human labor-time in the immediate
production process itself. Living labor-power in goods-production devolves upon the quantitatively
declining role of watching, regulating, and superintending.
The main difference between the two arguments is that for Marx, the growing contradiction between
the forces of production and the social relations produce "the material conditions to blow this
foundation sky-high." For Sklar, with the benefit of another century of observation, disaccumulation
appears as simply another phase in the evolution of capitalism -- albeit with revolutionary potential.
But also with reactionary potential in that the reduced dependence on labor power also suggests
a reduced vulnerability to the withholding of labor power.
Carnival Corp. told about 200 IT employees that the company was transferring their work to Capgemini,
a large IT outsourcing firm
Notable quotes:
"... Senior IT engineer Matthew Culver told CBS that the requested "knowledge transfer activities" just meant training their own replacements , and "he isn't buying any of it," writes Slashdot reader dcblogs . ..."
"... Foreign workers are willing to do a job at a lower salary in most if not all cases b/c the cost of living in their respective countries is a fraction of ours. ..."
Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday December 25, 2016 @05:05PM from the Bob-Cratchit-vs-Scrooge dept.
ComputerWorld reports:
In early December, Carnival Corp.
told about 200 IT employees that the company was transferring their work to Capgemini, a large
IT outsourcing firm. The employees had a choice: Either agree to take a job with the contractor or
leave without severance. The employees had until the week before Christmas to make a decision about
their future with the cruise line.
By agreeing to a job with Paris-based Capgemini, employees are guaranteed employment for six
months, said Roger Frizzell, a Carnival spokesman.
"Our expectation is that many will continue to work on our account or placed into other open
positions within Capgemini" that go well beyond the six-month period, he said in an email.
Senior IT engineer Matthew Culver told CBS that the requested "knowledge transfer activities"
just meant training their own replacements , and "he isn't buying any of it," writes Slashdot
reader dcblogs . "After receiving
his offer letter from Capgemini, he sent a counteroffer.
It asked for $500,000...and apology letters to all the affected families," signed by the company's
CEO. In addition, the letter also demanded a $100,000 donation to any charity that provides services
to unemployed American workers. "I appreciate your time and attention to this matter, and I sincerely
hope that you can fulfill these terms."
Foreign workers are willing to do a job at a lower salary in most if not all cases b/c
the cost of living in their respective countries is a fraction of ours.
I would be willing to do my job at a fraction of what I am paid currently should that (that
being how expensive it is to live here) change. It is equally infuriating to me when American
companies use loopholes in our ridiculously complicated tax code to shelter revenues in foreign
tax shelters to avoid paying taxes while at the same time benefiting from our infrastructure,
emergency services, military, etc..
Its assholes like you that always spout off about free market this or that, about some companies
fiduciary responsibilities to it's shareholders blah blah blah... as justification for shitty
behavior.
It is equally infuriating to me when American companies use loopholes in our ridiculously
complicated tax code to shelter revenues in foreign tax shelters to avoid paying taxes
So who are you infuriated at? The companies that take advantage of those loopholes, or the
politicians that put them there? Fury doesn't help unless it is properly directed. Does your fury
influence who you vote for?
... while at the same time benefiting from our infrastructure, emergency services, military,
etc.
No. Taxes are only sheltered on income generated overseas, using overseas infrastructure, emergency
services, etc. I am baffled why Americans believe they have a "right" to tax the sale of a product
made in China and sold in France.
I suppose it's related to the idea that intellectual property "rights" granted by a country
of origin should still have the same benefits and drawbacks when transferred to another country.
Or at the very least should be treated as an export at such time a base of operations moves out
of country.
Except that calling, say iOS sales 'generated overseas' when the software was written in the
US, using US infrastructure, etc . And the company is making the bogus claim that their
Irish subsidiary owns the rights to that software. It's a scam - not a loophole.
They are the same thing. The only way to ensure that there are no tax dodges out there is to
simplify the tax code, and eliminate the words: "except", "but", "excluding", "omitting", "minus",
"exempt", "without", and any other words to those same effects.
Americans are too stupid to ever vote for a poltiician that states they will raise taxes. This
means that either politicians lie, or they actively undermine the tax base. Both of those situations
are bad for the majority of americans, but they vote for the same scumbags over and over, and
will soundly reject any politician who openly advocates tax increases. The result is a race to
the bottom. Welcome to reaping what you sow, brought to you by Democracy(tm).
Except that calling, say iOS sales 'generated overseas' when the software was written
in the US, using US infrastructure, etc .
That makes no sense. Plenty of non-American companies develop software in America. Yet only
if they are incorporated in America do they pay income tax on their overseas earnings, and it
is irrelevant where their engineering and development was done.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with "using infrastructure". It is just an extraterritorial
money grab that is almost certainly counterproductive since it incentivizes American companies
to invest and create jobs overseas.
Yes, taxes are based on profits. So Google, for instance, makes a bunch of money in the US.
Their Irish branch then charges about that much for "consulting" leaving the American part with
little to no profits to tax.
"I am baffled why Americans believe they have a "right" to tax the sale of a product made in
China and sold in France."
Because the manufacturing and sales are controlled by a US based company, as is the profit
benefit which results. If a US entity, which receives the benefits of US law, makes a profit by
any means, why should it not be taxed by the US?
"... Rich individuals (who are willing to be interviewed) also express concern about inequality but generally oppose using higher taxes on the rich to fight it. Scheiber is very willing to bluntly state his guess (and everyone's) that candidates are eager to please the rich, because they spend much of their time begging the rich for contributions. ..."
"... Of course another way to reduce inequality is to raise wages. Buried way down around paragraph 9 I found this gem: "Forty percent of the wealthy, versus 78 percent of the public, said the government should make the minimum wage "high enough so that no family with a full-time worker falls below the official poverty line." ..."
"... The current foundational rules embedded in tax law, intellectual property law, corporate construction law, and other elements of our legal and regulatory system result in distributions that favor those with capital or in a position to seek rents. This isn't a situation that calls for a Robin Hood who takes from the rich and gives to the poor. It is more a question of how elites have rigged the system to work primarily for them. ..."
"... the problem is incomes and demand, and the first and best answer for creating demand for workers and higher wages to compete for those workers is full employment. ..."
"... if you are proposing raising taxes on the rich SO THAT you can cut taxes on the non rich you are simply proposing theft. ..."
"... what we are looking at here is simple old fashioned greed just as stupid and ugly among the "non rich" as it is among the rich. ..."
"... you play into the hands of the Petersons who want to "cut taxes" and leave the poor elderly to die on the streets, and the poor non-elderly to spend their lives in anxiety and fear-driven greed trying to provide against desperate poverty in old age absent any reliable security for their savings.) ..."
"... made by the ayn rand faithful. it is wearisome. ..."
"... The only cure for organized greed is organized labor. ..."
"... A typical voice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues" ..."
The content should be familiar to AngryBear
readers. A majority of Americans are alarmed by high and increasing inequality and support government
action to reduce inequality. However, none of the important 2016 candidates has expressed any willingness
to raise taxes on the rich. The Republicans want to cut them and Clinton (and a spokesperson) dodge
the question.
Rich individuals (who are willing to be interviewed) also express concern about inequality but
generally oppose using higher taxes on the rich to fight it. Scheiber is very willing to bluntly
state his guess (and everyone's) that candidates are eager to please the rich, because they spend
much of their time begging the rich for contributions.
No suprise to anyone who has been paying attention except for the fact that it is on the front
page of www.nytimes.com and the article is printed in the business section not the opinion section.
Do click the link - it is brief, to the point, solid, alarming and a must read.
I clicked one of the links and found weaker evidence than I expected for Scheiber's view (which
of course I share
"By contrast, more than half of Americans and three-quarters of Democrats believe the "government
should redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich," according to a
Gallup poll of about 1,000 adults in April 2013."
It is a small majority 52% favor and 47% oppose. This 52 % is noticeably smaller than the solid
majorities who have been telling Gallup that high income individuals pay less than their fair share
of taxes (click and search
for Gallup on the page).
I guess this isn't really surprising - the word "heavy" is heavy maaaan and "redistribute" evokes
the dreaded welfare (and conservatives have devoted gigantic effort to giving it pejorative connotations).
The 52% majority is remarkable given the phrasing of the question. But it isn't enough to win elections,
since it is 52% of adults which corresponds to well under 52% of actual voters.
My reading is that it is important for egalitarians to stress the tax cuts for the non rich and
that higher taxes on the rich are, unfortunately, necessary if we are to have lower taxes on the
non rich without huge budget deficits. This is exactly Obama's approach.
Comments (87)
Jerry Critter
March 29, 2015 10:40 pm
Get rid of tax breaks that only the wealthy can take advantage of and perhaps everyone will
pay their fair share. The same goes for corporations.
amateur socialist
March 30, 2015 11:42 am
Of course another way to reduce inequality is to raise wages. Buried way down around paragraph
9 I found this gem: "Forty percent of the wealthy, versus 78 percent of the public, said the government
should make the minimum wage "high enough so that no family with a full-time worker falls below
the official poverty line."
I'm fine with raising people's taxes by increasing their wages. A story I heard on NPR recently
indicated that a single person needs to make about $17-19 an hour to cover most basic necessities
nowadays (the story went on to say that most people in that situation are working 2 or more jobs
to get enough income, a "solution" that creates more problems with health/stress etc.). A full
time worker supporting kids needs more than $20.
You double the minimum wage and strengthen people's rights to organize union representation.
Tax revenues go up (including SS contributions btw) and we add significant growth to the economy
with the increased purchasing power of workers. People can go back to working 40-50 hours a week
and cut back on moonlighting which creates new job opportunities for the younger folks decimated
by this so called recovery.
Win Win Win Win. And the poor overburdened millionaires don't have to have their poor tax fee
fees hurt.
Mark Jamison, March 30, 2015 8:09 pm
How about if we get rid of the "re" and call it what it is "distribution". The current
foundational rules embedded in tax law, intellectual property law, corporate construction law,
and other elements of our legal and regulatory system result in distributions that favor those
with capital or in a position to seek rents.
This isn't a situation that calls for a Robin Hood who takes from the rich and gives to the
poor. It is more a question of how elites have rigged the system to work primarily for them.
Democrats cede the rhetoric to the Right when they allow the discussion to be about redistribution.
Even talk of inequality without reference to the basic legal constructs that are rigged to create
slanted outcomes tend to accepted premises that are in and of themselves false.
The issue shouldn't be rejiggering things after the the initial distribution but creating a
system with basic rules that level the opportunity playing field.
coberly, March 30, 2015 11:03 pm
Thank You Mark Jamison!
An elegant, informed writer who says it better than I can.
But here is how I would say it:
Addressing "inequality" by "tax the rich" is the wrong answer and a political loser.
Address inequality by re-criminalizing the criminal practices of the criminal rich. Address
inequality by creating well paying jobs with government jobs if necessary (and there is necessary
work to be done by the government), with government protection for unions, with government policies
that make it less profitable to off shore
etc. the direction to take is to make the economy more fair . actually more "free" though you'll
never get the free enterprise fundamentalists to admit that's what it is. You WILL get the honest
rich on your side. They don't like being robbed any more than you do.
But you will not, in America, get even poor people to vote to "take from the rich to give to
the poor." It has something to do with the "story" Americans have been telling themselves since
1776. A story heard round the world.
That said, there is nothing wrong with raising taxes on the rich to pay for the government
THEY need as well as you. But don't raise taxes to give the money to the poor. They won't do it,
and even the poor don't want it except as a last resort, which we hope we are not at yet.
urban legend, March 31, 2015 2:07 am
Coberly, you are dead-on. Right now, taxation is the least issue. Listen to Jared Bernstein
and Dean Baker: the problem is incomes and demand, and the first and best answer for creating
demand for workers and higher wages to compete for those workers is full employment. Minimum
wage will help at the margins to push incomes up, and it's the easiest initial legislative sell,
but the public will support policies - mainly big-big infrastructure modernization in a country
that has neglected its infrastructure for a generation - that signal a firm commitment to full
employment.
It's laying right there for the Democrats to pick it up. Will they? Having policies that are
traditional Democratic policies will not do the job. For believability - for convincing voters
they actually have a handle on what has been wrong and how to fix it - they need to have a story
for why we have seem unable to generate enough jobs for over a decade. The neglect of infrastructure
- the unfilled millions of jobs that should have gone to keeping it up to date and up to major-country
standards - should be a big part of that story. Trade and manufacturing, to be sure, is the other
big element that will connect with voters. Many Democrats (including you know who) are severely
compromised on trade, but they need to find a way to come own on the right side with the voters.
coberly, March 31, 2015 10:52 am
Robert
i wish you'd give some thought to the other comments on this post.
if you are proposing raising taxes on the rich SO THAT you can cut taxes on the non
rich you are simply proposing theft. if you were proposing raising taxes on the rich to provide
reasonable welfare to those who need it you would be asking the rich to contribute to the strength
of their own country and ultimately their own wealth.
i hope you can see the difference.
it is especially irritating to me because many of the "non rich" who want their taxes cut make
more than twice as much as i do. what we are looking at here is simple old fashioned greed
just as stupid and ugly among the "non rich" as it is among the rich.
"the poor" in this country do not pay a significant amount of taxes (Social Security and Medicare
are not "taxes," merely an efficient way for us to pay for our own direct needs . as long as you
call them taxes you play into the hands of the Petersons who want to "cut taxes" and leave
the poor elderly to die on the streets, and the poor non-elderly to spend their lives in anxiety
and fear-driven greed trying to provide against desperate poverty in old age absent any reliable
security for their savings.)
Kai-HK, April 4, 2015 12:23 am
coberly,
Thanks for your well-reasoned response.
You state, 'i personally am not much interested in the "poor capitalist will flee the country
if you tax him too much." in fact i'd say good riddance, and by the way watch out for that tarriff
when you try to sell your stuff here.'
(a) What happens after thy leave? Sure you can get one-time 'exit tax' but you lose all the
intellectual capital (think of Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, or Steve Jobs leaving and taking their
intellectual property and human capital with them). These guys are great jobs creators it will
not only be the 'bad capitalists' that leave but also many of the 'job creating' good ones.
(b) I am less worried about existing job creating capitalists in America; what about the future
ones? The ones that either flee overseas and make their wealth there or are already overseas and
then have a plethora of places they can invest but why bother investing in the US if all they
are going to do is call me a predator and then seize my assets and or penalise me for investing
there? Right? It is the future investment that gets impacted not current wealth per se.
You also make a great point, 'the poor are in the worst position with respect to shifting their
tax burden on to others. the rich do it as a matter of course. it would be simpler just to tax
the rich there are fewer of them, and they know what is at stake, and they can afford accountants.
the rest of us would pay our "taxes" in the form of higher prices for what we buy.'
Investment capital will go where it is best treated and to attract investment capital a market
must provide a competitive return (profit margin or return on investment). Those companies and
investment that stay will do so because they are able to maintain that margin .and they will do
so by either reducing wages or increasing prices. Where they can do neither, their will exit the
market.
That is why, according to research, a bulk of the corporate taxation falls on workers and consumers
as a pass-on effect. The optimum corporate tax is 0. This will be the case as taxation increases
on the owners of businesses and capital .workers, the middle class, and the poor pay it. The margins
stay competitive for the owners of capital since capital is highly mobile and fungible.Workers
and the poor less so.
But thanks again for the tone and content of your response. I often get attacked personally
for my views instead of people focusing on the issue. I appreciate the respite.
K
coberly, April 4, 2015 12:34 pm
kai
yes, but you missed the point.
i am sick of the whining about taxes. it takes so much money to run the country (including
the kind of pernicious poverty that will turn the US into sub-saharan africa. and then who will
buy their products.
i can't do much about the poor whining about taxes. they are just people with limited understanding,
except for their own pressing needs. the rich know what the taxes are needed for, they are just
stupid about paying them. of course they would pass the taxes through to their customers. the
customers would still buy what they need/want at the new price. leaving everyone pretty much where
they are today financially. but the rich would be forced to be grownup about "paying" the taxes,
and maybe the politics of "don't tax me tax the other guy" would go away.
as for the sainted bill gates. there are plenty of other people in this country as smart as
he is and would be happy to sell us computer operating systems and pay the taxes on their billion
dollars a year profits.
nothing breaks my heart more than a whining millionaire.
Kai-HK
April 4, 2015 11:32 pm
Sure I got YOUR point, it just didn't address MY points as put forth in MY original post. And
it still doesn't.
More importantly, you have failed to defend YOUR point against even a rudimentary challenge.
K
coberly, April 5, 2015 12:45 pm
kai,
rudimentary is right.
i have read your "points" about sixteen hundred times in the last year alone. made by the
ayn rand faithful. it is wearisome.
and i have learned there is no point in trying to talk to true believers.
William Ryan, May 13, 2015 4:43 pm
Thanks again Coberly for your and K's very thoughtful insight. You guys really made me think
hard today and I do see your points about perverted capitalism being a big problem in US. I still
do like the progressive tax structure and balanced trade agenda better.
I realize as you say that we cannot compare US to Hong Kong just on size and scale alone. Without
all the obfuscation going Lean by building cultures that makes people want to take ownership and
sharing learning and growing together is a big part of the solution Ford once said "you cannot
learn in school what the world is going to do next".
Also never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level then beat you with
experience. The only cure for organized greed is organized labor. It's because no matter
what they do nothing get done about it. With all this manure around there must be a pony somewhere!
"
A typical voice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real
issues". FDR.
Rich people pay rich people to tell middle class people to blame poor people
Earth doesn't matter, people don't matter, even economy doesn't matter . The only thing
that matters is R.W. nut bar total ownership of everything.
I'm sorry I put profits ahead of people, greed above need and the rule of gold above God's
golden rules.
I try to stay away from negative people who have a problem for every solution
We need capitalism that is based on justice and greater corporate responsibility. I do
not speak nor do I comprehend assholian.
"If you don't change direction , you may end up where you are headed". Lao-Tzu.
"The true strength of our nation comes not from our arm or wealth but from our ideas".
Obama..
Last one.
"If the soul is left to darkness, sins will be committed. The guilty one is not the one
who commits the sins, but the one who caused the darkness". Victor Hugo.
coberly , May 16, 2015 9:57 pm
kai
as a matter of fact i disagree with the current "equality" fad at least insofar as it implies
taking from the rich and giving to the poor directly.
i don't believe people are "equal" in terms of their economic potential. i do beleive they
are equal in terms of being due the respect of human beings.
i also believe your simple view of "equality" is a closet way of guarantee that the rich can
prey upon the poor without interruption.
humans made their first big step in evolution when they learned to cooperate with each other
against the big predators.
Jerry Critter, May 17, 2015 12:10 am
it is mildly progressive up to about $75,000 per year where the rate hits 30%. But from there
up to $1.542 million the rate only increases to 33.3%.
I call that very flat!
Jerry Critter, May 17, 2015 11:20 am
"i assume there are people in this country who are truly poor. as far as i know they
don't pay taxes."
Read my reference and you will see that the "poor" indeed pay taxes, just not much income tax
because they don't have much income. You are fixated on income when we should be considering all
forms of taxation.
Jerry Critter, May 17, 2015 9:25 pm
Oh Kai, cut the crap. Paying taxes Is nothing like slavery. My oh my, how did we ever survive
with a top tax rate of around 90%, nearly 3 times the current rate? Some people would even say
that the economy then was pretty great and the middle class was doing terrific. So stop the deflection
and redirection. I think you just like to see how many words you can write. Sorry, but history
is not on your side.
Distributional National Accounts: Methods and Estimates for the United States
By Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman
Abstract
This paper combines tax, survey, and national accounts data to estimate the distribution of national
income in the United States since 1913. Our distributional national accounts capture 100% of national
income, allowing us to compute growth rates for each quantile of the income distribution consistent
with macroeconomic growth. We estimate the distribution of both pre-tax and post-tax income, making
it possible to provide a comprehensive view of how government redistribution affects inequality.
Average pre-tax national income per adult has increased 60% since 1980, but we find that it
has stagnated for the bottom 50% of the distribution at about $16,000 a year.
The pre-tax income of the middle class-adults between the median and the 90th percentile-has
grown 40% since 1980, faster than what tax and survey data suggest, due in particular to the rise
of tax-exempt fringe benefits.
Income has boomed at the top: in 1980, top 1% adults earned on average 27 times more than
bottom 50% adults, while they earn 81 times more today.
The upsurge of top incomes was first a labor income phenomenon but has mostly been a capital
income phenomenon since 2000.
The government has offset only a small fraction of the increase in inequality. The reduction of
the gender gap in earnings has mitigated the increase in inequality among adults. The share of women,
however, falls steeply as one moves up the labor income distribution, and is only 11% in the top
0.1% today.
Distributional National Accounts: Methods and Estimates for the United States
By Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman
Introduction Income inequality has increased in many developed countries over the last
several decades. This trend has attracted considerable interest among academics, policy-makers,
and the general public. In recent years, following up on Kuznets' (1953) pioneering attempt,
a number of authors have used administrative tax records to construct long-run series of
top income shares (Alvaredo et al., 2011-2016). Yet despite this endeavor, we still face
three important limitations when measuring income inequality. First and most important,
there is a large gap between national accounts-which focus on macro totals and growth-and
inequality studies-which focus on distributions using survey and tax data, usually without
trying to be fully consistent with macro totals. This gap makes it hard to address questions
such as: What fraction of economic growth accrues to the bottom 50%, the middle 40%, and
the top 10% of the distribution? How much of the rise in income inequality owes to changes
in the share of labor and capital in national income, and how much to changes in the dispersion
of labor earnings, capital ownership, and returns to capital? Second, about a third of U.S.
national income is redistributed through taxes, transfers, and public good spending. Yet
we do not have a good measure of how the distribution of pre-tax income differs from the
distribution of post-tax income, making it hard to assess how government redistribution
affects inequality. Third, existing income inequality statistics use the tax unit or the
household as unit of observation, adding up the income of men and women. As a result, we
do not have a clear view of how long-run trends in income concentration are shaped by the
major changes in women labor force participation-and gender inequality generally-that have
occurred over the last century.
This paper attempts to compute inequality statistics for the United States that overcome
the limits of existing series by creating distributional national accounts. We combine tax,
survey, and national accounts data to build new series on the distribution of national income
since 1913. In contrast to previous attempts that capture less than 60% of US national income-
such as Census bureau estimates (US Census Bureau 2016) and top income shares (Piketty and
Saez, 2003)-our estimates capture 100% of the national income recorded in the national accounts.
This enables us to provide decompositions of growth by income groups consistent with macroeconomic
growth. We compute the distribution of both pre-tax and post-tax income. Post-tax series
deduct all taxes and add back all transfers and public spending, so that both pre-tax and
post-tax incomes add up to national income. This allows us to provide the first comprehensive
view of how government redistribution affects inequality. Our benchmark series uses the
adult individual as the unit of observation and splits income equally among spouses. We
also report series in which each spouse is assigned her or his own labor income, enabling
us to study how long-run changes in gender inequality shape the distribution of income.
Distributional national accounts provide information on the dynamic of income across
the entire spectrum-from the bottom decile to the top 0.001%-that, we believe, is more accurate
than existing inequality data. Our estimates capture employee fringe benefits, a growing
source of income for the middle-class that is overlooked by both Census bureau estimates
and tax data. They capture all capital income, which is large-about 30% of total national
income- and concentrated, yet is very imperfectly covered by surveys-due to small sample
and top coding issues-and by tax data-as a large fraction of capital income goes to pension
funds and is retained in corporations. They make it possible to produce long-run inequality
statistics that control for socio-demographic changes-such as the rise in the fraction of
retired individuals and the decline in household size-contrary to the currently available
tax-based series.
Methodologically, our contribution is to construct micro-files of pre-tax and post-tax
income consistent with macro aggregates. These micro-files contain all the variables of
the national accounts and synthetic individual observations that we obtain by statistically
matching tax and survey data and making explicit assumptions about the distribution of income
categories for which there is no directly available source of information. By construction,
the totals in these micro-files add up to the national accounts totals, while the distributions
are consistent with those seen in tax and survey data. These files can be used to compute
a wide array of distributional statistics-labor and capital income earned, taxes paid, transfers
received, wealth owned, etc.-by age groups, gender, and marital status. Our objective, in
the years ahead, is to construct similar micro-files in as many countries as possible in
order to better compare inequality across countries. Just like we use GDP or national income
to compare the macroeconomic performances of countries today, so could distributional national
accounts be used to compare inequality across countries tomorrow.
We stress at the outset that there are numerous data issues involved in distributing
national income, discussed in the text and the online appendix. First, we take the national
accounts as a given starting point, although we are well aware that the national accounts
themselves are imperfect (e.g., Zucman 2013). They are, however, the most reasonable starting
point, because they aggregate all the available information from surveys, tax data, corporate
income statements, and balance sheets, etc., in an standardized, internationally-agreed-upon
and regularly improved upon accounting framework. Second, imputing all national income,
taxes, transfers, and public goods spending requires making assumptions on a number of complex
issues, such as the economic incidence of taxes and who benefits from government spending.
Our goal is not to provide definitive answers to these questions, but rather to be comprehensive,
consistent, and explicit about what assumptions we are making and why. We view our paper
as attempting to construct prototype distributional national accounts, a prototype that
could be improved upon as more data become available, new knowledge emerges on who pays
taxes and benefits from government spending, and refined estimation techniques are developed-just
as today's national accounts are regularly improved....
Low oil prices and an increasingly
costly war in Yemen have torn a yawning hole in the Saudi budget and created a crisis that has led
to cuts in public spending, reductions in take-home pay and benefits for government workers and a
host of new fees and fines. Huge subsidies for fuel, water and electricity that encourage
overconsumption are being curtailed. ...
Market capitalism has certainly had a rough five years. Remember the
Washington Consensus
? That was the to-do list of 10 economic policies designed to Americanize emerging markets back
in the 1990s. The U.S. government and international financial institutions urged countries to impose
fiscal discipline and reduce or eliminate budget deficits, broaden the tax base and lower tax rates,
allow the market to set interest and exchange rates, and liberalize trade and capital flows. When
Asian economies were hit by the 1997-1998 financial crisis, American critics were quick to bemoan
the defects of "crony capitalism" in the region, and they appeared to have economic history on their
side.
Yet today, in the aftermath of the biggest U.S. financial crisis since the Great Depression, the
world looks very different. Not only did the 2008-2009 meltdown of financial markets seem to expose
the fundamental fragility of the capitalist system, but China's apparent ability to withstand the
reverberations of Wall Street's implosion also suggested the possibility of a new "Beijing Consensus"
based on central planning and state control of volatile market forces.
In his book
The End of the Free Market , the Eurasia Group's Ian Bremmer
argues that authoritarian governments all over the world have "invented something new: state
capitalism":
In this system, governments use various kinds of state-owned companies to manage the exploitation
of resources that they consider the state's crown jewels and to create and maintain large numbers
of jobs.
They use select privately owned companies to dominate certain economic sectors.
They use
so-called sovereign wealth funds to invest their extra cash in ways that maximize the state's profits.
In all three cases, the state is using markets to create wealth that can be directed as political
officials see fit.
And in all three cases, the ultimate motive is not economic (maximizing growth)
but political (maximizing the state's power and the leadership's chances of survival). This
is a form of capitalism but one in which the state acts as the dominant economic player and uses
markets primarily for political gain.
For Bremmer, state capitalism poses a grave "threat" not only to the free market model, but also
to democracy in the developing world.
Although applicable to states all over the globe, at root this is an argument about China. Bremmer
himself writes that "China holds the key." But is it in fact correct to ascribe China's success to
the state rather than the market? The answer depends on where you go in China. In Shanghai or Chongqing,
for example, the central government does indeed loom very large. In Wenzhou, by comparison, the economy
is as vigorously entrepreneurial and market-driven as anywhere I have ever been.
True, China's economy continues to be managed on the basis of a five-year plan, an authoritarian
tradition that goes all the way back to Josef Stalin. As I write, however, the Chinese authorities
are grappling with a problem that owes more to market forces than to the plan: the aftermath of an
urban real estate bubble caused by the massive 2009-2010 credit expansion. Among China experts, the
hot topic of the moment is the new shadow banking system in cities such as Wenzhou, which last year
enabled developers and investors to carry on building and selling apartment blocks even as the People's
Bank of China sought to restrict lending by raising rates and bank reserve requirements.
Talk to some eminent Chinese economists, and you could be forgiven for concluding that the ultimate
aim of policy is to get rid of state capitalism altogether. "We need to privatize all the state-owned
enterprises," one leading economist told me over dinner in Beijing a year ago. "We even need to privatize
the Great Hall of the People." He also claimed to have said this to President Hu Jintao. "Hu couldn't
tell if I was serious or if I was joking," he told me proudly.
Ultimately, it is an unhelpful oversimplification to divide the world into "market capitalist"
and "state capitalist" camps. The reality is that most countries are arranged along a spectrum where
both the intent and the extent of state intervention in the economy vary. Only extreme libertarians
argue that the state has no role whatsoever to play in the economy. As a devotee of Adam Smith, I
accept without qualification his argument in
The Wealth of Nations that the benefits of free trade and the division of labor will be
enjoyed only in countries with rational laws and institutions. I also agree with Silicon Valley visionary
Peter Thiel that, under the right circumstances (e.g., in time of war), governments are capable of
forcing the direction and pace of technological change: Think the Manhattan Project.
But the question today is not whether the state or the market should be in charge. The real question
is which countries' laws and institutions are best, not only at achieving rapid economic growth but
also, equally importantly, at distributing the fruits of growth in a way that citizens deem to be
just.
Let us begin by asking a simple question that can be answered with empirical data: Where in the
world is the role of the state greatest in economic life, and where is it smallest? The answer lies
in data the IMF publishes
on "general government total expenditure" as a percentage of GDP. At one extreme are countries like
East Timor and Iraq, where government expenditure exceeds GDP; at the other end are countries like
Bangladesh, Guatemala, and Myanmar, where it is an absurdly low share of total output.
Beyond these outliers we have China, whose spending represents 23 percent of GDP, down from around
28 percent three decades ago. By this measure, China ranks 147th out of 183 countries for which data
are available. Germany ranks 24th, with government spending accounting for 48 percent of GDP. The
United States, meanwhile, is 44th with 44 percent of GDP. By this measure, state capitalism is a
European, not an Asian, phenomenon: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary,
Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Sweden all have higher government spending relative to GDP
than Germany. The Danish figure is 58 percent, more than twice that of the Chinese.
The results are similar if one focuses on government consumption - the share of GDP accounted
for by government purchases of goods and services, as opposed to transfers or investment. Again,
ignoring the outliers, it is Europe whose states play the biggest role in the economy as buyers:
Denmark (27 percent) is far ahead of Germany (18 percent), while the United States is at 17 percent.
China? 13 percent. For Hong Kong, the figure is 8 percent. For Macao, 7 percent.
Where China does lead the West is in the enormous share of gross fixed capital formation (jargon
for investment in hard assets) accounted for by the public sector. According to
World Bank data,
this amounted to 21 percent of China's GDP in 2008, among the highest figures in the world, reflecting
the still-leading role that government plays in infrastructure investment. The equivalent figures
for developed Western countries are vanishingly small; in the West the state is a spendthrift, not
an investor, borrowing money to pay for goods and services. On the other hand, the public sector's
share of Chinese investment has been falling steeply during the past 10 years. Here too the Chinese
trend is away from state capitalism.
Of course, none of these quantitative measures of the state's role tells us how well government
is actually working. For that we must turn to very different kinds of data. Every year the World
Economic Forum (WEF) publishes a
Global Competitiveness
Index , which assesses countries from all kinds of different angles, including the economic efficiency
of their public-sector institutions. Since the current methodology was adopted in 2004, the United
States' average competitiveness score has fallen from 5.82 to 5.43, one of the steepest declines
among developed economies. China's score, meanwhile, has leapt from 4.29 to 4.90.
Even more fascinating is the WEF's
Executive
Opinion Survey , which produces a significant amount of the data that goes into the Global Competitiveness
Index. The table below selects 15 measures of government efficacy, focusing on aspects of the rule
of law ranging from the protection of private property rights to the policing of corruption and the
control of organized crime. These are appropriate things to measure because, regardless of whether
a state is nominally a market economy or a state-led economy, the quality of its legal institutions
will, in practice, have an impact on the ease with which business can be done.
"... In Bristol County, which includes Fall River, New Bedford, and Taunton, manufacturing employed nearly a quarter of the workforce in 2000; now it provides jobs for only one in 10 workers. ..."
"... Most of the manufacturing jobs lost since 2000 are unlikely to return, economists said. Automation has made manufacturing much more specialized, requiring more education and fewer workers, leaving parts of the country struggling to figure out how to reinvent their economies. ..."
"... "We will probably never have as many manufacturing jobs as we had in 1960," Dunn said. "The question is how do we train workers and provide them opportunities to feel productive. What's clear from the election is an increasing number of people don't have those opportunities or don't feel that those opportunities will be available." ..."
"... Characteristics of people dying by suicide after job loss, financial difficulties and other economic stressors during a period of recession (2010–2011): A review of coroners׳ records ..."
FALL RIVER - In this struggling industrial city, changes in trade policy are being measured
not only in jobs lost, but also in lives lost - to suicide.
The jobs went first, the result of trade deals that sent them overseas. Once-humming factories
that dressed office workers and soldiers, and made goods to furnish their homes, stand abandoned,
overtaken by weeds and graffiti.
And now there is research on how the US job exodus parallels an increase in suicides. A one percentage
point increase in unemployment correlated with an 11 percent increase in suicides, according to
Peter Schott, a Yale University economist who coauthored the report with Justin Pierce, a researcher
at the Federal Reserve Board.
The research doesn't prove a definitive link between lost jobs and suicide; it simply notes
that as jobs left, suicides rose. Workers who lost their jobs may have been pushed over the edge
and turned to suicide or drug addiction, lacking financial resources or community connections
to get help, the authors suggest.
The research contributes to a growing body of work that shows the dark side of global trade:
the dislocation, anger, and despair in some parts of the country that came with the United States'
easing of trade with China in 2000. The impact of job losses was greatest in places such as Fall
River and other cities in Bristol County, along with rural manufacturing counties in New Hampshire
and Maine, vast stretches of the South, and portions of the Rust Belt.
"There are winners and losers in trade," Schott said. "If you go to these communities, you can
see the disruptions."
The unemployment rate in Fall River remains persistently high and at 5.5 percent in September
was a good two points above the Massachusetts average. Nearly one in three households gets some
sort of public assistance.
Opposition to global trade policies became a rallying cry in Donald Trump's campaign, propelling
him into the White House with strategic wins in the industrial Midwest and the South. Trump has
threatened to impose tariffs on Chinese goods and has bashed recent US trade pacts. ...
... Previous trade deals, including the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and
Mexico, chipped away at US manufacturing towns. But economists say the decision to normalize relations
with China was far more disruptive. Some economists have estimated the United States may have
lost at least 1 million manufacturing jobs from 2000 to 2007 due to freer trade with China.
In Bristol County, which includes Fall River, New Bedford, and Taunton, manufacturing employed
nearly a quarter of the workforce in 2000; now it provides jobs for only one in 10 workers.
Most of the manufacturing jobs lost since 2000 are unlikely to return, economists said.
Automation has made manufacturing much more specialized, requiring more education and fewer workers,
leaving parts of the country struggling to figure out how to reinvent their economies.
"We will probably never have as many manufacturing jobs as we had in 1960," Dunn said.
"The question is how do we train workers and provide them opportunities to feel productive. What's
clear from the election is an increasing number of people don't have those opportunities or don't
feel that those opportunities will be available."
Officials in Fall River and Bristol County said they are trying to provide appropriate training,
including computer programming, a prerequisite for many manufacturing jobs.
They also point out there have been recent victories.
Amazon.com opened a distribution warehouse in Fall River and has been hiring in recent
months to fill 500 jobs.
Companies are eyeing Taunton for its cheaper land, access to highways, and state tax breaks.
Norwood-based Martignetti Cos., among the state's largest wine and spirits distributors,
last year agreed to move its headquarters to a Taunton industrial park.
Mayor Tom Hoye said Taunton has also been more active in recent years, holding community meetings
and expanding social services for residents facing distress and drug addiction.
Despite the hits the city and its residents have taken, there is reason to be optimistic about
the future, he said.
Jobs are returning, and the county's suicide rate dropped from 13 per 100,000 people in 2014
to 12 per 100,000 in 2015.
"We're reinventing ourselves," Hoye said on a recent morning as he sat in an old elementary
school classroom that has served as the temporary mayor's office for several years.
"It's tough to lift yourself out of the hole sometimes. But we're much better off than we were
10 years ago."
'The research doesn't prove a definitive
link between lost jobs and suicide; it
simply notes that as jobs left,
suicides rose.'
Pierce, Justin R., and Peter K. Schott (2016). "Trade Liberalization and Mortality:
Evidence from U.S. Counties," Finance and Economics Discussion Series
2016-094. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Characteristics of people dying by suicide after job loss, financial difficulties and other
economic stressors during a period of recession (2010–2011): A review of coroners׳ records
Caroline Coope, et al
Journal of Affective Disorders
Volume 183, 1 - September 2015
Economist was always adamantly anti-Russian and, especially, anti-Putin. The use of people like
Sergey Guriev (recent emigrant to Paris, who excape to avoid the danger of criminal procecution for skolkovao machinations) is just an icing on the cake.
Notable quotes:
"... During the 2015-16 recession, GDP. fell by more than 4 percent and real incomes declined by 10 percent. That is significant, but much less serious than, say, the 40 percent drop in GDP that Russia experienced during the first half of the 1990s. Despite a dramatic decline in oil prices and the burden of sanctions imposed by Western governments after the Crimea crisis, the Putin administration has managed to avert economic disaster by pursuing competent macroeconomic policies. ..."
"... As the sanctions cut off Russia's access to global financial markets, the government set out to cover the budget deficit by undertaking major austerity measures and tapping its substantial sovereign funds. In early 2014, the Reserve Fund (created to mitigate fiscal shocks caused by drops in oil prices) and the National Welfare Fund (set up to address shortfalls in the pension system) together held the equivalent of 8 percent of GDP. ..."
LONDON - The Russian economy is in trouble - "in tatters," President Obama has said - so why
aren't Russians more upset with their leaders? The country underwent a major recession recently.
The ruble lost half of its value. And yet, according to a leading independent pollster in Russia,
President Vladimir V. Putin's approval ratings have consistently exceeded 80 percent during the
past couple of years.
One reason is that while the Russian economy is struggling, it is not falling apart, and many
Russians remember times when it was in a much worse state. Another, perhaps more important, explanation
is that Mr. Putin has convinced them that it's not the economy, stupid, anymore.
Thanks largely to the government's extensive control over information, Mr. Putin has rewritten
the social contract in Russia. Long based on economic performance, it is now about geopolitical
status. If economic pain is the price Russians have to pay so that Russia can stand up to the
West, so be it.
It wasn't like this in the 1990s and 2000s. Back then the approval ratings of Russian leaders
were closely correlated with economic performance, as the political scientist Daniel Treisman
has demonstrated. When the economy began to recover from the 1998 financial crisis, Mr. Putin's
popularity increased. It dipped when growth stalled. It climbed again in 2005, after the global
price of oil - Russia' main export commodity - rose, foreign investment flowed in and domestic
consumption boomed. And it fell substantially after growth rates slowed in 2012-13.
Russia's intervention in Crimea in early 2014 changed everything. Within two months, Mr. Putin's
popularity jumped back to more than 80 percent, where it has stayed until now, despite the recession.
One might argue that these figures are misleading: Given the pressures faced by the Kremlin's
political opponents, aren't respondents in polls too afraid to answer questions honestly? Hardly,
according to a recent study co-written by the political scientist Tim Frye, based on an innovative
method known as "list experiments." It found that, even after adjusting for respondents' reluctance
to openly acknowledge any misgivings about specific leaders, Mr. Putin's popularity really is
very high: around 70 percent.
During the 2015-16 recession, GDP. fell by more than 4 percent and real incomes declined
by 10 percent. That is significant, but much less serious than, say, the 40 percent drop in GDP
that Russia experienced during the first half of the 1990s. Despite a dramatic decline in oil
prices and the burden of sanctions imposed by Western governments after the Crimea crisis, the
Putin administration has managed to avert economic disaster by pursuing competent macroeconomic
policies.
As the sanctions cut off Russia's access to global financial markets, the government set
out to cover the budget deficit by undertaking major austerity measures and tapping its substantial
sovereign funds. In early 2014, the Reserve Fund (created to mitigate fiscal shocks caused by
drops in oil prices) and the National Welfare Fund (set up to address shortfalls in the pension
system) together held the equivalent of 8 percent of GDP.
The government also adopted sound monetary policy, including the decision to fully float the
ruble in 2014. Because of the decline in oil prices and large net capital outflows - caused by
the need to repay external corporate debt and limited foreign investment in Russia - the currency
depreciated by 50 percent within a year. Although a weaker ruble hurt the living standards of
ordinary Russians, it boosted the competitiveness of Russia's companies. The Russian economy is
now beginning to grow again, if very modestly - at a projected 1 to 1.5 percent per year over
the next few years.
This performance comes nowhere near meeting Mr. Putin's election-campaign promises of 2012,
when he projected GDP. growth at 6 percent per year for 2011-18. But it isn't catastrophic either,
and the government has managed to explain it away.
Thanks partly to its near-complete control of the press, television and the internet, the government
has developed a grand narrative about Russia's role in the world - essentially promoting the view
that Russians may need to tighten their belts for the good of the nation. The story has several
subplots. Russian speakers in Ukraine need to be defended against neo-Nazis. Russia supports President
Bashar al-Assad of Syria because he is a rampart against the Islamic State, and it has helped
liberate Aleppo from terrorists. Why would the Kremlin hack the Democratic Party in the United
States? And who believes what the CIA says anyway?
The Russian people seem to accept much of this or not to care one way or the other. This should
come as no surprise. In a recent paper based on data for 128 countries over 10 years, Professor
Treisman and I developed an econometric model to assess which factors affect a government's approval
ratings and by how much. We concluded that fully removing internet controls in a country like
Russia today would cause the government's popularity ratings to drop by about 35 percentage points.
...
"... Yes. I see editorials in WaPo and NYT where the writer claims they've "woken up in another country", they "don't know what happened to the real America", they "didn't realize the country was so full of awful people". They seem mighty disoriented by the neoliberal narrative, as given for the last 40 years, losing this election. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... The Republicans are the party of the rich; the Democrats are the party of the rich and poor. Those in between have no place. ..."
So that's the story, or one story. But stories have morals. What moral does identity politics
offer?
Adolph Reed on identity politics[2]:
[I]t is a class politics, the politics of the left-wing of neoliberalism. It is the expression
and active agency of a political order and moral economy in which capitalist market forces are
treated as unassailable nature. An integral element of that moral economy is displacement of the
critique of the invidious outcomes produced by capitalist class power onto equally naturalized
categories of ascriptive identity that sort us into groups supposedly defined by what we essentially
are rather than what we do. As I have argued, following Walter Michaels and others, within that
moral economy a society in which 1% of the population controlled 90% of the resources could be
just, provided that roughly 12% of the 1% were black, 12% were Latino, 50% were women, and whatever
the appropriate proportions were LGBT people. It would be tough to imagine a normative ideal that
expresses more unambiguously the social position of people who consider themselves candidates
for inclusion in, or at least significant staff positions in service to, the ruling class.
This perspective may help explain why, the more aggressively and openly capitalist class power
destroys and marketizes every shred of social protection working people of all races, genders,
and sexual orientations have fought for and won over the last century, the louder and more insistent
are the demands from the identitarian left that we focus our attention on statistical disparities
and episodic outrages that "prove" that the crucial injustices in the society should be understood
in the language of ascriptive identity.
So, if we ask an identitarian[3] whether shipping the Rust Belt's jobs off to China was fair -
the moral of the story - the answer we get is: "That depends. If the private equity firms that did
it were 12% black, 12% Latino, and half women, then yes." And that really is the answer that the
Clintonites give. And, to this day, they believe it's a winning one[4].
Yes. I see editorials in WaPo and NYT where the writer claims they've "woken up in another
country", they "don't know what happened to the real America", they "didn't realize the country
was so full of awful people". They seem mighty disoriented by the neoliberal narrative, as given
for the last 40 years, losing this election.
That's funny. Okay, I was soooo naive. I woke up finally in 2004 to the realization that the
"awful " people were the 01% including good friends. The Rest are trying to survive with dignity.
They are not awful.
The Hateful New York Times has been pushing the "Party Line" (narrative) since at least the
1920s, and has "artfully" facilitated the deaths (murder) of millions of deplorables – and the
subsequent cover-up of the crimes.
"My editor was dubious. I had been explaining that 50 years ago, in the spring and summer of
1933, Ukraine, the country of my forebears, had suffered a horrendous catastrophe. In a fertile,
populous country famed as the granary of Europe, a great famine had mowed down a sixth, a fifth
and in some regions even a fourth of the inhabitants. Natural forces – drought, flood, blight
– have been at least contributory causes of most famines. This one had been entirely man-made,
entirely the result of a dictator's genocidal policies. Its consequences, I said, are still being
felt.
Erudite, polyglot, herself a refugee from tyranny, the editor remained skeptical. "But isn't
all this ," she leaned back in her chair and smiled brightly, "isn't all this a bit recondite?"
My face must have flushed. Recondite? Suddenly I knew the impotent anger Jews and Armenians
have felt. Millions of my countrymen had been murdered, and their deaths were being dismissed
as obscure and little known.
Later I realized that the editor had said more than she had intended. The famine of 1933 was
rationalized and concealed when it was taking its toll, and it is still hidden away and trivialized
today. George Orwell need not have limited his observation to British intellectuals when he remarked
that "huge events like the Ukraine famine of 1933, involving the deaths of millions of people,
have actually escaped the attention of the majority of English Russophiles."_1_
Still later, after I had set about uncovering the whole story by delving into newspaper files
and archives and talking to people who had witnessed the events of 1933, I came to understand
how Walter Duranty and The New York Times helped Stalin make the famine recondite.
Walter Duranty worked for The New York Times for 21 years "
" The combination of ambiguous policy signals and the cult of secrecy could produce absurd
results , as when certain categories of officials could not be informed of relevant instructions
because the instructions were secret. In one blatant example, the theater censorship and the Ministry
of Enlightenment, headed by A. V. Lunacharsky, spent weeks arguing at cross purposes about Mikhail
Bulgakov's controversial play Days of the Turbins, despite the fact that the Politburo had instructed
the Ministry that the play could be staged, because "this decree was secret, known to only key
officials in the administration of art, and Lunacharsky was not at liberty to divulge it." [42]
A few years later, after Stalin had expressed strong views on cultural policy in a private
letter that had circulated widely, if unofficially, on the grapevine, Lunacharsky begged him to
allow publication of the letter so that people would know what the party line on art actually
was.
Some of Stalin's cultural signals were even more minimalist, involving telephone calls to writers
or other cultural figures whose content was then instantly broadcast on the Moscow and Leningrad
intelligentsia grapevine. A case in point was his unexpected telephone call to Bulgakov in 1930
in response to Bulgakov's letter complaining of mistreatment by theater and censorship officials.
The overt message of the call was one of encouragement to Bulgakov. By extension, the "signal"
to the non-Communist intelligentsia was that it was not Stalin who harrassed them but only lower-level
officials and militants who did not understand Stalin's policy.
This case is particularly interesting because the security police (GPU, at this date) monitored
the effectiveness of the signal. In his report on the impact of Stalin's call, a GPU agent noted
that the literary and artistic intelligentsia had been enormously impressed. "It's as if a dam
had burst and everyone around saw the true face of comrade Stalin. "People speak of Stalin's simplicity
and accessibility. They "talk of him warmly and with love, retelling in various versions the legendary
history with Bulgakov's letter." They say that Stalin is not to blame for the bad things that
happen: He follows the right line, but around him are scoundrels. These scoundrels persecuted
Bulgakov, one of the most talented Soviet writers. Various literary rascals were making a career
out of persecution of Bulgakov, and now Stalin has given them a slap in the face. [44]
The signals with Stalin's personal signature usually pointed in the direction of greater relaxation
and tolerance, not increased repression. This was surely not because Stalin inclined to the "soft
line," but rather because he preferred to avoid too close an association with hard-line policies
that were likely to be
unpopular with domestic and foreign opinion. His signals often involved a "good Tsar" message:
"the Tsar is benevolent; it is the wicked boyars (a member of the old aristocracy) who are responsible
for all the injustice." Sometimes this ploy seems to have worked, but in other cases the message
evoked popular skepticism.
When Stalin deplored the excesses of local officials during collectivization in a letter, "Dizzy
with success," published in Pravda in 1930, the initial response in the villages was often favorable.
After the famine, however, Stalin's "good Tsar" ploy no longer worked in the countryside, and
was even mocked by its intended audience
People chose the devil they don't know over the absolute-slam-dunk-warmongering-elitist devil
who's been running for President since 2000 and fixed the (D) primary against the Roosevelt Democrat
who would have beaten Trump by 10+ points.
Don't blame me. I voted Sanders. Hindsight is 2020.
Yep. When the dominant financial venue is blatantly a "casino," why not resort to chance?
As the mood out in the hustings grows ever bleaker, the "kick the table over" strategy gains legitimacy
among a wider and wider circle of people.
The problem with identity politics is that unless everyone has an identity, identity politics
is a politics of exclusion. Something is carved out for those who have been "identified" (as worthy),
while the rest stay where they are, or get left behind.
But note that this is only because we insist on operating under the zero sum economics of monetarism.
Once this restriction is removed; once we acknowledge the power of the sovereign fiat, the zero
sum is left behind, and the either-or choices forced upon us by identity politics are no longer
necessary.
Fascinating to learn that it is at least in some cases not only a problem of reporters being
blind to problems because of their worldview, and that the frames they pick aren't 'just' due
to their education. In a way, it's hopeful, because it means that even here, alternatives are/must
be restricted in order to allow the world to be categorized into tiny little boxes, via Procrustes
doing his thing.
An early sign was the Procrustean "embedment" of journos in with the Army during the Gulf Wars.
The suspension of disbelief required of the reader to accept the resultant "narrative" was, by
any measure, a "stretch."
Yes, well. We must all do our bid to perpetuate the State - even those of us who are too weak-kneed
to serve as cannon fodder (no disrespect intended, of course - just observing). After all, it's
only
thanks to liberal "democracy" that our betters were able to create this best/least-worst of
all possible worlds in the first place. Being bothered by those few remaining necessary egg-shells
just goes to show I'm in the right place.
Oh, good sir, those "necessary egg shells" are needed to settle the grounds of the strong coffee
required to energize the masses to continue the work designed to bring on the Dawn of the Neoliberal
dispensation!
You are in the "right place."
As for States; some years ago, Louisiana had a motto on their automobile license plates that read;
"Louisiana: A Dream State." Truth in advertising. That motto didn't last long.
The bigger shock came on being told, at least twice, by Times editors who were describing
the paper's daily Page One meeting: "We set the agenda for the country in that room."
They believe their own fake news. Now they can't believe their lying eyes.
Difficult for me to believe the NYT originates "The Narrative" any more than Pravda or Izvestia
did so in the USSR. I am more receptive to the idea that its senior editors coordinate with upstream
sources to assure news coverage and opinion pieces are consistent with policies favored by the
administration and other senior government officials, as well as other selected constituencies.
Also of interest to me is what is occurring at the Washington Post in this regard.
There may well be truth to that idea. I recall
reading a blog post by a Swedish journalist who
did an article on the NY Times. He writes that they
have a building that none of their journalists are allowed
to enter as it is sometimes visited by important dignitaries
who negotiate how they will be covered. He gave
Gaddafi of Libya as an example. I suppose this is possible if
you fixing the narrative.
The Michael Cieply story reminds me of this (from 9/14/2016):
This off-limits part of the building was not only where the president would sit in on editorial
board meetings, it was also the place where Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was received when
he successfully negotiated to be removed from "The Axis of Evil" list after 9/11. At that point
in time The New York Times was still considered perhaps the most important publication in the
world, and what it wrote was thought to have a direct impact on the life and death of nations.
Because of this, many powerful people would put a lot of effort and money into gaining preferable
coverage from The New York Times. These floors, Bill Keller told me, was where the proprietor
and the editors of the newspaper would meet with and negotiate deals with powerful visitors.
In retrospect, whatever "deal" that Gaddafi struck with The New York Times, the exonerating
article penned by Judith Miller didn't save his life, nor did it save his nation from the might
of the US air force.
Despite the brutal fate that Gaddafi came to face, the assumption that The New York Times
was capable of making meaningful deals with governments was not entirely unfounded. Bill Keller
spoke of how he successfully negotiated to freeze the NSA warrantless wiretapping-story uncovered
by Eric Lichtblau for two years until after the re-election of George W Bush. This top-floor
was also where the Iraq WMD evidence was concocted with the help of the Pentagon and handed
to reporter Judith Miller to pen, later letting her hang when the wind changed. This, Keller
also told me, was where the CIA and State Department officials were invited to take part in
daily editorial meetings when State Department Cables were published by WikiLeaks. I would
personally witness how this was the place where Sulzberger himself oversaw the re-election
coverage of president Obama. And this was much later where the main tax-evaders of the US would
make their cases so that the Panama Papers on their tax records would never reach the public
eye (which at the time of writing, they have yet to be).
Just an FYI, the reason that hardly any Americans featured in the Panama Papers was that Panama
was not a favored destination for US tax evaders. So the Times had nothing to protect.
I still think the story is evolutionary. In the sense that just as the central nervous system
of society, government, started as a privatized function and eventually evolved into a public
utility, for basic reasons of efficiency and scale, the financial system, as the medium and circulation
system of society, is going through a similar evolutionary process. The premise of vast notional
wealth, which is necessarily backed by debt, is insupportable, at its current levels, simply because
the debt is unsustainable. So collapse is inevitable and the only question is how well and quickly
we develop a viable alternative.
From The Devil's Chessboard: Allan Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government
by David Talbot, which I am still reading. Regarding the overthrow of Arbenz of Guatemala:
"The U.S. press coverage of the Guatemala coup offered a sanitized account, one that smacked
of CIA manipulation. The leading newspapers treated the overthrow of Arbenz's government as a
topical adventure, an " opera bouffe ," in the words of Hanson Baldwin, one of Dulles's
trusted friends at The New York Times . Nonetheless, reported Baldwin, the operation
had "global importance." This is precisely how Dulles liked his overseas exploits to be chronicled
– as entertaining espionage capers, with serious consequences for the Cold War struggle. New
York Times publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger was extremely accommodating to Dulles throughout
the covert operation, agreeing to keep foreign correspondent Sydney Gruson, whom Dulles considered
insufficiently compliant, out of Guatemala and even assuring the CIA director that Gruson's future
articles would be screened "with a great deal more care than usual."
The Republicans are the party of the rich; the Democrats are the party of the rich and
poor. Those in between have no place.
The Republicans and the Democrats are parties of the rich who use the poor. Both use the poor
as a lever to extract wealth from the shrinking resource known as middle class. There is only
a superficial difference in how they use them, and in both cases a real democracy has no place
in their governance.
For anyone interested in the inner workings of the print media I highly recommend 'Flat Earth
News' by Nick Davies. It is a little uk centric but Davies, the guy that broke Murdoch's phone
hacking conspiracy, is authoritative.
The chapter on the role of the security services in the press is quite interesting and gives important
context for understanding the current attempts to centralise control of the internet news narrative.
This Russian hacking thing is being discussed entirely out of realistic context.
Cyber security
is a serious risk management operation that firms and governments spend outrageous sums of money
on because hacking attempts, especially from sources in China and Russia, occur in vast numbers
against every remotely desirable target corporate or government each and every day. At my former
employer, the State of Virginia, the data center repelled over two million hacking attempts from
sources in China each day. Northrop Grumman, the infrastructure management outsourcer for the
State of Virginia's IT infrastructure, has had no known intrusions into any Commonwealth of Virginia
servers that had been migrated to their standard security infrastructure thus far since the inception
of their contract in July 2006. That is almost the one good thing that I have to say about NG.
Some state servers, notably the Virginia Department of Health Professions, not under protection
of the NG standard network security were hacked and had private information such as client SSNs
stolen. Retail store servers are hacked almost routinely, but large banks and similarly well protected
corporations are not. Security costs and it costs a lot.
Even working in a data center with an excellent intrusion protection program as part of that
program I had to take an annual "securing the human" computer based training class. Despite all
of the technical precautions we were retrained each year to among other things NEVER put anything
in an E-Mail that we did not want to be available for everyone to read; i.e., to never assume
privacy is protected in an E-Mail. Embarrassing E-Mails need a source. We should assume that there
will always be a hacker to take advantage of our mistakes.
The reality is that all the major world powers (and some minor ones), including us, do this routinely
and always have. While it is entirely appropriate to be outraged that it may have materially determined
the election (which I think is impossible to know, though it did have some impact), we should
not be shocked or surprised by this.
"...I would suggest attacks on Putin's personal business holdings all over the world..."
[My guess is that has been being done a long time ago considering the direction of US/Russian
foreign relations over NATO expansion, the Ukraine, and Syria.
Long before TCP/IP the best way to prevent dirty secrets from getting out was not to have dirty
secrets. It still works.
The jabbering heads will not have much effect on the political opinions of ordinary citizens
because 40 million or more US adults had their credit information compromised by the Target hackers
three years ago. Target had been saving credit card numbers instead of deleting them as soon as
they obtained authorizations for transfers, so that the 40 million were certainly exposed while
more than twice that were probably exposed. Establishment politicians having their embarrassing
E-mails hacked is more like good fun family entertainment than something to get all riled up about.]
Voting machines are public and for Federal elections then tampering with them is elevated to a
Federal crime. Political parties are private. The Federal government did not protect Target or
Northrop Grumman's managed infrastructure for the Commonwealth of Virginia although either one
can take forensic information to the FBI that will obtain warrants for prosecution. Foreign criminal
operations go beyond the immediate domestic reach of the FBI. Not even Interpol interdicts foreign
leaders unless they are guilty of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.
The Federal government can do what it will as there are not hard guidelines for such clandestine
operations and responses. Moreover, there are none to realistically enforce against them, which
inevitably leads to war given sufficient cycles of escalation. Certainly our own government has
done worse (political assassinations and supporting coups with money and guns) with impunity merely
because of its size, reach, and power.
BTW, "the burglar that just ransacked your house" can be arrested and prosecuted by a established
regulated legal system with absolutely zero concerns of escalating into a nuclear war, trade war,
or any other global hostility. So, not the same thing at all. Odds are good though that the burglar
will get away without any of that because when he does finally get caught it will be an accident
and probably only after dozen if not hundreds of B&E's.
There is a line. The US has crossed that line, but always in less developed countries that
had no recourse against us. Putin knows where the line is with the US. He will dance around it
and lean over it, but not cross it. We have him outgunned and he knows it. Putin did not tamper
with an election, a government function. Putin tampered with private data exposing incriminating
information against a political party, which is a private entity rather than government entity.
Whatever we do should probably stay within the rule of law as it gets messy fast once outside
those boundaries.
As far as burglars go I live in a particular working class zip code that has very few burglaries.
It is a bad risk/reward deal unless you are just out to steal guns and then you better make sure
that no one is home. Most people with children still living at home also have a gun safe. Most
people have dogs.
There are plenty burglaries in a lower income zip code nearby and lots more in higher income
zip codes further away, the former being targets of opportunity with less security and possible
drug stashes, which has a faster turnover than fencing big screen TV's. High income neighborhoods
are natural targets with jewelry, cash, credit cards, and high end electronics, but far better
security systems. I don't know much about their actual crime stats because they are on the opposite
side of the City of Richmond VA from me, but I used to know a couple of burglars when I lived
in the inner city. They liked the upscale homes near the University of Richmond on River Road.
"They kept telling us the e-mail didn't reveal anything and now they say the e-mail determined
the election"
And those two statement are not in conflict unless you are a brain dead Fox bot. Big nothing-burgers
like Bhengazi or trivial emails can easily be blown up and affect a few hundred thousand voters.
When the heck are you going to grow up and get past your 5 stages of Sanders grief?
I know - and there used to be some signs of a functional brain. Now it is all "they are all the
same" ism and Hillary derangement syndrome on steroids. Someone who cares need to do an intervention
before it becomes he get gobbled up by "ilsm" ism.
ABC video interview by Martha Raddatz of Donna Brazile 2:43
Adding the following FACTS, not opinion, to the Russian Hacking debate at the DNC
Russian hacks of the DNC began at least as early as April, the FBI informed the DNC in May
of the hacks, NO ONE in the FedGovt offered to HELP the DNC at anytime (allowed it to continue),
and Russia's Putin DID NOT stop after President Obama told Putin in September to "Cut it Out",
despite Obama's belief otherwise
"DNC Chair Says Russian Hackers Attacked The Committee Through Election Day"
'That goes against Obama's statement that the attacks ended after he spoke to Putin in September'
by Dave Jamieson Labor Reporter...The Huffington Post...12/18/2016...10:59 am ET
"The chair of the Democratic National Committee said Sunday that the DNC was under constant
cyber attack by Russian hackers right through the election in November. Her claim contradicts
President Barack Obama's statement Friday that the attacks ended in September after he issued
a personal warning to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"No, they did not stop," Donna Brazile told Martha Raddatz on ABC's "This Week." "They came
after us absolutely every day until the end of the election. They tried to hack into our system
repeatedly. We put up the very best cyber security but they constantly [attacked]."
Brazile said the DNC was outgunned in its efforts to fend off the hacks, and suggested the
committee received insufficient protection from U.S. intelligence agencies. The CIA and FBI have
reportedly concluded that Russians carried out the attacks in an effort to help Donald Trump defeat
Hillary Clinton.
"I think the Obama administration ― the FBI, the various other federal agencies ― they informed
us, they told us what was happening. We knew as of May," Brazile said. "But in terms of helping
us to fight, we were fighting a foreign adversary in the cyberspace. The Democratic National Committee,
we were not a match. And yet we fought constantly."
In a surprising analogy, Brazile compared the FBI's help to the DNC to that of the Geek Squad,
the tech service provided at retailer Best Buy ― which is to say well-meaning, but limited.
"They reached out ― it's like going to Best Buy," Brazile said. "You get the Geek Squad, and
they're great people, by the way. They reached out to our IT vendors. But they reached us, meaning
senior Democratic officials, by then it was, you know, the Russians had been involved for a long
time."..."
This new perspective and set of facts is more than distressing it details a clear pattern of Executive
Branch incompetence, malfeasance, and ineptitude (perhaps worse if you are conspiratorially inclined)
im1dc -> im1dc... , -1
The information above puts in bold relief President Obama's denial of an Electoral College briefing
on the Russian Hacks
There is now no reason not to brief the Electors to the extent and degree of Putin's help for
demagogue Donald
Fred C. Dobbs -> Peter K....
December 26, 2016 at 07:15 AM neopopulism: A cultural and political movement, mainly in Latin
American countries, distinct from twentieth-century populism in radically combining classically opposed
left-wing and right-wing attitudes and using electronic media as a means of dissemination. (Wiktionary)
"... Excellent critique. Establishment Democrats are tone-deaf right now; the state of denial they live in is stunning. I'd like to think they can learn after the shock of defeat is over, but identity politics for non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual is what the Democratic party is about today and has been the last decade or so. ..."
"... That's the effect of incessant Dem propaganda pitting races and sexes against each other. ..."
"... And Democrats' labeling of every Republican president/candidate as a Nazi - including Trump - is desensitizing the public to the real danger created by discriminatory policies that punish [white] children and young adults, particularly boys. ..."
"... So, to make up for the alleged screw job that women and minorities have supposedly received, the plan will be screwing white/hetro/males for the forseeable future. My former employer is doing this very plan, as we speak. Passed over 100 plus males, who have been turning wrenches on airplanes for years, and installed a female shop manager who doesn't know jack-$##t about fixing airplanes. No experience, no certificate......but she has a management degree. But I guess you don't know how to do the job to manage it. ..."
"... Bernie Sanders was that standard bearer, but Krugman and the Neoliberal establishment Democrats (ie. Super Delegates) decided that they wanted to coronate Clinton. ..."
"... Evolution of political parties happens organically, through evolution (punctuated equilibrium - like species and technology - parties have periods of stability with some sudden jumps in differentiation). ..."
"... If Nancy Pelosi is re-elected (highly likely), it will be the best thing to happen to Republicans since Lincoln. They will lose even more seats. ..."
"... The Coastal Pelosi/Schumer wing is still in power, and it will take decimation at the ballot box to change the party. The same way the "Tea Party" revolution decimated the Republicans and led to Trump. Natural selection at work. ..."
"... The central fact of the election is that Hillary has always been extraordinarily unlikable, and it turned out that she was Nixonianly corrupt ..."
"... I'm from Dallas. Three of my closest friends growing up (and to this day), as well as my brother in law, are hispanic. They, and their families, all vote Republican, even for Trump. Generally speaking, the longer hispanics are in the US, the more likely they tend to vote Republican. ..."
"... The Democratic Establishment and their acolytes are caught in a credibility trap. ..."
"... I also think many Trump voters know they are voting against their own economic interest. The New York Times interviewed a number who acknowledge that they rely on insurance subsidies from Obamacare and that Trump has vowed to repeal it. I know one such person myself. She doesn't know what she will do if Obamacare is repealed but is quite happy with her vote. ..."
"... Krugman won his Nobel for arcane economic theory. So it isn't terribly surprising that he spectacularly fails whenever he applies his brain to anything remotely dealing with mainstream thought. He is the poster boy for condescending, smarter by half, elite liberals. In other words, he is an over educated, political hack who has yet to learn to keep his overtly bias opinions to himself. ..."
"... Funny how there's all this concern for the people whose jobs and security and money have vanished, leaving them at the mercy of faceless banks and turning to drugs and crime. Sad. Well, let's bash some more on those lazy, shiftless urban poors who lack moral strength and good, Protestant work ethic, shall we? ..."
"... Clinton slammed half the Trump supporters as deplorables, not half the public. She was correct; about half of them are various sorts of supremacists. The other half (she said this, too) made common cause with the deplorables for economic reasons even though it was a devil's bargain. ..."
"... I have never commented here but I will now because of the number of absurd statements. I happen to work with black and Hispanic youth and have also worked with undocumented immigrants. To pretend that trump and the Republican Party has their interest in mind is completely absurd. As for the white working class, please tell me what programs either trump or the republican have put forward to benefit them? I have lost a lot of respect for Duy ..."
"... The keys of the election were race, immigration and trade. Trump won on these points. What dems can do is to de-emphasize multiculturalism, racial equality, political correctness etc. Instead, emphasize economic equality and security, for all working class. ..."
"... Krugman more or less blames media, FBI, Russia entirely for Hillary's loss, which I think is wrong. As Tim said, Dems have long ceased to be the party of the working class, at least in public opinion, for legitimate reasons. ..."
"... All Mr. Krugman and the Democratic establishment need to do is to listen, with open ears and mind, to what Thomas Frank has been saying, and they will know where they went wrong and most likely what to do about it, if they can release themselves from their fatal embrace with Big Money covered up by identity politics. ..."
"... Pretty sad commentary by neoliberal left screaming at neoliberal right and vice versa. ..."
"... The neoliberals with their multi-culti/love them all front men have had it good for a while, now there's a reaction. Deal with it. ..."
Excellent critique. Establishment Democrats are tone-deaf right now; the state of denial they
live in is stunning. I'd like to think they can learn after the shock of defeat is over, but identity
politics for non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual is what the Democratic party is about today
and has been the last decade or so.
The only way Dems can make any headway by the midterms is if Trump really screws up,
which is a tall order even for him. He will pick the low-hanging fruit (e.g., tax reform, Obamacare
reform, etc), the economy will continue to recover (which will be attributed to Trump), and Dems
will lose even more seats in Congress. And why? Because they refuse to recognize that whites from
the middle-class and below are just as disadvantaged as minorities from the same social class.
If white privilege exists at all (its about as silly as the "Jews control the banks and media"
conspiracy theories), it exists for the upper classes. Poor whites need help too. And young men
in/out of college today are being displaced by women - not because the women have superior academic
qualification, but because they are women. I've seen it multiple times firsthand in some of the
country's largest companies and universities (as a lawyer, when an investigation or litigation
takes place, I get to see everyone's emails, all the way to CEO/board). There is a concerted effort
to hire only women and minorities, especially for executive/managerial positions. That's not equality.
That's the effect of incessant Dem propaganda pitting races and sexes against each other.
This election exposed the media's role, but its not over. Fortunately, Krugman et al. are
showing the Dems are too dumb to figure out why they lost. Hopefully they keep up their stupidity
so identity politics can fade into history and we can get back to pursuing equality.
"There is a concerted effort to hire only women and minorities, especially for executive/managerial
positions."
Goooooolllllllllllllly, gee. Now why would that be? I hope you're not saying there shouldn't
be such an effort. This is a good thing. It exactly and precisely IS equality. It may be a bit
harsh, but if certain folks continually find ways to crap of women and minorities, then public
policies would seem warranted.
Are you seriously telling us that pursuing public policies to curb racial and sexual discrimination
are a waste of time?
How, exactly, does your vision of "pursuit of equality" ameliorate the historical fact of discrimination?
You don't make up for past discrimination with discrimination. You make up for it by equal application
of the law. Today's young white men are not the cause of discrimination of the 20th century, or
of slavery. If you discriminate against them because of the harm caused by other people, you're
sowing the seeds of a REAL white nationalist movement. And Democrats' labeling of every Republican
president/candidate as a Nazi - including Trump - is desensitizing the public to the real danger
created by discriminatory policies that punish [white] children and young adults, particularly
boys.
Displacement of white men by lesser-qualified women and minorities is NOT equality.
So, to make up for the alleged screw job that women and minorities have supposedly received,
the plan will be screwing white/hetro/males for the forseeable future. My former employer is doing
this very plan, as we speak. Passed over 100 plus males, who have been turning wrenches on airplanes
for years, and installed a female shop manager who doesn't know jack-$##t about fixing airplanes.
No experience, no certificate......but she has a management degree. But I guess you don't know
how to do the job to manage it.
God forbid somebody have to "pay some dues" before setting them loose as suit trash.
Back when cultural conservatives ruled the roost (not that long ago), they didn't pursue equality
either. Rather, they favored (hetero Christian) white men. So hoping for Dem stupidity isn't going
to lead to equality. Most likely it would go back to favoring hetero Christian white men.
"...should they find a new standard bearer that can win the Sunbelt states and bridge the divide
with the white working class? I tend to think the latter strategy has the higher likelihood of
success."
Easy to say. What would that standard bearer or that strategy look like?
Bernie Sanders was that standard bearer, but Krugman and the Neoliberal establishment Democrats
(ie. Super Delegates) decided that they wanted to coronate Clinton. Big mistake that we are
now paying for...
Basic political math - Sanders would have been eaten alive with his tax proposals by the GOP anti-tax
propaganda machine on Trump steroids.
His call to raise the payroll tax to send more White working class hard-earn money to Washington
would have made election night completely different - Trump would have still won, it just wouldn't
have been a surprise but rather a known certainty weeks ahead.
Evolution of political parties happens organically, through evolution (punctuated equilibrium
- like species and technology - parties have periods of stability with some sudden jumps in differentiation).
Old politicians are defeated, new ones take over. The old guard, having been successful in
the past in their own niche rarely change.
If Nancy Pelosi is re-elected (highly likely), it will be the best thing to happen to Republicans
since Lincoln. They will lose even more seats.
The Coastal Pelosi/Schumer wing is still in power, and it will take decimation at the ballot
box to change the party. The same way the "Tea Party" revolution decimated the Republicans and
led to Trump. Natural selection at work.
In 1991, Republicans thought they would always win, Democrats thought the country was relegated
to Republican Presidents forever. Then along came a new genotype- Clinton. In 2012, Democrats
thought that they would always win, and Republicans were thought to be locked out of the electoral
college. Then along came a new genotype, Trump.
A new genotype of Democrat will have to emerge, but it will start with someone who can win
in flyover country and Texas. Hint: They will have to drop their hubris, disdain and lecturing,
some of their anti-growth energy policies, hate for the 2nd amendment, and become more fiscally
conservative. They have to realize that *no one* will vote for an increase in the labor supply
(aka immigration) when wages are stagnant and growth is anemic. And they also have to appreciate
people would rather be free to choose than have decisions made for them. Freedom means nothing
unless you are free to make mistakes.
But it won't happen until coastal elites like Krugman and Pelosi have retired.
My vote for the Democratic Tiktaalik is the extraordinarily Honorable John Bel Edwards, governor
of Louisiana. The central fact of the election is that Hillary has always been extraordinarily
unlikable, and it turned out that she was Nixonianly corrupt (i.e., deleted E-mails on her
illegal private server) as well - and she still only lost by 1% in the tipping point state (i.e.,
according to the current count, which could very well change).
You know what will win Texas? Demographic change. Economic growth. And it is looking pretty inevitable
on both counts.
I'm also pretty damned tired of being dismissed as "elitist", "smug" and condescending. I grew
up in a red state. I know their hate. I know their condescension (they're going to heaven, libruls
are not).
It cuts both ways. The Dems are going into a fetal crouch about this defeat. Did the GOP do
that after 2008? Nope. They dug in deeper.
Ahh yes, all Texas needs is demographic change, because all [Hispanics, Blacks, insert minority
here] will always and forever vote Democrat. Even though the Democrats take their votes for granted
and Chicago/Baltimore etc. are crappy places to live with no school choice, high taxes, fleeing
jobs, and crime. Even though Trump outperformed Romney among minorities.
Clinton was supposed to be swept up in the winds of demographics and the Democrats were supposed
to win the White House until 2083.
Funny things happen when you take votes for granted. Many urban areas are being crushed by
structural deficits and need some Detroit type relief. I predict that some time in the next 30
years, poles reverse, and urban areas are run by Republicans.
If you are tired of being dismissed as "elitist", "smug" and condescending, don't be those
things. Don't assume people will vote for your party because they have always voted that way,
or they are a certain color. Respect the voters and work to earn it.
The notion that hispanic=democrat that liberals like bob have is hopelessly ignorrant.
I'm from Dallas. Three of my closest friends growing up (and to this day), as well as my
brother in law, are hispanic. They, and their families, all vote Republican, even for Trump. Generally
speaking, the longer hispanics are in the US, the more likely they tend to vote Republican.
The Democratic Party's plan to wait out the Republicans and let demographics take over is ignorant,
racist and shortsighted, cooked up by coastal liberals that haven't got a clue, and will ultimately
fail.
In addition to losing hispanics, Democrats will also start losing the African American vote
they've been taking for granted the last several decades. Good riddance to the Democratic party,
they are simply unwilling to listen to what the people want.
This is a really shoddy piece that repeats the medias pulling of Clintons quote out of context.
She also said "that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them
down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens
to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even
matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope
that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid
to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize
with as well."
Now maybe it is okay to make gnore this part of the quote because you think calling racism
"deplorable" is patently offensive. But when the ignored context makes the same points that Duy
says she should have been making, that is shoddy.
There are zero electoral college votes in the State of Denial. Hopefully you understand a)the
difference between calling people deplorable and calling *behavior* deplorable; b) Godwin's Law:
when you resort to comparing people to Hitler you've lost the argument. Trump supporters were
not racist, homophobic, xenophobic, or any other phobic. As a moderate, educated, female Trump
supporter counseled: He was an a-hole, but I liked his policies.
Even my uber liberal friends cannot tell me what Clinton's economic plan was. Only that they
are anti-Trump.
Trump flanked Clinton on the most popular policies (the left used to be the anti-trade party
of union Democrats): Lower regulation, lower taxes, pro-2nd amendment, trade deals more weighted
in favor of US workers, and lower foreign labor supply. Turn's out, those policies are sufficiently
popular that people will vote for them, even when packaged into an a-hole. Trump's anti-trade
platform was preached for decades by rust belt unions.
The coastal Democrats have become hostages to pro-big-government municipal unions crushing
cities under structural deficits, high taxes, poorly run schools, and overbearing regulations.
The best thing that can happen for the Democrats is for the Republicans to push for reforms of
public pensions, school choice, and break municipal unions. Many areas see the disaster in Chicago
and Baltimore, run by Democrats for decades, and say no thank you. Freed of the need to cater
to urban municipal unions, Democrats may be able to appeal to people elsewhere.
Tim, I believe you've missed the point: by straightforward measures, Democratic voters in USA
are substantially under-represented. The problem is likely to get much worse, as the party whose
policies abet minority rule now controls all three branches of the federal government and a substantial
majority of state governments.
This is an outstanding takedown on what has been a never-ending series of garbage from Krugman.
I used to hang on every post he'd made for years after the 2008 crisis hit. But once the Clinton
coronation arose this year, the arrogant, condescending screed hit 11 - and has not slowed down
since. Threads of circular and illogical arguments have woven together pathetic - and often non-liberal
- editorials that have driven me away permanently.
Since he's chosen to ride it all on political commentary, Krugman's credibility is right there
with luminaries such as Nial Ferguson and Greg Mankiw.
Seems that everyone who chooses to hitch their wagon to the Clintons ends up covered in bilge.....
funny thing about that persistent coincidence...
"And it is an especially difficult pill given that the decline was forced upon the white working
class.... The tsunami of globalization washed over them....in many ways it was inevitable, just
as was the march of technology that had been eating away at manufacturing jobs for decades. But
the damage was intensified by trade deals.... Then came the housing crash and the ensuing humiliation
of the foreclosure crisis."
All the more amazing then that Trump pulled out such a squeaker of an election beating Clinton
by less than 2% in swing states and losing the popular vote overall. In the shine of Duy's lights
above, I would have imagined a true landslide for Trump... Just amazing.
"I don't know that the white working class voted against their economic interest".
I think you're pushing too hard here. Democrats have been for, and Republicans against many
policies that benefit the white working class: expansionary monetary policy, Obamacare, housing
refinance, higher minimum wage, tighter worker safety regulation, stricter tax collection, and
a host of others.
I also think many Trump voters know they are voting against their own economic interest.
The New York Times interviewed a number who acknowledge that they rely on insurance subsidies
from Obamacare and that Trump has vowed to repeal it. I know one such person myself. She doesn't
know what she will do if Obamacare is repealed but is quite happy with her vote.
There is zero evidence for this theory. It ignores the fact that Trump lied his way to the White
House with the help of a media unwilling to confront and expose his mendacity. And there was the
media's obsession with Clinton's Emails and the WikiLeaks daily release of stolen DNC documents.
And finally the Comey letter which came in the middle of early voting keeping the nation in suspense
for 11 days and which was probably a violation of the hatch act. Comey was advised against his
unjustified action by higher up DOJ officials but did it anyway. All of these factors loomed much
larger than the deplorables comment. Besides, the strong dollar fostered by the FOMC's obsession
with "normalization" helped Trump win because the strong dollar hurts exporters like farmers who
make up much of the rural vote as well as hurting US manufacturing located in the midwest states.
The FOMC was objectively pro Trump.
I was surrounded by Trump voters this past election. Trust me, an awful lot of them are deplorable.
My father is extremely anti semetic and once warned me not to go to Minneapolis because of there
being "too many Muslims." One of our neighbors thinks all Muslims are terrorists and want to do
horrible things to all Christians.
I know, its not a scientific study. But I've had enough one on one conversations with Trump
supporters (not just GOP voters, Trump supporters) to say that yes, as a group they have some
pretty horrible views.
Yep. I've got plenty of stories myself. From the fact that there are snooty liberals it does NOT
follow that the resentment fueling Trump's support is justified.
One should note that the "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic - you name
it ... " voted for Obama last time around.
When the blue collar voter (for lack of a better class) figures out that the Republicans (Trump)
are not going to help them anymore than the Dems did -- it will be time for them to understand
they can only rely on themselves, namely: through rebuilding labor union density, which can be
done AT THE STATE BY PROGRESSIVE STATE LEVEL.
To keep it simple states may add to federal protections like the minimum wage or safety regs
-- just not subtract. At present the NLRB has zero (no) enforcement power to prevent union busting
(see Trump in Vegas) -- so illegal labor market muscling, firing of organizers and union joiners
go completely undeterred and unrecoursed.
Recourse, once we get Congress back might include mandating certification elections on finding
of union busting. Nothing too alien: Wisconsin, for instance, mandates RE-certification of all
public employee unions annually.
Progressive states first step should be making union busting a felony -- taking the power playing
in our most important and politically impacting market as seriously as taking a movie in the movies
(get you a couple of winters). For a more expansive look (including a look at the First Amendment
and the fed cannot preempt something with nothing, click here):
http://ontodayspage.blogspot.com/2016/11/first-100-days-progressive-states-agenda.html
Labor unions -- returned to high density -- can act as the economic cop on every corner --
our everywhere advocates squelching such a variety of unhealthy practices as financialization,
big pharam gouging, for profit college fraud (Trump U. -- that's where we came into this movie).
6% private union density is like 20/10 bp; it starves every other healthy process (listening blue
collar?).
Don't panic if today's Repub Congress passes national right-to-work legislation. Germany, which
has the platinum standard labor institutions, does not have one majority union (mostly freeloaders!),
but is almost universally union or covered by union contracts (centralized bargaining -- look
it up) and that's what counts.
Trump took both sides of every issue. He wants high and low interest rates. He wants a depression
first, (Bannonomics) and inflation first, (Trumponomics), he wants people to make more and make
less. He is nasty and so he projected that his opponent was nasty.
Now he has to act instead of just talk out of both sides of his mouth. That should not be as
easy to do.
Hi Tim, nice post, and I particularly liked your last paragraph. The relevant question today if
you have accepted where we are is effectively: 'What would you prefer - a Trump victory now? Or
a Trump type election victory in a decade or so? (with todays corresponding social/economic/political
trends continuing).
I'm a Brit so I was just an observer to the US election but the same point is relevant here in
the UK - Would I rather leave the EU now with a (half sensible) Tory government? Or would I rather
leave later on with many more years of upheaval and a (probably by then quite nutty) UKIP government?
I know which one I prefer - recognise the protest vote sooner, rather than later.
Sure they're angry, and their plight makes that anger valid.
However, not so much their belief as to who and what caused their plight, and more importantly,
who can and how their plight would be successfully reversed.
Most people have had enough personal experiences to know that it is when we are most angry
that we do the stupidest of things.
Krugman won his Nobel for arcane economic theory. So it isn't terribly surprising that he
spectacularly fails whenever he applies his brain to anything remotely dealing with mainstream
thought. He is the poster boy for condescending, smarter by half, elite liberals. In other words,
he is an over educated, political hack who has yet to learn to keep his overtly bias opinions
to himself.
Tim's narrative felt like a cold shower. I was apprehensive that I found it too agreeable on one
level but were the building blocks stable and accurate?
Somewhat like finding a meal that is satisfying, but wondering later about the ingredients.
But, like Tim's posts on the Fed, they prompt that I move forward to ponder the presentation
and offer it to others for their comment. At this time, five-stars on a 1-5 system for bringing
a fresh approach to the discussion. Thanks, Professor Duy. This to me is Piketty-level pushing
us onto new ground.
Funny how there's all this concern for the people whose jobs and security and money have vanished,
leaving them at the mercy of faceless banks and turning to drugs and crime. Sad. Well, let's bash
some more on those lazy, shiftless urban poors who lack moral strength and good, Protestant work
ethic, shall we?
Clinton slammed half the Trump supporters as deplorables, not half the public. She was correct;
about half of them are various sorts of supremacists. The other half (she said this, too) made
common cause with the deplorables for economic reasons even though it was a devil's bargain.
Now, there's a problem with maternalism here; it's embarrassing to find out that the leader
of your political opponents knows you better than you know yourself, like your mother catching
you out in a lie. It was impolitic for Clinton to have said this But above all remember that when
push came to shove, the other basket made common cause with the Nazis, the Klan, and so on and
voted for a rapey fascist.
"Economic development" isn't (and can't) be the same thing as bringing back lost manufacturing
(or mining) jobs. We have had 30 years of shifting power between labor and capital. Restoring
labor market institutions (both unions and government regulation) and raising the floor through
higher minimum wages, single payer health care, fair wages for women and more support for child
and elder care, trade policies that care about working families, better safe retirement plans
and strengthened Social Security, etc. is key here, along with running a real full employment
economy, with a significant green component. See Bob Polllin's excellent program in
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/back-full-employment
That program runs up against racism, sexism, division, and fear of government and taxation,
and those are powerful forces. But we don't need all Trump supporters. We do need a real, positive
economic program that can attract those who care about the economics more than the cultural stuff.
How about people of color drop the democrats and their hand wringing about white people when they
do nothing about voter suppression!! White fragility is nauseating and I'm planning to arm myself
and tell all the people of color I know to do the same. I expect nothing from the democrats going
forward.
I have never commented here but I will now because of the number of absurd statements. I happen
to work with black and Hispanic youth and have also worked with undocumented immigrants. To pretend
that trump and the Republican Party has their interest in mind is completely absurd. As for the
white working class, please tell me what programs either trump or the republican have put forward
to benefit them? I have lost a lot of respect for Duy
I think much of appeal of DJT was in his political incorrectness. PC marginalises. Very. Of white
working class specifically. it tells one, one cannot rely on one's ideas any more. In no uncertain
terms. My brother, who voted for Trump, lost his job to PC without offending on purpose, but the
woman in question felt free to accuse him of violating her, with no regard to his fate. He was
never close enough to do that. Is that not some kind of McCarthyism?
Just to be correct. Clinton was saying that half (and that was a terrible error-should have said
"some") were people that were unreachable, but that they had to communicate effectively with the
other part of his support. People who echo the media dumb-ing down of complex statements are part
of the problem.
Still, I believe that if enough younger people and african-americans had come out in the numbers
they did for Obama in some of those states, Clinton would have won. Certainly, the media managed
to paint her in more negative light than she objectively deserved-- even if she deserved some
negatives.
I am in no way a fan of HRC. Still, the nature of the choice was blurred to an egregious degree.
"The tough reality of economic development is that it will always be easier to move people to
jobs than the jobs to people."
This is indisputable, but I have never seen any discussion of the point that moving is not
cost-free. Back in the '90s I had a discussion with a very smart person, a systems analyst, who
insisted that poor people moved to wherever the welfare benefits were highest.
I tried to point out that moving from one town to another costs more than a bus ticket. You
have to pay to have your possessions transported. You have to have enough cash to pay at least
two months' rent and maybe an additional security deposit.
You have to have enough cash to pay for food for at least one month or however long it takes
for your first paycheck or welfare check to come in. There may be other costs like relocating
your kids to a new school system and maybe changing your health insurance provider.
There probably are other costs I'm not aware of, and the emotional cost of leaving your family
and your roots. The fact that some people succeed in moving is a great achievement. I'm amazed
it works at all in Europe where you also have the different languages to cope with.
I'm not sure the Hillary non-voters - which also include poor black neighborhoods - were voting
against their economic interests. Under Obama, they didn't do well. Many of them were foreclosed
on while Obama was giving the money to the banks. Jobs haven't improved, unless you want to work
at an Amazon warehouse or for Uber and still be broke. Obama tried to cut social security. He
made permanent Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Wars and more wars. Health premiums went up - right
before the election. The most Obama could say in campaigning for Hillary was "if you care about
my legacy, vote for Hillary." He's the only one that cares about his legacy. I don't know that
it's about resentment but about just having some hope for economic improvement - which Trump offered
(no matter how shallow and deceptive) and Hillary offered nothing but "Trump's an idiot and I'm
not."
I believe Bernie would have beat Trump's ass if 1) the DNC hadn't put their fingers on the
scale for Hillary and 2) same with the media for Hillary and Trump. The Dems need more than some
better campaign slogans. They really need a plan for serious economic equality. And the unions
need to get their shit together and stop thinking that supporting corrupt corporate Dems is working.
Or perhaps the rank and file need to get their shit together and get rid of union bosses.
The keys of the election were race, immigration and trade. Trump won on these points. What
dems can do is to de-emphasize multiculturalism, racial equality, political correctness etc. Instead,
emphasize economic equality and security, for all working class.
Lincoln billed the civil war as a war to preserve the union, to gain wide support, instead
of war to free slaves. Of course, the slaves were freed when the union won the war. Dems can benefit
from a similar strategy
Krugman more or less blames media, FBI, Russia entirely for Hillary's loss, which I think
is wrong. As Tim said, Dems have long ceased to be the party of the working class, at least in
public opinion, for legitimate reasons.
Besides, a lot voters are tired of stale faces and stale ideas. They yearn something new, especially
the voters in deep economic trouble.
Maybe it's time to try some old fashioned mercantilism, protectionism? America first is an
appealing idea, in this age of mindless globalization.
All Mr. Krugman and the Democratic establishment need to do is to listen, with open ears and
mind, to what Thomas Frank has been saying, and they will know where they went wrong and most
likely what to do about it, if they can release themselves from their fatal embrace with Big Money
covered up by identity politics.
But they cannot bring themselves to admit their error, and to give up their very personally
profitable current arrangement. And so they are caught up in a credibility trap which is painfully
obvious to the objective observer.
Pretty sad commentary by neoliberal left screaming at neoliberal right and vice versa.
It seems quite clear that the vast majority of commenters live as much in the ivory tower/bubble
as is claimed for their ideological opponent.
It is also quite interesting that most of these same commenters don't seem to get that the
voting public gets what the majority of it wants - not what every single group within the overall
population wants.
The neoliberals with their multi-culti/love them all front men have had it good for a while,
now there's a reaction. Deal with it.
"... The author missed the fact that pillage and plunder and rentier capitalism as defined by Reaganomics
has failed just as badly as communism for the same reason. ..."
"... If you want to be paid well, you must pay everyone else well. ..."
"Do unto Others " -might be an important Economic principle
The author missed the fact that pillage and plunder and rentier capitalism as defined by
Reaganomics has failed just as badly as communism for the same reason.
When you call for cost cuts which can only be done by cutting labor costs which means fewer
workers getting paid less, you are calling for your wages and income, or of your children and
grandchildren to be slashed as well.
Tax cuts mean paying fewer workers to provide public services whether roads, education, knowledge,
health, which means you will suffer losses of services AND eventual loss of income to your family.
Fewer paid workers forces wages and incomes lower for all workers.
If you want to be paid well, you must pay everyone else well.
Posted by BeauHD on Tuesday December
06, 2016 @07:05PM from the muscle-memory dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org:
Scientists have
developed a mind-controlled robotic hand
that allows people with certain types of spinal injuries
to perform everyday tasks such as using a fork or drinking from a cup. The low-cost device was tested
in Spain on six people with quadriplegia affecting their ability to grasp or manipulate objects.
By wearing a cap that measures electric brain activity and eye movement the users were able to send
signals to a tablet computer that controlled the glove-like device attached to their hand. Participants
in the small-scale study were able to perform daily activities better with the robotic hand than
without, according to results
published Tuesday in
the journal Science Robotics .
It took participants just 10 minutes to learn how to use the system
before they were able to carry out tasks such as picking up potato chips or signing a document. According
to Surjo R. Soekadar, a neuroscientist at the University Hospital Tuebingen in Germany and lead author
of the study, participants represented typical people with high spinal cord injuries, meaning they
were able to move their shoulders but not their fingers. There were some limitations to the system,
though. Users had to have sufficient function in their shoulder and arm to reach out with the robotic
hand. And mounting the system required another person's help.
An autonomous
shuttle from Auro Robotics is
picking up and dropping off students, faculty, and visitors
at the Santa Clara University Campus
seven days a week. It doesn't go fast, but it has to watch out for pedestrians, skateboarders, bicyclists,
and bold squirrels (engineers added a special squirrel lidar on the bumper). An Auro engineer rides
along at this point to keep the university happy, but soon will be replaced by a big red emergency
stop button (think Staples Easy button). If you want a test drive, just look for a "shuttle stop"
sign (there's one in front of the parking garage) and climb on, it doesn't ask for university ID.
More directly to the heart of American fast-food cuisine, Momentum Machines, a restaurant concept
with a robot that can supposedly
flip hundreds of burgers an hour
, applied for a building permit in San Francisco and started
listing job openings this January, reported Eater. Then there's Eatsa, the automat restaurant where
no human interaction is necessary, which has locations
popping up across California .
(businessinsider.co.id)
83 Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday December 11, 2016 @09:34PM from the damn-it-Jim-I'm-a-doctor-not-a-supercomputer
dept.
"Supercomputing has another use," writes Slashdot reader
rmdingler , sharing a story that
quotes David Kenny, the General Manager of IBM Watson:
"There's a 60-year-old woman in Tokyo. She was at the University of Tokyo. She had been diagnosed
with leukemia six years ago. She was living, but not healthy. So the University of Tokyo ran
her genomic sequence through Watson and
it was able to ascertain that they were off by one thing . Actually, she had two strains
of leukemia. They did treat her and she is healthy."
"That's one example. Statistically, we're seeing that about one third of the time, Watson is
proposing an additional diagnosis."
"... Skype Translator, available in nine languages, uses artificial intelligence (AI) techniques such as deep-learning to train artificial neural networks and convert spoken chats in almost real time. The company says the app improves as it listens to more conversations. ..."
Posted by msmash on Monday December 12, 2016 @11:05AM from the worthwhile dept.
Microsoft has added the ability to use Skype Translator on calls to mobiles and landlines to its
latest Skype Preview app. From a report on ZDNet: Up until now, Skype Translator was available
to individuals making Skype-to-Skype calls. The new announcement of the expansion of Skype Translator
to mobiles and landlines
makes Skype Translator more widely available .
To test drive this, users need to be members
of the Windows Insider Program. They need to install the latest version of Skype Preview on their
Windows 10 PCs and to have Skype Credits or a subscription.
Skype Translator, available in
nine languages, uses artificial intelligence (AI) techniques such as deep-learning to train artificial
neural networks and convert spoken chats in almost real time. The company says the app improves
as it listens to more conversations.
Fund
more research in robotics and artificial intelligence in order for the U.S. to
maintain its leadership in the global technology industry. The report calls on
the government to steer that research to support a diverse workforce and to
focus on combating algorithmic bias in AI.
Invest in and increase STEM education for youth and job retraining for
adults in technology-related fields. That means offering computer science
education for all K-12 students, as well as expanding national workforce
retraining by investing six times the current amount spent to keep American
workers competitive in a global economy.
Modernize and strengthen the federal social safety net, including public
health care, unemployment insurance, welfare and food stamps. The report also
calls for increasing the minimum wage, paying workers overtime and and
strengthening unions and worker bargaining power.
The report says the government, meaning the the incoming Trump administration,
will have to forge ahead with new policies and grapple with the complexities of
existing social services to protect the millions of Americans who face
displacement by advances in automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.
The report also calls on the government to keep a close eye on fostering
competition in the AI industry, since the companies with the most data will be
able to create the most advanced products, effectively preventing new startups
from having a chance to even compete.
Back in April, Stanford University professor
Oussama Khatib led
a team of researchers on an underwater archaeological expedition, 30 kilometers off the southern
coast of France, to La Lune , King Louis XIV's sunken 17th-century flagship. Rather than
dive to the site of the wreck 100 meters below the surface, which is a very bad idea for almost
everyone, Khatib's team
brought along a custom-made humanoid submarine robot called Ocean One . In this month's issue
of
IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine , the Stanford researchers describe in detail
how they designed and built the robot , a hybrid between a humanoid and an underwater remotely
operated vehicle (ROV), and also how they managed to send it down to the resting place of
La Lune , where it used its three-fingered hands to retrieve a vase. Most ocean-ready ROVs
are boxy little submarines that might have an arm on them if you're lucky, but they're not really
designed for the kind of fine manipulation that underwater archaeology demands. You could send
down a human diver instead, but once you get past about 40 meters, things start to get both complicated
and dangerous. Ocean One's humanoid design means that it's easy and intuitive for a human to remotely
perform delicate archeological tasks through a telepresence interface.
schwit1 notes: "Ocean One is the best name they could come up with?"
Posted by msmash on Friday November 25, 2016 @12:10AM from the interesting-things dept.
BBC has a report today in which, citing several financial institutions and analysts, it claims that
in the not-too-distant future, our fields could be tilled, sown, tended and harvested entirely by
fleets of co-operating autonomous machines by land and air. An excerpt from the article:
Driverless
tractors that can follow pre-programmed routes are already being deployed at large farms around the
world. Drones are buzzing over fields assessing crop health and soil conditions. Ground sensors are
monitoring the amount of water and nutrients in the soil, triggering irrigation and fertilizer applications.
And in Japan, the world's first entirely automated lettuce farm is due for launch next year.
The future of farming is automated
. The World Bank says we'll need to produce 50% more food by 2050 if the global population continues
to rise at its current pace. But the effects of climate change could see crop yields falling by more
than a quarter. So autonomous tractors, ground-based sensors, flying drones and enclosed hydroponic
farms could all help farmers produce more food, more sustainably at lower cost.
The truck "will travel in regular traffic, and a driver in the truck will be positioned to
intervene should anything go awry, Department of Transportation spokesman Matt Bruning said Friday,
adding that 'safety is obviously No. 1.'"
Ohio sees this route as "a corridor where new technologies can be safely tested in real-life traffic,
aided by a fiber-optic cable network and sensor systems slated for installation next year" -- although
next week the truck will also start driving on the Ohio Turnpike.
Posted by BeauHD on Friday December 02,
2016 @05:00PM from the be-afraid-very-afraid dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Business Insider:
In
a column in The Guardian , the world-famous physicist wrote that "the automation of factories
has already decimated jobs in traditional manufacturing, and the
rise of artificial intelligence is likely to extend this job destruction deep into the middle
classes , with only the most caring, creative or supervisory roles remaining." He adds his
voice to a growing chorus of experts concerned about the effects that technology will have on
workforce in the coming years and decades. The fear is that while artificial intelligence will
bring radical increases in efficiency in industry, for ordinary people this will translate into
unemployment and uncertainty, as their human jobs are replaced by machines.
Automation will, "in turn will accelerate the already widening economic inequality around the
world," Hawking wrote. "The internet and the platforms that it makes possible allow very small
groups of individuals to make enormous profits while employing very few people. This is inevitable,
it is progress, but it is also socially destructive." He frames this economic anxiety as a reason
for the rise in right-wing, populist politics in the West: "We are living in a world of widening,
not diminishing, financial inequality, in which many people can see not just their standard of
living, but their ability to earn a living at all, disappearing. It is no wonder then that they
are searching for a new deal, which Trump and Brexit might have appeared to represent." Combined
with other issues -- overpopulation, climate change, disease -- we are, Hawking warns ominously,
at "the most dangerous moment in the development of humanity." Humanity must come together if
we are to overcome these challenges, he says.
"... The firm says that 44 percent of the CEOs surveyed agreed that robotics, automation and AI would reshape the future of many work places by making people "largely irrelevant." ..."
Posted by msmash on Monday December 05, 2016 @02:20PM from the shape-of-things-to-come
dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report on BetaNews:
Although artificial intelligence (AI),
robotics and other emerging technologies may reshape the world as we know it, a new global study
has revealed that the
many
CEOs now value technology over people when it comes to the future of their businesses . The study
was conducted by the Los Angeles-based management consultant firm Korn Ferry that interviewed 800
business leaders across a variety of multi-million and multi-billion dollar global organizations.
The firm says that 44 percent of the CEOs surveyed agreed that robotics, automation and AI would
reshape the future of many work places by making people "largely irrelevant."
The global managing
director of solutions at Korn Ferry Jean-Marc Laouchez explains why many CEOs have adopted this controversial
mindset, saying:
"Leaders may be facing what experts call a tangibility bias. Facing uncertainty,
they are putting priority in their thinking, planning and execution on the tangible -- what they
can see, touch and measure, such as technology instruments."
Posted by BeauHD on Tuesday
December 06, 2016 @10:30PM from the what-to-expect dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from
The Verge:
Microsoft
polled 17 women working in its research organization about the technology advances they expect to
see in 2017 , as well as a decade later in 2027. The researchers' predictions touch on natural
language processing, machine learning, agricultural software, and virtual reality, among other topics.
For virtual reality,
Mar Gonzalez Franco
, a researcher in Microsoft's Redmond lab, believes body tracking will improve
next year, and then over the next decade we'll have "rich multi-sensorial experiences that will be
capable of producing hallucinations which blend or alter perceives reality."
Haptic devices will
simulate touch to further enhance the sensory experience. Meanwhile,
Susan Dumais
, a scientist and deputy managing director at the Redmond lab, believes deep learning
will help improve web search results next year.
In 2027, however, the search box will disappear,
she says.
It'll be replaced by search that's more "ubiquitous, embedded, and contextually sensitive."
She says we're already seeing some of this in voice-controlled searches through mobile and smart
home devices.
We might eventually be able to look things up with either sound, images, or video.
Plus, our searches will respond to "current location, content, entities, and activities" without
us explicitly mentioning them, she says.
Of course, it's worth noting that Microsoft has been losing
the search box war to Google, so it isn't surprising that the company thinks search will die. With
global warming as a looming threat,
Asta Roseway
, principal research designer, says by 2027 famers will use AI to maintain healthy
crop yields, even with "climate change, drought, and disaster."
Low-energy farming solutions, like
vertical farming and aquaponics, will also be essential to keeping the food supply high, she says. You can view all 17 predictions
here
"... Efforts which led to impoverishment of lower 80% the USA population with a large part of the US population living in a third world country. This "third world country" includes Wal-Mart and other retail employees, those who have McJobs in food sector, contractors, especially such as Uber "contractors", Amazon packers. This is a real third world country within the USA and probably 50% population living in it. ..."
"... While conversion of electricity supply from coal to wind and solar was more or less successful (much less then optimists claim, because it requires building of buffer gas powered plants and East-West high voltage transmission lines), the scarcity of oil is probably within the lifespan of boomers. Let's say within the next 20 years. That spells deep trouble to economic growth as we know it, even with all those machinations and number racket that now is called GDP (gambling now is a part of GDP). And in worst case might spell troubles to capitalism as social system, to say nothing about neoliberalism and neoliberal globalization. The latter (as well as dollar hegemony) is under considerable stress even now. But here "doomers" were wrong so often in the past, that there might be chance that this is not inevitable. ..."
"... Shale gas production in the USA is unsustainable even more then shale oil production. So the question is not if it declines, but when. The future decline (might be even Seneca Cliff decline) is beyond reasonable doubt. ..."
"What is good for wall st. is good for America". The remains of the late 19th century anti
trust/regulation momentum are democrat farmer labor wing in Minnesota, if it still exists. An
example: how farmers organized to keep railroads in their place. Today populists are called deplorable,
before they ever get going.
And US' "libruls" are corporatist war mongers.
Used to be the deplorable would be the libruls!
Division!
likbez -> pgl...
I browsed it and see more of less typical pro-neoliberal sentiments, despite some critique
of neoliberalism at the end.
This guy does not understand history and does not want to understand. He propagates or invents
historic myths. One thing that he really does not understand is how WWI and WWII propelled the
USA at the expense of Europe. He also does not understand why New Deal was adopted and why the
existence of the USSR was the key to "reasonable" (as in "not self-destructive" ) behaviour of
the US elite till late 70th. And how promptly the US elite changed to self-destructive habits
after 1991. In a way he is a preacher not a scientist. So is probably not second rate, but third
rate thinker in this area.
While Trump_vs_deep_state (aka "bastard neoliberalism") might not be an answer to challenges the USA is
facing, it is definitely a sign that "this time is different" and at least part of the US elite
realized that it is too dangerous to kick the can down the road. That's why Bush and Clinton political
clans were sidelined this time.
There are powerful factors that make the US economic position somewhat fragile and while Trump
is a very questionable answer to the challenges the USA society faces, unlike Hillary he might
be more reasonable in his foreign policy abandoning efforts to expand global neoliberal empire
led by the USA.
Efforts which led to impoverishment of lower 80% the USA population with a large part of
the US population living in a third world country. This "third world country" includes Wal-Mart
and other retail employees, those who have McJobs in food sector, contractors, especially such
as Uber "contractors", Amazon packers. This is a real third world country within the USA and probably
50% population living in it.
Add to this the decline of the US infrastructure due to overstretch of imperial building efforts
(which reminds British empire troubles).
I see several factors that IMHO make the current situation dangerous and unsustainable, Trump
or no Trump:
1. Rapid growth of population. The US population doubled in less them 70 years. Currently
at 318 million, the USA is the third most populous country on earth. That spells troubles for
democracy and ecology, to name just two. That might also catalyze separatists movements with two
already present (Alaska and Texas).
2. Plato oil. While conversion of electricity supply from coal to wind and solar
was more or less successful (much less then optimists claim, because it requires building of buffer
gas powered plants and East-West high voltage transmission lines), the scarcity of oil is probably
within the lifespan of boomers. Let's say within the next 20 years. That spells deep trouble to
economic growth as we know it, even with all those machinations and number racket that now is
called GDP (gambling now is a part of GDP). And in worst case might spell troubles to capitalism
as social system, to say nothing about neoliberalism and neoliberal globalization. The latter
(as well as dollar hegemony) is under considerable stress even now. But here "doomers" were wrong
so often in the past, that there might be chance that this is not inevitable.
3. Shale gas production in the USA is unsustainable even more then shale oil production.
So the question is not if it declines, but when. The future decline (might be even Seneca
Cliff decline) is beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Growth of automation endangers the remaining jobs, even jobs in service sector .
Cashiers and waiters are now on the firing line. Wall Mart, Shop Rite, etc, are already using
automatic cashiers machines in some stores. Wall-Mart also uses automatic machines in back office
eliminating staff in "cash office".
Waiters might be more difficult task but orders and checkouts are computerized in many restaurants.
So the function is reduced to bringing food. So much for the last refuge of recent college graduates.
The successes in speech recognition are such that Microsoft now provides on the fly translation
in Skype. There are also instances of successful use of computer in medical diagnostics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-aided_diagnosis
IT will continue to be outsourced as profits are way too big for anything to stop this trend.
"... Companies can now test self-driving cars on Michigan public roads without a driver or steering wheel under new laws that could push the state to the forefront of autonomous vehicle development. ..."
Posted by msmash on Friday December 09, 2016 @01:00PM from the it's-coming dept.
Companies
can now test self-driving cars on Michigan public roads without a driver or steering wheel under
new laws that could push the state to the forefront of autonomous vehicle development.
From a report
on ABC:
The package of bills signed into law Friday comes with few specific state regulations
and leaves many decisions up to automakers and companies like Google and Uber. It also allows automakers
and tech companies to run autonomous taxi services and
permits test parades of self-driving tractor-trailers as long as humans are in each truck
. And
they allow the sale of self-driving vehicles to the public once they are tested and certified, according
to the state. The bills allow testing without burdensome regulations so the industry can move forward
with potential life-saving technology, said Gov. Rick Snyder, who was to sign the bills. "It makes
Michigan a place where particularly for the auto industry it's a good place to do work," he said.
DeepMind, which was acquired by Google for $400 million in 2014, announced
on Monday that it is open-sourcing its "Lab" from this week onwards so that others can try and make
advances in the notoriously complex field of AI.
The company says that the DeepMind Lab, which it
has been using internally for some time, is a 3D game-like platform tailored for agent-based AI research.
[...]
The DeepMind Lab aims to combine several different AI research areas into one environment.
Researchers will be able to test their AI agent's abilities on navigation, memory, and 3D vision,
while determining how good they are at planning and strategy.
"... The matter with ATT was originally made public in 2014 and also involved two companies that actually applied the unauthorized charges, Tatto and Acquinity. ..."
"Through the FTC's refund program, nearly 2.5 million current ATT customers will receive
a credit on their bill within the next 75 days, and more than 300,000 former customers will receive
a check. The average refund amount is $31. [...] According to the FTC's complaint, ATT placed
unauthorized third-party charges on its customers' phone bills, usually in amounts of $9.99 per
month, for ringtones and text message subscriptions containing love tips, horoscopes, and 'fun
facts.' The FTC alleged that ATT kept at least 35 percent of the charges it imposed on its customers."
The matter with ATT was originally made public in 2014 and also involved two companies that
actually applied the unauthorized charges, Tatto and Acquinity.
"... The Democratic Party as a Party (Sanders was an outlier) has nothing to do with "fair and equal
play for all". This is a party of soft neoliberals and it adheres to Washington consensus no less then
Republicans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus ..."
"... If you read the key postulates it is clear that that they essentially behaved like an occupier
in this country. In this sense "Occupy Wall street" movement should actually be called "Liberation from
Wall Street occupation" movement. ..."
"... Bill Clinton realized that he can betray working class with impunity as "they have nowhere
to go" and will vote for Democrat anyway. In this sense Bill Clinton is a godfather of the right wing
nationalism in the USA. He sowed the "Teeth's of Dragon" and now we have, what we have. ..."
You guys should wake up and smell what country you live in. Here is a good place to start.
"Campaigning for president in 1980, Ronald Reagan told stories of Cadillac-driving "welfare
queens" and "strapping young bucks" buying T-bone steaks with food stamps. In trumpeting these
tales of welfare run amok, Reagan never needed to mention race, because he was blowing a dog
whistle: sending a message about racial minorities inaudible on one level, but clearly heard
on another. In doing so, he tapped into a long political tradition that started with George
Wallace and Richard Nixon, and is more relevant than ever in the age of the Tea Party and the
first black president.
In Dog Whistle Politics, Ian Haney L?pez offers a sweeping account of how politicians and
plutocrats deploy veiled racial appeals to persuade white voters to support policies that favor
the extremely rich yet threaten their own interests. Dog whistle appeals generate middle-class
enthusiasm for political candidates who promise to crack down on crime, curb undocumented immigration,
and protect the heartland against Islamic infiltration, but ultimately vote to slash taxes
for the rich, give corporations regulatory control over industry and financial markets, and
aggressively curtail social services. White voters, convinced by powerful interests that minorities
are their true enemies, fail to see the connection between the political agendas they support
and the surging wealth inequality that takes an increasing toll on their lives. The tactic
continues at full force, with the Republican Party using racial provocations to drum up enthusiasm
for weakening unions and public pensions, defunding public schools, and opposing health care
reform.
Rejecting any simple story of malevolent and obvious racism, Haney L?pez links as never
before the two central themes that dominate American politics today: the decline of the middle
class and the Republican Party's increasing reliance on white voters. Dog Whistle Politics
will generate a lively and much-needed debate about how racial politics has destabilized the
American middle class -- white and nonwhite members alike."
Reading the above posts I am reminded that in November there was ONE Election with TWO Results:
Electoral Vote for Donald Trump by the margin of 3 formerly Democratic Voting states Michigan,
Ohio, and Pennsylvania
Popular Vote for Hillary Clinton by over 2.8 Million
The Democratic Party and its Candidates OBVIOUSLY need to get more votes in the Electoral States
that they lost in 2016, not change what they stand for, the principles of fair and equal play
for all.
And, in the 3 States that turned the Electoral Vote in Trump's favor and against Hillary, all
that is needed are 125,000 or more votes, probably fewer, and the DEMS win the Electoral vote
big too.
It is not any more complex than that.
So how does the Democratic Party get more votes in those States?
PANDER to their voters by delivering on KISS, not talking about it.
That is create living wage jobs and not taking them away as the Republican Party of 'Free Trade'
and the Clinton Democratic Party 'Free Trade' Elites did.
Understand this: It is not the responsibility of the USA, or in its best interests, to create
jobs in other nations (Mexico, Japan, China, Canada, Israel, etc.) that do not create jobs in
the USA equivalently, especially if the gain is offset by costly overseas confrontations and involvements
that would not otherwise exist.
"The Democratic Party and its Candidates OBVIOUSLY need to get more votes in the Electoral
States that they lost in 2016, not change what they stand for, the principles of fair and equal
play for all. "
The Democratic Party as a Party (Sanders was an outlier) has nothing to do with "fair and
equal play for all". This is a party of soft neoliberals and it adheres to Washington consensus
no less then Republicans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus
If you read the key postulates it is clear that that they essentially behaved like an occupier
in this country. In this sense "Occupy Wall street" movement should actually be called "Liberation
from Wall Street occupation" movement.
Bill Clinton realized that he can betray working class with impunity as "they have nowhere
to go" and will vote for Democrat anyway. In this sense Bill Clinton is a godfather of the right
wing nationalism in the USA. He sowed the "Teeth's of Dragon" and now we have, what we have.
"You control the message, and the facts do not matter. "
Notable quotes:
"... That's funny. Neoliberals are closet Trotskyites and they will let you talk only is specially
designated reservations, which are irrelevant (or, more correctly, as long as they are irrelevant) for
swaying the public opinion. ..."
"... If you think they are for freedom of the press, you are simply delusional. They are for freedom
of the press for those who own it. ..."
"... Try to get dissenting views to MSM or academic magazines. Yes, they will not send you to GULAG,
but the problem is that ostracism works no less effectively. That the essence of "inverted totalitarism"
(another nickname for neoliberalism). You can substitute physical repression used in classic totalitarism
with indirect suppression of dissenting opinions with the same, or even better results. Note that even
the term "neoliberalism" is effectively censored and not used by MSM. ..."
"... And the resulting level of suppressing of opposition (which is the essence of censorship) is
on the level that would make the USSR censors blush. And if EconomistView gets too close to anti-neoliberal
platform it will instantly find itself in the lists like PropOrNot ..."
"Then of course, it is easy to attack the neoliberals, they'll actually let you talk."
That's funny. Neoliberals are closet Trotskyites and they will let you talk only is specially
designated reservations, which are irrelevant (or, more correctly, as long as they are irrelevant)
for swaying the public opinion.
They are all adamant neo-McCarthyists, if you wish and will label you Putin stooge in no time
[, if you try to escape the reservation].
If you think they are for freedom of the press, you are simply delusional. They are for
freedom of the press for those who own it.
Try to get dissenting views to MSM or academic magazines. Yes, they will not send you to
GULAG, but the problem is that ostracism works no less effectively. That the essence of "inverted
totalitarism" (another nickname for neoliberalism). You can substitute physical repression used
in classic totalitarism with indirect suppression of dissenting opinions with the same, or even
better results. Note that even the term "neoliberalism" is effectively censored and not used by
MSM.
See Sheldon Wolin writings about this.
And the resulting level of suppressing of opposition (which is the essence of censorship)
is on the level that would make the USSR censors blush. And if EconomistView gets too close to
anti-neoliberal platform it will instantly find itself in the lists like PropOrNot
"... Someone needs to buy Paul Krugman a one way ticket to Camden and have him hang around the devastated post-industrial hell scape his policies helped create. ..."
"... Krugman should be temporarily barred from public discourse until he apologizes for pushing NAFTA and all the rest. Hundreds of millions of people were thrust into dire poverty because of the horrible free trade policies he and 99.9% of US economists pushed. ..."
"... Extremes meet: extreme protectionism is close to extreme neoliberal globalization in the level of devastation, that can occur. ..."
"... But please do not forget that Krugman is a neoliberal stooge and this is much worse then being protectionist. This is close to betrayal of the nation you live it, people you live with, if you ask me. ..."
"... To me academic neoliberals after 2008 are real "deplorables". And should be treated as such, despite his intellect. There not much honor in being an intellectual prostitute of financial oligarchy that rules the country. ..."
Economists are still oblivious to the devastation created by 40 years of free trade.
Someone needs to buy Paul Krugman a one way ticket to Camden and have him hang around the
devastated post-industrial hell scape his policies helped create.
Krugman should be temporarily barred from public discourse until he apologizes for pushing
NAFTA and all the rest. Hundreds of millions of people were thrust into dire poverty because of
the horrible free trade policies he and 99.9% of US economists pushed.
They have learned nothing and they have forgotten much.
Oh yea - bring on the tariffs which will lead to a massive appreciation of the dollar. Which in
turn will lead to massive reductions in US exports. I guess our new troll is short selling Boeing.
likbez -> pgl, -1
I tend to agree with you. Extremes meet: extreme protectionism is close to extreme neoliberal
globalization in the level of devastation, that can occur.
But please do not forget that Krugman is a neoliberal stooge and this is much worse then
being protectionist. This is close to betrayal of the nation you live it, people you live with,
if you ask me.
To me academic neoliberals after 2008 are real "deplorables". And should be treated as
such, despite his intellect. There not much honor in being an intellectual prostitute of financial
oligarchy that rules the country.
(cnn.com)
255
Posted by EditorDavid
on Sunday December 18, 2016 @12:34PM
from the
eat-different
dept.
An anonymous reader writes:
Apple has been
ordered to cut a $2 million check
for denying some of its retail workers
meal breaks. The lawsuit was first filed in 2011 by four Apple employees in San
Diego. They alleged that the company failed to give them meal and rest breaks
[as required by California law], and didn't pay them in a timely manner, among
other complaints. In 2013, the case became a class action lawsuit that included
California employees who had worked at Apple between 2007 and 2012,
approximately 21,000 people...
The complaint says Apple's culture of secrecy keeps employees from talking
about the company's poor working conditions. "If [employees] so much as discuss
the various labor policies, they run the risk of being fired, sued or
disciplined."
Apple changed their break policy in 2012, according to CNN, which reports that
the second half of the case should conclude later this week. The employees that
had been affected by Apple's original break policy could get as much as $95
each from Friday's settlement, according to CNN, "but it's likely some of the
money will go toward attorney fees."
(washingtonpost.com)
497
Posted by
BeauHD
on Thursday December 08, 2016 @10:30PM
from the
live-long-and-prosper
dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Washington Post:
For the first time
in more than two decades,
life expectancy for Americans declined last year
(Warning: may be paywalled;
alternate source
) -- a troubling development linked to a panoply of
worsening health problems in the United States.
In all, death rates
rose for eight of the top 10 leading causes of death. The new report raises the
possibility that major illnesses may be eroding prospects for an even wider
group of Americans. Its findings show increases in "virtually every cause of
death. It's all ages," said David Weir, director of the health and retirement
study at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan. Over
the past five years, he noted, improvements in death rates were among the
smallest of the past four decades. "There's this just across-the-board
[phenomenon] of not doing very well in the United States." Overall, life
expectancy fell by one-tenth of a year, from 78.9 in 2014 to 78.8 in 2015,
according to the latest data. The last time U.S. life expectancy at birth
declined was in 1993, when it dropped from 75.6 to 75.4, according to World
Bank data. The overall death rate rose 1.2 percent in 2015, its first uptick
since 1999. More than 2.7 million people died, about 45 percent of them from
heart disease or cancer.
"At least three tents have been spotted in woodland beside the online retail
giant's base," reports a Scottish newspaper -- hidden behind trees, but within
sight of Amazon's warehouse, and right next to a busy highway.
An anonymous
reader writes:
Despite Scotland's "bitterly cold winter nights" -- with lows
in the 30s -- the tent "
was
easier and cheaper than commuting from his home
," one Amazon worker told
the
Courier
. (Though yesterday someone stole all of his camping
equipment.)
Amazon charges its employees for shuttle service to the fulfillment
center, which "swallows up a lot of the weekly wage," one political party
leader told the
Courier
, "forcing people to seek ever more desperate
ways of making work pay.
"Amazon should be ashamed that they pay their workers so little that they have
to camp out in the dead of winter to make ends meet..." he continued. "They pay
a small amount of tax and received millions of pounds from the Scottish
National Party Government, so the least they should do is pay the proper living
wage." Though the newspaper reports that holiday shopping has created 4,000
temporary jobs in the small town of Dunfermline,
The
Disney IT employees, said Sara Blackwell, a Florida labor attorney who is
representing this group, "lost their jobs when their jobs were outsourced to
contracting companies. And those companies brought in mostly, or virtually all,
non-American national origin workers," she said. The lawsuit alleges that
Disney terminated the employment of the plaintiffs "based solely on their
national origin and race, replacing them with Indian nationals." The people who
were laid off were multiple races, but the people who came in were mostly one
race, said Blackwell. The lawsuit alleges that Disney terminated the employment
of the plaintiffs "based solely on their national origin and race, replacing
them with Indian nationals."
"As companies tighten their purse strings, they're spreading out their hires --
this year, and for years to come," reports Backchannel, citing interviews with
executives and other workplace analysts.
mirandakatz
writes:
Once a
cost-cutting strategy,
remote offices are becoming the new normal
: from GitHub to Mozilla and
Wordpress, more and more companies are eschewing the physical office in favor
of systems that allow employees to live out their wanderlust. As workplaces
increasingly go remote, they're adopting tools to keep employees connected and
socially fulfilled -- as Mozilla Chief of Staff David Slater tells Backchannel,
"The wiki becomes the water cooler."
The article describes budget-conscious startups realizing they can cut their
overhead and choose from talent located anywhere in the world. And one group of
analysts calculated that the number of telecommuting workers
doubled
between 2005 and 2014
, reporting that now "75% of employees who work from
home earn over $65,000 per year, putting them in the upper 80th percentile of
all employees, home or office-based."
Are Slashdot's readers seeing a surge in
telecommuting? And does anybody have any good stories about the digital nomad
lifestyle?
Posted by msmash
on Tuesday November 29, 2016 @11:40AM
from the
fight-for-money
dept.
Uber drivers will join forces with fast food, home care and airport workers in
a nationwide protest on Tuesday.
Their demand: higher pay
.
From a report on CNET:
Calling it the "Day of
Disruption," drivers for the ride-hailing company in two dozen cities,
including Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco, will march at
airports and in shopping areas carrying signs that read, "Your Uber Driver is
Arriving Striking." The protest underscores the dilemma Uber faces as it
balances the needs of its drivers with its business. Valued at $68 billion,
Uber is the highest-valued venture-backed company worldwide. But as it has cut
the cost of rides to compete with traditional taxi services, Uber reportedly
has experienced trouble turning a profit.
Unlike many other workers involved in
Tuesday's protests, Uber drivers are not members of a union. In fact, Uber
doesn't even classify its drivers as employees. Instead the company considers
drivers independent contractors. This classification means the company isn't
responsible for many costs, including health insurance, paid sick days, gas,
car maintenance and much more.
However, Uber still sets drivers' rates and the
commission it pays itself, which ranges between 20 percent and 30 percent.
"I'd
like a fair day's pay for my hard work," Adam Shahim, a 40-year-old driver from
Pittsburgh, California, said in a statement.
"So I'm joining with the
fast-food, airport, home care, child care and higher education workers who are
leading the way and showing the country how to build an economy that works for
everyone, not just the few at the top."
"... Uber treats its drivers as Victorian-style "sweated labor", with some taking home less than the minimum wage, ..."
"... Drivers at the taxi-hailing app company reported feeling forced to work extremely long hours, sometimes more than 70 a week , just to make a basic living, said Frank Field, the Labor MP and chair of the work and pensions committee. ..."
"... Field received testimony from 83 drivers who said they often took home significantly less than the "national living wage" after paying their running costs. The report says they described conditions that matched the Victorian definition of sweated labor: "when earnings were barely sufficient to sustain existence, hours of labor were such as to make lives of workers periods of ceaseless toil; and conditions were injurious to the health of workers and dangerous to the public. ..."
"... Uber controls what the drivers charge, what they drive (minimum standards and all) and punishes them if they don't work when told to (by locking them out of the app for declining low paying rides). That's not a contract gig, that's employment. ..."
"... the math on the purchase of the car doesn't work out. ..."
"... That's the essence of modern American Slavery. Nobody's _ever_ forcing you. You're completely free to starve to death and die in the streets. It's why the South abandoned real slavery. Wage Slavery is ever so much more cost effective. ..."
"... The aristocrats of our age are as detached from reality as the French aristocrats were, and as unwilling to accept the responsibilities that come with vast accrual of wealth. ..."
"... The key is to run a business that is profitable enough to pay its workers a wage sufficient to cover food and medical and housing. Otherwise, my tax money does it and those dollars essentially make the business owner a welfare recipient by enabling him to be artificially enriched. ..."
Posted by msmash on Friday December 09, 2016 @05:40PM from the app-economy dept.
Uber treats its drivers as Victorian-style "sweated labor", with some taking home less than the minimum
wage, according to a report into its working conditions based on the testimony of dozens of drivers.
From a report on The Guardian:
Field received testimony from 83 drivers who said they often took home significantly less than
the "national living wage" after paying their running costs. The report says they described conditions
that matched the Victorian definition of sweated labor: "when earnings were barely sufficient to
sustain existence, hours of labor were such as to make lives of workers periods of ceaseless toil;
and conditions were injurious to the health of workers and dangerous to the public."
rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @06:13PM (#53456097)
Au contre mon cheri (Score:2)
they realized the exact opposite. Pity you didn't.
Uber controls what the drivers charge, what they drive (minimum standards and all) and
punishes them if they don't work when told to (by locking them out of the app for declining
low paying rides). That's not a contract gig, that's employment.
fluffernutter ( 1411889 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @06:54PM (#53456365)
Re:Was never meant to be full time... (Score:2)
I think then the whole problem is that the math on the purchase of the car doesn't work
out. They have to work a lot of hours to make anything once the vehicle expenses are
taken care of.
MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @06:42PM (#53456283) Journal
Re:Tough shit (Score:3)
Even brilliant people can find themselves out of work, and become prey for pretty predatory
companies happy to take advantage of them. I've worked in the employment industry for many
years and see even some pretty highly skilled people stuck in shit-ass jobs because they can't
afford to move.
That is why most jurisdictions have it least some basic level of worker protection, and why no
one seriously contemplates turning the industrialized world into a Libertarian fantasy land.
Dorianny ( 1847922 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @07:29PM (#53456597) Journal
Re:Mixed Metaphors (Score:2)
Antoinette's expression is in reference the tyranny of feudalism.
Pretty sure Uber drivers aren't indentured servants, much less serfs. Seeing as how, you
know, if you don't want to drive for Uber, you just don't load the app. The Gendarme isn't
going to break down your door and drag you to jail.
The expression "Let them eat cake" shows a complete lack of understanding that the absence
of basic food staples was due to poverty rather than a lack of supply. Serfdom was officially
abolished in France in 1789 by Antoinette's husband Louis XVI, although this was mostly a
formality as there were few if any actual Serfs left in France.
Most people were "free peasents" that were paid extremely low wages to work the lands of
the King and Nobility FYI: Even thou the expression "Let them eat cake" is commonly attributed
to Marie Antoinette there is no record of the phrase ever being said by her...
matbury ( 3458347 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @06:55PM (#53456367) Homepage
Re:"Feel forced?" (Score:4, Insightful)
Taxi drivers also have regulated hours. Being tired is as impairing and dangerous as being
drunk. Would you hail a cab if you knew the driver was drunk? If he's been working double the
recommended hours a week, like an Uber driver, he's likely to be severely impaired and very
likely to have an accident.
rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @06:09PM (#53456055)
Says a man or woman (Score:4, Insightful)
who's never had a rent check bounce. Or never had to pay out of pocket to fix a kid's
broken arm. Or been born in a rust belt town when the last factory just left and/or automated.
That's the essence of modern American Slavery. Nobody's _ever_ forcing you. You're
completely free to starve to death and die in the streets. It's why the South abandoned real
slavery. Wage Slavery is ever so much more cost effective.
Solandri ( 704621 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @07:31PM (#53456603)
Re:Says a man or woman (Score:4, Interesting)
Wage slavery is never cost effective except for the slave owner. That's what makes it an
unstable system which can only be perpetuated by government collusion, or lack of willpower by
the employees to break out of slavery. e.g. Detroit used to have slave-level wages.
Henry Ford decided to set up shop there and paid his factory workers much more than the
prevailing wage. He accidentally discovered that when he paid people a fair wage, not only did
their productivity increase, but they used those wages to buy the very product they were
helping build.
The resulting feedback loop multiplied his company's revenue and turned the Ford Motor
Company into the behemoth it is today. No longer were cars affordable only to the privileged
elite; the average middle class worker (by Ford factory standards) could afford to buy one.
If the only options you see are being a wage slave or starving to death, then you haven't
really tried. A location where the people are being paid slave wages or starving is ripe for a
new company to set up shop and hire willing employees for less than they'd have to pay at
well-established locations. As more of these people become employed and spend their wages on
local merchants, the economy picks up.
There are fewer unemployed, resulting in wages increasing. This is how the market equalizes
geographic wage inequality. If this isn't happening, then there are fundamental problems with
the region not caused by slave wages. Maybe the location is too far from markets, or the
highway/railroad access is poor, or people just don't want to live in that location. Unless
the government is intentionally keeping business out, low wages are a symptom not a cause.
And yes I've had a rent check bounce. A rent check a tenant gave me. I was stupid and
deposited it directly into our payroll bank account since it almost exactly topped off the
amount we needed to make payroll. Normally I transfer the payroll money from our primary
checking account, but I was lazy and decided to save a little work by depositing the checks
directly into payroll.
As a result I got charged a bounced check fee, but more importantly a bunch of my
employees' paychecks bounced, causing more bounced check fees for both them and myself. The
whole thing was a disaster. I called in each employee who was affected, apologized to them in
person, and told them to bring in their bank statement so I could reimburse their bounced
check fee (or fees if they then wrote checks which bounced).
The ones who needed the money immediately, I paid in cash out of my own pocket. All told it
was over $1300 in bank fees incurred because I was stupid/lazy, and because the person who
wrote the first check did so knowing he didn't have enough money to cover it but thought it
would be easier turning his problem into my problem.
It's cliche, but it's true. Your employees are your most valuable asset. A good business will
do everything it can to protect them and to retain them. A business which pays slave wages is
just ripe to be squeezed out by a business which will pay better (fair) wages. The only way a
slave wage business can stay in business is if the government is blocking competing
businesses, or if people like you have so discouraged others with your gloom and doom hopeless
corporate feudalism talk that they don't even bother trying to start up their own business to
compete.
serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Saturday December 10, 2016 @04:50AM (#53458279) Journal
Re:Says a man or woman (Score:5, Insightful)
or lack of willpower by the employees to break out of slavery
Ah, it's the slaves fault that they're slaves, then.
If the only options you see are being a wage slave or starving to death, then you haven't
really tried. A location where the people are being paid slave wages or starving is ripe for a
new company to set up shop and hire willing employees for less than they'd have to pay at
well-established locations.
Ah yes, it's so easy to set up a company when you're a wage slave and have no spare
resources with which to set up the company. If you don't you just lack the willpower to starve
to death for a few months or years before your company takes off.
Oh and if you don't have a head for business, you deserve to be a wage slave because fuck
you that's why.
A business which pays slave wages is just ripe to be squeezed out by a business which will
pay better (fair) wages.
Oh yes, that's precisely how things worked in Victorian England.
You know, or not. that they don't even bother trying to start up their own business to
compete.
Starting a business is the highest form of intellect and worth. If you can't, then die in
filth, scum. You deserve worse!
Jzanu ( 668651 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @06:02PM (#53456007)
Re:"Feel forced?" (Score:4, Insightful)
Step 1: Create system where I make money doing nothing, we will call this being a
platform
Step 2: Force existing systems to work for me by under cutting prices and providing a
better way to interact
Step 3: Profit
Shit, Uber makes profit by undercutting cabs who already did not make much money... You can
tell people not to drive for them, but when you see the lease terms uber demands (weekly
payments, taken directly from your take, you dont pay we take the car) then you see that they
are required to drive, and drive long hours if riders are minimal.
This is a firm that has a master plan of shifting as much as it can on to other people so its
30% cut can be 90% profit. So far its working because people with no job will work any job in
a world where unskilled labor is not worth much (driving is definitely on the unskilled labor
side here) There are simply not many other jobs out there for a subset of people.
Uber's
real business [uber.com] (see bottom of page)
model [xchangeleasing.com] is incentivizing wage-slavery with poverty wages and binding
contract enforcement - it is just the vehicular version of the
company town [wikipedia.org].
MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @07:51PM (#53456707) Journal
Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Insightful)
It will certainly be screwed if it keeps allowing corporate interests to arguing away the
taxes they should be paying.
I'm genuinely concerned that events like Brexit and the Trump victory are the opening shots in
some sort of modern day French revolution. The aristocrats of our age are as detached from
reality as the French aristocrats were, and as unwilling to accept the responsibilities that
come with vast accrual of wealth.
They are creating a dangerously unstable situation, and when the Trumps of the world prove
as incapable or unwilling to rebalance economic and social issues, then we may be facing a far
less savory group of revolutionaries. And, as the French Revolution so ably demonstrated, even
wealth isn't an absolute shield.
jlowery ( 47102 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @06:19PM (#53456129)
Re: Don't worry (Score:5, Insightful)
The key is to run a business that is profitable enough to pay its workers a wage
sufficient to cover food and medical and housing. Otherwise, my tax money does it and those
dollars essentially make the business owner a welfare recipient by enabling him to be
artificially enriched.
If your business doesn't sell a product people are willing to spend enough for you pay your
workers a living wage, then your business should go bankrupt. I'm not paying for your beach
house.
ghoul ( 157158 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @06:20PM (#53456149)
Uber needs a recession (Score:5, Insightful)
The Uber business model only works for newly laid off workers who have a nice car with car
payments to make. Its not meant to be a fulltime job. The entire gig economy including iOS
apps only took off as in 2008 a lot of people lost their jobs but they still had cars,
computers and loads of time on their hand. As we closer to full employment people who have a
choice have moved away from gigs. Taxi companies are built upon the exploitation of illegal
immigrant drivers. Uber as a high visibility company cannot compete with Taxi companies as it
cant hire illegal immigrants and pay them sweat wages under the table. At the same time
driving a cab will not support a minimum wage so the best thing for Uber would be to go back
to being a gig company. Put a hard cap of 10 hours a week on driving for a driver - that will
remove the entire pool of drivers expecting to make a living from Uber, stop promoting Uber
driving as a full time job and stop giving leases to drivers to buy cars to drive for Uber.
Stop trying to grow for growth's sake. Stay at the size of a gig economy company like a temp
agency. They have some good software - license it to taxi companies and let them use it for
managing their own fleets in a mutli-tenant kind of model.
With the election of Donald Trump to
the presidency, the American public opted for change. A
new poll
from the Charles Koch Institute and Center for the National
Interest on America and foreign affairs indicates that the desire for a fresh
start may be particularly pronounced in the foreign policy sphere. In many
areas the responses align with what Donald Trump was saying during the
presidential campaign-and in other areas, there are a number of Americans who
don't have strong views. There may be a real opportunity for Trump to redefine
the foreign policy debate. He may have a ready-made base of support and find
that other Americans are persuadable.
Two key questions centering on whether U.S. foreign policy has made
Americans more or less safe and whether U.S. foreign policy has made the rest
of the world more or less safe show that a majority of the public is convinced
that-in both cases-the answer is that it has not. 51.9 percent say that
American foreign policy has not enhanced our security; 51.1 percent say that it
has also had a deleterious effect abroad. The responses indicate that the
successive wars in the Middle East, ranging from Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya,
have not promoted but, rather, undermined a sense of security among Americans.
The poll results indicate that this sentiment has translated into nearly 35
percent of respondents wanted a decreased military footprint in the Middle
East, with about 30 percent simply wanting to keep things where they stand.
When it comes to America's key relationship with Saudi Arabia, 23.2 percent
indicate that they would favor weaker military ties, while 24 percent say they
are simply unsure. Over half of Americans do not want to deploy ground troops
to Syria. Overall, 45.4 percent say that they believe that it would enhance
American security to reduce our military presence abroad, while 30.9 percent
say that it should be increased.
That Americans are adopting a more equivocal approach overall towards other
countries seems clear. When provided with a list of adjectives to describe
relationship, very few Americans were prepared to choose the extremes of friend
or foe. The most popular term was the fairly neutral term "competitor." The
mood appears to be similarly ambivalent about NATO. When asked whether the U.S.
should automatically defend Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia in a military
conflict with Russia, 26.1 percent say that they neither agree nor disagree. 22
percent say that they disagree and a mere 16.8 percent say that they agree.
Similarly, when queried about whether the inclusion of Montenegro makes America
safer, no less than 63.6 percent say that they don't know or are not sure.
About Russia itself, 37.8 percent indicate they see it as both an adversary and
a potential partner. That they still see it as a potential partner is
remarkable given the tenor of the current media climate.
The poll results underscore that Americans are uneasy with the status quo.
U.S. foreign policy in particular is perceived as a failure and Americans want
to see a change, endorsing views and stands that might previously have been
seen as existing on the fringe of debate about America's proper role abroad.
Instead of militarism and adventurism, Americans are more keen on a cooperative
world, in which trade and diplomacy are the principal means of engaging other
nations. 49 percent of the respondents indicate that they would prioritize
diplomacy over military power, while 26.3 percent argue for the reverse. 54
percent argue that the U.S. should work more through the United Nations to
improve its security. Moreover, a clear majority of those polled stated that
they believed that increasing trade would help to make the United States safer.
In a year that has been anything but normal, perhaps Trump is onto something
with his talk of burden sharing and a more critical look at the regnant
establishment foreign policy that has prevailed until now.
"... Popular pre-financial crisis versions of the model excluded banking and finance, taking as given that finance and asset prices were merely a by-product of the real economy. ..."
"... The centre-piece of Paul Romer's scathing attack on these models is on the 'pretence of knowledge' ..."
"... he is critical of the incredible identifying assumptions and 'pretence of knowledge' in both Bayesian estimation and the calibration of parameters in DSGE models. ..."
"... A further symptom of the 'pretence of knowledge' is the assumed 'knowledge' that these parameters are constant over time. A milder critique by Olivier Blanchard (2016) points to a number of failings of DSGE models and recommends greater openness to more eclectic approaches. ..."
"... The equation is based on the assumption of inter-temporal optimising by consumers and that every consumer faces the same linear period-to-period budget constraint, linking income, wealth, and consumption. ..."
"... In the basic form, consumption every period equals permanent non-property income plus permanent property income defined as the real interest rate times the stock of wealth held by consumers at the beginning of each period. Permanent non-property income converts the variable flow of labour and transfer incomes a consumer expects over a lifetime into an amount equally distributed over time. ..."
"... However, consumers actually face idiosyncratic (household-specific) and uninsurable income uncertainty, and uncertainty interacts with credit or liquidity constraints. ..."
"... The 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) made derivatives enforceable throughout the US with priority ahead of claims by others (e.g. workers) in bankruptcy. ..."
"... 2004 SEC decision to ease capital requirements on investment banks increased gearing to what turned out to be dangerous levels ..."
"... Similar measures to lower required capital on investment grade PMBS increased leverage at commercial banks. These changes occurred in the political context of pressure to extend credit to poor. ..."
"... The importance of debt was highlighted in the debt-deflation theory of the Great Depression of Fisher (1933). 5 Briefly summarised, his story is that when credit availability expands, it raises spending, debt, and asset prices; irrational exuberance raises prices to vulnerable levels, given leverage; negative shocks can then cause falls in asset prices, increased bad debt, a credit crunch, and a rise in unemployment. ..."
"... In the financial accelerator feedback loops that operated in the US sub-prime crisis, falls in house prices increased bad loans and impaired the ability of banks to extend credit. As a result, household spending and residential investment fell, increasing unemployment and reducing incomes, feeding back further into lower asset prices and credit supply. ..."
"... The transmission mechanism that operated via consumption was poorly represented by the Federal Reserve's FRB-US model and similar models elsewhere. ..."
"... Reminds me of a young poseur at engineering school, who exclaimed during a group study session, "I've got it all jocked out. Now I just need the equations!" ..."
"... I have been aware of that for a few years now, but I doubt that one person in a hundred (or a thousand) knows when they listen to some economist on a news program or a business channel that the person speaking thinks that how much debt people have does not substantively affect their spending. ..."
"... If I used or invented an econ model that left out the "consumer", and modeled it with a "consumption agent object" having a single independent input variable being the Fed zero term, zero risk interest rate, I'd be too embarrassed to admit it. I would probably just very quietly make a career change into one of the softer sciences. Maybe writing fictional romance novels, or some such thing. ..."
"... The worst thing about these types of mea culpas from the mainstream is the cited criticisms from other mainstream economists only. It can only be a valid criticism if it was published in a mainstream journal ..."
"... That 'political pressure' turned out to be the bait and switch for a system that shifted power via debt creation. ..."
"... What we have not yet come to terms with are the implications of David Graeber's anthropological insights: how does debt affect social relationships, alter social norms, and affect relationships among individuals? ..."
"... Debt is a form of power, but by failing to factor this into their equations, the Central Bankers are missing the social, political, and cultural consequences of the profound shifts in 'credit market architecture'. In many respects, this is not about 'money'; it's about power. ..."
"... The Central Bankers' models can include all the parameters they can dream up, but until someone starts thinking more clearly about the role and function of money, and the way that 'different kinds of money' create 'different kinds of social relationships', we are all in a world of hurt. ..."
"... Now, maybe it is just a coincidence, but it is hard for me not to notice that the explosion in consumer credit matches up nicely with the rise in inequality. ..."
"... " .. debt does not make society as a whole poorer: one person's debt is another person's asset. So total wealth is unaffected by the amount of debt out there. This is, strictly speaking true only for the world economy as a whole .. " Paul Krugman "End this Depression Now". ..."
By John Muellbauer, Professor of Economics, Oxford University. Originally published at
VoxEU
The failure of the New Keynesian dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models to capture interactions
of finance and the real economy has been widely recognised since the Global Crisis. This column argues
that the flaws in these models stem from unrealistic micro-foundations for household behaviour and
from wrongly assuming that aggregate behaviour mimics a fully informed 'representative agent'. Rather
than 'one-size-fits-all' monetary and macroprudential policy, institutional differences between countries
imply major differences for monetary policy transmission and policy.
The New Keynesian DSGE models that dominated the macroeconomic profession and central bank thinking
for the last two decades were based on several principles.
The first was formal derivation from micro-foundations, assuming optimising behaviour of consumers
and firms with rational or 'model-consistent' expectations of future conditions. For such derivation
to result in a tractable model, it was assumed that the behaviour of firms and of consumers corresponded
to that of a 'representative' firm and a 'representative' consumer. In turn, this entailed the
absence of necessarily heterogeneous credit or liquidity constraints. Another important assumption
to obtain tractable solutions was that of a stable long-run equilibrium trend path for the economy.
If the economy was never far from such a path, the role of uncertainty would necessarily be limited.
Popular pre-financial crisis versions of the model excluded banking and finance, taking as
given that finance and asset prices were merely a by-product of the real economy.
Second, a competitive economy was assumed but with a number of distortions, including nominal
rigidities – sluggish price adjustment – and monopolistic competition. This is what distinguished
New Keynesian DSGE models from the general equilibrium real business cycle (RBC) models that preceded
them. It extended the range of stochastic shocks that could disturb the economy from the productivity
or taste shocks of the RBC model. Finally, while some models calibrated (assumed) values of the
parameters, where the parameters were estimated, Bayesian system-wide estimation was used, imposing
substantial amounts of prior constraints on parameter values deemed 'reasonable'.
The 'Pretence of Knowledge'
The centre-piece of Paul Romer's scathing attack on these models is on the 'pretence of knowledge'
(Romer 2016); echoing Caballero (2010), he is critical of the incredible identifying assumptions
and 'pretence of knowledge' in both Bayesian estimation and the calibration of parameters in DSGE
models. 1
A further symptom of the 'pretence of knowledge' is the assumed 'knowledge' that these parameters
are constant over time. A milder critique by Olivier Blanchard (2016) points to a number of failings
of DSGE models and recommends greater openness to more eclectic approaches.
Unrealistic Micro-Foundations
As explained in Muellbauer (2016), an even deeper problem, not seriously addressed by Romer or
Blanchard, lies in the unrealistic micro-foundations for the behaviour of households embodied in
the 'rational expectations permanent income' model of consumption, an integral component of these
DSGE models. Consumption is fundamental to macroeconomics both in DSGE models and in the consumption
functions of general equilibrium macro-econometric models such as the Federal Reserve's FRB-US. At
the core of representative agent DSGE models is the Euler equation for consumption, popularised in
the highly influential paper by Hall (1978). It connects the present with the future, and is essential
to the iterative forward solutions of these models. The equation is based on the assumption of
inter-temporal optimising by consumers and that every consumer faces the same linear period-to-period
budget constraint, linking income, wealth, and consumption. Maximising expected life-time utility
subject to the constraint results in the optimality condition that links expected marginal utility
in the different periods. Under approximate 'certainty equivalence', this translates into a simple
relationship between consumption at time t and planned consumption at t +1 and in periods
further into the future.
Under these simplifying assumptions, the rational expectations permanent income consumption function
can be derived. In the basic form, consumption every period equals permanent non-property income
plus permanent property income defined as the real interest rate times the stock of wealth held by
consumers at the beginning of each period. Permanent non-property income converts the variable flow
of labour and transfer incomes a consumer expects over a lifetime into an amount equally distributed
over time.
However, consumers actually face idiosyncratic (household-specific) and uninsurable income
uncertainty, and uncertainty interacts with credit or liquidity constraints. The asymmetric
information revolution in economics in the 1970s for which Akerlof, Spence and Stiglitz shared the
Nobel prize explains this economic environment. Research by Deaton (1991,1992), 2 several
papers by Carroll (1992, 2000, 2001, 2014), Ayigari (1994), and a new generation of heterogeneous
agent models (e.g. Kaplan et al. 2016) imply that household horizons then tend to be both heterogeneous
and shorter – with 'hand-to-mouth' behaviour even by quite wealthy households, contradicting the
textbook permanent income model, and hence DSGE models. A second reason for the failure of these
DSGE models is that aggregate behaviour does not follow that of a 'representative agent'. Kaplan
et al. (2016) show that, with these better micro-foundations, quite different implications follow
for monetary policy than in the New Keynesian DSGE models. A third reason is that structural breaks,
as shown by Hendry and Mizon (2014), and radical uncertainty further invalidate DSGE models, illustrated
by the failure of the Bank of England's DSGE model both during and after the 2008-9 crisis (Fawcett
et al. 2015). The failure of the representative agent Euler equation to fit aggregate data 3
is further empirical evidence against the assumptions underlying the DSGE models, while evidence
on financial illiteracy (Lusardi 2016) is a problem for the assumption that all consumers optimise.
The Evolving Credit Market Architecture
Of the structural changes, the evolution and revolution of credit market architecture was the
single most important. In the US, credit card ownership and instalment credit spread between the
1960s and the 2000s; the government-sponsored enterprises – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – were recast
in the 1970s to underwrite mortgages; interest rate ceilings were lifted in the early 1980s; and
falling IT costs transformed payment and credit screening systems in the 1980s and 1990s. More revolutionary
was the expansion of sub-prime mortgages in the 2000s, driven by rise of private label securitisation
backed by credit default obligations (CDOs) and swaps.
The 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) made derivatives enforceable throughout
the US with priority ahead of claims by others (e.g. workers) in bankruptcy. This permitted
derivative enhancements for private label mortgage-backed securities (PMBS) so that they could be
sold on as highly rated investment grade securities. A second regulatory change was the deregulation
of banks and investment banks. In particular, the 2004 SEC decision to ease capital requirements
on investment banks increased gearing to what turned out to be dangerous levels and further
boosted PMBS, Duca et al (2016). Similar measures to lower required capital on investment grade
PMBS increased leverage at commercial banks. These changes occurred in the political context of pressure
to extend credit to poor.
The Importance of Debt
A fourth reason for the failure of the New Keynesian DSGE models, linking closely with the previous,
is the omission of debt and household balance sheets more generally, which are crucial for understanding
consumption and macroeconomic fluctuations. Some central banks did not abandon their large non-DSGE
econometric policy models, but these were also defective in that they too relied on the representative
agent permanent income hypothesis which ignored shifts in credit constraints and mistakenly lumped
all elements of household balance sheets, debt, liquid assets, illiquid financial assets (including
pension assets) and housing wealth into a single net worth measure of wealth. 4 Because
housing is a consumption good as well as an asset, consumption responds differently to a rise in
housing wealth than to an increase in financial wealth (see Aron et al. 2012). Second, different
assets have different degrees of 'spendability'. It is indisputable that cash is more spendable than
pension or stock market wealth, the latter being subject to asset price uncertainty and access restrictions
or trading costs. This suggests estimating separate marginal propensities to spend out of liquid
and illiquid financial assets. Third, the marginal effect of debt on spending is unlikely just to
be minus that of either illiquid financial or housing wealth. The reason is that debt is not subject
to price uncertainty and it has long-term servicing and default risk implications, with typically
highly adverse consequences.
The importance of debt was highlighted in the debt-deflation theory of the Great Depression
of Fisher (1933). 5 Briefly summarised, his story is that when credit availability expands,
it raises spending, debt, and asset prices; irrational exuberance raises prices to vulnerable levels,
given leverage; negative shocks can then cause falls in asset prices, increased bad debt, a credit
crunch, and a rise in unemployment.
In the 1980s and early 1990s, boom-busts in Norway, Finland, Sweden, and the UK followed this
pattern. In the financial accelerator feedback loops that operated in the US sub-prime crisis,
falls in house prices increased bad loans and impaired the ability of banks to extend credit. As
a result, household spending and residential investment fell, increasing unemployment and reducing
incomes, feeding back further into lower asset prices and credit supply.
The transmission mechanism that operated via consumption was poorly represented by the Federal
Reserve's FRB-US model and similar models elsewhere. A more relevant consumption function for
modelling the financial accelerator is needed, modifying the permanent income model with shorter
time horizons, 6 incorporating important shifts in credit lending conditions, and disaggregating
household balance sheets into liquid and illiquid elements, debt and housing wealth.
Implications for Macroeconomic Policy Models
To take into account all the feedbacks, a macroeconomic policy model needs to explain asset prices
and the main components of household balance sheets, including debt and liquid assets. This is best
done in a system of equations including consumption, in which shifts in credit conditions – which
have system-wide consequences, sometimes interacting with other variables such as housing wealth
– are extracted as a latent variable. 7 The availability of home equity loans, which varies
over time and between countries – hardly available in the US of the 1970s or in contemporary Germany,
France or Japan – and the also the variable size of down-payments needed to obtain a mortgage, determine
whether increases in house prices increase (US and UK) or reduce (Germany and Japan) aggregate consumer
spending. This is one of the findings of research I review in Muellbauer (2016). Another important
finding is that a rise in interest rates has different effects on aggregate consumer spending depending
on the nature of household balance sheets. Japan and Germany differ radically from the US and the
UK, with far higher bank and saving deposits and lower household debt levels so that lower interest
rates reduce consumer spending. A crucial implication of these two findings is that monetary policy
transmission via the household sector differs radically between countries – it is far more effective
in the US and UK, and even counterproductive in Japan (see Muellbauer and Murata 2011).
Such models, building in disaggregated balance sheets and the shifting, interactive role of credit
conditions, have many benefits: better interpretations of data on credit growth and asset prices
helpful for developing early warning indicators of financial crises; better understandings of long-run
trends in saving rates and asset prices; and insights into transmission for monetary and macro-prudential
policy. Approximate consistency with good theory following the information economics revolution of
the 1970s is better than the exact consistency of the New Keynesian DSGE model with bad theory that
makes incredible assumptions about agents' behaviour and the economy. Repairing central bank policy
models to make them more relevant and more consistent with the qualitative conclusions of the better
micro-foundations outlined above is now an urgent task.
Endnotes
[1] Part of the problem of identification is that the DSGE models throw away long-run information.
They do this by removing long-run trends with the Hodrick-Prescott filter, or linear time trends
specific to each variable. Identification, which rests on available information, then becomes more
difficult, and necessitates 'incredible assumptions'. Often, impulse response functions tracing out
the dynamic response of the modelled economy to shocks are highly sensitive to the way the data have
been pre-filtered.
[3] See Campbell and Mankiw (1989, 1990) and for even more powerful evidence from the UK, US and
Japan; Muellbauer (2010); and micro-evidence from Shea (1995).
[4] Net worth is defined as liquid assets minus mortgage and non-mortgage debt plus illiquid financial
assets plus housing assets, and this assumes that the coefficients are all the same.
[5] In recent years, several empirical contributions have recognised the importance of the mechanisms
described by Fisher (1933). Mian and Sufi (2014) have provided extensive micro-economic evidence
for the role of credit shifts in the US sub-prime crisis and the constraining effect of high household
debt levels. Focusing on macro-data, Turner (2015) has analysed the role of debt internationally
with more general mechanisms, as well as in explaining the poor recovery from the global financial
crisis. Jorda et al. (2016) have drawn attention to the increasing role of real estate collateral
in bank lending in most advanced countries and in financial crises.
[6] The FRB-US model does build in shorter average horizons than text-book permanent income. It
also has a commendable flexible treatment of expectations, Brayton et al (1997).
[7] The use of latent variables in macroeconomic modelling has a long vintage. Potential output,
and the "natural rate" of unemployment or of interest are often treated as latent variables, for
example in the FRB-US model and in Laubach and Williams (2003), and latent variables are often modelled
using state space methods. Flexible spline functions can achieve similar estimates. Interaction effects
of latent with other variables seem not to have been considered, however. We use the term 'latent
interactive variable equation system' (LIVES) to describe the resulting format.
'the omission of debt and household balance sheets more generally'
putting these eclownometric [sic] models at about the same level of technical sophistication
as the Newcomen steam engine of 1712, which achieved about one (1) percent thermodynamic efficiency.
'a macroeconomic policy model needs to explain asset prices and household balance sheets.
This is best done in a system of equations.'
Yes indeedy. Reminds me of a young poseur at engineering school, who exclaimed during a
group study session, "I've got it all jocked out. Now I just need the equations!"
' the omission of debt and household balance sheets more generally '
You beat me to it. I have been aware of that for a few years now, but I doubt that one
person in a hundred (or a thousand) knows when they listen to some economist on a news program
or a business channel that the person speaking thinks that how much debt people have does not
substantively affect their spending.
Really, 5 year olds describing how they get toys from Santa have a better grasp of economics
than most "economists"
If I used or invented an econ model that left out the "consumer", and modeled it with a
"consumption agent object" having a single independent input variable being the Fed zero term,
zero risk interest rate, I'd be too embarrassed to admit it. I would probably just very quietly
make a career change into one of the softer sciences. Maybe writing fictional romance novels,
or some such thing.
The worst thing about these types of mea culpas from the mainstream is the cited criticisms
from other mainstream economists only. It can only be a valid criticism if it was published in
a mainstream journal
Of the structural changes, the evolution and revolution of credit market architecture was
the single most important . In the US, credit card ownership and instalment credit spread between
the 1960s and the 2000s; the government-sponsored enterprises – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
– were recast in the 1970s to underwrite mortgages; interest rate ceilings were lifted in the
early 1980s; and falling IT costs transformed payment and credit screening systems in the 1980s
and 1990s. More revolutionary was the expansion of sub-prime mortgages in the 2000s, driven
by rise of private label securitisation backed by credit default obligations (CDOs) and swaps.
The 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) made derivatives enforceable throughout
the US with priority ahead of claims by others (e.g. workers) in bankruptcy. This permitted
derivative enhancements for private label mortgage-backed securities (PMBS) so that they could
be sold on as highly rated investment grade securities. A second regulatory change was the
deregulation of banks and investment banks . Similar measures to lower required capital on
investment grade PMBS increased leverage at commercial banks. These changes occurred in the
political context of pressure to extend credit to poor.
That 'political pressure' turned out to be the bait and switch for a system that shifted
power via debt creation.
What we have not yet come to terms with are the implications of David Graeber's anthropological
insights: how does debt affect social relationships, alter social norms, and affect relationships
among individuals?
Debt is a form of power, but by failing to factor this into their equations, the Central
Bankers are missing the social, political, and cultural consequences of the profound shifts in
'credit market architecture'. In many respects, this is not about 'money'; it's about power.
After Brexit, Trump, and the emerging upheaval in the EU, it's no longer enough to just 'build
better economic models'.
The Central Bankers' models can include all the parameters they can dream up, but until
someone starts thinking more clearly about the role and function of money, and the way that 'different
kinds of money' create 'different kinds of social relationships', we are all in a world of hurt.
At this point, Central Bankers should also ask themselves what happens - socially, personally
- when 'debt' (i.e., financialization) shifts from productivity to predation. That shift accelerated
from the 1970s, through the 1990s, into the 2000s.
Allowing anyone to charge interest that is usurious is the modern equivalent of turning a blind
eye to slavery.
By enabling outrageous interest, any government hands their hard working taxpayers over to
what is essentially unending servitude.
This destroys the political power of any government that engages in such blind stupidity.
Frankly, I'm astonished that it has taken so long for taxpayers to show signs of outrage and
revolt.
I think you have come up with a good insight – I very much agree its about power and not money.
Now, maybe it is just a coincidence, but it is hard for me not to notice that the explosion
in consumer credit matches up nicely with the rise in inequality.
And one other thing I would point out – it doesn't take usurious interest rates. If squillionaires
have access to unlimited, essentially cost free money in which the distributors of money are guaranteed
a profit, NO MATTER HOW MUCH THEY HAVE LOST, while the debts on non-squillionaires are collected
with fees, penalties, and to the last dime, than it doesn't matter if interest rates are essentially
zero.
Who gets bailed out is not due to logic or accounting that says that the banks' losses have
to be made whole, but not home owners – that is an ideology called economics .
I wouldn't downplay how cool the money part is, however. It's no fun making questionable, dodgy
loans unless you can charge fees up front and then sell the risk off to a large crowd of suckers.
Hence the importance of securitization and other "insurance" type derivatives. Then, if you run
out of willing suckers, you need a place to stuff it all, say pension plans and maybe even privatized
social security.
But if they allow this to happen in the real world, shouldn't the models have a piece reflecting
this behavior as well? Full circle of course, where the "consumer balance sheet" contains his
bad debt investment and savings assets* offsetting his liabilities. Then everyone would be more
like a bank?
* we still need to model bubble assets – like real estate and stocks. This sounds like it's
starting to get tricky!
"Another important finding is that a rise in interest rates has different effects on aggregate
consumer spending depending on the nature of household balance sheets".
This is a point that Warren Mosler and other MMTers have been making since the 1990s: depending
on circumstances, lower interest rates may well have contractionary effects and higher interest
rates may stimulate the economy.
The tool of choice to fight recessions and control inflation should thus be fiscal instead
of monetary policy.
Again, MMT had the analysis right long before mainstream theory started to admit there might
be serious problems with its favorite approaches (without ever giving appropriate credit to MMT,
of course!).
I think the Samarians knew that 5000 years ago. The Templars certainly knew it 1300 years ago.
And most definitely, "modern" European banking knew it 300 years ago.
of note to me is just how simplistic Keynesian statistics were/are, based on almost fantasy-assumptions.
And that was followed by Stiglitz et al's theory of asymmetric information models. And this above
does give us a dose of all the different variables involved in accurately analyzing an economy
– an economy that exploded with financialization, but nobody could keep up. As was proven in 2008.
It shouldn't be this confusing. "Repairing CB policies to make them more relevant is now an urgent
task." I think it is urgent enough to nationalize the banks and start over using a sovereign money
model.
Let's take an infinitely complex system (the economy) that is widely affected by human emotion,
then we'll leave out the mechanism by which money itself is created and distributed and then let's
"model" it.
We'll have two fans of Stalin's communist "command and control" economy (Keynes and Harry Dexter
White) pretend they could create a stable system based on Ph.Ds divining future economic and trade
flows and then "managing" them by price fixing the price of money. We'll set policy based on the
national conditions of the country with the global reserve currency despite the fact that 2/3
of that currency is outside that country. And with a system where trade never settles so massive
imbalances can persist indefinitely. Then let's put self-interested private institutions in charge
of all money creation and distribution .and we'll be sure their system operates in secret and
is never audited. When the system blows up we'll have these central overlords step in as uneconomic
buyers of assets with no consideration for asset quality or price, with no economic need to ever
sell, and with "unlimited" funds with which to buy more such assets. At the end we'll continue
to call the system "capitalism" and we'll continue to call the scrip "money" and hope nobody notices.
The money supply is flat in the recession of the early 1990s.
Then it really starts to take off as the dot.com boom gets going which rapidly morphs into
the US housing boom, courtesy of Alan Greenspan's loose monetary policy.
When M3 gets closer to the vertical, the black swan is coming and you have a credit bubble
on your hands (money = debt).
The mainstream are all trained in neoclassical economics which is spectacularly dismal.
Steve Keen sits outside the mainstream and saw the credit bubble forming in 2005, you can see
it in the
US money supply (money = debt).
In 2007, Ben Bernanke could see no problems ahead (dismal).
Irving Fisher looked at the debt inflated asset bubble after the 1929 crash when ideas that
markets reached stable equilibriums were beyond a joke.
Fisher developed a theory of economic crises called debt-deflation, which attributed the crises
to the bursting of a credit bubble.
Hyman Minsky came up with "financial instability hypothesis" in 1974 and Steve Keen carries
on with this work today. The theory is there outside the mainstream.
To understand the theory you have to understand money:
" .. debt does not make society as a whole poorer: one person's debt is another person's
asset. So total wealth is unaffected by the amount of debt out there. This is, strictly speaking
true only for the world economy as a whole .. " Paul Krugman "End this Depression Now".
This is the neoclassical economic view of money and it's totally wrong and will always leave
you blind to events like 2008, e.g.
1929 – US (margin lending into US stocks)
1989 – Japan (real estate)
2008 – US (real estate bubble leveraged up with derivatives for global contagion)
2010 – Ireland (real estate)
2012 – Spain (real estate)
2015 – China (margin lending into Chinese stocks)
Norway, Sweden, Canada and Australia have been letting their real estate bubbles inflate because
their mainstream economists and Central Bankers don't know what's coming.
Money and debt are opposite sides of the same coin.
If there is no debt there is no money.
Money is created by loans and destroyed by repayments of those loans.
Advanced:
"Where does money come from" available from Amazon
You need to understand how money works to understand why austerity doesn't work in balance
sheet recessions, the cause of the dire prediction from the IMF that I started with.
You can look at the money supply/debt levels (the same thing) to see how well the economy is
doing.
The money supply is contracting – the economy will be doing badly and the risk of this turning
into debt deflation is high, there is positive feedback tending to make the situation worse. Debt
repayments are larger than the new debt being taken out, the overall level of debt is decreasing.
The money supply is stable – this is stagnation, in the ideal world the money supply should
be growing at a steady pace.
The money supply is growing steadily – the ideal.
The money supply is growing very rapidly – you've got a credit bubble on your hands and the
"black swan" is near. The FED didn't understand money and debt before 2008 so they missed it.
Mario is still doing austerity now, no wonder those Italian banks are full of NPLs.
It's too late for Norway, Sweden, Canada and Australia's mainstream economists and Central
Bankers, but we need to get this dismal neoclassical economics updated before the whole world
descends into debt deflation.
It's almost here, there isn't much time.
Chuck another trillion in to keep this sinking ship afloat Central Bankers, we need to get
our technocrat elite up to speed.
Just look at the rate of change of the money supply/debt.
When it's rising rapidly you're in trouble as a credit bubble is forming.
A negative gradient is also a bad sign as it means your money supply is contracting, your economy
is in trouble and debt deflation could be on its way.
I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that a model with 'Equilibrium' right in the name fails to
predict crises. They could probably do better just aggregating results from a big multi-player
version of The Sims.
Better models should start from scratch, assuming non-linearity. They could take the Limits-to-Growth
system of nonlinear pde's as a starting point, for example, to get a good handle on long range
dynamics. Then add detailed submodels for money and debt, for different countries, for trade,
for different economic sectors, etc. Use realistic agent based models where standard models are
inadequate.
To do all, start by sending all those economics Ph.D.s back to school in other fields where
they know how to do modern applied mathematics.
The biggest political surprise of
2016 was that everyone was so surprised. I certainly had no excuse to be caught
unawares: soon after the 2008 crisis, I wrote a book suggesting that a collapse of
confidence in political institutions would follow the economic collapse, with a lag of
five years or so.
We've seen this sequence before. The
first breakdown of globalization, described by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in their
1848
The Communist Manifesto,
was followed by reform laws creating unprecedented
rights for the working class. The breakdown of British imperialism after World War I was
followed by the New Deal and the welfare state. And the breakdown of Keynesian economics
after 1968 was followed by the Thatcher-Reagan revolution. In my book
Capitalism 4.0
, I argued that comparable political upheavals would follow the
fourth systemic breakdown of global capitalism heralded by the 2008 crisis.
When a particular model of capitalism
is working successfully, material progress relieves political pressures. But when the
economy fails – and the failure is not just a transient phase but a symptom of deep
contradictions – capitalism's disruptive social side effects can turn politically toxic.
That is what happened after 2008.
Once the failure of free trade, deregulation, and monetarism came to be seen as leading
to a "new normal" of permanent austerity and diminished expectations, rather than just
to a temporary banking crisis, the inequalities, job losses, and cultural dislocations
of the pre-crisis period could no longer be legitimized – just as the extortionate taxes
of the 1950s and 1960s lost their legitimacy in the stagflation of the 1970s.
If we are witnessing this kind of
transformation, then piecemeal reformers who try to address specific grievances about
immigration, trade, or income inequality will lose out to radical politicians who
challenge the entire system. And, in some ways, the radicals will be right.
The disappearance of "good"
manufacturing jobs cannot be blamed on immigration, trade, or technology. But whereas
these vectors of economic competition increase total national income, they do not
necessarily distribute income gains in a socially acceptable way. To do that requires
deliberate political intervention on at least two fronts.
First, macroeconomic management must
ensure that demand always grows as strongly as the supply potential created by
technology and globalization. This is the fundamental Keynesian insight that was
temporarily rejected in the heyday of monetarism during the early 1980s, successfully
reinstated in the 1990s (at least in the US and Britain), but then forgotten again in
the deficit panic after 2009.
A return to Keynesian demand
management could be the main economic benefit of Donald Trump's incoming US
administration, as expansionary fiscal policies replace much less efficient efforts at
monetary stimulus. The US may now be ready to abandon the monetarist dogmas of
central-bank independence and inflation targeting, and to restore full employment as the
top priority of demand management. For Europe, however, this revolution in macroeconomic
thinking is still years away.
At the same time, a second, more
momentous, intellectual revolution will be needed regarding government intervention in
social outcomes and economic structures. Market fundamentalism conceals a profound
contradiction. Free trade, technological progress, and other forces that promote
economic "efficiency" are presented as beneficial to society, even if they harm
individual workers or businesses, because growing national incomes allow winners to
compensate losers, ensuring that nobody is left worse off.
This principle of so-called Pareto
optimality underlies all moral claims for free-market economics. Liberalizing policies
are justified in theory only by the assumption that political decisions will
redistribute some of the gains from winners to losers in socially acceptable ways. But
what happens if politicians do the opposite in practice?
By deregulating finance and trade,
intensifying competition, and weakening unions, governments created the theoretical
conditions that demanded redistribution from winners to losers. But advocates of market
fundamentalism did not just forget redistribution; they forbade it.
The pretext was that taxes, welfare
payments, and other government interventions impair incentives and distort competition,
reducing economic growth for society as a whole. But, as Margaret Thatcher famously
said, "[ ] there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and
there are families." By focusing on the social benefits of competition while ignoring
the costs to specific people, the market fundamentalists disregarded the principle of
individualism at the heart of their own ideology.
After this year's political
upheavals, the fatal contradiction between social benefits and individual losses can no
longer be ignored. If trade, competition, and technological progress are to power the
next phase of capitalism, they will have to be paired with government interventions to
redistribute the gains from growth in ways that Thatcher and Reagan declared taboo.
Breaking these taboos need not mean
returning to the high tax rates, inflation, and dependency culture of the 1970s. Just as
fiscal and monetary policy can be calibrated to minimize both unemployment and
inflatio n, redistribution can be designed not merely to recycle taxes into welfare, but
to help more directly when workers and communities suffer from globalization and
technological change.
Instead of providing cash handouts
that push people from work into long-term unemployment or retirement, governments can
redistribute the benefits of growth by supporting employment and incomes with regional
and industrial subsidies and minimum-wage laws. Among the most effective interventions
of this type, demonstrated in Germany and Scandinavia, is to spend money on high-quality
vocational education and re-training for workers and students outside universities,
creating non-academic routes to a middle-class standard of living.
These may all sound like obvious
nostrums, but governments have mostly done the opposite. They have made tax systems less
progressive and slashed spending on education, industrial policies and regional
subsidies, pouring money instead into health care, pensions, and cash hand-outs that
encourage early retirement and disability. The redistribution has been away from
low-paid young workers, whose jobs and wages are genuinely threatened by trade and
immigration, and toward the managerial and financial elites, who have gained the most
from globalization, and elderly retirees, whose guaranteed pensions protect them from
economic disruptions.
Yet this year's political upheavals
have been driven by elderly voters, while young voters mostly supported the
status
quo
. This paradox shows the post-crisis confusion and disillusionment is not yet
over. But the search for new economic models that I called "Capitalism 4.1" has clearly
started – for better or worse
Anatole Kaletsky is Chief Economist and Co-Chairman of Gavekal Dragonomics. A former columnist at
the Times of London, the International New York Times and the Financial Times, he is the author of
Capitalism 4.0, The Birth of a New Economy, which anticipated many of the post-crisis
transformations
"He stated, the culture in Silicon Valley is about social liberalism and environmentalism,
yet, the tech firms are full of the most ruthless free market capitalists he's ever seen."
Ha, Silicon Valley is full of the most anti-free market capitalists anywhere. They spend all
their time trying to figure out ways to eliminate competition through mergers and buyouts and
market domination.
The spend all their time suing each other to maintain their government enforced
anti-competitive patent monopolies. Silicon Valley hates free market competition. They spend inordinate
amounts of time and money to reduce free market competition.
"... Another thing: it will be clear how serious they take the allegations of Russian hacking, by how they address the problem of auditing electronic voting machines. ..."
"... If the 2018 elections aren't all with voter verified paper ballots, accompanied by random auditing and auditing all close elections, we know the accusations of Russian hacking were blatant lies. ..."
Another thing: it will be clear how serious they take the allegations of Russian hacking,
by how they address the problem of auditing electronic voting machines.
If the 2018 elections aren't all with voter verified paper ballots, accompanied by random auditing
and auditing all close elections, we know the accusations of Russian hacking were blatant lies.
"... Democratic party under Bill Clinton became yet another neoliberal party (soft neoliberals) and betrayed both organized labour and middle class in favour of financial oligarchy. ..."
"... The cynical calculation was that "they have nowhere to go" and will vote for Democrats anyway. And that was true up to and including election of "change we can believe in" guy. After this attempt of yet another Clinton-style "bait and switch" trick failed. ..."
"... Now it is clear that far right picked up large part of those votes. So in a way Bill Clinton is the godfather of the US far right renaissances. The same is true for Hillary: her "kick the can down the road" stance made victory of Trump possible (although it surprised me; I expected that neoliberals were still strong enough to push their candidate down the US people throat) ..."
"... Under "democrat" Obama the USA pursued imperial policy of creating global neoliberal empire. The foreign policy remained essentially unchanged. Neocons were partially replaced with "liberal interventionists" which is the same staff in a different bottle. This policy costs the US tremendous amount of money and it is probable that the US is going the way British empire went -- overextending itself. ..."
"... Regional currency blocks are now a reality and arrangements bypass the usage of US dollar if international trade are common. They are now in place between several large countries such as Russia and China and absolutely nothing can reverse this trend. So dollar became virtualized -- a kind of "conversion gauge" but without profits for real conversion national currency to dollars for major TBTF banks. ..."
This Washington Post article on Poland - where a right-wing, anti-intellectual, nativist party
now rules, and has garnered a lot of public support - is chilling for those of us who worry that
Trump_vs_deep_state may really be the end of the road for US democracy. The supporters of Law and Justice
clearly looked a lot like Trump's white working class enthusiasts; so are we headed down the same
path?
(In Poland, a window on what happens when
populists come to power http://wpo.st/aHJO2
Washington Post - Anthony Faiola - December 18)
Well, there's an important difference - a bit of American exceptionalism, if you like. Europe's
populist parties are actually populist; they pursue policies that really do help workers, as long
as those workers are the right color and ethnicity. As someone put it, they're selling a herrenvolk
welfare state. Law and Justice has raised minimum wages and reduced the retirement age; France's
National Front advocates the same things.
Trump, however, is different. He said lots of things on the campaign trail, but his personnel
choices indicate that in practice he's going to be a standard hard-line economic-right Republican.
His Congressional allies are revving up to dismantle Obamacare, privatize Medicare, and raise
the retirement age. His pick for Labor Secretary is a fast-food tycoon
who loathes minimum wage hikes. And his pick for top economic advisor is the king of trickle-down.
So in what sense is Trump a populist? Basically, he plays one on TV - he claims to stand for
the common man, disparages elites, trashes political correctness; but it's all for show. When
it comes to substance, he's pro-elite all the way.
It's infuriating and dismaying that he managed to get away with this in the election. But that
was all big talk. What happens when reality begins to hit? Repealing Obamacare will inflict huge
harm on precisely the people who were most enthusiastic Trump supporters - people who somehow
believed that their benefits would be left intact. What happens when they realize their mistake?
I wish I were confident in a coming moment of truth. I'm not. Given history, what we can count
on is a massive effort to spin the coming working-class devastation as somehow being the fault
of liberals, and for all I know it might work. (Think of how Britain's Tories managed to shift
blame for austerity onto Labour's mythical fiscal irresponsibility.) But there is certainly an
opportunity for Democrats coming.
And the indicated political strategy is clear: make Trump and company own all the hardship
they're about to inflict. No cooperation in devising an Obamacare replacement; no votes for Medicare
privatization and increasing the retirement age. No bipartisan cover for the end of the TV illusion
and the coming of plain old, ugly reality.
Democratic party under Bill Clinton became yet another neoliberal party (soft neoliberals)
and betrayed both organized labour and middle class in favour of financial oligarchy.
The cynical calculation was that "they have nowhere to go" and will vote for Democrats
anyway. And that was true up to and including election of "change we can believe in" guy. After
this attempt of yet another Clinton-style "bait and switch" trick failed.
Now it is clear that far right picked up large part of those votes. So in a way Bill Clinton
is the godfather of the US far right renaissances. The same is true for Hillary: her "kick the
can down the road" stance made victory of Trump possible (although it surprised me; I expected
that neoliberals were still strong enough to push their candidate down the US people throat)
Point 2:
Under "democrat" Obama the USA pursued imperial policy of creating global neoliberal empire.
The foreign policy remained essentially unchanged. Neocons were partially replaced with "liberal
interventionists" which is the same staff in a different bottle. This policy costs the US tremendous
amount of money and it is probable that the US is going the way British empire went -- overextending
itself.
Regional currency blocks are now a reality and arrangements bypass the usage of US dollar
if international trade are common. They are now in place between several large countries such
as Russia and China and absolutely nothing can reverse this trend. So dollar became virtualized
-- a kind of "conversion gauge" but without profits for real conversion national currency to dollars
for major TBTF banks.
So if we think about Iraq war as the way to prevent to use euro as alternative to dollar in
oil sales that goal was not achieved and all blood and treasure were wasted.
In this sense it would be difficult to Trump to continue with "bastard neoliberalism" both
in foreign policy and domestically and betray his election promises because they reflected real
problems facing the USA and are the cornerstone of his political support.
Also in this case neocons establishment will simply get rid of him one way or the other. I
hope that he understand this danger and will avoid trimming Social Security.
Returning to Democratic Party betrayal of interests of labour, Krugman hissy fit signifies
that he does not understand the current political situation. Neoliberal wing of Democratic Party
is now bankrupt both morally and politically. Trump election was the last nail into Bill Clinton
political legacy coffin.
Now we returned to essentially the same political process that took place after the Great Depression,
with much weaker political leaders, this time. So this is the time for stronger, more interventionist
in internal policy state and the suppression of financial oligarchy. If Trump does not understand
this he is probably doomed and will not last long.
That's why I think Trump inspired far right renaissance will continue and the political role
of military might dramatically increase. And politically Trump is the hostage of this renaissance.
Flint appointment in this sense is just the first swallow of increased role of military leaders
in government.
"... If we go back to Bill Clinton, his "Putting People First" manifesto in '92 was quite left-of-center, but he didn't govern that way. If you look at things like NAFTA, Welfare reform, and cutting capital gains taxes - well, in many ways, Ronald Reagan would have been proud of him. ..."
"... Part of my view is that in the 1930s, we rejected the individuality of the '20s and before. After the crash and the Depression, we finally put the corporate class and bankers to the sidelines. Whether it was Keynesianism or the New Deal in the West, or state fascism or the advent of Stalinism, you saw more government control over the economy. This was good for workers and large governments. It was more nationalistic and led, obviously, to the next conflict. But the rise of government planning and government involvement was good for nominal GDPs. It was not good for the asset-holding classes - stocks and bonds did terribly over that period, right? You wanted to be a worker, you wanted to be labor, not capital. ..."
"... The period from the late 1970s to 1980 changed all that. You had Thatcher and the U.K. and Reagan in the U.S. Mao died in 1976, the Solidarity movement in Poland began in 1978, and the Soviet Union peaked in power in 1979. You saw that the pendulum had gone too far and now we're going to cut taxes on capital, we're going to be more globalistic, and trade was going to improve. Since then, capital has risen and assets have done better than labor. Taxes have been light on financial assets and heavy on labor. Everything was reversed on its head. ..."
"... If we look at the events of 2016 - Brexit, the Italian referendum, Trump, and the rise of nationalist China - are these the harbingers of something bigger? Or are they just a coincidence? The ground seems to be fertile for things to change globally. If so, does this give rise to a more nationalistic, protectionist, statist scenario? Are labor prices going to go up again? Are we going to tax capital and emphasize wages? ..."
You and I have
talked about how it has become a cost calculus for lots of corporations and financial
institutions to cheat. "If I get caught," they say, "I'm just going to pay a fine." How does this
change with new faces in Washington? You still have this very pro-corporate group on Capitol
Hill whose main bailiwick, in my opinion, is to protect the corporate class and the very wealthy.
You've got what ostensibly is a proto-populist in the White House with a cabinet that is a mélange
of different types, so who knows?
In my overall view, stuff happens to change people. If we go back to Bill Clinton, his "Putting
People First" manifesto in '92 was quite left-of-center, but he didn't govern that way. If you
look at things like NAFTA, Welfare reform, and cutting capital gains taxes - well, in many
ways, Ronald Reagan would have been proud of him.
Events conspire to derail our perceptions of presidents. When we look at their platforms, we
think we know where things are headed. But in modern times, the only two presidents that I can
think of who really got their ideas and platforms enacted wholesale were FDR and Reagan. Everybody
else has gotten compromised, or has had events overwhelm them.
... ... ...
JC:
Part of my view is that in the 1930s, we rejected the individuality of the '20s and before.
After the crash and the Depression, we finally put the corporate class and bankers to the sidelines.
Whether it was Keynesianism or the New Deal in the West, or state fascism or the advent of Stalinism,
you saw more government control over the economy. This was good for workers and large governments.
It was more nationalistic and led, obviously, to the next conflict. But the rise of government
planning and government involvement was good for nominal GDPs. It was not good for the asset-holding
classes - stocks and bonds did terribly over that period, right? You wanted to be a worker, you
wanted to be labor, not capital.
The period from the late 1970s to 1980 changed all that. You had Thatcher and the U.K. and Reagan
in the U.S. Mao died in 1976, the Solidarity movement in Poland began in 1978, and the Soviet
Union peaked in power in 1979. You saw that the pendulum had gone too far and now we're going
to cut taxes on capital, we're going to be more globalistic, and trade was going to improve. Since
then, capital has risen and assets have done better than labor. Taxes have been light on financial
assets and heavy on labor. Everything was reversed on its head.
If we look at the events of 2016 - Brexit, the Italian referendum, Trump, and the rise of nationalist
China - are these the harbingers of something bigger? Or are they just a coincidence? The ground
seems to be fertile for things to change globally. If so, does this give rise to a more nationalistic,
protectionist, statist scenario? Are labor prices going to go up again? Are we going to tax capital
and emphasize wages?
"... The fact remains, however, that every single developed country got there by using protectionist policies to nurture the develop local industries. Protectionism in developed countries does have strongly negative consequences, but it is beneficial for developing economies. ..."
"... You are exactly right about Japan and I lived through that period. Please name one advanced economy which did not rely on protectionist laws to support domestic industries. All of the European industrial countries did it. The US did it. Japan and Korea did it. China is currently doing it and India has done it. ..."
"... Nobody cared about US labor or about hollowing out the US economy. Krugman frequently noted that the benefits to investors and 'strategic' considerations for free trade were more important that job losses. ..."
"... This extra demand for dollars as a commodity is what drives the price of the dollar higher, leading to the strategic benefits and economic hollowing out that I noted above. ..."
"... There really is no "post-industrialization era", no matter what fantasies the FIRE sector wants to sell. To the extent there is, the existing global trade agreements (including the WTO, World Bank, IMF, and related organization) accomplish that as well by privileging the position of first world capital. ..."
"... "Over the long haul, clearly automation's been much more important - it's not even close," said Lawrence Katz, an economics professor at Harvard who studies labor and technological change. No candidate talked much about automation on the campaign trail. Technology is not as convenient a villain as China or Mexico, there is no clear way to stop it, and many of the technology companies are in the United States and benefit the country in many ways. ..."
"... Globalization is clearly responsible for some of the job losses, particularly trade with China during the 2000s, which led to the rapid loss of 2 million to 2.4 million net jobs, according to research by economists including Daron Acemoglu and David Autor of M.I.T. ..."
"... People who work in parts of the country most affected by imports generally have greater unemployment and reduced income for the rest of their lives, Mr. Autor found in a paper published in January. Still, over time, automation has had a far bigger effect than globalization, and would have eventually eliminated those jobs anyway, he said in an interview. "Some of it is globalization, but a lot of it is we require many fewer workers to do the same amount of work," he said. "Workers are basically supervisors of machines." ..."
"... Clarification of 3: that is, infant industry protection as traditionally done, i.e. "picking winners", won't help. What would help is structural changes that make things relatively easier for small enterprises and relatively harder for large ones. ..."
"... Making direct lobbying of state and federal politicians by industry groups and companies a crime punishable by 110% taxation of net income on all the participants would be a start. ..."
"... "Over time, automation has generally had a happy ending: As it has displaced jobs, it has created new ones. But some experts are beginning to worry that this time could be different. Even as the economy has improved, jobs and wages for a large segment of workers - particularly men without college degrees doing manual labor - have not recovered." ..."
"... So why have manufacturing jobs plummeted since 2000? One answer is that the current account deficit is the wrong figure, since it also includes our surplus in trade in services. If you just look at goods, the deficit is closer to 4.2% of GDP. ..."
"... trade interacts with automation. Not only do we lose jobs in manufacturing to automation, but trade leads us to re-orient our production toward goods that use relatively less labor (tech, aircraft, chemicals, farm produces, etc.), while we import goods like clothing, furniture and autos. ..."
"... There are industries that are closely connected with the sovereignty of the country. That's what neoliberals tend to ignore as they, being closet Trotskyites ("Financial oligarchy of all countries unite!" instead of "Proletarian of all countries unite!" ;-) do not value sovereignty and are hell bent on the Permanent Neoliberal Revolution to bring other countries into neoliberal fold (in the form of color revolutions, or for smaller countries, direct invasions like in Iraq and Libya ). ..."
"... Neoliberal commenters here demonstrate complete detachment from the fact that like war is an extension of politics, while politics is an extension of economics. For example, denying imports can and is often used for political pressure. ..."
"... Now Trump want to play this game selectively designating China as "evil empire" and providing a carrot for Russia. Will it works, or Russia can be wiser then donkeys, I do not know. ..."
"... The US propagandists usually call counties on which they impose sanction authoritarian dictatorships to make such actions more politically correct, but the fact remains: The USA as a global hegemon enjoys using economic pressure to crush dissidents and put vassals in line. ..."
"... Neoliberalism as a social system is past it pinnacle and that creates some problems for the USA as the central player in the neoliberal world. The triumphal march of neoliberalism over the globe ended almost a decade ago. ..."
The Case for Protecting Infant Industries : I must say, it's been almost breathtaking to see
how fast the acceptable terms of debate have shifted on the subject of trade. Thanks partly to
President-elect Donald Trump's populism and partly to academic
research
showing that the costs of free trade could be higher than anyone predicted, economics commentators
are now happy to lambast
the entire idea of trade. I don't want to do that -- I think a nuanced middle ground is best.
But I do think it's worth reevaluating one idea that the era of economic dogmatism had seemingly
consigned to the junk pile -- the notion of infant-industry protectionism. ...
DrDick -> pgl...
The fact remains, however, that every single developed country got there by using protectionist
policies to nurture the develop local industries. Protectionism in developed countries does have
strongly negative consequences, but it is beneficial for developing economies.
You are exactly right about Japan and I lived through that period. Please name one advanced
economy which did not rely on protectionist laws to support domestic industries. All of the European
industrial countries did it. The US did it. Japan and Korea did it. China is currently doing it
and India has done it.
JohnH -> pgl... , -1
Japan and other developed countries took advantage of the strong dollar/reserve currency, which
provided their industries de facto protection from US exports along with a price umbrella that
allowed them export by undercutting prices on US domestic products. The strong dollar was viewed
as a strategic benefit to the US, since it allowed former rivals to develop their economies while
making them dependent on the US consumer market, the largest in the world. The strong dollar also
allowed the US to establish bases and fight foreign wars on the cheap, while allowing Wall Street
to buy foreign economies' crown jewels on the cheap.
Nobody cared about US labor or about hollowing out the US economy. Krugman frequently noted
that the benefits to investors and 'strategic' considerations for free trade were more important
that job losses.
Even pgl's guy, Milton Friedman, recognized that "overseas demand for dollars allows the United
States to maintain persistent trade deficits without causing the value of the currency to depreciate
or the flow of trade to re-adjust." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_use_of_the_U.S._dollar
This extra demand for dollars as a commodity is what drives the price of the dollar higher,
leading to the strategic benefits and economic hollowing out that I noted above.
John San Vant -> JohnH... , -1
That is because you get a persistent trade surplus in services, which offsets the "Goods" trade
deficit. The currency depreciated in the 2000's because said surplus in services began to decline
creating a real trade deficit.
There really is no "post-industrialization era", no matter what fantasies the FIRE sector
wants to sell. To the extent there is, the existing global trade agreements (including the WTO,
World Bank, IMF, and related organization) accomplish that as well by privileging the position
of first world capital.
anne -> DrDick... , -1
There really is no "post-industrialization era", no matter what fantasies the Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate sectors want to sell....
[ Interesting assertion. Do develop this further. ]
The Long-Term Jobs Killer Is Not China. It's Automation.
By Claire Cain Miller
The first job that Sherry Johnson, 56, lost to automation was at the local newspaper in Marietta,
Ga., where she fed paper into the printing machines and laid out pages. Later, she watched machines
learn to do her jobs on a factory floor making breathing machines, and in inventory and filing.
"It actually kind of ticked me off because it's like, How are we supposed to make a living?"
she said. She took a computer class at Goodwill, but it was too little too late. "The 20- and
30-year-olds are more up to date on that stuff than we are because we didn't have that when we
were growing up," said Ms. Johnson, who is now on disability and lives in a housing project in
Jefferson City, Tenn.
Donald J. Trump told workers like Ms. Johnson that he would bring back their jobs by clamping
down on trade, offshoring and immigration. But economists say the bigger threat to their jobs
has been something else: automation.
"Over the long haul, clearly automation's been much more important - it's not even close,"
said Lawrence Katz, an economics professor at Harvard who studies labor and technological change.
No candidate talked much about automation on the campaign trail. Technology is not as convenient
a villain as China or Mexico, there is no clear way to stop it, and many of the technology companies
are in the United States and benefit the country in many ways.
Mr. Trump told a group of tech company leaders last Wednesday: "We want you to keep going with
the incredible innovation. Anything we can do to help this go along, we're going to be there for
you."
Andrew F. Puzder, Mr. Trump's pick for labor secretary and chief executive of CKE Restaurants,
extolled the virtues of robot employees over the human kind in an interview with Business Insider
in March. "They're always polite, they always upsell, they never take a vacation, they never show
up late, there's never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex or race discrimination case," he said.
Globalization is clearly responsible for some of the job losses, particularly trade with
China during the 2000s, which led to the rapid loss of 2 million to 2.4 million net jobs, according
to research by economists including Daron Acemoglu and David Autor of M.I.T.
People who work in parts of the country most affected by imports generally have greater
unemployment and reduced income for the rest of their lives, Mr. Autor found in a paper published
in January. Still, over time, automation has had a far bigger effect than globalization, and would
have eventually eliminated those jobs anyway, he said in an interview. "Some of it is globalization,
but a lot of it is we require many fewer workers to do the same amount of work," he said. "Workers
are basically supervisors of machines."
When Greg Hayes, the chief executive of United Technologies, agreed to invest $16 million in
one of its Carrier factories as part of a Trump deal to keep some jobs in Indiana instead of moving
them to Mexico, he said the money would go toward automation.
"What that ultimately means is there will be fewer jobs," he said on CNBC....
Clarification of 3: that is, infant industry protection as traditionally done, i.e. "picking winners",
won't help. What would help is structural changes that make things relatively easier for small
enterprises and relatively harder for large ones.
Making direct lobbying of state and federal politicians by industry groups and companies a
crime punishable by 110% taxation of net income on all the participants would be a start.
What's Different About Stagnating Wages for Workers Without College Degrees
There seems to be a great effort to convince people that the displacement due to the trade
deficit over the last fifteen years didn't really happen. The New York Times contributed to this
effort with a piece * telling readers that over the long-run job loss has been primarily due to
automation not trade.
While the impact of automation over a long enough period of time certainly swamps the impact
of trade, over the last 20 years there is little doubt that the impact of the exploding trade
deficit has had more of an impact on employment. To make this one as simple as possible, we currently
have a trade deficit of roughly $460 billion (@ 2.6 percent of GDP). Suppose we had balanced trade
instead, making up this gap with increased manufacturing output.
Does the NYT want to tell us that we could increase our output of manufactured goods by $460
billion, or just under 30 percent, without employing more workers in manufacturing? That would
be pretty impressive. We currently employ more than 12 million workers in manufacturing, if moving
to balanced trade increase employment by just 15 percent we would be talking about 1.8 million
jobs. That is not trivial.
But this is not the only part of the story that is strange. We are getting hyped up fears over
automation even at a time when productivity growth (i.e. automation) has slowed to a crawl, averaging
just 1.0 percent annually over the last decade. The NYT tells readers:
"Over time, automation has generally had a happy ending: As it has displaced jobs, it has
created new ones. But some experts are beginning to worry that this time could be different. Even
as the economy has improved, jobs and wages for a large segment of workers - particularly men
without college degrees doing manual labor - have not recovered."
Hmmm, this time could be different? How so? The average hourly wage of men with just a high
school degree was 13 percent less in 2000 than in 1973. ** For workers with some college it was
down by more than 2.0 percent. In fact, stagnating wages for men without college degrees is not
something new and different, it has been going on for more than forty years. Hasn't this news
gotten to the NYT yet?
Inequality, technology, globalization, and the false assumptions that sustain current inequities
by Jared Bernstein
December 22nd, 2016 at 3:24 pm
Here's a great interview* with inequality scholar Branko Milanovic wherein he brings a much-needed
historical and international perspective to the debate (h/t: C. Marr). Many of Branko's points
are familiar to my readers: yes, increased trade has upsides, for both advanced and emerging economies.
But it's not hard to find significant swaths hurt by globalization, particularly workers in rich
economies who've been placed into competition with those in poorer countries. The fact that little
has been done to help them is one reason for president-elect Trump.
As Milanovic puts it:
"The problems with globalization arise from the fact that gains from it are not (and can never
be) evenly distributed. There would be always those who gain less than some others, or those who
lose even in absolute terms. But to whom can they "appeal" for redress? Only to their national
governments because this is how the world is politically organized. Thus national governments
have to engage in "mop up" operations to fix the negative effects of globalization. And this they
have not done well, led as they were by the belief that the trickle-down economics will take care
of it. We know it did not."
But I'd like to focus on a related point from Branko's interview, one that gets less attention:
the question of whether it was really exposure to global trade or to labor-saving technology that
is most responsible for displacing workers. What's the real problem here: is it the trade deficit
or the robots?
Branko cogently argues that "both technological change and economic polices responded to globalization.
The nature of recent technological progress would have been different if you could not employ
labor 10,000 miles away from your home base." Their interaction makes their relative contributions
hard to pull apart.
I'd argue that the rise of trade with China, from the 1990s to the 2007 crash, played a significant
role in moving US manufacturing employment from its steady average of around 17 million factory
jobs from around 1970 to 2000, to an average today that's about 5 million less (see figure below;
of course, manufacturing employment was falling as a share of total jobs over this entire period).
Over at Econlog I have a post that suggests the answer is no, CA deficits do not cost jobs.
But suppose I'm wrong, and suppose they do cost jobs. In that case, trade has been a major
net contributor to American jobs during the 21st century, as our deficit was about 4% of GDP during
the 2000 tech boom, and as large as 6% of GDP during the 2006 housing boom. Today it is only 2.6%
of GDP. So if you really believe that rising trade deficits cost jobs, you'd be forced to believe
that the shrinking deficits since 2000 have created jobs.
So why have manufacturing jobs plummeted since 2000? One answer is that the current account
deficit is the wrong figure, since it also includes our surplus in trade in services. If you just
look at goods, the deficit is closer to 4.2% of GDP.
But even that doesn't really explain very much, because it's slightly lower than the 4.35%
of GDP trade deficit in goods back in 2000. So again, the big loss of manufacturing jobs is something
of a mystery. Yes, we import more goods than we used to, but exports of goods have risen at about
the same rate since 2000. So why does it seem like trade has devastated our manufacturing sector?
Perhaps because trade interacts with automation. Not only do we lose jobs in manufacturing
to automation, but trade leads us to re-orient our production toward goods that use relatively
less labor (tech, aircraft, chemicals, farm produces, etc.), while we import goods like clothing,
furniture and autos.
So trade and automation are both parts of a bigger trend, Schumpeterian creative destruction,
which is transforming big areas of our economy. It's especially painful as during the earlier
period of automation (say 1950-2000) the physical output of goods was still rising fast. So the
blow of automation was partly cushioned by a rise in output. (Although not in the coal and steel
industries!) Since 2000, however, we've seen slower growth in physical output for a number of
reasons, including slower workforce growth, a shift to a service economy, and a home building
recession (which normally absorbs manufactured goods like home appliances, carpet, etc.) We are
producing more goods than ever, but with dramatically fewer workers.
Update: Steve Cicala sent me a very interesting piece on coal that he had published in Forbes.
Ironically, environmental regulations actually helped West Virginia miners, by forcing utilities
to install scrubbers that cleaned up emissions from the dirtier West Virginia coal. (Wyoming coal
has less sulfur.) He also discusses the issue of competition from natural gas.
The historical record is totally unambiguous. Protectionism always leads to wealth and industrial
development. Free trade leads you to the third world. This was true four hundred years ago with
mercantilist England and the navigation acts; it was true with Lincoln's tariffs in the 1860's,
it was true of East Asia post 1945.
Economists better abandon silly free trade if they want to have any credibility and not be
seen as quacks.
Washington (CNN)President-elect Donald Trump's transition team is discussing a proposal to
impose tariffs as high as 10% on imports, according to multiple sources.
A senior Trump transition official said Thursday the team is mulling up to a 10% tariff aimed
at spurring US manufacturing, which could be implemented via executive action or as part of a
sweeping tax reform package they would push through Congress.
Incoming White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus floated a 5% tariff on imports in meetings
with key Washington players last week, according to two sources who represent business interests
in Washington. But the senior transition official who spoke to CNN Thursday on the condition of
anonymity said the higher figure is now in play.
Such a move would deliver on Trump's "America First" campaign theme, but risks drawing the
US into a trade war with other countries and driving up the cost of consumer goods in the US.
And it's causing alarm among business interests and the pro-trade Republican establishment.
The senior transition official said the transition team is beginning to find "common ground"
with House Speaker Paul Ryan and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, pointing in particular
to the border adjustment tax measure included in House Republicans' "Better Way" tax reform proposal,
which would disincentivize imports through tax policy.
Aides to Ryan and Brady declined to say they had "common ground" with Trump, but acknowledged
they are in deep discussions with transition staffers on the issue.
Curbing free trade was a central element of Trump's campaign. He promised to rip up the North
American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada. He also vowed to take a tougher line against
other international trading partners, almost always speaking harshly of China but often including
traditional US allies such as Japan in his complaint that American workers get the short end of
the stick under current trade practices.
Gulf with GOP establishment
It is an area where there is a huge gulf between Trump's stated positions and traditional GOP
orthodoxy. Business groups and GOP establishment figures -- including Ryan and Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell -- have been hoping the transition from the campaign to governing would
bring a different approach.
Ryan did signal in a CNBC interview earlier this month that Trump's goals of spurring US manufacturing
could be accomplished through "comprehensive tax reform."
"I'll tell him what I've been saying all along, which is we can get at what he's trying to
get at better through comprehensive tax reform," Ryan said.
The pro-business GOP establishment says the new Trump administration could make clear it would
withdraw from NAFTA unless Canada and Mexico entered new talks to modernize the agreement to reflect
today's economy. That would allow Trump to say he kept a promise to make the agreement fairer
to American workers without starting a trade war and exacerbating tensions with America's neighbors
and vital economic partners.
But there remain establishment jitters that Trump, who views his tough trade message as critical
to his election victory, will look for ways to make an early statement that he is serious about
reshaping the trade playing field.
And when Priebus told key Washington players that the transition is mulling a 5% tariff on
imports, the reaction was one of fierce opposition, according to two sources who represent business
interests in Washington and spoke on condition of anonymity because the conversations with the
Trump team were confidential.
Priebus, the sources said, was warned such a move could start trade wars, anger allies, and
also hurt the new administration's effort to boost the rate of economic growth right out of the
gate.
Role of Wilbur Ross
One of the sources said he viewed the idea as a trial balloon when first raised, and considered
it dead on arrival given the strong reaction in the business community -- and the known opposition
to such protectionist ideas among the GOP congressional leadership.
But this source voiced new alarm Tuesday after being told by allies within the Trump transition
that defending new tariffs was part of the confirmation "murder board" practice of Wilbur Ross,
the President-elect's choice for commerce secretary.
At least one business community organization is worried enough about the prospect of the tariff
it already has prepared talking points, obtained by CNN Wednesday night.
"This $100 billion tax on American consumers and industry would impose heavy costs on the
US economy, particularly for the manufacturing sector and American workers, with highly negative
political repercussions," according to the talking points. "Rather than using a trade policy
sledgehammer that would inflict serious collateral damage, the Trump administration should
use the scalpel of US trade remedy law to achieve its goals."
The talking points also claim the tariffs would lead to American job loss and result in a tax
to consumers, both of which would harm the US economy.
Trump aides have signaled that Ross is likely to be a more influential player in trade negotiations
than recent Commerce secretaries. Given that, the aides know his confirmation hearings are likely
to include tough questioning -- from both Democrats and Republicans -- about Trump's trade-related
campaign promises.
"The way it was cast to me was that (Trump) and Ross are all over it," said one source. "It
is serious."
The second source was less certain about whether the tariff idea was serious or just part of
a vigorous debate about policy options. But this source said the unpredictability of Trump and
his team had the business interests nervous.
The business lobbying community is confident the GOP leadership would push back on any legislative
effort to impose tariffs, which organizations like the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable,
the National Association of Manufactures and others, including groups representing farmers, believe
would lead to retaliation against US industries heavily dependent on exports.
But the sources aligned with those interests told CNN the conversation within the Trump transition
includes using executive authority allowed under existing trade laws. Different trade laws enacted
over the course of the past century allow the president to impose tariffs if he issues a determination
the United States is being subjected to unfair trade practices or faces an economic or national
security threat because of trade practices.
There are industries that are closely connected with the sovereignty of the country. That's
what neoliberals tend to ignore as they, being closet Trotskyites ("Financial oligarchy of all
countries unite!" instead of "Proletarian of all countries unite!" ;-) do not value sovereignty
and are hell bent on the Permanent Neoliberal Revolution to bring other countries into neoliberal
fold (in the form of color revolutions, or for smaller countries, direct invasions like in Iraq
and Libya ).
For example, if you depends of chips produced outside the country for your military or space
exploration, then sabotage is possible (or just pure fraud -- selling regular ships instead of
special tolerant to cosmic radiation or harsh conditions variant; actually can be done with the
support of internal neoliberal fifth column).
The same is probably true for cars and auto engines. If you do not produce domestically a variety
at least some domestic brans of cars and trucks, your military trucks and engines will be foreign
and that will cost you tremendous amount of money and you might depend for spare parts on you
future adversary. Also such goods are overprices to the heaven. KAS is a clear example of this
as they burn their money in the war with Yemen as there is no tomorrow making the US MIC really
happy.
So large countries with say over 100 million people probably need to think twice before jumping
into neoliberal globalization bandwagon and relying in imports for strategically important industries.
Neoliberal commenters here demonstrate complete detachment from the fact that like war
is an extension of politics, while politics is an extension of economics. For example, denying
imports can and is often used for political pressure.
That was one of factors that doomed the USSR. Not that the system has any chance -- it was
doomed after 1945 as did not provide for higher productivity then advanced capitalist economies.
But this just demonstrates the power of the US sanctions mechanism. Economic sanctions works
and works really well. The target country is essentially put against the ropes and if you unprepared
you can be knocked down.
For example now there are sanctions against Russia that deny them advanced oil exploration
equipment. And oil is an important source of Russia export revenue. So the effect of those narrow
prohibitions multiples by factor of ten by denying Russia export revenue.
That's how an alliance between Russia and China was forged by Obama administration. because
China does produce some of this equipment now. And Russia paid dearly for that signing huge multi-year
deals with China on favorable for China terms.
Now Trump want to play this game selectively designating China as "evil empire" and providing
a carrot for Russia. Will it works, or Russia can be wiser then donkeys, I do not know.
And look what countries are on the USA economic sanctions list: many entries are countries
that are somewhat less excited about the creation of the global neoliberal empire led by the USA.
KAS and Gulf monarchies are not on the list. So much about "spreading democracy".
The US propagandists usually call counties on which they impose sanction authoritarian
dictatorships to make such actions more politically correct, but the fact remains: The USA as
a global hegemon enjoys using economic pressure to crush dissidents and put vassals in line.
The problem with tariffs on China is an interesting reversion of the trend: manufacturing is
already in China and to reverse this process now is an expensive proposition. So alienating Chinese
theoretically means that some of USA imports might became endangered, despite huge geopolitical
weight of the USA. They denied export of rare metals to Japan in the past. They can do this for
Apple and without batteries Apple can just fold.
Also it is very easy to prohibit Apple sales in China of national security grounds (any US
manufacturer by definition needs to cooperate with NSA and other agencies). I think some countries
already prohibit the use of the USA companies produced cell phones for government officials.
So if Trump administration does something really damaging, for Chinese there are multiple ways
to skin the cat. Neoliberalism as a social system is past it pinnacle and that creates some problems
for the USA as the central player in the neoliberal world. The triumphal march of neoliberalism
over the globe ended almost a decade ago.
It's not regulation per se is deficient, it is regulation under neoliberal regime, were government
is captured by financial oligarchy ;-). But that understanding is foreign to WSJ with its neoliberal
agenda :-(.
Notable quotes:
"... Impressionable journalists finally meet George Stigler. ..."
"... The secret recordings were made by Carmen Segarra, who went to work as an examiner at the New York Fed in 2011 but was fired less than seven months later in 2012. She has filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the regulator and says Fed officials sought to bury her claim that Goldman had no firm-wide policy on conflicts-of-interest. Goldman says it has had such policies for years, though on the same day Ms. Segarra's revelations were broadcast, the firm added new restrictions on employees trading for their own accounts. ..."
"... On the recordings, regulators can be heard doing what regulators do-revealing the limits of their knowledge and demonstrating their reluctance to challenge the firms they regulate. At one point Fed officials suspect a Goldman deal with Banco Santander may have been "legal but shady" in the words of one regulator, and should have required Fed approval. But the regulators basically accept Goldman's explanations without a fight. ..."
"... The journalists have also found evidence in Ms. Segarra's recordings that even after the financial crisis and the supposed reforms of the Dodd-Frank law, the New York Fed remained a bureaucratic agency resistant to new ideas and hostile to strong-willed, independent-minded employees. In government? ..."
"... "as a rule, regulation is acquired by the industry and is designed and operated primarily for its benefit." ..."
"... Once one understands the inevitability of regulatory capture, the logical policy response is to enact simple laws that can't be gamed by the biggest firms and their captive bureaucrats. ..."
"... And it means considering economist Charles Calomiris's plan to automatically convert a portion of a bank's debt into equity if the bank's market value falls below a healthy level. ..."
Impressionable journalists finally meet George Stigler.
The financial scandal du jour involves leaked audio recordings that purport to show that
regulators at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York were soft on
Goldman Sachs . Say it ain't so.
... ... ...
The secret recordings were made by Carmen Segarra, who went to work as an examiner at the
New York Fed in 2011 but was fired less than seven months later in 2012. She has filed a wrongful
termination lawsuit against the regulator and says Fed officials sought to bury her claim that Goldman
had no firm-wide policy on conflicts-of-interest. Goldman says it has had such policies for years,
though on the same day Ms. Segarra's revelations were broadcast, the firm added new restrictions
on employees trading for their own accounts.
The New York Fed won against Ms. Segarra in district court, though the case is on appeal. The
regulator also notes that Ms. Segarra "demanded $7 million to settle her complaint." And last week
New York Fed President
William Dudley said,
"We are going to keep striving to improve, but I don't think anyone should question our motives or
what we are trying to accomplish."
On the recordings, regulators can be heard doing what regulators do-revealing the limits of
their knowledge and demonstrating their reluctance to challenge the firms they regulate. At one point
Fed officials suspect a Goldman deal with Banco Santander may have been "legal but shady" in the
words of one regulator, and should have required Fed approval. But the regulators basically accept
Goldman's explanations without a fight.
The sleuths at the ProPublica website, working with a crack team of investigators from public
radio, also seem to think they have another smoking gun in one of Ms. Segarra's conversations that
was not recorded but was confirmed by another regulator. Ms. Seest means. For example, a company
offering securities is exempt from some registration requirements if it is only selling to accredited
investors, such as people with more than $1 million in net worth, excluding the value of primary
residences.
The journalists have also found evidence in Ms. Segarra's recordings that even after the financial
crisis and the supposed reforms of the Dodd-Frank law, the New York Fed remained a bureaucratic agency
resistant to new ideas and hostile to strong-willed, independent-minded employees. In government?
***
Enter George Stigler, who published his famous essay "The Theory of Economic Regulation" in the
spring 1971 issue of the Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science. The University of Chicago
economist reported empirical data from various markets and concluded that "as a rule, regulation
is acquired by the industry and is designed and operated primarily for its benefit."
Stigler knew he was fighting an uphill battle trying to persuade his fellow academics. "The idealistic
view of public regulation is deeply imbedded in professional economic thought," he wrote. But thanks
to Stigler, who would go on to win a Nobel prize, many economists have studied the operation and
effects of regulation and found similar results.
A classic example was the New York Fed's decision to let Citigroup stash $1.2 trillion
of assets-including more than $600 billion of mortgage-related securities-in off-balance-sheet vehicles
before the financial crisis. That's when Tim Geithner ran the New York Fed and Jack Lew was at Citigroup.
Once one understands the inevitability of regulatory capture, the logical policy response
is to enact simple laws that can't be gamed by the biggest firms and their captive bureaucrats.
This means repealing most of Dodd-Frank and the so-called Basel rules and replacing them with a simple
requirement for more bank capital-an equity-to-asset ratio of perhaps 15%. It means bringing back
bankruptcy for giant firms instead of resolution at the discretion of political appointees. And
it means considering economist Charles Calomiris's plan to automatically convert a portion of a bank's
debt into equity if the bank's market value falls below a healthy level.
"... Only John F. Kennedy directly challenged it, firing CIA Director Allen Dulles after the Bay of Pigs disaster. He was assassinated, and whether or not CIA involvement is ever conclusively proven, the allegations have been useful to the agency, keeping politicians in line. The Deep State also co-opted the media, keeping it in line with a combination of fear and favor. ..."
"... Why has the US been involved in long, costly, bloody, and inconclusive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? ..."
"... Why should the US get involved in similar conflicts in Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Iran, and other Middle Eastern and Northern African hotspots? ..."
"... Isn't such involvement responsible for blowback terrorism and refugee flows in both Europe and the US? ..."
"... Have "free trade" agreements and porous borders been a net benefit or detriment to the US? Why is the banking industry set up for periodic crises that inevitably require government bail-outs? ..."
"... How has encouraging debt and speculation at the expense of savings and investment helped the US economy? ..."
"... The shenanigans in the US after Trump's election-violent protests, hysterical outbursts, the vote recount effort, the proof-free Russian hacking allegations, "fake news," and the attempt to sway electoral college electors-are the desperate screams of those trapped inside. ..."
"... Regrettably, the building analogy is imperfect, because it implies that those inside are helpless and that the collapse will only harm them. In its desperation, incompetence, and corrupt nihilism, the Deep State can wreak all sorts of havoc, up to and including the destruction of humanity. Trump represents an opportunity to strike a blow against the Deep State, but the chances it will be lethal are minimal and the dangers obvious. ..."
The pathetic attempts to undo Donald Trump's victory are signs of desperation, not strength, in
the Deep State.
The post World War II consensus held that the USSR's long-term goal was world domination. That
assessment solidified after the Soviets detonated an atomic bomb in 1949. A nuclear arms race, a
space race, maintenance of a globe-spanning military, political, and economic confederation, and
a huge expansion of the size and power of the military and intelligence complex were justified by
the Soviet, and later, the Red Chinese threats. Countering those threats led the US to use many of
the same amoral tactics that it deplored when used by its enemies: espionage, subversion, bribery,
repression, assassination, regime change, and direct and proxy warfare.
Scorning principles of limited government, non-intervention in other nations' affairs, and individual
rights, the Deep State embraced the anti-freedom mindset of its purported enemies, not just towards
those enemies, but toward allies and the American people. The Deep State gradually assumed control
of the government and elected officials were expected to adhere to its policies and promote its propaganda.
Only John F. Kennedy directly challenged it, firing CIA Director Allen Dulles after the Bay of
Pigs disaster. He was assassinated, and whether or not CIA involvement is ever conclusively proven,
the allegations have been useful to the agency, keeping politicians in line. The Deep State also
co-opted the media, keeping it in line with a combination of fear and favor.
Since its ascension in the 1950s, the biggest threat to the Deep State has not been its many and
manifest failures, but rather what the naive would regard as its biggest success: the fall of the
Soviet Union in 1991. Much of the military-industrial complex was suddenly deprived of its reason
for existence-the threat was gone. However, a more subtle point was lost.
The Soviet Union has been the largest of statism's many failures to date. Because of the Deep
State's philosophical blinders, that outcome was generally unforeseen. The command and control philosophy
at the heart of Soviet communism was merely a variant on the same philosophy espoused and practiced
by the Deep State. Like the commissars, its members believe that "ordinary" people are unable to
handle freedom, and that their generalized superiority entitles them to wield the coercive power
of government.
With "irresponsible" elements talking of peace dividends and scaling back the military and the
intelligence agencies, the complex was sorely in need of a new enemy . Islam suffers the same critical
flaw as communism-command and control-and has numerous other deficiencies, including intolerance,
repression, and the legal subjugation of half its adherents. The Deep State had to focus on the world
conquest ideology of some Muslims to even conjure Islam as a plausible foe. However, unlike the USSR,
they couldn't claim that sect and faction-ridden Islam posed a monolithic threat, that the Islamic
nations were an empire or a federation united towards a common goal, or that their armaments (there
are under thirty nuclear weapons in the one Islamic nation, Pakistan, that has them) could destroy
the US or the entire planet.
There was too much money and power at stake for the complex to shrink. While on paper Islam appeared
far weaker than communism, the complex had one factor in their favor: terrorism is terrifying. In
the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Americans surrendered liberties and gave the Deep State carte blanche
to fight a war on terrorism that would span the globe, target all those whom the government identified
as terrorists, and never be conclusively won or lost. Funding for the complex ballooned, the military
was deployed on multiple fronts, and the surveillance state blossomed. Most of those who might have
objected were bought off with expanded welfare state funding and programs (e.g. George W. Bush's
prescription drug benefit, Obamacare).
What would prove to be the biggest challenge to the centralization and the power of the Deep State
came, unheralded, with the invention of the microchip in the late 1950s. The Deep State could not
have exercised the power it has without a powerful grip on information flow and popular perception.
The microchip led to widespread distribution of cheap computing power and dissemination of information
over the decentralized Internet. This dynamic, organically adaptive decentralization has been the
antithesis of the command-and-control Deep State, which now realizes the gravity of the threat. Fortunately,
countering these technologies has been like trying to eradicate hordes of locusts.
The gravest threat, however, to the Deep State is self-imposed: it's own incompetence. Even the
technologically illiterate can ask questions for which it has no answers.
Why has the US been involved in long, costly, bloody, and inconclusive wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq?
Why should the US get involved in similar conflicts in Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Iran,
and other Middle Eastern and Northern African hotspots?
Isn't such involvement responsible for blowback terrorism and refugee flows in both
Europe and the US?
Have "free trade" agreements and porous borders been a net benefit or detriment to the
US? Why is the banking industry set up for periodic crises that inevitably require government
bail-outs? (SLL claims no special insight into the nexus between the banking-financial sector
and the Deep State, other than to note that there is one.) Why does every debt crisis result in
more debt?
How has encouraging debt and speculation at the expense of savings and investment helped
the US economy?
The Deep State can't answer or even acknowledge these questions because they all touch on its
failures.
Brexit, Donald Trump, other populist, nationalist movements catching fire, and the rise of the
alternative media are wrecking balls aimed at an already structurally unsound and teetering building
that would eventually collapse on its own. The shenanigans in the US after Trump's election-violent
protests, hysterical outbursts, the vote recount effort, the proof-free Russian hacking allegations,
"fake news," and the attempt to sway electoral college electors-are the desperate screams of those
trapped inside.
Regrettably, the building analogy is imperfect, because it implies that those inside are helpless
and that the collapse will only harm them. In its desperation, incompetence, and corrupt nihilism,
the Deep State can wreak all sorts of havoc, up to and including the destruction of humanity. Trump
represents an opportunity to strike a blow against the Deep State, but the chances it will be lethal
are minimal and the dangers obvious.
The euphoria over his victory cannot obscure a potential consequence: it may hasten and amplify
the destruction and resultant chaos when the Deep State finally topples . Anyone who thinks Trump's
victory sounds an all clear is allowing hope to triumph over experience and what should have been
hard-won wisdom.
"War on Terror" + "Refugee Humanitarian Crisis" =European Clusterfuck
Or
"War on Drugs" + "Afghan Opium/Nicaraguan Cocaine" =Police State America
Both hands (Left/Right) to crush Liberty
Mano-A-Mano -> Cheka_Mate •Dec 22, 2016 8:54 PM
The DEEP STATE pretends they hate Trump, gets him in office, hoodwinks the sheeple into
believing they voted for him, while they still retain control.
Voila!
TeamDepends -> unrulian •Dec 22, 2016 8:55 PM
Remember the Maine! Remember the Lusitania! Remember the USS Liberty! Remember the Gulf of
Tonkin! Never forget.
Withdrawn Sanction •Dec 22, 2016 8:52 PM
"In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Americans surrendered liberties and gave the Deep State
carte blanche..."
What a load of crap. The Deep State CAUSED 9/11 and then STOLE Americans' liberties.
StraightLineLogic: Linear thinker, indeed.
WTFUD •Dec 22, 2016 8:56 PM
Shakespeare would have had a field-day with this Material; Comic Tragedy!
BadDog •Dec 22, 2016 9:00 PM
Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.
red1chief •Dec 22, 2016 9:09 PM
Funny how a guy loading up his administration with Vampire Squids is thought to be disliked
by the Deep State. Deep State psy ops never ceases to amaze.
Krugman is a neoliberal stooge. Since when Social Security is an entitlement program. If you start
contributing at 25 and retire at 67 (40 years of monthly contributions), you actually get less then
you contribute, unless you live more then 80 years. It just protects you from "free market casino".
Notable quotes:
"... A "contribution" theory of what a proper distribution of income might be can only be made coherent if there are constant returns to scale in the scarce, priced, owned factors of production. Only then can you divide the pile of resources by giving to each the marginal societal product of their work and of the resources that they own. ..."
"... n a world--like the one we live in--of mammoth increasing returns to unowned knowledge and to networks, no individual and no community is especially valuable. Those who receive good livings are those who are lucky -- as Carrier's workers in Indiana have been lucky in living near Carrier's initial location. It's not that their contribution to society is large or that their luck is replicable: if it were, they would not care (much) about the departure of Carrier because there would be another productive network that they could fit into a slot in. ..."
"... If not about people, what is an economy about? ..."
"... I hadn't realized that Democrats now view Social Security and Medicare as "government handouts". ..."
"... Some Democrats like Krugman are Social Darwinists. ..."
"... PK is an ignorant vicious SOB. Many of those "dependent hillbillies" PK despises paid SS and Medicare taxes for many decades, most I know have never been on foos stamps, and if they are on disability it is because they did honest hard work, something PK knows nothing about. What an ignorant jerk. ..."
"... What is a very highly subsidized industry that benefits Delong and Krugman? Higher education. Damn welfare queens! :) ..."
"... No Krugman is echoing the tribalism of Johnny Bakho. These people won't move or educate themselves or "skill up" so they deserve what they get. Social darwinism. ..."
"... People like Bakho are probably anti-union as well. They're seen as relics of an earlier age and economically "uncompetitve." See Fred Dobbs below. That's the dog whistle about the "rust belt." ..."
"... Paul Krugman's reputation, formerly that of a a noted economic, succumbed after a brief struggle to Trump Derangement Syndrome. Friends said Mr Krugman's condition had been further aggravated by cognitive dissonance from a severely challenged worldview. ..."
"... He is survived by the New York Times, also said to be in failing health. ..."
"... For a long time DeLong was mocking the notion of "economic anxiety" amongst the voters. Does this blog post mean he's rethinking that idea? ..."
"... The GOP has a long history of benefitting from the disconnect where a lot of their voters are convinced that when government money goes to others (sometimes even within their own white congregations), then it is not deserved. ..."
Brad DeLong has an interesting meditation * on markets and political demands - inspired by
a note from Noah Smith ** - that offers food for thought. I wonder, however, if Brad's discussion
is too abstract; and I also wonder whether it fully recognizes the disconnect between what Trump
voters think they want and reality. So, an entry of my own.
What Brad is getting at is the widespread belief by, well, almost everyone that they are entitled
to - have earned - whatever good hand they have been dealt by the market economy. This is reflected
in the more or less universal belief of the affluent that they deserve what they have; you could
see this in the rage of rentiers at low interest rates, because it's the Federal Reserve's job
to reward savers, right? In this terrible political year, the story was in part one of people
in Appalachia angrily demanding a return of the good jobs they used to have mining coal - even
though the world doesn't want more coal given fracking, and it can get the coal it still wants
from strip mines and mountaintop removal, which don't employ many people.
And what Brad is saying, I think, is that what those longing for the return to coal want is
those jobs they deserve, where they earn their money - not government handouts, no sir.
A fact-constrained candidate wouldn't have been able to promise such people what they want;
Trump, of course, had no problem.
But is that really all there is? Working-class Trump voters do, in fact, receive a lot of government
handouts - they're almost totally dependent on Social Security for retirement, Medicare for health
care when old, are quite dependent on food stamps, and many have recently received coverage from
Obamacare. Quite a few receive disability payments too. They don't want those benefits to go away.
But they managed to convince themselves (with a lot of help from Fox News etc) that they aren't
really beneficiaries of government programs, or that they're not getting the "good welfare", which
only goes to Those People.
And you can really see this in the regional patterns. California is an affluent state, a heavy
net contributor to the federal budget; it went 2-1 Clinton. West Virginia is poor and a huge net
recipient of federal aid; it went 2 1/2-1 Trump.
I don't think any kind of economic analysis can explain this. It has to be about culture and,
as always, race.
Regional Policy and Distributional Policy in a World Where People Want to Ignore the Value
and Contribution of Knowledge- and Network-Based Increasing Returns
Pascal Lamy: "When the wise man points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger..."
Perhaps in the end the problem is that people want to pretend that they are filling a valuable
role in the societal division of labor, and are receiving no more than they earn--than they contribute.
But that is not the case. The value--the societal dividend--is in the accumulated knowledge
of humanity and in the painfully constructed networks that make up our value chains.
A "contribution" theory of what a proper distribution of income might be can only be made
coherent if there are constant returns to scale in the scarce, priced, owned factors of production.
Only then can you divide the pile of resources by giving to each the marginal societal product
of their work and of the resources that they own.
That, however, is not the world we live in.
In a world--like the one we live in--of mammoth increasing returns to unowned knowledge
and to networks, no individual and no community is especially valuable. Those who receive good
livings are those who are lucky -- as Carrier's workers in Indiana have been lucky in living near
Carrier's initial location. It's not that their contribution to society is large or that their
luck is replicable: if it were, they would not care (much) about the departure of Carrier because
there would be another productive network that they could fit into a slot in.
All of this "what you deserve" language is tied up with some vague idea that you deserve what
you contribute--that what your work adds to the pool of society's resources is what you deserve.
This illusion is punctured by any recognition that there is a large societal dividend to be
distributed, and that the government can distribute it by supplementing (inadequate) market wages
determined by your (low) societal marginal product, or by explicitly providing income support
or services unconnected with work via social insurance. Instead, the government is supposed to,
somehow, via clever redistribution, rearrange the pattern of market power in the economy so that
the increasing-returns knowledge- and network-based societal dividend is predistributed in a relatively
egalitarian way so that everybody can pretend that their income is just "to each according to
his work", and that they are not heirs and heiresses coupon clipping off of the societal capital
of our predecessors' accumulated knowledge and networks.
On top of this we add: Polanyian disruption of patterns of life--local communities, income
levels, industrial specialization--that you believed you had a right to obtain or maintain, and
a right to believe that you deserve. But in a market capitalist society, nobody has a right to
the preservation of their local communities, to their income levels, or to an occupation in their
industrial specialization. In a market capitalist society, those survive only if they pass a market
profitability test. And so the only rights that matter are those property rights that at the moment
carry with them market power--the combination of the (almost inevitably low) marginal societal
products of your skills and the resources you own, plus the (sometimes high) market power that
those resources grant to you.
This wish to believe that you are not a moocher is what keeps people from seeing issues of
distribution and allocation clearly--and generates hostility to social insurance and to wage supplement
policies, for they rip the veil off of the idea that you deserve to be highly paid because you
are worth it. You aren't.
And this ties itself up with regional issues: regional decline can come very quickly whenever
a region finds that its key industries have, for whatever reason, lost the market power that diverted
its previously substantial share of the knowledge- and network-based societal dividend into the
coffers of its firms. The resources cannot be simply redeployed in other industries unless those
two have market power to control the direction of a share of the knowledge- and network-based
societal dividend. And so communities decline and die. And the social contract--which was supposed
to have given you a right to a healthy community--is broken.
As I have said before, humans are, at a very deep and basic level, gift-exchange animals. We
create and reinforce our social bonds by establishing patterns of "owing" other people and by
"being owed". We want to enter into reciprocal gift-exchange relationships. We create and reinforce
social bonds by giving each other presents. We like to give. We like to receive. We like neither
to feel like cheaters nor to feel cheated. We like, instead, to feel embedded in networks of mutual
reciprocal obligation. We don't like being too much on the downside of the gift exchange: to have
received much more than we have given in return makes us feel very small. We don't like being
too much on the upside of the gift exchange either: to give and give and give and never receive
makes us feel like suckers.
PK is an ignorant vicious SOB. Many of those "dependent hillbillies" PK despises paid SS and
Medicare taxes for many decades, most I know have never been on foos stamps, and if they are on
disability it is because they did honest hard work, something PK knows nothing about. What an
ignorant jerk.
Exactly the same could be said about many of those inner city minorities that the "dependent hillbillies"
look down on as "welfare queens". That may be one of the reasons they take special issues with
"food stamps", because in contrast to the hillbillies, inner city poor people cannot grow their
own food. What Krugman is pointing out is the hypocrisy of their tribalism - and also the idiocy,
because the dismantling of society would ultimately hurt the morons that voted GOP into power
this round.
"What Krugman is pointing out is the hypocrisy of their tribalism "
No Krugman is echoing the tribalism of Johnny Bakho. These people won't move or educate
themselves or "skill up" so they deserve what they get. Social darwinism.
People like Bakho are probably anti-union as well. They're seen as relics of an earlier age
and economically "uncompetitve." See Fred Dobbs below. That's the dog whistle about the "rust
belt."
His tone is supercilious and offensive. But your argument is that they are not "dependent" because
they earned every benefit they get from the government. I think his point is that "dependent"
is not offensive -- the term jus reflects how we all depend on government services. DeLong makes
the point much better in the article quoted by anne above.
Paul Krugman's reputation, formerly that of a a noted economic, succumbed after a brief
struggle to Trump Derangement Syndrome. Friends said Mr Krugman's condition had been further aggravated
by cognitive dissonance from a severely challenged worldview.
He is survived by the New York Times, also said to be in failing health.
The New York Times is easily the finest newspaper in the world, is broadly recognized as such
and is of course flourishing. Such an institution will always have sections or editors and writers
of relative strength but these relative strengths change over time as the newspaper continually
changes.
NYT Co. to revamp HQ, vacate eight floors in consolidation
"In an SEC filing, New York Times Co. discloses a staff communication it provided today to
employees about a revamp of its headquarters -- including consolidating floors.
The company will vacate at least eight floors, consolidating workspaces and allowing for "significant"
rental income, the memo says."
The GOP has a long history of benefitting from the disconnect where a lot of their voters
are convinced that when government money goes to others (sometimes even within their own white
congregations), then it is not deserved. But if that same government money goes to themselves
(or their real close relatives), then it is a hard earned and well-deserved payback for their
sacrifices and tax payments. So the GOP leadership has always called it "saving social security"
and "cracking down on fraud" rather than admitting to their attempts to dismantle those programs.
The Dems better be on the ball and call it what it is. If you want to save those programs you
just have to prevent rich people from wiggling out of paying for them (don't repeal the Obamacare
medicare taxes on the rich).
On the Pk piece. I think it is really about human dignity, and the need for it. There were a lot
of factors in this horrific election, but just as urban blacks need to be spared police brutality,
rural whites need a dignified path in their lives. Everyone, united, deserves such a path.
This is a real challenge for economists; how do we rebuild the rust belt (which applies to
areas beyond the literal rust belt).
If we do not, we risk Trump 2.0, which could be very scary indeed.
I agree to a point, but what the piece is about is that in search of a solution to the problems
of the rustbelt (whatever the definition is),people voted for Trump who had absolutely no plan
to solve such a problem, other than going back to the future and redoing Nafta and getting rid
of regulations.
Meanwhile, that vote also meant that the safety net that helps all Americans in trouble was
being placed in severe risk.
Those voters were fixed on his rhetoric and right arm extended while his left hand was grabbing
them by the (in deference to Anne I will not say the words, but Trump himself has said one of
them and the other is the male version).
Really? You didn't seem to before. You'd say what Duy or Noah Smith or DeLong were mulling about was
off-limits. You'd ban them from the comment section if you could. "This is a real challenge for economists; how do we rebuild the rust belt (which applies to
areas beyond the literal rust belt).
If we do not, we risk Trump 2.0, which could be very scary indeed." I don't see why this is such a controversial point for centrist like Krugman. How do we appeal to the white working class without contradicting our principles?
By promoting policies that raise living standards. By delivering, which mean left-wing policies
not centrist tinkering. It's the Clinton vs. Sanders primary. Hillary could have nominated Elizabeth Warren as her VP candidate but her corporate masters
wouldn't let her.
"Meanwhile, that vote also meant that the safety net that helps all Americans in trouble was being
placed in severe risk."
That safety net is an improvement over 1930. But it's been fraying so badly over the last 20-30
years that it's almost lost all meaning. It's something people turn to before total destitution,
but for rebuilding a life? A sick joke, filled with petty hassles and frustrations.
And the fraying has been a solidly bipartisan project. Who can forget welfare "reform"?
So maybe the yokels you're blaming for the 10,000-th time might not buy your logic or your
intentions.
... At the height of their influence in the 1950s, labor unions could claim to represent about
1 of every 3 American workers. Today, it's 1 in 9 - and falling.
Some have seen the shrinking size and waning influence of labor unions as a sign that the US
economy is growing more flexible and dynamic, but there's mounting evidence that it is also contributing
to slow wage growth and the rise in inequality. ...
(Union membership) NY 24.7%, MA 12.4%, SC 2.1%
... Are unions faring any better here in Massachusetts?
While Massachusetts's unions are stronger than average, it's not among the most heavily unionized
states. That honor goes to New York, where 1 in every 4 workers belongs to a union. After New
York, there are 11 other states with higher union membership rates then Massachusetts.
Here too, though, the decline in union membership over time has been steep.
... In 2015, 30 states and the District of Columbia had union membership rates below
that of the U.S. average, 11.1 percent, and 20 states had rates above it. All states
in the East South Central and West South Central divisions had union membership rates
below the national average, and all states in the Middle Atlantic and Pacific divisions
had rates above it. Union membership rates increased over the year in 24 states and
the District of Columbia, declined in 23 states, and were unchanged in 3 states.
(See table 5.)
Five states had union membership rates below 5.0 percent in 2015: South Carolina
(2.1 percent), North Carolina (3.0 percent), Utah (3.9 percent), Georgia (4.0 percent),
and Texas (4.5 percent).
Two states had union membership rates over 20.0 percent in
2015: New York (24.7 percent) and Hawaii (20.4 percent).
State union membership levels depend on both the employment level and the union
membership rate. The largest numbers of union members lived in California (2.5 million)
and New York (2.0 million).
Roughly half of the 14.8 million union members in the
U.S. lived in just seven states (California, 2.5 million; New York, 2.0 million;
Illinois, 0.8 million; Pennsylvania, 0.7 million; and Michigan, Ohio, and New Jersey,
0.6 million each), though these states accounted for only about one-third of wage and
salary employment nationally.
(It appears that New England union participation
lags in the northeast, and also in the rest of
the US not in the Red Zone.)
I have noted before that New England
is doing better 'than average' (IMO)
because of high-tech industry & education.
Not necessarily because of a lack of
unionization, which is prevalent here
in public education & among service
workers. Note that in higher ed,
much here is private.
Private industry here traditionally
is not heavily unionized, although
that is probably not the case
among defense corps.
As to causation, I think the
implication is that 'Dems dealing
with unions' has not been working
all that well, recovery-wise,
particularly in the rust belt.
That must have as much to do with
industrial management as it does
with labor, and the ubiquitous
on-going industrial revolution.
Everybody needs, and desperately crave, self-confidence and dignity. In white rural culture that
has always been connected to the old settler mentality and values of personal "freedom" and "independence".
It is unfortunate that this freedom/independence mythology has been what attracted all the immigrants
from Europe over here. So it is as strongly engrained (both in culture and individual values)
as it is outdated and counterproductive in the world of the future. I am not sure that society
can help a community where people find themselves humiliated by being helped (especially by bad
government). Maybe somehow try to get them to think of the government help as an earned benefit?
"... The essence of voting the lesser of two evils: "To comfortable centrists like pgl, the Democrats should be graded on a curve. As long as they're better than the awful Republicans, then they're good enough and beyond criticism." ..."
"... These Wall Street Democrats can rest assured that Democrats will surely get their turn in power in 4-8 years...after Trump thoroughly screws things up. And then Democrats will proceed to screw things up themselves...as we learned from Obama and Hillary's love of austerity and total disinterest in the economic welfare of the vast majority. ..."
"... In case you didn't notice, Democrats did nothing about the minimum wage 2009-2010. ..."
"... Many Democratic candidates won't even endorse minimum wage increase in states where increases win via initiative. They preferred to lose elections to standing up for minimum wage increases. ..."
Peter K.... The essence of voting the lesser of two evils: "To comfortable centrists like pgl,
the Democrats should be graded on a curve. As long as they're better than the awful Republicans,
then they're good enough and beyond criticism."
These Wall Street Democrats can rest assured that Democrats will surely get their turn in power
in 4-8 years...after Trump thoroughly screws things up. And then Democrats will proceed to screw
things up themselves...as we learned from Obama and Hillary's love of austerity and total disinterest
in the economic welfare of the vast majority.
To pgl and his ilk, Obama was great as long as he said the right things...regardless of what
he actually did. Hillary didn't even have to say the right things...she only had to be a Wall
Street Democrat for pgl to be enthusiastic about her.
In case you didn't notice, Democrats did nothing about the minimum wage 2009-2010.
At a minimum,
they could have taken their dominance then to enact increases for 2010-2016 or to index increases
to inflation. Instead, Pelosi, Reid and Obama preferred to do nothing.
Many Democratic candidates won't even endorse minimum wage increase in states where increases
win via initiative. They preferred to lose elections to standing up for minimum wage increases.
"... At some point the GOP has to decide how much of Trump's populist agenda they can stuff in the toilet without inducing an uncontrollable backlash. ..."
"... The reason Trump won the GOP nomination was exactly because he claimed to reject traditional GOP policies and approaches. ..."
"... If the GOP just go ahead with a traditional "rule for the rich" policy (because they won) there could be serious fireworks ahead - provided the Dems can pull out a populist alternative policy by the the next election. ..."
"... I have no idea what's going to happen, but my guess is that Trump and the Republicans are going to completely sell out the "Trump voters." ..."
"... But they still tried to push through Social Security privatization even though everyone is against it. ..."
"... If recent history is any guide, incumbents get a second term regardless of how bad the economy is. Clinton, Bush, and Obama were all reelected despite a lousy economy. The only exception in recent memory was Bush 41. ..."
"... Upper class tax cuts were central to his policies. Anybody who believed he was anything other than an standard issue Republican would buy shares in Arizona swampland. ..."
"... trump did indeed state that he would give bigger tax cuts to the rich, repeatedly. the genius of trump's performance is that by never having a clear position his gullible followers were able to fill in the gaps using their own hopes and desires. ..."
"... That is correct, but also the weakness in his support. They will almost certainly be disappointed as the exact interpretations and choices between incompatible promises turns out to be different from the individuals hopes and desires. ..."
"... And consider how dysfunction from laissez faire healthcare policy readoption leads to rising prices/costs above current trend to limit disposable income even more, it will be amazing if we do not have stagnation and worse for the bulk of society. ..."
"... Bush implemented and expanded a community health clinic system, that reallnwoukd be a nice infrastructure play for the US, but this Congress is more likely to disinvest here. They certainly don't want these do-gooder nonprofits competing against the doctor establishment. ..."
"... The question is first of all whether Trump can bully the Fed away from their current and traditional course (which would not allow much of a stimulus, before they cancelled it out with rate hikes). ..."
"... Second whether the Fed itself having been traditionally prone to support GOP presidents (see inconsistencies in Greenspan's policies during Clinton vs. Bush) will change its policies and allow higher inflation and wage growth than they have under any Dem president. ..."
"... The little people go to the credit channels to help finance the purchase of durables and higher education too. The Fed's actions themselves will see these credit prices ratchet, so nit good fir basic demand. Veblen goods will see more price rises as the buyers will have lots of rentier/lobbying gathered money to burn. ..."
At some point the GOP has to decide how much of Trump's populist agenda they can stuff in
the toilet without inducing an uncontrollable backlash.
The reason Trump won the GOP nomination was exactly because he claimed to reject traditional
GOP policies and approaches. It was the old tea-partiers insisting that their anti-rich/Anti-Wall
street sentiments be inserted into the GOP.
If the GOP just go ahead with a traditional "rule for the rich" policy (because they won)
there could be serious fireworks ahead - provided the Dems can pull out a populist alternative
policy by the the next election.
I have no idea what's going to happen, but my guess is that Trump and the Republicans are
going to completely sell out the "Trump voters."
George W. Bush wasn't completely horrible (besides Iraq, John Roberts, tax cuts for the rich,
the Patriot act and the surveillance state, Katrina, etc. etc. etc.). He was good on immigration,
world AIDS prevention, expensive Medicare drug expansion, etc.
But they still tried to push through Social Security privatization even though everyone
is against it.
To some extent Bush demoralized the Republican base and they didn't turn out in 2008.
If recent history is any guide, incumbents get a second term regardless of how bad the economy
is. Clinton, Bush, and Obama were all reelected despite a lousy economy. The only exception in
recent memory was Bush 41.
About the only thing that can derail Trump is a big recession in 2019.
"The reason Trump won the GOP nomination was exactly because he claimed to reject traditional
GOP policies and approaches."
While generally enthusiastically embracing them. Upper class tax cuts were central to his
policies. Anybody who believed he was anything other than an standard issue Republican would buy
shares in Arizona swampland.
He never came out directly saying or tweeting that he would give bigger tax cuts to the rich than
anybody else - he said he would give bigger tax cuts. It is true that people with a college education
had an easy time figuring him out even before the election. But the populist messages he campaigned
on were anti-establishment including suggesting that the "hedge-fund guys" were making a killing
by being taxed at a lower rate.
trump did indeed state that he would give bigger tax cuts to the rich, repeatedly. the genius
of trump's performance is that by never having a clear position his gullible followers were able
to fill in the gaps using their own hopes and desires.
"his gullible followers were able to fill in the gaps using their own hopes and desires"
That is correct, but also the weakness in his support. They will almost certainly be disappointed
as the exact interpretations and choices between incompatible promises turns out to be different
from the individuals hopes and desires. The reason Trump was able to beat even a Tea party
darling, was the backlash against big money having taken over the Tea party. The backlash against
Trump_vs_deep_state being "taken over by big money" interest will be interesting to observe, especially if
the Dems find the right way to play it.
Following up on Johnny Bakho's comment below, let's assume that average wage growth YoY for nonsupervisory
workers never reaches 3% before the next recession hits. Wage growth rates always decline in recessions,
usually by over 2%.
If in the next recession, we see actual slight nominal wage decreases, is a debt-deflationary
wage-price spiral inevitable? Or could there be a small decline of less than -1% without triggering
such a spiral.
"is a debt-deflationary wage-price spiral inevitable?"
Good question. It all depends on the response of policy makers. If we continue with the stupid
fiscal austerity that began in 2011, it may be inevitable. Which is why doing public infrastructure
investment is a very good idea.
And consider how dysfunction from laissez faire healthcare policy readoption leads to rising
prices/costs above current trend to limit disposable income even more, it will be amazing if we
do not have stagnation and worse for the bulk of society.
Bush implemented and expanded a community health clinic system, that reallnwoukd be a nice
infrastructure play for the US, but this Congress is more likely to disinvest here. They certainly
don't want these do-gooder nonprofits competing against the doctor establishment.
For Clinton dems, the ones the wiki revealed are con artists, doing for the peeps [like Bernie
stood for] is too far ideologically for the faux centrists.
They are neoliberals market monetarists who keep the bankers green and everyone else takes
the back seats.
At this point in time pretty much anything the policy makers do will be countered by the Fed.
The question is first of all whether Trump can bully the Fed away from their current and traditional
course (which would not allow much of a stimulus, before they cancelled it out with rate hikes).
Second whether the Fed itself having been traditionally prone to support GOP presidents
(see inconsistencies in Greenspan's policies during Clinton vs. Bush) will change its policies
and allow higher inflation and wage growth than they have under any Dem president.
As long as the FED thinks the natural rate of the employment to population ratio is only 60% -
you'd be right. But then the FED is not thinking clearly.
like many of my fellow socialists, i fulminated about bernanke's coddling of banks and asset holders.
i was somewhat wrong. bernanke was a evidently a strong voice for banking regulation and an end
to the moral hazard of TBTF. it is a pity that obama did not listen to him.
The little people go to the credit channels to help finance the purchase of durables and higher
education too. The Fed's actions themselves will see these credit prices ratchet, so nit good
fir basic demand. Veblen goods will see more price rises as the buyers will have lots of rentier/lobbying
gathered money to burn.
Will the Fed use rulemaking to control bubbling in the financial asset marketplaces as they
wont want to rause rates too much. I hope they are paying attention
Russia, Iran and Turkey met in Moscow on Tuesday to work toward a political accord to end Syria's
nearly six-year war, leaving the United States on the sidelines as the countries sought to drive
the conflict in ways that serve their interests.
Secretary of State John Kerry was not invited. Nor was the United Nations consulted.
With pro-government forces having made critical gains on the ground, ...
(Note: The last sentence originally and correctly said "pro-Syrian forces ...", not "pro-government
forces ...". It
was altered after
I noted the "pro-Syrian" change of tone on Twitter.)
Russia kicked the U.S. out of any further talks about Syria after the U.S. blew a deal which,
after long delaying negotiations, Kerry had made with the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.
In a recent interview Kerry
admits that it was opposition from the Pentagon, not Moscow or Damascus, that had blown up his
agreement with Russia over Syria:
More recently, he has clashed inside the administration with Defense Secretary Ashton Carter.
Kerry negotiated an agreement with Russia to share joint military operations, but it fell apart.
"Unfortunately we had divisions within our own ranks that made the implementation of that extremely
hard to accomplish ," Kerry said. "But I believe in it, I think it can work, could have worked."
Kerry's agreement with Russia did not just "fell apart". The Pentagon actively sabotaged it by
intentionally and perfidiously attacking the Syrian army.
The deal with Russia was made in June. It envisioned coordinated attacks on ISIS and al-Qaeda
in Syria, both designated as terrorist under two UN Security Council resolutions which call upon
all countries to eradicate them. For months the U.S. failed to separate its CIA and Pentagon trained,
supplied and paid "moderate rebel" from al-Qaeda, thereby blocking the deal. In September the deal
was modified and finally ready to be implemented.
The Pentagon still
did not like it but had been overruled by the White House:
The agreement that Secretary of State John Kerry announced with Russia to reduce the killing in
Syria has widened an increasingly public divide between Mr. Kerry and Defense Secretary Ashton
B. Carter, who has deep reservations about the plan for American and Russian forces to jointly
target terrorist groups.
Mr. Carter was among the administration officials who pushed against the agreement on a conference
call with the White House last week as Mr. Kerry, joining the argument from a secure facility
in Geneva, grew increasingly frustrated. Although President Obama ultimately approved the effort
after hours of debate, Pentagon officials remain unconvinced.
...
"I'm not saying yes or no," Lt. Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian, commander of the United States Air
Forces Central Command , told reporters on a video conference call. "It would be premature to
say that we're going to jump right into it."
The CentCom general threatened to not follow the decision his Commander of Chief had taken. He
would not have done so without cover from Defense Secretary Ash Carter.
Three days later U.S. CentCom Air Forces and allied
Danish airplanes attack Syrian army positions near the ISIS besieged city of Deir Ezzor. During
37 air attacks within one hour between 62 and 100 Syrian Arab Army soldiers were killed and many
more wounded. They had held a defensive positions on hills overlooking the Deir Ezzor airport. Shortly
after the U.S. air attack ISIS forces stormed the hills and have held them since. Resupply for the
100,000+ civilians and soldiers in Deir Ezzor is now endangered if not impossible. The CentCom
attack enabled ISIS to eventually conquer Deir Ezzor and to establish the
envisioned "Salafist principality" in east Syria.
During the U.S. attack the Syrian-Russian operations center had immediately tried to contact the
designated coordination officer at U.S. Central Command to stop the attack. But that officer could
not be reached and those at CentCom taking the Russian calls just hanged up:
By time the Russian officer found his designated contact - who was away from his desk - and explained
that the coalition was actually hitting a Syrian army unit, "a good amount of strikes" had already
taken place, U.S. Central Command spokesman Col. John Thomas told reporters at the Pentagon Tuesday.
Until the attack the Syrian and Russian side had, as agreed with Kerry, kept to a ceasefire to
allow the separation of the "marbled" CIA and al-Qaeda forces. After the CentCom air attack the Kerry-Lavrov
deal
was off :
On the sidelines of an emergency UN Security Council meeting called on the matter, tempers were
high. Russia's permanent UN representative, Vitaly Churkin, questioned the timing of the strikes,
two days before Russian-American coordination in the fight against terror groups in Syria was
to begin.
"I have never seen such an extraordinary display of American heavy-handedness," he said, after
abruptly leaving the meeting.
The Pentagon launched one of its usual whitewash investigations and a heavily
redacted summary report (pdf) was released in late November.
The report, released by US Central Command on 29 November, shows that senior US Air Force officers
at the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) at al-Udeid Airbase in Qatar, who were responsible
for the decision to carry out the September airstrike at Deir Ezzor:
misled the Russians about where the US intended to strike so Russia could not warn that
it was targeting Syrian troops
ignored information and intelligence analysis warning that the positions to be struck were
Syrian government rather than Islamic State
shifted abruptly from a deliberate targeting process to an immediate strike in violation
of normal Air Force procedures
The investigation was led by a Brigade General. He was too low in rank to investigate or challenge
the responsible CentCom air-commander Lt. Gen. Harrington. The name of a co-investigator was redacted
in the report and marked as "foreign government information". That officer was likely from Denmark.
Four days after the investigation report was officially released the Danish government, without
giving any public reason,
pulled back its air contingent from any further operations under U.S. command in Iraq and Syria.
With the attack on Deir Ezzor the Pentagon has:
enabled ISIS to win the siege in Deir Ezzor where 100,000+ civilians and soldiers are under
threat of being brutally killed
cleared the grounds for the establishment of an ISIS ruled "Salafist principality" in east-Syria
deceived a European NATO ally and lost its active cooperation over Syria and Iraq
ruined Kerry's deal with Russia about a coordinated fight against UN designated terrorists
in Syria
kicked the U.S. out of further international negotiations about Syria
It is clear that the responsible U.S. officer for the attack and its consequences is one Lt. Gen.
Jeffrey L. Harrigian who had earlier publicly spoken out against a deal that his Commander in Chief
had agreed to. He likely had cover from Defense Secretary Ash Carter.
The White House did not react to this public military insubordination and undermining of its diplomacy.
Emptywheel
notes that, though on a different issue, the CIA is also in quite open insurrection against the
President's decisions:
[I]t alarms me that someone decided it was a good idea to go leak criticisms of a [presidential]
Red Phone exchange. It would seem that such an instrument depends on some foundation of trust
that, no matter how bad things have gotten, two leaders of nuclear armed states can speak frankly
and directly.
though on a different issue, the CIA is also in quite open insurrection against the President's
decisions:
It merely confirms or reinforces what was known now for quite some, rather long, time--Obama
is a shallow and cowardly amateur who basically abandoned the duty of governing the nation to
all kinds of neocon adventurists and psychopaths. So, nothing new here. Results are everywhere
on display for everyone to see.
https://twitter.com/BilalKareem/status/811216051656658944
Here's Bilal (American CIA agent) pointing out another terrorist scumbag has an explosive belt
to avoid getting captured. Notice his face is covered and he appears western? Likely the American
David Scott Winner or Israeli aDavid Shlomo Aram. They're going to explode their way out of Aleppo.
SAA should have just exterminated the rats rather than let them leave, Bilal included
Then again, it is difficult to see how sanctions between the two administration could be
any more "damaged": also on Wednesday, the Kremlin said it did not expect the incoming U.S. administration
to reject NATO enlargement overnight and that almost all communications channels between Russia
and the United States were frozen, the RIA news agency reported.
"Almost every level of dialogue with the United States is frozen. We don't communicate
with one another, or (if we do) we do so minimally," Peskov said.
The only thing worse than not using a weapon is using it ineffectively. And if he does choose
to retaliate, he has insisted on maintaining what is known as "escalation dominance," the ability
to ensure you can end a conflict on your terms.
Mr. Obama hinted as much at his news conference on Friday, as he was set to leave for his annual
Hawaii vacation, his last as president.
"Our goal continues to be to send a clear message to Russia or others not to do this to us because
we can do stuff to you," he said. "But it is also important to us to do that in a thoughtful,
methodical way. Some of it, we will do publicly. Some of it we will do in a way that they know,
but not everybody will."
On Monday 19 December, there was a hit captured on video and played worldwide. It was not by
droning.
This post confirms that neocon Ash Carter was at the heart of the attack on Deir Ezzor and that
the pro-Israel faction at the Pentagon will defy the chief executive if it achieves their political
objectives.
I don't know how anyone can review the details of this incident and not conclude that the split
in the US government is nearing a climax-point where the removal of an obstinate president is
a real possibility.
the fact this division in power is happening in the usa today is indeed scary... why is this
fucker ash carter still in any position of power, let alone the dipshit Jeffrey L. Harrigian?
both these military folks might be serving israels interests very well, not to mention saudi arabia
and gcc's but they sure ain't representing the usa's... or is the usa still a country with a leadership
command? doesn't look like it..
The trolls of the empire are feeding on each other. And this is a good thing ... why?
Because on their own the sheople of the US are incapable of a revolt no matter how righteous
their cause. The oligarchs and their minions thrive on discord and chaos. Thus we have the beginnings
of a major breakdown (at long last) as some states (California in the lead) contemplate an exit
by trying to establish embassies.
My, my!
We've never had a revolution in this country. Once upon a time we had a revolt by one group
of oligarchs against the other (called a civil war, and its predecessor called the revolution).
But a real bloody, kill off the oligarchs (as per France and Russia) revolt? No way Jose!
No ... we stupidly accept the tripe/trope of being too damned good ... recently called exceptionalism.
Implosion! The rest of the world (like me) can't wait!
So that's it? Deir Ezzor is just a write off? Putin is publicly talking about "wrapping up" the
Russian mission in Syria, Iran wants to turn the military focus westward, towards Idlib. At least
this is what they say in public.
I think the Deir EzZor attack was more of a dying gasp from the CIA/CENTCOM than anything of immense
strategic value. A last shot at prepping their east Syrian head-chopper partition, but a futile
one at that. Palmyra and the attack on the Syrian oil/gas hub give that same impression, too.
Neither was very well though out and both efforts are proving to be failures.
All this while the Obama administration is pushing for the SF 'cleaners' to erase any left-over
intel and al Qaeda/al Nusra leaders as the head-choppers flee Aleppo. The CIA/CENTCOM are obviously
in on this, while they still fancy some safe place for their spies and collaborators to escape
and continue the fight.
Russia's Turkish ambassador? Maybe he was an unfortunate part of the U.S. clean-up operation.
He would have certainly been privy to a lot of damaging info on U.S. involvement. Obama announced
the clean-up operation in mid-November - recall the unexpected 'targeting key ISIS and al Nusra
leaders' spiel, followed by the dispatch of U.S. SF (and U.K. SAS) kill-teams.
The ugly part of U.S. CIA/CENTCOM support for head-choppers is that they must control them.
If they can't corral them in an east Syrian Pipelanistan, then they have to kill them and eliminate
evidence of U.S. (and cronies') involvement. All at a time when a lame-duck U.S. administration
is packing their belongings and cleaning out their offices.
The current CIA leaders and current neocon CENTCOM lackeys are pretty much out
of business in the Middle East when Trump gets in. If they can't eliminate Trump, he will eliminate
them. Current CENTCOM commanders will be purged and replaced with fresh Israeli-firsters for the
war with Iran. Trump's stated plans to pour more money into 'strengthening' the U.S. military
means plenty of jobs for the departing generals.
MacDill AFB (CENTCOM's home) must be crawling with defense industry executive recruiters looking
for some fresh meat. The Pentagram is probably going to get an enema as well. Pretty soon, there
will be unshaven, dirty generals standing near freeway on-ramps in Arlington begging for change,
holding crudely-lettered cardboard signs that say, "Unemployed. Will wage war for sheckels.
God bless you!" [I'll have my baseball bat ready...]
Russia's Turkish ambassador? Maybe he was an unfortunate part of the U.S. clean-up operation.
He would have certainly been privy to a lot of damaging info on U.S. involvement.
If he was privy, so were, simultaneously, all intelligence people working under cover and,
as a consequence, Russia's military-political top. There are some really strong indications of
Karlov's assassination being a "parting gift" by US neocon mafia who, especially after Trump's
victory and liberation of Aleppo, is the main loser (not that they ever won anything realistically)
in a major geopolitical shift which is taking place as I type this.
One of your best posts ever, b. Certainly, it shows what a terrible mess has been created by the
deceptive, infamous lot, who have added fuel to the fire in this war in Syria.
I should imagine that if you Google Bethania Palma's name (she's also known as Bethania Palma
Markus), you will find that as a freelance writer she will have social media accounts (Facebook,
Twitter, possibly LinkedIn) and you and others can try to contact her through those.
Palma has also written rubbish pieces on the Syrian White Helmets and former UK ambassador
Craig Murray's claims that the DNC emails leaks were the work of a Washington insider.
The more she writes such pieces for Snopes.com, laying out the details of the issue and then
blithely dismissing them as having no credibility, the more the website's reputation for objective
investigation will fall anyway. Palma will be her own worst enemy. So perhaps we need not bother
trying to argue with her.
I have never before seen a US President as weak as Obama to the point where his own military disregards
his command. the fact that anyone at the Pentagon would still have a job after openly defying
the commander in chief shows you the pathetic state of affairs in a crumbling US.
While it speaks to a serious changing of the guard in the US military with Trump I hold little
hope that it in anyway signals a lessening of the goals of empire.....just a change in approach.
Those owning private finance are still leading our "parade" into extinction, IMO It sure looks
to me like the acolytes of Trump have primary fealty to the God of Mammon.
Then, about 35 or so comments down, an excellent and rather devastating analysis of the Snopes
attack, by one "sleepd." In it he discusses the background of the Snopes "report's" author:
"Let's look at the background of Bethania Palmer, the author of the Snopes piece. It claims
she worked as a "journalist" for the Los Angeles Newspaper Group, which is a media company that
has been purchased by a holding company called Digital First (previously Media News Group) that
was run by a private equity company managed by a hedge funder. They are known for purchasing local
run small newspapers and cutting staff and consolidating content into corporate-friendly ad sales
positions. She also claims work for LAist, a local style and events blog in Los Angeles, and the
OC Weekly, a somewhat conservative-leaning local weekly that survives on advertising. Nothing
in her background that speaks towards expertise in the Middle East, or even awareness of differences
in populations there. Considering that, we have to rate her credibility as below Barlett's when
it comes to reporting on Middle Eastern affairs."
Obama had the Secretary of Defense he wanted, Chuck Hagel, in the office for a while. But for
some reason he was unable to resist the pressure that was put on him to replace Hagel with Carter.
Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that in this day and age where everyone has a phone
camera there exists not one picture of the alleged gore that occurred in France and German truck
attacks???
Also possessing identification documents, leaving them at the scene, appears to be a special
talent required of all pseudo terr'ists.
I even saw a report in Tagesspiegel yesterday that said the authorities did not have a video.
Pretty hard to believe. The place was packed with tourists. Just about everybody has a cellphone
these days.
I commented on it on a site yesterday, but I don't remember which one. Might have been here.
Good stuff, b. As much as I dislike Obama, I imagine he has to feel relieved his presidency is
coming to an end so he doesn't have to deal with idiots like Ash Carter every day.
The General should have been publicly fired by the Secretary immediately after that video conference.
It didn't happen so the CIC should have fired the SOD and found someone to fire the General. Defying
the CIC, what a message to the world!
The CentCom general threatened to not follow the decision his Commander of Chief had taken.
He would not have done so without cover from Defense Secretary Ash Carter.
Ash Carter is certainly a neo-con, an insubordinate traitor, and is likely a CIA mole in the Pentagon.
He has 29 days of monkey-wrenching left at the Pentagon.
Beneath your heading 'With the attack on Deir Ezzor the Pentagon has:' add effected a coup
against the POTUS.
I agree with @12 wwinsti and @13 paveway ... at least i wanna believe that Ash 'CIA' Carter
has managed to throw in his monkey-wrenches but that 'the Deir EzZor attack was more of a dying
gasp from the CIA/CENTCOM than anything of immense strategic value'.
@17 danny801
Reagan was the same ... just that he was non compos mentis from the start, so didn't know he
was just the cardboard cutout that he was. Obama knew, took the job anyway.
@20 lysias
i don't know who controls us nukes ... but it ain't Barack Obama. he'll just do as he's told.
@22 blues
agree with your wish ... unfortunately Ash 'CIA' Carter has already fired Barack Obama. we
get coal in our stockings ... or we get turned into radioactive coal by AC, CIA
todays daily press briefing, lol.. no mention of ash carter...
"QUESTION: Okay. All right. I wanted to go back for a second to an interview that Secretary
Kerry gave to The Globe, The Boston Globe, in which he admitted that the deal with the Russians
over Syria was basically killed here because of the divisions within the Administration. Who was
that – what was the agency that killed the deal? Was it the Pentagon?
MR KIRBY: I don't think that that's what the Secretary said. I think the Secretary acknowledged
what we've long acknowledged; there was nothing new in this interview. He's been very open and
candid that even amongst the interagency here in the United States we haven't all agreed on the
way forward in Syria. I'm also not sure why that should be shocking to anybody. Every federal
agency has a different view --
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif says Iran, Russia and Turkey have started the
process of finding a political solution to the Syria crisis.
According to the Islamic State's official media wing, their forces foiled the massive Turkish
Army led assault, killing and wounding more than 50 military personnel in the process.
The primary cause of these high casualties was a suicide attack that was initiated by an
Islamic State terrorist west of the Al-Farouq Hospital.
For nearly a month now, the Turkish Army has attempted to enter the key city of Al-Bab;
however, they have been repeatedly repelled by the terrorist forces each time.
Local sources said that Mahmud Akhtarini was arrested by a group of Zenki militants at midnight
on charges of being a member of the ISIS terror organization. Four hours later, Mahmud was
reported dead after being brutally tortured.
The sources confirmed that the victim was mentally retarded.
The Turkish backed group is notorious for beheading a 12 year-old boy in Aleppo city, for
allegedly being a fighter of the Palestinian Liwaa Al Quds (Al-Quds Brigade).
... has Erdogan finally been taught the facts of life? or have all the other Turks in Turkey,
and will they soon put the sultan on his magic carpet in a real, made in Turkey, coup? Terrorism
at home, and abroad - with nothing to show for it - must be getting old for ordinary Turks.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't military 'assets' operating covertly in a country that
that is 'hostile' to US interests be under the command of the CIA?
We have been using "False Flag" operations to expand land since we were colonies and used white
slaves kidnapped from European countries to work for the Elite 1% land owners in the 16th, 17th,
18th, 19, 20th, and continuing in the 21st Century when the 911 False Flag Operation to further
erode the everyday people and further enrich the elite 1% and Masonic and Zionist ideologies.
https://mycommonsenseparty.com
"The Dow's initial move down in January of 2017 was very sharp and within a month, it was off
1900 points or almost 10%. As it is apparent from the chart, the Dow's slide was extremely volatile
with big losing streaks often followed by sharp rallies. In the meantime, the Russiagate scandal
was beginning to grow, as top Trump aides resigned at the end of April amid charges of obstruction
of justice. The Dow's fall continued until late August when it finally bottomed at 16,357 to complete
a seven month loss of almost 3600 points (over 18%). From this point, the Dow surged ahead so
rapidly that the Fools were likely lulled by Wall Street traitors into believing that a new leg
up was occurring. Amid October's renewed Ukraine-Syria War, Vice President Pence's forced resignation
for incompetence, and an Arab oil glut sending WTI to the mid-$30s, the Dow closed at 19,387 near
the end of that month for a gain of 15% off of its summer lows. The huge, two month rally left
the Dow just 6% below its all time high of 20,247 set back in January, but the NYSE's advance/decline
line was still in shambles. In addition, higher Fed interest rates were taking their toll on the
US economy which officially re-entered a recession in November. The divergence between the large-cap
stocks and smaller-cap stocks was resolved over the next five weeks as the markets experienced
a brutal pounding and the Dow plunged 4000 points or over 20%. The Dow bottomed at 15,788 in early
December of 2017 when NATO units were routed in Crimea by superior Russian forces, and Trump was
finally forced to resign in early 2018 for corporate malfeasance of office, but this did not bring
any relief to the Dow which continued to trade near the 15,000 level through most of the 2018
Recession."
Play by play, verbatim, from the last time a Republican President joined at the hip with Tel
Aviv, back in 1972. It's a' comin'!
I think b is being very subtle here, as these two statements are not consistent:
The White House did not react to this public military insubordination and undermining of
its diplomacy.
Emptywheel notes that ... the CIA is also in quite open insurrection against the President's
decisions
This might be hard to decipher for those who have not been paying attention. Suffice it to
say that skepticism that Obama/Kerry ever really wanted any deal is more than warranted. Was this
bungled deal just a delaying action?
Obama apologists have been making excuses this empty suit for years: 11-dimensional
chess, elite factions undermining him, his focus on his "legacy", etc. Yet Obama/Kerry really
don't seem too upset by the "failures" that have occurred on their watch. They don't really attempt
to recover from/rectify these failures. At some point one must ask: are those "failures" intentional?
"... I always laugh when Newt Gingrich says we need "rational regulation". His crew has as its prime agenda getting rid of any regulation that is actually rational. ..."
"... the greater the information asymmetry, the easier it is to loot. ..."
"... Gramm pushed the next round of stupid deregulation which led to the latest crisis. And it seems Team Trump is about to relive the same mistake. Studying overly simplified models that have historically failed us over and over is the height of stupidity. ..."
Jeb Hensarling and the Allure of Economism : The
Wall Street Journal has a profile up on Mike Crapo and Jeb Hensarling, the key committee
chairs (likely in Crapo's case) who will repeal or rewrite the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act. It's clear that both are planning to roll back or dilute many of the
provisions of Dodd-Frank, particularly those that protect consumers from toxic financial products
and those that impose restrictions on banks (which, together, make up most of the act).
Hensarling is about as clear a proponent of
economism -the belief that the world operates exactly as described in Economics 101 models-as
you're likely to find. He majored in economics at Texas A&M, where one of his professors was none
other than Phil Gramm. Hensarling described his college exposure to economics
this way :
"Even though I had grown up as a Republican, I didn't know why I was a Republican until
I studied economics. I suddenly saw how free-market economics provided the maximum good to
the maximum number, and I became convinced that if I had an opportunity, I'd like to serve
in public office and further the cause of the free market."
This is not a unique story...
Introductory economics, and particularly the competitive market model, can be seductive that
way. The models are so simple, logical, and compelling that they seem to unlock a whole new way
of seeing the world. And, arguably, they do: there are real insights you can gain from a working
understanding of supply and demand curves.
The problem, however, is that the people ... forget that the power of a theory in the abstract
bears no relationship to its accuracy in practice. ...
Hensarling, who likes to quote market principles in the abstract, doesn't appear to have moved
on much from Economics 101. ... This ritual invocation of markets ignores the fact that there
is no way to design a contemporary financial system that even remotely resembles the textbook
competitive market: perfect information, no barriers to entry, a large number of suppliers such
that no supplier can affect the market price, etc. ...
Regulatory policy that presumes well-functioning markets that don't exist is unlikely to work
well in the real world. Actually, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush tried that already, and we got
the financial crisis. But to people who believe in economism, theory can never be disproved by
experience. Hensarling is "always willing to compromise policies to advance principles," he actually
said to the Journal . That's a useful trait in an ideologue. It's frightening in the man
who will write the rules for our financial system.
I always laugh when Newt Gingrich says we need "rational regulation". His crew has as its prime
agenda getting rid of any regulation that is actually rational.
That is required to cover all the common law complexities from civil suits on labor issues being
legislated from the Federal bench.
Businesses have resorted to getting judges to legislate their way once their lobbying failed
to get Congress to legalize slavery by other names.
Labor is a part of econ 101 that businesses do not understand.
Businesses see labor as black holes sucking all the money it can out of the economy. Consumers,
on the other hand, are infinite sources of spending as long as government does not require consumers
repay debts. But government does need to put more money in consumer pockets with more and bigger
tax cuts.
When I learned econ 1 in secondary school social studies, the money spent at businesses came
100% from wages businesses paid.
A more advanced concept was economic profits were bad because that meant monopoly power restricting
supply to consumers to take too much of their money and also pay them less than in an efficient
economy.
"Hensarling is about as clear a proponent of economism -- the belief that the world operates exactly
as described in Economics 101 models-as you're likely to find. He majored in economics at Texas
A&M, where one of his professors was none other than Phil Gramm."
Gramm never really got the economics of financial institutions. Milton Friedman did as he studies
their failures during the Great Depression. We sort of relived this during the 1980's S&L crisis
but on a smaller scale. That crisis was driven by ill advised financial deregulation.
Gramm pushed
the next round of stupid deregulation which led to the latest crisis. And it seems Team Trump
is about to relive the same mistake. Studying overly simplified models that have historically
failed us over and over is the height of stupidity.
"The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of
1999, (Pub.L. 106–102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United
States Congress (1999–2001). It repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers
in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited
any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and
an insurance company. With the bipartisan passage of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, commercial banks,
investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies were allowed to consolidate. Furthermore,
it failed to give to the SEC or any other financial regulatory agency the authority to regulate
large investment bank holding companies.[1] The legislation was signed into law by President Bill
Clinton.[2]"
a good read but i disagree with their suggested approach:
"Consideration needs to be given to approaches such as those suggested by Bulow and Klemperer
(2015) and
King (2016) that give more weight to market prices as indicators of asset values and that bring
automaticity to the restoration of bank capital when it starts to decline."
imo, small enough to fail institutions pose less system risk and are less likely to speculate.
I suspect over time we will disagree slightly here and there on specifics but it is a joy to have
someone here that gets down to real analysis.
In my view Sarin-Summers took too tiny a step into something fundamental but often overlooked.
The return to equity is a mix of the equity/asset ratio (which needs to go up) aka leverage risk
and the issue of operational risk which you are hinting at.
I bet Anne will demand more on what I'm saying here. Tiem to think about how best to present
this over at Econospeak as this is a really big deal. Even if it is something Trump's new CEA
(Lawrence Kudlow) does not get. Neither does PeterK so maybe he can work for Kudlow - the stupidest
man alive (almost).
Small enough to fail institutions like ... Bear and Lehman?
Theory aside, in the real life crisis we had risk built up across the entire system, not just
big banks, and when a few midsized firms went under it broke the buck and everything went to hell.
Perhaps more importantly though, it was *consumers'* overleveraging that caused the prolonged
depression. The big banks participated in that but didn't have central roles.
"Milton Friedman did as he studies their failures during the Great Depression."
So, how is it that he promised money market funds would ever be at risk of insolvency and need
Fed bailout of credit, and that money market funds would never face bank runs because no one would
ever question their safety and solvency?
How is it that he failed to predict Primary Reserve breaking the buck and triggering bank runs
on the shadow banks?
I remember the debate over Regulation Q and retail money market funds. I agreed with the big
government liberals that it was going to end badly. That it took 37 years is not a surprise to
me, but October 2008 was no surprise at all to me. It was forecast by my kind of economists in
1970 based on what happened multiple times before 1935 when sane bankers and economists developed
the bank regulation that produced half a century of no bank crisis.
Friedman, on the other hand, argued for deregulation that delivered bank crisis in the late
80s, the 90s multiple times deftly handled by bailouts by both government and by forcing Wall
Street banks to do Morgan bailouts, eg LTCM, and the IMF, and then yet again, the bank crisis
of the 00s.
Three decades of bank crisis in four decades is hardly evidence Friedman understood banking.
For Free Market Ideologues the Great Depression Never Happened
Simple question for Jeb H: Why was there a Great Depression when we had budget surpluses every
year during the 1920s?
How could the Free Market have failed so completely from 1929 to 1933? We had gold money and
regulations were minimal. It was the ideal context for the Free Market and yet the Dow lost 90%
of its value. Why has the Dow nearly tripled in value now with Dodd-Frank in force?
I'm with yuan on this one. But this is a long story. For today - let me applaud you and yuan for
bringing something new and needed here. Debates over actual economic analysis.
We got a lot more than the financial crisis from r lying on markets more than government. Yes,
regs are necessary (externalities, monopolies, etc) but "the more the merrrier" is not the underlying
principle. Read that D/F has > 20k "rules" with >300 "major" rules yet to be written after 6 years
of work. The world changes way faster than government can. Regulators need to find much simpler,
more general approaches ("less leverage") if they're going to continue to add value.
This is a problem of the teaching of contemporary economics, not of Jed Hensarling. Economists
tout simplified classical models as fundamentally correct, teach them in freshman Economics 101,
and only admit that they don't approximate reality in Econ 401, for seniors. But most students
never take another econ course after 101. The damage is done. Not surprisingly, most young Republicans
discover that economic reality is...Free Market and Republican!
Think maybe it's time to show them that the classical model doesn't really work when they are
freshmen, and not complain after they're already in Congress.
Agency's '04 Rule Let Banks Pile Up New Debt
It was unanimous. The decision, changing what was known as the net capital rule, was completed
and published in The Federal Register a few months later.
With that, the five big independent investment firms were unleashed.
In loosening the capital rules, which are supposed to provide a buffer in turbulent times,
the agency also decided to rely on the firms' own computer models for determining the riskiness
of investments, essentially outsourcing the job of monitoring risk to the banks themselves.
At Bear Stearns, the leverage ratio - a measurement of how much the firm was borrowing compared
to its total assets - rose sharply, to 33 to 1.
Ah, Texas the home of fundamentalism. Texas basically lives by sticking a big straw in the ground
and selling what comes out. That is great until it (as it will) stops working. Texas is a caricature
of all that is wrong with mankind.
Another way to look at Texas is as the Saudi Arabia of North America. All that is missing is a
King. The rest of the USA should get together and give it back to Mexico. Both countries would
be better off.
It is impossible to overstate the stakes involved in the latest controversy over Russia. They
involve trillions of dollars in warfare largess to the tens of thousands of bureaucratic warfare-state
parasites who are sucking the lifeblood out of the American people.
Ever since the advent of the U.S. national-security state after World War II, America has needed
official enemies, especially ones that induce fear, terror, and panic within the American citizenry.
When people are fearful, terrified, and panicked, they are much more willing, even eager, to have
government officials do whatever is necessary to keep them safe and secure. It is during such times
that liberty is at greatest risk because of the propensity of government to assume emergency powers
and the proclivity of the citizenry to let them have them.
That's what the Cold War was all about. The official enemies were communism and the Soviet Union,
which was an alliance of nations that had Russia at its center. U.S. officials convinced Americans
that there was a worldwide communist conspiracy to take over the world, with its principal base in
Moscow.
A correlative threat was Red China, whose communist hordes were supposedly threatening to flood
the United States.
There were also the communist outposts, which were considered spearheads pointed at America. North
Korea. North Vietnam. Cuba, which, Americans were told, was a communist dagger pointed out America's
neck from only 90 miles away.
And then there was communism the philosophy, along with the communists who promoted it. It was
clear, U.S. officials gravely maintained, that communism was spreading all across the world, including
inside the U.S. Army, the State Department, and Hollywood, and that communists were everyone, including
leftist organizations and even sometimes under people's beds.
Needless to say, all this fear, terror, and panic induced people to support the ever-growing budgets,
influence, and power of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA, which had become the national-security
branch of the federal government - and the most powerful branch at that. Few cared that their hard-earned
monies were being taken from them by the IRS in ever-increasing amounts. All that mattered was being
kept safe from the communists.
Hardly anyone questioned or challenged this warfare-state racket. President Eisenhower alluded
to it in his Farewell Address in 1961, when he pointed out that this new-fangled governmental structure,
which he called "the military industrial complex," now posed a grave threat to the freedoms and democratic
processes of the American people.
One of those who did challenge this official-enemy syndrome was President John F. Kennedy. At
war with his national-security establishment in 1963, Kennedy threw the gauntlet down at his famous
Peace Speech at American University in June of that year. There was no reason, Kennedy said, that
the Soviet Union (i.e., Russia) and the rest of the communist world couldn't live in peace co-existence
and even friendship, even if the nations were guided by different ideologies and philosophies. Kennedy
announced that it was time to end the Cold War against Russia and the rest of the communist world.
What Kennedy was proposing was anathema to the national-security state and its ever-growing army
of voracious contractors and subcontractors who were feeding at the public trough. How dare he remove
the Soviet Union (i.e., Russia) as America's official enemy? How could the Pentagon, the CIA, and
the NSA justify their ever-growing budgets and their ever-growing emergency powers? Indeed, how could
they justify the very existence of their Cold War totalitarian-type apparatus known as a "national
security state" without a giant official enemy to strike fear, terror, and panic with the American
people?
Once Kennedy was removed from the scene, everything returned to "normal." The Cold War continued.
The Vietnam War against the commies in Asia to prevent more dominoes from falling got ramped up.
The Soviet Union, Red China, and the worldwide communist conspiracy continued to be America's big
official enemies. The military and intelligence budgets continued to rise. The number of warfare
state parasites continued soaring.
Seemingly, there was never going to be an end to the process. Until one day, the unexpected suddenly
happened. The Berlin Wall came crashing down, East and West Germany were reunited, and the Soviet
Union was dismantled, all of which struck unmitigated fear within the bowels of the American deep
state.
Oh sure, there was still Cuba, Red China, North Korea, and Vietnam but those communist nations,
for some reason, just didn't strike fear, terror, and panic within Americans as Russia did.
U.S. officials needed a new official enemy. Enter Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq, who had
served as a partner and ally of the U.S. government during the 1980s when he was waging war against
Iran, which, by that time, had become converted from official friend to official enemy of the U.S.
Empire. Throughout the 1990s, Saddam was made into the new official enemy. Like the Soviets and the
communists, Saddam was coming to get us and unleash mushroom clouds all over America. The American
people bought it and, not surprisingly, budgets for the national-security establishment continued
their upward soar.
Then came the 9/11 attacks in retaliation for what the Pentagon and the CIA were doing in the
Middle East, followed by with the retaliatory invasions Afghanistan and Iraq. Suddenly the new official
enemies were "terrorism" and then later Islam. Like the communists of yesteryear, the terrorists
and the Muslims were coming to get us, take over the federal government, run the IRS and HUD, and
force everyone to study the Koran. The American people bought it and, not surprisingly, budgets for
the national-security establishment continued their upward soar.
The problem is that Americans, including U.S. soldiers and their families, are now growing weary
of the forever wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan. But U.S. national-security state officials
know that if they bring the troops home, the official enemies of terrorism and Islam disappear at
the same time.
That's why they have decided to return to their old, tried and true official enemy - Russia and,
implicitly, communism. It's why the U.S. broke its promise to Russia to dismantle NATO. It's why
the U.S. supported regime change in the coup in Ukraine. It's why the U.S. wants Ukraine into NATO
- to enable the U.S. to install missiles on Russia's border. It's why the national-security state
is "pivoting" toward Asia - to provoke crises with Red China. It's why they are accusing Russia of
interfering with the U.S. presidential election and campaigning for Donald Trump. The aim of it all
is to bring back the old Cold War official enemies of Russia, China, and communism, in order to keep
Americans afraid, terrified, and panicked, which then means the continuation of ever-growing budgets
to all those warfare state parasites who are sucking the lifeblood out of the American people.
With his fight against the CIA over Russian hacking and his desire to establish normal relations
with Russia, Donald Trump is clearly not buying into this old, tried-and-true Russia-as-official
enemy narrative. In the process, he is posing a grave threat to the national-security establishment
and its ever-growing budgets, influence, and power.
"... But "bastard neoliberalism" that Trump represents in his internal economic policy probably is not a solution for the nations problems. It is too early to say what will be the level of his deviation from election promises, but judging for his appointments it probably will be considerable -- up to a complete reverse on certain promises. ..."
"... So I view his election as the next logical step (after the first two by Bush II and Obama) toward military dictatorship. Previous forms of "Inverted totalitarism" -- a neoliberal version of Bolshevism (or, more correctly, Trotskyism -- many neocons were actually former Trotskyites ) seems to stop working. Neoliberal ideology was discredited in 2008. All three: Bolshevism, Trotskyism and neoliberalism might also be viewed as just different flavors of Corporatism. ..."
"... After 2008 crisis, neoliberalism in the USA continues to exist in zombie state: as a non-dead dead, so it will be inevitably replaced by something else. Much like Bolshevism after 1945. How soon it will happen and what will be the actual trigger (the next oil crisis which turns into another round of Great Recession?) and what will be the successor is anybody guess. Bolshevism in the USSR lasted till 1991 or 46 years. The victory on neoliberalism in the Cold War was in 1991 so if we add 50 years then 2041 might be the date. ..."
I think the shift from New Deal Capitalism to neoliberalism proved to be fatal for the form
of democracy that used to exist in the USA (never perfect, and never for the plebs).
Neoliberalism as a strange combination of socialism for the rich and feudalism for the poor
is anathema for democracy even for the narrow strata of the US society who used to have a say
in the political process. Like Bolshevism was dictatorship of nomenklatura under the slogan of
"Proletarians of all countries, unite!", neoliberalism is more like dictatorship of financial
oligarchy under the slogan "The financial elite of all countries, unite!")
In this sense Trump is just the logical end of the process that started in 1980 with Reagan,
or even earlier with Carter.
And at the same time [he is] the symptom of the crisis of the system, as large swats of population
this time voted against status quo and that created the revolutionary situation when the elite
was unable to govern in the old fashion. That's why, I think, Hillary lost and Trump won.
But "bastard neoliberalism" that Trump represents in his internal economic policy probably
is not a solution for the nations problems. It is too early to say what will be the level of his
deviation from election promises, but judging for his appointments it probably will be considerable
-- up to a complete reverse on certain promises.
So I view his election as the next logical step (after the first two by Bush II and Obama)
toward military dictatorship. Previous forms of "Inverted totalitarism" -- a neoliberal version
of Bolshevism (or, more correctly, Trotskyism -- many neocons were actually former Trotskyites
) seems to stop working. Neoliberal ideology was discredited in 2008. All three: Bolshevism, Trotskyism
and neoliberalism might also be viewed as just different flavors of Corporatism.
After 2008 crisis, neoliberalism in the USA continues to exist in zombie state: as a non-dead
dead, so it will be inevitably replaced by something else. Much like Bolshevism after 1945. How
soon it will happen and what will be the actual trigger (the next oil crisis which turns into
another round of Great Recession?) and what will be the successor is anybody guess. Bolshevism
in the USSR lasted till 1991 or 46 years. The victory on neoliberalism in the Cold War was in
1991 so if we add 50 years then 2041 might be the date.
And the slide toward military dictatorship does not necessary need to take a form of junta,
which takes power via coup d'état. The control of the government by three letter agencies ("national
security state") seems to be sufficient, can be accomplished by stealth, and might well be viewed
as a form of military dictatorship too. So it can be a gradual slide: phase I, II, III, etc.
The problem here as with Brezhnev socialism in the USSR is the growing level of degeneration
of elite and the growth of influence of deep state, which includes at its core three letter agencies.
As Michail Gorbachev famously said about neoliberal revolution in the USSR "the process already
started in full force". He just did not understand at this point that he already completely lost
control over neoliberal "Perestroika" of the USSR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perestroika
In a way, the US Presidents are now more and more ceremonial figures that help to maintain
the illusion of the legitimacy of the system. Obama is probably the current pinnacle of this process
(which is reflected in one of his nicknames -- "teleprompter" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/obama-photo-caption-contest-teleprompter_n_1821154.html)
.
You probably could elect a dog instead of Trump and the US foreign policy will stay exactly
the same. This hissy fits about Russians that deep state gave Trump before December 19, might
be viewed as a warning as for any potential changes in foreign policy.
As we saw with foreign policy none of recent presidents really fully control it. They still
are important players, but the question is whether they are still dominant players. My impression
is that it is already by-and-large defined and implemented by the deep state. Sometimes dragging
the President forcefully into the desirable course of actions.
We should not expect the truth from the corrupted establishment who fiercely fought Bernie Sanders,
for example. We should expect it from someone who supported him. Indeed, the Congresswoman Tulsi
Gabbard, who resigned as DNC vice-chair on February 28, 2016, in order to endorse Bernie Sanders
for the Democratic presidential nomination, and actually was the first female US Representative to
endorse Sanders, 'dared' to introduce bill so that the US to stop arming terrorists!
Her words left no doubt of who is behind the dirty war in Syria and the chaos in the Middle East:
Mr. speaker, under US law, it is illegal for you, or me, or any American, to provide any
type of assistance to Al-Qaeda, ISIS, or other terrorist groups. If we broke this law, we'll be
thrown in jail.
Yet the US government has been violating this law for years, directly and indirectly supporting
allies and partners of groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, with money, weapons, intelligence and other
support in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government .
A recent NY Times article, confirmed that rebel groups supported by the US 'have entered
into battlefield alliances with the affiliate of al-Qaeda in Syria, formerly known as al Nusra.'
The Wall Street Journal reports that rebel groups are 'doubling down on their alliance with al-Qaeda'.
This alliance has rendered the phrase 'moderate rebels' meaningless .
We must stop this madness.We must stop arming terrorists .
I'm introducing the Stop Arming Terrorists act today, to prohibit taxpayer dollars for being
used to support terrorists.
Speaking on
CNN , Gabbard specifically named CIA as the agency that supports terrorist groups in
the Middle East:
The US government has been providing money, weapons, intel. assistance and other types of
support through the CIA, directly to these groups that are working with and are affiliated with
Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
Also, Gabbard specifically named the allies through which the US assist these terrorist groups:
We've also been providing that support through countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar
...
Speaking
on NPR , Gabbard explained that she was working on the issue of the US interventionist,
regime-change wars for years since she has been in Congress. Therefore, her position coincides with
that of Donald Trump who repeatedly declared his opposition to these wars. This was also the main
reason for which she endorsed Bernie Sanders:
SIMON: You and President-elect Trump are obviously of different parties. But don't you kind
of have the same position on Syria?
GABBARD: I have heard him talk about his opposition to continuing interventionist, regime-change
wars. I want to be clear, though, that this is an issue that I have been working on for years
since I have been in Congress. And it's one...
SIMON: It's why you endorsed Senator Sanders, isn't it?
GABBARD: It's - correct. It was a clear difference between Senator Sanders and Secretary
Clinton. I am hopeful that this new administration coming in will change these policies so that
we don't continue making these destructive decisions, as have been made in the past.
This is really a unique moment, showing the absolute failure of the US obsolete, dirty policies
and the degree of degeneration of the 'idealistic' picture of the Unites States as the number one
global power. We can't remember any moment in the past in which a congressman was seeking to pass
a bill to prohibit the US government funding terrorists, or, a newly elected president who, in his
campaigns, was stating clearly that the previous administration created many terrorist groups.
"... What we ordinary folk think of as "American" interests are those interests as expressed by an entrenched foreign policy establishment to which the price of admission isn't only graduate studies in an expensive university. No, you have to walk within the lines. There's nothing as old under the sun as "group-think". ..."
"... he served a purpose when he diverged from long established consensus and said that maybe, just maybe, getting on with the Russians might not be that hard. Or that NATO is an out-dated, dead-weight non-alliance of the unwilling. Or that border-less trade ruined heartland America. ..."
The way things are supposed to work on this planet is like this: in the United States, the power
structures (public and private) decide what they want the rest of the world to do. They communicate
their wishes through official and unofficial channels, expecting automatic cooperation. If cooperation
is not immediately forthcoming, they apply political, financial and economic pressure. If that still
doesn't produce the intended effect, they attempt regime change through a color revolution or a military
coup, or organize and finance an insurgency leading to terrorist attacks and civil war in the recalcitrant
nation. If that still doesn't work, they bomb the country back to the stone age. This is the way
it worked in the 1990s and the 2000s, but as of late a new dynamic has emerged.
In the beginning it was centered on Russia, but the phenomenon has since spread around the world
and is about to engulf the United States itself. It works like this: the United States decides what
it wants Russia to do and communicates its wishes, expecting automatic cooperation. Russia says "Nyet."
The United States then runs through all of the above steps up to but not including the bombing campaign,
from which it is deterred by Russia's nuclear deterrent. The answer remains "Nyet." One could perhaps
imagine that some smart person within the US power structure would pipe up and say: "Based on the
evidence before us, dictating our terms to Russia doesn't work; let's try negotiating with Russia
in good faith as equals." And then everybody else would slap their heads and say, "Wow! That's brilliant!
Why didn't we think of that?" But instead that person would be fired that very same day because,
you see, American global hegemony is nonnegotiable. And so what happens instead is that the Americans
act baffled, regroup and try again, making for quite an amusing spectacle.
The whole Edward Snowden imbroglio was particularly fun to watch. The US demanded his extradition.
The Russians said: "Nyet, our constitution forbids it." And then, hilariously, some voices in the
West demanded in response that Russia change its constitution! The response, requiring no translation,
was "Xa-xa-xa-xa-xa!" Less funny is the impasse over Syria: the Americans have been continuously
demanding that Russia go along with their plan to overthrow Bashar Assad. The unchanging Russian
response has been: "Nyet, the Syrians get to decide on their leadership, not Russia, and not the
US." Each time they hear it, the Americans scratch their heads and try again. John Kerry was just
recently in Moscow, holding a marathon "negotiating session" with Putin and Lavrov. Above is a photo
of Kerry talking to Putin and Lavrov in Moscow a week or so ago and their facial expressions are
hard to misread. There's Kerry, with his back to the camera, babbling away as per usual. Lavrov's
face says: "I can't believe I have to sit here and listen to this nonsense again." Putin's face says:
"Oh the poor idiot, he can't bring himself to understand that we're just going to say 'nyet' again."
Kerry flew home with yet another "nyet."
What's worse, other countries are now getting into the act. The Americans told the Brits exactly
how to vote, and yet the Brits said "nyet" and voted for Brexit. The Americans told the Europeans
to accept the horrendous corporate power grab that is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
(TTIP), and the French said "nyet, it shall not pass." The US organized yet another military coup
in Turkey to replace Erdoǧan with somebody who won't try to play nice with Russia, and the Turks
said "nyet" to that too. And now, horror of horrors, there is Donald Trump saying "nyet" to all sorts
of things-NATO, offshoring American jobs, letting in a flood of migrants, globalization, weapons
for Ukrainian Nazis, free trade
The corrosive psychological effect of "nyet" on the American hegemonic psyche cannot be underestimated.
If you are supposed to think and act like a hegemon, but only the thinking part still works, then
the result is cognitive dissonance. If your job is to bully nations around, and the nations can no
longer be bullied, then your job becomes a joke, and you turn into a mental patient. The resulting
madness has recently produced quite an interesting symptom: some number of US State Department staffers
signed a letter, which was promptly leaked, calling for a bombing campaign against Syria in order
to overthrow Bashar Assad. These are diplomats. Diplomacy is the art of avoiding war by talking.
Diplomats who call for war are not being exactly diplomatic. You could say that they are incompetent
diplomats, but that wouldn't go far enough (most of the competent diplomats left the service during
the second Bush administration, many of them in disgust over having to lie about the rationale for
the Iraq war). The truth is, they are sick, deranged non-diplomatic warmongers. Such is the power
of this one simple Russian word that they have quite literally lost their minds.
But it would be unfair to single out the State Department. It is as if the entire American body
politic has been infected by a putrid miasma. It permeates all things and makes life miserable. In
spite of the mounting problems, most other things in the US are still somewhat manageable, but this
one thing-the draining away of the ability to bully the whole world-ruins everything. It's mid-summer,
the nation is at the beach. The beach blanket is moth-eaten and threadbare, the beach umbrella has
holes in it, the soft drinks in the cooler are laced with nasty chemicals and the summer reading
is boring and then there is a dead whale decomposing nearby, whose name is "Nyet." It just ruins
the whole ambiance!
The media chattering heads and the establishment politicos are at this point painfully aware of
this problem, and their predictable reaction is to blame it on what they perceive as its ultimate
source: Russia, conveniently personified by Putin. "If you aren't voting for Clinton, you are voting
for Putin" is one recently minted political trope. Another is that Trump is Putin's agent. Any public
figure that declines to take a pro-establishment stance is automatically labeled "Putin's useful
idiot." Taken at face value, such claims are preposterous. But there is a deeper explanation for
them: what ties them all together is the power of "nyet." A vote for Sanders is a "nyet" vote: the
Democratic establishment produced a candidate and told people to vote for her, and most of the young
people said "nyet." Same thing with Trump: the Republican establishment trotted out its Seven Dwarfs
and told people to vote for any one of them, and yet most of the disenfranchised working-class white
people said "nyet" and voted for Snow White the outsider.
It is a hopeful sign that people throughout the Washington-dominated world are discovering the
power of "nyet." The establishment may still look spiffy on the outside, but under the shiny new
paint there hides a rotten hull, with water coming in though every open seam. A sufficiently resounding
"nyet" will probably be enough to cause it to founder, suddenly making room for some very necessary
changes. When that happens, please remember to thank Russia or, if you insist, Putin.
NowhereMan said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 7:13:00 AM EDT
Beautiful! I'm going to start using that word in conversation now just to gauge people's
reactions. Nyet!!! I have one particularly stuffy friend who's just baffled by the Trump
phenomenon. He's an old school GOP conservative at heart who's chagrined that he's had to
abandon the grand old party in favor of HRC and can't understand for the life of him why the
"dirt people" are so enamored with Trump and Sanders. I just laugh and tell him that they're
abandoning the Dems for the same reasons that he's embracing them.
The rich and the near rich (which seems to include just about everybody these days, if only in
their imaginations) here in the US all suffer from fundamental attribution bias - the idea
that their own exceptionalism is why they are doing well - rather than realizing that it's all
mostly just the luck of the draw - or even worse - their own willingness to carry corporate
water like the good little Nazi's they are that has allowed them to temporarily advance their
station in life.
Fortunately for us all, the sun is setting on America's empire as we speak, and fevered dreams
of US hegemony for the rest of time will be short lived indeed, although homo sapiens' time
might be limited as well. If history keeps recording in the aftermath, US nuclear enabled
hegemony will be but a brief blip on the historical radar, and like the legend of Atlantis
before us, we'll be remembered chiefly as a society gone mad with our technologies, who
aspired to reach out and touch the face of god, but instead settled for embracing our many
inner devils. We won't be missed.
Happy Unicorn said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 9:26:00 AM EDT
A vote for Trump is a vote for Putin? Wouldn't THAT be nice!
Dave Stockton said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 9:36:00 AM EDT
This whole, "a vote against Hillary is a vote for Putin", is the best thing that could have
happened this election. The US population will now have a debate and get to vote on whether we
truly want to start World War Three. Hopefully the powers that be will be surprised by the
response... NYET!
Unknown said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 12:23:00 PM EDT
Nice...
Putin recently made fun of Lavrov, that he is becoming like Gromyko....
...and Gromyko was called Mr. NYET. :-)
Vyse Legendaire said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 12:37:00 PM EDT
I hope someone would volunteer to design a 'Nyet!' T-shirt on teepublic for advocates to
show their unity to the cause.
Shawn Sincoski said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 4:44:00 PM EDT
I really hope that the next time the TBTF banks need a handout, somebody, somewhere reacts
with a 'NFW' that resonates with the other plebes. Such a powerful word. But I am doubtful
that such an event will occur. With all that is going on with Hillary the house should be on
fire by now, but it is not (I am not advocating Trump by disparaging HRC). I suspect that the
coming American experience will be unique and (dis)proportionate to their apathy.
Cortes said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 9:01:00 PM EDT
Herbert Marcuse: The first word of freedom is "No"
Irene Parousis said... Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 6:58:00 AM EDT
BRILLIANT!!!
Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 12:12:00 AM EDT
d94c074a-53e8-11e6-947a-073bf9f943f9 said...
Excellent.
There is a minor twist: "The corrosive psychological effect of "nyet" on the American
hegemonic psyche cannot be underestimated". Probably GWB's "misunderestimated" left some local
linguistic traume in your brain popping up in your otherwise perfect comment. I guess you
meant "cannot be overestimated". Nevermind, you message is clear and convincing anyway :-)
Mister Roboto said... Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 8:07:00 AM EDT
This sums up why all the usual poppycock and folderol about why I need to vote for Hillary
that always succeeded in getting under my intellectual skin in the past is now just the mere
noise of screeching cats outside the window to me: There just comes a point where, if you have
any integrity at all, you have to say, "Nyet!"
Mark said...
Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 5:42:00 AM EDT
At some point, voting for a major party candidate is just throwing away your vote.
Roger said...
Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 7:11:00 AM EDT
I always enjoy Dmitry's blogs and the fact that he pushes the Russian perspective, as a relief
from the Russophobic drivel put out by the mainstream. However, a word of caution to the wise.
Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Trump et al. are, in fact, extremely unfunny. Charlie Chaplin lampooned
the funny little man with the moustache in the Great Dictator, xa! xa! xa! The truth came out
later. Do not be afraid of Neocon America, but please remember these are dangerous people. Be
vigilant always.
Bruno said...
Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 10:55:00 AM EDT
Loved.
And sad because Brasil didn't say NYET to the coup planted here by USA.
Unknown said...
Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 1:02:00 PM EDT
"Putin recently made fun of Lavrov, that he is becoming like Gromyko....
...and Gromyko was called Mr. NYET. :-)"
Even better, Lavrov was subsequently quoted in the press as saying "don't make me say the four
letter word".
What a tag team!
Marty said...
Friday, July 29, 2016 at 9:20:00 AM EDT
I really believe that you have hit the crux of the issue, the Neocon psychopaths are besides
themselves over the Nyets, and they find themselves to be a once powerful now toothless lion,
the are being laughed at, even by the American people.
I hope so because the worst of the bunch is Mrs. Clinton, she is just a crazy and stupid enough
to burn it all down, perhaps the only thing that would prevent her from doing so is that this
would interfere with her Diabolical Narcissistic need to be seen as the Kleptocrat she is and
to get away with being the biggest grifter in American history.
Turkey shows that they can't even organize a proper coup any more, even when they have a major
base in the country of the government to be compromised. The NeoCons must be so disappointed.
This failed coup was probably also was a big disappointment to those Fed Banksters who were
counting on looting the Bank if Turkey's 500 or so Tonnes of gold, as they did with Ukraine.
Roger said...
Friday, July 29, 2016 at 12:53:00 PM EDT
Leon Panetta sez "we know how to do this" despite an exuberant flourishing of evidence to the
contrary. But there's a glimmer of hope, even if it comes from a way down the ranks, because
there's a Col Bacevitch who begs to differ and sez "with all due respect, we DON'T know how to
do this."
You ask, know how to do WHAT exactly? Well, the topic at issue in a PBS panel discussion was
destroying the Islamic State. But knowing how to do it or NOT knowing how to do it could refer
equally to a series of monumental American foreign policy muffs. How could it be, that America
with all its military force, screws up so mightily and predictably? Because it's as Mr Orlov
asserts, there's a lot of NYETS out there and the American foreign policy establishment can't
fathom it.
But what they most crucially can't fathom is that those damn furriners have their own
interests at heart just like the Americans have their own interests. Americans from the street
level to the highest echelons view the world through Americentric lens resulting in
ludicrously distorted fun-house views of the world.
For example, why doesn't the Iranian see things the way Americans want him to? Why is it
always "nyet" coming out of Teheran? Why are Iranians so belligerent? Americans seemingly
can't comprehend that Iran is an ancient imperial power whose roots go back millennia, right
to the origins of civilization. But could it possibly be that Iranian concerns have got more
to do with goings-on in their geographic locale and pretty much nothing to do with the United
States? And that the Iranian is highly irritated that Americans stick their noses into matters
that concern Americans only tangentially or not at all? Could it be that the Iranian has his
own life pathways in age-old places that Americans know nothing about? Could it be that an
Iranian is educated in his own traditions in ancient academies that far pre-date anything on
American soil? You can replace the words "Iranian" and "Iran" with "Chinese" and "China" or
"Japanese" and "Japan" or dozens of other places and societies including "Russian" and
"Russia". American incomprehension goes deep.
Maybe some of the world is Washington-dominated. But maybe some this domination is more
apparent than real. Maybe it only seems Washington-dominated because in many of these places
there's a concordance of interests with the United States. But in most of the globe the
interests of Americans are not the same as those of the locals. And America has not got the
will nor the reach to make it otherwise.
Happy Unicorn said...
Roger: "But in most of the globe the interests of Americans are not the same as those of the
locals."
Most of the globe, including America itself! The interests of the Americans you're talking
about are usually not the same as mine or anyone's that I know ("the locals" in America). I
suspect the people of the USA who aren't brainwashed would have a lot in common with everybody
else in the world, because the first colony of any would-be empire (colony 0, let's say) is
always the country it originated from. More and more of us are saying nyet too, though the
utterance usually takes the less exotic form also enumerated by Dmitry awhile back: "No,
because we hate you."
Friday, July 29, 2016 at 3:03:00 PM EDT
flops said...
Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 7:22:00 AM EDT
In good wronglish:
There's America, Americans, USA.
And, in some point of our decolonized memory, there's Pacha Mama, our Mother Earth, the name
given to our land by the older people.
Not by chance, the unique country in Pacha Mama continents that have a pre-colonial language
as its official - Paraguay's Guarani - was the initial focus of this antidemocratic wave
attacking our countries.
We, the united states of...? What?
"Pacha Mama" is our best nyet!
Not anymore south and central americas, south and central "americans". Pacha Mama is our real
continents' name! We are The United States of Pacha Mama!
When mentioning people from brazil, angentine, chile, bolivia, peru paraguay
colombiavenezuelahaiti,surinamepanamacubamexico and so, please call us Pachamamists. That'
what we are.
Roger said...
Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 11:27:00 AM EDT
HappyUnicorn, of course you're right.
What we ordinary folk think of as "American" interests are those interests as expressed by an
entrenched foreign policy establishment to which the price of admission isn't only graduate
studies in an expensive university. No, you have to walk within the lines. There's nothing as
old under the sun as "group-think".
The lines are long established. Just think of it: globalization, off-shoring millions of jobs,
on-shoring millions of dirt-poor immigrants, legal and otherwise. Nothing warms the cockles of
the oligarch's heart like a desperate underclass.
I know Trump is a buffoon. But he served a purpose when he diverged from long established
consensus and said that maybe, just maybe, getting on with the Russians might not be that
hard. Or that NATO is an out-dated, dead-weight non-alliance of the unwilling. Or that
border-less trade ruined heartland America.
You saw the venomous reaction. A lot of people staked a career on the status-quo. Is the
best-before expired as Trump suggested? I'll bet that if it hadn't been a blustering clown
that raised it, many more people on the street would agree.
Some regional interests are historic and easily visible for example, along the Mason-Dixon
line. But even on either side of that old divide I think that the disparity is more an
artifact of opposing elites determined to not get along. Why don't they get along? Well,
there's a country to loot. You need distractions and diversions while pension funds and
treasuries are emptied.
And so we're off chasing our tails on burning problems like gender neutral washrooms.
Brilliant, don't you think? Kudos to the Obama regime for that one. And so it's God fearin',
gun packin' "conservative" versus enlightened, high-minded "progressive". What a joke, what a
con. Yet, predictably, we fell for it. You name it, school prayer, abortion, evolution, and
now washrooms, we fall for it, we always do.
Robert T. said...
Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 1:52:00 PM EDT
It would be very nice if someone could write a piece on what life in Russia, in all its
levels, is really like nowadays. I suspect that it is not just "nyet" that terrifies the
Empire, but rather what Russia herself is now increasingly coming to represent.
A lot of people, myself included, had been brought up thinking that Russia, while indeed a
superpower, isn't and cannot be on the same page as the US. But now here are reports saying
that a good and strong leader has pulled Russia out of the rut, and made things better. What's
more, this leader did it in a manner that seems antithetical to the Empire. And what's even
better is that this new Russia can't be easily rocked, like how the other countries had been
rocked and thrown into chaos. The Empire therefore is at its wit's end. If people from other
parts of the Earth, especially in those many places where democracy has failed miserably,
begin to see that there is indeed an alternative to the empirical system, won't they then
start to follow Russia's footsteps?
Headsails said... Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 2:07:00 AM EDT
Just like a spoiled rotten child that needs to learn some manners. It needs to learn the
meaning of no. But in this case, instead of a spankng they would be chain ganged for life.
Brain Parasite Gonna Eatcha!
I've been experiencing some difficulties with commenting on the current political situation in the
US, because it's been a little too funny, whereas this is a very serious blog. But I have decided
that I must try my best. Now, these are serious matters, so as you read this, please refrain from
any and all levity and mirth.
You may have heard by now that the Russians stole the US presidential election; if it wasn't for
them, Hillary Clinton would have been president-elect, but because of their meddling we are now stuck
with Donald Trump and his 1001 oligarchs running the federal government for the next four years.
There are two ways to approach this question. One is to take the accusation of Russian hacking
of the US elections at face value, and we will certainly do that. But first let's try another way,
because it's quicker. Let's consider the accusation itself as a symptom of some unrelated disorder.
This is often the best way forward. Suppose a person walks into a doctor's office, and says, "Doctor,
I believe I have schizophrenium poisoning." Should the doctor summon the hazmat team, or check for
schizophrenia first?
And so let's first consider that this "Russians did it" refrain we keep hearing is a symptom of
something else, of which Russians are not the cause. My working hypothesis is that this behavior
is being caused by a brain parasite. Yes, this may seem outlandish at first, but as we'll see later
the theory that the Russians stole the election is no less outlandish.
Brain parasites are known to alter the behavior of the organisms they infest in a variety of subtle
ways. For instance, Toxicoplasma gondii alters the behavior of rodents, causing them to lose
fear of cats and to become attracted to the smell of cat urine, making it easy for the cats to catch
them. It also alters the behavior of humans, causing them to lavish excessive affection on cats and
to compulsively download photographs of cute kittens playing with yarn.
My hypothesis is that this particular brain parasite was specifically bioengineered by the US
to make those it infects hate Russia. I suspect that the neurological trigger it uses is Putin's
face, which the parasite somehow wires into the visual cortex. This virus was first unleashed on
the unsuspecting Ukrainians, where its effect was plain to see. This historically Russian, majority
Russian-speaking, culturally Russian and religiously Russian Orthodox region suddenly erupted in
an epidemic of Russophobia. The Ukraine cut economic ties with Russia, sending its economy into a
tailspin, and started a war with its eastern regions, which were quite recently part of Russia and
wish to become part of Russia again.
So far so good: the American bioengineers who created this virus achieved the effect they wanted,
turning a Russian region into an anti-Russian region. But as happens so often with biological agents,
it turned out to be hard to keep under control. Its next victims turned out to be NATO and the Pentagon,
whose leadership started compulsively uttering the phrase "Russian aggression" in a manner suggestive
of Tourette's Syndrome, entirely undeterred by the complete absence of evidence of any such aggression
that they could present for objective analysis. They, along with the by now fit-to-be-tied Ukrainians,
kept prattling on about "Russian invasion," waving about decades-old pictures of Russian tanks they
downloaded from their friends on Facebook.
From there the brain parasite spread to the White House, the Clinton presidential campaign, the
Democratic National Committee, and its attendant press corps, who are now all chattering away about
"Russian hacking." The few knowledgeable voices who point out that there is absolutely no hard evidence
of any such "Russian hacking" are being drowned out by the Bedlam din of the rest.
This, to me, seems like the simplest explanation that fits the facts. But to be fair and balanced,
let us also examine the other perspective: that claims of "Russian hacking" should be taken at face
value. The first difficulty we encounter is that what is being termed "Russian hacking" is not hacks
but leaks. Hacks occur where some unauthorized party breaks into a server and steals data. Leaks
occur where an insider-a "whistleblower"-violates rules of secrecy and/or confidentiality in order
to release into the public domain evidence of wrongdoing. In this case, evidence of leaking is prima
facie: Was the data in question evidence of wrongdoing? Yes. Was it released into the public domain?
Yes. Has the identity of said leaker or leakers remained secret? Yes, with good reason.
But this does not rule out hacking, because what a leaker can do, a hacker can also do, although
with difficulty. Leakers have it easy: you see evidence of wrongdoing, take umbrage at it, copy it
onto a thumb drive, smuggle it off premises, and upload it to Wikileaks through a public wifi hotspot
from an old laptop you bought off Craislist and then smashed. But what's a poor hacker to do? You
hack into server after server, running the risk of getting caught each time, only to find that the
servers contain minutes of public meetings, old press releases, backups of public web sites and-incriminating
evidence!-a mother lode of pictures of fluffy kittens playing with yarn downloaded by a secretary
afflicted with Toxicoplasma gondii .
The solution, of course, is to create something that's worth hacking, or leaking, but this is
a much harder problem. What the Russians had to do, then, was take the incorruptible, squeaky-clean
goody-two-shoes faithful public servant Hillary Clinton, infiltrate the Clinton Foundation, Hillary's
presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and somehow manipulate them all into
doing things that, when leaked (or hacked) would reliably turn the electorate against Clinton. Yes
Sir, Tovarishch Putin!
Those Russians sure are clever! They managed to turn the DNC into an anti-Bernie Sanders operation,
depriving him of electoral votes through a variety of underhanded practices while appealing to anti-Semitic
sentiments in certain parts of the country. They managed to manipulate Donna Brazile into handing
presidential debate questions to the Clinton campaign. They even managed to convince certain Ukrainian
oligarchs and Saudi princes to bestow millions upon the Clinton foundation in exchange for certain
future foreign policy concessions. The list of these leak-worthy Russian subterfuges goes on and
on But who can stop them?
And so clearly the Russians had to first corrupt the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Presidential
campaign and the Democratic National Committee, just in order to render them hackworthy. But here
we have a problem. You see, if you can hack into a server, so can everyone else. Suppose you leave
your front door unlocked and swinging in the breeze, and long thereafter stuff goes missing. Of course
you can blame the neighbor you happen to like least, but then why would anyone believe you? Anybody
could have walked through that door and taken your shit. And so it is hard to do anything beyond
lobbing empty accusations at Russia as far as hacking is concerned; but the charge of corrupting
the incorruptible Hillary Clinton is another matter entirely.
Because here the ultimate Russian achievement was in getting Hillary Clinton to refer to over
half of her electorate as "a basket of deplorables," and this was no mean feat. It takes a superpower
to orchestrate a political blunder of this magnitude. This she did in front of an LGBT audience in
New York. Now, Hillary is no spring chicken when it comes to national politics: she's been through
quite a few federal elections, and she has enough experience to know that pissing off over half of
your electorate in one fell swoop is not a particularly smart thing to do. Obviously, she was somehow
hypnotized into uttering these words no doubt by a hyperintelligent space-based Russian operative.
The Russian covert operation into subverting American democracy started with the Russians sending
an agent into the hitherto unexplored hinter regions of America, to see what they are like. Hunched
over his desk, Putin whipped out a map of the US and a crayon, and lightly shaded in an area south
of the Mason-Dixon line, west of New York and Pennsylvania, and east of the Rockies.
Let me come clean. I have split loyalties. I have spent most of my life hobnobbing with transnational
elites on the East Coast, but I have also spent quite a few years working for a very large midwestern
agricultural equipment company, and a very large midwestern printing company, so I know the culture
of the land quite well. I am sure that what this Russian agent reported back is that the land is
thickly settled with white people of Anglo-Irish, Scottish, German and Slavic extraction, that they
are macho, that their women (for it is quite a male-centric culture) tend to vote same way as the
men for the sake of domestic tranquility, that they don't much like dark-skinned people or gays,
and that plenty of them view the East Coast and California as dens of iniquity and corruption, if
not modern-day Sodoms and Gomorras.
And what if Vladimir Putin read this report, and issued this order: "Get Clinton to piss them
all off." And so it was done: unbeknownst to her, using nefarious means, Hillary was programmed,
under hypnosis, to utter the phrase "a basket of deplorables." A Russian operative hiding in the
audience of LGBT activists flashed a sign triggering the program in Hillary's overworked brain, and
the rest is history. If that's what actually happened, then Putin should be pronounced Special Ops
Officer of the Year, while all the other "world leaders" should quietly sneak out the back entrance,
sit down on the ground in the garden and eat some dirt, then puke it up into their hands and rub
it into their eyes while wailing, because how on earth can they possibly ever hope to beat that?
Or we can just go back to my brain parasite theory. Doesn't it seem a whole lot more sane now?
Not only is it much simpler and more believable, but it also has certain predictive merits that the
"Russian hacking" theory lacks. You see, when there is parasitism involved, there is rarely just
one symptom. Usually, there is a whole cluster of symptoms. And so, just for the sake of comparison,
let's look at what has happened to the Ukraine since it was infected with the Ukrainian Brain Parasite,
and compare that to what is happening to the US now that the parasite has spread here too.
1. The Ukraine is ruled by an oligarch-Petro Poroshenko, the "candy king"-along with a clique
of other oligarchs who have been handed regional governorships and government ministries. And now
the US is about to be ruled by an oligarch-Trump, the "casino king"-along with a clique of other
oligarchs, from ExxonMobile to Goldman Sachs.
2. The Ukraine has repudiated its trade agreements with Russia, sending its economy into free-fall.
And now Trump is promising to repudiate, and perhaps renegotiate, a variety of trade agreements.
For a country that has run huge structural trade deficits for decades and pays for them by constantly
issuing debt this is not going to be easy or safe.
3. The Ukraine has been subjected to not one but two Color Revolutions, promoted by none other
than that odious oligarch George Soros. The US is now facing its own Color Revolution-the Purple
Revolution-paid for by that same Soros, with the goal of overturning the results of the presidential
election and derailing the inauguration of Donald Trump through a variety of increasingly desperate
ploys including paid-for demonstrations, vote recounts and attempts to manipulate the Electoral College.
4. For a couple of years now the Ukraine has been mired in a bloody and futile civil war. To this
day the Ukrainian troops (with NATO support) are lobbing missiles into civilian districts in the
east of the country, and getting decimated in return. So far, Trump's victory seems to have appeased
the "deplorables," but should the Purple Revolution succeed, the US may also see major social unrest,
possibly escalating into a civil war.
The Ukrainian Brain Parasite has devastated the Ukraine. It is by now too far gone for much of
anything to be done about it. All of the best people have left, mostly for Russia, and all that's
left is a rotten, hollow shell. But does it have to end this way for the US? I hope not!
There are, as I see it, two possibilities. One is to view those who are pushing the "Russian hacking"
or "Russian aggression" story as political adversaries. Another is to view them as temporarily mentally
ill. Yes, their brains are infected with the Ukrainian Brain Parasite, but that just means that their
opinions are to be disregarded-until they feel better. And since this particular brain parasite specifically
influences social behavior, if we refuse to reward that behavior with positive reinforcement-by acknowledging
it-we will suppress its most debilitating symptoms, eventually forcing the parasite to evolve toward
a more benign form. As with many infectious diseases, the fight against them starts with improved
hygiene-in this case, mental hygiene. And so that is my prescription: when you see someone going
on about "Russian hacking" or "Russian aggression" be merciful and charitable toward them as individuals,
because they are temporarily incapacitated, but do not acknowledge their mad ranting, and instead
try to coax them into learning to control it.
"... One bankruptcy attorney told the Detroit Metro Times he had as many as 30 cases in 2015 tied to debt from the UIA; before the automated system was implemented, he said he would typically have at most one per year with such claims. The newspaper also found claimants who were charged with fraud despite never having received a single dollar in unemployment insurance benefits. ..."
"... A pair of lawsuits were filed in 2015 against the UIA over Midas. According to a pending federal case, in which the state revealed it had discontinued using Midas for fraud determinations, the system "resulted in countless unemployment insurance claimants being accused of fraud even though they did nothing wrong". ..."
"... Blanchard told the Guardian in February that many unemployment applicants may not have realized they were even eligible to appeal against the fraud charge, due to the setup of Midas. Attorneys representing claimants have said that many refuse to ever apply for unemployment benefits again. ..."
"... Levin, who represents part of metropolitan Detroit, said in his statement that Michigan officials had to fully account for the money that has flowed into the unemployment agency's contingent fund. ..."
Michigan government
agency wrongly accused individuals in at least 20,000 cases of fraudulently seeking unemployment
payments, according to a review by the state.
The review released this week found that an automated system had erroneously accused claimants
in 93% of cases – a rate that stunned even lawyers suing the state over the computer system and faulty
fraud claims.
"It's literally balancing the books on the backs of Michigan's poorest and jobless," attorney
David Blanchard, who is pursuing a class action in federal court on behalf of several claimants,
told the Guardian on Friday.
The
Michigan unemployment insurance agency (UIA) reviewed 22,427 cases in which an automated computer
system determined a claimant had committed insurance fraud, after federal officials, including the
Michigan congressman Sander Levin, raised concerns with the system.
The review found that the overwhelming majority of claims over a two-year period between October
2013 and August 2015 were in error. In 2015, the state revised its policy and required fraud determinations
to be reviewed and issued by employees. But the new data is the first indication of just how widespread
the improper accusations were during that period .
The people accused lost access to unemployment payments, and reported facing fines as high as
$100,000. Those who appealed against the fines fought the claims in lengthy administrative hearings.
And some had their federal and state taxes garnished. Kevin Grifka, an electrician who lives
in metro Detroit, had his entire federal income tax garnished by the UIA, after it accused him of
fraudulently collecting $12,000 in unemployment benefits.
The notice came just weeks before Christmas in 2014.
"To be honest with you, it was really hard to see your wife in tears around Christmas time, when
all of this went on for me," Grifka said.
The computer system claimed that he had failed to accurately represent his income over a 13-week
period. But the system was wrong: Grifka, 39, had not committed insurance fraud.
In a statement issued on Friday, Levin called on state officials to review the remaining fraud
cases that were generated by the system before the policy revision.
"While I'm pleased that a small subset of the cases has been reviewed, the state has a responsibility
to look at the additional 30,000 fraud determinations made during this same time period," he said.
Figures released by the state show 2,571 individuals have been repaid a total of $5.4m. It's unclear
if multiple cases were filed against the same claimants.
The findings come as Michigan's Republican-led legislature passed a bill this week to use
$10m from the unemployment agency's contingent fund – which is composed mostly of fines generated
by fraud claims – to balance the state's budget. Since 2011, the balance of the contingent fund has
jumped from $3.1m to $155m, according to
a report from a Michigan house agency.
The system, known as the Michigan Integrated Data Automated System (Midas), caused an immediate
spike in claims of fraud when it was implemented in October 2013 under the state's Republican governor,
Rick Snyder, at a cost of $47m.
In the run-up to a scathing report on the system issued last year by Michigan's auditor general,
the UIA began requiring employees to review the fraud determinations before they were issued.
The fraud accusations can carry an emotional burden for claimants.
"These accusations [have] a pretty big burden on people," Grifka said. While he said the new findings
were validating and his own case had been resolved, he called for state accountability.
"There's no recourse from the state on what they're doing to people's lives. That's my biggest
problem with all of this."
Steve Gray, director of the University of Michigan law school's unemployment insurance clinic,
told the Guardian earlier this year that he routinely came across claimants facing a significant
emotional toll. As a result, he said, the clinic added the number for a suicide hotline to a referral
resource page on the program's website.
"We had just a number of clients who were so desperate, saying that they were going to lose their
house they've never been unemployed before, they didn't know," said Gray, who filed a complaint
with the US labor department in 2015 about the Midas system.
The fines can be enormous. Residents interviewed by local news outlets have highlighted fraud
penalties from the UIA
upwards of $100,000 . Bankruptcy petitions filed as a result of unemployment insurance fraud
also increased during the timeframe when Midas was in use.
One bankruptcy attorney
told the Detroit Metro Times he had as many as 30 cases in 2015 tied to debt from the UIA; before
the automated system was implemented, he said he would typically have at most one per year with such
claims. The newspaper also found claimants who were charged with fraud despite never having received
a single dollar in unemployment insurance benefits.
A pair of lawsuits were filed in 2015 against the UIA over Midas. According to a pending federal
case, in which the state revealed it had discontinued using Midas for fraud determinations, the system
"resulted in countless unemployment insurance claimants being accused of fraud even though they did
nothing wrong".
Blanchard told the Guardian in February that many unemployment applicants may not have realized
they were even eligible to appeal against the fraud charge, due to the setup of Midas. Attorneys
representing claimants have said that many refuse to ever apply for unemployment benefits again.
A spokesman for the unemployment insurance agency, Dave Murray, said it appreciated Levin's work
on the issue and said it was continuing "to study fraud determinations".
The agency had already made changes to the fraud determination process, he said, and "we appreciate
that the state legislature this week approved a bill that codifies the reforms we've set in place".
Levin, who represents part of metropolitan Detroit, said in his statement that Michigan officials
had to fully account for the money that has flowed into the unemployment agency's contingent fund.
"While I am pleased that $5m has been repaid, it strikes me as small compared to the amount of
money that was collected at the time," he said. "Only a full audit will ensure the public that the
problem has been fully rectified."
ManuSHeloma 12 Feb 2016 9:02
Another failure of Gov Snyder's administration: first Flint water, now this. What can the people
of Michigan expect next? The recall of Snyder should be automated.
stuinmichigan pepspotbib 12 Feb 2016 10:02
It's not just Snyder and his lackies. You should see the radically gerrymanderd Michigan legislature,
run by rightist extremists, directed by the Koch Brothers, the DeVos family and others, via the
ALEC program that provides them with the radical right legislation they have passed and continue
to pass. Snyder ran saying that sort of stuff was not really on his agenda, but continues to sign
it. He's either a liar, an unprincipled idiot, or both. It's bad here. And it's getting worse.
DarthPutinbot 12 Feb 2016 9:09
What the f*ck is wrong in Michigan? Split it up among the surrounding states and call it good.
Michigan destroyed Detroit and cutoff their water. Michigan deliberately poisoned the residents
of Flint. Too many Michigan lawyers are crooks or basically inept. The court system screws over
parents in divorce cases. And now, Michigan is wrongly trying to collect money from people on
trumped up fraud charges. Stop it. The federal government needs to take over the state or bust
it up.
Non de Plume 12 Feb 2016 9:23
Hell, when the system *works* it's ridiculous. Watching my Dad - who had worked continuously since
14 years old save a few months in the early 90s - sitting on hold for hours... At least once a
week, to 'prove' he still deserved money from a system he paid into. Hours is not an exaggeration.
And now this. Goddammit Lansing! How many other ways can you try to save/take money from the
poor and end up costing us so much more?!?
Bailey Wilkins stuinmichigan 12 Feb 2016 21:56
Nothing against The Guardian's reporting, but if you follow the links, you'll see FOX 17 has been
covering the story locally since last May. It's their investigation that got the attention of
all the other publications (including Detroit Metro Times.) Local papers could have done a better
job though, agreed on that.
talenttruth 12 Feb 2016 12:48
Leering, Entitled Republican bastards like Governor Snyder simply HATE poor people. And THAT is
because all such bullies are cowards, through-and-through, always selecting as their "victims"
those who can't fight back. And, since such Puritan Cretins as Snyder "Believe" that they are
rich because of their superior merit, it stands to reason (doesn't it) that "poor people" (actually,
all us Little Folk) have NO merit, because we didn't inherit a Trust Fund, Daddy's Business or
other anciently stolen wealth. These people deserve stunningly BAD Karma. Unfortunately, Karma
has its own timeline and doesn't do what seems just, on a timely basis (usually).
Jim Uicker 12 Feb 2016 13:29
With today's sophisticated algorithms, computers are used to flag insurance claims all the time.
The hit rate is usually much better than 8%. But how can they even consider automating the adjudication
of fraud? Fraud is a crime; there should be a presumption of innocence and a right to due process.
Without telling people they had a right to appeal, didn't this system violate the constitutional
rights of Michigan's most vulnerable citizens: those with no job and therefore no money to defend
themselves?
And what about the employers who paid unemployment insurance premiums month after month, expecting
the system to protect their employees from business conditions that would necessitate layoffs?
Michigan has defrauded them as well, by collecting premiums and not paying claims.
Jim Uicker 12 Feb 2016 13:51
Even if the problem with Midas can be entirely blamed on the tech workers who built and tested
the software, there is no excuse for the behavior of the Snyder administration when they became
aware of the problem. Just like the cases of legionnaires disease, where the state failed to alert
the public about the outbreak and four more people died, the Snyder administration is again trying
to sweep its mistakes under the rug.
Before taking Midas offline, the UIA refused to comment on the Metro Times investigation, and
Snyder himself artfully avoided reporters' questions after being made aware of the result of an
investigation by a local television station. Now the state only revealed that it shut down Midas
to a pending lawsuit.
The state spent $47 million dollars on a computer system and then took it offline because it
didn't work. The flaws in the system are now costing the state many millions more. This level
of secrecy is evidence of bad government. The state is supposed to be accountable to taxpayers
for that money! Even if the Snyder administration isn't responsible for all of these tragedies,
it is definitely responsible for covering them up.
Jefferson78759 12 Feb 2016 13:55
This is the GOP "governing"; treat the average person like a criminal, "save" money on essential
infrastructure like water treatment, regardless of the consequences.
I get why the 1% votes GOP but if you're an average person you're putting your financial and
physical well being on the line if you do. Crazy.
MaryLee Sutton Henry 12 Feb 2016 22:30
I was forced to plead guilty by a public defender to the UIA fraud charge & thrown in jail for
4 days without my Diabetic meds or diet in Allegan county. As it stands right now the State of
Michigan keeps sending me bills that are almost $1000 more then what the county says I own. I
have done community service, and between witholding tax refunds and payments I have paid over
$1200 on a $4300 total bill. I have literally spend hours on the phone with UIA and faxing judgements
trying to straighten this out, yet still get bills for the higher amount from UIA. Its a nightmare,
I have a misdominer, until its paid and refuse to pay no more then $50 per month until they straighten
this out. Maybe joining the class action law suit would help. Does anyone have any better ideas??
Teri Roy 13 Feb 2016 13:27
My son and I both got hit, I was able to dispute mine but he has autism and they would not dismiss
his, so at 24 yrs old he's paying back 20 grand in pentailies and interest. Just not right
Outragously Flawless 14 Feb 2016 9:42
I also received a letter stating I owe and hadn't file taxes since 2007. I had to find all of
my taxes from 2007 to 2013 my question is why did they wait over 5yrs to contact me, or is that
the set up H&R block does my taxes and they didn't have records that far back.#sneakyass government
"... The New Keynesian agenda is the child of the neoclassical synthesis and, like the IS-LM model before it, New Keynesian economics inherits the mistakes of the bastard Keynesians. It misses two key Keynesian concepts: (1) there are multiple equilibrium unemployment rates and (2) beliefs are fundamental. My work brings these concepts back to center stage and integrates the Keynes of the General Theory with the microeconomics of general equilibrium theory in a new way. " ..."
" To complete the reconciliation of Keynesian economics
with general equilibrium theory, Paul Samuelson introduced
the neoclassical synthesis in 1955...
... In this view of the world, high unemployment is a
temporary phenomenon caused by the slow adjustment of money
wages and money prices. In Samuelson's vision, the economy is
Keynesian in the short run, when some wages and prices are
sticky. It is classical in the long run when all wages and
prices have had time to adjust....
... Although Samuelson's neoclassical synthesis was tidy,
it did not have much to do with the vision of the General
Theory...
... In Keynes' vision, there is no tendency for the
economy to self-correct. Left to itself, a market economy may
never recover from a depression and the unemployment rate may
remain too high forever. In contrast, in Samuelson's
neoclassical synthesis, unemployment causes money wages and
prices to fall. As the money wage and the money price fall,
aggregate demand rises and full employment is restored, even
if government takes no corrective action. By slipping wage
and price adjustment into his theory, Samuelson reintroduced
classical ideas by the back door-a sleight of hand that did
not go unnoticed by Keynes' contemporaries in Cambridge,
England. Famously, Joan Robinson referred to Samuelson's
approach as 'bastard Keynesianism.'
The New Keynesian agenda is the child of the
neoclassical synthesis and, like the IS-LM model before it,
New Keynesian economics inherits the mistakes of the bastard
Keynesians. It misses two key Keynesian concepts: (1) there
are multiple equilibrium unemployment rates and (2) beliefs
are fundamental. My work brings these concepts back to
center stage and integrates the Keynes of the General Theory
with the microeconomics of general equilibrium theory in a
new way. "
You could meanwhile contemplate Farmer's point that Samuelson
and his MIT colleagues "bastardized" Keynes' views when they
introduced them to the US.
" By slipping wage and price
adjustment into his theory, Samuelson reintroduced classical
ideas by the back door-a sleight of hand that did not go
unnoticed by Keynes' contemporaries in Cambridge, England.
Famously, Joan Robinson referred to Samuelson's approach as
'bastard Keynesianism."
And then you might contemplate Samuelson's (and MIT
colleagues) influence on Krugman, Blanchard, Summers and all
the well-publicized mainstream economists.
By slipping wage and price adjustment into his theory,
Samuelson reintroduced classical ideas by the back door-a
sleight of hand that did not go unnoticed by Keynes'
contemporaries in Cambridge, England. Famously, Joan Robinson
referred to Samuelson's approach as 'bastard Keynesianism'.
-- Roger Farmer
[ A fine place to start thinking. I knew this before and
read this again today, but did not think about the argument.
You might also wonder how it could happen that those "bastard
Keynesians", the ones who distorted Keynes' message, came to
be the ones who are well publicized, rather than more
accurate interpreters.
I think that is a good discussion. I also think the major
weakness of both Keynes and Marx is that they underestimated
the power and resilience of finance. They both thought logic
dictated the "euthanasia of the rentier", while we are seeing
the rentier growing ever stronger.
It's always with great diffidence that I write about
macroeconomics. Although I'm in good company in being
sceptical about much of macro (see this roundup from Bruegel
and this view from Noah Smith, for instance), I'm all too
well aware of the limits of my knowledge. So with that
warning, here's what I made of Roger Farmer's very
interesting new book, Prosperity for All: How To Prevent
Financial Crises....
"... Brother Feltner is right. Corporations are moving offshore to cut their wage bills. But they are not using that money to reinvest in their companies to improve the product and train the workforce. Instead, they are offshoring to gain cash flow to finance their fix. They want more stock buybacks which in turn enrich top executives and Wall Street investors. Automation and technology have nothing to do with this perilous addiction. ..."
"... emissions ..."
"... "The Anti-Corn Law League was a successful political movement in Great Britain aimed at the abolition of the unpopular Corn Laws, which protected landowners' interests by levying taxes on imported wheat, thus raising the price of bread at a time when factory-owners were trying to cut wages to be internationally competitive." ..."
"... Our backwards free fall from stable middle class growth and access and attainment to higher education has been precipitated and pushed by a broadcasting system and cyber platforms that have excluded the VOICE OF WORKERS ever since the first newspaper carried a BUSINESS section with no ..."
"... from being forced to compete against cheaper off-shore or south-of-the-border slave labor that formed the same COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE now taken for granted when a subsidized start-up like NIKE decides to pursue a business model that relentlessly exploits North American running shoe and sports wear market needs by cheaply manufacturing such products off-shore via contracting agents exploiting captive Indonesian (substitute other Latin American, African or Asian ENTERPRISE aka FREE TRADE ZONES) slave laborers. ..."
"... If we aren't worth hiring at a sustainable SOCIALLY CONTRACTED WAGE aimed at developing our national resources, we should reject buying from such nationally suicidal business models and corporate LLC fictions even if they can pay-2-play legislation that removes the PROTECTIONS. We vow to never sacrifice NATIONAL SECURITY, so why have we allowed the PRIVATIZATION of our NATIONAL SECURITY STATE by corporate legal fictions? A revealing if not all-encompassing historical answer to that question is another corporate-captured and regulatory-captured Mass Media Taboo discussed one time to my knowledge on the PEOPLE'S AIRWAVES. Search Bill Moyers panel discussing the LEWIS POWELL MEMO TO THE NATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE and the Nixon appointment of LEWIS POWELL to the Supreme Court, despite his total lack of judicial experience. ..."
"... {Creative Commons Copyright} Mitch Ritter Paradigm Shifters Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa Media Discussion List ..."
American manufacturers have chosen a different path. Their CEOs grow wealthy by financially strip-mining
their own companies, aided and abetted by elite financiers who have only one goal: extracting as
much wealth as possible from the company while putting back as little as possible into production
and workers.
The heroin driving their addiction is stock buybacks-a company using its own profits (or borrowed
money) to buy back the company's own shares. This directly adds more wealth to the super-rich because
stock buybacks inevitably increase the value of the shares owned by top executives and rich investors.
Since top executives receive the vast majority of their income (often up to 95%) through stock incentives,
stock buybacks are pure gold. The stock price goes up and the CEOs get richer. In this they are in
harmony with top Wall Street private equity/hedge fund investors who incessantly clamor for more
stock buybacks, impatient for their next fix.
For the few, this addiction is the path to vast riches. It also is the path to annihilating the
manufacturing sector. (For a definitive yet accessible account see "
Profits without Prosperity
" by William Lazonick in the Harvard Business Review .)
Wait, wait, isn't this stock manipulation? Well, before the Reagan administration deregulated
them in 1982, stock buybacks indeed were considered stock manipulation and one of the causes of the
1929 crash. Now they are so ubiquitous that upwards of 75% of all corporate profits go to stock buybacks.
Over the last year, 37 companies in the S&P 500 actually spent more on buybacks than they generated
in profits, according to
Buyback
Quarterly .
Little wonder that stock buybacks are a major driver of
runaway inequality . In 1980 before the
stock buyback era, the ratio of compensation between the top 100 CEOs and the average worker was
45 to 1. Today it is a whopping 844 to 1. (The German CEO gap is closer to 150 to 1.)
Germany holds down its wage gap, in part, by discouraging stock buybacks. Through its system of
co-determination, workers and their unions have seats on the boards of directors and make sure profits
are used to invest in productive employment. As a result, in Germany stock buybacks account for a
much smaller percentage of corporate profits.
Between 2000 and 2015, 419 U.S. companies (on the S&P 500 index) spent a total of $4.7 trillion
on stock buybacks (annual average of $701 million per firm). During the same period, only 33 German
firms in the S&P350 Europe index conducted buybacks for a total of $111 billion (annual average of
$211 million per firm). (Many thanks to Mustafa Erdem Sakinç from the
Academic-Industry Research Network for
providing this excellent data.)
Let's do the math: U.S. firms as a whole spent 42 times more on stock buybacks than German firms!
Little wonder that our manufacturing sector is a withering appendage of Wall Street, while German
manufacturing leads the global economy.
So why does the media consistently use automation/technology to explain the loss of well-paying
manufacturing jobs?
To be fair, Poppy is not alone. Virtually every elite broadcaster, journalist, pundit and columnist
claims that the loss of good-paying, blue-collar jobs is somehow connected to new technologies. How
can they ignore the fact that in Germany advanced technologies and good-paying jobs go hand in hand?
Part of the answer is that it is reassuring for elites to believe that job loss stems from complex
"forces of production" that are far removed from human control. The inevitability of broad economic
trends makes a pundit sound more sophisticated than the unschooled factory worker who thinks the
company is moving to Mexico just because labor costs one-tenth as much.
Technological inevitability also fits neatly into the idea that runaway inequality in our economy
is akin to an act of God, that globalization and technology move forward and no one can stop the
process from anointing winners and losers. The winners-the richest of the rich-are those who have
the skills needed to succeed in the international technological race. The losers-most of the rest
of us without the new skills-see our jobs vaporized by technology and automation.
Too bad. Nothing to be done about it. Stop whining. Move on.
In other words, rising inequality can't be fundamentally altered.
Sinclair's Law of Human Nature
Or maybe there's another explanation suggested by Upton Sinclair's famous adage: "It is difficult
to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
The newscasters, the pundits, the top columnists and recidivist TV commentators-nearly all of
them are doing very well. They may not be billionaires, but they live in a rarefied world far removed
form the worries felt by Mr. Feltner and his brothers and sisters at Rexnord. From their elite vantage
point, the status quo may have problems, but it is treating them remarkably well. So quite naturally
they are drawn to narratives that justify their elite positions; that altering runaway inequality
and its privileges would be futile at best and even harmful to society as a whole. How convenient.
Then again, American media firms are no strangers to stock buybacks. Time Warner, which owns CNN,
Poppy's employer, instituted a $5 billion stock buyback in 2016. That's $5 billion that, for example,
didn't go to news investigations about the perils of stock buybacks. We don't know if Poppy Harlow
receives stock incentives, but her top bosses certainly do.
What about NBC/MSNBC? Comcast is the parent company which also instituted a $5 billion stock buyback
in 2016.
Brother Feltner is right. Corporations are moving offshore to cut their wage bills. But they
are not using that money to reinvest in their companies to improve the product and train the workforce.
Instead, they are offshoring to gain cash flow to finance their fix. They want more stock buybacks
which in turn enrich top executives and Wall Street investors. Automation and technology have nothing
to do with this perilous addiction.
So, I'll stop yelling at Poppy, once she starts covering stock buybacks.
Lambert Strether has been blogging, managing online communities, and doing system administration
24/7 since 2003, in Drupal and WordPress. Besides political economy and the political scene, he blogs
about rhetoric, software engineering, permaculture, history, literature, local politics, international
travel, food, and fixing stuff around the house. The nom de plume "Lambert Strether" comes from Henry
James's The Ambassadors: "Live all you can. It's a mistake not to." You can follow him on Twitter
at @lambertstrether. http://www.correntewire.com
View all posts by
Lambert Strether → John ,
December 18, 2016 at 6:33 am
Now I understand. Companies off-shore their manufacturing because Mexico, as an example, has
the latest in automation and the highest of high technology. Another example of the "Move alone.
Nothing to see here." mantra.
Yes, does moving to Mexico, or China, somehow enable more automation? If you are going to automate,
why not automate in place and forget unnecessary long supply chains.
There's an endless supply of Mexicans that can work cheap, can be trained and who cost far
less than complicated machinery. They also have another utilitarian value: driving down wages
in America.
I'm glad I'm not the only one yelling at the TV ..
;)
"HARLOW: But you agree it won't save all of them, because of automation, because of technology."
SO .does it occur to this reported to ask how many jobs are moving from the US to Mexico? If
so many jobs are lost to automation at this factory, why is it worthwhile to move to Mexico. HOW
MANY jobs lost in the US and HOW MANY jobs gained in Mexico from this plant??? I wouldn't be surprised
that there is a gain in Mexico beyond the number directly moved from Carrier .(extra maintenance,
etc.)
And its a bizarre thing – 99% of "news" is in fact "analysis" – and they are remarkably wrong
– yet NONE of them are ever fired
What Mexico offers for some segments of the steel industry is the ability to bypass emissions
controls. This, much more than labour, is a primary attraction for process industries like
steel/petrochemical, where the goods are all most never touched by human hand.
While it also offers proximity to market that building a similar, high emissions plant further
south into Central/South America (or further west into Asia) can't compete, even with labour cheaper
than Mexico's. Because NAFTA does not require economic impact equivalents, industries with high
costs of compliance will go where there is nothing to comply too.
Environmental regulations in general are lower in the off-shore areas. Those countries are
where we were 50 years ago with polluted air, water, and land. However, as the citizens have better
and more stable lives. they will insist on improved conditions. We are already seeing some of
that start in China and other countries. We had to invent many of the technologies in the 70s-90s,
so those countries will be able to improve their lot much faster if they want to because they
will be able to buy off the shelf technologies.
Countries like China are moving forward with renewable energy, as much because it means clean
air and water, as it does reduced reliance on the cantankerous Middle East and greenhouse gas
emissions. It will be interesting to see what happens when US voters figure out that the goal
of the current Republican party is to return the US environmental condition to a Third World country.
Keep in mind that nearly all of the major environmental laws were signed by Republican presidents.
Every buyback returns cash to the investor – who then has to re-invest in something else to
continue getting returns, so to some extent equity buybacks of one company result in new investment
in some other company. To the extent that a company's growth prospects are dim, there are many
many situations in which buybacks make complete sense – as that company simply needs less and
less capital for a shrinking industry. So why should they be heavily capitalized with low growth
prospects?
It is still stock manipulation, plain and simple. And the decision to do it is made by the
executives who benefit the most from it. And it was illegal for a good reason, and it was made
legal for another good reason.
If the executives have so much retained earnings that they do not know how to invest them properly
then they are incompetent in their jobs and should be replaced. They should not be allowed to
use corporate funds to manipulate the stock price up to their own benefit.
Even worse, in some cases the company borrows money, at today's low interest rates, to buy back
stock.
When this occurs pervasively, as it has been for some time now in the US, it is a sign of stagnation
of the corporate sector.
@ dwayne, In which class were you "accidentally" born into. Not hard to make a guess is it.
Don't bother with your already anticipated tesponse. Since I know fairwell the answer. The child
of a poor substistance farmer who was made to walk five miles in knee deep snow to learn all that
you now do.
Buy backs are not manipulation any more than increasing the dividend is. In both cases, the
corporation is saying it has more money than it needs, and that that money should be returned
to the company's stockholders, allowing them to choose how that money will be invested instead
of having corporate management do it for them.
The concern over stock buy backs is simply people focusing on part of a larger transaction
instead of seeing the whole thing. It is the difference between micro thinking and macro thinking,
otherwise known as failing to see the bigger picture.
Benedict – you are spot on. Sounds like a lot of the other responders are either bitter shorts
that have been burned by buybacks just generally shallow thinkers. They will be giving their same
economically baseless arguments for the rest of their lives unless they learn to open their minds.
Those who are arguing for a dividend instead of a buyback are making a foolish argument – as
if a significant dividend increase wouldn't see a significant rise in the stock and hence a similar
effect as a buyback. Of course a dividend increase would see a significant rise in the stock price
just like the buyback.
As to those whining about workers at-risk and executives with pay tied to the stock price –
they mention nothing about the fact that workers risked no capital and can head for the door whenever
they like, and that executives risked having part of their pay go to $0 in the event of an industry
or economic downturn, and locked them into staying at that company for a period of time (if they
leave, their options get taken away). The risk profile of a salaried worker and an executive are
far different – and hence their economic outcomes are rightfully different depending on the financial
performance of a company.
. . . Of course a dividend increase would see a significant rise in the stock price just
like the buyback.
Why is that almost never the option taken?
As to those whining about workers at-risk and executives with pay tied to the stock price
– they mention nothing about the fact that workers risked no capital and can head for the door
whenever they like, and that executives risked having part of their pay go to $0 in the event
of an industry or economic downturn . . .
In the event of an industry or economic downturn those workers risk all of their pay going
to $0
Your argument reminds me that a rich person has just as much right to sleep under the bridge
on a freezing night as the poor person.
Executives of publicly traded companies are not the owners, but act with impunity as if they
are, and they risked no capital either.
Do you guys live in the real world? The company hires (from among their friends) a CEO, COO,
whatever. These people are "granted stock options" ok, those stocks don't even exist so basically
they just dilute the holdings of everybody who was working there. After a few years they "cash
out" where money comes from basically the worker's pockets.
How's that for "shallow thinking"?
> that executives risked having part of their pay go to $0 in the event of an industry or economic
downturn, and locked them into staying at that company for a period of time (if they leave, their
options get taken away).
Sigh. How many links can NakCap readers come up with that shows that this is exactly what *doesn't*
happen. Lemme guess, Dwayne, economic major?
Why do share buy backs if growth prospects are dim?
Why not return the money as a special dividend or pay down debt?
I'd like to see share buyback proposal prefaced with a statement such as:
"We scoured the world looking for a suitable investment for our excess cash, there was no additional
business enhancing technology we could justify purchasing, no additional R&D into product development
we could justify, no additional investment in plant or equipment upgrades we could justify, no
additional training for our employees we could justify, no prepayment of debt we could justify,
no funding of university research we could justify."
"We don't see a way to use our excess cash to grow/improve our business".
"Surprisingly, from the global list of corporate securities we could find no financial security
that is at a more attractive price level than our own stock."
"So we are buying back our company's stock."
"Take our word for it, it will be a great investment for the future."
"Note: our senior executives will be exercising options but not holding onto their option purchased
stock."
"Personal financial diversification is important to them."
Excuse me, but isn't one of the main factors driving the buybacks contractual executive bonus
payouts?
As in, if the stock price increases by X%, the CEO gets a maximum bonus Y. The people in the
finance wing of these companies are simply solving for how many stocks they need to buyback in
order to achieve X. Because they can spend other people's money to meet that goal, there is no
technical or legal barrier to them doing this.
So, since we can't mandate more ethical and longer term thinking people become CEO's, can't
we put a rule into place that no one in the organization performing the buyback is allowed to
benefit from a buyback directly? That would make a buyback more like an option of last resort.
Which is what it should be, given how corrosive it is to future development of a company.
" Stock buybacks inevitably increase the value of the shares owned by top executives and
rich investors. "
While this is true as far as it goes, buybacks increase the value of ALL shares - including
the roughly one quarter of outstanding shares owned by pension plans.
Pension plans are an important asset of the middle class. Cut their investment returns, and
real people take a hit.
Jim's argument also applies to 401k and other defined-contribution plans, of course. You do
still have a point, though – a lot of people who are eligible for such plans can't contribute
to them because they don't have any surplus income to stash away – which is, of course, because
wages are too low .
It's called "talking one's book," and working whenever possible to keep the flow of discourse
going in the direction that supports one's wealth and interests
Goosing investment returns in the short term with buybacks to benefit stock-option insiders,
at the expense of underinvestment in productive measures like R&D and training, eventually leads
to corporate decline which does no favors for the few middle class people who still have pensions.
Buybacks increase the price of shares of stock, not the value. If a pension plan owns stock
which has been inflated by buy-backs, the dividends paid to the pension plan won't increase. The
only way that the pension plan can benefit is by selling the stock. Then the pension plan will
need to use the proceeds of the sale to buy something else. But if most companies are inflating
the price of their stocks with buy-backs, how does the pension plan find an appropriate stock
to buy? If they buy another inflated stock, the value of the pension plan is in the same place
as it was before it sold the previous stock.
It seems to me that buy-backs just cause a bubble. Short term "investors" such as executives
can benefit from the bubble, but long term investors such as pension plans aren't able to benefit
in that way.
It's a huge problem of principle agent. The other is that every dollar used to buy back for
the company is then one less available for capital costs, R&D, employee training, etc.
The overwhelming majority of the gains to investors will go to the wealthy as well. Workers
get nothing and often worse than nothing when their job security is under attack.
Things were a lot more straight forward in the 18th and 19th centuries and there was far less
complication to obscure the reality. In 18th and 19th century they had small state, raw capitalism
when there was little Government interference to cloud the issue.
The Corn Laws and Laissez-Faire, the requirements of free trade, a historical lesson:
"The Anti-Corn Law League was a successful political movement in Great Britain aimed at
the abolition of the unpopular Corn Laws, which protected landowners' interests by levying taxes
on imported wheat, thus raising the price of bread at a time when factory-owners were trying to
cut wages to be internationally competitive."
The landowners wanted to maintain their profit, charging a high price for corn, but this posed
a barrier to international free trade in making UK wage labour uncompetitive raising the cost
of living for workers and as a consequence, wages.
The anti-corn law league had to fight the vested interests of the landowners to get the UK
in a position where it could engage in free trade. They had to get the cost of living down to
a point where they could pay their workers internationally competitive wages.
Opposing national interests, productive industry and landowner rentiers.
It's always been that way, we just forgot.
Workers have been priced out of international markets by the high cost of living in the West
and now we try and tell them that is their fault. It is the elite who do not understand the first
thing about free trade unlike their 19th century predecessors.
The US has probably been the most successful in making its labour force internationally uncompetitive
with soaring costs of housing, healthcare and student loan repayments. These all have to be covered
by wages and US businesses are now squealing about the high minimum wage.
US investors and companies have little interest in investing in the US due to its high labour
costs caused by its own national rentier interests. There are opposing national interests within
the US just as there were in the UK in the 19th Century.
Most of the UK now dreams of giving up work and living off the "unearned" income from a BTL
portfolio, extracting the "earned" income of generation rent. The UK dream is to be like the idle
rich, rentier, living off "unearned" income and doing nothing productive.
The UK is itself atrocious and has encouraged rentier interests which oppose the interests
of those who want free trade. The UK is now ramping up student loans to make things worse. High
housing costs and student loan repayments will have to be covered by wages pricing UK labour out
of international markets.
Things were a lot more straight forward in the 18th and 19th centuries and there was far less
complication to obscure the reality. In 18th and 19th century they had small state, raw capitalism
when there was little Government interference to cloud the issue.
The Classical Economists observed the situation which was a lot more clear cut in those days.
The Classical Economists thought the cost of living must be kept low with free or subsidised housing,
education and healthcare funded through taxes on "unearned" income. "Earned" income shouldn't
be taxed as this raises the cost of doing business, real productive business that earns real wealth.
Imaginary wealth can be produced by inflating the value of a nations housing stock until the
bubble bursts and all the imaginary wealth disappears (e.g. US 2008, Japan 1989, Ireland, Spain,
etc ..).
Ditto all other financial assets.
The Classical Economists realised capitalism has two sides, the productive side where "earned"
income is generated the unproductive, parasitic side where "unearned" income is generated. The
vested interests of the two sides are opposed to each other.
If you forget you can made fundamental mistakes, like today's ideas on free trade.
Real wealth comes from the real economy where real products and services are traded. This involves
hard work which is something the financial sector is not interested in.
The financial sector is interested in imaginary wealth – the wealth effect.
They look for some existing asset they can inflate the price of, like the national housing
stock. They then pour money into this asset to create imaginary wealth, the bubble bursts and
all the imaginary wealth disappears.
1929 – US (margin lending into US stocks)
1989 – Japan (real estate)
2008 – US (real estate bubble leveraged up with derivatives for global contagion)
2010 – Ireland (real estate)
2012 – Spain (real estate)
2015 – China (margin lending into Chinese stocks)
Central Banks have now got in on the act with QE and have gone for an "inflate all financial
asset prices" strategy to generate a wealth effect (imaginary wealth). The bubble bursts and all
the imaginary wealth disappears.
The wealth effect – it's like real wealth but it's only temporary.
The markets are high but there is a lot of imaginary wealth there after all that QE. Get ready
for when the imaginary wealth starts to evaporate, its only temporary. Refer to the "fundamentals"
to gauge the imaginary wealth in the markets; it's what "fundamentals" are for.
Canadian, Australian, Swedish and Norwegian housing markets are full of imaginary wealth. Get
ready for when the imaginary wealth starts to evaporate, its only temporary. Refer to the "fundamentals"
to gauge the imaginary wealth in these housing markets; it's what "fundamentals" are for.
Remember when we were panicking about the Chinese stock markets falling last year?
Have a look at it on any web-site with the scale set to max. you can see the ridiculous bubble
as clear as day.
The Chinese stock markets were artificially inflated creating imaginary wealth in Chinese stocks,
it was only temporary and it evaporated.
Did the Chinese who used the "money" they got from inflation of stock prices to buy real estate
and other tangible assets, with that "money," continue to have legal ownership of said assets
after the market collapsed?
If they did, it's amazing how "wealth" gets created
I gave up TV 6 years ago and I am old. TV is awful for so many reasons. One of them is the
fact that it dictates lifestyle and values. I hate it for children.
Harlow is just using what I call the 3-legged stool approach which is to blunt any argument
by introducing rotating facets. You see it in arguments about the West Bank. If you mention Zionist,
they rebut with Israeli. If you say Israeli, they introduce Jewish. Round and round you go until
the point is lost.
Aside: I'd pay money to see Lambert yelling at a TV. The way he carves some people up on this
site makes my toes curl. No matter how much they deserve it, I feel really sorry for them.
Silver lining time. Without TV to emote to, my blood pressure is lower overall. This trade
off is very beneficial to me.
Also germane is that a hundred years ago, the cheap labour was pouring into America from offshore.
Now that population has stabilized, the labour is no longer as cheap, (it is still too cheap,
but,) in America. Companies are generally about the "bottom line." Socially conscious corporate
management is feted and lionized for a reason; it's rare.
Regulation and enforcement is the key. Buy local, shop local, govern local.
Yup. Unfortunately that can't be applied to the environment, where everybody is downstream
and downwind of everybody else. I don't believe in God, but if you do then you can claim that's
why he made planets spherical. :)
While I do have a tv I don't get CNN. Thank gawd. In fact the indignity of paying for CNN with
its inane announcers and endless commercial interruptions was a big motivator for "cutting the
cord."
Count me as another who doesn't have tv. The Jimmy Dore Show and various online videos make
up our viewing. In fact, it's difficult to read NC and other sites and then see the drivel that
passes for tv news. But just keep it up, guys (MSM); you're one of the main reasons we have a
huge alienated population of have-nots, and the unwashed masses are becoming restive.
The automation=job loss meme has been picked up in other places.
On the Saturday before the election, I visited the local Democratic headquarters in my Northern
California town to get a Clinton-Kaine bumper sticker for my collection.
As they wanted $1, I wanted to get some entertainment value from the purchase, so I asked one
of the elderly women "What has Hillary ever done?".
She responded with "Financial reform", apparently confusing HRC with Elizabeth Warren.
I mentioned that Hillary supported the TPP, until well into her campaign, and that trade bills
had cost jobs.
Her immediate response was "More jobs have been lost to automation than trade bills".
I was surprised she had this explanation at the ready, perhaps it was given to HRC campaign
workers as a talking point in case someone questioned HRC's commitment to stopping the TPP.
There is a meme being told from the people at the top, to the peasants.
Part of the answer is that it is reassuring for elites to believe that job loss stems from
complex "forces of production" that are far removed from human control. The inevitability of broad
economic trends makes a pundit sound more sophisticated than the unschooled factory worker who
thinks the company is moving to Mexico just because labor costs one-tenth as much.
The other day someone left a link to an article by an economist named Scott Sumner, where at
the end of his article the same meme is put forth, with a twist.
So what's all this really about? Perhaps the "feminization" of America. When farm work was
wiped out by automation, uneducated farmers generally found factory jobs in the city. Now factory
workers are being asked to transition to service sector jobs that have been traditionally seen
as "women's work". Even worse, the culture is pushing back against a lot of traditionally masculine
character traits (especially on campuses). The alt-right is overtly anti-feminist, and Trump ran
a consciously macho themed campaign. This all may seem to be about trade , but it's actually about
automation and low-skilled men who feel emasculated .
Unschooled and low skilled are code words for stupid, and the meme is, men that make stuff
are stupid.
Within his article is an interview of the CEO of United Technologies by Jim Cramer in Business
Insider that he quotes as confirming his reasoning that automation is solely responsible for all
the job loss and that offshoring and globalization caused zero manufacturing jobs to be lost in
the US.
The result of keeping the plant in Indiana open is a $16 million investment to drive down
the cost of production, so as to reduce the cost gap with operating in Mexico.
What does that mean? Automation. What does that mean? Fewer jobs, Hayes acknowledged.
From the transcript (emphasis added):
GREG HAYES: Right. Well, and again, if you think about what we talked about last week, we're
going to make a $16 million investment in that factory in Indianapolis to automate to drive the
cost down so that we can continue to be competitive. Now is it as cheap as moving to Mexico with
lower cost of labor? No. But we will make that plant competitive just because we'll make the capital
investments there.
JIM CRAMER: Right.
GREG HAYES: But what that ultimately means is there will be fewer jobs .
The general theme here is something we've been writing about a lot at Business Insider. Yes,
low-skilled jobs are being lost to other countries, but they're also being lost to technology.
Everyone from liberal, Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman to Republican Sen. Ben Sasse
has noted that technological developments are a bigger threat to American workers than trade.
Viktor Shvets, a strategist at Macquarie, has called it the "third industrial revolution."
Economists can't add. $16 million in investment, of real goods to improve productivity to the
point where air conditioner production in Indianapolis can compete with Mexican production cost
using existing technologies that are ripped off the shop floor and trucked to Mexico, itself creates
jobs, and the improved more highly automated plant still retains jobs here, along with the technology.
That $16 million investment happened only because Donald Trump either threatened or promised
something for United Technologies, but the number of jobs lost now are not solely due to moving
all production to Mexico, which would have been what happened had he not used his power of persuasion
to pry some money for investment out of the United Technologies bank account.
I wonder what Scott Sumner and the rest of the economists think of the women that work in manufacturing?
Are they stupid too?
In 1980 before the stock buyback era, the ratio of compensation between the top 100 CEOs
and the average worker was 45 to 1. Today it is a whopping 844 to 1. (The German CEO gap is
closer to 150 to 1.)
45 to 1, 150 to 1, 844 to 1 .it's all ridiculous. Just because you wear a suit and have your
own office to work in does not somehow entitle you to make as much in a year (or a month or a
week) as much as someone else does in a lifetime.
Stock buybacks are a problem of such proportions, that it is a subject all by itself. To connect
it to Germany's Industrial policy is a perfect example of ahistorical, faulty, unempirical analysis
at its worst leading to the politics of simpletons. The stock buybacks reference here are recent,
21st Century. The de-industrialization of the US goes back to the immediate post WWII policies
of corporate America as well as the US Government.
Germany's industrial policy has complex contributing factors which has a more important contributing
factor in its military expenditures. This of course is directly related to Germany's history.
It lost WWII and was an occupied territory, eventually split into an East And West Germany. For
many years, even as a NATO member, West Germany spent almost ZERO on military expenditures. This
comes with being an occupied nation that lost a war. Even today, the US Marine Corps alone has
a budget that exceeds all of the re-united Germany's military budget. Germany, for obvious historical
reasons has been deliberately suppressed as a military power, even in meager self defense, back
when a Soviet doppleganger was on its border. Of course, when the US Government stations on your
soil, almost 100,000 or more military personnel, armored tank divisions and US Air Force bases
for decades, you can avoid the cost of national defense.
----------
"German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Saturday that Europe's largest economy would significantly
boost defense spending in the coming years to move towards the NATO target for member states to
spend 2 percent of their economic output on defense.
But Merkel, addressing a conference of the youth wing of her conservatives, did not specify
by how much defense spending would rise.
Merkel said U.S. President Barack Obama had told her it could no longer be the case that the
U.S. spends 3.4 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on security while Germany – its close
NATO ally – only spends 1.2 percent of GDP on that.
"To get from 1.2 percent to 2 percent, we need to increase it by a huge amount," Merkel said.
In 2016 Germany's budget for defense spending stands at 34.3 billion euros so it would need
to be increased by more than 20 billion euros to reach the 2 percent target."
And for decades, avoid the burden of military expenses it did, to the direct contribution to
its industrial manufacturing center. Chalmers Johnson reviews this critical aspect of America's
Hegemony since WWII in the course of several books. He was a CIA analyst as well academic economist
expert on Japan and China. The US economy suffered disinvestment in its tool and die and metal
working sector to the tune of over $7Trillion while building up the Pentagon into the Global Military
Hegemon that it is today. The platform of the manufacturing center dependent on tool and die to
make the parts of the machinery of factories and weapons of wars was in decline and overtaken
by the Japanese and the Germans. We outspent the Soviet Union and now the rest of the world by
staggering margins. But, to make and maintain the machinery of war, the Great American Killing
Machine, global bases and global industrial skills and equipment replaced the domestic. The US
Naval bases from Boston, Brooklyn, Philadelphia-founding locale of the US Navy and US Marine Corps,
Baltimore, and on and on, all gone. Replacing the base closures, Guam, Okinawa, Rota, Spain, Naples,
Italy Ramstein, Germany, and on and on. And Germany and Japan, played their roles to keep up American
military might in exchange for our nuclear umbrella and military protection. This to the detriment
of jobs in the US.
--------------------------
"After World War II, the US reduced defense spending to 7.2 percent of GDP by 1948, boosting it
to nearly 15 percent during the Korean War. During the height of the Cold War with the Soviet
Union US defense spending fluctuated at around 10 percent of GDP.
At the height of the Vietnam War in 1968 defense spending was 10 percent of GDP. But then it began
a rapid decline to 6 percent of GDP in the mid 1970s and hit a low of 5.5 percent of GDP in 1979
before beginning a large increase to 6.8 percent in 1986.
Starting in 1986 defense spending resumed its decline, bottoming out at 3.5 percent of GDP in
2001. After 2001, the US increased defense spending to a peak of 5.7 percent of GDP in 2010. It
is expected to reduce to 4.5 percent of GDP in 2015 and 3.8 percent by 2020."
For 20 years from the end of WWII, military expenses soaked up about 10% of the annual GNP.
Those amounts dwarf stock buy backs. As you can see from the excerpt above, the military bill
to the US is enormous and as a global military, much of this money is spent outside of the US,
employing people outside of the US, many who are not US citizens. As bad and as large as financialized
capitalism is, the jobs are lost more to wasteful military "Keynesianism". The 10s of $Trillions$
for most of the 2nd half of the 20th Century explains more than stock buybacks, which of course
are more than statistically significant, just not in the same league as Imperial America.
Automation, deindustrialization and run away factories together formed the basis for weakening
organized labor and reducing the amount of good paying working class jobs with their good benefits
and security. Job security comes in the form of unemployment benefits due to the boom/bust business
cycle that has factories operating on 2 or more shifts and then cut back due to saturation and
or slack demand. Mexicans thrown out of work are easier to deal with than unemployed Americans,
not only due to costs but also political fallout. Unemployed Americans can still vote congressmen
out of office every 24 months if they are that unhappy with the economy. You don't need a job
to vote. But alas, that is also another large scale problem, all by itself that deserves focused
analysis and comments.
Soooo it's back to blame the gub'ment and give Capital a pass, eh? I see what you did there
nice work. I particularly enjoyed your fantasy that unhappy workers can vote their congressperson
out every two years ' cause that's empirically true of the US political system.
All this stuff about 'automation' killing jobs is just a distraction. It's not happening, not
overall. That's why productivity figures are going down – they should be skyrocketing if automation
was to blame. The number of janitors and maids that have lost their jobs to a Roomba robotic vacuum
cleaner is zero. The number of truck drivers that have lost their jobs to robotic trucks is zero.
Shrimp are still flown to Malaysia, peeled by hand using slave labor, and then flown back, because
it's cheaper than developing and building and maintaining automated shrimp peeling machines. And
so on.
Why are the elites still so set on moving jobs to low wage countries? Why are they still so
set on an open-borders immigration policy? Because they know what they aren't telling us: right
now general robotics is still in its infancy, it's all about cheap labor.
So many otherwise rational and skeptical people have been distracted by the false 'robots are
now making human workers obsolete' meme. Congrats again on such a clearly reasoned piece.
The difference between German and US industrial manufacturing is social, not technological.
It only demonstrates that in the face of the displacement of labor with machines, social measures
are required to address the fact that a smaller percentage of total available labor is required
to produce the necessities of life. One way Germany has addressed this is by targeting high value-added
manufactures. In addition, historically manufacturing exports have always played a more important
part for Germany than for the US, never a big manufacturing exporter unlike (in the 19th C) Britain,
Germany, Japan and now China. US manufacturing was always primarily oriented towards the home
market, beginning with the Midwestern farmers and their McCormick reapers and Montgomery Wards
catalogs in the 19th C. The US has always been a primary products (oil, agri, timber, minerals)
exporter. Plus weapons. Kinda like Russia. Its two biggest trading partners are its continental
neighbors, Mexico and Canada.
The debate over whether job loss is due to automation or offshoring tends to be short on facts.
One almost never see a statistical breakdown that might tell us how much job losses are due to
one factor or another. That includes John Smith's "Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century: Globalization,
Super-exploitation and Capitalism's Final Crisis" (2016), quite big on off-shoring, but never
giving a concrete measure of the relative importance of one or the other.
However I put up a BLS-based chart that shows the decline in manufacturing jobs in the US in
a pretty diagonal straight line down beginning well before off-shoring became a thing, well before
NAFTA. Basically the manufacturing workforce peaked in the 50's. So there is always some pressure
through competition to displace labor with automation. Offshoring is merely a dependent alternative
to automation – reduce the labor bill with cheaper labor, not displacement. It's not "one or the
other".
Technological determinism aside, a fetish is made of automation in the media because they know
there is no answer that doesn't conclude with the elimination of capitalism, and that answer is
out of bounds. Hence it is deployed literally as a deus ex machina that ends social debate. But
clearly the question of a living income has become separated from that of productive labor.
One might say that manufacturing employment started declining, when we allowed non-reciprocal
"free-trade"; access to our markets, in order to enable some other geopolitical goal.
Going something like : "Sure, go ahead and let the Japanese and Germans export their cars to
our market. It will help their economies, and we'll never notice the difference. Besides, even
if they didn't have various ways of restricting our exports, the size of their markets aren't
worth exporting to "
Then in the 70-80s, it was "Sure, lets help all of our Allies develop an aerospace industry,
and build their own F-16s. "Offsets"? No problem. No sacrifice by US workers is too much in order
to fight the "Red Menace", and promote "Free Markets" "Democracy", and improve the standard of
living over there.."
Millions of jobs go to Mexico and millions of Mexicans come to usa and send their millions
in wages home to support their families. Meanwhile Politicians continue with Rectal Crainial Inversion
while drawing huge salaries. When will the revolution begin?
Class-hatred has been simmering in the U.S. throughout its entire history, and it manifests
itself today in the anti-Americanism of our greedy elites, who would prefer to profit from the
exploitation of foreign labor over living in a just and equitable society. Germany and Japan benefitted
from losing the War, from Cold War trade policies that allowed them to rebuild on exports to the
U.S. (subsidized in many cases, such as by container ships returning from Vietnam via Yokohama),
and the creation of a manufacturing culture that continued to value workers even as their wages
rose. Americans in the credentialed classes became obsessed with rock-star lifestyles, epitomized
by Slick Willie bragging that his first date with Hill in 1971 involved crossing a union picket
line to scab at the Yale Art Museum in order to gaze at a bunch of vacuous Rothkos. But watch
out - class-hatred is a two-way street
Chicken and egg, Lambert. Stock manipulation increases the power of the 1%. I also yell at
the TV "news" - probably because I didn't have one either between the critical developmental ages
of 18 and 23 - so "news" broadcasts are not allowed in my house.
It's not all roses and unicorns either in Germany. There is outsourcing going on as well –
for example both BMW and VW manufacture cars for the US market in the Southeastern US (IIRC both
in Spartanburg, SC).
Yes, Germany does have a better education system for apprentices etc plus it is still socially
acceptable to become an apprentice in a trade and not go to college. BMW is trying to establish
something similar around Spartanburg, but apparently with mixed success. Dan Rather did a segment
on this effort a few years back and interviewed a bunch of parents who said something along the
lines of "nice idea, but it's for other people's kids – ours have to go to college".
Another thing to keep in mind is that large German manufacturing companies still tend to have
pretty strong union representation, which of course is sorely missing in the US.
Two words missing from Union Reps and Wage Slaves ourselves as we flail away while falling
backwards, "SOCIAL CONTRACT." Our backwards free fall from stable middle class growth and
access and attainment to higher education has been precipitated and pushed by a broadcasting system
and cyber platforms that have excluded the VOICE OF WORKERS ever since the first newspaper carried
a BUSINESS section with no LABOR section.
Through the various historical attempts to insulate some small sliver of broadcast spectrum
from advertiser pressures and market forces. Those various historical attempts now the strictest
taboo on content, even stricter than sexual predation and violent aberration which comprise much
of the broadcast content. Yet when or where can we find a broadcaster in the U.S. addressing issues
of structural media reform to insulate some national resources from the POLITICAL E-CON-o-my that
grants them to the the highest bidder.
As media scholars Robert McChesney and John Nichols have pointed out in a number of their book-length
studies on this taboo U.S. history of mass media: One of the first national radio networks was
designated for LABOR, there were multiple EDUCATIONAL networks and this has nothing to do with
IDENTITY LABELS used to divide U.S. like Conservative or Liberal, however these shifty terms are
defined. A well-rounded human has both aspects and more within them depending on circumstance,
context and situation being addressed.
Another designated non-commercial broadcaster was the CATHOLIC CHURCH whose leaders were actively
concerned with the use of public airwaves by Advertising Agencies using sales tactics to habituate
dangerous past-times (like alcohol and tobacco) and were driven by seasonal fashions rather than
values and verities such as the bible and catechism's preponderant calls to address the needs
of society's most disadvantaged. Or to beat weapons into plowshares and sit under a fig tree and
reason together (Isaiah) rather than to use fear to keep subsidizing the worlds largest distributor
of weapons and its stealthy and steely profiteers.
Sad day when the few token representatives of U.S. Wage Slaves cannot even be counted on to
voice a DEMAND much less to insert the concept of SOCIAL CONTRACT that extended humane and practical
DEMAND-DRIVEN\SUPPLY LINE insights into our materialistic society's wealthiest distributors of
hate and divisiveness such as Henry Ford, who while stoking anti-Semitism and disparaging independently
organized labor for his MASS PRODUCTION facilities, eventually realized that if his impoverished
work-force was ever to constitute the potential internal markets that became the Post WW II envy
of the world, those workers would have to be paid more than slave wages, be granted access to
long-term capital to purchase big-ticket items and our growing internal markets within the lower
48 states would require careful regulation and controls like tariffs and capital-flight restrictions
that would protect our enviable internal markets. Nowadays whenever PROTECTIONISM is demonized
by both Fair & Balanced Journalists and their Golden Rolodex of E-CON and Bid-Net experts there
is nobody to note how our own late-developing working middle classes grew from the Age of the
Robber Barons in which the U.S. was as feudal a society as Europe's with simple substitution of
the Captains of Industry for the monopolistic and conservative royal Anglo and Euro monarchs whose
crown-chartered legal anti-trust fictions dba EAST INDIA TRADING COMPANY or HUDSON BAY TRADING
CORPORATION.
Our founders rebelled against these Conservative Royal Feudal Monarchs and their Royally Chartered
monopolistic Corporate Legal Fictions by dumping such product into every available cartel-controlled
mercantile harbor. PROTECTIONISM was what allowed our states to form that most enviable of internal
national markets and prevented our SOCIALLY CONTRACTED WORK FORCE from being forced to compete
against cheaper off-shore or south-of-the-border slave labor that formed the same COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGE now taken for granted when a subsidized start-up like NIKE decides to pursue a business
model that relentlessly exploits North American running shoe and sports wear market needs by cheaply
manufacturing such products off-shore via contracting agents exploiting captive Indonesian (substitute
other Latin American, African or Asian ENTERPRISE aka FREE TRADE ZONES) slave laborers.
If we aren't worth hiring at a sustainable SOCIALLY CONTRACTED WAGE aimed at developing our
national resources, we should reject buying from such nationally suicidal business models and
corporate LLC fictions even if they can pay-2-play legislation that removes the PROTECTIONS. We
vow to never sacrifice NATIONAL SECURITY, so why have we allowed the PRIVATIZATION of our NATIONAL
SECURITY STATE by corporate legal fictions? A revealing if not all-encompassing historical answer
to that question is another corporate-captured and regulatory-captured Mass Media Taboo discussed
one time to my knowledge on the PEOPLE'S AIRWAVES. Search Bill Moyers panel discussing the LEWIS
POWELL MEMO TO THE NATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE and the Nixon appointment of LEWIS POWELL to the
Supreme Court, despite his total lack of judicial experience.
{Creative Commons Copyright}
Mitch Ritter Paradigm Shifters
Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa
Media Discussion List
FELTNER: These companies are leaving to exploit cheap labor. That's plain and simple. If
he can change those trade policies to keep those jobs here in America, that's what we need.
We need American jobs, not just union jobs.
And thus we circle back to finding a way to keep manufacturing jobs in the USA. The comment
by Feltner is correct, but the solution of keep jobs in the USA using more expensive labor simply
means more expensive products. That is fine if you are in the top 10% and can pay anything for
your purchases, but I am on a fixed income and cannot afford to pay more for anything without
a 1:1 drop in my living standards.
The real macroeconomic problem is all, I repeat – ALL – new income after inflation generated
by the macro economy since Bush II took office has gone to the top 10% of households by wealth.
Why does NOBODY else seem to understand that you cannot run an economy without money? And the
Main Street economy is strapped with 10's of millions having fallen out of the middle class even
as their paper assets like home equity were stolen by the financialization of the USA and the
stockholders that own the Wall Street economy.
The data coming out of the government/fed is a work of total fiction, inflation has been galloping
(at least here in Oregon) at double digits since Jan 2014, rents alone are up 75% since then.
Food at least 40%, both auto and healthcare insurance at least 40%, just to name three items,
even a sandwich at a fast food join is nearly 100% higher than start of 2014 here. Del Taco raised
it's menu prices in July by over 100%. Companies do not do that in disinflationary eras such as
we are assured have existed since 2010. My veteran's disability/SS had it's first COLA increase
in a while for 2017, social security disability went up $3, that is not a typo, my rent has gone
up from 725 in December 2013 to $1,250 in Jan 2017 while my benefit has risen for next year by
THREE dollars.
I considered myself middle class, just barely but above working class/poor, as recently as
2014. Now I am leaving for Australia on a one way ticket in 3 weeks, if I had not been invited
there by a friend I would have had to give notice at this place anyway in order to live in my
vehicle. Inflation is so wildly out of control that anyone taking home less than 40k a year here
now needs a roommate. Is this metro Portland? No, it is far southern semi rural Jackson county
hundreds of miles from the nearest major hub.
So any analysis of economic conditions in the USA have got to start with recognition that the
cost of living has risen OVERALL by as much as 40-50% just in the last very few years.
WHY DO YOU THINK POPULISM RAISED IT'S VIRULENT HEAD THIS ELECTION CYCLE?
People are angry, they are broke, living paycheck to paycheck, using payday loans to feed their
kids, and the entire media and government refuse to recognize price increases because those increases
do not fit the Feds or government's economic models that allowed for negative real interest rates
and the historic borrowing by the congress. Inflation is as bad as it ever was in the 1970's but
we are told there is no inflation and so if we are not making ends meet it simply has to be a
personal failing, bad habits, or profligate spending when I know for my part I have cut back on
absolutely every thing I can including heat. It is not a personal failing, it is being lied to
by the powers that be.
Seriously, until the contributors at Naked Capitalism finally recognize the house on fire inflation
for every item you must purchase (except gasoline and flat screens) there really is nothing here
worth reading.
The answer is that the very rich are waging class warfare and are looking for anything to absolve
them of responsibility.
If automation were responsible for unemployment, then productivity figures would be soaring.
Dean Baker notes that productivity has been rising at half the rate over the past decade at just
1.5% per year, compared to 3% between 1947 and 1973.
http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/the-job-killing-robot-myth
People need a restitution for the outright looting of society from the rich. That's about it.
You missed some. German companies, but also those of other European countries, generally have
a seat on the board for unions. The adversarial model of management versus unions is not so common.
China has stolen a great deal of technology from Germany because it has (had?) the most advanced
industrial technology in the world. Read the below articles from Der Spiegel and you will understand.
Essentially, Germany is what the U.S. was in the 1980s before the various presidents, both left
and right, starting with Nixon, sold us down the river.
– "Product Piracy Goes High-Tech: Nabbing Know-How in China"
– "Harmony and Ambition: China's Cut-Throat Railway Revolution"
– "Beijing's High-Tech Ambitions: The Dangers of Germany's Dependence on China"
And the following is from CNN/Money, "How to save U.S. manufacturing jobs": "High wages can't
be the culprit, because wages in U.S. manufacturing are not especially high by international standards.
As of 2009, 12 European countries plus Australia had higher average manufacturing wages than the
United States. Norway topped the list with an average manufacturing wage of $53.89 per hour, 60
percent above the U.S. average of $33.53 Moreover, the United States lost manufacturing jobs
at a faster rate since 2000 than several countries that paid manufacturing workers even more.
Among the 10 countries for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks manufacturing employment,
Australia, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden both had higher manufacturing wages
and lost smaller shares of their manufacturing employment than the United States between 2000
and 2010."
Not to mention Germany's apprentice system, which works really well.
"... Cahal Moran is a member of Rethinking Economics, the worldwide student movement to reform the teaching of economics. He is the co-author, with Joe Earle and Zach Ward-Perkins of the book ..."
"... The Econocracy: The Perils of Leaving Economics to the Experts ..."
"... the authors can be followed on their Twitter account ..."
"... @TheEconocracy ..."
"... . Interview conducted by Philip Pilkington, a macroeconomist working in asset management and author of the new book ..."
"... The Reformation in Economics: A Deconstruction and Reconstruction of Economic Theory ..."
"... . The views expressed in this interview are not those of his employer. ..."
"... In the book we give a formal definition of econocracy as "a society in which political goals are defined in terms of their effect on the economy, which is believed to be a distinct system with its own logic that requires experts to manage it. " ..."
"... Economists are wheeled out to comment on all sorts of public policy issues: in the news, on the TV, online and so forth. The deference to economic expertise is something that permeates our politics and, through the use of jargon, maths and statistics, serves to exclude non-expert citizens from conversations about issues that often have a direct impact on their lives. As you imply, it is something like an ancient priesthood. In fact, in an earlier draft of the book we made a comparison to ancient medical texts, which were only written in Latin and so created a huge asymmetry between experts and non-experts, which could have awful consequences for the latter. In some senses economics in modern times goes even further than this, because it affects policy on everything from incomes and jobs to healthcare and the environment. ..."
"... I suppose that leads us pretty tidily to the title of the second chapter of your book: 'Economics as Indoctrination'. Given that you have this view of economic language – one which I concur with in that I have concluded that maybe 60-80% of formal economic language is ideology – it pretty naturally follows that there will be some attempt to indoctrinate those who wish to speak the language. I guess the natural place to start is to ask you for a flavour of what this indoctrination looks like and then maybe we will move on to what its purposes are and what ends it serves. ..."
"... We call economics education indoctrination in the book not just because students are presented with only one set of ideas – neoclassical economics – but because they are taught to accept it in an uncritical manner, as if it is all there is to economics. ..."
"... Keynes said that the real challenge lies in escaping old ways of thinking, and this is something we've all noticed in ourselves after studying economics. ..."
"... This process is indeed the main way that the econocracy reproduces itself: as the economic experts of the present train the economic experts of the future, this shapes the way the latter approach economic problems when they go on to work at powerful institutions. Broadly speaking, this education shapes the perception of economic experts in two ways. Firstly, they tend to have mechanical view of the world, thinking of economic and social problems as clearly defined technical questions. This allows them to produce clear predictions when addressing even complex political issues. Secondly, they see economics as a separate, value-free sphere which does not require ethical and political debate. Their answers to policy questions have the air of objectivity about them. ..."
"... Economists predict disaster where none occurs. They deny the possibility of events that then happen. They oppose the most basic, decent, and sensible reforms, while offering placebos instead. They are always surprised when something untoward (like a recession) actually occurs. And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject. ..."
"... Making central banks independent from the political process, staffing them with economists and tasking them with using interest rates to manage inflation and growth, along with a fairly hands-off approach to the financial sector (which itself used economic models such as Black-Scholes) seemed to be working. That was, until the theoretical blind spots economists had in the housing market and financial sector was revealed by the near-collapse of both of them. ..."
"... I suppose this is a variant on the classic 'who governs the governors': who teaches the teachers. ..."
"... substantive ..."
"... If economics is to function as the medium of power than its students must be made to follow blindly. Critical thinking would allow them to undermine it or manipulate it to their own ends. ..."
"... The students must be made into strict adherents before being granted access to the highest levels of information. By erecting barriers at each level (be it specialized language that must be mastered or learning contigent on prior learning) we can separate the weak from the true adherents. ..."
"... Following Adler, economics is not a science, it's a philosophy. At least economics doesn't burn its heretics, it just ignores them. Science is neither immune. Gerald Pollack has written that he was advised to avoid water as a subject of inquiry, or it could kill his career. ..."
"... File under "the creative class" writers ŕ la Toynbee ..."
"... When you think about it economics doesn't really exist. Society does. And when economics is talked about like society doesn't exist it gets pointless. Just like some stupid software language that does basically nothing. What we need is the courage of our human convictions. I think it was Blyth in an early clip who said more or less, "Just do it." Deficit spend as necessary and the solutions will appear. That's very Zen and I love it. I mean, here's the question, What is the worst that can happen? If there is sufficient money. Great interviewer and interviewee. Thanks NC for this post. ..."
"... "Economics doesn't really exist, society does": a super obvious statement that stands in starkest distinction to NeoLib ideology that insists we are all atomistic, isolated individuals. Math and language are epiphenomena to human being that have perverted our self perception nearly to oblivion. ..."
"... Interesting thing I heard the other day, Professor Richard Wolff says he studied economics at three elite universities (Yale, Harvard, and another notable I cannot remember) and never had a course in Karl Marx. Tunnel vision for sure in the field. ..."
"... Answer to question no 2: The jargon that is being used these days by presidents, economists, talk show hosts is beyond my understanding. I have a masters degree. ..."
"... An argot (English pronunciation: /ˈɑːrɡoʊ/; from French argot [aʁˈɡo] 'slang') is a secret language used by various groups-e.g., schoolmates, outlaws, colleagues, among many others-to prevent outsiders from understanding their conversations. The term argot is also used to refer to the informal specialized vocabulary from a particular field of study, occupation, or hobby, in which sense it overlaps with jargon. ..."
"... Is the economics profession simply following the "He who has the gold, makes the rules"? Many other professions service retail customers, such as attorneys and doctors. But how many ordinary citizens ever deal with an economist on any level? ..."
"... If paycheck dependent economists know that powerful politicians, wealthy corporate leaders and wealthy donors in academia are looking over their shoulders, one could expect economists' message to be justify what their "employers" want to do. ..."
"... "Keen was formerly an associate professor of economics at University of Western Sydney, until he applied for voluntary redundancy in 2013, due to the closure of the economics program at the university. ..."
"... You will eat, by and by, when you learn how to bake and how to fry. Chop some wood, It'll do ya good. And you'll eat in that sweet by and by. ..."
"... This interview articulates an extremely important insight when it states that the economy " is believed to be a distinct system with its own logic that requires experts to manage it." ..."
"... This seeming independence of the economic and political systems has largely deceived most of modern social science. This seeming independence is not real, and in fact these spheres are deeply intertwined. ..."
"... As people llike Karl Polyani and Philip Mirowski have maintained, markets are always organized through politics and institutions and one key to understanding this reality is to keep a focus on the promulgation of the rules and regulations of a powerful state that helps to create movements for both regulation and deregulation. ..."
"... It was notable that Cathal failed to mention Marx. I don't think he realizes yet quite how fully indoctrinated he's been – as that humdinger of an analogy (gay marriage – actually a redefinition to normalize surrogacy, a eugenics-by-stealth agenda, hence it's enormous funding by the plutocracy) indicates. The economic can never be separated from the socio-political. ..."
"... Mirowski describes how the "Neoliberal Economic thought collective" captured and now dominates economic doctrine by controlling what and who can publish in the major economic journals. As a result those aspects of Neoclassical Economics remaining are being re-shaped into a Neoliberal mold. I noticed the word "neoliberal" doesn't show up anywhere in this post yet Neoliberal economic policies and rationales dominate policy in the real world. ..."
"... Mirowski points out that Neoliberal economics designs policy to apply market models to every problem based on the doctrine that markets are the most powerful information processing system available to man - a strong form of the Efficient Markets Hypothesis. The Market is the ultimate epistemological device. If the market solution doesn't satisfy the needs of the common man then satisfying those needs is simply contrary to the wisdom of the market. For other problems like externalities they just need to be properly incorporated into the market model to obtain an optimal solution to whatever problem they present. ..."
"... . Putting fins and flashy hubcaps on Neoclassical economics as it morphs into Neoliberal economics is not the answer. ..."
"... The role of Economics is simple: it should inform people of the consequences of certain decisions we make about who gets what. ..."
"... You are right, that is what it should be, unfortunately neoclassical has failed horribly in that regard. It is based on assumptions that are demonstrably false and they are never revisited to see the effect of relaxing them. You might as well be counting angels on a pin. See Roamer's take down of it for starters. ..."
PP: Your book starts with a quote from Albert Camus that is, in some ways, rather pessimistic.
In it he says that most generations seek to reform the world but that his generation only sought
to ensure that the world does not destroy itself. You and I are both of the same generation broadly
speaking and I do not think it unfair that our generation is subject to some abuse and often portrayed
as narcissistic, video-game obsessed, layabouts. I have always felt that the 'problem generation'
are, in fact, the Baby Boomers who tag us with these clichés. It is this generation that rules the
world today and this generation that gave birth to The Econocracy. Before we get too much into what
The Econocracy is and how it operates, maybe you could briefly talk about this generational issue.
Is it something that you have given much thought to and do you identify more so with Camus' generation?
CM: We do not focus on the generational issue too much, but it is really at the heart of the book
and of the student movement more generally. Unlike the boomers, we have grown up in a world of economic
and political uncertainty, with the financial crisis being the most extreme example of this (yet).
The disconnect between this uncertainty and at times chaos and what we saw in the classroom really
sowed the seeds for societies like Post-Crash Economics. If the boom had simply continued, perhaps
we would have just shrugged our shoulders and got on with it. But we could not ignore what was going
on outside the lecture theatre. In this sense, Camus' feeling of a call of duty resonated with us
and that's why we chose that quote. However, we try to use this initial pessimism to build a positive
vision later on.
PP: Yeah, I know the feeling. It was very hard for me to not think that something was really,
really wrong with economics as I took undergraduate classes against the backdrop of the 2007-08 crisis.
For me there was a lot of cognitive dissonance. I found it really weird because it seemed to me pretty
obvious that economics was the language of power – the language through which our leaders communicated
their plans and goals to the rest of us. But what I was learning in class did not seem up to this
in any way, shape or form. I think that this is a theme in your book too. Could you explain what
you mean by 'The Econocracy' and how it functions?
CM: In the book we give a formal definition of econocracy as "a society in which political goals
are defined in terms of their effect on the economy, which is believed to be a distinct system with
its own logic that requires experts to manage it. " In other words, the idea of 'the
economy' as a separate sphere of life is dominant in politics, and this separate sphere has technical
properties which can only be understood through economic expertise. The results are twofold. First,
public debates about the economy are conducted in a language that most people simply do not speak
– we've tried to look at this this through undertaking polling with Yougov and one of the things
we found is that only 12% of respondents said they thought politicians and the media talk about economics
in an accessible language.
Second, many key areas of decision making – central banks, international institutions like the
IMF & World Bank, competition authorities – are delegated to people with economic expertise on the
grounds that they can find what is in some sense a technically 'right' answer to economic problems
in their respective domains. The rise of this idea of the economy is reflected in the increase in
mentions of 'the economy' in the winning UK political party's manifestos: it was only mentioned once,
for the first time, by the Conservatives in 1950, but 5 years later this rose to 10 and in the most
recent Conservative party manifesto 'the economy' was mentioned 59 times.
PP: I'm getting the sense that this goes beyond a simple criticism of technocracy and bureaucracy,
right? I mean a lot of aspects of society are run based on expertise of some sort or another. But
you seem to be getting at something else. Is this related to the fact that, like the Scholastics
of the Middle Ages, they have concocted an elite language?
CM: That's absolutely right. One could probably write a book critiquing the technocratic and bureaucratic
tendencies of say, lawyers or accountants, but where economics goes one step further is the place
it has in public debate. Economists are wheeled out to comment on all sorts of public policy issues:
in the news, on the TV, online and so forth. The deference to economic expertise is something that
permeates our politics and, through the use of jargon, maths and statistics, serves to exclude non-expert
citizens from conversations about issues that often have a direct impact on their lives. As you imply,
it is something like an ancient priesthood. In fact, in an earlier draft of the book we made a comparison
to ancient medical texts, which were only written in Latin and so created a huge asymmetry between
experts and non-experts, which could have awful consequences for the latter. In some senses economics
in modern times goes even further than this, because it affects policy on everything from incomes
and jobs to healthcare and the environment.
PP: Yes. I've also long thought this. My book is actually about trying to figure out what is pure
ideology and mysticism and what is not within the jargon. I suppose that leads us pretty tidily to
the title of the second chapter of your book: 'Economics as Indoctrination'. Given that you have
this view of economic language – one which I concur with in that I have concluded that maybe 60-80%
of formal economic language is ideology – it pretty naturally follows that there will be some attempt
to indoctrinate those who wish to speak the language. I guess the natural place to start is to ask
you for a flavour of what this indoctrination looks like and then maybe we will move on to what its
purposes are and what ends it serves.
CM: It sounds like there's some crossover between our books, and this is something I've noticed
with people across the movement. It's great that so many people are independently coming to similar
ideas and, I think, a sign that we may just have a point.
We call economics education indoctrination in the book not just because students are presented
with only one set of ideas – neoclassical economics – but because they are taught to accept it in
an uncritical manner, as if it is all there is to economics. The idea that there might be criticisms
of neoclassical economics, other schools of thought, and even the real world are evicted to such
an extent that after a while students may find it difficult to think any other way. Keynes
said that the real challenge lies in escaping old ways of thinking, and this is something we've all
noticed in ourselves after studying economics.
PP: I'd tend to agree. But what I found very interesting about the book was that you looked at
how economics education is structured. You paint the picture of a very odd discipline that does not
appear to be taught like other disciplines, whether natural or social science. Do you think that
there is something distinctly different in this regard and could you describe it briefly?
CM: Economics is definitely a law unto itself. In natural sciences, the culture is very much focused
on the empirics: theory has empirical motivations, and you always come back to falsifiable predictions
before too long. In other social sciences, the culture is instead focused on debate and the contested
nature of knowledge. You learn not to take any of your beliefs for granted. But entering an economics
degree feels a bit like being transported to another universe. Students are introduced to a fixed
body of knowledge that is presented as if – in the words of one student – it "fell from heaven in
an ever-true form". The focus is very much on learning this body of knowledge by rote, building up
the neoclassical world from abstract axioms and solving mathematical problems with at best vague
and stylised references to the real world they are supposed to represent. The commonly used phrase
'thinking like an economist' really captures the effort to indoctrinate students into this framework.
We did a curriculum review of the final exams and course outlines of 174 modules at 7 Russell
Group universities (considered the 'elite' of the UK) to look systematically into how economics students
are educated. Our main aim was to look for evidence of critical thinking, pluralism and real world
application, all of which we would consider vital to educating the experts of the future. The results
were deeply worrying: 76% of final exam questions showed no evidence of critical thinking – that
is, formulating an independent, reasoned argument. When only compulsory modules (namely micro and
macroeconomics) were included, this figure increased to a staggering 92%. Instead, the majority of
marks are given for what we call 'operate a model' questions: working through a model mathematically
without asking questions about its applicability. Of those questions which ask students to operate
a model, only 3% even attempted a link to the real world. The remainder of the marks were given for
simple description questions ('what is the Friedman k% rule?') or multiple choice questions, again
neither of which require any critical thinking. All of this is very worrying when you consider the
place economic expertise has in society.
PP: It is really very concerning. Although I would imagine that anyone who has actually taken
an economics class – as many of the educated public have at some time or other – will not be surprised
at what you have found. If you are correct then it seems to logically follow that the experts of
the future are being trained to think in a highly abstract manner but that these abstractions need
no link to the real world as it exists. What is more, if they are only being given one perspective
and are told that this perspective is as true and infallible as the most rigorous of the sciences
you are going to get a very high level of confidence in these abstractions by these experts. Have
you thought about what this means when these people flow into the elite institutions that control
important aspects of our societies? How do you think that it informs and shapes their judgements
and what implications do you think this has for the rest of us?
CM: This process is indeed the main way that the econocracy reproduces itself: as the economic
experts of the present train the economic experts of the future, this shapes the way the latter approach
economic problems when they go on to work at powerful institutions. Broadly speaking, this education
shapes the perception of economic experts in two ways. Firstly, they tend to have mechanical view
of the world, thinking of economic and social problems as clearly defined technical questions. This
allows them to produce clear predictions when addressing even complex political issues. Secondly,
they see economics as a separate, value-free sphere which does not require ethical and political
debate. Their answers to policy questions have the air of objectivity about them.
To make things more concrete consider cost-benefit analysis, an idea with its roots in economics
that's used extensively by major institutions like the Government Economic Service in the UK. This
calculates the 'costs' and 'benefits' of different policies by assigning a monetary value to each
of them, then provides a clear decision rule: if the benefits outweigh the costs, the policy is a
good one. Cost-benefit analysis is used even when the effects of a policy are not obviously monetary,
such as the number of trees in an area, or mortality rates, transforming what was a multifaceted
problem into a simple, seemingly objective mathematical problem. The result of this is that decisions
which could concern a large range of stakeholders are made in a centralised manner behind closed
doors, often without the consultation of these stakeholders (except in order to retrieve money values
from them, which raises problems in itself).
PP: Right. I see what you mean. So this goes far beyond, say, the blindnesses in the theories
that led to, say, economists largely missing the crisis and thinking, to quote Blanchard, that
the "state of macro was good" even in the face of such problems. Have you given any consideration
to these facts in the book? James Galbraith has a great quote where he says that:
Economists predict disaster where none occurs. They deny the possibility of events that then
happen. They oppose the most basic, decent, and sensible reforms, while offering placebos instead.
They are always surprised when something untoward (like a recession) actually occurs. And when
finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas.
Instead, they simply change the subject.
That seems to be another angle by which you might criticise the profession: namely, that they're
not actually very good at what they claim to be specialists in. Do you and your co-authors have anything
to say about that?
CM: Exactly – economics permeates our political process, from seemingly small examples like cost-benefit
analysis to catastrophic events such as the financial crisis. We open the book with the former but
later on we move on to several case studies of the latter, including the financial crisis but also
broadening our argument to other areas where we think neoclassical economics falls short, like the
environment and inequality. The kind of hubris illustrated by economists like Blanchard – as well
as Robert Lucas when he claimed "the central problem of depression prevention had been solved" in
2003 – seems quite remarkable to us now, but economists really had convinced themselves that they'd
found a simple, technical solution to the business cycle. Making central banks independent from the
political process, staffing them with economists and tasking them with using interest rates to manage
inflation and growth, along with a fairly hands-off approach to the financial sector (which itself
used economic models such as Black-Scholes) seemed to be working. That was, until the theoretical
blind spots economists had in the housing market and financial sector was revealed by the near-collapse
of both of them.
Quite clearly, the profession has yet to find definitive answers to major economic questions like
'what causes financial crises?' This is completely understandable in itself, as these are difficult
questions. But the fact that the profession also has the capacity to convince not only itself but
policymakers and politicians that it has solved these problems, and therefore
that its ideas should guide public policy, is extremely worrying when it can have such terrible consequences
for so many people. And it is worth mentioning those non-neoclassical economists – like Hyman Minsky,
Wynne Godley, and Steve Keen – who put the financial sector front and centre of their analysis and
made sometimes prescient warnings about crises like the one we've just experienced. Given these examples,
it actually puzzles and saddens me that the profession is not willing to accept more intellectual
diversity. Galbraith's quote touches on this intellectual inertia, and one of the things we discuss
in the book is macroeconomists' attempts to reassert themselves since the financial crisis, some
of which have involved some impressive mental gymnastics. One example is Tom Sargent denying altogether
that macroeconomists failed to foresee the crisis, which is ironic because he wrote a paper just
before the crisis arguing that investors weren't taking enough risk due to their memories of the
Great Depression. This kind of retrospective rewriting of history has to be fought if economics is
not to slip back into old habits.
PP: The mental contortions are absolutely fascinating. I've noticed three key trends in the profession
since the crisis. The first is to talk more about a phenomenon that mainstream economists call 'rational
bubbles'. I mean RATIONAL bubbles. That is manifestly a doublethink word, not unlike Orwell's blackwhite.
The second is to add Bayesian agents into economics models and saying that this will ensure that
these models are robust in future (an absurd claim given the backward-looking nature of Bayesian
agents). Bayesian agents, of course, update their beliefs in line with past events - not a bad allegory
for the how the modellers see themselves! The final, and most pronounced, is to try to sweep under
the carpet the fact that the Efficient Markets Hypothesis makes falsifiable (and falsified!) claims
that markets integrate all relevant information and instead try to draw attention to the fact that
it also states that no one can beat the markets. The idea seems to be to maintain the theory by saying
that it doesn't say what it in fact says and drawing attention to a secondary prediction that it
makes. What do you make of this sorry, but I have to say it dishonesty? And do you think that the
next generation are by and large swallowing it?
CM: I think the issue is that many economists are stuck in their ways. It's clear these economists
have been doing economics a certain way, using a certain framework, for their entire lives, so it's
perhaps unsurprising that they can't think any other way. Max Planck said that science advances one
funeral at a time, but the especially worrying thing given the research we've done for the book is
that the next generation of economic experts are being trained to think in the exact same way. In
fact, evidence we present suggests that economics education has actually become more, not less narrow
over the past few decades, so if things don't change the situation could get even worse in the future.
And as I mentioned earlier, that's nothing against economics students themselves – they have exams
to pass, and aren't really given much opportunity to read around and question what they're taught.
The positive thing is that we are seeing these student groups spring up across the world who are
all recognising the limitations of their education: the lack of pluralism, critical thinking and
empiricism come up again and again in students' complaints. What's more is that we have support from
big institutions like the Bank of England, Trade Union Congress and Government Economic Service,
who have voiced similar concerns. If you look at things like the movement for gay marriage in the
United States, it's clear the politicians were the last to change – when every other sector of civil
society had been convinced and they had no choice. Perhaps if change comes to economics, academia
will be the last to change – when everyone else demands it.
PP: But surely this is somewhat different from a political issue like gay marriage. Political
issues have to do with changing peoples' opinions on some matter or other. That just means putting
forward a persuasive argument and then waiting for it to get accepted. What we are dealing with seems
like something rather different. Sure, you could convince many that some change needs to come about
in the way economics is taught. But that does not produce the means by which to teach it. I think
that we saw what happens there with Wendy Carlin's CORE program (an INET-funded attempt at curriculum
reform). This was the economists' response to demands for a more integrated and pluralistic course
but I saw it - and I think the student movement saw it - as more of the same. Yet I have no doubt
that Carlin really did her best to put together something that she thought would address the concerns
being raised. The problem is that Carlin et al cannot actually put together something that meets
the concerns. I suppose this is a variant on the classic 'who governs the governors': who teaches
the teachers.
CM: You are absolutely right about that and the example of CORE is a good one, as it demonstrates
perfectly the type of limited reform which can serve as a safety valve against more radical opposition.
Carlin and CORE's other proponents view the problem as one with economics education, but not economics
itself – she has previously stated that "economics explains our world, economics degrees don't".
Interestingly, this rhetoric is similar to the response to calls for reform in economics graduate
programs in the US in the 1980s, where the need for more real world application was accepted but
it was argued that programs should retain the "core [which] should be regarded as the basic unit
in which those things common to all economists should be taught". We repeatedly see this disconnect
between the critic's idea of reform and the mainstream's, cemented by the fact that many neoclassical
economists simply do not know enough about non-neoclassical ideas to teach them. It is a vicious
circle which is inevitably going to reproduce a fundamentally similar education, even if some internal
attempts at reform are made along the way.
Thus in CORE the calls for history, real world applications and interdisciplinarity are all, to
some degree accepted (even if they are not pursued adequately), while the calls for pluralism and
critical thinking are not. The resulting education is perhaps an improvement, but the outcome is
similar: instead of saying 'here is neoclassical economics, learn and then (maybe) apply it', the
message of CORE is 'here is the real world, here is how neoclassical economics applies to it'. Once
more, the idea that the theory and even the history itself might be contested is thrown out of the
window and the result is still a narrow education. In fact, we reviewed the University College London
exams for the CORE course and found that they showed a slight increase in critical thinking, but
were still primarily about regurgitating models and theories. The need for pluralism is made especially
apparent here, as learning about alternative ideas immediately makes students re-evaluate what they
have already been taught. Students need to know more than one set of ideas if they are to judge which
ideas are best suited to explaining a particular situation.
PP: My impression from the book – and please, correct me if I'm wrong – is that you want to bypass
this structural constraint by making economics more democratically accessible. Personally, I think
that there is a lot of merit to this idea. In my book, as I said, I try to present an ideology-neutral
economics – which I think can be done to some limited extent – and what you find with such an economics
is that many different worlds are possible. Economics in this regard can be a helpful guide but it
cannot tell you much about where you want to go. For this reason I would much prefer to see more
democratic input on economic decision-making and much less pontifications from an over-heavy technocracy.
That said, however, economics is still a relatively difficult subject. It cannot be picked up without
some commitment to study it. How do you square this circle – by which I mean, how do you try to increase
the accessibility of economics without watering it down so much that it becomes analytically dysfunctional?
And a cheeky, but related question: in the book you rightly draw attention to the fact that economics
jargon is over represented in political discourse – how do you ensure that you are not increasing
the volume and weight of this jargon through attempts at popularisation?
CM: We definitely view the democratisation of economics as a necessary part of the renewal of
the discipline and indeed of politics, but your conception of it as a strategic way to bypass the
inertia of the discipline is an interesting idea and something I hadn't thought of explicitly. I
suppose this goes back to what I was saying about bottom-up approaches to reform and the value of
demanding change from different angles. Unfortunately and as we've seen, one of the main response
to Brexit and Trump by elites has simply been to view those who vote for it as ignorant or bigoted.
The simple fact is that many peoples' lived experience of 'the economy' is completely different to
the top-down, statistical and theoretical views of economists and pundits. Many have experienced
huge shifts and declines in their circumstances for decades, neither of which are obvious if you
only look at GDP and inflation statistics, or (worse) if you are completely lost in theory.
In the book we introduce the idea of the public interest economist, who has socially aware research
topics, a commitment to public engagement and education, and who looks to hold powerful public and
private institutions to account. Reconnecting economic experts with the public in this way would
be a great way to temper the former's technocratic, top-down tendencies and encourage the experts
to understand that people may have different, valid views to them – and this is a gateway to appreciating
other approaches more generally. Of course, this doesn't eliminate the need for expertise altogether:
our intuition can only go so far, and some things can only be revealed by systematic and empirical
study. Economics is difficult, as you point out. But a world in which economic experts are in touch
with and can be questioned by the public is one where economic expertise will naturally be more responsive
to the needs of said public. We sum it up by saying that we want experts to inform our decisions,
but not necessarily to make them for us.
Illustrating the magnitude of the challenge you raise about teaching economics without jargon,
I'm going to have to introduce some jargon. In the book we distinguish between formal
literacy, where people are taught a fixed body of knowledge; and substantive
literacy, where people are encouraged to question the subject matter and form their own independent
views. This is the basis for the other pillar of our proposals: citizen economists, non-experts who
nevertheless have some baseline level of substantive literacy and are able to engage in economic
debates. The starting point for citizen economics is to make connections between peoples' own lives
and broader economic problems, encouraging their own input from the start. And an important part
of being a citizen economist is not to accept the seeming authority bestowed by the use of jargon
and to ask experts to say what they mean in plain language. As a student movement we have already
started to put this into practice with citizens' crash courses (evening classes for adults), schools
workshops, the public education website ecnmy.org and by supporting the RSA's
Citizens' Economic Council, which is seeking to establish more democratic input into economic policy.
PP: Yeah, I think I see what you're saying. Anyway, I suppose we should wrap this up as it's pretty
long already. Where do you see this whole thing going from here? Are you optimistic about the future,
both in terms of opening up the discipline and in terms of fixing the incredibly serious economic
problems that have emerged in the past 30 years?
CM: I am cautiously optimistic about the future, as I think in many ways the debate has been won
over whether economics should change – the question is now what form this change should take. On
top of changes we have already discussed such as CORE and the position of the Bank of England, we
have seen the ESRC put aside a large pot of money for research in new ideas in macroeconomics (the
question is whether this money will be used to support CORE type research or more diverse and radical
ideas); Manchester council involving citizens more in the decision-making process; the director of
the IFS, Paul Johnson, admitting economists' failure to communicate during Brexit; and many more
emerging examples that the message is getting across to various sections of civil society. More must
certainly be done and it is up to everyone to make sure that the changes are fundamental rather than
incremental, but in my eyes it is starting to look possible that economics will evolve from an insular
and esoteric discipline into a vibrant, pluralistic public dialogue – and we think that can only
be a good thing
"In other social sciences, the culture is instead focused on debate and the contested nature
of knowledge. You learn not to take any of your beliefs for granted. But entering an economics
degree feels a bit like being transported to another universe. Students are introduced to a
fixed body of knowledge that is presented as if – in the words of one student – it "fell from
heaven in an ever-true form"."
How on earth did this happen?? Was the teaching of economics always this way? Or did something
happen at some point along the way (say, the influence of a particular school of thought, etc.)
to create a static curriculum where critical thinking is so undervalued?
"The deference to economic expertise is something that permeates our politics and, through
the use of jargon, maths and statistics, serves to exclude non-expert citizens from conversations
about issues that often have a direct impact on their lives."
Doesn't this sound exactly like the Clinton campaign? Technocrats all, who say to people like
me, "Trust us. We're the EXPERTS. Don't even try to stretch your silly little brains. We know
what's best."
If economics is to function as the medium of power than its students must be made to follow
blindly. Critical thinking would allow them to undermine it or manipulate it to their own ends.
The students must be made into strict adherents before being granted access to the highest
levels of information. By erecting barriers at each level (be it specialized language that must
be mastered or learning contigent on prior learning) we can separate the weak from the true adherents.
Following Adler, economics is not a science, it's a philosophy. At least economics doesn't burn its heretics, it just ignores them. Science is neither immune.
Gerald Pollack has written that he was advised to avoid water as a subject of inquiry, or it could
kill his career.
This article highlights why I take what positions Naked Capitalism assert seriously. For instance
getting input from Clive about the difficulty of the mechanics of Greece leaving the Euro. Or
Yves, having knowledge from her father's work about solving problems in the real world. This problem
is not just limited to economics. To get a Phd one must basically agree to what you have been
taught. To get published one must undergo peer review by people who almost always believe the
current mainstream ideas in that field. Remember how the nutrition experts told you margarine
was good for you – butter and eggs were bad. Climate science is a good example. Reliance on models
that can never be complete. In almost every conversation I have had as a climate skeptic, the
strongest believers in the alarmist position rely not on their own understanding but that of experts.
And those experts who are alarmist rely almost entirely on computer modeling results to buttress
their position. In fact, as a skeptic I could almost rewrite the above article using climate science.
In your own mind, try that. As a generalist (non climate scientist) I can read and understand
most climate papers if I take the time to learn and understand the jargon as every subfield has
its own. it does take a good while with considerable effort. Climate science proclaims to know
with certainty what the climate future holds so they should be the experts on public policy that
will affect the lives of everyone in the world. "The totally convinced and the totally stupid
have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental." Robert Anton Wilson
Economists writing about climate change purport to define the optimal reduction in greenhouse
gases by tallying up the avoided damage, or the benefit in the cost-benefit analysis, then saying
that costs of emission reduction should go no higher than this benefit. Not sure if they are still
doing this, but in the past they used the ethically questionable and benefit-lessening assumption
that lives in poor countries, where most people would die, should be valued much less than lives
in rich countries. Worse, the entire exercise is absurd because the result of the calculation
is an emissions reduction that could have no effect on the climate, because emissions don't have
a simple effect as with traditional air pollutants for which the analysis was initially developed.
As a generalist who works for and with a climate scientist who is at the forefront of his field
I am not able to understand essential details of most of his papers because he and his co-authors
are in fact physicists and their analyses involve substantially more than modest calculus. Furthermore
neither he nor any other of his colleagues whose work I am exposed to have proclaimed that they
"know" what the future holds.
At the UI and when I was at Michigan, they simply don't. Anything remotely like that would
be taught in the History department, and then mostly for History grad students.
At Cambridge University it was a compulsory course representing 25% of the first year curriculum
(this was 1991-92). No idea if it has been downsized since then but given the "new blood" I remember
entering the faculty I am pessimistic.
I have to agree that when I studied economics, it was theory and barely any practical exercises.
Lots of maximization and other But I never took this as gospel. I understood that all these economic models were a product
of their time. A framework that would be adapted by those in power to fit their needs.
When my son was born with a disability, I had to turn many 15 minute errands into 2 hour adventures.
It became even more evident that efficiency is relative What are we really maximizing anyway?
THAT is the key question.
I guess many graduate without any critical thinking. But I tend to think that many graduates
of economics like the way the world is set and feel no compulsion to change it.
yes, absolutely. If it is good public policy do it. When you think about it economics doesn't
really exist. Society does. And when economics is talked about like society doesn't exist it gets
pointless. Just like some stupid software language that does basically nothing. What we need is
the courage of our human convictions. I think it was Blyth in an early clip who said more or less,
"Just do it." Deficit spend as necessary and the solutions will appear. That's very Zen and I
love it. I mean, here's the question, What is the worst that can happen? If there is sufficient
money. Great interviewer and interviewee. Thanks NC for this post.
"Economics doesn't really exist, society does": a super obvious statement that stands in starkest
distinction to NeoLib ideology that insists we are all atomistic, isolated individuals. Math and
language are epiphenomena to human being that have perverted our self perception nearly to oblivion.
Bayes allows an entry to qualifying bias and uncertainty in conditional probabilities (tree
diagrams). It allows an indication that the source is b.s., which is currently relevant.
It's unnecessary in terms of fudging models, we've been quite capable of that without Bayesian
modifiers.
The most important bias his theorem clarifies concerns false positives, for example if a drug
test is 95% accurate it can still be wrong more than half the time on a positive response.
Economics wil never progress until it has a clearer grasp on the phenomenon of money. Until
they do it's the same old GIGO using Newtonian metaphors prettied up with math (or let us say
"arithmetic", since it's just basic calculus, linear algebra or probability/statistics).
Not to be demeaning toward Eigenvectors and matrix theory. It's amazing how recent that was
in the history of math - I mean all the way back to the Greeks, Pythagoras, Archimedes, etc. It's
like it's still brand new!
However, you could say a drawing by Rembrandt is just "basic pen and ink". Indeed on one level
it is. On another level it's an entire self-consistent and revelatory conceptualization of infinite
physical reality. That's the kind of holistic and syntheticistic ideation that economics sorely
lacks.
Not only does it lack this, but the economists don't even know it's there!
whoa you guys rock! that was faster than a New Yoarke minite. Whoa Yves would be proud. I hope
you get a bonus! maybe a few million dollars.
They're not this fast in Denver. That's for sure. All those TV people and all that money they
have and they fkk something up so bad they have to apologize. Wow. that really is screwing up.
Not only that, They're stilll pointing a camera straight at a scene and failing to use cinematic
story telling techniques invented , oh, 80 or 90 years ago!
There should be awards for excellence in fake news. The best fake news is news that's true
in the most profound and highest sense of reality. it's news that captures a truth reality only
approximates. It's hard to avoid Plato even when you try. I didn't mention him, OK? he's just
there. He's usually there, but if you mention him every time it gets boring.
The WaPo is an example of largely fake news written and published by individuals who don't
realize what's true and what's fake. You'd like to think they qualify for a fake news award, given
the fakeiness of what they write (except Redskins coverage which is very good, they have some
good spowtswriters for sure), but they don't because they think they're writing real news. That
should be embarrasing.
Well then, how would somebody advise them to better distinguish fake news from real news? Well,
how does a hawk know what to do to hunt rodents? There's no hawk scientist or hawk school or hawk
instruction manual. they can't even read! But they know exactly what to do. It's like that. Everybody
knows but they pretend to themselves they don't know. That's when the faking starts,
[T]he irony is that for many upper-middle-class white gay men, the argument became that
legal and economic (yes, economic) privileges of marriage were being denied. Fortunately, many
people were able to keep the focus on equality and equal protection of the law, which is political
argument.
On the one hand, yes, absolutely, and it remains a point of contention to this day in the gay
community that the one major victory in recent memory was perfectly amenable to a patriarchal,
capitalist order. People like David Brock and what have you, who saw gay liberation not as a means
to transform society, which is the purpose for which the GLF was created, but rather as a means
to help people like themselves become elites like anyone else.
On the other hand, and perhaps it's just the vulgar Marxist in me, but I recoil at the notion
of separating economics from politics. This is why the phrase political economy even exists, to
represent the notion that all decisions regarding distribution of resources are inherently political.
I find it symptomatic of how entirely defanged class rhetoric is in the US (though the interviewee
is British, I presume) that even the well meaning and critical thinking among us can get away
with pretending that "economics" can somehow be sequestered from political decisions.
I realize that's not the point you're making, but there are moments in the interview when the
subject moves in that direction. As for statistics, Mark Twain reminds us there are three kinds
of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics–or, as my spouse is fond of saying, "70% of all statistics
are made up."
One place where social needs interfere with monetary policy, aka economics, is deficit spending
wherein the underlying economy is not keeping up (because of economic malpractice usually). So
that's a conflict against the oligarchy because they prevented the necessary jobs and so makes
their money worth less. So, depending which side you are on, politics should have a say (force
the government not to devalue the currency by inflation/deficit spending without a proper economy)
or politics should serve the chronically neglected needs of the general public regardless of preliminary
"inflation" – the inflation here is the most dreaded form of inflation for the rich, of course,
wage inflation. I think the term 'wage inflation' qualifies as an oxymoron, but that's just me.
probably an apocryphal story;
so a guy is playing regularly in a rigged poker game. a friend asked him, "why do you play, you
know they're cheating you"? the guy shrugs, and replies "i don't have a choice, it's the only
game in town".
Interesting thing I heard the other day, Professor Richard Wolff says he studied economics
at three elite universities (Yale, Harvard, and another notable I cannot remember) and never had
a course in Karl Marx. Tunnel vision for sure in the field.
Yikes. I remember being taught Marx in the early 90s . But that was Cambridge ;-) and it was
clearly a dying course as they were struggling to find faculty members.
As one who is well past university age, I am excited to hear that those in the Millenial generation
are organizing this movement. The (intentional?) failure of K-12 education to develop critical
thinking skills and focus solely on standardized testing of fact knowledge has been deeply upsetting
to me as a parent. To see that others have made it through our education system with a well developed
BS detector and are not afraid to use it is welcome news.
I look forward to reading your books!
Answer to question no 2: The jargon that is being used these days by presidents, economists,
talk show hosts is beyond my understanding. I have a masters degree.
I believe Trump gained some
supporters who were angry about the disconnect with the way they talk and the way they needed
to be talked to. Simple language has its own good. That is what Trump did. Trump is just not a
person. There is more to Trump that what it is. He proved so many of these experts wrong and bought
back the simple language and easy straight talk to the forefront. Saying wrong things is attractive
to me. More people relate to Trump in ways that he can say bad things. I relate to him because
we say bad things in our every day life. We go about having a conversation after to correct them.
Its that simple.
After all we are all human beings with little better instincts and rational than animals. Just
because few people can speak politically correct, few can dress like they are supposed to doesn't
mean that every one has to conform. I am excited to read this book.
An argot
(English pronunciation: /ˈɑːrɡoʊ/; from French argot [aʁˈɡo] 'slang') is a secret language used
by various groups-e.g., schoolmates, outlaws, colleagues, among many others-to prevent outsiders
from understanding their conversations. The term argot is also used to refer to the informal specialized
vocabulary from a particular field of study, occupation, or hobby, in which sense it overlaps
with jargon.
Is the economics profession simply following the "He who has the gold, makes the rules"?
Many other professions service retail customers, such as attorneys and doctors. But how many ordinary citizens ever deal with an economist on any level?
While there may be some economists attached to labor unions, for the most part economists are
employed by government, the financial industry, academia or the media.
If paycheck dependent economists know that powerful politicians, wealthy corporate leaders
and wealthy donors in academia are looking over their shoulders, one could expect economists'
message to be justify what their "employers" want to do.
"Keen was formerly an associate professor of economics at University of Western Sydney, until
he applied for voluntary redundancy in 2013, due to the closure of the economics program at the
university.
But he did find another job. "In autumn 2014 he became a professor and Head of the School of Economics, History and Politics
at Kingston University in London." Is there a large job market for skeptical economists?
Nothing's changed in 100 + years. American Yale Professor Irving Fisher "financial transactions
aren't random": Yale Professor Irving Fisher – 1920 2nd edition: "The Purchasing Power of Money"
"If the principles here advocated are correct, the purchasing power of money - or its reciprocal,
the level of prices - depends exclusively on five definite factors:
(1)the volume of money in circulation;
(2) its velocity of circulation;
(3) the volume of bank deposits subject to check;
(4) its velocity; and
(5) the volume of trade.
"Each of these five magnitudes is extremely definite, and their relation to the purchasing
power of money is definitely expressed by an "equation of exchange."
"In my opinion, the branch of economics which treats of these five regulators of purchasing
power ought to be recognized and ultimately will be recognized as an EXACT SCIENCE, capable of
precise formulation, demonstration, and statistical verification."
And the Fed already validated the Fisherian theory: In 1931 a commission was established on
member bank reserve requirements. The commission completed their recommendations after a 7 year
inquiry on Feb. 5, 1938. The study was entitled "Member Bank Reserve Requirements - Analysis of
Committee Proposal"
It's 2nd proposal: "Requirements against debits to deposits"
After a 45 year hiatus, this research paper was "declassified" on March 23, 1983. By the time
this paper was "declassified", required reserves had become a "tax" [sic].
Monetary flows, our means-of-payment money times its transactions velocity of circulation:
Here's my suggestion for educating economists about the fallacy of their assumption that it
is in any way acceptable or even meaningful to put a monetary price on a human life.
Step 1: we ask the economist to place a monetary value on his or her own life in the same way
that they feel so comfortable doing for people who are not them.
Step 2: crowdfund that amount of money.
Step 3: give said money to their next of kin and ask them to kindly follow us out to the woodshed
Ok, so let's call it a thought experiment .but I think that should make clear one
of the many, many things wrong with monetizing the value of everything in existence, as is the
common practice.
Step 1: we ask the economist to place a monetary value on his or her own life . . .
Priceless, or in economist's terms, infinity.
Step 2: crowdfund that amount of money.
Borrow from the Fed. It's fantasy money.
Step 3: give said money to their next of kin and ask them to kindly follow us out to the
woodshed
That would be cruel. They always claim they are the smartest guys in the room, while also claiming
men in manufacturing are low skill or put bluntly, stupid. Can we put them all on an uninhabited
island with a few shovels so they can live the civilized life and dig their own latrine, after
which they can bootstrap themselves to imagined wealth by inventing their own can opener? They
can get there by recycling the shovels, but they would need fire for that.
This interview articulates an extremely important insight when it states that the economy " is
believed to be a distinct system with its own logic that requires experts to manage it."
This seeming independence of the economic and political systems has largely deceived most of
modern social science. This seeming independence is not real, and in fact these spheres are deeply
intertwined.
As people llike Karl Polyani and Philip Mirowski have maintained, markets are always organized
through politics and institutions and one key to understanding this reality is to keep a focus
on the promulgation of the rules and regulations of a powerful state that helps to create movements
for both regulation and deregulation.
It is now imperative that an alternative political movement finally take the time to carefully
examine the nature and role of the State in political and economic life.
As a pre-med student of the mid 1970s, I never took an economics course. Professionally, I
tried to fight the same kind of jargon that baffles the lay public in medicine. And I watched
in horror how my profession became captured.
I struggle to read NC when reading jargon-filled posts. For example, I read about economic
cycles and wonder why that is an acceptable concept.
But I do so because I know that ignorance is not bliss. I know the economy is rigged. Orwellian
economics-speak allows the elite to configure human and social capital in their favor.
Is it time to throw this baby out with the bath water? If so, how do we conceive a baby that
doesn't eventually suckle at the wrong teat?
It was notable that Cathal failed to mention Marx. I don't think he realizes yet quite how fully indoctrinated he's been – as that humdinger of
an analogy (gay marriage – actually a redefinition to normalize surrogacy, a eugenics-by-stealth
agenda, hence it's enormous funding by the plutocracy) indicates. The economic can never be separated from the socio-political.
I think its more general than that. Those that have been airbrushed out of the history of economic
thought are those who never thought of economics as a separate, largely technocratic, discipline
but always as political economy. Marx was just one of these following the tradition of Smith,
Ricardo, Mill etc. Veblen and, to a large extent, Keynes were also following this tradition.
So sad that they lost and Walrasian physics envy ended up splitting economics from its political
context.
."how do you try to increase the accessibility of economics without watering it down so much
that it becomes analytically dysfunctional?"
This question makes no sense in the context of this discussion around the fact that modern
"economics" (theory, courses and practice) is an ideological construct. The suggestion being the
discipline as currently manifested would only become "analytically dysfunctional" if it were "watered
down" ??????
This simplistic, patently failed dogma has become an almost totalitarian "pensee unique" simply
because in coincided perfectly with the interests of the rich and powerful (and therefore those
of their lackeys)
It`s politics stupid!!!!!
Sorry, I realise the (exceptional!) core NC community knows all this as well as anyone
Another quibble. ?technocrats? At the height of the crisis, Italy, for example, had a govt
of "technocrats" foisted on the it. Monti, connections with Goldman?. Technocratic indeed!!!
The last couple of days I've been listening to a series of lectures by Philip Mirowski available
on youtube. When I place Mirowski's ideas in opposition to the ideas expressed in this interview
- the result is very different from the trend I see in the other comments here.
Mirowski describes how the "Neoliberal Economic thought collective" captured and now dominates
economic doctrine by controlling what and who can publish in the major economic journals. As a
result those aspects of Neoclassical Economics remaining are being re-shaped into a Neoliberal
mold. I noticed the word "neoliberal" doesn't show up anywhere in this post yet Neoliberal economic
policies and rationales dominate policy in the real world.
The discussion in the post makes several statements about how economics fails to make predictions
about the real world and fails in designing economic policies to help the common man. Mirowski
points out that Neoliberal economics designs policy to apply market models to every problem based
on the doctrine that markets are the most powerful information processing system available to
man - a strong form of the Efficient Markets Hypothesis. The Market is the ultimate epistemological
device. If the market solution doesn't satisfy the needs of the common man then satisfying those
needs is simply contrary to the wisdom of the market. For other problems like externalities they
just need to be properly incorporated into the market model to obtain an optimal solution to whatever
problem they present.
I don't see how "democratization" of economics teaching or eliminating jargon or deprecating
experts or more emphasis on critical thinking or pointing out the abject failure of economics
in solving economic problems will do much to counter the Neoliberal attack on the economics discipline.
Putting fins and flashy hubcaps on Neoclassical economics as it morphs into Neoliberal economics
is not the answer.
Its a hair ball that needs untangling and not a blowtorch thingy . If you are familiar with Philips past contributions to NC, his blog, social democracy blog
and other media portals you would have a better understanding of the perspective forwarded.
Disheveled . Mirowski does do service here wrt the fundamental methodology and how that frames
the topic, wrt base assumptions [human descriptors] and the extension of them.
The role of Economics is simple: it should inform people of the consequences of certain decisions
we make about who gets what. So if you have a problem with classical economics, you really have
a more fundamental problem. Economics provides many good answers; but don't expect it to also
provide the right questions. A comment above asked 'maximising what?'. Good question, but not
an economics question.
You are right, that is what it should be, unfortunately neoclassical has failed horribly in
that regard. It is based on assumptions that are demonstrably false and they are never revisited
to see the effect of relaxing them. You might as well be counting angels on a pin. See Roamer's
take down of it for starters. https://paulromer.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/WP-Trouble.pdf
First Bush II bankrupted the country by cutting taxes for rich and unleashing Iraq war. Then
Republicans want to cut Social Securty to pay for it
Notable quotes:
"... His nominee to run the Department of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, a Republican congressman from Georgia, has been a champion of cuts to all three of the nation's large social programs - Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. When discussing reforms to Social Security, he has ignored ways to bring new revenue into the system while emphasizing possible benefit cuts through means-testing, private accounts and raising the retirement age. ..."
"... But Mr. Price, who currently heads the House Budget Committee, has found a way to cut Social Security deeply without Congress and the president ever having to enact specific benefit cuts, like raising the retirement age. ..."
"... Mr. Trump's hands-off approach to Social Security during the campaign was partly a strategic gesture to separate him from other Republican contenders who stuck to the party line on cutting Social Security. But he also noted the basic fairness of a system in which people who dutifully contribute while they are working receive promised benefits when they retire. Unfortunately, he has not surrounded himself with people who will help him follow those instincts. ..."
Donald Trump campaigned on a promise not to cut Social Security, which puts him at odds with the
Republican Party's historical antipathy to the program and the aims of today's Republican leadership.
So it should come as no surprise that congressional Republicans are already testing Mr. Trump's hands-off
pledge.
... ... ...
As Congress drew to a close this month, Sam Johnson, the chairman of the House Social Security
subcommittee, introduced a bill that would slash Social Security benefits for all but the very poorest
beneficiaries. To name just two of the bill's benefit cuts, it would raise the retirement age to
69 and reduce the annual cost-of-living adjustment, while asking nothing in the way of higher taxes
to bolster the program; on the contrary, it would cut taxes that high earners now pay on a portion
of their benefits. Last week, Mark Meadows, the Republican chairman of the conservative House Freedom
Caucus, said the group would push for an overhaul of Social Security and Medicare in the early days
of the next Congress.
... ... ...
Another sensible reform would be to bring more tax revenue into the system by raising the level
of wages subject to Social Security taxes, currently $118,500. In recent decades, the wage cap has
not kept pace with the income gains of high earners; if it had, it would be about $250,000 today.
The next move on Social Security is Mr. Trump's. He can remind Republicans in Congress that his
pledge would lead him to veto benefit cuts to Social Security if such legislation ever reached his
desk. When he nominates the next commissioner of Social Security, he can choose a competent manager,
rather than someone who has taken sides in political and ideological debates over the program.
What Mr. Trump actually will do is unknown, but his actions so far don't inspire confidence. By law,
the secretaries of labor, the Treasury and health and human services are trustees of Social Security.
Mr. Trump's nominees to head two of these departments, Labor and Treasury - Andrew Puzder, a fast-food
executive, and Steve Mnuchin, a Wall Street trader and hedge fund manager turned Hollywood producer
- have no government experience and no known expertise on Social Security.
His nominee to run the Department of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, a Republican congressman
from Georgia, has been a champion of cuts to all three of the nation's large social programs - Medicare,
Medicaid and Social Security. When discussing reforms to Social Security, he has ignored ways to
bring new revenue into the system while emphasizing possible benefit cuts through means-testing,
private accounts and raising the retirement age.
There is no way to mesh those ideas with Mr. Trump's pledge. But Mr. Price, who currently
heads the House Budget Committee, has found a way to cut Social Security deeply without Congress
and the president ever having to enact specific benefit cuts, like raising the retirement age.
Recently, he put forth a proposal to reform the budget process by imposing automatic spending
cuts on most federal programs if the national debt exceeds specified levels in a given year. If Congress
passed Mr. Trump's proposed tax cut, for example, the ensuing rise in debt would trigger automatic
spending cuts that would slash Social Security by $1.7 trillion over 10 years, according to an analysis
by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. This works out to a cut of $168 a month
on the average monthly benefit of $1,240. If other Trump priorities were enacted, including tax credits
for private real estate development and increases in military spending, the program cuts would be
even deeper.
Mr. Trump's hands-off approach to Social Security during the campaign was partly a strategic
gesture to separate him from other Republican contenders who stuck to the party line on cutting Social
Security. But he also noted the basic fairness of a system in which people who dutifully contribute
while they are working receive promised benefits when they retire. Unfortunately, he has not surrounded
himself with people who will help him follow those instincts.
Susan Anderson is a trusted commenter Boston 1 hour ago
There is a simple solution to Social Security.
Remove the cap, so it is not a regressive tax. After all, Republicans appear to be all for
a "flat" tax. Then lower the rate for everyone.
There is no reason why it should only be charged on the part of income that is needed to pay
for necessary expenses should as housing, food, medical care, transportation, school, communications,
and such. Anyone making more than the current "cap" is actually able to afford all this.
There is no reason the costs should be born only by those at the bottom of the income pyramid.
As for Republican looting, that's just despicable, and we'll hope they are wise enough to realize
that they shouldn't let government mess with people's Social Security!
Thomas Zaslavsky is a trusted commenter Binghamton, N.Y. 1 hour ago
The idea hinted in the editorial that Trump has any principle or instinct that would lead him
to protect benefits for people who are not himself or his ultra-wealthy class is not worthy of
consideration. No, Trump has none such and he will act accordingly. (Test my prediction at the
end of 2017 or even sooner; it seems the Republicans are champing at the bit to loot the government
and the country fro their backers.)
Christine McM is a trusted commenter Massachusetts 2 hours ago
I wouldn't hold Trump to any of his campaign promises, given how often he changes positions, backtracks,
changes subjects, or whatever. His biggest promise of all was to "drain the swamp" and we know
how that turned out.
He might have a cabinet of outsiders, but they are still creatures from outside swamps. That
said, if there is even the barest of hints that this is on the agenda, I can pretty much bet that
in two years, Congress will completely change parties.
Imagine: cutting benefits for people who worked all their lives and depend on that money in
older age, all in order to give the wealthiest Americans another huge tax cut. For a fake populist
like Trump, that might sound like a great idea (he has no fixed beliefs or principles) but to
his most ardent supporters, that might be the moment they finally get it: they fell for one of
the biggest cons in the universe.
Rita is a trusted commenter California 2 hours ago
Given the Republican desire to shut down Medicare and Social Security, it is not hard to predict
that they will do so a little at a time so that people will not notice until its too late.
But since the Republicans have been very upfront with hostility towards the social safety net,
one can conclude that their supporters want to eliminate social safety net.
Mary Ann Donahue is a trusted commenter NYS 2 hours ago
RE: "To name just two of the bill's benefit cuts, it would raise the retirement age to 69 and
reduce the annual cost-of-living adjustment..."
The COLA for 2017 is .03% a paltry average increase of $5 per month. There was no increase in
2016.
The formula for how the COLA is calculated needs to be changed to allow for fair increases
not reductions.
Mary Scott is a trusted commenter NY 4 hours ago
Republicans have been promising to "fix" Social Security for years and now we are seeing exactly
what they mean. We can see how low they're willing to stoop by their plan to cut the taxes that
high earners now pay on a portion of their benefits and decimate the program for everybody else.
I wouldn't be surprised if they raised SS taxes on low and middle income earners.
There has been an easy fix for Social Security for years. Simply raise the tax on income to
$250,000 thousand and retirees both present and future would be on much firmer footing. Many future
retirees will be moving on to Social Security without the benefit of defined pension plans and
will need a more robust SS benefit in the future, not a weaker one.
Don't count on Donald Trump to come to the rescue. He seems to hate any tax more than even
the most fervent anti-tax freak like Paul Ryan. Mr. Trump admitted throughout the campaign that
he avoids paying any tax at all.
The Times seems to want to give Mr. Trump limitless chances to do the right thing. "Will Donald
Trump Cave on Social Security" it asks. Of course he will. One has only to look at his cabinet
choices and his embrace of the Ryan budget to know the answer to that question. Better to ask,
"How Long Will It Take Trump To Destroy Social Security?"
At least it would be an honest question and one that would put Mr. Trump in the center of a
question that will affect the economic security of millions of Americans.
serban is a trusted commenter Miller Place 4 hours ago
Cutting benefits for upper income solves nothing since by definition upper incomes are a small
percentage of the population. The obvious way to solve any problem with SS is to raise taxes on
upper incomes, the present cap is preposterous. People so wealthy that SS is a pittance can show
their concern by simply donating the money they get from SS to charities.
david is a trusted commenter ny 4 hours ago
We can get some perspective on what Social Security privatization schemes would mean to the
average SSS recipient from Roger Lowenstein' analysis of Bush's privatization scheme.
Roger Lowenstein's Times article discusses the CBO's analysis of how the Bush privatization
scheme for Social Security would reduce benefits.
"The C.B.O. assumes that the typical worker would invest half of his allocation in stocks
and the rest in bonds. The C.B.O. projects the average return, after inflation and expenses,
at 4.9 percent. This compares with the 6 percent rate (about 3.5 percent after inflation) that
the trust fund is earning now.
The second feature of the plan would link future benefit increases
to inflation rather than to wages. Because wages typically grow faster, this would mean a rather
substantial benefit cut. In other words, absent a sustained roaring bull market, the private
accounts would not fully make up for the benefit cuts. According to the C.B.O.'s analysis,
which, like all projections of this sort should be regarded as a best guess, a low-income retiree
in 2035 would receive annual benefits (including the annuity from his private account) of $9,100,
down from the $9,500 forecast under the present program. A median retiree would be cut severely,
from $17,700 to $13,600. "
There are clear signs that the Neocons running the AngloZionist Empire and its
"deep state" are in a state of near panic and their actions indicate they are
truly terrified.
The home front
One the home front, the Neocons have resorted to every possible dirty trick
on the book to try to prevent Donald Trump from ever getting into the White
House: they have
organized riots and demonstrations (some paid by Soros money)
encouraged the supporters of Hillary to reject the outcome of the
elections ("not my President")
tried to threaten the Electors and make them either cast a vote for
Hillary or not vote at all
tried to convince Congress to refuse the decision of the Electoral
College and
they are now trying to get the elections annulled on the suspicion that
the (apparently almighty) Russian hackers have compromised the election
outcome (apparently even in states were paper ballots were used) and stolen
it in favor of Trump.
That is truly an amazing development, especially considering how Hillary
attacked Trump for not promising to recognize the outcome of the elections. She
specifically said that Trump's lack of guarantees to recognize the outcome
would threaten the very basis of the stability of the US political system and
now she, and her supporters, are doing everything in their power to do just
that, to throw the entire electoral process into a major crisis with no clear
path towards resolution. Some say that the Democrats are risking a civil war.
Considering that several key Republican Congressmen have said they do support
the notion of an investigation into the "Russian hackers" fairy tale, I submit
that the Republicans are doing exactly the same thing, that this is not a
Democrat vs Republican issue, but a "deep state vs The People of the USA"
issue.
Most experts agree that none of these tactics are going to work. So this
begs the question of whether the Neocons are stupid, whether they think that
they can succeed or what their true objective is.
My guess is that first and foremost what is taking place now is what always
happens when the Neocons run into major trouble: they double down, again. And
again. And again. That is one of the key characteristics of their psychological
make-up: they cannot accept defeat or, even less so, that they were wrong, so
each time reality catches up to their ideological delusions, they automatically
double-down. Still, they might rationalize this behavior by a combination of
hope that maybe one of these tricks will work, with the strong urge to do as
much damage to President-Elect Trump before he actually assumes his office. I
would never underestimate the vicious vindictiveness of these people.
What is rather encouraging is Trump's reaction to all this: after apparently
long deliberations he decided to nominate Rex Tillerson as his Secretary of
Defense. From a Neocon point of view, if General Michael Flynn was bad, then
Tillerson was truly an apocalyptic abomination: the man actually had received
the order of "
Friend of Russia
" from the hands of Vladimir Putin
himself!
Did Trump not realize how provocative this nomination was and how it would
be received by the Neocons? Of course he did! That was, on his part, a totally
deliberate decision. If so, then this is a very, very good sign.
I might be mistaken, but I get the feeling that Trump is willing to accept
the Neocon challenge and that he will fight back. For example, his reaction to
the CIA accusations about Russian hackers was very telling: he reminded
everybody that "
these are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had
weapons of mass destruction
". I think that it is now a safe bet to say that
as soon as Trump take control
heads will roll at the CIA .
[Sidebar: is it not amazing that the CIA is offering its opinion about
some supposed Russian hacking during the elections in the USA? Since when
does the CIA have any expertise on what is going on inside the USA? I
thought the CIA was only a foreign intelligence agency. And since when does
the CIA get involved in internal US politics? Yes, of course, savvy
observers of the USA have always known that the CIA was a key player in US
politics, but now the Agency apparently does not even mind confirming this
openly. I don't think that Trump will have the guts and means to do so but,
frankly, he would be much better off completely dissolving the CIA Of
course, that could get Trump killed – messing with the Fed and the CIA are
two unforgivable crimes in the USA – but then again Trump is already very
much at risk anyway, so he might as well strike first].
One the external front
On the external front, the big development is the liberation of Aleppo by
Syrian forces. In that case again, the Neocons tried to double-down: they made
all sorts of totally unsubstantiated claims about executions and atrocities
while the BBC, always willing to pick up the correct line, published an article
about
how much the situation in Aleppo is similar to what took place in Srebrenica .
Of course, there is one way in which the events in Aleppo and Srebrenica are
similar: in both cases the US-backed Takfiris lost and were defeated by
government forces and in both cases the West unleashed a vicious propaganda war
to try to turn the military defeat of its proxies into a political victory for
itself. In any case, the last-ditch propaganda effort failed and preventing the
inevitable and Aleppo was completely liberated.
ORDER IT NOW
The Empire did score one success: using the fact that most of the foreign
forces allied to the Syrians (Hezbollah, Iranian Pasdaran, Russian Spetsnaz,
etc.) were concentrated around Aleppo, the US-backed Takfiris succeeded in
breaking the will of the Syrians, many of whom apparently fled in panic, and
first surrounded and then eventually reoccupied Palmyra. This will be short
lived success as I completely agree with my friend Alexander Mercouris who says
that
Putin will soon liberate Palmyra once again, but until this happens the
reoccupation of Palmyra is rather embarrassing for the Syrians, Iranians and
Russians.
It seems exceedingly unlikely to me that the Daesh movement towards Palmyra
was undetected by the various Syrian, Iranian and Russian intelligence agencies
(at least
once source reports that Russian satellites did detect it) and I therefore
conclude that a deliberate decision was made to temporarily sacrifice Palmyra
in order to finally liberate Aleppo. Was that the correct call?
Definitely yes. Contrary to the western propaganda, Aleppo, not Raqqa, has
always been the real "capital" of the US backed terrorists. Raqqa is a
relatively small town: 220,000+ inhabitants versus 2,000,000+ for Aleppo,
making Aleppo about ten times larger than Raqqa. As for tiny Palmyra, its
population is 30,000+. So the choice between scrambling to plug the holes in
the Syrian defenses around Palmyra and liberating Aleppo was a no-brainer. Now
that Aleppo has been liberated, the city has to be secured and major
engineering efforts need to be made in order to prepare it for an always
possible Takfiri counter-attack. But it is one thing to re-take a small desert
town and quite another one to re-take a major urban center. I personally very
much doubt that Daesh & Co. will ever be in control of Aleppo again. Some
Neocons appear to be so enraged by this defeat that
they are now accusing Trump of "backing Iran" (I wish he did!).
The tiny Palmyra was given a double-function by the Neocon propaganda
effort: to eclipse the "Russian" (it was not solely "Russian" at all, but never
mind that) victory in Aleppo and to obfuscate the "US" (it was not solely "US"
at all, but never mind that) defeat in Mosul. A hard task for the tiny desert
city for sure and it is no wonder that this desperate attempt also failed: the
US lead coalition in Mosul still looks just about as weak as the Russian lead
coalition looks strong in Aleppo.
Any comparison between these two battles is simply embarrassing for the USA:
not only did the US-backed forces fail to liberate Mosul from Daesh & Co. but
they have not even full encircled the city or even managed to penetrate beyond
its furthest suburbs. There is very little information coming out of Mosul, but
after three months of combat the entire operation to liberate Mosul seems to be
an abject failure, at least for the time being. I sincerely hope that once
Trump takes office he will finally agree to work not only with Russia, but also
with Iran, to finally get Daesh out of Mosul. But if Trump delivers on his
promise to AIPAC and the rest of the Israel Lobby gang to continue to
antagonize and threaten Iran, the US can basically forget any hopes of
defeating Daesh in Iraq.
Our of despair and spite, the US propaganda vilified Russia for the killing
of civilians in Aleppo while strenuously avoiding any mention of civilian
victims in Mosul. But then, the same propaganda machine which made fun of the
color of the smoke coming out of the engines of the Russian aircraft carrier
Admiral Kuznetsov (suggesting that she was about to break down) had to eat
humble pie when it was the US navy's most expensive and newest destroyer, the
USS Zumwalt, which broke down in the Panama canal and had to be immobilzed,
while the Kuznetsov continued to do a very good job supporting Russian
operations in Syria.
Over and over again, the AngloZionist propaganda machine has failed to
obfuscate the embarrassing facts on the ground and it now clearly appears that
the entire US policy for the Middle-East is in total disarray and that the
Neocons are as clueless as they are desperate.
The countdown to January 20
th
It is pretty obvious that the Neocon reign is coming to an end in a climax
of incompetence, hysterical finger-pointing, futile attempts at preventing the
inevitable and a desperate scramble to conceal the magnitude of the abject
failure which Neocon-inspired policies have resulted in. Obama will go down in
history as the worst and most incompetent President in US history. As for
Hillary, she will be remembered as both the worst US Secretary of State the US
and the most inept Presidential candidate ever.
In light of the fact that the Neocons always failed at everything they
attempted, I am inclined to believe that they will probably also fail at
preventing Donald Trump from being sworn in. But until January 20
th
,
2017 I will be holding my breath in fear of what else these truly demented
people could come up with.
As for Trump, I still can't figure him out. On one hand he nominates Rex
Tillerson in what appears to be a deliberate message of defiance against the
Neocons, while on the other hand he continues to try to appease the Israel
Lobby gang by choosing
a rabid Zionist of the worst kind, David M. Friedman, as the next US
ambassador to Israel. Even worse then that, Donald Trump still does not appear
to be willing to recognize the undeniable fact that the US will never defeat
Daesh as long as the anti-Iranian stance of the Neocons is not replaced by a
real willingness to engage Iran and accept it as a partner and ally.
Right now the Trump rhetoric simply makes no sense: he wants to befriend
Russia while antagonizing China and he wants to defeat Daesh while threatening
Iran again. This is lunacy. Still, I am willing to give him the benefit of the
doubt, but somebody sure needs to educate him on the geopolitical realities out
there before he also end up making a total disaster of US foreign policy.
And yet, I still have a small hope.
My hope is that the latest antics of the Neocons will sufficiently aggravate
and even enrage Trump to a point where he will give up on his futile attempts
at appeasing them. Only by engaging in a systematic policy of "
de-neoconization
"
of the US political establishment will Trump have any hopes of "
making
America great again
". If Trump's plan is to appease the Neocons long enough
from him to be sworn in and have his men approved by Congress – fine. Then he
still has a chance of saving the USA from a catastrophic collapse, but only as
long as he remains determined to ruthlessly crack down on the Neocons once in
power. If his hope is to distract the Neocons by appeasing them on secondary or
minor issues, then his efforts are doomed and he will go down the very same
road as Obama who, at least superficially, initially appeared to be a
non-Neocon candidate and who ended up being a total Neocon puppet (in 2008 the
Neocons had placed their bets on McCain and they only infiltrated the Obama
Administration once McCain was defeated
"... this will probably be in tomorrow's washington post. "how putin sabotaged the election by hacking yahoo mail". and "proton" and "putin" are 2 syllable words beginning with "p", which is dispositive according to experts who don't want to be indentified. ..."
"... [Neo]Liberals have gone truly insane, I made the mistake of trying to slog through the comments the main "putin did it" piece on huffpo out of curiosity. Big mistake, liberals come across as right wing nutters in the comments, I never knew they were so very patriotic, they never really expressed it before. ..."
"... Be sure and delete everything from your Yahoo account BEFORE you push the big red button. They intentionally wait 90 days to delete the account in order that ECPA protections expire and content can just be handed over to the fuzz. ..."
"... It's a good thing for Obama that torturing logic and evasive droning are not criminal acts. ..."
"... "Relations with Russia have declined over the past several years" I reflexively did a Google search. Yep, Victoria Nuland is still employed. ..."
"... With all the concern expressed about Russian meddling in our election process why are we forgetting the direct quid pro quo foreign meddling evidenced in the Hillary emails related to the seldom mentioned Clinton Foundation or the more likely meddling by local election officials? Why have the claims of Russian hacking received such widespread coverage in the Press? ..."
"... I watched it too and agree with your take on it. For all the build up about this press conference and how I thought we were going to engage in direct combat with Russia for these hacks (or so they say it is Russia, I still wonder about that), he did not add any fuel to this fire. ..."
"... The whole thing was silly – the buildup to this press conference and then how Obama handled the hacking. A waste of time really. I don't sense something is going on behind the scenes but it is weird that the news has been all about this Russian hacking. He did not get into the questions about the Electoral College either and he made it seem like Trump indeed is the next President. I mean it seems like the MSM was making too much about this issue but then nothing happened. ..."
this will probably be in tomorrow's washington post. "how putin sabotaged the election
by hacking yahoo mail". and "proton" and "putin" are 2 syllable words beginning with "p",
which is dispositive according to experts who don't want to be indentified.
[Neo]Liberals have gone truly insane, I made the mistake of trying to slog through the
comments the main "putin did it" piece on huffpo out of curiosity. Big mistake, liberals come
across as right wing nutters in the comments, I never knew they were so very patriotic, they never
really expressed it before.
Be sure and delete everything from your Yahoo account BEFORE you push the big red button. They
intentionally wait 90 days to delete the account in order that ECPA protections expire and content
can just be handed over to the fuzz.
I don't think I've looked at my yahoo account in 8-10 years and I didn't use their email; just
had an address. I don't remember my user name or password. I did get an email from them (to my
not-yahoo address) advising of the breach.
I was amazed as I watched a local am news show in Pittsburgh recommend adding your cell phone
number in addition to changing your password. Yeah, that's a great idea, maybe my ss# would provide
even more security.
I use yahoo email. Why should I move? As I understood the breach it was primarily a breach
of the personal information used to establish the account. I've already changed my password -
did it a couple of days after the breach was reported. I had a security clearance with DoD which
requires disclosure of a lot more personal information than yahoo had. The DoD data has been breached
twice from two separate servers.
As far as reading my emails - they may prove useful for phishing but that's about all. I'm
not sure what might be needed for phishing beyond a name and email address - easily obtained from
many sources I have no control over.
So - what am I vulnerable to by remaining at yahoo that I'm not already exposed to on a more
secure server?
Yeah, it isn't like Mr. 'We go high' is going to admit our relationship has declined because
we have underhandedly tried to isolate and knee cap them for pretty much his entire administration.
Are you referring to Obama's press conference? If so, I am glad he didn't make a big deal out
of the Russian hacking allegations - as in it didn't sound like he planned a retaliation for the
fictional event and its fictional consequences. He rose slightly in stature in my eyes - he's
almost as tall as a short flea.
With all the concern expressed about Russian meddling in our election process why are we forgetting
the direct quid pro quo foreign meddling evidenced in the Hillary emails related to the seldom
mentioned Clinton Foundation or the more likely meddling by local election officials? Why have
the claims of Russian hacking received such widespread coverage in the Press?
Why is a lameduck
messing with the Chinese in the South China sea? What is the point of all the "fake" news hogwash?
Is it related to Obama's expression of concern about the safety of the Internet? I can't shake
the feeling that something is going on below the surface of these murky waters.
I watched it too and agree with your take on it. For all the build up about this press conference
and how I thought we were going to engage in direct combat with Russia for these hacks (or so
they say it is Russia, I still wonder about that), he did not add any fuel to this fire.
He did
respond at one point to a reporter that the hacks from Russia were to the DNC and Podesta but
funny how he didn't say HRC emails. Be it as it may, I think what was behind it was HRC really
trying to impress all her contributors that Russia really did do her in, see Obama said so, since
she must be in hot water over all the money she has collected from foreign governments for pay
to play and her donors.
The whole thing was silly – the buildup to this press conference and then
how Obama handled the hacking. A waste of time really. I don't sense something is going on behind
the scenes but it is weird that the news has been all about this Russian hacking. He did not get
into the questions about the Electoral College either and he made it seem like Trump indeed is
the next President. I mean it seems like the MSM was making too much about this issue but then
nothing happened.
Unfortunately the nightly news is focusing on Obama says Russia hacked the DNC and had it in
for Clinton!!! He warned them to stay out of the vote! There will be consequences! Russia demands
the evidence and then a story about the evidence. (This one might have a few smarter people going
"huh, that's it?!?!")
I do like the some private some public on that consequences and retaliation thing. You either
have to laugh or throw up about the faux I've got this and the real self-righteousness. Especially
since it is supposedly to remind people we can do it to you. Is there anyone left outside of America
who doesn't think they already do do it to anyone Uncle Sam doesn't want in office and even some
they do? Mind you I'm not sure how many harried people watching the news are actually going to
laugh at that one because they don't know how how much we meddle.
"... Shorter Paul Krugman: nobody acted more irresponsibly in the last election than the New York Times. ..."
"... Looks like Putin recruited the NYT, the FBI and the DNC. ..."
"... Dr. Krugman is feeding this "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. He comes across as increasingly shrill and even unhinged - it's a slide he's been taking for years IMO, which is a big shame. ..."
"... It is downright irresponsible and dangerous for a major public intellectual with so little information to cast the shadow of legitimacy on a president ("And it means not acting as if this was a normal election whose result gives the winner any kind of a mandate, or indeed any legitimacy beyond the bare legal requirements.") This kind of behavior is EXACTLY what TRUMP and other authoritarians exhibit - using pieces of information to discredit institutions and individuals. Since foreign governments have and will continue to try to influence U.S. policy through increasingly sophisticated means, this opens the door for anyone to declare our elections and policies as illegitimate in the future. ..."
"... Any influence Russian hacking had was entirely a consequence of U.S. media obsession with celebrity, gotcha and horse race trivia and two-party red state/blue state tribalism. ..."
"... Without the preceding, neither Trump nor Clinton would have been contenders in the first place. Putin didn't invent super delegates, Citizens United, Fox News, talk radio, Goldman-Sachs, etc. etc. etc. If Putin exploited vulnerabilities, it is because preserving those vulnerabilities was more important to the elites than fostering a democratic political culture. ..."
"... It's not a "coup". It's an election result that didn't go the way a lot of people want. That's it. It's probably not optimal, but I'm pretty sure that democracy isn't supposed to produce optimal results. ..."
"... All this talk about "coups" and "illegitimacy" is nuts, and -- true to Dem practice -- incredibly short-sighted. For many, voting for Trump was an available way to say to those people, "We don't believe you any more. At all." Seen in that light, it is a profoundly democratic (small 'd') response to elites that have most consistently served only themselves. ..."
"... Post Truth is Pre-Fascism. The party that thinks your loyalty is suspect unless you wear a flag pin fuels itself on Post Truth. Isnt't this absurdity the gist of Obama's Russia comments today!?! ..."
"... Unless the Russians or someone else hacked the ballot box machines, it is our own damn fault. ..."
"... The ship of neo-liberal trade sailed in the mid-2000's. That you don't get that is sad. You can only milk that so far the cow had been milked. ..."
"... The people of the United States did not have much to choose between: Either a servant of the Plutocrats or a member of the Plutocratic class. The Dems brought this on us when they refused to play fair with Bernie. (Hillary would almost certainly have won the nomination anyway.) ..."
"... The Repubs brought this on, by refusing to govern. The media brought this on: I seem to remember Hillary's misfeasances, once nominated, festering in the media, while Trump's were mentioned, and then disappeared. (Correct me if I'm wrong in this.) Also, the media downplayed Bernie until he had no real chance. ..."
"... The government brought this on, by failing to pursue justice against the bankers, and failing to represent the people, especially the majority who have been screwed by trade and the plutocratic elite and their apologists. ..."
"... The educational system brought this on, by failing to educate the people to critical thought. For instance: 1) The wealthy run the country. 2) The wealthy have been doing very well. 3) Everybody else has not. It seems most people cannot draw the obvious conclusion. ..."
"... Krugman is himself one of those most useful idiots. I do not recall his clarion call to Democrats last spring that "FBI investigation" and "party Presidential nominee" was bound to be an ugly combination. Some did; right here as I recall. Or his part in the official "don't vote for third party" week in the Clinton media machine....thanks, hundreds of thousands of Trump votes got the message. ..."
"... It's too rich to complain about Russia and Wikileaks as if those elements in anyway justified Clinton becoming President. Leaks mess with our democracy? Then for darn sure do not vote for a former Sec. of State willing to use a home server for her official business. Russia is menacing? Just who has been managing US-Russia relations the past 8 years? I voted for her anyway, but the heck if I think some tragic fate has befell the nation here. Republicans picked a better candidate to win this thing than we Democrats did. ..."
"... The truth of the matter is that Clinton was a very weak candidate with nothing to offer but narcissism ("I'm with her"). It's notable that Clinton has still not accepted responsibility for her campaign, preferring to throw the blame for the loss anywhere but herself. Sociopathy much? ..."
[ I find it terrifying, simply terrifying, to refer to people as "useful idiots" after all
the personal destruction that has followed when the expression was specifically used in the past.
To me, using such an expression is an honored economist intent on becoming Joseph McCarthy.
]
To demean a person as though the person were a communist or a fool of communists or the like,
with all the personal harm that has historically brought in this country, is cruel beyond my understanding
or imagining.
Well, not really. For example he referred to "the close relationship between Wikileaks and Russian
intelligence." But Wikileaks is a channel. They don't seek out material. They rely on people to
bring material to them. They supposedly make an effort to verify that the material is not a forgery,
but aside from that what they release is what people bring to them. Incidentally, like so many
people you seem to not care whether the material is accurate or not -- Podesta and the DNC have
not claimed that any of the emails are different from what they sent.
ZURICH - If Putin the Thug gets away with crushing Ukraine's new democratic experiment and
unilaterally redrawing the borders of Europe, every pro-Western country around Russia will be
in danger....
Yup, like the other elections, the bases stayed solvent and current events factored into the turnout
and voting patterns which spurred the independent vote.
When people were claiming Clinton was going to win big, I thought no Republican and Democratic
voters are going to pull the lever like a trained monkey as usual. Only difference in this election
was Hillary's huge negatives due entirely by her and Bill Clinton's support for moving manufacturing
jobs to Mexico and China in the 90s.
To Understand Trump, Learn Russian http://nyti.ms/2hLcrB1
NYT - Andrew Rosenthal - December 15
The Russian language has two words for truth - a linguistic quirk that seems relevant to our
current political climate, especially because of all the disturbing ties between the newly elected
president and the Kremlin.
The word for truth in Russian that most Americans know is "pravda" - the truth that seems evident
on the surface. It's subjective and infinitely malleable, which is why the Soviet Communists called
their party newspaper "Pravda." Despots, autocrats and other cynical politicians are adept at
manipulating pravda to their own ends.
But the real truth, the underlying, cosmic, unshakable truth of things is called "istina" in
Russian. You can fiddle with the pravda all you want, but you can't change the istina.
For the Trump team, the pravda of the 2016 election is that not all Trump voters are explicitly
racist. But the istina of the 2016 campaign is that Trump's base was heavily dependent on racists
and xenophobes, Trump basked in and stoked their anger and hatred, and all those who voted for
him cast a ballot for a man they knew to be a racist, sexist xenophobe. That was an act of racism.
Trump's team took to Twitter with lightning speed recently to sneer at the conclusion by all
17 intelligence agencies that the Kremlin hacked Democratic Party emails for the specific purpose
of helping Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton. Trump said the intelligence agencies got it wrong
about Iraq, and that someone else could have been responsible for the hack and that the Democrats
were just finding another excuse for losing.
The istina of this mess is that powerful evidence suggests that the Russians set out to interfere
in American politics, and that Trump, with his rejection of Western European alliances and embrace
of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, was their chosen candidate.
The pravda of Trump's selection of Rex Tillerson, head of Exxon Mobil, as secretary of state
is that by choosing an oil baron who has made billions for his company by collaborating with Russia,
Trump will make American foreign policy beholden to American corporate interests.
That's bad enough, but the istina is far worse. For one thing, American foreign policy has
been in thrall to American corporate interests since, well, since there were American corporations.
Just look at the mess this country created in Latin America, the Caribbean, Southeast Asia and
the Middle East to serve American companies.
Yes, Tillerson has ignored American interests repeatedly, including in Russia and Iraq, and
has been trying to remove sanctions imposed after Russia's seizure of Crimea because they interfered
with one of his many business deals. But take him out of the equation in the Trump cabinet and
nothing changes. Trump has made it plain, with every action he takes, that he is going to put
every facet of policy, domestic and foreign, at the service of corporate America. The istina here
is that Tillerson is just a symptom of a much bigger problem.
The pravda is that Trump was right in saying that the intelligence agencies got it wrong about
Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction.
But the istina is that Trump's contempt for the intelligence services is profound and dangerous.
He's not getting daily intelligence briefings anymore, apparently because they are just too dull
to hold his attention.
And now we know that Condoleezza Rice was instrumental in bringing Tillerson to Trump's attention.
As national security adviser and then secretary of state for president George W. Bush, Rice was
not just wrong about Iraq, she helped fabricate the story that Hussein had nuclear weapons.
Trump and Tillerson clearly think they are a match for the wily and infinitely dangerous Putin,
but as they move foward with their plan to collaborate with Russia instead of opposing its imperialist
tendencies, they might keep in mind another Russian saying, this one from Lenin.
"There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience," he wrote. "A scoundrel may be
of use to us just because he is a scoundrel."
Putin has that philosophy hard-wired into his political soul. When it comes to using scoundrels
to get what he wants, he is a professional, and Trump is only an amateur. That is the istina of
the matter.
If nothing else, Russia - with a notably un-free press - has shrewdly used our own 'free press'
against US.
RUSSIA'S UNFREE PRESS
The Boston Globe - Marshall Goldman - January 29, 2001
AS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DEBATES ITS POLICY TOWARD RUSSIA, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS SHOULD BE
ONE OF ITS MAJOR CONCERNS. UNDER PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN THE PRESS IS FREE ONLY AS LONG AS IT
DOES NOT CRITICIZE PUTIN OR HIS POLICIES. WHEN NTV, THE TELEVISION NETWORK OF THE MEDIA GIANT
MEDIA MOST, REFUSED TO PULL ITS PUNCHES, MEDIA MOST'S OWNER, VLADIMIR GUSINSKY, FOUND HIMSELF
IN JAIL, AND GAZPROM, A COMPANY DOMINATED BY THE STATE, BEGAN TO CALL IN LOANS TO MEDIA MOST.
Unfortunately, Putin's actions are applauded by more than 70 percent of the Russian people. They
crave a strong and forceful leader; his KGB past and conditioned KGB responses are just what they
seem to want after what many regard as the social, political, and economic chaos of the last decade.
But what to the Russians is law and order (the "dictatorship of the law," as Putin has so accurately
put it) looks more and more like an old Soviet clampdown to many Western observers.
There is no complaint about Putin's promises. He tells everyone he wants freedom of the press.
But in the context of his KGB heritage, his notion of freedom of the press is something very different.
In an interview with the Toronto Globe and Mail, he said that that press freedom excludes the
"hooliganism" or "uncivilized" reporting he has to deal with in Moscow. By that he means criticism,
especially of his conduct of the war in Chechnya, his belated response to the sinking of the Kursk,
and the heavy-handed way in which he has pushed aside candidates for governor in regional elections
if they are not to Putin's liking.
He does not take well to criticism. When asked by the relatives of those lost in the Kursk
why he seemed so unresponsive, Putin tried to shift the blame for the disaster onto the media
barons, or at least those who had criticized him. They were the ones, he insisted, who had pressed
for reduced funding for the Navy while they were building villas in Spain and France. As for their
criticism of his behavior, They lie! They lie! They lie!
Our Western press has provided good coverage of the dogged way Putin and his aides have tried
to muscle Gusinsky out of the Media Most press conglomerate he created. But those on the Putin
enemies list now include even Boris Berezovsky, originally one of Putin's most enthusiastic promoters
who after the sinking of the Kursk also became a critic and thus an opponent.
Gusinsky would have a hard time winning a merit badge for trustworthiness (Berezovsky shouldn't
even apply), but in the late Yeltsin and Putin years, Gusinsky has earned enormous credit for
his consistently objective news coverage, including a spotlight on malfeasance at the very top.
More than that, he has supported his programmers when they have subjected Yeltsin and now Putin
to bitter satire on Kukly, his Sunday evening prime-time puppet show.
What we hear less of, though, is what is happening to individual reporters, especially those
engaged in investigative work. Almost monthly now there are cases of violence and intimidation.
Among those brutalized since Putin assumed power are a reporter for Radio Liberty who dared to
write negative reports about the Russian Army's role in Chechnia and four reporters for Novaya
Gazeta. Two of them were investigating misdeeds by the FSB (today's equivalent of the KGB), including
the possibility that it rather than Chechins had blown up a series of apartment buildings. Another
was pursuing reports of money-laundering by Yeltsin family members and senior staff in Switzerland.
Although these journalists were very much in the public eye, they were all physically assaulted.
Those working for provincial papers labor under even more pressure with less visibility. There
are numerous instances where regional bosses such as the governor of Vladivostok operate as little
dictators, and as a growing number of journalists have discovered, challenges are met with threats,
physical intimidation, and, if need be, murder.
True, freedom of the press in Russia is still less than 15 years old, and not all the country's
journalists or their bosses have always used that freedom responsibly. During the 1996 election
campaign, for example, the media owners, including Gusinsky conspired to denigrate or ignore every
viable candidate other than Yeltsin. But attempts to muffle if not silence criticism have multiplied
since Putin and his fellow KGB veterans have come to power. Criticism from any source, be it an
individual journalist or a corporate entity, invites retaliation.
When Media Most persisted in its criticism, Putin sat by approvingly as his subordinates sent
in masked and armed tax police and prosecutors. When that didn't work, they jailed Gusinsky on
charges that were later dropped, although they are seeking to extradite and jail him again. along
with his treasurer, on a new set of charges. Yesterday the prosecutor general summoned Tatyana
Mitkova, the anchor of NTV's evening news program, for questioning. Putin's aides are also doing
all they can to prevent Gusinsky from refinancing his debt-ridden operation with Ted Turner or
anyone else in or outside of the country.
According to one report, Putin told one official, You deal with the shares, debts, and management
and I will deal with the journalists. His goal simply is to end to independent TV coverage in
Russia. ...
"Unfortunately, Putin's actions are applauded by more than 70 percent of the Russian people"
Exactly; the majority of people are so stupid and/or lazy that they cannot be bothered understanding
what is going on; and how their hard won democracy is being subjugated. But thank God that is
in Russia not here in the US - right?
"Pravda" is etymologically derived from "prav-" which means "right" (as opposed to "left", other
connotations are "proper", "correct", "rightful", also legal right). It designates the social-construct
aspect of "righteousness/truthfulness/correctness" as opposed to "objective reality" (conceptually
independent of social standards, in reality anything but). In formal logic, "istina" is used to
designate truth. Logical falsity is designated a "lie".
It is a feature common to most European languages that rightfulness, righteousness, correctness,
and legal rights are identified with the designation for the right side. "Sinister" is Latin for
"left".
If you believe 911 was a Zionist conspiracy, so where the Paris attacks of November 2015, when
Trump was failing in the polls as the race was moving toward as you would expect, toward other
candidates. After the Paris attacks, his numbers reaccelerated.
If "ZOG" created the "false flag" of the Paris attacks to start a anti-Muslim fervor, they
succeeded, much like 911. Bastille day attacks were likewise, a false flag. This is not new, this
goes back to when the aristocracy merged with the merchant caste, creating the "bourgeois". They
have been running a parallel government in the shadows to effect what is seen.
There used to be something called Usenet News, where at the protocol level reader software could
fetch meta data (headers containing author, (stated) origin, title, etc.) independently from comment
bodies. This was largely owed to limited download bandwidth. Basically all readers had "kill files"
i.e. filters where one could configure that comments with certain header parameters should not
be downloaded, or even hidden.
The main application was that the reader would download comments in the background when headers
were already shown, or on demand when you open a comment.
Now you get the whole thing (or in units of 100) by the megabyte.
A major problem is signal extraction out of the massive amounts of noise generated by the media,
social media, parties, and pundits.
It's easy enough to highlight this thread of information here, but in real time people are
being bombarded by so many other stories.
In particular, the Clinton Foundation was also regularly being highlighted for its questionable
ties to foreign influence. And HRC's extravagant ties to Wall St. And so much more.
The media's job was to sell Trump and denounce Clinton. The mistake a lot of people make is thinking
the global elite are the "status quo". They are not. They are generally the ones that break the
status quo more often than not.
The bulk of them wanted Trump/Republican President and made damn sure it was President. Buffering
the campaign against criticism while overly focusing on Clinton's "crap". It took away from the
issues which of course would have low key'd the election.
Not much bullying has to be applied when there are "economic incentives". The media attention
economy and ratings system thrive on controversy and emotional engagement. This was known a century
ago as "only bad news is good news". As long as I have lived, the non-commercial media not subject
(or not as much) to these dynamics have always been perceived as dry and boring.
I heard from a number of people that they followed the campaign "coverage" (in particular Trump)
as gossip/entertainment, and those were people who had no sympathies for him. And even media coverage
by outlets generally critical of Trump's unbelievable scandals and outrageous performances catered
to this sentiment.
First, let me disclose that I detest TRUMP and that the Russian meddling has me deeply concerned.
Yet...
We only have assertions that the Russian hacking had some influence. We do not know whether
it likely had *material* influence that could have reasonably led to a swing state(s) going to
TRUMP that otherwise would have gone to HRC.
Dr. Krugman is feeding this "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. He comes across
as increasingly shrill and even unhinged - it's a slide he's been taking for years IMO, which
is a big shame.
It is downright irresponsible and dangerous for a major public intellectual with so little
information to cast the shadow of legitimacy on a president ("And it means not acting as if this
was a normal election whose result gives the winner any kind of a mandate, or indeed any legitimacy
beyond the bare legal requirements.") This kind of behavior is EXACTLY what TRUMP and other authoritarians
exhibit - using pieces of information to discredit institutions and individuals. Since foreign
governments have and will continue to try to influence U.S. policy through increasingly sophisticated
means, this opens the door for anyone to declare our elections and policies as illegitimate in
the future.
It is quite clear that the Russians intervened on Trump's behalf and that this intervention had
an impact. The problem is that we cannot actually quantify that impact.
"We only have assertions that the Russian hacking had some influence."
Any influence Russian hacking had was entirely a consequence of U.S. media obsession with
celebrity, gotcha and horse race trivia and two-party red state/blue state tribalism.
Without the preceding, neither Trump nor Clinton would have been contenders in the first
place. Putin didn't invent super delegates, Citizens United, Fox News, talk radio, Goldman-Sachs,
etc. etc. etc. If Putin exploited vulnerabilities, it is because preserving those vulnerabilities
was more important to the elites than fostering a democratic political culture.
But this is how influence is exerted - by using the dynamics of the adversary's/targets organization
as an amplifier. Hierarchical organizations are approached through their management or oversight
bodies, social networks through key influencers, etc.
I see this so much and it's so right wing cheap: I hate Trump, but assertions that Russia intervened
are unproven.
First, Trump openly invited Russia to hack DNC emails. That is on its face treason and sedition.
It's freaking on video. If HRC did that there would be calls of the right for her execution.
Second, a NYT story showed that the FBI knew about the hacking but did not alert the DNC properly
- they didn't even show up, they sent a note to a help desk.
This was a serious national security breach that was not addressed properly. This is criminal
negligence.
This was a hacked election by collusion of the FBI and the Russian hackers and it totally discredits
the FBI as it throwed out chum and then denied at the last minute. Now the CIA comes in and says
PUTIN, Trump's bff, was directly involved in manipulating the timetable that the hacked emails
were released in drip drip form to cater to the media - creating story after story about emails.
It was a perfect storm for a coup. Putin played us. And he will play Trump. And God knows how
it ends. But it doesn't matter b/c we're all screwed with climate change anyway.
"It was a perfect storm for a coup. Putin played us. And he will play Trump. And God knows how
it ends. But it doesn't matter b/c we're all screwed with climate change anyway."
It's not a "coup". It's an election result that didn't go the way a lot of people want.
That's it. It's probably not optimal, but I'm pretty sure that democracy isn't supposed to produce
optimal results.
All this talk about "coups" and "illegitimacy" is nuts, and -- true to Dem practice --
incredibly short-sighted. For many, voting for Trump was an available way to say to those people,
"We don't believe you any more. At all." Seen in that light, it is a profoundly democratic (small
'd') response to elites that have most consistently served only themselves.
Trump and his gang will be deeply grateful if the left follows Krugman's "wisdom", and clings
to his ever-changing excuses. (I thought it was the evil Greens who deprived Clinton of her due?)
Post Truth is Pre-Fascism. The party that thinks your loyalty is suspect unless you wear a
flag pin fuels itself on Post Truth. Isnt't this absurdity the gist of Obama's Russia comments
today!?!
"On Wednesday an editorial in The Times described Donald Trump as a "useful idiot" serving Russian
interests." I think that is beyond the pale. Yes, I realize that Adolph Hitler was democratically
elected. I agree that Trump seems like a scary monster under the bed. That doesn't mean we have
too pee our pants, Paul. He's a bully, tough guy, maybe, the kind of kid that tortured you before
you kicked the shit out of them with your brilliance. That's not what is needed now.
What really is needed, is a watchdog, like Dean Baker, that alerts we dolts of pending bills and
their ramifications. The ship of neo-liberal trade bullshit has sailed. Hell, you don't believe
it yourself, you've said as much. Be gracious, and tell the truth. We can handle it.
The experience of voting for the Hill was painful, vs Donald Trump.
The Hill seemed like the least likely aristocrat, given two choices, to finish off all government
focus on the folks that actually built this society. Two Titans of Hubris, Hillary vs Donald,
each ridiculous in the concept of representing the interests of the common man.
At the end of the day. the American people decided that the struggle with the unknown monster
Donald was worth deposing the great deplorable, Clinton.
The real argument is whether the correct plan of action is the way of FDR, or the way of the industrialists,
the Waltons, the Kochs, the Trumps, the Bushes and the outright cowards like the Cheneys and the
Clintons, people that never spent a day defending this country in combat. What do they call it,
the Commander in Chief.
My father was awarded a silver and a bronze star for his efforts in battle during WW2. He was
shot in the face while driving a tank destroyer by a German sniper in a place called Schmitten
Germany.
He told me once, that he looked over at the guy next to him on the plane to the hospital in
England, and his intestines were splayed on his chest. It was awful.
What was he fighting for ? Freedom, America. Then the Republicans, Ronald Reagan, who spent the
war stateside began the real war, garnering the wealth of the nation to the entitled like him.
Ronald Reagan was a life guard.
Anthony Weiner
Podesta
Biden (for not running)
Tim Kaine (for accepting the nomination instead of deferring to a latino)
CNN and other TV news media (for giving trump so much coverage- even an empty podium)
Donna Brazile
etc.
The people of the United States did not have much to choose between: Either a servant of the
Plutocrats or a member of the Plutocratic class. The Dems brought this on us when they refused
to play fair with Bernie. (Hillary would almost certainly have won the nomination anyway.)
The Repubs brought this on, by refusing to govern. The media brought this on: I seem to
remember Hillary's misfeasances, once nominated, festering in the media, while Trump's were mentioned,
and then disappeared. (Correct me if I'm wrong in this.) Also, the media downplayed Bernie until
he had no real chance.
The government brought this on, by failing to pursue justice against the bankers, and failing
to represent the people, especially the majority who have been screwed by trade and the plutocratic
elite and their apologists.
The educational system brought this on, by failing to educate the people to critical thought.
For instance: 1) The wealthy run the country. 2) The wealthy have been doing very well. 3) Everybody
else has not. It seems most people cannot draw the obvious conclusion.
The wealthy brought this on. For 230 years they have, essentially run this country. They are
too stupid to be satisfied with enough, but always want more.
The economics profession brought this on, by excusing treasonous behavior as efficient, and
failing to understand the underlying principles of their profession, and the limits of their understanding.
(They don't even know what money is, or how a trade deficit destroys productive capacity, and
thus the very ability of a nation to pay back the debts it incurs.)
The people brought this on, by neglecting their duty to be informed, to be educated, and to
be thoughtful.
Anybody else care for their share of blame? I myself deserve some, but for reasons I cannot
say.
What amazes me now is, the bird having shown its feathers, there is no howl of outrage from
the people who voted for him. Do they imagine that the Plutocrats who will soon monopolize the
White House will take their interests to heart?
As far as I can tell, not one person of 'the people' has been appointed to his cabinet. Not
one. But the oppressed masses who turned to Mr Trump seem to be OK with this.
I can only wonder, how much crap will have to be rubbed in their faces, before they awaken to
the taste of what it is?
Eric377 : , -1
Krugman is himself one of those most useful idiots. I do not recall his clarion call to Democrats
last spring that "FBI investigation" and "party Presidential nominee" was bound to be an ugly
combination. Some did; right here as I recall. Or his part in the official "don't vote for third
party" week in the Clinton media machine....thanks, hundreds of thousands of Trump votes got the
message.
It's too rich to complain about Russia and Wikileaks as if those elements in anyway justified
Clinton becoming President. Leaks mess with our democracy? Then for darn sure do not vote for
a former Sec. of State willing to use a home server for her official business. Russia is menacing?
Just who has been managing US-Russia relations the past 8 years? I voted for her anyway, but the
heck if I think some tragic fate has befell the nation here. Republicans picked a better candidate
to win this thing than we Democrats did.
The truth of the matter is that Clinton was a very weak candidate with nothing to offer
but narcissism ("I'm with her"). It's notable that Clinton has still not accepted responsibility
for her campaign, preferring to throw the blame for the loss anywhere but herself. Sociopathy
much?
This has made me cynical. I used to think that at least *some* members of the US political
elite had the best interests of ordinary households in mind, but now I see that it's just ego
vs. ego, whatever the party.
As for democracy being on the edge: I believe Adam Smith over Krugman: "there is a lot of ruin
in a nation". It takes more than this to overturn an entrenched institution.
I think American democracy will survive a decade of authoritarianism, and if it does not, then
H. L. Mencken said it best: "The American people know what they want, and they deserve to get
it -- good and hard."
"... "The weirdest speech to me was the one by the US representative which built her statement as if she is Mother Theresa herself. Please, remember which country you represent. Please, remember the track record of your country." ..."
"... "I shouldn't want to remind this Western trio [France, US, UK] , which has called for today's meeting and carried it out in a raised voice, about your role in the creation of ISIS as a result of US and UK intervention in Iraq", Churkin said. ..."
"... "I don't want to remind these three countries about their role in unwinding the Syrian crisis, which led to such difficult consequences, and let terrorists spread in Syria and Iraq. ..."
"... Russia's public positions are getting progressively less 'diplomatic' and more direct. The west has been inviting Russia to take a swing with deliberately insulting language for a long time, but Russia is beginning to answer in kind. I smell a lifelong enemies situation, and that's unfortunate because Russia cannot be said to have not tried repeatedly to keep things civil. ..."
In response, Vitaly Churkin advised his colleague from the United States to remember the actions
of her own country.
"The weirdest speech to me was the one by the US representative which built her statement as
if she is Mother Theresa herself. Please, remember which country you represent. Please, remember
the track record of your country."
"I shouldn't want to remind this Western trio [France, US, UK] , which has called for today's
meeting and carried it out in a raised voice, about your role in the creation of ISIS as a result
of US and UK intervention in Iraq", Churkin said.
"I don't want to remind these three countries about their role in unwinding the Syrian crisis,
which led to such difficult consequences, and let terrorists spread in Syria and Iraq.
Churkin's actual words re the Mother Theresa wannabe, namely "Outraged" Powers:
"Особенно странным мне показалось выступление представителя Соединенных Штатов, которая построила
свое выступление, как будто она мать Тереза", - заявил он.
Especially strange to me appeared the speech by the representative of the United States,
who constructed her statement as though she were Mother Theresa", he stated.
[You see, Denis Denisovich uses the subjunctive mood, unlike those CNN dickheads! :-)]
Russia's public positions are getting progressively less 'diplomatic' and more direct. The west
has been inviting Russia to take a swing with deliberately insulting language for a long time,
but Russia is beginning to answer in kind. I smell a lifelong enemies situation, and that's unfortunate
because Russia cannot be said to have not tried repeatedly to keep things civil.
Classic, Lyttenburgh, very droll. I hope Churkin was able to negotiate a pay increase or some
sort of bonus for himself for having to sit through and reply to Samantha Power's rants. For a
professional diplomat it must be beyond painful to try and work with her and her ilk.
I wonder if she prays for the souls of those innocents, about whose estimated half-a-million lives,
sacrificed as a result of US sanctions imposed by the USA on Iran, were infamously considered
by her fellow countrywoman as a "price well worth it" as regards the furtherance of the the policies
of the "Exceptional Nation"?
Moscow Exile, yes, it's interesting what examples she picks as the epitome of evil that stains
consciences – Halabja, Rwanda, Srebrenica etc. All of them non-western. How about Hiroshima, Nagasaki,
Agent Orange (the gift that's still giving today), the saturation bombing of Cambodia, the extraordinary
destruction wrecked on North Korea, the genocides of South and Central America carried out by
those trained and shielded by the US and so on and so on – is she unaware of the history of her
own country?
Indeed, Northern Star, the US along with many of its allies had a hand in all of the examples
of 'irredeemable evil' Powers named. My point was that she chose examples where the immediate
perpetrators were not western actors.
Not to mention of course that 7-year-old boy her motorcade knocked over and killed while she was
racing to a photo-shoot in Cameroon. The child's family did get compensation but you wonder how
much guilt Samantha Power feels over an incident that would never have occurred had she not been
so eager to meet and be photographed with former Boko Haram victims just so she could have bragging
rights among the Washington social set.
The poster is trying to imply that John Bolton = Hillary Clinton as the Secretary of State. But
I doubt that this is true. Still the level of jingoism in those quotes is really breathtaking...
Everything is fake, b, everything is fake. One ring to bind them and in the darkness find them,
and the One Party of Mil.Gov to rule them all with a $35B/yr domestic propaganda budget.Say
hello to USArya's defacto 'day-to-day operations' SecState:
===
John Bolton
"Overthrowing Saddam Hussein was the right move for the US and its allies"
Hillary Clinton
"No, I don't regret giving the president authority [to invade Iraq] because at the time it was in
the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam
Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."
===
John Bolton
"Our military has a wonderful euphemism called 'national command authority.' It's a legitimate military
target. In Libya, Muammar Gaddafi is the national command authority. I think that's the answer right
there. ... I think he's a legitimate target... and that would end the regime right there."
Hillary Clinton
"We came, we saw, he died!"
===
John Bolton
"If, in this context, defeating the Islamic State means restoring to power Mr. Assad in Syria...
that outcome is neither feasible nor desirable."
Hillary Clinton
"The world will not waver, Assad must go"
===
John Bolton
"To stop Iran's bomb, bomb Iran"
"The only longterm solution is regime change in [Iran]."
Hillary Clinton
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during
which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate
them."
===
John Bolton
"Vladimir Putin's Russia is on the prowl in Eastern Europe and the Middle East in ways unprecedented
since the Cold War"
Hillary Clinton
"[Russia is] interested in keeping Assad in power. So I, when I was secretary of state, advocated
and I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones. ... I want to emphasize that what is at stake
here is the ambitions and the aggressiveness of Russia. Russia has decided that it's all in, in Syria.
... I've stood up to Russia. I've taken on Putin and others, and I would do that as president."
===
John Bolton
"The gravest threat to U.S. interests ... is the Russia-Iran-Syria axis"
Hillary Clinton
"ISIS was primarily the result of the [power] vacuum in Syria caused by Assad first and foremost,
aided and abetted by Iran and Russia."
"... I had always thought Hayek made some good critical points about the illusions of socialists/utopians and then chose to ignore the fact that his criticism also applied to his ..."
"... So maybe Hayek didn't overlook the fact that his critique also applied to his utopia. Maybe he knew full well he was misrepresenting what he was selling, engaging in exactly the same propaganda techniques that he attributed to others. ..."
"... A Rovian strategy - conceal your weakness by attacking others on precisely that issue. ..."
"... The Road to Serfdom put out in the US after WWII, which was full of this inflammatory sort of thing that doing anything to ameliorate the harder edges of capitalism put one inexorably on the road to serfdom. ..."
"... In the actual RtS one finds Hayek himself supporting quite a few such amiliorations, most notably social insurance, especially national health insurance well beyond what we even have in the US now with ACA. ..."
"... The problem for lovers of Hayek, and arguably Hayek himself, is that he simply never repudiated this comic book version of his work, even as he and many of his followers got all worked up when people, such as Samuelson, would criticize Hayek for this comic book version of the RtS, pointing out his support for these ameliorations in the original non-comic book version. ..."
"... However, Samuelson in his last remarks on Hayek, which I published in JEBO some years ago, effectively said that Hayek had only himself to blame for this confusion. ..."
"... I have been thinking that maybe both "sides" in our mostly brainwashed America today could agree with the meme of "DRAIN-THE-SWAMP" and hope to see it carried proudly on protest signs by the non-zombies of both sides in the ongoing social upheaval. ..."
"... I agree that "accuse the other side of doing what you are doing" is a familiar ploy of the right. ..."
Sandwichman | December 10, 2016 12:51 am
In his neo-Confederate "Mein Kampf," Whither Solid South ,
Charles Wallace Collins quoted a full paragraph from Hayek's The Road to Serfdom
regarding the emptying out of the meaning of words. My instinct would be not to condemn Hayek
for the politics of those who quote him. Even the Devil quotes Shakespeare.
But after taking another look at the Look magazine
comic book edition of Hayek's tome, I realized that Collins's depiction of full employment
as a sinister Stalinist plot was, after all, remarkably faithful to the
comic-book version of Hayek's argument. With only a little digging, one can readily
infer that what the comic book refers to as "The Plan" is a policy also known as full employment
(or, if you want to get specific, William Beveridge's Full Employment in a Free Society
). "Planners" translates as cartoon Hayek's alias for Keynesian economists and their political
acolytes.
To be sure, Hayek's sole reference to full employment in the book is unobjectionable
- even estimable almost:
That no single purpose must be allowed in peace to have absolute preference over all others
applies even to the one aim which everybody now agrees comes in the front rank: the conquest of
unemployment. There can be no doubt that this must be the goal of our greatest endeavour; even
so, it does not mean that such an aim should be allowed to dominate us to the exclusion of everything
else, that, as the glib phrase runs, it must be accomplished "at any price". It is, in fact, in
this field that the fascination of vague but popular phrases like "full employment" may well lead
to extremely short-sighted measures, and where the categorical and irresponsible "it must be done
at all cost" of the single-minded idealist is likely to do the greatest harm.
Yes, single-minded pursuit at all costs of any
nebulous objective will no doubt be short-sighted and possibly harmful. But is that really
what "the planners" were advocating?
Hayek elaborated his views on full employment policy in a 1945 review of Beveridge's
Full Employment in a Free Society, in which he glibly characterized Keynes's theory of
employment as "all that was needed to maintain employment permanently at a maximum was to secure
an adequate volume of spending of some kind."
Beveridge, Hayek confided, was "an out-and-out planner" who proposed to deal with the difficulty
of fluctuating private investment "by abolishing private investment as we knew it." You see, single-minded
pursuit of any nebulous objective will likely be short-sighted and even harmful unless that
objective is the preservation of the accustomed liberties of the owners of private property, in
which case it must be done at all cost!
Further insight into Hayek's objection to Keynesian full-employment policy can be found in
The Constitution of Liberty . The problem with full employment is those damn unions. On this
matter, he quoted Jacob Viner with approval:
The sixty-four dollar question with respect to the relations between unemployment and full
employment policy is what to do if a policy to guarantee full employment leads to chronic upward
pressure on money wages through the operation of collective bargaining .
and
it is a matter of serious concern whether under modern conditions, even in a socialist country
if it adheres to democratic political procedures, employment can always be maintained at a high
level without recourse to inflation, overt or disguised, or if maintained whether it will not
itself induce an inflationary wage spiral through the operation of collective bargaining
Sharing Viner's anxiety about those damn unions inducing an inflationary wage spiral "through
the operation of collective bargaining" was Professor W, H, Hutt, author of the Theory of
Collective Bargaining, who "[s]hortly after the General Theory appeared
argued that it was a specific for inflation."
Hutt, whose earlier book on collective bargaining "analysed [and heralded] the position of the
Classical economists on the relation between unions and wage determination," had his own
plan for full employment . It appeared in The South African Journal
of Economics in September, 1945 under the title "Full Employment and the Future of Industry."
I am posting a large excerpt from Hutt's eccentric full employment "plan"
here because it makes explicit principles that are tacit in the neo-liberal pursuit of
"non-inflationary growth":
Full employment and a prosperous industry might yet be achieved if what I propose
to call the three "basic principles of employment" determine our planning .
The first basic principle is as follows. Productive resources of all kinds, including
labour, can be fully employed when the prices of the services they render are sufficiently
low to enable the people's existing purchasing power to absorb the full flow of the
product.
To this must be added the second basic principle of employment. When the prices of
productive service have been thus adjusted to permit full employment, the flow of purchasing power,
in the form of wages and the return to property is maximised .
The assertion that unemployment is "voluntary" and can be cured by reducing wages is the classical
assumption that Keynes challenged in the theory of unemployment. Hutt's second principle, that full
employment, achieved by wage cuts, will maximize the total of wages, profit and rent thus would be
not be likely to command "more or less universal assent," as Hutt claimed. But even if it did, Hutt's
stress on maximizing a total , regardless of distribution of that total between wages
and profits, is peculiar. Why would workers be eager to work more hours for
less pay just to generate higher profits? Hutt's principles could only gain "more or
less universal assent" if they were sufficiently opaque that no one could figure out what he was
getting at, which Hutt's subsequent exposition makes highly unlikely.
Hutt's proposed full employment plan consisted of extending the hours of work, postponing retirement
and encouraging married women to stay in the work force. He advertised his idea as a reverse lump-of-labor
strategy. Instead of insisting - as contemporary economists do - that immigrants (older workers,
automation or imports) don't take jobs, Hutt boasted they create jobs, specifically because they
keep wages sufficiently low and thus maximize total returns to property and wages
combined. He may have been wrong but he was consistent. Nor did he conceal his antagonism toward
trade unions and collective bargaining behind hollow platitudes about
inclusive growth .
The U.S. has been following Hutt-like policies for decades now and the
results are in :
For the 117 million U.S. adults in the bottom half of the income distribution, growth has been
non-existent for a generation while at the top of the ladder it has been extraordinarily strong.
Or perhaps Hutt was right and what has held back those at the bottom of the income distribution
is that wages have not been sufficiently low to insure full employment and thus
to maximize total returns to labor and capital. The incontestable thing about Hutt's theory is that
no matter how low wages go, it will always be possible to claim that they didn't go sufficiently
low enough to enable people's purchasing power to absorb the full flow of their services.
coberly , December 10, 2016 11:52 am
I can't claim to know all of what Hayek meant. but I did read one of his books and it was clear
he did not mean what the right has taken him to not only mean, but to have proved.
In any case it is dangerous (and a bit stupid) to base policy on what someone said or is alleged
to have said. Especially economists who claim to have "proved" some "law" of economics.
That said, i wonder if some of what is said here is the result of over-reading what someone
(else) as said: to be concerned with policies "to the exclusion of all else" is not the same as
rejecting the policies while keeping other things in mind. and to recognize the potential of labor
unions to force inflationary levels of wages is not the same as opposing labor unions.
neither the advocates in favor of or those opposed to the extreme understanding of these cautions
–including the authors of them if that is the case - are contributing much to the development
of sane and humane policy.
I had always thought Hayek made some good critical points about the illusions of socialists/utopians
and then chose to ignore the fact that his criticism also applied to his neo-liberal
utopia. But I followed up the passage quoted by Collins and it turns out that Hayek was discussing
a statement made by Karl Mannheim, which he quoted out of context and egregiously misrepresented
-- a classic right-wing propaganda slander technique. So here is Hayek talking about emptying out
the meaning from words and filling them with new content and he is doing just that to the words
of another author.
So maybe Hayek didn't overlook the fact that his critique also applied to his utopia. Maybe
he knew full well he was misrepresenting what he was selling, engaging in exactly the same propaganda
techniques that he attributed to others. By accusing others first of doing what he was doing,
it made it awkward for anyone to point out that he was doing it, too. A Rovian strategy - conceal
your weakness by attacking others on precisely that issue.
One of the problems with Hayek is that there was always this conflict between the "comic book
Hayek" and the more scholarly and careful Hayek. In fact, there really was a comic book version
of The Road to Serfdom put out in the US after WWII, which was full of this inflammatory sort
of thing that doing anything to ameliorate the harder edges of capitalism put one inexorably on
the road to serfdom.
In the actual RtS one finds Hayek himself supporting quite a few such amiliorations,
most notably social insurance, especially national health insurance well beyond what we even have
in the US now with ACA.
The problem for lovers of Hayek, and arguably Hayek himself, is that he simply never repudiated
this comic book version of his work, even as he and many of his followers got all worked up when
people, such as Samuelson, would criticize Hayek for this comic book version of the RtS, pointing
out his support for these ameliorations in the original non-comic book version.
However, Samuelson
in his last remarks on Hayek, which I published in JEBO some years ago, effectively said that
Hayek had only himself to blame for this confusion.
To me it comes down to whether government is structured to serve all or some obfuscated minority
of all. With that as the divider it is easy to decipher Hayek's work and others.
I have been thinking that maybe both "sides" in our mostly brainwashed America today could
agree with the meme of "DRAIN-THE-SWAMP" and hope to see it carried proudly on protest signs by
the non-zombies of both sides in the ongoing social upheaval.
coberly , December 10, 2016 6:41 pm
Sammich
I agree that "accuse the other side of doing what you are doing" is a familiar ploy of the
right.
I don't know what Hayek was really saying, or if he let the comic book version stand because
he was so flattered to have his child receive such adulation, or just because he was in his dotage
and didn't really understand how he was being misrepresented if he was.
but the fun thing to do with Hayek is to point out what he "really" said to those who have
only heard the comic book version
if anyone is still talking about him at all. seems there was a big rush of talk about Hyak
a few years ago and now it has faded.
Sandwichman
:
December 07, 2016 at 12:06 PM
Terence Hutchison concluded his appendix on "Some postulates
of economic liberalism" in Significance and Basic Postulates
of Economic Theory with the admonition, "It is high time to
put these theories [laissez faire and equilibrium doctrines]
firmly back in their place as Utopian constructions." He
cited S. Bauer's 1931 article, "Origine utopique et
métaphorique de la théorie du "laissez faire" et de
l'équilibre naturel."
Prominent in Bauer's discussion is
the role of Baltasar Gracian's Oráculo Manual, which was
translated into French by Amelot de la Houssaie in 1684, in
popularizing both the notion and the term, laissez faire.
Pierre le Pesant Boisguilbert is credited with introducing
the term into political economic thought in a book published
in 1707. It is conceivable that Keynes knew of the Gracian
maxim because he used the image Gracian had used of
tempestuous seas in his famous rejoinder about "the long run"
being "a misleading guide to current affairs."
In his book Hutchinson noted that "several writers have
argued that some such postulate as 'perfect expectations' is
necessary for equilibrium theory." This observation lends a
special note of irony to Gracian's coinage of laissez faire.
In his discussion of Gracian's Oráculo, Jeremy Robbins
highlighted the observation that:
"Gracián's prudence rests firmly on a belief that human
nature is constant... In Gracián's case, human nature is
viewed as a constant in so far as he believes it to act
consistently contrary to reason."
In fact, Robbin's chapter on Gracian is titled "The
Exploitation of Ignorance." Gracian's maxims establish "a
sharp distinction between the elite and the necios [that is,
fools]." Assuming that most people are fools who act contrary
to reason is obviously something quite different from
assuming perfect expectations. For that matter, the prudence
of a courtier seeking to gain power over others is something
quite distinct the foresight required of a policy
professional acting ostensively on behalf of the public
welfare.
That metaphorical and Utopian notions of laissez faire and
natural equilibrium have managed to persist and even prevail
in economics -- impervious to Hutchinson's warning (or
Keynes's) -- is testimony to the perceptiveness of Gracian's
estimate of human nature.
"Let's stop pretending unemployment is voluntary" is the
title for chapter four of Roger Farmer's book,"Prosperity for
All: How to Prevent Financial Crises."
That is not good
enough.
No. Let's stop pretending that the "pretending" is
innocent. Let's stop pretending that it isn't a deliberate
fraud that has been aided and abetted by most of the
economics profession.
If you want to access the dynamical systems literature you
should know the terminology that self-equilibrating systems
have at least one stable equilibrium point with a non-empty
domain of attraction (think downward pointing pendulum). Any
state (set of variables describing the system configuration)
that starts in this domain will end up at the stable
equilibrium point. Non-linear systems can have several
equilibria and some may be unstable as well, in that starting
any small distance from those equilibria results in movement
away from that equilibrium (e.g. an upside down pendulum). It
is not enough to determine if a point is an equilibrium
point, you must also check its stability.
The trouble with this approach is that economics is
describing a system that is not an equilibrium system in the
first place. Economics is describing a system that is
1. Evolutionary
2. Dynamic. (In fact all the measurements are not
measurements of a static state but of movements. Even
apparently static things like asset values or the discounting
sum of flow over time.)
Just in case you don't see the relevance, just think about
what happens if it is not the position that is moving but the
equilibrium point (and worse the equilibrium point is not
known, and perhaps unknowable).
" If the expectations of agents are incompatible or
inconsistent with the equilibrium of the model, then, since
the actions taken or plans made by agents are based on those
expectations, the model cannot have an equilibrium solution.
..."
There is clearly one very important word missing in
this sentence.
Let me try again:
"" If the expectations of ANY agents are incompatible or
inconsistent with the equilibrium of the model, then, since
the actions taken or plans made by agents are based on those
expectations, the model cannot have an equilibrium solution.
..."
Now what at first look seems merely far fetched, just
became laughable.
I'm sorry, but this is very, very important. General
equilibrium is the original sin of economics (especially
Macro-economics). It is where it all went wrong. They should
just drop it, and try to model the dynamic response of agents
and the system to disequilibrium, which inevitably arises
faster than equilibrating forces can possibly work. A more
fundamental way of thinking about this is to realize that
economics deals with transactions and all transactions are
the result of a disequilibrium (at equilibrium all the trades
are already made).
Where did the disequilibrium come from? When you
understand the answer to that, you can understand what drives
the economy. Not before.
"... "We propose the creation of a harmonious economic community stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok," Putin writes. "In the future, we could even consider a free trade zone or even more advanced forms of economic integration. The result would be a unified continental market with a capacity worth trillions of euros." ..."
"... "The proposal comes as Putin travels to Germany on Thursday for a two-day visit, including a Friday meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. On Wednesday, Russia and the EU reached an important agreement on the elimination of tariffs on raw materials such as wood. The deal was an important prerequisite for the EU dropping its opposition to Russian membership in the World Trade Organization. Moscow is hoping to become a member in 2011." http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/from-lisbon-to-vladivostok-putin-envisions-a-russia-eu-free-trade-zone-a-731109.html ..."
Causes more polarization, between those who believe it & those who don't.
More importantly, it's in support of "fake news" (censorship) which is a serious move.
Also, the reason for such an unconvincing accusation is in Russia & Putin:
November of 2010, Putin wrote an editorial for Suddeutsche Zeitung. He urged No more tariffs.
No more visas. Vastly more economic cooperation between Russia and the European Union.
"We propose the creation of a harmonious economic community stretching from Lisbon to
Vladivostok," Putin writes. "In the future, we could even consider a free trade zone or even
more advanced forms of economic integration. The result would be a unified continental market
with a capacity worth trillions of euros."
"The proposal comes as Putin travels to Germany on Thursday for a two-day visit, including
a Friday meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. On Wednesday, Russia and the EU reached
an important agreement on the elimination of tariffs on raw materials such as wood. The deal
was an important prerequisite for the EU dropping its opposition to Russian membership in the
World Trade Organization. Moscow is hoping to become a member in 2011."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/from-lisbon-to-vladivostok-putin-envisions-a-russia-eu-free-trade-zone-a-731109.html
While we applaud the breakup of the EU, recognizing it as a force which eats the liberty and
economic prosperity of Europeans, Putin wants Russia to join it., and NATO as well.
Putin at Valdai in 2015
"I am certain that if there is a will, we can restore the effectiveness of the international
and regional institutions system. We do not even need to build anything anew, from the scratch;
this is not a "greenfield," especially since the institutions created after World War II are
quite universal and can be given modern substance, adequate to manage the current situation.
"We need a new global consensus of responsible forces. It's not about some local deals or
a division of spheres of influence in the spirit of classic diplomacy, or somebody's complete
global domination. I think that we need a new version of interdependence. We should not be
afraid of it. On the contrary, this is a good instrument for harmonising positions"
Putin supports the Rule of Law-- thru the Rockefeller-controlled UN. He's for national sovereignty
but never speaks of the desirability for nations to regain trade sovereignty, let alone economic,
immigration or currency sovereignty.
An opposition must have an opposing vision. Otherwise, what is it opposing? Is it enough that
it opposes US aggression as a means to bring about the shared vision of a regionally-administered
global oligarchy? Is it enough that Russia's 1% have to fight the West's 1% to keep 74% of the
wealth of Russia?
The hacking accusation is not meant to persuade us that it's true-- but only to reinforce our
feeling that there is opposition between Russia and the West: That Russia opposes the global tyranny
which is progressing to completion. That we need do nothing but have faith in our minds in Putin
and Russia.
I hope I'm wrong guys. Can anybody find any words of Putin's which speak of the desirability
of reversing any part of global governance?
Short-termism is a real problem for the US politicians. It is only now the "teeth of dragon"
sowed during domination of neoliberalism since 80th start to show up in unexpected places. And reaction
is pretty predictable. As one commenter said: "Looks like the CIA's latest candidate for regime change
is the USA."
Notable quotes:
"... Divide and Control is being brilliantly employed once again against 'us'. The same tactics used against foreign countries are being used here at home on 'us'. ..."
"... Divide and Conquer, yes indeed, watch McCain and Graham push this Russian hacking angle hard. ..."
"... i regard this 'secret' CIA report, following on from the 'fake news' meme, to be another of what will become a never-ending series of attempts to deligitemize Trump, so that later on this year the coming economic collapse (and shootings, street violence, markets etc) can be more successfully blamed not only on Trump and his policies, but by extension, on the Russians. (a two-fer for the globalist statists) ..."
"... Nevermind that many states voting machines are on private networks and are not even connected to the internet. ..."
"... The Russians 'might' have influenced the election..... The American Government DID subvert and remove a democratically elected leader (Ukraine).Anyone see the difference there? ..."
"... Voted for Trump, but the Oligarcy picked him too. Check the connection between Ross and Trump and Wilburs former employer. TPTB laughs at all of us ..."
"... The sad facts are the CIA itself and it's massive propaganda arm has its gummy fingers all over this election and elections all over the planet. ..."
"... The Russians, my ass. ................. The CIA are famous for doing nefarious crap and blaming their handy work on someone else. Crap that usually causes thousands of deaths. ... Even in the KGB days the CIA was the king of causing chaos. ..... the KGB would kill a dissident or spy or two and the CIA in the same time frame would start a couple of wars killing thousands or millions. ..."
"... What makes people think the Post is believable? The truth has been hijacked by their self annihilating ideology. Honestly one would have to be dumb as a fence 'Post' (pun intended) to believe ANYTHING coming from this rag and the rest of these 'Fake News' MSM propaganda machines, good lord! ..."
"... As for the CIA, it was reported at the time to be largely purged under the Dubya administration, of consitutionalists and other dissidents to the 9-11 -->> total-war program. Stacked to the brim with with neocon cadres. ..."
"... Out of the 3,153 counties in this country, Hillary Clinton won only 480. A dismal and pathetic 15% of this country. The worst showing EVER for a presidential candidate. ..."
"... The much vaunted 2 million vote lead in the popular vote can be attributed to exactly 4 boroughs in NYC; Bronx, Queens, Manhattan, & Brooklyn ..."
"... 96 MILLION Americans were either too disgusted, too lazy, or too apathetic to even bother to go out and cast a vote for ANYONE in this election. ..."
"... Looks like the CIA's latest candidate for regime change is the USA. ..."
"... Clapper sat in front of congress and perjured himself. When confronted with his perjury he defended himself saying he told them the "least untruthful thing" he could - admitting he had not problem whatsoever about lying to Congress. ..."
"... There certainly is foreign meddling in US government policy but it is not coming from Russia. The countries that have much greater influence than Russia on 'our' government are the Sunni-dominated Persian Gulf oil states including the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and, of course, that bastion of human rights, Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... Oil money from these states has found its way into influentual think tanks including the Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council, the Middle East Institute and the Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies and others. ..."
"... And also, there are arms sales. Arm sales to Saudi/Gulf States come with training. With training comes military ties, foreign policy ties and even intelligence ties. Saudi Arabia, with other Gulf oil states as partners, practically owns the CIA now. ..."
"... Reverse Blockade: emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of the truth blocks the average person's mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the "golden mean" between truth and its opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize that this effect is precisely the intent of the person who subjects them to this method. ..."
"... I recall lots of "consensus views" that were outright lies, bullshit and/or stupidity: "The Sun circles the Earth. The Earth is flat. Global cooling / next ice age (1970s). Global warming (no polar ice) 1990s-00's. Weapons of mass destruction." You can keep your doctor. ..."
"... The CIA, Pentagon and "intelligence" agencies need both a cleaning and culling ..."
"... Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA Spying. ..."
"... This whopper of a story from the CIA makes the one fabricated about WMD's in Iraq that fooled Bush Jr. and convinced him to almost take this country down by violating the sage advice on war strategy from Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz and opening up a second front in Iraq almost child's play. ..."
"... At least with the WMD story they had false witnesses and some made up evidence! With this story, there is no "HUMINT (human intelligence) sources" and no physical evidence, just some alleged traces that could have been actually produced from the ether or if they knew ahead of time of Trump's possible win sent someone to Russia and had them actually run the IP routes for show. ..."
"... Bush was misled because the CIA management was scared of some of his budgetary saber rattles and his chasing after some CIA management. In this case, someone is really scared of what the people will find when the swam gets drained, if ever it gets done. This includes so-called "false flag conservatives" like Lindsey Graham and top Democrats "Cambridge 5 Admirers" salted in over the years into the CIA ..."
"... Trump has already signaled he is going hand them nearly unlimited power by appointing Pompeo in the first place. I would think they would be very happy to welcome the incoming administration with open arms. ..."
"... I could see it if they were really that pissed about Trumps proposed Russian re-set and maybe they are but even that has to be in doubt because of the rate at which Trump is militarizing his cabinet. ..."
"... In all reality Trump is a MIC, intelligence cabal dream come true, so why would they even consider biting the hand that feeds so well? Perhaps their is more going on here under the surface, maybe all the various agencies and bureaucracies are not playing nice, or together for that matter. ..."
"... after all the CIA and the Pentagon's proxy armies are already killing each other in Syria so one has to wonder in what other arenas are they clashing? ..."
"... The neocons are desperate. Their war monger Hitlery lost by a landslide now they fabricate all sorts of irrational BS. ..."
"... 'CIA Team B' ..."
"... 'Committee on the Present Danger' ..."
"... 'Office of Special Plans' ..."
"... Trump is a curious fellow. I've thought about this quite a bit and tried to put myself in his shoes. He has no friends in .gov, no real close "mates" he can depend on, especially in his own party, so he had to start from scratch to put his cabinet together. ..."
"... It could very well be that this was Trump & the establishment plan to con the American public from the start of course. I kind of doubt it, since the efforts of the establishment to destroy Trump was genuinely full retard from the outset and still continues. ..."
"... He would have done better to ignore the political divide to choose those who have spent their lives challenging the Deep State. My ignorance of US politics does not supply me with a complete picture, but Ron Paul, David Kucinich, Trey Gowdy, Tulsi Gabard and even turncoat Bernie Sanders would have been better to drain the swamp than the neocon zionists he has installed in power. ..."
It is worse than "shiny object." Human brains have a latency issue - the first time they hear
something, it sticks. To unstick something, takes a lot of counter evidence.
So, a Goebbels-like big lie, or shiny object can be told, and then it can take on a life of
its own. False flags operate under this premise. There is an action (false flag), and then false
narrative is issued into press mouthpieces immediately. This then plants a shiny object in sheeple
brains. It then takes too much mental effort for average sheeple to undo this narrative, so "crowds"
can be herded.
Six million dead is a good example of this technique.
Fortunately, with the internet, "supposed fake news sites like ZH" are spreading truth so fast
- that shiny stories issued by our Oligarch overlords are being shot down quickly.
Bezo's, who owns Washington Post, is taking rents by avoiding sales taxes; not that I'm a fan
of sales taxes. But, ultimately, Bezos is taking rental thefts, and he is afraid of Trump - who
may change the law, hence collapse the profit scheme of Amazon.
Cognitive Dissonance -> Oldwood •Dec 10, 2016 10:49 AM
Oldwood. I have a great deal of respect for you and your intelligent opinions.
My only concern is our constant and directed attention towards the 'liberals' and 'progressives'.
When we do so we are thinking it is 'them' that are the problem.
In fact it is the force behind 'them' that is the problem. If we oppose 'them', we are wasting
our energy upon ghosts and boogeymen.
Divide and Control is being brilliantly employed once again against 'us'. The same tactics
used against foreign countries are being used here at home on 'us'.
chunga -> Cognitive Dissonance •Dec 10, 2016 11:33 AM
I've been reading what the blue-teamers are saying over on the "Democratic Underground" site
and for a while they've been expressing it's their "duty" to disrupt this thing. They are now
calling Trump a "Puppet Regime".
Divide and Conquer, yes indeed, watch McCain and Graham push this Russian hacking angle
hard. Also watch for moar of the Suprun elector frauds pop out of the woodwork. The Russian
people must be absolutely galvanized by what's happening, USSA...torn into many opposing directions.
dark pools of soros -> chunga •Dec 10, 2016 1:38 PM
First tell them to change their name to the Progressive Party of Globalists. Then remind them
that many democrats left them and voted for Trump.. Remind them again and again that if they really
want to see blue states again, they have to actually act like democrats again
I assure you that you'll be banned within an hour from any of their sites
American Gorbachev -> Oldwood •Dec 10, 2016 10:12 AM
not an argument to the contrary, but one of elongating the timing
i regard this 'secret' CIA report, following on from the 'fake news' meme, to be another
of what will become a never-ending series of attempts to deligitemize Trump, so that later on
this year the coming economic collapse (and shootings, street violence, markets etc) can be more
successfully blamed not only on Trump and his policies, but by extension, on the Russians. (a
two-fer for the globalist statists)
with a political timetable operative as well, whereby some (pardon the pun :) trumped up excuse
for impeachment investigations/proceedings can consume the daily news during the run-up to the
mid-term elections (with the intent of flipping the Senate and possibly House)
these are very powerful, patient, and deliberate bastards (globalist statists) who may very
well have engineered Trump's election for the very purpose of marginalizing, near the point of
eliminating, the rural, christian, middle-class, nationalist voices from subsequent public debate
Oldwood -> American Gorbachev •Dec 10, 2016 10:21 AM
The problem is that once Trump becomes president, he will have much more power to direct the
message as well as the many factions of government agencies that would otherwise be used to substantiate
so called Trump failures. This is a calculated risk scenario for them, but to deny Trump the presidency
by far produces more positives for them than any other.
They will have control of the message and will likely shut down much of alternate media news.
It is imperative that Trump be stopped BEFORE taking the presidency.
sleigher -> overbet •Dec 10, 2016 10:00 AM
"I read one morons comment that the IP address was traced back to a Russian IP. Are people
really that dumb? I can post this comment from dozens of country IPs right now."
Nevermind that many states voting machines are on private networks and are not even connected
to the internet. IP addresses from Russia mean nothing.
kellys_eye -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 9:40 AM
The Russians 'might' have influenced the election..... The American Government DID subvert
and remove a democratically elected leader (Ukraine).Anyone see the difference there?
Paul Kersey -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 9:40 AM
"Most of our politicians are chosen by the Oligarchy."
And most of our politicians choose the Oligarchy. Trump's choices:
Anthony Scaramucci, Goldman Sachs
Gary Cohn, Goldman Sachs
Steven Mnuchin. Goldman Sachs
Steve Bannon, Goldman Sachs
Jared Kushner, Goldman Sachs
Wilbur Ross, Rothschild, Inc
The working man's choices.....very limited.
Paul Kersey -> Paul Kersey •Dec 10, 2016 10:27 AM
"Barack Obama received more money from Goldman Sachs employees than any other corporation.
Tim Geithner, Obama's first treasury secretary, was the protege of one-time Goldman CEO Robert
Rubin. "
"The more things change, the more they stay the same."
Nameshavebeench... -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 11:53 AM
If Trump gets hit, the 'official story' of who did it will be a lie.
There needs to be a lot of online discussion about this ahead of time in preparation. If/when
the incident happens, there needs to be a successful counter-offensive that puts an end to the
Deep State. (take from that what you will)
We've seen the MO many times now;
Pearl Harbor
Iran in the 50's
Congo
Vietnam
Most of Latin America many times over
JFK
911
Sandy Hook
Boston Marathon 'Bombings'
Numerous 'mass shootings'
The patterns are well established & if Trump gets hit it should be no surprise, now the 'jackals'
need to be exterminated.
Also, keep in mind that everything we're hearing in all media just might be psyops/counter-intel/planted
'news' etc.
sgt_doom -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 1:25 PM
Although I have little hope for this happening, ideally Trump should initiate full forensic
audits of the CIA, NSA, DIA and FBI. The last time a sitting president undertook an actual audit
of the CIA, he had his brains blown out (President John F. Kennedy) and the Fake News (CBS, NBC,
ABC, etc.) reported that a fellow who couldn't even qualify as marksman, the lowest category (he
was pencilled in) was the sniper.
Then, on the 50th anniversary of that horrible coup d'etat, another Fake News show (NPR) claimed
that a woman in the military who worked at the rifle range at Atsuga saw Oswald practicing weekly
- - absurd on the fact of it, since women weren't allowed at military rifle ranges until the late
1970s or 1980s (and I doublechecked and there was never a woman assigned there in the late 1950s).
Just be sure he has trustworthy bodyguards, unlike the last batch of phony Secret Service agents
(and never employ anyone named Elmer Moore).
2rigged2fail -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 4:04 PM
Voted for Trump, but the Oligarcy picked him too. Check the connection between Ross and
Trump and Wilburs former employer. TPTB laughs at all of us
All these Russian interference claims require one to believe that the MSM and democrat machine
got out played and out cheated by a bunch of ruskies. This is the level of desperation the democrats
have fallen too. To pretend to be so incompetent that the Russians outplayed and overpowered their
machine. But I guess they have to fall on that narrative vs the fact that a "crazy" real estate
billionaire with a twitter account whipped their asses.
Democrats, you are morally and credulously bankrupt. all your schemes, agenda's and machinations
cannot put humpty dumpty back together again. So now it is another period of scorched earth. The
Federal Bureaucracy will fight Trump tooth and nail, joined by the democrats in the judiciary,
and probably not a few rino's too.
It is going to get ugly, like a machete fight. W. got a taste of it with his Plame affair,
the brouhaha over the AGA firings, the regime of Porter Goss as DCI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_Goss
DuneCreature -> cherry picker •Dec 10, 2016 10:30 AM
The sad facts are the CIA itself and it's massive propaganda arm has its gummy fingers
all over this election and elections all over the planet.
The Russians, my ass. ................. The CIA are famous for doing nefarious crap and
blaming their handy work on someone else. Crap that usually causes thousands of deaths. ... Even
in the KGB days the CIA was the king of causing chaos. ..... the KGB would kill a dissident or
spy or two and the CIA in the same time frame would start a couple of wars killing thousands or
millions.
You said a mouth full, cherry picker. ..... Until the US Intel community goes 'bye bye' the
world will HATE the US. ... People aren't stupid. They know who is behind the evil shit.
... ... ..
G-R-U-N-T •Dec 10, 2016 9:39 AM
What makes people think the Post is believable? The truth has been hijacked by their self
annihilating ideology. Honestly one would have to be dumb as a fence 'Post' (pun intended) to
believe ANYTHING coming from this rag and the rest of these 'Fake News' MSM propaganda machines,
good lord!
Colborne •Dec 10, 2016 9:37 AM
As for the CIA, it was reported at the time to be largely purged under the Dubya administration,
of consitutionalists and other dissidents to the 9-11 -->> total-war program. Stacked to the brim
with with neocon cadres. So, that's the lay of the terrain there now, that's who's running
the place. And they aren't going without a fight apparently.
Interesting times , more and more so.
66Mustanggirl •Dec 10, 2016 9:40 AM
For those of us who still have a grip on reality, here are the facts of this election:
Out of the 3,153 counties in this country, Hillary Clinton won only 480. A dismal and
pathetic 15% of this country. The worst showing EVER for a presidential candidate. Are
they really trying to blame the Russians and "fake" news for THAT?? Really??
The much vaunted 2 million vote lead in the popular vote can be attributed to exactly
4 boroughs in NYC; Bronx, Queens, Manhattan, & Brooklyn, where Hillary racked up 2 million
more votes than Trump. Should we give credit to the Russians and "fake" news for that, too?
96 MILLION Americans were either too disgusted, too lazy, or too apathetic to even
bother to go out and cast a vote for ANYONE in this election. On average 100 Million Americans
don't bother to vote.The Russians and "fake" news surely aren't responsible for THAT!
But given this is a story from WaPo, I think will just give a few days until it is thoroughly
discredited.
max2205 -> 66Mustanggirl •Dec 10, 2016 11:04 AM
And she won CA by 4 million. She hates she only gets a limited amount of electoral votes..
tough shit rules are rules bitch. Suck it
HalEPeno •Dec 10, 2016 9:43 AM
Looks like the CIA's latest candidate for regime change is the USA.
Clara Tardis •Dec 10, 2016 9:45 AM
This is a vid from the 1950's, "How to spot a Communist" all you have to do is swap out commie
for: liberal, neocon, SJW and democrat and figure out they've about won....
This is the same CIA that let Pakistan build up the Taliban in Afganistan during the 1990s
and gave Pakistan ISI (Pakistan spy agency) hundreds of millions of USD which the ISI channeled
to the Taliban and Arab freedom fighters including a very charming chap named Usama Bin Laden.
The CIA is as worthless as HRC.
Fuck them and their failed intelligence. I hope Trump guts the CIA like a fish. They need a
reboot.
Yes We Can. But... -> venturen •Dec 10, 2016 10:08 AM
Why might the Russians want Trump? If there is anything to the stuff I've been reading about
the Clintons, they are like cornered animals. Putin just may think the world is a safer, more
stable place w/o the Clintons in power.
TRM -> atthelake •Dec 10, 2016 10:44 AM
If it is "on" then those doing the "collections" should be aware that a lot of people they
will be "collecting" have read Solzhenitsyn.
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every
Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he
would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?"
Those doing the "collections" will have to choose and choose wisely the side they are on. How
much easier would it be for them to report back "Sorry, couldn't find them" than to face the wrath
of a well armed population?
Abaco •Dec 10, 2016 9:53 AM
The clowns running the intelligence agencies for the US have ZERO credibility. Clapper
sat in front of congress and perjured himself. When confronted with his perjury he defended himself
saying he told them the "least untruthful thing" he could - admitting he had not problem whatsoever
about lying to Congress. He was not fired or reprimanded in any way. He retired with a generous
pension. He is a treasonous basrtard who should be swinging from a lamppost. These people serve
their political masters - not the people - and deserve nothing but mockery and and a noose.
mendigo •Dec 10, 2016 9:56 AM
As reported on infowars:
On Dec 9 0bomber issued executive order providing exemption to Arms Export Control Act to permit
supplying weapons (ie sams etc) to rebel groups in Syria as a matter "essential to national security
"interests"".
Be careful in viewing this report as is posted from RT - perhaps best to wait for corraboaration
on front page of rededicated nyt to be sure and avoid fratrenizing with Vlad.
Separately Gabard has introduced bill : Stop Arming Terrorists Act.
David Wooten •Dec 10, 2016 9:56 AM
There certainly is foreign meddling in US government policy but it is not coming from Russia.
The countries that have much greater influence than Russia on 'our' government are the Sunni-dominated
Persian Gulf oil states including the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and, of course, that bastion
of human rights, Saudi Arabia.
Oil money from these states has found its way into influentual think tanks including the
Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council, the Middle East Institute and the Georgetown Center
for Strategic and International Studies and others. All of these institutions should be registered
as foriegn agents and any cleared US citizen should have his or her clearance revoked if they
do any work for these organizations, either as a contractor or employee. And these Gulf states
have all been donating oil money to UK and US universities so lets include the foreign studies
branches of universities in the registry of foreign agents, too.
And also, there are arms sales. Arm sales to Saudi/Gulf States come with training. With
training comes military ties, foreign policy ties and even intelligence ties. Saudi Arabia, with
other Gulf oil states as partners, practically owns the CIA now. Arms companies who sell
deadly weapons to the Gulf States, in turn, donate money to Congressmen and now own politicians
such as Senators Graham and McCain. It's no wonder Graham wants to help his pals - er owners.
So what we have here ('our' government) is institutionalized influence, if not outright control,
of US foreign policy by some of the most vicious states on the planet,
especially Saudi Arabia - whose religious police have been known to beat school girls fleeing
from burning buildings because they didn't have their headscarves on.
As Hillary's 2014 emails have revealed, Qatar and Saudi Arabia support ISIS and were doing
so about the same time as ISIS was sweeping through Syria and Iraq, cutting off the heads of Christians,
non-Sunnis and just about anyone else they thought was in the way. The Saudi/Gulf States are the
driving force to get rid of Assad and that is dangerous as nuclear-armed Russia protects him.
If something isn't done about this, the Gulf oil states may get US into a nuclear war with Russia
- and won't care in the least.
Richard Whitney •Dec 10, 2016 10:10 AM
So...somehow, Putin was able to affect the election one way, and the endorsements for HRC and
the slander of Trump by and from Washington Post, New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, practically
every big-city newspaper, practically every newspaper in Europe, every EU mandarin, B Streisand,
Keith Olberman, Comedy Central, MSNBC, CNN, Lady Gaga, Lena Dunham and a wad of other media outlets
and PR-driven-celebs couldn't affect that election the other way.
Sounds unlikely on the face of it, but hats off to Vlad. U.S. print and broadcast media, Hollywood,
Europe...you lost.
seataka •Dec 10, 2016 10:11 AM
The Reverse Blockade
"Reverse Blockade: emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of the truth
blocks the average person's mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of
healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the "golden mean" between truth and its
opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize
that this effect is precisely the intent of the person who subjects them to this method.
" page 104, Political Ponerology by Andrew M. Lobaczewski
more
just the tip -> northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 11:51 AM
that car ride for the WH to the capital is going to be fun.
Arnold -> just the tip •Dec 10, 2016 12:12 PM
Your comment ticked one of my remaining Brain Cells.
I recall lots of "consensus views" that were outright lies, bullshit and/or stupidity:
"The Sun circles the Earth. The Earth is flat. Global cooling / next ice age (1970s). Global warming
(no polar ice) 1990s-00's. Weapons of mass destruction." You can keep your doctor.
The CIA, Pentagon and "intelligence" agencies need both a cleaning and culling. 50%
of the Federal govt needs to go.....now.
What is BEYOND my comprehension is how anyone would think that in Putin's mind, Trump would
be preferable to Hillary. She and her cronies are so corrupt, he would either be able to blackmail
or destroy her (through espionage and REAL leaks) any time he wanted to during her presidency.
Do TPTB think we are this fucking stupid?
madashellron •Dec 10, 2016 10:31 AM
Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA
Spying.
I love this. Trump is not eager to "drain the swamp" and to collide with the establishment,
anyway he has no viable economic plan and promised way too much. However if they want to lead
a coup for Hilary with the full backing of most republican and democrat politicians just to get
their war against Russia, something tells me that the swamp will be drained for real when the
country falls apart in chaos.
northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 10:36 AM
Fuckin' Obama interfered in the Canadian election last year by sending advisers up north to
corrupt our laws. He has a lot of nerve pointing fingers at the Russians.
I notice liberals love to point fingers at others, when they are the guilty ones. It must be
in the Alinsky handbook.
Pigeon -> northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 10:38 AM
Called "projection". Everything they accuse others of doing badly, illegally, immorally, etc.
- means that is EXACTLY what they are up to.
just the tip -> northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 11:35 AM
Trump should not only 'defund' them but should end all other 'programs' that are providing
funds to them. Drug trade, bribery, embezzelment, etc. End the CIA terror organization.
Skiprrrdog •Dec 10, 2016 10:49 AM
Putin for Secretary of State... :-)
brianshell •Dec 10, 2016 10:50 AM
Section 8, The congress shall have the power to...declare war...raise armies...navies...militia.
The National Security Act charged the CIA with coordinating the nation's intelligence activities
and correlating, evaluating and disseminating intelligence affecting national security.
Rogue members of the executive branch have overstepped their authority by ordering the CIA
to make war without congressional approval or oversight.
A good deal of the problems created by the United States, including repercussions such as terrorism
have been initiated by the CIA
Under "make America great", include demanding congress assume their responsibility regarding
war.
Rein in the executive and the CIA
DarthVaderMentor •Dec 10, 2016 10:59 AM
This whopper of a story from the CIA makes the one fabricated about WMD's in Iraq that
fooled Bush Jr. and convinced him to almost take this country down by violating the sage advice
on war strategy from Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz and opening up a second front in Iraq almost child's
play.
At least with the WMD story they had false witnesses and some made up evidence! With this
story, there is no "HUMINT (human intelligence) sources" and no physical evidence, just some alleged
traces that could have been actually produced from the ether or if they knew ahead of time of
Trump's possible win sent someone to Russia and had them actually run the IP routes for show.
Bush was misled because the CIA management was scared of some of his budgetary saber rattles
and his chasing after some CIA management. In this case, someone is really scared of what the
people will find when the swam gets drained, if ever it gets done. This includes so-called "false
flag conservatives" like Lindsey Graham and top Democrats "Cambridge 5 Admirers" salted in over
the years into the CIA
The fact that's forgotten about this is that if the story was even slightly true, it shows
how incompetent the Democrats are in running a country, how Barak Obama was an intentional incompetent
trying to drive the country into the ground and hurting its people, how even with top technologies,
coerced corrupted vendors and trillions in funding the NSA, CIA and FBI they were outflanked by
the FSB and others and why Hillary's server was more incompetent and dangerous a decision than
we think.
Maybe Hillary and Bill had their server not to hide information from the people, but maybe
to actually promote the Russian hacking?
Why should Trump believe the CIA? What kind of record and leadership do they have that anyone
other than a fool should listen to them?
small axe •Dec 10, 2016 10:55 AM
At some point Americans will need to wake up to the fact that the CIA has and does interfere
in domestic affairs, just as it has long sought to counter "subversion" overseas. The agency is
very likely completely outside the control of any administration at this point and is probably
best seen as the enforcement arm of the Deep State.
As the US loses its empire and gains Third World status, it is (sadly) fitting that the CIA
war to maintain docile populations becomes more apparent domestically.
Welcome to Zimbabwe USA.
marcusfenix •Dec 10, 2016 11:10 AM
what I don't understand is why the CIA is even getting tangled up in this three ring circus
freak show.
Trump has already signaled he is going hand them nearly unlimited power by appointing Pompeo
in the first place. I would think they would be very happy to welcome the incoming administration
with open arms.
I could see it if they were really that pissed about Trumps proposed Russian re-set and
maybe they are but even that has to be in doubt because of the rate at which Trump is militarizing
his cabinet. All these stars are not exactly going to support their president going belly
up to the bar with Putin. and since Trump has no military or civilian leadership experience (which
is why I believe he has loaded up on so much brass in the first place, to compensate) I have no
doubt they will have tremendous influence on policy.
In all reality Trump is a MIC, intelligence cabal dream come true, so why would they even
consider biting the hand that feeds so well? Perhaps their is more going on here under the surface,
maybe all the various agencies and bureaucracies are not playing nice, or together for that matter.
perhaps some have grown so large and so powerful that they have their own agendas? it's not as
if our federal government has ever really been one big happy family there have been many times
when the right hand did not know what the left hand was doing. and congress is week so oversight
of this monolithic military and intelligence entities may not be as extensive as we would like
to think.
after all the CIA and the Pentagon's proxy armies are already killing each other in Syria
so one has to wonder in what other arenas are they clashing?
and is this really all just a small glimpse of some secret war within, which every once in
a while bubbles up to the surface?
CheapBastard •Dec 10, 2016 11:34 AM
The neocons are desperate. Their war monger Hitlery lost by a landslide now they fabricate
all sorts of irrational BS.
However, there is no doubt the Russians stole my TV remote last week.
The Intel agencies have been politicized since the late 1970's; look up 'CIA Team B'
and the 'Committee on the Present Danger' and their BS 'minority report' used by the
original NeoCons to sway public opinion in favor of Ronald Reagan and the arms buildup of the
1980's, which led to the first sky-high deficits. It also led to a confrontational stance against
the Soviet Union which almost led to nuclear war in 1983: The 1983 War Scare Declassified
and For Real
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb533-The-Able-Archer-War-Scare-Decl...
The honest spook analysts were forced out, then as now, in favor of NeoCons with political
agendas that were dangerously myopic to say the least. The 'Office of Special Plans'
in the Pentagon cherry-picked or outright fabricated intel in order to justify the NeoCon/Israeli
wet-dream of total control of oil and the 'Securing the (Israeli) Realm' courtesy of invading
parts of the Middle East and destabilizing the rest, with the present mess as the wholly predictable
outcome. The honest analysts told them it would happen, and now they're gone.
This kind of organizational warping caused by agency politicization is producing the piss-poor
intel leading to asinine decisions creating untold tragedy; that the WaPo is depending upon this
intel from historically-proven tainted sources is just one more example of the incestuous nature
of the relations between Traditional Media and its handlers in the intel community.
YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 11:54 AM
This isn't a "Soft Coup". It's the groundwork necessary for a rock hard, go-for-broke, above
the barricade, tanks in the street coup d'etat. You do not get such a blatant accusation from
the CIA and establishment echo vendor, unless they are ready to back it up to the hilt with action.
The accusations are serious - treason and election fraud.
Trump is a curious fellow. I've thought about this quite a bit and tried to put myself
in his shoes. He has no friends in .gov, no real close "mates" he can depend on, especially in
his own party, so he had to start from scratch to put his cabinet together. His natural "Mistake"
is seeking people at his level of business acumen - his version of real, ordinary people - when
billionaires/multimillionaires are actually Type A personalities, usually predatory and addicted
to money. In his world, and in America in general, money equates to good social standing more
than any other facet of personal achievements. It is natural for an American to equate "Good"
with money. I'm a Brit and foreigners like me (I have American cousins I've visited since I was
a kid) who visit the States are often surprised by the shallow materialism that equates to culture.
So we have a bunch of dubious Alpha types addicted to money in transition to take charge of
government who know little or nothing about the principle of public service. Put them in a room
together and without projects they can focus on, they are going to turn on each other for supremacy.
I would not be surprised if Trump's own cabinet destroys him or uses leverage from their own power
bases to manipulate him.
Mike Pompeo, for example, is the most fucked up pick as CIA director I could have envisaged.
He is establishment to his core, a neocon torture advocate who will defend the worst excesses
of the intelligence arm of the MIC no matter what. One word from his mouth could have stopped
this bullshit about Russia helping Trump win the election. Nobody in the CIA was going to argue
with the new boss. Yet here we are, on the cusp of another attack on mulitple fronts. This is
how you manipulate an incumbent president to dial up his paranoia to the max and failing that,
launch a coup d'etat.
It could very well be that this was Trump & the establishment plan to con the American
public from the start of course. I kind of doubt it, since the efforts of the establishment to
destroy Trump was genuinely full retard from the outset and still continues. I think he was
his own man until paranoia and the enormity of his position got the better of him and he chose
his cabinet from the establishment swamp dwellers to best protect him from his enemies. Wrong
choices, granted, but understandable.
He would have done better to ignore the political divide to choose those who have spent
their lives challenging the Deep State. My ignorance of US politics does not supply me with a
complete picture, but Ron Paul, David Kucinich, Trey Gowdy, Tulsi Gabard and even turncoat Bernie
Sanders would have been better to drain the swamp than the neocon zionists he has installed in
power.
flaminratzazz ->YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 12:03 PM
I think he was his own man until paranoia and the enormity of his position got the better of
him,,
+1 I think he was just dickin around with throwin his hat in the ring, was going to go have fun
calling everyone names with outlandish attacks and lo and behold he won.. NOW he is shitting himself
on the enormity of his GREATEST fvkup in his life.
jomama ->YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 12:16 PM
Unless you can show how Trump's close ties to Wall St. (owes banks there around 350M currently
YHC-FTSE ->jomama •Dec 10, 2016 12:59 PM
My post is conjecture, obviously. The basis of my musings, as stated above, is the fact that the
establishment has tried to destroy Trump from the outset using all of their assets in his own
party, the msm, Hollyweird, intelligence and politics. A full retard attack is being perpetrated
against him as I type.
There is some merit to dividing the establishment, the Deep State, into two opposing sides.
One that lost power, priestige and funds backing Hillary and one that did not, which would make
Trump an alternative establishment candidate. But there is no proof that any establishment (MIC+Banking)
entity even likes Trump, let alone supports him. As for Israel, Hillary was their candidate of
choice, but their MO is they will always infiltrate and back both sides to ensure compliance.
blindfaith ->YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 12:36 PM
Do not underestimate Trump. I will grant that some of these picks are concerning. However, think
in terms of business, AND government is a business from top to bottom. It has been run as a dog
and pony show for years and look where we are. To me, I think his picks are strating to look like
a very efficient team to get the government efficient again. That alone must make D.C. shake in
thier boots.
YHC-FTSE ->blindfaith •Dec 10, 2016 1:08 PM
Underestimating Trump is the last thing I would do. I'm just trying to understand his motives
in my own clumsy way. Besides, he promised to "Drain the swamp", not run the swamp more efficiently.
ducksinarow •Dec 10, 2016 12:04 PM
From a non political angle, this is a divorce in the making. Then democrats have been rejected
in totallity but instead of blaming themselves for not being good enough, they are blaming a third
party which is the Russians. They are now engaging the Republican Party in a custody battle for
the "children". There are lies flying around and the older children know exactly what is going
on and sadly the younger children are confused, bewildered, angry and getting angrier by the minute.
Soon Papa(Obama) will be leaving which is symbolic of the male father figure in the African American
community. The new Papa is a white guy who is going to change the narrative, the rules of engagement
and the financial picture. The ones who were the heroes in the Obama narrative are not going to
be heroes anymore. New heroes will be formed and revered and during this process some will die
for their beliefs.
Back to reality, Trump needs to cleanse the CIA of the ones who would sell our nation to the
highest bidder. If the CIA is not on the side of America the CIA should be abolished. In a world
where mercenaries are employed all over the world, bringing together a culturally mixed agency
does not make for a very honest agency. It makes for a bunch of self involved countries trying
to influence the power of individuals. The reason Castro was never taken down is because it was
not in the interest of the CIA to do so. That is why there were some pretty hilarious non-attempts
on Castro's life over the years. It is not in the best interest of the CIA that Trump be president.
It is in the best interest of America that Trump is our President.
brane pilot •Dec 10, 2016 12:22 PM
Even the idea that people would rely on foreign governments for critical information during
an election indicates the bankruptcy of the corrupt US media establishment. So now they resort
to open sedition and defamation in the absence of factual information. The mainstream media in
the USA has become a Fifth Column against America, no different than the so-called 'social science'
departments on college campuses. Trump was America's last chance and we took it and no one is
going to take it away.
"... existing official models do not sufficiently explain the Minsky period, the runup, how things got so fragile that they could collapse so badly. ..."
"... in effect Minsky provided a model and discussion of all three stages, although his model of the Keynes stage is not really all that distinctive and is really just Keynes. ..."
"... he probably did a better job of discussing the Bagehot stage than did Bagehot, and more detailed, if less formal, than Diamond and Dybvig. ..."
"... But the essentials of what go on in a panic and crash were well understood and discussed prior to 1873, with Minsky, and Kindlegerger drawing on Minsky in his 1978 Manias, Panics, and Crashes, quoting in particular a completely modern discussion from 1848 by John Stuart Mill ..."
"... Keep in mind, there are an infinite number of models that fit the data. Science requires more that a fit. It requires that the model correspond with reality in a way that it can fill in observable data before it is observed. ..."
"... Here's a theory (not a model): the true and revolutionary insights of Veblen, Keynes, and Minsky have all failed to significantly alter the trajectory of economic thought because the discipline expects "the truth" to do the impossible. ..."
Yes, we miss the late Hy Minsky, especially those of us who knew him, although I cannot claim
to be one who knew him very well. But I knew him well enough to have experienced his wry wit and
unique perspective. Quite aside from that, it would have been great to have had him around these
last few years to comment on what has gone on, with so many invoking his name, even as they have
in the end largely ended up studiously ignoring him and relegating him back into an intellectual
dustbin of history, or tried to.
So, Paul Krugman has a post entitled "The Case of the Missing Minsky," which in turn comments
on comments by Mark Thoma on comments by Gavyn Davis on discussions at a recent IMF conference on
macroeconomic policy in light of the events of recent years, with Mark link
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2015/06/the-case-of-the-missing-minsky.htmling
to Krugman's post.
He notes that there seem to be three periods of note:
a Minsky period of increasing vulnerability of the financial system to crash before the crash,
a Bagehot period during the crash,
a Keynes period after the crash.
Krugman argues that, despite a lot of floundering by the IMF economists, we supposedly understand
the second two, with his preferred neo-ISLM approach properly explaining the final Keynes period
of insufficiently strong recovery due to insufficiently strong aggregate demand stimulus, especially
relying on fiscal policy (and while I do not fully buy his neo-ISLM approach, I think he is mostly
right about the policy bottom line on this, as would the missing Minsky, I think).
He also says that looking at 1960s Diamond-Dybvig models of bank panics sufficiently explain the
Bagehot period, and they probably do, given the application to the shadow banking system. However,
he grants that existing official models do not sufficiently explain the Minsky period, the runup,
how things got so fragile that they could collapse so badly.
Now I do not strongly disagree with most of this, but I shall make a few further points. The first
is that in effect Minsky provided a model and discussion of all three stages, although his model
of the Keynes stage is not really all that distinctive and is really just Keynes.
But he probably did a better job of discussing the Bagehot stage than did Bagehot, and more
detailed, if less formal, than Diamond and Dybvig. I suspect that Bagehot got dragged in by
the IMF people because he is so respectable and influential regarding central bank policymaking,
given his important 1873 Lombard Street, and I am certainly not going to dismiss the importance
of that work.
But the essentials of what go on in a panic and crash were well understood and discussed prior
to 1873, with Minsky, and Kindlegerger drawing on Minsky in his 1978 Manias, Panics, and Crashes,
quoting in particular a completely modern discussion from 1848 by John Stuart Mill (I am tempted
to produce the quotation here, but it is rather long; I do so on p. 59 of my 1991 From Catastrophe
to Chaos: A General Theory of Economic Discontinuities), which clearly delineates the mechanics
and patterns of the crash, using the colorful language of "panic" and "revulsion" along the way.
Others preceding Bagehot include the inimitable MacKay in 1852 in his Madness of Crowds book
and Marx in Vol. III of Capital, although admittedly that was not published until well after
Bagehot's book.
One can even find such discussions in Cantillon early in the 1700s discussing what went on in
the Mississippi and South Sea bubbles, from which he made a lot of money, and then, good old Adam
Smith in 1776 in WoN (pp. 703-704), who in regard to the South Sea bubble and the managers of the
South Sea company declared, "They had an immense capital dividend among an immense number of proprietors.
It was naturally to be expected, therefore, that folly, negligence, and profusion should prevail
in the whole management of their affairs. The knavery and extravagance of their stock-jobbing operations
are sufficiently known [as are] the negligence, profusion and malversation of the servants of the
company."
It must be admitted that this quote from Smith does not have the sort of detailed analysis of
the crash itself that one finds in Mill or Bagehot, much less Minsky or Diamond and Dybvig. But there
is another reason of interest now to note these inflammatory remarks by Smith. David Warsh in his
Economic Principals has posted in the last few days on "Just before the lights went up," also linked
to by the
inimitable
Mark Thoma. Warsh discusses recent work on Smith's role in the bailout of the Ayr Bank of Scotland,
whose crash in 1772 created macroeconomic instability and layoffs, with Smith apparently playing
a role in getting the British parliament to bail out the bank, with its main owners, Lord Buccleuch
and the Duke of Queensbury, paying Smith off with a job as Commissioner of Customs afterwards. I
had always thought that it was ironic that free trader Smith ended his career in this position, but
had not previously known how he got it. As it is, Warsh points out that the debate over bubbles and
what the role of government should be in dealing with them was a difference between Smith and his
fellow Scottish rival, Sir James Steuart, whose earlier book provided an alternative overview of
political economy, now largely forgotten by most (An Inquiry into the Principles of Political
Oeconomy, 1767).
I conclude this by noting that part of the problem for Krugman and also the IMF crowd with Minsky
is that it is indeed hard to fit his view into a nice formal model, with various folks (including
Mark Thoma) wishing it were to be done and noting that it probably involves invoking the dread behavioral
economics that does not provide nice neat models. I also suspect that some of these folks, including
Krugman, do not like some of the purveyors of formal models based on Minsky, notably Steve Keen,
who has been very noisy in his criticism of these folks, leading even such observers as Noah Smith,
who might be open to such things, to denounce Keen for his general naughtiness and to dismiss his
work while slapping his hands. But, aside from what Keen has done, I note that there are other ways
to model the missing Minsky more formally, including using agent-based models, if one really wants
to, these do not involve putting financial frictions into DSGE models, which indeed do not successfully
model the missing Minsky.
Barkley Rosser
Update: Correction from comments is that the Ayr Bank was not bailed out. It failed. However,
the two dukes who were its main owners were effectively bailed out, see comments or the original
Warsh piece for details. It remains the case that Adam Smith helped out with that and was rewarded
with the post of Commissioner of Customs in Scotland.
What, exactly, is the value added of formal (or even informal) "models" in all this? That is to
say, if a historian were to describe the events and responses outlined above, what would he leave
out that an economist would put in?
Keep in mind, there are an infinite number of models
that fit the data. Science requires more that a fit. It requires that the model correspond with
reality in a way that it can fill in observable data before it is observed.
Meanwhile, Simon Wren-Lewis dismisses the policy-maker who listens to the historian as using
mere "intelligent guess work", strongly suggesting that economists clearly do better. But if trying
to figure out whether the current moments is Minsky, Keynes or even Keen, isn't "guesswork" then
I don't know what is. Put "intelligent guess work" policy next to model guided policy in your
history above. Where's the value added from modeling? It has to be useful AND the policy maker
must have a scientific reason for knowing it will be useful IN REAL TIME.
Krugman frequently defends "textbook" modeling with a "nobody else has come up with anything
better" response. But that's a classic "when did you stop beating your wife".
What if the economy can't be modeled? Claiming to do the impossible is deluded, even if you
can correctly say: "no one has ever improved upon my method of doing the impossible."
"But we have learned so much!" People say that, but what, exactly, are they talking about?
Here's a theory (not a model): the true and revolutionary insights of Veblen, Keynes, and
Minsky have all failed to significantly alter the trajectory of economic thought because the discipline
expects "the truth" to do the impossible.
Newton faced this when his theory of universal
Gravity was criticized for failing to explain the distance of the planets from the sun. The Aristotelian
tradition said that a proper theory of the heavens would do this.
And so Keynes has his Aristotelian interpreter Hicks and Minsky has his Keen. Requiring the
revolution to succeed in doing the impossible means that the truth gets misinterpreted or ignored.
Either way, no revolution despite every generation producing a revolutionary that sees the truth.
What is the value of this theory? If true, it explains how economics can be filled with smart
people seeking the truth and yet make zero progress in more than a century.
I get the impression that mainstream economists are generally resistant to any kind of boom-and-bust
models (at least while getting a BA in econ I was never taught any). Is this the case? It's too
bad, because models like Lotka–Volterra are not that hard. Just from messing around with agent-based
models it seems like anything with a lag or learning generates cycles. Is it because economists
are fixated on optimization and equilibrium? Are they worried about models that are too sensitive
to initial conditions?
Maybe they should not be, but the discussion among IMF economists, Davis, Thoma, and
Krugman has involved models, and in particular, conventional models. So, Krugman declares that
there are conventional models as noted above to cover two of the stages, the latter two, but not
the first one identified with Minsky. I think there are better models for all this, but they are
not the conventional ones.
chrismealy,
The DSGE and other conventional models are able to model booms and busts, although they generally
do not use the Lotka-Volterra models that such people as the late Richard Goodwin (and even Paul
Samuelson) have used for modeling business cycle dynamics. The big difference is that the conventional
models involve exogenous shocks to set off their busts, with cyclical reverberations that decay
then following the exogenous shock, with some of the lag mechanisms operating for that.
It is not really surprising that this sort of thing does not model Minsky or the Minsky moment,
which involve endogenous dynamics, the very success of the boom as during the Great Moderation
itself undermining the stability and even resilience of the system as essentially endogenous psychological
(and hence behavioral) factors operate to loosen requirements for lending and to use Minksy language,
lending and borrowing increasingly involves highly leveraged Ponzi schemes (and I note that some
more conventional economists have emphasized leverage cycles, notably John Geanakoplis, although
avoiding Minsky per se in doing so).
This is a good post and discussion so far. So here's my $.02:
1. Maybe the behaviorists like
Thaler have already explored this, but it seems to me that economists still need to learn learning
theory from psychologists. Most importantly, "bservational learning," { http://psychology.about.com/od/oindex/fl/What-Is-Observational-Learning.htm
), or more simply "monkey see, monkey do." We constantly learn by observing behavior in others:
our parents, our older siblings, the cool kids at school, our favorite pop icons, our professors,
our business mentors, and so on. As to which,
2. Some people are better at learning than others (duh!). Some learn right away, some more
slowly, some never at all. And further,
3. Some people are more persceptive than others, recognizing the importance of something earlier
or later. If you recognized how important the trend change was when Volcker broke the back of
inflation in the early 1980s, and simply bought 30 year treasuries and held them to maturity,
you made a killing. If you discovered that in the early 1990s, you made less. And so on.
All we need, to pick up on chrismealy's comment, are time periods and learning. Incorporate
variations in skill and persceptiveness into the population, and you can get a nice boom and bust
model. As more and more people, with various levels of skill, learn an economic behavior (flipping
houses, using leverage), they will "push the edge of the envelope" more and more -- does 2x leverage
work? Yes, then how about 4x? Yes, then how about 20x? -- until the system is overwhelmed.
4. But if you don't want to incorporate imitative learning models from psychology, how about
just using appraisals of short term vs. long term risk and reward. Suppose it is the 1980s, and
I think treasury yields are on a securlar downtrend. But this book called "Bankruptcy 1995" just
came out, based on a blue ribbon panel Reagan created to look at budget deficits. That best selling
book forecasts a "hockey stick" of exploding interest rates by the mid-1990s due to ever increasing
US debt. So let's say I am 50% sure of my belief that treasury yields will continue to decline
for another 20 years, and I can make 10% a year if I am right. But if I am wrong .....
Meanwhile, I calculate that there is an 80% chance I can make 10% a year for the next few years
by investing in this new publicly traded company named "Microsoft."
Even leaving aside behavioral finance theories about loss aversion, it's pretty clear that
most investors will plump for Microsoft over treasuries, given their relative confidence in short
term outcomes.
Historically, once interest rates went close to zero at the outset of the Great Depression,
they stayed there for 20 years, and then gradually rose for another 30. How confident are investors
that the same scenario will play out this time?
Either or both of the learning theory or the short term-long term risk reward scenario are
good explanations for why backwards induction ad absurdum isn't an accurate description of behavior.
----
BTW, a nice example of a failed "backwards induction" is the "taper tantrum" of 2013. Since
investors knew that the Fed was going to be raising interest rates sooner or later, they piled
on and raised interest rates immediately -- and made a nice intermediate term top at 3%.
I think New Deal Democrat has it here. This surely, can be covered with a simple model
of asynchronous adaptive expectations with stochastic (Taleb type - big tail) risks. I wouldn't
think you would even need a sophisticated agent based model. There must be plenty of ratchet type
models out there to chose from.
"...the true and revolutionary insights of Veblen, Keynes, and Minsky have all failed to significantly
alter the trajectory of economic thought because the discipline..." sacrifices to the God, Equilibrium.
New Deal Democrat,
WRT "monkey see, monkey do" see Andred Orlean's The Empire of Value which articulates
his mimetic theory of value.
Sorry, I am not on board with this at all. Sure, I am all for incorporating
learning and lags. No problem. This is good old adaptive expectations, which I have no problem
with.
The problem is back to what I said earlier, that Minsky's apparatus operates endogenously without
any need for exogenous shocks, although it can certainly operate within those, as his quoting
of Mill shows, although I did not provide that quote, but Mill starts his story of how bubbles
happen with some exogenous initial supply/demand shock in a market.
Why is what you guys talk about an exogenous shock model? Look at the example: Volcker does
something and then different people figure it out at different rates. But Volcker is the exogenous
shocker. If he does nothing, nothing happens.
In Minsky world, there does not need to be an exogenous shock. The system may be in a total
anf full equilibrium,, but that equilibrium will disequilibrate itself as psychological attitudes
and expectations endogenously change due to it. This is what the standard modelers have sush a
problem with and do not like. They have no problem wiht adaptive expectations models. This is
all old hat stuff for them, with only the fact that one does not know for sure what all those
lags are being the problem, and what opened the door to the victory of ratex because it said there
are no lags and thus no problem. Agents now what will be on average.
Warsh's history of the Ayr Bank has errors. The Bank of England offered it a "bailout" in 1772
but required the personal guarantees of the two Dukes which were not forthcoming. The Ayr Bank
struggled on without lender of last resort support until August 1773, when it closed for good.
(This is all in Clapham's history of the Bank of England.)
What Warsh is calling a "bailout" was not a bailout of the bank, but of its proprietors who
had unlimited liability and were facing the possibility of putting their estates on the market
(which would have affected land prices in Scotland).
As I understand Warsh's description, Parliament granted the two Dukes a charter for a limited
liability company that would sell annuities. It is entirely possible that contemporary sources
would describe such an action as "indemnifying" the promoters of the company. But what is meant
by this use of the term is only that Parliament authorized the formation of corporation. The actual
indemnity is provided in the event the corporation fails by the members of the public who are
creditors of the corporation.
In short, it is an error to claim that there was a "bailout" of the Ayr Bank.
I still don't understand what information is added by "models". Krugman has a job he has created
for himself where everything he does is with an eye toward policy.
So I'm a policy maker. Explain why I need a model. in the 1930s austerity caused recessions
and WWII ended the Depression. A little history of Japan's lost decade and some thinking about
the implications of fiat currency, and, voilia, Krugman's policy suggestions, with no models and
therefore no need to listen to economists like Mankiw or the Germans currently destroying Europe
(third times a charm).
By the by, I have thought this thru. The head of Duke's Philosophy Department agrees: Krugman's
method for using models is empty hand-waving. However he comes to his conclusions, it is not logically
possible that ISLM, or any other model, has anything to do with it.
http://thorntonhalldesign.com/philosophy/2014/7/1/credentialed-person-repeats-my-critique-of-krugman
Since Adam Smith economists have told rather enthralling stories about speculations, manias,
follies, frauds, and breakdowns. The audience likes this kind of stuff. However, when it comes
to how all this fits into economic theory things become a bit awkward. Of course, we have some
modls -- Minsky, Diamond-Dybvig, Keynes come to mind -- but we could also think of other modls
-- more agent-based or equilibrium with friction perhaps. On closer inspection, though, economists
have no clue at all.
Keynes messed up the basics of macro with this faulty syllogism: "Income = value of output
= consumption + investment. Saving = income - consumption. Therefore saving = investment." (1973,
p. 63)
From I=S all variants of IS-LM models are derived including Krugman's neo-ISLM which allegedly
explains the post-crash Keynes period. Let there be no ambiguity, all these models have always
been conceptually and formally defective (2011).
Minsky built upon Keynes but not on I=S.
"The simple equation 'profit equals investment' is the fundamental relation for a macroeconomics
that aims to determine the behavior through time of a capitalist economy with a sophisticated,
complex financial structure." (Minsky, 2008, p. 161)
Here profit comes in but neither Minsky, nor Keynes, nor Krugmann, nor Keen, nor the rest of
the profession can tell the fundamental difference between income and profit (2014).
The fact of the matter is that the representative economist fails to capture the essence of
the market economy. This does not matter much as long as he has models and stories about crashing
Ponzi schemes and bank panics. Yes, eventually we will miss them all -- these inimitable proto-scientific
storytellers.
To have any number of incoherent models is not such a good thing as most economists tend to
think. What is needed is the true theory.
"In order to tell the politicians and practitioners something about causes and best means,
the economist needs the true theory or else he has not much more to offer than educated common
sense or his personal opinion." (Stigum, 1991, p. 30)
The true theory of financial crises presupposes the correct profit theory which is missing
since Adam Smith. After this disqualifying performance nobody should expect that some Walrasian
or Keynesian bearer of hope will come up with the correct modl any time soon.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
References
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2011). Why Post Keynesianism is Not Yet a Science. SSRN Working Paper
Series, 1966438: 1–20. URL http://ssrn.com/abstract=1966438.
Keynes, J. M. (1973). The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money. The Collected
Writings of John Maynard Keynes Vol. VII. London, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Minsky, H. P. (2008). Stabilizing an Unstable Economy. New York, NY, Chicago, IL, San Francisco,
CA: McGraw Hill, 2nd edition.
Stigum, B. P. (1991). Toward a Formal Science of Economics: The Axiomatic Method in Economics
and Econometrics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
In addition to my hypo re Volcker and interest rates, I also mention flipping
houses and leverage.
Person A flips a house, makes $100k. Person B learns of it, figures s/he can do just as well,
and flips a house. Eventually enough people are doing it that news stories are written about it.
By now 1000s of people are figuring, "if they can do it, I can do it.":
So long as the trend continues, the person using financial leverage to flip houses makes even
more profit. Person B uses more leverage, and so on. And since 2x leverage worked, why not 4x
leverage. And if that works, why not 10x leverage?
Both the number of people engaging in the behavior, and the financial leveraging of the behavior,
are endogenous, unless you are going to hang your hat on existing trend (note, not necessarily
a shock - of rising house prices0.
All you need is more and more people of various skill sets at various entry points of time
engaging in the behavior, and testing increasing leverage the more the behavior works.
Secondly, as to stability breeding instability, stability itself is the existing trend. Increasingly
over time, more and more leverage will be used to profit off the existing trend. All it takes
is learning + risk-takers successfully testing the existing limits. The more stable the system,
the more risk-takers can apply leverage without rupturing it -- for a while.
Let me try to express my position as a series of axioms:
1. Assume that no system, no matter how stable, can withstand infinite leverage.
2. Assume that there is a certain non-zero percentage of risk-taking individuals.
3. Assume that risk-takers will use some amount of leverage to attempt to profit within a stable
system.
4. Assume that risk-takers will use increasing leverage once any given lesser percentage of leverage
succeeds in rendering a profit, in order to increase profits.
5. Assume that others will learn, over various time periods, at varying levels of skill, to imitate
the successful behavior of risk-takers.
Under those circumstances, it is certain that any system,
no matter how stable, will ultimately succumb to leverage. And the more stable, the more leverage
will have been applied to reach that breaking point. I.e., stability breeds instability.
Even using history as an analogy is implicitly introducing a model. You're saying, here's my model
of this history and I crank my little model to show the behavior of the model simulates the historical
record, then I adapt the model to present circumstances, and crank again arguing, again by analogy.
What I would object to is the reliance on "analytic models" as opposed to operational
models of the actual institutions. Economists love their analytic models, particularly axiomatic
deductive "nomological machines", DSGE being the current orthodox approach. Not that there is
anything wrong about analysis. My objection would be to basing policy advice on a study of analytic
models to the exclusion of all else -- Krugman's approach -- rather than an empirical study of
institutions in operation (which would still involve models, because that's how people think,
but they might be, for example, simulation models calibrated to observed operational mechanisms).
There are reasons why economists prefer analytic models, but few of those reasons are sound.
In the end, it is a matter of bad judgment fostered by a defective education and corruption or
weakmindedness. Among other things, reliance on analytic models give economics an esoteric quality
that privileges its elite practitioners. Ordinary people can barely understand what Krugman is
talking about in the referenced piece, and that's by design. He does his bit to protect the reputations
of folks like Bernanke and Blanchard, obscuring their viewpoints and the consequences of their
policies.
I am not sure what can be done about it. Economists like Krugman are as arrogant as they are
ignorant -- there's not enough intellectual integrity to even acknowledge fundamental errors,
and that lack of integrity keeps the "orthodoxy" going in the face of manifest failures. For the
conservatives on some payroll, the problem is even worse.
I am not confident that shooing economists from the policy room and encouraging politicians
to discuss these matters among themselves improves the situation. In doubt, people fall back on
a moral fundamentalism of the kind that gets us to "austerity" and "sacrifice" and blames the
victims -- pretty much what we have now.
Re-doing Minsky as an analytic model is an impossible task almost by definition. Minsky's approach
was fundamentally about abstracting from careful observation of what financial firms did, operationally.
It made him a hero with many financial sector denizens, who recognized themselves in his narratives,
even when he cast them in the role of bad guys. (No one is ever going to recognize himself as
a representative agent in a DSGE model.)
Perhaps the hardest thing to digest from Minsky is the insight that business cycles can not
be entirely mastered. The economy is fundamentally a set of disequilibrium phenomena, the instability
built-in (endogenous, as they say). The New Keynesian idea is that the economy is fundamentally
an equilibrium phenomenon, that occasionally needs a helping hand to recover from exogenous disturbance.
These are antagonistic world views, which cannot be reconciled with each other, and the New Keynesian
view can be reconciled only minimally with the observable facts of the world, by a lot of ad hoc
fuzzy thinking ("frictions").
Bruce, I disagree with your view of politicians. The current GOP crop are essentially following
the moral philosophy that, in the end, is the only content generated by economics. But it was
not always thus.
I once watched Senator Kit Bond of Missouri (very-R) try to round up a quorum in the Small
Business Committee. It was quite clear that the man enjoyed people. He liked the company of just
about everybody. Without the strong interference from economists, that's who ends up in politics.
People like that are pragmatic. They try things. They aren't there for the purpose (contra Ted
Cruz) of breaking things.
You're right, my problem really is with analytic "models" which aren't really models but rather
metaphors or analogies. But I don't think that's the only way reasoning from history can work.
There are lots of areas of policy, some of which continue to resist conversion to economic
religion. In education policy we try interventions and see what happens. It's inductive and mostly
correlation, but thru trial and error we do progress toward better policy (although schools of
education are only slowly moving away from their notoriously anti-scientific past).
Politicians don't have to think about the budget like a household and tighten belts. They know
that business borrow money all the time. It's actually the language of the academy that leads
to "tightening belts" instead of investing in the future. Economics is the science of claiming
that if you need something, and you can afford that something, you still must consider "multipliers"
or "the philosophers stone" or some other nonsense before you can decide to buy what you need.
What I mean to say about history: don't confuse theories with models. I have a theory about what
caused what in the Great Depression. But I don't model the economy.
I think I should clarify, I think endogenous and exogenous are a little bit besides the point
here. I think the exact trigger that starts a "state change" in the system has a stochastic component.
But the increasing vulnerability of the system is endogenous, in a very Minsky sense. What I am
saying is that increasing vulnerability could be modelled without using agent based modelling
(a bit like modelling landslides or earthquakes if you like). I'm not saying that the model is
just being driven by exogenous shocks.
Bruce,
I think there is a bit of tendency to mischaracterise what Paul Krugman is saying. He is the last
person you should be accusing of mistaking the map for the territory. He is saying that EVEN relatively
simple models can make sensible suggestions about policy in some circumstances.
Yes, though I tend to agree with you that general equilibrium is the original sin in macro-economic
modelling and that the system is in fact a disequilibrium system. But that doesn't imply to me
at all that you can't use analytical approaches.
Why Trade Deficits Matter, The Atlantic
: However one feels about
Donald Trump, it's fair to say he has usefully elevated a
long-simmering issue in American political economy: the hardship faced
by the families and communities who have lost out as jobs have shifted
overseas. For decades, many politicians from both parties ignored the
plight of these workers, offering them bromides about the benefits of
free trade and yet another trade deal, this time with some "adjustment
assistance."
One of Trump's economic goals is to lower the U.S.'s trade
deficit-which is to say, shrink the discrepancy between the value of
the country's imports and the value of its exports. Right now, the
U.S. currently imports $460 billion more than it exports, meaning it
has a trade deficit that works out to about 2.5 percent of GDP. Given
that the job market is still not back to full strength and the U.S.
has been losing manufacturing jobs-there are 60,000 fewer now than at
the beginning of this year,
according to the Bureau
of Labor Statistics
-economists would be wise to question their
assumption that such a deficit is harmless. ...
Is the U.S. trade deficit a problem whose solution would help American
workers? ...
Looks to me like "global power" comes from a lot more than
military spending, and if its jobs we want, then military
spending is a decent short run stimulus but long run waste in
terms of productive expenditure.
The
Great Illusion is a book by Norman Angell, first published in
the United Kingdom in 1909 under the title Europe's Optical
Illusion and republished in 1910 and subsequently in various
enlarged and revised editions under the title The Great
Illusion.
Angell argued that war between industrial countries was
futile because conquest did not pay. J.D.B. Miller writes:
"The 'Great Illusion' was that nations gained by armed
confrontation, militarism, war, or conquest." The economic
interdependence between industrial countries meant that war
would be economically harmful to all the countries involved.
Moreover, if a conquering power confiscated property in the
territory it seized, "the incentive to produce [of the local
population] would be sapped and the conquered area be
rendered worthless. Thus, the conquering power had to leave
property in the hands of the local population while incurring
the costs of conquest and occupation."
Angell said that arms build-up, for example the naval race
that was happening as he wrote the book in the early 1910s,
was not going to secure peace. Instead, it would lead to
increased insecurity and thus increase the likelihood of war.
Only respect for international law, a world court, in which
issues would be dealt with logically and peaceably would be
the route for peace.
A new edition of The Great Illusion was published in 1933;
it added "the theme of collective defence." Angell was
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1933. He added his belief
that if France, Britain, Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc. had
bound themselves together to oppose all military aggression,
including that of Hitler's, and to appeal to world justice
for solution to countries' grievances, then the great mass of
reasonable Germans would have stepped up and stopped Hitler
from leading their country into an unwinnable war, and World
War II would have been avoided.
In 1909 a book was published
saying that free trade would make the world prosperous
forever. In the U.S. It was called "the Grand Illusion."
Unfortunately Kaiser Wilhelm appeared not to get the message.
If China didn't have those $$$$trillions, they wouldn't
feel empowered to change boundary lines by force. We wouldn't
be worried about a new arms race.
As for solutions, a trade weighted tariff that kicked in
after a certain period/percentage would work just fine,
probably similar to the wage equalization tariff I suggested
the other day. A VAT might accomplish a similar result.
But seriously, you and everyone who thinks like you can go
screw yourselves. Your myopic elitism has gotten us here. I
wish you nothing but pain.
"then military spending is a decent short run stimulus"
No
it is not. It is very ineffective and wasteful. You would get
much better return on your investment by spending on
repairing and upgrading civic infrastructure.
Bull. What we need is enforceable labor and environmental
standards and protections so that the corporate greed heads
will have less incentive to outsource their production to
places lacking any of those things. This is all about
maximizing rents by ruthlessly exploiting vulnerable labor in
the developing world and by being able to poison and
devastate their countries at will.
U.S. currently imports $460 billion more than it exports,
meaning
"
~J B & D B~~
... meaning that We the People print up
t-bonds valued at $460 then trade these bonds for Federal
Reserve Notes printed up by FG-s worth $460 then use same
notes to buy same amount of running shoes, shot glasses, etc.
We print up genuine t-bonds for their counterfeit products
that look like the real thing. Huh! The question is :
How can we do more of this without those foreigner suckers
catching on, getting wise to the scam?
For one, we can make sure that we don't print up more of
our genuine paper than their demand for it. Get it? So long
as their demand continues to be great enough to raise the
price of our tiny slips of paper, we are cool.
When we are printing too much, the price of our paper
falls, buys less, has less buying power. Less buying power is
what we call inflation. More buying power is what we call
deflation. Got it?
Print less thus keep popularity of our printed numbers up.
Tell me something!
What happens when our workers lose jobs to foreigner
suckers who dig our printed numbers?
Job loss to foreigners slows down the domestic development
of robotics, artificial intelligence, and the singularity
that will inevitably detonate all jobs globally. What will
that detonation do to our life style of excessive
overpopulation.
Don't ask, but don't
tell --
Donald A. Coffin :
, -1
The usual response to a trade deficit is that the country
running the deficit sees its currency decline in value. This
lowers the effective price of its exports and raises the
effective price of its imports. Assuming nothing peculiar
about the price elasticities of demand for exports and
import, this should lead to a shrinking trade deficit. From
1973 to 1998, the dollar appreciated steadily, and the
(nominal) trade deficit expanded only slightly. From 1998 to
2005, the dollar continued to appreciate--but the (nominal)
trade deficit exploded, increasing by a factor of (roughly)
10 by 2006. Then, as the dollar began depreciating (in 2002),
the trade deficit began to shrink. Since about 2008, the
dollar has been appreciating again.
What needs most to be
explained is the explosion of the trade deficit between 1998
and 2006; about half of the increase in the trade deficit was
between 1998 and 2002; the other half between 2002 and 2006.
""The trouble is not so much that macroeconomists say things that are inconsistent with the facts."
-- that's a clear sign of a cult.
Notable quotes:
"... "The trouble is not so much that macroeconomists say things that are inconsistent with the facts. The real trouble is that other economists do not care that the macroeconomists do not care about the facts. An indifferent tolerance of obvious error is even more corrosive to science than committed advocacy of error." ..."
"... The obvious explanation is ideological. While Simon Wren Lewis cannot prove it was ideological, it is difficult to understand why one would choose to develop theories that ignore some of the existing evidence, in an area that lacks data. There is a reluctance among the majority of economists to admit that some among them may not be following the scientific method but may instead be making choices on ideological grounds. This is the essence of Romer's critique. ..."
"... ...it is all but indistinguishable from Milton Friedman's ideologically-driven description of the macroeconomy. In particular, Milton Friedman's prohibition of fiscal policy is retained with a caveat about the zero-lower bound in recent years. To argue otherwise is to deny Keynes' dictum that 'the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood.' ..."
"... What I find most egregous in Neo-classicism, is it's failure to accept that people invented government to perform tasks they individually could not. ..."
"... Economics is a foul and pestilent ghetto, an intellectual dead-end akin to Ptolemaic astronomy. The priests will continue adding epicycles to epicycles until they are dragged screaming to the asylum. ..."
"... There is always some revered academic economist readily available to support virtually any political narrative imaginable, even if it's total rubbish. It is truly a "science" for all seasons fostered by reverend figures with authority earned by many years diligent practice in translating gibberish into runes of mathematical formulae. That's more dainty than poking about in sheep guts with a sharp stick, but of little more use in the real world which lies outside the ivied towers. ..."
"... Diligence blesses them with tenure followed by offers to serve private or public patrons perpetually engaged in rent-seeking. These made men (and women) are essentially set for life, regardless of whatever nonsense they may forever promote thereafter. A few are blessed by the good luck of a Nobel which guarantees a prosperous sinecure and unlimited opportunity to promote their own vacuous political narratives masqueraded as "science". ..."
"... This cult enjoys perpetual protection within public and private safe spaces created by their well-heeled paymasters. It is one of a number of deeply attached parasites which cannot be safely excised from the corrupt body of the host without killing it. ..."
"... I should add that neoclassical economics has damaged economics by excluding explicitly the government sector in their models. As a result, the impact of government on the macroeconomy has not been properly understood ..."
"... Do the economists he names really not understand the computer stat model they are using? Are they admitting to making up the fudge factors to make their 'data' fit their (wrong headed) totem pole, supply and demand? I mean, there it is in black and white, by the economists' own words, that their math is just flat out wrong. ..."
"... The economics I learned in the early 1960's seems to work as well now as it did back then. I was lucky enough to be so busy at work in the decades that followed, that I did not have a chance to keep up on the mis-education of the time. When I had the time to start paying more attention to the subject again, I couldn't understand what had happened to the knowledge that I had learned that seemed to explain all that was happening in the economy. ..."
"... The Neolib-Globalist Ministry Of Truth erased it. You must not have got the memo. ..."
"... It's 2016 and some Dismal Scientists are still debating whether "involuntary unemployment" exists. ..."
"... If anything, Philip Mirowski has persuasively argued that neoliberalism requires a powerful State. ..."
"... He has shown that the neoliberal thought collective theorized an elaborate political mobilization, and recognized early on that the creation of a new market is a political process requiring the intervention of organized power. The political will to impose a market required a strong state and elaborate regulation and also that the State would need to expand its economic and political power over time. ..."
"... The neoliberal market had to be imposed it did not just happen. A key issue for the future is defining the nature of the state–whether under neoliberalism or MMT or under Trump or Sanders, or left populist or right populist. ..."
"... Mankiw belongs in the non-ideological camp? I don't see how anybody with a brain could read any of his work past the first page and still hold that view. ..."
"... agreed, Mankiw is an intellectual clown and he has been mis-educating students for decades now. ..."
Romer
kicked off the debate in an essay, stating that for more than three decades, macroeconomics has
gone backwards. He finds that the treatment of identification now is no more credible than in the
early 1970s, but escapes challenge because it is so much more opaque. Macroeconomic theorists dismiss
mere facts by feigning an obtuse ignorance about such simple assertions as "tight monetary policy
can cause a recession." For Romer, the Nobel Prize-winning crop of macroeconomic theorists who transformed
the field in the late 1970s and 1980s - Robert Lucas, Edward Prescott and Thomas Sargent –
are the main people to be held responsible for this this development. Their models attribute fluctuations
in aggregate variables to imaginary causal forces that are not influenced by actions that any
person takes. Especially when it comes to monetary policy, the belief that it has no or little effect
on the economy is disturbing, or as Romer puts it:
"The trouble is not so much that macroeconomists say things that are inconsistent with the
facts. The real trouble is that other economists do not care that the macroeconomists do not care
about the facts. An indifferent tolerance of obvious error is even more corrosive to science than
committed advocacy of error."
... ... ...
Simon Wren-Lewis identifies yet another factor which lies at the heart of macroeconomic criticism:
ideology. As an example he quotes Real Business Cycle (RBC) research from a few decades ago. That
was only made possible because economists chose to ignore evidence about the nature of unemployment
in recessions. There is overwhelming evidence that employment declines in a recession because workers
are fired rather than choosing not to work, and that the resulting increase in unemployment is involuntary
(those fired would have rather retained their job at their previous wage). Both facts are incompatible
with the RBC model. Why would researchers try to build models of business cycles where these cycles
require no policy intervention, and ignore key evidence in doing so? The obvious explanation
is ideological. While Simon Wren Lewis cannot prove it was ideological, it is difficult to understand
why one would choose to develop theories that ignore some of the existing evidence, in an area that
lacks data. There is a reluctance among the majority of economists to admit that some among them
may not be following the scientific method but may instead be making choices on ideological grounds.
This is the essence of Romer's critique.
...it is all but indistinguishable from Milton Friedman's ideologically-driven description
of the macroeconomy. In particular, Milton Friedman's prohibition of fiscal policy is retained with
a caveat about the zero-lower bound in recent years. To argue otherwise is to deny Keynes' dictum
that 'the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they
are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood.'
PlutoniumKun, December 6, 2016 at 4:18 am
I can recall my very first lecture in Macroeconomics back in the mid 1980's when the Prof.
freely admitted that macro had very little real world validity as the models simply didn't match
the real world data. He advised us to focus on economic history if we wanted to understand how
the real world worked. That was the only useful thing I learned from three years studying the
subject.
Dr. George W. Oprisko, December 6, 2016 at 7:21 am
I cut y teeth on computer models of rainfall – streamflow relationships. We always started
with constants derived from experimental or theoretical bases
Recently I was asked to critique a paper written by a colleague which reported results of a
numeric model of plankton distribution in the Arabian Sea. In this paper his original constants
based on known relationships gave results which did not agree with reality, so instead of looking
for mistakes in his fundamentals, he massaged the constants until he got agreement. When I pointed
out that he neglected the Somali Current, he was livid. That is, instead of thanking me for pointing
out a glaring deficiency in his methodology, he chose to obfuscate.
I see the same thing prevalent in macro-economics, with the sole exception of Modern Monetary
Theory. I find MMT to be the only variant which concretely explains the real economy.
What I find most egregous in Neo-classicism, is it's failure to accept that people invented
government to perform tasks they individually could not.
iNDY
Jake, December 6, 2016 at 5:24 am
..and none of the economists were held responsible, refused tenure, tried in court or had
their nobel prizes taken away. They continued serving their pay masters or their ideologies and
nothing changed. Life went on, gradually becoming shittier, full of anxiety and ultimately meaningless.
But hey atleast the great information processor is satisfying your utility!
PlutoniumKun,
December 6, 2016 at 6:23 am
One Irish macro professor did quite well after the Irish economic crash (2008) informing everyone
about the correct policy approaches on various public media. His university department had one
of his peer reviewed papers online dating from 2005 which advocated the adoption of US style sub-prime
mortgages as a 'solution' to rising housing costs. Around 2010 the paper was quietly removed from
all servers. I regret not saving a copy so it could be linked to every time he popped up in public.
look for the doi and plug that in here (site does not work in Chrome) http://gen.lib.rus.ec/scimag/index.php
or here http://sci-hub.cc/
The 1st has an author search too, but it isn't as good, but it might work.
I Have Strange Dreams, December 6, 2016 at 5:43 am
Kill it with fire!
Economics is a foul and pestilent ghetto, an intellectual dead-end akin to Ptolemaic astronomy.
The priests will continue adding epicycles to epicycles until they are dragged screaming to the
asylum.
Burn the whole subject to the ground and sow the razed economics departments with salt. Require
economists to ring a bell when approaching the uninfected and cry "unclean! unclean!"
actually belly-laughed – 1st ever belly-laugh from an interweb comment – Bravisimmo!
H/e, can't agree with you re: economics. As a historical and social area of study, it is valid
in my book – even a necessity. Still, my eyes cross lately when I read the latest in economic
"theory" on any scale. Such a dreary and detached subject these days. Rootless and toothless.
Too bad.
Every time a bell rings, an angel gets his wings. That is a called a positive externality in
macroeconomics, and can therefore be defined in an equation. Which makes it thus so.
There is no chance of killing off this mystery cult as long as politicians rely on its ruminations
and incantations to help perpetuate them in office.
There is always some revered academic economist readily available to support virtually
any political narrative imaginable, even if it's total rubbish. It is truly a "science" for all
seasons fostered by reverend figures with authority earned by many years diligent practice in
translating gibberish into runes of mathematical formulae. That's more dainty than poking about
in sheep guts with a sharp stick, but of little more use in the real world which lies outside
the ivied towers.
Economists, like carny balloon sellers, are paid based on volume, not weight. Diligence
blesses them with tenure followed by offers to serve private or public patrons perpetually engaged
in rent-seeking. These made men (and women) are essentially set for life, regardless of whatever
nonsense they may forever promote thereafter. A few are blessed by the good luck of a Nobel which
guarantees a prosperous sinecure and unlimited opportunity to promote their own vacuous political
narratives masqueraded as "science".
This cult enjoys perpetual protection within public and private safe spaces created by
their well-heeled paymasters. It is one of a number of deeply attached parasites which cannot
be safely excised from the corrupt body of the host without killing it.
We live in a post-truth or post-fact world, where truth and fact do not matter.
But the fact is: Keynes has never gone away in the sense that governments have always been
trying to manage the economy with fiscal and monetary policies – which (to me) is the essence
of Keynes and macroeconomics. Most governments run budget deficits to stimulate demand. It is
merely cognitive dissonance of academics to think neoclassical economics only is mainstream and
solely responsible for the GFC, just because to them there is an apparent bias in research funding
at universities.
First, government is such a huge portion of the economy that its actions have huge influence
and therefore the impact has to be managed. Pretending you can have some type of neutral autopilot
is a false idea, but that is the bedrock of economic thinking, that economies have a natural propensity
to equilibrium and that equilibrium is full employment.
Second, it's not done much these days, but the best forms of intervention are ones that are
naturally countercyclical so you don't have politicians wrangling and have pork and election timing
and results and inertia get in the way.
I'm not defending neoclassical economics. In economics, the alternative to a wrong is another
wrong. Governments are politically compelled to intervene. But with the Keynesian economic fallacy,
their interventions make things worse in the long-run. Please visit my blog:
"The Battle of Bretton Woods" is very instructive. Start with two intellectuals (Keynes and
Harry Dexter White) who were big fans of Stalinist Russia's command economy ("I've seen the future and
it works!"). Last time I checked this kind of tomfoolery ("we will raise X number of cows because
we think we'll need leather for Y number of shoes") has been utterly discredited. Implement for
the global currency and trade systems. Fast forward to today where there are massive imbalances,
global currency wars, and a race to zero and beyond that has sucked all demand from the future
to the present and now the past. And the shining answer, the clarion rallying cry, is "we just
need more debt, and we need some new rugs to sweep all the bad debt under".
All while "macro-economists" propagate models that completely misunderstand how money is actually
created and distributed. All I can say is "Forward Soviet!".
Indeed. Gov't is the biggest business in town in every economy, everything else, even giant
corporations, are minuscule players in comparison. This is a large source of dynamical behavior,
the swings and re-balancing as the State throw its weight around in the marketplace.
I should add that neoclassical economics has damaged economics by excluding explicitly
the government sector in their models. As a result, the impact of government on the macroeconomy
has not been properly understood. The empirical facts, without theories or equilibrium assumptions
etc., show the failure of government policy of demand stimulation:
http://www.asepp.com/fiscal-stimulus-of-consumption/
It seems to me that for something to be called "keynesian", it should also mean that the aim
of those policies was to help create robust private demand (though I doubt Keynes was as emotionally
handicapped as today's mainstream bean-counting theorists are, if only because gdp figures didn't
yet dominate macro thinking in the manner they do today, thanks to everyone having received "economics
education" in school); if not, it wolud more fairly be called Marxist, because he was the one
from whom Keynes (indirectly, as he refused to read Marx personally) pilfered his insights. What
matters is whether we've got 'socialism for the rich / incumbents / industrial complexes', or
"socialism" (well, social-democrat, liberal new-dealerism) for the "masses".
Well, I have to say this article reminds me too much of the DNC sole searching over why Hillary
didn't win. Just another room full of wantonly clueless people.
Does start out on a high note where Romer states the problem is economists don't care if they
are winging and slinging BS from their arses same as chimpanzees.
I guess the article coulda ended there. But no.
Noah Smith laments a shortage of macro data – so the who knows how many gigs at FRED are found
wanting and I guess the BLS, etc aren't up to snuff either. Or maybe Noah means they are fabricating
phoney data? Then Noah doubles down on the efficacy of interest rate policy – after 9 years in
the liquidity trap.
[Caution: The following is allegory – we are speaking of the high priestess here.]
We then are treated to JYell and her discovery of the buggy whip. She states there is current
research being done on buggy whips, and more research is necessary. She is able to use big words
to speak of these buggy whips. Some of these words are borrowed from real science – making this
more scientific. Like hysteresis – and even an example for lay-off people. It's possible you may
never work again and add to the long term employment rate! Yikes. Worse yet, their definition
of "long term" is longer than 6 months. After that, 7 months or retire at 30 is all the same to
them. "Heterogeneity" is another good one. For use in polite company. Has an Evil Twin named inequality
and a macro version called crony capitalism. JYell can keep the hits coming!
I'm tired of typing someone else can take up the rest of it.
The complaint about not enough data struck me too; actually economist have vasts amounts of
data to gain insights from and test hypothesis against because economies are well recorded human
endeavours, recorded in actual painful detail thanks to the inexhaustible efforts of statemen
and statewomen to know everything about the populations they control and harvest. Probably more
data-oriented lines of research would lead to progress in macro-economy as a scholarly discipline?
@Ruben – They want more data because the data that exists cannot be explained by their eloquent
mathematical theories, which are based on assumptions that are ridiculous on their face e.g.,
rational expectations and utility maximization. The hope is that additional data will fit the
theories better allowing them to remain comfortably ensconced in their fantasy world of regressions
and p values.
Which is how we get adjustments to CPI based on the premise that CPI is overstating inflation.
Now the hip thing is that productivity is undermeasured because economists don't like what the
numbers are saying, so we can expect an upwards adjustment there as well.
Read Romer's article, twice. Will need a third try to fully get it, but as someone with a modest
background in engineering and engineering mathematics, I still can't quite believe what Romer
is saying. Do the economists he names really not understand the computer stat model they are
using? Are they admitting to making up the fudge factors to make their 'data' fit their (wrong
headed) totem pole, supply and demand? I mean, there it is in black and white, by the economists'
own words, that their math is just flat out wrong.
Now Romer is writing for the inside crowd, as an long time, connected insider himself, so don't
expect an easy read. But he writes quite clearly what is the problem with economics so the main
idea, that macro economics, in rejecting an early model of macro economics (Keynesian) because
said model was based on a few openly stated fudge factors, have spent the last 40 years building
models that are 1. full with even more fudge factors, 2. these fudge factors are never openly
stated, and 3. the new models have given truly disastrous results in the real world (also known
as the US economy, amoung others). Along the way, he names names and steps on some toes. Then
he finishes up with a full charge of how the 'dismal science' is a lying religion, nothing at
all like truth seeking science.
Okay, I'll quit here before I hurt myself. Let someone else slam the keys. (haha)
The economics I learned in the early 1960's seems to work as well now as it did back then.
I was lucky enough to be so busy at work in the decades that followed, that I did not have a chance
to keep up on the mis-education of the time. When I had the time to start paying more attention
to the subject again, I couldn't understand what had happened to the knowledge that I had learned
that seemed to explain all that was happening in the economy.
I was surprised to learn that Yellen had expressed any interest in the people permanently out
of the labor market. I thought all the discussions of interest rates focused almost exclusively
on what in my mind is the unemployment pseudo-rate, which completely ignores those people.
Regardless of which rate is considered, I have never been able to comprehend the mind that
can talk about acceptable levels of unemployment. Acceptable to whom? The people who lose their
homes, and sometimes their neighborhood networks when they have to move, and may with just a little
bad luck slide into still worse conditions? The communities that see more people becoming burglars,
muggers, bank robbers, drug dealers, and prostitutes because only the illegal economy has any
place for them? I have never seen a sustained or general effort to look at the economic consequences
of those events, much less an admission of the immorality of causing so much trouble. It seems
to me that a macroeconomics that divorces itself from those possibly micro concerns will be forever
irrelevant to good policy.
Way back prior to the great Permian-Triassic Extinction, I was fortunate enough to wander around
an Economics Department where I could encounter intellectual dead-ends like Keynes, Marx, Polanyi,
Kalecki, Veblen – all of whom prepared me to pump-gas at the local filling station oh wait!
Having somehow successfully survived the subsequent big-brain epoch, I settled comfortably into
making a modest annual donation to a scholarship fund for budding economists at the olde U. Then
it came to my attention that not only could one still obtain a BA in Economics, but the olde school
was also awarding two different Bachelor on Science degrees in Economics. Breathtaking! Economics,
an actual science! Like for example physics!
I am now in the reduced circumstance of donating only to my old high school in the doubtless vain
hope that the youngsters will study enough science to be able to shoot these aspiring BS cone-heads
to the moon.
It's 2016 and some Dismal Scientists are still debating whether "involuntary unemployment"
exists.
#FacePalm
Perhaps we should deploy them to that Carrier plant to investigate. So thankful for heterodox
voices:
Abba Lerner – Functional Finance
Hyman Minsky – Financial Instability
Wynne Godley – Sectoral Balances
Entire MMT School – Mosler, Wray, Kelton, Tcherneva et al
#ThereIsHope
Gee, why attack the one healthy sector of the economy, the Wealth Defence Industry?
(Why did so much of 'the social-democratic left' go along all this? I think John Rawls gave
them the excuse. He said inequality is great if the worse off are better off under this economic
system than they would be under a more equal one. The poor can therefore protest if they can show
that if we did things more equally they would be better off. The task of the economist today is
to ward this possibility off by ensuring that economic thought is utterly subservient to oligarchic
extraction. It does this by lying – Trickle Down! Rising Tide Lifts all Boats! This has worn out.
So next it does There Is No Alternative! – 'Those Jobs are Never Coming Back', 'Robots!' And finally,
to make really certain, it turns the whole discipline into toadying intellectual fantasy. Romer
homed in on the last.)
"Too much market and too little state invites a backlash."
If anything, Philip Mirowski has persuasively argued that neoliberalism requires a powerful
State.
He has shown that the neoliberal thought collective theorized an elaborate political mobilization,
and recognized early on that the creation of a new market is a political process requiring the
intervention of organized power. The political will to impose a market required a strong state
and elaborate regulation and also that the State would need to expand its economic and political
power over time.
The neoliberal market had to be imposed it did not just happen. A key issue for the future
is defining the nature of the state–whether under neoliberalism or MMT or under Trump or Sanders,
or left populist or right populist.
Mankiw belongs in the non-ideological camp? I don't see how anybody with a brain could
read any of his work past the first page and still hold that view.
I'm imagining them all as engineers on the deck of a half-submerged Titanic, debating about
whether the hull integrity model might perhaps not have been 100% accurate.
Ann Pettifor. give me ann pettifor always. she never puts the cart before the horse, only the
ideological neoliberals try to do that while keeping a straight face – they are quintessential
con artists if there ever were.
Excellent article, except it failed to point out that there are realistic and successful modeling
techniques, in addition to historical studies. These techniques are based on the nonlinear nature
of real world economies. Just use complexity and evolutionary techniques like agent based models
and nonlinear dynamical systems. Nothing new here – I still think that the limits-to-growth models
("system dynamics" = nonlinear dynamical systems) of the early 1970s represent the best mathematical
economics ever done. And the economists' agent based models are just a variation on cellular automata,
which have been used with notable success in other fields for many decades.
The problem is that economists either maintained a deliberate ignorance of such methods, or
have outright rejected them, like Nordhaus with system dynamics. In part this is because these
techniques involve a different mind set: they trade off simplistic models that are easy to understand,
but whose assumptions are demonstrably false, with complexity results that give much better real
world results but have more nuanced narratives.
Ann Pettifor is right about Brexit imo. The belief and the fact is that government is trying
a fast one on the people without being straightforward in its motives or intentions and a major
cause of the discontent and disillusionment seems to stem from the macro-economic error she highlights.
People don't want this mumbo-jumbo any more. The old professions – medicine, accountancy, law
– created jargons of specialist words and phrases (usually Latin) to make their speech and writings
incomprehensible to the hoi polloi. Then in recent decades all sorts of trades have adopted the
same jargon approach to mystifying their work. Enough already! Say what you mean, mean what you
say.
"Nick Bunker points out that in a recent speech, the Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen raised
important questions about macroeconomic research in the wake of the Great Recession."
Hint: Citing an ivory-tower twit like J-Yel as "raising important questions" is a huge bullshit
tell. While she was at it, did Janet raise any important questions as to why virtually every highly
credentialed macroeconomist on planet earth completely fail to foresee the global financial crisis
and the massive distortions, in very large part caused by the machinations of the high priests
of those "believers in the power of monetary policy", which portended its coming? But, on to the
bullshit:
"The first area of interest is the influence of aggregate demand on aggregate supply. Yellen
points to research that increasingly finds so-called hysteresis effects in the macroeconomy.
Hysteresis, a term borrowed from physics, is the idea that short-run shocks to the economy
can alter its long-term trend. One example of hysteresis is workers who lose jobs in recessions
and then are not drawn back into the labuor [sic] market but rather permanently locked out,
therefore increasing the long-term unemployment rate."
That's irreversibility, not hysteresis. The latter is a special case of the former, which the
chosen example does not illustrate. An example of hysteresis from my shower's temperature control:
I find the temp is a tad too high, and turn the control a bit toward the cold setting. But I overshoot
my target, and now it's too cold. Nudge back toward hot, but the somewhat-sticky mechanism again
overshoots and lands more or less on the starting "too hot" position. But the water is still too
cold, and I find I have to nudge even further toward hot to fix that. That's hysteresis. In the
context of the recession example, hysteresis would be e.g. if once the E/P ratio had recovered
to its pre-recession level but growth and its correlates remained weaker than expected, say due
to the "recovery jobs" being on average of poorer quality than those which were lost. Kinda like
the current 8-year-long "recovery", come to think of it! But I will admit that glossing over such
messy real-world details like "widespread worker immiseration" with hifalutin terminology-borrowed-form-actual-science
like "hysteresis:" is a great way to make oneself sound important, cloistered there in one's ivory
tower.
"Another open research question that Yellen raises is the influence of "heterogeneity" on aggregate
demand. Ignoring this heterogeneity in the housing market and its effects on economic inequality
seems like something modern macroeconomics needs to resolve."
Ah yes, "needs to resolve" - that implies lots of high-powered academic conferences and PhD
theses. And it's so wonderfully wishy-washy compared to "is something only a joke pretend-scientific
discipline would even need to consider stopping doing, because no self-respecting discipline would
have abandoned assumptions of homogeneity in roughly Year 2 of said discipline's evolutionary
history."
"Yellen raises other areas of inquiry in her speech, including better understanding how the
financial system is linked to the real economy and how the dynamics of inflation are determined.
Hey, when y'all finally "better understand" how this whole "financial system" thingy is linked
to the real economy, by all means do let us know, because it seems like such a linkage might have,
like, "important ramifications", or something. As to inflation, you mean actual inflation, or
the fake measures thereof the folks at the world's central banks make their stock in trade? You
know, for example, "in determining house price inflation we studiously ignore actual house prices
and instead use an artificial metric called Owner's Equivalent Rent, which itself studiously ignores
actual prices renters pay. Ain't it cool?"
Sorry if I sound grumpy, but this article is rather reminiscent of reading US Dem-party insiders
pretending to "soul search" in re. Election 2016. Let's see:
"Another open research question that Team HRC raises is the influence of "heterogeneity" on
voting preference. Ignoring this heterogeneity in the electoral trends and its effects on election
outcomes seems like something modern macroelectorodynamics needs to resolve."
News outta Italy is also good Matteo Renzi's attempt to amend the constitution to make the
government rather than the entire legislature (both houses) powerful enough to change laws has
gone down in a screaming prang. Matteo Renzi has to resign since that is what he promised, and
just for a change the populist replacement doesn't appear to be an islamophonic fascist.
If conflict with China is inevitable, it does not make sense to
increase hostility with Russia. Why neocons are doing that?
Notable quotes:
"... I've hesitated about whether to apply the word "neoconservative" to persons like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. I tend to follow the Christian Science Monitor lis t. Paul Wolfowitz, Libby, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Richard Bolton, and Elliott Abrams are intellectuals absorbed in the project of using U.S. military power to remake the Middle East to improve Israel's long-term security interests. (Hannah, David Wurmser, Eric Edelman, and other White House staffers not on the Monitor's dated list also fall into this category.) ..."
"... Ultimate decision-makers Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld on the other hand are sometimes referred to as "aggressive nationalists." They are no doubt Christian Zionists, but are probably most interested in transforming the "Greater Middle East" in the interests of corporate America in an increasingly competitive world. They're probably more concerned about the geopolitics of oil and the placement of "enduring" military bases to "protect U.S. interests" than the fate of Israel. ..."
"... They are equipped with a philosophical outlook that justifies the use of hyped, imagined threats to unite the masses behind rulers' objectives and ambitions, to suppress dissent and control through fear. They're inclined to identify each new target as "a new Hitler," and to justify their actions as " an answer to the Holocaust ." ..."
"... "The true measure of how powerful the vice president's office remains today is whether the United States chooses to confront Iran and Syria or to seek diplomatic solutions. For the moment, at least, the war party led by Dick Cheney remains in ascendancy." ..."
I've hesitated about whether to apply the word
"neoconservative" to persons like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. I tend to follow
the Christian
Science Monitor list. Paul Wolfowitz, Libby, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle,
Richard Bolton, and Elliott Abrams are intellectuals absorbed in the project of
using U.S. military power to remake the Middle East to improve Israel's
long-term security interests. (Hannah, David Wurmser, Eric Edelman, and other
White House staffers not on the Monitor's dated list also fall into this
category.)
Ultimate decision-makers Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld on the other hand
are sometimes referred to as "aggressive nationalists." They are no doubt
Christian Zionists, but are probably most interested in transforming the
"Greater Middle East" in the interests of corporate America in an increasingly
competitive world. They're probably more concerned about the geopolitics of oil
and the placement of "enduring" military bases to "protect U.S. interests" than
the fate of Israel.
Dreyfuss' article suggests that Cheney (and thus, the
administration) sees China as the biggest long-term threat to those interests.
If conflict with China is inevitable,
it makes sense to have U.S. bases in
Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Iraq and maybe Iran and Syria. If China is dependent
on Middle East oil, it makes sense for the U.S. to be able to control how and
where it flows from the Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf oil fields.
It makes sense
to cultivate an alliance with India, risking the accusation of nuclear
hypocrisy in doing so. It makes sense to ratchet up tensions on the Korean
Peninsula, by linking North Korea to Iran and Iraq, calling it "evil,"
dismissing South Korea's "sunshine diplomacy" efforts and encouraging Japan to
take a hard line towards Pyongyang.
It makes sense to get Tokyo to declare, for
the first time, that the security of the Taiwan Straights is of common concern
to it and Washington. It makes sense to regain a strategic toehold in the
Philippines, in the name of the War on Terror, and to vilify the growing
Filipino Maoist movement.
It makes sense for a man like Cheney, who decided on
Bush's staff in late 2000, to seed the cabinet with strategically-placed
neocons who have a vision of a new Middle East.
Because
(1) that vision fits in
perfectly with the broader New World Order and U.S. plans to contain China, and
(2) the neocons as a coordinated "persuasion" if not movement, with their
fingers in a dozen right-wing think tanks, and the Israel Lobby including its
Christian Right component, and the academic community, are well-placed to serve
as what Dreyfuss calls "acolytes."
They are equipped with a philosophical outlook that justifies
the use of hyped, imagined threats to unite the masses behind rulers'
objectives and ambitions, to suppress dissent and control through fear. They're
inclined to identify each new target as "a new Hitler," and to justify their
actions as "an
answer to the Holocaust."
They have served Cheney well, and he them so far. They're all
being exposed, maybe weakened. But as Dreyfuss states at the end of his
article, "The true measure of how powerful the vice president's office remains
today is whether the United States chooses to confront Iran and Syria or to
seek diplomatic solutions. For the moment, at least, the war party led by Dick
Cheney remains in ascendancy."
GARY LEUPP is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct
Professor of Comparative Religion. He can be reached at:
[email protected]
This is a very weak article from a prominent paleoconservative, but it is instructive what a mess he has in his head as for the
nature of Trump phenomenon. We should probably consider the tern "New Class" that neocons invented as synonym for "neoliberals". If
so, why the author is afraid to use the term? Does he really so poorly educated not to understand the nature of this neoliberal revolution
and its implications? Looks like he never read "Quite coup"
That probably reflects the crisis of pealeoconservatism itself.
Notable quotes:
"... What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. ..."
"... the establishment in both parties almost uniformly favors one approach to war, trade, and immigration, while outsider candidates as dissimilar as Buchanan, Nader, Paul, and Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, depart from the consensus. ..."
"... The insurgents clearly do not represent a single class: they appeal to eclectic interests and groups. The foe they have all faced down, however-the bipartisan establishment-does resemble a class in its striking unity of outlook and interest. So what is this class, effectively the ruling class of the country? ..."
"... The archetypal model of class conflict, the one associated with Karl Marx, pits capitalists against workers-or, at an earlier stage, capitalists against the landed nobility. The capitalists' victory over the nobility was inevitable, and so too, Marx believed, was the coming triumph of the workers over the capitalists. ..."
"... The Soviet Union had never been a workers' state at all, they argued, but was run by a class of apparatchiks such as Marx had never imagined. ..."
"... Burnham recognized affinities between the Soviet mode of organization-in which much real power lay in the hands of the commissars who controlled industry and the bureaucratic organs of the state-and the corporatism that characterized fascist states. Even the U.S., under the New Deal and with ongoing changes to the balance between ownership and management in the private sector, seemed to be moving in the same direction. ..."
"... concept popularized by neoconservatives in the following decade: the "New Class." ..."
"... It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial society' (to use Daniel Bell's convenient term). We are talking about scientists, teachers, and educational administrators, journalists and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy, and so on. ..."
"... I have felt that this 'new class' is, so far, rather thin gruel. Intellectuals, verbalists, media types, etc. are conspicuous actors these days, certainly; they make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and some of them make a lot of money. But, after all, they are a harum-scarum crowd, and deflate even more quickly than they puff up. On TV they can out-talk any of the managers of ITT, GM, or IBM, or the administration-managers of the great government bureaus and agencies, but, honestly, you're not going to take that as a power test. Who hires and fires whom? ..."
"... Burnham had observed that the New Class did not have the means-either money or manpower-to wield power the way the managers or the capitalists of old did. It had to borrow power from other classes. Discovering where the New Class gets it is as easy as following the money, which leads straight to the finance sector-practically to the doorstep of Goldman Sachs. Jerry Rubin's journey from Yippie to yuppie was the paradigm of a generation. ..."
"... Yet the New Class as a whole is less like Carl Oglesby or Karl Hess than like Hillary Clinton, who arguably embodies it as perfectly as McNamara did the managerial class. ..."
"... Even the New Class's support for deregulation-to the advantage of its allies on Wall Street-was no sign of consistent commitment to free-market principles ..."
"... The individual-mandate feature of Obamacare and Romneycare is a prime example of New Class cronyism: government compels individuals to buy a supposedly private product or service. ..."
"... America's class war, like many others, is not in the end a contest between up and down. It's a fight between rival elites: in this case, between the declining managerial elite and the triumphant (for now) New Class and financial elites. ..."
"... Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November. ..."
"... The New Class, after all, lacks a popular base as well as money of its own, and just as it relies on Wall Street to underwrite its power, it depends on its competing brands of identity politics to co-opt popular support. ..."
"... Marx taught that you identify classes by their structural role in the system of production. I'm at a loss to see how either of the 'classes' you mention here relate to the system of production. ..."
"... [New] Class better describes the Never Trumpers. Mostly I have found them to be those involved in knowledge occupations (conservative think tanks, hedge fund managers, etc.) who have a pecuniary interest in maintaining the Global Economy as opposed to the Virtuous Intergenerational Economy that preceded. Many are dependent on funding sources for their livelihoods that are connected to the Globalized Economy and financial markets. ..."
"... "mobilize working-class voters against the establishment in both parties. " = workers of the world unite. ..."
"... Where the class conflict between the Working and Knowledge Classes begins is where the Knowledge Class almost unilaterally decided to shift to a global economy, at the expense of the Working Class, and to the self-benefit of the Knowledge Class. Those who designed the Global Economy like Larry Summers of Harvard did not invite private or public labor to help design the new Globalist Economy. The Working Class lost out big time in job losses and getting stuck with subprime home loans that busted their marriages and created bankruptcies and foreclosures. The Knowledge Class was mostly unscathed by this class-based economic divide. ..."
"... Trump's distinguishing ideology, which separates him from the current elite, is something he has summed up many times – nationalism vs. Globalism. ..."
"... The financial industry, the new tech giants, the health insurance industry are now almost indistinguishable from the government ruling elite. The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both are right in a sense. ..."
"... The hyperconcentration of power in Washington and a few tributary locations like Wall Street and Silicon Valley, elite academia and the media–call that the New Class if you like–means that most of America–Main Street, the flyover country has been left behind. Trump instinctively – brilliantly in some ways – tapped into the resentment that this hyperconcentration of wealth and government power has led to. That is why it cuts across right and left. The elites want to characterize this resentment as backwards and "racist," but there is also something very American from Jefferson to Jackson to Teddy Roosevelt that revolts against being lectured to and controlled by their would-be "betters." ..."
"... The alienation of those left out is real and based on real erosion of the middle class and American dream under both parties' elites. The potentially revolutionary capabilities of a political movement that could unite right and left in restoring some equilibrium and opportunities to those left out is tremendous, but yet to be realized by either major party. The party that can harness these folks – who are after all the majority of Americans – will have a ruling coalition for decades. If neither party can productively harness this budding movement, we are headed for disarray, civil unrest, and potentially the dissolution of the USA. ..."
"... . And blacks who cleave to the democrats despite being sold down the tubes on issues, well, for whatever reason, they just have thinner skin and the mistaken idea that the democrats deliver – thanks to Pres. Johnson. But what Pres. Johnson delivered democrats made a mockery of immediately as they stripped it of its intent and used for their own liberal ends. ..."
"... Let's see if I can help Dreher clear up some confusion in his article. James Burnham's "Managerial Class" and the "New Class" are overlapping and not exclusive. By the Managerial Class Burnham meant both the executive and managers in the private sector and the Bureaucrats and functionaries in the public sector. ..."
"... The rise of managers was a "revolution" because of the rise of modernization which meant the increasing mechanization, industrialization, formalization and rationalization (efficiency) of society. Burnham's concern about the rise of the managerial revolution was misplaced; what he should have focused on was modernization. ..."
"... The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America ..."
"... . Some 3 – 5% of the population facing no real opposition has decided that that their private lives needed public endorsement and have proceeded to upend the entire social order - the game has shifted in ways I am not sure most of the public fully grasps or desires ..."
"... There has always been and will always be class conflict, even if it falls short of a war. Simply examining recent past circumstances, the wealthy class has been whooping up on all other classes. This is not to suggest any sort of remedy, but simply to observe that income disparity over the past 30 years has substantially benefitted on sector of class and political power remains in their hands today. To think that there will never be class conflict is to side with a Marxian fantasy of egalitarianism, which will never come to pass. Winners and losers may change positions, but the underlying conflict will always remain. ..."
"... State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there. Back in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they would only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those. ..."
"... People don't really care for the actions of the elite but they care for the consequences of these actions. During the 1960's, per capita GDP growth was around 3.5%. Today it stands at 0,49%. If you take into account inflation, it's negative. Add to this the skewed repartition of said growth and it's intuitive that many people feel the pain; whom doesn't move forward, goes backwards. ..."
"... People couldn't care for mass immigration, nation building or the emergence of China if their personal situation was not impacted. But now, they begin to feel the results of these actions. ..."
"... I have a simple philosophy regarding American politics that shows who is made of what, and we don't have to go through all the philosophizing in this article: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American. ..."
"... Re: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American. ..."
"... The first has nothing whatsoever to do with American citizenship. It's just a political issue– on which, yes, reasonable people can differ. However no American citizen should put the interests of any other country ahead of our own, except in a situation where the US was itself up to no good and deserved its comeuppance. And then the interest is not that of any particular nation, but of justice being done period. ..."
"... A lot of this "New Class" stuff is just confusing mis-mash of this and that theory. Basically, America changed when the US dollar replace gold as the medium of exchange in the world economy. Remember when we called it the PETRO-DOLLAR. As long as the Saudis only accepted the US dollar as the medium of exchange for oil, then the American government could export it's inflation and deficit spending. Budget deficits and trade deficits are intrinsically related. It allowed America to become a nation of consumers instead of a nation of producers. ..."
"... It's really a form of classic IMPERIALISM. To maintain this system, we've got the US military and we prop up the corrupt dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya ..."
"... Yeah, you can talk about the "new class", the corruption of the banking system by the idiotic "libertarian" or "free market utopianism" of the Gingrich Congress, the transformation of American corporations to international corporations, and on and on. But it's the US dollar as reserve currency that has allowed it all to happen. God help us, if it ends, we'll be crippled. ..."
"... The Clinton Class mocks The Country Class: Bill Clinton, "We all know how her opponent's done real well down in West Virginia and eastern Kentucky. Because the coal people don't like any of us anymore." "They blame the president when the sun doesn't come up in the morning now," ..."
"... That doesn't mean they actually support Hillary's policies and position. What do they really know about either? These demographics simply vote overwhelmingly Democrat no matter who is on the ticket. If Alfred E. Newman were the candidate, this particular data point would look just the same. ..."
"... "On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests." This doesn't ring true. Hard industry, and the managers that run it had no problem with moving jobs and factories overseas in pursuit of cheaper labor. Plus, it solved their Union issues. I feel like the divide is between large corporations, with dilute ownership and professional managers who nominally serve the interests of stock fund managers, while greatly enriching themselves versus a multitude of smaller, locally owned businesses whose owners were also concerned with the health of the local communities in which they lived. ..."
"... The financial elites are a consequence of consolidation in the banking and finance industry, where we now have 4 or 5 large institutions versus a multitude of local and regional banks that were locally focused. ..."
Since the Cold War ended, U.S. politics has seen a series of insurgent candidacies. Pat Buchanan prefigured Trump in the Republican
contests of 1992 and 1996. Ralph Nader challenged the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party from the outside in 2000. Ron Paul vexed
establishment Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney in 2008 and 2012. And this year, Trump was not the only candidate to confound
his party's elite: Bernie Sanders harried Hillary Clinton right up to the Democratic convention.
What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All
have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. (The libertarian Paul favors unilateral free trade: by his lights, treaties
like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership are not free trade at all but international regulatory pacts.) And while no one would
mistake Ralph Nader's or Ron Paul's views on immigration for Pat Buchanan's or Donald Trump's, Nader and Paul have registered their
own dissents from the approach to immigration that prevails in Washington.
Sanders has been more in line with his party's orthodoxy on that issue. But that didn't save him from being attacked by Clinton
backers for having an insufficiently nonwhite base of support. Once again, what might have appeared to be a class conflict-in this
case between a democratic socialist and an elite liberal with ties to high finance-could be explained away as really about race.
Race, like religion, is a real factor in how people vote. Its relevance to elite politics, however, is less clear. Something else
has to account for why the establishment in both parties almost uniformly favors one approach to war, trade, and immigration,
while outsider candidates as dissimilar as Buchanan, Nader, Paul, and Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, depart from the consensus.
The insurgents clearly do not represent a single class: they appeal to eclectic interests and groups. The foe they have all
faced down, however-the bipartisan establishment-does resemble a class in its striking unity of outlook and interest. So what is
this class, effectively the ruling class of the country?
Some critics on the right have identified it with the "managerial" class described by James Burnham in his 1941 book The Managerial
Revolution . But it bears a stronger resemblance to what what others have called "the New Class." In fact, the interests of this
New Class of college-educated "verbalists" are antithetical to those of the industrial managers that Burnham described. Understanding
the relationship between these two often conflated concepts provides insight into politics today, which can be seen as a clash between
managerial and New Class elites.
♦♦♦
The archetypal model of class conflict, the one associated with Karl Marx, pits capitalists against workers-or, at an earlier
stage, capitalists against the landed nobility. The capitalists' victory over the nobility was inevitable, and so too, Marx believed,
was the coming triumph of the workers over the capitalists.
Over the next century, however, history did not follow the script. By 1992, the Soviet Union was gone, Communist China had embarked
on market reforms, and Western Europe was turning away from democratic socialism. There was no need to predict the future; mankind
had achieved its destiny, a universal order of [neo]liberal democracy. Marx had it backwards: capitalism was the end of history.
But was the truth as simple as that? Long before the collapse of the USSR, many former communists -- some of whom remained socialists,
while others joined the right-thought not. The Soviet Union had never been a workers' state at all, they argued, but was run
by a class of apparatchiks such as Marx had never imagined.
Among the first to advance this argument was James Burnham, a professor of philosophy at New York University who became a leading
Trotskyist thinker. As he broke with Trotsky and began moving toward the right, Burnham recognized affinities between the Soviet
mode of organization-in which much real power lay in the hands of the commissars who controlled industry and the bureaucratic organs
of the state-and the corporatism that characterized fascist states. Even the U.S., under the New Deal and with ongoing changes to
the balance between ownership and management in the private sector, seemed to be moving in the same direction.
Burnham called this the "managerial revolution." The managers of industry and technically trained government officials did not
own the means of production, like the capitalists of old. But they did control the means of production, thanks to their expertise
and administrative prowess.
The rise of this managerial class would have far-reaching consequences, he predicted. Burnham wrote in his 1943 book, The Machiavellians
: "that the managers may function, the economic and political structure must be modified, as it is now being modified, so as
to rest no longer on private ownership and small-scale nationalist sovereignty, but primarily upon state control of the economy,
and continental or vast regional world political organization." Burnham pointed to Nazi Germany, imperial Japan-which became a "continental"
power by annexing Korea and Manchuria-and the Soviet Union as examples.
The defeat of the Axis powers did not halt the progress of the managerial revolution. Far from it: not only did the Soviets retain
their form of managerialism, but the West increasingly adopted a managerial corporatism of its own, marked by cooperation between
big business and big government: high-tech industrial crony capitalism, of the sort that characterizes the military-industrial complex
to this day. (Not for nothing was Burnham a great advocate of America's developing a supersonic transport of its own to compete with
the French-British Concorde.)
America's managerial class was personified by Robert S. McNamara, the former Ford Motor Company executive who was secretary of
defense under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. In a 1966 story for National Review , "Why Do They Hate Robert Strange McNamara?"
Burnham answered the question in class terms: "McNamara is attacked by the Left because the Left has a blanket hatred of the system
of business enterprise; he is criticized by the Right because the Right harks back, in nostalgia if not in practice, to outmoded
forms of business enterprise."
McNamara the managerial technocrat was too business-oriented for a left that still dreamed of bringing the workers to power. But
the modern form of industrial organization he represented was not traditionally capitalist enough for conservatives who were at heart
19th-century classical liberals.
National Review readers responded to Burnham's paean to McNamara with a mixture of incomprehension and indignation. It
was a sign that even readers familiar with Burnham-he appeared in every issue of the magazine-did not always follow what he was saying.
The popular right wanted concepts that were helpful in labeling enemies, and Burnham was confusing matters by talking about changes
in the organization of government and industry that did not line up with anyone's value judgements.
More polemically useful was a different concept popularized by neoconservatives in the following decade: the "New Class."
"This 'new class' is not easily defined but may be vaguely described," Irving Kristol wrote in a 1975 essay for the Wall
Street Journal :
It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial
society' (to use Daniel Bell's convenient term). We are talking about scientists, teachers, and educational administrators, journalists
and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in
the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy,
and so on.
"Members of the new class do not 'control' the media," he continued, "they are the media-just as they are our educational
system, our public health and welfare system, and much else."
Burnham, writing in National Review in 1978, drew a sharp contrast between this concept and his own ideas:
I have felt that this 'new class' is, so far, rather thin gruel. Intellectuals, verbalists, media types, etc. are conspicuous
actors these days, certainly; they make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and some of them make a lot of money. But, after
all, they are a harum-scarum crowd, and deflate even more quickly than they puff up. On TV they can out-talk any of the managers
of ITT, GM, or IBM, or the administration-managers of the great government bureaus and agencies, but, honestly, you're not going
to take that as a power test. Who hires and fires whom?
Burnham suffered a stroke later that year. Although he lived until 1987, his career as a writer was over. His last years coincided
with another great transformation of business and government. It began in the Carter administration, with moves to deregulate transportation
and telecommunications. This partial unwinding of the managerial revolution accelerated under Ronald Reagan. Regulatory and welfare-state
reforms, even privatization of formerly nationalized industries, also took off in the UK and Western Europe. All this did not, however,
amount to a restoration of the old capitalism or anything resembling laissez-faire.
The "[neo]liberal democracy" that triumphed at "the end of history"-to use Francis Fukuyama's words-was not the managerial capitalism
of the mid-20th century, either. It was instead the New Class's form of capitalism, one that could be embraced by Bill Clinton and
Tony Blair as readily as by any Republican or Thatcherite.
Irving Kristol had already noted in the 1970s that "this new class is not merely liberal but truly 'libertarian' in its approach
to all areas of life-except economics. It celebrates individual liberty of speech and expression and action to an unprecedented degree,
so that at times it seems almost anarchistic in its conception of the good life."
He was right about the New Class's "anything goes" mentality, but he was only partly correct about its attitude toward economics.
The young elite tended to scorn the bourgeois character of the old capitalism, and to them managerial figures like McNamara were
evil incarnate. But they had to get by-and they aspired to rule.
Burnham had observed that the New Class did not have the means-either money or manpower-to wield power the way the managers
or the capitalists of old did. It had to borrow power from other classes. Discovering where the New Class gets it is as easy as following
the money, which leads straight to the finance sector-practically to the doorstep of Goldman Sachs. Jerry Rubin's journey from Yippie
to yuppie was the paradigm of a generation.
Part of the tale can be told in a favorable light. New Left activists like Carl Oglesby fought the spiritual aridity and murderous
militarism of what they called "corporate liberalism"-Burnham's managerialism-while sincere young libertarians attacked the regulatory
state and seeded technological entrepreneurship. Yet the New Class as a whole is less like Carl Oglesby or Karl Hess than like
Hillary Clinton, who arguably embodies it as perfectly as McNamara did the managerial class.
Even the New Class's support for deregulation-to the advantage of its allies on Wall Street-was no sign of consistent commitment
to free-market principles. On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the
protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests. The individual-mandate feature of Obamacare and Romneycare
is a prime example of New Class cronyism: government compels individuals to buy a supposedly private product or service.
The alliance between finance and the New Class accounts for the disposition of power in America today. The New Class has also
enlisted another invaluable ally: the managerial classes of East Asia. Trade with China-the modern managerial state par excellence-helps
keep American industry weak relative to finance and the service economy's verbalist-dominated sectors. America's class war, like
many others, is not in the end a contest between up and down. It's a fight between rival elites: in this case, between the declining
managerial elite and the triumphant (for now) New Class and financial elites.
The New Class plays a priestly role in its alliance with finance, absolving Wall Street for the sin of making money in exchange
for plenty of that money to keep the New Class in power. In command of foreign policy, the New Class gets to pursue humanitarian
ideological projects-to experiment on the world. It gets to evangelize by the sword. And with trade policy, it gets to suppress its
class rival, the managerial elite, at home. Through trade pacts and mass immigration the financial elite, meanwhile, gets to maximize
its returns without regard for borders or citizenship. The erosion of other nations' sovereignty that accompanies American hegemony
helps toward that end too-though our wars are more ideological than interest-driven.
♦♦♦
So we come to an historic moment. Instead of an election pitting another Bush against another Clinton, we have a race that poses
stark alternatives: a choice not only between candidates but between classes-not only between administrations but between regimes.
Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes,
"big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the
bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November.
The New Class, after all, lacks a popular base as well as money of its own, and just as it relies on Wall Street to underwrite
its power, it depends on its competing brands of identity politics to co-opt popular support. For the center-left establishment,
minority voters supply the electoral muscle. Religion and the culture war have served the same purpose for the establishment's center-right
faction. Trump showed that at least one of these sides could be beaten on its own turf-and it seems conceivable that if Bernie Sanders
had been black, he might have similarly beaten Clinton, without having to make concessions to New Class tastes.
The New Class establishment of both parties may be seriously misjudging what is happening here. Far from being the last gasp of
the demographically doomed-old, racially isolated white people, as Gallup's analysis says-Trump's insurgency may be the prototype
of an aggressive new politics, of either left or right, that could restore the managerial elite to power.
This is not something that conservatives-or libertarians who admire the old capitalism rather than New Class's simulacrum-might
welcome. But the only way that some entrenched policies may change is with a change of the class in power.
Daniel McCarthy is the editor of The American Conservative .
Excellent analysis. What is important about the Trump phenomenon is not every individual issue, it's the potentially revolutionary
nature of the phenomenon. The opposition gets this. That's why they are hysterical about Trump. The conservative box checkers
do not.
"Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big
government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan
establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November."
My question is, if Trump is not himself of the managerial class, in fact, could be considered one of the original new class
members, how would he govern? What explains his conversion from the new class to the managerial class; is he merely taking advantage
of an opportunity or is there some other explanation?
I'm genuinely confused by the role you ascribe to the 'managerial class' here. Going back to Berle and Means ('The Modern Corporation
and Private Property') the managerial class emerged when management was split from ownership in mid C20th capitalism. Managers
focused on growth, not profits for shareholders. The Shareholder revolution of the 1980s destroyed the managerial class, and destroyed
their unwieldy corporations.
You seem to be identifying the managerial class with a kind of cultural opposition to the values of [neo]liberal capitalism. And
instead of identifying the 'new class' with the new owner-managers of shareholder-driven firms, you identify them by their superficial
cultural effects.
This raises a deeper problem in how you talk about class in this piece. Marx taught that you identify classes by their
structural role in the system of production. I'm at a loss to see how either of the 'classes' you mention here relate to the system
of production. Does the 'new class' of journalists, academics, etc. actually own anything? If not, what is the point of ascribing
to them immense economic power?
I would agree that there is a new class of capitalists in America. But they are well known people like Sheldon Adelson, the Kochs,
Linda McMahon, the Waltons, Rick Scott the pharmaceutical entrepreneur, Mitt Romney, Mark Zuckerberg, and many many hedge fund
gazillionaires. These people represent the resurgence of a family-based, dynastic capitalism that is utterly different from the
managerial variety that prevailed in mid-century.
If there is a current competitor to international corporate capitalism, it is old-fashioned dynastic family capitalism. Not
Managerialism.
There is no "new class". That's simply a derogatory trope of the Right. The [neo]liberal elite– educated, cosmopolitan and possessed
of sufficient wealth to be influential in political affairs and claims to power grounded in moral stances– have a long pedigree
in both Western and non-Western lands. They were the Scribal Class in the ancient world, the Mandarins of China, and the Clergy
in the Middle Ages. This class for a time was eclipsed in the early modern period as first royal authority became dominant, followed
by the power of the Capitalist class (the latter has never really faded of course). But their reemergence in the late 20th century
is not a new or unique phenomenon.
In a year in which "trash Trump" and "trash Trump's supporters" are tricks-to-be-turned for more than 90% of mainstream journalists
and other media hacks, it's good to see Daniel McCarthy buck the "trash trend" and write a serious, honest analysis of the class
forces that are colliding during this election cycle.
Two thumbs way up for McCarthy, although his fine effort cannot save the reputation of those establishment whores who call
themselves journalists. Nothing can save them. They have earned the universality with which Americans hold them in contempt.
In 1976 when Gallup began asking about "the honesty and ethical standards" of various professions only 33% of Americans rated
journalists "very high or high."
By last December that "high or very high" rating for journalists had fallen to just 27%.
It is certain that by Election Day 2016 the American public's opinion of journalists will have fallen even further.
Most of your argument is confusing. The change I see is from a production economy to a finance economy. Wall Street rules, really.
Basically the stock market used to be a place where working folk invested their money for retirement, mostly through pensions
from unions and corporations. Now it's become a gambling casino, with the "house"-or the big banks-putting it's finger on the
roulette wheel. They changed the compensation package of CEO's, so they can rake in huge executive compensation–mostly through
stock options-to basically close down everything from manufacturing to customer service, and ship it off to contract manufacturers
and outside services in oligarchical countries like mainland China and India.
I don't know what exactly you mean about the "new class", basically its the finance industry against everyone else.
One thing you right-wingers always get wrong, is on Karl Marx he was really attacking the money-changers, the finance speculators,
the banks. Back in the day, so-called "capitalists" like Henry Ford or George Eastman or Thomas Edison always complained about
the access to financing through the big money finance capitalists.
Don't overlook the economic value of intellectual property rights (patents, in particular) in the economic equation.
A big chunk of the 21st century economy is generated due to the intellectual property developed and owned by the New Class
and its business enterprises.
The economic value of ideas and intellectual property rights is somewhat implied in McCarthy's explanation of the New Class,
but I didn't see an explicit mention (perhaps I overlooked it).
I think the consideration of intellectual property rights and the value generated by IP might help to clarify the economic
power of the New Class for those who feel the analysis isn't quite complete or on target.
I'm not saying that IP only provides value to the New Class. We can find examples of IP throughout the economy, at all levels.
It's just that the tech and financial sectors seem to focus more on (and benefit from) IP ownership, licensing, and the information
captured through use of digital technology.
"What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy."
But today we have this: Trump pledges big US military
expansion . Trump doesn't appear to have any coherent policy, he just says whatever seems to be useful at that particular
moment.
[New] Class better describes the Never Trumpers. Mostly I have found them to be those involved in knowledge occupations (conservative
think tanks, hedge fund managers, etc.) who have a pecuniary interest in maintaining the Global Economy as opposed to the Virtuous
Intergenerational Economy that preceded. Many are dependent on funding sources for their livelihoods that are connected to the
Globalized Economy and financial markets.
Being white is not the defining characteristic of Trumpers because it if was then how come there are many white working class
voters for Hillary? The divide in the working class comes from being a member of a union or a member of the private non-unionized
working class.
Where the real class divide shows up is in those who are members of the Knowledge Class that made their living based on the
old Virtuous Economy where the elderly saved money in banks and the banks, in turn, lent that money out to young families to buy
houses, cars, and start businesses. The Virtuous Economy has been replaced by the Global Economy based on diverting money to the
stock market to fund global enterprises and prop up government pension funds.
The local bankers, realtors, private contractors, small savers and small business persons and others that depended on the Virtuous
Economy lost out to the global bankers, stock investors, pension fund managers, union contractors and intellectuals that propounded
rationales for the global economy as superior to the Virtuous Economy.
Where the class conflict between the Working and Knowledge Classes begins is where the Knowledge Class almost unilaterally
decided to shift to a global economy, at the expense of the Working Class, and to the self-benefit of the Knowledge Class. Those
who designed the Global Economy like Larry Summers of Harvard did not invite private or public labor to help design the new Globalist
Economy. The Working Class lost out big time in job losses and getting stuck with subprime home loans that busted their marriages
and created bankruptcies and foreclosures. The Knowledge Class was mostly unscathed by this class-based economic divide.
Beginning in the 50's and 60's, baby boomers were warned in school and cultural media that "a college diploma would become what
a high school diploma is today." An extraordinary cohort of Americans took this advice seriously, creating the smartest and most
successful generation in history. But millions did not heed that advice, cynically buoyed by Republicans who – knowing that college
educated people vote largely Democrat – launched a financial and cultural war on college education. The result is what you see
now: millions of people unprepared for modern employment; meanwhile we have to import millions of college-educated Asians and
Indians to do the work there aren't enough Americans to do.
Have to say, this seems like an attempt to put things into boxes that don't quite fit.
Trump's distinguishing ideology, which separates him from the current elite, is something he has summed up many times –
nationalism vs. Globalism.
The core of it is that the government no longer serves the people. In the United States, that is kind of a bad thing, you know?
Like the EU in the UK, the people, who fought very hard for self-government, are seeing it undermined by the erosion of the nation
state in favor of international beaurocracy run by elites and the well connected.
Both this article and many comments on it show considerable confusion, and ideological opinion all over the map. What is happening
I think is that the world is changing –due to globalism, technology, and the sheer huge numbers of people on the planet. As a
result some of the rigid trenches of thought as well as class alignments are breaking down.
In America we no longer have capitalism, of either the 19th century industrial or 20th century managerial varieties. Money
and big money is still important of course, but it is increasingly both aligned with and in turn controlled by the government.
The financial industry, the new tech giants, the health insurance industry are now almost indistinguishable from the government
ruling elite. The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives
are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both
are right in a sense.
The hyperconcentration of power in Washington and a few tributary locations like Wall Street and Silicon Valley, elite
academia and the media–call that the New Class if you like–means that most of America–Main Street, the flyover country has been
left behind. Trump instinctively – brilliantly in some ways – tapped into the resentment that this hyperconcentration of wealth
and government power has led to. That is why it cuts across right and left. The elites want to characterize this resentment as
backwards and "racist," but there is also something very American from Jefferson to Jackson to Teddy Roosevelt that revolts against
being lectured to and controlled by their would-be "betters."
The alienation of those left out is real and based on real erosion of the middle class and American dream under both parties'
elites. The potentially revolutionary capabilities of a political movement that could unite right and left in restoring some equilibrium
and opportunities to those left out is tremendous, but yet to be realized by either major party. The party that can harness these
folks – who are after all the majority of Americans – will have a ruling coalition for decades. If neither party can productively
harness this budding movement, we are headed for disarray, civil unrest, and potentially the dissolution of the USA.
I have one condition about which, Mr. Trump would lose my support - if he flinches on immigration, I will have to bow out.
I just don't buy the contentions about color here. He has made definitive moves to ensure that he intends to fight for US citizens
regardless of color. This nonsense about white racism, more bigotry in reality, doesn't pan out. The Republican party has been
comprised of mostly whites since forever and nearly all white sine the late 1960's. Anyone attempting to make hay out of what
has been the reality for than 40 years is really making the reverse pander. Of course most of those who have issues with blacks
and tend to be more expressive about it, are in the Republican party. But so what. Black Republicans would look at you askance,
should you attempt this FYI.
It's a so what. The reason you joining a party is not because the people in it like you, that is really beside the point. Both
Sec Rice and General Powell, are keenly aware of who's what it and that is the supposed educated elite. They are not members of
the party because it is composed of some pure untainted membership. But because they and many blacks align themselves with the
ideas of the party, or what the party used to believe, anyway.
It's the issues not their skin color that matters. And blacks who cleave to the democrats despite being sold down the tubes
on issues, well, for whatever reason, they just have thinner skin and the mistaken idea that the democrats deliver – thanks to
Pres. Johnson. But what Pres. Johnson delivered democrats made a mockery of immediately as they stripped it of its intent and
used for their own liberal ends.
I remain convinced that if blacks wanted progress all they need do is swamp the Republican party as constituents and confront
whatever they thought was nonsense as constituents as they move on policy issues. Goodness democrats have embraced the lighter
tones despite having most black support. That is why the democrats are importing so many from other state run countries. They
could ignore blacks altogether. Sen Barbara Jordan and her deep voiced rebuke would do them all some good.
Let's face it - we are not going to remove the deeply rooted impact of skin color, once part of the legal frame of the country
for a quarter of the nations populous. What Republicans should stop doing is pretending, that everything concerning skin color
is the figment of black imagination. I am not budging an inch on the Daughters of the American Revolution, a perfect example of
the kind of peculiar treatment of the majority, even to those who fought for Independence and their descendants.
________________
I think that there are thousands and thousands of educated (degreed)people who now realize what a mess the educational and
social services system has become because of our immigration policy. The impact on social services here in Ca is no joke. In the
face of mounting deficits, the laxity of Ca has now come back to haunt them. The pressure to increase taxes weighed against the
loss of manual or hard labor to immigrants legal and otherwise is unmistakable here. There's debate about rsstroom etiquette in
the midst of serious financial issues - that's a joke. So this idea of dismissing people with degrees as being opposed to Mr.
Trump is deeply overplayed and misunderstood. If there is a class war, it's not because of Mr. Trump, those decks were stacked
in his favor long before the election cycle.
--------
"But millions did not heed that advice, cynically buoyed by Republicans who–knowing that college educated people vote largely
Democrat–launched a financial and cultural war on college education. The result is what . . . employment; meanwhile we have to
import millions of college-educated Asians and Indians to do the work there aren't enough Americans to do."
Hmmmm,
Nope. Republicans are notorious for pushing education on everything and everybody. It's a signature of hard work, self reliance,
self motivation and responsibility. The shift that has been tragic is that conservatives and Republicans either by a shove or
by choice abandoned the fields by which we turn out most future generations - elementary, HS and college education. Especially
in HS, millions of students are fed a daily diet of liberal though unchecked by any opposing ideas. And that is become the staple
for college education - as it cannot be stated just how tragic this has become for the nation. There are lots of issues to moan
about concerning the Us, but there is far more to embrace or at the very least keep the moaning in its proper context. No, conservatives
and Republicans did engage in discouraging an education.
And there will always be a need for more people without degrees than with them. even people with degrees are now getting hit
even in the elite walls of WS finance. I think I posted an article by John Maulden about the growing tensions resulting fro the
shift in the way trading is conducting. I can build a computer from scratch, that's a technical skill, but the days of building
computers by hand went as fast it came. The accusation that the population should all be trained accountants, book keepers, managers,
data processors, programmers etc. Is nice, but hardly very realistic (despite my taking liberties with your exact phrasing). A
degree is not going to stop a company from selling and moving its production to China, Mexico or Vietnam - would that were true.
In fact, even high end degree positions are being outsourced, medicine, law, data processing, programming . . .
How about the changes in economy that have forced businesses to completely disappear. We will never know how many businesses
were lost in the 2007/2008 financial mess. Recovery doesn't exist until the country's growth is robust enough to put people back
to work full time in a manner that enables them to sustain themselves and family.
That income gap is real and its telling.
___________________
even if I bought the Karl Marx assessment. His solutions were anything but a limited assault on financial sector oligarchs
and wizards. And in practice it has been an unmitigated disaster with virtually not a single long term national benefit. It's
very nature has been destructive, not only to infrastructure, but literally the lifeblood of the people it was intended to rescue.
Let's see if I can help Dreher clear up some confusion in his article. James Burnham's "Managerial Class" and the "New Class"
are overlapping and not exclusive. By the Managerial Class Burnham meant both the executive and managers in the private sector
and the Bureaucrats and functionaries in the public sector.
There are two middle classes in the US: the old Business Class and the New Knowledge Class. A manager would be in the Business
Class and a Bureaucrat in the New Class.
The rise of managers was a "revolution" because of the rise of modernization which meant the increasing mechanization,
industrialization, formalization and rationalization (efficiency) of society. Burnham's concern about the rise of the managerial
revolution was misplaced; what he should have focused on was modernization.
The New Class were those in the mostly government and nonprofit sectors that depended on knowledge for their livelihood without
it being coupled to any physical labor: teachers, intellectuals, social workers and psychiatrists, lawyers, media types, hedge
fund managers, real estate appraisers, financial advisors, architects, engineers, etc. The New Knowledge Class has only risen
since the New Deal created a permanent white collar, non-business class.
The Working Class are those who are employed for wages in manual work in an industry producing something tangible (houses,
cars, computers, etc.). The Working Class can also have managers, sometimes called supervisors. And the Working Class is comprised
mainly of two groups: unionized workers and private sector non-unionized workers. When we talk about the Working Class we typically
are referring to the latter.
The Trumpsters should not be distinguished as being a racial group or class (white) because there are many white people who
support Clinton. About 95% of Blacks vote Democratic in the US. Nowhere near that ratio of Whites are supporting Trump. So Trumps'
support should not be stereotyped as White.
The number one concern to Trumpsters is that they reflect the previous intergenerational economy where the elderly lent money
to the young to buy homes, cars and start small businesses. The Global bankers have shifted money into the stock market because
0.25% per year interest rates in a bank isn't making any money at all when money inflation runs at 1% to 2% (theft). This has
been replaced by a Global Economy that depends on financial bubbles and arbitraging of funds.
"The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated
by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both are right
in a sense."
Why other couching this. Ten years ago if some Hollywood exec had said, no same sex marriage, no production company in your
town, the town would have shrugged. Today before shrugging, the city clerk is checking the account balance. When the governors
of Michigan, and Arizona bent down in me culpa's on related issue, because business interests piped in, it was an indication that
the game had seriously changed. Some 3 – 5% of the population facing no real opposition has decided that that their private
lives needed public endorsement and have proceeded to upend the entire social order - the game has shifted in ways I am not sure
most of the public fully grasps or desires.
Same sex weddings in US military chapels - the concept still turns my stomach. Advocates control the megaphones, I don't think
they control the minds of the public, despite having convinced a good many people that those who have chosen this expression are
under some manner of assault – that demands a legal change - intelligent well educated, supposedly astute minded people actually
believe it. Even the Republican nominee believes it.
I love Barbara Streisand, but if the election means she moves to Canada, well, so be it. Take your "drag queens" impersonators
wit you. I enjoy Mr. and Mrs Pitt, I think have a social moral core but really? with millions of kids future at stake, endorsing
a terminal dynamic as if it will save society's ills - Hollywood doesn't even pretend to behave royally much less embody the sensitivities
of the same.
There is a lot to challenge about supporting Mr. Trump. He did support killing children in the womb and that is tragic. Unless
he has stood before his maker and made this right, he will have to answer for that. But no more than a trove of Republicans who
supported killing children in the womb and then came to their senses. I guess of there is one thing he and I agree on, it's not
drinking.
As for big budget military, it seems a waste, but if we are going to waste money, better it be for our own citizens. His Achilles
heel here is his intentions as to ISIS/ISIL. I think it's the big drain getting ready to suck him into the abyss of intervention
creep.
Missile defense just doesn't work. The tests are rigged and as Israel discovered, it's a hit and miss game with low probability
of success, but it makes for great propaganda.
I am supposed to be outraged by a football player stance on abusive government. While the democratic nominee is turning over
every deck chair she find, leaving hundreds of thousands of children homeless - let me guess, on the bright side, George Clooney
cheers the prospect of more democratic voters.
If Mr. Trumps only achievements are building a wall, over hauling immigration policy and expanding the size of the military.
He will be well on his way to getting ranked one of the US most successful presidents.
I never understood why an analysis needs to lard in every conceivable historical reference and simply assume its relevance, when
there are so many non constant facts and circumstances. There has always been and will always be class conflict, even if it
falls short of a war. Simply examining recent past circumstances, the wealthy class has been whooping up on all other classes.
This is not to suggest any sort of remedy, but simply to observe that income disparity over the past 30 years has substantially
benefitted on sector of class and political power remains in their hands today. To think that there will never be class conflict
is to side with a Marxian fantasy of egalitarianism, which will never come to pass. Winners and losers may change positions, but
the underlying conflict will always remain.
State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there.
Back in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they
would only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those.
The split on Trump is first by race (obviously), then be gender (also somewhat obviously), and then by education. Even among
self-declared conservatives it's the college educated who tend to oppose him. This is a lot broader than simply losing some "new"
Knowledge Class, unless all college educated people are put in that grouping. In fact he is on track to lose among college educated
whites, something no GOP candidate has suffered since the days of FDR and WWII.
People don't really care for the actions of the elite but they care for the consequences of these actions. During the 1960's,
per capita GDP growth was around 3.5%. Today it stands at 0,49%. If you take into account inflation, it's negative. Add to this
the skewed repartition of said growth and it's intuitive that many people feel the pain; whom doesn't move forward, goes backwards.
People couldn't care for mass immigration, nation building or the emergence of China if their personal situation was not
impacted. But now, they begin to feel the results of these actions.
I have a simple philosophy regarding American politics that shows who is made of what, and we don't have to go through all
the philosophizing in this article: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable.
Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American.
EliteComic beat me to the punch. I was disappointed that Ross Perot, who won over 20% of the popular vote twice, and was briefly
in the lead in early 1992, wasn't mentioned in this article.
Re: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli
interests above America's is un-American.
The first has nothing whatsoever to do with American citizenship. It's just a political issue– on which, yes, reasonable
people can differ. However no American citizen should put the interests of any other country ahead of our own, except in a situation
where the US was itself up to no good and deserved its comeuppance. And then the interest is not that of any particular nation,
but of justice being done period.
A lot of this "New Class" stuff is just confusing mis-mash of this and that theory. Basically, America changed when the US
dollar replace gold as the medium of exchange in the world economy. Remember when we called it the PETRO-DOLLAR. As long as the
Saudis only accepted the US dollar as the medium of exchange for oil, then the American government could export it's inflation
and deficit spending. Budget deficits and trade deficits are intrinsically related. It allowed America to become a nation of consumers
instead of a nation of producers.
Who really cares about the federal debt. REally? We can print dollars, exchange these worthless dollars with China for hard
goods, and then China lends the dollars back to us, to pay for our government. Get it?
It's really a form of classic IMPERIALISM. To maintain this system, we've got the US military and we prop up the corrupt
dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya
Yeah, you can talk about the "new class", the corruption of the banking system by the idiotic "libertarian" or "free market
utopianism" of the Gingrich Congress, the transformation of American corporations to international corporations, and on and on.
But it's the US dollar as reserve currency that has allowed it all to happen. God help us, if it ends, we'll be crippled.
And damn the utopianism of you "libertarians" you're worse then Marxists when it comes to ideology over reality.
"State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there. Back
in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they would
only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those."
Ah, not it's policy on some measure able effect. The seatbelt law was debate across the country. The data indicated that it
did in fact save lives. And it's impact was universal applicable to every man women or child that got into a vehicle.
That was not a private bedroom issue. Of course businesses have advocated policy. K street is not a K-street minus that reality.
But GM did not demand having relations in parked cars be legalized or else.
You are taking my apples and and calling them seatbelts - false comparison on multiple levels, all to get me to acknowledge
that businesses have influence. It what they have chosen to have influence on -
I do not think the issue of class is relevant here – whether it be new classes or old classes. There are essentially two classes
– those who win given whatever the current economic arrangements are or those who lose given those same arrangements. People who
think they are losing support Trump versus people who think they are winning support Clinton. The polls demonstrates this – Trump
supporters feel a great deal more anxiety about the future and are more inclined to think everything is falling apart whereas
Clinton supporters tend to see things as being okay and are optimistic about the future. The Vox work also shows this pervasive
sense that life will not be good for their children and grandchildren as a characteristic of Trump supporters.
The real shift I think is in the actual coalitions that are political parties. Both the GOP and the Dems have been coalitions
– political parties usually are. Primary areas of agreement with secondary areas of disagreement. Those coalitions no longer work.
The Dems can be seen as a coalition of the liberal knowledge types – who are winners in this economy and the worker types who
are often losers now in this economy. The GOP also is a coalition of globalist corporatist business types (winners) with workers
(losers) who they attracted in part because of culture wars and the Dixiecrats becoming GOPers. The needs of these two groups
in both parties no longer overlap. The crisis is more apparent in the GOP because well – Trump. If Sanders had won the nomination
for the Dems (and he got close) then their same crisis would be more apparent. The Dems can hold their creaky coalition together
because Trump went into the fevered swamps of the alt. right.
I think this is even more obvious in the UK where you have a Labor Party that allegedly represents the interests of working
people but includes the cosmopolitan knowledge types. The cosmopolitans are big on the usual identity politics, unlimited immigration
and staying in the EU. They benefit from the current economic arrangement. But the workers in the Labor party have been hammered
by the current economic arrangements and voted in droves to get out of the EU and limit immigration. It seems pretty obvious that
there is no longer a coalition to sustain the Labor Party. Same with Tories – some in the party love the EU,immigration, globalization
while others voted out of the EU, want immigration restricted and support localism. The crisis is about the inability of either
party to sustain its coalitions. Those in the Tory party who are leavers should be in a political party with the old Labor working
class while the Tory cosmopolitans should be in a party with the Labor cosmopolitans. The current coalitions not being in synch
is the political problem – not new classes etc.
Here in the US the southern Dixiecrats who went to the GOP and are losers in this economy might find a better coalition with
the black, Latino and white workers who are still in the Dem party. But as in the UK ideological culture wars have become more
prominent and hence the coalitions are no longer economically based. If people recognized that politics can only address the economic
issues and they aligned themselves accordingly – the membership of the parties would radically change.
The Clinton Class mocks The Country Class: Bill Clinton, "We all know how her opponent's done real well down in West Virginia
and eastern Kentucky. Because the coal people don't like any of us anymore." "They blame the president when the sun doesn't come
up in the morning now,"
"Trump's voters were most strongly characterized by their "racial isolation": they live in places with little ethnic diversity.
"
During the primaries whites in more diverse areas voted Trump. The only real exception was West Virginia. Utah, Wyoming, Iowa?
All voted for Cruz and "muh values".
In white enclaves like Paul Ryans district, which is 91%, whites are able to signal against white identity without having to
face the consequences.
"All three major African, Hispanic, & Asian-American overwhelming support HRC in the election."
That doesn't mean they actually support Hillary's policies and position. What do they really know about either? These demographics
simply vote overwhelmingly Democrat no matter who is on the ticket. If Alfred E. Newman were the candidate, this particular data
point would look just the same.
"On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would
benefit hard industry and managerial interests."
This doesn't ring true. Hard industry, and the managers that run it had no problem with moving jobs and factories overseas
in pursuit of cheaper labor. Plus, it solved their Union issues. I feel like the divide is between large corporations, with dilute
ownership and professional managers who nominally serve the interests of stock fund managers, while greatly enriching themselves
versus a multitude of smaller, locally owned businesses whose owners were also concerned with the health of the local communities
in which they lived.
The financial elites are a consequence of consolidation in the banking and finance industry, where we now have 4 or 5 large
institutions versus a multitude of local and regional banks that were locally focused.
It has been our undertaking, since 2010, to chronicle our understanding of capitalism via our book
The Philosophy of Capitalism . We were curious
as to the underlying nature of the system which endows us, the owners of capital, with so many favours. The Saker has asked me
to explain our somewhat crude statement 'Capitalism Requires World War'.
The present showdown between West, Russia and China is the culmination of a long running saga that began with World War One. Prior
to which, Capitalism was governed by the gold standard system which was international, very solid, with clear rules and had brought
great prosperity: for banking Capital was scarce and so allocated carefully. World War One required debt-capitalism of the
FIAT kind, a bankrupt Britain began to pass the Imperial baton to the US, which had profited by financing the war and selling munitions.
The Weimar Republic, suffering a continuation of hostilities via economic means, tried to inflate away its debts in 1919-1923
with disastrous results-hyperinflation. Then, the reintroduction of the gold standard into a world poisoned by war, reparation and
debt was fated to fail and ended with a deflationary bust in the early 1930's and WW2.
The US government gained a lot of credibility after WW2 by outlawing offensive war and funding many construction projects
that helped transfer private debt to the public book. The US government's debt exploded during the war, but it also shifted
the power game away from creditors to a big debtor that had a lot of political capital. The US used her power to define the new rules
of the monetary system at Bretton Woods in 1944 and to keep physical hold of gold owned by other nations.
The US jacked up tax rates on the wealthy and had a period of elevated inflation in the late 40s and into the 1950s –
all of which wiped out creditors, but also ushered in a unique middle class era in the West. The US also reformed extraction
centric institutions in Europe and Japan to make sure an extractive-creditor class did not hobble growth, which was easy to do because
the war had wiped them out (same as in Korea).
Capital destruction in WW2 reversed the Marxist rule that the rate of profit always falls. Take any given market
– say jeans. At first, all the companies make these jeans using a great deal of human labour so all the jeans are priced around the
average of total social labour time required for production (some companies will charge more, some companies less).
One company then introduces a machine (costed at $n) that makes jeans using a lot less labour time. Each of these robot assisted
workers is paid the same hourly rate but the production process is now far more productive. This company, ignoring the capital outlay
in the machinery, will now have a much higher profit rate than the others. This will attract capital, as capital is always on the
lookout for higher rates of profit. The result will be a generalisation of this new mode of production. The robot or machine will
be adopted by all the other companies, as it is a more efficient way of producing jeans.
As a consequence the price of the jeans will fall, as there is an increased margin within which each market actor can undercut
his fellows. One company will lower prices so as to increase market share. This new price-point will become generalised as competing
companies cut their prices to defend their market share. A further n$ was invested but per unit profit margin is put under constant
downward pressure, so the rate of return in productive assets tends to fall over time in a competitive market place.
Interest rates have been falling for decades in the West because interest rates must always be below the rate of return
on productive investments. If interest rates are higher than the risk adjusted rate of return then the capitalist might
as well keep his money in a savings account. If there is real deflation his purchasing power increases for free and if there is inflation
he will park his money (plus debt) in an unproductive asset that's price inflating, E.G. Housing. Sound familiar? Sure, there has
been plenty of profit generated since 2008 but it has not been recovered from productive investments in a competitive free market
place. All that profit came from bubbles in asset classes and financial schemes abetted by money printing and zero interest
rates.
Thus, we know that the underlying rate of return is near zero in the West. The rate of return falls naturally,
due to capital accumulation and market competition. The system is called capitalism because capital accumulates: high income economies
are those with the greatest accumulation of capital per worker. The robot assisted worker enjoys a higher income as he is highly
productive, partly because the robotics made some of the workers redundant and there are fewer workers to share
the profit. All the high income economies have had near zero interest rates for seven years. Interest rates in Europe are even negative.
How has the system remained stable for so long?
All economic growth depends on energy gain. It takes energy (drilling the oil well) to gain energy. Unlike our
everyday experience whereby energy acquisition and energy expenditure can be balanced, capitalism requires an absolute net energy
gain. That gain, by way of energy exchange, takes the form of tools and machines that permit an increase in productivity per work
hour. Thus GDP increases, living standards improve and the debts can be repaid. Thus, oil is a strategic capitalistic resource.
US net energy gain production peaked in 1974, to be replaced by production from Saudi Arabia, which made the USA a net importer
of oil for the first time. US dependence on foreign oil rose from 26% to 47% between 1985 and 1989 to hit a peak of 60% in 2006.
And, tellingly, real wages peaked in 1974, levelled-off and then began to fall for most US workers. Wages have never recovered. (The
decline is more severe if you don't believe government reported inflation figures that don't count the costof housing.)
What was the economic and political result of this decline? During the 20 years 1965-85, there were 4 recessions, 2 energy
crises and wage and price controls. These were unprecedented in peacetime and The Gulf of Tonkin event led to the Vietnam
War which finally required Nixon to move away from the Gold-Exchange Standard in 1971, opening the next degenerate chapter of FIAT
finance up until 2008. Cutting this link to gold was cutting the external anchor impeding war and deficit spending. The promise of
gold for dollars was revoked.
GDP in the US increased after 1974 but a portion of end use buying power was transferred to Saudi Arabia. They
were supplying the net energy gain that was powering the US GDP increase. The working class in the US began to experience a slow
real decline in living standards, as 'their share' of the economic pie was squeezed by the ever increasing transfer of buying power
to Saudi Arabia.
The US banking and government elite responded by creating and cutting back legal and behavioral rules of a fiat based
monetary system. The Chinese appreciated the long term opportunity that this presented and agreed to play ball. The USA
over-produced credit money and China over-produced manufactured goods which cushioned the real decline in the buying power of America's
working class. Power relations between China and the US began to change: The Communist Party transferred value to the American consumer
whilst Wall Street transferred most of the US industrial base to China. They didn't ship the military industrial complex.
Large scale leverage meant that US consumers and businesses had the means to purchase increasingly with debt so the class
war was deferred. This is how over production occurs: more is produced that is paid for not with money that represents actual realized
labour time, but from future wealth, to be realised from future labour time. The Chinese labour force was producing more than it
consumed.
The system has never differed from the limits laid down by the Laws of Thermodynamics. The Real economy system can never over-produce
per se. The limit of production is absolute net energy gain. What is produced can be consumed. How did the Chinese produce such a
super massive excess and for so long? Economic slavery can achieve radical improvements in living standards for those that benefit
from ownership. Slaves don't depreciate as they are rented and are not repaired for they replicate for free. Hundreds of millions
of Chinese peasants limited their way of life and controlled their consumption in order to benefit their children. And their exploited
life raised the rate of profit!
They began their long march to modern prosperity making toys, shoes, and textiles cheaper than poor women could in South Carolina
or Honduras. Such factories are cheap to build and deferential, obedient and industrious peasant staff were a perfect match for work
that was not dissimilar to tossing fruit into a bucket. Their legacy is the initial capital formation of modern China and one of
the greatest accomplishments in human history. The Chinese didn't use net energy gain from oil to power their super massive and sustained
increase in production. They used economic slavery powered by caloric energy, exchanged from solar energy. The Chinese labour force
picked the World's low hanging fruit that didn't need many tools or machines. Slaves don't need tools for they are the tool.
Without a gold standard and capital ratios our form of over-production has grown enormously. The dotcom bubble
was reflated through a housing bubble, which has been pumped up again by sovereign debt, printing press (QE) and central bank insolvency.
The US working and middle classes have over-consumed relative to their share of the global economic pie for decades. The correction
to prices (the destruction of credit money & accumulated capital) is still yet to happen. This is what has been happening since 1971
because of the growth of financialisation or monetisation.
The application of all these economic methods was justified by the political ideology of neo-Liberalism. Neo-Liberalism
entails no or few capital controls, the destruction of trade unions, plundering state and public assets, importing peasants as domesticated
help, and entrusting society's value added production to The Communist Party of The People's Republic of China.
The Chinese have many motives but their first motivation is power. Power is more important than money. If you're rich
and weak you get robbed. Russia provides illustrating stories of such: Gorbachev had received a promise from George HW Bush
that the US would pay Russia approximately $400 billion over10 years as a "peace dividend" and as a tool to be utilized in the conversion
of their state run to a market based economic system. The Russians believe the head of the CIA at the time, George Tenet, essentially
killed the deal based on the idea that "letting the country fall apart will destroy Russia as a future military threat". The country
fell apart in 1992. Its natural assets were plundered which raised the rate of profit in the 90's until President Putin put a stop
to the robbery.
In the last analysis, the current framework of Capitalism results in labour redundancy, a falling rate of profit and ingrained
trading imbalances caused by excess capacity. Under our current monopoly state capitalism a number of temporary preventive measures
have evolved, including the expansion of university, military, and prison systems to warehouse new generations of labour.
Our problem is how to retain the "expected return rate" for us, the dominant class. Ultimately, there are only two large-scale
solutions, which are intertwined .
One is expansion of state debt to keep "the markets" moving and transfer wealth from future generations of
labour to the present dominant class.
The other is war, the consumer of last resort. Wars can burn up excess capacity, shift global markets, generate
monopoly rents, and return future labour to a state of helplessness and reduced expectations. The Spanish flu killed 50-100 million
people in 1918. As if this was not enough, it also took two World Wars across the 20th century and some 96 million dead to reduce
unemployment and stabilize the "labour problem."
Capitalism requires World War because Capitalism requires profit and cannot afford the unemployed . The point
is capitalism could afford social democracy after the rate of profit was restored thanks to the depression of the 1930's and the
physical destruction of capital during WW2. Capitalism only produces for profit and social democracy was funded by taxing profits
after WW2.
Post WW2 growth in labour productivity, due to automation, itself due to oil & gas replacing coal, meant workers could be better
off. As the economic pie was growing, workers could receive the same %, and still receive a bigger slice. Wages as a % of US GDP
actually increased in the period, 1945-1970. There was an increase in government spending which was being redirected in the form
of redistributed incomes. Inequality will only worsen, because to make profits now we have to continually cut the cost of inputs,
i.e. wages & benefits. Have we not already reached the point where large numbers of the working class can neither feed themselves
nor afford a roof over their heads?13% of the UK working age population is out of work and receiving out of work benefits. A huge
fraction is receiving in work benefits because low skill work now pays so little.
The underlying nature of Capitalism is cyclical. Here is how the political aspect of the cycle ends:
1920s/2000s – High inequality, high banker pay, low regulation, low taxes for the wealthy, robber barons (CEOs), reckless
bankers, globalisation phase
1929/2008 – Wall Street crash
1930s/2010s – Global recession, currency wars, trade wars, rising unemployment, nationalism and extremism
What comes next? – World War.
If Capitalism could speak, she would ask her older brother, Imperialism, this: "Can you solve the problem?" We
are not reliving the 1930's, the economy is now an integrated whole that encompasses the entire World. Capital has been accumulating
since 1945, so under- and unemployment is a plague everywhere. How big is the problem? Official data tells us nothing, but the 47
million Americans on food aid are suggestive. That's 1 in 7 Americans and total World population is 7 billion.
The scale of the solution is dangerous. Our probing for weakness in the South China Sea, Ukraine and Syria has
awakened them to their danger.The Chinese and Russian leadershave reacted by integrating their payment systems and real economies,
trading energy for manufactured goods for advanced weapon systems. As they are central players in the Shanghai Group we can assume
their aim is the monetary system which is the bedrock of our Imperial power. What's worse, they can avoid overt enemy action
and simply choose to undermine "confidence" in the FIAT.
Though given the calibre of their nuclear arsenal, how can they be fought let alone defeated? Appetite preceded
Reason, so Lust is hard to Reason with. But beware brother. Your Lust for Power began this saga, perhaps it's time to Reason.
That's because they don't understand the word "capitalism."
Capitalism simply means economic freedom. And economic freedom, just like freedom to breed, must be exposed to the pruning
action of cause and effect, otherwise it outgrows its container and becomes unstable and explodes. As long as it is continually
exposed to the grinding wheel of causality, it continues to hold a fine edge, as the dross is scraped away and the fine steel
stays. Reality is full of dualities, and those dualities cannot be separated without creating broken symmetry and therefore terminal
instability. Freedom and responsibility, for example. One without the other is unstable. Voting and taxation in direct proportion
to each other is another example.
Fiat currency is an attempt to create an artificial reality, one without the necessary symmetry and balance of a real system.
However, reality can not be gamed, because it will produce its own symmetry if you try to deny it. Thus the symmetry of fiat currency
is boom and bust, a sine wave that still manages to produce equilibrium, however at a huge bubbling splattering boil rather than
a fine simmer.
The folks that wrote this do not have a large enough world view. Capitalism does not require world wars because freedom does
not require world wars. Freedom tends to bleed imbalances out when they are small. On the other hand, empire does require world
war, which is why we are going to have one.
Capitalism becomes imperialism when financial sociopaths steal profits from both sides of the trade. What you're seeing is
an Imperialism of Capital, as explained very nicely in the 1889 book "The Great Red Dragon."
Wrong. Capitalism needs prolonged directionless wars without clear winners and contained destruction that utilize massive amounts
of raw materials and endless orders for weapons and logistical support. That's what makes some guys rich.
That's was a very long-winded and deliberately obtuse way of explaining how DEBT AS MONEY and The State's usurpation of sound
money destroyed efficient markets. The author then goes to call this system Capitalism.
So yeah, the deliberate destruction of capital, in all its forms, is somehow capitalism. Brilliant observation. Fuck you. There
are better terms for things like this. Perhaps....central banking? The State? Fiat debt creation? Evil? Naw, let's just contort
and abuse language instead. That's the ticket.
I've spent my adult life in 51 countries. This was financed by correctly anticipating the Great Financial Crisis in 2008. I
was studying Marx at that time. I'm presently an employee of the Chinese State. I educate the children of China's best families.
I am the author, alongside a large international team of capitalists, of Before The Collapse : The Philosophy of Capitalism.
I also have my own business; I live with my girlfriend and was born and grew up in Ireland.
===============
Why would anyone waste time to read this drivel, buttressed by the author's credentials.
The unstated thesis is that wars involve millions of actors, who produce an end-result of many hundreds of millions killed.
Absent coercion ("the Draft"), how is any government going to man hundreds of divisions of foot soldiers. That concept is passé.
Distribute some aerosol poisons via drones and kill as many people as deemed necessary. How in the hell will that action stimulate
the world economy.
Weapons of mass-destruction are smaller, cheaper and easier to deploy. War as a progenitor of growth - forget it.
The good news is that this guy is educating the children of elite in China. Possibly the Pentagon could clone him 10,000 times
and send those cyborgs to China - cripple China for another generation or two.
The term cyclical doesn't quite cover what we have being experiencing. It's more like a ragdoll being shaken by a white shark.
The euphoria of bubble is more like complete unhinged unicorn mania anymore and the lows are complete grapes of wrath. It's probably
always been that way to some extent because corruption has remained unchallenged for a great deal of time. The boom phases are
scarier than the downturns anymore, especially the last oil boom and housing boom. Complete Alfred Hitchcock stuff.
I don't think it's capitalism and that term comes across as an explanation that legitimizes this completely contrived pattern
that benefits a few and screws everybody else. Markets should not be behaving in such a violent fashion. Money should probably
be made steady and slow. And downturns shouldn't turn a country into Zimbabwe. I could be wrong but there is really no way to
know with the corruption we have.
And War requires that an enemy be created. According to American General Breedlove-head of NATO's European Command-speaking
to the US Armed Services Committee 2 days ago, "Russia and Assad are deliberately weaponizing migration to break European resolve".
"The only reason to use non-precision weapons like barrel bombs is to keep refugees on the move". "These refugees bring criminality,
foreign fighters and terrorism", and "are being used to overwhelm European structures". "Russia has chosen to be an adversary
and is a real threat." "Russia is irresponsible with nuclear weapons-always threatening to use them." And strangely, "In the past
week alone, Russia has made 450 attacks along the front lines in E. Ukraine".
Even with insanity overflowing the West, I found these comments to be the most bizarrely threatening propaganda yet. After
reading them for the first time, I had to prove to myself that I wasn't hallucinating it.
"... By Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Originally published at The Frontline ..."
"... President Obama has been a fervent supporter of both these deals, with the explicit aim of enhancing and securing US power. "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy. We should do it today while our economy is in the position of global strength. We've got to harness it on our terms. If we don't write the rules for trade around the world – guess what? China will!", he famously said in a speech to workers in a Nike factory in Oregon, USA in May 2015. But even though he has made the case for the TPP plainly enough, his only chance of pushing even the TPP through is in the "lame duck" session of Congress just before the November Presidential election in the US. ..."
"... The official US version, expressed on the website of the US Trade Representative, is that the TPP "writes the rules for global trade-rules that will help increase Made-in-America exports, grow the American economy, support well-paying American jobs, and strengthen the American middle class." This is mainly supposed to occur because of the tariff cuts over 18,000 items that have been written into the agreement, which in turn are supposed to lead to significant expansion of trade volumes and values. ..."
"... But this is accepted by fewer and fewer people in the US. Across the country, workers view such trade deals with great suspicion as causing shifts in employment to lower paid workers, mostly in the Global South. ..."
"... But in fact the TPP and the TTIP are not really about trade liberalisation so much as other regulatory changes, so in any case it is hardly surprising that the positive effects on trade are likely to be so limited. What is more surprising is how the entire discussion around these agreements is still framed around the issues relating to trade liberalisation, when these are in fact the less important parts of these agreements, and it is the other elements that are likely to have more negative and even devastating effects on people living in the countries that sign up to them. ..."
"... Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying: the intellectual property provisions, the restrictions on regulatory practices and the investor-state dispute settlement provisions ..."
"... All of these would result in significant strengthening of the bargaining power of corporations vis-ŕ-vis workers and citizens, would reduce the power of governments to bring in policies and regulations that affect the profits or curb the power of such corporations ..."
"... So if such features of US-led globalisation are indeed under threat, that is probably a good thing for the people of the US and for people in their trading partners who had signed up for such deals. ..."
"... The question arises: is Trump evil? Or merely awful? If Trump is merely awful, then we are not faced with voting for the Lesser Evil or otherwise voting Third Party in protest. If we are faced with a choice between Evil and Awful, perhaps a vote for Awful is a vote against Evil just by itself. ..."
"... Trump has backpedaled and frontpedaled on virtually everything, but on trade, he's got Sanders-level consistency. He's been preaching the same sanity since the 90s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZpMJeynBeg ..."
"... While I do not disagree with your comments, they must be placed in proper context: there is no substantive difference between Mike Pence and Tim Kaine, and the people who staff the campaigns of Trump and Clinton are essentially the same. (Fundamentally a replay of the 2000 election: Cheney/Bush vs. Lieberman/Gore.) ..."
"... Great Comment. Important to knock down the meme that "this is the most significant or important election of our time" - this is a carbon copy of what we have seen half a dozen times since WW2 alone and that's exactly how our elite handlers want it. Limit the choices, stoke fear, win by dividing the plebes. ..."
"... Let's face it, trade without the iron fist of capitalism will benefit us schlobs greatly and not the 1%. I'm all for being against it (TPP etc) and will vote that way. ..."
"... We'd also have put in enough puppet dictators in resource rich countries that we'd be able to get raw materials cheaply. The low labor/raw material cost will provide a significant advantage for exports but alas, our 99% won't be able to afford our own products. ..."
"... the TPP will completely outlaw any possibility of a "Buy America" clause in the future! ..."
"... The cynic in me wonders if under say NAFTA it would be possible for a multinational to sue for lost profits via isds if TPP fails to pass. That the failure to enact trade "liberalizing" legislation could be construed as an active step against trade. the way these things are so ambiguously worded, I wonder. ..."
"... Here's Obama's actual speech at the Nike headquarters (not factory). http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barackobama/barackobamatradenike.htm ..."
"... It should be noted that the Oregon Democrats who were free traitors and supported fast track authority were called out that day: Bonamici, Blumenauer, Schrader and Wyden. The only Oregon Ds that opposed: Sen. Merkley and Congressman DeFazio. ..."
"... The Market Realist is far more realistic about Oregon's free traitors' votes. http://marketrealist.com/2015/05/trans-pacific-partnership-affects-footwear-firms/ "US tariffs on footwear imported from Vietnam can range from 5% to 40%, according to OTEXA (Office of Textiles and Apparel). Ratification of the TPP will likely result in lower tariffs and higher profitability for Nike." ..."
"... So what's the incentive for Oregon's free traitors to support the TPP now? ..."
"... Perhaps they still need to show loyalty to their corporate owners and to the principle of "free trade". ..."
"... Obama: "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy." ..."
"... Thank you, Mr. President, for resolving any doubts that the American project is an imperialist project! ..."
"... Yes, and I would add a jingoistic one as well. Manifest destiny, the Monroe doctrine, etc. are not just history lessons but are alive and well in the neoliberal mindset. The empire must keep expanding into every nook and cranny of the world, turning them into good consumerist slaves. ..."
"... Funny how little things change over the centuries. ..."
"... The West Is The Best, Subhuman Are All The Rest. The perpetual mantra of the Uebermensch since Columbus first made landfall. Hitler merely sought to apply the same to some Europeans. ..."
"... "How the West Came to Rule: The Geopolitical Origins of Capitalism", 2015, Alexander Anievas and Kerem Nisancioglu. ..."
"... The Dem candidate's husband made it appallingly clear what the purpose of the TPP is: "It's to make sure the future of the Asia-Pacific region is not dominated by China". ..."
"... Bill Clinton doesn't even care about "the rise of China". That's just a red herring he sets up to accuse opponents of TPP of soft-on-China treasonism. It's just fabricating a stick to beat the TPP-opponents with. Clinton's support for MFN for China shows what he really thinks about the "rise of China". ..."
"... Clinton's real motivation is the same as the TPP's real reason, to reduce America to colonial possession status of the anti-national corporations and the Global OverClass natural persons who shelter behind and within them. ..."
"... Obama. Liar or stupid? When Elizabeth Warren spoke out about the secrecy of the TPP, Obama, uncharacteristically, ran to the cameras to state that the TPP was not secret and that the charge being leveled by Warren was false. Obama's statement was that Warren had access to a copy so how dare she say it was secret. ..."
"... Obama (and Holder) effectively immunized every financial criminal involved in the great fraud and recession without bothering to run for a camera, and to this day has refused and avoided any elaboration on the subject, but he wasted no time trying to bury Warren publicly. The TPP is a continuation of Obama's give-away to corporations, or more specifically, the very important men who run them who Obama works for. And he is going to pull out all stops to deliver to the men he respects. ..."
"... It's a virtual "black market" of "money laundering" (sterilization). In foreign trade, IMPORTS decrease (-) the money stock of the importing country (and are a subtraction to domestic gDp figures), while EXPORTS increase (+) the money stock and domestic gDp (earnings repatriated to the U.S), and the potential money supply, of the exporting country. ..."
"... I don't WANT the US writing the rules of trade any longer. We know what US-written rules do: plunge worker wages into slave labor territory, guts all advanced country's manufacturing capability, sends all high tech manufacturing to 3rd world nations ..."
"... Time to toss the rules and re-write them for the greatest benefit of the greatest number of NON-wealthy and for the benefit of the planet/ecosystems, NOT for benefit of Wall St. ..."
By Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru
University, New Delhi. Originally published at
The Frontline
There is much angst in the Northern financial media about how the era of globalisation led actively by the United States may well
be coming to an end. This is said to be exemplified in the changed political attitudes to mega regional trade deals like the Trans
Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) that was signed (but has not yet been ratified) by the US and 11 other countries in Latin America,
Asia and Oceania; and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP) still being negotiated by the US and the
European Union.
President Obama has been a fervent supporter of both these deals, with the explicit aim of enhancing and securing US power.
"We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy. We should do it today while our economy is in the position
of global strength. We've got to harness it on our terms. If we don't write the rules for trade around the world – guess what? China
will!", he famously said in a speech to workers in a Nike factory in Oregon, USA in May 2015. But even though he has made the case
for the TPP plainly enough, his only chance of pushing even the TPP through is in the "lame duck" session of Congress just before
the November Presidential election in the US.
However, the changing political currents in the US are making that ever more unlikely. Hardly anyone who is a candidate in the
coming elections, whether for the Presidency, the Senate or the House of Representatives, is willing to stick their necks out to
back the deal.
Both Presidential candidates in the US (Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton) have openly come out against the TPP. In Clinton's case
this is a complete reversal of her earlier position when she had referred to the TPP as "the gold standard of trade deals" – and
it has clearly been forced upon her by the insurgent movement in the Democratic Party led by Bernie Sanders. She is already being
pushed by her rival candidate for not coming out more clearly in terms of a complete rejection of this deal. Given the significant
trust deficit that she still has to deal with across a large swathe of US voters, it will be hard if not impossible for her to backtrack
on this once again (as her husband did earlier with NAFTA) even if she does achieve the Presidency.
The official US version, expressed on the website of the US Trade Representative, is that the TPP "writes the rules for global
trade-rules that will help increase Made-in-America exports, grow the American economy, support well-paying American jobs, and strengthen
the American middle class." This is mainly supposed to occur because of the tariff cuts over 18,000 items that have been written
into the agreement, which in turn are supposed to lead to significant expansion of trade volumes and values.
But this is accepted by fewer and fewer people in the US. Across the country, workers view such trade deals with great suspicion
as causing shifts in employment to lower paid workers, mostly in the Global South. Even the only US government study of the
TPP's likely impacts, by the International Trade Commission, could project at best only 1 per cent increase in exports due to the
agreement up to 2032. A study by Jeronim Capaldo and Alex Izurieta with Jomo Kwame Sundaram ("Trading down: Unemployment, inequality
and other risks of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement", Working Paper 16-01, Global Development and Environment Institute, January
2016) was even less optimistic, even for the US. It found that the benefits to exports and economic growth were likely to be relatively
small for all member countries, and would be negative in the US and Japan because of losses to employment and increases in inequality.
Wage shares of national income would decline in all the member countries.
But in fact the TPP and the TTIP are not really about trade liberalisation so much as other regulatory changes, so in any
case it is hardly surprising that the positive effects on trade are likely to be so limited. What is more surprising is how the entire
discussion around these agreements is still framed around the issues relating to trade liberalisation, when these are in fact the
less important parts of these agreements, and it is the other elements that are likely to have more negative and even devastating
effects on people living in the countries that sign up to them.
Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying:
the intellectual property provisions,
the restrictions on regulatory practices
the investor-state dispute settlement provisions.
Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying: the intellectual property provisions, the restrictions
on regulatory practices and the investor-state dispute settlement provisions.
All of these would result in significant strengthening of the bargaining power of corporations vis-ŕ-vis workers and citizens,
would reduce the power of governments to bring in policies and regulations that affect the profits or curb the power of such corporations
For example, the TPP (and the TTIP) require more stringent enforcement requirements of intellectual property rights: reducing
exemptions (e.g. allowing compulsory licensing only for emergencies); preventing parallel imports; extending IPRs to areas like life
forms, counterfeiting and piracy; extending exclusive rights to test data (e.g. in pharmaceuticals); making IPR provisions more detailed
and prescriptive. The scope of drug patents is extended to include minor changes to existing medications (a practice commonly employed
by drug companies, known as "evergreening"). Patent linkages would make it more difficult for many generic drugs to enter markets.
This would strengthen, lengthen and broaden pharmaceutical monopolies on cancer, heart disease and HIV/AIDS drugs, and in general
make even life-saving drugs more expensive and inaccessible in all the member countries. It would require further transformation
of countries' laws on patents and medical test data. It would reduce the scope of exemption in use of medical formulations through
public procurement for public purposes. All this is likely to lead to reductions in access to drugs and medical procedures because
of rising prices, and also impede innovation rather than encouraging it, across member countries.
There are also very restrictive copyright protection rules, that would also affect internet usage as Internet Service Providers
are to be forced to adhere to them. There are further restrictions on branding that would reinforce the market power of established
players.
The TPP and TTIP also contain restrictions on regulatory practices that greatly increase the power of corporations relative to
states and can even prevent states from engaging in countercyclical measures designed to boost domestic demand. It has been pointed
out by consumer groups in the USA that the powers of the Food and Drug Administration to regulate products that affect health of
citizens could be constrained and curtailed by this agreement. Similarly, macroeconomic stimulus packages that focus on boosting
domestic demand for local production would be explicitly prohibited by such agreements.
All these are matters for concern because these agreements enable corporations to litigate against governments that are perceived
to be flouting these provisions because of their own policy goals or to protect the rights of their citizens. The Investor-State
Dispute Settlement mechanism enabled by these agreements is seen to be one of their most deadly features. Such litigation is then
subject to supranational tribunals to which sovereign national courts are expected to defer, but which have no human rights safeguards
and which do not see the rights of citizen as in any way superior to the "rights" of corporations to their profits. These courts
can conduct closed and secret hearings with secret evidence. They do not just interpret the rules but contribute to them through
case law because of the relatively vague wording of the text, which can then be subject to different interpretations, and therefore
are settled by case law. The experience thus far with such tribunals has been problematic. Since they are legally based on "equal"
treatment of legal persons with no primacy for human rights, they have become known for their pro-investor bias, partly due to the
incentive structure for arbitrators, and partly because the system is designed to provide supplementary guarantees to investors,
rather than making them respect host countries laws and regulations.
If all these features of the TPP and the TTIP were more widely known, it is likely that there would be even greater public resistance
to them in the US and in other countries. Even as it is, there is growing antagonism to the trade liberalisation that is seen to
bring benefits to corporations rather than to workers, at a period in history when secure employment is seen to be the biggest prize
of all.
So if such features of US-led globalisation are indeed under threat, that is probably a good thing for the people of the US
and for people in their trading partners who had signed up for such deals.
I was watching a speech Premier Li gave at the Economic Club of NY last night, and it was interesting to see how all his (vetted,
pre-selected) questions revolved around anxieties having to do with resistance to global trade deals. Li made a few pandering
comments about how much the Chinese love American beef (stop it! you're killing me! har har) meant to diffuse those anxieties,
but it became clear that the fear among TPTB of people's dissatisfaction with the current economic is palpable. Let's keep it
up!
A federal appeals court on Tuesday threw out a $147 million civil price fixing judgment against Chinese manufacturers of
vitamin C, ruling the companies weren't liable in U.S. courts because they were acting under the direction of Chinese authorities.
The case raised thorny questions of how courts should treat foreign companies accused of violating U.S. antitrust law when
they are following mandates of a foreign government.
"I was only following orders" might not have worked in Nuremberg, but it's a-ok in international trade.
The question arises: is Trump evil? Or merely awful? If Trump is merely awful, then we are not faced with voting for the
Lesser Evil or otherwise voting Third Party in protest. If we are faced with a choice between Evil and Awful, perhaps a vote for
Awful is a vote against Evil just by itself.
Trump has already back peddaled on his TPP stance. He now says he wants to renegotiate the TTP and other trade deals. Whatever
that means. Besides, Trump is a distraction, its Mike Pence you should be keeping your eye on. He's American Taliban pure and
simple.
This is simply false. Trump has backpedaled and frontpedaled on virtually everything, but on trade, he's got Sanders-level
consistency. He's been preaching the same sanity since the 90s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZpMJeynBeg
Hillary wants to start a war with Russia and pass the trade trifecta of TPP/TTIP/TiSA.
While I do not disagree with your comments, they must be placed in proper context: there is no substantive difference between
Mike Pence and Tim Kaine, and the people who staff the campaigns of Trump and Clinton are essentially the same. (Fundamentally
a replay of the 2000 election: Cheney/Bush vs. Lieberman/Gore.)
Trump was run to make Hillary look good, but that has turned out to be Mission Real Impossible!
We are seeing the absolute specious political theater at its worst, attempting to differentiate between Hillary Rodham Clinton
and the Trumpster – – – the only major difference is that Clinton has far more real blood on her and Bill's hands.
Nope, there is no lesser of evils this time around . . .
Great Comment. Important to knock down the meme that "this is the most significant or important election of our time" -
this is a carbon copy of what we have seen half a dozen times since WW2 alone and that's exactly how our elite handlers want it.
Limit the choices, stoke fear, win by dividing the plebes.
Let's face it, trade without the iron fist of capitalism will benefit us schlobs greatly and not the 1%. I'm all for being
against it (TPP etc) and will vote that way.
>only 1 per cent increase in exports due to the agreement up to 2032.
At that point American's wages will have dropped near enough to Chinese levels that we can compete in selling to First World
countries . assuming there are any left.
We'd also have put in enough puppet dictators in resource rich countries that we'd be able to get raw materials cheaply.
The low labor/raw material cost will provide a significant advantage for exports but alas, our 99% won't be able to afford our
own products.
Naaah, never been about competition, since nobody is actually vetted when they offshore those jobs or replace American workers
with foreign visa workers.
But to sum it up as succinctly as possible: the TPP is about the destruction of workers' rights; the destruction of local and
small businesses; and the loss of sovereignty. Few Americans are cognizant of just how many businesses are foreign owned today
in America; their local energy utility or state energy utility, their traffic enforcement company which was privatized, their
insurance company (GEICO, etc.).
I remember when a political action group back in the '00s thought they had stumbled on a big deal when someone had hacked into
the system of the Bretton Woods Committee (the lobbyist group for the international super-rich which ONLY communicates with the
Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader, and who shares the same lobbyist and D.C. office space as the Group of Thirty,
the lobbyist group for the central bankers [Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Mario Draghi, Ernesto Zedillo, Bill Dudley, etc.,
etc.]) and placed online their demand of the senate and the congress to kill the "Buy America" clause in the federal stimulus
program of a few years back (it was watered down greatly, and many exemptions were signed by then Commerce Secretary Gary Locke),
but such information went completely unnoticed or ignored, and of course, the TPP will completely outlaw any possibility of
a "Buy America" clause in the future!
The cynic in me wonders if under say NAFTA it would be possible for a multinational to sue for lost profits via isds if
TPP fails to pass. That the failure to enact trade "liberalizing" legislation could be construed as an active step against trade.
the way these things are so ambiguously worded, I wonder.
In June 2016, "[TransCanada] filed an arbitration claim under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) over President
Obama's rejection of the pipeline, making good on its January threat to take legal action against the US decision.
According to the official request for arbitration, the $15 billion tab is supposed to help the company recover costs and damages
that it suffered "as a result of the US administration's breach of its NAFTA obligations." NAFTA is a comprehensive trade agreement
between the United States, Canada, and Mexico that went into effect in January 1, 1994. Under the agreement, businesses can challenge
governments over investment disputes.
In addition, the company filed a suit in US Federal Court in Houston, Texas in January asserting that the Obama Administration
exceeded the power granted by the US Constitution in denying the project."
It should be noted that the Oregon Democrats who were free traitors and supported fast track authority were called out
that day: Bonamici, Blumenauer, Schrader and Wyden. The only Oregon Ds that opposed: Sen. Merkley and Congressman DeFazio.
Obama's rhetoric May 5, 2015 at the Nike campus was all about how small businesses would prosper. Congresswoman Bonamici clings
to this rationale in her refusal to tell angry constituents at town halls whether she supports the TPP.
The Market Realist is far more realistic about Oregon's free traitors' votes.
http://marketrealist.com/2015/05/trans-pacific-partnership-affects-footwear-firms/
"US tariffs on footwear imported from Vietnam can range from 5% to 40%, according to OTEXA (Office of Textiles and Apparel). Ratification
of the TPP will likely result in lower tariffs and higher profitability for Nike."
That appeals to the other big athletic corporations that cluster in the Portland metro: Columbia Sportswear and Under Armour.
Yes, and I would add a jingoistic one as well. Manifest destiny, the Monroe doctrine, etc. are not just history lessons
but are alive and well in the neoliberal mindset. The empire must keep expanding into every nook and cranny of the world, turning
them into good consumerist slaves.
Funny how little things change over the centuries.
The West Is The Best, Subhuman Are All The Rest. The perpetual mantra of the Uebermensch since Columbus first made landfall.
Hitler merely sought to apply the same to some Europeans.
"How the West Came to Rule: The Geopolitical Origins of Capitalism", 2015, Alexander Anievas and Kerem Nisancioglu.
The Dem candidate's husband made it appallingly clear what the purpose of the TPP is: "It's to make sure the future of
the Asia-Pacific region is not dominated by China".
Would be nice if they had even a passing thought for those people in a certain North American region located in between Canada
and Mexico.
Bill Clinton doesn't even care about "the rise of China". That's just a red herring he sets up to accuse opponents of TPP
of soft-on-China treasonism. It's just fabricating a stick to beat the TPP-opponents with. Clinton's support for MFN for China
shows what he really thinks about the "rise of China".
Clinton's real motivation is the same as the TPP's real reason, to reduce America to colonial possession status of the
anti-national corporations and the Global OverClass natural persons who shelter behind and within them.
If calling the International Free Trade Conspiracy "American" is enough to get it killed and destroyed, then I don't mind having
a bunch of foreigners calling the Free Trade Conspiracy "American". Just as long as they are really against it, and can really
get Free Trade killed and destroyed.
Excellent post. Thank you. Should these so called "trade agreements" be approved, perhaps Investor-State Dispute Settlement
(ISDS arbitration) futures can be created by Wall Street and made the next speculative "Play-of-the-day" so that everyone has
a chance to participate in the looting. Btw, can you loot your own house?
Obama. Liar or stupid? When Elizabeth Warren spoke out about the secrecy of the TPP, Obama, uncharacteristically, ran to
the cameras to state that the TPP was not secret and that the charge being leveled by Warren was false. Obama's statement was
that Warren had access to a copy so how dare she say it was secret.
At the time he made that statement Warren could go to an offsite location to read the TPP in the presence of a member of the
Trade Commission, could not have staff with her, could not take notes, and could not discuss anything she read with anyone else
after she left. Or face criminal charges.
Yeah. Nothing secret about that.
Obama (and Holder) effectively immunized every financial criminal involved in the great fraud and recession without bothering
to run for a camera, and to this day has refused and avoided any elaboration on the subject, but he wasted no time trying to bury
Warren publicly. The TPP is a continuation of Obama's give-away to corporations, or more specifically, the very important men
who run them who Obama works for. And he is going to pull out all stops to deliver to the men he respects.
And add to that everything from David Dayen's book (" Chain of Title ") on Covington & Burling and Eric Holder and President
Obama, and Thomas Frank's book ("Listen, Liberals") and people will have the full picture!
It's a virtual "black market" of "money laundering" (sterilization). In foreign trade, IMPORTS decrease (-) the money stock
of the importing country (and are a subtraction to domestic gDp figures), while EXPORTS increase (+) the money stock and domestic
gDp (earnings repatriated to the U.S), and the potential money supply, of the exporting country.
So, there's a financial incentive (to maximize profits), not to repatriate foreign income (pushes up our exchange rate, currency
conversion costs, if domestic re-investment alternatives are considered more circumscribed, plus taxes, etc.).
In spite of the surfeit of $s, and E-$ credits, and unlike the days in which world-trade required a Marshall Plan jump start,
trade surpluses increasingly depend on the Asian Tiger's convertibility issues.
I don't WANT the US writing the rules of trade any longer. We know what US-written rules do: plunge worker wages into slave
labor territory, guts all advanced country's manufacturing capability, sends all high tech manufacturing to 3rd world nations
or even (potential) unfriendlies like China (who can easily put trojan spyware hard code or other vulnerabilities into critical
microchips the way WE were told the US could/would when it was leading on this tech when I was serving in the 90s). We already
know that US-written rules is simply a way for mega corporations to extend patents into the ever-more-distant future, a set of
rules that hands more control of arts over to the MPAA, rules that gut environmental laws, etc. Who needs the US-written agreements
when this is the result?
Time to toss the rules and re-write them for the greatest benefit of the greatest number of NON-wealthy and for the benefit
of the planet/ecosystems, NOT for benefit of Wall St.
This is a very weak article from a prominent paleoconservative, but it is instructive what a mess he has in his head as for the
nature of Trump phenomenon. We should probably consider the tern "New Class" that neocons invented as synonym for "neoliberals". If
so, why the author is afraid to use the term? Does he really so poorly educated not to understand the nature of this neoliberal revolution
and its implications? Looks like he never read "Quite coup"
That probably reflects the crisis of pealeoconservatism itself.
Notable quotes:
"... What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. ..."
"... the establishment in both parties almost uniformly favors one approach to war, trade, and immigration, while outsider candidates as dissimilar as Buchanan, Nader, Paul, and Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, depart from the consensus. ..."
"... The insurgents clearly do not represent a single class: they appeal to eclectic interests and groups. The foe they have all faced down, however-the bipartisan establishment-does resemble a class in its striking unity of outlook and interest. So what is this class, effectively the ruling class of the country? ..."
"... The archetypal model of class conflict, the one associated with Karl Marx, pits capitalists against workers-or, at an earlier stage, capitalists against the landed nobility. The capitalists' victory over the nobility was inevitable, and so too, Marx believed, was the coming triumph of the workers over the capitalists. ..."
"... The Soviet Union had never been a workers' state at all, they argued, but was run by a class of apparatchiks such as Marx had never imagined. ..."
"... Burnham recognized affinities between the Soviet mode of organization-in which much real power lay in the hands of the commissars who controlled industry and the bureaucratic organs of the state-and the corporatism that characterized fascist states. Even the U.S., under the New Deal and with ongoing changes to the balance between ownership and management in the private sector, seemed to be moving in the same direction. ..."
"... concept popularized by neoconservatives in the following decade: the "New Class." ..."
"... It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial society' (to use Daniel Bell's convenient term). We are talking about scientists, teachers, and educational administrators, journalists and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy, and so on. ..."
"... I have felt that this 'new class' is, so far, rather thin gruel. Intellectuals, verbalists, media types, etc. are conspicuous actors these days, certainly; they make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and some of them make a lot of money. But, after all, they are a harum-scarum crowd, and deflate even more quickly than they puff up. On TV they can out-talk any of the managers of ITT, GM, or IBM, or the administration-managers of the great government bureaus and agencies, but, honestly, you're not going to take that as a power test. Who hires and fires whom? ..."
"... Burnham had observed that the New Class did not have the means-either money or manpower-to wield power the way the managers or the capitalists of old did. It had to borrow power from other classes. Discovering where the New Class gets it is as easy as following the money, which leads straight to the finance sector-practically to the doorstep of Goldman Sachs. Jerry Rubin's journey from Yippie to yuppie was the paradigm of a generation. ..."
"... Yet the New Class as a whole is less like Carl Oglesby or Karl Hess than like Hillary Clinton, who arguably embodies it as perfectly as McNamara did the managerial class. ..."
"... Even the New Class's support for deregulation-to the advantage of its allies on Wall Street-was no sign of consistent commitment to free-market principles ..."
"... The individual-mandate feature of Obamacare and Romneycare is a prime example of New Class cronyism: government compels individuals to buy a supposedly private product or service. ..."
"... America's class war, like many others, is not in the end a contest between up and down. It's a fight between rival elites: in this case, between the declining managerial elite and the triumphant (for now) New Class and financial elites. ..."
"... Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November. ..."
"... The New Class, after all, lacks a popular base as well as money of its own, and just as it relies on Wall Street to underwrite its power, it depends on its competing brands of identity politics to co-opt popular support. ..."
"... Marx taught that you identify classes by their structural role in the system of production. I'm at a loss to see how either of the 'classes' you mention here relate to the system of production. ..."
"... [New] Class better describes the Never Trumpers. Mostly I have found them to be those involved in knowledge occupations (conservative think tanks, hedge fund managers, etc.) who have a pecuniary interest in maintaining the Global Economy as opposed to the Virtuous Intergenerational Economy that preceded. Many are dependent on funding sources for their livelihoods that are connected to the Globalized Economy and financial markets. ..."
"... "mobilize working-class voters against the establishment in both parties. " = workers of the world unite. ..."
"... Where the class conflict between the Working and Knowledge Classes begins is where the Knowledge Class almost unilaterally decided to shift to a global economy, at the expense of the Working Class, and to the self-benefit of the Knowledge Class. Those who designed the Global Economy like Larry Summers of Harvard did not invite private or public labor to help design the new Globalist Economy. The Working Class lost out big time in job losses and getting stuck with subprime home loans that busted their marriages and created bankruptcies and foreclosures. The Knowledge Class was mostly unscathed by this class-based economic divide. ..."
"... Trump's distinguishing ideology, which separates him from the current elite, is something he has summed up many times – nationalism vs. Globalism. ..."
"... The financial industry, the new tech giants, the health insurance industry are now almost indistinguishable from the government ruling elite. The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both are right in a sense. ..."
"... The hyperconcentration of power in Washington and a few tributary locations like Wall Street and Silicon Valley, elite academia and the media–call that the New Class if you like–means that most of America–Main Street, the flyover country has been left behind. Trump instinctively – brilliantly in some ways – tapped into the resentment that this hyperconcentration of wealth and government power has led to. That is why it cuts across right and left. The elites want to characterize this resentment as backwards and "racist," but there is also something very American from Jefferson to Jackson to Teddy Roosevelt that revolts against being lectured to and controlled by their would-be "betters." ..."
"... The alienation of those left out is real and based on real erosion of the middle class and American dream under both parties' elites. The potentially revolutionary capabilities of a political movement that could unite right and left in restoring some equilibrium and opportunities to those left out is tremendous, but yet to be realized by either major party. The party that can harness these folks – who are after all the majority of Americans – will have a ruling coalition for decades. If neither party can productively harness this budding movement, we are headed for disarray, civil unrest, and potentially the dissolution of the USA. ..."
"... . And blacks who cleave to the democrats despite being sold down the tubes on issues, well, for whatever reason, they just have thinner skin and the mistaken idea that the democrats deliver – thanks to Pres. Johnson. But what Pres. Johnson delivered democrats made a mockery of immediately as they stripped it of its intent and used for their own liberal ends. ..."
"... Let's see if I can help Dreher clear up some confusion in his article. James Burnham's "Managerial Class" and the "New Class" are overlapping and not exclusive. By the Managerial Class Burnham meant both the executive and managers in the private sector and the Bureaucrats and functionaries in the public sector. ..."
"... The rise of managers was a "revolution" because of the rise of modernization which meant the increasing mechanization, industrialization, formalization and rationalization (efficiency) of society. Burnham's concern about the rise of the managerial revolution was misplaced; what he should have focused on was modernization. ..."
"... The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America ..."
"... . Some 3 – 5% of the population facing no real opposition has decided that that their private lives needed public endorsement and have proceeded to upend the entire social order - the game has shifted in ways I am not sure most of the public fully grasps or desires ..."
"... There has always been and will always be class conflict, even if it falls short of a war. Simply examining recent past circumstances, the wealthy class has been whooping up on all other classes. This is not to suggest any sort of remedy, but simply to observe that income disparity over the past 30 years has substantially benefitted on sector of class and political power remains in their hands today. To think that there will never be class conflict is to side with a Marxian fantasy of egalitarianism, which will never come to pass. Winners and losers may change positions, but the underlying conflict will always remain. ..."
"... State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there. Back in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they would only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those. ..."
"... People don't really care for the actions of the elite but they care for the consequences of these actions. During the 1960's, per capita GDP growth was around 3.5%. Today it stands at 0,49%. If you take into account inflation, it's negative. Add to this the skewed repartition of said growth and it's intuitive that many people feel the pain; whom doesn't move forward, goes backwards. ..."
"... People couldn't care for mass immigration, nation building or the emergence of China if their personal situation was not impacted. But now, they begin to feel the results of these actions. ..."
"... I have a simple philosophy regarding American politics that shows who is made of what, and we don't have to go through all the philosophizing in this article: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American. ..."
"... Re: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American. ..."
"... The first has nothing whatsoever to do with American citizenship. It's just a political issue– on which, yes, reasonable people can differ. However no American citizen should put the interests of any other country ahead of our own, except in a situation where the US was itself up to no good and deserved its comeuppance. And then the interest is not that of any particular nation, but of justice being done period. ..."
"... A lot of this "New Class" stuff is just confusing mis-mash of this and that theory. Basically, America changed when the US dollar replace gold as the medium of exchange in the world economy. Remember when we called it the PETRO-DOLLAR. As long as the Saudis only accepted the US dollar as the medium of exchange for oil, then the American government could export it's inflation and deficit spending. Budget deficits and trade deficits are intrinsically related. It allowed America to become a nation of consumers instead of a nation of producers. ..."
"... It's really a form of classic IMPERIALISM. To maintain this system, we've got the US military and we prop up the corrupt dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya ..."
"... Yeah, you can talk about the "new class", the corruption of the banking system by the idiotic "libertarian" or "free market utopianism" of the Gingrich Congress, the transformation of American corporations to international corporations, and on and on. But it's the US dollar as reserve currency that has allowed it all to happen. God help us, if it ends, we'll be crippled. ..."
"... The Clinton Class mocks The Country Class: Bill Clinton, "We all know how her opponent's done real well down in West Virginia and eastern Kentucky. Because the coal people don't like any of us anymore." "They blame the president when the sun doesn't come up in the morning now," ..."
"... That doesn't mean they actually support Hillary's policies and position. What do they really know about either? These demographics simply vote overwhelmingly Democrat no matter who is on the ticket. If Alfred E. Newman were the candidate, this particular data point would look just the same. ..."
"... "On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests." This doesn't ring true. Hard industry, and the managers that run it had no problem with moving jobs and factories overseas in pursuit of cheaper labor. Plus, it solved their Union issues. I feel like the divide is between large corporations, with dilute ownership and professional managers who nominally serve the interests of stock fund managers, while greatly enriching themselves versus a multitude of smaller, locally owned businesses whose owners were also concerned with the health of the local communities in which they lived. ..."
"... The financial elites are a consequence of consolidation in the banking and finance industry, where we now have 4 or 5 large institutions versus a multitude of local and regional banks that were locally focused. ..."
Since the Cold War ended, U.S. politics has seen a series of insurgent candidacies. Pat Buchanan prefigured Trump in the Republican
contests of 1992 and 1996. Ralph Nader challenged the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party from the outside in 2000. Ron Paul vexed
establishment Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney in 2008 and 2012. And this year, Trump was not the only candidate to confound
his party's elite: Bernie Sanders harried Hillary Clinton right up to the Democratic convention.
What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All
have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. (The libertarian Paul favors unilateral free trade: by his lights, treaties
like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership are not free trade at all but international regulatory pacts.) And while no one would
mistake Ralph Nader's or Ron Paul's views on immigration for Pat Buchanan's or Donald Trump's, Nader and Paul have registered their
own dissents from the approach to immigration that prevails in Washington.
Sanders has been more in line with his party's orthodoxy on that issue. But that didn't save him from being attacked by Clinton
backers for having an insufficiently nonwhite base of support. Once again, what might have appeared to be a class conflict-in this
case between a democratic socialist and an elite liberal with ties to high finance-could be explained away as really about race.
Race, like religion, is a real factor in how people vote. Its relevance to elite politics, however, is less clear. Something else
has to account for why the establishment in both parties almost uniformly favors one approach to war, trade, and immigration,
while outsider candidates as dissimilar as Buchanan, Nader, Paul, and Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, depart from the consensus.
The insurgents clearly do not represent a single class: they appeal to eclectic interests and groups. The foe they have all
faced down, however-the bipartisan establishment-does resemble a class in its striking unity of outlook and interest. So what is
this class, effectively the ruling class of the country?
Some critics on the right have identified it with the "managerial" class described by James Burnham in his 1941 book The Managerial
Revolution . But it bears a stronger resemblance to what what others have called "the New Class." In fact, the interests of this
New Class of college-educated "verbalists" are antithetical to those of the industrial managers that Burnham described. Understanding
the relationship between these two often conflated concepts provides insight into politics today, which can be seen as a clash between
managerial and New Class elites.
♦♦♦
The archetypal model of class conflict, the one associated with Karl Marx, pits capitalists against workers-or, at an earlier
stage, capitalists against the landed nobility. The capitalists' victory over the nobility was inevitable, and so too, Marx believed,
was the coming triumph of the workers over the capitalists.
Over the next century, however, history did not follow the script. By 1992, the Soviet Union was gone, Communist China had embarked
on market reforms, and Western Europe was turning away from democratic socialism. There was no need to predict the future; mankind
had achieved its destiny, a universal order of [neo]liberal democracy. Marx had it backwards: capitalism was the end of history.
But was the truth as simple as that? Long before the collapse of the USSR, many former communists -- some of whom remained socialists,
while others joined the right-thought not. The Soviet Union had never been a workers' state at all, they argued, but was run
by a class of apparatchiks such as Marx had never imagined.
Among the first to advance this argument was James Burnham, a professor of philosophy at New York University who became a leading
Trotskyist thinker. As he broke with Trotsky and began moving toward the right, Burnham recognized affinities between the Soviet
mode of organization-in which much real power lay in the hands of the commissars who controlled industry and the bureaucratic organs
of the state-and the corporatism that characterized fascist states. Even the U.S., under the New Deal and with ongoing changes to
the balance between ownership and management in the private sector, seemed to be moving in the same direction.
Burnham called this the "managerial revolution." The managers of industry and technically trained government officials did not
own the means of production, like the capitalists of old. But they did control the means of production, thanks to their expertise
and administrative prowess.
The rise of this managerial class would have far-reaching consequences, he predicted. Burnham wrote in his 1943 book, The Machiavellians
: "that the managers may function, the economic and political structure must be modified, as it is now being modified, so as
to rest no longer on private ownership and small-scale nationalist sovereignty, but primarily upon state control of the economy,
and continental or vast regional world political organization." Burnham pointed to Nazi Germany, imperial Japan-which became a "continental"
power by annexing Korea and Manchuria-and the Soviet Union as examples.
The defeat of the Axis powers did not halt the progress of the managerial revolution. Far from it: not only did the Soviets retain
their form of managerialism, but the West increasingly adopted a managerial corporatism of its own, marked by cooperation between
big business and big government: high-tech industrial crony capitalism, of the sort that characterizes the military-industrial complex
to this day. (Not for nothing was Burnham a great advocate of America's developing a supersonic transport of its own to compete with
the French-British Concorde.)
America's managerial class was personified by Robert S. McNamara, the former Ford Motor Company executive who was secretary of
defense under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. In a 1966 story for National Review , "Why Do They Hate Robert Strange McNamara?"
Burnham answered the question in class terms: "McNamara is attacked by the Left because the Left has a blanket hatred of the system
of business enterprise; he is criticized by the Right because the Right harks back, in nostalgia if not in practice, to outmoded
forms of business enterprise."
McNamara the managerial technocrat was too business-oriented for a left that still dreamed of bringing the workers to power. But
the modern form of industrial organization he represented was not traditionally capitalist enough for conservatives who were at heart
19th-century classical liberals.
National Review readers responded to Burnham's paean to McNamara with a mixture of incomprehension and indignation. It
was a sign that even readers familiar with Burnham-he appeared in every issue of the magazine-did not always follow what he was saying.
The popular right wanted concepts that were helpful in labeling enemies, and Burnham was confusing matters by talking about changes
in the organization of government and industry that did not line up with anyone's value judgements.
More polemically useful was a different concept popularized by neoconservatives in the following decade: the "New Class."
"This 'new class' is not easily defined but may be vaguely described," Irving Kristol wrote in a 1975 essay for the Wall
Street Journal :
It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial
society' (to use Daniel Bell's convenient term). We are talking about scientists, teachers, and educational administrators, journalists
and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in
the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy,
and so on.
"Members of the new class do not 'control' the media," he continued, "they are the media-just as they are our educational
system, our public health and welfare system, and much else."
Burnham, writing in National Review in 1978, drew a sharp contrast between this concept and his own ideas:
I have felt that this 'new class' is, so far, rather thin gruel. Intellectuals, verbalists, media types, etc. are conspicuous
actors these days, certainly; they make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and some of them make a lot of money. But, after
all, they are a harum-scarum crowd, and deflate even more quickly than they puff up. On TV they can out-talk any of the managers
of ITT, GM, or IBM, or the administration-managers of the great government bureaus and agencies, but, honestly, you're not going
to take that as a power test. Who hires and fires whom?
Burnham suffered a stroke later that year. Although he lived until 1987, his career as a writer was over. His last years coincided
with another great transformation of business and government. It began in the Carter administration, with moves to deregulate transportation
and telecommunications. This partial unwinding of the managerial revolution accelerated under Ronald Reagan. Regulatory and welfare-state
reforms, even privatization of formerly nationalized industries, also took off in the UK and Western Europe. All this did not, however,
amount to a restoration of the old capitalism or anything resembling laissez-faire.
The "[neo]liberal democracy" that triumphed at "the end of history"-to use Francis Fukuyama's words-was not the managerial capitalism
of the mid-20th century, either. It was instead the New Class's form of capitalism, one that could be embraced by Bill Clinton and
Tony Blair as readily as by any Republican or Thatcherite.
Irving Kristol had already noted in the 1970s that "this new class is not merely liberal but truly 'libertarian' in its approach
to all areas of life-except economics. It celebrates individual liberty of speech and expression and action to an unprecedented degree,
so that at times it seems almost anarchistic in its conception of the good life."
He was right about the New Class's "anything goes" mentality, but he was only partly correct about its attitude toward economics.
The young elite tended to scorn the bourgeois character of the old capitalism, and to them managerial figures like McNamara were
evil incarnate. But they had to get by-and they aspired to rule.
Burnham had observed that the New Class did not have the means-either money or manpower-to wield power the way the managers
or the capitalists of old did. It had to borrow power from other classes. Discovering where the New Class gets it is as easy as following
the money, which leads straight to the finance sector-practically to the doorstep of Goldman Sachs. Jerry Rubin's journey from Yippie
to yuppie was the paradigm of a generation.
Part of the tale can be told in a favorable light. New Left activists like Carl Oglesby fought the spiritual aridity and murderous
militarism of what they called "corporate liberalism"-Burnham's managerialism-while sincere young libertarians attacked the regulatory
state and seeded technological entrepreneurship. Yet the New Class as a whole is less like Carl Oglesby or Karl Hess than like
Hillary Clinton, who arguably embodies it as perfectly as McNamara did the managerial class.
Even the New Class's support for deregulation-to the advantage of its allies on Wall Street-was no sign of consistent commitment
to free-market principles. On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the
protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests. The individual-mandate feature of Obamacare and Romneycare
is a prime example of New Class cronyism: government compels individuals to buy a supposedly private product or service.
The alliance between finance and the New Class accounts for the disposition of power in America today. The New Class has also
enlisted another invaluable ally: the managerial classes of East Asia. Trade with China-the modern managerial state par excellence-helps
keep American industry weak relative to finance and the service economy's verbalist-dominated sectors. America's class war, like
many others, is not in the end a contest between up and down. It's a fight between rival elites: in this case, between the declining
managerial elite and the triumphant (for now) New Class and financial elites.
The New Class plays a priestly role in its alliance with finance, absolving Wall Street for the sin of making money in exchange
for plenty of that money to keep the New Class in power. In command of foreign policy, the New Class gets to pursue humanitarian
ideological projects-to experiment on the world. It gets to evangelize by the sword. And with trade policy, it gets to suppress its
class rival, the managerial elite, at home. Through trade pacts and mass immigration the financial elite, meanwhile, gets to maximize
its returns without regard for borders or citizenship. The erosion of other nations' sovereignty that accompanies American hegemony
helps toward that end too-though our wars are more ideological than interest-driven.
♦♦♦
So we come to an historic moment. Instead of an election pitting another Bush against another Clinton, we have a race that poses
stark alternatives: a choice not only between candidates but between classes-not only between administrations but between regimes.
Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes,
"big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the
bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November.
The New Class, after all, lacks a popular base as well as money of its own, and just as it relies on Wall Street to underwrite
its power, it depends on its competing brands of identity politics to co-opt popular support. For the center-left establishment,
minority voters supply the electoral muscle. Religion and the culture war have served the same purpose for the establishment's center-right
faction. Trump showed that at least one of these sides could be beaten on its own turf-and it seems conceivable that if Bernie Sanders
had been black, he might have similarly beaten Clinton, without having to make concessions to New Class tastes.
The New Class establishment of both parties may be seriously misjudging what is happening here. Far from being the last gasp of
the demographically doomed-old, racially isolated white people, as Gallup's analysis says-Trump's insurgency may be the prototype
of an aggressive new politics, of either left or right, that could restore the managerial elite to power.
This is not something that conservatives-or libertarians who admire the old capitalism rather than New Class's simulacrum-might
welcome. But the only way that some entrenched policies may change is with a change of the class in power.
Daniel McCarthy is the editor of The American Conservative .
Excellent analysis. What is important about the Trump phenomenon is not every individual issue, it's the potentially revolutionary
nature of the phenomenon. The opposition gets this. That's why they are hysterical about Trump. The conservative box checkers
do not.
"Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big
government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan
establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November."
My question is, if Trump is not himself of the managerial class, in fact, could be considered one of the original new class
members, how would he govern? What explains his conversion from the new class to the managerial class; is he merely taking advantage
of an opportunity or is there some other explanation?
I'm genuinely confused by the role you ascribe to the 'managerial class' here. Going back to Berle and Means ('The Modern Corporation
and Private Property') the managerial class emerged when management was split from ownership in mid C20th capitalism. Managers
focused on growth, not profits for shareholders. The Shareholder revolution of the 1980s destroyed the managerial class, and destroyed
their unwieldy corporations.
You seem to be identifying the managerial class with a kind of cultural opposition to the values of [neo]liberal capitalism. And
instead of identifying the 'new class' with the new owner-managers of shareholder-driven firms, you identify them by their superficial
cultural effects.
This raises a deeper problem in how you talk about class in this piece. Marx taught that you identify classes by their
structural role in the system of production. I'm at a loss to see how either of the 'classes' you mention here relate to the system
of production. Does the 'new class' of journalists, academics, etc. actually own anything? If not, what is the point of ascribing
to them immense economic power?
I would agree that there is a new class of capitalists in America. But they are well known people like Sheldon Adelson, the Kochs,
Linda McMahon, the Waltons, Rick Scott the pharmaceutical entrepreneur, Mitt Romney, Mark Zuckerberg, and many many hedge fund
gazillionaires. These people represent the resurgence of a family-based, dynastic capitalism that is utterly different from the
managerial variety that prevailed in mid-century.
If there is a current competitor to international corporate capitalism, it is old-fashioned dynastic family capitalism. Not
Managerialism.
There is no "new class". That's simply a derogatory trope of the Right. The [neo]liberal elite– educated, cosmopolitan and possessed
of sufficient wealth to be influential in political affairs and claims to power grounded in moral stances– have a long pedigree
in both Western and non-Western lands. They were the Scribal Class in the ancient world, the Mandarins of China, and the Clergy
in the Middle Ages. This class for a time was eclipsed in the early modern period as first royal authority became dominant, followed
by the power of the Capitalist class (the latter has never really faded of course). But their reemergence in the late 20th century
is not a new or unique phenomenon.
In a year in which "trash Trump" and "trash Trump's supporters" are tricks-to-be-turned for more than 90% of mainstream journalists
and other media hacks, it's good to see Daniel McCarthy buck the "trash trend" and write a serious, honest analysis of the class
forces that are colliding during this election cycle.
Two thumbs way up for McCarthy, although his fine effort cannot save the reputation of those establishment whores who call
themselves journalists. Nothing can save them. They have earned the universality with which Americans hold them in contempt.
In 1976 when Gallup began asking about "the honesty and ethical standards" of various professions only 33% of Americans rated
journalists "very high or high."
By last December that "high or very high" rating for journalists had fallen to just 27%.
It is certain that by Election Day 2016 the American public's opinion of journalists will have fallen even further.
Most of your argument is confusing. The change I see is from a production economy to a finance economy. Wall Street rules, really.
Basically the stock market used to be a place where working folk invested their money for retirement, mostly through pensions
from unions and corporations. Now it's become a gambling casino, with the "house"-or the big banks-putting it's finger on the
roulette wheel. They changed the compensation package of CEO's, so they can rake in huge executive compensation–mostly through
stock options-to basically close down everything from manufacturing to customer service, and ship it off to contract manufacturers
and outside services in oligarchical countries like mainland China and India.
I don't know what exactly you mean about the "new class", basically its the finance industry against everyone else.
One thing you right-wingers always get wrong, is on Karl Marx he was really attacking the money-changers, the finance speculators,
the banks. Back in the day, so-called "capitalists" like Henry Ford or George Eastman or Thomas Edison always complained about
the access to financing through the big money finance capitalists.
Don't overlook the economic value of intellectual property rights (patents, in particular) in the economic equation.
A big chunk of the 21st century economy is generated due to the intellectual property developed and owned by the New Class
and its business enterprises.
The economic value of ideas and intellectual property rights is somewhat implied in McCarthy's explanation of the New Class,
but I didn't see an explicit mention (perhaps I overlooked it).
I think the consideration of intellectual property rights and the value generated by IP might help to clarify the economic
power of the New Class for those who feel the analysis isn't quite complete or on target.
I'm not saying that IP only provides value to the New Class. We can find examples of IP throughout the economy, at all levels.
It's just that the tech and financial sectors seem to focus more on (and benefit from) IP ownership, licensing, and the information
captured through use of digital technology.
"What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy."
But today we have this: Trump pledges big US military
expansion . Trump doesn't appear to have any coherent policy, he just says whatever seems to be useful at that particular
moment.
[New] Class better describes the Never Trumpers. Mostly I have found them to be those involved in knowledge occupations (conservative
think tanks, hedge fund managers, etc.) who have a pecuniary interest in maintaining the Global Economy as opposed to the Virtuous
Intergenerational Economy that preceded. Many are dependent on funding sources for their livelihoods that are connected to the
Globalized Economy and financial markets.
Being white is not the defining characteristic of Trumpers because it if was then how come there are many white working class
voters for Hillary? The divide in the working class comes from being a member of a union or a member of the private non-unionized
working class.
Where the real class divide shows up is in those who are members of the Knowledge Class that made their living based on the
old Virtuous Economy where the elderly saved money in banks and the banks, in turn, lent that money out to young families to buy
houses, cars, and start businesses. The Virtuous Economy has been replaced by the Global Economy based on diverting money to the
stock market to fund global enterprises and prop up government pension funds.
The local bankers, realtors, private contractors, small savers and small business persons and others that depended on the Virtuous
Economy lost out to the global bankers, stock investors, pension fund managers, union contractors and intellectuals that propounded
rationales for the global economy as superior to the Virtuous Economy.
Where the class conflict between the Working and Knowledge Classes begins is where the Knowledge Class almost unilaterally
decided to shift to a global economy, at the expense of the Working Class, and to the self-benefit of the Knowledge Class. Those
who designed the Global Economy like Larry Summers of Harvard did not invite private or public labor to help design the new Globalist
Economy. The Working Class lost out big time in job losses and getting stuck with subprime home loans that busted their marriages
and created bankruptcies and foreclosures. The Knowledge Class was mostly unscathed by this class-based economic divide.
Beginning in the 50's and 60's, baby boomers were warned in school and cultural media that "a college diploma would become what
a high school diploma is today." An extraordinary cohort of Americans took this advice seriously, creating the smartest and most
successful generation in history. But millions did not heed that advice, cynically buoyed by Republicans who – knowing that college
educated people vote largely Democrat – launched a financial and cultural war on college education. The result is what you see
now: millions of people unprepared for modern employment; meanwhile we have to import millions of college-educated Asians and
Indians to do the work there aren't enough Americans to do.
Have to say, this seems like an attempt to put things into boxes that don't quite fit.
Trump's distinguishing ideology, which separates him from the current elite, is something he has summed up many times –
nationalism vs. Globalism.
The core of it is that the government no longer serves the people. In the United States, that is kind of a bad thing, you know?
Like the EU in the UK, the people, who fought very hard for self-government, are seeing it undermined by the erosion of the nation
state in favor of international beaurocracy run by elites and the well connected.
Both this article and many comments on it show considerable confusion, and ideological opinion all over the map. What is happening
I think is that the world is changing –due to globalism, technology, and the sheer huge numbers of people on the planet. As a
result some of the rigid trenches of thought as well as class alignments are breaking down.
In America we no longer have capitalism, of either the 19th century industrial or 20th century managerial varieties. Money
and big money is still important of course, but it is increasingly both aligned with and in turn controlled by the government.
The financial industry, the new tech giants, the health insurance industry are now almost indistinguishable from the government
ruling elite. The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives
are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both
are right in a sense.
The hyperconcentration of power in Washington and a few tributary locations like Wall Street and Silicon Valley, elite
academia and the media–call that the New Class if you like–means that most of America–Main Street, the flyover country has been
left behind. Trump instinctively – brilliantly in some ways – tapped into the resentment that this hyperconcentration of wealth
and government power has led to. That is why it cuts across right and left. The elites want to characterize this resentment as
backwards and "racist," but there is also something very American from Jefferson to Jackson to Teddy Roosevelt that revolts against
being lectured to and controlled by their would-be "betters."
The alienation of those left out is real and based on real erosion of the middle class and American dream under both parties'
elites. The potentially revolutionary capabilities of a political movement that could unite right and left in restoring some equilibrium
and opportunities to those left out is tremendous, but yet to be realized by either major party. The party that can harness these
folks – who are after all the majority of Americans – will have a ruling coalition for decades. If neither party can productively
harness this budding movement, we are headed for disarray, civil unrest, and potentially the dissolution of the USA.
I have one condition about which, Mr. Trump would lose my support - if he flinches on immigration, I will have to bow out.
I just don't buy the contentions about color here. He has made definitive moves to ensure that he intends to fight for US citizens
regardless of color. This nonsense about white racism, more bigotry in reality, doesn't pan out. The Republican party has been
comprised of mostly whites since forever and nearly all white sine the late 1960's. Anyone attempting to make hay out of what
has been the reality for than 40 years is really making the reverse pander. Of course most of those who have issues with blacks
and tend to be more expressive about it, are in the Republican party. But so what. Black Republicans would look at you askance,
should you attempt this FYI.
It's a so what. The reason you joining a party is not because the people in it like you, that is really beside the point. Both
Sec Rice and General Powell, are keenly aware of who's what it and that is the supposed educated elite. They are not members of
the party because it is composed of some pure untainted membership. But because they and many blacks align themselves with the
ideas of the party, or what the party used to believe, anyway.
It's the issues not their skin color that matters. And blacks who cleave to the democrats despite being sold down the tubes
on issues, well, for whatever reason, they just have thinner skin and the mistaken idea that the democrats deliver – thanks to
Pres. Johnson. But what Pres. Johnson delivered democrats made a mockery of immediately as they stripped it of its intent and
used for their own liberal ends.
I remain convinced that if blacks wanted progress all they need do is swamp the Republican party as constituents and confront
whatever they thought was nonsense as constituents as they move on policy issues. Goodness democrats have embraced the lighter
tones despite having most black support. That is why the democrats are importing so many from other state run countries. They
could ignore blacks altogether. Sen Barbara Jordan and her deep voiced rebuke would do them all some good.
Let's face it - we are not going to remove the deeply rooted impact of skin color, once part of the legal frame of the country
for a quarter of the nations populous. What Republicans should stop doing is pretending, that everything concerning skin color
is the figment of black imagination. I am not budging an inch on the Daughters of the American Revolution, a perfect example of
the kind of peculiar treatment of the majority, even to those who fought for Independence and their descendants.
________________
I think that there are thousands and thousands of educated (degreed)people who now realize what a mess the educational and
social services system has become because of our immigration policy. The impact on social services here in Ca is no joke. In the
face of mounting deficits, the laxity of Ca has now come back to haunt them. The pressure to increase taxes weighed against the
loss of manual or hard labor to immigrants legal and otherwise is unmistakable here. There's debate about rsstroom etiquette in
the midst of serious financial issues - that's a joke. So this idea of dismissing people with degrees as being opposed to Mr.
Trump is deeply overplayed and misunderstood. If there is a class war, it's not because of Mr. Trump, those decks were stacked
in his favor long before the election cycle.
--------
"But millions did not heed that advice, cynically buoyed by Republicans who–knowing that college educated people vote largely
Democrat–launched a financial and cultural war on college education. The result is what . . . employment; meanwhile we have to
import millions of college-educated Asians and Indians to do the work there aren't enough Americans to do."
Hmmmm,
Nope. Republicans are notorious for pushing education on everything and everybody. It's a signature of hard work, self reliance,
self motivation and responsibility. The shift that has been tragic is that conservatives and Republicans either by a shove or
by choice abandoned the fields by which we turn out most future generations - elementary, HS and college education. Especially
in HS, millions of students are fed a daily diet of liberal though unchecked by any opposing ideas. And that is become the staple
for college education - as it cannot be stated just how tragic this has become for the nation. There are lots of issues to moan
about concerning the Us, but there is far more to embrace or at the very least keep the moaning in its proper context. No, conservatives
and Republicans did engage in discouraging an education.
And there will always be a need for more people without degrees than with them. even people with degrees are now getting hit
even in the elite walls of WS finance. I think I posted an article by John Maulden about the growing tensions resulting fro the
shift in the way trading is conducting. I can build a computer from scratch, that's a technical skill, but the days of building
computers by hand went as fast it came. The accusation that the population should all be trained accountants, book keepers, managers,
data processors, programmers etc. Is nice, but hardly very realistic (despite my taking liberties with your exact phrasing). A
degree is not going to stop a company from selling and moving its production to China, Mexico or Vietnam - would that were true.
In fact, even high end degree positions are being outsourced, medicine, law, data processing, programming . . .
How about the changes in economy that have forced businesses to completely disappear. We will never know how many businesses
were lost in the 2007/2008 financial mess. Recovery doesn't exist until the country's growth is robust enough to put people back
to work full time in a manner that enables them to sustain themselves and family.
That income gap is real and its telling.
___________________
even if I bought the Karl Marx assessment. His solutions were anything but a limited assault on financial sector oligarchs
and wizards. And in practice it has been an unmitigated disaster with virtually not a single long term national benefit. It's
very nature has been destructive, not only to infrastructure, but literally the lifeblood of the people it was intended to rescue.
Let's see if I can help Dreher clear up some confusion in his article. James Burnham's "Managerial Class" and the "New Class"
are overlapping and not exclusive. By the Managerial Class Burnham meant both the executive and managers in the private sector
and the Bureaucrats and functionaries in the public sector.
There are two middle classes in the US: the old Business Class and the New Knowledge Class. A manager would be in the Business
Class and a Bureaucrat in the New Class.
The rise of managers was a "revolution" because of the rise of modernization which meant the increasing mechanization,
industrialization, formalization and rationalization (efficiency) of society. Burnham's concern about the rise of the managerial
revolution was misplaced; what he should have focused on was modernization.
The New Class were those in the mostly government and nonprofit sectors that depended on knowledge for their livelihood without
it being coupled to any physical labor: teachers, intellectuals, social workers and psychiatrists, lawyers, media types, hedge
fund managers, real estate appraisers, financial advisors, architects, engineers, etc. The New Knowledge Class has only risen
since the New Deal created a permanent white collar, non-business class.
The Working Class are those who are employed for wages in manual work in an industry producing something tangible (houses,
cars, computers, etc.). The Working Class can also have managers, sometimes called supervisors. And the Working Class is comprised
mainly of two groups: unionized workers and private sector non-unionized workers. When we talk about the Working Class we typically
are referring to the latter.
The Trumpsters should not be distinguished as being a racial group or class (white) because there are many white people who
support Clinton. About 95% of Blacks vote Democratic in the US. Nowhere near that ratio of Whites are supporting Trump. So Trumps'
support should not be stereotyped as White.
The number one concern to Trumpsters is that they reflect the previous intergenerational economy where the elderly lent money
to the young to buy homes, cars and start small businesses. The Global bankers have shifted money into the stock market because
0.25% per year interest rates in a bank isn't making any money at all when money inflation runs at 1% to 2% (theft). This has
been replaced by a Global Economy that depends on financial bubbles and arbitraging of funds.
"The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated
by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both are right
in a sense."
Why other couching this. Ten years ago if some Hollywood exec had said, no same sex marriage, no production company in your
town, the town would have shrugged. Today before shrugging, the city clerk is checking the account balance. When the governors
of Michigan, and Arizona bent down in me culpa's on related issue, because business interests piped in, it was an indication that
the game had seriously changed. Some 3 – 5% of the population facing no real opposition has decided that that their private
lives needed public endorsement and have proceeded to upend the entire social order - the game has shifted in ways I am not sure
most of the public fully grasps or desires.
Same sex weddings in US military chapels - the concept still turns my stomach. Advocates control the megaphones, I don't think
they control the minds of the public, despite having convinced a good many people that those who have chosen this expression are
under some manner of assault – that demands a legal change - intelligent well educated, supposedly astute minded people actually
believe it. Even the Republican nominee believes it.
I love Barbara Streisand, but if the election means she moves to Canada, well, so be it. Take your "drag queens" impersonators
wit you. I enjoy Mr. and Mrs Pitt, I think have a social moral core but really? with millions of kids future at stake, endorsing
a terminal dynamic as if it will save society's ills - Hollywood doesn't even pretend to behave royally much less embody the sensitivities
of the same.
There is a lot to challenge about supporting Mr. Trump. He did support killing children in the womb and that is tragic. Unless
he has stood before his maker and made this right, he will have to answer for that. But no more than a trove of Republicans who
supported killing children in the womb and then came to their senses. I guess of there is one thing he and I agree on, it's not
drinking.
As for big budget military, it seems a waste, but if we are going to waste money, better it be for our own citizens. His Achilles
heel here is his intentions as to ISIS/ISIL. I think it's the big drain getting ready to suck him into the abyss of intervention
creep.
Missile defense just doesn't work. The tests are rigged and as Israel discovered, it's a hit and miss game with low probability
of success, but it makes for great propaganda.
I am supposed to be outraged by a football player stance on abusive government. While the democratic nominee is turning over
every deck chair she find, leaving hundreds of thousands of children homeless - let me guess, on the bright side, George Clooney
cheers the prospect of more democratic voters.
If Mr. Trumps only achievements are building a wall, over hauling immigration policy and expanding the size of the military.
He will be well on his way to getting ranked one of the US most successful presidents.
I never understood why an analysis needs to lard in every conceivable historical reference and simply assume its relevance, when
there are so many non constant facts and circumstances. There has always been and will always be class conflict, even if it
falls short of a war. Simply examining recent past circumstances, the wealthy class has been whooping up on all other classes.
This is not to suggest any sort of remedy, but simply to observe that income disparity over the past 30 years has substantially
benefitted on sector of class and political power remains in their hands today. To think that there will never be class conflict
is to side with a Marxian fantasy of egalitarianism, which will never come to pass. Winners and losers may change positions, but
the underlying conflict will always remain.
State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there.
Back in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they
would only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those.
The split on Trump is first by race (obviously), then be gender (also somewhat obviously), and then by education. Even among
self-declared conservatives it's the college educated who tend to oppose him. This is a lot broader than simply losing some "new"
Knowledge Class, unless all college educated people are put in that grouping. In fact he is on track to lose among college educated
whites, something no GOP candidate has suffered since the days of FDR and WWII.
People don't really care for the actions of the elite but they care for the consequences of these actions. During the 1960's,
per capita GDP growth was around 3.5%. Today it stands at 0,49%. If you take into account inflation, it's negative. Add to this
the skewed repartition of said growth and it's intuitive that many people feel the pain; whom doesn't move forward, goes backwards.
People couldn't care for mass immigration, nation building or the emergence of China if their personal situation was not
impacted. But now, they begin to feel the results of these actions.
I have a simple philosophy regarding American politics that shows who is made of what, and we don't have to go through all
the philosophizing in this article: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable.
Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American.
EliteComic beat me to the punch. I was disappointed that Ross Perot, who won over 20% of the popular vote twice, and was briefly
in the lead in early 1992, wasn't mentioned in this article.
Re: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli
interests above America's is un-American.
The first has nothing whatsoever to do with American citizenship. It's just a political issue– on which, yes, reasonable
people can differ. However no American citizen should put the interests of any other country ahead of our own, except in a situation
where the US was itself up to no good and deserved its comeuppance. And then the interest is not that of any particular nation,
but of justice being done period.
A lot of this "New Class" stuff is just confusing mis-mash of this and that theory. Basically, America changed when the US
dollar replace gold as the medium of exchange in the world economy. Remember when we called it the PETRO-DOLLAR. As long as the
Saudis only accepted the US dollar as the medium of exchange for oil, then the American government could export it's inflation
and deficit spending. Budget deficits and trade deficits are intrinsically related. It allowed America to become a nation of consumers
instead of a nation of producers.
Who really cares about the federal debt. REally? We can print dollars, exchange these worthless dollars with China for hard
goods, and then China lends the dollars back to us, to pay for our government. Get it?
It's really a form of classic IMPERIALISM. To maintain this system, we've got the US military and we prop up the corrupt
dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya
Yeah, you can talk about the "new class", the corruption of the banking system by the idiotic "libertarian" or "free market
utopianism" of the Gingrich Congress, the transformation of American corporations to international corporations, and on and on.
But it's the US dollar as reserve currency that has allowed it all to happen. God help us, if it ends, we'll be crippled.
And damn the utopianism of you "libertarians" you're worse then Marxists when it comes to ideology over reality.
"State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there. Back
in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they would
only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those."
Ah, not it's policy on some measure able effect. The seatbelt law was debate across the country. The data indicated that it
did in fact save lives. And it's impact was universal applicable to every man women or child that got into a vehicle.
That was not a private bedroom issue. Of course businesses have advocated policy. K street is not a K-street minus that reality.
But GM did not demand having relations in parked cars be legalized or else.
You are taking my apples and and calling them seatbelts - false comparison on multiple levels, all to get me to acknowledge
that businesses have influence. It what they have chosen to have influence on -
I do not think the issue of class is relevant here – whether it be new classes or old classes. There are essentially two classes
– those who win given whatever the current economic arrangements are or those who lose given those same arrangements. People who
think they are losing support Trump versus people who think they are winning support Clinton. The polls demonstrates this – Trump
supporters feel a great deal more anxiety about the future and are more inclined to think everything is falling apart whereas
Clinton supporters tend to see things as being okay and are optimistic about the future. The Vox work also shows this pervasive
sense that life will not be good for their children and grandchildren as a characteristic of Trump supporters.
The real shift I think is in the actual coalitions that are political parties. Both the GOP and the Dems have been coalitions
– political parties usually are. Primary areas of agreement with secondary areas of disagreement. Those coalitions no longer work.
The Dems can be seen as a coalition of the liberal knowledge types – who are winners in this economy and the worker types who
are often losers now in this economy. The GOP also is a coalition of globalist corporatist business types (winners) with workers
(losers) who they attracted in part because of culture wars and the Dixiecrats becoming GOPers. The needs of these two groups
in both parties no longer overlap. The crisis is more apparent in the GOP because well – Trump. If Sanders had won the nomination
for the Dems (and he got close) then their same crisis would be more apparent. The Dems can hold their creaky coalition together
because Trump went into the fevered swamps of the alt. right.
I think this is even more obvious in the UK where you have a Labor Party that allegedly represents the interests of working
people but includes the cosmopolitan knowledge types. The cosmopolitans are big on the usual identity politics, unlimited immigration
and staying in the EU. They benefit from the current economic arrangement. But the workers in the Labor party have been hammered
by the current economic arrangements and voted in droves to get out of the EU and limit immigration. It seems pretty obvious that
there is no longer a coalition to sustain the Labor Party. Same with Tories – some in the party love the EU,immigration, globalization
while others voted out of the EU, want immigration restricted and support localism. The crisis is about the inability of either
party to sustain its coalitions. Those in the Tory party who are leavers should be in a political party with the old Labor working
class while the Tory cosmopolitans should be in a party with the Labor cosmopolitans. The current coalitions not being in synch
is the political problem – not new classes etc.
Here in the US the southern Dixiecrats who went to the GOP and are losers in this economy might find a better coalition with
the black, Latino and white workers who are still in the Dem party. But as in the UK ideological culture wars have become more
prominent and hence the coalitions are no longer economically based. If people recognized that politics can only address the economic
issues and they aligned themselves accordingly – the membership of the parties would radically change.
The Clinton Class mocks The Country Class: Bill Clinton, "We all know how her opponent's done real well down in West Virginia
and eastern Kentucky. Because the coal people don't like any of us anymore." "They blame the president when the sun doesn't come
up in the morning now,"
"Trump's voters were most strongly characterized by their "racial isolation": they live in places with little ethnic diversity.
"
During the primaries whites in more diverse areas voted Trump. The only real exception was West Virginia. Utah, Wyoming, Iowa?
All voted for Cruz and "muh values".
In white enclaves like Paul Ryans district, which is 91%, whites are able to signal against white identity without having to
face the consequences.
"All three major African, Hispanic, & Asian-American overwhelming support HRC in the election."
That doesn't mean they actually support Hillary's policies and position. What do they really know about either? These demographics
simply vote overwhelmingly Democrat no matter who is on the ticket. If Alfred E. Newman were the candidate, this particular data
point would look just the same.
"On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would
benefit hard industry and managerial interests."
This doesn't ring true. Hard industry, and the managers that run it had no problem with moving jobs and factories overseas
in pursuit of cheaper labor. Plus, it solved their Union issues. I feel like the divide is between large corporations, with dilute
ownership and professional managers who nominally serve the interests of stock fund managers, while greatly enriching themselves
versus a multitude of smaller, locally owned businesses whose owners were also concerned with the health of the local communities
in which they lived.
The financial elites are a consequence of consolidation in the banking and finance industry, where we now have 4 or 5 large
institutions versus a multitude of local and regional banks that were locally focused.
Blast from the past. Bill Clinton position on illegal immegtation.
Notable quotes:
"... Today's Democratic Party also believes we must remain a nation of laws. We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years before Bill Clinton became President, Washington talked tough but failed to act. In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again. ..."
"... President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and illegal immigrants are turned away. We have increased the Border Patrol by over 40 percent; in El Paso, our Border Patrol agents are so close together they can see each other. Last year alone, the Clinton Administration removed thousands of illegal workers from jobs across the country. Just since January of 1995, we have arrested more than 1,700 criminal aliens and prosecuted them on federal felony charges because they returned to America after having been deported. ..."
"... However, as we work to stop illegal immigration, we call on all Americans to avoid the temptation to use this issue to divide people from each other. We deplore those who use the need to stop illegal immigration as a pretext for discrimination . And we applaud the wisdom of Republicans like Mayor Giuliani and Senator Domenici who oppose the mean-spirited and short-sighted effort of Republicans in Congress to bar the children of illegal immigrants from schools - it is wrong, and forcing children onto the streets is an invitation for them to join gangs and turn to crime. ..."
Democrats remember that we are a nation of immigrants. We recognize the extraordinary contribution
of immigrants to America throughout our history. We welcome legal immigrants to America. We support
a legal immigration policy that is pro-family, pro-work, pro-responsibility, and pro-citizenship
, and we deplore those who blame immigrants for economic and social problems.
We know that citizenship is the cornerstone of full participation in American life. We are
proud that the President launched Citizenship USA to help eligible immigrants become United States
citizens. The Immigration and Naturalization Service is streamlining procedures, cutting red tape,
and using new technology to make it easier for legal immigrants to accept the responsibilities
of citizenship and truly call America their home.
Today's Democratic Party also believes we must remain a nation of laws. We cannot tolerate
illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years before Bill Clinton became President, Washington
talked tough but failed to act. In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed. The border
was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal
immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned
the very next day to commit crimes again.
President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and
illegal immigrants are turned away. We have increased the Border Patrol by over 40 percent; in
El Paso, our Border Patrol agents are so close together they can see each other. Last year alone,
the Clinton Administration removed thousands of illegal workers from jobs across the country.
Just since January of 1995, we have arrested more than 1,700 criminal aliens and prosecuted them
on federal felony charges because they returned to America after having been deported.
However, as we work to stop illegal immigration, we call on all Americans to avoid the
temptation to use this issue to divide people from each other. We deplore those who use the need
to stop illegal immigration as a pretext for discrimination . And we applaud the wisdom of Republicans
like Mayor Giuliani and Senator Domenici who oppose the mean-spirited and short-sighted effort
of Republicans in Congress to bar the children of illegal immigrants from schools - it is wrong,
and forcing children onto the streets is an invitation for them to join gangs and turn to crime.
Democrats want to protect American jobs by increasing criminal and civil sanctions against
employers who hire illegal workers , but Republicans continue to favor inflammatory rhetoric over
real action. We will continue to enforce labor standards to protect workers in vulnerable industries.
We continue to firmly oppose welfare benefits for illegal immigrants. We believe family members
who sponsor immigrants into this country should take financial responsibility for them, and be
held legally responsible for supporting them.
"... When societies take the restraints off competition and free markets, inequality follows in its wake. It happened in the Gilded Age and it happened in the Neoliberal Era. the picture of competition leading to leveling is a jejune textbook fantasy. ..."
"To some extent that's correct, but competitive capitalism is not divisive. In fact, it is just
the opposite. Competition is a great leveling force. For example, when a firm discovers something
new, other firms, if they can, will copy it and duplicate the innovation. If a firm finds a highly
profitable strategy, other firms will mimic it and take some of those profits for themselves.
A firm might temporarily separate itself from other firms in an industry, but competition will
bring them back together. Sometimes there are impediments to this leveling process such as patents,
monopoly power, and talent that is difficult to duplicate, but competition is always there, waiting
and watching."
Nice defense of the market place with the appropriate caveat about how monopoly
power can interfere with it to the benefit of the few. We should note there is monopsony power
which at times impedes wages from rising. In such cases, unions and minimum wages can help not
hurt. Which is a shout out to Seattle for letting Uber driving unionize.
That really gets to my critique of capitalism. While Mark is certainly correct about emerging
markets, mature capitalism inevitably trends toward monopoly/oligopoly where all the benefits
disappear and we get the mess we are in today.
When societies take the restraints off competition and free markets, inequality follows in
its wake. It happened in the Gilded Age and it happened in the Neoliberal Era. the picture of
competition leading to leveling is a jejune textbook fantasy.
Societies have sometimes
succeeded in building broad prosperity and a fairly level distribution of income. They have done
it by creating strong socializing institutions and laws that place restraints on individual economic
liberty and accept the necessity of some degree of intelligent planning.
pgl ->Dan Kervick...
Yawn! Do define the "Neoliberal Era"? Is that the one where we passed anti-trust legislation or
the one where it was gutted? No scratch that - we have had enough of your bloviating for one day.
Also see Wendy Brown interview What Exactly Is Neoliberalism to Dissent Magazine (Nov 03, 2015)
== some quotes ===
"... I treat neoliberalism as a governing rationality through which everything is "economized"
and in a very specific way: human beings become market actors and nothing but, every field
of activity is seen as a market, and every entity (whether public or private, whether person,
business, or state) is governed as a firm. Importantly, this is not simply a matter of extending
commodification and monetization everywhere-that's the old Marxist depiction of capital's transformation
of everyday life. Neoliberalism construes even non-wealth generating spheres-such as learning,
dating, or exercising-in market terms, submits them to market metrics, and governs them with
market techniques and practices. Above all, it casts people as human capital who must constantly
tend to their own present and future value. ..."
"... The most common criticisms of neoliberalism, regarded solely as economic policy rather
than as the broader phenomenon of a governing rationality, are that it generates and legitimates
extreme inequalities of wealth and life conditions; that it leads to increasingly precarious
and disposable populations; that it produces an unprecedented intimacy between capital (especially
finance capital) and states, and thus permits domination of political life by capital; that
it generates crass and even unethical commercialization of things rightly protected from markets,
for example, babies, human organs, or endangered species or wilderness; that it privatizes
public goods and thus eliminates shared and egalitarian access to them; and that it subjects
states, societies, and individuals to the volatility and havoc of unregulated financial markets.
..."
"... with the neoliberal revolution that homo politicus is finally vanquished as a fundamental
feature of being human and of democracy. Democracy requires that citizens be modestly oriented
toward self-rule, not simply value enhancement, and that we understand our freedom as resting
in such self-rule, not simply in market conduct. When this dimension of being human is extinguished,
it takes with it the necessary energies, practices, and culture of democracy, as well as its
very intelligibility. ..."
"... For most Marxists, neoliberalism emerges in the 1970s in response to capitalism's falling
rate of profit; the shift of global economic gravity to OPEC, Asia, and other sites outside
the West; and the dilution of class power generated by unions, redistributive welfare states,
large and lazy corporations, and the expectations generated by educated democracies. From this
perspective, neoliberalism is simply capitalism on steroids: a state and IMF-backed consolidation
of class power aimed at releasing capital from regulatory and national constraints, and defanging
all forms of popular solidarities, especially labor. ..."
"... The grains of truth in this analysis don't get at the fundamental transformation of
social, cultural, and individual life brought about by neoliberal reason. They don't get at
the ways that public institutions and services have not merely been outsourced but thoroughly
recast as private goods for individual investment or consumption. And they don't get at the
wholesale remaking of workplaces, schools, social life, and individuals. For that story, one
has to track the dissemination of neoliberal economization through neoliberalism as a governing
form of reason, not just a power grab by capital. There are many vehicles of this dissemination
-- law, culture, and above all, the novel political-administrative form we have come to call
governance. It is through governance practices that business models and metrics come to irrigate
every crevice of society, circulating from investment banks to schools, from corporations to
universities, from public agencies to the individual. It is through the replacement of democratic
terms of law, participation, and justice with idioms of benchmarks, objectives, and buy-ins
that governance dismantles democratic life while appearing only to instill it with "best practices."
..."
"... Progressives generally disparage Citizens United for having flooded the American electoral
process with corporate money on the basis of tortured First Amendment reasoning that treats
corporations as persons. However, a careful reading of the majority decision also reveals precisely
the thoroughgoing economization of the terms and practices of democracy we have been talking
about. In the majority opinion, electoral campaigns are cast as "political marketplaces," just
as ideas are cast as freely circulating in a market where the only potential interference arises
from restrictions on producers and consumers of ideas-who may speak and who may listen or judge.
Thus, Justice Kennedy's insistence on the fundamental neoliberal principle that these marketplaces
should be unregulated paves the way for overturning a century of campaign finance law aimed
at modestly restricting the power of money in politics. Moreover, in the decision, political
speech itself is rendered as a kind of capital right, functioning largely to advance the position
of its bearer, whether that bearer is human capital, corporate capital, or finance capital.
This understanding of political speech replaces the idea of democratic political speech as
a vital (if potentially monopolizable and corruptible) medium for public deliberation and persuasion.
..."
"... My point was that democracy is really reduced to a whisper in the Euro-Atlantic nations
today. Even Alan Greenspan says that elections don't much matter much because, "thanks to globalization
. . . the world is governed by market forces," not elected representatives. ..."
Syaloch ->Dan Kervick...
I like where you're going, but your narrative here has a few problems:
"When societies take the restraints off competition and free markets, inequality follows
in its wake."
Free markets have restraints? Then they're not really "free", are they? And isn't that the
point?
"They have done it by creating strong socializing institutions and laws that place restraints
on individual economic liberty..."
I think Mark is defining economic liberty as the opposite of what you have in mind:
"The system works best when people have the freedom to enter a new business (if they have the
means and are willing to take the risk). It works best when people compete for jobs on equal footing,
have access to the same opportunities, when there are no artificial barriers in society that prevent
people from reaching their full potential."
Why not just say that strong socializing institutions and laws *increase* economic freedom?
DrDick ->Syaloch...
More to the point, "free markets" (largely unregulated) do not, have never, and cannot exist as
a viable system. Strong government regulation is essential to their viability.
Dan Kervick ->Syaloch...
Jeff Bezos had the freedom to create and enter a new business, and now he's a multi-gazillionaire
who uses his monopoly power to dictate terms. Mark Zuckerberg and the Koch brothers have used
their economic freedom to make themselves spectacularly wealthy and then move to buy control over
political processes.
The textbook picture of competition doesn't match reality. In that picture
the competitive economy is like an eternal game between equals. The players come and go, but no
one ever wins. The game goes on and on and on and on, and the conditions of the players is always
parity.
I don't know where economists came by this picture, but that's not what happens in most instances
in the real world. Generally, if you start out with a bunch of even competitors on a competitive
economic field, they will compete until one player defeats all of the others and rules the field.
Along the way, tacit coalitions will be built to gang up on the largest competitor and drive out
all of the small fry. The system tends with certainty toward oligopoly, if not always to monopoly.
The only way you can approximate enduring conditions of perfect competition is by rigging the
game with a bunch of highly restrictive rules designed to prevent human nature from taking its
course. For example, the ancient Greeks had a rule which allowed them to ostracize citizens who
had gotten too big.
I'm by no means arguing to get rid of private enterprise. But other countries have managed
to make intelligent use of restrained capitalist mechanisms within a more civilized and enlightened
social order. The United States has become an insane country: fanatically violent, aggressive,
uncivilized, nasty and anti-social. Conflict, competition and individual liberty are not effectively
balanced by moral, religious and political institutions that inhibit the vicious and narcissistic
tendencies of human beings. The popular image of the meaning of life perpetuated my the mass media
is crass and nihilistic.
Dan Kervick ->Syaloch...
"Why not just say that strong socializing institutions and laws *increase* economic freedom?"
I agree there are different kinds of freedom. Some restrictions on the economic freedom of capitalists
are enhancements of the workers' freedom not to live in fear of getting canned or impoverished.
But I really want to resist the doctrinal pressure in the US ideological system to cast everything
in the language of freedom. There are other important human valuesin addition to freedom. And
not every case in which people are given more choices makes them, or the people around them, happier.
likbez ->Syaloch...
The whole idea of "free markets" is an important neoliberal myth. Free for whom?
Only for multinationals.
The first for opening markets for multinationals under the banner of "free markets" is the cornerstone
of neoliberal ideology.
Free from what?
Free from regulation.
What about "fair markets" for a change?
ilsm ->DrDick...
US capitalism is not capitalism, it is exploitive greed and bankster plundering.
DrDick ->ilsm...
I agree with your characterization, but US capitalism is the only kind of actual capitalism that
has ever actually existed. Everywhere else has tempered its excesses with a healthy dose of socialism.
pgl ->DrDick...
19th century UK was far more laissez faire than our current set of rules. No socialism there.
Which was what Marx complained about.
DrDick ->pgl...
Which really makes my point, actually. You see the same basic patterns everywhere in the 19th
century that you do in the US today. We have only mildly reined it in compared to most of the
developed world.
"... It has been an absolute failure. Brexit has torpedoed TTIP and TPP has limited value - the largest economy in the partnership, Japan, has been largely integrated in to the US for the past 70 years. ..."
"... IMO the biggest failure of the US has been hating Russia too much. The Russians have just as much reason to be afraid of China ..."
"... It's old Cold War thinking that has seen America lose its hegemony -- similar to how the British were so focused on stopping German ascendancy they didn't see the Americans coming with the knife. ..."
The US grand strategy post-Bush was to reposition itself at the heart of a liberal economic system
excluding China through TTIP with the EU and TPP with Asia-Pac ex. China and Russia. The idea
was that this would enable the US to sustain its hegemony.
It has been an absolute failure. Brexit has torpedoed TTIP and TPP has limited value -
the largest economy in the partnership, Japan, has been largely integrated in to the US for the
past 70 years.
IMO the biggest failure of the US has been hating Russia too much. The Russians have just
as much reason to be afraid of China as the US do and have a pretty capable army.
If the US patched things up with the Russians, firstly it could redeploy forces and military
effort away from the Middle East towards Asia Pac and secondly it would give the US effective
leverage over China -- with the majority of the oil producing nations aligned with the US, China
would have difficulty in conducted a sustained conflict.
It's old Cold War thinking that has seen America lose its hegemony -- similar to how the
British were so focused on stopping German ascendancy they didn't see the Americans coming with
the knife.
"... The real problem is the Chinese do not believe in economic profits, just market rates of return on invested capital which to be honest is only about 2-5% depending on risk. ..."
No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding
:
What we find the most interesting is that the AIIB founders didn't ask
member countries to approve an expansion of either the World Bank or the
ADB. Instead, they opted for a new organization altogether.
Why? The problem is institutional legitimacy arising from issues of power
and governance :
-- Cecchetti & Schoenholtz
[ Why? Because when all is said and done the United States wants to be
able to control the Asian Development Bank, the IMF and World Bank and use
them to in turn "control" countries that it wishes to be subject to the
US but especially to control China as the New York Times editorial board
made clear today in supporting Japanese militarism. *
No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding
:
-- Cecchetti & Schoenholtz
[ Unless the word "official" suffices as an excuse, of course United
States and British policy makers in particular dispute the need for more
government supported infrastructure funding. Amartya Sen and Vijay Prashad
have made this entirely clear for India. *
The real problem is the Chinese do not believe in economic profits, just
market rates of return on invested capital which to be honest is only about
2-5% depending on risk.
Americans demand monopoly profits and ROIC so high that the price of
capital assets rapidly inflates.
Thus China's high speed rail plans are evil because China is advocating
high volumes of HSR construction that costs decline by economies of scale
leading to the replacement cost of any existing rail line being lower than
original cost so the result is capital depreciation lower the price of assets,
tangible and intangible, and the frantic pace of creating jobs and building
more capital - more rail - eliminates any monopoly power of any rail system,
thereby forcing revenues down to costs with the recovery of investment cost
stretched to decades, and ROIC forced toward zero.
And it's that policy of investing to eliminate profits that drives conservatives
insane. They scream, "it is bankrupt because those hundred year lifetime
assets are not paying for themselves and generating stock market gains in
seven years!"
Its like banking was from circa 1930 to 1980! It is like utility regulation
was from 1930 to 1980! How can wealth be created when monopoly power is
thwarted?!?
Just imagine how devastating if China uses the AIIB to build a rail network
speeding goods between China and the tip of Africa and every place in between!
Highly destructive of wealth.
Though I want to smooth the writing and terminology, I completely agree.
Again, a terrific thoroughly enlightening comment. ]
anne :
And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate as a
founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon as it
can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century standards
:.
-- Cecchetti & Schoenholtz
[ Surely the IMF and the like are responsible for the "explosive" 38 year
growth in real per capita Gross Domestic Product and 35 year growth in total
factor productivity from Mexico, neighbor to the United States, to the Philippines,
to Kenya : ]
Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for China, India, Brazil
and South Africa, 1976-2011
(Indexed to 1976)
anne -> anne :
Even supposing analysts short of an Amartya Sen wish to be judicious in actually
looking to the data of the last 38 years, as even Sen has found there is a price
for arguing about the obvious importance of soft (social welfare spending) and
hard institutional infrastructure spending in China:
Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for China and Kenya, 1976-2014
(Indexed to 1976)
anne :
And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate
as a founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon
as it can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century
standards :.
Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for China,
United States and United Kingdom, 1976-2011
(Indexed to 1976)
anne :
No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding :
And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate as a
founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon as it
can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century standards
:.
Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for United States, United Kingdom, France, Netherlands, Germany and China,
1976-2011
(Indexed to 1976)
anne :
No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding :
What we find the most interesting is that the AIIB founders didn't ask member
countries to approve an expansion of either the World Bank or the ADB. Instead,
they opted for a new organization altogether.
Why? The problem is institutional legitimacy arising from issues of power
and governance :
Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for China, Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore, 1976-2011
(Indexed to 1976)
anne :
No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding
:
And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate
as a founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon
as it can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century
standards :.
Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for Sweden,
Denmark, Norway, Finland and China, 1976-2011
(Indexed to 1976)
anne :
No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding
:
And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate
as a founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon
as it can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century
standards :.
Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for Ireland,
Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece and China, 1976-2011
(Indexed to 1976)
anne :
No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding
:
And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate
as a founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon
as it can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century
standards :.
Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for China, Japan
and Korea, 1976-2011
(Indexed to 1976)
kthomas :
yawn
anne :
Yawn
[ When did the United States experience 38 years of 8.6% real per capita
GDP growth yearly? How about the United Kingdom? How about any other country?
I have just begun, go ahead choose another country to go with China. I am
waiting. Go ahead. I will include the astonishing total factor productivity
growth as well. ]
anne :
While most of the G20 nations, including the big European states, Australia,
and South Korea, are among the founding members, the United States, Japan,
and Canada are noticeably not :
-- Cecchetti & Schoenholtz
[ I found it startling and discouraging that Greece virtually alone in
Europe did not apply to be a founding member of the AIIB. ]
anne :
No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding
:
And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate
as a founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon
as it can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century
standards :.
Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for China,
United Kingdom, Australia and Canada, 1976-2011
(Indexed to 1976)
anne -> anne :
Yawn
[ I am still waiting, choose a country to go with China. ]
anne -> anne :
No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding
:
And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate
as a founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon
as it can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century
standards :.
Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for Indonesia,
Philippines, Thailand and China, 1976-2011
(Indexed to 1976)
anne -> anne :
Yawn
[ Still waiting, choose a country to go with China. ]
Bruce Webb :
As to why the AIIB decided to go alone (at least without the US) it may
have something to do with a fact that I stumbled on in relation to the Greece
crisis. I am sure that most people here knew the basic fact and perhaps
appreciate the irony but I didn't know whether to weep or laugh outright.
The U.S. only controls 17% of voting powers of the IMF. Why barely a
sixth! Yet any positive decision requires an 85% vote. Meaning that in operational
terms the U.S. might as well hold 51%.
You see similar things with NATO. It's a partnership that has high officers
rotating in from here or there. But which requires that the overall NATO
Commander be an American.
Nothing undemocratic or hegemonic here! Nope! Moving right along!
anne -> Bruce Webb :
The U.S. only controls 17% of voting powers of the IMF. Why barely a
sixth! Yet any positive decision requires an 85% vote. Meaning that in operational
terms the U.S. might as well hold 51%.
You see similar things with NATO. It's a partnership that has high officers
rotating in from here or there. But which requires that the overall NATO
Commander be an American.
Nothing undemocratic or hegemonic here! Nope! Moving right along!
[ Perfect and important. ]
anne -> Bruce Webb :
I am sure that most people here knew the basic fact and perhaps appreciate
the irony but I didn't know whether to weep or laugh outright :.
[ No, in continually whining about the need for Asian Infrastructure
Investment Bank to be transparent and democratic the United States was making
sure never ever to explain the historic lack of transparency and anti-democratic
nature of the IMF and World Bank and Asian Development Bank. ]
"... Bill Clinton: "The geopolitical reasons for [TPP], from America's point of view, are pretty clear. It's designed to make sure that the future of the Asia-Pacific region, economically, is not totally dominated by China" ..."
"... " The full 40-page paper (PDF) [from the Global Development And Environment Institute at Tufts University] goes into the details [of projected economic gains from trade deals]. Along the way, it provides a highly critical analysis of the underlying econometric model used for almost all of the official studies of CETA, TPP and TTIP - the so-called "computable general equilibrium" (CGE) approach. In particular, the authors find that using the CGE model to analyze a potential trade deal effectively guarantees that there will be a positive outcome ("net welfare gains") because of its unrealistic assumptions" [ TechDirt ]. ..."
Bill Clinton: "The geopolitical reasons for [TPP], from America's point of view, are pretty
clear. It's designed to make sure that the future of the Asia-Pacific region, economically, is not
totally dominated by China" [
CNBC ].
"However, he stopped short [by about an inch, right?] of supporting the TPP. He added that his
wife [who is running for President' has said provisions on currency manipulation must be enforced
and measures put in place in the United States to address any labor market dislocations that result
from trade deals." Oh. "Provisions enforced" sounds like executive authority, to me. And "measures
put in place" sounds like a side deal. In other words, Bill Clinton just floated Hillary's trial
balloon for passing TPP, if Obama can't get it done in the lame duck. Of course, if you parsed her
words, you knew she wasn't lying , exactly .
" The full 40-page
paper (PDF) [from the Global Development And Environment Institute at Tufts University] goes
into the details [of projected economic gains from trade deals]. Along the way, it provides a highly
critical analysis of the underlying econometric model used for almost all of the official studies
of CETA, TPP and TTIP - the so-called "computable general equilibrium" (CGE) approach. In particular,
the authors find that using the CGE model to analyze a potential trade deal effectively guarantees
that there will be a positive outcome ("net welfare gains") because of its unrealistic assumptions"
[
TechDirt ].
"Conservative lawmakers looking for a way to buck Donald Trump's populist message on trade may
have gotten a little more cover with more than 30 conservative and libertarian groups sending a letter
today to Congress expressing strong support for free trade" [
Politico ]. National
Taxpayers Union, Club for Growth, FreedomWorks
"France is set to arrive at the meeting with a proposal to suspend TTIP negotiations, our Pro
Trade colleagues in Brussels report. But for the deal's supporters, there's hop'e: 'France will not
win the day,' Alberto Mucci, Christian Oliver and Hans von der Burchard write. 'Britain [???], Italy,
Spain, Poland, the Nordic countries and the Baltics will thwart any attempt to end the Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership in Bratislava'" [
Politico ].
"... Expressing his overall objections to the TPP, Stiglitz said "corporate interests... were at the table" when it was being crafted. He also condemned "the provisions on intellectual property that will drive up drug prices" and "the 'investment provisions' which will make it more difficult to regulate and actually harm trade." ..."
"... The Democratic candidate, for her part, supported the deal before coming out against it , but for TPP foes, uncertainty about her position remains, especially since she recently named former Colorado Senator and Interior Secretary-and " vehement advocate for the TPP "-Ken Salazar to be chair of her presidential transition team. ..."
"... Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) said , "We have to make sure that bill never sees the light of day after this election," while Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said at the American Postal Workers Union convention in Walt Disney World, "If this goes through, it's curtains for the middle class in this country." ..."
Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has reiterated his opposition
to the Trans Pacific
Partnership (TPP), saying on Tuesday that President Barack Obama's push
to get the trade deal passed during the upcoming lame-duck session of Congress
is "outrageous" and "absolutely wrong."
Stiglitz, an economics professor at
Columbia University and chief economist of the Roosevelt Institute,
made the comments on CNN's "Quest Means Business."
His criticism comes as Obama aggressively
campaigns to get lawmakers to pass the TPP in the Nov. 9 to Jan. 3 window-even
as
resistance mounts against the 12-nation deal.
Echoing an
argument made by Center for Economic
and Policy Research co-director Mark Weisbrot, Stiglitz said, "At the lame-duck
session you have congressmen voting who know that they're not accountable anymore."
Lawmakers "who are not politically accountable because they're leaving may,
in response to promises of jobs or just subtle understandings, do things that
are not in the national interest," he said.
Expressing his overall objections to the TPP, Stiglitz said "corporate
interests... were at the table" when it was being crafted. He also condemned
"the provisions on intellectual property that will drive up drug prices" and
"the 'investment provisions' which will make it more difficult to regulate and
actually harm trade."
"The advocates of trade said it was going to benefit everyone,"
he added. "The evidence is it's benefited a few and left a lot behind."
Stiglitz has also been advising the
Hillary
Clinton presidential campaign. The Democratic candidate, for her part,
supported the deal before coming out
against it, but for TPP foes, uncertainty about her position remains, especially
since she recently
named former Colorado Senator and Interior Secretary-and "vehement
advocate for the TPP"-Ken Salazar to be chair of her presidential transition
team.
Opposition to the TPP also appeared Tuesday in Michigan and Florida, where
union members and lawmakers criticized what they foresee as the deal's impacts
on working families.
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.)
said, "We have to make sure that bill never sees the light of day after
this election," while Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.)
said at the American Postal Workers Union convention in Walt Disney World,
"If this goes through, it's curtains for the middle class in this country."
We cannot allow this agreement to forsake the American middle class, while foreign governments
are allowed to devalue their currency and artificially prop-up their industries.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal is a bad deal for the American people. This historically
massive trade deal -- accounting for 40 percent of global trade -- would reduce restrictions on foreign
corporations operating within the U.S., limit our ability to protect our environment, and create
more incentives for U.S. businesses to outsource investments and jobs overseas to countries with
lower labor costs and standards.
Over and over we hear from TPP proponents how the TPP will boost our economy, help American workers,
and set the standards for global trade. The International Trade Commission report released last May
(https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4607.pdf)
confirms that the opposite is true. In exchange for just 0.15 percent boost in GDP by 2032, the TPP
would decimate American manufacturing capacity, increase our trade deficit, ship American jobs overseas,
and result in losses to 16 of the 25 U.S. economic sectors. These estimates don't even account for
the damaging effects of currency manipulation, environmental impacts, and the agreement's deeply
flawed Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) process.
There's no reason to believe the provisions of this deal relating to labor standards, preserving
American jobs, or protecting our environment, will be enforceable. Every trade agreement negotiated
in the past claimed to have strong enforceable provisions to protect American jobs -- yet no such
enforcement has occurred, and agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have
resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of American jobs. Former Secretary of Labor Robert
Reich has called TPP "NAFTA on steroids." The loss of U.S. jobs under the TPP would likely be unprecedented.
"... Existing "trade" agreements like NAFTA allow corporations to sue governments for passing laws and regulations that limit their profits. They set up special " corporate courts " in which corporate attorneys decide the cases. These corporate "super courts" sit above governments and their own court systems, and countries and their citizens cannot even appeal the rulings. ..."
"... Now, corporations are pushing two new "trade" agreements - one covering Pacific-are countries and one covering Atlantic-area countries - that expand these corporate rights and move governments out of their way. The Pacific agreement is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Atlantic one is called the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). ..."
"... International corporations that want to intimidate countries have access to a private legal system designed just for them. And to unlock its power, sometimes all it takes is a threat. ..."
"... ISDS is so tilted and unpredictable, and the fines the arbitrators can impose are so catastrophically large, that bowing to a company's demands, however extreme they may be, can look like the prudent choice. ..."
BuzzFeed is running a very important investigative series called
"Secrets
of a Global Super Court." It describes what they call "a parallel legal
universe, open only to corporations and largely invisible to everyone else."
Existing "trade" agreements like NAFTA allow corporations to sue governments
for passing laws and regulations that limit their profits. They set up special
"corporate
courts" in which corporate attorneys decide the cases. These corporate "super
courts" sit above governments and their own court systems, and countries
and their citizens cannot even appeal the rulings.
Picture a poor "banana republic" country ruled by a dictator and his
cronies. A company might want to invest in a factory or railroad - things
that would help the people of that country as well as deliver a return to
the company. But the company worries that the dictator might decide to just
seize the factory and give it to his brother-in-law. Agreements to protect
investors, and allowing a tribunal not based in such countries (courts where
the judges are cronies of the dictator), make sense in such situations.
Here's the thing: Corporate investors see themselves as legitimate "makers"
and see citizens and voters and their governments - always demanding taxes and
fair pay and public safety - to be illegitimate "takers." Corporations are all
about "one-dollar-one-vote" top-down systems of governance. They consider "one-person-one-vote"
democracy to be an illegitimate, non-functional system that meddles with their
more-important profit interests. They consider any governmental legal or regulatory
system to be "burdensome." They consider taxes as "theft" of the money they
have "earned."
To them, any government anywhere is just another "banana republic"
from which they need special protection.
"Trade" Deals Bypass Borders
Investors and their corporations have set up a way to get around the borders
of these meddling governments, called "trade" deals. The trade deals elevate
global corporate interests above any national interest. When a country signs
a "trade" deal, that country is agreeing not to do things that protect the country's
own national interest - like impose tariffs to protect key industries or national
strategies, or pass laws and regulations - when those things interfere with
the larger, more important global corporate "trade" interests.
Now, corporations are pushing two new "trade" agreements - one covering
Pacific-are countries and one covering Atlantic-area countries - that expand
these corporate rights and move governments out of their way. The Pacific agreement
is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Atlantic one is called
the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).
Secrets of a Global Super Court
BuzzFeed's series on these corporate courts,
"Secrets
of a Global Super Court," explains the investor-state dispute settlement
(ISDS) provisions in the "trade" deals that have come to dominate the world
economy. These provisions set up "corporate
courts" that place corporate profits above the interests of governments
and set up a court system that sits above the court systems of the countries
in the "trade" deals.
In a little-noticed 2014 dissent, US Chief Justice John Roberts warned
that ISDS arbitration panels hold the alarming power to review a nation's
laws and "effectively annul the authoritative acts of its legislature, executive,
and judiciary." ISDS arbitrators, he continued, "can meet literally anywhere
in the world" and "sit in judgment" on a nation's "sovereign acts."
[. . .]
Reviewing publicly available information for about 300 claims filed during
the past five years, BuzzFeed News found more than 35 cases in which the
company or executive seeking protection in ISDS was accused of criminal
activity, including money laundering, embezzlement, stock manipulation,
bribery, war profiteering, and fraud.
Among them: a bank in Cyprus that the US government accused of
financing terrorism and organized crime, an oil company executive accused
of embezzling millions from the impoverished African nation of Burundi,
and the Russian oligarch known as "the
Kremlin's banker."
One lawyer who regularly represents governments said he's seen evidence
of corporate criminality that he "couldn't believe." Speaking on the condition
that he not be named because he's currently handling ISDS cases, he said,
"You have a lot of scuzzy sort-of thieves for whom this is a way to hit
the jackpot."
Part Two,
"The Billion-Dollar Ultimatum," looks at how "International corporations
that want to intimidate countries have access to a private legal system designed
just for them. And to unlock its power, sometimes all it takes is a threat."
Of all the ways in which ISDS is used, the most deeply hidden are the
threats, uttered in private meetings or ominous letters, that invoke those
courts. The threats are so powerful they often eliminate the need to actually
bring a lawsuit. Just the knowledge that it could happen is enough.
[. . .] ISDS is so tilted and unpredictable, and the fines the arbitrators
can impose are so catastrophically large, that bowing to a company's demands,
however extreme they may be, can look like the prudent choice. Especially
for nations struggling to emerge from corrupt dictatorships or to lift their
people from decades of poverty, the mere threat of an ISDS claim triggers
alarm. A single decision by a panel of three unaccountable, private lawyers,
meeting in a conference room on some other continent, could gut national
budgets and shake economies to the core.
Indeed, financiers and ISDS lawyers have created a whole new business:
prowling for ways to sue nations in ISDS and make their taxpayers fork over
huge sums, sometimes in retribution for enforcing basic laws or regulations.
The financial industry is pushing novel ISDS claims that countries
never could have anticipated - claims that, in some instances,
would be barred in US courts and those of other developed nations, or
that strike at emergency decisions nations make to cope with crises.
ISDS gives particular leverage to traders and speculators who chase
outsize profits in the developing world. They can buy into local disputes
that they have no connection to, then turn the disputes into costly international
showdowns. Standard Chartered, for example, bought the debt of a Tanzanian
company that was in dire financial straits and racked by scandal; now, the
bank has filed an ISDS claim demanding that the nation's taxpayers hand
over the full amount that the private company owed - more than $100 million.
Asked to comment, Standard Chartered said its claim is "valid."
But instead of helping companies resolve legitimate disputes over seized
assets, ISDS has increasingly become a way for rich investors to make money
by speculating on lawsuits, winning huge awards and forcing taxpayers to
foot the bill.
Here's how it works: Wealthy financiers with idle cash have purchased
companies that are well placed to bring an ISDS claim, seemingly for the
sole purpose of using that claim to make a buck. Sometimes, they set up
shell corporations to create the plaintiffs to bring ISDS cases.
And some hedge funds and private equity firms bankroll ISDS cases as third
parties - just like billionaire Peter Thiel bankrolled Hulk Hogan in his
lawsuit against Gawker Media.
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) released this statement
on the ISDS provisions in TPP:
"Under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Wall Street would be allowed to
sue the government in extrajudicial, corporate-run tribunals over any regulation
and American taxpayers would be on the hook for damages. This is an outrage.
We need more accountability and fairness in our economy – not less. And
we need to preserve our ability to make our own rules.
"It's time for Obama to take notice of the widespread, bipartisan opposition
to the TPP and take this agreement off the table before he causes lasting
political harm to Democrats with voters."
"... "No TPP - a certainty in case Donald Trump is elected in November - means the end of US economic hegemony over Asia. Hillary Clinton knows it; and it's no accident President Obama is desperate to have TPP approved during a short window of opportunity, the lame-duck session of Congress from November 9 to January 3." ..."
"... To me, the key to our economic hegemony lies in our reserve currency hegemony. They will have to continue to supply us to get the currency. Unless we have injected too much already (no scholars have come forth to say how much trade deficits are necessary for the reserve currency to function as the reserve currency, and so, we have just kept buying – and I am wondering if we have bought too much and there is a need to starting running trade surpluses to soak up the excess money – just asking, I don't know the answer). ..."
A response to Hillary Clinton's America Exceptionalist Speech:
1. America Exceptionalist vs. the World..
2. Brezinski is extremely dejected.
3. Russia-China on the march.
4. "There will be blood. Hillary Clinton smells it already ."
"No TPP - a certainty in case Donald Trump is elected in November
- means the end of US economic hegemony over Asia. Hillary Clinton knows
it; and it's no accident President Obama is desperate to have TPP approved
during a short window of opportunity, the lame-duck session of Congress
from November 9 to January 3."
To me, the key to our economic hegemony lies in our reserve currency
hegemony. They will have to continue to supply us to get the currency. Unless
we have injected too much already (no scholars have come forth to say how
much trade deficits are necessary for the reserve currency to function as
the reserve currency, and so, we have just kept buying – and I am wondering
if we have bought too much and there is a need to starting running trade
surpluses to soak up the excess money – just asking, I don't know the answer).
Regarding the push to pass the TPP and TISA I've been needing to get
this off my chest and this seems to be as good a time as any:
In the face of public opposition to the TPP and TISA proponents have
trotted out a new argument: "we have come too far", "our national credibility
would be damaged if we stop now." The premise of which is that negotiations
have been going on so long, and have involved such effort that if the
U.S. were to back away now we would look bad and would lose significant
political capital.
On one level this argument is true. The negotiations have been long,
and many promises were made by the negotiators to secure to to this
point. Stepping back now would expose those promises as false and would
make that decade of effort a loss. It would also expose the politicians
who pushed for it in the face of public oppoosition to further loss
of status and to further opposition.
However, all of that is voided by one simple fact. The negotiations
were secret. All of that effort, all of the horse trading and the promise
making was done by a self-selected body of elites, for that same body,
and was hidden behind a wall of secrecy stronger than that afforded
to new weapons. The deals were hidden not just from the general public,
not from trade unions or environmental groups, but from the U.S. Congress
itself.
Therefore it has no public legitimacy. The promises made are not
"our" promises but Michael Froman's promises. They are not backed by
the full faith and credit of the U.S. government but only by the words
of a small body of appointees and the multinational corporations that
they serve. The corporations were invited to the table, Congress was
not.
What "elites" really mean when they say "America's credibility is
on the line" is that their credibility is on the line. If these deals
fail what will be lost is not America's stature but the premise that
a handful of appointees can cut deals in private and that the rest of
us will make good.
When that minor loss is laid against the far greater fact that the
terms of these deals are bad, that prior deals of this type have harmed
our real economies, and that the rules will further erode our national
sovreignity, there is no contest.
Michael Froman's reputation has no value. Our sovreignity, our economy,
our nation, does.
"What "elites" really mean when they say "America's credibility is on
the line" is that their credibility is on the line. If these deals fail
what will be lost is not America's stature but the premise that a handful
of appointees can cut deals in private and that the rest of us will make
good."
Yes! And the victory will taste so sweet when we bury this filthy, rotten,
piece of garbage. Obama's years of effort down the drain, his legacy tarnished
and unfinished.
I want TPP's defeat to send a clear message that the elites can't count
on their politicians to deliver for them. Let's make this thing their Stalingrad!
Leave deep scars so that they give up on TISA and stop trying to concoct
these absurd schemes like ISDS.
sorry but i don't see it that way at all. 'they' got a propaganda machine
to beat all 'they' make n break reps all the time. i do see a desperation
on a monetary/profit scale. widening the 'playing field' offers more profits
with less risk. for instance, our Pharams won't have to slash their prices
at the risk of sunshine laws, wish-washy politicians, competition, nor a
pissed off public. jmo tho')
LOL "America's credibility" LOL, these people need to get out more. In
the 60's you could hike high up into the Andes and the sheep herder had
two pics on the wall of his hut: Jesus and JFK. America retains its cachet
as a place to make money and be entertained, but as some kind of beacon
of morality and fair play in the world? Dead, buried, and long gone, the
hype-fest of slogans and taglines can only cover up so many massive, atrocious
and hypocritical actions and serial offenses.
Clinton Inc was mostly Bill helping Epstein get laid until after Kerry
lost. If this was the reelection of John Edwards, Kerry's running mate,
and a referendum on 12 years of Kerronomics, Bill and Hill would be opening
night speakers at the DNC and answers to trivia questions.
My guess is Obama is dropped swiftly and unceremoniously especially since
he doesn't have much of a presence in Washington.
"It looks as if we'll be firing Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria in
the coming days, and critics are raising legitimate concerns:"
"Yet there is value in bolstering international norms against egregious
behavior like genocide or the use of chemical weapons. Since President Obama
established a "red line" about chemical weapons use, his credibility has
been at stake: he can't just whimper and back down."
Obama did back down.
NIcholas Kristof, vigilant protector of American credibility through
bombing Syria.
Ah yes the credibility of our élites. With their sterling record on Nafta's
benefits, Iraq's liberation, Greece's rebound, the IMF's rehabilitation
of countries
We must pass TPP or Tom Friedman will lose credibility, what?
"... pro-TPPers "consciously seek to weaken the national defense," that's exactly what's going on. Neoliberalism, through offshoring, weakens the national defense, because it puts our weaponry at the mercy of fragile and corruptible supply chains. ..."
"... Now, when we think about how corrupt the political class has become, it's not hard to see why Obama is confident that he will win. ..."
"... I think raising the ante rhetorically by framing a pro-TPP vote as treason could help sway a close vote; and if readers try that frame out, I'd like to hear the results ..."
There are two reasons: First, they consciously seek to weaken the national
defense. And second, the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system is
a
surrender of national sovereignty .
National Defense
This might be labeled the "Ghost Fleet" argument, since we're informed that
Paul Singer and Augustus Cole's techno-thriller has really caught the attention
of the national security class below the political appointee level, and that
this is a death blow for neoliberalism. Why? "The multi-billion dollar, next
generation F-35 aircraft, for instance, is rendered powerless after it is revealed
that Chinese microprocessor manufacturers had implanted malicious code into
products intended for the jet" (
Foreign Policy ). Clearly, we need, well, industrial policy, and we need
to bring a lot of manufacturing home.
From Brigadier General (Retired) John Adams :
In 2013, the Pentagon's Defense Science Board put forward a remarkable
report describing one of the most significant but little-recognized threats
to US security: deindustrialization. The report argued that the loss of
domestic U.S. manufacturing facilities has not only reduced U.S. living
standards but also compromised U.S. technology leadership "by enabling new
players to learn a technology and then gain the capability to improve on
it." The report explained that the offshoring of U.S. manufacturing presents
a particularly dangerous threat to U.S. military readiness through the "compromise
of the supply chain for key weapons systems components."
Our military is now shockingly vulnerable to major disruptions in the
supply chain, including from substandard manufacturing practices, natural
disasters, and price gouging by foreign nations. Poor manufacturing practices
in offshore factories lead to problem-plagued products, and foreign producers-acting
on the basis of their own military or economic interests-can sharply raise
prices or reduce or stop sales to the United States.
The link between TPP and this kind of offshoring has been well-established.
And, one might say, the link between neo-liberal economic policy "and this
kind of offshoring has been well-established" as well.
So, when I framed the issue as one where pro-TPPers "consciously seek
to weaken the national defense," that's exactly what's going on. Neoliberalism,
through offshoring, weakens the national defense, because it puts our weaponry
at the mercy of fragile and corruptible supply chains. Note that re-industrializing
America has positive appeal, too: For the right, on national security grounds;
and for the left, on labor's behalf (and maybe helping out the Rust Belt that
neoliberal policies of the last forty years did so much to destroy. Of course,
this framing would make Clinton a traitor, but you can't make an omelette without
breaking eggs. (Probably best to to let the right, in its refreshingly direct
fashion, use the actual "traitor" word, and the left, shocked, call for the
restoration of civility, using verbiage like "No, I wouldn't say she's a traitor.
She's certainly 'extremely careless' with our nation's security.")
ISDS
The Investor-State Dispute Settlement system is a hot mess (unless you represent
a corporation, or are one of tiny fraternity of international corporate lawyers
who can plead and/or judge ISDS cases).
Yves wrote :
What may have torched the latest Administration salvo is a well-timed
joint publication by Wikileaks and the New York Times of a recent version
of the so-called investment chapter. That section sets forth one of the
worst features of the agreement, the investor-state dispute settlement process
(ISDS). As we've described at length in earlier posts, the ISDS mechanism
strengthens the existing ISDS process. It allows for secret arbitration
panels to effectively overrule national regulations by allowing foreign
investors to sue governments over lost potential future profits in secret
arbitration panels. Those panels have been proved to be conflict-ridden
and arbitrary. And the grounds for appeal are limited and technical.
Here again we have a frame that appeals to both right and left. The very
thought of surrendering national sovereignty to an international organization
makes any good conservative's back teeth itch. And the left sees the "lost profits"
doctrine as a club to prevent future government programs they would like to
put in place (single payer, for example). And in both cases, the neoliberal
doctrine of putting markets before anything else makes pro-TPP-ers traitors.
To the right, because nationalism trumps internationalism; to the left, because
TPP prevents the State from looiking after the welfare of its people.
The Political State of Play
All I know is what I read in the papers, so what follows can only be speculation.
That said, there are two ways TPP could be passed: In the lame duck session,
by Obama, or after a new President is inaugurated, by Clinton (or possibly by
Trump[1]).
[OBAMA:] And hopefully, after the election is over and the dust settles,
there will be more attention to the actual facts behind the deal and it
won't just be a political symbol or a political football. And I will actually
sit down with people on both sides, on the right and on the left. I'll sit
down publicly with them and we'll go through the whole provisions. I would
enjoy that, because there's a lot of misinformation.
I'm really confident I can make the case this is good for American workers
and the American people. And people said we weren't going to be able to
get the trade authority to even present this before Congress, and somehow
we muddled through and got it done. And I intend to do the same with respect
to the actual agreement.
So it is looking like a very close vote. (For procedural and political
reasons, Obama will not bring it to a vote unless he is sure he has the
necessary votes). Now let's look at one special group of Representatives
who can swing this vote: the actual lame-ducks, i.e., those who will be
in office only until Jan. 3. It depends partly on how many lose their election
on Nov. 8, but the average number of representatives who left after the
last three elections was about 80.
Most of these people will be looking for a job, preferably one that can
pay them more than $1 million a year. From the data provided by OpenSecrets.org,
we can estimate that about a quarter of these people will become lobbyists.
(An additional number will work for firms that are clients of lobbyists).
So there you have it: It is all about corruption, and this is about as
unadulterated as corruption gets in our hallowed democracy, other than literal
cash under a literal table. These are the people whom Obama needs to pass
this agreement, and the window between Nov. 9 and Jan. 3 is the only time
that they are available to sell their votes to future employers without
any personal political consequences whatsoever. The only time that the electorate
can be rendered so completely irrelevant, if Obama can pull this off.
(The article doesn't talk about the Senate, but Fast Track passed the Senate
with a filibuster-proof super-majority, so the battle is in the House anyhow.
And although the text of TPP cannot be amended - that's what fast track means!
- there are still ways to affect the interpretation and enforcement of the text,
so Obama and his corporate allies have bargaining chips beyond Beltway sinecures.[2])
Now, when we think about how corrupt the political class has become,
it's not hard to see why Obama is confident that he will win. (
Remember , "[T]he preferences of economic elites have far more independent
impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do.") However,
if the anti-TPP-ers raise the rhetorical stakes from policy disagreement to
treason, maybe a few of those 80 representatives will do the right thing (or,
if you prefer, decide that the reputational damage to their future career makes
a pro-TPP vote not worth it. Who wants to play golf with a traitor?)
Passing TPP after the Inaugural
After the coronation inaugural, Clinton will have to use more
complicated tactics than dangling goodies before the snouts of representatives
leaving for K Street. (We've seen that Clinton's putative opposition to TPP
is based on lawyerly parsing; and her base supports it. So I assume a Clinton
administration would go full speed ahead with it.) My own thought has been that
she'd set up a "conversation" on trade, and then buy off the national unions
with "jobs for the boys," so that they sell their locals down the river. Conservative
Jennifer Rubin has a better proposal , which meets Clinton's supposed criterion
of not hurting workers even better:
Depending on the election results and how many pro-free-trade Republicans
lose, it still might not be sufficient. Here's a further suggestion: Couple
it with a substantial infrastructure project that Clinton wants, but with
substantial safeguards to make sure that the money is wisely spent. Clinton
gets a big jobs bill - popular with both sides - and a revised TPP gets
through.
What Clinton needs is a significant revision to TPP that she can tout
as a real reform to trade agreements, one that satisfies some of the TPP's
critics on the left. A minor tweak is unlikely to assuage anyone; this change
needs to be a major one. Fortunately, there is a TPP provision that fits
the bill perfectly: investor state dispute settlement (ISDS), the procedure
that allows foreign investors to sue governments in an international tribunal.
Removing ISDS could triangulate the TPP debate, allowing for enough support
to get it through Congress.
Obama can't have a conversation on trade, or propose a jobs program, let
alone jettison ISDS; all he's got going for him is corruption.[3] So, interestingly,
although Clinton can't take the simple road of bribing the 80 represenatives,
she does have more to bargain with on policy. Rubin's jobs bill could at least
be framed as a riposte to the "Ghost Fleet" argument, since both are about "jawbs,"
even if infrastructure programs and reindustrialization aren't identical in
intent. And while I don't think Clinton would allow ISDS to be removed (
her corporate donors love it ), at least somebody's thinking about how to
pander to the left. Nevertheless, what does a jobs program matter if the new
jobs leave the country anyhow? And suppose ISDS is removed, but the removal
of the precautionary principle remains? We'd still get corporate-friendly decisions,
bilaterally. And people would end up balancing the inevitable Clinton complexity
and mush against the simplicity of the message that a vote for TPP is a vote
against the United States.
Conclusion
I hope I've persuaded you that TPP is still very much alive, and that both
Obama in the lame duck, and Clinton (or even Trump) when inaugurated have reasonable
hopes of passing it. However, I think raising the ante rhetorically by framing
a pro-TPP vote as treason could help sway a close vote; and if readers try that
frame out, I'd like to hear the results (especially when the result comes
from a letter to your Congress critter). Interestingly, Buzzfeed just published
tonight the first in a four-part series, devoted to the idea that ISDS is what
we have said it is all along: A surrender of national sovereignty.
Here's
a great slab of it :
Imagine a private, global super court that empowers corporations to bend
countries to their will.
Say a nation tries to prosecute a corrupt CEO or ban dangerous pollution.
Imagine that a company could turn to this super court and sue the whole
country for daring to interfere with its profits, demanding hundreds of
millions or even billions of dollars as retribution.
Imagine that this court is so powerful that nations often must heed its
rulings as if they came from their own supreme courts, with no meaningful
way to appeal. That it operates unconstrained by precedent or any significant
public oversight, often keeping its proceedings and sometimes even its decisions
secret. That the people who decide its cases are largely elite Western corporate
attorneys who have a vested interest in expanding the court's authority
because they profit from it directly, arguing cases one day and then sitting
in judgment another. That some of them half-jokingly refer to themselves
as "The Club" or "The Mafia."
And imagine that the penalties this court has imposed have been so crushing
- and its decisions so unpredictable - that some nations dare not risk a
trial, responding to the mere threat of a lawsuit by offering vast concessions,
such as rolling back their own laws or even wiping away the punishments
of convicted criminals.
This system is already in place, operating behind closed doors in office
buildings and conference rooms in cities around the world. Known as investor-state
dispute settlement, or ISDS, it is written into a vast network of treaties
that govern international trade and investment, including NAFTA and the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Congress must soon decide whether to ratify.
That's the stuff to give the troops!
NOTE
[1] Trump:
"I pledge to never sign any trade agreement that hurts our workers." Lotta
wiggle room there, and the lawyerly parsing is just like Clinton's. I don't
think it's useful to discuss what Trump might do on TPP, because until there
are other parties to the deal, there's no deal to be had. Right now, we're just
looking at
Trump doing A-B testing - not that there's anything wrong with that - which
the press confuses with policy proposals. So I'm not considering Trump because
I don't think we have any data to go on.
To pacify [those to whom he will corrupt appeal], Obama will
have to convince them that what they want will anyway be achieved, even
if these are not legally part of the TPP because the TPP text cannot be
amended.
He can try to achieve this through bilateral side agreements on specific
issues. Or he can insist that some countries take on extra obligations beyond
what is required by the TPP as a condition for obtaining a U.S. certification
that they have fulfilled their TPP obligations.
This certification is required for the U.S. to provide the TPP's benefits
to its partners, and the U.S. has previously made use of this process to
get countries to take on additional obligations, which can then be shown
to Congress members that their objectives have been met.
In other words, side deals.
[3] This should not be taken to imply that Clinton does not have corruption
going for her, too. She can also make all the side deals Obama can.
"... One of the main concerns with TTIP is that it could allow multinational corporations to effectively "sue" governments for taking actions that might damage their businesses. Critics claim American companies might be able to avoid having to meet various EU health, safety and environment regulations by challenging them in a quasi-court set up to resolve disputes between investors and states. ..."
"... These developments take place against the background of another major free trade agreement - the Trans Pacific Partnership ( TPP ) - hitting snags on the way to being pushed through Congress. ..."
"... "US Faces Major Setback" Well, actually, US corporations face a major setback. Average US citizens face a reprieve. ..."
TTIP negotiations have been ongoing since 2013 in an effort to establish a massive
free trade zone that would eliminate many tariffs. After 14 rounds of talks
that have lasted three years not a single common item out of
the 27 chapters being discussed has been agreed on. The United States has
refused to agree on an equal playing field between European and American companies
in the sphere of public procurement sticking to the principle of "buy American".
The opponents of the deal believe that in its current guise the TTIP is too
friendly to US businesses. One of the main concerns with TTIP is that it
could allow multinational corporations to effectively "sue" governments for
taking actions that might damage their businesses. Critics claim American companies
might be able to avoid having to meet various EU health, safety and environment
regulations by challenging them in a quasi-court set up to resolve disputes
between investors and states.
In Europe thousands of people supported by society groups, trade unions and
activists take to the streets expressing protest against the deal. Three million
people have signed a petition calling for it to be scrapped. For instance, various
trade unions and other groups have called for protests against the TTIP across
Germany to take place on September 17. A trade agreement with Canada has also
come under attack.
These developments take place against the background of another major
free trade agreement - the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)
- hitting snags on the way to being pushed through Congress. The chances
are really slim.
silverer •Sep 5, 2016 9:51 AM
"US Faces Major Setback" Well, actually, US corporations face a major
setback. Average US citizens face a reprieve.
"... Speaking to a local radio station before the joint rally, Farage urged Americans to "go out and fight" against Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... "I am going to say to people in this country that the circumstances, the similarities, the parallels between the people who voted Brexit and the people who could beat Clinton in a few weeks time here in America are uncanny," Farage told Super Talk Mississippi. "If they want things to change they have get up out of their chairs and go out and fight for it. It can happen. We've just proved it." ..."
"... It's not for me as a foreign politician to say who you should vote for ... All I will say is that if you vote for Hillary Clinton, then nothing will change. She represents the very politics that we've just broken through the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom. ..."
...the British politician, who was invited by Mississippi governor Phil Bryant, will draw parallels
between what he sees as the inspirational story of Brexit and Trump's campaign. Farage will describe
the Republican's campaign as a similar crusade by grassroots activists against "big banks and global
political insiders" and how those who feel disaffected and disenfranchised can become involved in
populist, rightwing politics. With Trump lagging in the polls, just as Brexit did prior to the vote
on the referendum, Farage will also hearten supporters by insisting that they can prove pundits and
oddsmakers wrong as well.
This message resonates with the Trump campaign's efforts to reach out to blue collar voters who
have become disillusioned with American politics, while also adding a unique flair to Trump's never
staid campaign rallies.
The event will mark the first meeting between Farage and Trump.
Arron Banks, the businessman who backed Leave.EU, the Brexit campaign group associated with the
UK Independence party (Ukip), tweeted that he would be meeting Trump over dinner and was looking
forward to Farage's speech.
The appointment last week of Stephen Bannon, former chairman of the Breitbart website, as
"CEO" of Trump's campaign has seen the example of the Brexit vote, which Breitbart enthusiastically
advocated, rise to the fore in Trump's campaign narrative.
Speaking to a local radio station before the joint rally, Farage urged Americans to "go out
and fight" against Hillary Clinton.
"I am going to say to people in this country that the circumstances, the similarities, the
parallels between the people who voted Brexit and the people who could beat Clinton in a few weeks
time here in America are uncanny," Farage told Super Talk Mississippi. "If they want things to change
they have get up out of their chairs and go out and fight for it. It can happen. We've just proved
it."
"I am being careful," he added when asked if he supported the controversial Republican nominee.
"It's not for me as a foreign politician to say who you should vote for ... All I will say is
that if you vote for Hillary Clinton, then nothing will change. She represents the very politics
that we've just broken through the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom."
CHRIS HEDGES: We're going to be discussing a great Ponzi scheme that not only defines not only
the U.S. but the global economy, how we got there and where we're going. And with me to discuss this
issue is the economist Michael Hudson, author of
Killing
the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy. A professor of economics
who worked for many years on Wall Street, where you don't succeed if you don't grasp Marx's dictum
that capitalism is about exploitation. And he is also, I should mention, the godson of Leon Trotsky.
I want to open this discussion by reading a passage from your book, which I admire very much,
which I think gets to the core of what you discuss. You write,
"Adam Smith long ago remarked that profits often are highest in nations going fastest to
ruin. There are many ways to create economic suicide on a national level. The major way through
history has been through indebting the economy. Debt always expands to reach a point where it
cannot be paid by a large swathe of the economy. This is the point where austerity is imposed
and ownership of wealth polarizes between the One Percent and the 99 Percent. Today is not the
first time this has occurred in history. But it is the first time that running into debt has occurred
deliberately." Applauded. "As if most debtors can get rich by borrowing, not reduced to a condition
of debt peonage."
So let's start with the classical economists, who certainly understood this. They were reacting
of course to feudalism. And what happened to the study of economics so that it became gamed by ideologues?
HUDSON: The essence of classical economics was to reform industrial capitalism, to streamline
it, and to free the European economies from the legacy of feudalism. The legacy of feudalism was
landlords extracting land-rent, and living as a class that took income without producing anything.
Also, banks that were not funding industry. The leading industrialists from James Watt, with his
steam engine, to the railroads
HEDGES: From your book you make the point that banks almost never funded industry.
HUDSON: That's the point: They never have. By the time you got to Marx later in the 19th century,
you had a discussion, largely in Germany, over how to make banks do something they did not do under
feudalism. Right now we're having the economic surplus being drained not by the landlords
but also by banks and bondholders.
Adam Smith was very much against colonialism because that lead to wars, and wars led to public
debt. He said the solution to prevent this financial class of bondholders burdening the economy by
imposing more and more taxes on consumer goods every time they went to war was to finance wars on
a pay-as-you-go basis. Instead of borrowing, you'd tax the people. Then, he thought, if everybody
felt the burden of war in the form of paying taxes, they'd be against it. Well, it took all of the
19th century to fight for democracy and to extend the vote so that instead of landlords controlling
Parliament and its law-making and tax system through the House of Lords, you'd extend the vote to
labor, to women and everybody. The theory was that society as a whole would vote in its self-interest.
It would vote for the 99 Percent, not for the One Percent.
By the time Marx wrote in the 1870s, he could see what was happening in Germany. German banks
were trying to make money in conjunction with the government, by lending to heavy industry, largely
to the military-industrial complex.
HEDGES: This was Bismarck's kind of social – I don't know what we'd call it. It was a form
of capitalist socialism
HUDSON: They called it State Capitalism. There was a long discussion by Engels, saying, wait a
minute. We're for Socialism. State Capitalism isn't what we mean by socialism. There are two kinds
of state-oriented–.
HEDGES: I'm going to interject that there was a kind of brilliance behind Bismarck's policy
because he created state pensions, he provided health benefits, and he directed banking toward industry,
toward the industrialization of Germany which, as you point out, was very different in Britain and
the United States.
HUDSON: German banking was so successful that by the time World War I broke out, there were discussions
in English economic journals worrying that Germany and the Axis powers were going to win because
their banks were more suited to fund industry. Without industry you can't have really a military.
But British banks only lent for foreign trade and for speculation. Their stock market was a hit-and-run
operation. They wanted quick in-and-out profits, while German banks didn't insist that their clients
pay as much in dividends. German banks owned stocks as well as bonds, and there was much more of
a mutual partnership.
That's what most of the 19th century imagined was going to happen – that the world
was on the way to socializing banking. And toward moving capitalism beyond the feudal level, getting
rid of the landlord class, getting rid of the rent, getting rid of interest. It was going to be labor
and capital, profits and wages, with profits being reinvested in more capital. You'd have an expansion
of technology. By the early twentieth century most futurists imagined that we'd be living in a leisure
economy by now.
HEDGES: Including Karl Marx.
HUDSON: That's right. A ten-hour workweek. To Marx, socialism was to be an outgrowth of the reformed
state of capitalism, as seemed likely at the time – if labor organized in its self-interest.
HEDGES: Isn't what happened in large part because of the defeat of Germany in World War I?
But also, because we took the understanding of economists like Adam Smith and maybe Keynes. I don't
know who you would blame for this, whether Ricardo or others, but we created a fictitious economic
theory to praise a rentier or rent-derived, interest-derived capitalism that countered productive
forces within the economy. Perhaps you can address that.
HUDSON: Here's what happened. Marx traumatized classical economics by taking the concepts of Adam
Smith and John Stuart Mill and others, and pushing them to their logical conclusion.
Progressive
capitalist advocates – Ricardian socialists such as John Stuart Mill – wanted to tax away the land
or nationalize it. Marx wanted governments to take over heavy industry and build infrastructure to
provide low-cost and ultimately free basic services. This was traumatizing the landlord class and
the One Percent. And they fought back. They wanted to make everything part of "the market," which
functioned on credit supplied by them and paid rent to them.
None of the classical economists imagined how the feudal interests – these great vested interests
that had all the land and money – actually would fight back and succeed. They thought that the future
was going to belong to capital and labor. But by the late 19th century, certainly in America,
people like John Bates Clark came out with a completely different theory, rejecting the classical
economics of Adam Smith, the Physiocrats and John Stuart Mill.
HEDGES: Physiocrats are, you've tried to explain, the enlightened French economists.
HUDSON: The common denominator among all these classical economists was the distinction between
earned income and unearned income. Unearned income was rent and interest. Earned incomes were wages
and profits. But John Bates Clark came and said that there's no such thing as unearned income. He
said that the landlord actually earns his rent by taking the effort to provide a house and
land to renters, while banks provide credit to earn their interest. Every kind of income is thus
"earned," and everybody earns their income. So everybody who accumulates wealth, by definition, according
to his formulas, get rich by adding to what is now called Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
HEDGES: One of the points you make in
Killing
the Host which I liked was that in almost all cases, those who had the capacity to make money
parasitically off interest and rent had either – if you go back to the origins – looted and seized
the land by force, or inherited it.
HUDSON: That's correct. In other words, their income is unearned. The result of this anti-classical
revolution you had just before World War I was that today, almost all the economic growth in the
last decade has gone to the One Percent. It's gone to Wall Street, to real estate
HEDGES: But you blame this on what you call Junk Economics.
HUDSON: Junk Economics is the anti-classical reaction.
HEDGES: Explain a little bit how, in essence, it's a fictitious form of measuring the economy.
HUDSON: Well, some time ago I went to a bank, a block away from here – a Chase Manhattan bank
– and I took out money from the teller. As I turned around and took a few steps, there were two pickpockets.
One pushed me over and the other grabbed the money and ran out. The guard stood there and saw it.
So I asked for the money back. I said, look, I was robbed in your bank, right inside. And they said,
"Well, we don't arm our guards because if they shot someone, the thief could sue us and we don't
want that." They gave me an equivalent amount of money back.
Well, imagine if you count all this crime, all the money that's taken, as an addition to GDP.
Because now the crook has provided the service of not stabbing me. Or suppose somebody's held up
at an ATM machine and the robber says, "Your money or your life." You say, "Okay, here's my money."
The crook has given you the choice of your life. In a way that's how the Gross National Product accounts
are put up. It's not so different from how Wall Street extracts money from the economy. Then also
you have landlords extracting
HEDGES: Let's go back. They're extracting money from the economy by debt peonage. By raising
HUDSON: By not playing a productive role, basically.
HEDGES: Right. So it's credit card interest, mortgage interest, car loans, student loans. That's
how they make their funds.
HUDSON: That's right. Money is not a factor of production. But in order to have access to credit,
in order to get money, in order to get an education, you have to pay the banks. At New York University
here, for instance, they have Citibank. I think Citibank people were on the board of directors at
NYU. You get the students, when they come here, to start at the local bank. And once you are in a
bank and have monthly funds taken out of your account for electric utilities, or whatever, it's very
cumbersome to change.
So basically you have what the classical economists called the rentier class. The class
that lives on economic rents. Landlords, monopolists charging more, and the banks. If you have a
pharmaceutical company that raises the price of a drug from $12 a shot to $200 all of a sudden, their
profits go up. Their increased price for the drug is counted in the national income accounts as if
the economy is producing more. So all this presumed economic growth that has all been taken by the
One Percent in the last ten years, and people say the economy is growing. But the economy isn't growing
HEDGES: Because it's not reinvested.
HUDSON: That's right. It's not production, it's not consumption. The wealth of the One Percent
is obtained essentially by lending money to the 99 Percent and then charging interest on it, and
recycling this interest at an exponentially growing rate.
HEDGES: And why is it important, as I think you point out in your book, that economic theory
counts this rentier income as productive income? Explain why that's important.
HUDSON: If you're a rentier, you want to say that you earned your income by
HEDGES: We're talking about Goldman Sachs, by the way.
HUDSON: Yes, Goldman Sachs. The head of Goldman Sachs came out and said that Goldman Sachs workers
are the most productive in the world. That's why they're paid what they are. The concept of productivity
in America is income divided by labor. So if you're Goldman Sachs and you pay yourself $20 million
a year in salary and bonuses, you're considered to have added $20 million to GDP, and that's enormously
productive. So we're talking in a tautology. We're talking with circular reasoning here.
So the issue is whether Goldman Sachs, Wall Street and predatory pharmaceutical firms, actually
add "product" or whether they're just exploiting other people. That's why I used the word parasitism
in my book's title. People think of a parasite as simply taking money, taking blood out of a host
or taking money out of the economy. But in nature it's much more complicated. The parasite can't
simply come in and take something. First of all, it needs to numb the host. It has an enzyme so that
the host doesn't realize the parasite's there. And then the parasites have another enzyme that takes
over the host's brain. It makes the host imagine that the parasite is part of its own body, actually
part of itself and hence to be protected.
That's basically what Wall Street has done. It depicts itself as part of the economy. Not as a
wrapping around it, not as external to it, but actually the part that's helping the body grow, and
that actually is responsible for most of the growth. But in fact it's the parasite that is taking
over the growth.
The result is an inversion of classical economics. It turns Adam Smith upside down. It says what
the classical economists said was unproductive – parasitism – actually is the real economy. And that
the parasites are labor and industry that get in the way of what the parasite wants – which is to
reproduce itself, not help the host, that is, labor and capital.
HEDGES: And then the classical economists like Adam Smith were quite clear that unless that
rentier income, you know, the money made by things like hedge funds, was heavily taxed and put back
into the economy, the economy would ultimately go into a kind of tailspin. And I think the example
of that, which you point out in your book, is what's happened in terms of large corporations with
stock dividends and buybacks. And maybe you can explain that.
HUDSON: There's an idea in superficial textbooks and the public media that if companies make a
large profit, they make it by being productive. And with
HEDGES: Which is still in textbooks, isn't it?
HUDSON: Yes. And also that if a stock price goes up, you're just capitalizing the profits – and
the stock price reflects the productive role of the company. But that's not what's been happening
in the last ten years. Just in the last two years, 92 percent of corporate profits in America have
been spent either on buying back their own stock, or paid out as dividends to raise the price of
the stock.
HEDGES: Explain why they do this.
HUDSON: About 15 years ago at Harvard, Professor Jensen said that the way to ensure that corporations
are run most efficiently is to make the managers increase the price of the stock. So if you give
the managers stock options, and you pay them not according to how much they're producing or making
the company bigger, or expanding production, but the price of the stock, then you'll have the corporation
run efficiently, financial style.
So the corporate managers find there are two ways that they can increase the price of the stock.
The first thing is to cut back long-term investment, and use the money instead to buy back their
own stock. But when you buy your own stock, that means you're not putting the money into capital
formation. You're not building new factories. You're not hiring more labor. You can actually increase
the stock price by firing labor.
HEDGES: That strategy only works temporarily.
HUDSON: Temporarily. By using the income from past investments just to buy back stock, fire the
labor force if you can, and work it more intensively. Pay it out as dividends. That basically is
the corporate raider's model. You use the money to pay off the junk bond holders at high interest.
And of course, this gets the company in trouble after a while, because there is no new investment.
So markets shrink. You then go to the labor unions and say, gee, this company's near bankruptcy,
and we don't want to have to fire you. The way that you can keep your job is if we downgrade your
pensions. Instead of giving you what we promised, the defined benefit pension, we'll turn it into
a defined contribution plan. You know what you pay every month, but you don't know what's going to
come out. Or, you wipe out the pension fund, push it on to the government's Pension Benefit Guarantee
Corporation, and use the money that you were going to pay for pensions to pay stock dividends. By
then the whole economy is turning down. It's hollowed out. It shrinks and collapses. But by that
time the managers will have left the company. They will have taken their bonuses and salaries and
run.
HEDGES: I want to read this quote from your book, written by David Harvey, in
A Brief
History of Neoliberalism, and have you comment on it.
"The main substantive achievement of neoliberalism has been to redistribute rather than
to generate wealth and income. [By] 'accumulation by dispossession' I mean the commodification
and privatization of land, and the forceful expulsion of peasant populations; conversion of various
forms of property rights (common collective state, etc.) into exclusive private property rights;
suppression of rights to the commons; colonial, neocolonial, and the imperial processes of appropriation
of assets (including natural resources); and usury, the national debt and, most devastating
at all, the use of the credit system as a radical means of accumulation by dispossession. To
this list of mechanisms, we may now add a raft of techniques such as the extraction of rents from
patents, and intellectual property rights (such as the diminution or erasure of various forms
of common property rights, such as state pensions, paid vacations, and access to education, health
care) one through a generation or more of class struggle. The proposal to privatize all state
pension rights, pioneered in Chile under the dictatorship is, for example, one of the cherished
objectives of the Republicans in the US."
This explains the denouement. The final end result you speak about in your book is, in essence,
allowing what you call the rentier or the speculative class to cannibalize the entire society until
it collapses.
HUDSON: A property right is not a factor of production. Look at what happened in Chicago, the
city where I grew up. Chicago didn't want to raise taxes on real estate, especially on its expensive
commercial real estate. So its budget ran a deficit. They needed money to pay the bondholders, so
they sold off the parking rights to have meters – you know, along the curbs. The result is that they
sold to Goldman Sachs 75 years of the right to put up parking meters. So now the cost of living and
doing business in Chicago is raised by having to pay the parking meters. If Chicago is going to have
a parade and block off traffic, it has to pay Goldman Sachs what the firm would have made
if the streets wouldn't have been closed off for a parade. All of a sudden it's much more expensive
to live in Chicago because of this.
But this added expense of having to pay parking rights to Goldman Sachs – to pay out interest
to its bondholders – is counted as an increase in GDP, because you've created more product simply
by charging more. If you sell off a road, a government or local road, and you put up a toll booth
and make it into a toll road, all of a sudden GDP goes up.
If you go to war abroad, and you spend more money on the military-industrial complex, all this
is counted as increased production. None of this is really part of the production system of the capital
and labor building more factories and producing more things that people need to live and do business.
All of this is overhead. But there's no distinction between wealth and overhead.
Failing to draw that distinction means that the host doesn't realize that there is a parasite
there. The host economy, the industrial economy, doesn't realize what the industrialists realized
in the 19th century: If you want to be an efficient economy and be low-priced and under-sell
competitors, you have to cut your prices by having the public sector provide roads freely. Medical
care freely. Education freely.
If you charge for all of these, you get to the point that the U.S. economy is in today. What if
American factory workers were to get all of their consumer goods for nothing. All their food,
transportation, clothing, furniture, everything for nothing. They still couldn't compete with
Asians or other producers, because they have to pay up to 43% of their income for rent or mortgage
interest, 10% or more of their income for student loans, credit card debt. 15% of their paycheck
is automatic withholding to pay Social Security, to cut taxes on the rich or to pay for medical care.
So Americans built into the economy all this overhead. There's no distinction between growth and
overhead. It's all made America so high-priced that we're priced out of the market, regardless of
what trade policy we have.
HEDGES: We should add that under this predatory form of economics, you game the system. So
you privatize pension funds, you force them into the stock market, an overinflated stock market.
But because of the way companies go public, it's the hedge fund managers who profit. And it's those
citizens whose retirement savings are tied to the stock market who lose. Maybe we can just conclude
by talking about how the system is fixed, not only in terms of burdening the citizen with debt peonage,
but by forcing them into the market to fleece them again.
HUDSON: Well, we talk about an innovation economy as if that makes money. Suppose you have an
innovation and a company goes public. They go to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street investment banks
to underwrite the stock to issue it at $40 a share. What's considered a successful float is when,
immediately, Goldman and the others will go to their insiders and tell them to buy this stock and
make a quick killing. A "successful" flotation doubles the price in one day, so that at the end of
the day the stock's selling for $80.
HEDGES: They have the option to buy it before anyone else, knowing that by the end of the day
it'll be inflated, and then they sell it off.
HUDSON: That's exactly right.
HEDGES: So the pension funds come in and buy it at an inflated price, and then it goes back
down.
HUDSON: It may go back down, or it may be that the company just was shortchanged from the very
beginning. The important thing is that the Wall Street underwriting firm, and the speculators it
rounds up, get more in a single day than all the years it took to put the company together. The company
gets $40. And the banks and their crony speculators also get $40.
So basically you have the financial sector ending up with much more of the gains. The name of
the game if you're on Wall Street isn't profits. It's capital gains. And that's something that wasn't
even part of classical economics. They didn't anticipate that the price of assets would go up for
any other reason than earning more money and capitalizing on income. But what you have had in the
last 50 years – really since World War II – has been asset-price inflation. Most middle-class families
have gotten the wealth that they've got since 1945 not really by saving what they've earned by working,
but by the price of their house going up. They've benefited by the price of the house. And they think
that that's made them rich and the whole economy rich.
The reason the price of housing has gone up is that a house is worth whatever a bank is going
to lend against it. If banks made easier and easier credit, lower down payments, then you're going
to have a financial bubble. And now, you have real estate having gone up as high as it can. I don't
think it can take more than 43% of somebody's income to buy it. But now, imagine if you're joining
the labor force. You're not going to be able to buy a house at today's prices, putting down a little
bit of your money, and then somehow end up getting rich just on the house investment. All of this
money you pay the bank is now going to be subtracted from the amount of money that you have available
to spend on goods and services.
So we've turned the post-war economy that made America prosperous and rich inside out. Somehow
most people believed they could get rich by going into debt to borrow assets that were going to rise
in price. But you can't get rich, ultimately, by going into debt. In the end the creditors always
win. That's why every society since Sumer and Babylonia have had to either cancel the debts, or you
come to a society like Rome that didn't cancel the debts, and then you have a dark age. Everything
collapses.
"... Furthermore, as Mark Kleiman sagely observes , the conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the assertion that the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone wins - but we now have an ideology utterly opposed to such redistribution in full control of one party, and with blocking power against anything but a minor move in that direction by the other. ..."
A Protectionist Moment? : ... if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find
it very hard to do anything much about globalization - not because it's technically or economically
impossible, but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements
the diplomatic, foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. ...
But it's also true
that much of the elite defense of globalization is basically dishonest: false claims of inevitability,
scare tactics (
protectionism causes depressions !), vastly exaggerated claims for the benefits of trade liberalization
and the costs of protection, hand-waving away the large distributional effects that are what standard
models actually predict. I hope, by the way, that I haven't done any of that...
Furthermore, as Mark Kleiman
sagely observes , the conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the assertion that
the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone wins - but we now have an ideology
utterly opposed to such redistribution in full control of one party, and with blocking power against
anything but a minor move in that direction by the other.
So the elite case for ever-freer trade is largely a scam, which voters probably sense even
if they don't know exactly what form it's taking.
Ripping up the trade agreements we already have would, again, be a mess, and I would say that
Sanders is engaged in a bit of a scam himself in even hinting that he could do such a thing. Trump
might actually do it, but only as part of a reign of destruction on many fronts.
But it is fair to say that the case for more trade agreements - including TPP, which hasn't
happened yet - is very, very weak. And if a progressive makes it to the White House, she should
devote no political capital whatsoever to such things.
Again, just because automation has been a major factor in job loss doesn't mean "off shoring"
(using the term broadly and perhaps somewhat inaccurately) is not a factor.
The "free" trade deals suck. They are correctly diagnosed as part of the problem.
What would you propose to fix the problems caused by automation?
Automation frees labor to do more productive and less onerous tasks. We should expand our solar
production and our mass transit. We need to start re-engineering our urban areas. This will not
bring back the number of jobs it would take to make cities like Flint thrive once again.
Flint and Detroit have severe economic problems because they were mismanaged by road building
and suburbanization in the 1950s and 1960s. Money that should have been spent on maintaining and
improving urban infrastructure was instead plowed into suburban development that is not dense
enough to sustain the infrastructure required to support it. People moved to the suburbs, abandoned
the built infrastructure of the cities and kissed them goodbye.
Big roads polluted the cities with lead, noise, diesel particles and ozone and smog. Stroads
created pedestrian kill zones making urban areas, unwalkable, unpleasant- an urban blights to
drive through rather than destinations to drive to.
Government subsidized the white flight to the suburbs that has left both the suburbs and the
urban cores with too low revenue to infrastructure ratio. The inner suburbs have aged into net
losers, their infrastructure must be subsidized. Big Roads were built on the Big Idea that people
would drive to the city to work and play and then drive home. That Big idea has a big problem.
Urban areas are only sustainable when they have a high resident density. The future of cities
like Flint and Detroit will be tearing out the roads and replacing them with streets and houses
and renewing the housing stock that has been abandoned. It needs to be done by infill, revitalizing
inner neighborhoods and working outward. Cities like Portland have managed to protect much of
their core, but even they are challenged by demands for suburban sprawl.
Slash and burn development, creating new suburbs and abandoning the old is not a sustainable
model. Not only should we put people to work replacing the Flint lead pipes, but much of the city
should be rebuilt from the inside out. Flint is the leading edge of this problem that requires
fundamental changes in our built environment to fix. I recommend studying Flint as an object lesson
of what bad development policy could do to all of our cities.
An Interview with Frank Popper about Shrinking Cities, Buffalo Commons, and the Future of Flint
How does America's approach shrinking cities compare to the rest of the world?
I think the American way is to do nothing until it's too late, then throw everything at it
and improvise and hope everything works. And somehow, insofar as the country's still here, it
has worked. But the European or the Japanese way would involve much more thought, much more foresight,
much more central planning, and much less improvising. They would implement a more, shall we say,
sustained effort. The American way is different. Europeans have wondered for years and years why
cities like Detroit or Cleveland are left to rot on the vine. There's a lot of this French hauteur
when they ask "How'd you let this happen?"
Do shrinking cities have any advantages over agricultural regions as they face declining populations?
The urban areas have this huge advantage over all these larger American regions that are going
through this. They have actual governments with real jurisdiction. Corrupt as Detroit or Philadelphia
or Camden may be, they have actual governments that are supposed to be in charge of them. Who's
in charge of western Kansas? Who's in charge of the Great Plains? Who is in charge of the lower
Mississippi Delta or central Appalachia? All they've got are these distant federal agencies whose
past performance is not exactly encouraging.
Why wasn't there a greater outcry as the agricultural economy and the industrial economy collapsed?
One reason for the rest of the country not to care is that there's no shortage of the consumer
goods that these places once produced. All this decline of agriculture doesn't mean we're running
out of food. We've got food coming out of our ears. Likewise, Flint has suffered through all this,
but it's not like it's hard to buy a car in this country. It's not as if Flint can behave like
a child and say "I'm going to hold my nose and stop you from getting cars until you do the right
thing." Flint died and you can get zero A.P.R. financing. Western Kansas is on its last legs and,
gee, cereal is cheaper than ever.
In some sense that's the genius of capitalism - it's heartless. But if you look at the local
results and the cultural results and the environmental results you shake your head. But I don't
see America getting away from what I would call a little sarcastically the "wisdom" of the market.
I don't think it's going to change.
So is there any large-scale economic fallout from these monumental changes?
Probably not, and it hurts to say so. And the only way I can feel good about saying that is
to immediately point to the non-economic losses, the cultural losses. The losses of ways of life.
The notion of the factory worker working for his or her children. The notion of the farmer working
to build up the country and supply the rest of the world with food. We're losing distinctive ways
of life. When we lose that we lose something important, but it's not like The Wall Street Journal
cares. And I feel uncomfortable saying that. From a purely economic point of view, it's just the
price of getting more efficient. It's a classic example of Schumpeter's theory of creative destruction,
which is no fun if you're on the destruction end.
Does the decline of cities like Flint mirror the death of the middle class in the United States?
I think it's more the decline of the lower-middle class in the United States. Even when those
jobs in the auto factories paid very high wages they were still for socially lower-middle-class
people. I think there was always the notion in immigrant families and working-class families who
worked in those situations that the current generation would work hard so that the children could
go off and not have to do those kind of jobs. And when those jobs paid well that was a perfectly
reasonable ambition. It's the cutting off of that ambition that really hurts now. The same thing
has been true on farms and ranches in rural parts of the united states.
It is a much different thing to be small minded about trade than it is to be large minded about
everything else. The short story that it is all about automation and not trade will always get
a bad reception because it is small minded. When you add in the large minded story about everything
else then it becomes something entirely different from the short story. We all agree with you
about everything else. You are wrong about globalization though. Both financialization and globalization
suck and even if we paper over them with tax and transfer then they will still suck. One must
forget what it is to be a created equal human to miss that. Have you never felt the job of accomplishment?
Does not pride and self-confidence matter in your life?
While automation is part of the story, offshoring is just as important. Even when there is not
net loss in the numbers of jobs in aggregate, there is significant loss in better paying jobs
in manufacturing. It is important to look at the distributional effects within countries, as well
as between them
It would probably be cheaper and easier to just fix them. We don't need to withdraw from trade.
We just need to fix the terms of trade that cause large trade deficits and cross border capital
flows and also fix the FOREX system rigging.
What would it take to ignore trade agreements? They shouldn't be any more difficult to ignore
than the Geneva Conventions, which the US routinely flaunts.
In order to import we must export and in order to export we must import. The two are tied together.
Suppressing imports means we export less.
What free trade does is lower the price level relative to wages. It doesn't uniformly lower
the price level but rather lowers the cost of goods that are capable of being traded internationally.
It lowers the price on those goods that are disproportionately purchased by those with low incomes.
Free trade causes a progressive decline in the price level while protectionism causes a regressive
increase in the price level.
Funny rebuttal! Bhagwati probably has a model that says the opposite! But then he grew up in India
and should one day get a Nobel Prize for his contributions to international economics.
Our media needs to copy France 24, ... and have real debates about real issues. What we get is
along the lines of ignoring the problem then attacking any effort to correct. for example, the
media stayed away from the healthcare crisis, too complicated, but damn they are good at criticizing.
A seriously shameful article. Krugman has been a booster of trade & globalization for 30 years:
marginally more nuanced than the establishment, but still a booster.
Now, the establishment has what it wanted and the effects have been disastrous for those not
in the top 20 percent of the income distribution.
At this stage, comes insult to injury. Establishment economists (like Mr. Krugman) can reinvent
themselves with "brilliant new studies" showing the costs and damage of globalization. They pay
no professional costs for the grievous injuries inflicted; there is no mention of the fact that
critical outsider economists have been predicting and writing about these injuries and were right;
and they blithely say we must stay the course because we are locked-in and have few options.
Krugman is not Greg Mankiw. Most people who actually get international economics (Mankiw does
not) are not of the free trade benefits all types. Paul Samuelson certainly does not buy into
Mankiw's spin. Funny thing - Mankiw recently cited an excellent piece from Samuelson only to dishonestly
suggest Samuelson did not believe in what he wrote.
Why are you mischaracterizing what Krugman has written? That's my point. Oh wait - you misrepresent
what people write so you can "win" a "debate". Never mind. Please proceed with the serial dishonesty.
"The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard to
do anything much about globalization - not because it's technically or economically impossible,
but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic,
foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. In this, as in many other things, Sanders
currently benefits from the luxury of irresponsibility: he's never been anywhere close to the
levers of power, so he could take principled-sounding but arguably feckless stances in a way that
Clinton couldn't and can't."
As Dean Baker says, we need to confront Walmart and Goldman Sachs at home, who like these policies,
more than the Chinese.
The Chinese want access to our consumer market. They'd also like if we did't invade countries
like Iraq.
"so he could take principled-sounding but arguably feckless stances in a way that Clinton couldn't"
And what is that? Tear up trade deals? It is Krugman who is engaging in straw man arguments.
Krugman does indeed misrepresent Sanders' positions on trade. Sander is not against trade, he
merely insists on *Fair Trade*, which incorporates human rights and environmental protections.
His opposition is to the kinds of deals, like NAFTA and TPP, which effectively gut those (a central
element in Kruman's own critique of the latter).
Krugman has definitely backed off his (much) earlier boosterism and publicly said so. This is
an excellent piece by him, though it does rather downplay his earlier stances a bit. This is one
of the things I especially like about him.
I can get the idea that some people win, some people lose from liberalized trade. But what really
bugs me about the neoliberal trade agenda is that it has been part of a larger set of economically
conservative, laissez faire policies that have exacerbated the damages from trade rather than
offsetting them.
At the same time they were exposing US workers to greater competition from abroad and destroying
and offshoring working class jobs via both trade and liberalized capital flows, the neoliberals
were also doing things like "reinventing government" - that is, shrinking structural government
spending and public investment - and ending welfare. They have done nothing serious about steering
capital and job development efforts toward the communities devastated by the liberalization.
The neoliberal position has seem to come down to "We can't make bourgeois progress without
breaking a few working class eggs."
Agreed! "Krugman has been a booster of trade & globalization for 30 years: marginally more nuanced
than the establishment, but still a booster.'
Now he claims that he saw the light all along! "much of the elite defense of globalization
is basically dishonest: false claims of inevitability, scare tactics (protectionism causes depressions!),
vastly exaggerated claims for the benefits of trade liberalization and the costs of protection,
hand-waving away the large distributional effects that are what standard models actually predict.
I hope, by the way, that I haven't done any of that..."
You would be hard pressed to find any Krugman clips that cited any of those problems in the
past. Far from being an impartial economist, he was always an avid booster of free trade, overlooking
those very downsides that he suddenly decides to confess.
As far as I know, Sanders has not proposed ripping up the existing trade deals. His information
page on trade emphasizes (i) his opposition to these deals when they were first negotiated and
enacted, and (ii) the principles he will apply to the consideration of future trade deals. Much
of his argumentation concerning past deals is put forward to motivate his present opposition to
TPP.
Note also that Sanders connects his discussion of the harms of past trade policy to the Rebuild
America Act. That is, his approach is forward facing. We can't undo most of the past damage by
recreating the old working class economy we wrecked, but we can be aggressive about using government-directed
national investment programs to create new, high-paying jobs in the US.
You could have said the same about the 1920s
We can't undo most of the past damage by recreating the old agrarian class economy we wrecked,
but we can be aggressive about using government-directed national investment programs to create
new, high-paying jobs in the US.
The march of progress:
Mechanization of agriculture with displacement of large numbers of Ag workers.
The rise of factory work and large numbers employed in manufacturing.
Automation of Manufacturing with large displacement of workers engaged in manufacturing.
What do we want our workers to do? This question must be answered at the highest level of society
and requires much government facilitation. The absence of government facilitation is THE problem.
Memo to Paul Krugman - lead with the economics and stay with the economics. His need to get into
the dirty business of politics dilutes what he ends up sensibly writes later on.
""The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard
to do anything much about globalization - not because it's technically or economically impossible,
but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic,
foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. In this, as in many other things, Sanders
currently benefits from the luxury of irresponsibility: he's never been anywhere close to the
levers of power, so he could take principled-sounding but arguably feckless stances in a way that
Clinton couldn't and can't."
Yeah, it's pretty dishonest for Krugman to pretend that Sanders' position is "ripping up the trade
agreements we already have" and then say Sanders is "engaged in a bit of a scam" because he can't
do that. Sanders actual position (trying to stop new trade deals like the TPP) is something the
president has a lot of influence over (they can veto the deal). Hard to tell what Krugman is doing
here other than deliberately spreading misinformation.
Also worth noting that he decides to compare Sanders' opposition to trade deals with Trump,
and ignore the fact that Clinton has come out against the TPP as well .
Busy with real life, but yes, I know what happened in the primaries yesterday. Triumph for
Trump, and big upset for Sanders - although it's still very hard to see how he can catch Clinton.
Anyway, a few thoughts, not about the horserace but about some deeper currents.
The Sanders win defied all the polls, and nobody really knows why. But a widespread guess is
that his attacks on trade agreements resonated with a broader audience than his attacks on Wall
Street; and this message was especially powerful in Michigan, the former auto superpower. And
while I hate attempts to claim symmetry between the parties - Trump is trying to become America's
Mussolini, Sanders at worst America's Michael Foot * - Trump has been tilling some of the same
ground. So here's the question: is the backlash against globalization finally getting real political
traction?
You do want to be careful about announcing a political moment, given how many such proclamations
turn out to be ludicrous. Remember the libertarian moment? The reformocon moment? Still, a protectionist
backlash, like an immigration backlash, is one of those things where the puzzle has been how long
it was in coming. And maybe the time is now.
The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard
to do anything much about globalization - not because it's technically or economically impossible,
but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic,
foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. In this, as in many other things, Sanders
currently benefits from the luxury of irresponsibility: he's never been anywhere close to the
levers of power, so he could take principled-sounding but arguably feckless stances in a way that
Clinton couldn't and can't.
But it's also true that much of the elite defense of globalization is basically dishonest:
false claims of inevitability, scare tactics (protectionism causes depressions! ** ), vastly exaggerated
claims for the benefits of trade liberalization and the costs of protection, hand-waving away
the large distributional effects that are what standard models actually predict. I hope, by the
way, that I haven't done any of that; I think I've always been clear that the gains from globalization
aren't all that (here's a back-of-the-envelope on the gains from hyperglobalization *** - only
part of which can be attributed to policy - that is less than 5 percent of world GDP over a generation);
and I think I've never assumed away the income distribution effects.
Furthermore, as Mark Kleiman sagely observes, **** the conventional case for trade liberalization
relies on the assertion that the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone
wins - but we now have an ideology utterly opposed to such redistribution in full control of one
party, and with blocking power against anything but a minor move in that direction by the other.
So the elite case for ever-freer trade is largely a scam, which voters probably sense even
if they don't know exactly what form it's taking.
Ripping up the trade agreements we already have would, again, be a mess, and I would say that
Sanders is engaged in a bit of a scam himself in even hinting that he could do such a thing. Trump
might actually do it, but only as part of a reign of destruction on many fronts.
But it is fair to say that the case for more trade agreements - including Trans-Pacific Partnership,
which hasn't happened yet - is very, very weak. And if a progressive makes it to the White House,
she should devote no political capital whatsoever to such things.
Michael Mackintosh Foot (1913 – 2010) was a British Labour Party politician and man of letters
who was a Member of Parliament (MP) from 1945 to 1955 and from 1960 until 1992. He was Deputy
Leader of the Labour Party from 1976 to 1980, and later the Leader of the Labour Party and Leader
of the Opposition from 1980 to 1983.
Associated with the left of the Labour Party for most of his career, Foot was an ardent supporter
of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and British withdrawal from the European Economic Community.
He was appointed to the Cabinet as Secretary of State for Employment under Harold Wilson in 1974,
and he later served as Leader of the House of Commons under James Callaghan. A passionate orator,
he led Labour through the 1983 general election, when the party obtained its lowest share of the
vote at a general election since 1918 and the fewest parliamentary seats it had had at any time
since before 1945.
There was so much wrong with Mitt Romney's Trump-is-a-disaster-whom-I-will-support-in-the-general
* speech that it may seem odd to call him out for bad international macroeconomics. But this is
a pet peeve of mine, in an area where I really, truly know what I'm talking about. So here goes.
In warning about Trumponomics, Romney declared:
"If Donald Trump's plans were ever implemented, the country would sink into prolonged recession.
A few examples. His proposed 35 percent tariff-like penalties would instigate a trade war and
that would raise prices for consumers, kill our export jobs and lead entrepreneurs and businesses
of all stripes to flee America."
After all, doesn't everyone know that protectionism causes recessions? Actually, no. There
are reasons to be against protectionism, but that's not one of them.
Think about the arithmetic (which has a well-known liberal bias). Total final spending on domestically
produced goods and services is
Total domestic spending + Exports – Imports = GDP
Now suppose we have a trade war. This will cut exports, which other things equal depresses
the economy. But it will also cut imports, which other things equal is expansionary. For the world
as a whole, the cuts in exports and imports will by definition be equal, so as far as world demand
is concerned, trade wars are a wash.
OK, I'm sure some people will start shouting "Krugman says protectionism does no harm." But
no: protectionism in general should reduce efficiency, and hence the economy's potential output.
But that's not at all the same as saying that it causes recessions.
But didn't the Smoot-Hawley tariff cause the Great Depression? No. There's no evidence at all
that it did. Yes, trade fell a lot between 1929 and 1933, but that was almost entirely a consequence
of the Depression, not a cause. (Trade actually fell faster ** during the early stages of the
2008 Great Recession than it did after 1929.) And while trade barriers were higher in the 1930s
than before, this was partly a response to the Depression, partly a consequence of deflation,
which made specific tariffs (i.e. tariffs that are stated in dollars per unit, not as a percentage
of value) loom larger.
Again, not the thing most people will remember about Romney's speech. But, you know, protectionism
was the only reason he gave for believing that Trump would cause a recession, which I think is
kind of telling: the GOP's supposedly well-informed, responsible adult, trying to save the party,
can't get basic economics right at the one place where economics is central to his argument.
The Gains From Hyperglobalization (Wonkish)
By Paul Krugman
Still taking kind of an emotional vacation from current political madness. Following up on
my skeptical post on worries about slowing trade growth, * I wondered what a state-of-the-art
model would say.
The natural model to use, at least for me, is Eaton-Kortum, ** which is a very ingenious approach
to thinking about multilateral trade flows. The basic model is Ricardian - wine and cloth and
labor productivity and all that - except that there are many goods and many countries, transportation
costs, and countries are assumed to gain productivity in any particular industry through a random
process. They make some funny assumptions about distributions - hey, that's kind of the price
of entry for this kind of work - and in return get a tractable model that yields gravity-type
equations for international trade flows. This is a good thing, because gravity models *** of trade
- purely empirical exercises, with no real theory behind them - are known to work pretty well.
Their model also yields a simple expression for the welfare gains from trade:
Real income = A*(1-import share)^(-1/theta)
where A is national productivity and theta is a parameter of their assumed random process (don't
ask); they suggest that theta=4 provides the best match to available data.
Now, what I wanted to do was apply this to the rapid growth of trade that has taken place since
around 1990, what Subramanian **** calls "hyperglobalization". According to Subramanian's estimates,
overall trade in goods and services has risen from about 19 percent of world GDP in the early
1990s to 33 percent now, bringing us to a level of integration that really is historically unprecedented.
There are some conceptual difficulties with using this rise directly in the Eaton-Kortum framework,
because much of it has taken the form of trade in intermediate goods, and the framework isn't
designed to handle that. Still, let me ignore that, and plug Subramanian's numbers into the equation
above; I get a 4.9 percent rise in real incomes due to increased globalization.
That's by no means small change, but it's only a fairly small fraction of global growth. The
Maddison database ***** gives us a 45 percent rise in global GDP per capita over the same period,
so this calculation suggests that rising trade was responsible for around 10 percent of overall
global growth. My guess is that most people who imagine themselves well-informed would give a
bigger number.
By the way, for those critical of globalization, let me hasten to concede that by its nature
the Eaton-Kortum model doesn't let us talk about income distribution, and it also makes no room
for the possible role of globalization in causing secular stagnation. ******
Still, I thought this was an interesting calculation to make - which may show more about my
warped sense of what's interesting than it does about anything else.
General Equilibrium Analysis of the Eaton-Kortum Model of International Trade
By Fernando Alvarez and Robert E. Lucas
We study a variation of the Eaton-Kortum model, a competitive, constant-returns-to-scale multicountry
Ricardian model of trade. We establish existence and uniqueness of an equilibrium with balanced
trade where each country imposes an import tariff. We analyze the determinants of the cross-country
distribution of trade volumes, such as size, tariffs and distance, and compare a calibrated version
of the model with data for the largest 60 economies. We use the calibrated model to estimate the
gains of a world-wide trade elimination of tariffs, using the theory to explain the magnitude
of the gains as well as the differential effect arising from cross-country differences in pre-liberalization
of tariffs levels and country size.
The gravity model of international trade in international economics, similar to other gravity
models in social science, predicts bilateral trade flows based on the economic sizes (often using
GDP measurements) and distance between two units. The model was first used by Jan Tinbergen in
1962.
The Hyperglobalization of Trade and Its Future
By Arvind Subramanian and Martin Kessler
Abstract
The open, rules-based trading system has delivered immense benefits-for the world, for individual
countries, and for average citizens in these countries. It can continue to do so, helping today's
low-income countries make the transition to middle-income status. Three challenges must be met
to preserve this system. Rich countries must sustain the social consensus in favor of open markets
and globalization at a time of considerable economic uncertainty and weakness; China and other
middle-income countries must remain open; and mega-regionalism must be prevented from leading
to discrimination and trade conflicts. Collective action should help strengthen the institutional
underpinnings of globalization. The world should move beyond the Doha Round dead to more meaningful
multilateral negotiations to address emerging challenges, including possible threats from new
mega-regional agreements. The rising powers, especially China, will have a key role to play in
resuscitating multilateralism.
"Furthermore, as Mark Kleiman sagely observes, the conventional case for trade liberalization
relies on the assertion that the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone
wins"
That was never the conventional case for trade. Plus it's kind of odd that you have to add
"plus have the government redistribute" to the case your making.
Tom Pally above is correct. Krugman has been on the wrong side of this issue. He's gotten better,
but the timing is he's gotten better as the Democratic Party has moved to the left and pushed
back against corporate trade deals. Even Hillary came out late against Obama's TPP.
Sanders has nothing about ripping up trade deals. He has said he won't do any more.
As cawley predicted, once Sanders won Michigan, Krugman started hitting him again at his blog.
With cheap shots I might add. He's ruining his brand.
Tell Morning Edition: It's Not "Free Trade" Folks
by Dean Baker
Published: 10 March 2016
Hey, can an experienced doctor from Germany show up and start practicing in New York next week?
Since the answer is no, we can say that we don't have free trade. It's not an immigration issue,
if the doctor wants to work in a restaurant kitchen, she would probably get away with it. We have
protectionist measures that limit the number of foreign doctors in order to keep their pay high.
These protectionist measures have actually been strengthened in the last two decades.
We also have strengthened patent and copyright protections, making drugs and other affected
items far more expensive. These protections are also forms of protectionism.
This is why Morning Edition seriously misled its listeners in an interview with ice cream barons
Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield over their support of Senator Bernie Sanders. The interviewer repeatedly
referred to "free trade" agreements and Sanders' opposition to them. While these deals are all
called "free trade" deals to make them sound more palatable ("selective protectionism to redistribute
income upward" doesn't sound very appealing), that doesn't mean they are actually about free trade.
Morning Edition should not have used the term employed by promoters to push their trade agenda.
This has been Dean Baker's excellent theme for a very long time. And if you actually paid attention
to what Krugman said about TPP - he agreed with Dean's excellent points. But do continue to set
up straw man arguments so you can dishonestly attack Krugman.
No. That is not a sign of a faulty memory, quite the contrary.
Krugman writes column after column praising trade pacts and criticizing (rightly, I might add)
the yahoos who object for the wrong reasons.
But he omits a few salient facts like
- the gains are small,
- the government MUST intervene with redistribution for this to work socially,
- there are no (or minimal) provisions for that requirement in the pacts.
I would say his omissions speak volumes and are worth remembering.
Krugman initially wrote a confused column about the TPP, treating it as a simple free trade deal
which he said would have little impact because tariffs were already so low. But he did eventually
look into the matter further and wound up agreeing with Baker's take.
"That was never the conventional case for trade". Actually it was. Of course Greg Mankiw never
got the memo so his free trade benefits all BS confuses a lot of people. Mankiw sucks at international
trade.
David Glasner attacks Krugman from the right, but he doesn't whitewash the past as you do.
He remembers Gore versus Perot:
"Indeed, Romney didn't even mention the Smoot-Hawley tariff, but Krugman evidently forgot the
classic exchange between Al Gore and the previous incarnation of protectionist populist outrage
in an anti-establishment billionaire candidate for President:
GORE I've heard Mr. Perot say in the past that, as the carpenters says, measure twice and cut
once. We've measured twice on this. We have had a test of our theory and we've had a test of his
theory. Over the last five years, Mexico's tariffs have begun to come down because they've made
a unilateral decision to bring them down some, and as a result there has been a surge of exports
from the United States into Mexico, creating an additional 400,000 jobs, and we can create hundreds
of thousands of more if we continue this trend. We know this works. If it doesn't work, you know,
we give six months notice and we're out of it. But we've also had a test of his theory.
PEROT When?
GORE In 1930, when the proposal by Mr. Smoot and Mr. Hawley was to raise tariffs across the
board to protect our workers. And I brought some pictures, too.
[Larry] KING You're saying Ross is a protectionist?
GORE This is, this is a picture of Mr. Smoot and Mr. Hawley. They look like pretty good fellows.
They sounded reasonable at the time; a lot of people believed them. The Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley
Protection Bill. He wants to raise tariffs on Mexico. They raised tariffs, and it was one of the
principal causes, many economists say the principal cause, of the Great Depression in this country
and around the world. Now, I framed this so you can put it on your wall if you want to.
You obviously have not read Krugman. Here is from his 1997 Slate piece:
But putting Greenspan (or his successor) into the picture restores much of the classical vision
of the macroeconomy. Instead of an invisible hand pushing the economy toward full employment in
some unspecified long run, we have the visible hand of the Fed pushing us toward its estimate
of the noninflationary unemployment rate over the course of two or three years. To accomplish
this, the board must raise or lower interest rates to bring savings and investment at that target
unemployment rate in line with each other.
And so all the paradoxes of thrift, widow's cruses, and so on become irrelevant. In particular,
an increase in the savings rate will translate into higher investment after all, because the Fed
will make sure that it does.
To me, at least, the idea that changes in demand will normally be offset by Fed policy--so
that they will, on average, have no effect on employment--seems both simple and entirely reasonable.
Yet it is clear that very few people outside the world of academic economics think about things
that way. For example, the debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement was conducted almost
entirely in terms of supposed job creation or destruction. The obvious (to me) point that the
average unemployment rate over the next 10 years will be what the Fed wants it to be, regardless
of the U.S.-Mexico trade balance, never made it into the public consciousness. (In fact, when
I made that argument at one panel discussion in 1993, a fellow panelist--a NAFTA advocate, as
it happens--exploded in rage: "It's remarks like that that make people hate economists!")
Yes. But please do not interrupt PeterK with reality. He has important work do with his bash all
things Krugman agenda. BTW - it is a riot that he cites Ross Perot on NAFTA. Perot has a self
centered agenda there which Gore exposed. Never trust a corrupt business person whether it is
Perot or Trump.
Yes the model PeterK is using is unclear. He doesn't seem to have a grasp on the economics of
the issues. He seems to think that Sanders is a font of economic wisdom who is not to be questioned.
I would hate to see the left try to make a flawed candidate into the larger than life icon that
the GOP has made out of Reagan.
"Yes the model PeterK is using is unclear. He doesn't seem to have a grasp on the economics of
the issues."
Dean Baker and Jared Bernstein. Like you I want full employment and rising wages. And like
Krugman I am very much an internationalist. I want us to deal fairly with the rest of the world.
We need to cooperate especially in the face of global warming.
1. My first, best solution would be fiscal action. Like everyone else. I prefer Sanders's unicorn
plan of $1 trillion over five years rather than Hillary's plan which is one quarter of the size.
Her plan puts more pressure on the Fed and monetary policy.
a. My preference would be to pay for it with Pigouvian taxes on the rich, corporations, and
the financial sector.
b. if not a, then deficit spending like Trudeau in Canada
C. if the deficit hawks block that, then monetary-financing would be the way around them.
2. close the trade deficit. Dean Baker and Bernstein have written about this a lot. Write currency
agreements into trade deals. If we close the trade deficit and are at full employment, then we
can import more from the rest of the world.
3. If powerful interests block 1. and 2. then lean on monetary policy. Reduce the price of
credit to boost demand. It works as a last resort.
"I would hate to see the left try to make a flawed candidate into the larger than life icon
that the GOP has made out of Reagan.'
I haven't seen any evidence of this. It would be funny if the left made an old Jewish codger
from Brooklyn into an icon. Feel the Bern!!!
Sanders regularly points out it's not about him as President fixing everything, it's about
creating a movement. It's about getting people involved. He can't do it by himself. Obama would
say this too. Elizabeth Warren become popular by saying the same things Sanders is saying.
However to say that the conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the Compensation
Principle isn't quite accurate. The conventional case has traditionally relied on the assertion
that "we" are better off with trade since we could *theoretically* distribute the gains. However,
free trade boosters never seem to get around to worrying about distributing the gains *in practice*.
In practice, free trade is typically justified simply by the net aggregate gain, regardless of
how these gains are distributed or who is hurt in the process.
To my mind, before considering some trade liberalization deal we should FIRST agree to and
implement the redistribution mechanisms and only then reduce barriers. Implementing trade deals
in a backward, half-assed way as has typically been the case often makes "us" worse off than autarky.
"Krugman has at times advocated free markets in contexts where they are often viewed as controversial.
He has ... likened the opposition against free trade and globalization to the opposition against
evolution via natural selection (1996),[167]
(In fact, when I made that argument at one panel discussion in 1993, a fellow panelist--a NAFTA
advocate, as it happens--exploded in rage: "It's remarks like that that make people hate economists!")
[Thanks to electoral politics, we're all fellow panelists now.]
"To me, at least, the idea that changes in demand will normally be offset by Fed policy--so that
they will, on average, have no effect on employment--seems both simple and entirely reasonable.
Yet it is clear that very few people outside the world of academic economics think about things
that way."
As we've seen the Fed is overly fearful of inflation, so the Fed doesn't offset the trade deficit
as quickly as it should. Instead we suffer hysteresis and reduction of potential output.
"The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard to
do anything much about globalization - not because it's technically or economically impossible,
but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic,
foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious."
Here Krugman is more honest. We're basically buying off the Chinese, etc. The cost for stopping
this would be less cooperation from the Chinese, etc.
This is new. He never used to say this kind of thing. Instead he'd go after "protectionists"
as luddites.
"This is new. He never used to say this kind of thing. Instead he'd go after "protectionists"
as luddites."
You have Krugman confused with Greg Mankiw. Most real international economics (Mankiw is not
one) recognize the distributional consequences of free trade v. protectionism. Then again - putting
forth the Mankiw uninformed spin is a prerequisite for being on Team Republican. Of course Republicans
will go protectionist whenever it is politically expedient as in that temporary set of steel tariffs.
Helped Bush-Cheney in 2004 and right after that - no tariffs. Funny how that worked.
Where is the "redistribution from government" in the TPP. There isn't any.
Even the NAFTA side agreements on labor and the environment are toothless. The point of these
corporate trade deals is to profit from the lower labor and environmental standards of poorer
countries.
The fact that you resort to calling me a professional Krugman hater means you're not interested
in an actual debate about actual ideas. You've lost the debate and I'm not participating.
One is not allowed to criticize Krugman lest one be labeled a professional Krugman hater?
Your resort to name calling just weakens the case you're making.
You of late have wasted so much space misrepresenting what Krugman has said. Maybe you don't hate
him - maybe you just want to get his attention. For a date maybe. Lord - the troll in you is truly
out of control.
Sandwichman may think Krugman changed his views but if one actually read what he has written over
the years (as opposed to your cherry picking quotes), you might have noticed otherwise. But of
course you want Krugman to look bad. It is what you do.
Sizeable numbers of Americans have seen wages decline in real terms for nearly 20 years. Many/most
parents in many communities do not see a better future before them, or for their children.
Notable quotes:
"... Democracy demands that ballot access rules be selected by referendum, not by the very legacy parties that maintain legislative control by effectively denying ballot access to parties that will pose a challenge to their continued rule. ..."
"... I think the U.S. Party system, in the political science sense, shifted to a new state during George W Bush's administration as, in Kevin Phillip's terms the Republican Party was taken over by Theocrats and Bad Money. ..."
"... My understanding is trumps support disproportionately comes from the small business owning classes, Ie a demographic similar to the petite bourgeoisie who have often been heavily involved in reactionary movements. This gets oversold as "working class" when class is defined by education level rather than income. ..."
"... Racism serves as an organizing principle. Politically, in an oppressive and stultifying hierarchy like the plantation South, racism not incidentally buys the loyalty of subalterns with ersatz status. ..."
"... For a time, the balkanization of American political communities by race, religion and ethnicity was an effective means to the dominance of an tiny elite with ties to an hegemonic community, but it backfired. Dismantling that balkanization has left the country with a very low level of social affiliation and thus a low capacity to organize resistance to elite depredations. ..."
"... Watching Clinton scoop up bankster money, welcome Republicans neocons to the ranks of her supporters does not fill me with hope. ..."
Legislators affiliated with the duopoly parties should not write the rules governing the ballot
access of third parties. This exclusionary rule making amounts to preserving a self-dealing duopoly.
Elections are the interest of the people who vote and those elected should not be able to subvert
the democratic process by acting as a cartel.
Democracy demands that ballot access rules be selected by referendum, not by the very legacy
parties that maintain legislative control by effectively denying ballot access to parties that
will pose a challenge to their continued rule.
Of course any meaningful change would require a voluntary diminishment of power of the duopoly
that now has dictatorial control over ballot access, and who will prevent any Constitutional Amendment
that would enhance the democratic nature of the process.
bruce wilder 08.02.16 at 8:02 pm
I think the U.S. Party system, in the political science sense, shifted to a new state during
George W Bush's administration as, in Kevin Phillip's terms the Republican Party was taken over
by Theocrats and Bad Money.
Ronan(rf) 08.04.16 at 10:35 pm
"I generally don't give a shit about polls so I have no "data" to evidence this claim,
but my guess is the majority of Trump's support comes from this broad middle"
My understanding is trumps support disproportionately comes from the small business owning
classes, Ie a demographic similar to the petite bourgeoisie who have often been heavily involved
in reactionary movements. This gets oversold as "working class" when class is defined by education
level rather than income.
This would make some sense as they are generally in economically unstable jobs, they tend to
be hostile to both big govt (regulations, freeloaders) and big business (unfair competition),
and while they (rhetorically at least) tend to value personal autonomy and self sufficiency ,
they generally sell into smaller, local markets, and so are particularly affected by local demographic
and cultural change , and decline. That's my speculation anyway.
bruce wilder 08.06.16 at 4:28 pm
I am somewhat suspicious of leaving dominating elites out of these stories of racism as an
organizing principle for political economy or (cultural) community.
Racism served the purposes of a slaveholding elite that organized political communities to
serve their own interests. (Or, vis a vis the Indians a land-grab or genocide.)
Racism serves as an organizing principle. Politically, in an oppressive and stultifying
hierarchy like the plantation South, racism not incidentally buys the loyalty of subalterns with
ersatz status. The ugly prejudices and resentful arrogance of working class whites is thus
a component of how racism works to organize a political community to serve a hegemonic master
class. The business end of racism, though, is the autarkic poverty imposed on the working communities:
slaves, sharecroppers, poor blacks, poor whites - bad schools, bad roads, politically disabled
communities, predatory institutions and authoritarian governments.
For a time, the balkanization of American political communities by race, religion and ethnicity
was an effective means to the dominance of an tiny elite with ties to an hegemonic community,
but it backfired. Dismantling that balkanization has left the country with a very low level of
social affiliation and thus a low capacity to organize resistance to elite depredations.
bruce wilder 08.06.16 at 4:31 pm
Watching Clinton scoop up bankster money, welcome Republicans neocons to the ranks of her
supporters does not fill me with hope.
Trump and the other illiberal populists have been benefiting from three overlapping backlashes.
The first is cultural. Movements for civil liberties have been remarkably successful over the
last 40 years. Women, ethnic and religious minorities, and the LGBTQ community have secured important
gains at a legal and cultural level. It is remarkable, for instance, how quickly same-sex marriage
has become legal in more than 20 countries when no country recognized it before 2001.
Resistance has always existed to these movements to expand the realm of civil liberties. But this
backlash increasingly has a political face. Thus the rise of parties that challenge multiculturalism
and immigration in Europe, the movements throughout Africa and Asia that support the majority over
the minorities, and the Trump/Tea Party takeover of the Republican Party with their appeals to primarily
white men.
The second backlash is economic. The globalization of the economy has created a class of enormously
wealthy individuals (in the financial, technology, and communications sectors). But globalization
has left behind huge numbers of low-wage workers and those who have watched their jobs relocate to
other countries.
Illiberal populists have directed all that anger on the part of people left behind by the world
economy at a series of targets: bankers who make billions, corporations that are constantly looking
for even lower-wage workers, immigrants who "take away our jobs," and sometimes ethnic minorities
who function as convenient scapegoats. The targets, in other words, include both the very powerful
and the very weak.
The third backlash, and perhaps the most consequential, is political. It's not just that people
living in democracies are disgusted with their leaders and the parties they represent. Rather, as
political scientists Roberto Stefan Foa and Yascha Mounk
write in the Journal of Democracy , "they have also become more cynical about the value
of democracy as a political system, less hopeful that anything they do might influence public policy,
and more willing to express support for authoritarian alternatives."
Foa and Mounk are using 20 years of data collected from surveys of citizens in Western Europe
and North America – the democracies with the greatest longevity. And they have found that support
for illiberal alternatives is greater among the younger generation than the older one. In other countries
outside Europe and North America, the disillusionment with democratic institutions often takes the
form of a preference for a powerful leader who can break the rules if necessary to preserve order
and stability – like Putin in Russia or Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Egypt or Prayuth Chan-ocha in Thailand.
These three backlashes – cultural, economic, political – are also anti-internationalist because
international institutions have become associated with the promotion of civil liberties and human
rights, the greater globalization of the economy, and the constraint of the sovereignty of nations
(for instance, through the European Union or the UN's "responsibility to protect" doctrine).
... ... ....
The current political order is coming apart. If we don't come up with a fair, Green, and internationalist
alternative, the illiberal populists will keep winning. John Feffer is the director of Foreign
Policy In Focus.
"... if neo-liberalism is partly defined by the free flow of goods, labor and capital - and that has been the Republican agenda since at least Reagan - how is Trump a continuation of the same tradition?" ..."
"... Trump is a conservative (or right populist, or whatever), and draws on that tradition. He's not a neoliberal. ..."
"... Trump is too incoherent to really represent the populist view. He's consistent w/the trade and immigration views but (assuming you can actually figure him out) wrong on banks, taxes, etc. ..."
"... But the next populists we see might be more full bore. When that happens, you'll see much more overlap w/Sanders economic plans for the middle class. ..."
"... There's always tension along the lead running between the politician and his constituents. The thing that seems most salient to me at the present moment is the sense of betrayal pervading our politics. At least since the GFC of 2008, it has been hard to deny that the two Parties worked together to set up an economic betrayal. And, the long-running saga of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also speak to elite failure, as well as betrayal. ..."
"... Trump is a novelty act. He represents a chance for people who feel resentful without knowing much of anything about anything to cast a middle-finger vote. They wouldn't be willing to do that, if times were really bad, instead of just disappointing and distressing. ..."
"... There's also the fact Reagan tapped a fair number of Nixon people, as did W years later. Reagan went after Nixon in the sense of running against him, and taking the party in a much more hard-right direction, sure. But he was repudiated largely because he got caught doing dirty tricks with his pants down. ..."
"... From what I can tell - the 1972 election gave the centrists in the democratic party power to discredit and marginalize the anti-war left, and with it, the left in general. ..."
"... Ready even now to whine that she's a victim and that the whole community is at fault and that people are picking on her because she's a woman, rather than because she has a habit of making accusations like this every time she comments. ..."
"... That is a perfect example of predatory "solidarity". Val is looking for dupes to support her ..."
"Once again, if neo-liberalism is partly defined by the free flow of goods, labor and capital
- and that has been the Republican agenda since at least Reagan - how is Trump a continuation
of the same tradition?"
You have to be willing to see neoliberalism as something different
from conservatism to have the answer make any sense. John Quiggin has written a good deal here
about a model of U.S. politics as being divided into left, neoliberal, and conservative. Trump
is a conservative (or right populist, or whatever), and draws on that tradition. He's not a neoliberal.
... ... ...
T 08.12.16 at 5:52 pm
RP @683
That's a bit of my point. I think Corey has defined the Republican tradition solely
in response to the Southern Strategy that sees a line from Nixon (or Goldwater) to Trump. But
that gets the economics wrong and the foreign policy too - the repub foreign policy view has not
been consistent across administrations and Trump's economic pans (to the extent he has a plan)
are antithetical to the Nixon – W tradition. I have viewed post-80 Dem administrations as neoliberals
w/transfers and Repub as neoliberals w/o transfers.
Trump is too incoherent to really represent the populist view. He's consistent w/the trade
and immigration views but (assuming you can actually figure him out) wrong on banks, taxes, etc.
But the next populists we see might be more full bore. When that happens, you'll see much
more overlap w/Sanders economic plans for the middle class. Populists have nothing against
gov't programs like SS and Medicare and were always for things like the TVA and infrastructure
spending. Policies aimed at the poor and minorities not so much.
T @ 685: Trump is too incoherent to really represent the populist view.
There's always tension along the lead running between the politician and his constituents.
The thing that seems most salient to me at the present moment is the sense of betrayal pervading
our politics. At least since the GFC of 2008, it has been hard to deny that the two Parties worked
together to set up an economic betrayal. And, the long-running saga of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
also speak to elite failure, as well as betrayal.
These are the two most unpopular candidates in living memory. That is different.
I am not a believer in "the fire next time". Trump is a novelty act. He represents a chance
for people who feel resentful without knowing much of anything about anything to cast a middle-finger
vote. They wouldn't be willing to do that, if times were really bad, instead of just disappointing
and distressing.
Nor will Sanders be back. His was a last New Deal coda. There may be second acts in American
life, but there aren't 7th acts.
If there's a populist politics in our future, it will have to have a much sharper edge. It
can talk about growth, but it has to mean smashing the rich and taking their stuff. There's very
rapidly going to come a point where there's no other option, other than just accepting cramdown
by the authoritarian surveillance state built by the neoliberals. that's a much taller order than
Sanders or Trump have been offering.<
Corey, you write: "It's not just that the Dems went after Nixon, it's also that Nixon had so few
allies. People on the right were furious with him because they felt after this huge ratification
that the country had moved to the right, Nixon was still governing as if the New Deal were the
consensus. So when the time came, he had very few defenders, except for loyalists like Leonard
Garment and G. Gordon Liddy. And Al Haig, God bless him."
You've studied this more than I have,
but this is at least somewhat at odds with my memory. I recall some prominent attackers of Nixon
from the Republican party that were moderates, at least one of whom was essentially kicked out
of the party for being too liberal in later years. There's also the fact Reagan tapped a fair
number of Nixon people, as did W years later. Reagan went after Nixon in the sense of running
against him, and taking the party in a much more hard-right direction, sure. But he was repudiated
largely because he got caught doing dirty tricks with his pants down.
To think that something similar would happen to Clinton (watergate like scandal) that would
actually have a large portion of the left in support of impeachment, she would have to be as dirty
as Nixon was, *and* the evidence to really put the screws to her would have to be out, as it was
against Nixon during watergate.
OTOH, my actual *hope* would be that a similar left-liberal sea change comparable to 1980 from
the right would be plausible. I don't think a 1976-like interlude is plausible though, that would
require the existence of a moderate republican with enough support within their own party to win
the nomination. I suppose its possible that such a beast could come to exist if Trump loses a
landslide, but most of the plausible candidates have already left or been kicked out of the party.
From what I can tell - the 1972 election gave the centrists in the democratic party power
to discredit and marginalize the anti-war left, and with it, the left in general. A comparable
election from the other side would give republican centrists/moderates the ability to discredit
and marginalize the right wing base. But unlike Democrats in 1972, there aren't any moderates
left in the Republican party by my lights. I'm much more concerned that this will simply re-empower
the hard-core conservatives with plausbly-deniable dog-whistle racism who are now the "moderates",
and enable them to whitewash their history.
Unfortunately, unlike you, I'm not convinced that a landslide is possible without an appeal
to Reagan/Bush republicans. I don't think we're going to see a meaningful turn toward a real left
until Democrats can win a majority of statehouses and clean up the ridiculous gerrymandering.
Val: "Similarly with your comments on "identity politics" where you could almost be seen
by MRAs and white supremacists as an ally, from the tone of your rhetoric."
That is 100% perfect Val. Insinuates that BW is a sort-of-ally of white supremacists - an infuriating
insinuation. Does this insinuation based on a misreading of what he wrote. Completely resistant
to any sort of suggestion that what she dishes out so expansively to others had better be something
she should be willing to accept herself, or that she shouldn't do it. Ready even now to whine
that she's a victim and that the whole community is at fault and that people are picking on her
because she's a woman, rather than because she has a habit of making accusations like this every
time she comments.
That is a perfect example of predatory "solidarity". Val is looking for dupes to support
her - for people to jump in saying "Why are you being hostile to women?" in response to people's
response to her comment.
"... More than a dozen Republican rivals, described as the strongest GOP field since 1980, were sent packing. This was the year Americans rose up to pull down the establishment in a peaceful storming of the American Bastille. ..."
"... If 2016 taught us anything, it is that if the establishment's hegemony is imperiled, it will come together in ferocious solidarity - for the preservation of their perks, privileges and power. All the elements of that establishment - corporate, cultural, political, media - are today issuing an ultimatum to Middle America: Trump is unacceptable. Instructions are going out to Republican leaders that either they dump Trump, or they will cease to be seen as morally fit partners in power. ..."
"... Our CIA, NGOs and National Endowment for Democracy all beaver away for "regime change" in faraway lands whose rulers displease us. How do we effect "regime change" here at home? ..."
"... Donald Trump's success, despite the near-universal hostility of the media, even much of the conservative media, was due in large part to the public's response to the issues he raised. ..."
"I'm afraid the election is going to be rigged," Donald Trump told voters
in Ohio and Sean Hannity on Fox News. And that hit a nerve.
"Dangerous," "toxic," came the recoil from the media.
Trump is threatening to "delegitimize" the election results of 2016.
Well, if that is what Trump is trying to do, he has no small point. For consider
what 2016 promised and what it appears about to deliver.
This longest of election cycles has rightly been called the Year of the Outsider.
It was a year that saw a mighty surge of economic populism and patriotism, a
year when a 74-year-old Socialist senator set primaries ablaze with mammoth
crowds that dwarfed those of Hillary Clinton.
It was the year that a non-politician, Donald Trump, swept Republican primaries
in an historic turnout, with his nearest rival an ostracized maverick in his
own Republican caucus, Senator Ted Cruz.
More than a dozen Republican rivals, described as the strongest GOP field
since 1980, were sent packing. This was the year Americans rose up to pull down
the establishment in a peaceful storming of the American Bastille.
But if it ends with a Clintonite restoration and a ratification of the same
old Beltway policies, would that not suggest there is something fraudulent about
American democracy, something rotten in the state?
If 2016 taught us anything, it is that if the establishment's hegemony
is imperiled, it will come together in ferocious solidarity - for the preservation
of their perks, privileges and power. All the elements of that establishment
- corporate, cultural, political, media - are today issuing an ultimatum to
Middle America: Trump is unacceptable. Instructions are going out to Republican
leaders that either they dump Trump, or they will cease to be seen as morally
fit partners in power.
It testifies to the character of Republican elites that some are seeking
ways to carry out these instructions, though this would mean invalidating and
aborting the democratic process that produced Trump.
But what is a repudiated establishment doing issuing orders to anyone?
Why is it not Middle America issuing the demands, rather than the other way
around?
Specifically, the Republican electorate should tell its discredited and rejected
ruling class: If we cannot get rid of you at the ballot box, then tell us how,
peacefully and democratically, we can be rid of you?
You want Trump out? How do we get you out? The Czechs had their Prague Spring.
The Tunisians and Egyptians their Arab Spring. When do we have our American
Spring? The Brits had their "Brexit," and declared independence of an arrogant
superstate in Brussels. How do we liberate ourselves from a Beltway superstate
that is more powerful and resistant to democratic change?
Our CIA, NGOs and National Endowment for Democracy all beaver away for
"regime change" in faraway lands whose rulers displease us. How do we effect
"regime change" here at home?
Donald Trump's success, despite the near-universal hostility of the media,
even much of the conservative media, was due in large part to the public's response
to the issues he raised.
He called for sending illegal immigrants back home, for securing America's
borders, for no amnesty. He called for an America First foreign policy to
keep us out of wars that have done little but bleed and bankrupt us.
He called for an economic policy where the Americanism of the people
replaces the globalism of the transnational elites and their K Street lobbyists
and congressional water carriers.
He denounced NAFTA, and the trade deals and trade deficits with China,
and called for rejection of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
By campaign's end, he had won the argument on trade, as Hillary Clinton was
agreeing on TPP and confessing to second thoughts on NAFTA.
But if TPP is revived at the insistence of the oligarchs of Wall Street,
the Business Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - backed by conscript
editorial writers for newspapers that rely on ad dollars - what do elections
really mean anymore?
And if, as the polls show we might, we get Clinton - and TPP, and amnesty,
and endless migrations of Third World peoples who consume more tax dollars than
they generate, and who will soon swamp the Republicans' coalition - what was
2016 all about?
Would this really be what a majority of Americans voted for in this most
exciting of presidential races?
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution
inevitable," said John F. Kennedy.
The 1960s and early 1970s were a time of social revolution in America, and
President Nixon, by ending the draft and ending the Vietnam war, presided over
what one columnist called the "cooling of America."
But if Hillary Clinton takes power, and continues America on her present
course, which a majority of Americans rejected in the primaries, there is going
to be a bad moon rising.
And the new protesters in the streets will not be overprivileged children
from Ivy League campuses.
"... "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests." ..."
"... "for the crisis that Washington has created in Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda." ..."
"... "How America Was Lost" ..."
"... "aggression and blatant propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic alliance." ..."
"... "vassalage status accepted by the UK, Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." ..."
"... "price of world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony." ..."
"... "On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," ..."
"... "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our likely future." ..."
"... "historical turning point," ..."
"... "the Chinese were there in their place," ..."
"... "Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia that defeated Hitler," ..."
"... "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht." ..."
"... "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States of America for their contribution to the victory.'" ..."
"... "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'" ..."
"... "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," ..."
"... "made the mistake that could be fateful for humanity," ..."
The White House is determined to block the rise of the key nuclear-armed nations, Russia and China, neither of whom will join the
"world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony," says head of the Institute for Political Economy, Paul Craig Roberts.
The former
US assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy, Dr Paul Craig Roberts, has written on his
blog
that Beijing is currently "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's
control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests."
Roberts writes that Washington's commitment to contain Russia is the reason "for the crisis that Washington has created in
Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda."
The author of several books, "How America Was Lost" among the latest titles, says that US "aggression and blatant
propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic
alliance."
Dr Roberts believes that neither Russia, nor China will meanwhile accept the so-called "vassalage status accepted by the UK,
Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." According to the political analyst, the "price of
world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony."
"On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country
with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," Roberts writes.
He gives a gloomy political forecast in his column saying that "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe
finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our
likely future."
Russia's far-reaching May 9 Victory Day celebration was meanwhile a "historical turning point," according to Roberts
who says that while Western politicians chose to boycott the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, "the Chinese were
there in their place," China's president sitting next to President Putin during the military parade on Red Square in Moscow.
A recent poll targeting over 3,000 people in France, Germany and the UK has recently revealed that as little as 13 percent of
Europeans think the Soviet Army played the leading role in liberating Europe from Nazism during WW2. The majority of respondents
– 43 percent – said the US Army played the main role in liberating Europe.
"Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia
that defeated Hitler," Roberts points out, adding that "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out
of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht."
The head of the presidential administration, Sergey Ivanov, told RT earlier this month that attempts to diminish the role played
by Russia in defeating Nazi Germany through rewriting history by some Western countries are part of the ongoing campaign to isolate
and alienate Russia.
Dr Roberts has also stated in his column that while the US president only mentioned US forces in his remarks on the 70th anniversary
of the victory, President Putin in contrast "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States
of America for their contribution to the victory.'"
The political analyst notes that America along with its allies "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we
are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'"
While Moscow and Beijing have "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," Washington "made the mistake
that could be fateful for humanity," according to Dr Roberts.
"... You can see what I mean when you visit Fall River, an old mill town 50 miles south of Boston. Median household income in that city is $33,000, among the lowest in the state; unemployment is among the highest, 15% in March 2014, nearly five years after the recession ended. Twenty-three percent of Fall River's inhabitants live in poverty. The city lost its many fabric-making concerns decades ago and with them it lost its reason for being. People have been deserting the place for decades. ..."
"... Many of the empty factories in which their ancestors worked are still standing, however. Solid nineteenth-century structures of granite or brick, these huge boxes dominate the city visually - there always seems to be one or two of them in the vista, contrasting painfully with whatever colorful plastic fast-food joint has been slapped up next door. ..."
"... The effect of all this is to remind you with every prospect that this is a place and a way of life from which the politicians have withdrawn their blessing. Like so many other American scenes, this one is the product of decades of deindustrialization, engineered by Republicans and rationalized by Democrats. This is a place where affluence never returns - not because affluence for Fall River is impossible or unimaginable, but because our country's leaders have blandly accepted a social order that constantly bids down the wages of people like these while bidding up the rewards for innovators, creatives, and professionals. ..."
"... Boston boasts a full-blown Innovation District, a disused industrial neighborhood that has actually been zoned creative - a projection of the post-industrial blue-state ideal onto the urban grid itself. ..."
"... Innovation liberalism is "a liberalism of the rich," to use the straightforward phrase of local labor leader Harris Gruman. This doctrine has no patience with the idea that everyone should share in society's wealth. What Massachusetts liberals pine for, by and large, is a more perfect meritocracy - a system where the essential thing is to ensure that the truly talented get into the right schools and then get to rise through the ranks of society. Unfortunately, however, as the blue-state model makes painfully clear, there is no solidarity in a meritocracy. The ideology of educational achievement conveniently negates any esteem we might feel for the poorly graduated. ..."
"... GE will move 800 jobs to Mass.with a tax incentive of $145,000,000. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/technology/ge-boston-headquarters.html?_r=0 This comes to over $181,000 per job. ..."
"... Attributed to Marx that capitalists will sell communists the ropes with which to hang them but probably should be updated that Dems will hang the poor to make the capitalists richer . ..."
"... Two parties (many of whose members genuinely hate each other). One system. ..."
"... The Clinton Bush Establishment Party is just about dividing the spoils. They don't need 320 million people – it will work with 30 million or less ..."
"... They hate each other because they compete for the same corporate money. ..."
"... As soon as you bring the social issues into that group, the group will start to fracture, losing strength until it no longer has that majority. This is how the elite's divide-and-conquer strategy works. ..."
"... This is Nader's two headed snake. The parties can differentiate on God, guns and gays as long as they both agree to corporate control of the economy. This is the Clinton Third Way legacy that left the Democrats kowtowing to the corporate elites. Hillary continues this tradition. ..."
"... Education and healthcare as rights are "unrealistic" in the richest nation the world has ever seen for Hillary. Even while every other advanced nation on the planet provides for it. Why is it unrealistic? Maybe because it will cut into corporate profits. ..."
"... I heard a self-identified "blue-collar conservative" express it this way: "the republicans always talking about Jesus, but they never try to help the people our Lord cared about. People who are sick, in jail, whatever." ..."
"... Deindustrialization has been occurring in all advanced OECD nations for the last 40 years, including before and after trade liberalization, before NAFTA, the WTO, Most-Favored Nation Status for China, in countries with strong interventionist industrial policy, and even in countries with strong labor unions. ..."
"... Robert Putnam, Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis, writes that "Growing class segregation means that rich Americans and poor Americans are living, learning, and raising children in increasingly separate and unequal worlds, removing the stepping-stones to upward mobility." ..."
"... "Long ago it was said that "one half of the world does not know how the other half lives." That was true then. It did not know because it did not care. The half that was on top cared little for the struggles, and less for the fate of those who were underneath, so long as it was able to hold them there and keep its own seat. There came a time when the discomfort and consequent upheavals so violent, that it was no longer an easy thing to do, and then the upper half fell to inquiring what was the matter. Information on the subject has been accumulating rapidly since, and the whole world has had its hands full answering for its old ignorance." – Jacob A. Riis, How the Other Half Lives ..."
By Thomas Frank, author of the just-published
Listen,
Liberal, or What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? (Metropolitan Books) from which this
essay is adapted. He has also written Pity the Billionaire , The Wrecking Crew , and What's the Matter
With Kansas? among other works. He is the founding editor of The Baffler . Originally published at
TomDispatch
When you press Democrats on their uninspiring deeds - their lousy free trade deals, for example,
or their flaccid response to Wall Street misbehavior - when you press them on any of these things,
they automatically reply that this is the best anyone could have done. After all, they had to deal
with those awful Republicans, and those awful Republicans wouldn't let the really good stuff get
through. They filibustered in the Senate. They gerrymandered the congressional districts. And besides,
change takes a long time. Surely you don't think the tepid-to-lukewarm things Bill Clinton and Barack
Obama have done in Washington really represent the fiery Democratic soul.
So let's go to a place that does. Let's choose a locale where Democratic rule is virtually unopposed,
a place where Republican obstruction and sabotage can't taint the experiment.
Let's go to Boston, Massachusetts, the spiritual homeland of the professional class and a place
where the ideology of modern liberalism has been permitted to grow and flourish without challenge
or restraint. As the seat of American higher learning, it seems unsurprising that Boston should anchor
one of the most Democratic of states, a place where elected Republicans (like the new governor) are
highly unusual. This is the city that virtually invented the blue-state economic model, in which
prosperity arises from higher education and the knowledge-based industries that surround it.
The coming of post-industrial society has treated this most ancient of American cities extremely
well. Massachusetts routinely occupies the number one spot on the State New Economy Index, a measure
of how "knowledge-based, globalized, entrepreneurial, IT-driven, and innovation-based" a place happens
to be. Boston ranks high on many of Richard Florida's statistical indices of approbation - in 2003,
it was number one on the "creative class index," number three in innovation and in high tech - and
his many books marvel at the city's concentration of venture capital, its allure to young people,
or the time it enticed some firm away from some unenlightened locale in the hinterlands.
Boston's knowledge economy is the best, and it is the oldest. Boston's metro area encompasses
some 85 private colleges and universities, the greatest concentration of higher-ed institutions in
the country - probably in the world. The region has all the ancillary advantages to show for this:
a highly educated population, an unusually large number of patents, and more Nobel laureates than
any other city in the country.
The city's Route 128 corridor was the original model for a suburban tech district, lined ever
since it was built with defense contractors and computer manufacturers. The suburbs situated along
this golden thoroughfare are among the wealthiest municipalities in the nation, populated by engineers,
lawyers, and aerospace workers. Their public schools are excellent, their downtowns are cute, and
back in the seventies their socially enlightened residents were the prototype for the figure of the
"suburban liberal."
Another prototype: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, situated in Cambridge, is where
our modern conception of the university as an incubator for business enterprises began. According
to a report on MIT's achievements in this category, the school's alumni have started nearly 26,000
companies over the years, including Intel, Hewlett Packard, and Qualcomm. If you were to take those
26,000 companies as a separate nation, the report tells us, its economy would be one of the most
productive in the world.
Then there are Boston's many biotech and pharmaceutical concerns, grouped together in what is
known as the "life sciences super cluster," which, properly understood, is part of an "ecosystem"
in which PhDs can "partner" with venture capitalists and in which big pharmaceutical firms can acquire
small ones. While other industries shrivel, the Boston super cluster grows, with the life-sciences
professionals of the world lighting out for the Athens of America and the massive new "innovation
centers" shoehorning themselves one after the other into the crowded academic suburb of Cambridge.
To think about it slightly more critically, Boston is the headquarters for two industries that
are steadily bankrupting middle America: big learning and big medicine, both of them imposing costs
that everyone else is basically required to pay and which increase at a far more rapid pace than
wages or inflation. A thousand dollars a pill, 30 grand a semester: the debts that are gradually
choking the life out of people where you live are what has made this city so very rich.
Perhaps it makes sense, then, that another category in which Massachusetts ranks highly
is inequality. Once the visitor leaves the brainy bustle of Boston, he discovers
that this state is filled with wreckage - with former manufacturing towns in which workers watch
their way of life draining away, and with cities that are little more than warehouses for people
on Medicare. According to one survey, Massachusetts has the eighth-worst rate of income inequality
among the states; by another metric it ranks fourth. However you choose to measure the diverging
fortunes of the country's top 10% and the rest, Massachusetts always seems to finish among the nation's
most unequal places.
Seething City on a Cliff
You can see what I mean when you visit Fall River, an old mill town 50 miles south of Boston.
Median household income in that city is $33,000, among the lowest in the state; unemployment is among
the highest, 15% in March 2014, nearly five years after the recession ended. Twenty-three percent
of Fall River's inhabitants live in poverty. The city lost its many fabric-making concerns decades
ago and with them it lost its reason for being. People have been deserting the place for decades.
Many of the empty factories in which their ancestors worked are still standing, however. Solid
nineteenth-century structures of granite or brick, these huge boxes dominate the city visually -
there always seems to be one or two of them in the vista, contrasting painfully with whatever colorful
plastic fast-food joint has been slapped up next door.
Most of the old factories are boarded up, unmistakable emblems of hopelessness right up to the
roof. But the ones that have been successfully repurposed are in some ways even worse, filled as
they often are with enterprises offering cheap suits or help with drug addiction. A clinic in the
hulk of one abandoned mill has a sign on the window reading simply "Cancer & Blood."
The effect of all this is to remind you with every prospect that this is a place and a way
of life from which the politicians have withdrawn their blessing. Like so many other American scenes,
this one is the product of decades of deindustrialization, engineered by Republicans and rationalized
by Democrats. This is a place where affluence never returns - not because affluence for Fall River
is impossible or unimaginable, but because our country's leaders have blandly accepted a social order
that constantly bids down the wages of people like these while bidding up the rewards for innovators,
creatives, and professionals.
Even the city's one real hope for new employment opportunities - an Amazon warehouse that
is now in the planning stages - will serve to lock in this relationship. If all goes according to
plan, and if Amazon sticks to the practices it has pioneered elsewhere, people from Fall River will
one day get to do exhausting work with few benefits while being electronically monitored for efficiency,
in order to save the affluent customers of nearby Boston a few pennies when they buy books or electronics.
But that is all in the future. These days, the local newspaper publishes an endless stream of
stories about drug arrests, shootings, drunk-driving crashes, the stupidity of local politicians,
and the lamentable surplus of "affordable housing." The town is up to its eyeballs in wrathful bitterness
against public workers. As in: Why do they deserve a decent life when the rest of us have no chance
at all? It's every man for himself here in a "competition for crumbs," as a Fall River friend puts
it.
The Great Entrepreneurial Awakening
If Fall River is pocked with empty mills, the streets of Boston are dotted with facilities intended
to make innovation and entrepreneurship easy and convenient. I was surprised to discover, during
the time I spent exploring the city's political landscape, that Boston boasts a full-blown Innovation
District, a disused industrial neighborhood that has actually been zoned creative - a projection
of the post-industrial blue-state ideal onto the urban grid itself. The heart of the neighborhood
is a building called "District Hall" - "Boston's New Home for Innovation" - which appeared to me
to be a glorified multipurpose room, enclosed in a sharply angular façade, and sharing a roof with
a restaurant that offers "inventive cuisine for innovative people." The Wi-Fi was free, the screens
on the walls displayed famous quotations about creativity, and the walls themselves were covered
with a high-gloss finish meant to be written on with dry-erase markers; but otherwise it was not
much different from an ordinary public library. Aside from not having anything to read, that is.
This was my introduction to the innovation infrastructure of the city, much of it built up by
entrepreneurs shrewdly angling to grab a piece of the entrepreneur craze. There are "co-working"
spaces, shared offices for startups that can't afford the real thing. There are startup "incubators"
and startup "accelerators," which aim to ease the innovator's eternal struggle with an uncaring public:
the Startup Institute, for example, and the famous MassChallenge, the "World's Largest Startup Accelerator,"
which runs an annual competition for new companies and hands out prizes at the end.
And then there are the innovation Democrats, led by former Governor Deval Patrick, who presided
over the Massachusetts government from 2007 to 2015. He is typical of liberal-class leaders; you
might even say he is their most successful exemplar. Everyone seems to like him, even his opponents.
He is a witty and affable public speaker as well as a man of competence, a highly educated technocrat
who is comfortable in corporate surroundings. Thanks to his upbringing in a Chicago housing project,
he also understands the plight of the poor, and (perhaps best of all) he is an honest politician
in a state accustomed to wide-open corruption. Patrick was also the first black governor of Massachusetts
and, in some ways, an ideal Democrat for the era of Barack Obama - who, as it happens, is one of
his closest political allies.
As governor, Patrick became a kind of missionary for the innovation cult. "The Massachusetts economy
is an innovation economy," he liked to declare, and he made similar comments countless times, slightly
varying the order of the optimistic keywords: "Innovation is a centerpiece of the Massachusetts economy,"
et cetera. The governor opened "innovation schools," a species of ramped-up charter school. He signed
the "Social Innovation Compact," which had something to do with meeting "the private sector's need
for skilled entry-level professional talent." In a 2009 speech called "The Innovation Economy," Patrick
elaborated the political theory of innovation in greater detail, telling an audience of corporate
types in Silicon Valley about Massachusetts's "high concentration of brainpower" and "world-class"
universities, and how "we in government are actively partnering with the private sector and the universities,
to strengthen our innovation industries."
What did all of this inno-talk mean? Much of the time, it was pure applesauce - standard-issue
platitudes to be rolled out every time some pharmaceutical company opened an office building somewhere
in the state.
On some occasions, Patrick's favorite buzzword came with a gigantic price tag, like the billion
dollars in subsidies and tax breaks that the governor authorized in 2008 to encourage pharmaceutical
and biotech companies to do business in Massachusetts. On still other occasions, favoring inno has
meant bulldozing the people in its path - for instance, the taxi drivers whose livelihoods are being
usurped by ridesharing apps like Uber. When these workers staged a variety of protests in the Boston
area, Patrick intervened decisively on the side of the distant software company. Apparently convenience
for the people who ride in taxis was more important than good pay for people who drive those taxis.
It probably didn't hurt that Uber had hired a former Patrick aide as a lobbyist, but the real point
was, of course, innovation: Uber was the future, the taxi drivers were the past, and the path for
Massachusetts was obvious.
A short while later, Patrick became something of an innovator himself. After his time as governor
came to an end last year, he won a job as a managing director of Bain Capital, the private equity
firm that was founded by his predecessor Mitt Romney - and that had been so powerfully denounced
by Democrats during the 2012 election. Patrick spoke about the job like it was just another startup:
"It was a happy and timely coincidence I was interested in building a business that Bain was also
interested in building," he told the Wall Street Journal . Romney reportedly phoned him with
congratulations.
Entrepreneurs First
At a 2014 celebration of Governor Patrick's innovation leadership, Google's Eric Schmidt announced
that "if you want to solve the economic problems of the U.S., create more entrepreneurs." That sort
of sums up the ideology in this corporate commonwealth: Entrepreneurs first. But how has such a doctrine
become holy writ in a party dedicated to the welfare of the common man? And how has all this come
to pass in the liberal state of Massachusetts?
The answer is that I've got the wrong liberalism. The kind of liberalism that has dominated Massachusetts
for the last few decades isn't the stuff of Franklin Roosevelt or the United Auto Workers; it's the
Route 128/suburban-professionals variety. (Senator Elizabeth Warren is the great exception to this
rule.) Professional-class liberals aren't really alarmed by oversized rewards for society's winners.
On the contrary, this seems natural to them - because they are society's winners. The liberalism
of professionals just does not extend to matters of inequality; this is the area where soft hearts
abruptly turn hard.
Innovation liberalism is "a liberalism of the rich," to use the straightforward phrase of
local labor leader Harris Gruman. This doctrine has no patience with the idea that everyone should
share in society's wealth. What Massachusetts liberals pine for, by and large, is a more perfect
meritocracy - a system where the essential thing is to ensure that the truly talented get into the
right schools and then get to rise through the ranks of society. Unfortunately, however, as the blue-state
model makes painfully clear, there is no solidarity in a meritocracy. The ideology of educational
achievement conveniently negates any esteem we might feel for the poorly graduated.
This is a curious phenomenon, is it not? A blue state where the Democrats maintain transparent
connections to high finance and big pharma; where they have deliberately chosen distant software
barons over working-class members of their own society; and where their chief economic proposals
have to do with promoting "innovation," a grand and promising idea that remains suspiciously vague.
Nor can these innovation Democrats claim that their hands were forced by Republicans. They came up
with this program all on their own.
When Massachusetts officials put on a luncheon feting General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt
last week, they were celebrating the company's decision to accept hundreds of millions of dollars
worth of taxpayer incentives and move to the state. At the same time, however, GE is not backing
off its refusal to fully remove the toxins it dumped in one of Massachusetts' largest waterways.
"What does GE's headquarters bring? There are the jobs, for sure. About 800 people work
at the Fairfield headquarters. Its new Boston office will include 200 corporate jobs and about
600 tech-oriented jobs: designers, programmers and the like."
"But GE is closing down a valve factory in Avon, eliminating roughly 300 local, largely
blue-collar jobs - and shifting the work that's done there to a new plant in Florida."
Sorry about multiple replies but decided to check out the valve plant move. GE got a $15,400,000
tax incentive from Florida and Jacksonville for making the move.
"I grew up in a family that struggled to get a job,"(Gov.)Scott said during his stop at
the JAX Chamber's office in downtown. "My parents struggled to get jobs. It's the most important
thing you can do for a family."
The race to the bottom is obvious. Middle class tax payers make up for tax losses due to these
incentives. Taking jobs away from middle class people in Massachusetts to give them to middle
class people in Florida just so a giant multinational can cut its tax load is nothing to be proud
of.
Thanks for the links Pookah, and of course, you bring up a great point – the lack of examination
of how much these jobs cost, and who the JOBS are FOR, and who is actually paying for them.
Attributed to Marx that capitalists will sell communists the ropes with which to hang them
but probably should be updated that Dems will hang the poor to make the capitalists richer .
I guess, the expression: "the D's are no better than the R's" can never be repeated enough.
And certainly the concrete evidence of Massachusetts, putting the lie to the nonsense of "the
Republicans made us do it" (sook-sook) is useful.
But, I feel sure, most NC readers are way beyond discussion of the character and differences
between the kabuki appearances of the one sorry, TWO institutional business parties.
I feel for people on the wrong side of our social issues, but the fact is that you're never
going to come up wit a governing majority unless you are talking about putting food on the dinner
table.
As soon as you bring the social issues into that group, the group will start to fracture,
losing strength until it no longer has that majority. This is how the elite's divide-and-conquer
strategy works.
This is Nader's two headed snake. The parties can differentiate on God, guns and gays as
long as they both agree to corporate control of the economy. This is the Clinton Third Way legacy
that left the Democrats kowtowing to the corporate elites. Hillary continues this tradition.
Education and healthcare as rights are "unrealistic" in the richest nation the world has
ever seen for Hillary. Even while every other advanced nation on the planet provides for it. Why
is it unrealistic? Maybe because it will cut into corporate profits.
"It shouldn't be an either/or proposition." Absolutely right! Yet I think many working class
people are beginning to realize how they have been played by identity politics.
I heard a self-identified "blue-collar conservative" express it this way: "the republicans
always talking about Jesus, but they never try to help the people our Lord cared about. People
who are sick, in jail, whatever."
Deindustrialization has been occurring in all advanced OECD nations for the last 40 years,
including before and after trade liberalization, before NAFTA, the WTO, Most-Favored Nation Status
for China, in countries with strong interventionist industrial policy, and even in countries with
strong labor unions.
De-industrialization, like De-agriculturalism that preceded it, in which 98% of the populace
moved from farming to factory jobs, seems to be a fundamental aspect of massive increases in productivity
, and advanced economies moving to services.
The forces that were responsible for this really can't be laid on the Democrats or Republicans,
since it's occurring everywhere at roughly the same rate. You can see a graph here:
http://s17.postimg.org/bha27d6xb/worldmfg.jpg
This can only get worse with the likes of self-driving cars and trucks, mobile e-commerce,
warehouse automation, AI based customer support, etc. Moving into the future, fewer people will
be needed to produce more with less, in addition to a demographic inversion from a low birth rate
producing countries where 30-40% of the population are 65 or older.
It's really time to stop playing with partisan politics and past models that imagine a return
to the Ozzie and Harriet days of large blue collar labor in manufacturing. Our populations are
getting older, and our technology is making work less relevant.
If anything, we should be looking at a move to universal living income model in which no one
needs to work to live, it becomes optional.
What you are describing is a non-authoritarian fulfillment of Marxist communism. Except unlike
Marx, you left out all the conflict that happens in a class society. Pray tell, you seem to be
expecting a classless society to appear out of the fulfillment of automation. Human beings aren't
classless creatures. We love division into classes, and the resulting conflict between them, if
we aren't loving ethnic, religious or national conflict.
What Disturbed Voter is trying to say, is that no major change ever goes unnopposed by those
who benefit from the existing system. Be prepared for the oligarchs and their quislings to fight
you tooth and nail. If you expect the Masters of the Universe who benefit from modern capitalism
to 'stop playing with partisan politics' then im afraid youre believing a fairy tale.
The assumption that increasing automation will continue in a world of diminishing natural and
energy resources is highly dubious. In societies which do not have privileged access to energy,
a lot of work is still performed with human muscle. If the energy resources the rich countries
rely upon become scarcer, the same is likely to be the case in what are now rich societies.
Agreed. That automation still requires energy – whether you want to account for the human (food,
shelter, etc.) or the machine (resources to produce the machine, resources to program the logic,
resources to power the computation, etc.) you can't escape the 2nd Law.
You are not correct that that US deindustrialization has been primarily a function of massive
increases in productivity. First of all, mfg productivity has decreased in the US since 2004.
(See recent Brookings paper). Second, the vast majority of the increase in overall mfg productivity
over recent decades is has been due to giant measured increases in one sector – computers – and
those giant measured increases (which are probably mismeasurements) have been accompanied by massive
offshoring of manufacturing jobs in this sector, not the elimination of work.
Also, deindustrialization is not like de-farming because farmers could move to higher productivity
work, where as laid off factory workers are having to move, when they can find work at all, from
high productivity work to low productivity work.
fewer people will be needed to produce more with less : this has been the case for the
last 100+ years at least yet has never led to the elimination of work. Indeed, average workdays
are longer now than they were 50 years ago and most families have more people working today than
families did 50 years ago.
Tony: Increasing automation will absolutely occur and increase, irrespective of current rates
of resource extraction from the ground. Here is why: as resource prices increase, capital will
begin to apply AI, etc. to the task of maximizing efficiency in recycling, etc – in order to continue
the march towards elimination of the variable price input they despise most (humans). As far as
energy goes, keep in mind that solar is rapidly increasing in efficiency too. Add to that, the
following: there are trillions of tons of scrap metal that, absent the need to pay humans to harvest
and handle them for recycling, can be reused to make more robots. If you are a 95% automated company,
you locate your factories in hellholes like Death Valley where solar is cheap. You make robots
whose task is to make more robots from scavenged metal, precious metals, rare-earths, etc.
The thing is, the holders of capital are now (or are all becoming) fundamentally sociopathic.
Ultimately, in order to stem the tide of automation (that, goshdarnit, they wish they wouldn't
have to resort to, but darn those pesky wages and benefits and so on), minimum wage laws will
be eliminated. I see this in comment sections all the time – if you allow people to compete on
price, the lowest will always win.
If, following a long period of rentier-extraction of all economic value (i.e. forced liquidiation
of any assets the workers hold, sales of personal belongings, you fill in the blanks), the final
answer is dystopian nightmare. Eventually, it will be accepted that people will be allowed to
indenture themselves again. Those agreements become currency – tradeable like bonds or other instruments.
Eventually, the rich, having used up everything else to buy/sell/crapify will resort to the outright
trading in human lives – it's easy to envision a world in which one obligates oneself at, say,
16, to 30 years of labor and your contract is then bought or sold by the rich depending on your
apparent worth.
All of this will be sanctioned and embraced by the collective sufferers of Stockholm Syndrome
that we are all becoming.
But why do those negotiating our trade deals do everything possible to protect agriculture
even though it employs few while telling us that manufacturing is gotta go because it's too productive?
Curious, other than things like Free Trade and voting rights for white men, what else does
it mean? Are there things Im forgetting? Because those are what come to mind.
What Thomas Frank writes is a measure of our civilization.
It is the best of times, it is the worst of times, it is the age of wisdom, it is the age of
foolishness, it is the epoch of belief, it is the epoch of incredulity, it is the season of light,
it is the season of darkness, it is the spring of hope, it is the winter of despair.
Everyone wants the American dream. But the dream isn't there anymore. Most fall more than they
climb.
Robert Putnam, Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis, writes that "Growing class segregation
means that rich Americans and poor Americans are living, learning, and raising children in increasingly
separate and unequal worlds, removing the stepping-stones to upward mobility."
The politicians and the media tell us that we have to further tighten our belts and live on
hay, while the collapse of the middle class continues to accelerate, and promise us pie in the
sky. What a mockery!
The masses, having been deceived, are now agitated and in ferment.
"Long ago it was said that "one half of the world does not know how the other half lives."
That was true then. It did not know because it did not care. The half that was on top cared little
for the struggles, and less for the fate of those who were underneath, so long as it was able
to hold them there and keep its own seat. There came a time when the discomfort and consequent
upheavals so violent, that it was no longer an easy thing to do, and then the upper half fell
to inquiring what was the matter. Information on the subject has been accumulating rapidly since,
and the whole world has had its hands full answering for its old ignorance." – Jacob A. Riis,
How the Other Half Lives
Politicians ultimately serve their most important constituents, which across the country means
the wealthy. In traditional Democratic enclaves where getting out the vote meant giving out benefits
like housing and health care, the pressure from the masses is no longer there. Rather, whoever
raises the most money for campaign cash is able to win most elections. Scott Brown tapped into
the dissatisfied and down trodden of the state for his brief turn as our Republican representative
in the Senate, but he turned out to be nothing more than a barn jacket driving an F150. Moreover,
witness the massive rewards that are now possible for retired technocrats. Deval Patrick made
a fantastic wage as a lawyer prior to being governor and now waltzes into Bain Capital to continue
harvesting economic gains. Why would a politician do anything to bite the hand that feeds it?
Another fitting quote from "that" time:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding
it."
Upton Sinclair Jr.
The thing that gets lost in all of these discussions concerning inequality and the changing
nature of work and education is that all of these things are the result of policy changes.
Yes. We did it.
Willfully and purposefully.
And those who benefit the most and therefore are able to contribute the most to professional
associations and personal giving continue to demand that these policies not only continue on the
same track but that new wrinkles be added to aid the people giving the money to do even better
– whether it is regulatory, statute, or enforcement of existing laws; all of these can be enhanced
for the rich and successful.
At this point the working class person (whether by choice or necessity) has no champion. A
few years ago The Onion posted a faux news story detailing how the American People had hired lobbyists
to influence policy.
Like too much of the Onion's Stuff, the lampoon becomes the harpoon as it flies directly to
the heart of the matter.
Again what is missing is that these things are the result of policy not some organic sea-change
as the poster above delineates. (For the policies that are fomenting these changes are copied
around the world – "improved" – in come cases and sent back creating an endless loop of denigration
for working folks)
Who's this "we" you speak of, kemosabe? Those with the power to influence policy have designed
these outcomes. I have never been among them. Have you?
But you are correct in asserting that what we are seeing is the result purposeful action. The
policies are bad, but before we will be able to really change them, I think, we'll need to re-frame
the debate in such a way that every possible solution turns out to be a win for the elites. We
need to get back to basics. What is the economy for? Hint, not making money.
Are you an oligarch of some kind? If not, then saying that 'we did it' is wrong, because the
oligarchs bought all the politicians and had them enact these changes. To blame the electorate
when the majority of choices available to vote for were pre-selected to be answerable only to
the masters of capital seems to me to be disingenuous.
I'm glad Mr. Frank didn't mention "Boston Strong". There's a term that makes the hairs on the
back of my neck stand up. The Boston that was so strong that it was shut down and stilled for
a while by two brothers then one remaining brother, the teenager. A primer for how to apply Marshall
law to populous American cities during times of trouble. "Coming soon to a city near you", if
need be.
The attitudes were no different in Massachusetts fifty years ago, but you had to venture into
Southie or Roxbury or Fall River to see past the liberal rhetoric and observe the contempt the
gownies held for the townies. All that has changed is that now the manufacturing jobs are gone;
only the contempt remains.
Frank doesn't really mention though that de-industrialization in places like Fall River started
even before World War II. To be fair at this point it was textile mills and tanneries moving to
other places in the US with cheaper labor(i.e. the South). So Massachusetts historically was really
not hurt per say by free trade with other countries but free trade within the United States.
That's a reductionist argument, like saying that since you already had a cold the fact you've
now been diagnosed with cancer really isn't that big a deal. It's important to disaggregate different
trends and analyze their distinct contributions to changes in economic fortunes. Such an analysis
is likely to show that while the migration of some industries from the North to the South, largely
to exploit cheap labour, did have some non negligible regional impact the effect was completely
swamped by the subsequent shock of trade liberalization and globalization. The initial movement
involved labour intensive low skill light industries while the latter saw the decimation of the
heavy industries that were once the bedrock of the American economy. Moreover, fluctuations in
employment patterns within the US doesn't effect aggregate employment and output,
while the outsourcing of jobs overseas represents the dead loss of both, not to mention the negative
impact on the trade account of having to import all the things that were once produced domestically.
Thanks for your comparison article on MA, maybe you should look at Minnesota the only state
that has been mostly democrat for the longest period. Of course if you did you could not manage
your theme it just would not play-
The Nation has mostly the same excerpt of Frank's book and gives it a headline that is a
misdirect-"Why Have Democrats Failed in the State Where They're Most Likely to Succeed?" .The
Democrats didn't "fail", the leaders of the party were successful in their desired outcome.
In the UK we used to have three parties Labour, Conservative and Liberal. Now there is no room
between the slightly left and slightly right parties and the Liberals have been squeezed out of
existence.
Unfortunately the Neo-liberal ideology failed in 2008.
Everyone has now noticed the Neo-Liberal, Centrist main parties are not working in the interests
of the electorate.
Unconditional bailouts for bankers and austerity for the people.
How can there be any doubt?
New parties or leaders are required that aren't, Neo-Liberal centrists.
In Europe we have Podemos, Syriza and Five Star with a myriad of right wing parties including
Golden Dawn.
In the UK, UKIP and Corbyn.
In the US, Trump, Sanders and the Tea Party.
The elite haven't quite worked out how badly they have failed their electorate.
Get out of your ivory towers and discover the new reality.
It is important to establish the difference between Liberal and Labour/Socialist.
Where even the UK term Labour, and US term Socialist, are just versions of Capitalism that
lie on the Left, not true Socialism.
Liberals are left leaning elitists who are always using words like "populist" to show their
disdain for the masses.
They want those lower down to have reasonable lives but very much believe the elite should
run things, people like them.
New Labour were really Liberals, but the UK election system meant they had to hide under the
Labour banner to get into power. They lived in places like Hampstead where they never had to mix
with the hoi polloi and believed in private schools, so their children don't have to mix with
the great unwashed.
Labour/Socialists represent the people and identify with them.
With the technocrat elite messing things up globally it is time for real Labour and Socialists
to make their presence felt.
There is a world of difference between Liberals and the real Left and a three party system
makes sense.
The New Labour sympathisers need to get themselves under the correct banner, Liberal.
All those innovative new spin-off businesses will fail. Most of them. There are only so many
things an economy needs. A bubble of innovation isn't one of them. But it is good for the "consumer"
as Hillary tells us, because competition. Progress. So everyone can have more cheap crap. Who
says we have been deindustrialized? All this misbegotten innovation is going to bury us under
mountains of garbage. Just to keep the economy churning. We are not just wasting time and resources
for the sake of a bad idea, we are creating critical mass. It's almost as if policy makers think
that if we don't all run around in a frenzy of creativity the world will stop turning. Liberalism
is a silly, self indulgent thing.
I think you are largely right but let's give the devil his due: most of us would not like to
return to the world of 1760 before the first stuttering steps of industrial innovation. It was
a world even more unequal and authoritarian than our own. So when people talk about progress and
innovation, they have history and some powerful evidence from the past to call upon. The question
now is appropriateness, which I think is what you are driving at. We need to determine as a community
what is appropriate for our future well-being and how we want to use the technology we have, under
democratic control, to make a better future than the consumerist ecological disaster looming close
on our horizon.
"Innovation" is what limousine liberals propose to offer the masses in place of secure employment
and a decent standard of living. It's effectively old fashioned social Darwinism -innovate or
die- dressed up in fadish contemporary buisiness-speak that provides an ideological justification
for throwing the masses overboard while flattering their own prejudices about "meritocracy", "flexible
labour markets", and what have you.
As you said most of these businesses will fail, because the idea that innovation is an end
in itself is a conceit dreamed up by business school professors who have never spent a day running
the day to day operations (like meeting payroll) of an actual business. In reality innovation
is largely a serendipitous process that can't be taught in classrooms and is at best only slightly
responsive to external support ("incubation"). Very often it is largely dependent on dumb luck
– the proverbial being "in the right place at the right time". People like Deval Patrick are never
going to acknowledge that however because to do so would be to admit -first of all to themselves-
that having championed policies that stripped workers of security and a respectable livelihood
what they are offering them in its place amounts to a handful of beans.
For at least 30 years Democrats have run on a platform of 'Identity Politics' which pits gays
against straits, people of color against whites, skeptics against the religious, immigrants against
nativists, etc. In short, deviding the country against itself in almost every demographic category
except the one that really counts – labor against capital. The party once led by FDR who famously
welcomed the hatred and wrath of Wall Street is now led by the likes of Chuck Shumer and Steney
Hoyer who have their heads so far up the ass-end of Wall Street that it's amazing that either
one of them can still breathe.
$145M in tax breaks for 800 jobs that we stole from CT! Innovation!!!
I'm guessing employees aren't going to get paid the $181,250 a year that that comes out to?
Perhaps the state could have just hired 800 people and saved a bundle. But then we couldn't brag
about how we have so many world class businesses based right here!!!
"The city's education budget is $50 million short, despite a $13 million hike in school spending."
"Schools are facing the deficit due to rising costs and declining state and federal aid."
Oh right, that's where. Sometimes, it's like you can actually watch our wonderful leaders making
our society worse, more unequal right before your very eyes?!?!?!
I just got Thomas Frank's new book, and so far it seems to have gathered together in a coherent
narrative the journey of the leadership of the Democratic party to split off from the blue collar
workers who used to fill the factories. We no longer have the factories to occupy the time of
the least educated, and the dems have done precious little to confront this problem. I don't know
what else he has to say about his ideas towards the middle and end of his book, but I know the
real conclusion should be that the work week needs to continue to drop down another couple of
days. The level of automation and smart manufacturing design from the past 100 years has steady
improvements in productivity. The vast majority of our time is simply no longer required to sustain
the standard of living and increases in productivity. We may need to give over 3 Eight hour days
to work for the economy, the rest of the time should be left to own pursuit of happiness while
we live the short span allotted to us in the world.
The economic restructuring is a political decision making process that so far, no one party
as a whole has picked up as their primary unifying cause. While there are plenty of dems who have
a working class politics, they are in a minority within the dems.And while they understand the
value of supporting a tech based new economy, that doesn't mean we still don't needs tables and
chairs, refrigerators and stoves and other manufactured goods. It may mean we need fewer people
to make them, but the other alternatives for people without college or professional degrees needs
to be supported in numbers required to give everyone a decent paying job.
There is enough deferred maintenance of falling down buildings, homeless people that can be
housed in abandoned homes, potholes in roads, bad bridges, not to mention the enormous transition
to solar and wind power. The social order needs to change to allow people a quality standard of
living from our economic activity. And our economic activity can not just be based upon apps,
video games and 3-D printed birthday cakes. We still need to eat, so we did not abandon agriculture.
We still like to live in comfortable homes, so we do not have to abandon furniture making. And
we all benefit from being educated and healthy. All of our industrial base does not have to be
jettisoned for the sake of computers and the internet of everything. We still need something manufactured
if we are going to put the internet inside of it, whatever it maybe.
The best way to encourage innovation is to assure a strong safety net so that everyone can
innovate. The Scandinavian countries lead in measures of innovation (look it up). The US is also
a leader but only because of the large presence of government (read the book, "The Entrepreneurial
State).
Artisanal furniture, Artisanal coffee. Artisanal this and Artisanal that
but Artisanal Liberals, Artisanal Democrates, now that's where it's at!
~ a forgotten forklift driver who doesn't deserve a decent life because a decent life costs
more here than it does in Asia, with the difference going to those who don't need it for anything
more than cocktail party bragging rights
Unfortunatly, under neoliberalism it's not people who vote. It's only large corporations which use
two party system to put forward two canditates that will follow thier agenda. quote "Unfortunately
the US propaganda system is now so entrenched and so heavily financed by the financial elites that such
campaigns as that by Sanders, admirable as it is, have no chance of changing the US system. The only
thing that will is violent revolution and that is highly unlikely given the monopoly of legitimate force
commanded by those elites."
Notable quotes:
"... Bernie Sanders is the first candidate since Carter to actually project a sense of positive values and integrity. ..."
"... Sheepdogs are herders, and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and voters back into the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic party, either staying home or trying to build something outside the two party box. ..."
"... The function of the sheepdog candidate is to give left activists and voters a reason, however illusory, to believe there's a place of influence for them inside the Democratic party,... ..."
This is a good man. He is Independent, running as a Democrat as 3rd party candidates are doomed
from the start. He is elderly, so choosing his running mate will be extremely important in terms
of his electibility. Elizabeth Warren? If she won't run for President, maybe this is the ticket?
So far this is the ONLY candidate whose desire for "change" matches what folks want. The other
potential candidates are known sleight of hand change artists. And I use the word "artist" in
the way one might describe someone who draws stick figures. Badly.
lutesongs
Bernie Sanders is the first candidate since Carter to actually project a sense of positive values
and integrity. He is the frontrunner for most Americans who care about fairness and a sustainable
future. Don't allow the corporate media to marginalize him by innuendo or non-coverage. Don't
allow the Democratic Party to turn a blind eye to the issues. Don't allow the Repubs to steal
another election through blatant electronic voter fraud, hacking the voting machines and gaming
the results. Start a campaign for voters to photograph their results and compile independent vote
counts. An honest election would likely favor a populist with integrity. Bernie Sanders is the
one.
BabyLyon
The country is ruled by greedy corporation, all governmental authorities are corrupted to the
limit, unstoppable wars and overall torpidity and all these candidates are able to offer is doubtful
solutions for two-or three "serious" problems. Either they're blind or just fool American people.
PhilippeOrlando
This population is too stupid to elect a guy like Sanders. With a median household income of 50K/year
it will vote, one more time, for people who don't represent it. The only two running candidates
who represents 99% of the population are Sanders and Stein, the Green candidate. All others will
cater first to the wealthy. Clinton will be chosen over Sanders because for some weird reason
'mericans vote for the guy they think will fight for who they think they'll be one day, not for
whom they are now. I think it's about time to stop feeling sorry for most Americans, half of them
won't bother to go vote anyway, and a huge majority will keep voting for the wrong guys.
Justin Weaver -> PhilippeOrlando
I totally get you, but I think that a lot of Americans truly believe that they ARE prosperous
even if they have minimal savings, no job security, and are only one medical disaster away from
bankruptcy. Many American's have really bought the American dream narrative even if they have
little chance of achieving it.
patimac54
Bernie's brother Larry, long time UK resident, stood for the Green Party in my constituency in
the recent elections. He has spent his adult life working for others, particularly carers, and
is a man of great integrity and intelligence. Of course he didn't win but was by far the most
impressive candidate at the local hustings, and thereby exposed the audience to a viewpoint most
will not have experienced previously.
If Bernie is half the man his brother is, US voters have a fine candidate, and similarly he may
open up the electorate's eyes to the idea that it is possible to believe in something better.
amorezu
A man that openly calls himself a 'democratic socialist' will never win in the USA. People here
have an allergy to the word 'socialism'. Unfortunately that allergy is causing them to be OK with
living in a de-facto oligarchy.
Observer453
Something I love about Bernie Sanders is that he is straight forward, honest in his views and
cannot be bought. I imagine he's something of a mystery to the many 'politicians', as Barack Obama
recently described himself.
Someone that actually thinks about what is best for the people, not for himself. Bernie calls
himself a Socialist, if that is what Socialism means - and caring for the environment - sign me
up.
jdanforth
Part of an analysis of the Sanders campaign, written three weeks ago by Bruce A. Dixon:
Bernie Sanders is this election's Democratic sheepdog. The sheepdog is a card the Democratic
party plays every presidential primary season when there's no White House Democrat running
for re-election. The sheepdog is a presidential candidate running ostensibly to the left of
the establishment Democrat to whom the billionaires will award the nomination. Sheepdogs
are herders, and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and voters back into
the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic party,
either staying home or trying to build something outside the two party box.
1984 and 88 the sheepdog candidate was Jesse Jackson. In 92 it was California governor Jerry
Brown. In 2000 and 2004 the designated sheepdog was Al Sharpton, and in 2008 it was Dennis
Kucinich. This year it's Vermont senator Bernie Sanders. The function of the sheepdog candidate
is to give left activists and voters a reason, however illusory, to believe there's a place
of influence for them inside the Democratic party,...
Doro Wynant jdanforth
Except:
1. Not one of the candidates cited had the legislative background that Sanders has -- not the
duration in office, not the proven appeal to a diverse constituency, not the proven ability to
work respectfully with unlike-minded peers.
2. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson clearly never had a chance; they're not at all in the same
category.
3. Poverty is at a 50-year high in the US, and many once-middle-class, educated, professional
persons (myself included) are -- thanks to the recession -- part of the nouveau poor. Even the
formerly-non-activist-types are angry, and they're paying attention to his talk of income inequality
-- and Sanders has more credibility as a potential reformer than does wealthy insider HRC.
4. What Dixon condescendingly refers to as "left activists and voters [who have no influence
in the party]" are in fact people with mainstream ideas about building and maintaining a stable
society. The right, having skewed the debate over the past 25 years, luvvvvvs to pretend that
these centrist, humane ideas are wacky and way-out when in fact they're, well, mainstream ideas.
Who among us doesn't want a safe, clean world in which to live, love, work, raise our families?
Not only is that not a wacky idea, it's a very -- GASP -- Christian idea/ideal!
Jon Phillips
If you vote for Hillary you are accepting that America is now an oligarchy. How else can you
explain the amount of time the Bush & Clinton families have occupied the White House?
300 million Americans and 2 families have occupied the White House for 20 of the last 28 years........
RickyRat
This business comes down to just two choices: You can vote for Pennywise the Clown in either
his Republican or her Democratic persona, along with the creature's Robber Baron backers, or you
can vote for Sanders. You could cast a protest vote somewhere else, but doing that will just further
the cause of the Robber Barons. Let's take back the wheel of the American political process!
Bertmax RickyRat
That is a fallacy called "false equivalency". It is wrong to say that both parties are to blame.
Sure, both have their share of corruption, but at least the Democrats are pushing legislation
that actually benefits the 90%. I am a member of neither party, since I don't believe in supporting
only a narrow set of ideals one way or the other, but the GOP are the true scourge of my country.
People like Sanders and Warren actually care about this country.
A recent poll had Bernie "lagged behind the favorite by a margin of 63% to 13%" Is that among
the fake people "Hillary Who" has supporting her?
He's probably doing much better among real people.
RickyRat Chris Plante
There is a machine out there, running full blast. Sanders is the wrench the machine's owners fear.
Jeannie Parker
I take offense at the suggestion he's from far left field. It's absurd to say in the least. He's
been drafted by us. He's running for us. All of us. I admin on few Bernie Sanders' pages on FB
and I can tell you with all certainty that the folks getting behind this man and his campaign
are coming from across the political spectrum.
The beauty of it is, he has a thirty some odd years long record that cannot be altered.
This man has and always will work for the interests of everyone.
No one can listen to him and his policy positions and not get behind him.
Bernie Sanders is coming and a revolution is coming with him.
No amount of money can sway us or turn us from our goal of seeing this fine gentleman ascend to
the highest office of our Land. Cheers.
"... it seems fair to say: Globalism isn't quite the Wave of the Future that most observers thought it was, even just a year ago. And so before we attempt to divide the true intentions of Clinton and Trump, we might first step back and consider how we got to this point. ..."
"... An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations . ..."
"... Clinton will say anything then she'll sell you out. I hope we never get a chance to see how she will sell us out on TPP ..."
"... What we would be headed for under Hillary Clinton is fascism--Mussolini's shorthand definition of fascism was the marriage of industry and commerce with the power of the State. That is what the plutocrats who run the big banks (to whom she owes her soul) aim to do. President, Thomas Jefferson knew the dangers of large European-style central banks. ..."
On the surface, it appears that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, for all their mutual antipathy,
are united on one big issue: opposition to new trade deals. Here's a recent headline in
The Guardian: "Trump and Clinton's free trade retreat: a pivotal moment for the world's
economic future."
And the subhead continues in that vein:
Never before have both main presidential candidates broken so completely with Washington orthodoxy
on globalization, even as the White House refuses to give up. The problem, however, goes much
deeper than trade deals.
In the above quote, we can note the deliberate use of the loaded word, "problem." As in, it's
a problem that free trade is unpopular-a problem, perhaps, that the MSM can fix. Yet in the
meantime, the newspaper sighed, the two biggest trade deals on the horizon, the well-known
Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), and the lesser-known
Trans Atlantic Trade Investment
Partnership (TTIP), aimed at further linking the U.S. and European Union (EU), are both in jeopardy.
So now we must ask broader questions: What does this mean for trade treaties overall? And what
are the implications for globalism?
More specifically, we can ask: Are we sure that the two main White House hopefuls, Clinton and
Trump, are truly sincere in their opposition to those deals? After all, as has been
widely reported, President Obama still has plans to push TPP through to enactment in the "lame
duck" session of Congress after the November elections. Of course, Obama wouldn't seek to do that
if the president-elect opposed it-or would he?
Yet on August 30, Politico reminded its Beltway readership, "How
Trump or Clinton could kill Pacific trade deal." In other words, even if Obama were to move TPP
forward in his last two months in office, the 45th president could still block its implementation
in 2017 and beyond. If, that is, she or he really wanted to.
Indeed, as we think about Clinton and Trump, we realize that there's "opposition" that's for show
and there's opposition that's for real.
Still, given what's been said on the presidential campaign trail this year, it seems fair
to say: Globalism isn't quite the Wave of the Future that most observers thought it was, even just
a year ago. And so before we attempt to divide the true intentions of Clinton and Trump, we might
first step back and consider how we got to this point.
2. The Free Trade Orthodoxy
It's poignant that the headline, "Trump and Clinton's free trade retreat", lamenting the decay
of free trade, appeared in The Guardian. Until recently, the newspaper was known as The
Manchester Guardian, as in Manchester, England. And Manchester is not only a big city, population
2.5 million, it is also a city with a fabled past: You see, Manchester was the cradle of the Industrial
Revolution, which transformed England and the world. It was that city that helped create the free
trade orthodoxy that is now crumbling.
Yes, in the 18th and 19th centuries, Manchester was the leading manufacturing city in the world,
especially for textiles. It was known as "Cottonopolis."
Indeed, back then, Manchester was so much more efficient and effective at mass production that
it led the world in exports. That is, it could produce its goods at such low cost that it could send
them across vast oceans and still undercut local producers on price and quality.
Over time, this economic reality congealed into a school of thought: As Manchester grew rich from
exports, its business leaders easily found economists, journalists, and propagandists who would help
advance their cause in the press and among the intelligentsia.
The resulting school of thought became known, in the 19th century, as "Manchester
Liberalism." And so, to this day, long after Manchester has lost its economic preeminence to
rivals elsewhere in the world, the phrase "Manchester Liberalism" is a well-known in the history
of economics, bespeaking ardent support for free markets and free trade.
More recently, the hub for free-trade enthusiasm has been the United States. In particular, the
University of Chicago, home to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, became free trade's
academic citadel; hence the "Chicago
School" has displaced Manchesterism.
And just as it made sense for Manchester Liberalism to exalt free trade and exports when Manchester
and England were on top, so, too, did the Chicago School exalt free trade when the U.S. was unquestionably
the top dog.
So back in the 40s and 50s, when the rest of the world was either bombed flat or still under the
yoke of colonialism, it made perfect sense that the U.S., as the only intact industrial power, would
celebrate industrial exports: We were Number One, and it was perfectly rational to make the most
of that first-place status. And if scribblers and scholars could help make the case for this new
status quo, well, bring 'em aboard. Thus the Chicago School gained ascendancy in the late 20th century.
And of course, the Chicagoans drew inspiration from a period even earlier than Manchesterism,
3. On the Origins of the Orthodoxy: Adam Smith and David Ricardo
One passage in that volume considers how individuals might optimize their own production and consumption:
It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family never to attempt to make at home what it
will cost him more to make than to buy.
Smith is right, of course; everyone should always be calculating, however informally, whether
or not it's cheaper to make it at home or buy it from someone else.
We can quickly see: If each family must make its own clothes and grow its own food, it's likely
to be worse off than if it can buy its necessities from a large-scale producer. Why? Because, to
be blunt about it, most of us don't really know how to make clothes and grow food, and it's expensive
and difficult-if not downright impossible-to learn how. So we can conclude that self-sufficiency,
however rustic and charming, is almost always a recipe for poverty.
Smith had a better idea: specialization. That is, people would specialize in one line of
work, gain skills, earn more money, and then use that money in the marketplace, buying what they
needed from other kinds of specialists.
Moreover, the even better news, in Smith's mind, was that this kind of specialization came naturally
to people-that is, if they were free to scheme out their own advancement. As Smith argued, the ideal
system would allow "every man to pursue his own interest his own way, upon the liberal plan of equality,
liberty and justice."
That is, men (and women) would do that which they did best, and then they would all come together
in the free marketplace-each person being inspired to do better, thanks to, as Smith so memorably
put it, the "invisible hand." Thus Smith articulated a key insight that undergirds the whole of modern
economics-and, of course, modern-day prosperity.
A few decades later, in the early 19th century, Smith's pioneering work was expanded upon by another
remarkable British economist, David Ricardo.
Ricardo's big idea built on Smithian specialization; Ricardo called it "comparative advantage."
That is, just as each individual should do what he or she does best, so should each country.
In Ricardo's well-known illustration, he explained that the warm and sunny climate of Portugal
made that country ideal for growing the grapes needed for wine, while the factories of England made
that country ideal for spinning the fibers needed for apparel and other finished fabrics.
Thus, in Ricardo's view, we could see the makings of a beautiful economic friendship: The Portuguese
would utilize their comparative advantage (climate) and export their surplus wine to England, while
the English would utilize their comparative advantage (manufacturing) and export apparel to Portugal.
Thus each would benefit from the exchange of efficiently-produced products, as each export paid for
the other.
Furthermore, in Ricardo's telling, if tariffs and other barriers were eliminated, then both countries,
Portugal and England, would enjoy the maximum free-trading win-win.
Actually, in point of fact-and Ricardo knew this-the relationship was much more of a win for England,
because manufacture is more lucrative than agriculture. That is, a factory in Manchester could crank
out garments a lot faster than a vineyard in Portugal could ferment wine.
And as we all know, the richer, stronger countries are industrial, not agricultural. Food is essential-and
alcohol is pleasurable-but the real money is made in making things. After all, crops can be grown
easily enough in many places, and so prices stay low. By contrast, manufacturing requires a lot of
know-how and a huge upfront investment. Yet with enough powerful manufacturing, a nation is always
guaranteed to be able to afford to import food. And also, it can make military weapons, and so, if
necessary, take foreign food and croplands by force.
We can also observe that Ricardo, smart fellow that he was, nevertheless was describing the economy
at a certain point in time-the era of horse-drawn carriages and sailing ships. Ricardo realized that
transportation was, in fact, a key business variable. He wrote that it was possible for a company
to seek economic advantage by moving a factory from one part of England to another. And yet in his
view, writing from the perspective of the year 1817, it was impossible to imagine
moving a factory from England to another country:
It would not follow that capital and population would necessarily move from England to Holland,
or Spain, or Russia.
Why this presumed immobility of capital and people? Because, from Ricardo's early 19th-century
perspective, transportation was inevitably slow and creaky; he didn't foresee steamships and airplanes.
In his day, relying on the technology of the time, it wasn't realistic to think that factories, and
their workers, could relocate from one country to another.
Moreover, in Ricardo's era, many countries were actively hostile to industrialization, because
change would upset the aristocratic rhythms of the old order. That is, industrialization could turn
docile or fatalistic peasants, spread out thinly across the countryside, into angry and self-aware
proletarians, concentrated in the big cities-and that was a formula for unrest, even revolution.
Indeed, it was not until the 20th century that every country-including China, a great civilization,
long asleep under decadent imperial misrule-figured out that it had no choice other than to industrialize.
So we can see that the ideas of Smith and Ricardo, enduringly powerful as they have been, were
nonetheless products of their time-that is, a time when England mostly had the advantages of industrialism
to itself. In particular, Ricardo's celebration of comparative advantage can be seen as an artifact
of his own era, when England enjoyed a massive first-mover advantage in the industrial-export game.
Smith died in 1790, and Ricardo died in 1823; a lot has changed since then. And yet the two economists
were so lucid in their writings that their work is studied and admired to this day.
Unfortunately, we can also observe that their ideas have been frozen in a kind of intellectual
amber; even in the 21st century, free trade and old-fashioned comparative advantage are unquestioningly
regarded as the keys to the wealth of nations-at least in the U.S.-even if they are so no longer.
4. Nationalist Alternatives to Free Trade Orthodoxy
As we have seen, Smith and Ricardo were pushing an idea, free trade, that was advantageous to
Britain.
So perhaps not surprisingly, rival countries-notably the United States and Germany-soon developed
different ideas. Leaders in Washington, D.C., and Berlin didn't want their respective nations to
be mere dependent receptacles for English goods; they wanted real independence. And so they wanted
factories of their own.
In the late 18th century, Alexander Hamilton, the visionary American patriot, could see that both
economic wealth and military power flowed from domestic industry. As the nation's first Treasury
Secretary, he persuaded President George Washington and the Congress to support a system of protective
tariffs and "internal improvements" (what today we would call infrastructure) to foster US manufacturing
and exporting.
And in the 19th century, Germany, under the much heavier-handed leadership of Otto von Bismarck,
had the same idea: Make a concerted effort to make the nation stronger.
In both countries, this industrial policymaking succeeded. So whereas at the beginning of the
19th century, England had led the world in steel production, by the beginning of the 20th century
century, the U.S. and Germany had moved well ahead. Yes, the "invisible hand" of individual self-interest
is always a powerful economic force, but sometimes, the "visible hand" of national purpose, animated
by patriotism, is even more powerful.
Thus by 1914, at the onset of World War One, we could see the results of the Smith/Ricardo model,
on the one hand, and the Hamilton/Bismarck model, on the other. All three countries-Britain, the
US, and Germany, were rich-but only the latter two had genuine industrial mojo. Indeed, during World
War One, English weakness became glaringly apparent in the 1915
shell crisis-as
in, artillery shells. It was only the massive importing of made-in-USA ammunition that saved Britain
from looming defeat.
Yet as always, times change, as do economic circumstances, as do prevailing ideas.
As we have seen, at the end of World War II, the U.S. was the only industrial power left standing.
And so it made sense for America to shift from a policy of Hamiltonian protection to a policy of
Smith-Ricardian export-minded free trade. Indeed, beginning in around 1945, both major political
parties, Democrats and Republicans, solidly embraced the new line: The U.S. would be the factory
for the world.
Yet if times, circumstances, and ideas change, they can always change again.
5. The Contemporary Crack-Up
As we have seen, in the 19th century, not every country wanted to be on the passive receiving
end of England's exports. And this was true, too, in the 20th century; Japan, notably, had its own
ideas.
If Japan had followed the Ricardian doctrine of comparative advantage, it would have focused on
exporting rice and tuna. Instead, by dint of hard work, ingenuity, and more than a little national
strategizing, Japan grew itself into a great and prosperous industrial power. Its exports, we might
note, were such high-value-adds as automobiles and electronics, not mere crops and fish.
Moreover, according to the same theory of comparative advantage, South Korea should have been
exporting parasols and kimchi, and China should have settled for exporting fortune cookies and pandas.
Yet as the South Korean economist
Ha-Joon Chang has chronicled,
these Asian nations resolved, in their no-nonsense neo-Confucian way, to launch state-guided private
industries-and the theory of comparative advantage be damned.
Yes, their efforts violated Western economic orthodoxy, but as the philosopher Kant once observed,
the actual proves the possible. Indeed, today, as we all know, the Asian tigers are among the richest
and fastest-growing economies in the world.
China is not only the world's largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP), but
also the world's largest manufacturing nation-producing 52 percent of color televisions, 75 percent
of mobile phones and 87 percent of the world's personal computers. The Chinese automobile industry
is the world's largest, twice the size of America's. China leads the world in foreign exchange
reserves. The United States is the main trading partner for seventy-six countries. China is the
main trading partner for 124.
In particular, we might pause over one item in that impressive litany: China makes 87 percent
of the world's personal computers.
Indeed, if it's true, as ZDNet reports, that
the Chinese have built "backdoors" into almost all the electronic equipment that they sell-that
is to say, the equipment that we buy-then we can assume that we face a serious military challenge,
as well as a serious economic challenge.
Yes, it's a safe bet that the People's Liberation Army has a good handle on our defense establishment,
especially now that the Pentagon has fully equipped itself with
Chinese-made iPhones and iPads.
Of course, we can safely predict that Defense Department bureaucrats will always say that there's
nothing to worry about, that they have the potential hacking/sabotage matter under control (although
just to be sure, the Pentagon might say, give us more money).
Yet we might note that this is the same defense establishment that couldn't keep track of lone
internal rogues such as Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden. Therefore, should we really believe that
this same DOD knows how to stop the determined efforts of a nation of 1.3 billion people, seeking
to hack machines-machines that they made in the first place?
Yes, the single strongest argument against the blind application of free- trade dogma is the doctrine
of self defense. That is, all the wealth in the world doesn't matter if you're conquered. Even Adam
Smith understood that; as he wrote, "Defense
. . . is of much more importance than opulence."
Yet today we can readily see: If we are grossly dependent on China for vital wares, then we can't
be truly independent of China. In fact, we should be downright fearful.
Still, despite these deep strategic threats, directly the result of careless importing, the Smith-Ricardo
orthodoxy remains powerful, even hegemonistic-at least in the English-speaking world.
Why is this so? Yes, economists are typically seen as cold and nerdy, even bloodless, and yet,
in fact, they are actual human beings. And as such, they are susceptible to the giddy-happy feeling
that comes from the hope of building a new utopia, the dream of ushering in an era of world harmony,
based on untrammeled international trade. Indeed, this woozy idealism among economists goes way back;
it was the British free trader Richard Cobden who declared in 1857,
Free trade is God's diplomacy. There is no other certain way of uniting people in the bonds
of peace.
And lo, so many wars later, many economists still believe that.
Indeed, economists today are still monolithically pro-fee trade; a
recent survey of economists found that 83 percent supported eliminating all tariffs and other
barriers; just 10 percent disagreed.
We might further note that others, too, in the financial and intellectual elite are fully on board
the free-trade train, including most corporate officers and their lobbyists, journalists, academics,
and, of course, the mostly for-hire think-tankers.
To be sure, there are always exceptions: As that Guardian article, the one lamenting the
sharp decrease in support for free trade as a "problem," noted, not all of corporate America is on
board, particularly those companies in the manufacturing sector:
Ford openly opposes TPP because it fears the deal does nothing to stop Japan manipulating its
currency at the expense of US rivals.
Indeed, we might note that the same Guardian story included an even more cautionary note,
asserting that support for free trade, overall, is remarkably rickety:
Some suggest a "bicycle theory" of trade deals: that the international bandwagon has to keep
rolling forward or else it all wobbles and falls down.
So what has happened? How could virtually the entire elite be united in enthusiasm for free trade,
and yet, even so, the free trade juggernaut is no steadier than a mere two-wheeled bike? Moreover,
free traders will ask: Why aren't the leaders leading? More to the point, why aren't the followers
following?
To answer those questions, we might start by noting the four-decade phenomenon of
wage stagnation-that's
taken a toll on support for free trade. But of course, it's in the heartland that wages have been
stagnating; by contrast,
incomes for
the bicoastal elites have been soaring.
We might also note that some expert predictions have been way off, thus undermining confidence
in their expertise. Remember, this spring, when all the experts were saying that the United Kingdom
would fall into recession, or worse, if it voted to leave the EU? Well, just the other day came this
New York Post headline: "Brexit
actually boosting the UK economy."
Thus from the Wall Street-ish perspective of the urban chattering classes, things are going well-so
what's the problem?
Yet the folks on Main Street have known a different story. They have seen, with their own eyes,
what has happened to them, and no fusillade of op-eds or think-tank monographs will persuade them
to change their mind.
However, because the two parties have been so united on the issues of trade and globalization-the
"Uniparty," it's sometimes called-the folks in the boonies have had no political alternative. And
as they say, the only power you have in this world is the power of an alternative. And so, lacking
an alternative, the working/middle class has just had to accept its fate.
Indeed, it has been a bitter fate, particularly bitter in the former industrial heartland. In
a 2013 paper, the
Economic Policy Institute (EPI) came to some startling conclusions:
Growing trade with less-developed countries lowered wages in 2011 by 5.5 percent-or by roughly
$1,800-for a full-time, full-year worker earning the average wage for workers without a four-year
college degree.
The paper added, "One-third of this total effect is due to growing trade with just China."
Continuing, EPI found that even as trade with low-wage countries caused a decrease in the incomes
for lower-end workers, it had caused an increase in the incomes of high-end workers-so no
wonder the high-end thinks globalism in great.
To be sure, some in the elite are bothered by what's been happening.
Peggy Noonan, writing earlier this year in The Wall Street Journal-a piece that must have
raised the hackles of her doctrinaire colleagues-put the matter succinctly: There's a wide, and widening,
gap between the "protected" and the "unprotected":
The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting
to push back, powerfully.
Of course, Noonan was alluding to the Trump candidacy-and also to the candidacy of Sen. Bernie
Sanders. Those two insurgents, in different parties, have been propelled by the pushing from all
the unprotected folks across America.
We might pause to note that free traders have arguments which undoubtedly deserve a fuller airing.
Okay. However, we can still see the limits. For example, the familiar gambit of outsourcing jobs
to China, or Mexico-or 50 other countries-and calling that "free trade" is now socially unacceptable,
and politically unsustainable.
Still, the broader vision of planetary freedom, including the free flow of peoples and their ideas,
is always enormously appealing. The United States, as well as the world, undoubtedly benefits from
competition, from social and economic mobility-and yes, from new blood.
As
Stuart Anderson, executive director of the National Foundation for American Policy, notes, "77
percent of the full-time graduate students in electrical engineering and 71 percent in computer science
at U.S. universities are international students." That's a statistic that should give every American
pause to ask: Why aren't we producing more engineers here at home?
We can say, with admiration, that Silicon Valley is the latest Manchester; as such, it's a powerful
magnet for the best and the brightest from overseas, and from a purely dollars-and-cents point of
view, there's a lot to be said for welcoming them.
So yes, it would be nice if we could retain this international mobility that benefits the U.S.-but
only if the economic benefits can be broadly shared, and patriotic assimilation of immigrants can
be truly achieved, such that all Americans can feel good about welcoming newcomers.
The further enrichment of Silicon Valley won't do much good for the country unless those riches
are somehow widely shared. In fact, amidst the ongoing outsourcing of mass-production jobs,
total employment in such boomtowns as San Francisco and San Jose has barely budged. That is,
new software billionaires are being minted every day, but their workforces tend to be tiny-or located
overseas. If that past pattern is the future pattern, well, something will have to give.
We can say: If America is to be
one nation-something Mitt "47 percent" Romney never worried about, although it cost him in the
end-then we will have to figure out a way to turn the genius of the few into good jobs for the many.
The goal isn't socialism, or anything like that; instead, the goal is the widespread distribution
of private property, facilitated, by conscious national economic development, as
I argued at the tail end of this piece.
If we can't, or won't, find a way to expand private ownership nationwide, then the populist upsurges
of the Trump and Sanders campaigns will be remembered as mere overtures to a starkly divergent future.
6. Clinton and Trump Say They Are Trade Hawks: But Are They Sincere?
So now we come to a mega-question for 2016: How should we judge the sincerity of the two major-party
candidates, Clinton or Trump, when they affirm their opposition to TPP? And how do we assess their
attitude toward globalization, including immigration, overall?
The future is, of course, unknown, but we can make a couple of points.
First, it is true that
many have questioned the sincerity of Hillary's new anti-TPP stance, especially given the presence
of such prominent free-traders as vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine and presidential transition-planning
chief Ken Salazar. Moreover, there's also Hillary's own decades-long association with open-borders
immigration policies, as well as past support for such trade bills as NAFTA, PNTR, and, of course,
TPP. And oh yes, there's the Clinton Foundation, that global laundromat for every overseas fortune;
most of those billionaires are globalists par excellence-would a President Hillary really
cross them?
Second, since there's still no way to see inside another person's mind, the best we can
do is look for external clues-by which we mean, external pressures. And so we might ask a basic question:
Would the 45th president, whoever she or he is, feel compelled by those external pressures to keep
their stated commitment to the voters? Or would they feel that they owe more to their elite friends,
allies, and benefactors?
As we have seen, Clinton has long chosen to surround herself with free traders and globalists.
Moreover, she has raised money from virtually every bicoastal billionaire in America.
So we must wonder: Will a new President Clinton really betray her own class-all those
Davos Men and Davos Women-for the sake of middle-class folks she has never met, except maybe
on a rope line? Would Clinton 45, who has spent her life courting the powerful, really stick her
neck out for unnamed strangers-who never gave a dime to the Clinton Foundation?
Okay, so what to make of Trump? He, too, is a fat-cat-even more of fat-cat, in fact, than Clinton.
And yet for more than a year now, he has based his campaign on opposition to globalism in all its
forms; it's been the basis of his campaign-indeed, the basis of his base. And his campaign policy
advisers are emphatic. According to Politico, as recently as August 30, Trump trade adviser
Peter Navarro reiterated Trump's opposition to TPP, declaring,
Any deal must increase the GDP growth rate, reduce the trade deficit, and strengthen the manufacturing
base.
So, were Trump to win the White House, he would come in with a much more solid anti-globalist
mandate.
Thus we can ask: Would a President Trump really cross his own populist-nationalist base by going
over to the other side-to the globalists who voted, and donated, against him? If he did-if he repudiated
his central platform plank-he would implode his presidency, the way that Bush 41 imploded his presidency
in 1990 when he went back on his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge.
Surely Trump remembers that moment of political calamity well, and so surely, whatever mistakes
he might make, he won't make that one.
To be sure, the future is unknowable. However, as we have seen, the past, both recent and historical,
is rich with valuable clues.
Clinton will say anything then she'll sell you out. I hope we never get a chance to see
how she will sell us out on TPP
Ellen Bell -> HoosierMilitia
You really do not understand the primitive form of capitalism that the moneyed elites are trying
to impose on us. That system is mercantilism and two of its major tenets are to only give the
workers subsistence level wages (what they are doing to poor people abroad and attempting to do
here) and monopolistic control of everything that is possible to monopolize. The large multi-nationals
have already done that. What we would be headed for under Hillary Clinton is fascism--Mussolini's
shorthand definition of fascism was the marriage of industry and commerce with the power of the
State. That is what the plutocrats who run the big banks (to whom she owes her soul) aim to do.
President, Thomas Jefferson knew the dangers of large European-style central banks. He said:
"...The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the
Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes
for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of
their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will
grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will
wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered..."
The power to create money was given to the private banking system of the Federal Reserve in
1913. Nearly every bit of our enormous debt has been incurred since then. The American people
have become debt-slaves. In the Constitution, only Congress has the right to issue currency. That's
why the plutocrats want to do away with it--among other reasons.
"... Donald Trump is challenging the very fabric of the institutional elites in this country on both sides that have, quite frankly, just straight up screwed this country up and made the world a mess. ..."
Tom Coyne, a lifelong Democrat and the mayor of Brook Park, Ohio, spoke
about his endorsement of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump with Breitbart
News Daily SiriusXM host Matt Boyle.
Coyne said:
The parties are blurred. What's the difference? They say the same things
in different tones. At the end of the day, they accomplish nothing.
Donald Trump is challenging the very fabric of the institutional elites
in this country on both sides that have, quite frankly, just straight up
screwed this country up and made the world a mess.
Regarding the GOP establishment's so-called Never Trumpers, Coyne stated,
"If it's their expertise that people are relying upon as to advice to vote,
people should go the opposite."
In an interview last week, Coyne said that Democrats and Republicans
have failed the city through inaction and bad trade policies, key themes
Trump often trumpets.
"He understands us," Coyne said of Trump. "He is saying what we feel,
and therefore, let him shake the bedevils out of everyone in the canyons
of Washington D.C. The American people are responding to him."
Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00
a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.
"... I've tuned out Warren-she has become the "red meat" surrogate for Clinton. Just because Taibbi was excellent on exposing Wall St. doesn't mean he really knows s**t about politics. I find the depiction of Trump as some kind of monster-buffoon to be simply boring and not very helpful. ..."
"... (might be the Trump Chaos bc Hillary will strategically turn our war machine on us can't believe this is as good as it gets, sighed out) ..."
"... Having the establishment, the military-industrial complex and Wall Street against him helps Trump a lot. ..."
"... You can fool part of the people all the time, and all people part of the time, but Brexit won, so will Trump, politician extraordinaire ..."
"... Given his family, a Trump presidency may look more like JFK's, where Bobby had more power than LBJ. Also, given Trump's negotiating expertise, I would certainly not believe any assertion of support he proclaims for the VP. I expect he had little choice in the matter, and that he also plans to send the VP to the hinterlands at the first opportunity. I'm unclear why so many appear to believe the VP has any influence whatsoever; I believe GWB was the only post-WW2 president who let the VP have any power. ..."
"... What is a populist? Somebody that tries to do what the majority want. Current examples: Less wars and military spending. More infrastructure spending. Less support for banks and corps (imagine how many votes trump would gain if he said 'as pres I will jail bankers that break the law' And how that repudiates Obama and both parties.) Gun control (but not possible from within the rep party) ..."
"... What is a fascist? Somebody that supports corporations, military, and military adventures. ..."
"... Actually, it sounds a whole lot like a different candidate from a different party, doesn't it? ..."
"... Neoliberal "Goodthink" flag. What this means when neoliberals say it is not let's build a better global society for all it means Corporations and our military should be able to run roughshod over the world and the people's of other countries. Exploit their citizens for cheap Labor, destroy their environment and move on. These are the exact policies of Hillary Clinton (see TPP, increase foreign wars etc.). Hillary globalism is not about global Brotherhood it's about global economic and military exploitation. Trump is nationalist non – interventionist, which leads to less global military destruction than hillary and less global exploitation. So who is a better for those outside the US, hillary the interventionist OR trump the non-interventionist? ..."
"... Look, the Clintons are criminals, and their affiliate entities, including the DNC, could be considered criminal enterprises or co-conspirators at this point. ..."
"... The very fact that Establishment, Wall St and Koch bros are behind HRC is evidence that the current 'status quo' will be continued! I cannot stand another 4 years of Hilabama. ..."
"... The striving for American empire has so totally confused the political order of the country that up is down and down is up. The idea of government for and by the people is a distant memory. Covering for lies and contradictions of beliefs has blurred any notion of principles informing public action. ..."
"... If there is any principle that matters today, it is the pursuit of money and profit reigns supreme. Trump is populist in the sense he is talking about bringing money and wealth back to the working classes. Not by giving it directly, but by forcing businesses to turn their sights back to the US proper and return to making their profits at home. In the end, it is all nostalgia and probably impossible, but working class people remember those days so it rings true. That is hope and change in action. People also could care less if he cheats on his taxes or is found out lying about how much he is worth. Once again, fudging your net worth is something working people care little about. Having their share of the pie is all that matters and Trump is tapping into that. ..."
"... The only crime Trump has committed so far is his language. Liberals like Clinton, Blair and Obama drip blood. ..."
"... The 2016 election cannot be looked at in isolation. The wars for profit are spreading from Nigeria through Syria to Ukraine. Turkey was just lost to the Islamists and is on the road to being a failed state. The EU is in an existential crisis due to Brexit, the refugee crisis and austerity. Western leadership is utterly incompetent and failing to protect its citizens. Globalization is failing. Its Losers are tipping over the apple cart. Humans are returning to their tribal roots for safety. The drums for war with Russia are beating. Clinton / Kaine are 100% Status Quo Globalists. Trump / Pence are candidates of change to who knows what. Currently I am planning on voting for the Green Party in the hope it becomes viable and praying that the chaos avoids Maryland. ..."
I've tuned out Warren-she has become the "red meat" surrogate for Clinton. Just because
Taibbi was excellent on exposing Wall St. doesn't mean he really knows s**t about politics. I
find the depiction of Trump as some kind of monster-buffoon to be simply boring and not very helpful.
for all the run around Hillary, Trump's chosen circle of allies are Wall Street and Austerity
enablers. actually, Trump chaos could boost the enablers as easily as Hillary's direct mongering.
War is Money low hanging fruit in this cash strapped era and either directly or indirectly neither
candidate will disappoint.
So I Ask Myself which candidate will the majority manage sustainability while assembling to create
different outcomes? (might be the Trump Chaos bc Hillary will strategically turn our war machine
on us can't believe this is as good as it gets, sighed out)
War is only good for the profiteers when it can be undertaken in another territory. Bringing
the chaos home cannot be good for business. Endless calls for confidence and stability in markets
must reflect the fact that disorder effects more business that the few corporations that benefit
directly from spreading chaos. A split in the business community seems to be underway or at least
a possible leverage point to bring about positive change.
Even the splits in the political class reflect this. Those that benefit from spreading chaos are
loosing strength because they have lost control of where that chaos takes place and who is directly
effected from its implementation. Blowback and collateral damage are finally registering.
Trump may be a disaster. Clinton will be a disaster. One of these two will win. I won't vote
for either, but if you put a gun to my head and forced me to choose, I'd take Trump. He's certainly
not a fascist (I think it was either Vice or Vox that had an article where they asked a bunch
of historians of fascism if he was, the answer was a resounding no), he's a populist in the Andrew
Jackson style. If nothing else Trump will (probably) not start WW3 with Russia.
And war with Russia doesn't depend just on Hillary, it depends on us in Western Europe agreeing
with it.
A laughable proposition. The official US policy, as you may recall, is
fuck the EU .
Where was Europe when we toppled the Ukrainian govt? Get back to me when you can actually spend
2% GDP on your military. At the moment you can't even control your illegal immigrants.
The political parties that survive display adaptability, and ideological consistency isn't
a requirement for that. Look at the party of Lincoln. Or look at the party of FDR.
If the Democrats decapitate the Republican party by bringing in the Kagans of this world and
Republican suburbanites in swing states, then the Republicans will go where the votes are; the
Iron Law of Institutions will drive them to do it, and the purge of the party after Trump will
open the positions in the party for people with that goal.
In a way, what we're seeing now is what should have happened to the Republicans in
2008. The Democrats had the Republicans down on the ground with Obama's boot on their neck. The
Republicans had organized and lost a disastrous war, they had lost the legislative and executive
branches, they were completely discredited ideologically, and they were thoroughly discredited
in the political class and in the press.
Instead, Obama, with his strategy of bipartisanship - good faith or not - gave them a hand
up, dusted them off, and let them right back in the game, by treating them as a legitimate opposition
party. So the Republican day of reckoning was postponed. We got various bids for power by factions
- the Tea Party, now the Liberty Caucus - but none of them came anywhere near taking real power,
despite (click-driven money-raising) Democrat hysteria.
And now the day of reckoning has arrived. Trump went through the hollow institutional shell
of the Republican Party like the German panzers through the French in 1939. And here we are!
(Needless to say, anybody - ***cough*** Ted Cruz ***cough*** - yammering about "conservative
principles" is part of the problem, dead weight, part of the dead past.) I don't know if the Republicans
can remake themselves after Trump; what he's doing is necessary for that, but may not be sufficient.
Republicans won Congress and the states because the Democrats handed them to them on a silver
platter. To Obama and his fan club meaningful power is a hot potato, to be discarded as soon as
plausible.
Having the establishment, the military-industrial complex and Wall Street against him helps
Trump a lot.
Pro-Sanders folks, blacks, and hispanics will mostly vote for Trump.
Having Gov. Pence on the ticket, core Republicans and the silent majority will vote for Trump.
Women deep inside know Trump will help their true interests better than the Clinton-Obama rinse
repeat
Young people, sick and tired of the current obviously rigged system, will vote for change.
You can fool part of the people all the time, and all people part of the time, but Brexit
won, so will Trump, politician extraordinaire
Even Michael Moore gets it
Trump has intimated that he is not going to deal with the nuts and bolts of government,
that will be Pence's job.
Given his family, a Trump presidency may look more like JFK's, where Bobby had more power
than LBJ.
Also, given Trump's negotiating expertise, I would certainly not believe any assertion of support
he proclaims for the VP. I expect he had little choice in the matter, and that he also plans to
send the VP to the hinterlands at the first opportunity. I'm unclear why so many appear to believe
the VP has any influence whatsoever; I believe GWB was the only post-WW2 president who let the
VP have any power.
Minorities will benefit at least as much as whites with infrastructure spending, which trump
says he wants to do It would make him popular, which he likes, why not believe him? And if pres
he would be able to get enough rep votes to get it passed. No chance with Hillary, who anyway
would rather spend on wars, which are mostly fought by minorities.
What is a populist? Somebody that tries to do what the majority want. Current examples:
Less wars and military spending. More infrastructure spending. Less support for banks and corps
(imagine how many votes trump would gain if he said 'as pres I will jail bankers that break the
law' And how that repudiates Obama and both parties.) Gun control (but not possible from within
the rep party)
What is a fascist? Somebody that supports corporations, military, and military adventures.
I'm saying you have a much better chance to pressure Clinton
Sorry, but this argues from facts not in evidence and closely resembles the Correct the Record
troll line (now substantiated through the Wikileaks dump) that Clinton "has to be elected" because
she is at least responsive to progressive concerns.
Except she isn't, and the degree to which the DNC clearly has been trying to pander to disillusioned
Republicans and the amount of bile they spew every time they lament how HRC has had to "veer left"
shows quite conclusively to my mind that, in fact, the opposite of what you say is true.
Also, when NAFTA was being debated in the '90s, the Clintons showed themselves to be remarkably
unresponsive both to the concerns of organized labor (who opposed it) as well as the majority
of the members of their own party, who voted against it. NAFTA was passed only with a majority
of Republican votes.
I have no way of knowing whether you're a troll or sincerely believe this, but either way,
it needs to be pointed out that the historical record actually contradicts your premise. If you
do really believe this, try not to be so easily taken in by crafty rhetoric.
BTW, I'll take Trump's record as a husband over HRC's record as a wife. He loves a woman, then
they break up, and he finds another one. This is not unusual in the US. Hillary, OTOH, "stood
by her man" through multiple publicly humiliating infidelities, including having to settle out
of court for more than $800,000, and rape charges. No problem with her if her husband was flying
many times on the "Lolita Express" with a child molester. Could be she had no idea where her "loved
one" was at the time. Do they in fact sleep in the same bed, or even live in the same house? I
don't know.
RE: calling Donald Trump a "sociopath"-this is another one of those words that is thrown around
carelessly, like "nazi" and "fascist". In the Psychology Today article "How to Spot a Sociopath",
they list 16 key behavioral characteristics. I can't see them in Trump-you could make a case for
a few of them, but not all. For example: "failure to follow any life plan", "sex life impersonal,
trivial, and poorly integrated", "poor judgment and failure to learn by experience", "incapacity
for love"-–you can't reasonably attach these characteristics to The Donald, who, indeed, has a
more impressive and loving progeny than any other prez candidate I can think of.
"I have a sense of international identity as well: we are all brothers and sisters."
Neoliberal "Goodthink" flag. What this means when neoliberals say it is not let's build
a better global society for all it means Corporations and our military should be able to run roughshod
over the world and the people's of other countries. Exploit their citizens for cheap Labor, destroy
their environment and move on. These are the exact policies of Hillary Clinton (see TPP, increase
foreign wars etc.). Hillary globalism is not about global Brotherhood it's about global economic
and military exploitation. Trump is nationalist non – interventionist, which leads to less global
military destruction than hillary and less global exploitation. So who is a better for those outside
the US, hillary the interventionist OR trump the non-interventionist?
"And not everyone feels the same way, but for most voters there is either a strong tribal loyalty
(Dem or Repub) or a weaker sense of "us" guiding the voter on that day.
Mad as I am about the Blue Dogs, I strongly identify with the Dems."
So you recognize you are a tribalist, and assume all the baggage and irrationality that tribalism
often fosters, but instead of addressing your tribalism you embrace it. What you seem to be saying
(to me)is that we should leave critical thinking at the door and become dem tribalists like you.
"But the Repubs and Dems see Wall Street issues through different cultural prisms. Republican
are more reflexively pro-business. It matters."
Hillary Clinton's biggest donors are Wallstreet and her dem. Husband destroyed glass-steagall.
Trump wants to reinstate glass-steagall, so who is more business friendly again?
"He is racist, and so he knows how to push ugly buttons."
This identity politics trope is getting so old. Both are racist just in different ways, Trump
says in your face racist things, which ensure the injustice cannot be ignored, where hillary has
and does support racist policies, that use stealth racism to incrementaly increase the misery
of minorities, while allowing the majority to pretend it's not happening.
"First, he will govern with the Republicans. Republican judges, TPP, military spending, environmental
rollbacks, etc. Trump will not overrule Repubs in Congress."
These are literally hillarys policies not trumps.
Trump: anti TPP, stop foreign interventions, close bases use money for infrastructure.
Hillary :Pro TPP, more interventions and military spending
"And no, no great Left populist party will ride to the rescue. The populist tradition (identity)
is mostly rightwing and racist in our society.
People do not change political identity like their clothes. The left tradition in the US, such
as it is, is in the Dem party."
So what you are saying is quit being stupid, populism is bad and you should vote for hillarys
neoliberalism. The democrats were once left so even if they are no longer left, we must continue
to support them if another party or candidate that is to the left isn't a democrat? Your logic
hurts my head.
Look, the Clintons are criminals, and their affiliate entities, including the DNC, could
be considered criminal enterprises or co-conspirators at this point. Those who haven't realized
that, or worse, who shill for them are willfully ignorant, amoral, or unethical. The fact that
that includes a large chunk of the population doesn't change that. I don't vote for criminals.
The very fact that Establishment, Wall St and Koch bros are behind HRC is evidence that
the current 'status quo' will be continued! I cannot stand another 4 years of Hilabama.
I hate Hillary more than Trump. I want to protest at the Establishment, which at this represented
by Hillary.
Populism (support for popular issues) is, well, popular.
Fascism (support for corps and military adventures) is, at least after our ME adventures, unpopular.
Commenters are expressing support for the person expressing popular views, such as infrastructure
spending, and expressing little support for the candidate they believe is most fascist.
Btw, Most on this site are liberals, few are reps, so to support him they have had to buck
some of their long held antipathy regarding reps.
Right, what is changing with Trump is the Republicans are going back to, say, the Eisenhower
era, when Ike started the interstate highway system, a socialist program if there ever was one.
It's a good article; this is a general observation. Sorry!
"Hate" seems to be a continuing Democrat meme, and heck, who can be for hate? So it makes sense
rhetorically, but in policy terms it's about as sensible as being against @ssh0les (since as the
good book says, ye have the @ssh0les always with you). So we're really looking at virtue signaling
as a mode of reinforcing tribalism, and to be taken seriously only for that reason. If you look
at the political class writing about the working class - modulo writers like Chris Arnade - the
hate is plain as day, though it's covered up with the rhetoric of meritocracy, taking care of
losers, etc.
Strategic hate management is a great concept. It's like hate can never be created or destroyed,
and is there as a resource to be mined or extracted. The Clinton campaign is doing a great job
of strategic hate management right now, by linking Putin and Trump, capitalizing on all the good
work done in the press over the last year or so.
For years we have been told that government should be run like a business. In truth that statement
was used as a cudgel to avoid having the government provide any kind of a safety net to its citizenry
because there was little or no profit in it for the people who think that government largess should
only be for them.
Here's the thing, if government had been run like a business, we the people would own huge
portions of Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Chase today. We wouldn't have bailed them out without
an equity stake in them. Most cities would have a share of the gate for every stadium that was
built. And rather than paying nothing to the community Walmart would have been paying a share
of their profits (much as those have dropped over the years).
I do not like Trump's business, but he truly does approach his brand and his relationships
as a business. When he says he doesn't like the trade deals because they are bad business and
bad deals he is correct. IF the well being of the United states and his populace are what you
are interested in regarding trade deals, ours are failures. Now most of us here know that was
not the point of the trade deals. They have been a spectacular success for many of our largest
businesses and richest people, but for America as a whole they have increased our trade deficit
and devastated our job base. When he says he won't go there, this is one I believe him on.
I also believe him on NATO and on the whole Russian thing. Why, because of the same reasons
I believe him on Trade. They are not winners for America as a whole. They are bad deals. Europe
is NOT living up to their contractual agreement regarding NATO. For someone who is a believer
in getting the better of the deal that is downright disgusting. And he sees no benefit in getting
into a war with Russia. The whole reserve currency thing vs. nukes is not going to work for him
as a cost benefit analysis of doing it. He is not going to front this because it is a business
loser.
We truly have the worst choices from the main parties in my lifetime. There are many reasons
Trump is a bad candidate. But on these two, he is far more credible and on the better side of
things than the Democratic nominee. And on the few where she might reasonably considered to have
a better position, unfortunately I do not for a moment believe her to be doing more than giving
lip service based on both her record and her character.
Is it your opinion that to have globalisation we must marginalize russia to the extent that
they realize they can't have utopia and make the practical choice of allowing finance capitalism
to guide them to realistic incrementally achieved debt bondage?
The Democratic Party has been inching further and further to the right. Bernie tried to arrest
this drift, but his internal populist rebellion was successfully thwarted by party elite corruption.
The Democratic position is now so far to the right that the Republicans will marginalize themselves
if they try to keep to the right of the Democrats.
But, despite party loyalty or PC slogans, the Democrat's rightward position is now so obvious
that it can be longer disguised by spin. The Trump campaign has demonstrated, the best electoral
strategy for the Republican Party is to leapfrog leftward and campaign from a less corporate position.
This has given space for the re-evaluation of party positions that Trump is enunciating, and the
result is that the Trump is running to the
left of Hillary. How weird is this?
I meant to use right and left to refer generally to elite vs popular. The issue is too big
to discuss without some simplification, and I'm sorry it has distracted from the main issue. On
the face of it, judging from the primaries, the Republican candidates who represented continued
rightward drift were rejected. (Indications are that the same thing happened in the Democratic
Party, but party control was stronger there, and democratic primary numbers will never be known).
The main point I was trying to make is that the Democratic party has been stretching credulity
to the breaking point in claiming to be democratic in any sense, and finally the contradiction
between their statements and actions has outpaced the capabilities of their propaganda. Their
Orwellian program overextended itself. Popular recognition of the disparity has caused a kind
of political "snap" that's initiated a radical reorganization of what used to be the party of
the right (or corporations, or elites, or finance, or "your description here".)
Besides confusion between which issues are right or left for Republicans or Democrats on the
national level, internationally, the breakdown of popular trust in the elites, and the failure
of their propaganda on that scale, is leading to a related worldwide distrust and rejection of
elite policies. This distrust has been percolating in pockets for some time, but it seems it's
now become so widespread that it's practically become a movement.
I suspect, however, there's a Plan B for this situation to restore the proper order. Will be
interesting to see how this plays out.
The striving for American empire has so totally confused the political order of the country
that up is down and down is up. The idea of government for and by the people is a distant memory.
Covering for lies and contradictions of beliefs has blurred any notion of principles informing
public action.
If there is any principle that matters today, it is the pursuit of money and profit reigns
supreme. Trump is populist in the sense he is talking about bringing money and wealth back to
the working classes. Not by giving it directly, but by forcing businesses to turn their sights
back to the US proper and return to making their profits at home. In the end, it is all nostalgia
and probably impossible, but working class people remember those days so it rings true. That is
hope and change in action. People also could care less if he cheats on his taxes or is found out
lying about how much he is worth. Once again, fudging your net worth is something working people
care little about. Having their share of the pie is all that matters and Trump is tapping into
that.
Clintons arrogance is worse because the transcripts probably clearly show her secretly conspiring
with bankers to screw the working people of this country. Trumps misdeeds effect his relationship
to other elites while Clintons directly effect working people.
Such a sorry state of affairs. When all that matters is the pursuit of money and profit, moving
forward will be difficult and full of moral contradictions. Populism needs a new goal. The political
machinery that gives us two pro-business hacks and an ineffectual third party has fundamentally
failed.
The business of America must be redefined, not somehow brought back to a mythical past greatness.
Talk about insanity.
"Bill Clinton has been a disaster for the Democratic Party. Send him packing."
"There's not much the Democrats can do about Mrs. Clinton. She's got a Senate seat for six
years. But there is no need for the party to look to her for leadership. The Democrats need to
regroup, re-establish their strong links to middle-class and working-class Americans, and move
on."
"You can't lead a nation if you are ashamed of the leadership of your party. The Clintons are
a terminally unethical and vulgar couple, and they've betrayed everyone who has ever believed
in them."
"As neither Clinton has the grace to retire from the scene, the Democrats have no choice but
to turn their backs on them. It won't be easy, but the Democrats need to try. If they succeed
they'll deserve the compliment Bill Clinton offered Gennifer Flowers after she lied under oath:
"Good for you." "
Amazing how the New York Times has "evolved" from Herbert's editorial stance of 15 years ago
to their unified editorial/news support for HRC's candacy,
In my view, it is not as if HRC has done anything to redeem herself in the intervening years.
It takes liberals to create a refugee crisis.
What country are we going to bomb back into the stone age this week?
We are very squeamish about offensive language.
We don't mind dropping bombs and ripping people apart with red hot shrapnel.
We are liberals.
Liberal sensibilities were on display in the film "Apocalypse Now".
No writing four letter words on the side of aircraft.
Napalm, white phosphorous and agent orange – no problem.
Liberals are like the English upper class – outward sophistication hiding the psychopath underneath.
They were renowned for their brutality towards slaves, the colonies and the English working class
(men, women and children) but terribly sophisticated when with their own.
Are you a bad language sort of person – Trump
Or a liberal, psychopath, empire builder – Clinton
The only crime Trump has committed so far is his language. Liberals like Clinton, Blair
and Obama drip blood.
Lambert strether said: my view is that the democrat party cannot be saved, but it can be seized.
Absolutely correct.
That is why Trump must be elected. Only then through the broken remains of both Parties can the
frangible Democrat Party be seized and restored.
The 2016 election cannot be looked at in isolation. The wars for profit are spreading from
Nigeria through Syria to Ukraine. Turkey was just lost to the Islamists and is on the road to
being a failed state. The EU is in an existential crisis due to Brexit, the refugee crisis and
austerity. Western leadership is utterly incompetent and failing to protect its citizens. Globalization
is failing. Its Losers are tipping over the apple cart. Humans are returning to their tribal roots
for safety. The drums for war with Russia are beating. Clinton / Kaine are 100% Status Quo Globalists.
Trump / Pence are candidates of change to who knows what. Currently I am planning on voting for
the Green Party in the hope it becomes viable and praying that the chaos avoids Maryland.
"... Because we interpreted the end of the Cold War as the ultimate vindication of America's economic system, we intensified our push toward the next level of capitalism, called globalization. It was presented as a project that would benefit everyone. Instead it has turned out to be a nightmare for many working people. Thanks to "disruption" and the "global supply chain," many American workers who could once support families with secure, decent-paying jobs must now hope they can be hired as greeters at Walmart. Meanwhile, a handful of super-rich financiers manipulate our political system to cement their hold on the nation's wealth. ..."
"... Rather than shifting to a less assertive and more cooperative foreign policy, we continued to insist that America must reign supreme. When we declared that we would not tolerate the emergence of another "peer power," we expected that other countries would blithely obey. Instead they ignore us. We interpret this as defiance and seek to punish the offenders. That has greatly intensified tensions between the United States and the countries we are told to consider our chief adversaries, Russia and China. ..."
Because we interpreted the end of the Cold War as the ultimate vindication
of America's economic system, we intensified our push toward the next level
of capitalism, called globalization. It was presented as a project that
would benefit everyone. Instead it has turned out to be a nightmare for
many working people. Thanks to "disruption" and the "global supply chain,"
many American workers who could once support families with secure, decent-paying
jobs must now hope they can be hired as greeters at Walmart. Meanwhile,
a handful of super-rich financiers manipulate our political system to cement
their hold on the nation's wealth.
Enrique Ferro's insight:
Moments of change require adaptation, but the United States is not good
at adapting. We are used to being in charge. This blinded us to the reality
that as other countries began rising, our relative power would inevitably
decline. Rather than shifting to a less assertive and more cooperative
foreign policy, we continued to insist that America must reign supreme.
When we declared that we would not tolerate the emergence of another "peer
power," we expected that other countries would blithely obey. Instead they
ignore us. We interpret this as defiance and seek to punish the offenders.
That has greatly intensified tensions between the United States and the
countries we are told to consider our chief adversaries, Russia and China.
This is downright sickening and the people who are voting for Hillary will not even care what will
happen with the USA iif she is elected.
By attacking Trump using "Khan gambit" she risks a violent backlash (And not only via Wikileaks,
which already promised to release information about her before the elections)
People also start to understand that she is like Trump. He destroyed several hundred American lifes
by robbing them, exploiting their vanity (standard practice in the USA those days) via Trump University
scam. She destroyed the whole country -- Libya and is complicit in killing Khaddafi (who, while not
a nice guy, was keeping the country together and providing be highest standard of living in Africa for
his people).
In other words she is a monster and sociopath. He probably is a narcissist too. So there is no much
phychological difference between them. And we need tight proportions to judge this situation if we are
talking about Hillary vs Trump.
As for people voting for Trump -- yes they will. I think if Hillary goes aganst Trump, the female
neoliberal monster will be trumped. She has little chances even taking into account the level of brainwashing
in the USA (which actually is close to those that existed in the USSR).
Notable quotes:
"... The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of gutting, societies. Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their job security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke. Neoliberals are trying to snip and cut labor protections, healthcare, environmental regulations all for corporate profit. In Europe this is all in addition to a massive refugee crisis itself brought on by neoliberalism (neocon foreign policy is required for neoliberal social policy, they go hand-in-hand). The US and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting their markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls right into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean fascist. ..."
"... U.S. Government Tried to Tackle Gun Violence in 1960s ..."
"... Another key feature of fascism is territorial expansionism. As far as I am aware, none of the nationalist parties advocate invading other countries or retaking former colonies. Once again, contemporary neoliberalism is far closer to fascism. But you are correct about both Israel and Turkey – our allies. They are much closer to the genuine article. But you won't hear those complaining about the rise of fascism in Europe complaining too much about them. ..."
"... The only way they have avoided complete revolt has been endless borrowing to fund entitlements, once that one-time fix plays out the consequences will be apparent. The funding mechanism itself (The Fed) has even morphed into a neo-liberal tool designed to enrich Capital while enslaving Labor with the consequences. ..."
"... "Every society chooses how resources are allocated between capital and labor." More specifically, isn't it a struggle between various political/economic/cultural movements within a society which chooses how resources are allocated between capital and labor. ..."
"... My objection to imprecise language here isn't merely pedantic. The leftist dismissal of right wing populists like Trump (or increasingly influential European movements like Ukip, AfD, and the Front national) as "fascist" is a reductionist rhetorical device intended to marginalize them by implying their politics are so far outside of the mainstream that they do not need to be taken seriously. ..."
"... " the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism" ..."
"... The neoliberals are all too aware that the clock is ticking. In this morning's NYT, yet more talk of ramming TPP through in the lame duck. ..."
"... The roads here are deteriorating FAST. In Price County, the road commissioner said last night that their budget allows for resurfacing all the roads on a 200 year basis. ..."
"... This Trump support seems like a form of political vandalism with Trump as the spray paint. People generally feel frustrated with government, utterly powerless and totally left out as the ranks of the precariat continue to grow. Trump appeals to the nihilistic tendencies of some people who, like frustrated teens, have decided to just smashed things up for the hell of it. They think a presidency mix of Caligula with Earl Scheib would be a funny hoot. ..."
"... Someone at American Conservative, when trying to get at why it's pointless to tell people Trump will wreck the place, described him as a "hand grenade" lobbed into the heart of government. You can't scare people with his crass-ness and destructive tendencies, because that's precisely what his voters are counting on when/if he gets into government. ..."
"... In other words, the MSM's fear is the clearest sign to these voters that their ..."
"... Your phrase "Trump is political vandalism" is great. I don't think I've seen a better description. NPR this morning was discussing Trump and his relationship with the press and the issues some GOP leaders have with him. When his followers were discussed, the speakers closely circled your vandalism point. Basically they said that his voters are angry with the power brokers and leaders in DC and regardless of whether they think Trump's statements are heartfelt or just rhetoric, they DO know he will stick it to those power brokers so that's good. Vandalism by a longer phrase. ..."
"... Meritocracy was ALWAYS a delusional fraud. What you invariably get, after a couple of generations, is a clique of elitists who define merit as themselves and reproduce it ad nauseam. Who still believes in such laughable kiddie stories? ..."
"... Campaign Finance Reform: If you can't walk into a voting booth you cannot contribute, or make all elections financed solely by government funds and make private contributions of any kind to any politician illegal. ..."
"... Re-institute Glass-Steagall but even more so. Limit the number of states a bank can operate in. Make the Fed publicly owned, not privately owned by banks. Completely revise corporate law, doing away with the legal person hood of corporations and limit of liability for corporate officers and shareholders. ..."
"... Single payer health care for everyone. Allow private health plans but do away with health insurance as a deductible for business. Remove the AMA's hold on licensing of medical schools which restricts the number of doctors. ..."
"... Do away with the cap on Social Security wages and make all income, wages, capital gains, interest, and dividends subject to taxation. Impose tariffs to compensate for lower labor costs overseas and revise industry. ..."
"... Cut the Defense budget by 50% and use that money for intensive infrastructure development. ..."
"... Raise the national minimum wage to $15 and hour. ..."
"... Severely curtail the revolving door from government to private industry with a 10 year restriction on working for an industry you dealt with in any way as a government official. ..."
"... Free public education including college (4 year degree). ..."
"... Obama and Holder, allowing the banks to be above the law have them demi-gods, many of whom are psychopaths and kleptocrats, and with their newly granted status, they are now re-shaping the world in their own image. Prosecute these demi-gods and restore sanity. Don't and their greed for our things will never end until nothings left. ..."
"... This is why Hillary is so much more dangerous than trump, because she and the demi gods are all on the same page. The TPP is their holy grail so I expect heaven and earth to be moved, especially if it looks like some trade traitors are going to get knocked off in the election, scoundrels like patty murray (dino, WA) will push to get it through then line up at the feed trough to gorge on k street dough. I plan to vote stein if it's not Bernie, but am reserving commitment until I see what kind of betrayals the dems have for me, if it's bad enough I'll go with the trump hand grenade. ..."
"... Totally agree tegnost, no more democratic neoliberals -- ..."
"... "they are now re-shaping the world in their own image" Isn't this intrinsic to bourgeois liberalism? ..."
"... Two things are driving our troubles: over-population and globalization. The plutocrats and kleptocrats have all the leverage over the rest of us laborers when the population of human beings has increased seven-fold in the last 70 years, from a little over a billion to seven billions (and growing) today. They are happy to let us freeze to death behind gas stations in order for them to compete with other oligarchs in excess consumption. ..."
"... Thank you for mentioning the third rail of overpopulation. Too often, this giant category of problems is ignored, because it makes people uncomfortable. The planet is finite, resources on the planet are finite, yet the number of people keeps growing. We need to strive for a higher quality of life, not a higher quantity of people. ..."
"... The issue goes beyond "current neoliberals up for election", it is most of our political establishment that has been corrupted by a system that provides for the best politicians money can buy. ..."
"... America has always been a country where a majority of the population has been poor. With the exception of a fifty five year(1950-2005) year period where access to large quantities of consumer debt by households was deployed to first to provide a wealth illusion to keep socialism at bay, followed by a mortgage debt boom to both keep the system afloat and strip the accumulated capital of the working class, i.e. home equity, the history of the US has been one of poverty for the masses. ..."
"... Further debt was foisted on the working class in the form of military Keynesianism, generating massive fiscal deficits which are to be paid for via austerity in a neo-feudal economy. ..."
The first comment gives a window into the hidden desperation in America that is showing up in statistics
like increasing opioid addiction and suicides, rather than in accounts of how and why so many people
are suffering. I hope readers will add their own observations in comments.
We recently took three months to travel the southern US from coast to coast. As an expat for
the past twenty years, beyond the eye opening experience it left us in a state of shock. From
a homeless man convulsing in the last throes of hypothermia (been there) behind a fuel station
in Houston (the couldn't care less attendant's only preoccupation getting our RV off his premises),
to the general squalor of near-homelessness such as the emergence of "American favelas" a block
away from gated communities or affluent ran areas, to transformation of RV parks into permanent
residencies for the foreclosed who have but their trailer or RV left, to social study one can
engage while queuing at the cash registers of a Walmart before beneficiaries of SNAP.
Stopping to take the time to talk and attempt to understand their predicament and their beliefs
as to the cause of their plight is a dizzying experience in and of itself. For a moment I felt
transposed to the times of the Cold War, when the Iron Curtain dialectics fuzzed the perception
of that other world to the west with a structured set of beliefs designed to blacken that horizon
as well as establish a righteous belief in their own existential paradigm.
What does that have to do with education? Everything if one considers the elitist trend that
is slowly setting the framework of tomorrow's society. For years I have felt there is a silent
"un-avowed conspiracy", why the seeming redundancy, because it is empirically driven as a by-product
of capitalism's surge and like a self-redeeming discount on a store shelf crystalizes a group
identity of think-alike know-little or nothing frustrated citizens easily corralled by a Fox or
Trump piper. We have re-rcreated the conditions or rather the reality of "Poverty In America"
barely half a century after its first diagnostic with one major difference : we are now feeding
the growth of the "underclass" by lifting ever higher and out of reach the upward mobility ladder,
once the banner of opportunity now fallen behind the supposedly sclerotic welfare states of Europe.
So Richard Cohen now fears American voters because of Trump. Well, on Diane Reem today (NPR)
was a discussion on why fascist parties are growing in Europe. Both Cohen and the clowns on NPR
missed the forest for the trees. The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while
fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process
of gutting, societies. Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their
job security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke. Neoliberals are trying
to snip and cut labor protections, healthcare, environmental regulations all for corporate profit.
In Europe this is all in addition to a massive refugee crisis itself brought on by neoliberalism
(neocon foreign policy is required for neoliberal social policy, they go hand-in-hand). The US
and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting their
markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls right
into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean fascist.
In the US we don't have the refugees, but the neoliberalism is further along and more damaging.
There's no mystery here or in Europe, just the natural effects of governments failing to represent
real people in favor of useless eater rich.
Make the people into commodities, endanger their washes and job security, impose austerity,
and tale in floods of refugees. Of COURSE Europeans stay leaning fascist.
According to NPR's experts, many or most of those parties are "fascist". The fascist label
is getting tossed around a LOT right now. It is slung at Trump, at UKIP, or any others. Fascist
is what you call the opposition party to the right that you oppose. Now I don't call Trump a fascist.
A buffoon, yes, even a charlatan (I still rather doubt he really originally thought he would become
the GOP nominee. Perhaps I'm wrong but, like me, many seemed to think that he was pushing his
"brand" – a term usage of which I HATE because it IS like we are all commodities or businesses
rather than PEOPLE – and that he would drop by the wayside and profit from his publicity).
Be that as it may, NPR and Co were discussing the rise of fascist/neofascist parties and wondering
why there were doing so well. Easy answer: neoliberalism + refugee hoards = what you see in Europe.
I've also blamed a large part of today's gun violence in the USA on the fruits of neoliberalism.
Why? Same reason that ugly right-wing groups (fascist or not) are gaining ground around the Western
world. Neoliberalism destroys societies. It destroys the connections within societies (the USA
in this case). Because we have guns handy, the result is mass shootings and flashes of murder-suicides.
This didn't happen BEFORE neoliberalism got its hooks into American society. The guns were there,
always have been (when I was a teen I recall seeing gun mags advertising various "assault weapons"
for sale this was BEFORE Reagan and this was BEFORE mass shootings, etc). Machine guns were much
easier to come by BEFORE the 1980s yet we didn't have mass killings with machine guns, handguns,
or shotguns. ALL that stuff is a NEW disease. A disease rooted in neoliberalism. Neoliberalism
steals your job security, your healthcare security, your home, your retirement security, your
ability to provide for your family, your ability to send your kids to college, your ability to
BUY FOOD. Neoliberalism means you don't get to work for a company for 20 years and then see the
company pay you back for that long, good service with a pension. You'll be lucky to hold a job
at any company from month-to-month now and FORGET about benefits! Healthcare? Going by the wayside
too. Workers in the past felt a bond with each other, especially within a company. Neoliberalism
has turned all workers against each other because they have to fight to gain any of the scraps
being tossed out by the rich overlords. You can't work TOGETHER to gain mutual benefit, you need
to fight each other in a zero sum game. For ME to win you have to lose. You are a commodity. A
disposable and irrelevant widget. THAT combines with guns (that have always been available!) and
you get desperate acting out: mass shootings, murder suicides, etc.
There are actual fascist parties in Europe. To name a few in one country I've followed, Ukraine,
there's Right Sector, Svoboda, and others, and that's just one country. I don't think anyone calls
UKIP fascist.
@Praedor – Your comment that Yves posted and this one are excellent. One of the most succinct
statements of neoliberalism and its worst effects that I have seen.
As to the cause of recent mass gun violence, I think you have truly nailed it. If one thinks
at all about the ways in which the middle class and lower have been squeezed and abused, it's
no wonder that a few of them would turn to violence. It's the same despair and frustration that
leads to higher suicide rates, higher rates of opiate addiction and even decreased life expectancy.
"Machine guns were much easier to come by BEFORE the 1980s yet we didn't have mass killings
with machine guns, handguns, or shotguns. ALL that stuff is a NEW disease. A disease rooted in
neoliberalism."
Easy availability of guns was seen as a serious problem long before the advent of neoliberalism.
For one example of articles about this, see U.S. Government Tried to Tackle Gun Violence in
1960s . Other examples include 1920s and 1930s gangster and mob violence that were a consequence
of Prohibition (of alcohol). While gun violence per-capita might be increasing, the population
is far larger today, and the news media select incidents of violence to make them seem like they're
happening everywhere and that everyone needs to be afraid. That, of course, instills a sense of
insecurity and fear into the public mind; thus, a fearful public want a strong leader and are
willing to accept the inconvenience and dangers of a police state for protection.
America has plenty of refugees, from Latin America
Neo-liberal goes back to the Monroe Doctrine. We used to tame our native workers with immigrants,
and we still do, but we also tame them by globalism in trade. So many rationalizations for this,
based on political and economic propaganda. All problems caused by the same cause American predatory
behavior. And our great political choice iron fist with our without velvet glove.
Germany, Belgium, France, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Turkey, Israel, Australia come to mind
(if one is allowed to participate in a European song contest, one is supposed to be part of Europe
:) They all have more or less fascist governments.
Once you realize that the ECB creates something like 60 billion euros a month, and gives nothing
to its citizens nor its nation-states, that means the money goes to corporations, which means
that the ECB, and by extension the whole EU, is a fascist construct (fascism being defined as
a government running on behalf of the corporations).
That's a fallacy. Corporatism is a feature of fascism, not the other way around.
None of the governments you mention, with the possible exception of Israel and Turkey, can
be called fascist in any meaningful sense.
Even the anti-immigration parties in the Western European countries you mention – AfD, Front
National, Vlaams Belang – only share their nationalism with fascist movements. And they are decidedly
anti-corporatist.
The problem here is one of semantics, really. You're using "fascist" interchangeably with "authoritarian",
which is a misnomer for these groups. The EU is absolutely anti-democratic, authoritarian, and
technocratic in a lot of respects, but it's not fascist. Both have corporatist tendencies, but
fascist corporatism was much more radical, much more anti-capitalist (in the sense that the capitalist
class was expected to subordinate itself to the State as the embodiment of the will of the Nation
or People, as were the other classes/corporate units). EU technocratic corporatism has none of
the militarism, the active fiscal policy, the drive for government supported social cohesion,
the ethno-nationalism, or millenarianism of Fascism.
The emergent Right parties like UKIP, FNP, etc. share far more with the Fascists, thought I'd
say they generally aren't yet what Fascists would have recognized as other Fascists in the way
that the NSDAP and Italian Fascists recognized each other -perhaps they're more like fellow travelers.
True, I posted a few minutes ago saying roughly the same thing – but it seems to have gone
to moderation.
Another key feature of fascism is territorial expansionism. As far as I am aware, none
of the nationalist parties advocate invading other countries or retaking former colonies. Once
again, contemporary neoliberalism is far closer to fascism. But you are correct about both Israel
and Turkey – our allies. They are much closer to the genuine article. But you won't hear those
complaining about the rise of fascism in Europe complaining too much about them.
When I was young, there were 4 divisions:
* who owned the means of production (public or private entities)
* who decided what those means were used for.
If it is a 'public entity' (aka government or regime) that decides what is built, we have a totalitarian
state, which can be 'communist' (if the means also belong the public entities like the government
or regional fractions of it) or 'fascist' (if the factories are still in private hands).
If it is the private owner of the production capacity who decides what is built, you get capitalism.
I don't recall any examples of private entities deciding what to do with public means of production
(mafia perhaps).
Sheldon Wolin
introduced
us to inverted totalitarism. While it is no longer the government that decides what must be
done, the private 'owners' just buy the government, the judiciary, the press, or whatever is needed
to achieve their means.
When I cite Germany, it is not so much AfD, but the 2€/hour jobs I am worried about. When I cite
Belgium, it is not the fools of Vlaams Belang, but rather the un-taxing of corporations and the
tear-down of social justice that worries me.
But Jeff, is Wolin accurate in using the term "inverted totalitarianism" to try to capture
the nature of our modern extractive bureaucratic monolith that apparently functions in an environment
where "it is no longer the government that decides what must be done..simply.."private owners
just buy the government, the judiciary, the press, or whatever is needed to achieve their means."
Mirowski argues quite persuasively that the neoliberal ascendency does not represent the retreat
of the State but its remaking to strongly support a particular conception of a market society
that is imposed with the help of the State on our society.
For Mirowski, neoliberalism is definitely not politically libertarian or opposed to strong
state intervention in the economy and society.
Inverted totalitarianism is the mirror image of fascism, which is why so many are confused.
Fascism is just a easier term to use and more understandable by all. There is not a strict adherence
to fascism going on, but it's still totalitarian just the same.
Hi
I live in Europe as well, and what to think of Germany's AfD, Greece's Golden Dawn, the Wilder's
party in the Netherlands etc. Most of them subscribe to the freeloading, sorry free trading economic
policies of neoliberalism.
There's LePen in France and the far-right, fascist leaning party nearly won in Austria. The
far right in Greece as well. There's clearly a move to the far right in Europe. And then there's
the totalitarian mess that is Turkey. How much further this turn to a fascist leaning right goes
and how widespread remains to be seen, but it's clearly underway.
Searched 'current fascist movements europe' and got these active groups from wiki.
National Bolshevik Party-Belarus
Parti Communautaire National-Européen Belgium
Bulgarian National Alliance Bulgaria
Nova Hrvatska Desnica Croatia
Ustaše Croatia
National Socialist Movement of Denmark
La Cagoule France
National Democratic Party of Germany
Fascism and Freedom Movement – Italy
Fiamma Tricolore Italy
Forza Nuova Italy
Fronte Sociale Nazionale Italy
Movimento Fascismo e Libertŕ Italy
Pērkonkrusts Latvia
Norges Nasjonalsosialistiske Bevegelse Norway
National Radical Camp (ONR) Poland
National Revival of Poland (NOP)
Polish National Community-Polish National Party (PWN-PSN)
Noua Dreaptă Romania
Russian National Socialist Party(formerly Russian National Union)
Barkashov's Guards Russia
National Socialist Society Russia
Nacionalni stroj Serbia
Otačastveni pokret Obraz Serbia
Slovenska Pospolitost Slovakia
Espańa 2000 Spain
Falange Espańola Spain
Nordic Realm Party Sweden
National Alliance Sweden
Swedish Resistance Movement Sweden
National Youth Sweden
Legion Wasa Sweden
SPAS Ukraine
Blood and Honour UK
British National Front UK
Combat 18 UK
League of St. George UK
National Socialist Movement UK
Nationalist Alliance UK
November 9th Society UK
Racial Volunteer Force UK
"Fascism" has become the prefered term of abuse applied indiscriminately by the right thinking
to any person or movement which they want to tar as inherently objectionable, and which can therefore
be dismissed without the tedium of actually engaging with them at the level of ideas.
Most of the people who like to throw this word around couldn't give you a coherant definition
of what exactly they understand it to signify, beyond "yuck!!"
In fairness even students of political ideology have trouble teasing out a cosistent system
of beliefs, to the point where some doubt fascism is even a coherent ideology. That hardly excuses
the intellectual vacuity of those who use it as a term of abuse, however.
Precisely 3,248 angels can fit on the head of a pin. Parsing the true definition of "fascism"
is a waste of time, broadly, fascism is an alliance of the state, the corporation, and the military,
anyone who doesn't see that today needs to go back to their textbooks.
As far as the definition "neo-liberalism" goes, yes it's a useful label. But let's keep it
simple: every society chooses how resources are allocated between Capital and Labor. The needle
has been pegged over on the Capital side for quite some time, my "start date" is when Reagan busted
the air traffic union. The hideous Republicans managed to sell their base that policies that were
designed to let companies be "competitive" were somehow good for them, not just for the owners
of the means of production.
The only way they have avoided complete revolt has been endless borrowing to fund entitlements,
once that one-time fix plays out the consequences will be apparent. The funding mechanism itself
(The Fed) has even morphed into a neo-liberal tool designed to enrich Capital while enslaving
Labor with the consequences.
"Every society chooses how resources are allocated between capital and labor." More specifically,
isn't it a struggle between various political/economic/cultural movements within a society which
chooses how resources are allocated between capital and labor.
Take, for example, the late 1880s-1890s in the U.S. During that time-frame there were powerful
agrarian populists movements and the beginnings of some labor/socialist movements from below,
while from above the property-production system was modified by a powerful political movement
advocating for more corporate administered markets over the competitive small-firm capitalism
of an earlier age.
It was this movement for corporate administered markets which won the battle and defeated/absorbed
the agrarian populists.
What are the array of such forces in 2016? What type of movement doe Trump represent? Sanders?
Clinton?
fascism is an alliance of the state, the corporation, and the military, anyone who doesn't
see that today needs to go back to their textbooks
Which textbooks specifically?
The article I cited above in Vox canvasses the opinion of five serious students of fascism,
and none of them believe Trump is a fascist. I'd be most interested in knowing what you
have been reading.
As for your definition of "fascism", it's obviously so vague and broad that it really doesn't
explain anything. To the extent it contains any insight it is that public institutions (the state),
private businesses (the corporation) and the armed forces all exert significant influence on public
policy. That and a buck and and a half will get you a cup of coffee. If anything it is merely
a very crude descriptive model of the political process. It doesn't define fascism as a particular
set of beliefs that make it a distinct political ideology that can be differentiated from other
ideologies (again, see the Vox article for a discussion of some of the beliefs that are arguably
characteristic of fascist movements). Indeed by your standard virtually every state that has ever
existed has to a greater or lesser extent been "fascist".
My objection to imprecise language here isn't merely pedantic. The leftist dismissal of
right wing populists like Trump (or increasingly influential European movements like Ukip, AfD,
and the Front national) as "fascist" is a reductionist rhetorical device intended to marginalize
them by implying their politics are so far outside of the mainstream that they do not need to
be taken seriously. Given that these movements are only growing in strength as faith in traditional
political movements and elites evaporate this is likely to produce exactly the opposite result.
Right wing populism isn't going to disappear just because the left keeps trying to wish it away.
Refusing to accept this basic political fact risks condemning the left rather than "the fascists"
to political irrelevance.
I moved to a small city/town in Iowa almost 20 years ago. Then, it still had something of a
Norman Rockwell quality to it, particularly in a sense of egalitarianism, and also some small
factory jobs which still paid something beyond a bare existence.
Since 2000, many of those jobs have left, and the population of the county has declined by
about 10%. Kmart, Penney's, and Sears have left as payday/title loan outfits, pawnshops, smoke
shops, and used car dealers have all proliferated.
Parts of the town now resemble a combination of Appalachia and Detroit. Sanders easily won
the caucuses here and, no, his supporters were hardly the latte sippers of someone's imagination,
but blue collar folks of all ages.
My tale is similar to yours. About 2 years ago, I accepted a transfer from Chicagoland to north
central Wisconsin. JC Penney left a year and a half ago, and Sears is leaving in about 3-4 months.
Kmart is long gone.
I was back at the old homestead over Memorial Day, and it's as if time has stood still. Home
prices still going up; people out for dinner like crazy; new & expensive automobiles everywhere.
But driving out of Chicagoland, and back through rural Wisconsin it is unmistakeable.
2 things that are new: The roads here are deteriorating FAST. In Price County, the road
commissioner said last night that their budget allows for resurfacing all the roads on a 200 year
basis. (Yes, that means there is only enough money to resurface all the county roads if spread
out over 200 years.) 2nd, there are dead deer everywhere on the side of the road. In years past,
they were promptly cleaned up by the highway department. Not any more. Gross, but somebody has
to do the dead animal clean up. (Or not. Don't tell Snotty Walker though.)
Anyway, not everything is gloom and doom. People seem outwardly happy. But if you're paying
attention, signs of stress and deterioration are certainly out there.
This Trump support seems like a form of political vandalism with Trump as the spray paint.
People generally feel frustrated with government, utterly powerless and totally left out as the
ranks of the precariat continue to grow. Trump appeals to the nihilistic tendencies of some people
who, like frustrated teens, have decided to just smashed things up for the hell of it. They think
a presidency mix of Caligula with Earl Scheib would be a funny hoot.
You also have the more gullible fundis who have actually deluded themselves into thinking the
man who is ultimate symbol of hedonism will deliver them from secularism because he says he will.
Authoritarians who seek solutions through strong leaders are usually the easiest to con because
they desperately want to believe in their eminent deliverance by a human deus ex machina. Plus
he is ostentatiously rich in a comfortably tacky way and a TV celebrity beats a Harvard law degree.
And why not the thinking goes the highly vaunted elite college Acela crowd has pretty much made
a pig's breakfast out of things. So much for meritocracy. Professor Harold Hill is going to give
River City a boys band.
Someone at American Conservative, when trying to get at why it's pointless to tell people
Trump will wreck the place, described him as a "hand grenade" lobbed into the heart of government.
You can't scare people with his crass-ness and destructive tendencies, because that's precisely
what his voters are counting on when/if he gets into government.
In other words, the MSM's fear is the clearest sign to these voters that their
political revolution is working. Since TPTB decided peaceful change (i.e. Sanders) was a non-starter,
then they get to reap the whirlwind.
Your phrase "Trump is political vandalism" is great. I don't think I've seen a better description.
NPR this morning was discussing Trump and his relationship with the press and the issues some
GOP leaders have with him. When his followers were discussed, the speakers closely circled your
vandalism point. Basically they said that his voters are angry with the power brokers and leaders
in DC and regardless of whether they think Trump's statements are heartfelt or just rhetoric,
they DO know he will stick it to those power brokers so that's good. Vandalism by a longer phrase.
Meritocracy was ALWAYS a delusional fraud. What you invariably get, after a couple of generations,
is a clique of elitists who define merit as themselves and reproduce it ad nauseam. Who still
believes in such laughable kiddie stories?
Besides, consumers need to learn to play the long game and suck up the "scurrilous attacks"
on their personal consumption habits for the next four years. The end of abortion for four years
is not important - lern2hand and lern2agency, and lern2cutyourrapist if it comes to that. What
is important is that the Democratic Party's bourgeois yuppie constituents are forced to defend
against GOP attacks on their personal and cultural interests with wherewithal that would have
been ordinarily spent to attend to their sister act with their captive constituencies.
If bourgeois Democrats hadn't herded us into a situation where individuals mean nothing outside
of their assigned identity groups and their corporate coalition duopoly, they wouldn't be reaping
the whirlwind today. Why, exactly, should I be sympathetic to exploitative parasites such as the
middle class?
There are all good ideas. However, population growth undermines almost all of them. Population
growth in America is immigrant based. Reverse immigration influxes and you are at least doing
something to reduce population growth.
How to "reverse immigration influxes"?
Stop accepting refugees. It's outrageous that refugees from for example, Somalia,
get small business loans, housing assistance, food stamps and lifetime SSI benefits while some
of our veterans are living on the street.
No more immigration amnesties of any kind.
Deport all illegal alien criminals.
Practice "immigrant family unification" in the country of origin. Even if you have
to pay them to leave. It's less expensive in the end.
Eliminate tax subsidies to American corn growers who then undercut Mexican farmers'
incomes through NAFTA, driving them into poverty and immigration north. Throw Hillary Clinton
out on her ass and practice political and economic justice to Central America.
I too am a lifetime registered Democrat and I will vote for Trump if Clinton gets the crown.
If the Democrats want my vote, my continuing party registration and my until recently sizeable
donations in local, state and national races, they will nominate Bernie. If not, then I'm an Independent
forevermore. They will just become the Demowhig Party.
Campaign Finance Reform: If you can't walk into a voting booth you cannot contribute,
or make all elections financed solely by government funds and make private contributions of
any kind to any politician illegal.
Re-institute Glass-Steagall but even more so. Limit the number of states a bank can
operate in. Make the Fed publicly owned, not privately owned by banks.
Completely revise corporate law, doing away with the legal person hood of corporations
and limit of liability for corporate officers and shareholders.
Single payer health care for everyone. Allow private health plans but do away with
health insurance as a deductible for business. Remove the AMA's hold on licensing of medical
schools which restricts the number of doctors.
Do away with the cap on Social Security wages and make all income, wages, capital gains,
interest, and dividends subject to taxation.
Impose tariffs to compensate for lower labor costs overseas and revise industry.
Cut the Defense budget by 50% and use that money for intensive infrastructure development.
Raise the national minimum wage to $15 and hour.
Severely curtail the revolving door from government to private industry with a 10 year
restriction on working for an industry you dealt with in any way as a government official.
Free public education including college (4 year degree).
Obama and Holder, allowing the banks to be above the law have them demi-gods, many of whom
are psychopaths and kleptocrats, and with their newly granted status, they are now re-shaping
the world in their own image. Prosecute these demi-gods and restore sanity. Don't and their greed
for our things will never end until nothings left.
This is why Hillary is so much more dangerous than trump, because she and the demi gods
are all on the same page. The TPP is their holy grail so I expect heaven and earth to be moved,
especially if it looks like some trade traitors are going to get knocked off in the election,
scoundrels like patty murray (dino, WA) will push to get it through then line up at the feed trough
to gorge on k street dough. I plan to vote stein if it's not Bernie, but am reserving commitment
until I see what kind of betrayals the dems have for me, if it's bad enough I'll go with the trump
hand grenade.
Totally agree tegnost, no more democratic neoliberals -- Patty Murray (up for re-election)
and Cantwell are both trade traitors and got fast track passed.
Two things are driving our troubles: over-population and globalization. The plutocrats
and kleptocrats have all the leverage over the rest of us laborers when the population of human
beings has increased seven-fold in the last 70 years, from a little over a billion to seven billions
(and growing) today. They are happy to let us freeze to death behind gas stations in order for
them to compete with other oligarchs in excess consumption.
This deserves a longer and more thoughtful comment, but I don't have the time this morning.
I have to fight commute traffic, because the population of my home state of California has doubled
from 19M in 1970 to an estimated 43M today (if you count the Latin American refugees and H1B's).
Thank you for mentioning the third rail of overpopulation. Too often, this giant category
of problems is ignored, because it makes people uncomfortable. The planet is finite, resources
on the planet are finite, yet the number of people keeps growing. We need to strive for a higher
quality of life, not a higher quantity of people.
The issue goes beyond "current neoliberals up for election", it is most of our political
establishment that has been corrupted by a system that provides for the best politicians money
can buy.
In the 1980's I worked inside the beltway witnessing the new cadre of apparatchiks that drove
into town on the Reagan coattails full of moral a righteousness that became deviant, parochial,
absolutist and for whom bi-partisan approaches to policy were scorned prodded on by new power
brokers promoting their gospels in early morning downtown power breakfasts. Sadly our politicians
no longer serve but seek a career path in our growing meritocratic plutocracy.
America has always been a country where a majority of the population has been poor. With
the exception of a fifty five year(1950-2005) year period where access to large quantities of
consumer debt by households was deployed to first to provide a wealth illusion to keep socialism
at bay, followed by a mortgage debt boom to both keep the system afloat and strip the accumulated
capital of the working class, i.e. home equity, the history of the US has been one of poverty
for the masses.
Further debt was foisted on the working class in the form of military Keynesianism, generating
massive fiscal deficits which are to be paid for via austerity in a neo-feudal economy.
"... Money, it seems to him, has somehow changed its role. It has "increased" (is that possible, he asks?) while at the same time it has become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. It appears to seek to become an autonomous and dominating sector of economic life, functionally separated from production of real things, almost all of which seem to come from faraway places. "Real" actually begins to change its meaning, another topic more interesting still. This devotion to the world of money-making-money seems to have obsessed the lives of many of the most "important" Americans. Entire TV networks are devoted to it. They talk about esoteric financial instruments that to the ordinary citizen look more like exotically placed bets-on-credit in the casino than genuine ways to grow real-world business, jobs, wages, and family income. The few who are in position to master the game live material lives that were beyond what almost any formerly "wealthy" man or woman in Rip's prior life could even imagine ..."
"... children gone away and lost to either the relentless rootlessness of the trans-national economy or the virtual hell-world of meth and opioids and heroin and unending underemployed hopelessness. ..."
"... "If public life can suffer a metaphysical blow, the death of the labor question was that blow. For millions of working people, it amputated the will to resist." ..."
"... It's a Wonderful Life ..."
"... as educators ..."
"... OK, so I hear some of you saying, corporate America will never let this Civic Media get off the ground. My short answer to this is that corporations do what makes money for them, and in today's despairing political climate there's money to be made in sponsoring something truly positive, patriotic and constructive. ..."
"... I am paying an exorbitant subscription for the UK Financial Times at the moment. Anyway, the good news is that very regular articles are appearing where you can almost feel the panic at the populist uprisings. ..."
"... The kernel of Neoliberal Ideology: "There is no such a thing as society." (Margaret Thatcher). ..."
"... "In this postindustrial world not only is the labor question no longer asked, not only is proletarian revolution passé, but the proletariat itself seems passé. And the invisibles who nonetheless do indeed live there have internalized their nonexistence, grown demoralized, resentful, and hopeless; if they are noticed at all, it is as objects of public disdain. What were once called "blue-collar aristocrats"-skilled workers in the construction trades, for example-have long felt the contempt of the whole white-collar world. ..."
"... Or, we could replace Western liberal culture, with its tradition to consume and expand by force an unbroken chain from the Garden of Eden to Friedrich von Hayek, with the notion of maintenance and "enough". Bourgeois make-work holds no interest to me. ..."
"... My understanding of the data is that living standards increased around the world during the so-called golden age, not just in the U.S. (and Western Europe and Japan and Australia ). It could be that it was still imperialism at work, but the link between imperialism and the creation of the middle class is not straightforward. ..."
"... I thought neoliberalism was just the pogrom to make everyone – rational agents – as subscribed by our genetic / heraldic betters .. putting this orbs humans and resources in the correct "natural" order . ..."
"... Disheveled Marsupial for those thinking neoliberalism is not associated with libertarianism one only has to observe the decades of think tanks and their mouth organs roaming the planet . especially in the late 80s and 90s . bringing the might and wonders of the – market – to the great unwashed globally here libertarian priests rang in the good news to the great unwashed ..."
"... I would argue that neoliberalism is a program to define markets as primarily engaged in information processing and to make everyone into non-agents ( as not important at all to the proper functioning of markets). ..."
"... It also appears that neoliberals want to restrict democracy to the greatest extent possible and to view markets as the only foundation for truth without any need for input from the average individual. ..."
I am almost 70 years old, born and raised in New York City, still living in a near suburb.
Somehow, somewhere along the road to my 70th year I feel as if I have been gradually transported
to an almost entirely different country than the land of my younger years. I live painfully now
in an alien land, a place whose habits and sensibilities I sometimes hardly recognize, while unable
to escape from memories of a place that no longer exists. There are days I feel as I imagine a
Russian pensioner must feel, lost in an unrecognizable alien land of unimagined wealth, power,
privilege, and hyper-glitz in the middle of a country slipping further and further into hopelessness,
alienation, and despair.
I am not particularly nostalgic. Nor am I confusing recollection with sentimental yearnings
for a youth that is no more. But if I were a contemporary Rip Van Winkle, having just awakened
after, say, 30-40 years, I would not recognize my beloved New York City. It would be not just
the disappearance of the old buildings, Penn Station, of course, Madison Square Garden and its
incandescent bulb marquee on 50th and 8th announcing NYU vs. St. John's, and the WTC, although
I always thought of the latter as "new" until it went down. Nor would it be the disappearance
of all the factories, foundries, and manufacturing plants, the iconic Domino Sugar on the East
River, the Wonder Bread factory with its huge neon sign, the Swingline Staples building in Long
Island City that marked passage to and from the East River tunnel on the railroad, and my beloved
Schaeffer Beer plant in Williamsburg, that along with Rheingold, Knickerbocker, and a score of
others, made beer from New York taste a little bit different.
It wouldn't be the ubiquitous new buildings either, the Third Avenue ghostly glass erected
in the 70's and 80's replacing what once was the most concentrated collection of Irish gin mills
anywhere. Or the fortress-like castles built more recently, with elaborate high-ceilinged lobbies
decorated like a kind of gross, filthy-wealthy Versailles, an aesthetically repulsive style that
shrieks "power" in a way the neo-classical edifices of our Roman-loving founders never did. Nor
would it even be the 100-story residential sticks, those narrow ground-to-clouds skyscraper condominiums
proclaiming the triumph of globalized capitalism with prices as high as their penthouses, driven
ever upward by the foreign billionaires and their obsession with burying their wealth in Manhattan
real estate.
It is not just the presence of new buildings and the absence of the old ones that have this
contemporary Van Winkle feeling dyslexic and light-headed. The old neighborhoods have disintegrated
along with the factories, replaced by income segregated swatches of homogenous "real estate" that
have consumed space, air, and sunlight while sucking the distinctiveness out of the City. What
once was the multi-generational home turf for Jewish, Afro-American, Puerto Rican, Italian, Polak
and Bohunk families is now treated as simply another kind of investment, stocks and bonds in steel
and concrete. Mom's Sunday dinners, clothes lines hanging with newly bleached sheets after Monday
morning wash, stickball games played among parked cars, and evenings of sitting on the stoop with
friends and a transistor radio listening to Mel Allen call Mantle's home runs or Alan Freed and
Murray the K on WINS 1010 playing Elvis, Buddy Holly, and The Drifters, all gone like last night's
dreams.
Do you desire to see the new New York? Look no further than gentrifying Harlem for an almost
perfect microcosm of the city's metamorphosis, full of multi-million condos, luxury apartment
renovations, and Maclaren strollers pushed by white yuppie wife stay-at-homes in Marcus Garvey
Park. Or consider the "new" Lower East Side, once the refuge of those with little material means,
artists, musicians, bums, drug addicts, losers and the physically and spiritually broken - my
kind of people. Now its tenements are "retrofitted" and remodeled into $4000 a month apartments
and the new residents are Sunday brunching where we used to score some Mary Jane.
There is the "Brooklyn brand", synonymous with "hip", and old Brooklyn neighborhoods like Red
Hook and South Brooklyn (now absorbed into so desirable Park Slope), and Bushwick, another former
outpost of the poor and the last place I ever imagined would be gentrified, full of artists and
hipsters driving up the price of everything. Even large sections of my own Queens and the Bronx
are affected (infected?). Check out Astoria, for example, neighborhood of my father's family,
with more of the old ways than most but with rents beginning to skyrocket and starting to drive
out the remaining working class to who knows where.
Gone is almost every mom and pop store, candy stores with their egg creams and bubble gum cards
and the Woolworth's and McCrory's with their wooden floors and aisles containing ordinary blue
collar urgencies like thread and yarn, ironing boards and liquid bleach, stainless steel utensils
of every size and shape. Where are the locally owned toy and hobby stores like Jason's in Woodhaven
under the el, with Santa's surprises available for lay-away beginning in October? No more luncheonettes,
cheap eats like Nedicks with hot dogs and paper cones of orange drink, real Kosher delis with
vats of warm pastrami and corned beef cut by hand, and the sacred neighborhood "bar and grill",
that alas has been replaced by what the kids who don't know better call "dive bars", the detestable
simulacra of the real thing, slick rooms of long slick polished mahogany, a half-dozen wide screen
TV's blaring mindless sports contests from all over the world, over-priced micro-brews, and not
a single old rummy in sight?
Old Rip searches for these and many more remembered haunts, what Ray Oldenburg called the "great
good places" of his sleepy past, only to find store windows full of branded, high-priced, got-to-have
luxury-necessities (necessary if he/she is to be certified cool, hip, and successful), ridiculously
overpriced "food emporia", high and higher-end restaurants, and apparel boutiques featuring hardened
smiles and obsequious service reserved for those recognized by celebrity or status.
Rip notices too that the visible demographic has shifted, and walking the streets of Manhattan
and large parts of Brooklyn, he feels like what walking in Boston Back Bay always felt like, a
journey among an undifferentiated mass of privilege, preppy or 'metro-sexed' 20 and 30-somethings
jogging or riding bicycles like lean, buff gods and goddesses on expense accounts supplemented
by investments enriched by yearly holiday bonuses worth more than Rip earned in a lifetime.
Sitting alone on a park bench by the river, Rip reflects that more than all of these individual
things, however, he despairs of a city that seems to have been reimagined as a disneyfied playground
of the privileged, offering endless ways to self-gratify and philistinize in a clean, safe (safest
big city in U.S., he heard someone say), slick, smiley, center-of-the-world urban paradise, protected
by the new centurions (is it just his paranoia or do battle-ready police seem to be everywhere?).
Old ethnic neighborhoods are filled with apartment buildings that seem more like post-college
"dorms", tiny studios and junior twos packed with three or four "singles" roommates pooling their
entry level resources in order to pay for the right to live in "The City". Meanwhile the newer
immigrants find what place they can in Kingsbridge, Corona, Jamaica, and Cambria Heights, far
from the city center, even there paying far too much to the landlord for what they receive.
New York has become an unrecognizable place to Rip, who can't understand why the accent-less
youngsters keep asking him to repeat something in order to hear his quaint "Brooklyn" accent,
something like the King's English still spoken on remote Smith Island in the Chesapeake, he guesses
.
Rip suspects that this "great transformation" (apologies to Polanyi) has coincided, and is somehow
causally related, to the transformation of New York from a real living city into, as the former
Mayor proclaimed, the "World Capital" of financialized commerce and all that goes with it.
"Financialization", he thinks, is not the expression of an old man's disapproval but a way
of naming a transformed economic and social world. Rip is not an economist. He reads voraciously
but, as an erstwhile philosopher trained to think about the meaning of things, he often can't
get his head around the mathematical model-making explanations of the economists that seem to
dominate the more erudite political and social analyses these days. He has learned, however, that
the phenomenon of "capitalism" has changed along with his city and his life.
Money, it seems to him, has somehow changed its role. It has "increased" (is that possible,
he asks?) while at the same time it has become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. It appears
to seek to become an autonomous and dominating sector of economic life, functionally separated
from production of real things, almost all of which seem to come from faraway places. "Real" actually
begins to change its meaning, another topic more interesting still. This devotion to the world
of money-making-money seems to have obsessed the lives of many of the most "important" Americans.
Entire TV networks are devoted to it. They talk about esoteric financial instruments that to the
ordinary citizen look more like exotically placed bets-on-credit in the casino than genuine ways
to grow real-world business, jobs, wages, and family income. The few who are in position to master
the game live material lives that were beyond what almost any formerly "wealthy" man or woman
in Rip's prior life could even imagine
.
Above all else is the astronomical rise in wealth and income inequality. Rip recalls that growing
up in the 1950's, the kids on his block included, along with firemen, cops, and insurance men
dads (these were virtually all one-parent income households), someone had a dad who worked as
a stock broker. Yea, living on the same block was a "Wall Streeter". Amazingly democratic, no?
Imagine, people of today, a finance guy drinking at the same corner bar with the sanitation guy.
Rip recalls that Aristotle had some wise and cautionary words in his Politics concerning the stability
of oligarchic regimes.
Last year I drove across America on blue highways mostly. I stayed in small towns and cities,
Zanesville, St. Charles, Wichita, Pratt, Dalhart, Clayton, El Paso, Abilene, Clarksdale, and many
more. I dined for the most part in local taverns, sitting at the bar so as to talk with the local
bartender and patrons who are almost always friendly and talkative in these spaces. Always and
everywhere I heard similar stories as my story of my home town. Not so much the specifics (there
are no "disneyfied" Lubbocks or Galaxes out there, although Oxford, MS comes close) but in the
sadness of men and women roughly my age as they recounted a place and time – a way of life – taken
out from under them, so that now their years are filled with decayed and dead downtowns, children
gone away and lost to either the relentless rootlessness of the trans-national economy or the
virtual hell-world of meth and opioids and heroin and unending underemployed hopelessness.
I am not a trained economist. My graduate degrees were in philosophy. My old friends call me
an "Eric Hoffer", who back in the day was known as the "longshoreman philosopher". I have been
trying for a long time now to understand the silent revolution that has been pulled off right
under my nose, the replacement of a world that certainly had its flaws (how could I forget the
civil rights struggle and the crime of Viet Nam; I was a part of these things) but was, let us
say, different. Among you or your informed readers, is there anyone who can suggest a book or
books or author(s) who can help me understand how all of this came about, with no public debate,
no argument, no protest, no nothing? I would be very much appreciative.
I'll just highlight this line for emphasis
"there are no "disneyfied" Lubbocks or Galaxes out there, although Oxford, MS comes close) but
in the sadness of men and women roughly my age as they recounted a place and time – a way of life
– taken out from under them, so that now their years are filled with decayed and dead downtowns,
children gone away and lost to either the relentless rootlessness of the trans-national economy
or the virtual hell-world of meth and opioids and heroin and unending underemployed hopelessness."
my best friend pretty much weeps every day.
I don't have a book to recommend. I do think you identify a really underemphasized central
fact of recent times: the joint processes by which real places have been converted into "real
estate" and real, messy lives replaced by safe, manufactured "experiences." This affects wealthy
and poor neighborhoods alike, in different ways but in neither case for the better.
I live in a very desirable neighborhood in one of those places that makes a lot of "Best of"
lists. I met a new neighbor last night who told me how he and his wife had plotted for years to
get out of the Chicago burbs, not only to our city but to this specific neighborhood, which they
had decided is "the one." (This sentiment is not atypical.) Unsurprisingly, property values in
the neighborhood have gone through the roof. Which, as far as I can tell, most everyone here sees
as an unmitigated good thing.
At the same time, several families I got to know because they moved into the neighborhood about
the same time we did 15-20 years ago, are cashing out and moving away, kids off to or out of college,
parents ready (and financed) to get on to the next phase and the next place. Of course, even though
our children are all Lake Woebegoners, there are no next generations staying in the neighborhood,
except of course the ones still living, or back, at "home." (Those families won't be going anywhere
for awhile!)
I can't argue that new money in the hood hasn't improved some things. Our formerly struggling
food co-op just finished a major expansion and upgrade. Good coffee is 5 minutes closer than it
used to be. But to my wife and me, the overwhelming feeling is that we are now outsiders here
in this neighborhood where we know all the houses and the old trees but not what motivates our
new neighbors. So I made up a word for it: unsettling (adj., verb, noun).
"If public life can suffer a metaphysical blow, the death of the labor question was that
blow. For millions of working people, it amputated the will to resist."
Christopher Lash in "Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy" mentions Ray Oldenburg's
"The Great Good Places: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Community Centers, Beauty Parlors, General Stores,
Bars, Hangouts and How they Got You through the Day."
He argued that the decline of democracy is directly related to the disappearance of what he
called third places:,
"As neighborhood hangouts give way to suburban shopping malls, or, on the other hand private
cocktail parties, the essentially political art of conversation is replaced by shoptalk or personal
gossip.
Increasingly, conversation literally has no place in American society. In its absence how–or
better, where–can political habits be acquired and polished?
Lasch finished he essay by noting that Oldenburg's book helps to identify what is missing from
our then newly emerging world (which you have concisely updated):
"urban amenities, conviviality, conversation, politics–almost everything in part that makes
life worth living."
The best explainer of our modern situation that I have read is Wendell Berry. I suggest that
you start with "The Unsettling of America," quoted below.
"Let me outline briefly as I can what seem to me the characteristics of these opposite kinds
of mind. I conceive a strip-miner to be a model exploiter, and as a model nurturer I take the
old-fashioned idea or ideal of a farmer. The exploiter is a specialist, an expert; the nurturer
is not. The standard of the exploiter is efficiency; the standard of the nurturer is care. The
exploiter's goal is money, profit; the nurturer's goal is health - his land's health, his own,
his family's, his community's, his country's. Whereas the exploiter asks of a piece of land only
how much and how quickly it can be made to produce, the nurturer asks a question that is much
more complex and difficult: What is its carrying capacity? (That is: How much can be taken from
it without diminishing it? What can it produce dependably for an indefinite time?) The exploiter
wishes to earn as much as possible by as little work as possible; the nurturer expects, certainly,
to have a decent living from his work, but his characteristic wish is to work as well as possible.
The competence of the exploiter is in organization; that of the nurturer is in order - a human
order, that is, that accommodates itself both to other order and to mystery. The exploiter typically
serves an institution or organization; the nurturer serves land, household, community, place.
The exploiter thinks in terms of numbers, quantities, "hard facts"; the nurturer in terms of character,
condition, quality, kind."
I also think Prof. Patrick Deneen works to explain the roots (and progression) of decline.
I'll quote him at length here describing the modern college student.
"[T]he one overarching lesson that students receive is the true end of education: the only
essential knowledge is that know ourselves to be radically autonomous selves within a comprehensive
global system with a common commitment to mutual indifference. Our commitment to mutual indifference
is what binds us together as a global people. Any remnant of a common culture would interfere
with this prime directive: a common culture would imply that we share something thicker, an inheritance
that we did not create, and a set of commitments that imply limits and particular devotions.
Ancient philosophy and practice praised as an excellent form of government a res publica –
a devotion to public things, things we share together. We have instead created the world's first
Res Idiotica – from the Greek word idiotes, meaning "private individual." Our education system
produces solipsistic, self-contained selves whose only public commitment is an absence of commitment
to a public, a common culture, a shared history. They are perfectly hollowed vessels, receptive
and obedient, without any real obligations or devotions.
They won't fight against anyone, because that's not seemly, but they won't fight for anyone
or anything either. They are living in a perpetual Truman Show, a world constructed yesterday
that is nothing more than a set for their solipsism, without any history or trajectory."
Wow. Did this hit a nerve. You have eloquently described what was the city of hope for several
generations of outsiders, for young gay men and women, and for real artists, not just from other
places in America, but from all over the world. In New York, once upon a time, bumping up against
the more than 50% of the population who were immigrants from other countries, you could learn
a thing or two about the world. You could, for a while, make a living there at a job that was
all about helping other people. You could find other folks, lots of them, who were honest, well-meaning,
curious about the world. Then something changed. As you said, you started to see it in those hideous
80's buildings. But New York always seemed somehow as close or closer to Europe than to the U.S.,
and thus out of the reach of mediocrity and dumbing down. New York would mold you into somebody
tough and smart, if you weren't already – if it didn't, you wouldn't make it there.
Now, it seems, this dream is dreamt. Poseurs are not artists, and the greedy and smug drive
out creativity, kindness, real humor, hope.
It ain't fair. I don't know where in this world an aspiring creative person should go now,
but it probably is not there.
Americans cannot begin to reasonably demand a living wage, benefits and job security when there
is an unending human ant-line of illegals and legal immigrants willing to under bid them.
Only when there is a parity or shortage of workers can wage demands succeed, along with other
factors.
From 1925 to 1965 this country accepted hardly any immigrants, legal or illegal. We had the
bracero program where Mexican males were brought in to pick crops and were then sent home to collect
paychecks in Mexico. American blacks were hired from the deep south to work defense plants in
the north and west.
Is it any coincidence that the 1965 Great Society program, initiated by Ted Kennedy to primarily
benefit the Irish immigrants, then co-opted by LBJ to include practically everyone, started this
process of Middle Class destruction?
1973 was the peak year of American Society as measured by energy use per capita, expansion
of jobs and unionization and other factors, such as an environment not yet destroyed, nicely measured
by the The Real Progress Indicator.
Solution? Stop importing uneducated people. That's real "immigration reform".
Now explain to me why voters shouldn't favor Trump's radical immigration stands?
Maybe, but OTOH, who is it, exactly, who is recruiting, importing, hiring and training undocumented
workers to downgrade pay scales??
Do some homework, please. If businesses didn't actively go to Central and South America to
recruit, pay to bring here, hire and employ undocumented workers, then the things you discuss
would be great.
When ICE comes a-knocking at some meat processing plant or mega-chicken farm, what happens?
The undocumented workers get shipped back to wherever, but the big business owner doesn't even
get a tap on the wrist. The undocumented worker – hired to work in unregulated unsafe unhealthy
conditions – often goes without their last paycheck.
It's the business owners who manage and support this system of undocumented workers because
it's CHEAP, and they don't get busted for it.
Come back when the USA actually enforces the laws that are on the books today and goes after
big and small business owners who knowingly recruit, import, hire, train and employee undocumented
workers you know, like Donald Trump has all across his career.
This is the mechanism by which the gov't has assisted biz in destroying the worker, competition
for thee, but none for me. For instance I can't go work in canada or mexico, they don't allow
it. Policy made it, policy can change it, go bernie. While I favor immigration, in it's current
form it is primarily conducted on these lines of destroying workers (H1b etc and illegals combined)
Lucky for the mexicans they can see the american dream is bs and can go home. I wonder who the
latinos that have gained citizenship will vote for. Unlikely it'll be trump, but they can be pretty
conservative, and the people they work for are pretty conservative so no guarantee there, hillary
is in san diego at the tony balboa park where her supporters will feel comfortable, not a huge
venue I think they must be hoping for a crowd, and if she can't get one in san diego while giving
a "if we don't rule the world someone else will" speech, she can't get one anywhere. Defense contractors
and military advisors and globalist biotech (who needs free money more than biotech? they are
desperate for hillary) are thick in san diego.
I live part-time in San Diego. It is very conservative. The military, who are constantly screwed
by the GOP, always vote Republican. They make up a big cohort of San Diego county.
Hillary may not get a big crowd at the speech, but that, in itself, doesn't mean that much
to me. There is a segment of San Diego that is somewhat more progressive-ish, but it's a pretty
conservative county with parts of eastern SD county having had active John Birch Society members
until recently or maybe even ongoing.
There's a big push in the Latino community to GOTV, and it's mostly not for Trump. It's possible
this cohort, esp the younger Latino/as, will vote for Sanders in the primary, but if Clinton gets
the nomination, they'll likely vote for her (v. Trump).
I was unlucky enough to be stuck for an hour in a commuter train last Friday after Trump's
rally there. Hate to sound rude, but Trump's fans were everything we've seen. Loud, rude, discourteous
and an incessant litany of rightwing talking points (same old, same old). All pretty ignorant.
Saying how Trump will "make us great again." I don't bother asking how. A lot of ugly comments
about Obama and how Obama has been "so racially divisive and polarizing." Well, No. No, Obama
has not been or done that, but the rightwing noise machine has sure ginned up your hatreds, angers
and fears. It was most unpleasant. The only instructive thing about it was confirming my worst
fears about this group. Sorry to say but pretty loutish and very uninformed. Sigh.
part timer in sd as well, family for hillary except for nephew and niece .I keep telling my
mom she should vote bernie for their sake but it never goes over very well
Re Methland, we live in rural US and we got a not-very-well hidden population of homeless children.
I don't mean homeless families with children, I mean homeless children. Sleeping in parks in good
weather, couch-surfing with friends, etc. I think related.
Fascism is a system of political and social order intended to reinforce the unity, energy and
purity of communities in which liberal democracy stand(s) accused of producing division and decline.
. . . George Orwell reminded us, clad in the mainstream patriotic dress of their own place and
time, . . . an authentically popular fascism in the United States would be pious and anti-Black;
in Western Europe, secular and antisemitic, or more probably, these days anti-Islamic; in Russia
and Eastern Europe, religious, antisemitic, and slavophile.
Robert O. Paxton
In The Five Stages of Faschism
" that eternal enemy: the conservative manipulators of privilege who damn as 'dangerous agitators'
any man who menaces their fortunes" (maybe 'power and celebrity' should be added to fortunes)
Sinclair Lewis
It Can't Happen Here page 141
On the Boots To Ribs Front: Anyone hereabouts notice that Captain America has just been revealed
to be a Nazi? Maybe this is what R. Cohen was alluding to but I doubt it.
The four horse men are, political , social, economic and environmental collapse . Any one remember
the original Mad Max movie. A book I recommend is the Crash Of 2016 By Thom Hartmann.
From the comment, I agree with the problems, not the cause. We've increased the size and scope
of the safety net over the last decade. We've increased government spending versus GDP. I'm not
blaming government but its not neoliberal/capitalist policy either.
1. Globalization clearly helps the poor in other countries at the expense of workers in the
U.S. But at the same time it brings down the cost of goods domestically. So jobs are not great
but Walmart/Amazon can sell cheap needs.
2. Inequality started rising the day after Bretton Woods – the rich got richer everyday after
"Nixon Shock"
Hi rfam : To point 1 : Why is there a need to bring down the cost of goods? Is it because of
past outsourcing and trade agreements and FR policies? I think there's a chicken and egg thing
going on, ie.. which came first. Globalization is a way to bring down wages while supplying Americans
with less and less quality goods supplied at the hand of global corporations like Walmart that
need welfare in the form of food stamps and the ACA for their workers for them to stay viable
(?). Viable in this case means ridiculously wealthy CEO's and the conglomerate growing bigger
constantly. Now they have to get rid of COOL's because the WTO says it violates trade agreements
so we can't trace where our food comes from in case of an epidemic. It's all downhill. Wages should
have risen with costs so we could afford high quality American goods, but haven't for a long,
long time.
Globalization helps the rich here way more than the poor there. The elites get more money for
nothing (see QE before you respond, if you do, that's where the money for globalization came from)
the workers get the husk. Also the elite gets to say "you made your choices" and other moralistic
crap. The funny(?) thing is they generally claim to be atheists, which I translate into "I am
God, there doesn't need to be any other" Amazon sells cheap stuff by cheating on taxes, and barely
makes money, mostly just driving people out of business. WalMart has cheap stuff because they
subsidise their workers with food stamps and medicaid. Bringing up bretton woods means you don't
know much about money creation, so google "randy wray/bananas/naked capitalism" and you'll find
a quick primer.
The Walmart loathsome spawn and Jeff Bezos are the biggest welfare drains in our nation – or
among the biggest. They woefully underpay their workers, all while training them on how to apply
for various welfare benefits. Just so that their slaves, uh, workers can manage to eat enough
to enable them to work.
It slays me when US citizens – and it happens across the voting spectrum these days; I hear
just as often from Democratic voters as I do from GOP voters – bitch, vetch, whine & cry about
welfare abuse. And if I start to point out the insane ABUSE of welfare by the Waltons and Jeff
Bezos, I'm immediately greeted with random TRUE stories about someone who knew someone who somehow
made out like a bandit on welfare.
Hey, I'm totally sure and in agreement that there are likely a small percentage of real welfare
cheats who manage to do well enough somehow. But seriously? That's like a drop in the bucket.
Get the eff over it!!!
Those cheats are not worth discussing. It's the big fraud cheats like Bezos & the Waltons and
their ilk, who don't need to underpay their workers, but they DO because the CAN and they get
away with it because those of us the rapidly dwindling middle/working classes are footing the
bill for it.
Citizens who INSIST on focusing on a teeny tiny minority of real welfare cheats, whilst studiously
ignoring the Waltons and the Bezos' of the corporate world, are enabling this behavior. It's one
of my bugabears bc it's so damn frustrating when citizens refuse to see how they are really being
ripped off by the 1%. Get a clue.
That doesn't even touch on all the other tax breaks, tax loopholes, tax incentives and just
general all-around tax cheating and off-shore money hiding that the Waltons and Bezos get/do.
Sheesh.
"I'm immediately greeted with random TRUE stories about someone who knew someone who somehow
made out like a bandit on welfare."
is the key and a v. long term result of the application of Bernays' to political life. Its
local and hits at the gut interpersonal level 'cos the "someones" form a kind of chain of trust
esp. if the the first one on the list is a friend or a credentialed media pundit. Utterly spurious
I know but countering this with a *merely* rational analysis of how Walmart, Amazon abuse the
welfare system to gouge profits from the rest of us just won't ever, for the large majority, get
through this kind emotional wall.
I don't know what any kind of solution might look like but, somehow, we need to find a way
of seriously demonising the corporate parasites that resonates at the same emotional level as
the "welfare cheat" meme that Bill Clinton and the rest of the DLC sanctified back in the '90s.
Something like "Walmart's stealing your taxes" might work but how to get it out there in a
viral way ??
What a comment from seanseamour. And the "hoisting" of it to high visibility at the site is
a testament to the worth of Naked Capitalism.
seanseamour asks "What does that have to do with education?" and answers "Everything if one
considers the elitist trend " This question & answer all but brings tears to my eyes. It is so
utterly on point. My own experience of it, if I may say so, comes from inside the belly of the
beast. As a child and a product of America's elite universities (I have degrees from Harvard and
Yale, and my dad, Richard B. Sewall, was a beloved English prof at Yale for 42 years), I could
spend all morning detailing the shameful roles played by America's torchbearing universities –
Harvard, Yale, Stanford etc – in utterly abandoning their historic responsibility as educators
to maintaining the health of the nation's public school system.*
And as I suspect seanseymour would agree, when a nation loses public education, it loses everything.
But I don't want to spend all morning doing that because I'm convinced that it's not too late
for America to rescue itself from maelstrom in which it finds itself today. (Poe's "Maelstrom"
story, cherished by Marshall McLuhan, is supremely relevant today.)
To turn America around, I don't look to education – that system is too far gone to save itself,
let alone the rest of the country – but rather to the nation's media: to the all-powerful public
communication system that certainly has the interactive technical capabilities to put citizens
and governments in touch with each other on the government decisions that shape the futures of
communities large and small.
For this to happen, however, people like the us – readers of Naked Capitalism – need to stop
moaning and groaning about the damage done by the neoliberals and start building an issue-centered,
citizen-participatory, non-partisan, prime-time Civic Media strong enough to give all Americans
an informed voice in the government decisions that affect their lives. This Civic media would
exist to make citizens and governments responsive and accountable to each other in shaping futures
of all three communities – local, state and national – of which every one of us is a member.
Pie in the sky? Not when you think hard about it. A huge majority of Americans would welcome
this Civic Media. Many yearn for it. This means that a market exists for it: a Market of the Whole
of all members of any community, local, state and national. This audience is large enough to rival
those generated by media coverage of pro sports teams, and believe it or not much of the growth
of this Civic media could be productively modeled on the growth of media coverage of pro sports
teams. This Civic Media would attract the interest of major advertisers, especially those who
see value in non-partisan programming dedicated to getting America moving forward again. Dynamic,
issue-centered, problem-solving public forums, some modeled on voter-driven reality TV contests
like The Voice or Dancing with the Stars, could be underwritten by a "rainbow" spectrum of funders,
commericial, public, personal and even government sources.
So people take hope! Be positive! Love is all we need, etc. The need for for a saving alternative
to the money-driven personality contests into which our politics has descended this election year
is literally staring us all in the face from our TV, cellphone and computer screens. This is no
time to sit back and complain, it's a time to start working to build a new way of connecting ourselves
so we can reverse America's rapid decline.
OK, so I hear some of you saying, corporate America will never let this Civic Media get
off the ground. My short answer to this is that corporations do what makes money for them, and
in today's despairing political climate there's money to be made in sponsoring something truly
positive, patriotic and constructive. And I hear a few others saying that Americans are too
dumbed down, too busy, too polarized or too just plain stupid to make intelligent, constructive
use of a non-partisan, problem-solving Civic Media. But I would not underestimate the intelligence
of Americans when they can give their considered input – by vote, by comment or by active participation
– in public forums that are as exciting and well managed as an NFL game or a Word Series final.
I am paying an exorbitant subscription for the UK Financial Times at the moment. Anyway,
the good news is that very regular articles are appearing where you can almost feel the panic
at the populist uprisings.
Whatever system is put in place the human race will find a way to undermine it. I believe in
capitalism because fair competition means the best and most efficient succeed.
I send my children to private schools and universities because I want my own children at the
top and not the best. Crony capitalism is inevitable, self-interest undermines any larger system
that we try and impose.
Can we design a system that can beat human self-interest? It's going to be tricky.
"If that's the system, how can I take advantage of it?" human nature at work. "If that's the
system, is it working for me or not?" those at the top.
If not, it's time to change the system.
If so, how can I tweak it to get more out of it?
Neo-Liberalism
Academics, who are not known for being street-wise, probably thought they had come up with
the ultimate system using markets and numeric performance measures to create a system free from
human self-interest.
They had already missed that markets don't just work for price discovery, but are frequently
used for capital gains by riding bubbles and hoping there is a "bigger fool" out there than you,
so you can cash out with a handsome profit.
(I am not sure if the Chinese realise markets are supposed to be for price discovery at all).
Hence, numerous bubbles during this time, with housing bubbles being the global favourite for
those looking for capital gains.
If we are being governed by the markets, how do we rig the markets?
A question successfully solved by the bankers.
Inflation figures, that were supposed to ensure the cost of living didn't rise too quickly,
were somehow manipulated to produce low inflation figures with roaring house price inflation raising
the cost of living.
What unemployment measure will best suit the story I am trying to tell?
U3 – everything great
U6 – it's not so good
Labour participation rate – it hasn't been this bad since the 1970s
Anything missing from the theory has been ruthlessly exploited, e.g. market bubbles ridden
for capital gains, money creation by private banks, the difference between "earned" and "unearned"
income and the fact that Capitalism trickles up through the following mechanism:
1) Those with excess capital collect rent and interest.
2) Those with insufficient capital pay rent and interest.
I just went on a rant last week. (Not only because the judge actually LIED in court)
I left the courthouse in downtown Seattle, to cross the street to find the vultures selling
more foreclosures on the steps of the King County Administration Building, while above them, there
were tents pitched on the building's perimeter. And people were walking by just like this scene
was normal.
Because the people at the entrance of the courthouse could view this, I went over there and
began to rant. I asked (loudly) "Do you guys see that over there? Vultures selling homes rendering
more people homeless and then the homeless encampment with tents pitched on the perimeter above
them? In what world is this normal?" One guy replied, "Ironic, isn't it?" After that comment,
the Marshall protecting the judicial crooks in the building came over and tried to calm me down.
He insisted that the scene across the street was "normal" and that none of his friends or neighbors
have been foreclosed on. I soon found out that that lying Marshall was from Pierce County, the
epicenter of Washington foreclosures.
"In this postindustrial world not only is the labor question no longer asked, not only
is proletarian revolution passé, but the proletariat itself seems passé. And the invisibles who
nonetheless do indeed live there have internalized their nonexistence, grown demoralized, resentful,
and hopeless; if they are noticed at all, it is as objects of public disdain. What were once called
"blue-collar aristocrats"-skilled workers in the construction trades, for example-have long felt
the contempt of the whole white-collar world.
For these people, already skeptical about who runs things and to what end, and who are now
undergoing their own eviction from the middle class, skepticism sours into a passive cynicism.
Or it rears up in a kind of vengeful chauvinism directed at alien others at home and abroad, emotional
compensation for the wounds that come with social decline If public life can suffer a metaphysical
blow, the death of the labor question was that blow. For millions of working people, it amputated
the will to resist."
One thing I don't think I have seen addressed on this site (apologies if I have missed it!)
in all the commentary about the destruction of the middle class is the role of US imperialism
in creating that middle class in the first place and what it is that we want to save from destruction
by neo-liberalism. The US is rich because we rob the rest of the world's resources and have been
doing so in a huge way since 1945, same as Britain before us. I don't think it's a coincidence
that the US post-war domination of the world economy and the middle class golden age happened
at the same time. Obviously there was enormous value created by US manufacturers, inventors, government
scientists, etc but imperialism is the basic starting point for all of this. The US sets the world
terms of trade to its own advantage. How do we save the middle class without this level of control?
Within the US elites are robbing everyone else but they are taking what we use our military power
to appropriate from the rest of the world.
Second, if Bernie or whoever saves the middle class, is that so that everyone can have a tract
house and two cars and continue with a massively wasteful and unsustainable lifestyle based on
consumption? Or are we talking about basic security like shelter, real health care, quality education
for all, etc? Most of the stories I see seem to be nostalgic for a time when lots of people could
afford to buy lots of stuff and don't 1) reflect on origin of that stuff (imperialism) and 2)
consider whether that lifestyle should be the goal in the first place.
I went to the electronics recycling facility in Seattle yesterday. The guy at customer service
told me that they receive 20 million pounds per month. PER MONTH. Just from Seattle. I went home
and threw up.
It doesn't have to be that way. You can replace military conquest (overt and covert) with space
exploration and science expansion. Also, instead of pushing consumerism, push contentment. Don't
setup and goose a system of "gotta keep up with the Joneses!"
In the 50s(!!!) there was a plan, proven in tests and studies, that would have had humans on
the mars by 1965, out to Saturn by 72. Project Orion. Later, the British Project Daedalus was
envisioned which WOULD have put space probes at the next star system within 20 years of launch.
It was born of the atomic age and, as originally envisioned, would have been an ecological disaster
BUT it was reworked to avoid this and would have worked. Spacecraft capable of comfortably holding
100 personnel, no need to build with paper-thin aluminum skin or skimp on amenities. A huge ship
built like a large sea vessel (heavy iron/steel) accelerated at 1g (or more or slightly less as
desired) so no prolonged weightlessness and concomitant loss of bone and muscle mass. It was all
in out hands but the Cold War got in the way, as did the many agreements and treaties of the Cold
War to avoid annihilation. It didn't need to be that way. Check it out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
All that with 1950s and 60s era technology. It could be done better today and for less than
your wars in the Middle East. Encourage science, math, exploration instead of consumption, getting
mine before you can get yours, etc.
Or, we could replace Western liberal culture, with its tradition to consume and expand
by force an unbroken chain from the Garden of Eden to Friedrich von Hayek, with the notion of
maintenance and "enough". Bourgeois make-work holds no interest to me.
My understanding of the data is that living standards increased around the world during
the so-called golden age, not just in the U.S. (and Western Europe and Japan and Australia ).
It could be that it was still imperialism at work, but the link between imperialism and the creation
of the middle class is not straightforward.
Likewise, US elites are clearly NOT robbing the manufacturing firms that have set up in China
and other low-wage locations, so it is an oversimplification to say they are "robbing everyone
else."
Nostalgia is overrated but I don't sense the current malaise as a desire for more stuff. (I
grew up in the 60s and 70s and I don't remember it as a time where people had, or craved, a lot
of stuff. That period would be now, and I find it infects Sanders' supporters less than most.)
If anything, it is nostalgia for more (free) time and more community, for a time when (many but
not all) people had time to socialize and enjoy civic life.
those things would be nice as would just a tiny bit of hope for the future, our own and the
planet's and not an expectation of things getting more and more difficult and sometimes for entirely
unnecessary reasons like imposed austerity. But being we can't have "nice things" like free time,
community and hope for the future, we just "buy stuff".
I live on the south side, in the formerly affluent south shore neighborhood. A teenager was
killed, shot in the head in a drive by shooting, at 5 pm yesterday right around the corner from
my residence. A white coworker of mine who lives in a rich northwest side neighborhood once commented
to me how black people always say goodbye by saying "be safe". More easily said than done.
I thought neoliberalism was just the pogrom to make everyone – rational agents – as subscribed
by our genetic / heraldic betters .. putting this orbs humans and resources in the correct "natural"
order .
Disheveled Marsupial for those thinking neoliberalism is not associated with libertarianism
one only has to observe the decades of think tanks and their mouth organs roaming the planet .
especially in the late 80s and 90s . bringing the might and wonders of the – market – to the great
unwashed globally here libertarian priests rang in the good news to the great unwashed
I would argue that neoliberalism is a program to define markets as primarily engaged in
information processing and to make everyone into non-agents ( as not important at all to the proper
functioning of markets).
It also appears that neoliberals want to restrict democracy to the greatest extent possible
and to view markets as the only foundation for truth without any need for input from the average
individual.
But as Mirowski argues–carrying their analysis this far begins to undermine their own neoliberal
assumptions about markets always promoting social welfare.
When I mean – agents – I'm not referring to agency, like you say the market gawd/computer does
that. I was referencing the – rational agent – that 'ascribes' the markets the right at defining
facts or truth as neoliberalism defines rational thought/behavior.
Disheveled Marsupial yes democracy is a direct threat to Hayekian et al [MPS and Friends]
paranoia due to claims of irrationality vs rationally
I have trouble understanding the focus on an emergence of fascism in Europe, focus that seems
to dominate this entire thread when, put in perspective such splinter groups bear little weight
on the European political spectrum.
As an expat living in France, in my perception the Front National is a threat to the political
establishments that occupy the center left and right and whose historically broad constituencies
have been brutalized by the financial crisis borne of unbridled anglo-saxon runaway capitalism,
coined neoliberalism. The resulting disaffection has allowed the growth of the FN but it is also
fueled by a transfer of reactionary constituencies that have historically found identity in far
left parties (communist, anti-capitalist, anarchist ), political expressions the institutions
of the Republic allow and enable in the name of plurality, a healthy exultury in a democratic
society.
To consider that the FN in France, UKIP in the UK and others are a threat to democratic values
any more that the far left is non-sensical, and I dare say insignificant compared to the "anchluss"
our conservative right seeks to impose upon the executive, legislative and judicial branches of
government.
The reality in Europe as in America is economic. The post WWII era of reconstruction, investment
and growth is behind us, the French call these years the "Trente Glorieuses" (30 glorious years)
when prosperity was felt through all societal strats, consumerism for all became the panacea for
a just society, where injustice prevailed welfare formulas provided a new panacea.
As the perspective of an unravelling of this golden era began to emerge elites sought and conspired
to consolidate power and wealth, under the aegis of greed is good culture by further corrupting
government to serve the few, ensuring impunity for the ruling class, attempting societal cohesiveness
with brash hubristic dialectics (America, the greatest this or that) and adventurism (Irak, mission
accomplished), conspiring to co-opt and control institutions and the media (to understand the
depth of this deception a must read is Jane Mayer in The Dark Side and in Dark Money).
The difference between America and Europe is that latter bears of brunt of our excess.
The 2008 Wall St / City meltdown eviscerated much of America' middle class and de-facto stalled,
perhaps definitively, the vehicle of upward mobility in an increasingly wealth-ranked class structured
society – the Trump phenomena feeds off the fatalistic resilience and "good book" mythologies
remnant of the "go west" culture.
In Europe where to varying degrees managed capitalism prevails the welfare state(s) provided the
shock absorbers to offset the brunt of the crisis, but those who locked-in on neoliberal fiscal
conservatism have cut off their nose in spite leaving scant resources to spur growth. If social
mobility survives, more vibrantly than the US, unemployment and the cost thereof remains steadfast
and crippling.
The second crisis borne of American hubris is the human tidal wave resulting from the Irak adventure;
it has unleashed mayhem upon the Middle East, Sub Saharan Africa and beyond. The current migrational
wave Europe can not absorb is but the beginning of much deeper problem – as ISIS, Boko Haram and
so many others terrorist groups destabilize the nation-states of a continent whose population
is on the path to explode in the next half century.
The icing on the cake provided by a Trump election will be a world wave of climate change refugees
as the neoliberal establishment seeks to optimize wealth and power through continued climate change
denial.
Fascism is not the issue, nationalism resulting from a self serving bully culture will decimate
the multilateral infrastructure responsible nation-states need to address today's problems.
Broadly, Trump Presidency capping the neoliberal experience will likely signal the end of the
US' dominant role on the world scene (and of course the immense benefits derived for the US).
As he has articulated his intent to discard the art of diplomacy, from soft to institutional,
in favor of an agressive approach in which the President seeks to "rattle" allies (NATO, Japan
and S. Korea for example) as well as his opponents (in other words anyone who does not profess
blind allegiance), expect that such modus operandi will create a deep schism accompanied by a
loss of trust, already felt vis-a-vis our legislature' behavior over the last seven years.
The US's newfound respect among friends and foes generated by President Obama' presidency, has
already been undermined by the GOP primaries, if Trump is elected it will dissipate for good as
other nations and groups thereof focus upon new, no-longer necessarily aligned strategic relationships,
some will form as part as a means of taking distance, or protection from the US, others more opportunist
with the risk of opponents such as Putin filling the void – in Europe for example.
Neoliberalism isn't helping, but it's a population/resource ratio thing. Impacts on social
orders occur well before raw supply factors kick in (and there is more than food supply to basic
rations). The world population has more than doubled in the last 50 years, one doesn't get that
kind of accelerated growth without profound impacts to every aspect of societies. Some of the
most significant impacts are consequent to the acceleration of technological changes (skill expirations,
automations) that are driven in no small part by the needs of a vast + growing population.
I don't suggest population as a pat simplistic answer. And neoliberalism accelerates the declining
performance of institutions (as in the CUNY article and that's been going on for decades already,
neoliberalism just picked up where neoconservatism petered out), but we would be facing issues
like homelessness, service degradation, population displacements, etc regardless of poor policies.
One could argue (I do) that neoliberalism has undertaken to accelerate existing entropies for
profit.
Thanks for soliciting reader comments on socioeconomic desperation. It's encouraging to know
that I'm not the only failure to launch in this country.
I'm a seasonal farm worker with a liberal arts degree in geology and history. I barely held
on for six months as a junior environmental consultant at a dysfunctional firm that tacitly encouraged
unethical and incompetent behavior at all levels. From what I could gather, it was one of the
better-run firms in the industry. Even so, I was watching mid-level and senior staff wander into
extended mid-life crises while our entire service line was terrorized by a badly out-of-shape,
morbidly obese, erratic, vicious PG who had alienated almost the entire office but was untouchable
no matter how many firing offenses she committed. Meanwhile I was watching peers in other industries
(especially marketing and FIRE) sell their souls in real time. I'm still watching them do so a
decade later.
It's hard to exaggerate how atrociously I've been treated by bougie conformists for having
failed/dropped out of the rat race. A family friend who got into trouble with the state of Hawaii
for misclassifying direct employees of his timeshare boiler room as 1099's gave me a panic attack
after getting stoned and berating me for hours about how I'd wake up someday and wonder what the
fuck I'd done with my life. At the time, I had successfully completed a summer job as the de facto
lead on a vineyard maintenance crew and was about to get called back for the harvest, again as
the de facto lead picker.
Much of my social life is basically my humiliation at the hands of amoral sleazeballs who presume
themselves my superiors. No matter how strong an objective case I have for these people being
morally bankrupt, it's impossible to really dismiss their insults. Another big component is concern-trolling
from bourgeois supremacists who will do awfully little for me when I ask them for specific help.
I don't know what they're trying to accomplish, and they probably don't, either. A lot of it is
cognitive dissonance and incoherence.
Some of the worst aggression has come from a Type A social climber friend who sells life insurance.
He's a top producer in a company that's about a third normal, a third Willy Loman, and a third
Glengarry Glen Ross. This dude is clearly troubled, but in ways that neither of us can really
figure out, and a number of those around him are, too. He once admitted, unbidden, to having hazed
me for years.
The bigger problem is that he's surrounded by an entire social infrastructure that enables
and rewards noxious, predatory behavior. When college men feel like treating the struggling like
garbage, they have backup and social proof from their peers. It's disgusting. Many of these people
have no idea of how to relate appropriately to the poor or the unemployed and no interest in learning.
They want to lecture and humiliate us, not listen to us.
Dude recently told me that our alma mater, Dickinson College, is a "grad school preparatory
institution." I was floored that anyone would ever think to talk like that. In point of fact,
we're constantly lectured about how versatile our degrees are, with or without additional education.
I've apparently annoyed a number of Dickinsonians by bitterly complaining that Dickinson's nonacademic
operations are a sleazy racket and that President Emeritus Bill Durden is a shyster who brainwashed
my classmates with crude propaganda. If anything, I'm probably measured in my criticism, because
I don't think I know the full extent of the fraud and sleaze. What I have seen and heard is damning.
I believe that Dickinson is run by people with totalitarian impulses that are restrained only
by a handful of nonconformists who came for the academics and are fed up with the propaganda.
Meanwhile, I've been warm homeless for most of the past four years. It's absurd to get pledge
drive pitches from a well-endowed school on the premise that my degree is golden when I'm regularly
sleeping in my car and financially dependent on my parents. It's absurd to hear stories about
how Dickinson's alumni job placement network is top-notch when I've never gotten a viable lead
from anyone I know from school. It's absurd to explain my circumstances in detail to people who,
afterwards, still can't understand why I'm cynical.
While my classmates preen about their degrees, I'm dealing with stuff that would make them
vomit. A relative whose farm I've been tending has dozens of rats infesting his winery building,
causing such a stench that I'm just about the only person willing to set foot inside it. This
relative is a deadbeat presiding over a feudal slumlord manor, circumstances that he usually justifies
by saying that he's broke and just trying to make ends meet. He has rent-paying tenants living
on the property with nothing but a pit outhouse and a filthy, disused shower room for facilities.
He doesn't care that it's illegal. One of his tenants left behind a twenty-gallon trash can full
to the brim with his own feces. Another was seen throwing newspaper-wrapped turds out of her trailer
into the weeds. They probably found more dignity in this than in using the outhouse.
When I was staying in Rancho Cordova, a rough suburb of Sacramento, I saw my next-door neighbor
nearly come to blows with a man at the light rail station before apologizing profusely to me,
calling me "sir," "man," "boss," and "dog." He told me that he was angry at the other guy for
selling meth to his kid sister. Eureka is even worse: its west side is swarming with tweakers,
its low-end apartment stock is terrible, no one brings the slumlords to heel, and it has a string
of truly filthy residential motels along Broadway that should have been demolished years ago.
A colleague who lives in Sweet Home, Oregon, told me that his hometown is swarming with druggies
who try to extract opiates from local poppies and live for the next arriving shipment of garbage
drugs. The berry farm where we worked had ten- and twelve-year-olds working under the table to
supplement their families' incomes. A Canadian friend told me that he worked for a crackhead in
Lillooet who made his own supply at home using freebase that he bought from a meathead dealer
with ties to the Boston mob. Apparently all the failing mill towns in rural BC have a crack problem
because there's not much to do other than go on welfare and cocaine. An RCMP sergeant in Kamloops
was recently indicted for selling coke on the side.
Uahsenaa's comment about the invisible homeless is spot on. I think I blend in pretty well.
I've often stunned people by mentioning that I'm homeless. Some of them have been assholes about
it, but not all. There are several cars that I recognize as regular overnighters at my usual rest
area. Thank God we don't get hassled much. Oregon is about as safe a place as there is to be homeless.
Some of the rest areas in California, including the ones at Kingsburg and the Sacramento Airport,
end up at or beyond capacity overnight due to the homeless. CalTrans has signs reminding drivers
that it's rude to hog a space that someone else will need. This austerity does not, of course,
apply to stadium construction for the Kings.
Another thing that almost slipped my mind (and is relevant to Trump's popularity): I've encountered
entrenched, systemic discrimination against Americans when I've tried to find and hold menial
jobs, and I've talked to other Americans who have also encountered it. There is an extreme bias
in favor of Mexican peasants and against Americans in the fields and increasingly in off-farm
jobs. The top quintile will be lucky not to reap the whirlwind on account of this prejudice.
"... The number one issue fueling the leave vote was immigration – a lot like Trump's wall against Mexico. The number two issue was lack of accountability of government: Leavers believe that the EU government in Brussels is unaccountable to voters. For Trump supporters, resentment towards a distant and unaccountable Washington government ranks high as well. The Brexit constituency and the Trump constituency are both motivated by the same sense of loss and vulnerability. ..."
"... In both the U.S. and the U.K., a large and growing segment of voters has not prospered in today's complex, technology-driven global economy. Their wages have stagnated and in many cases fallen. Too few good-paying jobs exist for people lacking a college degree, or even people with a college degree, if the degree is not in the right field. These people are angry, frustrated, and afraid -- and with very good reason. Both countries' governments have done little to help them adapt, and little to soothe the sting of globalization. The voter's concerns in both places are mostly the same even though these concerns have coalesced around a policy issue ("leave") in the U.K. whereas here in the U.S. they have coalesced around a candidate (Trump). ..."
"... Similarly, the elite insiders of the Republican Party and their business allies badly underestimated Trump. Establishment candidates like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush failed terribly. Now the Republican political insiders are trying to make sense of a presumptive nominee who trashes free trade, one of the fundamental principles of the party, and openly taunts one of most important emerging voting blocks. ..."
"... Perhaps the biggest reason for the impotence of today's political elites is that elites have trashed the very idea of competent and effective government for 35 years now, and the public has taken the message to heart. Ever since Reagan identified government as the problem, conservative elites have attacked the idea of government itself – rather than respecting the idea of government itself while criticizing the particular policies of a particular government. This is a crucial (and dangerous) distinction. In 1986, Reagan went on to say "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" ..."
In addition, the issues are similar between the two campaigns: The number
one issue fueling the leave vote was immigration – a lot like Trump's wall against
Mexico. The number two issue was lack of accountability of government: Leavers
believe that the EU government in Brussels is unaccountable to voters. For Trump
supporters, resentment towards a distant and unaccountable Washington government
ranks high as well. The Brexit constituency and the Trump constituency are both
motivated by the same sense of loss and vulnerability.
In both the U.S. and the U.K., a large and growing segment of voters
has not prospered in today's complex, technology-driven global economy. Their
wages have stagnated and in many cases fallen. Too few good-paying jobs exist
for people lacking a college degree, or even people with a college degree, if
the degree is not in the right field. These people are angry, frustrated, and
afraid -- and with very good reason. Both countries' governments have done little
to help them adapt, and little to soothe the sting of globalization. The voter's
concerns in both places are mostly the same even though these concerns have
coalesced around a policy issue ("leave") in the U.K. whereas here in the U.S.
they have coalesced around a candidate (Trump).
In both countries, political elites were caught flat-footed. Elites lost
control over the narrative and lost credibility and persuasiveness with angry,
frustrated and fearful voters. The British elites badly underestimated the intensity
of public frustration with immigration and with the EU. Most expected the vote
would end on the side of "remain," up to the very last moment. Now they are
trying to plot their way out of something they never expected would actually
happen, and never prepared for.
Similarly, the elite insiders of the Republican Party and their business
allies badly underestimated Trump. Establishment candidates like former Florida
Gov. Jeb Bush failed terribly. Now the Republican political insiders are trying
to make sense of a presumptive nominee who trashes free trade, one of the fundamental
principles of the party, and openly taunts one of most important emerging voting
blocks.
How did the elites lose control? There are many reasons: With social media
so pervasive, advertising dollars no longer controls what the public sees and
hears. With unrestricted campaign spending, the party can no longer "pinch the
air hose" of a candidate who strays from party orthodoxy.
Perhaps the biggest reason for the impotence of today's political elites
is that elites have trashed the very idea of competent and effective government
for 35 years now, and the public has taken the message to heart. Ever since
Reagan identified government as the problem, conservative elites have attacked
the idea of government itself – rather than respecting the idea
of government itself while criticizing the particular policies of a particular
government. This is a crucial (and dangerous) distinction. In 1986, Reagan went
on to say "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from
the government and I'm here to help.'"
Reagan booster Grover Norquist is known for saying, "I don't want to abolish
government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into
the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Countless candidates and elected
officials slam "Washington bureaucrats" even though these "bureaucrats" were
none other than themselves. It's not a great way to build respect. Then the
attack escalated, with the aim of destroying parts of government that were actually
mostly working. This was done to advance the narrative that government itself
is the problem, and pave the way for privatization. Take the Transportation
Security Administration for example. TSA has actually done its job. No terrorist
attacks have succeeded on U.S. airplanes since it was established. But by
systematically underfunding it , Congress has made the lines painfully long,
so people hate it. Take the Post Office. Here Congress manufactured a crisis
to force service cuts, making the public believe the institution is incompetent.
But the so-called "problem" is
due almost entirely to a requirement, imposed by Congress, forcing the Postal
Service to prepay retiree's health care to an absurd level, far beyond what
a similar private sector business would have to do. A similar dynamic now threatens
Social Security. Thirty-five years have passed since Reagan first mocked the
potential for competent and effective government. Years of unrelenting attack
have sunk in. Many Americans now distrust government leaders and think it's
pointless to demand or expect wisdom and statesmanship. Today's American voters
(and their British counterparts), well-schooled in skepticism, disdain and dismiss
leaders of all parties and they are ready to burn things down out of sheer frustration.
The moment of blowback has arrived.
PK has nearly lost all of his ability to see things objectively. Ambition got him, I suppose,
or maybe he has always longed to be popular. He was probably teased and ridiculed too much in
his youth. He is something of a whinny sniveler after-all.
Then too, I doubt if PK has ever used a public restroom in the Southwest, or taken his kids
to a public park in one of the thousands of small towns where non-English speaking throngs take
over all of the facilities and parking.Or had his children bullied at school by a gang of dark-skinned
kids whose parents believe that whites took their land, or abused or enslaved their distant ansestors.
It might be germane here too... to point out that some of this anti-white sentiment gets support
and validation from the very rhetoric that Democrats have made integral to their campaigns.
As for not knowing why crime rates have been falling, the incarceration rates rose in step,
so duh, if you lock up those with propensities for crime, well, how could crime rates not fall?
And while I'm on the subject of crime, the statistical analysis that is commonly used focuses
too much on violent crime and convictions. Thus, crimes of a less serious nature, that being the
type of crimes committed by poor folks, is routinely ignored. Then too, those who are here illegally
are often transient and using assumed names, and so they are, presumably, more difficult to catch.
So, statistics are all too often not as telling as claimed.
And, though I'm not a Trump supporter, I fully understand his appeal. As would PK if he were
more travelled and in touch with those who have seen their schools, parks, towns, and everything
else turn tawdry and dysfunctional. But of course the nation that most of us live in is much different
than the one that PK knows.
> And, though I'm not a Trump supporter, I fully understand his appeal
I wonder why everybody is thinking about this problem only in terms of identity politics.
This is a wrong, self-defeating framework to approach the problem. which is pushed by neoliberal
MSM and which we should resist in this forum as this translates the problems that the nation faces
into term of pure war-style propaganda ("us vs. them" mentality). To which many posters here already
succumbed
IMHO the November elections will be more of the referendum on neoliberal globalization (with
two key issues on the ballot -- jobs and immigration) than anything else.
If so, then the key question is whether the anger of population at neoliberal elite that stole
their jobs and well-being reached the boiling point or not. The level of this anger might decide
the result of elections, not all those petty slurs that neoliberal MSM so diligently use as a
smoke screen.
All those valiant efforts in outsourcing and replacing permanent jobs with temporary to increase
profit margin at the end have the propensity to produce some externalities. And not only in the
form "over 50 and unemployed" but also by a much more dangerous "globalization of indifference"
to human beings in general.
JK Galbraith once gave the following definition of neoliberal economics: "trickle down economics
is the idea that if you feed the horse enough oats eventually some will pass through to the road
for the sparrows." This is what neoliberalism is about. Lower 80% even in so-called rich countries
are forced to live in "fear and desperation", forced to work "with precious little dignity".
Human beings are now considered consumer goods in "job market" to be used and then discarded.
As a consequence, a lot of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: "without work, without
possibilities, without any means of escape" (pope Francis).
And that inevitably produces a reaction. Which in extreme forms we saw during French and Bolsheviks
revolutions. And in less extremist forms (not involving lampposts as the placeholders for the
"Masters of the Universe" (aka financial oligarchy) and the most obnoxious part of the "creative
class" aka intelligentsia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligentsia
) in Brexit vote.
Hillary and Trump are just symbols here. The issue matters, not personalities.
...Neoliberalism is not a post-war version of capitalism. It's a post-war version of fascism.
Notable quotes:
"... drove CEO pay in large corporations up from 29 times that of the average worker in 1978 to 352 times as great in 2007. ..."
"... The unwillingness of our intellectual class generally, and academic economists in particular, to even describe, let alone confront, the totalitarian trajectory of public policy will be one of the most notable aspects historians describe when talking about our era. ..."
"... the most (in)famous members of the intellectual class – and that particularly includes academic economists – are really nothing more than employees of the creditor class paid to administer intellectual anesthetic to debt peasants who still have enough time to ask what's going wrong while they try to hold the Wolves of Wall Street at bay. ..."
"... The Neoliberal project has sought quite successfully to delegitimize republican federalist state power and legitimize corporate and wealth power in its place. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is not a post-war version of capitalism. It's a post-war version of fascism. ..."
"... What has been delegitimized are other groups or ideas to which state power has been subordinated in other times. ..."
"... This describes contemporary political economy in that the state's economic role tends to be largely confined to protection of private property and enforcement of contracts. Find a single bit of financial chicanery that isn't wrapped up in a shit contract or geared to protect the deeper pocketed side of a dispute, and I'll find a million that are. Hello protection of private property and enforcement of contracts. Enter Neoliberal State. ..."
"... Like the series chronicling the "Journey into a Libertarian Future," ..."
The most talked about economic development in the neoliberal era is rapidly rising inequality.
While Thomas Piketty's now-famous book, Capital in the 21st Century, documented the relentless rise
of the income share of the top 1%, he did not provide a convincing explanation of that development.
The neoliberal form of capitalism supplies a clear explanation. As neoliberal restructuring undermined
labor's bargaining power, the real wage stagnated while profits rose rapidly. Figure 1 shows the
big gap after 1979 between the growth rate of profit and of wages and salaries (which include managerial
salaries). That gap jumped sharply upward after 2000. Another feature of neoliberal capitalism, the
development of a market in corporate CEOs, drove CEO pay in large corporations up from 29 times
that of the average worker in 1978 to 352 times as great in 2007.
My new book The Rise and Fall of Neoliberal Capitalism explains in detail how the institutions
of neoliberal capitalism account for two other important economic developments since 1980. One was
the transformation of the financial sector from a stodgy provider of traditional loans to businesses
and households and the sale of conventional insurance into speculatively oriented companies that
developed a series of highly risky so-called "financial innovations" such as sub-prime mortgage backed
securities and credit default swaps. The most important cause of this change in the financial sector
was its deregulation, a key part of neoliberal restructuring, starting with the first bank deregulation
acts of 1980 and 1982 and culminating in the last such act in 2000. A contributing factor was the
intensifying competition of neoliberal capitalism, which drove financial institutions to more aggressively
seek the maximum possible profit, which for financial institutions always involves moving into speculative
and risky activities.
Second, a series of large asset bubbles emerged, one in each decade. The 1980s saw a bubble in
Southwestern commercial real estate, whose collapse sank a large part of the savings and loan industry.
In the second half of the 1990s a giant stock market bubble arose. And in the 2000s a still larger
bubble engulfed US real estate. The preceding period of regulated capitalism had no large asset bubbles.
The rapidly rising flow of income into corporate profit and rich households exceeded the available
productive investment opportunities, and some of that flow found its way into investment in assets,
tending to start the asset price rising. The eagerness of the deregulated financial institutions
to lend for speculative purposes enables incipient asset bubbles to grow larger and larger.
Neoliberalism and the Crisis of 2008
The three developments noted above – growing inequality, a speculative financial sector, and a
series of large asset bubbles – account for the long, if not very vigorous, economic expansions in
the US economy during 1982-90, 1991-2000, and 2001-07. The rising profits spurred economic expansion
while the risk-seeking financial institutions found ways to lend money to hard-pressed families whose
wages were stagnating or falling. The resulting debt-fueled consumer spending made long expansions
possible despite declining wages and slow growth of government spending. The big asset bubbles provided
the collateral enabling families to borrow to pay their bills.
However, this process brought trends that were unsustainable in the long-run. The debt of households
doubled relative to household income from 1980 to 2007. Financial institutions, finding limitless
profit opportunities in the wild financial markets of the period, borrowed heavily to pursue those
opportunities. As a result, financial sector debt increased from 21% of GDP in 1980 to 117% of GDP
in 2007. At the same time, financial institutions' holdings of the new high-risk securities grew
rapidly. In addition, excess productive capacity in the industrial sector gradually crept upward
over the period from 1979 to 2007, as consumer demand increasingly lagged behind the full-capacity
output level. All of these trends are documented in The Rise and Fall of Neoliberal Capitalism.
The above trends were sustainable only as long as a big asset bubble continued to inflate. However,
every asset bubble eventually must burst. When the biggest one – the real estate bubble – started
to deflate in 2007, the crash followed. As households lost the ability to borrow against their no
longer inflating home values, consumer spending dropped at the beginning 2008, driving the economy
into recession. Falling consumer demand meant more excess productive capacity, leading business to
reduce its investment in plant and equipment. The deflating housing bubble also worsened investor
expectations, further depressing investment. Finally, in the fall of 2008 the plummeting market value
of the new financial securities, which had been dependent on real estate prices, suddenly drove the
highly leveraged major commercial banks and investment banks into insolvency, bringing a financial
meltdown.
Thus, the big financial and broader economic crisis that began in 2008 can be explained based
on the way neoliberal capitalism has worked. The very same mechanisms produced by neoliberal capitalism
that brought 25 years of long expansions were bound to eventually give rise to a big bang crisis.
Triple Crisis welcomes your comments. Please share your thoughts below.
David Kotz is a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and the
author of The Rise and Fall of Neoliberal Capitalism (Harvard University Press, 2015). This is the
first installment of a two-part series based on his book.
I highly recommend Kotz' "Russia's Path from Gorbachev to Putin." He shows how the collapse
of the Soviet economy resulted from the failure by Soviet elites to mobilize its considerable
industrial strengths within a "developmental state" model and instead to engage in looting, primarily
natural resource-based. (Yes, the familiar short-term vs. long-term mindsets.) Contrary to MSM
spew, the Soviet economy was still growing, albeit slowly, up to the point when central planning
institutions were dissolved in the late 80s. A political agenda geared to a "Never Again" destruction
of central planning capacities, a too rapid opening up of the Soviet economy to competition with
Western multinationals and simple venality has set up an lop-sided natural resource dependent
economy. His analysis is based on a collection of interviews with elite figures.
By what criteria does this describe our contemporary system of political economy? Neoliberalism
is the antithesis of capitalism. It does not believe in markets and rule of law and a limited
role for bureaucracy. It believes in limited markets and a predominant role for the bureaucracy
and a two-tiered justice system. I challenge the author to name an area of the American economy
where non-market institutions play a limited role.
The unwillingness of our intellectual class generally, and academic economists in particular,
to even describe, let alone confront, the totalitarian trajectory of public policy will be one
of the most notable aspects historians describe when talking about our era.
The "market" certainly no longer refers to competition as a dynamic in the production and distribution
goods and services. Instead, it means something more along the lines of international financial
monopolies protected by collusion between corporate captured local states, (including saturation
of executive, legislative, judicial, penal and enforcement branches of government), educational
institutions and media. I wonder if "trade deals" doesn't better describe the phenomenon that
has replaced "markets."
The unwillingness of our intellectual class generally, and academic economists in particular,
to even describe, let alone confront, the totalitarian trajectory of public policy will be
one of the most notable aspects historians describe when talking about our era.
Take a look at Michael Hudson's new book, "Killing the Host". This "unwillingness" becomes
understandable once you realize the most (in)famous members of the intellectual class – and
that particularly includes academic economists – are really nothing more than employees of the
creditor class paid to administer intellectual anesthetic to debt peasants who still have enough
time to ask what's going wrong while they try to hold the Wolves of Wall Street at bay.
The behavior of the intellectual class down through the ages is what – with notable exceptions
like Hudson, Veblen or Marx – gives intellectuals a bad reputation among the laboring cattle.
Their message is always the same – "Whatever is is right."
It's the difference between "we should use markets to efficiently allocate resources" and "Capitalists
should rule".
A nation's political system can be described by what types of power it legitimizes and delegitimizes,
and whose power it protects. No matter what we tell ourselves about our supposed political system
("constitutional federalism", "republican democracy") and economic system (Free Market Capitalism),
you can tell what we really have by looking at whose power the state protects. The Neoliberal
project has sought quite successfully to delegitimize republican federalist state power and legitimize
corporate and wealth power in its place.
If we really were in a capitalist system, the state would still actively intervene to make
sure that markets actually allocate resources efficiently. That is to say, the state would break
up monopolies and discourage rent extraction. If we really were in a representative democracy,
our elected officials' actions would hew more closely to the priorities that polls show the voters
to have.
delegitimize republican federalist state power and legitimize corporate and wealth power
in its place
I could see you going in a number of different directions, so I'm not sure whether I agree
or disagree.
From what I see, neoliberals love state power. They almost can't help themselves from
using government to interfere with citizens' lives. It is not a competition of wealth over the
state. It is a merger of state bureaucracy and private bureaucracy, a public-private partnership.
Neoliberalism is not a post-war version of capitalism. It's a post-war version of fascism.
Neoliberalism is not a post-war version of capitalism. It's a post-war version of fascism.
I think you really hit the nail on the head here. It's an important understanding to come to
before one can understand how the violence and criminality of it all play a part rather than are
some aberration.
Neoliberals do love state power, and have subordinated it to their purposes. What has been
delegitimized are other groups or ideas to which state power has been subordinated in other times.
Power does not reside in the hands of the people (thru the theoretical ability to drive out politicians
who fail to adequately safeguard our welfare). Regulatory agencies have power, but not to benefit
the interests of the people over the interests of the corporations they are supposed to regulate.
The state does not act to ensure the efficient allocation of resources, but it does act to protect
the interests of the Boardroom Class. It no longer acts to preserve checks and balances. Much
of this came through promoting the notion that the government is an illegitimate market actor
which is to blame for distorting markets (and that not distorting markets is more important than
mere values, ideals, or institutions).
The general term for the type of totalitarianism you are describing is fascism.
Until that last sentence, which does not follow from the rest. In what area of the economy
have neoliberals pushed to render government an illegitimate market actor?
It may be a leap for me to say the inroads neoliberals have made in securing state power is
built upon the premise (or propaganda) that the government is an illegitimate market actor. But
I feel the propaganda has been there for all to see for some time.
Since I was in college in the 80s, I've been bombarded with messages that when the government
seeks to help its citizens, it leads to worse results, because it distorts markets. (e.g. Reagan:
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm
here to help. "). The welfare state? Regulation? Environmental protection? Affirmative action?
I've heard or read every one of these blamed for causing or making worse the problems they are
intended to ameliorate; all because they interfere with the supposed effectiveness of untrammeled
free markets.
The net effect of all the changes to our nation while this rhetoric has been ascendant has
not been increased market efficiency, nor has it been smaller government. Instead, we have moved
to a system where protecting and promoting the interests of the Boardroom Class are the paramount
objectives of the state.
"Free markets" turns out to mean letting rich people do what they want, not promoting efficient
allocation of resources through competition and the price mechanism.
"Small government" turns out to means not allowing the government to help anyone the Boardroom
Class doesn't want helped.
"Free trade" turns out to mean subordinating government power to corporate power.
"Lower taxes" turns out to mean shifting the tax burden from corporations and the Boardroom
Class to the people the government is no longer allowed to help.
"Deregulation" means externalities are the law of the land, rather than a defect of capitalism
that could be ameliorated.
I don't disagree with the 'fascism' label. I just wanted to read out some of the ingredients.
"If we really were in a capitalist system, the state would still actively intervene " to deter
and punish financial fraud, not aid and abet it in the way that the legal and regulatory systems
do now. Campaign contributions from the biggest fraudsters, and cost-of-business fines and settlements,
have made the regulatory state the bought-off accessory after the fact and unindicted coconspirator
enabler of fraudulent financial schemes.
This describes contemporary political economy in that the state's economic role tends to
be largely confined to protection of private property and enforcement of contracts. Find a single
bit of financial chicanery that isn't wrapped up in a shit contract or geared to protect the deeper
pocketed side of a dispute, and I'll find a million that are. Hello protection of private property
and enforcement of contracts. Enter Neoliberal State.
It's all well and good to call bullshit on the bail-outs, robo-signings, illegitimate foreclosures,
HAMP runway foam, revolving doors and so on, but it's naive to suggest these practices are somehow
not really capitalist - that true Capitalism somehow doesn't do bureaucracy and that markets will
work fine if we can get the government off honest folks backs and on to policing fraud.
Today's markets aren't limited by the state so much as they are limited by monopoly power.
The state has recused itself from most everything outside of protecting those monopolies, which
makes it easy to see state intervention as bad in itself. So lift that protection - let the banks
fail; stop floating douche-bags like Elon Musk; stop foreclosures that lack a paper trail. Somehow
have a state that mostly just protects property and enforces contracts without corruption. Then
watch the rich get rich, the poor get poor, and the middle class disappear.
It takes money to make money. You can make money in a downturn. Buy low, sell high. Cash is
King. Free markets create, sustain, and grow inequality. Theory predicts it, and practice bears
it out.
it's naive to suggest these practices are somehow not really capitalist
What you're describing isn't what people who support market-based economics advocate. If we're
going to redefine capitalism so extremely, that's a perfectly fine semantics debate to have, but
then what's the point of talking about capitalism?
the state's economic role tends to be largely confined to protection of private property
and enforcement of contracts
But that's not at all descriptive of the state's role. First, the state does not protect private
property and enforcement of contracts. Rule of law has been almost completely replaced by rulers
of law. Some are more equal than others. We've been talking about a two-tiered justice system
for so long it is almost cliched at this point. Second, the state claims enormous powers beyond
the legal system. The role of government is so enormous that I am not sure you are thinking this
through. We have the largest prison system on the planet. We have the most aggressive national
security state on the planet. We have the most expensive healthcare system on the planet. We require
documents to go to work or cross the Canadian border or buy medicine. There are banking supports
and agribusiness and intellectual property and carried interest tax breaks and home mortgage interest
tax breaks and charitable contribution tax breaks and real estate development tax breaks and on
and on and on
Neoliberalism is not the antithesis of capitalism. It is yet another institutional setup that
has developed because relatively competitive capitalism is unworkable when it comes to large scale
industry. You're holding out for a form of market-based capitalism that has been completely superseded,
and not just by state-based mechanisms. There's a substantial literature – including work by Nomi
Prins, who's got a post here today, and Michael Perelman, also occasionally appearing here – on
how competition in late 19th century capitalism was regarded as too destructive by capitalists
themselves, leading to industry consolidations that were eventually bank-driven. Massive investment
commitments will not be undertaken if there's a chance they'll fail, and the logic of oligopoly
is not only straightforward but rational to some degree.
And, while we're at it, why not at least briefly consider the fate of communities of workers
who are supposed to cheerily migrate thither and yon to satisfy market-based criteria of efficiency
that equally cheerily ignore their externalized misery? Enter Polanyi and Marx.
I should add that Kotz also talks about the supersession of competitive capitalism in chapter
6 of the book Dayen extracted. Also recommended, a very succinct, useful history.
Did we read the same post? The author is talking about post-war developments, especially the
Reagan-Obama era. Government has become much more pervasive in all aspects of the economy, not
much less.
Today is 9/11. Are you aware that to this day we are still in a declared, official state of
emergency?
"the state's economic role tends to be largely confined to protection of private property and
enforcement of contracts"
if you interpret this broadly enough I suppose anything qualifies. But what we actually have
going on is not just something quaint like the "protection of private property", but of course
the massive expansion of private property (maybe it was ever thus, cue enclosure discussion).
But when they are attempting to patent things that have never been patented like medical procedures
as in the TPP, why use such unobjectionable (except to a serious socialist and even they don't
have much problem with personal property) terminology like "protection of private property" to
describe what is happening? I mean I could see people who support such things using such language
but that is all.
Ok only the essay wasn't about what is and is not "true capitalism" (which I'm not sure is
a productive line of thought, but who knows). The essay was making statements that it is very
hard to say are true in any sense like:
"Under neoliberalism, non-market institutions – such as the state, trade unions, and corporate
bureaucracies – play a limited role."
Would Katz support a radical decentralization and democratization of the modern state as well
a massive redistribution of property to private citizens giving everyone a chance to own the means
of production?
Or is he going to continue with the traditional lament of bankrupt socialist thinking that
since we are apparently unable politically to socialize the means of production we will continue
to wax nostalgic about the New Deal and be content with our serfdom–with Big Capital and Big State
running the show?
Do you think we will have massive redistribution of property short of revolution? Do you think
we need one? Sometimes a BIG does get it's foot in the door which would somewhat redistribute
money and power.
DOn't have time now, but the author mis-defines "neo-liberalism", making it out to be classical
liberalism, from which it is actually a stark depaarture. Neo-liberalism isn't about the state
withdrawing from market regulation and leaving it up to "market forces", but rather about using
the state to enforce and expand the dictates of Mr. Market, to the exclusion of any other function.
This can be seen in neo-liberalism's ignoring issues of monopoly and anti-trust, in contrast to
classical liberalism's concern with maintaining competition and suspicion of concentrated economic
power..
Things are not this complicated For example, the 2008 crisis did not happen in India because
the bank head (Rajan?) enforced a mandatory 20% cash down payment (among other things). No real
estate bubble in India.
Second, all of this starts with the ability of the banks and the state to create endless money,
so companies can make crazy investments. Solution is easy, make it expensive to make new money.
People should have a stake in the game involving real money when buying property (20% down).
The problem is wages may have stagnated so much compared to costs that it's hardly even possible
on the wages the vast majority are earning.
"Buying property" = Suburbia, "gentrification," "development?" These are all behaviors to be
credited and encouraged by "policy?" All involving assumption of large debt over long years, and
all kinds of externalities and consumptions? And "we" are to protect and foster such behaviors
as parts of the Rights of Man?
Always seemed strange to me that "growth in housing starts" is so happily cheered as a sign
of a Healthy Economy
"The most important cause of this change in the financial sector was its deregulation, a
key part of neoliberal restructuring, . A contributing factor was the intensifying competition
of neoliberal capitalism ."
Deregulation in a competitive endeavor. Yes. No one thinks taking the referees and umpires
off the playing field will result in teams self-regulating during play. Why do so many people
buy the nonsense that deregulating the financial competition field will be any different?
I think that if we consider the actual nature of capital, versus our perception of it and how
this relationship necessarily evolved over time, it would go a long way toward explaining the
economic dynamic of the last half century.
The reality is that capital functions as a glorified voucher system and as such, is a social
contract, but we think of and treat it as a commodity.
The divergence is that nothing is more detrimental to a voucher system than large numbers of
excess vouchers, but because we individually experience it as store of value, we think of it as
a form of commodity to be collected and saved.
Now there were sufficient means to maintain a fairly healthy circulation of capital, from savings
to productive investment, up to the 70's, but then this dynamic started to loosen and the excess
capital started seeping into the general economy and it caused inflation.
Presumably Volcker cured this by raising interest rates and thus reducing the flow of extra
capital into the economy, but that also further slowed the natural growth and so there was still
excess.
It wasn't until '82 that this process seemed to start working, but by that time Reaganomics
had ballooned the deficit to 200 billion and that was real money in those days. The concern voiced
publicly by economists at the time was this would crowd out private sector borrowing and further
slow the economy. Yet the reality was only Fed determined interest rates set the availability
of capital and the government was borrowing at high rates. So this served various purposes; For
one thing, it served to soak up excess capital. It created significant returns for investors and
the money was then spent on "Keynsian pump priming," which helped to get the economy going again.
The lesson apparently learned from this was not to let excess capital back into the larger
economy. For one, this required breaking up the labor movement and finding ways to store the surplus
within the investment community. Thus the explosion of the power and influence of the financial
community, as they were tasked with holding onto an ever growing percentage of the notational
wealth of the economy. Along with driving up asset prices and therefore the power of those holding
them. The momentum of this naturally knew no bounds and consequently the powers that be have run
amuck.
The lesson to learn from this is that wealth has to be stored in something other than notational
instruments and excess capital should be taxed back out of the economy, not borrowed back out.
This would definitely encourage people to develop all number of mediums of exchange and not rely
on banks to store their wealth.
For most people money is saved for very predictable reasons. Raising children, healthcare,
housing, retirement, vacations, entertainment, would be some of the most prominent reasons. So
rather than storing money in the banking system, communities could build up the infrastructure
to support these needs and consequently redevelop a public space. Which would amount to storing
wealth in a stronger community and a healthier environment.
So when this bubble does pop, it might prove to have set the stage for an advance in human
culture anyway.
"... The ideology, the fantasy of the market has penetrated so deeply into the culture that most people can imagine nothing else. ..."
"... The best insight of the change that started in 1980 that I've found is Emmanuel Todd's. "The United States itself, which was once a protector and is now a predator." Neo-liberalism is confusing. Predatory Capitalism is reality. ..."
By David Kotz, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and
the author of The Rise and Fall of Neoliberal Capitalism (Harvard University Press, 2015). This is
the second installment of a two-part series based on his book; see the first post
here. Originally published at
Triple
Crisis.
While it is widely agreed that capitalist economies underwent significant change after around
1980, there are different interpretations of the new form of capitalism that emerged. There is no
agreement about the best organizing concept for post-1980 capitalism. Some view it as financialized
capitalism, some as globalized capitalism, and some as neoliberal capitalism. These different conceptions
of contemporary capitalism have implications for our understanding of the problems it has produced,
including the financial and economic crisis that emerged from it in 2008. Focusing on the U.S. economy,
I presented a case in
part
1 that "neoliberal capitalism" is the best overall concept for understanding the form of capitalism
that arose around 1980. Here, I deal more specifically with the shortcomings of alternative interpretations
– focused on the concepts of "financialization" and "globalization," respectively.
Why Not "Financialization"?
Some economists view "financialization" as the best overall concept for understanding contemporary
capitalism. Financialization can best be understood, however, as an outgrowth of neoliberal capitalism.
The rise in financial profit, which gave the financial sector a place of growing importance in the
economy, came quite late in the neoliberal era. As figure 2 shows, only after 1989 did financial
profit begin a long and steep climb, interrupted by a fall in the mid 1990s, and then a sharp rise
to a remarkable 40% of total profit in the early 2000s. It was only in the 2000s that financialization
fully blossomed. At that time, commentators noted, Wall Street was beginning to draw a large percentage
of elite college graduates.
The "financialization" of the U.S. economy in recent decades, important though it is, was itself
driven by neoliberal restructuring. The neoliberal institutional structure, including financial deregulation,
enabled financial institutions to appropriate a growing share of profits. Furthermore, financialization
cannot account for many of the most important economic developments in contemporary capitalism. It
cannot explain the dramatic shift in capital-labor relations from acceptance of compromise by the
capitalists to a striving by capitalists to fully dominate labor.. It cannot explain the sharp rise
in inequality. And it cannot explain the deepening globalization of capitalism.
Why Not "Globalization"?
Like financialization, "globalization" has been presented by some analysts as the best framework
for understanding the contemporary form of capitalism. Capitalism has, indeed, become significantly
more integrated on a world scale in recent decades, including the emergence of global value chains
and a truly global production process in some sectors.
The degree of globalization of capitalism has gone through ups and downs in history. Capitalism
became increasingly globalized in the decades prior to World War I. Then the cataclysm of two world
wars and the Great Depression reversed the trend, and capitalism became less globally integrated
over that period. After World War II, the process of globalization resumed, gradually at first. Around
the late 1960s, globalization accelerated somewhat measured by world exports relative to world GDP,
as figure 3 shows. After 1986 the trend became more sharply upward. Thus, in contrast to financialization,
which emerged later than neoliberalism, the globalization process in this era began before neoliberalism
emerged, although globalization accelerated in the neoliberal era, particularly after 1990.
However, many of the most important features of capitalism since 1980 cannot be understood or
explained based on globalization any more than they can be on the basis of financialization. Globalization
cannot fully explain the rapidly rising inequality in the contemporary era, which has been quite
extreme in the United States yet milder even in some other countries, such as Germany, that are more
integrated into the global economy. Globalization cannot explain the financialization process and
the rise of a speculatively-oriented financial sector, nor can it explain the series of large asset
bubbles. Like financialization, globalization has been an important feature of neoliberal capitalism,
but it is not its defining feature.
Neoliberalism as the Key Concept
Both financialization and globalization are fundamental tendencies in capitalism. Financial institutions
have an ever-present tendency to move into speculative and risky activities to gain the high profits
of such pursuits. Even more so, globalization is a tendency present from the rise of capitalism,
since the capital accumulation drive always spurs expansion across national boundaries. Then why
do these phenomena characterize one era of capitalism more than another?
Both of these tendencies can be obstructed for long periods of time, or released, depending on
the prevailing institutional form of capitalism. Financialization was held in check from the mid
1930s to 1980 by financial regulation, and globalization was hindered from World War I until the
1960s by the world wars, the Great Depression, and then the state regulation of trade and international
investment allowed under the post-World War II Bretton Woods monetary system. The neoliberal restructuring
starting in the late 1970s can explain all of the key economic developments in contemporary capitalism,
with the processes of financialization and globalization-released by neoliberal capitalism-forming
a part of the account.
These differences in analysis are important, since they represent different views of the basic
characteristics of the current era of capitalism and different diagnoses of the origins of the current
crisis. Proposals to overcome the current crisis that focus only on reigning in financialization
or reconfiguring globalization would be insufficient unless part of a restructuring that replaces
neoliberalism with something new. craazyboy
September 17, 2015 at 10:28 am
I guess for people that don't have a concise idea of what "neoliberalism" is yet, I'll offer
the following formula:
Neoliberalism = Financialization + Globalization
Additionally, Neoliberals need Neocons to keep them safe in foreign lands.
must be why neoliberals focus on trade balances: capitalism = competition = consolidation =
monopoly = trade advantages = inequality or stg like that and financialism is just hastily put
together to grease the skids
I think that even more fundamental is "marketization" as discussed by Polyani. The idea that
all of human activity (and indeed nature) can be captured and cast in some sort of market paradigm.
Underlying all these discussions is the assumption that our current market system is ok. I
don't think it is, since markets are driving society not the other way around.
We even see the curious inversion of trying to apply something called competitive free markets
(whatever that may be) to nature and evolution. Then in a fabulous logical salto mortale, in a
circular argument based on our own projections we impute that since nature runs like a market
so does society,
The analysis needs to be much deeper, at least at the level of primary social organization,
its purpose and historical social anthropology. Elinor Ostrom and her analysis of organizations
and the commons is a good start.
I appreciate this post, Yves. To name something is to control it, to own it in some sense,
it is the Rumplestiltskin, If we don't have appropriate names, then we can't think of things as
they are.
Thure, I agree with you. The ideology, the fantasy of the market has penetrated so deeply
into the culture that most people can imagine nothing else.
I'm not sure how to phrase this elegantly, it's only when we can see clearly the ideology we're
embedded in that we'll be able to see how artificial it all is, and how easily we could end it
and build something better. We have to avoid the sort of false change with radical features of
contemporary Burschenschaften types.
I think of it as death cult capitalism. For it's dependence on war making, it's consumer insatiability
in a finite world, and its cannibalization of Institutions, public and private.
Very well put! The peace and prosperity model– that many of us grew up believing that some
capitalists actually believed in– has been entirely supplanted by disaster capitalism and the
shock doctrine. :(
re "death cult capitalism," the observation attributed to Fredric Jameson that it has become
easier to imagine an apocalypse than to imagine an end to capitalism seems very true. It becomes
even more sadly ironic, or maybe just terribly sad, if you consider the likelihood that for a
significant proportion of the population the fascination with end times in a distorted way represents
their hostility to this social order. Consider how willing Hollywood is to serve up techno-buffed
apocalypse instead of films depicting anything other than blatantly criminal antagonism to society.
But then you've got the Superheroes, acting on our behalf and making us feel all the more enfeebled
in the process.
More evidence that even many simpatico economists don't understand the construction and use
of ideal types. Also, he is scrambling his US and global perspectives. And reification of markets,
which are specific human-made institutions that don't all act the same.
There is a much more straightforward institutional analysis of US and global economic changes
over the last 40 years that doesn't require such squishy "global" concepts: Fear of a loss of
competitiveness among US business (which through the 1970s was not all that global) leaders and
politicians, and a desire to crush US labor (which despite all the post-WW2 "social contract"
mumbo-jumbo has never been far below the surface) drove a restructuring of the US economy beginning
in the mid-1970s in the interests and direction of the relative (to their competitors) strengths
of US firms – financial engineering, ease of corporate restructuring, etc. The same was true in
the UK, where the real economy was even more unbalanced than in the US.
It's OK to call this neoliberalism I guess, but the notion that neoliberalism is some kind
of unshackling of "the market" is dubious. Certain markets were unshackled, others weren't, and
some (drugs, patents, copyrights, etc.) become much more "shackled," all spelled out in various
laws and regulations blessed by the US (and UK) corporate and political class (and their economist
agents). During the 1970s-1990s at least, business leaders and politicians in other countries
(Germany, Japan, Korea, China to name the most obvious) pursued other strategies that differed
substantially from what American and British elites were up to. But it turned out that there was
a lot of easy money to be made through financial engineering (compared to the harder task of delivering
useful products and services at good value), and so elites all over the globe were drawn toward
what originally was a parochial American and British strategy. Also, having a large "advanced"
countries like the US and UK pursuing "labor immiseration" made it both easier and more necessary
for other "advanced" countries to reign in labor as well.
Patents and copyrights are state granted monopoly privileges absent the usual ( think Com Ed's
need to seek approval for rate hikes ) monopoly regulation.
The ( justly ) notorious Congressionally bestowed prohibition against Medicare's ability to bargain
for decreased drug costs is a perfect example of "reverse regulation".
What about just plain old capitalism? Capitalism seeks to accumulate profit, period. If it
can do this through accumulating financial income, by expanding globally, or crushing labor it
will do it. This is what I found refreshing about Piketty's book (and Arrighi's The Long Twentieth
Century too): he demonstrated that the 1930s-early 1970s was a historical anomaly.
These discussions can be useful, but only to a point. From someone working in academia, I see
word choices like these conforming not so much to what is the best overall term, but from what
you're focusing on. Some of us focus more on processes that are closer to "financialization,"
"globalization" etc. As someone else has said above, these are just good ideal types.
Hans and Franz wan to Pump You Up! so you're not a Girly Man economy. To get pumped up you
have to lose weight and sweat.
Neoperspiratory Capitalism for all you academics. You probably wouldn't want to get near sweat
if you can help it. hahahahahah. Layin around all day doing nothing. LOL
Possibly helpful here might be the late ecologist Garrett Hardin's concept of the Problem Of
The Commons- i.e. the degrading of a common resource by unregulated extractors. While it is in
the interest of the individual extractor that the common resource not be depleted, it is very
much in his interest to maximize his individual extraction. The collapse of ocean food fish populations
provide a good example.
Think of the U.S. economy as being like the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, rich source of fish (
profits to be made selling to an affluent consumer population ) , U.S. firms as being individually
owned fishing craft, and Globalization ( producing in very low wage, low safety, low environmental
protection areas while selling in the affluent USA ) and Financialization as rendering the "fishing
craft" much more efficient.
While the the individual fishing boat captains do not intend the destruction of the common resource,
they dare not slacken their extractive efforts. Depletion ( Deindustrialization, the collapse
of the Middle Class ) inevitably ensue.
Pace Adam Smith no Invisible Hand will save the Commons.
It is Deregulation, a key element of Neolibralism that is ultimately lethal- the Commons must
become everybody's property rather than no one's.
The Commons is an aspect that is being steadily wiped out by "enclosure" (restricting access
to what used to be shared resources).
David E. Martin has an interesting take on this as it relates to human creativity–something
that conventional capitalism encourages us to "enclose" for profit, with little understanding
of how this undervalues human creativity. There's a very good recent paper that mentions this
on the M-CAM website, called "Putting
It All Together".
Globalization is just the euphemism for Colonialism.
Low rate pseudo inflation regulation of Central Banks destroys interest rate relation to risk
so no lending that is meaningful in regime since Reagan.
Monopolies rule so no competition.
First World uses other world's slave labor and countries to avoid home base environmental regulations.
So what are you talking about calling any of this capitalism. Ridiculous and ignorant. A tool
of this evil
trade.
Great post. I have been baffled by the use of the term "neoliberalization."
What about the "neocon"? Is the neocon the neoliberal who takes advantage of the negative externalities
of perpetual war? (Are there Venn diagrams that can explain these neoeconomic terms?) Indeed,
how much of our economy is driven by negative externalities? Crises begets predatory behavior,
clothed by doublespeak like "opportunity" or "creative destruction."
Yet there's nothing stopping negative externalities because they are included in GDP metrics–the
measure of economic "wellness." After 9/11, Bush reminded that we must shop. Americans are valued
as consumers.
I hate how a patient has become a "consumer" of health care. In health care, "wellness" is
just another product to consume. With neoliberalism at the heart of American economics, I can't
imagine there will ever be any real attempt rein in health care costs. We depend on sickness (real
and imagined) to keep our economy humming. "Prevention" is the tail that wags the dog as doctors
chase more and more false positives and respond to lower thresholds for "abnormalities".
The globalization piece is the narrative of "free" trade. Import cheap goods that outsource
more jobs and keep prices down to artificially lower the cost of living. The plutocrats' narrative
is that when corporations move into poor countries with jobs this levels the playing field globally.
(Never mind their tendency to uproot when those pesky citizens demand better pay and work conditions!)
This, of course, takes a huge toll on the environment when we ship goods that could easily be
manufactured here.
It means we extract more resources to create more landfills. And "waterfills" and "airfills".
We use technology to engineer our way out of our big messes. More chemicals are dumped into our
land, water and air–with trade secrets obfuscating what these chemicals are and whether they are
harmful. Fracking, glyphosate for GMOs, etc.
Can neoliberalization die of natural causes?
Maybe we can we bring it to Oregon for death with indignity? (No capital punishment in Texas
for neoliberalization pun intended.)
You see, I'm getting really worried that we've passed the tipping point when economics collision
with natural ecosystems is irreversible And that makes this mama bear really mad!
That is the only thing that is going to kill this cancer. Extraction and exploitation, extend
and pretend (ecologically) will continue until it simply cannot. THAT will lead to a massive and
near-sudden collapse of the diseased, shambling zombie that is the modern neoliberal system, and
with it the entire setup that depends on it (and a LOT of humans). No, not enough will be done
to reign in climate change, no, there will be no techno fix (though some will be tried in ultimate
desperation to keep the band playing).
Welcome the coming collapse. The fisheries will return on their own after most humans are gone
and no longer sucking them dry. The forests will return after most humans are gone and no longer
mowing them down. As the late, great George Carlin prophetically and accurately stated, "The earth
isn't going anywhere. We are."
From where I sit, one of the most important developments of the last 35 years has been the
failure to prevent the increasing power of monopolies and cartels. The increasing share of income
taken in profits by said monopolies and cartels has of course strengthened the position of capital
relative to labour.
So my preferred term for current day arrangements is cartel capitalism. If you want to be more
pejorative there is of course crony capitalism and corrupt capitalism.
Glad you highlighted economic concentration. That used to be a deservedly emphasized part of
a critical analysis of capitalism but for some reason - did we just come to accept it? - fell
to second rank or backbench status. Perhaps it got folded into the idea of "multinational corporation,"
but that concept more immediately evokes globalization and the mobility of production rather than
concentration and the power that comes with it.
Monopolies that took decades to split away, over time gradually began to reemerge. I can't
place where I saw this, but there was an article about how "Ma Bell" was split into 10-12 regional
bells. Given enough time, we're somewhat nearly back where that started.
Plus in 1994, I think, the act passed to Congress eliminating / reducing restrictions on bank
consolidation over state lines. Just from my native state, that resulted in WachFirstOvia and
Bank of America. (Granted there have been smaller start up institutions using regional executives
and regional capital).
These posts are an interesting exercise which I find to be almost entirely lacking in critical
content. What difference does it make to quibble over the name of the current disaster (neoliberalism
it is) if no real attempt is made to explain what neoliberalism is and how it came to be? Professor
Kotz's book may be very good in this regard (I haven't yet had a chance to read it), but this
effort from my vantage point does not sufficiently explain neoliberalism to those not already
familiar with it; nor does it offer anything of particular interest to those who are.
The problem of dealing with neoliberalism is, in my opinion, coming to grips with the history
and philosophy behind it - and that is not simply accomplished. Neoliberalism is philosophy based
upon deceit and deliberate obfuscation of its goals and objectives. It is not simply capitalism.
It is an orchestrated effort to control the power and wealth of the world - and it is, by and
large succeeding. Without properly understanding the forces behind and within neoliberalism, I
don't believe that it is possible to formulate any real effort to stem the tide of its successes.
It is ultimately a self-destructive formulation, but the level of that destruction may well be
something none of us wish to experience.
Anyone truly interested in understanding neoliberalism should be reading the works of Philip
Mirowski, The Road From Mont Pelerin and Never Let A Serious Crisis Go To Waste. Professor Kotz's
book may well add to this, but this posting, I am sorry to day, does not. I in no way wish do
denigrate the work of those, including Professor Kotz, at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst
as they are among the best in the nation at standing up to neoliberalism and neoclassical economics.
I just wish this could have been a more useful post.
One of the interesting facets of globalization is its dependence on government subsidies. Some
are structural, such as social programs substituting for living wages, but many are direct transfers
of assets to corporations. Special currency exchange rates, forgivable loans, government gathering
of foreign intellectual property, free land, etc, all save the companies the expected business
expenses. This is on top of import barriers, local preference buying, and other help.
The justification is, of course, greater national economic activity/jobs. Americans call this
'smokestack chasing', but here its heyday's come and gone. Partly because states and cities have
figured out the math doesn't work. The government spends far more money than they could ever hope
for in taxes, even when the whole enterprise doesn't go bust. Today, any subsidy a corporation
wrings out of the locals is usually hedged with conditions that make it at least look like an
even deal. Before, it was a matter of faith.
Without government subsidies, would the foreign trade portion of globalization exist? Foreign
ownership, like any ownership, is protected by government. And that's a choice, too. But would
'cheap labor' or 'lack of environmental laws' really make up the difference? Seems global capitalism
depends on national boundaries.
I read Mirowski's "Never Let A Serious Crisis " two years ago, and as Paul Heideman's positive
review in "www.jacobinmag" concluded, it nonetheless left me wanting for an explanation of just
how a set of ideas enamating originally from the obscure Mont Pelerin Society (however influential)
could gain such worldwide traction, and seeking perhaps a social-anthropological or political
answer to that query. In "The Making of Global Capitalism" Panitch & Gindin point unequivocally
to the "pivitol role" of US state institutions (since WW2) in orchestrating (with other elites)
opportunities and overcoming difficulties in making the world free for – what Michael Hudson would
say – is primarily US "(fiat)-capital" (since the floating exchange rate regime with dollar as
key came into effect in 1971). Given the advantage to the US of the dollar as world reserve currency;
of the role US public & private institutions in maintaining that status and thwarting any challenges;
and the role of the US military in overall guardianship, (and the advantages Panitch & Gindin
point out that these factors have given real US industry in maintaining a lead in the more advanced
technologies & industries, (and how mutually supporting all these forces are of each other)) I
am inclined towards (the intemperate!-) Paul Craig Robert's assertion that NeoLiberalism is essentially
a US imperial project. Like many imperialisms of old, it relies on well rewarded local elites
playing their part in the outposts. But the loss of dollar and/or military hegemony would surely
lead to a significant retrenchment and a major realignment of world trade & development patterns,
not to mention financial flows? Hence the struggles we see today, to retain hegemonic status.
The amazing thing is, as playwright Harold Pinter said, how this "imperialism" is accepted as
representing "freedom", "democracy", "rule of law" – even just the very longterm natural evolution
of barter, in the form of modeern "markets"!
and the real dirty secret is, Americans love every second of it. they are consuming more than
ever.
Capitalism was global from the 19th century until the 1914 when WWI broke out. Before that
time, Europe was the modern America and America was modern BRIC. From a Babylon 5 pov, this was
the beginning of the transfer from the Brits to the US as the dominate global power. The Axis
were the "Shadows" while the Allies were the Vorlons. During this period of 1914-89, capitalism
receded back into nationalism and 'perceived' threats like communism. The first breakdown in this
was the global crisis in the mid-70's when the Soviet Union got hit by a crippling blow. Another
factor was the rising American living standards coupled with mass production still mostly inhabiting
the homeland. Capitalism does not do well with rising living standards. It can't make profit amid
dwindling supplies and high living standards. In Hitlerian talk, it needs breathing room. The
late 60's the results were coming in, inflation began to accelerate in the US, driving inflation
globally. The end result was the new global period and cheap sources of production to drive consumption
in the US via debt.
The best insight of the change that started in 1980 that I've found is Emmanuel Todd's.
"The United States itself, which was once a protector and is now a predator." Neo-liberalism is
confusing. Predatory Capitalism is reality.
"... The film compares the rise of the neoconservative movement in the United States and the radical Islamist movement, drawing comparisons between their origins, and remarking on similarities between the two groups. More controversially, it argues that radical Islamism as a massive, sinister organisation, specifically in the form of al-Qaeda, is a myth, or noble lie, perpetuated by leaders of many countries-and particularly neoconservatives in the U.S.-in a renewed attempt to unite and inspire their people after the ultimate failure of more utopian ideas. ..."
Here's a little something to rouse you from your post-Thanksgiving torpor; the first part of a
three-part 2004 series by Adam Curtis called "The Power of Nightmares." The title seems strangely
a propos, what?
Here's the WikiPedia
summary:
The film compares the rise of the neoconservative movement in the United States and the
radical Islamist movement, drawing comparisons between their origins, and remarking on similarities
between the two groups. More controversially, it argues that radical Islamism as a massive, sinister
organisation, specifically in the form of al-Qaeda, is a myth, or noble lie, perpetuated by leaders
of many countries-and particularly neoconservatives in the U.S.-in a renewed attempt to unite
and inspire their people after the ultimate failure of more utopian ideas.
I'm not going to attempt to tease out any systematic implications from listening to the series
right now, but well worth the listen it is. So many old friends from back in 2003, when those whackjobs
in the Bush administration were only starting to lose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan! Random thoughts:
1)
Leo Strauss is a horrible human being, who has a lot to answer for.
3) The neocons make Henry Kissinger look like a Boy Scout.
4) Best quote: "The Soviets had developed systems that were so sophisticated that they were undetectable."
5) Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian
Islamic theorist counterpoised by Curtis to Strauss, sees the United States "as obsessed with materialism,
violence, and sexual pleasures." What a nut job! To be fair, if the Egyptian government hadn't tortured
him, Qutb might never have come up with the
Jahiliyyah concept,
which, at least as I hear Curtis tell it, means that you're so corrupt that you can't even know you're
corrupt.
* * *
Nightmares is mostly archive footage plus a soundtrack, with Curtis narrating. So if
you want to listen to it with your morning coffee, the way one listened to NPR before it became evident
how horrid NPR is, that will work; you don't have to sit in front of the screen.
The Power of Nightmares 2: The Rise of the Politics of Fear (BBC-2004) Posted on
by
Yves Smith
"... In practice, however, neoliberalism has created a market state rather than a small state. Shrinking the state has proved politically impossible, so neoliberals have turned instead to using the state to reshape social institutions on the model of the market - a task that cannot be carried out by a small state. ..."
"... The Neoliberal State ..."
"... Neoliberals are not anarchists, who object to any kind of government, or libertarians, who want to limit the state to the provision of law and order and national defense. A neoliberal state can include a welfare state, but only of the most limited kind. Using the welfare state to realize an ideal of social justice is, for neoliberals, an abuse of power: social justice is a vague and contested idea, and when governments try to realize it they compromise the rule of law and undermine individual freedom. The role of the state should be limited to safeguarding the free market and providing a minimum level of security against poverty. ..."
"... Plant's central charge against neoliberalism is that, when stated clearly, it falls apart ..."
"... Neoliberalism and social democracy are not entirely separate political projects; they are dialectically related, the latter being a kind of synthesis of the contradictions of the former. ..."
"... But it is one thing to argue that the neoliberal state is conceptually unstable, another to suggest that social democracy is the only viable alternative. Neoconservatives have been among the sharpest critics of neoliberalism, arguing that the unfettered market is amoral and destroys social cohesion. ..."
"... Immanent criticism can show that the neoliberal theory of the state is internally contradictory. It cannot tell us how these contradictions are to be resolved - and in fact neoliberals who have become convinced that the minimal welfare state they favour is politically impossible do not usually become social democrats. Most opt for a conservative welfare state, which aims to prepare people for the labour market rather than promoting any idea of social justice. ..."
"... A more likely course of events is that social democracy will be eroded even further. ..."
"... The crisis is deep-rooted, and neoliberalism has no remedy for its own failure. ..."
"... Although the deregulated banking system may have imploded, capital remains highly mobile. Bailing out the banks has shifted the burden of toxic debt to the state, and there is a mounting risk of a sovereign debt crisis as a result. In these conditions, maintaining the high levels of public spending that social democracy requires will be next to impossible. ..."
John Gray Neoliberals
wanted to limit government, but the upshot of their policies has been a huge expansion in the power
of the state. Deregulating the financial system left banks free to speculate, and they did so with
reckless enthusiasm. The result was a build-up of toxic assets that threatened the entire banking
system. The government was forced to step in to save the system from self-destruction, but only at
the cost of becoming itself hugely indebted. As a result, the state has a greater stake in the financial
system than it did in the time of Clement Attlee. Yet the government is reluctant to use its power,
even to curb the gross bonuses that bankers are awarding themselves from public funds. The neoliberal
financial regime may have collapsed, but politicians continue to defer to the authority of the market.
Hardcore Thatcherites, and their fellow-travellers in New Labour, sometimes question whether there
was ever a time when neoliberal ideas shaped policy. Has public spending not continued to rise over
recent decades? Is the state not bigger than it has ever been? In practice, however, neoliberalism
has created a market state rather than a small state. Shrinking the state has proved politically
impossible, so neoliberals have turned instead to using the state to reshape social institutions
on the model of the market - a task that cannot be carried out by a small state.
An increase in state power has always been the inner logic of neoliberalism, because, in order
to inject markets into every corner of social life, a government needs to be highly invasive. Health,
education and the arts are now more controlled by the state than they were in the era of Labour collectivism.
Once-autonomous institutions are entangled in an apparatus of government targets and incentives.
The consequence of reshaping society on a market model has been to make the state omnipresent.
Raymond Plant is a rarity among academic political theorists, in that he has deep experience of
political life (before becoming a Labour peer he was a long-time adviser to Neil Kinnock). But he
remains a philosopher, and the central focus of The Neoliberal State is not on the ways
in which neoliberalism has self-destructed in practice. Instead, using a method of immanent criticism,
Plant aims to uncover contradictions in neoliberal ideology itself. Examining a wide variety of thinkers
- Michael Oakeshott, Friedrich Hayek, Robert Nozick, James Buchanan and others - he develops a rigorous
and compelling argument that neoliberal ideas are inherently unstable.
Neoliberals are not anarchists, who object to any kind of government, or libertarians, who
want to limit the state to the provision of law and order and national defense. A neoliberal state
can include a welfare state, but only of the most limited kind. Using the welfare state to realize
an ideal of social justice is, for neoliberals, an abuse of power: social justice is a vague and
contested idea, and when governments try to realize it they compromise the rule of law and undermine
individual freedom. The role of the state should be limited to safeguarding the free market and providing
a minimum level of security against poverty.
This is a reasonable summary of the neoliberal view of the state. Whether this view is underpinned
by any coherent theory is another matter. The thinkers who helped shape neoliberal ideas are a very
mixed bag, differing widely among themselves on many fundamental issues. Oakeshott's scepticism has
very little in common with Hayek's view of the market as the engine of human progress, for example,
or with Nozick's cult of individual rights.
It is a mistake to look for a systematic body of neoliberal theory, for none has ever existed.
In order to criticise neoliberal ideology, one must first reconstruct it, and this is exactly what
Plant does. The result is the most authoritative and comprehensive critique of neoliberal thinking
to date.
Plant's central charge against neoliberalism is that, when stated clearly, it falls apart
and is finally indistinguishable from a mild form of social democracy. Plant is a distinguished
scholar of Hegel, and his critique of neoliberalism has a strongly Hegelian flavour. The ethical
basis of the neoliberal state is a concern for negative freedom and the rule of law; but when these
ideals are examined closely, they prove either to be compatible with social democracy or actually
to require it. Neoliberalism and social democracy are not entirely separate political projects;
they are dialectically related, the latter being a kind of synthesis of the contradictions of the
former. Himself a social democrat, Plant believes that the neoliberal state is bound as a matter
of morality and logic to develop in a social-democratic direction.
But it is one thing to argue that the neoliberal state is conceptually unstable, another to
suggest that social democracy is the only viable alternative. Neoconservatives have been among the
sharpest critics of neoliberalism, arguing that the unfettered market is amoral and destroys social
cohesion. A similar view has recently surfaced in British politics in Phillip Blond's "Red Toryism".
Immanent criticism can show that the neoliberal theory of the state is internally contradictory.
It cannot tell us how these contradictions are to be resolved - and in fact neoliberals who have
become convinced that the minimal welfare state they favour is politically impossible do not usually
become social democrats. Most opt for a conservative welfare state, which aims to prepare people
for the labour market rather than promoting any idea of social justice.
If there is no reason in theory why the neoliberal state must develop in a social-democratic direction,
neither is there any reason in practice. A more likely course of events is that social democracy
will be eroded even further. The banking crisis rules out any prospect of a return to neoliberal
business-as-usual. As Plant writes towards the end of the book: "It has been argued that the central
cause of the banking crisis is a failure of regulation in relation to toxic assets . . . This, however,
completely neglects the systemic nature of the problems - a systemic structure that has itself been
developed as a result of liberalisation, that is, the creation of new assets without normal market
prices and their diffusion throughout the banking system." The crisis is deep-rooted, and neoliberalism
has no remedy for its own failure.
The upshot of the crisis is unlikely, however, to be a revival of social democracy. Although
the deregulated banking system may have imploded, capital remains highly mobile. Bailing out the
banks has shifted the burden of toxic debt to the state, and there is a mounting risk of a sovereign
debt crisis as a result. In these conditions, maintaining the high levels of public spending that
social democracy requires will be next to impossible. Neoliberalism and social democracy may
be dialectically related, but only in the sense that when the neoliberal state collapses it takes
down much of what remains of social democracy as well.
The Neoliberal State
Raymond Plant Oxford University Press, 304pp, Ł50
John Gray is the New Statesman's lead book reviewer. His book "False Dawn: the Delusions
of Global Capitalism", first published in 1998, has been reissued by Granta Books with a new introduction
(Ł8.99) His latest book is
The Soul of the Marionette: A Short Enquiry into Human Freedom .
"... Hillary Clinton and her lackeys will be taking a lot of heat for their shady actions in the primaries, get berned! ..."
"... How could Hillary be the best qualified candidate of all time??? She was a liar. Just being a woman does not automatically make you the best person ..."
"... A nice way of understanding this is the media, pollsters and pseudo liberal's use of the term popularist. This has been identified as the danger and a type of ignorance/stupidity if you just reflect for a moment it could be seen as a synonym for the majority. ..."
"... Trump' victory marks the profound failures of the political and economic system in America and across the West. It is a complete failure of the Clinton and the DNC establishment approach to politics ..."
"... The Guardian should have supported Bernie Sanders' campaign. There was a systemic failure to acknowledge and recognise the intense disillusionment and sweeping anti-establishment zeitgeist among huge numbers of the electorate both in America and Europe. ..."
How could Hillary be the
best qualified candidate of
all time??? She was a liar.
Just being a woman does not
automatically make you the
best person, there are other
honest and more competent
women.
Granted Trump isn't
ideal but Hilary was equally
divisive and assumed the
whole fiasco was about her
being the first woman to
make it into the white house
than the policy issues that
needed serious tackling.
This is a revolution against
the media and the pollsters
stuck in the washington/westminster
bubble. It was obvious to
any objective observer that
Trump was going to win.
The liberal media and the
pollsters just as in Brexit
have had an incredulous
bioptic view of what was
happening.
Not once in 18 months has
there been a serious attempt
to understand Trump's appeal
and what he was really
saying, not once.
A nice way of understanding
this is the media, pollsters
and pseudo liberal's use of
the term popularist. This
has been identified as the
danger and a type of
ignorance/stupidity if you
just reflect for a moment it
could be seen as a synonym
for the majority.
The people want change even
if it comes from Trump.
I wonder if Farage is
thinking of staying on as
leader?
Trump' victory marks the
profound failures of the
political and economic
system in America and across
the West. It is a complete
failure of the Clinton and
the DNC establishment
approach to politics.
The
Guardian should have
supported Bernie Sanders'
campaign. There was a
systemic failure to
acknowledge and recognise
the intense disillusionment
and sweeping
anti-establishment zeitgeist
among huge numbers of the
electorate both in America
and Europe.
"... I am not sure that any serious force is able to challenge American's oligarchy in a class war in modern conditions. There is no any really powerful countervailing force able to challenge status quo. ..."
"... But neoliberalism does it in its own way: humans are considered to be market actors and nothing but market actors. Every activity is viewed as a market. Everything whether person, business, or state is considered an entity that should be governed as a firm striving for market share. ..."
"... The USA foreign policy so far remains brutal expansionism, opening one country after another to large transnationals, which are the key political players under neoliberalism and definitely represent power that be in the USA along the lines of 'shadow state" thinking and inverted totalitarism model. ..."
"... While the next economic crisis is given, how the next stage of self-destruction of neoliberalism will look is fuzzy. Much depends on price and availability of oil which recently demonstrated a completely unexpected and dramatic drop. ..."
"... One thing is certain: with high oil prices neoliberal society inevitably enters "secular stagnation". But the threshold between "normal" and "high" oil prices itself is subject to revisions due to technology advances and our ability to find sustainable energy substitutes for oil. ..."
"... Electoral democracy places some limit on the excesses of plutocracy. ..."
"... You mean we can not express our will with our, or some else's money? Are we forced to borrow and spend by the plutocracy, and thus become enslaved to the rent seekers? ..."
"... Krugman quickly passes over the hypothesis that the growth in international trade was responsible for the growing the gap between the wages of college educated and non-college educated workers. But I'd like to see more empirical support for the dismissal. ..."
"... In a globalized system in which both capital and finished goods can move across borders, and in which industries have complex production chains, why couldn't it be the case the effect of this openness on developed economies is to disaggregate existing industries and then trade for, or offshore, only the lower skill components of those industries? ..."
"... Good to see these guys stumping to challenge the oligarchy. Where were they forty years ago? Oh, I forgot. We are just learning about hysteresis. Socio-political evolution is barely understood.] ..."
"... Starting in the mid-1930s, a handful of prominent American businessmen forged alliances with the aim of rescuing America--and their profit margins--from socialism and the "nanny state." Long before the "culture wars" usually associated with the rise of conservative politics, these driven individuals funded think tanks, fought labor unions, and formed organizations to market their views. These nearly unknown, larger-than-life, and sometimes eccentric personalities--such as GE's zealous, silver-tongued Lemuel Ricketts Boulware and the self-described "revolutionary" Jasper Crane of DuPont--make for a fascinating, behind-the-scenes view of American history. ..."
"... It is not just Fox. The mainstream media is just as much a part of the corporatocracy as GE or Goldman Sachs. Consolidated market power knows no bounds as long as people like you and me cannot organize ourselves into electoral solidarity. ..."
"... Fox speaks its lies to a certain set of willful fools. Fox does tell the only lies and the viewers of Fox are not the only willful fools. MULP tells a truer story when he is on his meds. ..."
"... Meanwhile, phony progressive liberals like pgl continue to champion trickle down monetary policies. With seven years of trickle down monetary policy, the results are obvious--the 1% won. As Saez found, the 1% got 58% of the gains of this 'recovery.' Meanwhile, real median household income has dropped to where it was 20 years ago. ..."
"... Yet phony liberals here continue to carry water for Wall Street, always holding out the myth that Fed policy is designed to raise workers' wages...even after seven years of evidence to the contrary. ..."
"... As always when there is conflict, there are plenty of people willing to serve as a fifth column, claiming to serve the interests of the many while actually helping the wealthy. ..."
These days, Reich offers a much darker vision, and what is in effect a call for class
war-or if you like, for an uprising of workers against the quiet class war that America's oligarchy
has been waging for decades. ...
=== end of quote ===
Looks like such calls are meaningless. I am not sure that any serious force is able to challenge
American's oligarchy in a class war in modern conditions. There is no any really powerful countervailing
force able to challenge status quo.
Neoliberal thinking still penetrates the society and even after 2008 neoliberalism remains
the dominant ideology all over the world. and the USA remain the citadel of neoliberalism and
still manages to invade smaller nations to open their markets. In a way neoliberalism is parody
on Marxism (Trotskyism for the rich) a governing rationality in which everything like In Marxism
is "economized".
But neoliberalism does it in its own way: humans are considered to be market actors and nothing
but market actors. Every activity is viewed as a market. Everything whether person, business,
or state is considered an entity that should be governed as a firm striving for market share.
Even such activities as education, dating, or exercising are viewed in market terms. The idea
is to submits them to market metrics, and governs them using market-based approaches and practices.
Humans are viewed as chunks of human capital who must constantly strive to increase their market
value or face consequences.
Unions are emasculated. Movements like Occupy are infiltrated and repressed pretty mercilessly
using all arsenal of method of police/national security state, which was preemptively created
after 9/11.
Minorities protests in impoverished cites (which often start as protests against police brutality)
are swiped under the carpet. And eventually suppressed.
The USA foreign policy so far remains brutal expansionism, opening one country after another
to large transnationals, which are the key political players under neoliberalism and definitely
represent power that be in the USA along the lines of 'shadow state" thinking and inverted totalitarism
model.
In other words like cancer transforms cells, neoliberalism transforms the whole societies into
profit making machines for top 1%.
Events of 2008 and this "Heil Mary pass" that was Bernanke monetary policy suggests that there
are already some serious cracks in the neoliberal economic model. But how and when the next stage
of self-destruction occurs is anybody guess. While the next economic crisis is given, how the
next stage of self-destruction of neoliberalism will look is fuzzy. Much depends on price and
availability of oil which recently demonstrated a completely unexpected and dramatic drop.
One thing is certain: with high oil prices neoliberal society inevitably enters "secular
stagnation". But the threshold between "normal" and "high" oil prices itself
is subject to revisions due to technology advances and our ability to find sustainable energy
substitutes for oil.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> likbez...
That was a poorly edited but still cogent summation of our current state of affairs.
Electoral democracy places some limit on the excesses of plutocracy. They must maintain some combination
of mystique behind the curtain or popular complacency towards the wizards hijinks in order for
there to be no electoral solidarity to overturn the status quo. We don't need pitchforks nor guillotines
if we stick together in the ballot box.
mulp -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
You mean we can not express our will with our, or some else's money? Are we forced to borrow and spend by the plutocracy, and thus become enslaved to the rent seekers?
Why can't we go on strike and not buy anything?
Doesn't anyone understand that high profits will not increase gdp?
Only spenders will increase gdp? And if profits are high, it will require borrow and spend to
increase gdp followed by enslavement to the rent seekers. If income inequality is high, it will
require borrow and spend to increase gdp, followed by enslavement to rent seekers.
Becoming homeless is the ultimate blow struck against the plutocrats. Living in a car board box
and eating from dumpsters drives down gdp and thus drives down profits destroying wealth.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> mulp...
You have your moments and then there are times like this.
Dan Kervick said...
Krugman quickly passes over the hypothesis that the growth in international trade was responsible
for the growing the gap between the wages of college educated and non-college educated workers.
But I'd like to see more empirical support for the dismissal. He says,
"Around 1990, trade with developing countries was still too small to explain the big
movements in relative wages of college and high school graduates that had already happened.
Furthermore, trade should have produced a shift in employment toward more skill-intensive industries;
it couldn't explain what we actually saw, which was a rise in the level of skills within industries,
extending across pretty much the entire economy."
On that second point, both older classical trade theory and "new" trade theory seem to operate
at the level of whole industries. But why? In a globalized system in which both capital and finished
goods can move across borders, and in which industries have complex production chains, why couldn't
it be the case the effect of this openness on developed economies is to disaggregate existing
industries and then trade for, or offshore, only the lower skill components of those industries?
Whether or not this impact was "too small", as Krugman says, to account for the entirety of
the big movements in relative wages, the point is not to identity a single monocausal explanation
for the changes, but to piece together a number of contributing factors that are part of the puzzle.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said...
[When I advocate better public education the channel by which it would exert greater equality
is via political power, not just higher paying jobs.
Good to see these guys stumping to challenge the oligarchy. Where were they forty years ago?
Oh, I forgot. We are just learning about hysteresis. Socio-political evolution is barely understood.]
The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan
Kim Phillips-Fein (Author)
A narrative history of the influential businessmen who fought to roll back the New Deal.
Starting in the mid-1930s, a handful of prominent American businessmen forged alliances
with the aim of rescuing America--and their profit margins--from socialism and the "nanny
state." Long before the "culture wars" usually associated with the rise of conservative
politics, these driven individuals funded think tanks, fought labor unions, and formed
organizations to market their views. These nearly unknown, larger-than-life, and sometimes
eccentric personalities--such as GE's zealous, silver-tongued Lemuel Ricketts Boulware and
the self-described "revolutionary" Jasper Crane of DuPont--make for a fascinating,
behind-the-scenes view of American history.
The winner of a prestigious academic award for her original research on this book, Kim Phillips-Fein
is already being heralded as an important new young American historian. Her meticulous research
and narrative gifts reveal the dramatic story of a pragmatic, step-by-step, check-by-check campaign
to promote an ideological revolution--one that ultimately helped propel conservative ideas to
electoral triumph.
ilsm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
Media is a problem!
Without the teachers' unions there is no education.
The battle of the educated mind is lost when the likes of Fox go undisputed and are sold as
news.
We have always been at war with Shiites for the Sunni oil masters.....
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> ilsm...
It is not just Fox. The mainstream media is just as much a part of the corporatocracy as GE
or Goldman Sachs. Consolidated market power knows no bounds as long as people like you and me
cannot organize ourselves into electoral solidarity.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
Fox speaks its lies to a certain set of willful fools. Fox does tell the only lies and the
viewers of Fox are not the only willful fools. MULP tells a truer story when he is on his meds.
JohnH said...
Meanwhile, phony progressive liberals like pgl continue to champion trickle down monetary policies.
With seven years of trickle down monetary policy, the results are obvious--the 1% won. As Saez
found, the 1% got 58% of the gains of this 'recovery.' Meanwhile, real median household income
has dropped to where it was 20 years ago.
Stiglitz said it well in his 'Price of Inequality:' a macroeconomic policy and a central bank
by and for the 1%.
Yet phony liberals here continue to carry water for Wall Street, always holding out the
myth that Fed policy is designed to raise workers' wages...even after seven years of evidence
to the contrary.
As always when there is conflict, there are plenty of people willing to serve as a fifth
column, claiming to serve the interests of the many while actually helping the wealthy.
JohnH -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
When someone champions policies that have overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy while claiming
that they benefit workers, what do you call them but phony?
Let's see how do pgl's policy prescriptions differ from those advocated by Wall Street banks?
- they both champion low interest rates
- they both hate taxing the wealthy to address inequality and fund stimulus
- they both have been cozy with Wall Street Democrats
- both hail from New York City.
Seem to me that pgl and Wall Street bankers have more in common than differences...
pgl -> JohnH...
"Let's see how do pgl's policy prescriptions differ from those advocated by Wall Street
banks?"
I'm for Dodd-Franks. I support higher capital ratios. I'm all in on what Liz Warren is supporting.
Now if you think the banksters agree with me on these fundamental reforms - then you are even
dumber than I give you credit for. Run along angry lying worthless stupid troll.
"... "Business must learn the lesson . . . that political power is necessary; that such power must be assiduously cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination-without embarrassment and without the reluctance which has been so characteristic of American business." ..."
"... "Strength lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations." ..."
"... The number of corporate Political Action Committees soared from under 300 in 1976 to over 1,200 in 1980, and their spending on politics grew fivefold. In the early 1970s, businesses spent less on congressional races than did labor unions; by the mid-1970s, the two were at rough parity; by 1980, corporations accounted for three-quarters of PAC spending while unions accounted for less than a quarter. Then came Ronald Reagan's presidency, corporate control of the Republican Party, and a Republican-dominated Supreme Court and its "Citizens United" decision. ..."
Right-wing mega-donor Sheldon Adelson has just bought the biggest newspaper in Nevada, the Las Vegas
Review-Journal -- just in time for Nevada's becoming a key battleground for the presidency and for
the important Senate seat being vacated by Harry Reid. It's not quite like Rupert Murdoch's ownership
of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, but Adelson's purchase marks another step toward oligarchic
control of America – and the relative decline of corporate power.
Future historians
will note that the era of corporate power extended for about 40 years, from 1980 to 2016 or 2020.
It began in the 1970s with a backlash against Lyndon Johnson's Great Society (Medicare, Medicaid,
the EPA and OSHA). In 1971, future Supreme Court justice Lewis Powell warned corporate leaders that
the "American economic system is under broad attack," and urging them to mobilize. "Business
must learn the lesson . . . that political power is necessary; that such power must be assiduously
cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination-without
embarrassment and without the reluctance which has been so characteristic of American business."
He went on: "Strength lies in organization, in careful long-range planning
and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of
financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through
united action and national organizations."
Soon thereafter, corporations descended on Washington. In 1971, only 175 firms
had Washington lobbyists; by 1982, almost 2,500 did. Between 1974 and 1980 the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
doubled its membership and tripled its budget. In 1972, the National Association of Manufacturers
moved its office from New York to Washington, and the Business Roundtable was formed, whose membership
was restricted to top corporate CEOs.
The number of corporate Political Action Committees soared from under 300 in
1976 to over 1,200 in 1980, and their spending on politics grew fivefold. In the early 1970s, businesses
spent less on congressional races than did labor unions; by the mid-1970s, the two were at rough
parity; by 1980, corporations accounted for three-quarters of PAC spending while unions accounted
for less than a quarter. Then came Ronald Reagan's presidency, corporate control of the Republican
Party, and a Republican-dominated Supreme Court and its "Citizens United" decision.
"... Railroading Economics: The Creation of the Free Market Mythology ..."
"... The Wal-Mart Revolution ..."
"... Schnurr's speech was part of a yearlong campaign to oust Doty and thwart his efforts to implement rules that would increase auditors' accountability to investors and their independence from the companies they audit. ..."
"... Doty's efforts have floundered, in large part because Schnurr's office has used its oversight powers to block, weaken and delay them, according to a dozen current and former SEC and PCAOB officials. Schnurr's staff has also campaigned to have Doty removed from office, these people said. ..."
Continuing our series of
book reviews in time for the holiday gift-giving season, here's a quick look at Michael Perelman's
Railroading Economics, a title, and a subject, that intrigued me for two reasons. Trivially,
as readers know, I'm by way of being a
rail fan; more importantly, when I was a mere sprat, I read Matthew Josephson's Robber Barons.
Josephson's tales of
Jim Fisk watering
the stock of the Erie Railroad - "Gone where the woodbine twineth" was Fisk's answer to where the
money went - and his running buddy
Jay Gould - "I can hire one
half of the working class to kill the other half" (attributed) - trying to corner the gold market
would inoculate anyone from belief in the ideology of "perfect competition." They certainly did me.
Perelman begins (p.1):
The title of this book, Railroading Economics, has multiple meanings. The verb "railroading"
refers to the ideological straitjacket of modern economics, which teaches that the market is the
solution to all social and economic problems. The adjective "railroading" refers to the experience
of economists during the late nineteenth century when the largest industry in the country, railroading,
was experiencing terrible upheavals. Many of the leading eocnomists at the time came to grips
with the destructive nature of market forces. Competition, which according to conventional economics,
is supposed to guide business to make decisions that will benefit everybody, was driving business
into bankruptcy and common people into poverty.
That lesson was never allowed to take hold among economists. In fact, the same economists continue
to teach their students that markets work in perfect harmony, while they advised policy makers
to take quick action to put the brakes on competition. In effect, the railroad economists railroaded
economics into perpetuating a free market mythology.
This is a long and complicated story, and Perelman tells it well. Since Perelman is a radical
economist from a non-Ivy League School, reviews of his book are few and far between.
Here's one from an orthodox economist (latest book: The Wal-Mart Revolution) that to
my untutored eye seems to summarize Perelman's thesis fairly:
[Michael Perelman's new book] is a highly readable, lucidly written, and provocative account
of the evolving American economy. Moreover, readers of this site would be pleased that this is
a rare economist who draws very heavily on insights from economic history and even the history
of economic thought in reaching conclusions about the contemporary American economy. Also, the
book has lots of solid footnotes showing a serious appreciation of much of the relevant scholarly
literature of the past century or more .
According to Perelman, classical economics emerged out of an agrarian society where the presumption
of pure competition was fairly reasonable. Over time, however, massive capital-intensive businesses
evolved, notably the railroads, with very high fixed costs. The neoclassical notion that profit-maximizing
firms would produce where marginal costs equaled marginal revenue and price (in pure competition)
simply did not fit the reality of these new natural monopolies. Competition was destabilizing,
led to overinvestment, and paved the way for unscrupulous financiers like Jay Gould. In Perelman's
view, "the increasing relative importance of fixed costs means that competition would lead
to utter chaos" (p. 46). A group of "railroad economists" or corporatists understood all this,
but they were largely ignored by conventional economists who developed a "quasi-religious" and
"ideological" (p. 99) fervor towards their theoretical models, a fervor that persists today.
Perelman thinks that in pursuing competition, prices were forced so low that many railroads
were forced into bankruptcy, much as is happening in airlines today. This opens the door for the
"financial capitalists" who make money reducing competition (via mergers) and reorganizing bankrupt
companies, getting rich in the process and hurting workers of the involved companies. The Enron/WorldCom
problems of the early twenty-first century are not that different from those created by J.P. Morgan
organized mergers of a century earlier, best symbolized by the formation of U.S. Steel.
In Perelman's eyes, the instability arising from the lack of realization of the importance
of fixed costs, the machinations of financial interests, and so forth, have caused internal contradictions
in capitalism. He opines that "an economy built increasingly on finance is a disaster waiting
to happen" (p. 198), concluding "I look forward to the day when we no longer rely on competition
for monetary rewards when cooperation and social planning replace the haphazard world of the
market place" (p. 200).
Needless to say, the orthodox reviewer vehemently disagrees; readers can follow up at the link.
At this point, however, magpie-like, I want to pass on from assessing Perelman's thesis to display
a bright, shiny object I collected from the text. As the post title suggests, it's about accounting!
(Note the focus on fixed, long-lived capital; railroads have rather a lot of it.) From pp. 58-59:
What about accounting as an anchor for business rationality? Certainly, the widespread adoption
of seemingly solid accounting practices contributed to the illusion of a sound basis for business
action. Even as astute an observer as Max Weber associated accounting practices with rationality.
This attitude toward accounting is not surprising. Indeed, the erratic movements of markets disappear
in the accountant's ledgers, which exude a misleading image of straightforward calculations of
profit and loss.
First, accounts are necessarily backward-looking. Accountants must necessarily
base their calculations on historical costs, even though they can make allowances for changes
that have occurred since the original purchase. Since account books are based on historical
information, they will be better guides if the business is a relatively short-lived affair. After
all, tomorrow is more likely to resumble today than sometime in the far-off future will.
Second, the methods that accountants use to make these adjustments are necessarily based on
inexact conventions rather than precise measurements. Finally, as the dot com bubble proved [the
book was published in 2006] accountants can easily mislead even supposedly sophisticated investors.
Accounting firms even accommodated failing corporations by providing fraudulent information [of
which more below] rather than risk losing lucrative contracts.
So much for accounting. But wait! There's more!
The treatment of capital in conventional economic theory had its origins in the long-obsolete
accounting principles of early merchants. The economic environment of the early merchants' shops
conditioned later accounting practices, especially their treatment of fixed capital. Even as late
as the time of Adam Smith more than two centuries ago, fixed capital requirements were relatively
modest. Since accountants have never been able to discover a satisfactory method of handling
long-lived capital goods, accounting provides a frail foundation for business rationality in a
developed economy where long-lived fixed capital assumes great importance.
Ronald Coase once noted that an accountant would say that the cost of a machine is the depreciation
of the machine. The economist would say that "the cost of using the machine is the highest receipts
that could be obtained by the employment of the machine in some alternative use." If no alternative
exists, the cost of the machine is zero
Ideally, Coase is correct. Unfortunately, no economist can hope to calculate the highest receipts
that could be obtained. To do so would require knowledge of the future of all industries that
could possibly use the machine. As a result, economists generally either accept the accountant's
calculations in violation of their own principles or they assume away the problem of long-lived
capital goods.
Economists rarely consider this defect in economics because they avoid any serious consideration
of time in their models. Instead, in dealing with investment decisions, the models typically pretend
that investors are able to accurately foresee the future.
All that is solid melts into air. (Orthodox) economics assumes a soothsayer. And accounting provides
no basis for business rationality (at least if one is more than a shopkeeper). How does one even
begin to process that information? (Here let me welcome corrections and clarifications from readers
familiar with current accounting practice and theory.)
* * *
So what's accounting for, then? Perhaps the news flow will provide a clue. From
Reuters (but leaving out most of the detail on a sadly usual
flexian infestation):
Accounting industry and SEC hobble America's audit watchdog
The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board was set up [by Dodd-Frank] to oversee the auditing
profession after a rash of frauds. The industry got the upper hand, as the story of the board's
embattled chief shows.
James Schnurr, just two months into his job as chief accountant at the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, stood before a packed ballroom in Washington last December and upbraided
a little-known regulator.
The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, oversees the big firms that sign off
on the books of America's listed companies. And the board was "moving too slowly," Schnurr said,
to address auditing failures that in recent years had shaken public confidence in those firms.
These were fighting words in the decorous auditing profession, and they hit their target. PCAOB
Chairman James Doty was among those attending the annual accounting-industry gala where Schnurr
spoke. And Schnurr was Doty's new supervisor.
"This is going to get ugly," Doty said to a colleague afterward.
In his new SEC job, Schnurr now had direct authority over the PCAOB – a regulator that just
a few years earlier had derailed his C-suite ambitions at Deloitte & Touche. As deputy managing
partner at the world's largest accounting firm, Schnurr had commanded an army of auditors – until
a string of damning PCAOB critiques of Deloitte's audits led to his demotion.
Then, in August 2014, SEC Chair Mary Jo White named Schnurr to his SEC post. It was a remarkable
instance of Washington's "revolving door" for professionals moving between government and industry
[sic] jobs.
Schnurr's speech was part of a yearlong campaign to oust Doty and thwart his efforts to
implement rules that would increase auditors' accountability to investors and their independence
from the companies they audit.
Deloitte, Ernst & Young, PricewaterhouseCoopers and KPMG audit companies that account for 98
percent of the value of U.S. stock markets. During the crisis, nine major financial institutions
collapsed or were rescued by the government within months of receiving clean bills of health from
one of the Big Four. While Schnurr was deputy managing partner at Deloitte, the firm signed off
on the books of Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual and Fannie Mae. Each went bust soon after, costing
investors over $115 billion in losses.
Doty's efforts have floundered, in large part because Schnurr's office has used its oversight
powers to block, weaken and delay them, according to a dozen current and former SEC and PCAOB
officials. Schnurr's staff has also campaigned to have Doty removed from office, these people
said.
Doty's term ended on Oct. 24. He continues to serve as PCAOB chairman day-to-day, waiting for
the SEC to decide whether or not to reappoint him.
The standoff is a test of who holds sway with regulators in Washington – investors large and
small who seek better disclosure of what really goes on inside companies, or the financial-services
establishment that's supposed to serve those investors.
Why, one might almost conclude that the accounting "industry" exists to enable
accounting control fraud, rather than to prevent it - especially given the limitations that Perelman
points out. Although, to be fair, perhaps fraud is what "business rationality" is all about these
days.
* * *
So, from Perelman, we learn that accounting has severe limitations that make it unsuitable as
a basis for business rationality. Moreover, it's not suitable (in its current form, at least) for
making decisions - any decision - about long-lived, fixed capital allocation - and isn't capitalism
supposed to be all about that? And finally, if we ask what accounting is good for, we find
that it's certainly useful for enabling fraud. It's very difficult to know how deep the rot goes.
Richard Parker coined the word "neglectorate" to describe the public's alienation from the current
dysfunctional political system. Now that economists have, for the most part relegated John Maynard
Keynes to the dustbin of history, the term Dickenysian seems to be appropriate for the present conditions,
which are becoming increasingly similar to Charles Dickens' portrayal of the world he lived in. The
power of the bond market in imposing its will on supposedly independent states, suggests that bondage
may be appropriate for expressing the power of capital.
Finally, we could describe the current economic system as Crapitalism, which treats ordinary people
as crap.
"... But if the Macri administration is a throwback to the neoliberal era of Menem, it is important to remember that the current historical context is very different. Back in the 1990s, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union gave the neoliberal policies of the infamous Washington Consensus a status of unquestionable truth. Supposedly, ideology had vanished and history had come to an end. No alternative was politically possible. Since then, the 2008 global Great Recession has shown the world the perils of unfettered capitalism, and even if the "Keynesian moment" was brief and austerity policies have reasserted themselves, at least it is widely understood that the "free market" is no solution for the problems of development in a globalized economy. ..."
"... the phrase "Garbage in, Garbage out" sort of sums up the problem, I think. throughout the neoliberal world, similar events have transpired, supported importantly by a tame press. As well, if the objective of neoliberal policies is to roll back social safety nets and restore corporate or oligarchic control, then austerity like Mr. Dayan predicts has been a success. ..."
"... It is clearly not easy to dislodge the vultures, once their nests are well fortified, and the often bitter process can easily lead to the rise of an Argentine version of (God forbid) Donald Trump. ..."
"... If you're looking for an outright rejection of neoliberalism, you needn't look farther than Argentina in 2001. The people filled the streets shouting "Get Rid of Them All (leaders)" until the leading elite brought forth a leader (Néstor Kirchner) who finally got the message and reversed the Washington consensus. ..."
"... Kirchner, incidentally, had previously been a willing part of Menem's neoliberal policies in the 90s, so that just goes to show that it's not so important whom one elects, as it is the power of popular movements to get said person to do the right thing. ..."
"... Geopolitically too, the new administration seems quite happy to be a nice, well behaved member of the neoliberal club http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34914413 and promises to not bump into the furniture or scoff too many of the hors d'oeuvres. If it is content to accept crumbs from the table, crumbs is what it - and the lucky people of Argentina - will get. ..."
"... Wikileaks reported that Macri went to the US embassy at least 5 times to seek support in winning the presidency. Now, scant days after the inauguration he has cancelled the Argentine memorandum of understanding with Iran in regards to Israel's allegations that Iran was behind two bombings against Israeli/Jewish targets in Argentina in the 90s. Very possibly quid pro quo. ..."
"... It seems to me that it is increasingly difficult for Leftist, i.e., non-neoliberal economies to survive, nevermind thrive, in the world today. As the neoliberal forces have coalesced globally they are now in position to punish any nation that refuses to follow the program. ..."
"... Until the U.S. reforms itself - or maybe Western Europe - it appears small Leftist nations will have to thread a needle just to survive. ..."
"... I would like to read the author's comments on the above in more detail. I cannot figure out why on earth the Roussef admin in brazil is doing what it is doing. They've destroyed their base who won't trust them again for a decade. Will lula ride to the rescue again? I'm not sure he can pull off the same act twice. ..."
"... What I'd always concede is that, for leftist political parties, this job will always be harder. No-one really expects neoliberal or corporatist state parties to be anything other than on the take, it simply goes with the territory. Voters are pretty cynical there, and rightly so, but the cynicism is realistic. The deal is, you put up with our pilfering in return for competent administration. It's more-or-less latter-day versions of "Say what you like about Mussolini, at least he made the trains run on time". ..."
"... The left, conversely, is expected to be both honest and competent. Rightly so, but harder. ..."
"... Oh great, another TBTF banker running a central bank. That should work to someone's advantage If they are telegraphing a devaluation, what does that mean for the FX market? Seems to me a move that large can make some fortunes if one had insider info. Here's a thought, wealthy right wing argentinians go to the us dollar in a similar way to us corps leaving money offshore, to create the impression of weakness, which justifies devaluation of the peso and deregulation, in swoop the buzzards (sorry, vulture is already taken in this case) to buy up pesos at 15 for a buck, plus no repatriations! ..."
"... The devaluation of the peso is a bit more tricky than this, since every political party pushed devaluation, just in different forms. The Kirchner's policy was a slow series of micro-devaluations that kept the peso steadily decreasing against the dollar to keep exports competitive. The bulwark against speculation was (sloppily applied) capital controls that did halt a lot of capital flight, but not all. ..."
"... The fact is very few people here save in pesos, they all save in dollars or property, mainly because there is no faith in the peso. A mega devaluation does not increase faith in the currency, but it does, as you say, work out dandy for speculators. ..."
"... Foreign "investment" (direct or via compradors) and foreign military occupation (direct or by proxy) are two sides of the same coin- of conquest, dominion, oppression and exploitation. Any semblance of, or aspiration to, autonomy, is limited by the perceived needs of imperial "manifest destiny", and thus must be "de"stabilized, then "re"stabilized as a heteronomy, that "better" serves the insatiable needs of the "masters of mankind" as far as "right" v. "left", from my pov comes down to the politics of "concentration" v. "distribution" and what defines "surplus" in the context of basic needs ..."
"... A crude parallel is the "shellacking" of Obama in 2010. Sure there were people that voted for the repubs, but it was by no means out of enthusiastic support for their policies. Likewise here, the enthusiasm was somewhat muted. ..."
By Matias Vernego, Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Bucknell University, and
author of the blog Naked Keynesianism.
Cross-posted from
Triple Crisis.
The election of businessman Mauricio Macri to the presidency in Argentina signals a rightward
turn in the country and, perhaps, in South America more generally. Macri, the candidate of the right-wing
Compromiso para el cambio (Commitment to Change) party, defeated Buenos Aires province governor
Daniel Scioli (the Peronist party candidate) in November's runoff election, by less than 3% of the
vote.
... ... ...
But if the Macri administration is a throwback to the neoliberal era of Menem, it is important
to remember that the current historical context is very different. Back in the 1990s, the fall of
the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union gave the neoliberal policies of the infamous
Washington Consensus a status of unquestionable truth. Supposedly, ideology had vanished and history
had come to an end. No alternative was politically possible. Since then, the 2008 global Great Recession
has shown the world the perils of unfettered capitalism, and even if the "Keynesian moment" was brief
and austerity policies have reasserted themselves, at least it is widely understood that the "free
market" is no solution for the problems of development in a globalized economy.
...The new government does not control congress, and the election was close, signaling
a divided country. In short, society is more organized and better prepared to face the onslaught
of neoliberal policies this time around.
First, a Succinct and well organized piece. A pleasure to read.
Thank you, David Dayan.
Sad but familiar pattern of political events. The key piece of the puzzle not yet known is
if the widespread failure of austerity policies to produce the claimed results will ever trigger
an effective rejection by the voters, and if so, how long will it take? It hasn't happened yet.
A stronger working class is fine, but what is the state of sources of information in Argentina?
in a democratic system, the phrase "Garbage in, Garbage out" sort of sums up the problem,
I think. throughout the neoliberal world, similar events have transpired, supported importantly
by a tame press. As well, if the objective of neoliberal policies is to roll back social safety
nets and restore corporate or oligarchic control, then austerity like Mr. Dayan predicts has been
a success.
It is clearly not easy to dislodge the vultures, once their nests are well fortified, and
the often bitter process can easily lead to the rise of an Argentine version of (God forbid) Donald
Trump. Been there, done that.
If you're looking for an outright rejection of neoliberalism, you needn't look farther
than Argentina in 2001. The people filled the streets shouting "Get Rid of Them All (leaders)"
until the leading elite brought forth a leader (Néstor Kirchner) who finally got the message and
reversed the Washington consensus.
Kirchner, incidentally, had previously been a willing part of Menem's neoliberal policies
in the 90s, so that just goes to show that it's not so important whom one elects, as it is the
power of popular movements to get said person to do the right thing.
Geopolitically too, the new administration seems quite happy to be a nice, well behaved
member of the neoliberal club
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34914413
and promises to not bump into the furniture or scoff too many of the hors d'oeuvres. If it is
content to accept crumbs from the table, crumbs is what it - and the lucky people of Argentina
- will get.
I don't suppose Jim Haygood will be mourning the political exit of the Black Widow, but I,
in my not so humble opinion, think this new lot of ex-financiers will be worse.
In addition to the Venezuela volte-face and a different tune on the Malvinas/Falklands issue,
there is a more substantive move in the works by the new regime.
Wikileaks reported that Macri went to the US embassy at least 5 times to seek support in
winning the presidency. Now, scant days after the inauguration he has cancelled the Argentine
memorandum of understanding with Iran in regards to Israel's allegations that Iran was behind
two bombings against Israeli/Jewish targets in Argentina in the 90s. Very possibly quid pro quo.
It seems to me that it is increasingly difficult for Leftist, i.e., non-neoliberal economies
to survive, nevermind thrive, in the world today. As the neoliberal forces have coalesced globally
they are now in position to punish any nation that refuses to follow the program.
Until the U.S. reforms itself - or maybe Western Europe - it appears small Leftist nations
will have to thread a needle just to survive. Maybe China will emerge, especially possible
as the failure of America's global leadership is underscored by political instability, global
warming, florid wealth disparities, and increasing radicalization.
Erm, I can't see The Middle Kingdom coming to anyone's rescue but their own. That will be good
only for those countries whose welfare coincides with China's. Which would be, ? Pro'ly not
Argentina?
The last government, in addition to selling huge quantities of grain to China, also conducted
2 currency swaps with Beijing– all to cries of "dealing with communists!" and "selling out our
patrimony to the enemies!" from the opposition. Now that the opposition is in power, they announced
a 3rd currency swap two days after coming into office.
In 2013, China South Railway(CSR) won a 1-billion U.S. dollar contract which provides 709
carriages to renew [Argentina's] commuter system.
By the end of July 2015, all the 709 carriages had been shipped to Argentina.
A large part of Argentina's national railway system has been in disrepair or underdeveloped.
Aging infrastructure has also led to a number of accidents in the country in recent years.
China of course is looking after its own mercantilist interests. But Argentina, after allowing
its British-built railroads to decay into shambles by a century of neglect and bizarro-world service
pricing, will benefit from upgraded rail infrastructure.
I got to ride the antiquated 99-year-old Belgian-built coaches, with manually-latched wooden
doors, on Line A of the Buenos Aires subte, before they were removed from service in 2013.
Photo:
The railroad system was built by the British, nationalised by Perón in his first term, and
then slowly privatised under successive dictatorships and their "democratic" front men. The coup
de grace was Menem in the 90s but the whole system was dead well before then, ditched in favour
of the more "advanced" US interstate system.
One of the last moves of the outgoing Kirchner government was to renationalise the system.
The new Chinese cars are a delight (and the old A line was indeed fun, but moved at a snail's
pace). Argentina does not yet have the native industry to produce trains, but that was definitely
a goal, that now looks farther away.
And just for comparison's sake, the top 2 Argentine presedencies in terms of infrastructure
built were Perón's 1&2 terms, and the Kirchners. Meanwhile, the record for least km of subway
built per year in Buenos Aires history belongs to Marucio Macri. All whilst going deeply into
debt.
Fiscal responsibility comrades: it's not a neoliberal priority.
"And if it is any consolation, at least the adjustment will be done by a right-wing party,
in contrast to Brazil, where the same program, essentially, is being pushed by the Workers' Party;
and yet the right-wing forces are also trying to bring the left of center government of Dilma
Rousseff down; more on that on another post]."
I would like to read the author's comments on the above in more detail. I cannot figure
out why on earth the Roussef admin in brazil is doing what it is doing. They've destroyed their
base who won't trust them again for a decade. Will lula ride to the rescue again? I'm not sure
he can pull off the same act twice.
Unfortunately nowhere is it written that the left is automatically able to walk (adopt and
implement progressive policies aiming to improve equality not just on social issues but also economic
and financial ones) and chew gum (govern competently and effectively) at the same time.
While Roussef's (and Christina Fernandez's) hearts may have been in the right place, for Roussef
not being whiter-than-white on campaign funding and employing accountants who would not only find
out any wrong-doing but tell the Workers' Party leadership something didn't smell right - and
also what seemed pretty blatant gerrymandering via the budget - were avoidable own-goals.
What I'd always concede is that, for leftist political parties, this job will always be
harder. No-one really expects neoliberal or corporatist state parties to be anything other than
on the take, it simply goes with the territory. Voters are pretty cynical there, and rightly so,
but the cynicism is realistic. The deal is, you put up with our pilfering in return for competent
administration. It's more-or-less latter-day versions of "Say what you like about Mussolini, at
least he made the trains run on time".
The left, conversely, is expected to be both honest and competent. Rightly so, but harder.
Agreeing with what Clive said, I would also add a couple points:
1. Syriza. 'Nuff said.
2. Here in LatAm (and elsewhere) the leftist leadership has a dismal record of not understanding
economics. In the example at hand, the Kirchners 'swooped in to rescue' Argentina from the clutches
of neoliberalism. But said neoliberalism had been imposed by their own ostensibly leftist, 'populist'
Justicialist (Peronist) party under Menem (and before under Perón himself). Néstor Kirchner and
Cristina Fernández were completely on board with this because they didnt really pay too much attention
to econ policy, and privatising everything seemed like a nice liberal thing to do. Only once the
street pushed back against the Washington Consensus in 2001 did they see the potential in riding
the wave, and did a reasonably good job at it, but it's not like socialism was in their DNA from
the get-go.
With Dilma, I'd say it's the same thing. She is leftist in that she is pro-human rights, pro-equal
marriage, etc. But she does not have a really leftist economic understanding, so to her austerity
seems to fit right in with her other leftist beliefs– just as it did with say Tony Blair or Bill
Clinton.
Oh great, another TBTF banker running a central bank. That should work to someone's advantage If
they are telegraphing a devaluation, what does that mean for the FX market? Seems to me a move
that large can make some fortunes if one had insider info. Here's a thought, wealthy right wing
argentinians go to the us dollar in a similar way to us corps leaving money offshore, to create
the impression of weakness, which justifies devaluation of the peso and deregulation, in swoop
the buzzards (sorry, vulture is already taken in this case) to buy up pesos at 15 for a buck,
plus no repatriations! It's just got win written all over it when you have a central banker
who's going to revalue the currency by selling off the commons in some form or another.
The devaluation of the peso is a bit more tricky than this, since every political party
pushed devaluation, just in different forms. The Kirchner's policy was a slow series of micro-devaluations
that kept the peso steadily decreasing against the dollar to keep exports competitive. The bulwark
against speculation was (sloppily applied) capital controls that did halt a lot of capital flight,
but not all.
In the election, both candidates campaigned on lifting the capital controls and 'floating'
the peso, with Macri's team saying it would lift all controls the day after the election. Didn't
happen. Incoming FinMin Prat Gay has now said they can't go 'free-market' just yet (i.e., release
ForEx restrictions and devalue the peso in one giant swoop), but the threat is hanging over the
economy like an executioner's knife. Last month after the election, prices shot up across the
board (up to 20% increases!) as merchants speculated on expectations. It was the highest inflation
recorded in over 20 years.
The fact is very few people here save in pesos, they all save in dollars or property, mainly
because there is no faith in the peso. A mega devaluation does not increase faith in the currency,
but it does, as you say, work out dandy for speculators.
Fifteen pesos for a buck is an 'informal' gray market that exists behind capital controls.
You can physically carry hundred-dollar bills into Argentina and exchange them at the ubiquitous
"compro oro" shops. But this trade can't be done from outside the country, in size.
Second issue is that a unified exchange rate might settle somewhere between 9 and 15 pesos,
since 15 pesos is an artificial 'dollar scarcity' value produced by capital controls. If the unified
exchange rate ends up at 13, speculators lose 13% in a hurry.
That's why speculators get paid to take risks. There is no obvious, guaranteed trade, equivalent
to picking up ten-dollar bills off the sidewalk.
The buzzards I refer to would actually be the insiders in the new gov who have info not available
to speculators as a whole, but I see your point that it's not as easy as it sounds in my pretty
tale
Foreign "investment" (direct or via compradors) and foreign military occupation (direct
or by proxy) are two sides of the same coin- of conquest, dominion, oppression and exploitation.
Any semblance of, or aspiration to, autonomy, is limited by the perceived needs of imperial "manifest
destiny", and thus must be "de"stabilized, then "re"stabilized as a heteronomy, that "better"
serves the insatiable needs of the "masters of mankind" as far as "right" v. "left", from my pov
comes down to the politics of "concentration" v. "distribution" and what defines "surplus" in
the context of basic needs
Excellent question, and one not answered in the article.
In the first round of voting Macri came in second place, but he had a close enough margin to
force a one-on-one runoff with the top voted candidate, Daniel Scioli, who was representing the
outgoing Kirchner government.
Macri and the far right have generally pulled about 20% of the population at most, but he made
an alliance with the two largest opposition parties (UCR and CC), who essentially sold their souls
just to ensure the Kirchner "successor" did not win. This put Macri over the top, giving him an
advantage of less than 2%– enough to win the runoff.
Furthermore, the Kirchnerist candidate was selected from the rightwing of the party, and ran
to the right. Macri meanwhile, well aware of the precariousness of his alliance, actually ran
to the left -– reversing his previous stances and saying he would not privatise anything or eliminate
social spending. By the time of the final election, the two candidates were practically indistinguishable.
A crude parallel is the "shellacking" of Obama in 2010. Sure there were people that voted
for the repubs, but it was by no means out of enthusiastic support for their policies. Likewise
here, the enthusiasm was somewhat muted.
"... Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution ..."
"... market values to all institutions and social actors ..."
"... Harperism: How Stephen Harper and his thank tank colleagues have transformed Canada ..."
"... Political Theory, ..."
"... Dr. Michael Welton is a professor at the University of Athabasca. He is the author of Designing the Just Learning Society: a Critical Inquiry. ..."
Deciphering the meaning of Neo-liberalism as a historical force and societal form requires the energies
and know-how of a sagacious sleuth like Hercule Poirot. Wendy Brown, a philosophy professor at UCLA
(Berkeley) and author of Undoing
the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution, has a Poirot intellectual sensibility and
acuity that sees what most of us cannot.
Those of us who have written on neo-conservative politics
and neo-liberalism as an economic form have illuminated many dimensions of "something new" that has
emerged out of the collapse of welfare state liberal democracy in the West over the last five decades.
But putting all the pieces of this intricate puzzle together and detecting not only particular
patterns but also the logic underlying neo-liberalism is a complex task.
What is the connection between the US Empire's contempt for law and truth-telling and neo-liberalism?
And how is it that citizens can be so passive in the face of evident government prevarication,
endless spinning of false narratives, the evisceration of democratic morality and countless corporate
and government scandals?
Most of us know that neo-liberalism as an economic form repudiates Keynesian welfare state economics
and was propounded by ideologues like Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago and in an earlier
day, by the dubious intellectual propagandist Friedrich von Hayek.
In popular usage, neo-liberalism conjures up a cluster of ideas adumbrated by Brown: a radically
free market, maximized competition and free trade achieved through economic de-regulation, elimination
of tariffs, a range of monetary and social policies favourable to business and indifferent toward
poverty, social deracination, cultural decimation and long-term resource depletion and environmental
destruction.
Something new and darker is at stake
But something new and darker seems to be at stake. The crux of Brown's sophisticated argument
is that the left fails to see the "political rationality that both organizes these policies
and reaches beyond the market" ("Neo-liberalism and the end of liberal democracy" [2003]). The left
analyses do not capture the "neo" of neo-liberalism because they "obscure the specifically political
register of neo-liberalism in the First World, that is, its powerful erosion of liberal democratic
institutions and practices in places like the US."
In other words, neo-liberalism agents systematically aim to radically de-democratize their societies.
The supreme triumph of corporate power in the world requires that liberal democracy be undermined.
This means that political autonomy is jettisoned. Formal rights, private property and voting are
retained, but civil liberties are re-cast as useful only for the enjoyment of private autonomy.
Social problems are de-politicized and converted into therapeutic, individualistic solutions (mostly
through consuming a special commodity). The political rationality of neo-liberalism interpellates
the governed self of the citizenry. Separated from the collectivity, this self is then absorbed into
a world of choice and need-satisfaction through consumption that is mistaken for freedom.
Aware that the mere restoration of some ragtag social welfare state spiced with a pinch of climate
change rhetoric is a dangerous delusion, Brown slices through the bramble bush of esoteric terminology
to enable us to see that "neo-liberalism carries a social analysis which, when deployed as a form
of governmentality, reaches from the soul of the citizen-subject to education policy to practices
of empire." Neo-liberal rationality "involves extending and disseminating market values to all
institutions and social actors, even as the market itself remains a distinctive player."
Neo-liberalism ruthlessly sets out to subvert democracy
Good god! This guy moved stealthily and incrementally according to a "master plan": to dismantle
Canadian democracy and free the society for total corporate domination without citizen recourse.
It was systematic! It was devilish! He did it behind closed doors and in the twilight under our noses!
Voter ignorance permits these bastards to blast the world back into the medieval era of serfdom and
anti-enlightenment beliefs and degrading practices.
This intention to subvert liberal democracy has not been fully grasped by those on the left. That's
Brown's wake-up call. And it is a salient one. It may provide us clues to understanding puzzling
elements of the contemporary world such as lying without consequences, total absence of moral principle
underpinning actions, abject inconsistency, utter hard-heartedness towards the vulnerable and contempt
for democratic deliberation and international diplomacy.
Specific characteristics of the neo-liberal political rationality
To help us sort these things out, Brown identifies the specific characteristics of this rationality.
Plunging in, Brown first points out that neo-liberal rationality configures human beings as homo
oeconomicus. All dimensions of human life are cast in terms of a market rationality. Actions
and policies are reduced to the bare question of profitability and the social production of "rational
entrepreneurial action." Our schools are re-figured to pump out little brown-shirted entrepreneurs
who know only calculation and competition.
Second, Brown states that neo-liberalism pedagogics intends to develop, disseminate, and institutionalize
such a rationality. "Far from flourishing when left alone," Brown asserts, "the economy must be directed,
buttressed, and protected by law and policy as well as by the dissemination of social norms designed
to facilitate competition, free trade, and rational economic action on the part of every member and
institution of society."
Neo-liberals only want to get the state out of providing for the security and well-being of its
citizens. They use the state apparatus to enable corporations to serve only their profit-making without
fear of legal regulation or moral demands. This means, then, that the market organizes and regulates
the state and society. Therefore:
(a) By openly responding to the needs of the market (through immigration policy or monetary and
fiscal policy), the state is released from the burden of a legitimation crisis (European critical
theorists like Claus Offe and Jurgen Habermas had raised this concern in the 1970s). The new form
of legitimation is simply economic success (it is also, I might add, the new, post-liberal democratic
morality). The old norms of crime and morality are expunged from the cultural ethos of neo-liberalism.
(b) Under neo-liberal conditions, the state itself must think and behave like a market actor.
The languages of cost-benefit analysis and calculation sweep in and consume public service and governmental
practices. Under the Harper dictatorship's thumb, gags were stuffed in the public service mouth.
(c) The health and growth of the economy is the "basis of state legitimacy both because the state
is forthrightly responsible for the health of the economy and because of the economic rationality
to which state practices have been submitted." The watchword of neo-liberalism is: "It's the economy,
stupid."
The third characteristic, then, of this depraved neo-liberal rationality (which wrenches itself
free of the constraints of the old liberal democratic paradigm) has to do with the "extension of
economic rationality to formerly non-economic domains and institutions extends to individual conduct,
or more precisely, prescribes citizen-subject conduct in a neo-liberal order." Famously, Habermas
termed this the "colonization of the lifeworld."
There is something disturbingly monstrous now before us. The classical liberal thinker Adam Smith
set out the necessity of tension between individual moral and economic actions. This crucial distinction
collapses, Brown maintains, because neo-liberalism has figured us as rational, calculating machines.
Thus, to be "morally autonomous" means that we take care of our own needs and fund our own self-projects.
Pedagogics (in schools and everyday life) orients its students to consider the costs, benefits,
and consequences of individual action. But this "responsibility for the self" gets carried to new
heights as support for the vulnerable and needy is withdrawn. They are on their own. Didn't Thatcher
say: "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families"?
Grim news for the last defenders of deliberative democracy
For diehard defenders of active citizenship and liberal democracy, Brown's analysis is grim news.
Political citizenship is radically reduced within the neo-liberal frame to an "unprecedented degree
of passivity and political complacency."
In "American nightmare: neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism, and de-democratization," Political
Theory, 34 (6), December 2006)," Brown bemoans the "hollowing out of a democratic political
culture and the production of the undemocratic citizen. This is the citizen who loves and wants neither
freedom nor equality, even if of a liberal sort; the citizen who expects neither truth nor accountability
in governance and state action; the citizen who is not distressed by exorbitant concentrations of
political and economic power, routine abrogation of the rule of law, or distinctly undemocratic formulations
of national purpose at home and abroad." Bravo Ms. Brown!
Brown's most innovative analysis is the way she links neo-conservative religious thought and neo-liberal
economic and political rationality. She addresses the evident contradiction. "How does a project
that empties the world of meaning, that cheapens and deracinates life and openly exploits desire,
intersect with one centred on fixing and enforcing meanings, conserving certain ways of life, and
repressing and regulating desire?"
Neo-liberal political rationality and neo-conservative fundamentalist Christianity may diverge
on the level of ideas. But American Christianity (in its fundamentalist form) and neo-liberal rationality,
Brown contends, converge in the domain of political subjectivity. American fundamentalism contours
the spiritual sensibility of its adherents to submit to Divine Authority and a declarative form of
truth.
She states: "The combination of submissiveness toward a declared truth, legitimate inequality,
and fealty that seeps from religious and political rationality transforms the conditions of legitimacy
for political power; it produces subjects whose submission toward authority and loyalty are constitutive
of the theological configuration of state power sketched in Schmitt's juristic thought."
In post 9/11 America panicked and fearful citizens easily fall prey-so it sadly seems-to sacralising
the existing Neo-liberal regime. The founding myth of America as New Israel tips fundamentalists
(and others, too) toward fusing the US's malevolent actions in the world with America as instrument
of God's eternal purposes-"holy violence" to usher in the New Millennial Order.
Thus, apolitical preferences rule the day and citizens consume and idolize their families. Political
participation is not necessary; and political scientists write articles about "voter ignorance" and
weep. Critics of Habermas chide him for harbouring the illusion that voters know enough to deliberate
with each other. But this submission to the Natural Order (now God's order) of neo-liberal capitalism
is to bow down before the Golden Calf.
We appear to have entered Weber's "polar night of icy darkness" without morality, faith, heroism
and meaning. But for Brown both Weber and Marx's analyses are too teleological. Neither captures
the "discursive and practical integration" of formerly differentiated moral, economic and political
rationalities.
This perspective certainly is controversial and debateable stuff. But there is no denying that
neo-liberalism erodes "oppositional political, moral or subjective claims located outside capitalist
rationality but inside liberal democratic society, that is, the erosion of institutions, resources,
and values organized by non-market rationalities in democracies."
There is much at stake: the Left from Marx's day to ours assumed that liberal democratic societies
at least contained the formal principles of equality and freedom. This ethical gap between the norms
and social reality could elicit oppositional action to close the division and permit a form of "immanent
critique." Now Brown suggests provocatively, "Liberal democracy cannot be submitted to neo-liberal
political governmentality and survive." Indeed, "liberal democracy is going under in the present
moment, even as the flag of American 'democracy' is being placed everywhere it finds or creates soft
ground."
The Left humanist project for post-liberal democracy times
Thus, the Left Humanist movement world-wide confronts-if Brown's argument holds-a neo-liberal
rationality that in the post 9/11 period uses the idiom of liberal democracy while undermining it
in practice. The infamous cry from Paul Bremer in Iraq that it was "open for business" clearly signalled
that democratic institutions were secondary to "privatizing large portions of the economy and outsourcing
the business of policing a society in rubble, chaos, and terror occasioned by the combination of
organizing military skirmishes and armed local groups."
The only way we might fathom the post 9/11 American world of governmental deceit and a raw market
approach to political problem solving is to assume that moral principle has been banished because
the only criteria for action is whether the ends of success and profitability have been achieved.
That's all. That's it. And since morality is the foundation of legal systems, adhering to law is
abandoned as well.
There is, then, plenty of evidence for the argument of the assault on democracy. Civil liberties
have been undermined in the USA in the Homeland Security Act (and in Canada under the Harper regime),
aggressive imperial wars ventured into, the welfare state dismantled and progressive tax schemes
abolished and public education defunded.
Brown is reluctant to name this miserable concoction fascism (or neo-fascism). "Together these
phenomena suggest a transformation of American liberal democracy into a political and societal form
for which we do not yet have a name, a form organized by a combination of neo-liberal governmentality
and imperial world politics, contoured by the short run by conditions of global economics and global
security crisis."
Nonetheless, regardless of how we name this new world, the conditions we find ourselves inhabiting
at the moment must acknowledge that the "substance of many of the significant features of constitutional
and representative democracy have been gutted, jettisoned, or end-run, even as they continue to be
promulgated ideologically, serving as a foil and shield for their undoing and doing of death elsewhere."
Bitterly, Brown admits that this unprecedented nature of our time is that "basic principles and
institutions of democracy are becoming anything other than ideological shells for their opposite
as well as the extent to which these principles and institutions are being abandoned even as values
by large parts of the American people."
Thus, in order to avoid descent into acute melancholia on the part of the Left, Brown urges us
to reject the idea that we are in the "throes of a right-wing or conservative positioning with liberal
democracy but rather at the threshold of a different political formation, one that conducts and legitimizes
itself on different grounds from liberal democracy even as it does not immediately divest itself
of the name."
She maintains strongly that the Left must face the implications of losing democracy. We ought
not to run around in a frenzy raging into the polar night. We will have to dig in for the long haul
and offer an intelligent left counter-vision to the neo-liberal political and economic formation.
This will be an integral project of the reconstitution of the global left in post-liberal democracy
times.
The soft neoliberalism (or The Third Way) promoted by Clinton and Blair now is replaced with a splash
of far right nationalism. the level of anger in the bottom 99% and a refusal to accept the lies and
propaganda by the top 1% created a crisis of legitimacy for neoliberal elite. Moreover, right years
of king of "bait and switch" Obama with his typical for neoliberals unconditional love for financial
elites has revealed that change can be delivered only through radical means...
Notable quotes:
"... Of course in the age of inverted reality, spin and obfuscation, the true nature of [neo]iberals is quite the reverse. Just like the fabians they seek to divert attention from their real goals by describing themselves as mirror opposites. ..."
"... The [neo]liberal elite is nothing of the sort, they seek to control, manipulate and suppress everything which doesn't fit their hidden purpose, which is to promote the flat earth globalisation of the debt pyramid on behalf of the banking cartel and the likes of the Rothschild's. ..."
"... They are despicable creatures, full to the brim with breath-taking hypocrisy, happy to claim faux indignation over widening inequality and falling living standards while they promote the pyramid scheme of debts which causes it. They may dream of a world government with socialism for the masses and largesse for the elites, but as sure as the sun rises in the east, such concentration of power, wielded by those least suitable to hold it, would create an authoritarian tyranny like seen before. ..."
"... Essentially, Third Way liberalism as practised by Clinton and Blair, but even more so by those who followed them (Clinton and Blair were, let's not forget, populists of a sort), is predicated on the belief that you can fashion a winning mandate to govern by appealing to a consensus among middle class professionals, the liberal rich, and what they saw as a new, unideological class of 21st century workers - the socially liberal, politically apathetic, precariously situated masses who hover somewhere between traditional working class and educated middle. ..."
"... They did this by appealing to issues of social identity while reinforcing the economics of the right-wing neoliberal ushered in by Thatcher and Reagan. They were, at the same time, losing working class votes - but their analysis of the economics told them that the (in a Marxist sense) working class was an endangered species. ..."
"... 2008 exploded this fiction but its architects remain wedded to the cause. They personally enriched themselves by opening-up traditionally popular parties to the donations and interests of corporate capitalism. Look beyond Blair and the Clintons and you will see hundreds of centre-left politicians growing fat on an endless stream of corporate money: Cory Booker, Chuck Schumer, DWS, Howard Dean (in the US), Ben Bradshaw, Chris Byrne, Alastair Campbell, Jack Straw (in the UK) ..."
"... Deregulated capitalism tends to monopolies and the rise of a rentier class epitomised on Wall Street and property speculators like Donald Trump. ..."
"... Global capitalism pits workers against workers in an endless spiral of wage deflation and this fosters divisions between those whose class interests are, in fact, the same. The alienation that is an intimate part of capitalist production ..."
"... Marx also made a distinctive between productive and fictitious capital - share prices, derivatives and other financial instruments, arbitrage and all the other heinous arsenal of second-order exploitation. Neoliberalism has delivered productive capital into the arms of fictitious capital and ushered us into a world governed by nobody so much as orchestrated according to the graph-lines of the global stock markets. It has turned the spectacle from social relations mediates by images into the beating heart of how, where and why wealth moves the way that it does. The unreality has seeped into every aspect of lived experience. ..."
"... I am less despondent then I was under Obama and his smooth delivery of a hope and change always deferred. ..."
"... Or Hillary Clinton and her revolution of upper-class women with their own specific class interests. There is organising taking place right now and making demands that this system will not satisfy - because it is designed to do the exact opposite. ..."
"... I would rather speak with an alt-right troll than a liberal because one is searching for answers in the wrong place where the other glibly renders apologies for the system from which they seek to profit at the expense of those to whom they offer nothing but false sympathy. ..."
"... There is a mobilisation of anger and a refusal to accept the fictions spun by the ruling class that can potentially be harnessed for permanent change - and, moreover, 8 years of Obama and his pathological love for financial elites has revealed that radical change can be delivered only through radical means. ..."
"... But as others have said really we mean neoliberalism, not liberalism. Liberalism and capitalism are not the same thing and cant be used interchangeably, liberalism is a set of beliefs and capitalism is a set of practices which are sometimes at odds with one another. On the other hand, neoliberalism as a set of beliefs explicitly accepts the hegemony of capital and the expansion of the market economy into all areas of society and life. ..."
"... the reformist and incrementalist view of a progressive social democracy that balances state and market for the betterment of all is con. ..."
"... I don't think that Trump and Brexit mark an epochal shift; I think they are signs of disintegration. The more significant (though still not epochal!) moment was the 2008 financial crisis - and the complete failure of the political elites of Europe and America to address its fallout. This, by the way, was also far from the unforeseeable calamity that it was characterised as being in many sections of the media. Many economists and political analysts had discussed deregulation and unsustainable debt in terms of future crises; it wasn't prophesy, but a basic understanding of how unrestricted market capitalism (especially when reliant on the vicissitudes of shares/bonds/derivatives) operates. ..."
"... More broadly, I agree with you - history is not some untroubled march of the working class to freedom (alas!) It is contingent, messy and unexpected. We have agency - and we have to use it (another thing I believe has been reignited in the last 8 years). One of many ironies of the present situation is that neoliberal politicians believed that the educated precariat they were helping to create would be unideological, politically apathetic consumers - and yet it is the young who are returning the repressed in the form of unrest, economic demands, and the re-introduction of class into political discourse. ..."
"... Okay though, back to reality! That, I concede, is a very American and European perspective that does not take into account the global developments in Asia, Africa or Latin America. I actually lived in China for a while as a young man, and it struck me at the time that the society offered a possible, if bleak, template for the future - a technocratic, one-party state in which people trusted them to deliver the right decisions through a central bureaucracy but with consumer freedoms sufficient to forestall unrest. This is, perhaps, an alternative to the dissent and potentially unrest I have described - and what makes the latter imperative...? ..."
"... Oh, and what you wrote about waste is very interesting. I certainly agree that it, "efficiency" (usually code for cuts and/or transfer from public to private stewardship), are over-fetishised. In fact, ridiculously so. The waste of most governments is staggering and yet they attack only certain areas. What America squanders on its military is the most obvious of examples - or its increasingly repressive police. ..."
"... The point with Trump - and Brexit too - is not so much what it means to the man himself (or Brexit-profiteers like Boris Johnson) but how his victory gets brandished to confer legitimacy and political cover for a newly emboldened syndicate of zealously right-wing politicians and the corporate interests they represent (especially in America, where the majority of Congressional Republicans are little better than local union bosses who have been installed by the Mafia to carry their water and hold their places to exclude anyone else attaining any uncorrupted power or autonomous control). ..."
"... We are seeing this happen right now as Trump fashions his administration - there are a lot of lobbyists, reactionary financiers, neoconservative mavens, embittered figures from the intelligence community, and evangelical culture warriors suddenly footloose and demob happy after 8 years of Barack Obama and his patented brand of Fidel-loving, radical Chicago organising, spectacularly lukewarm but yet (according to Fox) apocalyptically awful, anti-American, Socialist Revolution. ..."
"... Much of the above will be familiar from Bush files - a man who was seldom happier than when sunk into his Lay-Z-Boy learning how to eat pretzels safely from Barney, his Scottish Terrier. His main role was to show up when required and gurn for the cameras, narrow his peepers and regurgitate what the teleprompter feeds him, before signing the executive orders dreamt up by his dream-team of vampyric, far-right champions of such American glories as the Vietnam War, Watergate, Iran/Contra, and more Latin American coup d'etats than even Henry Kissinger could shake his razor-studded cudgel at. ..."
"... The fact is that Trump cares about victory and basking in the light of his own self-proclaimed greatness – and now he's won. I doubt he cares nearly as much about mastering the levers of government or pursuing some overarching vision as he does about preening himself in his new role as the Winner of the World's Greatest Ever Reality TV Show. He may have thrown red meat to the crowds with the gun-toting, abortion-hating campaign rhetoric, but that is the base for every contemporary Republican's bill of fare. I don't believe he gives a tinker's cuss about those issues or any of the other poisons that constitute their arsenal of cultural pesticides. ..."
"... Like all rich people, he wants to pay as little tax as possible without breaking the law (or at least breaking it outrageously enough to attract the notice of the perennially over-worked, under-resourced IRS). ..."
"... And finally, like most rich people, he refuses to accept that governments can or should regulate transactions or industries in ways that may even slightly inhibit their unbound, irrepressible pursuit of their self-interests and unquenchable desire for more, more and yet again more. ..."
"... These basic right-wing tenets, of course, all easily translate into concrete policy - that's what the Republicans do best. ..."
"... But beyond that, there is the small matter of the world's most highly evolved and comprehensive system of state surveillance and repression - a confluence of agencies, technologies, paranoia and class war that was embraced and embellished by Obama from the moment he brought his glacial approach to change to the highest office in the land – indeed, he showed that he was quite comfortable signing off on historic erosions of constitutional freedoms provided it was endorsed by his ever-responsible friends in Langley and The Pentagon. ..."
"... So while Trump and his administration may in many ways resemble the familiar class warriors of Republican presidencies past, albeit with added evangelical vim, viciousness and vapidity courtesy of Mike Pence, let's not forget that his frequently displayed authoritarianism will have ample opportunity to be both stress-tested and to revenge itself on a plethora of opponents. ..."
"... The point, really, is to move beyond the office of the President, which is always absurdly fetishised in American politics to the detriment of scrutiny that should be directed elsewhere - at his team, his cabinet, his appointments, and his place in the web of Congressional Republicans, lobbyists and corporate money – the nexus of interests that really dictates policies and determined which political battles get fought aggressively, which cast aside. ..."
"... People will not see a new dawn, but the delirious rush to expand those chaotic, inhumane, amoral, and utterly unaccountable market forces that have already seeped far too deep into the already grotty political system. Trump is only a piece of this large and ugly tapestry – a figurehead for an army of cultural and social vandals serving alongside economic thieves and assassins. These are, moreover, the experts in how to instrumentalise economic inequality to serve the very politicians responsible for fostering the inequality in the first place and those most wedded to beliefs capable only of making matters worse for all but themselves and their donor-owners. ..."
"... But let's not be lulled by the familiarity of parts of this story. Familiar from Reagan and Bush Jnr, as well as Clinton and Obama (albeit with a more fulgent presentation and the skilled performance of sympathy to sugar the pill). ..."
"... [Neo]Liberalism is an ideology, it has many variations and even definitions for people. Arrogance, superiority, disdain, refusal to engage etc. A moral certainty more in line with doctrinal religion. ..."
"... The first question to ask is why these right wing commentators are attacking liberalism . Is it because they want a better society in which everyone gets a chance of a decent life ? Do they actually care about the people they claim to speak for - they people right at the bottom of the social scale ? ..."
"... The answer , of course, is no. They see attacking liberalism as a means of defending their own privileges which they believe liberalism and the gradual progress of recent years towards a more equal society have undermined. ..."
"... Since they are basically conning the underprivileged and cannot deliver what they promise the right will find itself driven to even more extremes of bigotry and deceit to maintain its position. The prospect is terrifying. ..."
Of course in the age of inverted reality, spin and obfuscation, the true nature of [neo]iberals
is quite the reverse. Just like the fabians they seek to divert attention from their real goals
by describing themselves as mirror opposites.
The [neo]liberal elite is nothing of the sort, they seek to control, manipulate and suppress
everything which doesn't fit their hidden purpose, which is to promote the flat earth globalisation
of the debt pyramid on behalf of the banking cartel and the likes of the Rothschild's.
They are despicable creatures, full to the brim with breath-taking hypocrisy, happy to
claim faux indignation over widening inequality and falling living standards while they promote
the pyramid scheme of debts which causes it. They may dream of a world government with socialism
for the masses and largesse for the elites, but as sure as the sun rises in the east, such concentration
of power, wielded by those least suitable to hold it, would create an authoritarian tyranny like
seen before. Power in all forms should be spread into as many hands as possible, monopolies
are always bad yet, once again, the illiberal's love a monopoly because they're not what they
seem.
tempestteacup 1d ago Guardian Pick
...You certainly have a point that the experiences in the UK and the US are different for lots
of reasons - historic alignments of the major parties, political corruption, and the different
points where class, race, gender and geographical location intersect - but the latter-day form
of liberalism tried - and failed - to do the same thing in both countries.
Essentially, Third Way liberalism as practised by Clinton and Blair, but even more so by
those who followed them (Clinton and Blair were, let's not forget, populists of a sort), is predicated
on the belief that you can fashion a winning mandate to govern by appealing to a consensus among
middle class professionals, the liberal rich, and what they saw as a new, unideological class
of 21st century workers - the socially liberal, politically apathetic, precariously situated masses
who hover somewhere between traditional working class and educated middle.
They did this by appealing to issues of social identity while reinforcing the economics
of the right-wing neoliberal ushered in by Thatcher and Reagan. They were, at the same time, losing
working class votes - but their analysis of the economics told them that the (in a Marxist sense)
working class was an endangered species. The Republicans in America willingly played into
this fantastical analysis by engaging in the culture wars - politically useful but also economically
necessary as a distraction from the growing cross-party consensus on how to enshrine, extend and
improve the means of capitalist exploitation through deregulation and debt.
2008 exploded this fiction but its architects remain wedded to the cause. They personally
enriched themselves by opening-up traditionally popular parties to the donations and interests
of corporate capitalism. Look beyond Blair and the Clintons and you will see hundreds of centre-left
politicians growing fat on an endless stream of corporate money: Cory Booker, Chuck Schumer, DWS,
Howard Dean (in the US), Ben Bradshaw, Chris Byrne, Alastair Campbell, Jack Straw (in the UK)
.
Evolutions and developments require always refreshed analysis but the basic principles by which
we subject those developments to our analysis remain fundamentally the same: capitalism is a system
by which wealth is transferred from the workers to those owning the means of production. Deregulated
capitalism tends to monopolies and the rise of a rentier class epitomised on Wall Street and property
speculators like Donald Trump.
Global capitalism pits workers against workers in an endless spiral of wage deflation and
this fosters divisions between those whose class interests are, in fact, the same. The alienation
that is an intimate part of capitalist production is carried over into the social relations
between workers and can only be short-circuited by acts of radical organising - revolution begins
with a question that the system cannot answer and ends with a demand that refuses to be denied.
Marx also made a distinctive between productive and fictitious capital - share prices,
derivatives and other financial instruments, arbitrage and all the other heinous arsenal of second-order
exploitation. Neoliberalism has delivered productive capital into the arms of fictitious capital
and ushered us into a world governed by nobody so much as orchestrated according to the graph-lines
of the global stock markets. It has turned the spectacle from social relations mediates by images
into the beating heart of how, where and why wealth moves the way that it does. The unreality
has seeped into every aspect of lived experience.
And yet, strangely, I am less despondent then I was under Obama and his smooth delivery
of a hope and change always deferred.
Or Hillary Clinton and her revolution of upper-class women with their own specific class
interests. There is organising taking place right now and making demands that this system will
not satisfy - because it is designed to do the exact opposite.
I would rather speak with an alt-right troll than a liberal because one is searching for
answers in the wrong place where the other glibly renders apologies for the system from which
they seek to profit at the expense of those to whom they offer nothing but false sympathy.
There is a mobilisation of anger and a refusal to accept the fictions spun by the ruling
class that can potentially be harnessed for permanent change - and, moreover, 8 years of Obama
and his pathological love for financial elites has revealed that radical change can be delivered
only through radical means.
joropofever -> tempestteacup 2d ago
I would agree about this idea of a vacuum being created by the political class but really I
think the political turmoil is a reflection of the economic inequality, economics shaping the
political. But as others have said really we mean neoliberalism, not liberalism. Liberalism
and capitalism are not the same thing and cant be used interchangeably, liberalism is a set of
beliefs and capitalism is a set of practices which are sometimes at odds with one another. On
the other hand, neoliberalism as a set of beliefs explicitly accepts the hegemony of capital and
the expansion of the market economy into all areas of society and life.
I think what you are saying (correct me if wrong) is that the reformist and incrementalist
view of a progressive social democracy that balances state and market for the betterment of all
is con. Marxists said this view would result in the state becoming a conduit for the accumulation
of power in the hands of capital and the gradual destruction of welfare and social institutions,
and they were right.
My question is then though is how do you achieve this transformation (though I don't know what
you would think best) without running the risk of a right-wing and nationalist hijack? History
is littered with cases where well intended left-wing revolutions and social movements helped sow
the seeds for later horrors. As you say, the prognosis and world view of the radical left and
the alt-right are not miles apart.
tempestteacup -> joropofever 2d ago
More excellent and pertinent questions!
I don't think that Trump and Brexit mark an epochal shift; I think they are signs of disintegration.
The more significant (though still not epochal!) moment was the 2008 financial crisis - and the
complete failure of the political elites of Europe and America to address its fallout. This, by
the way, was also far from the unforeseeable calamity that it was characterised as being in many
sections of the media. Many economists and political analysts had discussed deregulation and unsustainable
debt in terms of future crises; it wasn't prophesy, but a basic understanding of how unrestricted
market capitalism (especially when reliant on the vicissitudes of shares/bonds/derivatives) operates.
And I don't accept that this is an anglocentric point of view. There are crises across Europe,
although none have as yet had quite the before/after drama of the Brexit and presidential votes.
In France, the Front National are basically the second party. In Italy, the chaotic 5 Star Movement
are on the verge of toppling the prime minister and making gains elsewhere. In Hungary, Fidesz
and the borderline neo-fascist Jobbik dominate political discourse, as the Law and Justice party
have come to do in Poland. Even in Scandinavia, the Danish People's Party and True Finns have
made significant, even decisive, inroads on political discourse.
Commentators are fond of saying that the left-right divide has been scrambled. Doubtless they
would cite some of these as examples - many of the European nationalist parties I have mentioned
are in favour of strong welfare protections, and use race, country of origin, religion or ethnicity
as a dividing line. To me this does not signify the same thing - the Nazis were called National
Socialists for a reason, and while the purges of the 30s and the war brought the anti-semitic
mass murderers into the ascendancy, there were many founder-members like Strasser and Rohm who
were essentially socialists with a racial or nationalist element.
But look, you're right - the events of 2016 are, as we speak, being interpreted, exploited
and spun to the benefit of the prevailing conditions. One would expect no different - it's why
I was not surprised that the Tory bloodletting post-Brexit gave way to such a painless transition,
just as it appears to be doing in America under President-elect Trump. It's what the ruling class
do - protect their interests. What I believe has happened is that there is now a rupture within
the left (in its broadest sense) and that rupture is defined by those who believe economic change
will deliver social justice on the one hand and those who believe in cosmetic changes without
challenging the economic system.
More broadly, I agree with you - history is not some untroubled march of the working class
to freedom (alas!) It is contingent, messy and unexpected. We have agency - and we have to use
it (another thing I believe has been reignited in the last 8 years). One of many ironies of the
present situation is that neoliberal politicians believed that the educated precariat they were
helping to create would be unideological, politically apathetic consumers - and yet it is the
young who are returning the repressed in the form of unrest, economic demands, and the re-introduction
of class into political discourse.
If I may be allowed to spit-ball for a moment, this is, to my mind, a pivotal moment in history.
Those of us adults but under 40 are the last vestiges of the 20th century and its traditions of
dissent, revolt and counterculture. We are, so to speak, the children of the 1960s. And those
from the 1960s are still here - there is a living link, and in revolutionary terms, such things
matter. In a period where we could potentially prevent catastrophic, irreversible climate change,
there is no more time. It is imperative that we make our stand now, with those who lived through
the last revolutionary period in the west, to keep that flame of revolt alive - or, better yet,
to stoke it into a pyre. Because without those signal historical developments, those noble challenges,
the flame dies down and is covered in ashes....
Okay though, back to reality! That, I concede, is a very American and European perspective
that does not take into account the global developments in Asia, Africa or Latin America. I actually
lived in China for a while as a young man, and it struck me at the time that the society offered
a possible, if bleak, template for the future - a technocratic, one-party state in which people
trusted them to deliver the right decisions through a central bureaucracy but with consumer freedoms
sufficient to forestall unrest. This is, perhaps, an alternative to the dissent and potentially
unrest I have described - and what makes the latter imperative...?
tempestteacup -> joropofever 2d ago
Oh, and what you wrote about waste is very interesting. I certainly agree that it, "efficiency"
(usually code for cuts and/or transfer from public to private stewardship), are over-fetishised.
In fact, ridiculously so. The waste of most governments is staggering and yet they attack only
certain areas. What America squanders on its military is the most obvious of examples - or its
increasingly repressive police.
I was more concerned, though, with the general sustainability of a system where decisions are
made by criteria other than profit/loss, demand/supply. You're right about direct democracy (it's
been ages since I've read Raymond Williams so I'm glad you reminded me to do so again!) - but
how does that work when it comes to resources that have to be shared over large areas? Is it possible
to build, step by step, a democratic structure of shared ownership that is both responsive to
individual communities and responsible in its disposition of resources on the basis of needs rather
than profits?
tempestteacup -> ForgetThePolitics 1d ago
Sorry but I can't agree with that. Popular in terms of electoral success and populist in terms
of generating fervid support through direct, emotionally charged appeals to your audience's most
passionately held interests, fears or aspirations while adopting their language and mobilising
their energy, are two very different things. Obama was popular but not, it turned out, a populist
– despite the narrative of his early presidency, inflected as it still was with the delirious,
joyous cheers the followed his rhetorically rich but studiously vague Yes We Can barnburner (of
sorts).
The point with Trump - and Brexit too - is not so much what it means to the man himself
(or Brexit-profiteers like Boris Johnson) but how his victory gets brandished to confer legitimacy
and political cover for a newly emboldened syndicate of zealously right-wing politicians and the
corporate interests they represent (especially in America, where the majority of Congressional
Republicans are little better than local union bosses who have been installed by the Mafia to
carry their water and hold their places to exclude anyone else attaining any uncorrupted power
or autonomous control).
We are seeing this happen right now as Trump fashions his administration - there are a
lot of lobbyists, reactionary financiers, neoconservative mavens, embittered figures from the
intelligence community, and evangelical culture warriors suddenly footloose and demob happy after
8 years of Barack Obama and his patented brand of Fidel-loving, radical Chicago organising, spectacularly
lukewarm but yet (according to Fox) apocalyptically awful, anti-American, Socialist Revolution.
There are legions of pissed off, fired up kingpins from the fossil fuel industry already itching
to fire up the federal shredders fired up and set loose in the EPA. There are batallions of combat-ready,
obscenely wealthy people and dynasties for whom there is no such thing as too much, and who are
salivating just as they imagine the glorious bonfire of taxes that their Republican lackeys have
a chance to build and dance around in one of their pagan rituals of money worship and rapacity
as a fetish of a heavenly future. And they can build it on the floor of a Congress they also dominate,
before embarking on a mission to extend their current gains during the 2018 mid-terms, when several
precariously held Democratic Senate seats in otherwise Trump-friendly states will be up for re-election.
Much of the above will be familiar from Bush files - a man who was seldom happier than
when sunk into his Lay-Z-Boy learning how to eat pretzels safely from Barney, his Scottish Terrier.
His main role was to show up when required and gurn for the cameras, narrow his peepers and regurgitate
what the teleprompter feeds him, before signing the executive orders dreamt up by his dream-team
of vampyric, far-right champions of such American glories as the Vietnam War, Watergate, Iran/Contra,
and more Latin American coup d'etats than even Henry Kissinger could shake his razor-studded cudgel
at. It was their interests, energies, vendettas and connections that provided the real substance
for a presidency characterised above all by the elevation of anti-intellectualism to the level
of essential and authentic patriotic performance (preparing ground now bulldozed across by a Trump-shaped
figure reveling in the sheer winningness of it all).
The fact is that Trump cares about victory and basking in the light of his own self-proclaimed
greatness – and now he's won. I doubt he cares nearly as much about mastering the levers of government
or pursuing some overarching vision as he does about preening himself in his new role as the Winner
of the World's Greatest Ever Reality TV Show. He may have thrown red meat to the crowds with the
gun-toting, abortion-hating campaign rhetoric, but that is the base for every contemporary Republican's
bill of fare. I don't believe he gives a tinker's cuss about those issues or any of the other
poisons that constitute their arsenal of cultural pesticides.
Like all rich people, he wants to pay as little tax as possible without breaking the law
(or at least breaking it outrageously enough to attract the notice of the perennially over-worked,
under-resourced IRS). Like many rich people, he believes that his wealth is objective and
irrefutable proof of his personal excellence; that this proves how America is truly a land of
opportunity, where hard work, innovation and good old moxie can transform any Joe Schlubb on Main
Street into a millionaire princeling of the Upper West Side - thus demonstrating that social investment
in education or spending to address issues like systemic discrimination is just throwing money
at life's losers.
tempestteacup -> ForgetThePolitics 1d ago
And finally, like most rich people, he refuses to accept that governments can or should
regulate transactions or industries in ways that may even slightly inhibit their unbound, irrepressible
pursuit of their self-interests and unquenchable desire for more, more and yet again more.
These basic right-wing tenets, of course, all easily translate into concrete policy - that's
what the Republicans do best. It is what should be expected.
But beyond that, there is the small matter of the world's most highly evolved and comprehensive
system of state surveillance and repression - a confluence of agencies, technologies, paranoia
and class war that was embraced and embellished by Obama from the moment he brought his glacial
approach to change to the highest office in the land – indeed, he showed that he was quite comfortable
signing off on historic erosions of constitutional freedoms provided it was endorsed by his ever-responsible
friends in Langley and The Pentagon.
If, as would be unsurprising, public unrest spreads and civil disobedience intensifies while
Trump begin work on the familiar Republican transfer of wealth, with Black Lives Matter hardening
their resistance and resolve in the face of police brutalities now able to justify themselves
in terms of sympathetic views espoused by the incoming President himself; with white working class
voters realising that their interests have been, were always going to be, betrayed; with environmental
activists mobilised in deadly earnest and in a desperate effort to push back against potentially
catastrophic energy and industrial policies that imperil everyone's future; as young people schooled
in the Bernie campaign seek to organise and resist the excesses of a Trump presidency that few
accept as legitimately representative of them or their lives, and as the despair of the country
increases under a divisive, duplicitous and avaricious administration soaked in the very corruption
it was such a winning strategy to declaim - well, then Trump has at his fingers the shiniest forms
of repression that money and 21st century technology can provide: blanket surveillance online
and in the streets, habeas corpus perilously undermined by legislation like the NDAA, hyper-militarised
police forces trained in the use of obscenely excessive force, obscenely high sentences imposed
by one of the army of judges perversely satisfied by every extreme species of punitive justice
at their fingertips, along with prosecutors who consider the multi-year deprivation of freedom
in a brutalising prison system as a badge of professional honour, all the while dreaming up criminal
indictments that are so overzealous they look for felonies to charge the felonies with. Many warned
that the step-by-step construction of this multi-layered, barely controllable system (to complement
the steady erosion of civil liberties and constitutional rights) betrayed a potentially disastrous
lack of foresight. It would not always rest in the command of people unwilling to test its full
extent, and once you have created such possibilities in law, in storage rooms of equipment, in
training drills and operating manuals, it is only a matter of time before they will be invoked
in reality (and seldom in the exact ways they were originally intended or designed).
tempestteacup -> ForgetThePolitics 1d ago
So while Trump and his administration may in many ways resemble the familiar class warriors
of Republican presidencies past, albeit with added evangelical vim, viciousness and vapidity courtesy
of Mike Pence, let's not forget that his frequently displayed authoritarianism will have ample
opportunity to be both stress-tested and to revenge itself on a plethora of opponents. Add
in the fact that the Republicans have achieved an unexpected, clean sweep of Congress, as well
as holding an unprecedented number of governorships. They can act from a position of unparalleled
strength, and as a strength that came unexpectedly one should not be surprised if they start wielding
it recklessly. They can do so, also, after 8 years of stultification and political paralysis,
placed under restraints in order the more effectively to effectively perform their new definition
of Congressional work: obstruct everything the President attempts to do. They only receive the
occasional fun day-out to the Benghazi hearings or when they could play find the gavel during
the 2013 sequester.
So I would expect a lot of pent-up resentment, plenty of lunatic ideas and plenty of hubris
that sees no problem in airing them as if they were the wisdom of Solomon. Their opposition is
disastrously enfeebled after years of poor candidates being selected on the basis of their ability
to toe the corporate line rather than define and then achieve political goals. There is a chance
here, in other words and before demographic changes make future Republican presidential victories
more remote, to pursue their most cherished, most ideological, most shameless, lunatic, idiotic,
corrupt, destructive and irresponsible policies. Trump's bulbous slab of torso-meat, congenitally
bound to seek and fill every available limelight, can provide cover as they rip up every regulation
they see lying around or pretend to have read, slash taxes for themselves, their families, friends,
and all those fine citizens who fund their political cesspool, all the while having fun with whichever
civil liberty or egalitarian policy that catches their eye or makes them feel confused, perhaps
inadequate, with their nasty, un-American regard for systemic injustice and the imperative to
address historic wrongs.
Fresh from one of their favoured think-tanks, where charmed minds devote themselves to the
rigorous and sober analysis, the scholarly investigation of such pressing national issues as:
the best way to enjoy your money is to keep it, why the poor have only themselves to blame, and
freedom is whatever we say it is, vulpine Republican advisers can sink their teeth into racial
equality, voting rights, affirmative action, abortion rights, and whatever else Mike Pence and
friends have decided does not represent their crushingly reactionary, mind-numbingly mediocre
vision of an America without charm and sunk grotesquely in self-love, with anti-intellectualism
as a core principle and, in the end, frightened of anything that diverges from a template of respectability
designed by someone who seemingly loathes the entire human race.
None of this, however, justifies the orgy of visions competing to describe the most apocalyptic
America, commentators outdoing each other in op-ed after op-ed as they spin stories from the most
terrifying speculations or possible scenarios. I'm simply pointing out that it is not that difficult
to foresee the direction Trump's presidency will travel - or to point out where and how things
could become very nasty. The point, really, is to move beyond the office of the President,
which is always absurdly fetishised in American politics to the detriment of scrutiny that should
be directed elsewhere - at his team, his cabinet, his appointments, and his place in the web of
Congressional Republicans, lobbyists and corporate money – the nexus of interests that really
dictates policies and determined which political battles get fought aggressively, which cast aside.
The truth so far is about as desolate as one would expect – made that little bit worse by the
continued (maybe permanent?) state of delusion and the feeble platitudes dribbling out of the
by-now-almost-unsalvageable Congressional Democratic Wurlitzer of Wisdom, scarcely enough to drowned
the noise of meretricious minds whirring as they look for solutions to the only question that
really matters: how to continue mainlining the corporate donor money-dope while at the same time
presenting an appearance of interest in the left-wing changes championed by progressive Democrats
like Bernie sufficient to placate the latter along with their irritatingly rambunctious supporters.
tempestteacup -> ForgetThePolitics 1d ago
Ok, crazy - this is like a nightmare of my own making. So long! But must finished now I've
started........
Blimey, this got long - apologies. Let me offer the reader's digest, abbreviated version: Trump
and his court have thus far confirmed what was fairly obvious - that he and his new Congressional
play-mates are already pawing the ground in anticipation of the approaching adventure into their
favourite land: the magical kingdom of inexhaustible tax cuts, where every regulation can be tossed
on the fire, where protections come to you to be gutted and the public finances positively cry
out to be finagled in a giant cabaret that they can dedicate, as is their wont, to their feared
yet beloved corporate masters. They can demonstrate to their heart's content their enduring fealty
to the donor-class who bestride the nation like benevolent princes, they can lavish on them a
horn of plenty overflowing with gifts, endowments, contracts, pourboires, fortunes bilked from
the taxpayer and juggled into the pockets of these stalwart champions of American values, coy
little loopholes with diagrams for how to exploit them, and above all – first, last and always
– every asset they can think of stripping from public ownership they have been taught to believe
is merely a euphemism for Marxist-Leninism.
In the meantime, public resistance or acts of dissent, the faintest hint of mass organising
will be met with state forces of repression restrained now by little more than the frayed strands
of a mostly cut-through piece of rope. Divisions revealed, exploited and entrenched during the
election will, without serious and sustained will to extend solidarity beyond immediate interest-groups
and to learn from the experiences of others, become the permanent operative language of the entire
administration of American government. People will not see a new dawn, but the delirious rush
to expand those chaotic, inhumane, amoral, and utterly unaccountable market forces that have already
seeped far too deep into the already grotty political system. Trump is only a piece of this large
and ugly tapestry – a figurehead for an army of cultural and social vandals serving alongside
economic thieves and assassins. These are, moreover, the experts in how to instrumentalise economic
inequality to serve the very politicians responsible for fostering the inequality in the first
place and those most wedded to beliefs capable only of making matters worse for all but themselves
and their donor-owners.
But let's not be lulled by the familiarity of parts of this story. Familiar from Reagan
and Bush Jnr, as well as Clinton and Obama (albeit with a more fulgent presentation and the skilled
performance of sympathy to sugar the pill). Familiar from every interview with almost every
Republican and certainly the freshly minted, post Tea Party brand of prosperity Christian bullies
worthy of far greater anger and loathing than they often receive thanks to a perhaps deliberate
act involving a quasi-folksy clownishness – however many references, though, to the Republican
clown car cannot alter the fact that even the thickest among them is capable of being herded with
the others when it comes to voting for vicious legislation, insane tax cuts and budgets in which
each new one is more limited, more nihilistic than the one before in every respect but the military
and the ever-growing number of enormous flags that will soon follow Republican politicians around
the country to provide an immediately appropriate backdrop in case they feel the sudden need to
share their wisdom with the world or the nearest news anchor.
But while some parts are familiar, enough should be new or unknown to keep all of us looking
forward anxiously, preparing carefully, and planning intelligently for the potentially vicious
challenges ahead.
Danny Sheahan 3d ago
[Neo]Liberalism is an ideology, it has many variations and even definitions for people.
Arrogance, superiority, disdain, refusal to engage etc. A moral certainty more in line with doctrinal
religion.
These are big problems on the left/liberal platform.
Certainly not all but enough to damage it is a position.
Many, like me, who vote left are hoping that the penny will drop. It has to at some stage,
why not now?
It may not though, it would not surprise me.
tehanomander -> Danny Sheahan 3d ago
What Danny said
Supported Labour all my life probably will with reservations still ....but the disconnect is
palpable now (think Owen Smith to understand my meaning)
I voted Leave though .....so obviously now in here I'm a Trump supporter and racist xenophobe
(which always amuses my Jamaican wife when I tell her)
Keith Macdonald 3d ago \
The first question to ask is why these right wing commentators are attacking liberalism
. Is it because they want a better society in which everyone gets a chance of a decent life ?
Do they actually care about the people they claim to speak for - they people right at the bottom
of the social scale ?
Do they really want their own children to compete on equal terms with the rest of the population
for the inevitably limited number of top jobs ?
The answer , of course, is no. They see attacking liberalism as a means of defending their
own privileges which they believe liberalism and the gradual progress of recent years towards
a more equal society have undermined.
Since they are basically conning the underprivileged and cannot deliver what they promise
the right will find itself driven to even more extremes of bigotry and deceit to maintain its
position. The prospect is terrifying.
The next question is how liberals and progressives deal with this powerful onslaught. So far
we have done badly. For example Hillary Clinton clearly did not have a clue how Trump used the
constructed "reality" of shows like The Apprentice to mount a presidential campaign based on fiction
(although of course the underlying discontents are real). There is a massive amount of work to
do here.
Yes - there has been a failure to make globalisation work. I think Thomas Piketty began to
give some answers to this at
"... he changed American politics forever by demonstrating that style was more important than substance. In fact, he showed that style was everything and substance utterly unimportant. ..."
"... Conservatives used "bracket creep" to convince the middle class that reducing marginal rates on the top tax brackets along with their own would be a good idea, then with the assistance of Democrats replaced the revenue with a huge increase in FICA so that the Social Security Trust Fund could finance the deficit in the rest of the budget. The result was a huge boon to the richest, little difference for the middle class, and a far greater burden for the working poor. ..."
"... Any conversation about who the fantasy-projection "Reagan" was, misses an important reality: He was a hologram, fabricated by a kaleidoscope of various sorts of so-called "conservative" handlers and puppeteers. It was those "puppeteers" who ranged from heartlessly, stunningly "conservative" (destroya-tive), all the way further right to the kind of militaristic, macho, crackpots who have finally emerged from under their rocks at this year's "candidates." ..."
Do not contradict the memories of all the old teabaggers who desperately need the myth of Saint
Ronnie to justify their Greed is Good declining mentality and years.
When Reagan cut-and-ran on Lebanon he showed rare discretion. A lot of the puffery stuff was
B-Movie grade, but there was a lot of cross-the-aisle ventures, too.
He was a politician. The current GOP is just a bunch of white Fundie bullies, actually and
metaphorically (e.g., Carson).
Zepp -> thedono 19 Sep 2015 11:37
Well, compared to Cruz, or Santorum, or Huckabee, he's a moderate. Of course, compared to the
right people, you can describe Mussolini or Khruschev as moderates...
mastermisanthrope 19 Sep 2015 11:37
Lifelong shill
LostintheUS -> William J Rood 19 Sep 2015 11:36
Reagan underwent a political conversion when Nancy broke up his marriage with Jane Wyman and
married him.
The cold war ended while Reagan was president, but he did not win the cold war. His rhetoric
and strategy was wishful thinking - there's no way he could have had the definitive intelligence
about the entire military-political-economic that would have justified the confidence he projected.
He merely lucked out, significantly damaging the US economy by trying (and luckily succeeding)
to out-militarize the soviets.
pretzelattack -> kattw 19 Sep 2015 11:31
both clinton and obama have showed a willingness to "reform social security". try naked capitalism,
there are probably a number of articles in the archives.
LostintheUS -> piethein 19 Sep 2015 11:29
And that the emergency room federally funded program that saved his life was soon after defunded...by
him.
LostintheUS -> pretzelattack 19 Sep 2015 11:28
Many of us saw through him...I noted the senility during his speeches during his first campaign...as
did many people I knew.
Dementia masquerading as politics.
But you can't say anything negative about Saint Ronald!
Peter Davis -> Peter Davis 19 Sep 2015 11:22
I believe Reagan also is responsible for creating the Hollywood notion in American politics
and political thinking that life works just like a movie--with good guys and bad guys. And all
one needs is a gun and you can save the world. That sort of delusional thinking has been at the
heart of the modern GOP ever since.
loljahlol -> ID3732233 19 Sep 2015 11:21
Reagan did not end the Cold War. Brezhnev rule solidified the Soviet death. Their corrupt,
inefficient form of capitalism could not compete with the globalization of Western capitalism.
John78745 19 Sep 2015 11:21
There's not much nuance to Reagan. He was a coward, a bully and a loser. He got hundreds of
U.S. Marines killed then he ran from the terrorists in Beirut and on the Archille Lauro personally
creating the seeds of the morass of terrorists we now live with. He fostered the republican traditions
of sending U.S. jobs overseas at the expense of U.S. taxpayers and of invading helpless, hapless
nations, a tradition so adeptly followed by Bush I & II. He also promised that there would never
be a need for another amnesty.
I guess it's true that he talked mean to the Russians, broke unions, and helped make the military
industrial complex into the insatiable war machine that it is today. Remember murderous Iran-Contra
(a real) scandal where he and his minions worked in secret without congressional authorization
to overthrow a democratically elected government while conspiring to supply arms to the dastardly
Iranians!
We could also say that he bravely fought to save the U.S. from socialized medicine and to expunge
the tradition of free tuition for California students. Whatta hero!
thankgodimanatheist 19 Sep 2015 11:19
Reagan, the acting President, was the worst President since WWII until the Cheney/Bush debacle.
Most of the problems we face today can be directly traced to his voodoo economics, huge deficit
spending, deregulation, and in retrospect disastrous foreign policies.
LostintheUS 19 Sep 2015 11:17
"these days everyone seems to love Ronald."
Absolutely, not true. The farther along we go in time, the more Americans realize the damage
this man and his backers did to America and the world. The inversion of the tax tables, the undoing
of union laws, the polarization of Americans against each other so the plutocrats had no real
opposition and on and on. His camp stole the election in 1980 through making a back door deal
with the Iranian government to hold onto the American hostages until the election when Jimmy Carter
had negotiated an end to the hostage crisis, which was the undoing of Jimmy Carter's administration.
"Behind Carter's back, the Reagan campaign worked out a deal with the leader of Iran's radical
faction - Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini - to keep the hostages in captivity until after the
1980 Presidential election." This is, unquestionably, treason. http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/20287-without-reagans-treason-iran-would-not-be-a-problem
No, Reagan marks the downward turn for our country and has resulted in the economic and social
mess we still have not clawed our way back out of. No, Reagan is no hero, he is an American nemesis
and a traitor. Reagan raised taxes three times while slashing the tax rate of the super rich...starting
the downward spiral of the middle-class and the funneling of money toward the 1%. Thus his reputation
as a "tax cutter", yeah, if you were a multi-millionaire.
Never thought of Reagan as the first Shrub but it fits. I wonder if future pundits will sing
the Dub's praises as well. I think I'm gonna be sick for a bit.
kattw -> namora 19 Sep 2015 11:10
Pretzel is maybe talking about the 'strengthen SS' bandwagon? Perhaps? Not entirely sure myself,
but yeah - one of the major democrat platform planks is that SS should NOT be privatized, and
that if people want to invest in stocks, they can do that on their own. The whole point of SS
is to be a mattress full of cash that is NOT vulnerable to the vagaries of the market, and will
always have some cash in it to be used as needed.
SS would be totally secure, too, if congress would stop robbing it for other projects, or pay
back all they've borrowed. As it is, I wish *I* was as broke as republicans claim SS is - I wouldn't
mind having a few billion in the bank.
William J Rood 19 Sep 2015 11:08
Reagan was former president of the Screen Actors' Guild. Obviously, he thought unions for highly
educated workers were great. Meatpackers? Not so much.
RealSoothsayer 19 Sep 2015 11:04
This article does not mention the fact that in his last couple of years as President at least,
his mental state had seriously deteriorated. He could not remember his own policies, names, etc.
CBS' Leslie Stahl should be prosecuted for not being honest with her everyone when she found out.
Peter Davis 19 Sep 2015 11:04
Reagan was a failed president who nonetheless managed to convince people that he was great.
He was a professional actor, after all. And he acted his way into the White House. Most importantly,
he changed American politics forever by demonstrating that style was more important than substance.
In fact, he showed that style was everything and substance utterly unimportant. He was the
figurehead while his handlers did the dirty work of Iran-Contra, ballooning deficits, and tanking
unemployment.
nishville 19 Sep 2015 11:03
For me, he was a pioneer. He was the first sock-puppet president, starting a noble tradition
that reached its climax with W.
mbidding -> hackerkat 19 Sep 2015 11:03
In addition to:
Treasonous traitor when, as a presidential candidate, he negotiated with Khomeini to hold the
hostages till after the election.
Subverter of the Constitution via the Iran-Contra scandal.
Destroyer of social cohesion by turning JFK's famous admonishment of "ask not what your country
can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" on its head with his meme that all evil
emanates from the government and taxation represents stealing rather than a social obligation
for any civilized society that wishes to continue to develop in a sound fashion that lifts all
boats.
Incarcerator in Chief through his tough on crime and war on drugs policies, not to mention
defunding mental health care.
Pisser in Chief through his successful efforts to imbed trickle down economics as the economic
thought du jour which even its original architects, notably Stockman, now confirm is a failed
theory that we nonetheless cling to to this day.
Ignoramus in Chief by gutting real federal financial aid for higher education leading to the
obscene amounts of student debt our college students now incur.
Terrorist creator extraordinaire not only with the creation of the Latin American death squads
you note, but the creation, support, trading, and funding of the mujahedin and Bin Laden himself,
now known as the Taliban, Al Qa'ida, and ISIS, only the most notable among others.
namora -> trholland1 19 Sep 2015 10:59
That is not taking into account his greatest role for which he was ignored for a much deserved
Oscar, Golden Globe or any of the other awards passed out by the entertainment industry, President
of The United States of America. He absolutely nailed that one.
William J Rood 19 Sep 2015 10:58
Conservatives used "bracket creep" to convince the middle class that reducing marginal
rates on the top tax brackets along with their own would be a good idea, then with the assistance
of Democrats replaced the revenue with a huge increase in FICA so that the Social Security Trust
Fund could finance the deficit in the rest of the budget. The result was a huge boon to the richest,
little difference for the middle class, and a far greater burden for the working poor.
Tax brackets could have been indexed to inflation, but that wouldn't have been so great for
Reagans real supporters.
Doueman 19 Sep 2015 10:55
What sad comments by these armchair experts.
They don't gel with my experiences in North America during this period at all. When Reagan
ran for the presidency he was generally ridiculed by much of the press in the US and just about
all of the press in the UK for being a right wing fanatic, a lightweight, too old, uninformed
and even worse an actor. I found this rather curious and watched him specifically on TV in unscripted
scenarios to form my own impression as to how such a person, with supposedly limited abilities,
could possibly run for President of the US. I get a bit suspicious when organisations and individuals
protest and ridicule too much.
My reaction was that he handled himself well and gradually concluded that the mainly Eastern
liberal press in the US couldn't really stomach a California actor since they themselves were
meant to know everything. He actually was pretty well read ( visitors were later astonished to
read his multiple annotations in heavy weight books in his library). He was a clever and astute
union negotiator dealing with some of the toughest Hollywood moguls who would eat most negotiators
for dinner. He had become Governor of California and had done a fine job. I thought it was unlikely
he was the simpleton many portrayed. He couldn't be easily categorised as he embraced many good
aspects of the Democrats and the Republicans. Life wasn't so polarised then.
The US had left leaning Republicans and right wing Democrats. A political party as Churchill
noted was simply a charger to ride into action.
In my view, his presidential record was pretty remarkable. A charming, fair minded charismatic
man without the advantage of a wealthy background or influential family. The world was lucky to
have him.
raffine -> particle 19 Sep 2015 10:50
Reagan's second term was a disaster. But as someone below mentioned, conservative pundits and
their financers engaged in a campaign to make Reagan into a right-wing FDR. The most effective,
albeit bogus, claim on Reagan's behalf was that he had ended the Cold War.
jpsartreny 19 Sep 2015 14:22
Reagan is the shadow governments greatest triumph. After the adolescent Kennedy, egomaniacs
Johnson and Nixon , they needed front guys who followed orders instead .
The experiment with the peanut farmer from Georgia provided disastrous to Zebrew Brzezinski
and the liberals. The conservatives had better luck with a B- movie actor with an great talent
to read of the teleprompter.
RealSoothsayer -> semper12 19 Sep 2015 14:19
How? By talking? Gobachev brought down the USSR with his 'Glasnost' and 'Perestroika' policies.
His vision was what communist China later on achieved: mixed economy that flies a red flag. Reagan
was just an observer, absolutely nothing more. Tito of Yugoslavia was even more instrumental.
Marc Herlands 19 Sep 2015 14:17
IMHO Reagan was the second most successful president, behind FDR and ahead of LBJ. Not that
I liked anything about him, but he moved this country to the right and set the play book. He lowered
taxes on the wealthy, the corporations, capital gains, and estate taxes. He reduced growth in
programs for the poor, and made it impossible to increase their funding after his presidency because
of he left huge federal deficits caused by lowering taxes and increasing outlays on the military.
This Republican playbook still is their way of making sure that the Democrats can't give the poor
more money after they lose power. Also, he enlarged the program for deregulating industries, doing
away with antitrust laws, hindering labor laws, encouraged anti-union behavior, and did nothing
for AIDS research. He was a scoundrel who did a deal with Iran to prevent Carter from being re-elected.
He directly disobeyed Congressional laws not to intervene in Nicaragua. He set the tone for US
interventions after him.
bloggod 19 Sep 2015 14:17
Obama, Clinton, and the Bushes all hope to be forgiven for their unpardonable crimes.
Popularity is created. It is not populism, or informed consent of the pubic as approval for
more of the same collusion.
It is a One Party hoe down.
bloggod -> SigmetSue 19 Sep 2015 14:12
"they"
the indicted Sec of Defense Weinberger; the indicted head of the CIA Casey who "died" as he
was due to testify: Mcfarlane, Abrams, Clair George, Oilyver North, Richard Secord, Albert Hakim
Reagan had no genius, he had Bush-CIA and the Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, and the "immoral
majority" of anti-abortion war profiteers.
Marios Antoniou Lattimore 19 Sep 2015 13:52
I agree with everything you mentioned, and I intensely dislike Reagan YET the point of the
article wasn't that Reagan was good, it rather points to the fact that Republicans have shifted
so far to the right that Reagan would appear moderate compared to the current batch.
Rainer Jansohn pretzelattack 19 Sep 2015 13:52
Interesting had been his speeches during the Cold War.Scientists have subsumed it under "Social
Religion",a special form of political theology.Simple dialectical:UDSSR the incarnation of the
evil/hell on the other side USA :the country of God himself.A tradition in USA working until now.There
is no separation between government and church as in good old centuries sincetwo centuries resulting
from enlightening per Philosophie/Voltaire/Kant/Hume/Descartes and so on.Look at Obamas speeches/God
is always mixed in!
talenttruth 19 Sep 2015 13:49
Any conversation about who the fantasy-projection "Reagan" was, misses an important reality:
He was a hologram, fabricated by a kaleidoscope of various sorts of so-called "conservative" handlers
and puppeteers. It was those "puppeteers" who ranged from heartlessly, stunningly "conservative"
(destroya-tive), all the way further right to the kind of militaristic, macho, crackpots who have
finally emerged from under their rocks at this year's "candidates."
The fact that Reagan was going ga-ga – definitely in his second term, and likely for part of
the first – was entirely convenient for his Non-Human-Based-Crackpot-Right-Holographers, since
he had was not actually "driven" to vacuousness by a tragic mental condition (dementia) – THAT
change was merely a "short putt" – from his entire previous life.
Regarding his Great Achievement, the collapse of the Soviet Union? After decades of monstrous
over-spending by the USA's Military-Industrial-Complex, the bogus and equally insane USSR finally
bankrupted itself trying to "compete" and fell. Reagan (and his puppeteer handlers), always excellent
at Taking Credit for anything, showed up with exquisite cynical timing, and indeed Took Credit.
Lest anyone forget, Reagan got elected in 1980, via a totally illegal and stunningly immoral
"side deal" with the Iranians, in which they agreed to not release our hostages to make Carter
look like a feeble old man. Then we got Reagan who WAS a "feeble old man" (ESPECIALLY intellectually
and morally). Reagan "won," the hostages were "released" and he of course took credit for that
too.
So all these so-called "candidates" ARE the heirs of all the very worst of Ronald Reagan: they
are all simpleminded, they are totally beholden to Hidden Sociopathic Billionaires hiding behind
various curtains, and they all have NO CLUE what the word "ethics" means. Vacuous, anti-intellectual,
scheming, appealing only to morons, and puppets all. Perfect "Reaganites."
Bill Ehrhorn -> semper12 19 Sep 2015 13:32
It seems that the teabaggers and their ilk give only Reagan credit.
SigmetSue 19 Sep 2015 13:16
They called him the Teflon President because nothing ever stuck. It still doesn't. That was
his genius -- and I'm no fan.
Lattimore 19 Sep 2015 13:13
The article seems to present Reagan as an theatrical figure. I disagree. Reagan, President
of the United States, was a criminal; as such, he was among the most corrupt and anti democratic
person to hold the office POTUS. The fact that he tripled the national debt, raised taxes and
skewed the tax schedules to benifit the wealthy, are comparitively minor.
,,,
Reagan's crimes and anti democratic acts:
1. POTUS: CIA smuggling cocaine into the U.S., passing the drug to wholesalers, who then processed
the drug and distributed crack to Black communities. At the same time Reagan's "War on Crime"
insured that the Black youth who bought "Central Intelligenc Agencie's" cocaine were criminalized
and handed lengthy prison sentences.
2. POTUS supported SOUTH AMERICAN terrorist, and the genocidal atrocities commited by terrorist
in Chili, Guatamala, El Mazote, etc.
3. POTUS supported SOUTH AFRICAN apartheid, and the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela as well. Vetoing
a bill that would express condemnation of South Africa.
4. POTUS sold Arms to Iran.
5. POTUS used taxpayer dollars to influence election outcomes.
6. POTUS rigged government grants to enrich his cronies.
7. POTUS thew mental patients onto the streets.
8. POTUS supported McCarthyism, witch hunts, etc.
9. POTUS created and supported Islamic terrorist--fore runners of al Queada, ISIS, etc.
Niko2 LostintheUS 19 Sep 2015 13:12
I don't have much love for Nancy, but she did not break up this marriage, to be fair. And she
actually got rid off the extreme right wingers in Reagan's administration, like Haig and Regan,
whom she called "extra chromosome republicans". Surely she was a vain and greedy flotus with no
empathy whatsoever for people not in her Bel Air circles (I can easily imagine her, "Do I really
have to go and see these Aids-Babies, I'd rather shop at Rodeo Drive, lose the scheduler") but
she realized at an early stage that hubbies shtick-it-to-the-commies policies would do him no
favour. Maybe she's the unsung heroine of his presidency.
tommydog -> MtnClimber 19 Sep 2015 13:04
The principle subsidies to big oil are probably the strategic oil reserve and subsidies to
low income people for winter heating oil. You can choose which of those you'd like to cut. After
that you're arguing about whether exploration costs should be expensed in the year incurred or
capitalized and amortized over time.
WilliamK 19 Sep 2015 13:03
He was one of J Edgar Hoover's red baiting fascist admiring boys along with Richard Nixon and
Walt Disney used to destroy the labor unions, control the propaganda machine of Hollywood and
used to knuckle under the television networks and undermine as much as possible the New Deal polices
of Franklin Roosevelt. An actor groomed by the General Electric Corporation and their fellow travelers.
"Living better through electricity" was his mantra and he played the role of President to push
forward their right wing agenda. Now we are in new stage in our "political development" in America.
The era of the "reality television star" with Hollywood in bed with the military industrial complex,
selling guns, violence and sex to the fool hardy and their children and prime time television
ads push pharmaceutical drugs, children hear warnings of four hour erections, pop-stars flash
their tits and asses and a billionaire takes center stage as the media cashes in and goes along
for the ride. Yeah Ronnie was a second tier film star and with his little starlet Nancy by his
side become one of America's greatest salesman.
Backbutton 19 Sep 2015 12:57
LOL! Reagan was a walking script renderer, with lines written by others, and a phony because
he was just acting the part of POTUS. His speeches were all crafted, and he had good writers.
He was no Abraham Lincoln.
And now these morons running for office all want to rub off his "great communicator" fix.
Good help America!
Milwaukee Broad 19 Sep 2015 12:49
Ronald Reagan was an actor whom the depressingly overwhelming majority of American voters thought
was a messiah. They so believed in him that they re-elected him to a second term. Nothing positive
whatsoever became of his administration, yet he is still worshiped by millions of lost souls (conservatives).
Have a nice day.
Michael Williams 19 Sep 2015 12:48
The US was the world's leading creditor when Reagan took office. The US was the world's leading
debtor by the time Bush 1 was tossed out of office.
This is what Republicans cannot seem to remember.
All of the other scandals pale in comparison, even as we deal with the blowback from most of
these original, idiotic policies.
Reagan was an actor, mouthing words he barely understood, especially as his dementia progressed.
This is the exact reason the history is so poorly taught in the US.
People might make connections....
Jessica Roth 19 Sep 2015 12:46
Oh, he had holes in his brain long before the dementia. "Facts are stupid things", trees cause
pollution, and so on.
A pathetic turncoat who sold out his original party (the one that kept his dad in work throughout
the Great Depression via a series of WPA jobs) because Nancy allegedly "gave the best head in
Hollywood" and who believed that only 144,000 people were going to Heaven, presumably accounting
for his uncaring treatment of the less-well-off.
His administration was full of corruption, from Richard Allen's $1000 in an envelope (and three
wristwatches) that he claimed was an inappropriate gift for Mrs. Reagan he had "intercepted" and
then "forgotten" to report to William Casey trading over $3,000,000 worth of stocks while CIA
director. (Knowing about changes in the oil market ahead of time sure came in handy.) You had
an attorney general who took a $50,000 "severance payment" (never done before) from the board
of a corporation he resigned from to avoid conflict of interest charges and this was William French
Smith; his successor, Edwin Meese, was the one with real scandals (about the sale of his home).
Hell, Reagan himself put his ranch hand (Dennis LeBlanc) on the federal payroll as an "advisor"
to the Commerce Department. I didn't know the Commerce Dept needed "advice" on clearing wood from
St. Ronnie's ranch, but LeBlanc got a $58,500 salary out of the deal. (Roughly Ł98,000 at today's
prices.) Nice work if you can get it.
Meanwhile, RR "talked tough" at the Soviets (resulting in the world nearly ending in 1983 due
to a false alarm about a US nuclear attack) while propping up any rightwing dictator they could
find, from the South African racists to Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos (after they had Aquino assassinated
at the airport) to Roberto "Death Squad" D'Aubuisson in El Salvador (the man who masterminded
the assassination of Archbishop Romero while he was performing Mass).
Oh, and while Carter did a nice job of shooting himself in the foot, Reagan benefited in the
election not only from his treasonous dealings with the Iranian hostage-takers (shades of Nixon
making a deal with North Viet Nam to stall the peace talks until after the 1968 elections, promising
them better terms) but through more pedestrian means such as his campaign's stealing of Carter's
briefing book for the campaign's only debate, Reagan being coached for the debate by a supposedly
neutral journalist (George Will, of ABC and The Washington Post), who then went on television
afterwards (in the days when there were only three commercial channels) and "analysed" how successful
Reagan had been in executing his "game plan" and seeming "Presidential" without either Will or
ABC bothering to mention that Will had coached Reagan and designed the "game plan" in question.
The "liberal bias" in the media, no doubt.
Always a joke, only looking slightly better by the dross that has followed him. (Including
Bill "Third Way" Clinton and his over-Ł50,000,000 in post-Presidential "speaking fees" graft,
and Barack Obama, drone-murderer of children in over a dozen countries and serial-summary-executioner
of U.S. citizens. When Gordon-effing-Brown is the best that's held office on either side of the
Atlantic since 1979, you can see how this planet is in the state it's in.)
pretzelattack DukeofMelbourne 19 Sep 2015 12:45
his stand on russia was inconsistent, and he didn't cause it to collapse. his economic programs
were a failure. his foreign policy generally a disaster. he set the blueprint for the current
mess.
pretzelattack semper12 19 Sep 2015 12:38
a total crock. reagan let murdering thugs run rampant as long as they paid lip service to democracy,
the world over from africa to central america. the ussr watched this coward put 240 marines to
die in lebanon, and then cut and run, exactly the pattern he was so ready to condemn as treason
in others, and was so ready to portray as showing weakness, and you think the ussr was terrified
of him. he was a hollywood actor playing a role, and you bought it.
Tycho1961 19 Sep 2015 12:13
No President exists in a political vacuum. While he was in office, Reagan had a large Democrat
majority in the House of Representatives and a small Republican majority in the Senate. The Supreme
Court was firmly liberal. Whatever his political agenda Reagan knew he had to constructively engage
with people of both parties that were in opposition to him. If he didn't he would suffer the same
fate as Carter, marginalized by even his own party. His greatest strength was as a negotiator.
Reagan's greatest failures were when he tried to be clever and he and his advisors were found
to be rather ham handed about it.
RichardNYC 19 Sep 2015 11:57
The principal legacy of Ronald Reagan is the still prevalent view that corporate interests
supersede individual interests.
Harry Haff 19 Sep 2015 11:45
Reagan did many horrible things while in office, committed felonies and supported murderous
regimes in Central America that murdered tens of thousands of people with the blessing of the
US chief executive. he sold arms to Iran and despoiled the natural environment whenever possible.
But given those horrendous accomplishments, he could not now get a seat at the table with the
current GOP. He would be considered a RINO, that most stupid and inaccurate term, at best, and
a closet liberal somewhere down the line. The current GOP is more to the right than the politicians
in the South after the Civil War.
"... you will suffer metabolic injury so great that you will perish, as the cancer pumps out various toxins, like 'Free Market Fundamentalism', 'Western moral values' or 'Exceptionalism'. ..."
"... That is that the Rightwing Authoritarian Personality, or whatever other euphemism you care to use, suffer some or all of the well-known features of psychopathy ie the absence of human empathy and compassion, unbridled greed and narcissistic egomania, unscrupulousness and a preference for violence. ..."
"... From Obama down through Harper, Cameron, Abbott, Satanyahoo et al to the very dregs of politics and MSM propaganda, it is a vast field of human perfidy, differing only in the degree of their malevolence. ..."
Mulga Mumblebrain on September 17, 2015 · at 11:17 pm UTC
Erebus, that would be like trying to cage a cancer. If you do not then excise the cancer,
you will suffer metabolic injury so great that you will perish, as the cancer pumps out various
toxins, like 'Free Market Fundamentalism', 'Western moral values' or 'Exceptionalism'.
Cut the tumour out, plus the chemotherapy of somehow rescuing the non-malignant members of
the cancer societies from the inhuman habits inculcated in them from birth (ie gross materialism,
unbridled greed, cultural and racial superiority, addiction to crass 'tittietainment' etc) and
even a few escaping cancer cells can cause metastasis elsewhere.
What is really needed is a miracle, a 'spontaneous remission' where the individual cells in
the Western cancer suddenly transform themselves into non-malignant, human, organisms again. There
might be some good signs, such as the rise of Corbyn in the UK, the eclipse of Harper, the character
of Pope Francis, but there is a Hell of a way to go, and not much hope of success.
Mulga Mumblebrain on September 17, 2015 · at 11:07 pm UTC
David, I agree. The central problem facing humanity is that the planet has become dominated
by evil psychopaths. There is a mountain of literature that explains what one can see with one's
own eyes.
That is that the Rightwing Authoritarian Personality, or whatever other euphemism you care
to use, suffer some or all of the well-known features of psychopathy ie the absence of human empathy
and compassion, unbridled greed and narcissistic egomania, unscrupulousness and a preference for
violence.
The situation in the world today, geo-political, economic and ecological is a battle between
good and evil. Many people refuse to face that reality, because it is frightening, and presages
a dreadful global death struggle or the collapse of human civilization and probable species extinction.
But denying the hideous reality won't make it go away. What we have seen over recent decades in
Iraq, Libya, Syria, Congo etc is evil in action, and we had better acknowledge that reality.
From Obama down through Harper, Cameron, Abbott, Satanyahoo et al to the very dregs of
politics and MSM propaganda, it is a vast field of human perfidy, differing only in the degree
of their malevolence.
"... Nobody expected communism to fall apart in 1989, not a single person had any inkling what was coming, from within or without. For quite a long time previously it was wondered how it could keep on going, and it dutifully did until inertia had it's say. ..."
"... In many ways capitalism is the flipside of communism, and the latter kept us honest, but once we lost them as an arch-rival, what did we need honesty for anymore? ..."
"... The current diaspora ascending on Europe reminds me of when communism fell apart, the difference being that the bloc party then was thought of as a good thing. ..."
"... We've effectively taken over communism's role as being the dishonest player in terms of a rivalry, but there doesn't appear to be an honest rival anywhere, we're all the same now. ..."
Nobody expected communism to fall apart in 1989, not a single person had any inkling what
was coming, from within or without. For quite a long time previously it was wondered how it could
keep on going, and it dutifully did until inertia had it's say.
In many ways capitalism is the flipside of communism, and the latter kept us honest, but
once we lost them as an arch-rival, what did we need honesty for anymore?
lawyerliz wrote on Sat, 8/29/2015 - 5:45 am (in reply to...)
Yes we need an honorable enemy/rival. I don't think it will be China, but perhaps India could
make an honorable frenemy. I like Indians and we have Britain in common.
Jackdawracy wrote on Sat, 8/29/2015 - 5:47 am
The current diaspora ascending on Europe reminds me of when communism fell apart, the difference
being that the bloc party then was thought of as a good thing.
Jackdawracy wrote on Sat, 8/29/2015 - 5:49 am (in reply to...)
We've effectively taken over communism's role as being the dishonest player in terms of
a rivalry, but there doesn't appear to be an honest rival anywhere, we're all the same now.
Jackdawracy wrote on Sat, 8/29/2015 - 5:57 am (in reply to...)
Without a rivalry, the space race never gets off the ground. Liftoff would be a word with no
meaning whatsoever.
Folks in Florida right now would have an inkling of a hurricane coming from the Caribbean,
but have no idea the direction, speed, etc.
dilbert dogbert wrote on Sat, 8/29/2015 - 6:03 am (in reply to...)
Jackdawracy wrote:
In many ways capitalism is the flipside of communism, and the latter kept us honest,
but once we lost them as an arch-rival, what did we need honesty for anymore?
Been reading others making the same point. Unrestrained Capitalism, just like unrestrained
compound interest spirals out of control.
I for one welcome our new Unrestrained Capitalist Overlords!!! PS: Rents are still too damned
low!!! Impeach Now!!!
"... The buck is constantly and systematically passed to those least able to carry it – large-scale problems (e.g. national debts) are sent down the pipeline to smaller units; devolution without the resources to implement it, combined with competition for resources, choices without resources, responsibility without power, power without structure. ..."
"... "See-Judge-Act" ..."
"... resistance have happened over the last 5 years or so – views about how effective they have been vary. But as Christians, we are called to show solidarity with those who resist a dehumanising and very powerful status quo. ..."
"... And, above all, we should recognise that a very small space in which to act is not no space at all – challenging TINA – that neoliberalism is the only view on the block is itself action of a kind – sometimes opening up a space opens up new possibilities. What we shouldn‟t so, at least, is to close them down! ..."
Mar 07, 2015 | Diocese of Liverpool
Introduction: When is an economy not an economy? When it's a caravan park!
Sources – Chicago School of Economics (Friedman and Hayek) – also German „ordoliberalism‟.
First use of the word probably Freidman – 1951 essay Neoliberalism and its Prospects.
They DIFFERED but the development of their views has become the economic status quo since
the 1980s – „TINA‟ – „there is no alternative.‟
Ironic – from the 1930s to the 1950s, its theorists were dismissed by mainstream economic
thinking as cranks and mavericks
How did it get to be so influential? Interesting – one analysis - „rugby match‟ analysis –
„the think tanks passed to the journalists, who passed to the politicians, who with aid from the
think tanks run with it and score.‟
You won‟t see the term much – although the Guardian uses it! – you might see „free market,‟
or "competition" – but even if we don‟t know the term, neo-liberalism has become so much the norm
we don‟t even notice it – David Harvey: „Neo-liberalism has become incorporated into the common
sense way many of us live in, interpret and understand the world.‟ (A Brief History of Neo-Liberalism,
p 3)
But it isn‟t inevitable, natural or constructed – and many projects of practical compassion
in parishes are in response to its direct results.
So the first thing is to detach from it and NOTICE it – name the beast!
So What is It? Several key elements to what Neoliberalism is:
It affirms, above all else, the rule of the market1 - that means the unrestricted movement
of capital, goods and services.
The market is „self-regulating‟ in terms of the distribution of wealth– more wealth in the
system is supposed to equal more wealth for all – wealth distribution falls out of the system,
and in theory, there is a „trickle down‟ of wealth distribution.
The de-regulation of labour - e.g., de-unionization of labour forces, and end to wage controls.
The removal of any impediment to the moving of capital – such as regulations.
Reducing public expenditure – and in particular for utilities, common goods (water), and social
services, such as transport, health and education, by the government
Privatization of the above – of everything from water to the Internet
Increasing deregulation of the market, and allowing market forces to regulate themselves.
Changing perceptions of public and community good to individualism and individual responsibility.
Behind these features are a series of underlying assumed principles – an ideology of neo-liberalism:
2
Sustained economic growth is good in itself and the best way to human progress
Free markets would be the most efficient and socially optimal allocation of resources
Globalization is a good thing – beneficial to everyone
Privatization removes the inefficiencies of the public sector.
Governments‟ main functions should be to provide the infra structure to advance the rule of
law with respect to property rights and contracts and to ensure the market remains competitive.
So What's Wrong with it?
It is internally contradictory
There is no such thing as a free market
Even the original neoliberals recognise this – competition regulates the market – there
is no one view of what "competitive" is
The ordoliberals certainly recognise it – role of government to create the perfectly
competitive market
The view taken of competition based on price tends to monopolies, a "race to the bottom,"
and uniformity (Amazon, Sky, Apple )
Its effects are not as the theory predicted, and have often been damaging:
There has been no "trickle down" effect of wealth (in fact, wealth has redistributed upwards)
It has entailed much "creative destruction" of institutional frameworks and powers, divisions
of labour social relations, attachments to the land and habits of the heart.‟ (David Harvey,
Short History of Neo-Liberalism, p 3)
It has pushed, and is pushing, the reach of the market into ever more spheres of human
life, „the saturation of the state, political culture and the social with market rationality.‟
(Wendy Brown: American Nightmare: Neoliberalism, Neoconservatism and De-Democratization
(Political Theory 34 (2006), p 695)
It has a view of human beings as 'specks of human capital,' who can be 'plugged in'
to markets of various kinds, (or who plug themselves in)
the hero of neoliberalism is the entrepreneur – we are all becoming more and more required
to be „entrepreneurs of the self‟ – to invest in ourselves/make something of ourselves, „cultivate
and care for‟ ourselves and, increasingly – measure our performance.
The caravan park analogy –we are required to „plug ourselves in‟ – to pay the price of
doing so, and to accept the cost.
Our „belonging‟ becomes passive plugging in – rather than active participation.
Traditional forms of solidarity are wiped out.
Specks of human capital are eminently sacrificable, even if they have done all the „right
things‟ – there are no guarantees, and individuals are expected to bear the risk of their entrepreneurial
activity themselves (investing many hours in „training‟ and „upskilling,‟ often with no financial
or institutional support and with no guarantee of better employment practices – i.e. gain (more
skilled workforce) is privatized and risk is distributed downwards, labour is bound and capital
released.
Austerity politics is the natural outcome of this – people are told virtue is sacrifice
for the sake of a productive economy, but with no protection.
Despite opposition to „big government,‟ isolated and vulnerable individuals are eminently
governable, subject to new forms of power whilst having smaller and
smaller spaces in which to resist it. People are easily integrated into a project that
is quite prepared to sacrifice them.
So why is it bad for all of us?
It has redistributed wealth – upwards. Most extreme effects seen amongst the most vulnerable
– but many people are feeling the pinch in the middle. Cultural expression of neoliberalism encourages
those in the middle to „aspire‟ upwards – and demonises the most vulnerable. Not good for the
soul, even of those relatively comfortable!
An economy is not a caravan park that we plug into but a household (oeconomia) that we belong
to – with solidarities and mutuality built in – some of them unchosen. Neoliberalism cuts us off
from belonging in a way that allows us to flourish.
Its promotion of economic growth as the only good inevitably means economies built on debt
and austerity
To see people as sacrificeable specks of human capital means they are governable, isolated
and vulnerable – and the isolation and vulnerability is spreading upwards in society too (it takes
on average a year after graduation for a graduate from a "good" university to get a job)
The buck is constantly and systematically passed to those least able to carry it – large-scale
problems (e.g. national debts) are sent down the pipeline to smaller units; devolution without
the resources to implement it, combined with competition for resources, choices without resources,
responsibility without power, power without structure.
Dependency is denigrated and independence moralized – the most vulnerable are burdened morally
with failing to follow the correct processes of capital development
Lack of trust erodes community life and social relations
Physical and mental health are affected – and not just for those who are poorest, but for
those in the middle and even those at the top (see Richard Wilson and Kate Pickett:
The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everybody – London, Penguin 2009)
Education becomes narrow and instrumental
In some ways, those in the deepest peril are those who benefit from neoliberalism – „for what
will it profit them if they gain the whole world but forfeit their soul‟ (Matthew 16.26)
So what is to be done?
"See-Judge-Act"
SEE - We first need to SEE it – to name the beast - that the issues we confront daily
in parishes, in our everyday lives, and in the news do not arise by accident or as a result of
unfortunate circumstances, or the distorting lens of the media – but from the systematic application
of a particular, and very far-reaching economic theory.
JUDGE means unpicking the assumptions, watching how the ball curves; it means not just
coming up with concrete examples from our own circumstances, but relating them to the „macro‟
level – seeing how they result from larger structures and assumptions
JUDGE also means reflecting theologically on all this in the light of scripture and
tradition.
ACT – is harder – so what is to be done? It can seem impossible to do anything!
However – the very act of noticing is important. Neoliberalism‟s power derives partly from
its invisibility – we need to notice that it is happening. Various forms of
resistance have happened over the last 5 years or so – views about how effective they
have been vary. But as Christians, we are called to show solidarity with those who resist a dehumanising
and very powerful status quo.
We can – and should – continue to be involved in projects of practical compassion – and alongside
doing them, make connections with the bigger picture.
We can recognise our own complicity in neoliberalism – and disassociate from it, at least
with our heads.
We can ask critical questions whenever we have the opportunity to do so.
And, above all, we should recognise that a very small space in which to act is not no
space at all – challenging TINA – that neoliberalism is the only view on the block is itself action
of a kind – sometimes opening up a space opens up new possibilities. What we shouldn‟t so, at
least, is to close them down!
Justice will dwell in the wilderness, and righteousness abide in the fruitful field. The effect
of righteousness will be peace, and the result of righteousness quietness and trust forever. My people
will abide in a peaceful habitation, in secure dwellings, in quite resting places. (Isaiah 32.16-18)
Further Reading:
Zygmunt Bauman: Liquid Modernity (Cambridge, Polity Press 2000)
Ha-Joon Chang: 23 Things they don't tell you about capitalism (London, Penguin 2011)
An interesting warning about possible return of neocons in Hillary administration. Looks like not
much changed in Washington from 2005 and Obama more and more looks like Bush III. Both Hillary and Trump
are jingoistic toward Iran. Paradoxically Trump is even more jingoistic then Hillary.
Notable quotes:
"... That no one yet claims actually exists, has begun. Once again we seem to be heading down a highway marked "counterproliferation war." What makes this bizarre is that the Middle East today, for all its catastrophic problems, is actually a nuclear-free zone except for one country, Israel, which has a staggeringly outsized, semi-secret nuclear arsenal. ..."
"... And not much has changed since. I recommend as well a piece written even earlier by Ira Chernus on a graphic about the Israeli nuclear arsenal tucked away at the MSNBC website (and still viewable ). ..."
"... Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and one of the founders of the group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, considers the Iranian and Israeli bombs, and Bush administration policy in relation to both below in a piece that, he writes, emerged from "an informal colloquium which has sprung up in the Washington, DC area involving people with experience at senior policy levels of government, others who examine foreign policy and defense issues primarily out of a faith perspective, and still others with a foot in each camp. We are trying to deal directly with the moral -- as well as the practical -- implications of various policy alternatives. One of our group recently was invited to talk with senior staffers in the House of Representatives about Iran, its nuclear plans, its support for terrorists, and U.S. military options. Toward the end of that conversation, a House staffer was emboldened to ask, 'What would be a moral solution?' This question gave new energy to our colloquium, generating a number of informal papers, including this one. I am grateful to my colloquium colleagues for their insights and suggestions." ..."
"... What about post-attack "Day Two?" Not to worry. Well-briefed pundits are telling us about a wellspring of Western-oriented I find myself thinking: Right; just like all those Iraqis who welcomed invading American and British troops with open arms and cut flowers. ..."
"... In 2001, the new President Bush brought the neocons back and put them in top policymaking positions. Even former Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams, convicted in October 1991 of lying to Congress and then pardoned by George H. W. Bush, was called back and put in charge of Middle East policy in the White House. In January, he was promoted to the influential post (once occupied by Robert Gates) of deputy assistant to the president for national security affairs. From that senior position Abrams will once again be dealing closely with John Negroponte, an old colleague from rogue-elephant Contra War days, who has now been picked to be the first director of national intelligence. ..."
"... Those of us who -- like Colin Powell -- had front-row seats during the 1980s are far too concerned to dismiss the re-emergence of the neocons as a simple case of déjŕ vu . They are much more dangerous now. Unlike in the eighties, they are the ones crafting the adventurous policies our sons and daughters are being called on to implement. ..."
"... So why would Iran think it has to acquire nuclear weapons? Sen. Richard Lugar, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was asked this on a Sunday talk show a few months ago. Apparently having a senior moment, he failed to give the normal answer. Instead, he replied, "Well, you know, Israel has..." At that point, he caught himself and abruptly stopped. ..."
That no one yet claims actually exists, has begun. Once again we seem to be heading down a highway
marked "counterproliferation war." What makes this bizarre is that the Middle East today, for all
its catastrophic problems, is actually a nuclear-free zone except for one country, Israel, which
has a staggeringly outsized, semi-secret nuclear arsenal.
As Los Angeles Times reporter Douglas Frantz wrote at one point, "Though Israel is a democracy,
debating the nuclear program is taboo A military censor guards Israel's nuclear secrets." And this
"taboo" has largely extended to American reporting on the subject. Imagine, to offer a very partial
analogy, if we all had had to consider the Cold War nuclear issue with the Soviet, but almost never
the American nuclear arsenal, in the news. Of course, that would have been absurd and yet it's the
case in the Middle East today, making most strategic discussions of the region exercises in absurdity.
I wrote about this subject under the title,
Nuclear Israel
, back in October 2003, because of a brief break, thanks to Frantz, in the media blackout on the
subject. I began then, "Nuclear North Korea, nuclear Iraq, nuclear Iran - of these our media has
been full for the last year or more, though they either don't exist or hardly yet exist. North Korea
now probably has a couple of crude nuclear weapons, which it may still be incapable of delivering.
But nuclear Israel, little endangered Israel? It's hard even to get your head around the concept,
though that country has either the fifth or sixth largest nuclear arsenal in the world." And
not much has changed since. I recommend as well a piece written even earlier
by Ira Chernus on a
graphic about the Israeli nuclear arsenal tucked away at the MSNBC website (and
still viewable
).
Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and one of the founders of the group, Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity, considers the Iranian and Israeli bombs, and Bush administration policy
in relation to both below in a piece that, he writes, emerged from "an informal colloquium which
has sprung up in the Washington, DC area involving people with experience at senior policy levels
of government, others who examine foreign policy and defense issues primarily out of a faith perspective,
and still others with a foot in each camp. We are trying to deal directly with the moral -- as well
as the practical -- implications of various policy alternatives. One of our group recently was invited
to talk with senior staffers in the House of Representatives about Iran, its nuclear plans, its support
for terrorists, and U.S. military options. Toward the end of that conversation, a House staffer was
emboldened to ask, 'What would be a moral solution?' This question gave new energy to our colloquium,
generating a number of informal papers, including this one. I am grateful to my colloquium colleagues
for their insights and suggestions." Now, read on. ~ Tom
Attacking Iran: I Know It Sounds Crazy, But...
By Ray McGovern
"'This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous.'
"(Short pause)
"'And having said that, all options are on the table.'
"Even the White House stenographers felt obliged to note the result: '(Laughter).'"
For a host of good reasons -- the huge and draining commitment of U.S. forces to Iraq and Iran's
ability to stir the Iraqi pot to boiling, for starters -- the notion that the Bush administration
would mount a "preemptive" air attack on Iran seems insane. And still more insane if the objective
includes overthrowing Iran's government again, as in 1953 -- this time under the rubric of "regime
change."
But Bush administration policy toward the Middle East is being run by men -- yes, only men
-- who were routinely referred to in high circles in Washington during the 1980s as "the crazies."
I can attest to that personally, but one need not take my word for it.
According to James Naughtie, author of The Accidental American: Tony Blair and the Presidency
, former Secretary of State Colin Powell added an old soldier's adjective to the "crazies"
sobriquet in referring to the same officials. Powell, who was military aide to Defense Secretary
Casper Weinberger in the early eighties, was overheard calling them "the f---ing crazies" during
a phone call with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw before the war in Iraq. At the time, Powell
was reportedly deeply concerned over their determination to attack -- with or without UN approval.
Small wonder that they got rid of Powell after the election, as soon as they had no more use for
him.
If further proof of insanity were needed, one could simply look at the unnecessary carnage
in Iraq since the invasion in March 2003. That unprovoked attack was, in my view, the most fateful
foreign policy blunder in our nation's history...so far.
It Can Get Worse
"The crazies" are not finished. And we do well not to let their ultimate folly obscure
their current ambition, and the further trouble that ambition is bound to bring in the four years
ahead. In an immediate sense, with U.S. military power unrivaled, they can be seen as "crazy like
a fox," with a value system in which "might makes right." Operating out of that value system,
and now sporting the more respectable misnomer/moniker "neoconservative," they are convinced that
they know exactly what they are doing. They have a clear ideology and a geopolitical strategy,
which leap from papers they put out at the
Project for the New American Century
over recent years.
The very same men who, acting out of that paradigm, brought us the war in Iraq are now focusing
on Iran, which they view as the only remaining obstacle to American domination of the entire oil-rich
Middle East. They calculate that, with a docile, corporate-owned press, a co-opted mainstream
church, and a still-trusting populace, the United States and/or the Israelis can launch a successful
air offensive to disrupt any Iranian nuclear weapons programs -- with the added bonus of possibly
causing the regime in power in Iran to crumble.
But why now? After all, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency has just told Congress
that Iran is not likely to have a nuclear weapon until "early in the next decade?" The answer,
according to some defense experts, is that several of the Iranian facilities are still under construction
and there is only a narrow "window of opportunity" to destroy them without causing huge environmental
problems. That window, they say, will begin to close this year.
Other analysts attribute the sense of urgency to worry in Washington that the Iranians may
have secretly gained access to technology that would facilitate a leap forward into the nuclear
club much sooner than now anticipated. And it is, of course, neoconservative doctrine that it
is best to nip -- the word in current fashion is "preempt" -- any conceivable threats in the bud.
One reason the Israelis are pressing hard for early action may simply be out of a desire to ensure
that George W. Bush will have a few more years as president after an attack on Iran, so that they
will have him to stand with Israel when bedlam breaks out in the Middle East.
What about post-attack "Day Two?" Not to worry. Well-briefed pundits are telling us about
a wellspring of Western-oriented I find myself thinking: Right; just like all those Iraqis who
welcomed invading American and British troops with open arms and cut flowers. For me, this
evokes a painful flashback to the early eighties when "intelligence," pointing to "moderates"
within the Iranian leadership, was conjured up to help justify the imaginative but illegal arms-for-hostages-and-proceeds-to-Nicaraguan-Contras
caper. The fact that the conjurer-in-chief of that spurious "evidence" on Iranian "moderates,"
former chief CIA analyst, later director Robert Gates, was recently offered the newly created
position of director of national intelligence makes the flashback more eerie -- and alarming.
George H. W. Bush Saw Through "The Crazies"
During his term in office, George H. W. Bush, with the practical advice of his national security
adviser Gen. Brent Scowcroft and Secretary of State James Baker, was able to keep "the crazies"
at arms length, preventing them from getting the country into serious trouble. They were kept
well below the level of "principal" -- that is, below the level of secretary of state or defense.
Even so, heady in the afterglow of victory in the Gulf War of 1990, "the crazies" stirred up
considerable controversy when they articulated their radical views. Their vision, for instance,
became the centerpiece of the draft "Defense Planning Guidance" that Paul Wolfowitz, de facto
dean of the neoconservatives, prepared in 1992 for then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. It dismissed
deterrence as an outdated relic of the Cold War and argued that the United States must maintain
military strength beyond conceivable challenge -- and use it in preemptive ways in dealing with
those who might acquire "weapons of mass destruction." Sound familiar?
Aghast at this radical imperial strategy for the post-Cold War world, someone with access to
the draft leaked it to the New York Times , forcing President George H. W. Bush either
to endorse or disavow it. Disavow it he did -- and quickly, on the cooler-head recommendations
of Scowcroft and Baker, who proved themselves a bulwark against the hubris and megalomania of
"the crazies." Unfortunately, their vision did not die. No less unfortunately, there is method
to their madness -- even if it threatens to spell eventual disaster for our country. Empires always
overreach and fall.
The Return of the Neocons
In 2001, the new President Bush brought the neocons back and put them in top policymaking
positions. Even former Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams, convicted in October 1991 of
lying to Congress and then pardoned by George H. W. Bush, was called back and put in charge of
Middle East policy in the White House. In January, he was promoted to the influential post (once
occupied by Robert Gates) of deputy assistant to the president for national security affairs.
From that senior position Abrams will once again be dealing closely with John Negroponte, an old
colleague from rogue-elephant Contra War days, who has now been picked to be the first director
of national intelligence.
Those of us who -- like Colin Powell -- had front-row seats during the 1980s are far too
concerned to dismiss the re-emergence of the neocons as a simple case of déjŕ vu . They
are much more dangerous now. Unlike in the eighties, they are the ones crafting the adventurous
policies our sons and daughters are being called on to implement.
Why dwell on this? Because it is second in importance only to the portentous reality that the
earth is running out of readily accessible oil – something of which they are all too aware. Not
surprisingly then, disguised beneath the weapons-of-mass-destruction smokescreen they laid down
as they prepared to invade Iraq lay an unspoken but bedrock reason for the war -- oil. In any
case, the neocons seem to believe that, in the wake of the November election, they now have a
carte-blanche "mandate." And with the president's new "capital to spend," they appear determined
to spend it, sooner rather than later.
Next Stop, Iran
When a Special Forces platoon leader just back from Iraq matter-of-factly tells a close friend
of mine, as happened last week, that he and his unit are now training their sights (literally)
on Iran, we need to take that seriously. It provides us with a glimpse of reality as seen at ground
level. For me, it brought to mind an unsolicited email I received from the father of a young soldier
training at Fort Benning in the spring of 2002, soon after I wrote an op-ed discussing the timing
of George W. Bush's decision to make war on Iraq. The father informed me that, during the spring
of 2002, his son kept writing home saying his unit was training to go into Iraq. No, said the
father; you mean Afghanistan... that's where the war is, not Iraq. In his next email, the son
said, "No, Dad, they keep saying Iraq. I asked them and that's what they mean."
Now, apparently, they keep saying Iran ; and that appears to be what they mean.
Anecdotal evidence like this is hardly conclusive. Put it together with administration rhetoric
and a preponderance of other "dots," though, and everything points in the direction of an air
attack on Iran, possibly also involving some ground forces. Indeed, from the
New Yorker reports
of Seymour Hersh to
Washington Post articles , accounts of small-scale American intrusions on the ground as well
as into Iranian airspace are appearing with increasing frequency. In a speech given on February
18, former UN arms inspector and Marine officer Scott Ritter (who was totally on target before
the Iraq War on that country's lack of weapons of mass destruction) claimed that the president
has already "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June in order to destroy its alleged nuclear
weapons program and eventually bring about "regime change." This does not necessarily mean an
automatic green light for a large attack in June, but it may signal the president's seriousness
about this option.
So, again, against the background of what we have witnessed over the past four years, and the
troubling fact that the circle of second-term presidential advisers has become even tighter, we
do well to inject a strong note of urgency into any discussion of the "Iranian option."
Why Would Iran Want Nukes?
So why would Iran think it has to acquire nuclear weapons? Sen. Richard Lugar, chair of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was asked this on a Sunday talk show a few months ago.
Apparently having a senior moment, he failed to give the normal answer. Instead, he replied, "Well,
you know, Israel has..." At that point, he caught himself and abruptly stopped.
Recovering quickly and realizing that he could not just leave the word "Israel" hanging there,
Lugar began again: "Well, Israel is alleged to have a nuclear capability."
Is alleged to
have ? Lugar is chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and yet he doesn't know that
Israel has, by most estimates, a major nuclear arsenal, consisting of several hundred nuclear
weapons? (Mainstream newspapers are allergic to dwelling on this topic, but it is mentioned every
now and then, usually buried in obscurity on an inside page.)
Just imagine how the Iranians and Syrians would react to Lugar's disingenuousness. Small wonder
our highest officials and lawmakers -- and Lugar, remember, is one of the most decent among them
-- are widely seen abroad as hypocritical. Our media, of course, ignore the hypocrisy. This is
standard operating procedure when the word "Israel" is spoken in this or other unflattering contexts.
And the objections of those appealing for a more balanced approach are quashed.
If the truth be told, Iran fears Israel at least as much as Israel fears the internal security
threat posed by the thugs supported by Tehran. Iran's apprehension is partly fear that Israel
(with at least tacit support from the Bush administration) will send its aircraft to bomb Iranian
nuclear facilities, just as American-built Israeli bombers destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor
at Osirak in 1981. As part of the current war of nerves, recent statements by the president and
vice president can be
read as giving a green light to Israel to do just that; while Israeli Air Force commander Major
General Eliezer Shakedi told reporters on February 21 that Israel must be prepared for an air
strike on Iran "in light of its nuclear activity."
US-Israel Nexus
The Iranians also remember how Israel was able to acquire and keep its nuclear technology.
Much of it was stolen from the United States by spies for Israel. As early as the late-1950s,
Washington knew Israel was building the bomb and could have aborted the project. Instead, American
officials decided to turn a blind eye and let the Israelis go ahead. Now Israel's nuclear capability
is truly formidable. Still, it is a fact of strategic life that a formidable nuclear arsenal can
be deterred by a far more modest one, if an adversary has the means to deliver it. (Look at North
Korea's success with, at best, a few nuclear weapons and questionable means of delivery in deterring
the "sole remaining superpower in the world.") And Iran already has missiles with the range to
hit Israel.
Israeli Prime Minister Sharon has for some time appeared eager to enlist Washington's support
for an early "pre-emptive" strike on Iran. Indeed,
American
defense officials have told reporters that visiting Israeli officials have been pressing the
issue for the past year and a half. And the Israelis are now claiming publicly that Iran could
have a nuclear weapon within six months -- years earlier than the Defense Intelligence Agency
estimate mentioned above.
In the past, President Bush has chosen to dismiss unwelcome intelligence estimates as "guesses"
-- especially when they threatened to complicate decisions to implement the neoconservative agenda.
It is worth noting that several of the leading neocons – Richard Perle, chair of the Defense Policy
Board (2001-03); Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; and David Wurmser, Middle
East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney -- actually wrote policy papers for the Israeli government
during the 1990s. They have consistently had great difficulty distinguishing between the strategic
interests of Israel and those of the US -- at least as they imagine them.
As for President Bush, over the past four years he has amply demonstrated his preference for
the counsel of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who,
as Gen. Scowcroft said publicly , has the president "wrapped around his little finger." (As
Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board until he was unceremoniously removed
at the turn of the year, Scowcroft was in a position to know.) If Scowcroft is correct in also
saying that the president has been "mesmerized" by Sharon, it seems possible that the Israelis
already have successfully argued for an attack on Iran.
When "Regime Change" Meant Overthrow For Oil
To remember why the United States is no favorite in Tehran, one needs to go back at least to
1953 when the U.S. and Great Britain overthrew Iran's democratically elected Premier Mohammad
Mossadeq as part of a plan to insure access to Iranian oil. They then emplaced the young Shah
in power who, with his notorious secret police, proved second to none in cruelty. The Shah ruled
from 1953 to 1979. Much resentment can build up over a whole generation. His regime fell like
a house of cards, when supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini rose up to do some regime change of their
own.
Iranians also remember Washington's strong support for Saddam Hussein's Iraq after it decided
to make war on Iran in 1980. U.S. support for Iraq (which included crucial intelligence support
for the war and an implicit condoning of Saddam's use of chemical weapons) was perhaps the crucial
factor in staving off an Iranian victory. Imagine then, the threat Iranians see, should the Bush
administration succeed in establishing up to 14 permanent military bases in neighboring Iraq.
Any Iranian can look at a map of the Middle East (including occupied Iraq) and conclude that this
administration might indeed be willing to pay the necessary price in blood and treasure to influence
what happens to the black gold under Iranian as well as Iraqi sands. And with four more years
to play with, a lot can be done along those lines. The obvious question is: How to deter it? Well,
once again, Iran can hardly be blind to the fact that a small nation like North Korea has so far
deterred U.S. action by producing, or at least claiming to have produced, nuclear weapons.
Nuclear Is the Nub
The nuclear issue is indeed paramount, and we would do well to imagine and craft fresh approaches
to the nub of the problem. As a start, I'll bet if you made a survey, only 20% of Americans would
answer "yes" to the question, "Does Israel have nuclear weapons?" That is key, it seems to me,
because at their core Americans are still fair-minded people.
On the other hand, I'll bet that 95% of the Iranian population would answer, "Of course Israel
has nuclear weapons; that's why we Iranians need them" -- which was, of course, the unmentionable
calculation that Senator Lugar almost conceded. "And we also need them," many Iranians would probably
say, "in order to deter 'the crazies' in Washington. It seems to be working for the North Koreans,
who, after all, are the other remaining point on President Bush's 'axis of evil.'"
The ideal approach would, of course, be to destroy all nuclear weapons in the world
and ban them for the future, with a very intrusive global inspection regime to verify compliance.
A total ban is worth holding up as an ideal, and I think we must. But this approach seems unlikely
to bear fruit over the next four years. So what then?
A Nuclear-Free Middle East
How about a nuclear-free Middle East? Could the US make that happen? We could if we had moral
clarity -- the underpinning necessary to bring it about. Each time this proposal is raised, the
Syrians, for example, clap their hands in feigned joyful anticipation, saying, "Of course such
a pact would include Israel, right?" The issue is then dropped from all discussion by U.S. policymakers.
Required: not only moral clarity but also what Thomas Aquinas labeled the precondition for all
virtue, courage. In this context, courage would include a refusal to be intimidated by inevitable
charges of anti-Semitism.
The reality is that, except for Israel, the Middle East is nuclear free. But the discussion
cannot stop there. It is not difficult to understand why the first leaders of Israel, with the
Holocaust experience written indelibly on their hearts and minds, and feeling surrounded by perceived
threats to the fledgling state's existence, wanted the bomb. And so, before the Syrians or Iranians,
for example, get carried away with self-serving applause for the nuclear-free Middle East proposal,
they will have to understand that for any such negotiation to succeed it must have as a concomitant
aim the guarantee of an Israel able to live in peace and protect itself behind secure borders.
That guarantee has got to be part of the deal.
That the obstacles to any such agreement are formidable is no excuse not trying. But the approach
would have to be new and everything would have to be on the table. Persisting in a state of denial
about Israel's nuclear weapons is dangerously shortsighted; it does nothing but aggravate fears
among the Arabs and create further incentive for them to acquire nuclear weapons of their own.
A sensible approach would also have to include a willingness to engage the Iranians directly,
attempt to understand their perspective, and discern what the United States and Israel could do
to alleviate their concerns.
Preaching to Iran and others about not acquiring nuclear weapons is, indeed, like the village
drunk preaching sobriety -- the more so as our government keeps developing new genres of nuclear
weapons and keeps looking the other way as Israel enhances its own nuclear arsenal. Not a pretty
moral picture, that. Indeed, it reminds me of the Scripture passage about taking the plank out
of your own eye before insisting that the speck be removed from another's.
Lessons from the Past...Like Mutual Deterrence
Has everyone forgotten that deterrence worked for some 40 years, while for most of those years
the U.S. and the USSR had not by any means lost their lust for ever-enhanced nuclear weapons?
The point is simply that, while engaging the Iranians bilaterally and searching for more imaginative
nuclear-free proposals, the U.S. might adopt a more patient interim attitude regarding the striving
of other nation states to acquire nuclear weapons -- bearing in mind that the Bush administration's
policies of "preemption" and "regime change" themselves create powerful incentives for exactly
such striving. As was the case with Iraq two years ago, there is no imminent Iranian strategic
threat to Americans -- or, in reality, to anyone. Even if Iran acquired a nuclear capability,
there is no reason to believe that it would risk a suicidal first strike on Israel. That, after
all, is what mutual deterrence is all about; it works both ways.
It is nonetheless clear that the Israelis' sense of insecurity -- however exaggerated it may
seem to those of us thousands of miles away -- is not synthetic but real. The Sharon government
appears to regard its nuclear monopoly in the region as the only effective "deterrence insurance"
it can buy. It is determined to prevent its neighbors from acquiring the kind of capability that
could infringe on the freedom it now enjoys to carry out military and other actions in the area.
Government officials have said that Israel will not let Iran acquire a nuclear weapon; it would
be folly to dismiss this as bravado. The Israelis have laid down a marker and mean to follow through
-- unless the Bush administration assumes the attitude that "preemption" is an acceptable course
for the United States but not for Israel. It seems unlikely that the neoconservatives would take
that line. Rather
"Israel Is Our Ally."
Or so
said
our president before the cameras on February 17, 2005. But I didn't think we had a treaty
of alliance with Israel; I don't remember the Senate approving one. Did I miss something?
Clearly, the longstanding U.S.-Israeli friendship and the ideals we share dictate continuing
support for Israel's defense and security. It is quite another thing, though, to suggest the existence
of formal treaty obligations that our country does not have. To all intents and purposes, our
policymakers -- from the president on down -- seem to speak and behave on the assumption that
we do have such obligations toward Israel. A former colleague CIA analyst, Michael Scheuer, author
of Imperial Hubris , has put it this way: "The Israelis have succeeded in lacing tight
the ropes binding the American Gulliver to Israel and its policies."
An earlier American warned:
"A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for
the favorite nation facilitates the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where
no real common interest exists, infuses into one the enmities of the other, and betrays the
former into participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement
or justification.... It also gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, who devote
themselves to the favorite nation, facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own
country." ( George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796 )
In my view, our first president's words apply only too aptly to this administration's lash-up
with the Sharon government. As responsible citizens we need to overcome our timidity about addressing
this issue, lest our fellow Americans continue to be denied important information neglected or
distorted in our domesticated media.
Ray McGovern served as a CIA analyst for 27 years -- from the administration of John
F. Kennedy to that of George H. W. Bush. During the early 1980s, he was one of the writers/editors
of the President's Daily Brief and briefed it one-on-one to the president's most senior advisers.
He also chaired National Intelligence Estimates. In January 2003, he and four former colleagues
founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
"Obama has normalized the idea that presidents get to have secret large-scale killing programs
at their disposal."
Obama was at pains, in his first post-election statement, to dismiss the bitter vituperation
of the election campaign, declaring that the electoral struggle between the Democrats and Republicans
was merely "an intramural scrimmage." This is profoundly true: both parties represent the same
class, the American financial aristocracy, and its global interests, defended in the final
analysis by death and destruction inflicted by the American military machine.
... what you get for your dime is that, for instance, Trump huffs and he puffs before he blows
your door in, while with Obama and the TNC media, people can claim that they didn't know what
hit them.
I wonder how wsws.org missed the Pro-Porno-t(eam)'s 'initial set of sites that 'reliably echo
Russian propaganda'? Probably didn't want to draw attention to it.
"... The incomes of the financial sector are mostly pure rents so there are fewer gains from trade possible here than there are for more productive sectors. Trade negotiations on this are therefore more 'win-lose' rather than potentially 'win-win'. ..."
T's right – the economic impact of Brexit on the UK will overwhelmingly depend on how the EU "passport"
entitlements for the banks are negotiated. And of course the Germans (with Frankfurt) and the
French (with Paris) have a strong incentive to make sure that a good slab of the City's business
goes to them.
The incomes of the financial sector are mostly pure rents so there are fewer gains from trade
possible here than there are for more productive sectors. Trade negotiations on this are therefore
more 'win-lose' rather than potentially 'win-win'.
I think the result will certainly be lower aggregate GDP for the UK but it might well be better
distributed (eg London property prices may be less absurd). The City has long made the rest of
the UK economy suffer from a form of Dutch disease through an overvalued pound sterling. So those
Sunderland Brexit voters might prove ultimately correct in their assessment of their economic
interests – just not in the way they think.
"... Neoliberalism marches on in the centre-left critique of Brexit: Brexit's political motivation is a racist nationalism, there is no good or practical alternative to the EU and its four freedoms of unmanaged movements of capital, people, goods. ..."
"... The essence of left neoliberalism was the collaboration of the educated, credentialed managerial classes in the plutocratic project and the abandonment of the cause of defending what used to be called the working classes and the poor from predatory capital. ..."
"... the neoliberal trap in which what passes for left politics ..."
"... Brexit may never happen or its management may be taken over by other hands in a further reversal of political fortune on one side or the other of the Channel. A Eurozone collapse can scarcely be ruled out as Italy crumbles and France chooses between a proud neoliberal unaware of that collapse thingee and a right-wing of the old school. That would create opportunities I can scarcely imagine; there might be an alternative after all. ..."
"... [I]inequality is deadly for democracy, and for the equal political status of citizens. Because the power and influence high earners derive from their income threatens such status equality, there is a strong public interest in constraining it, even if doing so raises no money at all ..."
"... "Chauvinism" is a good thought, but you can see the problem. You read all manner of implications into "tribalism" that I don't see at all, but want to read fifty years or so of usage out of "chauvinism". ..."
"... Well neo-liberalism worked for some. Guess you had to be in early enough. I wonder if Paris or Frankfurt will allow its banking jobs to be outsourced to India? ..."
I think there's a real risk of confusing two things: on the one hand, ideology, on the other a
mechanism for mobilizing political and electoral support.
Neoliberalism may be a smoking ruin intellectually, but it remains the default ideology today
across most of the political spectrum, for lack of an articulated alternative. But it's not a
good way to mobilize electoral support ("vote for me and I'll outsource your job to India"). Historically,
that mobilizing role was played by divisions of wealth and power, but with the end of class politics,
the only obvious alternative is tribalism, or whatever we want to call it, with it's message "I
represent your group interests, vote for me." On the "right" this manifests itself through the
tribalism of tradition, language, culture etc; on the "left" through the tribalism of identity
politics. You can't really construct functioning political parties around purely abstract ideas
(tolerance, for example) – you need voters. This was perfectly well demonstrated by the Clinton
election campaign, where the ideology was neoliberal, but the mobilizing device was tribalism
("you are X therefore you should vote for me").
Much of the confusion in contemporary politics, therefore, results from competitive attempts
to foist tribal identities on people, and the resistance of potential voters to this tactic. Now,
traditional mobilizing factors did have the virtue of clarity; you were objectively poor, unemployed,
property-owning, share-owning or whatever, and it was fairly obvious what the consequences of
voting for this or that party would be. In the new dispensation, the "right" is doing better at
this game at the moment than the "left" because its tribal markers (language, history, nation
etc.), whilst not uncontested or unproblematic, mean more to people than the race and gender-based
markers of the "left". Someone with black skin may not feel that that defines the way they should
vote, in preference to say, their economic interests. This is why in France, for example, the
Socialists have effectively lost an increasingly prosperous and predominantly socially conservative
immigrant vote to the Right.
"Brexit is just a symptom of growing resistance to neoliberalism, and the loss of power
of neoliberal propaganda."
Broadly agree. After all, neoliberalism (and its child, globalization) was created and is enforced
by nations, and its destruction, if that happens, must begin at the national level. My own, totally
unrealistic, hope is that if Brexit looks like happening and similar things follow elsewhere,
the EU will be frightened enough that some of the neoliberal poison will seep out, and Europe
will go back to being what it was, and always should have been. Some hope.
"Apparently, the conservative government has now abandoned its plans for further austerity
and a balanced budget. It is expected to spend an additional $187 billion over the next five years
(roughly 1.0 percent of GDP) to boost the economy and create jobs. According to the NYT, this
spending is a direct response to concerns over the plight of working class people who voted for
Brexit in large numbers.
This outcome is worth noting, because the boost to the economy from additional spending is
likely to be larger than any drag on growth as a result of leaving the European Union. This would
mean that the net effect of Brexit on growth would be positive. Of course the UK government could
have abandoned its austerity path without Brexit, but probably would not have done so. Given the
political context, working class voters who wanted to see more jobs and a stronger welfare state
likely made the right vote by supporting Brexit. This doesn't excuse the racist sentiments that
motivated many Brexit supporters, but it is important to recognize the economic story here.
There is a deeper lesson in this story. The elites that derided Brexit were largely content
with austerity policies that needlessly kept workers from getting jobs and also weakened the welfare
state. Many were willing to push nonsense economic projections of recession in order to advance
their political agenda. In this context, it is not surprising that large numbers of working class
people would reject their argument that Brexit would be bad for the UK."
Rather than rehash
my objections to "tribalism" as far as the racialized and imperialist connotations of the
term itself, drawing off of likbez @ 6 and the recent sociobiology/evopsych thread, here's another
objection: to the extent that it relies on a vague idea of modern far-right nationalism as just
a modern manifestation of some deeper general human tendency toward ingroup/outgroup moral reasoning,
it goes much too far in naturalizing far-right nationalism, making it out to be a core
aspect of immutable human nature instead of the historically contingent political and economic
phenomenon it is. (Cf.
Kevin Drum's misapprehension of the term "white supremacy" , which doesn't refer to any abstract
idea that white people are or should be superior, but the historical reality of their tangible
efforts to create and maintain a superior material position.) On a certain level fascists are
fascists because they perceive the subjugation of other races and nationalities to be in their
interest based on their understanding of how global capitalist society works, and in some sense
their understanding of the subjugation and domination necessary for capitalism to function is
much clearer than the understanding of a proverbial "bleeding-heart liberal".
Accordingly, the ideological implication of "tribalism" that the guards at Auschwitz were doing
fundamentally the same thing as the chimpanzees in 2001: A Space Odyssey , resembles what
some old bearded leftist once described as an effort "to present production as encased in eternal
natural laws independent of history, at which opportunity bourgeois relations are then quietly
smuggled in as the inviolable natural laws on which society in the abstract is founded". No, fascism
isn't inevitable, or at least it's only inevitable as long as capitalism is too.
JQ: "I don't know how I could have been clearer that the current upsurge of tribalism is
a historically contingent political and economic phenomenon arising from the collapse of neoliberalism."
Saying "the current upsurge of tribalism" isn't the same thing as saying "tribalism". The implication
of the former is that tribalism has been here all along under the surface and our modern historical
moment isn't creating it so much as uncovering it, with the "it" in question implied
to be something premodern and primitive to which we're returning or even regressing. At best it's
a vague and partial metaphor that needs to be closely monitored to avoid implying any deeper comparison,
and if it's intended in any way as a pejorative, it works via our perception of something inherently
wrong or even evil about "primitive" modes of social existence, something that demands a unilateral
civilizing intervention by the enlightened imperialists of the mind. If you're really searching
for a proper response to "tribalism", the ideology embedded in the term "tribalism" seems to itself
imply the very same kind of paternalist liberal response you otherwise seem to rightly abhor.
Here's a thought: why not "chauvinism"? Just because in recent years it's widely become shorthand
for "male chauvinism", don't forget it was originally coined for excessive and potentially bigoted
nationalism, after a (likely apocryphal) Napoleonic-era French soldier named Nicolas Chauvin.
As far as historical allusions for a tendency claimed to encompass everyone from Hitler to George
Wallace to Donald Trump, using a word derived from the dictatorial personality-cultish nationalist
reaction to the first true modern universalist revolution seems to be on solid ground, especially
compared to a word that implies continuity between racist oppression in modern nation-states and
the alleged backward savagery of the very populations being oppressed.
John Quiggin 11.29.16 at 7:41 pm
"Chauvinism" is a good thought, but you can see the problem. You read all manner of implications
into "tribalism" that I don't see at all, but want to read fifty years or so of usage out of "chauvinism".
Trying Google, I find that just about all the top hits for "tribalism" are in the sense I use,
and nearly all of the top hits for "chauvinism" are associated with male chauvinism, even in some
dictionary definitions.
Brexit has not been defined in any detail, so calling for speculation is inviting any and all
kinds of counterfactual speculative projection. That may be interesting, to the extent it reveals
worldview or even more theoretical presupposition. But, what I get from the OP and many of the
comments is that neoliberalism has not collapsed at all.
Neoliberalism marches on in the centre-left critique of Brexit: Brexit's political motivation
is a racist nationalism, there is no good or practical alternative to the EU and its four freedoms
of unmanaged movements of capital, people, goods.
The great difficulty of renegotiating the Gordian knot of regulation tying the EU together
looms large, as it would for the socio-economic class of people tasked with creating and recreating
these sorts of systems, systems of finance, administrative process and supply chain that loom
so large in our globalised economy - pay no attention to the sclerosis, please! How will we get
visas?!?
The deep and persistent poverty that scars England and the struggles of local displacement
that shadow the fantastic globalised wealth imported into the core of the Great Metropolis are
mentioned by a few commenters as a dissent (my interpretation, alternative welcome). There is
in this leftish discussion little skepticism expressed about how healthy it is that the UK is
so invested in global and European finance. What is engaged is scorn for the idea of a Tory social
conscience. (I have never seen one myself.) But what goes unmentioned is the absence of a Left
economic conscience.
Which brings me back around to question the ostensible premise of the OP, the alleged collapse
of neoliberalism. What has collapsed politically - as any reader of news headlines must surely
know - is the social democratic left. (USA, France, Italy at any moment)
The essence of left neoliberalism was the collaboration of the educated, credentialed managerial
classes in the plutocratic project and the abandonment of the cause of defending what used to
be called the working classes and the poor from predatory capital. I do not yet see the left
critique of Brexit departing from either the collaboration or the abandonment. In British politics,
the continuing civil war in the Labour Party between the old leftists and the new membership on
the one hand and the Blairite careerists in the PLP and their supporters among the cosmopolitans
would seem to furnish a stark illustration of how disabled the left is at this juncture, mere
spectators as a weak Tory Party bungles its way forward unimpeded.
Mumbling about "tribalism" says more about the neoliberal trap in which what passes for
left politics appears fatally trapped than it does about right populism.
Sure, we want to shout "fascism" but if this is the second coming of that incoherent political
tendency, it is even more farce than it was the first time around.
This very weak tea populism that is Trump or May's one nation conservatism redux is only possible,
imho, because there is no left populism to compete credibly for those "working class" constituencies,
whose political worldviews and attitudes are - shall we say, unsophisticated? Rather than compete
for the loyalty of those authoritarian followers (to use a term from political psychology), the
left organizes its own form of "tribal" identity politics around scorning them as a morally alien
out-group. And, the new (alt?) right leverages the evidence of class contempt and so on for their
own populist mobilization.
This right is not very credible as populists, but it is a matter of out running a bear in the
woods – the bear is the loss of elite legitimacy – and it has only been necessary to outrun the
left, which so far will not even tie its shoes.
Brexit may never happen or its management may be taken over by other hands in a further
reversal of political fortune on one side or the other of the Channel. A Eurozone collapse can
scarcely be ruled out as Italy crumbles and France chooses between a proud neoliberal unaware
of that collapse thingee and a right-wing of the old school. That would create opportunities I
can scarcely imagine; there might be an alternative after all.
SamChevre 11.29.16 at 9:42 pm
Discussions of Brexit, and its economic effects, continues to remind me of this Chris Bertram
post from 2014.
[I]inequality is deadly for democracy, and for the equal political status of citizens.
Because the power and influence high earners derive from their income threatens such status equality,
there is a strong public interest in constraining it, even if doing so raises no money at all .[W]e
need to shift the balance of voice in favour of the unemployed teenager and against the City trader.
Maybe not just the social democratic left. Maybe the whole left. This whole capitalist experiment
is so new, historically speaking (in its industrialised form only going back a few centuries)
we simply have no idea how it will play out long-term. Maybe what we have known as 'the left'
was simply a 'reactive formation' to initial stages of capitalism, facilitated by wars and the
early,' factory' model of capitalism. Maybe in our 'post-modern' era of capitalism (which might,
after all, last for centuries), with low unionisation, high unemployment/underemployment, massive
income inequality, slow growth, and a 'bread and circuses' media, the left simply no longer has
any political role.
After all, the collapse of the social democratic left follows in the wake of the collapse of
the radical left in the 1980s and 1990s, which (despite occasional 'dead cat bounces' as we have
seen in Greece and Spain) shows no sign of returning. And the centre (e.g. the LibDems in the
UK) died a long time ago.
As Owen Jones has been amongst the few to point out perhaps the future of Europe lies in Poland
where the left and centre have simply ceased to exist, and all of political life consists of neo-Thatcherites
fighting ethno-nationalists for a slice of the political pie.
Helen 11.29.16 at 10:07 pm
"Chauvinism" is a good thought, but you can see the problem. You read all manner of implications
into "tribalism" that I don't see at all, but want to read fifty years or so of usage out of "chauvinism".
Trying Google, I find that just about all the top hits for "tribalism" are in the sense I use,
and nearly all of the top hits for "chauvinism" are associated with male chauvinism, even in some
dictionary definitions.
Well neo-liberalism worked for some. Guess you had to be in early enough. I wonder if Paris
or Frankfurt will allow its banking jobs to be outsourced to India?
In the US, the pres-elect has just nominated a health secretary who is for killing Obamacare
while Trump's party is talking about privatizing (thereby killing) Medicare. So much for the complete
death of neo-liberlism JQ. There's always time for one final looting.
WLGR 11.29.16 at 10:30 pm
Point taken, although if we're taking our intellectual cues from mainstream definitions now,
someone should notify the laypeople confused about non-mainstream scholarly definitions of words
like "liberalism" and "racism" that they were actually right all along. From my understanding,
the typical scholarly view of "tribe" as a concept ranges from vague and essentialist on one end
(cf. "feudalism") to a racism-tinged pejorative on the other end (cf. "savage"), and in neither
case is it considered particularly respectable to deliberately orient a theory of human society
around the distinction between what is or isn't "tribal".
But if you're not necessarily convinced that the term "tribalism" is offensive in itself, another
line of attack might resemble
this :
The instinct to explain the seemingly inexplicable rise of Trump by blaming a foreign influence–or
likening it to something from non-white or Slavic countries–is as lazy as it is subtly racist.
Trump is Trump. Trump is American. His bigotry, his xenophobia, his sexism, his contempt for
the media, his desire to round up undesirables, all have American origins and American explanations.
They don't need to be "like" anything else. They are like us. While acknowledging this may
be uncomfortable, doing so would go a lot further in combating Trump than treating him as anomalous
or comparable only to those poor, backwards foreigners.
In other words, even if we assume there's nothing inherently problematic about calling groups
like the Sioux or the Igbo "tribes" (although tellingly enough it's more common for such groups
to self-identify with the term "nation") the very act of casting fascists/ethnonationalists/whatevers
in terms of a foreign type of social organization acts as a means of disavowal, intentionally
or unintentionally letting ourselves off the hook for the extent to which the evil they express
is entirely that of our own society. Which, I might add, at least somewhat resembles the ideological
maneuver of the fascists/ethnonationalists/whatevers themselves: casting the antagonism and instability
inherent to any capitalist society as the result of a foreign intruder, whose removal will render
the nation peaceful and harmonious once again. Obviously the two aren't comparable in many other
ways, but the end result in either case is to avoid facing the immanent contradictions of one's
own national identity too directly.
There is no economics, only political economy. That means that financial oligarchy under liberalism
puts the political pressure and takes measures to have the final say as for who occupy top academic
positions.
Indirect negative selection under neoliberalism (much like in the USSR) occurs on multiple
fronts, but especially via academic schools and indoctrination of students. The proper term for
political pressure of science and creating an academic school that suppressed other is Lysenkoism.
So far this term was not mentioned even once here. But this what we have in the USA. Of course
there are some dissidents, some of them quite vocal, but in no way they can get to the level of
even a department chair.
In best traditions of Lysenkoism such people as Greg Mankiw, Krugman, DeLong and Summers after
getting to their lucrative positions can do tremendous, lasting decades damage. The same is true
for all other prominent neoliberal economists. It's not even about answers given, it is about
questions asked and framework and terminology used.
Fish rots from the head. It is important to understand that essentially the same game (with
minor variations, and far worse remuneration for sycophantism ) was played in the USSR -- the
Communist Party essentially dictated all top academic position assignments, so mostly despicable
sycophants had managed to raise to the top in this environment. Some people who can well mask
their views under the disguise of formal obedience also happened, but were extremely rare. Situation
in the past in the USA was better and such people as Hyman Minsky (who died in 1996) while not
promoted were not actively suppressed either. But He spend only the last decade of his career
under neoliberal regime.
What was really funny, is how quickly in late 80th prominent USSR economists switched to neoliberalism
when the wind (and money) start flowing in this direction.
I would suggest that there are non are trivial links between Soviet political and economic
science and neoclassical economics in the USA -- both are flavors of Lysenkoism.
"It's not unreasonable for people who paid into a system for decades to expect to get their
money's worth - that's not an "entitlement," that's honoring a deal. We as a society must also
make an ironclad commitment to providing a safety net for those who can't make one for themselves."
This view is also not compatible with classic neoliberalism.
"... Each of these was based fundamentally upon the principle that language was the key to all power. That is, that language was not a tool that described reality but the power that created it, and s/he who controlled language controlled everything through the shaping of "discourse", as opposed to the objective existence of any truth at all ..."
"... When you globalise capital, you globalise labour. That meant jobs shifting from expensive markets to cheap. Before long the incomes of those swimming in the stream of global capital began to seriously outstrip the incomes of those trapped in old and withering Western labour markets. As a result, inflation in those markets also began to fall and so did interest rates. Thus asset prices took off as Western nation labour markets got hollowed out, and standard of living inequality widened much more quickly as a new landed aristocracy developed. ..."
"... With a Republican Party on its knees, Obama was positioned to restore the kind of New Deal rules that global capitalism enjoyed under Franklin D. Roosevelt. ..."
"... But instead he opted to patch up financialised capitalism. The banks were bailed out and the bonus culture returned. Yes, there were some new rules but they were weak. There was no seizing of the agenda. No imprisonments of the guilty. The US Department of Justice is still issuing $14bn fines to banks involved yet still today there is no justice. Think about that a minute. How can a crime be worthy of a $14bn fine but no prison time?!? ..."
"... Alas, for all of his efforts to restore Wall Street, Obama provided no reset for Main Street economics to restore the fortunes of the US lower classes. Sure Obama fought a hostile Capitol but, let's face it, he had other priorities. ..."
"... This comment is a perfect example of the author's (and Adolf Reed's) point: that the so-called "Left" is so bogged down in issues of language that it has completely lost sight of class politics. ..."
"... It's why Trump won. He was a Viking swinging an ax at nuanced hair-splitters. It was inelegant and ugly, but effective. We will find out if the hair-splitters win again in their inner circle with the Democratic Minority Leader vote. I suspect they missed the point of the election and will vote Pelosi back in, thereby missing the chance for significant gains in the mid-term elections. ..."
"... One of the great triumphs of Those Who Continue To Be Our Rulers has been the infiltration and cooptation of 'the left', hand in hand with the 'dumbing down' of the last 30+ years so few people really understand what is going on. ..."
"... That the Global Left appears to be intellectually weak regarding identity politics and "political correctness" vs. class politics, there is no doubt. But to skim over Global Corporate leverage of this attitude seems wrong to me. The right has also embraced identity politics in order to keep the 90% fully divided in order to justify it's continual economic rape of both human and physical ecology. ..."
"... Every "identity politics" charge starts here, with one group wanting a more equitable social order and the other group defending the existing power structure. Identity politics is adjusting the social order and rattling the power structure, which is why it is so effective. ..."
"... I think it can be effectively argued that Trump voters in PA, WI, OH, MI chose to rattle the power structure and you could think of that as identity politics as well. ..."
"... On the contrary, the (Neo-)Liberal establishment uses identity politics to co-opt and neutralise the left. It keeps them occupied without threatening the real power structure in the least. ..."
"... Hillary (Neoliberal establishment) has many supporters who think of themselves as 'left' or 'liberal'. The Democratic Party leadership is neither 'left' nor 'liberal'. It keeps the votes and the love of the 'liberals' by talking up harmless 'liberal' identity politics and soft peddling the Liberal power politics which they are really about. ..."
"... Just from historical perspective, the right wing had more money to forward its agenda and an OCD like affliction [biblical] to drive simple memes relentlessly via its increasing private ownership of education and media. Thereby creating an institutional network over time to gain dominate market share in crafting the social narrative. Bloodly hell anyone remember Bush Jr Christian crusade after politicizing religion to get elected and the ramifications – neocon – R2P thingy . ..."
"... Its not hard once neoliberalism became dominate in the 70s [wages and productivity diverged] the proceeds have gone to the top and everyone else got credit IOUs based mostly on asset inflation via the Casino or RE [home and IP]. ..."
"... Foucault in particular advanced a greatly expanded wariness regarding the use of power. It was not just that left politics could only lead to ossified Soviet Marxism or the dogmatic petty despotism of the left splinters. Institutions in general mapped out social practices and attendant identities to impose on the individual. His position tended to promote a distrust not only of "grand narratives" but of organizational bonds as such. As far as I can tell, the idea of people joining together to form an institution that would enhance their social power as well as allow them to become personally empowered/enhanced was something of a categorial impossibility. ..."
"... There is no global left. We have only global state capitalists and global social democrats – a pseudo left. The countries where Marxist class analysis was supposedly adopted were not industrial countries where "alienation" had brought the "proletariat" to an inevitable communal mentality. The largest of these countries killed millions in order to industrialize rapidly – pretending the goal was to get to that state. ..."
"... Bigotry. Identity centered thinking. Neither serves egalitarianism. But people cling to them. "I gotta look out for myself first." And so called left thinkers constantly pontificate about "benefits" and "privileges" that some class, sex, and race confer. Hmmm. The logic is that many of us struggling daily to keep our jobs and pay the bills must give up something in order to be fair, in order to build a better society. Given this thinking it is no surprise that so many have retreated into the illusion of safety offered by identity based thinking. ..."
"... "Simultaneously, capitalism did what it does best. It packaged and repackaged, branded and rebranded every emerging identity, cloaked in its own sub-cultural nomenclature, selling itself back to new emerging identities. Soon class was completely forgotten as the global Left dedicated itself instead to policing the commons as a kind of safe zone for a multitude of difference that capitalism turned into a cultural supermarket." ..."
"... But why does the Dem estab embrace the conservative neoliberal agenda? The Dem estab are smart people, can think on multiple levels, are not limited in scope, are not racist. So, why then does the Dem estab accept and promote the conservative GOP neoliberal economic agenda? ..."
"... Because the Dem estab isn't very smart. ..."
"... Conservative is: private property, capitalism, limited taxes and transfer payments plus national security and religion. ..."
"... Liberalism is not in opposition to any of that. Identity politics arose at the same time the Ds were purging the reds (socialists and communists) from their party. Liberalism/progressivism is an ameliorating position of conservatism (progressive support of labor unions to work within a private property/corporatist structure not to eliminate the system and replace it with public/employee ownership) Not too far, too fast, maybe toss out a few more crumbs. ..."
"... There is a foundation for identity politics on the liberal-left (see what I did there?) – it rests in the sense of moral superiority of just this liberal-left, which superiority is then patronisingly spread all over the social world – until it meets those who deny the moral superiority claim, whereupon it becomes murderous (in, of course, the name of humanity and humanitarianism). ..."
"... This is why the 1% continue to prevail over the 99%. If the 1% wasn't so incompetent this would continue forever. They know how to divide, conquer and rule the 99%, however they don't know how to run a society in a sustainable way. ..."
"... But I will say one thing for the Right over the Left: they have taken the initiative and are now the sole force for change. Granted, supporting a carnival barker for president is an act of desperation. Nevertheless he was the only option for change and the Right took it. Perhaps the Left offering little to nothing in the way of change reflects its lack of desperation. ..."
"... Excellent comment, EoinW! You just summed up years of content and commentary on this site. Obviously as the "Left" continues to defend the status quo as you describe it stops being "Left" in any meaningful way anymore. ..."
"... The Koch brothers are economically to the very right. They are socially to the left, perhaps even more socially liberal than many of your liberal friends. No joke. There's a point here, if I can figure out what it is. ..."
"... Trump isn't Right or Left. Trump is a can of gasoline and a match. His voters weren't voting for a Left or Right agenda. They were voting for a battering ram. That is why he got a pass on racist, misogynist, fascist statements that would have killed any other candidate. ..."
"... PC is a parody of the 20th Century reform movements. ..."
"... In the 70's the feminists worked against legal disabilities written into law. Since the Depression, the unions fought corporate management create a livable relationship between management and labor. Real struggles, real problems, real people. ..."
"... What's interesting is that in an article pushing class over identity. he never tried to set his class ethos in order to convince working class people or the bourgeoisie why they should listen to him. ..."
"... "This site, along with the MSM, has flown way off the handle since the election loss." ..."
"... "Our nation's problems can be remedied with one dramatic change" ..."
"... Bringing C level pay packages at major corporations in line with the real contributions of the recipients would be great. How would we do it? With laws or regulations or executive orders banning the federal government from doing business with any firm that failed to comply with some basic guidelines? ..."
"... It's an academic point right now in any event. The Trump administration – working together with the Ryan House – is not going to make legislation or sign executive orders to do anything remotely like this. Which is one of the many reasons why bashing Democrats has taken off here I suspect. This election was theirs to lose, and they did everything in their power to toss it. ..."
"... You do realize that the wealthy are both part of and connected to the legislative branch of every single country on this planet right? As long as that remains so (as it has since the dawn of humans) then good luck trying to cap any sort of hording behavior of the wealthy. ..."
"... The post-structural revolution transpired [in the U.S.] before and during the end of the Cold War just as the collapse of the Old Soviet Union denuded the global Left of its raison detre. ..."
"... Foucault was not entirely sympathetic to the Left, at least the unions, but he was trying to articulate a politics that was just as much about liberation from capitalism as classic Marxism. To that end, discourse analysis was the means to discovering those subtle articulations of power in human relations, not an end in itself as it was for, say, Barthes. ..."
"... Imagine inequality plotted on two axes. Inequality between genders, races and cultures is what liberals have been concentrating on. This is the x-axis and the focus of identity politics and the liberal left. ..."
"... On the y-axis we have inequality from top to bottom. 2014 – "85 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of the world" 2016– "Richest 62 people as wealthy as half of world's population" ..."
"... The neoliberal view L As long as everyone, from all genders, races and cultures, is visiting the same food bank this is equality. ..."
"... You can see why liberals love identity politics. ..."
"... labor is being co-opted by the right: the Republican Workers Party I think this rhymes with Fascist. But then, in a world soon to be literally scrambling for high ground and rebuilding housing for 50 million people the time honored "worker" might actually have a renaissance. ..."
"... But the simple act of writing checks cost me n-o-t-h-i-n-g in terms of time, energy, education, physical or mental exertion. ..."
"... A much more nuanced discussion of the primacy of identity politics on the Left in Britain and the US is http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/29/prospects-for-an-alt-left/ "Prospects for an Alt-Left," November 29, 2016, by Elliot Murphy, who teaches in the Division of Psychology and Language Sciences at University College, London. ..."
"... The electorate is angry (true liberals at the Dems, voters in select electoral states at "everything"). If democracy is messy, then that's what we've got; a mess. Unfortunately, it's coming at the absolutely wrong time (Climate Change, lethal policing, financial elite impunity). ..."
"... But certainly the fall of the USSR was the thing that forced capitalism's hand. At that point capitalism had no choice but to step up and prove that it could really bring a better life to the world. ..."
"... A Minsky event of biblical proportions soon followed (it only took about 10 years!) and now all is devastation and nobody has clue. But the 1990 effort could have been in earnest. Capitalists mean well but they are always in denial about the inequality they create which finally started a chain reaction in "identity politics" as reactions to the stress of economic competition bounced around in every society like a pinball machine. A tedious and insufferable game which seems to have culminated in Hillary the Relentless. I won't say capitalism is idiotic. But something is. ..."
"... Left and Right only really make sense in the context of the distribution of power and wealth, and only when there is a difference between them about that distribution. This was historically the case for more than 150 years after the French Revolution. By the mid-1960s, there was a sense that the Left was winning, and would continue to win. Progressive taxation, zero unemployment, little real poverty by today's standards, free education and healthcare . and many influential political figures (Tony Crosland for example) saw the major task of the future as deciding where the fruits of economic growth could be most justly applied. ..."
"... So until class-based politics and struggles over power and money re-start (if they ever do) I respectfully suggest that "Left" and "Right" be retired as terms that no longer have any meaning. ..."
"... powerlessness, of course, corrupts. There's always someone weaker than you, which is why identity politics is essentially a conservative, disciplining force, with a vested interest in the problems it has chosen to identify ..."
"... Identity politics is a disaster ongoing for the Democratic Party, for reasons they seem to have overlooked. First, the additional identity group is white. We already see this in the South, where 90% of the white population in many states votes Republican. ..."
"... When that spreads to the rest of the country, there will be a permanent Republican majority until the Republicans create a new major disaster. ..."
"... So soon we forget the Battle of Seattle. The Left has been opposed to globalization, deregulation, etc., all along. Partly he's talking about an academic pseudo-left, partly confusing the left with the Democrats and other "center-left," captured parties. ..."
"... I mean, Barack Obama was our first black president, but most blacks didn't do very well. George W. Bush was our first retard president, and most people with cognitive handicaps didn't do very well. ..."
"... But we can boil it all down to something even simpler and more primal: divide and conquer. ..."
Yves here. This piece gives a useful, real-world perspective on the issues discussed in
a seminal Adolph Reed article . Key section:
race politics is not an alternative to class politics; it is a class politics, the politics
of the left-wing of neoliberalism. It is the expression and active agency of a political order
and moral economy in which capitalist market forces are treated as unassailable nature. An integral
element of that moral economy is displacement of the critique of the invidious outcomes produced
by capitalist class power onto equally naturalized categories of ascriptive identity that sort
us into groups supposedly defined by what we essentially are rather than what we do. As I have
argued, following Walter Michaels and others, within that moral economy a society in which 1%
of the population controlled 90% of the resources could be just, provided that roughly 12% of
the 1% were black, 12% were Latino, 50% were women, and whatever the appropriate proportions were
LGBT people. It would be tough to imagine a normative ideal that expresses more unambiguously
the social position of people who consider themselves candidates for inclusion in, or at least
significant staff positions in service to, the ruling class.
This perspective may help explain why, the more aggressively and openly capitalist class power
destroys and marketizes every shred of social protection working people of all races, genders,
and sexual orientations have fought for and won over the last century, the louder and more insistent
are the demands from the identitarian left that we focus our attention on statistical disparities
and episodic outrages that "prove" that the crucial injustices in the society should be understood
in the language of ascriptive identity.
My take on this issue is that the neoliberal use of identity politics continue and extends the
cultural inculcation of individuals seeing themselves engaging with other in one-to-one transactions
(commerce, struggles over power and status) and has the effect of diverting their focus and energy
on seeing themselves as members of groups with common interests and operating that way, and in particular,
of seeing the role of money and property, which are social constructs, in power dynamics.
By David Llewellyn-Smith, founding publisher and former editor-in-chief of The Diplomat
magazine, now the Asia Pacific's leading geo-politics website. Originally posted at
MacroBusiness
Let's begin this little tale with a personal anecdote. Back in 1990 I met and fell in love with
a bisexual, African American ballerina. She was studying Liberal Arts at US Ivy League Smith College
at the time (which Aussies may recall was being run by our Jill Kerr Conway back then). So I moved
in with my dancing beauty and we lived happily on her old man's purse for a year.
I was fortunate to arrive at Smith during a period of intellectual tumult. It was the early years
of the US political correctness revolution when the academy was writhing through a post-structuralist
shift. Traditional dialectical history was being supplanted by a new suite of studies based around
truth as "discourse". Driven by the French post-modern thinkers of the 70s and 80s, the US academy
was adopting and adapting the ideas Foucault, Derrida and Barthe to a variety of civil rights movements
that spawned gender and racial studies.
Each of these was based fundamentally upon the principle that language was the key to all
power. That is, that language was not a tool that described reality but the power that created it,
and s/he who controlled language controlled everything through the shaping of "discourse", as opposed
to the objective existence of any truth at all .
... ... ...
The post-structural revolution transpired before and during the end of the Cold War just as the
collapse of the Old Soviet Union denuded the global Left of its raison detre. But its social justice
impulse didn't die, it turned inwards from a notion of the historic inevitability of the decline
of capitalism and the rise of oppressed classes, towards the liberation of oppressed minorities within
capitalism, empowered by control over the language that defined who they were.
Simultaneously, capitalism did what it does best. It packaged and repackaged, branded and rebranded
every emerging identity, cloaked in its own sub-cultural nomenclature, selling itself back to new
emerging identities. Soon class was completely forgotten as the global Left dedicated itself instead
to policing the commons as a kind of safe zone for a multitude of difference that capitalism turned
into a cultural supermarket.
As the Left turned inwards, capitalism turned outwards and went truly, madly global, lifting previously
isolated nations into a single planet-wide market, pretty much all of it revolving around Americana
replete with its identity-branded products.
But, of course, this came at a cost. When you globalise capital, you globalise labour. That
meant jobs shifting from expensive markets to cheap. Before long the incomes of those swimming in
the stream of global capital began to seriously outstrip the incomes of those trapped in old and
withering Western labour markets. As a result, inflation in those markets also began to fall and
so did interest rates. Thus asset prices took off as Western nation labour markets got hollowed out,
and standard of living inequality widened much more quickly as a new landed aristocracy developed.
Meanwhile the global Left looked on from its Ivory Tower of identity politics and was pleased.
Capitalism was spreading the wealth to oppressed brothers and sisters, and if there were some losers
in the West then that was only natural as others rose in prominence. Indeed, it went further. So
satisfied was it with human progress, and so satisfied with its own role in producing it, that it
turned the power of language that it held most dear back upon those that opposed the new order. Those
losers in Western labour markets that dared complain or fight back against the free movement of capital
and labour were labelled and marginalised as "racist", "xenophobic" and "sexist".
This great confluence of forces reached its apogee in the Global Financial Crisis when a ribaldly
treasonous Wall St destroyed the American financial system just as America's first ever African American
President, Barack Obama, was elected . One might have expected this convergence to result in a revival
of some class politics. Obama ran on a platform of "hope and change" very much cultured in the vein
of seventies art and inherited a global capitalism that had just openly ravaged its most celebrated
host nation.
But alas, it was just a bit of "retro". With a Republican Party on its knees, Obama was positioned
to restore the kind of New Deal rules that global capitalism enjoyed under Franklin D. Roosevelt.
A gobalisation like the one promised in the brochures, that benefited the majority via competition
and productivity gains, driven by trade and meritocracy, with counter-balanced private risk and public
equity.
But instead he opted to patch up financialised capitalism. The banks were bailed out and the
bonus culture returned. Yes, there were some new rules but they were weak. There was no seizing of
the agenda. No imprisonments of the guilty. The US Department of Justice is still issuing $14bn fines
to banks involved yet still today there is no justice. Think about that a minute. How can a crime
be worthy of a $14bn fine but no prison time?!?
Alas, for all of his efforts to restore Wall Street, Obama provided no reset for Main Street
economics to restore the fortunes of the US lower classes. Sure Obama fought a hostile Capitol but,
let's face it, he had other priorities. And so the US working and middle classes, as well as
those worldwide, were sold another pup. Now more than ever, if they said say so they were quickly
shut down as "racist", "xenophobic", or "sexist".
Thus it came to pass that the global Left somehow did a complete back-flip and positioned itself
directly behind the same unreconstructed global capitalism that was still sucking the life from the
lower classes that it always had. Only now it was doing so with explicit public backing and with
an abandon it had not enjoyed since the roaring twenties.
Which brings us back to today. And we wonder how it is that an abuse-spouting guy like Donald
Trump can succeed Barack Obama. Trump is a member of the very same "trickle down" capitalist class
that ripped the income from US households. But he is smart enough, smarter than the Left at least,
to know that the decades long rage of the middle and working classes is a formidable political force
and has tapped it spectacularly to rise to power.
And, he has done more. He has also recognised that the Left's obsession with post-structural identity
politics has totally paralysed it. It is so traumatised and pre-occupied by his mis-use of the language
of power – the "racist", "sexist" and "xenophobic" comments – that it is further wedging itself from
its natural constituents every day.
Don't get me wrong, I am very doubtful that Trump will succeed with his proposed policies but
he has at least mentioned the elephant in the room, making the American worker visible again.
Returning to that innocent Aussie boy and his wild romp at Smith College, I might ask what he
would have made of all of this. None of the above should be taken as a repudiation of the experience
of racism or sexism. Indeed, the one thing I took away from Smith College over my lifetime was an
understanding at just how scarred by slavery are the generations of African Americans that lived
it and today inherit its memory (as well as other persecuted). I felt terribly inadequate before
that pain then and I remain so today.
But, if the global Left is to have any meaning in the future of the world, and I would argue that
the global Right will destroy us all if it doesn't, then it must get beyond post-structural paralysis
and go back to the future of fighting not just for social justice issues but for equity based upon
class. Empowerment is not just about language, it's about capital, who's got it, who hasn't and what
role government plays between them.
This comment is a perfect example of the author's (and Adolf Reed's) point: that the so-called
"Left" is so bogged down in issues of language that it has completely lost sight of class politics.
Essentially, the comment vividly displays the exact methodology the author lambasts in the
piece - it hijacks the discussion about an economic issue, attempts to turn it into a mere distraction
about semantics, and in the end contributes absolutely nothing of substance to the "discourse".
It's why Trump won. He was a Viking swinging an ax at nuanced hair-splitters. It was inelegant
and ugly, but effective. We will find out if the hair-splitters win again in their inner circle with the Democratic
Minority Leader vote. I suspect they missed the point of the election and will vote Pelosi back
in, thereby missing the chance for significant gains in the mid-term elections.
One of the great triumphs of Those Who Continue To Be Our Rulers has been the infiltration
and cooptation of 'the left', hand in hand with the 'dumbing down' of the last 30+ years so few
people really understand what is going on.
Explained in more detail here if anyone interested in some truly 'out of the box' perspectives
– It's not 'the left' trying to take over the world and shut down free speech and all that other
bad stuff – it's 'the right'!! http://tinyurl.com/h4h2kay
.
Although I haven't yet read the article you posted, my "feeling" as I read this was that the
author inferred that the right was in the mix somehow, but it was primarily the fault of the left.
That the Global Left appears to be intellectually weak regarding identity politics and "political
correctness" vs. class politics, there is no doubt. But to skim over Global Corporate leverage
of this attitude seems wrong to me. The right has also embraced identity politics in order to
keep the 90% fully divided in order to justify it's continual economic rape of both human and
physical ecology.
Exactly. My guess is that this plays out somewhat like this:
Dems: This group _____ should be free to have _____ civil right.
Reps: NO. We are a society built on _____ tradition, no need to change that because it upends
our patriarchal, Christian, Caucasian power structure.
Every "identity politics" charge starts here, with one group wanting a more equitable social
order and the other group defending the existing power structure. Identity politics is adjusting
the social order and rattling the power structure, which is why it is so effective.
I think it can be effectively argued that Trump voters in PA, WI, OH, MI chose to rattle
the power structure and you could think of that as identity politics as well.
Identity politics is adjusting the social order and rattling the power structure, which
is why it is so effective.
On the contrary, the (Neo-)Liberal establishment uses identity politics to co-opt and neutralise
the left. It keeps them occupied without threatening the real power structure in the least.
When have they ever done any such thing? Vote for Hillary because she's a woman isn't even
any kind of politics it's more like marketing branding. It's the real thing. Taste great, less
filling. I'm loving it.
Hillary (Neoliberal establishment) has many supporters who think of themselves as 'left'
or 'liberal'. The Democratic Party leadership is neither 'left' nor 'liberal'. It keeps the votes
and the love of the 'liberals' by talking up harmless 'liberal' identity politics and soft peddling
the Liberal power politics which they are really about.
They exploit the happy historical accident of the coincidence of names. The Liberal ideology
was so called because it was slightly less right-wing than the Feudalism it displaced. In today's
terms however, it is not very liberal, and Neoliberalism is even less so.
If I was in charge of the DNC and wanted to commission a very cleverly written piece to exonerate
the DLC and the New Democrats from the 30 odd years of corruption and self-aggrandizement they
indulged in and laughed all the way to the Bank then I would definitely give this chap a call.
I mean, where do we start? No attempt at learning the history of neoliberalism, no attempt at
any serious research about how and why it fastened itself into the brains of people like Tony
Coelho and Al From, nothing, zilch. If someone who did not know the history of the DLC read this
piece, they would walk away thinking, 'wow, it was all happenstance, it all just happened, no
one deliberately set off this run away train'. Sometime in the 90s the 'Left' decided to just
pursue identity politics. Amazing. I would ask the Author to start with the Powell memo and then
make an investigation as to why the Democrats then and the DLC later decided to merely sit on
their hands when all the forces the Powell memo unleashed proceeded to wreak their havoc in every
established institution of the Left, principally the Universities which had always been the bastion
of the Progressives. That might be a good starting point.
Sigh . the left was marginalized and relentlessly hunted down by the right [grab bag of corporatists,
free marketers, neocons, evangelicals, and a whole cornucopia of wing nut ideologists (file under
creative class gig writers)].
Just from historical perspective, the right wing had more money to forward its agenda and
an OCD like affliction [biblical] to drive simple memes relentlessly via its increasing private
ownership of education and media. Thereby creating an institutional network over time to gain
dominate market share in crafting the social narrative. Bloodly hell anyone remember Bush Jr Christian
crusade after politicizing religion to get elected and the ramifications – neocon – R2P thingy .
Its not hard once neoliberalism became dominate in the 70s [wages and productivity diverged]
the proceeds have gone to the top and everyone else got credit IOUs based mostly on asset inflation
via the Casino or RE [home and IP].
Yes, it's interesting that the academic "left" (aka liberals), who so prize language to accurately,
and to the finest degree distinguish 'this' from 'that', have avoided addressing the difference
between 'left' and 'liberal' and are content to leave the two terms interchangable.
The reason for that is that when academic leftists attempted a more in depth critique, of one
sort or another, of the actually existing historical liberal welfare state, the liberals threw
the "New Deal-under-siege" attack at them and attempted to shut them down.
There is very little left perspective in public. All this whining about identity politics is
not left either. It is reactionary. I can think of plenty of old labor left academics who have
done a much better job of wrapping their minds around why sex, gender, and race matter with respect
to all matters economic than this incessant childish whine. The "let me make you feel more comfortable"
denialism of Uncle Tom Reed.
Right now, I would say that these reactionaries don't want to hear from the academic left any
more than New Deal liberals did. Not going to stop them from blaming them for all their problems
though.
Maybe people should shoulder their own failures for a change. As for the Trumpertantrums, I
am totally not having them.
Since the writer led off talking about an academic setting, it would be useful to flesh out
a bit more how trends in academic theoretical discussion in the 70s and 80s reflected and reinforced
what was going on politically. He refers to postructuralism, which was certainly involved, but
doesn't give enough emphasis to how deliberately poststructuralists - and here I'm lumping together
writers like Lyotard, Foucault, and Deleuze and Guattari - were all reacting to the failure of
French Maoism and Trotskyism to, as far as they were concerned, provide a satisfactory alternative
to Soviet Marxism.
As groups espousing those position flailed about in the 70s, the drive to maintain
hope in revolutionary prospects in the midst of macroeconomic stabilization and union reconciliation
to capitalism frequently brought out the worst sectarian tendencies. While writers like Andre Gorz bid adieu to the proletariat as an agent of change and tried to tread water as social democratic
reformists, the poststructuralists disjoined the critique of power from class analysis.
Foucault in particular advanced a greatly expanded wariness regarding the use of power. It
was not just that left politics could only lead to ossified Soviet Marxism or the dogmatic petty
despotism of the left splinters. Institutions in general mapped out social practices and attendant
identities to impose on the individual. His position tended to promote a distrust not only of
"grand narratives" but of organizational bonds as such. As far as I can tell, the idea of people
joining together to form an institution that would enhance their social power as well as allow
them to become personally empowered/enhanced was something of a categorial impossibility.
When imported to US academia, traditionally much more disengaged from organized politics than
their European counterparts, these tendencies flourished. Aside from being socially cut off from
increasingly anodyne political organizations, poststructuralists in the US often had backgrounds
with little orientation to history or social science research addressing class relations. To them
the experience of a much more immediate and palpable form of oppression through the use of language
offered an immediate critical target. This dovetailed perfectly with the legalistic use of state
power to end discrimination against various groups, A European disillusionment with class politics
helped to fortify an American evasion or ignorance of it.
There is no global left. We have only global state capitalists and global social democrats
– a pseudo left. The countries where Marxist class analysis was supposedly adopted were not industrial
countries where "alienation" had brought the "proletariat" to an inevitable communal mentality.
The largest of these countries killed millions in order to industrialize rapidly – pretending
the goal was to get to that state.
The terms left and right may not be adequate for those of us who want an egalitarian society
but also see many of the obstacles to egalitarianism as human failings that are independent of
and not caused by ruling elites – although they frequently serve the interests of those elites.
Bigotry. Identity centered thinking. Neither serves egalitarianism. But people cling to
them. "I gotta look out for myself first." And so called left thinkers constantly pontificate
about "benefits" and "privileges" that some class, sex, and race confer. Hmmm. The logic is that
many of us struggling daily to keep our jobs and pay the bills must give up something in order
to be fair, in order to build a better society. Given this thinking it is no surprise that so
many have retreated into the illusion of safety offered by identity based thinking.
Hopefully those of us who yearn for an egalitarian movement can develop and articulate an alternate
view of reality.
"Simultaneously, capitalism did what it does best. It packaged and repackaged, branded and
rebranded every emerging identity, cloaked in its own sub-cultural nomenclature, selling itself
back to new emerging identities. Soon class was completely forgotten as the global Left dedicated
itself instead to policing the commons as a kind of safe zone for a multitude of difference
that capitalism turned into a cultural supermarket."
"Meanwhile the global Left looked on from its Ivory Tower of identity politics and was pleased.
Capitalism was spreading the wealth to oppressed brothers and sisters, and if there were some
losers in the West then that was only natural as others rose in prominence. Indeed, it went
further. So satisfied was it with human progress, and so satisfied with its own role in producing
it, that it turned the power of language that it held most dear back upon those that opposed
the new order. Those losers in Western labour markets that dared complain or fight back against
the free movement of capital and labour were labelled and marginalised as "racist", "xenophobic"
and "sexist". "
That is not it at all. The real reason is the right wing played white identity politics starting
with the southern strategy, and those running into the waiting arms of Trump today, took the poisoned
bait. Enter Bill Clinton.
People need to start taking responsibility for their own actions, and stop blaming the academics
and the leftists and the wimmins and the N-ers.
But why does the Dem estab embrace the conservative neoliberal agenda? The Dem estab are
smart people, can think on multiple levels, are not limited in scope, are not racist. So, why
then does the Dem estab accept and promote the conservative GOP neoliberal economic agenda?
Because the Dem estab isn't very smart. I doubt more than half of them could define neoliberalism
much less describe how it has destroyed the country. They are mostly motivated by the identity
politics aspects.
Conservative is: private property, capitalism, limited taxes and transfer payments plus
national security and religion.
Liberalism is not in opposition to any of that. Identity politics arose at the same time
the Ds were purging the reds (socialists and communists) from their party. Liberalism/progressivism
is an ameliorating position of conservatism (progressive support of labor unions to work within
a private property/corporatist structure not to eliminate the system and replace it with public/employee
ownership) Not too far, too fast, maybe toss out a few more crumbs.
There is a foundation for identity politics on the liberal-left (see what I did there?)
– it rests in the sense of moral superiority of just this liberal-left, which superiority is then
patronisingly spread all over the social world – until it meets those who deny the moral superiority
claim, whereupon it becomes murderous (in, of course, the name of humanity and humanitarianism).
We live in a society where no one gets what they want. The Left sees the standard of living
fall and is powerless to stop it. The Right see the culture war lost 25 years ago and can't even
offer a public protest, let alone move things in a conservative direction. Instead we get the
agenda of the political Left to sell out at every opportunity. Plus we get the agenda of the political
Right of endless war and endless security state. Eventually the political Left and Right merge
and support the exact same things. Now when will the real Left and Right recognize their true
enemy and join forces against it? This is why the 1% continue to prevail over the 99%. If
the 1% wasn't so incompetent this would continue forever. They know how to divide, conquer and
rule the 99%, however they don't know how to run a society in a sustainable way.
But I will say one thing for the Right over the Left: they have taken the initiative and
are now the sole force for change. Granted, supporting a carnival barker for president is an act
of desperation. Nevertheless he was the only option for change and the Right took it. Perhaps
the Left offering little to nothing in the way of change reflects its lack of desperation.
After all, the Left won the culture war and continues to push its agenda to extremes(even though
such extremes will guarantee a back lash that will send people running back to their closets to
hide). The Left still has the MSM media on its side when it comes to cultural issues. Thus the
Left is satisfied with the status quo, with gorging themselves on the crumbs which fall from the
1% table. Consequently, you not only have a political Left that has sold out, you also have the
rest of the Left content to accept that sell out so long as they get their symbolic victories
over their ancient enemy – the Right.
Until the Left recognize its true enemy, the fight will only come from the Right. During that
process more people will filter from the Left to the Right as the latter will offer the only hope
for change.
I think left and right as political shorthand is too limited. Perhaps the NC commentariat could
define up and down versions of each of these political philosophies (ie. left and right) and start
to take control of the framing. Hence we would have up-left, down-left, up-right, and down-right.
I would suggest that up and down could relate to environmental viewpoints.
Just a thought that I haven't given much thought, but it would be funny (to me at least) to
be able to quantify one's political stance in terms of radians.
Excellent comment, EoinW! You just summed up years of content and commentary on this site.
Obviously as the "Left" continues to defend the status quo as you describe it stops being "Left"
in any meaningful way anymore.
This seems to assume that change is an intrinsic good, so that change produced by the right
will necessarily be improvement. Unfortunately, change for the worse is probably more likely than
change for the better under this regime. Equally unfortunately, we may have reached the point
where that is the only thing that will make people reconsider what constitutes a just society
and how to achieve it. In any case, this is where we are now.
The economic left sees its standard of living fall. The social right sees its
cultural verities fall.
The Koch brothers are economically to the very right. They are socially to the
left, perhaps even more socially liberal than many of your liberal friends. No joke. There's
a point here, if I can figure out what it is.
"He [Trump] was the only option for change and the Right took it."
You forget Bernie. The Left tried, and Bernie bowed out, not wanting to be another "Nader"
spoiler. Now, for 2020, the Left thinks it's the "their turn."
The problem is, the Left tends to blow it too (e.g. McGovern in 1972), in part because their
"language" also exudes power and tends to alienate other, more moderate, parts of the coalition
with arcane (and rather elitist) arguments from Derrida et. al.
Trump isn't Right or Left. Trump is a can of gasoline and a match. His voters weren't voting
for a Left or Right agenda. They were voting for a battering ram. That is why he got a pass on
racist, misogynist, fascist statements that would have killed any other candidate.
Trump is starting out with some rallies in the near-future. The Republicans in Congress think
they are going to play patty-cake on policy to push the Koch Brothers agenda. We are going to
see a populist who promised jobs duke it out publicly with small government austerity deficit
cutters. It will be interesting to see what happens when he calls out Republican Congressmen standing
in the way of his agenda by name.
PC is a parody of the 20th Century reform movements. I n the 60's the Black churches
and the labor unions fought Jim Crow laws and explicit institutional discrimination. In the 70's
the feminists worked against legal disabilities written into law. Since the Depression, the unions
fought corporate management create a livable relationship between management and labor. Real struggles,
real problems, real people.
[Tinfoil hat on)]
At the same time the reformist subset was losing themselves in style points, being 'nice',
and passive aggressive intimidation, the corporate community was promoting the anti-government
screech for the masses. That is, at the same time the people lost sight of government as their
counterweight to capital, the left elite was becoming the vile joke Limbaugh and the other talk
radio blowhards said they were. This may be coincidental timing, or their may be someone behind
the French connection and Hamilton Fish touring college campuses in the 80's promoting subjectivism.
It's true the question of 'how they feel' seems to loom large in discussions where social justice
used to be.
[Tinfoil hat off]
There are many words but no communication between the laboring masses and the specialist readers.
Fainting couch feminists have nothing to say to wives and mothers, the slippery redefinitions
out of non-white studies turn off people who work for a living, and the promotion of smaller and
more neurotic minorities are just more friction in a society growing steeper uphill.
"She was studying Liberal Arts at US Ivy League Smith College at the time (which Aussies may
recall was being run by our Jill Kerr Conway back then). So I moved in with my dancing beauty
and we lived happily on her old man's purse for a year."
I hate to be overly pedantic, but Smith College is one of the historically female colleges
known as the Seven Sisters: Barnard College, Bryn Mawr College, Mount Holyoke College, Radcliffe
College, Smith College, Vassar College, and Wellesley College. While Barnard is connected to Columbia,
and Radcliffe to Harvard, none of the other Sisters has ever been considered any part of the Ancient
Eight (Ivy League) schools: Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Pennsylvania, Princeton,
and Yale.
I find it highly doubtful that someone, unaware of this elementary fact, actually lived off
a beautiful bisexual black ballerina's (wonderful alliteration!) "old man's purse," for a full
year in Northampton, MA. He may well have dated briefly someone like this, but it strains credulity
that– after a full year in this environment– he would never have learned of the distinction between
the Seven Sisters and the Ivy League.
The truth of the matter is not so important. The black ballerina riff had two functions. First
it helped push an ethos for the author of openness and acceptance of various races and sexual
orientations. This is a highly charged subject and so accusations of racism, etc, are never far
away for someone pushing class over identity.
Second it served as a nice hook to get dawgs like me to read through the whole thing; which
was a very good article. Kind of like the opening paragraph of a Penthouse Forum entry, I was
hoping that the author would eventually elaborate on what happened when she pirouetted over him
What's interesting is that in an article pushing class over identity. he never tried to set
his class ethos in order to convince working class people or the bourgeoisie why they should listen
to him.
I have never, ever known Brits to claim an "Oxbridge education" if they haven't attended either
Oxford or Cambridge. Similarly, over several decades of knowing quite well many alumnae from Wellesley,
Smith, etc. I have never once heard them speak of their colleges as "Ivy League."
I do get your point, however. Perhaps Mr. Llewellyn-Smith was deliberately writing for a non-U.S.
audience, and chose to use "Ivy League" as synonymous with "prestigious." I have seen graduates
of Stanford, for example, described as "Ivy Leaguers" in the foreign press.
I think the gradual process whereby the left, or more specifically, the middle class left,
have been consumed by an intellectually vacant went hand in hand with what I found the bizarre
abandonment of interest by the left in economics and in public intellectualism. The manner in
which the left simply surrendered the intellectual arguments over issues like taxes and privatisation
and trade still puzzles me. I suspect it was related to a cleavage between middle class left wingers
and working class activists. They simple stopped talking the same language, so there was nobody
to shout 'stop' when the right simply colonised the most important areas of public policy and
shut down all discussion.*
A related issue is I think a strong authoritarianist strain which runs through some identity
politics. Its common to have liberals discuss how intolerant the religious or right wingers are
of intellectual discussion, but even try to question some of of the shibboleths of gender/race
discussions and you can immediately find yourself labelled a misogynist/homophobe/racist. Just
see some of the things you can get banned from the Guardian CIF for saying.
This site, along with the MSM, has flown way off the handle since the election loss. Democrat-bashing
is the new pastime.
Our nation's problems can be remedied with one dramatic change:
Caps on executive gains in terms of multiples in both public and private companies of a big
enough size. For example, the CEO at most can make 50 times the average salary. Something to that
effect. And any net income gains at the end of the year that are going to be dispersed as dividends,
must proportionally reach the internal laborers as well. Presto, a robust economy.
All employees must share in gains. You don't like it? Tough. The owner will still be rich.
Historically, executives topped out at 20-30 times average salary. Now it's normal for the
number to reach 500-2,000. It's absurd. As if a CEO is manufacturing products, marketing, and
selling them all by himself/herself. As if Tim Cook assembles iPhones and iMacs by hand and sells
them. As if Leslie Moonves writes, directs, acts in, and markets each show.
Put the redistributive mechanism in the private sphere as well as in government. Then America
will be great again.
Bringing C level pay packages at major corporations in line with the real contributions of
the recipients would be great. How would we do it? With laws or regulations or executive orders
banning the federal government from doing business with any firm that failed to comply with some
basic guidelines?
It's an academic point right now in any event. The Trump administration – working together
with the Ryan House – is not going to make legislation or sign executive orders to do anything
remotely like this. Which is one of the many reasons why bashing Democrats has taken off here
I suspect. This election was theirs to lose, and they did everything in their power to toss it.
You do realize that the wealthy are both part of and connected to the legislative branch
of every single country on this planet right? As long as that remains so (as it has since the
dawn of humans) then good luck trying to cap any sort of hording behavior of the wealthy.
As someone who grew up in and participated in those discussions:
1) It was "women's studies" back then. "Gender studies" is actually a major improvement in
how the issues are examined.
2) We'd already long since lost by then, and we were looking to make our own lives better.
Creating a space where we could have good sex and a minimum of violence was better. Reagan's election,
and his re-election, destroyed the Left.
I feel like this piece could use the yellow waders as well. Instead of simply repeating myself
every time these things come up, I proffer an annotation of a important paragraph, to give a sense
of what bothers me here.
The post-structural revolution transpired [in the U.S.] before and during the end of the
Cold War just as the collapse of the Old Soviet Union denuded the global Left of its raison
detre. But its social justice impulse didn't die, [a certain, largely liberal tendency in the
North American academy] turned inwards from a notion of the historic inevitability of the decline
of capitalism and the rise of oppressed classes, towards the liberation of oppressed minorities
within capitalism[, which, if you paid close attention to what was being called for, implied
and sometimes even outright demanded clear restraints be placed upon the power of capital in
order to meet those goals], empowered by control over the [images, public statements, and widespread
ideologies–i.e. discourse {which is about more than just language}] that defined who they were.
The post-structural turn was just as much about Derrida at Johns Hopkins as it was about Foucault
trying to demonstrate the subtle and not-so-subtle effects of power in the explicit context of
the May '68 events in France. The economy ground to a halt, and at one point de Gaulle was so
afraid of a violent revolution that he briefly left the country, leaving the government helpless
to do much of anything, until de Gaulle returned shortly thereafter.
Foucault was not entirely sympathetic to the Left, at least the unions, but he was trying to
articulate a politics that was just as much about liberation from capitalism as classic Marxism.
To that end, discourse analysis was the means to discovering those subtle articulations of power
in human relations, not an end in itself as it was for, say, Barthes.
A claim is being made here regarding the "global left" that clearly comes from a parochial,
North American perspective. Indian academics, for one, never abandoned political economy for identity
politics, especially since in India identity politics, religion, regionalism, castes, etc. were
always a concern and remain so. It seems rather odd to me that the other major current in academia
from the '90s on, namely postcolonialism, is entirely left out of this story, especially when
critiques of militarism and political economy were at the heart of it.
The saddest point of the events of '68 is that looking back society has never been so equal
as at that point in time. That was more or less the time of peak working class living standard
relative to the wealthy classes. It is no accident, at least in my book, that these mostly bourgeois
student activists have a tard at the end of their name in French: soixante-huitards.
In the Sixites the "Left" had control of the economic levers or power - and by Left I mean
those interested in smaller differences between the classes. There is no doubt the Cold War helped
the working classes as the wealthy knew it was in their interest to make capitalism a showcase
of rough egalitarianism. But during the 60's the RIght held cultural sway. It was Berkeley pushing
Free Speech and Lenny Bruce trying to break boundaries while the right tried to keep the Overton
Window as tight and squeaky clean as possible.
But now the "Right" in the sense of those who want to increase the difference between rich
and poor hold economic power while the Left police culture and speech. The provocateurs come from
the right nowadays as they run roughshod over the PC police and try to smash open the racial,
gender. and sexual orientation speech restrictions put in place as the left now control the Overton
Window.
The Left and Liberal are two different things entirely.
In the UK we have three parties:
Labour – the left
Liberal – middle/ liberal
Conservative – the right
Mapping this across to the US:
Labour – X
Liberal – Democrat
Conservative – Republican
The US has been conned from the start and has never had a real party of the Left.
At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th Century US ideas changed and the view of those
at the top was that it would be dangerous for the masses to get any real power, a liberal Democratic
party would suffice to listen to the wants of the masses and interpret them in a sensible way
in accordance with the interests of the wealthy.
We don't want the masses to vote for a clean slate redistribution of land and wealth for heaven's
sake.
In the UK the Liberals were descendents of the Whigs, an elitist Left (like the US Democrats).
Once everyone got the vote, a real Left Labour party appeared and the Whigs/Liberals faded
into insignificance.
It is much easier to see today's trends when you see liberals as an elitist Left.
They have just got so elitist they have lost touch with the working class.
The working class used to be their pet project, now it is other minorities like LGBT and immigration.
Liberals need a pet project to feel self-righteous and good about themselves but they come
from the elite and don't want any real distribution of wealth and privilege as they and their
children benefit from it themselves.
Liberals are the more caring side of the elite, but they care mainly about themselves rather
than wanting a really fair society.
They call themselves progressive, but they like progressing very slowly and never want to reach
their destination where there is real equality.
The US needs its version of the UK Labour party – a real Left – people who like Bernie Sanders
way of thinking should start one up, Bernie might even join up.
In the UK our three parties all went neo-liberal, we had three liberal parties!
No one really likes liberals and they take to hiding in the other two parties, you need to
be careful.
Jeremy Corbyn is taking the Labour party back where it belongs slowly.
Imagine inequality plotted on two axes. Inequality between genders, races and cultures is what liberals have been concentrating on.
This is the x-axis and the focus of identity politics and the liberal left.
On the y-axis we have inequality from top to bottom. 2014 – "85 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of the world"
2016– "Richest 62 people as wealthy as half of world's population"
Doing the maths and assuming a straight line .
5.4 years until one person is as wealthy as poorest half of the world.
This is what the traditional left normally concentrate on, but as they have switched to identity
politics this inequality has gone through the roof. They were over-run by liberals.
Some more attention to the y-axis please.
The neoliberal view L
As long as everyone, from all genders, races and cultures, is visiting the same food bank this
is equality.
left – traditional left – y-axis inequality
liberal – elitist left – x -axis inequality (this doesn't affect my background of wealth and privilege)
labor is being co-opted by the right: the Republican Workers Party I think this rhymes with
Fascist. But then, in a world soon to be literally scrambling for high ground and rebuilding housing
for 50 million people the time honored "worker" might actually have a renaissance.
Identity politics does make democrats lose. The message needs to be economic. It can have the
caveat that various sub groups will be paid special attention to, but if identity is the only
thing talked about then get used to right wing governments.
Empowerment is not just about language, it's about capital, who's got it, who hasn't
and what role government plays between them.
Empowerment is very much about capital, but the Left has never had the cajones to
stare down and take apart the Right's view of 'capital' as some kind of magical elixir that mysteriously
produces 'wealth'.
I ponder my own experiences, which many here probably share:
First: slogging through college(s), showing up to do a defined list of tasks (a 'job', if you
will) to be remunerated with some kind of payment/salary. That was actual 'work' in order to get
my hands on very small amounts of 'capital' (i.e., 'money').
Second: a few times, I just read up on science or looked at the stock pages and did a little
research, and then wrote checks that purchased stock shares in companies that seemed to be exploring
some intriguing technologies. In my case, I got lucky a few times, and presto! That simple act
of writing a few checks made me look like a smarty. Also, paid a few bills. But the simple
act of writing checks cost me n-o-t-h-i-n-g in terms of time, energy, education, physical or mental
exertion.
Third: I have also had the experience of working (start ups) in situations where - literally!!!
- I made less in a day in salary than I'd have made if I'd simply taken a couple thousand dollars
and bought stock in the place I was working.
To summarize:
- I've had capital that I worked long and hard to obtain.
- I've had capital that took me a little research, about one minute to write a check, and brought
me a handsome amount of 'capital'. (Magic!)
- I've worked in situations in which I created MORE capital for others than I created for myself.
And the value of that capital expanded exponentially.
If the Left had a spine and some guts, it would offer a better analysis about what 'capital'
is, the myriad forms it can take, and why any of this matters.
Currently, the Left cannot explain to a whole lot of people why their hard work ended up in
other people's bank accounts. If they had to actually explain that process by which people's hard
work turned into fortunes for others, they'd have a few epiphanies about how wealth is actually
created, and whether some forms of wealth creation are more sustainable than other forms.
IMVHO, I never saw Hillary Clinton as able to address this elemental question of the nature
of wealth creation. The Left has not traditionally given a shrewd analysis of this core problem,
so the Right has been able to control this issue. Which is tragic, because the Right is trapped
in the hedge fund mentality, in the tight grip of realtors and mortgage brokers; they obsess on
assets, and asset classes, and resource extraction. When your mind is trapped by that kind of
thinking, you obsess on the tax code, and on how to use it to generate wealth for yourself. Enter
Trump.
One small correction: Smith is not an Ivy League school, it is one of the "Seven Sisters:
Ivy League:
Brown
Columbia
Cornell
Dartmouth
Harvard
Penn
Princeton
Yale
Seven Sisters:
Barnard
Bryn Mawr
Mount Holyoke
Radcliffe
Smith
Vassar
Wellesley
A much more nuanced discussion of the primacy of identity politics on the Left in Britain and
the US is
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/29/prospects-for-an-alt-left/
"Prospects for an Alt-Left," November 29, 2016, by Elliot Murphy, who teaches in the Division
of Psychology and Language Sciences at University College, London.
And let's not forget that identity politics arose in the first place because of genuine discrimination,
which still exists today. In forsaking identity politics in favor of one of class, we should not
forget the original reasons for the rise of the phenomena, however poorly employed by some of
its practitioners, and however mined by capitalism to give the semblance of tolerance and equality
while obscuring the reality of intolerance and inequality.
Trivially, I would think the last thing to do is adopt the "alt-" moniker, thereby cementing
the impression in the mind of the public that the two are in some sense similar.
The blogger Lord Keynes at Social Democracy for the 21st Century at blogspot suggests Realist
Left instead of alt-left. I think how people are using the term "identity politics" at the moment
isn't "actual anti-racism in policy and recruitment" but "pandering to various demographics to
get their loyalty and votes so that the party machine doesn't have to try and gain votes by doing
economic stuff that frightens donors, lobbyists and the media". Clinton improved the female vote
for Democratic president by 1 percentage point, and the black and Latino shares of the Republican
were unchanged from Romney in 2012. Thus, identity politics is not working when the economy needs
attention, even against the most offensive opponent.
So to repress class conflicts, the kleptocracy splintered them into opposition between racists
and POC, bigots and LGBTQ, patriarchal oppressors and women, etc., etc. The US state-authorized
parties used it for divide and rule. The left fell for it and neutered itself. Good. Fuck the
left.
Outside the Western bloc the left got supplanted with a more sensible opposition: between humans
and the overreaching state. That alternative view subsumes US-style identity politics in antidiscrimination
and cultural rights. It subsumes traditional class struggle in labor, migrant, and economic rights.
It reforms and improves discredited US constitutional rights, and integrates it all into the concepts
of peace and development. It's up and running with binding
law and authoritative
institutions
.
So good riddance to the old left and the new left.
Human rights have already replaced
them in the 80-plus per cent of the world represented by UNCTAD and the G-77. That's why the USA
fights tooth and nail to keep them out of your reach.
To All Commenters: thanks for the discussion. Many good, thoughtful ideas/perspectives.
Mine? Living in California (a minority white populace, broad economic engine, high living expenses
(and huge homeless population) and a leader in alternative energy: Trump is what happens when
you don't allow the "people" to vote for their preferred candidates (Bernie) and don't listen
to a select few voters in key electoral states (WI,MI,PA).
The electorate is angry (true liberals at the Dems, voters in select electoral states at "everything").
If democracy is messy, then that's what we've got; a mess. Unfortunately, it's coming at the absolutely
wrong time (Climate Change, lethal policing, financial elite impunity).
Hold this same election with different (multiple) candidates and the outcome is likely different.
In the end, we all need to work and demand a more fair and Just society. (Or California is likely
to secede.)
"Meanwhile the global Left looked on from its Ivory Tower of identity politics and was pleased.
Capitalism was spreading the wealth to oppressed brothers and sisters, and if there were some
losers in the West then that was only natural as others rose in prominence."
I can only imagine the glee of the wealthy feminists at Smith while they witnessed the white,
lunch pailed, working class American male thrown out of work and into the gutter of irrelevance
and despair. The perfect comeuppance for a demographic believed to be the arch-nemesis of women
and minorities. Nothing seems quite so fashionable at the moment as hating white male Republicans
that live outside of proper-thinking coastal enclaves of prosperity. Unfortunately I fail to see
how this attitude helps the country. Seems like more divide and conquer from our overlords on
high.
just more whining from the Weekly Standard. While men may have been disproportionately displaced
in jobs that require physical strength, many women (nurses?) likely lost their homes during the
Great Financial Scam and its fallout.
The enemy is a rigged political, financial, and judicial system.
Identity Politics gestated for a while before the 90s. Beginning with a backlash against Affirmative
Action in the 70s, the Left began to turn Liberal. East Coast intellectuals who were anxious they
would be precluded from entering the best schools may have been the catalyst (article from Jacobin
I think).
But certainly the fall of the USSR was the thing that forced capitalism's hand. At that
point capitalism had no choice but to step up and prove that it could really bring a better life
to the world.
A Minsky event of biblical proportions soon followed (it only took about 10 years!)
and now all is devastation and nobody has clue. But the 1990 effort could have been in earnest.
Capitalists mean well but they are always in denial about the inequality they create which finally
started a chain reaction in "identity politics" as reactions to the stress of economic competition
bounced around in every society like a pinball machine. A tedious and insufferable game which
seems to have culminated in Hillary the Relentless. I won't say capitalism is idiotic. But something
is.
"Perhaps the NC commentariat could define up and down versions of each of these political
philosophies (ie. left and right) and start to take control of the framing."
Well, I'll have a first go, since I was around at the time.
Left and Right only really make sense in the context of the distribution of power and wealth,
and only when there is a difference between them about that distribution. This was historically
the case for more than 150 years after the French Revolution. By the mid-1960s, there was a sense
that the Left was winning, and would continue to win. Progressive taxation, zero unemployment,
little real poverty by today's standards, free education and healthcare . and many influential
political figures (Tony Crosland for example) saw the major task of the future as deciding where
the fruits of economic growth could be most justly applied.
Three things happened that made the Left completely unprepared for the counter-attack in the 1970s.
First, simple complacency. When Thatcher appeared, most people thought she'd escaped from a Monty
Python sketch. The idea that she might actually take power and use it was incredible.
Secondly, the endless factionalism and struggles for power within the Left, usually over arcane
points of ideology, mixed with vicious personal rivalries. The Left loves defeats, and picks over
them obsessively, looking for someone else to blame.
Third, the influence of 1968 and the turning away from the real world, towards LSD and the New
Age, and the search for dark and hidden truths and structures of power in the world. Fueled by
careless and superficial readings of bad translations of Foucault and Derrida, leftists discovered
an entire new intellectual continent into which they could extend their wars and feuds, which
was much more congenial, since it involved eviscerating each other, rather than seriously taking
on the forces of capitalism and the state.
And that's the very short version. We've been living with the consequences ever since. The
Left has been essentially powerless, and powerlessness, of course, corrupts. There's always someone
weaker than you, which is why identity politics is essentially a conservative, disciplining force,
with a vested interest in the problems it has chosen to identify continuing, or it would have
no reason to exist.
So until class-based politics and struggles over power and money re-start (if they ever do) I
respectfully suggest that "Left" and "Right" be retired as terms that no longer have any meaning.
" powerlessness, of course, corrupts. There's always someone weaker than you, which is
why identity politics is essentially a conservative, disciplining force, with a vested interest
in the problems it has chosen to identify "
Yes. As long as the doyens of identity politics don't have any real fear of being homeless
they can happily indulge in internecine warfare. It's a lot more fun than working to get $20/hour
for a bunch of snaggle-toothed guys who kind of don't like you.
I read: "Traditional dialectical history was being supplanted by a new suite of studies based
around truth as "discourse". Driven by the French post-modern thinkers of the 70s and 80s, the
US academy was adopting and adapting the ideas Foucault, Derrida and Barthe to a variety of civil
rights movements that spawned gender and racial studies."
Of course, I have been a college professor since the late 1970s. On the other hand, I am a
physicist. The notion that truth is discourse is, in my opinion, daft, and says much about the
nature of the modern liberal arts, at least as understood by many undergraduates. I have actually
heard of the folks referenced in the above, and to my knowledge their influence in science, engineering,
technology, and mathematics–the academic fields that are in this century actually central*–is
negligible.
*Yes, I am in favor of a small number of students becoming professional historians, dramatists,
and composers, but the number of these is limited.
Identity politics is a disaster ongoing for the Democratic Party, for reasons they seem to
have overlooked. First, the additional identity group is white. We already see this in the South,
where 90% of the white population in many states votes Republican.
When that spreads to the rest
of the country, there will be a permanent Republican majority until the Republicans create a new
major disaster.
Second, some Democratic commentators appear to have assumed that if your forebearers
spoke Spanish, you can not be white. This belief is properly grouped with the belief that if your
forebearers spoke Gaelic or Italian, you were from one of the colored races of Europe (a phrase
that has faded into antiquity, but some of my friends specialize in American history of the relevant
period), and were therefore not White.
Identity politics is a losing strategy, as will it appears
be noticed by the losers only after it is too late.
An extremely important point, but overblown in a way that may reflect the author's background
and is certainly rhetorical.
So soon we forget the Battle of Seattle. The Left has been opposed to globalization, deregulation,
etc., all along. Partly he's talking about an academic pseudo-left, partly confusing the left
with the Democrats and other "center-left," captured parties.
That doesn't invalidate his point. If you want to see it in full-blown, unadorned action, try
Democrat sites like Salon and Raw Story. A factor he doesn't do justice to is the extreme self-righteousness
that accompanies it, supported, I suppose, by the very real injustices perpetrated against minorities
– and women, not a minority.
The whole thing is essentially a category error, so it would be nice to see a followup that
doesn't perpetuate the error. But it's valuable for stating the problem, which can be hard to
present, especially in the face of gales of self-righteousness.
Well said. An excellent attack on 'identity politics.'
I mean, Barack Obama was our first black president, but most blacks didn't do very well.
George W. Bush was our first retard president, and most people with cognitive handicaps didn't
do very well.
But we can boil it all down to something even simpler and more primal: divide and conquer.
'Identity politics' is both more accurate, and more useful, a term than any alternative such as
racism, fascism, ethnonationalism, etc. It's just the identity in question is that of the majority.
Voters voted for Trump, or Brexit, because they identified with him, or it. In doing so, they
found that whatever they wanted is what that represents.
But the action always comes before the consequences; you can't get upset about Trump supporters
being called racists unless you already identify with them. The action is the choice of identity,
the consequence is the adoption of opinion.
I researched Dean's statements about austerity to try to understand why a man who opposed the
DLC would be so enthusiastic about inflicting austerity on the working class. I found part
of the answer. Dean was Vermont's governor. Dean explained to a conservative "
Squawk Box "
host why he supported austerity based on his experience as a governor.
There's a balance sheet that has to be met here and every Governor knows that, both Republicans
and Democrats. And you got to do that when you're the President.
The first sentence is correct. The second sentence is false. States do not have sovereign
currencies. The United States has a sovereign currency. A nation with a sovereign currency
is nothing like a state when it comes to fiscal policy – or a household. I cannot explain why
Dean does not understand the difference and has apparently never read an economic explanation of
the difference. But we can fill that gap. Again, I urge his supporters who have the ability
to bring serious policy matters to his attention to intervene. Dean is flat out wrong because
he does not understand sovereign currencies. The consequences of his error are terrible.
They would lock the Democratic Party into the continuing the long war on the working class through
austerity. That is a prescription for disaster for the Nation and the Democratic Party.
Progressive Democrats enlisted in the New Democrats' austerity wars because they seemed to be
politically attractive. The political narrative was as simple as it was false. The austerity
creation myth was told first by Bob Woodward in the course of writing his sycophantic ode to Greenspan
as the all-knowing "Maestro" of the economy. Bill Clinton, as President-Elect, was given an
economics lecture by Alan Greenspan. The economics lecture – from an Ayn Rand groupie – was
(shock) that austerity was good and New Deal stimulus was evil. Bill's genius was taking the
"Maestro's" words as revealed truth and turning his back on the New Deal. Bill embraced austerity.
The economy grew. Bill ran a budget surplus – the holy grail of austerity. Bill was followed
by Bush under whose administration economic growth slowed and the federal deficits reemerged.
There was a Great Recession.
The creation myth was clear. The newly virtuous New Democrats (after instruction in economics
by Saint Greenspan) embraced austerity and all was good. The vile Republicans, hypocrites all,
had renounced the true faith of austerity and they produced mountains of evil debt that caused poor
economic growth.
Dean pushed this narrative in his Squawk Talk appearance. When asked to explain the specific
Bush policies that he claimed were to blame for poor growth continuing under President Obama, Dean
went immediately and exclusively to Bush's increases in the federal "debt" to answer the question.
"The biggest ones are the deficits that were run up . The deficits were enormous."
The New Democrats' narrative, which Dean parroted, is false. One of the definitive refutations
of the Greenspan (and Robert Rubin) as Genius myth was by the economists
Michael
Meeropol and Carlos F. Liard-Muriente in 2007. Their refutation was inherently incomplete
because it was "too early" – the collapse of the housing bubble in 2007, the 2008 financial crisis
and the Great Recession were vital facts that helped reduce the myth to the level of farce.
These facts were unavailable to academic authors publishing in 2007. The authors discuss the
enormous role that the stock bubble played in the Clinton expansion, but they do not discuss the
housing bubble's contribution.
Any tale that begins with Alan Greenspan providing Bill Clinton with the secret to economic success
is justly laughable today. Clinton was our luckiest president when it came to economics.
His expansion was largely produced by the high tech stock bubble. When it collapsed, the housing
bubble, explicitly encouraged by Greenspan as a means of avoiding a severe recession, took up much
of the slack. Bush eventually inherited from Clinton a moderate recession that led inevitably
to moderately increased (not "enormous") federal deficits. The housing bubble then hyper-inflated,
bringing the economy rapidly out of the moderate recession. The hyper-inflation, of the housing
bubble, however, was driven by the three most destructive epidemics of financial fraud in history
and it caused a global financial crisis and the Great Recession. A great recession leads inevitably
to a very large increase in the federal budget deficit.
Greenspan, Bob Rubin, and Bill Clinton were lucky in their timing – for a time. The historical
record in the U.S. demonstrates that periods of material federal budget surpluses are followed with
only modest lags by depressions and, now, the Great Recession. Fortunately, such periods of
running material budget surpluses have been unusual in our history. As my colleagues have explained
in detail, the U.S., which is extremely likely to run balance of trade deficits, should typically
run budget deficits.
We all understand how attractive the myth of the virtuous and frugal Dems producing great economic
results under Clinton while the profligate Republicans produced federal deficits and poor economic
growth was to Democratic politicians. But the Dems should not spread myths no matter how politically
attractive they are. The catastrophic consequences of President Obama and Hillary Clinton coming
to believe such myths were shown when, as I have just described in several columns, they promised
to lead the long war against the working class that is austerity.
If people like Dean focused on the origins of the Clinton creation myth they would run from its
lies. The original actual creation myth is found in the book of Woodward. The brilliant
Greenspan converted the young Bill Clinton by exposing him to the one true faith (theoclassical economics)
and successfully calling on Clinton to renounce the devil (FDR) and all his work (the New Deal) and
to sit at the (far) right hand of Ayn Rand. The result was economic nirvana. Politically,
that's a terrible creation myth for Democrats to tell around the campfire – or to voters. Economically,
it's a lie, indeed, a farce.
By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate
professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Jointly published at
New Economic Perspectives Soulipsis
November 28, 2016 at 6:30 am
This is one of the arguments, the making of which I've never understood. How could Dean not
know what he's doing by supporting austerity? How could the 0.001% not know? Of course they know!
Sometimes I think hyperacademics like who can be found trolling around this website are so involved
in the prestige of their discipline that they lose track of the world of wordless import that
makes up most of reality. This is why illiterate people are sometimes very wise, they have no
choice but to remain immersed in the wisdom of the Creation. I think Black and others are wasting
their breath on explanations and urgings such as this. And I think the brutality of Daesh and
the Saudis is the brutality of the 0.001%, and it's a delusion to think they don't have the social
model that is on display in Syria planned for the domestic U.S. market. What else is the 2012
NDAA for? NSPD 51, and the National Incident Management System. It's coming, and Dean is just
a little player. He probably got photographed doing something he shouldn't've and now he's stuck.
Whatever, how could he not know? He knows. Bill Clinton doesn't or didn't know? Please.
I am no economist, but it seems to me that this power of sovereign currency (to borrow increasing
amounts indefinitely) only works so long as people believe that they will be repaid. If one continues
to to rack up an exponentially growing debt, eventually that belief will be challenged. There
are numerous areas of expenses which could be trimmed, but they generally involve a relinquishing
of our empire.
One key to maintaining the appearance of sustainability for increasing debts is making sure
much of the deficit spending is going into productive infrastructure investments. In this case
the increasing debt will be accompanied by actual growth.
It puzzles me that private parties are allowed to buy sovereign debt. It changes the debt from
sovereign to private. Making it no longer an instrument of use but of exchange. Selling sovereign
debt destroys sovereignty. Much better to force the privateers to come up with their own investments
for which they bond and trade with each other and leave sovereign money out of it. The banksters
and their ilk like George Soros, King of the Vigilantes, should be detained until they pay back
everything they embezzled. and etc. It's just too easy for banksters to buy sovereign debt (with
a commodity they are legally allowed to create at the sovereign's expense) and then demand interest
on it. So clearly Howie Dean is a ditz.
I've read similar things in comments at NC and elsewhere about California Governor Jerry Brown,
whose left wing moonbeam reputation doesn't match his big business friendly actions.
Dean has his failings, but being the first Governor to sign a Civil Unions bill, implementing
a 99%+ child health care access law, and creating a systematic way for elementary school teachers
to get resources to families with kids that are in trouble is a pretty sound Progressive legacy.
It is not clear to me that Austerity is a long war against the working class. It might be that
Austerity turns out class neutral, or even pro-working class, depending on how gov't expenditures
shortages are applied across sectors? If Austerity is a war against the working class then the
opposite of Austerity, Stimulus, necessarily is pro-working class but we have seen that Stimulus
might be used to bail out non-working class sectors leaving working class wages and employment
opportunities depressed.
I suspect it is the way it is applied. The shocking hypocrisy of the current pro-austerity
people is what jars Black I guess. I mean these same austerity people were for tax cuts for the
rich, giving trillions to Wall Street, forgiving their (real) crimes, and spending trillions more
on wars whose result was to cause misery for millions of people and make the world an even less
safe place. And then they talk about keeping a tight budget? Hell needs to add a ninth circle
for these people.
Man, I love this site. I get more out of the comments than the articles sometimes. Your paragraph
does more to encapsulate reality than do ten long pages of learned professors.
Vatch, re "Moonbeam Brown", just google
"Something's not right about this California water deal, L.A. Times"
Austerity is primarily against the working class because it is deflationary. It benefits creditors
over debtors. And creditors are invariably the wealthy (i.e. the owners of capital). A moderately
inflationary fiscal/monetary policy with a focus on full employment puts power in the hand of
workers. An austerity policy (by which I mean one which puts an emphasis on balancing the books
over employment) gives power to the owners of capital.
> But the Dems should not spread myths no matter how politically attractive they are.
All myths are not created equal. I rue the day when "myth" became pejorative.
I dare say Prof. Black lives by one. If Jung was right, and I think he was, we all do, albeit
ignorantly, as in, we ignore their functioning (even my beloved science is mythological, but that
doesn't make it untrue). And his recasting of the myth of austerity in biblical terms is as potent
as it is funny. Our denigration of myths is complete enough that Prof. Black can say the above,
and yet do some very effective countermyth-making nonetheless.
Do the high priests of economics and politics really believe their public myth-making? Or is
their a private understanding that better fits the phenomena?
I know I must sound like a broken record, but due to its regrettable unfamiliarity, this bears
repeating.
1. The first function of mythology [is] to evoke in the individual a sense of grateful,
affirmative awe before the monstrous mystery that is existence
2. The second function of mythology is to present an image of the cosmos, an image of the
universe round about, that will maintain and elicit this experience of awe. [or] to present
an image of the cosmos that will maintain your sense of mystical awe and explain everything
that you come into contact with in the universe around you.
3. The third function of a mythological order is to validate and maintain a certain sociological
system: a shared set of rights and wrongs, proprieties or improprieties, on which your particular
social unit depends for its existence.
4. The fourth function of myth is psychological. That myth must carry the individual through
the stages of his life, from birth through maturity through senility to death. The mythology
must do so in accords with the social order of his group, the cosmos as understood by his group,
and the monstrous mystery.
As we all know so well. the myth of neoliberalism is as succinct as it is brutal. "Because
markets" and "Go die," though, don't fulfill all four functions. If I had the economic and financial
chops, I'd examine Saint Alan and the Church of Neoliberalism's mythology methodically and systematically
with the intent to creatively destroy it. But that wouldn't be enough. It'd be helpful to offer
an alternative, but I don't have that, either. Fat lot of good I am.
That's why I like Prof. Black's retelling so much. It puts the absurdity of the pseudo-mythology
of neoliberalism in terms familiar enough that that absurdity stands right out.
And I also dare say what we desperately need now is a fully functioning and genuine mythology
that leads us out of neoliberal hell and into a more perfect union of nature and society. First
party to do so wins the future.
Surprised that Black refers to Dean as a "progressive voice". That has never really been the
case and it's especially not true now. Also surprised that Black supports Ellison whose foreign
policy includes support for a no- fly zone in Libya- mirroring the position held by Clinton.
I sense a connection between this and the peak oil demand article. In the '80's and beyond,
financial services have sought and gained a control economy effect with student loans and more
recently the ACA, and feel that fracking, QE and the housing bubble all fit in there somewhere
as well. Basically it boils down to being easier to make money at the top when they choose where
the income stream comes from, i.e., in the New Deal citizens got money in some form of cash payment,
from SS to welfare, and could choose to spend the money on what they wanted to spend it on, which
in turn caused uncertainty in the finance arena, not so much that they couldn't survive, but the
financiers could envision a better world for themselves, enter student loans and now any kid without
wealthy parents has a lifetime of unpayable debt, a drag on their professional income, or no advanced
education with it's implicit restriction on income, or a combo of all three. This same dynamic
led us to the ACA which is, as opposed to a medicare style plan that could potentially curtail
costs, become little more than a payment stream, a class marker, and has nothing to do with healthcare
except in the sense that high costs make indebted heath industry workers able to pay their own
student loan, and a class warfare tool such that those wealthy healthcare industroids can separate
their offspring from the herd by being able to pay for their offspring's education, as it does
with the finance industry that manages the payment stream. I don't currently see this dynamic
changing, alas but maybe the newfound vigor of the purple dems could be mobilized in this direction
if they can ignore the payoffs for doing nothing.
As to the hyper inflation comment, I think any renter who has struggled with the disruptions caused
by increased rents would say yes, that's hyperinflation, and indeed feels a lot like needing a
wheelbarrow of cash to pay.
Let's talk about reality. For most folks, more austerity is going to kill us. We are so squeezed
now that we can barely pay our bills and save our homes. We have rampant price inflation, which
both the government and the media pretend does not exist. And the latest figures for Xmas shopping
show that although more people are buying stuff, they are spending less money. If the idiots running
the country think tax breaks for the rich will boost the economy, then they have learned nothing
from the last 30 years.
ISTR hearing that, if you want to grow your business, you need to get more people to buy more
of your goods or services more often. Having more people buying less? Doesn't sound like a recipe
for success.
I'm glad someone is saying that a correct understanding of the economy is where the Democrats
need to be. Imagine the impact if a candidate ran on payroll tax relief, expanded SS and a job
guranteee.
I like Keith Ellison as well, but I can't find anything about his economic policies. If Dean's
economics are disqualifying, and Ellison suggested as an alternative, shouldn't we know if he's
an improvement?
The Democrats are going to have to completely reinvent themselves if they ever want to get
a vote or a dollar from me again.
I went to a Democratic Party whine and cheese party the other day where the local "leadership"
tried to harness some kind of crowd energy against Trump based on the mere fact that they had
a D in front of their names.
The delicious moment came in the Q&A. I waited until after the usual regurgitations of racismphobiahatethreatsdisaster
about Trump to ask my question:
"You had a winner in Bernie and your party chose that corrupt disaster Hillary–now we're supposed
to trust you to lead us?" I thought the moderator was going to have a stroke. Her face turned
an appropriate shade of blue-purple.
An agreeing buzz of people around me. It was positively sadistic watching the scrambling of
the Democratic excusemakers shuffling their papers.
It is worse than you say for the Dems. Trump has once indicated that he understands the nature
of a sovereign currency. If he wasn't bullshitting, then the Dems are in for an economic shock,
at the very least.
Thanks for this post. Great final paragraph. The DLC neolib Dems' greatest achievement has
been in presenting this terrible destruction as virtuous. 'We have to destroy the 90%'s economy
in order to save it.'
1920s/2000s – high inequality, high banker pay, low regulation, low taxes for the wealthy,
robber barons (CEOs), reckless bankers, globalisation phase
1929/2008 – Wall Street crash
1930s/2010s – Global recession, currency wars, rising nationalism and extremism
Milton Freidman used the old 1920s economics, neoclassical economics, as his base but didn't
fix any of its problems.
Wall Street did exactly the same thing.
Jim Rickards ("Currency Wars" and "The Death of Money") has explained how the removal of Glass-Steagall
allowed Wall Street to repeat 1929.
In 1929, they carried out margin lending into the US stock market to artificially inflate its
value. They packaged up these loans in the investment side of the business to sell them on.
In 2008, they carried out mortgage lending into the US housing market to artificially inflate
its value. They packaged up these loans in the investment side of the business to sell them on.
The FED responded with monetary policy that didn't work again, the "New Deal" pulled the US
out in the end.
In 1929, the FED wasn't quite so quick with monetary policy and stocks were a much more liquid
asset and so the crash was so fast no one had a chance to deal with it as it was occurring.
Monetary policy did stop the initial crash in asset prices but didn't reflate the economy;
you need a "New Deal" for that.
The only real difference.
Why are multi-nationals hoarding cash and not investing?
Oh look it's Keynes's liquidity trap, its exactly the same.
Keynes studied the Great Depression and noted monetary stimulus lead to a "liquidity trap".
Businesses and investors will not invest without the demand there to ensure their investment
will be worthwhile.
The money gets horded by investors and on company balance sheets as they won't invest.
Cutting wages to increase profit just makes the demand side of the equation worse and leads
you into debt deflation.
Then there is the dutiful austerian Angela Merkel who stated that all members of the EU had
"shared sovereignty" – and so that was why they had to tighten their belts to the last notch
so the bond buyers could be paid back?
as Thomas Frank says:
"What our modernized liberal leaders offer is not confrontation [with corporate corruption] but
a kind of therapy for those flattened by the free-market hurricane: they counsel us to accept
the inevitability of the situation."
I'm sure this is explained elsewhere but I still am perplexed; states have to pay their debts
but sovereign money-printing governments print money. So why not shift state expenses (schools,
police, garbage pickup, pensions ) to the sovereign government which can print the money to cover
the expense?
That is what that great socialist Richard Nixon did with revenue sharing. The Federal government
gave states block funding, with anti-fraud oversight. Nixon figured that lower levels of governments
had a better sense of their needs than the Feds did.
If the "best of the best" Stephanie Kelton couldn't even get Sanders to break the cycle of
mainstream economic "myths", who you gonna call ? If a simpleton like me can understand and believe
basic MMT principles, I can not imagine the "brainiacs" running the country ( or vying to run
the country) are innocent of the crime (assault with a deadly myth).
Who knows, with some luck, and he seems to be having a ton lately, the presumptive POTUS could
be that accidental MMT'er. But I'm sure he would deny that luck had anything to do with it.
Tsar Nicholas II: I know what will make them happy. They're children, and they
need a Tsar! They need tradition. Not this! They're the victims of agitators.
A Duma would make them bewildered and discontented. And don't tell me about London and Berlin.
God save us from the mess they're in!
Count Witte: I see. So they talk, pray, march, plead, petition and what do
they get? Cossacks, prison, flogging, police, spies, and now, after today, they will be shot.
Is this God's will? Are these His methods? Make war on your own people?
How long do you think they're going to stand there and let you shoot them? YOU ask ME who's
responsible? YOU ask?
Tsar Nicholas II: The English have a parliament. Our British cousins
gave their rights away. The Hapsburgs, and the Hoehenzollerns too. The Romanovs
will not. What I was given, I will give my son.
"People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material
part of their advantage. Intellectual myopia, often called stupidity, is no doubt a reason. But the
privileged also feel that their privileges, however egregious they may seem to others, are a solemn,
basic, God-given right. The sensitivity of the poor to injustice is a trivial thing compared with
that of the rich."
"... The continuing reaction of the liberal elite to the repudiation of the Democratic establishment
by their traditional constituencies of the young and working people is a wonder to behold. They thrash
back and forth between a denial of their failure, and disgust at everyone else they can blame for it.
..."
"... It is frustrating because they do not know how to extract themselves from it, admit their errors
and reform the system, without undermining the very assumptions that entitle them, in their own minds
at least, to rule as the highly honored insiders, the elect of professional accomplishment. ..."
"Listening to the leading figures of the Democratic party establishment, however, you'd never
know it. Cool contentment is the governing emotion in these circles. What they have in mind for
2016 is what we might call a campaign of militant complacency. They are dissociated from the mood
of the nation, and they do not care...
What our modernized liberal leaders offer is not confrontation [with corporate corruption]
but a kind of therapy for those flattened by the free-market hurricane: they counsel us to accept
the inevitability of the situation."
Thomas Frank
"Too many of America's elites-among the super-rich, the CEOs, and many of my colleagues in academia-have
abandoned a commitment to social responsibility. They chase wealth and power, the rest of society
be damned."
Jeffrey Sachs
"This elite-generated social control maintains the status quo because the status quo benefits
and validates those who created and sit atop it. People rise to prominence when they parrot the
orthodoxy rather than critically analyze it. Intellectual regurgitation is prized over independent
thought. Real change in politics or society cannot occur under the orthodoxy because if it did,
it would threaten the legitimacy of the professional class and all of the systems that helped
them achieve their status.
Kristine Mattis, The Cult of the Professional Class
The continuing reaction of the liberal elite to the repudiation of the Democratic establishment
by their traditional constituencies of the young and working people is a wonder to behold. They thrash
back and forth between a denial of their failure, and disgust at everyone else they can blame for
it.
It could not possibly be because of anything they might have done or failed to do. And so they
are caught in a credibility trap.
It is frustrating because they do not know how to extract themselves from it, admit their
errors and reform the system, without undermining the very assumptions that entitle them, in their
own minds at least, to rule as the highly honored insiders, the elect of professional accomplishment.
"... BHO was hired to read speeches as they all have been, since Reagan, at least. The System filters out anyone with a genuinely positive agenda, a mind of his/her own and a corruption-free (secret) history. We should be focused on the Unelected (ie Actual) Rulers instead. ..."
"... For Obama – read Kissinger/Brzezinski change his mind for him – it seems to me – to lay the diplomatic groundwork for Trump to pivot away from a 'unipolar' world (where the American hegemon is in direct conflict with Russia and China – the classic Cold War scenario) – to the 'multipartner' world – where America foments chaos, then under a banner of shared responsibility draws in Russia and China and lets them fight it out like two moles in a bag over the Middle East. America then picks off the last one standing. ..."
"... Obama, Cameron, Johnson, H. Clinton, Nuland, McCain, Holland, Poroshenko, Merkel, the WMSM – the list of the damned goes on and on ..."
"... "constant since I first came into office" Indeed you have Mr President, a constant disappointment, a constant liar, a constant weakling who failed to stand up to the US Jewish lobby, a constant war criminal, in fact a complete and total constant failure. Bravo! ..."
"
Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors - not out of strength
but out of weakness.
Economist interview, 2 August 2014
"
But I do think it's important to keep perspective. Russia doesn't make anything. Immigrants aren't
rushing to Moscow in search of opportunity. The life expectancy of the Russian male is around 60
years old. The population is shrinking. And so we have to respond with resolve in what are effectively
regional challenges that Russia presents. We have to make sure that they don't escalate where suddenly
nuclear weapons are back in the discussion of foreign policy. And as long as we do that, then I think
history is on our side.
State of the Union Address, 20 January 2015
"
Last year, as we were doing the hard work of imposing sanctions along with our allies, as we were
reinforcing our presence with frontline states, Mr. Putin's aggression it was suggested was a masterful
display of strategy and strength. That's what I heard from some folks. Well, today, it is America
that stands strong and united with our allies, while Russia is isolated with its economy in tatters.
That's how America leads - not with bluster, but with persistent, steady resolve. (Applause.)
Part Two: Maybe not
Washington, 18 October 2016
"
The bottom line is, is that we think that Russia is a large important country with a military that
is second only to ours, and has to be a part of the solution on the world stage, rather than part
of the problem.
Part Three: Powerful, Worldwide
Berlin, 17 November 2016
"
With respect to Russia, my principal approach to Russia has been constant since I first came into
office. Russia is an important country. It is a military superpower. It has influence in the region
and it has influence around the world. And in order for us to solve many big problems around the
world, it is in our interest to work with Russia and obtain their cooperation.
BHO was hired to read speeches as they all have been, since Reagan, at least. The System filters
out anyone with a genuinely positive agenda, a mind of his/her own and a corruption-free (secret)
history. We should be focused on the Unelected (ie Actual) Rulers instead.
For Obama – read Kissinger/Brzezinski change his mind for him – it seems to me – to lay the
diplomatic groundwork for Trump to pivot away from a 'unipolar' world (where the American hegemon
is in direct conflict with Russia and China – the classic Cold War scenario) – to the 'multipartner'
world – where America foments chaos, then under a banner of shared responsibility draws in Russia
and China and lets them fight it out like two moles in a bag over the Middle East. America then
picks off the last one standing.
Not much of a plan – especially as Russia and China are both 'eyes wide open' – but it is the
best the two senile old twats – who are both overdue in the mortuary – can come up with. Obama
of course has no mind of his own. Trumps pick for Secretary of State may indicate his.
Kissinger once said that "the elderly are useless eaters" – maybe it is time for him to take his
own counsel and move on. Perhaps he could take Soros and Brzezinski with him?
What a lesson this man has been.
Came in with soaring rhetoric, a promise of a new beginning, and a Nobel peace prize.
Failed to deliver on any of these, but did deliver:
Death by drone, without trial
Death by military misadventure in the middle east
Death of a civil economy via unaccountable military spending
And now trying to 'burnish' his 'legacy' of lies. With more lies.
At least Russia's Putin, ruthless as he is, does seem to have a moral compass
"constant since I first came into office" Indeed you have Mr President, a constant disappointment,
a constant liar, a constant weakling who failed to stand up to the US Jewish lobby, a constant
war criminal, in fact a complete and total constant failure. Bravo!
I am a Marxist economist (Professor of Economics, Mount Holyoke College) and I appreciate Branko
Milanovic's open-mindedness and his efforts in a recent post on his blog to educate economists who
often have a crude and superficial misunderstanding of Marx's labor theory of value.
For context for my comments on Milanovic, I will first say a few words about my interpretation
of Marx's labor theory of value (LTV). In my view, Marx's LTV is primarily a macro theory and
the main question addressed in Marx's macro LTV is the determination of the total profit (or surplus-value)
produced in the capitalist economy as a whole. Profit is the main goal of capitalist economies
and should be a key variable in any theory of capitalism. Marx's theory of the total profit
is that profit is the difference between the value produced by workers and the wages they are paid,
i.e. that profit is produced by the "surplus labor" of workers.
I argue that Marx's "surplus labor" theory of profit has very significant and wide-ranging explanatory
power. Marx's theory provides straight-forward and robust explanations of the following important
phenomena of capitalist economies: conflicts between capitalists and workers over wages, and
over the length of the working day, and over the intensity of labor (i.e. how hard workers work,
which determines in part how much value they produce); endogenous technological change (in order
to reduce necessary labor and increase surplus labor and surplus-value); increasing concentration
of capital and income(i.e. increasing inequality); the trend and fluctuations in the rate of profit
over time; and endogenous cycles due to fluctuations in the rate of profit rate of profit.
(A more complete discussion of the explanatory power of Marx's theory of profit is provided in my
" Marx's Economic Theory: True or False? A Marxian Response to Blaug's Appraisal, " in Moseley (ed.),
Heterodox Economic Theories: True or False?, Edward Elgar, 1995).
This wide-ranging explanatory power of Marx's surplus labor theory of profit is especially impressive
when compared to mainstream economics. In mainstream macroeconomics, there is no theory of
profit at all; profit (or the rate of profit) is not even a variable in the theory! I was shocked
when I realized in graduate school this absence of profit in mainstream macro, and am still shocked
that there is no effort to include profit. Indeed, DSGE models go in the opposite direction
and many models do not even have firms!
Mainsteam micro does have a theory of profit (or interest) – the marginal productivity theory
of distribution – but it is a weak and largely discredited theory. Marginal productivity theory
has been shown by the capital controversy and other criticisms to have insoluble logical problems
(the aggregation problem, reswitching, cannot integrate intermediate goods, etc.). And marginal
productivity theory has very meager explanatory power and explains none of the important phenomena
listed above that are explained by Marx's theory.
Milanovic agrees that Marx's LTV is primarily a macro theory, but he interprets it in this post
as only the assumption that "sum of values will be equal to sum of production prices". And
he continues: "The former is an unobservable quantity so Marx's contention is not falsifiable.
It is therefore an extra-scientific statement that we have to take on faith.
I argue, to the contrary, that Marx's macro LTV is primarily a theory of profit and my conclusion
that Marx's theory is the best theory of profit we have is not based on faith but is instead based
on the standard scientific criterion of empirical explanatory power. It is much more accurate
to say that marginal productivity theory is accepted by mainstream economists on faith, as Charles
Ferguson famously said in his conclusion to the capital controversy.
Now to my comments on Milanovic's three main points:
1. Milanovic's main point is that the LTV is often misinterpreted as a simple micro theory
that assumes that the prices of individual commodities are proportional to the labor-times required
to produce them. Milanovic argues that is not true in a capitalist economy because of the equalization
of the profit rate across industries with unequal ratios of capital to labor, so that according to
Marx's theory, long-run equilibrium prices are determined by the equation: w + d + rK, where
w is wages, d is depreciation and r is the economy-wide rate of profit (missing in this equation
is the cost of intermediate goods, but I will ignore this).
Milanovic emphasizes that Walras and Marshall had essentially the same equation for long-run equilibrium
prices. I agree that all three theories of long-run equilibrium prices have this same form,
but there is an important difference. Marx's theory provides a logically rigorous theory of
the rate of profit in this equation (based on his theory of the total profit discussed above) and
Walras and Marshall just take the rate of profit as given , disguised as an "opportunity cost", and
thus provides no theory of profit at all . Therefore, I think Marx's theory of long-run equilibrium
prices is superior to Walras' and Marshall's in this important sense.
2. Milanovic's second main point is that Marx's theory of long-run equilibrium prices are
"clearly very, very far from derisive statements that the labor theory of value means that people
are just paid for their labor input regardless of what is the 'socially necessary labor' required
to produce a good." I presume that this derisive statement means that workers produce more
value than they are paid and thus are exploited in capitalism. But Branko is mistaken about
this. Marx's theory of long-run equilibrium prices is based on his macro theory of profit according
to which the source of profit is the surplus labor of workers. This conclusion is indeed derisive
and that is the main (non-scientific) reason that Marx's theory of profit is rejected by mainstream
economists in spite of its superior explanatory power.
I know from previous correspondence that Milanovic understands well Marx's "exploitation" theory
of profit, but he seems to overlook the connection between Marx's micro theory of prices of production
and his macro theory of profit.
3. Milanovic's third point is that Marx's labor theory of value is most helpful in understanding
pre-capitalist economies and the relation between capitalism and non-capitalist economies today.
I argue, to the contrary, that Marx's labor theory of value and profit is the best theory we have
to understand the most important phenomena of capitalist economies, including 21 st century capitalism.
It would be one thing if mainstream economics had a robust theory of profit with significant explanation
power. But it has almost no theory of profit. Therefore it would seem to be appropriate
from a scientific point of view that Marx's surplus labor theory of profit should be given more serious
consideration.
Thanks again to Milanovic and I look forward to further discussion.
I used to respect Krugman during Bush II presidency. His columns at this time looked like on target
for me. No more.
Now I view him as yet another despicable neoliberal shill. I stopped reading his
columns long ago and kind of always suspect his views as insincere and unscientific.
In this particular
case the key question is about maintaining the standard of living which can be done only if manufacturing
even in robotic variant is onshored and profits from it re-distributed in New Deal fashion. Technology
is just a tool. There can be exception for it but generally attempts to produce everything outside
the US and then sell it in the USA lead to proliferation of McJobs and lower standard of living.
Creating robotic factories in the USA might not completely reverse the damage, but might be a step
in the right direction. The nations can't exist by just flipping hamburgers for each other.
Actually there is a term that explains well behavior of people like Krugman and it has certain
predictive value as for the set of behaviors we observe from them. It is called Lysenkoism and it
is about political control of science.
Yves in her book also touched this theme of political control of science. It might be a good time
to reread it. The key ideas of "ECONned: How Unenlightened Self Interest Undermined Democracy and
Corrupted Capitalism " are still current.
For them neocon/neoliberal propaganda 24/7 is OK, but anti-neoliberalism, anti-neoconservatism information, which sometimes is pro-Russian propaganda is not.
Viva to McCarthyism! The hint is that you do not have a choice -- Big Brother is watching you like
in the USSR. Anti-Russian propaganda money in action. It is interesting that Paul Craig Roberts who
served in Reagan administration is listed as "left-wing"... Tell me who is your ally (
Bellingcat) and I will tell who you are...
As Moon of Alabama noted "I wholeheartedly
recommend to use the list
that new anonymous censorship entity provides as your new or additional "Favorite Bookmarks" list. It
includes illustrious financial anti-fraud sites like Yves Smith's
Naked Capitalism ,
Wikileaks , well informed libertarian sites
like Ron Paul and
AntiWar.com and leftish old timers like
Counterpunch . Of general (non-mainstream)
news sites Consortiumnews , run by Robert
Parry who revealed the Iran-contra crimes, is included as well as
Truthdig and
Truth-out.org ."
Extended list is here
It a real horror to see how deep pro Russian propaganda penetrated the US society ;-) This newly minted
site lists as allies, and with such allies you can reliably tell who finance it
Look like some guys from Soviet Politburo propaganda department make it to the USA :-) The site
definitely smells with
McCarthyism -- the practice
of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence. Which
was the standard way of suppressing dissidents in the USSR. So this is really "Back in the
USSR" type of sites.
But the list definitely has value: the sites listed are mostly anti-establishment, anti status-quo, anti-neocon/neolib sites not so much pro-Russian.
After all Russia is just another neoliberal state, although they deviate from Washington consensus
and do not want to be a puppet of the USA, which is the key requirement for the full acceptable into
the club of "Good neoliberal states". Somehow this list can be called
the list of anti US Imperialism sites or anti--war sites. And this represents the value of the list as people may
not know about their existence.
The new derogatory label for the establishment for information they don't want you to see has become
"fake news." Conspiracy theories do nto work well anymore. That aqures some patina of respectability
with age :-). "Since the election's "surprise" outcome, the corporate media has railed against their
alternative competitors
labeling them as "fake" while their own frequently flawed, misleading, and false stories are touted
as "real" news. World leaders have now begun calling out "fake news" in a desperate attempt to lend
legitimacy to the corporate media, which continues to receive dismal approval ratings from the American
public. Out-going US president Barack Obama
was the first to speak out against the danger of "misinformation," though he failed to mention the
several instances where he himself
lied and spread misinformation to the American public."
The most crazy inclusion is probably Baltimore Gazette. Here how editors define its mission: "Baltimore Gazette is Baltimore's oldest
US news source and one of the longest running
daily newspapers published in the United States. With a focus on local content, the Gazette thrives
to maintain a non-partisan newsroom making their our content the most reliable source available in print and
across the web."
PropOrNot is an independent team of concerned American citizens (an
independent from whom? Concerned about what ? Looks like they are very dependent and so so
much concerned, Playing pro-establishment card is always safe game -- NNB) with a wide range of backgrounds
and expertise, including professional experience in computer science, statistics, public policy,
and national security affairs. We are currently volunteering time and skills to identify propaganda
- particularly Russian propaganda - targeting a U.S. audience. We collect public-record information
connecting propaganda outlets to each other and their coordinators abroad, analyze what we find,
act as a central repository and point of reference for related information, and organize efforts
to oppose it. 2 We formed PropOrNot as an effort to prevent propaganda from distorting U.S. political
and policy discussions (they want it to be distorted in their own
specific pro-neoliberal way --NNB).
We hope to strengthen our cultural immune systems against hostile influence (there is another
name for that -- it is usually called brainwashing --NNB) and improve public
discourse generally. However, our immediate aim at this point is to empower the American voter and
decrease the ability of Russia to influence the ensuing American election.
paulcraigroberts.org --
this is the fierce anti-establishment site which was created by former highly placed
official in Reagan administration Paul Craig Roberts.
ronpaulinstitute.org --
major libertarian anti-war site of former presidential candidate Ron Paul, who in the past was
the only candidate with realistic and anti-neocon foreign policy platorm. Highly recommended.
But as an investigation published by Truthout in 2011
revealed , the target list that JSOC used for its "night raids" and other operations to kill
supposed Taliban was based on a fundamentally flawed methodology that was inherently incapable of
distinguishing between Taliban insurgents and civilians who had only tangential contacts with the
Taliban organization. And it was Flynn who devised that methodology.
The "night raids" on Afghan homes based on Flynn's methodology caused so much Afghan anger toward
Americans that Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, acknowledged the problem
of Afghan antagonism toward the entire program publicly in a March 2010 directive.
The system that led to that Afghan outrage began to take shape in Iraq in 2006, when Flynn, then-intelligence
chief for JSOC, developed a new methodology for identifying and locating al-Qaeda and Shia Mahdi
Army members in Iraq. Flynn revealed the technologies used in Iraq in an
unclassified article published in 2008.
At the center of the system was what Flynn called the "Unblinking Eye," referring to 24-hour drone
surveillance of specific locations associated with "known and suspected terrorist sites and individuals."
The drone surveillance was then used to establish a "pattern of life analysis," which was the main
tool used to determine whether to strike the target. We now know from reports of drone strikes in
Pakistan that killed entire groups of innocent people that "pattern of life analysis" is frequently
a matter of guesswork that is completely wrong.
Flynn's unclassified article also revealed that "SIGINT" (signals intelligence), i.e., the monitoring
of cell phone metadata, and "geo-location" of phones were the other two major tools used in Flynn's
system of targeting military strikes. JSOC was using links among cell phones to identify suspected
insurgents.
Flynn's article suggested that the main emphasis in intelligence for targeting in Iraq was on
providing analysis of the aerial surveillance visual intelligence on a target to help decide in real
time whether to carry out a strike on it.
But when McChrystal took command of US forces in Afghanistan in mid-2009 and took Flynn with him
as his intelligence chief, Flynn's targeting methodology changed dramatically. JSOC had already begun
to carry out "night raids" in Afghanistan -- usually attacks on private homes in the middle of the
night -- and McChrystal wanted to increase the tempo of those raids. The number of night raids
increased from 20 per month in May 2009 to 90 per month six months later. It reached an average
of
more than 100 a month in the second half of 2009 and the first half of 2010.
At this point, the targets were no longer Taliban commanders and higher-ups in the organization.
They included people allegedly doing basic functions such as logistics, bomb-making and propaganda.
In order to rapidly build up the highly secret "kill/capture" list (called the "Joint Prioritized
Effects List," or JPEL) to meet McChrystal's demands for more targets, Flynn used a technique called
"link analysis." This technique involved the use of software that allowed intelligence analysts to
see the raw data from drone surveillance and cell phone data transformed instantly into a "map" of
the insurgent "network." That "map" of each network associated with surveillance of a location became
the basis for adding new names to the JPEL.
Flynn could increase the number of individual "nodes" on that map by constantly adding more cell
phone metadata for the computer-generated "map" of the insurgency. Every time JSOC commandos killed
or captured someone, they took their cell phones to add their metadata to the database. And US intelligence
also gathered cell phone data from the population of roughly 3,300 suspected insurgents being held
in the Afghan prison system, who were allowed to use mobile phones freely in their cells.
What the expansion of cell phone data surveillance meant was that an ever-greater proportion of
the targets on Flynn's "kill/capture list" were not identified at all, except as mobile phone numbers.
As Matthew Hoh, who served as the senior US civilian official in Zabul Province until he quit in
protest in September 2009, explained to me, "When you are relying on cell phones for intelligence,
you don't get the names of those targeted."
There was no requirement for any effort to establish the actual identity of the targets listed
as cell phone numbers in order to guard against mistakes.
What made Flynn's methodology for expanding the kill/capture list even riskier was that there
was no requirement for any effort to establish the actual identity of the targets listed as cell
phone numbers in order to guard against mistakes.
Using such a methodology in the Afghan socio-political context guaranteed that a high proportion
of those on the kill/capture list were innocent civilians. As former deputy to the European Union
special representative to Afghanistan Michael Semple (one of the few genuine experts in the world
on the Taliban movement) explained to me, most Afghans in the Pashtun south and east of Afghanistan
"have a few Taliban commander numbers saved to their mobile phone contacts" as a "survival mechanism."
Nader Nadery, a commissioner of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission in 2010, estimated
that the total civilian deaths for all 73 night raids about which the commission had complaints that
year was 420. But the commission acknowledged that it didn't have access to most of the districts
dominated by the Taliban. So the actual civilian toll may well have been many times that number --
meaning that civilians may have accounted for more than half of the 2,000 alleged "Taliban" killed
in JSOC's operations in 2010.
The percentage of innocent people among those who were captured and incarcerated was even higher.
In December 2010, the US command in Afghanistan leaked to a friendly blogger that 4,100 "Taliban"
had been captured in the previous six months. But an unclassified February 5, 2011, internal document
of the Combined Joint Inter-Agency Task Force responsible for detention policy in Afghanistan, which
I obtained later in 2011, showed that only 690 Afghans were admitted to the US detention facility
at Parwan during that six-month period. Twenty percent of those were later released upon review of
their files. So alleged evidence of participation in the Taliban insurgency could not have existed
for more than 552 people at most, or 14 percent of the total number said to have been captured. But
many of those 552 were undoubtedly innocent as well.
basarov •
9 hours ago
Porter is either a paid CIA/dimocrat party shill or perhaps extraordinarily stupid.
It was OBAMA who implemented the vaunted 'surge" and flooded Afghanistan with an extra 30,000
US mercenaries. And I believe that obama was the US leader in 2009. To whine about a 3 star general,
under orders to carry out an obama policy and then blame Trump by association reminds one of a
3 year old trying to make sense of Kabuki....surreal or simply delusional?
We see that america needs a police state oligarchy; americans cannot distinguish between bovine
excreta and caviar.
And so did the American people by sitting in the passive bubble of patriotism while we continue
to scorch the Earth with imperialism abroad while having a surveillance state at home. We are
ALL guilty!
Ultimately, isn't it Obama, as commander-in-chief, who's responsible for the dirty work of his
team of assassins in JSOC? As far as I know, Obama is not out of office yet...
I don't know why we are there or in Iraq. It was the Saudi families and Saudi funding that created
the terrorism of 9-11. It was the Bush Admin NeoCons and the Neoliberal philosopy that created
the longest war in our history. It is entirely coincidental that this war like Vietnam inflicts
its greatest toll on a bunch of impoverished villagers.
Thanks for mentioning Viet Nam. Flynn appears to have been cut from the same cloth as Gen. Wm.
Westmoreland, who first brought us "victory" by body count.
"... Why would Obama normally have been thrilled to "start bringing down the deficit?" A budget deficit by a nation with a sovereign currency such as the U.S. is normal statistically and typically desirable when we have a negative balance of trade. No, it is not a "fact" that stimulus "added another $1 trillion to our national debt." Had we not adopted a stimulus program the debt would have grown even larger as our economy fell even more deeply into the Great Recession. ..."
"... Obama admits that stimulus was desirable. He knows that his economists believed that if the stimulus had been larger and lasted longer it would have substantially speeded the recovery. One of the most important reasons why dramatically increased government fiscal spending (stimulus) is essential in response to a Great Recession for a depression is that the logical and typical consumer response to such a downturn is for "families across the country" to "tighten their belts" by reducing spending. That reduces already inadequate demand, which leads to prolonged downturns. Economists have long recognized that it is essential for the government to do the opposite when consumers "tighten their belts" by greatly increasing spending. To claim that it is "common sense" to "do the same" – exacerbate the inadequate demand – because it is a "tough decision" makes a mockery of logic and economics. It is a statement of economic illiteracy leading to a set of policy decisions sure to harm the economy and the Democratic Party. In particular, it guaranteed a nightmare for the working class. ..."
"... No, no, no. I can feel the pain of my colleagues that are scholars in modern monetary theory (MMT). The U.S. has a sovereign currency. We can "pay" a trillion dollar debt by issuing a trillion dollars via keystrokes by the Fed. What Obama meant was that he would propose (over time) to increase taxes and reduce federal spending by one trillion dollars. Such an austerity plan would harm the recovery and reduce important government services. Again, the working class were sure to be the primary victims of Obama's self-inflicted austerity. ..."
"... First, the metaphor is economically illiterate and harmful. A government with a sovereign currency is not a "cash-strapped family." It is not, in any meaningful way, "like" a "cash-strapped family." Indeed, the metaphor logically implies the opposite – that it is essential that because the government is not like a "cash-strapped family" only it can spend in a counter-cyclical fashion (stimulus) to counter the perverse effect of "cash-strapped famil[ies]" cutting back their spending due to the Great Recession. ..."
"... Let's take this slow. In a recession, consumer demand is grossly inadequate so firms fire workers and unemployment increases. We need to increase effective demand. As a recession hits and workers see their friends fired or reduced to part-time work, a common reaction is for workers to reduce their debts, which requires them to reduce consumption. Consumer consumption is the most important factor driving demand, so this effect, which economists call the paradox of thrift, can deepen the recession. Workers are indeed cash-strapped. Governments with sovereign currencies are, by definition, not cash-strapped. They can and should engage in extremely large stimulus in order to raise effective demand and prevent the recession from deepening. Workers will tend to reduce their spending in a pro-cyclical fashion that makes the recession more severe. Only the government can spend in a counter-cyclical fashion that will make the recession less severe and lengthy. ..."
"... The Democrats have to stop attacking Republicans for running federal budget deficits. I know it's political fun and that the Republicans are hypocritical about budget deficits. Deficits are going to be "massive" when an economy the size of the U.S. suffers a Great Recession. We have had plenty of "massive" deficits during our history under multiple political parties. None of this has ever led to a U.S. crisis. We have had some of our strongest growth while running "massive" deficits. Conversely, whenever we have adopted server austerity we have soon suffered a recession. In 1937, when FDR listened to his inept economists and inflicted austerity, the strong recovery from the Great Depression was destroyed and the economy was thrust back into an intense Great Depression. ..."
"... As to the debt "commission" to solve our "debt crisis," it was inevitable that such a commission would be dominated by Pete Peterson protégés and that they would demand austerity and an assault on the federal safety net. That would be a terrible response to the Great Recession and the primary victims of the commission's policies would be the working class. ..."
"... For a nation with a sovereign currency, there is nothing good about the "record surpluses in the 1990s." Such substantial surpluses have occurred roughly nine times in U.S. history and each has been followed shortly by a depression or the Great Recession. This does not prove causality, but it certainly recommends caution. Similarly, "pay-as-you-go" has been the bane of Democratic Party efforts to help the American people. Only a New Democrat like Obama would call for the return of the anti-working class "pay-as-you-go" rules. ..."
"... No. It wouldn't have damaged our markets, increased interest rates or jeopardized our recovery. We had just run an empirical experiment in contrast to the Eurozone. Stimulus greatly enhanced our recovery, while interest rates were at historical lows, and led to surging financial markets. Austerity had done the opposite in the eurozone. ..."
"... Let's try actual common sense instead of metaphors that are economically illiterate. Let's try real economics. Let's stop talking about "mountains of debt" as if they represented a crisis for the U.S. and stop ignoring the tens of millions of working class Americans and Europeans whose lives and families were treated as austerity's collateral damage and were not even worth discussing in Obama's ode to the economic malpractice of austerity. Austerity is the old tired battle that we repeat endlessly to the recurrent cost of the working class. ..."
By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate professor
of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Jointly published at
New Economic Perspectives
I've come back recently from Kilkenny, Ireland where I participated in the seventh annual Kilkenomics
– a festival of economics and comedy. The festival is noted for people from a broad range of economic
perspectives presenting their economic views in plain, blunt English. Kilkenomics VII began two days
after the U.S. election, so we added some sessions on President-elect Trump's fiscal policy views.
Trump had no obvious supporters among this diverse group of economists, so the audience was surprised
to hear many economists from multiple nations take the view that his stated fiscal policies could
be desirable for the U.S. – and the global economy, particularly the EU. We all expressed the caution
that no one could know whether Trump would seek to implement the fiscal policies on which he campaigned.
Most of us, however, said that if he wished to implement those policies House Speaker Paul Ryan would
not be able to block him. I opined that congressional Republicans would rediscover their love of
pork and logrolling if Trump implemented his promised fiscal policies.
The audience was also surprised to hear two groups of economists explain that Hillary Clinton's
fiscal policies remained pure New Democrat (austerity forever) even as the economic illiteracy of
those policies became even clearer – and even as the political idiocy of her fiscal policies became
glaringly obvious. Austerity is one of the fundamental ways in which the system is rigged against
the working class. Austerity was the weapon of mass destruction unleashed in the New Democrats' and
Republicans' long war on the working class. The fact that she intensified and highlighted her intent
to inflict continuous austerity on the working class as the election neared represented an unforced
error of major proportions. As the polling data showed her losing the white working class by staggering
amounts, in the last month of the election, the big new idea that Hillary pushed
repeatedly was a promise that if she were elected she would inflict continuous austerity on the
economy. "I am not going to add a penny to the national debt."
The biggest losers of such continued austerity would as ever be the working class. She also famously
insulted the working class as "deplorables." It was a bizarre approach by a politician to the plight
of tens of millions of Americans who were victims of the New Democrats' and the Republicans' trade
and austerity policies. As we presented these facts to a European audience we realized that in attempting
to answer the question of what Trump's promised fiscal policies would mean if implemented we were
also explaining one of the most important reasons that Hillary Clinton lost the white working class
by such an enormous margin.
Readers of New Economic Perspectives understand why UMKC academics and non-academic supporters
have long shown that austerity is typically a self-destructive policy brought on by a failure to
understand how money works, particularly in a nation like the U.S. with a sovereign currency. We
have long argued that the working class is the primary victim of austerity and that austerity is
a leading cause of catastrophic levels of inequality. Understanding sovereign money is critical also
to understanding why the federal government can and should serve as a job guarantor of last resort.
People, particularly working class men, need jobs, not simply incomes to feel like successful adults.
The federal jobs guarantee program is not simply economically brilliant it is politically brilliant,
it would produce enormous political support from the working class for whatever political party implemented
it.
At Kilkenomics we also used Hillary's devotion to inflicting continuous austerity on the working
class to explain to a European audience how dysfunctional her enablers in the media and her campaign
became. The fact that Paul Krugman was so deeply in her pocket by the time she tripled down on austerity
that he did not call her out on why austerity was terrible economics and terrible policy shows us
the high cost of ceasing to speak truth to power. The fact that no Clinton economic adviser had the
clout and courage to take her aside and get her to abandon her threat to inflict further austerity
on the working class tells us how dysfunctional her campaign team became. I stress again that Tom
Frank has been warning the Democratic Party for over a decade that the policies and the anti-union
and anti-working class attitudes of the New Democrats were causing enormous harm to the working class
and enraging it. But anyone who listened to Tom Frank's warnings was persona non grata in
Hillary's campaign. In my second column in this series I explain that Krugman gave up trying to wean
Hillary Clinton from her embrace of austerity's war on the working class and show that he remains
infected by a failure to understand the nature of sovereign currencies.
What the economists were saying about Trump at Kilkenomics was that there were very few reliable
engines of global growth. China's statistics are a mess and its governing party's real views of the
state of the economy are opaque. Japan just had a good growth uptick, but it has been unable to sustain
strong growth for over two decades. Germany refuses, despite the obvious "win-win" option of spending
heavily on its infrastructure needs to do so. Instead, it persists in running trade and budget surpluses
that beggar its neighbors. England is too small and only Corbyn's branch of Labour and the SNP oppose
austerity. "New Labour" supporters, most of the leadership of the Labour party, like the U.S. "New
Democrats" that served as their ideological model, remain fierce austerity hawks.
That brings us to what would have happened if America's first family of "New Democrats" – the
Clintons – had won the election. The extent to which the New Democrats embraced the Republican doctrine
of austerity became painfully obvious under President Obama. Robert Rubin dominated economic policy
under President Clinton. The Clinton/Gore administration was absolutely dedicated toward austerity.
The administration was the lucky beneficiary of the two massive modern U.S. bubbles – tech stocks
and housing – that eventually produced high employment. Indeed, when the tech bubble popped the economy
was saved by the hyper-inflation of the housing bubble. The housing bubble collapsed on the next
administration's watch, allowing the Clintons and Rubinites to spread the false narrative that their
policies produced superb economic results.
When we think of the start of the Obama administration, we think of the stimulus package. In one
sense this is obvious. The only economically literate response to a Great Recession is massive fiscal
stimulus. When Republicans control the government and confront a recession they always respond with
fiscal stimulus in the modern era. Obama's stimulus plan was not massive, but it sounded like a large
number to the public. Two questions arise about the stimulus plan. Why was Obama willing to implement
it given his and Rubin's hostility to stimulus? Conversely, why, given the great success of the stimulus
plan, did Obama abandon stimulus within months?
Rubin and his protégés had a near monopoly on filling the role of President Obama's key economic
advisors. Larry Summers is a Rubinite, but he is infamous for his ego and he is a real economist
from an extended family of economists. Summers was certain in his (self-described) role as the President's
principal economic adviser to support a vigorous program of fiscal stimulus because the Obama administration
had inherited the Great Recession. Summers knew that any other policy constituted economics malpractice.
Christina Romer, as Chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers and Jared Bernstein, Vice
President Biden's chief economist, were both real economists who strongly supported the need for
a powerful program of fiscal stimulus. Each of these economists warned President Obama that his stimulus
package was far too small relative to the massive depths of the Great Recession.
Rubin's training was as a lawyer, not as an economist, so Summers was not about to look to Rubin
for economic advice. In fairness to Rubin, he was rarely so stupid as to reject stimulus as the appropriate
initial response to a recession. He
supported President
Bush's 2001 stimulus package in response to a far milder recession and President Obama's 2009 stimulus
package. Rubin does not deserve much fairness. By early 2010, while Rubin admitted that stimulus
is typically the proper response to a recession and that the 2009 stimulus package was successful,
he opposed adding to the stimulus package in
2010 even though he knew that Obama's 2009 stimulus package was, for political reasons, far smaller
than the administration's economists knew was needed.
Here's ex-Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin–one of the chief architects of the global financial
crisis–articulating the position of his proteges at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Robert Rubin: "Putting another major stimulus on top of already huge deficits and rising debt-to-GDP
ratios would have risks. And further expansion of the Federal Reserve Board's balance sheet could
create significant problems . Today's economic conditions would ordinarily be met with expansionary
policy, but our fiscal and monetary conditions are a serious constraint, and waiting too long
to address them could cause a new crisis .
In the spirit of Kilkenomics, we were blunt about the austerity assault that Rubin successfully
argued Obama should resume against America's working class beginning in early 2010. It was inevitable
that it would weaken and delay the recovery. Tens of millions of Americans would leave the labor
force or remain underemployed and even underemployed for a decade. The working class would bear the
great brunt of this loss. In modern America this kind of loss of working class jobs is associated
with mental depression, silent rage, meth, heroin, and the inability of working class males and females
to find a marriage partner, and marital problems. It is a prescription for inflicting agony – and
it is a toxic act of politics.
Prior to becoming a de facto surrogate for Hillary and ceasing to speak truth to her
and to America,
Paul Krugman captured the gap between the Obama administration's perspective and that of most
of the public.
According to the independent committee that officially determines such things, the so-called
Great Recession ended in June 2009, around the same time that the acute phase of the financial
crisis ended. Most Americans, however, disagree. In a March 2014 poll, for example, 57 percent
of respondents declared that the nation was still in recession.
The type of elite Democrats that the New Democrats idealized – the officers from big finance,
Hollywood, and high tech – recovered first and their recovery was a roaring success. Obama, and eventually
Hillary, adopted the mantra that America was already great. Our unemployment rates, relative to the
EU nations forced to inflict austerity on their economies, is much lower. But the Obama/Hillary mantra
was a lie for scores of millions of American workers, including virtually all of the working class
and much of the middle class. As Hillary repeated the mantra they concluded that she was clueless
about and indifferent to their suffering. As we emphasized in Kilkenny, Obama and Hillary were not
simply talking economic nonsense, they were committing political self-mutilation.
Krugman used to make this point forcefully.
[T]he American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, aka the Obama stimulus surely helped end the
economy's free fall. But the stimulus was too small and too short-lived given the depth of the
slump: stimulus spending peaked at 1.6 percent of GDP in early 2010 and dropped rapidly thereafter,
giving way to a regime of destructive fiscal austerity. And the administration's efforts to help
homeowners were so ineffectual as to be risible.
Timothy Geithner, a proponent of austerity, is famous for remarking that he only took only one
economics class – and did not understand it. In the same review of Geithner's book by Krugman that
I have been quoting, Krugman gives a concise summary of Geithner's repeated lies about his supposed
support for a larger stimulus. Jacob Lew, the Rubinite who Obama chose as Geithner's successor as
Treasury Secretary, was also trained as a lawyer and is equally fanatic in favoring austerity. In
2009, no one with any credibility in economics within the Obama administration could serve as an
effective spokesperson for austerity as the ideal response to the Great Recession.
But Romer, Summers, and Bernstein experienced the same frustration as 2009 proceeded. The problem
was not simply the Rubinites' fervor for the self-inflicted wound of austerity – the fundamental
problem was President Obama. Obama's administration was littered with Rubinites because Obama was
a New Democrat who believed that Rubin's love of austerity and trade deals was an excellent policy.
Of course, he had campaigned on the opposite policy positions, but that was simply political and
Obama promptly abandoned those campaign promises. Fiscal stimulus ceased to be an administration
priority as soon as the stimulus bill was enacted. Romer and Summers recognized the obvious and soon
made clear that they were leaving. Bernstein retained Biden's support, but he was frozen out of influence
on administration fiscal policies by the Rubinites.
By 2010, the fiscal stimulus package had begun to accelerate the U.S. recovery. Romer left the
administration in late summer 2010. Summers left at the end of 2010. Bill Daley (also trained as
a lawyer) became Obama's chief of staff in early 2011. Timothy Geithner, and finally Jacob Lew dominated
Obama administration fiscal policy from late 2010 to the end of the administration in alliance with
Daley and other Rubinite economists. It may be important to point out the obvious – Obama chose to
make each of these appointments and there is every reason to believe that he appointed them because
he generally shared their views on austerity. In the first 60 days of his presidency he went before
a Congressional group of New Democrats and told them "
I am a New Democrat ."
Obama began pushing for the fiscal "grand bargain" in 2010. The "grand bargain" would have pushed
towards austerity and begun unraveling the safety net. As such, it was actually the grand betrayal.
Obama's administration began telling the press that Obama viewed achieving such a deal with the Republicans
critical to his "legacy." There were two major ironies involving the grand bargain. Had it been adopted
it would have thrown the U.S. back into recession, made Obama a one-term president, and led to even
more severe losses for the Democratic Party in Congress and at the state level. The other irony was
that it was the Tea Party that saved Obama from Obama's grand betrayal by continually demanding that
Obama agree to inflict more severe assaults on the safety net.
Obama adopted Lew's famous, economically illiterate line and featured it is in his State of the
Union Address as early as January 2010. What follows is a lengthy quotation from that address. I
have put my critiques in italics after several paragraphs. Obama's switch from stimulus to austerity
was Obama's most important policy initiative in his January 2010
State of the Union Address .
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 27, 2010
Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address
Now - just stating the facts. Now, if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked
nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we took office amid a crisis. And our
efforts to prevent a second depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt. That,
too, is a fact.
Why would Obama normally have been thrilled to "start bringing down the deficit?" A budget
deficit by a nation with a sovereign currency such as the U.S. is normal statistically and typically
desirable when we have a negative balance of trade. No, it is not a "fact" that stimulus "added another
$1 trillion to our national debt." Had we not adopted a stimulus program the debt would have grown
even larger as our economy fell even more deeply into the Great Recession.
I'm absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do. But families across the country are
tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same.
(Applause.) So tonight, I'm proposing specific steps to pay for the trillion dollars that it took
to rescue the economy last year.
Obama admits that stimulus was desirable. He knows that his economists believed that if the
stimulus had been larger and lasted longer it would have substantially speeded the recovery. One
of the most important reasons why dramatically increased government fiscal spending (stimulus) is
essential in response to a Great Recession for a depression is that the logical and typical consumer
response to such a downturn is for "families across the country" to "tighten their belts" by reducing
spending. That reduces already inadequate demand, which leads to prolonged downturns. Economists
have long recognized that it is essential for the government to do the opposite when consumers "tighten
their belts" by greatly increasing spending. To claim that it is "common sense" to "do the same"
– exacerbate the inadequate demand – because it is a "tough decision" makes a mockery of logic and
economics. It is a statement of economic illiteracy leading to a set of policy decisions sure to
harm the economy and the Democratic Party. In particular, it guaranteed a nightmare for the working
class.
No, no, no. I can feel the pain of my colleagues that are scholars in modern monetary theory
(MMT). The U.S. has a sovereign currency. We can "pay" a trillion dollar debt by issuing a trillion
dollars via keystrokes by the Fed. What Obama meant was that he would propose (over time) to increase
taxes and reduce federal spending by one trillion dollars. Such an austerity plan would harm the
recovery and reduce important government services. Again, the working class were sure to be the primary
victims of Obama's self-inflicted austerity.
Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. (Applause.)
Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be
affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family,
we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't. And if I have
to enforce this discipline by veto, I will. (Applause.)
First, the metaphor is economically illiterate and harmful. A government with a sovereign
currency is not a "cash-strapped family." It is not, in any meaningful way, "like" a "cash-strapped
family." Indeed, the metaphor logically implies the opposite – that it is essential that because
the government is not like a "cash-strapped family" only it can spend in a counter-cyclical fashion
(stimulus) to counter the perverse effect of "cash-strapped famil[ies]" cutting back their spending
due to the Great Recession.
Let's take this slow. In a recession, consumer demand is grossly inadequate so firms fire
workers and unemployment increases. We need to increase effective demand. As a recession hits and
workers see their friends fired or reduced to part-time work, a common reaction is for workers to
reduce their debts, which requires them to reduce consumption. Consumer consumption is the most important
factor driving demand, so this effect, which economists call the paradox of thrift, can deepen the
recession. Workers are indeed cash-strapped. Governments with sovereign currencies are, by definition,
not cash-strapped. They can and should engage in extremely large stimulus in order to raise effective
demand and prevent the recession from deepening. Workers will tend to reduce their spending in a
pro-cyclical fashion that makes the recession more severe. Only the government can spend in a counter-cyclical
fashion that will make the recession less severe and lengthy.
We will continue to go through the budget, line by line, page by page, to eliminate programs
that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next
year. To help working families, we'll extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record
deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for
those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it. (Applause.)
Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we'll still face the massive deficit
we had when I took office. More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security
will continue to skyrocket. That's why I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled
on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. (Applause.) This can't be one
of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have
to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline.
The Democrats have to stop attacking Republicans for running federal budget deficits. I know
it's political fun and that the Republicans are hypocritical about budget deficits. Deficits are
going to be "massive" when an economy the size of the U.S. suffers a Great Recession. We have had
plenty of "massive" deficits during our history under multiple political parties. None of this has
ever led to a U.S. crisis. We have had some of our strongest growth while running "massive" deficits.
Conversely, whenever we have adopted server austerity we have soon suffered a recession. In 1937,
when FDR listened to his inept economists and inflicted austerity, the strong recovery from the Great
Depression was destroyed and the economy was thrust back into an intense Great Depression.
As to the debt "commission" to solve our "debt crisis," it was inevitable that such a commission
would be dominated by Pete Peterson protégés and that they would demand austerity and an assault
on the federal safety net. That would be a terrible response to the Great Recession and the primary
victims of the commission's policies would be the working class.
Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I'll
issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem
on to another generation of Americans. (Applause.) And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate
should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in
the 1990s. (Applause.)
For a nation with a sovereign currency, there is nothing good about the "record surpluses
in the 1990s." Such substantial surpluses have occurred roughly nine times in U.S. history and each
has been followed shortly by a depression or the Great Recession. This does not prove causality,
but it certainly recommends caution. Similarly, "pay-as-you-go" has been the bane of Democratic Party
efforts to help the American people. Only a New Democrat like Obama would call for the return of
the anti-working class "pay-as-you-go" rules.
Now, I know that some in my own party will argue that we can't address the deficit or freeze
government spending when so many are still hurting. And I agree - which is why this freeze won't
take effect until next year - (laughter) - when the economy is stronger. That's how budgeting
works. (Laughter and applause.) But understand –- understand if we don't take meaningful steps
to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize
our recovery -– all of which would have an even worse effect on our job growth and family incomes.
No. It wouldn't have damaged our markets, increased interest rates or jeopardized our recovery.
We had just run an empirical experiment in contrast to the Eurozone. Stimulus greatly enhanced our
recovery, while interest rates were at historical lows, and led to surging financial markets. Austerity
had done the opposite in the eurozone.
From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument -– that if we just make fewer
investments in our people, extend tax cuts including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate
more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem
is that's what we did for eight years. (Applause.) That's what helped us into this crisis. It's
what helped lead to these deficits. We can't do it again.
Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it's time
to try something new. Let's invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let's
meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let's try common sense. (Laughter.)
A novel concept.
Let's try actual common sense instead of metaphors that are economically illiterate. Let's
try real economics. Let's stop talking about "mountains of debt" as if they represented a crisis
for the U.S. and stop ignoring the tens of millions of working class Americans and Europeans whose
lives and families were treated as austerity's collateral damage and were not even worth discussing
in Obama's ode to the economic malpractice of austerity. Austerity is the old tired battle that we
repeat endlessly to the recurrent cost of the working class.
Trump is Not Locked into Austerity
I note the same caution we gave in Ireland – we don't know whether President Trump will seek to
implement his economic proposals. Trump has proposed trillions of dollars in increased spending on
infrastructure and defense and large cuts in corporate taxation. In combination, this would produce
considerable fiscal stimulus for several years. The point we made in Ireland is that if he seeks
to implement his proposals (a) we believe he would succeed politically in enacting them and (b) they
would produce stimulus that would have a positive effect on the near and mid-term economy of the
U.S. Further, because the eurozone is locked into a political trap in which there seems no realistic
path to abandoning the self-inflicted wound of continuous austerity, Trump represents the eurozone's
most realistic hope for stimulus.
Final Cautions
Each of the economists speaking on these subjects in Kilkenny opposed Trumps election and believe
it will harm the public. Fiscal stimulus is critical, but it is only one element of macroeconomics
and no one was comfortable with Trump's long-term control of the economy. I opined, for example,
that Trump will create an exceptionally criminogenic environment that will produce epidemics of control
fraud. The challenge for progressive Democrats and independents is to break with the New Democrats'
dogmas. Neither America nor the Democratic Party can continue to bear the terrible cost of this unforced
error of economics, politics, and basic humanity. I fear that the professional Democrats assigned
the task of re-winning the support of the white working class do not even have ending the New Democrats'
addiction to austerity on their radar. They are probably still forbidden to read Tom Frank.
Seems to me that Ryan is not Trump's principal impediment, that Trump knows this, and that
the battle lines are already in the process of being drawn. Veiled threat?.. or, "Let's make a
deal"?
"In addition, with the debt-to-GDP ratio at around 77 percent there is not a lot of fiscal
space should a shock to the economy occur, an adverse shock that did require fiscal stimulus,"
she said.
Sovereign currency defense appears to be the primary job for the US both domestically and internationally.
There is a house of cards tenuous aspect to the US policies, with looming questions about
the ongoing stability of the domestic economy and society. Threats to that sovereign position
would seem to be present over the long term from China in particular. To what extent does currency
defense justify any manner of harmful policies, certainly given the perceived ends justify
the means tacit assumptions?
Luckily a neocon is not going to be heading to the United Nations, and Power, who championed US
"humanitarian wars" is being shown the exit door and it could not come soon enough.
... ... ...
In what has been dubbed a "remarkable" shift in the president-elect's mindset, Trump's selection
of Haley caps a dramatic year for their political relationship. They started 2016 with a fight and
are ending it as allies in a nascent Trump administration, suggesting that far from bearing grudges
Trump is willing to reconcile in the name of national interests.
A crisis of legitimacy . People are fed up with politics. Do not blame globalisation for
that. Sep 27th 2001 | From the print edition. Timekeeper. Add this article to ...
Legitimacy: Legitimation Crises and Its Causes - Political Science Notes www.politicalsciencenotes.com/
legitimacy / legitimacy -legitimation- crises -and-its.../797
Causes of Legitimation Crisis : There are several causes or aspects of legitimation crisis
. Habermas and several other neo-Marxists, after studying all the aspects of capitalist
societies, have concluded that a number of factors are responsible for the legitimation crisis
The Global Crisis of Legitimacy . Geopolitical Weekly. May 4, 2010 | 08:56 GMT. Print. Text
Size. By George Friedman. Financial panics are an integral part of ...
by GE Reyes - 2010 -
Cited by 1 -
Related articles Theoretical basis of crisis of legitimacy and implications for less
developed countries: Guatemala as a case of study. TENDENCIAS. Revista de la Facultad de ...
by A Mattelaer - 2014 -
Related articles Mar 21, 2014 - generalised crisis in legitimacy , our democracies
face a crisis of legitimation: political choices are in dire need of an explanatory narrative
that.
The Legitimacy Crisis | RealClearPolitics www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/08/the_
legitimacy _ crisis _126530.html
May 8, 2015 - American government - at all levels - is losing the legitimacy it needs to
function. Or, perhaps, some segments of the government have ...
The third dimension of the crisis that I identify is the crisis of legitimacy of US hegemony.
This, I think, is as serious as the other two crises, since, as an admirer of ...
The Crisis of Legitimacy in Africa. Abiola Irele ▫ Summer 1992. A bleak picture emerges
from today's Africa. One glaring aspect is the material deprivation ...
This unadmitted ignorance was previously displayed for those with eyes to see it in the Libya debacle,
perhaps not coincidentally Clinton's pet war. Cast by the Obama White House as a surgical display
of "smart power" that would defend human rights and foster democracy in the Muslim world, the 2011
Libyan intervention did precisely the opposite. There is
credible evidence that the U.S.-led NATO campaign prolonged and exacerbated the humanitarian
crisis, and far from creating a flourishing democracy, the ouster of strongman Muammar Qaddafi led
to a power vacuum into which ISIS and other rival unsavories surged.
The 2011 intervention and the follow-up escalation in which we are presently entangled were both
fundamentally informed by "the underlying belief that military force will produce stability and that
the U.S. can reasonably predict the result of such a campaign," as Christopher Preble has argued
in a must-read Libya analysis
at Politico . Both have proven resoundingly wrong.
Before Libya, Washington espoused the same false certainty in advance of intervention and nation-building
Iraq and Afghanistan. The rhetoric around the former was particularly telling: we would find nuclear
weapons and "be greeted as liberators,"
said Vice President
Dick Cheney. The whole thing would take five months or less,
said Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld. It would be a
"cakewalk." As months dragged into years of nation-building stagnation, the ignored truth became
increasingly evident: the United States cannot reshape entire countries without obscene risk and
investment, and even when those costly commitments are made, success cannot be predicted with certainty.
Nearly 14 years later, with Iraq demonstrably more violent and less stable than it was before
U.S. intervention, wisdom demands we reject Washington's recycled snake oil.
Recent polls (let alone the anti-elite backlash Trump's
win represents ) suggest Americans are ready to do precisely that. But a lack of public enthusiasm
has never stopped Washington from hawking its fraudulent wares-this time in the form of yet-again
unfounded certainty that escalating American intervention in Syria is a sure-fire solution to that
beleaguered nation's woes.
We must not let ourselves be fooled. Rather, we "should understand that we don't need to overthrow
distant governments and roll the dice on what comes after in order to keep America safe," as Preble,
reflecting on Libya,
contends . "On the contrary, our track record over the last quarter-century shows that such interventions
often have the opposite effect."
And as for the political establishment, let Trump's triumph be a constant reminder of the necessity
of expecting the unexpected and proceeding with due (indeed, much overdue) prudence and restraint
abroad. If Washington so grossly misunderstood the direction of its own heartland-without the muddling,
as in foreign policy, of massive geographic and cultural differences-how naďve it is to believe that
our government can successfully play armed puppet-master over an entire region of the world?
Bonnie Kristian is a fellow at Defense Priorities. She is a weekend editor at The Week
and a columnist at Rare , and her writing has also appeared at Time , Politico
, Relevant , The Hill , and other outlets.
"... CNN is Paul's biggest alleged culprit, with nine entries, followed by the NY Times and MSNBC, with six each. The NY Times has recently come under fire from President-elect Donald Trump, who accuses them of being "totally wrong" on news regarding his transition team, while describing them as "failing." ..."
"... CNN's Wolf Blitzer is also amongst those named on the list. In an email from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) released by WikiLeaks, the DNC staff discusses sending questions to CNN for an interview with Donald Trump. ..."
"... So-called 'fake news' has been recently attacked by US President Barack Obama, who claimed that false news shared online may have played a role in Donald Trump's victory in the US presidential election. ..."
"This list contains the culprits who told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and
lied us into multiple bogus wars,"according to a report on his website, Ron Paul Liberty Report.
Paul claims the list is sourced and "holds a lot more water" than a list previously released by
Melissa Zimdars, who is described on Paul's website as "a leftist feminist professor."
"These are the news sources that told us 'if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,'"
he said. "They told us that Hillary Clinton had a 98% of winning the election. They tell us in
a never-ending loop that 'The economy is in great shape!'"
Paul's list includes the full names of the "fake news" journalists as well as the publications
they write for, with what appears to be hyperlinks to where the allegations are sourced from.
In most cases, this is WikiLeaks, but none of the hyperlinks are working at present, leaving the
exact sources of the list unknown.
CNN is Paul's biggest alleged culprit, with nine entries, followed by the NY Times and MSNBC,
with six each. The NY Times has recently come under fire from President-elect Donald Trump, who
accuses them of being "totally wrong" on news regarding his transition team, while describing
them as "failing."
The publication hit back, however, saying their business has increased since his election,
with a surge in new subscriptions.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer is also amongst those named on the list. In an email from the Democratic
National Committee (DNC) released by WikiLeaks, the DNC staff discusses sending questions to CNN
for an interview with Donald Trump.
Also listed is NY Times journalist Maggie Haberman, whom leaked emails showed working closely
with Clinton's campaign to present the Democratic candidate in a favorable light.
So-called 'fake news' has been recently attacked by US President Barack Obama, who claimed
that false news shared online may have played a role in Donald Trump's victory in the US presidential
election.
Facebook head Mark Zuckerberg has now said that the social media site may begin entrusting
third parties with filtering the news.
"... Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until toward the very end of the campaign. ..."
"... On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naďve about the New World Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the role that Zionism plays in it. ..."
"... To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist, and establishment hack. ..."
"... Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon. And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure). ..."
"... You cannot drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration. ..."
"... Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. ..."
"... What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties. ..."
"... The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political hibernation now that Trump is elected. ..."
After my post-election column last week, a lady wrote to me and said, "I have confidence he [Trump]
plans to do what is best for the country." With all due respect, I don't! I agree wholeheartedly
with Thomas Jefferson. He said, "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence
in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
If Donald Trump is going to be anything more than just another say-anything-to-get-elected phony,
he is going to have to put raw elbow grease to his rhetoric. His talk got him elected, but it is
going to be his walk that is going to prove his worth.
And, as I wrote last week, the biggest indicator as to whether or not he is truly going to follow
through with his rhetoric is who he selects for his cabinet and top-level government positions. So
far, he has picked Reince Priebus as White House chief of staff and Stephen Bannon as White House
chief strategist.
Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until
toward the very end of the campaign. He is the current chairman of the Republican National Committee.
If that doesn't tell you what he is, nothing will. Trump probably picked him because he is in so
tight with House Speaker Paul Ryan (a globalist neocon of the highest order) and the GOP establishment,
thinking Priebus will help him get his agenda through the GOP Congress. But ideologically, Priebus
does NOT share Trump's anti-establishment agenda. So, this appointment is a risk at best and a sell-out
at worst.
On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which
is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the
globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon
is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naďve about the New World
Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the
role that Zionism plays in it.
To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and
especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he
is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into
hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is
a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And
John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist,
and establishment hack.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the globalist elite gave Newt Gingrich the assignment
of cozying up to (and "supporting") Trump during his campaign with the sole intention of being in
a position for Trump to think he owes Gingrich something so as to appoint him to a key cabinet post
in the event that he won. Gingrich could then weave his evil magic during a Donald Trump presidential
administration.
Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon.
And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure).
If Donald Trump does not see through this man, and if he appoints him as a cabinet head in his administration,
I will be forced to believe that Donald Trump is clueless about "draining the swamp." You cannot
drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly
what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration.
Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on
repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. Granted, he hasn't
even been sworn in yet, and it's still way too early to make a true judgment of his presidency. But
for a fact, his cabinet appointments and his first one hundred days in office will tell us most of
what we need to know.
What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy
and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we
do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever
on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties.
There is a reason we have lost more liberties under Republican administrations than Democratic
ones over the past few decades. And that reason is the conservative, constitutionalist, Christian,
pro-freedom people who should be resisting government's assaults against our liberties are sound
asleep because they trust a Republican President and Congress to do the right thing -- and they give
the GOP a pass as our liberties are expunged piece by piece. A pass they would NEVER give to a Democrat.
The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he
ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully
that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political
hibernation now that Trump is elected.
I tell you again: this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the course of a nation. Frankly,
if this opportunity is squandered, there likely will not be another one in most of our lifetimes.
"... For more than three decades, macroeconomics has gone backwards," the paper began. Romer closed out his argument, some 20 pages later, by accusing a cohort of economists of drifting away from science, more interested in preserving reputations than testing their theories against reality, "more committed to friends than facts." In between, he offers a wicked parody of a modern macro argument: "Assume A, assume B, blah blah blah and so we have proven that P is true ..."
"... The idea that consumers and businesses always make rational choices pervades mainstream economics. Romer thinks that's not only wrong, but may lead to the misleading conclusion that government action can't fix big problems. ..."
"... There is no better place to be writing this than from (nearly) Minneapolis, for the University of Minnesota's economics department is the most devoted coven worshipping the most extreme form of "rational expectations." The most famous cultists have now relocated, but the U. Minnesota economics department remains fanatical in its devotion to rational expectations theory. ..."
"... All of this means that Romer's denunciations were sure to hit home far harder with mainstream and theoclassical economists than anything a heterodox economist could write. ..."
"... What this paragraph reveals is the classic tactic of theoclassical economists – they simply ignore real criticism. Lucas, Prescott, and Sargent all care desperately about Romer's criticism – but they all refuse to engage substantively with his critique. One has to love the arrogance of Sargent in "responding" – without reading – to Romer's critique. Sargent cannot, of course, respond to a critique he has never read so he instead makes a crude attempt to insult Romer, asserting that Romer has not done any scientific work in three decades. ..."
"... The rational expectations purists have been unable to come up with a response to their predictive failures and their false model of human behavior for thirty years. The Bloomberg article does not understand a subtle point about their non-defense defense, as shown in these key passages. ..."
"... What the rational expectations devotees are actually saying is their standard line, which is a radical departure from the scientific method. Their mantra is "it takes a model to beat a model." That mantra violates the scientific method. Their models are designed to embody their rational expectations theory. Those models' predictive ability is pathetic, which means that their theory and models are both falsified and should be rejected. The academic proponents of modern macro models, however, assert that their models are incapable of falsification by testing and predictive failure. This is not science, but theology. ..."
"... V.V. Chari's criticism of Romer is revealing. He complains that Romer does not want to "build on [rational expectation theory's] foundations." Why would Romer want to commit such a pointless act? Romer's point is that rational expectations is a failed theory that needs to be rejected so macroeconomics can move on to useful endeavors. ..."
"... Rational expectations theory has no such empirical foundations. ..."
"... Further, the dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) models routinely fail the predictive test and, as Romer details, fail despite the use of dozens of ways in which the models are "gamed" with arbitrary inputs and restrictions that have no theoretical or empirical basis. Chari is right to describe the modern macro model as an "edifice." I would add that it is a baroque edifice top heavy with ornamental features designed to hide its lack of a foundation. Modern macro collapsed as soon as its devotees tried to build without an empirical foundation. ..."
"... The rational expectation devotees respond that predictive failures – no matter how extreme or frequent – cannot falsify their models or their theories. The proponents claim that only a better model, with superior predictive ability can beat their model. ..."
"... Kocherlakota's summary description is appropriately terse. He later explains the dogmatic gloss that devotees place on each of these five points. The "budget constraint," for example, means that nations with sovereign currencies such as the U.S. cannot run deficits, even to fight severe recessions or depressions. Why? Because theoclassical economists are enormous believers in austerity. As Kocherlakota archly phrased the matter, "freshwater" DSGE models were so attractive to theoclassical macro types because their model perfectly tracked their ideology. ..."
"... Specifying household preferences and firm objectives is equally erroneous, as Akerlof and Romer's 1993 article on "Looting" demonstrated. "Firms" do not have "objectives." Employees have "objectives," and the controlling officers' "objectives" are the most powerful drivers of employee behavior. ..."
"... Kocherlakota unintentionally highlighted modern macros' inability to incorporate even massive frauds driving national scandals and banking crises, despite the efforts of Akerlof (1970) (a market for "lemons") and Akerlof and Romer 1993: ("looting") in this passage. ..."
"... If macroeconomics, outside the cult of modern macro, were a car, it would not be "broken." It would be episodically broken when the rational expectations devotees got hold of monetary or fiscal policy. The rational expectations model fails the most fundamental test of a financial model – people trying to make money by anticipating the macroeconomics consequences of changes in monetary and fiscal policy overwhelmingly do not use their models because they are known to have pathetic predictive ability. The alternative models that embrace Keynesian analysis and are not dependent on the fiction of rational expectations function pretty well. The real world macro car, when driven by real world drivers, works OK. Essentially, the rational expectations devotees say that we can never drive the macro "car" because the public will defeat any effort to drive the economy in any direction. Instead, the economy will lurch about n response to random technological "shocks" that cannot be predicted because they occur without any relationship to any public policy choices. ..."
"... I am completely confused about the prediction of "rational choices". Do they include going bankrupt on purpose and letting your investors take the hit, burning your building down for the insurance money, hostile takeover behavior where businesses are run into the ground on purpose, tax strategies, people going on unemployment when they want a vacation from work, and on and on? These are decisions that have a rationale for the people who make them, and they have not been uncommon. Perhaps "economists" are best off observing not predicting "human behavior". ..."
"... I majored in economics. as you go up higher up into the dismal science, the more deranged it gets. The reason they are vague is because they don't know what they are talking about. They don't consider the real world, and as Bill Black's so brilliantly points out, they are in no hurry to out themselves as frauds. ..."
"... thanks, Simon. there must be something in those mental masturbation models for some people. justification for something the 99 % are all paying for most likely ..."
"... In some natural sciences, abandoning equilibrium models and replacing them with dynamic models have led to great progress, and looking at the actual time evolution of economies, there is a great deal of dynamics, such as growth, recessions, demography, natural catastrophes, immigration/emigration, resource discovery and depletion, technological progress. ..."
"... Since our economy has been gradually going casino for so many years, it makes sense that the folks who hold the reigns would make every effort to assure that all their key players adhere to their singular perspectives. ..."
"... The Nobel Memorial Prize in economics promotes the illusion that economics is a science. It is better conceptualized as a literary genre, and economists should be forced to compete with other writers for the prize in literature. ..."
"... Bill Black has a fascinating opinion on unnecessary complexity and I agree with him 200 percent. ..."
"... interesting about Kocherlakota formerly being a rational expectations devotee just the phrase 'rational expectations' is mind boggling as if there were no reaction to any action anywhere. Jack Bogle was on the news this morning laughing about stock picking and saying that every stock picker that makes money is balanced out by another one who loses money and so the only thing that makes money net-net is the long term progress of the market, (or society I would say – and that requires planning). ..."
"... Not one mention of Chaos or Catastrophe Theory, which are theories of systems with non linear feedback (aka: Fear and Greed), which appear to me to be fundamental aspects of Economics, especially the humans who are the Economy. ..."
"... Two slogans I read somewhere recently seem appropriate for theoclassical economics: Ideology is easy, thinking is hard. Belief is belonging. ..."
"... One doesn't have to have read any Reformation theology, but only to have observed more or less casually that human being are scarcely rational even about their own self-interest, and then only self-deceptively. Thomas Frank has commented effectively on that point in the political arena in What's the Matter with Kansas. To wit: Republicans have, he points out, diverted voters attention to social/cultural issues while picking their pockets. Perhaps one might sense an intersection of politics and economics on the latter point. ..."
By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate professor
of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Jointly published at
New Economic Perspectives
Bloomberg has written an article about the origins of Paul Romer's increasingly famous
critique of modern macroeconomics.
His intention actually had been to write a paper that would celebrate advances in the understanding
of what drives economic growth. But when he sat down to write it in the months before taking over
as the World Bank's chief economist, Romer quickly found his heart wasn't in it. The world economy
wasn't growing much anyway; and the math that many colleagues were using to model it seemed unrealistic.
He watched a documentary about the Church of Scientology, and was struck by how groupthink can
operate.
So, Romer said in an interview at the Bank's Washington headquarters, "I just thought, OK,
I'm going to say what I think. I don't know if I'm the right person, but no one else is going
to say it. So I said it."
The upshot was "The Trouble With Macroeconomics," a scathing critique that landed among Romer's
peers like a grenade.
A bit of background makes the first paragraph more understandable. Romer's specialty is developmental
economics.
There are many economists who have said for years that modern macroeconomics is an abject failure.
But all economists are not equal, and Romer is both an extremely distinguished economist and the
World Bank's chief economist. When he writes that macroeconomics is absurd his position gets vastly
more attention from the field.
The Bloomberg article humorously summarizes Romer's article.
"For more than three decades, macroeconomics has gone backwards," the paper began. Romer
closed out his argument, some 20 pages later, by accusing a cohort of economists of drifting away
from science, more interested in preserving reputations than testing their theories against reality,
"more committed to friends than facts." In between, he offers a wicked parody of a modern macro
argument: "Assume A, assume B, blah blah blah and so we have proven that P is true."
The idea that consumers and businesses always make rational choices pervades mainstream
economics. Romer thinks that's not only wrong, but may lead to the misleading conclusion that
government action can't fix big problems.
There is no better place to be writing this than from (nearly) Minneapolis, for the University
of Minnesota's economics department is the most devoted coven worshipping the most extreme form of
"rational expectations." The most famous cultists have now relocated, but the U. Minnesota economics
department remains fanatical in its devotion to rational expectations theory.
A belief that consumers and businesses always make rational choices does not "pervade mainstream
economics." Mainstream economics is increasingly influenced by reality, particularly in the form
of behavioral economics. Behavioral economics, which has led to multiple Nobel awards, has many currents,
but each of them agrees that consumers and business people typically do not make rational decisions
even in simpler tasks, much less demonstrate the ability to predict the future required by rational
expectations theory. Similarly, even the proponents of modern macroeconomics admit that its predictive
ability – and predictive ability is supposed to be their holy grail of legitimacy – is beyond pathetic.
What is true is that mainstream economics' most egregious errors have come from assuming contrary
to reality in a wide range of contexts that corporate officers, consumers, and investors make optimal
decisions that maximize the firm or the household's utility.
In any real scientific field modern macro would, decades ago, have been abandoned as an abject
failure. Romer, therefore, is not storming some impregnable bulwark of economics. He is calling an
obvious, abject failure an obvious, abject failure. Private sector finance participants typically
believe the academic proponents of rational expectations theory are delusional. Romer is calling
out elites in his profession who have ignored these failures and doubled and tripled-down on their
failed dogmas for decades. This makes the Bloomberg article's title deeply misleading: "The
Rebel Economist Who Blew Up Macroeconomics."
Romer is not a rebel. He did not blow up academic, mainstream macroeconomics – the academic proponents
of modern macroeconomics blew it up decades ago. Romer is mainstream, and he is sympathetic on personal
and ideological grounds to the theoclasscial economist most famous for developing rational expectations
theory. Romer has strongly libertarian views and did his doctoral work under Robert Lucas. Romer
has long been appreciative of Lucas. All of this means that Romer's denunciations were sure to
hit home far harder with mainstream and theoclassical economists than anything a heterodox economist
could write.
The same Bloomberg article made a key factual claim that is literally true but misleading.
What's at stake far exceeds hurt feelings in the ivory tower. Central banks and other policy
makers use the models that Romer says are flawed.
Central banks and private economic forecasters rarely use modern macro models, though they have
begun to use New Keynesian models that are hybrids. They do not do use "freshwater" models because
they are known to have terrible predictive ability and because alternative models not based on rational
expectations have far superior predictive ability. The private financial sector typically does not
rely on modern macro models, even the New Keynesian hybrids. Romer is not saying that the models
are "flawed" – he is explaining that they are inherently failed models. Worse, he is saying that
the designers of the models know they are failed and respond by gimmicking the models by littering
them with myriad assumptions that have no empirical or theoretical basis and are designed to try
to make the models produce less absurd results.
I explained that Romer was far from the first to call out modern academic macroeconomics as a
failure but that he is a prominent mainstream economist. The Bloomberg article's most interesting
reveal was the response by the troika of economists must associated with rational expectations theory
to Romer's article decrying their dogmas.
Lucas and Prescott didn't respond to requests for comments on Romer's paper. Sargent did. He
said he hadn't read it, but suggested that Romer may be out of touch with the ways that rational-expectations
economists have adapted their models to reflect how people and firms actually behave. Sargent
said in an e-mail that Romer himself drew heavily on the school's insights, back when he was "still
doing scientific work in economics 25 or 30 years ago."
What this paragraph reveals is the classic tactic of theoclassical economists – they simply
ignore real criticism. Lucas, Prescott, and Sargent all care desperately about Romer's criticism
– but they all refuse to engage substantively with his critique. One has to love the arrogance of
Sargent in "responding" – without reading – to Romer's critique. Sargent cannot, of course, respond
to a critique he has never read so he instead makes a crude attempt to insult Romer, asserting that
Romer has not done any scientific work in three decades.
The rational expectations purists have been unable to come up with a response to their predictive
failures and their false model of human behavior for thirty years. The Bloomberg article does
not understand a subtle point about their non-defense defense, as shown in these key passages.
Allies of the three Nobelists have been more outspoken, and many of them point out that Romer
- unlike Keynes in the 1930s - doesn't offer a new framework to replace the one he says has failed.
"Burning down the edifice, and saying we'll figure out what we'll build on its foundations
later, just does not seem like a constructive way to proceed," said V. V. Chari, an economics
professor at the University of Minnesota.
Romer's heard that line often, and bristles at it: "I'm saying, 'the car is broken.' And everyone's
saying, 'Romer's a terrible guy, because he couldn't fix the car'."
What the rational expectations devotees are actually saying is their standard line, which
is a radical departure from the scientific method. Their mantra is "it takes a model to beat a model."
That mantra violates the scientific method. Their models are designed to embody their rational expectations
theory. Those models' predictive ability is pathetic, which means that their theory and models are
both falsified and should be rejected. The academic proponents of modern macro models, however, assert
that their models are incapable of falsification by testing and predictive failure. This is not science,
but theology.
V.V. Chari's criticism of Romer is revealing. He complains that Romer does not want to "build
on [rational expectation theory's] foundations." Why would Romer want to commit such a pointless
act? Romer's point is that rational expectations is a failed theory that needs to be rejected so
macroeconomics can move on to useful endeavors.
A "foundation" in such a building metaphor is the deep, well-grounded stone or reinforced concrete
beneath the visible building that is attached to solid bedrock. Rational expectations theory
has no such empirical foundations. It was not based on testing that found that people behaved
in accordance with the theory. Behavioral economics and finance, by contrast, is based on a growing
empirical base – virtually all of which refutes the first three assumptions of the models. Similarly,
the work of Akerlof (1970), Akerlof & Romer (1993), and the work of white-collar criminologists has
falsified each of the first three assumptions of the models.
Further, the dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) models routinely fail the predictive
test and, as Romer details, fail despite the use of dozens of ways in which the models are "gamed"
with arbitrary inputs and restrictions that have no theoretical or empirical basis. Chari is right
to describe the modern macro model as an "edifice." I would add that it is a baroque edifice top
heavy with ornamental features designed to hide its lack of a foundation. Modern macro collapsed
as soon as its devotees tried to build without an empirical foundation.
The rational expectation devotees respond that predictive failures – no matter how extreme
or frequent – cannot falsify their models or their theories. The proponents claim that only a better
model, with superior predictive ability can beat their model. That might sound acceptable to
some, but there is a critical unstated twist. The many rival models actually used by the private
sector and central banks that produce far superior predictive ability can never be treated as "better
models" to these devotees because the models with far superior predictive powers reject rational
expectations theory, rational decision-making, and the "budget constraint." To the devotees, only
DSGE models that accept this trio of market fictions are eligible to be acceptable "models." Dr.
Kocherlakota states that acceptable models "share five key features." These five characteristics
define DSGE models.
They specify budget constraints for households, technologies for firms, and resource constraints
for the overall economy. They specify household preferences and firm objectives. They assume forward-looking
behavior for firms and households. They include the shocks that firms and households face. They are
models of the entire macroeconomy.
Kocherlakota's summary description is appropriately terse. He later explains the dogmatic
gloss that devotees place on each of these five points. The "budget constraint," for example, means
that nations with sovereign currencies such as the U.S. cannot run deficits, even to fight severe
recessions or depressions. Why? Because theoclassical economists are enormous believers in austerity.
As Kocherlakota archly phrased the matter, "freshwater" DSGE models were so attractive to theoclassical
macro types because their model perfectly tracked their ideology.
[A]lmost coincidentally-in these models, all government interventions (including all forms
of stabilization policy) are undesirable.
Yes, "almost coincidentally."
Specifying household preferences and firm objectives is equally erroneous, as Akerlof and
Romer's 1993 article on "Looting" demonstrated. "Firms" do not have "objectives." Employees have
"objectives," and the controlling officers' "objectives" are the most powerful drivers of employee
behavior.
As Akerlof and Romer (and every modern crisis) demonstrated, this frequently leads to firm practices
that harm the firm, the consumer, and the shareholders. Such behavior, however, is impossible under
the second assumption, so any model (such as control fraud or "looting") that violates the assumption
is not eligible to be a rival model because it these superior models do not produce "general equilibrium."
The "GE" in a "DSGE" model is general equilibrium, so rival models from economics and criminology
that note that the economy is not a self-correcting apparatus that produces general equilibrium are
ruled out as superior models even though they are superior in that they have an empirical and theoretical
basis and demonstrate far superior predictive results.
Kocherlakota unintentionally highlighted modern macros' inability to incorporate even massive
frauds driving national scandals and banking crises, despite the efforts of Akerlof (1970) (a market
for "lemons") and Akerlof and Romer 1993: ("looting") in this passage.
In the macro models of the 1980s, all mutually beneficial trades occur without delay. This
assumption of frictionless exchange made solving these models easy. However, it also made
the models less compelling.
He then goes on to a delighted description of macro economists now sometimes building in (arbitrary)
lags ("frictions") in the time required to accomplish "all mutually beneficial trades." But what
of the three great fraud epidemics that produced the U.S. financial crisis and the Great Recession?
Sorry, that's not allowed into the "friction" canon. The market model is still one of perfection
(albeit slightly delayed). It does not matter how many massive financial scandals occur in which
the largest UK banks and Wells Fargo deliberately abuse their customers by encouraging them to engage
in transactions that will harm them and make the bankers rich. It doesn't not matter that over ten
million Americans were induced by bankers and their agents to pay excessive interest rates in return
for yield spread premiums (YSP) to the bankers and brokers. None of these things are allowed to happen
in these models. Your better model, which includes such frauds and abuses, is not allowed precisely
because it (a) is better and (b) falsifies the theoclassical ideology underlying "rational expectations"
theory.
The assumption of "forward looking behavior" produces "expectations," which are assumed to be
accurate and rational. Theoclassical proponents claim that we all have the ability to predict vast
aspects of the financial future. While we are not perfect, we are optimal in our forecasts given
the state of knowledge. If your rival model lacks rational expectations, it isn't a real model. Romer
rejects the rational expectations myth, so he is incapable of presenting a superior model to the
devotees of rational expectations.
If macroeconomics, outside the cult of modern macro, were a car, it would not be "broken."
It would be episodically broken when the rational expectations devotees got hold of monetary or fiscal
policy. The rational expectations model fails the most fundamental test of a financial model – people
trying to make money by anticipating the macroeconomics consequences of changes in monetary and fiscal
policy overwhelmingly do not use their models because they are known to have pathetic predictive
ability. The alternative models that embrace Keynesian analysis and are not dependent on the fiction
of rational expectations function pretty well. The real world macro car, when driven by real world
drivers, works OK. Essentially, the rational expectations devotees say that we can never drive the
macro "car" because the public will defeat any effort to drive the economy in any direction. Instead,
the economy will lurch about n response to random technological "shocks" that cannot be predicted
because they occur without any relationship to any public policy choices.
Romer takes particular delight in shredding the pretension to "science" in the model's abuse of
shocks. Again, however, the Bloomberg article seriously misleads in making it appear that
his critique of shocks is novel. Then Minneapolis Fed Chair Dr.
Kocherlakota (formerly chair of the U. Minnesota economics department, where he was a "rational
expectations" devotee) forcefully owned up to the egregious predictive failures of the models. He
acknowledged that "macro models are driven by patently unrealistic shocks."
It is unfortunate that Bloomberg article about Romer's article is weak. It is useful, however,
because its journalistic inquiry allows us to know how deep in their bunker Sargent, Lucas, and Prescott
remain. They still refuse to engage substantively with Romer's critique of not only their failures
but their intellectual dishonesty and cowardice. It is astonishing that multiple economists were
awarded Nobel prizes for creating the increasingly baroque failure of modern macro. In any other
field it would be a scandal that would shake the discipline to the core and cause it to reexamine
how it conducted research and trained faculty. In economics, however, a huge proportion of Nobel
awards have gone to theoclassical economists whose predictions have been routinely falsified and
whose policy recommendations have proven disastrous. Theoclassical economists, with only a handful
of exceptions, express no concern about these failures.
I am completely confused about the prediction of "rational choices". Do they include going
bankrupt on purpose and letting your investors take the hit, burning your building down for the
insurance money, hostile takeover behavior where businesses are run into the ground on purpose,
tax strategies, people going on unemployment when they want a vacation from work, and on and on?
These are decisions that have a rationale for the people who make them, and they have not been
uncommon. Perhaps "economists" are best off observing not predicting "human behavior".
I was fortunate enough to have an econ. prof. (mid 70's) who was also my student counselor
tell me that unless I intended to work for the gov't or teach the subject, a degree in econ. was
pointless. What's taught in class has very little to do with the real world.
Anyone who contends that econ is a "science" rather than philosophy is deluded or just trying
to protect their place in the hierarchy. Seems that "physics envy" is never going away.
I'll see your DSGE model & raise with with the IBGYBG* model; in theory, you should win that
hand but I'll be walking away with the actual money.
*(by the time this blows up) I'll Be Gone & You'll Be Gone
I majored in economics. as you go up higher up into the dismal science, the more deranged
it gets. The reason they are vague is because they don't know what they are talking about. They
don't consider the real world, and as Bill Black's so brilliantly points out, they are in no hurry
to out themselves as frauds.
thanks, Simon. there must be something in those mental masturbation models for some people.
justification for something the 99 % are all paying for most likely
I am not sure which is the greatest shortcoming of the macro-economy theory described by Black:
rational expectations or global equilibrium?
In some natural sciences, abandoning equilibrium models and replacing them with dynamic
models have led to great progress, and looking at the actual time evolution of economies, there
is a great deal of dynamics, such as growth, recessions, demography, natural catastrophes, immigration/emigration,
resource discovery and depletion, technological progress.
I sometimes like to use the analogy of the famous failure of the Tacoma Narrows bridge failure.
The engineers calculated the maximum force that the wind would have on the bridge, but didn't
calculate the dynamic aerodynamic effect as the bridge deck swayed in the wind. The result was
a spectacular failure.
Since our economy has been gradually going casino for so many years, it makes sense that
the folks who hold the reigns would make every effort to assure that all their key players adhere
to their singular perspectives.
The most important of these perspectives is that there is no higher human purpose than to make
a lot of money, in essence, that greed is good.
Thus the problem facing economists worshiping at the altar of "rational expectations" is that
the only rational expectation that is accepted as 'truly rational', is first and foremost, the
love of money.
This leads to problems for businesses, as truly selfish, and money-motivated people are actually
rare, as most people have a wide range of possible motivations working in their lives.
This is why business 'leaders' give prospective employees tests to find the people they can
'trust', which is to say find those who are motivated by money, which is the only motivating factor
our masters find useful.
Of course those who are motivated exclusively by the love of money are also those who believe
that austerity is the proper medicine for the rest of us.
There's one more thing about people who are motivated only by the need to accumulate money,
they also tend to steal anything that isn't tied down.
This doesn't bother FIRE sector employers since they are only concerned to ferret-out those
whose motivations might be polluted by inclinations other than greed.
Anyway, it seems to me that the importance of 'rational expectations' is in predicting the
behavior of FIRE sector employees, not the economy as a whole.
As far as the bulk of humanity goes, the only true 'rational expectation' is that people have
many and varied motivations that make it hard to predict their behavior.
Hey Econ. Prof. – I'll see your DSGE model & raise with my IBGYBG** model. In theory, you'll
win the hand but we'll see who actually walks away the money.
**(by the time this thing blows up) I'll Be Gone, You'll Be Gone
The Nobel Memorial Prize in economics promotes the illusion that economics is a science.
It is better conceptualized as a literary genre, and economists should be forced to compete with
other writers for the prize in literature.
We need to get back to basics, to the real economy of people and necessary supplies to support
people. Model a simple city, with a simple agricultural hinterland. You can know how many bushels
of grain equivalent are necessary for subsistence economy. You can know how many people you have
in the countryside and in the city. You can know how many bushels of grain equivalent are in storage.
You can estimate how much of the economy is barter and how much is cash purchase. You can know
how much money is in circulation, and from those determine what velocity the money needs to have,
to pay for all that bushels of grain equivalent. You don't need calculus, just arithmetic. End
the sophistry and obscurity thru unnecessary complexity.
interesting about Kocherlakota formerly being a rational expectations devotee just the
phrase 'rational expectations' is mind boggling as if there were no reaction to any action anywhere.
Jack Bogle was on the news this morning laughing about stock picking and saying that every stock
picker that makes money is balanced out by another one who loses money and so the only thing that
makes money net-net is the long term progress of the market, (or society I would say – and that
requires planning).
Not one mention of Chaos or Catastrophe Theory, which are theories of systems with non
linear feedback (aka: Fear and Greed), which appear to me to be fundamental aspects of Economics,
especially the humans who are the Economy.
Perhaps an approach to a solution for economists who are rightly disgusted with the continuing
failures of macroeconomics is to confess that economics is theology/philosophy and not science.
Economics lands on the "mammon" side of serving God or mammon.
One doesn't have to have read any Reformation theology, but only to have observed more
or less casually that human being are scarcely rational even about their own self-interest, and
then only self-deceptively. Thomas Frank has commented effectively on that point in the political
arena in What's the Matter with Kansas. To wit: Republicans have, he points out, diverted voters
attention to social/cultural issues while picking their pockets. Perhaps one might sense an intersection
of politics and economics on the latter point.
There is less need to moralize about "sin" than to see it as an heuristic. That is, one might
begin by assuming that businesses and individuals are not only guided by rationality, but to the
contrary are aided by economists, say, of the U of Minnesota ilk, to rely upon the myth of rationality
to cloak fundamental selfishness, which economists have neutered by casting it as "self-interest."
Selfishness is the root of continuing, destructive "irrationality," because it is part of what
defines a root of sin, i.e., missing the mark.
An economics of gratitude for shared abundance would be closer to the mark.
Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the
government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success
of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, controlled press and a mere token opposition
party.
1. Dummy up . If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.
2. Wax indignant . This is also known as the "how dare you" gambit.
3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news
blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors."
4. Knock down straw men . Deal only with the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Even better,
create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors and give them lead play when you appear to debunk
all the charges, real and fanciful alike.
5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nut," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot" and,
of course, "rumor monger." You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people
you have thus maligned.
6. Impugn motives . Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not
really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to
make money.
7. Invoke authority . Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.
8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."
9. Come half-clean . This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hang-out
route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively
harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back
position quite different from the one originally taken.
10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.
11. Reason backward , using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction,
troublesome evidence is irrelevant. For example: We have a completely free press. If they know of
evidence that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma
City bombing they would have reported it. They haven't reported it, so there was no prior knowledge
by the BATF. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a
press that would report it.
12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely.
13. Change the subject . This technique includes creating and/or reporting a distraction.
At least with Trump I expect him to talk crap but
Obama talks crap as well when he should know better:
The values that we talked about -- the values of democracy, and free speech, and international
norms, and rule of law, respecting the ability of other countries to determine their own destiny
and preserve their sovereignty and territorial integrity -- those things are not something
that we can set aside.
"... The Demon In Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations In Free Societies . ..."
"... Brave New World ..."
"... The Demon In Democracy ..."
"... he explains how Poland cast off the bonds of communism only to find that liberal democracy imposed similar interdictions on free thought and debate: ..."
"... Very quickly the world became hidden under a new ideological shell and the people became hostage to another version of the Newspeak but with similar ideological mystifications. Obligatory rituals of loyalty and condemnations were revived, this time with a different object of worship and a different enemy. ..."
"... The new commissars of the language appeared and were given powerful prerogatives, and just as before, mediocrities assumed their self-proclaimed authority to track down ideological apostasy and condemn the unorthodox - all, of course, for the glory of the new system and the good of the new man. ..."
"... Media - more refined than under communism - performed a similar function: standing at the forefront of the great transformation leading to a better world and spreading the corruption of the language to the entire social organism and all its cells. ..."
"... Trump's victory seems logical as a continuation of a more general process that has been unveiling in the Western World: Hungary, Poland, Brexit, possible political reshufflings in Germany, France, Austria, etc. ..."
"... More and more people say No ..."
"... What seems to be common in the developments in Europe and the US is a growing mistrust towards the political establishment that has been in power for a long time. People have a feeling that in many cases this is the same establishment despite the change of the governments. ..."
"... This establishment is characterized by two things: first, both in the US and in Europe (and in Europe even more so) its representatives unabashedly declare that there is no alternative to their platform, that there is practically one set of ideas - their own - every decent person may subscribe to, and that they themselves are the sole distributors of political respectability; second, the leaders of this establishment are evidently of the mediocre quality, and have been such long enough for the voters to notice. ..."
"... Because the ruling political elites believe themselves to steer the society in the only correct political course it should take, and to be the best quality products of the Western political culture, they try to present the current conflict as a revolt of the unenlightened, confused and manipulated masses against the enlightened elites. ..."
"... The new aristocrats are full of contempt for the riffraff, do not mince words to bully them, use foul language, break the rules of decency - and doing all this does not make them feel any less aristocratic. ..."
"... When eight years ago America elected as their president a completely unknown and inexperienced politician, and not exactly an exemplar of political virtue to boot, this choice was universally acclaimed as the triumph of political enlightenment, and the president was awarded the Nobel Prize in advance, before he could do anything (not that he did anything of value afterwards). The continuation of this politics by Hillary Clinton for another eight years would have elevated this establishment and their ideas to an even stronger position with all deplorable consequences. ..."
"... Many Christians are understandably relieved that the state's ongoing assault on the churches and on religious liberty in the name of sex-and-gender ideology, will probably be halted under the new president. ..."
"... Q: Trump is a politician of the nationalist Right, but he is not a conservative in any philosophical or cultural sense. ..."
"... Had the vote gone only a bit differently in some states, today we would be talking about the political demise of American conservatism. Instead, the Republican Party is going to be stronger in government than it has been in a very long time - but the party has been shaken to its core by Trump's destruction of its establishment. Is it credible to say that Trump destroyed conservatism - or is it more accurate to say that the Republican Party, through its own follies, destroyed conservatism as we have known it, and opened the door for the nationalist Trump? ..."
"... The new generations of the neocons gave up on big ideas while the theocons, old or new, never managed to have a noticeable impact on the Republican mainstream. ..."
"... The Demon in Democracy ..."
"... Today the phrase "more Europe" does not mean "more classical education, more Latin and Greek, more knowledge about classical philosophy and scholasticism", but it means giving more power to the European Commission. No wonder an increasing number of people when they hear about Europe associate it with the EU, and not with Plato, Thomas Aquinas or Johann Sebastian Bach. ..."
"... Considering that in every Western country education has been, for quite a long time, in a deep crisis and that no government has succeeded in overcoming this crisis, a mere idea of bringing back classical education into schools in which young people can hardly read and write in their own native language sounds somewhat surrealist. ..."
"... The results of the elections must have shaken the EU elites, and from that point of view Trump's victory was beneficial for those Europeans like myself who fear the federalization of the European Union and its growing ideological monopoly. There is more to happen in Europe in the coming years so the hope is that the EU hubris will suffer further blows and that the EU itself will become more self-restrained and more responsive to the aspirations of European peoples. ..."
Legutko is a Polish philosopher and politician who was active in the anti-communist resistance.
He is most recently the author of
The Demon In Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations In Free Societies . In this post from September,
I said that reading the book - which is clearly and punchily written - was like
taking a red pill - meaning that it's hard to see our own political culture the same way after
reading Legutko. His provocative thesis is that liberal democracy, as a modern political philosophy,
has a lot more in common with that other great modern political philosophy, communism, than we care
to think. He speaks as a philosopher who grew up under communism, who fought it as a member of Solidarity,
and who took part in the reconstruction of Poland as a liberal democracy. It has been said that the
two famous inhuman dystopias of 20th century English literature - Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's
Brave New World - correspond, respectively, to Soviet communism and mass hedonistic technocracy.
Reading Legutko, you understand the point very well.
In
this post , I quote several passages from The Demon In Democracy . Among them, these
paragraphs in which he explains how Poland cast off the bonds of communism only to find that
liberal democracy imposed similar interdictions on free thought and debate:
Very quickly the world became hidden under a new ideological shell and the people became
hostage to another version of the Newspeak but with similar ideological mystifications. Obligatory
rituals of loyalty and condemnations were revived, this time with a different object of worship
and a different enemy.
The new commissars of the language appeared and were given powerful prerogatives, and just
as before, mediocrities assumed their self-proclaimed authority to track down ideological apostasy
and condemn the unorthodox - all, of course, for the glory of the new system and the good of the
new man.
Media - more refined than under communism - performed a similar function: standing at the
forefront of the great transformation leading to a better world and spreading the corruption of
the language to the entire social organism and all its cells.
And:
If the old communists lived long enough to see the world of today, they would be devastated
by the contrast between how little they themselves had managed to achieve in their antireligious
war and how successful the liberal democrats have been. All the objectives the communists set
for themselves, and which they pursued with savage brutality, were achieved by the liberal democrats
who, almost without any effort and simply by allowing people to drift along with the flow of modernity,
succeeded in converting churches into museums, restaurants, and public buildings, secularizing
entire societies, making secularism the militant ideology, pushing religions to the sidelines,
pressing the clergy into docility, and inspiring powerful mass culture with a strong antireligious
bias in which a priest must be either a liberal challenging the Church of a disgusting villain.
After the US election, Prof. Legutko agreed to answer a few questions from me via e-mail. Here
is our correspondence:
RD:What do you think of Donald Trump's victory, especially in context of Brexit
and the changing currents of Western politics?
RL: In hindsight, Trump's victory seems logical as a continuation of a more general
process that has been unveiling in the Western World: Hungary, Poland, Brexit, possible political
reshufflings in Germany, France, Austria, etc. What this process, having many currents and
facets, boils down to is difficult to say as it appears more negative than positive. More
and more people say No , whereas it is not clear what exactly they are in favor of.
What seems to be common in the developments in Europe and the US is a growing mistrust
towards the political establishment that has been in power for a long time. People have a feeling
that in many cases this is the same establishment despite the change of the governments.
This establishment is characterized by two things: first, both in the US and in Europe
(and in Europe even more so) its representatives unabashedly declare that there is no alternative
to their platform, that there is practically one set of ideas - their own - every decent person
may subscribe to, and that they themselves are the sole distributors of political respectability;
second, the leaders of this establishment are evidently of the mediocre quality, and have been
such long enough for the voters to notice.
Because the ruling political elites believe themselves to steer the society in the only
correct political course it should take, and to be the best quality products of the Western political
culture, they try to present the current conflict as a revolt of the unenlightened, confused and
manipulated masses against the enlightened elites. In Europe it sometimes looks like an attempt
to build a new form of an aristocratic order, since a place in the hierarchy is allotted to individuals
and groups not according to their actual education, or by the power of their minds, or by the
strength of their arguments, but by a membership in this or that class. The new aristocrats
are full of contempt for the riffraff, do not mince words to bully them, use foul language, break
the rules of decency - and doing all this does not make them feel any less aristocratic.
It is, I think, this contrast between, on the one hand, arrogance with which the new aristocrats
preach their orthodoxy, and on the other, a leaping-to-the-eye low quality of their leadership
that ultimately pushed a lot of people in Europe and the US to look for alternatives in the world
that for too long was presented to them as having no alternative.
When eight years ago America elected as their president a completely unknown and inexperienced
politician, and not exactly an exemplar of political virtue to boot, this choice was universally
acclaimed as the triumph of political enlightenment, and the president was awarded the Nobel Prize
in advance, before he could do anything (not that he did anything of value afterwards). The continuation
of this politics by Hillary Clinton for another eight years would have elevated this establishment
and their ideas to an even stronger position with all deplorable consequences.
For an outside observer like myself, America after the election appears to be divided
but in a peculiar way. On the one side there is the Obama-Clinton America claiming to represent
what is best in the modern politics, more or less united by a clear left-wing agenda whose aim
is to continue the restructuring of the American society, family, schools, communities, morals.
This America is in tune with what is considered to be a general tendency of the modern world,
including Europe and non-European Western countries. But there seems to exist another America,
deeply dissatisfied with the first one, angry and determined, but at the same time confused and
chaotic, longing for action and energy, but unsure of itself, proud of their country's lost greatness,
but having no great leaders, full of hope but short of ideas, a strange mixture of groups and
ideologies, with no clear identity or political agenda. This other America, if personified, would
resemble somebody not very different from Donald Trump.
Q: Trump won 52 percent of the Catholic vote, and over 80 percent of the white Evangelical
Christian vote - this, despite the fact that he is in no way a serious Christian, and, on evidence
of his words and deeds, is barely a Christian at all. Many Christians are understandably
relieved that the state's ongoing assault on the churches and on religious liberty in the name
of sex-and-gender ideology, will probably be halted under the new president. From your
perspective, should US Christians be hopeful about their prospects under a Trump presidency, or
instead wary of being tempted by a false prophet?
A: Christians have been the largest persecuted religious group in the non-Western world, but
sadly they have also been the largest victimized religious group in those Western countries that
have contracted a disease of political correctness (which in practice means almost all of them).
Some Western Christians, including the clergy, abandoned any thought of resistance and not only
capitulated but joined the forces of the enemy and started disciplining their own flock. No wonder
that many Christians pray for better times hoping that at last there will appear a party or a
leader that could loosen the straitjacket of political correctness and blunt its anti-Christian
edge. It was then to be expected that having a choice between Trump and Clinton, they would turn
to the former. But is Trump such a leader?
Anti-Christian prejudices have taken an institutional and legal form of such magnitude that
no president, no matter how much committed to the cause, can change it quickly. Today in America
it is difficult even to articulate one's opposition to political correctness because the public
and private discourse has been profoundly corrupted by the left-wing ideology, and the American
people have weaned themselves from any alternative language (and so have the Europeans). Any movement
away from this discourse requires more awareness of the problem and more courage than Trump and
his people seem to have. What Trump could and should do, and it will be a test of his intentions,
are three things.
First, he should refrain from involving his administration in the anti-Christian actions, whether
direct or indirect, thus breaking off with the practice of his predecessor. Second, he should
nominate the right persons for the vacancies in the Supreme Court. Third, he should resist the
temptation to cajole the politically correct establishment, as some Republicans have been doing,
because not only will it be a bad signal, but also display naďvete: this establishment is never
satisfied with anything but an unconditional surrender of its opponents.
Whether these decisions will be sufficient for American Christians to launch a counteroffensive
and to reclaim the lost areas, I do not know. A lot will depend on what the Christians will do
and how outspoken they will be in making their case public.
Q: Trump is a politician of the nationalist Right, but he is not a conservative in any
philosophical or cultural sense.Had the vote gone only a bit differently in some states,
today we would be talking about the political demise of American conservatism. Instead, the Republican
Party is going to be stronger in government than it has been in a very long time - but the party
has been shaken to its core by Trump's destruction of its establishment. Is it credible to say
that Trump destroyed conservatism - or is it more accurate to say that the Republican Party, through
its own follies, destroyed conservatism as we have known it, and opened the door for the nationalist
Trump?
A: Conservatism has always been problematic in America, where the word itself has acquired
more meanings, some of them quite bizarre, than in Europe. A quite common habit, to give an example,
of mentioning libertarianism and conservatism in one breath, thereby suggesting that they are
somehow essentially related, is proof enough that a conservative agenda is difficult for the Americans
to swallow. If I am not mistaken, the Republican Party has long relinquished, with very few exceptions,
any closer link with conservatism. If conservatism, whatever the precise definition, has something
to do with a continuity of culture, Christian and Classical roots of this culture, classical metaphysics
and anthropology, beauty and virtue, a sense of decorum, liberal education, family, republican
paideia, and other related notions, these are not the elements that constitute an integral part
of an ideal type of an Republican identity in today's America. Whether it has been different before,
I am not competent to judge, but certainly there was a time when the intellectual institutions
somehow linked to the Republican Party debated these issues. The new generations of the neocons
gave up on big ideas while the theocons, old or new, never managed to have a noticeable impact
on the Republican mainstream.
Given that there is this essential philosophical weakness within the modern Republican identity,
Donald Trump does not look like an obvious person to change it by inspiring a resurgence of conservative
thinking. I do not exclude however, unlikely as it seems today, that the new administration will
need – solely for instrumental reasons – some big ideas to mobilize its electorate and to give
them a sense of direction, and that a possible candidate to perform this function will be some
kind of conservatism. Liberalism, libertarianism and saying 'no' to everything will certainly
not serve the purpose. Nationalism looks good and played its role during two or three months of
the campaign, but might be insufficient for the four (eight?) years that will follow.
Q: Though the Republicans will soon have their hands firmly on the levers of political power,
cultural institutions - especially academia and the news and entertainment media - are still thoroughly
progressive. In The Demon in Democracy , you write that "it is hard to imagine freedom
without classical philosophy and the heritage of antiquity, without Christianity and scholasticism
[and] many other components of the entire Western civilization." How can we hope to return to
the roots of Western civilization when the culture-forming institutions are so hostile to it?
A: It is true that we live at a time of practically one orthodoxy which the majority of intellectuals
and artists piously accept, and this orthodoxy - being some kind of liberal progressivism - has
less and less connection with the foundations of Western civilization. This is perhaps more visible
in Europe than in the US. In Europe, the very term "Europe" has been consistently applied to the
European Union. Today the phrase "more Europe" does not mean "more classical education, more
Latin and Greek, more knowledge about classical philosophy and scholasticism", but it means giving
more power to the European Commission. No wonder an increasing number of people when they hear
about Europe associate it with the EU, and not with Plato, Thomas Aquinas or Johann Sebastian
Bach.
It seems thus obvious that those who want to strengthen or, as is more often the case, reintroduce
classical culture in the modern world will not find allies among the liberal elites. For a liberal
it is natural to distance himself from the classical philosophy, from Christianity and scholasticism
rather than to advocate their indispensability for the cultivation of the Western mind. After
all, these philosophies – they would say - were created in a pre-modern non-democratic and non-liberal
world by men who despised women, kept slaves and took seriously religious superstitions. But it
is not only the liberal prejudices that are in the way. A break-up with the classical tradition
is not a recent phenomenon, and we have been for too long exposed to the world from which this
tradition was absent.
There is little chance that a change may be implemented through a democratic process. Considering
that in every Western country education has been, for quite a long time, in a deep crisis and
that no government has succeeded in overcoming this crisis, a mere idea of bringing back classical
education into schools in which young people can hardly read and write in their own native language
sounds somewhat surrealist. A rule that bad education drives out good education seems to
prevail in democratic societies. And yet I cannot accept the conclusion that we are doomed to
live in societies in which neo-barbarism is becoming a norm.
How can we reverse this process then? In countries where education is primarily the responsibility
of the state, it is the governments that may - hypothetically at least - have some role to play
by using the economic and political instruments to stimulate the desired changes in education.
In the US – I suspect - the government's role is substantially more reduced. So far however the
European governments, including the conservative ones, have not made much progress in reversing
the destructive trend.
The problem is a more fundamental one because it touches upon the controversy about what constitutes
the Western civilization. The liberal progressives have managed to impose on our minds a notion
that Christianity, classical metaphysics, etc., are no longer what defines our Western identity.
A lot of conservatives – intellectuals and politicians – have readily acquiesced to this notion.
Unless and until this changes and our position of what constitutes the West becomes an integral
part of the conservative agenda and a subject of public debate, there is not much hope things
can change. The election of Donald Trump has obviously as little to do with Scholasticism or Greek
philosophy as it has with quantum mechanics, but nevertheless it may provide an occasion to reopen
an old question about what makes the American identity and to reject a silly but popular answer
that this identity is procedural rather than substantive. And this might be a first step to talk
about the importance of the roots of the Western civilization.
You have written that "liberalism is more about struggle with non-liberal adversaries than
deliberation with them." Now even some on the left admit that its embrace of political correctness,
multiculturalism, and so-called "diversity," is partly responsible for Trump's victory. How do
Brexit and Trump change the terms of the political conversation, especially now that it has been
shown that there is no such thing as "the right side of history"?
Liberalism, despite its boastful declarations to the contrary, is not and has never been about
diversity, multiplicity or pluralism. It is about homogeneity and unanimity. [Neo]Liberalism wants
everyone and everything to be [neo]liberal, and does not tolerate anyone or anything that is not
liberal. This is the reason why the [neo]liberals have such a strong sense of the enemy. Whoever
disagrees with them is not just an opponent who may hold different views but a potential or actual
fascist, a Hitlerite, a xenophobe, a nationalist, or – as they often say in the EU – a populist.
Such a miserable person deserves to be condemned, derided, humiliated and abused.
The Brexit vote could have been looked at as an exercise in diversity and, as such, dear to
every pluralist, or empirical evidence that the EU in its present form failed to accommodate diversity.
But the reaction of the European elites was different and predictable – threats and condemnations.
Before Brexit the EU reacted in a similar way to the non-[neo][neo]liberals winning elections
in Hungary and then in Poland, the winners being immediately classified as fascists and the elections
as not quite legitimate. The [neo]liberal mindset is such that accepts only those elections and
choices in which the correct party wins.
I am afraid there will be a similar reaction to Donald Trump and his administration. As long
as the [neo]liberals set the tone of the public debate, they will continue to bully both those
who, they say, were wrongly elected and those who wrongly voted. This will not stop until it becomes
clear beyond any doubt that the changes in Europe and in the US are not temporary and ephemeral
and that there is a viable alternative which will not disappear with the next swing of the democratic
pendulum. But this alternative, as I said before, is still in the process of formation and we
are not sure what will be the final result.
There will be elections in several key European nations next year - Germany and France, in
particular. What effect do you expect Trump's victory to have on European voters? How do you,
as a Pole, view Trump's fondness for Vladimir Putin?
From a European perspective, Clinton's victory would have meant a tremendous boost to the EU
bureaucracy, its ideology and its "more Europe" strategy. The forces of the self-proclaimed Enlightenment
would have gone ecstatic and, consequently, would have made the world even more unbearable not
only for conservatives. The results of the elections must have shaken the EU elites, and from
that point of view Trump's victory was beneficial for those Europeans like myself who fear the
federalization of the European Union and its growing ideological monopoly. There is more to happen
in Europe in the coming years so the hope is that the EU hubris will suffer further blows and
that the EU itself will become more self-restrained and more responsive to the aspirations of
European peoples.
"The fact that he made some warm remarks about Putin during the campaign does not make me happy."
You would think an advocate against the Western liberal establishment would view Putin favorably,
as Pat Buchanan does. I guess old nationalist rivalries trump sticking it to the snooty elitists
in this case.
[NFR: Are you serious? Legutko's country was occupied and tyrannized by the Soviets for
nearly 50 years. Poland has had to worry about Russian imperialism for much longer than that,
as a matter of national survival. Any Pole that doesn't worry about Putin's ambitions is nuts.
- RD]
"it may provide an occasion to reopen an old question about what makes the American identity and
to reject a silly but popular answer that this identity is procedural rather than substantive"
That's a good assessment, from an outside observer.
However, his anti-Russian views appear to be driven by his own Polish nationalism and past
Warsaw Pact Soviet imperialism, the latter ideologically and practically as dead as Josef Stalin,
and objectivity thus distorted, are much less clear. Imagine, welcoming a foreign imperial occupation
– one tied to the very liberal order he critiques so effectively.
I think that anti-interventionists, cheered by those Trump campaign statements questioning
the NATO mission post-communism, and defense cost bearing so that clients become real allies instead,
or not, are far more objectively considerate of Americans' interests through a drawdown from aggressive
globalist/militarist hegemony, than his understandable but very subjective Polish parochial prejudices.
re education: Andrew Pudewa for Secretary of Education! (Seriously, he said on FB he has some
idea what he'd do if he could get that post.)
re Russia: Hillary's rhetoric must not have translated very well over there At any rate, if
the Poles are so scared of Russian attack, they can train their own sons to defend them. Or maybe
they should just learn to get along with their neighbors.
"The liberal progressives have managed to impose on our minds a notion that Christianity, classical
metaphysics, etc., are no longer what defines our Western identity."
I'm sorry, but this is a lunatic idea. Too bad it is the lynchpin of all "new right" thought.
You want to return to some imaginary West in which nothing happened in intellectual life after
about 1650.
It would take a book to properly refute Legutko and I am not inclined to do the work of writing
one but to put it simply, he has no knowledge of how Americans think. Americans are, at heart,
pragmatists. We don't care about ideology and most of the time we don't bother much with religion
either except to give polite lip service to it. It has no claim on the American soul.
Americans are at heart easy going people who have no use for either the loons of Liberalism
or Conservatism. Right now it is the Liberals, with their particular brand of silliness that are
out of favor. A few years ago it was Conservatives that no one wanted for next door neighbors.
The things Legutko writes of Americans could not care less about.
The American embrace of Putin is simply the result of American disgust with Europe, a continent
populated by a peculiar species of coward and ungrateful wretch, a museum that produces nothing
of any value any more and is governed by self-righteous morons who have nothing better to do with
their time than to lecture the infinitely more intelligent Americans. The American attitude towards
Europe is, "To Hell with it." In such an environment, of course we are willing to let Putin have
the damned place and the Devil give him good office. Trump, with his expressed contempt for the
opinions of foreign leaders, especially the Europeans, fits this perfectly.
I think an acceptable deal could be reached with Russia.
You have to think about it from their perspective: They have lost all power and influence not
only in the territories that Stalin seized, but also in many that were in the traditional sphere
of the Russian Empire. They view extension of Western influence and NATO into these territories
as an act of aggression and American aggrandizement. The loss of Ukraine is the cruelest cut of
all, because Kiev is the cradle of Russian Orthodox civilization.
Russian nationalists loathe Gorbachev, in part because he could easily have negotiated a deal
enforcing neutrality in formally Soviet-dominated territories as Soviet troops were withdrawn.
Instead, from their point of view, he gave it all away for nothing and left the Motherland open
to encirclement.
There is plainly space for a deal that would include security guarantees for Russia's neighbors
but also mandatory neutrality. Russia would take that deal. So far at least, we wouldn't, because
US policymakers want encirclement and domination in the region.
Let's see if Trump rethinks this. Russia is very imperfect, but we face much bigger and more
important threats. We'd be better off forging an alliance with Russia if we can.
Mr. Legutko is a member of PiS, the party which currently rules Poland. Immediately after coming
to power they turned all public TV Stations into Government mouthpieces, and practically shut
down the supreme court.
Communism is not a "political philosophy"; it's an economic theory. If they guy actually called
it a political theory (he may not have; those may be Rod's words, written in haste) then he's
no more worth listening to than a astronomer who asserts that the sun and planet revolve around
the Earth.
"this establishment is never satisfied with anything but an unconditional surrender of its opponents."
The Right should have learned this lesson with the Regan Amnesty. "A Deal is never a Deal"
with the left. For the Left, any comprise is just an opportunity to move sidelines yard markers.
Rod, do yourself a huge favor and if you don't have it already, pick up a copy of C. Lasch's
posthumous book The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy. For some reason
I'd missed this one along the way, but I bought a copy recently and started it over the weekend.
He wrote it in the early 90's, but it's so on-target you'd think it was written yesterday. The
introduction alone is worth the price of the book - obviously he did not have Trump, or even a
Trump-like character in mind, but his observations on conservatism, liberalism, populism, etc.,
are head-shakingly accurate. Not to be missed.
"he explains how Poland cast off the bonds of communism only to find that liberal democracy imposed
similar interdictions on free thought and debate."
I am sorry, but I have travelled throughout Eastern Europe before and after the fall of communism.
Anyone who tells me that liberal democracy there (where it exists) imposes "similar interdictions
on free thought and debate" is just not to be taken seriously.
This is an article I would have posted on Facebook if the tag line were not so inflammatory that
it would go unread and in fact do more harm than good.
This makes perfect sense . . . or it's utter nonsense. The problem is Donald Trump is a wild card.
No one knows exactly how Trump will play or be played. If Trump accepts the role of Head of State,
leaving the details of governing to others (Pense, Ryan, McConnell, whomever) there might be some
consistency. A conservative agenda (as Americans have come to know it) will be possible.
But if the Donald Trump who has displayed zero substantive knowledge about anything decides
to actually govern (or worse yet, sporadically and whimsically govern) then in the immortal words
of Bette Davis: "Fasten your seat belts! It's going to be a bumpy night."
Legutko is going to be disappointed but, I suspect, not surprised when Trump simply throws open
the door. And then asks Putin if he can get the base construction contracts.
I'm reminded of the lyrics in a song by The Who: "Meet the new boss, Same as the old boss." The
song title is "We won't get fooled again." Good luck with that.
Maybe there is just something in the nature of humans which compels us to want to impose our
biases, beliefs, and visions of society and the future upon those around us. Maybe it just boils
down to eventual fatigue from constantly arguing with people who will never end up agreeing to
your point of view: the simple solution has always been to make your opponents shut up. Failing
that, we resort to locking them up, or driving them out, or ultimately killing them.
With regard to this quote:
"Whether these decisions will be sufficient for American Christians to launch a counteroffensive
and to reclaim the lost areas, I do not know. A lot will depend on what the Christians will do
and how outspoken they will be in making their case public."
I'm not sure how to take this. Is he merely hoping to carve out some space for Christians to
co-exist with a larger secular majority. Or does he still harbor hope of restoring Christianity
as a central element of Western Culture, against the resistance of the secularists? If the latter
is his dream, I would point out that using institutional and political power to re-impose Christianity
upon the masses is no different that what the Left is doing now impose its preferred set of beliefs.
He would just be looking for a new Boss, if you will.
With regard to the European Project: It is worth remembering that European Nationalism resulted
many centuries of warfare between contending powers on the continent. It culminated in two world
wars, the second of which left most of that area of the world in ruins. The original motivation
for the European Union was to end that cycle of warfare, by more tightly linking together the
economies of these nations.
Now we see a resurgence of Russian Nationalism, with that country seeking to expand its sphere
of influence again, and gleefully egging on the Nationalists in Western Europe, with the hope
of finishing off the NATO military alliance. As emotionally satisfying as it might be to stop
the drive toward further unification and uniformity, a return to something worse is clearly possible.
Now Legutko clearly believes that the European Union and NATO were failing at the task of restraining
Russian imperialism anyway. From a Eastern European perspective, that is probably true. But if
you look around the conservative blogosphere, it isn't hard to find self described conservatives
who see that as a pragmatic necessity. They say it was a mistake to expand NATO, that those countries
were always naturally in the Russian sphere of influence, and coping with that reality it their
problem, and not our problem. The irony is that the more nationalistic and less global we become
in our perspective, the less likely we are to help protect Legutko's homeland from its larger,
aggressive neighbor to the East.
This guy derides the neocons, but on Russia, he is as bad or worse than them. How is Russia an
imperial nation when they have stood by and let NATO expand to their doorstep when the US promised
it would go no further east than Berlin? How is it imperialist that they secured their military
foothold in Crimea (killing no one I might add) against a US backed, fascist coup against the
democratically elected government of Ukraine?
[NFR: I think you should consider
the history of Poland
in the 19th and 20th centuries - especially from 1945 through 1989 - if you want to understand
why Poles worry about Russian imperialism. - RD]
I loathe the election of Trump and what it will do here (so much so, that our family will likely
move to Switzerland, where my wife is from and in which my 3 daughters all have citizenship),
but one of the quite reasonable things that Trump has said is that "If we got along with Russia,
it wouldn't be a bad thing."
I don't think that means letting Putin do whatever he wants, and I have zero or sub-zero faith
that Trump will implement anything like a sensible approach to whatever Putin does, but trying
to get along with Russia is not crazy.
At any rate, if the Poles are so scared of Russian attack, they can train their own sons to
defend them. Or maybe they should just learn to get along with their neighbors.
These beastly Poles. Always provoking their Russian and German neighbors.
Legato embraces his own set of traumatic, reactionary 'isms' which, like most 'isms', are covered
with a patina of light philosophy to make them seem like the wisdom of the ages. I'm not sure
he's entirely comfortable with the outcomes of the Enlightenment
[NFR: Of course he's not! Neither am I. Where you been? - RD]
"... The various accounts present an array of neoconservative thinkers-notably Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and Walter Slocombe-who implemented their own policies rather than those of the president they served. Moreover, one of the major influences on these policies was the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi, who had thought he would be put in charge of postwar Iraq, having "been led to believe that by Perle and Feith," as General Garner related to the journalist Thomas Ricks. And while the responsibility for what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush-who, to his credit, avers as much in his own memoir-this episode demonstrates how knowledgeable mid-level advisors can hijack the American presidency to suit their own goals. ..."
"... Regarding the de-Baathification order, both Bremer and Feith have written their own accounts of the week leading up to it, and the slight discrepancy between their recollections is revealing in what it tells us about Bremer-and consequently about Wolfowitz and Libby for having selected him. At first blush, Bremer and Feith's justifications for the policy appear to dovetail, each comparing postwar Iraq to postwar Nazi Germany. ..."
"... Simply put, Bremer was tempted by headline-grabbing policies. He was unlikely to question any action that offered opportunities to make bold gestures, which made him easy to influence. Indeed, another quality of Bremer's professional persona that conspicuously emerges from accounts of the period is his unwillingness to think for himself. His memoir shows that he was eager to put Jay Garner in his place from the moment he arrived in Iraq, yet he was unable to defend himself on his own when challenged by Garner, who-according to Bob Woodward in his book State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III -was "stunned" by the disbanding order. Woodward claims that when Garner confronted Bremer about it, "Bremer, looking surprised, asked Garner to go see Walter B. Slocombe." ..."
"... To help untangle these problems, I was fortunate to have Walt Slocombe as Senior Adviser for defense and security affairs. A brilliant former Rhodes Scholar from Princeton and a Harvard-educated attorney, Walt had worked for Democratic administrations for decades on high-level strategic and arms control issues. ..."
"... Although a Democrat, he has maintained good relations with Wolfowitz and is described by some as a 'Democratic hawk,'" a remark that once again places Wolfowitz in close proximity to Bremer and the disbanding order. ..."
"... This further illustrates the disconnect between what was decided by the NSC in Washington in March and by the CPA in Iraq in May. In his memoir, Feith notes that although he supported the disbanding policy, "the decision became associated with a number of unnecessary problems, including the apparent lack of interagency review." ..."
"... I should have insisted on more debate on Jerry's orders, especially on what message disbanding the army would send and how many Sunnis the de-Baathification would affect. Overseen by longtime exile Ahmed Chalabi, the de-Baathification program turned out to cut much deeper than we expected, including mid-level party members like teachers. ..."
"... Perle echoed this view two years later when he told Vanity Fair , "Huge mistakes were made they were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad." ..."
In May 2003, in the wake of the Iraq War and the ousting of Saddam Hussein, events took place
that set the stage for the current chaos in the Middle East. Yet even most well-informed Americans
are unaware of how policies implemented by mid-level bureaucrats during the Bush administration unwittingly
unleashed forces that would ultimately lead to the juggernaut of the Islamic State.
The lesson is that it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level appointees
to hijack the policy process. The Bay of Pigs invasion and Iran-Contra affair are familiar instances,
but the Iraq experience offers an even better illustration-not least because its consequences have
been even more disastrous.
The cast of characters includes President George W. Bush; L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, the first civilian
administrator of postwar Iraq; Douglas Feith, Bush's undersecretary of defense for policy; Paul Wolfowitz,
Bush's deputy secretary of defense; I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Richard
B. Cheney (and Cheney's proxy in these events); Walter Slocombe, who had been President Clinton's
undersecretary of defense for policy, and as such was Feith's predecessor; Richard Perle, who was
chairman of Bush's defense policy board; and General Jay Garner, whom Bremer replaced as the leader
of postwar Iraq.
On May 9, 2003, President Bush appointed Bremer to the top civilian post in Iraq. A career diplomat
who was recruited for this job by Wolfowitz and Libby, despite the fact that he had minimal experience
of the region and didn't speak Arabic, Bremer arrived in Baghdad on May 12 to take charge of the
Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA. In his first two weeks at his post, Bremer issued two orders
that would turn out to be momentous. Enacted on May 16, CPA Order Number 1 "de-Baathified" the Iraqi
government; on May 23, CPA Order Number 2 disbanded the Iraqi army. In short, Baath party members
were barred from participation in Iraq's new government and Saddam Hussein's soldiers lost their
jobs, taking their weapons with them.
The results of these policies become clear as we learn about the leadership of ISIS. The Washington
Post , for example, reported in April that "almost all of the leaders of the Islamic State are
former Iraqi officers." In June, the New York Times identified a man "believed to be the head
of the Islamic State's military council," Fadel al-Hayali, as "a former lieutenant colonel in the
Iraqi military intelligence agency of President Saddam Hussein." Criticism of de-Baathification and
the disbanding of Iraq's army has been fierce, and the contribution these policies made to fueling
extremism was recognized even before the advent of the Islamic State. The New York Times reported
in 2007:
The dismantling of the Iraqi Army in the aftermath of the American invasion is now widely regarded
as a mistake that stoked rebellion among hundreds of thousands of former Iraqi soldiers and made
it more difficult to reduce sectarian bloodshed and attacks by insurgents.
This year the Washington Post summed up reactions to both orders when it cited a former
Iraqi general who asked bluntly, "When they dismantled the army, what did they expect those men to
do?" He explained that "they didn't de-Baathify people's minds, they just took away their jobs."
Writing about the disbanding policy in his memoir, Decision Points , George W. Bush acknowledges
the harmful results: "Thousands of armed men had just been told they were not wanted. Instead of
signing up for the new military, many joined the insurgency."
Yet in spite of the wide-ranging consequences of these de-Baathification and disbanding policies,
they-and the decision-making processes that led to them-remain obscure to most Americans. What is
more, it is unclear whether Bush himself knew about these policies before they were enacted. In November
2003, the Washington Post claimed, "Before the war, President Bush approved a plan that would
have put several hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers on the U.S. payroll and kept them available to provide
security." There had apparently been two National Security Council meetings, one on March 10 and
another on March 12, during which the president approved a moderate de-Baathification policy and
a plan, as reported by the New York Times ' Michael R. Gordon, to "use the Iraqi military
to help protect the country." (The invasion of Iraq began on March 19.) President Bush later told
biographer Robert Draper that "the policy was to keep the army intact" but it "didn't happen."
So the question remains: if CPA Orders 1 and 2 weren't Bush's policies, whose were they? In 2007,
Doug Feith told the Los Angeles Times that "until everybody writes memoirs and all the researchers
look at the documents, some of these things are hard to sort out. You could be in the thick of it
and not necessarily know all the details." Now that the memoirs have been written, it is time to
establish just who the policymakers were in May 2003.
The various accounts present an array of neoconservative thinkers-notably Feith, Paul Wolfowitz,
and Walter Slocombe-who implemented their own policies rather than those of the president they served.
Moreover, one of the major influences on these policies was the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi, who had
thought he would be put in charge of postwar Iraq, having "been led to believe that by Perle and
Feith," as General Garner related to the journalist Thomas Ricks. And while the responsibility for
what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush-who, to his credit, avers as much in his own memoir-this
episode demonstrates how knowledgeable mid-level advisors can hijack the American presidency to suit
their own goals.
♦♦♦
At the start of May 2003, the chief administrative entity in Iraq was the Office of Reconstruction
and Humanitarian Assistance (OHRA), which was replaced shortly thereafter by the CPA under Bremer.
The head of OHRA was General Garner, who worked "under the eyes of senior Defense Department aides
with direct channels to Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and Under Secretary for Policy
Douglas J. Feith," according to the Washington Post . For his part, Garner strongly favored
a policy of maintaining the Iraqi army, and preparations towards this end began almost a year earlier.
For instance, Colonel John Agoglia told the New York Times that "Starting in June 2002 we
conducted targeted psychological operations using pamphlet drops, broadcasts and all sorts of means
to get the message to the regular army troops that they should surrender or desert and that if they
did we would bring them back." The Times reported earlier that under Garner's leadership,
"Top commanders were meeting secretly with former Iraqi officers to discuss the best way to rebuild
the force and recall Iraqi soldiers back to duty when Mr. Bremer arrived in Baghdad with his plan."
In the same story, the Times claimed that "The Bush administration did not just discuss
keeping the old army. General Garner's team found contractors to retrain it." Bremer, however, showed
up with policy ideas that diverged sharply from Garner's.
In his memoir, Bremer names the officials who approached him for his CPA job. He recounts telling
his wife that:
I had been contacted by Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and by
Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense. The Pentagon's original civil administration in 'post-hostility'
Iraq-the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, ORHA-lacked expertise in high-level
diplomatic negotiations and politics. I had the requisite skills and experience for that position.
Regarding the de-Baathification order, both Bremer and Feith have written their own accounts of
the week leading up to it, and the slight discrepancy between their recollections is revealing in
what it tells us about Bremer-and consequently about Wolfowitz and Libby for having selected him.
At first blush, Bremer and Feith's justifications for the policy appear to dovetail, each comparing
postwar Iraq to postwar Nazi Germany.
Bremer explains in a retrospective Washington Post op-ed,
"What We Got Right in Iraq," that "Hussein modeled his regime after Adolf Hitler's, which controlled
the German people with two main instruments: the Nazi Party and the Reich's security services. We
had no choice but to rid Iraq of the country's equivalent organizations." For his part, Feith goes
a step further, reasoning in his memoir War and Decision that the case for de-Baathification
was even stronger because "The Nazis, after all, had run Germany for a dozen years; the Baathists
had tyrannized Iraq for more than thirty."
Regarding the order itself, Bremer writes,
The day before I left for Iraq in May, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith presented
me with a draft law that would purge top Baathists from the Iraqi government and told me that
he planned to issue it immediately. Recognizing how important this step was, I asked Feith to
hold off, among other reasons, so I could discuss it with Iraqi leaders and CPA advisers. A week
later, after careful consideration, I issued this 'de-Baathification' decree, as drafted by the
Pentagon.
In contrast, Feith recalls that Bremer asked him to wait because "Bremer had thoughts of his own
on the subject, he said, and wanted to consider the de-Baathification policy carefully. As the new
CPA head, he thought he should announce and implement the policy himself."
The notion that he "carefully" considered the policy in his first week on the job, during which
he also travelled halfway around the globe, is highly questionable. Incidentally, Bremer's oxymoronic
statement-"a week later, after careful consideration"-mirrors a similar formulation of Wolfowitz's
about the disbanding order. Speaking to the Washington Post in November 2003, he said that
forming a new Iraqi army is "what we're trying to do at warp speed-but with careful vetting of the
people we're bringing on."
Simply put, Bremer was tempted by headline-grabbing policies. He was unlikely to question any
action that offered opportunities to make bold gestures, which made him easy to influence. Indeed,
another quality of Bremer's professional persona that conspicuously emerges from accounts of the
period is his unwillingness to think for himself. His memoir shows that he was eager to put Jay Garner
in his place from the moment he arrived in Iraq, yet he was unable to defend himself on his own when
challenged by Garner, who-according to Bob Woodward in his book State of Denial: Bush at War,
Part III -was "stunned" by the disbanding order. Woodward claims that when Garner confronted
Bremer about it, "Bremer, looking surprised, asked Garner to go see Walter B. Slocombe."
What's even more surprising is how Bremer doesn't hide his intellectual dependence on Slocombe.
He writes in his memoir:
To help untangle these problems, I was fortunate to have Walt Slocombe as Senior Adviser for
defense and security affairs. A brilliant former Rhodes Scholar from Princeton and a Harvard-educated
attorney, Walt had worked for Democratic administrations for decades on high-level strategic and
arms control issues.
In May 2003, the Washington Post noted of Slocombe that "Although a Democrat, he has maintained
good relations with Wolfowitz and is described by some as a 'Democratic hawk,'" a remark that once
again places Wolfowitz in close proximity to Bremer and the disbanding order. Sure enough, in November
2003 the Washington Post reported:
The demobilization decision appears to have originated largely with Walter B. Slocombe, a former
undersecretary of defense appointed to oversee Iraqi security forces. He believed strongly in
the need to disband the army and felt that vanquished soldiers should not expect to be paid a
continuing salary. He said he developed the policy in discussions with Bremer, Feith and Deputy
Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. 'This is not something that was dreamed up by somebody at
the last minute and done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad. It was discussed,' Slocombe
said. 'The critical point was that nobody argued that we shouldn't do this.'
Given that the president agreed to preserve the Iraqi army in the NSC meeting on March 12, Slocombe's
statement is evidence of a major policy inconsistency. In that meeting, Feith, at the request of
Donald Rumsfeld, gave a PowerPoint presentation prepared by Garner about keeping the Iraqi army;
in his own memoir, Feith writes, "No one at that National Security Council meeting in early March
spoke against the recommendation, and the President approved Garner's plan." But this is not what
happened. What happened instead was the reversal of Garner's plan, which Feith attributes to Slocombe
and Bremer:
Bremer and Slocombe argued that it would better serve U.S. interests to create an entirely
new Iraqi army: Sometimes it is easier to build something new than to refurbish a complex and
badly designed structure. In any event, Bremer and Slocombe reasoned, calling the old army back
might not succeed-but the attempt could cause grave political problems.
Over time, both Bremer and Slocombe have gone so far as to deny that the policies had any tangible
effects. Bremer claimed in the Washington Post that "Virtually all the old Baathist ministers
had fled before the decree was issued" and that "When the draftees saw which way the war was going,
they deserted and, like their officers, went back home." Likewise Slocombe stated in a PBS interview,
"We didn't disband the army. The army disbanded itself. What we did do was to formally dissolve
all of the institutions of Saddam's security system. The intelligence, his military, his party structure,
his information and propaganda structure were formally disbanded and the property turned over to
the Coalition Provisional Authority."
Thus, according to Bremer and Slocombe's accounts, neither de-Baathification nor disbanding the
army achieved anything that hadn't already happened. When coupled with Bremer's assertion of "careful
consideration in one week" and Wolfowitz's claim of "careful vetting at warp speed," Bremer and Slocombe's
notion of "doing something that had already been done" creates a strong impression that they are
hiding something or trying to finesse history with wordplay. Perhaps Washington Post journalist
Rajiv Chandrasekaran provides the best possible explanation for this confusion in his book Imperial
Life in the Emerald City , when he writes, "Despite the leaflets instructing them to go home,
Slocombe had expected Iraqi soldiers to stay in their garrisons. Now he figured that calling them
back would cause even more problems." Chandrasekaran adds, "As far as Slocombe and Feith were concerned,
the Iraqi army had dissolved itself; formalizing the dissolution wouldn't contradict Bush's directive."
This suggests that Slocombe and Feith were communicating and that Slocombe was fully aware of the
policy the president had agreed to in the NSC meeting on March 12, yet he chose to disregard it.
♦♦♦
Following the disastrous decisions of May 2003, the blame game has been rife among neoconservative
policymakers. One of those who have expended the most energy dodging culpability is, predictably,
Bremer. In early 2007, he testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and
the Washington Post reported: "Bremer proved unexpectedly agile at shifting blame: to administration
planners ('The planning before the war was inadequate'), his superiors in the Bush administration
('We never had sufficient support'), and the Iraqi people ('The country was in chaos-socially, politically
and economically')."
Bremer also wrote in May 2007 in the Washington Post , "I've grown weary of being a punching
bag over these decisions-particularly from critics who've never spent time in Iraq, don't understand
its complexities and can't explain what we should have done differently." (This declaration is ironic,
given Bremer's noted inability to justify the disbanding policy to General Garner.) On September
4, 2007, the New York Times reported that Bremer had given the paper exculpatory letters
supposedly proving that George W. Bush confirmed the disbanding order. But the Times concluded,
"the letters do not show that [Bush] approved the order or even knew much about it. Mr. Bremer referred
only fleetingly to his plan midway through his three-page letter and offered no details." Moreover,
the paper characterized Bremer's correspondence with Bush as "striking in its almost nonchalant
reference to a major decision that a number of American military officials in Iraq strongly opposed."
Defending himself on this point, Bremer claimed, "the policy was carefully considered by top civilian
and military members of the American government." And six months later Bremer told the paper, "It
was not my responsibility to do inter-agency coordination."
Feith and Slocombe have been similarly evasive when discussing President Bush's awareness of the
policies. The Los Angeles Times noted that "Feith was deeply involved in the decision-making
process at the time, working closely with Bush and Bremer," yet "Feith said he could not comment
about how involved the president was in the decision to change policy and dissolve the army. 'I don't
know all the details of who talked to who about that,' he said." For his part, Slocombe told PBS's
"Frontline,"
What happens in Washington in terms of how the [decisions are made]-'Go ahead and do this,
do that; don't do that, do this, even though you don't want to do it'-that's an internal Washington
coordination problem about which I know little. One of the interesting things about the job from
my point of view-all my other government experience basically had been in the Washington end,
with the interagencies process and setting the priorities-at the other end we got output. And
how the process worked in Washington I actually know very little about, because the channel was
from the president to Rumsfeld to Bremer.
It's a challenge to parse Slocombe's various statements. Here, in the space of two sentences,
he claims both that his government experience has mostly been in Washington and that he doesn't know
how Washington works. As mentioned earlier, he had previously told the Washington Post that
the disbanding order was not "done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad"-in other words, the
decision was made in Washington. The inconsistency of his accounts from year to year, and even in
the same interview, adds to an aura of concealment.
This further illustrates the disconnect between what was decided by the NSC in Washington in March
and by the CPA in Iraq in May. In his memoir, Feith notes that although he supported the disbanding
policy, "the decision became associated with a number of unnecessary problems, including the apparent
lack of interagency review."
The blame game is nowhere more evident than in a 2007 Vanity Fair article entitled "Neo
Culpa," which was previewed online just before the 2006 midterm elections. Writer David Rose spoke
with numerous neoconservatives, who roundly censured George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Rumsfeld,
and Bremer for the chaos in Iraq. Speaking broadly about the Bush administration, Adelman said, "They
turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era." And Perle complained, "The
decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion, and the
differences were argued out endlessly. At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible."
Yet Perle's reflection on the timeliness of decisions conflicts with President Bush's account
rather strikingly. In his memoir, Bush writes:
I should have insisted on more debate on Jerry's orders, especially on what message disbanding
the army would send and how many Sunnis the de-Baathification would affect. Overseen by longtime
exile Ahmed Chalabi, the de-Baathification program turned out to cut much deeper than we expected,
including mid-level party members like teachers.
In June 2004, Bill Kristol was already censuring the president for his "poor performance," musing
that his school of thought has been collateral damage in a mismanaged foreign policy: neoconservatism,
he wrote, "has probably been weakened by the Bush administration's poor performance in implementing
what could be characterized as its recommended foreign policy." Kristol argued that "This failure
in execution has been a big one. It has put the neoconservative 'project' at risk. Much more important,
it has put American foreign policy at risk." Perle echoed this view two years later when he told
Vanity Fair , "Huge mistakes were made they were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost
no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the
regime in Baghdad."
This downplaying of neoconservative influence in "what happened after the downfall of the regime
in Baghdad" is curious, and Perle is not the only person to have tried it. Max Boot, writing in the
same 2004 collection as Kristol, does the same thing when, after naming Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby,
Elliott Abrams, and Perle as neoconservatives who served Bush, he argues:
Each of these policy-makers has been an outspoken advocate for aggressive and, if necessary,
unilateral action by the United States to promote democracy, human rights, and free markets, and
to maintain U.S. primacy around the world. While this list seems impressive, it also reveals that
the neocons have no representatives in the administration's top tier.
But apparently it didn't matter that there were no neoconservatives in top positions-not when
one considers the knowledge and prior government experience of Vice President Cheney, the neoconservatives'
sponsor. In A World Transformed , George H.W. Bush writes of Cheney that he "knew how policy
was made." Barton Gellman observes in Angler , his book about Cheney: "Most of the government's
work, Cheney knew, never reached the altitude of Senate-confirmed appointees. Reliable people in
mid-level posts would have the last word on numberless decisions about where to spend or not spend
money, whom to regulate, how to enforce." In the end avoiding the highest positions in the administration
makes it all the more easy to dodge blame.
♦♦♦
Americans are painfully familiar with stories like this one, in which a coterie of advisors takes
policy in a dangerous direction with little or no knowledge on the part of the president. But the
case of the Iraq War and the decisions that followed the toppling of Saddam Hussein has a unique
importance-because we are still living with the consequences, and others are dying for them.
Democrats may be tempted to dismiss all that happened in the Bush years as simply the other party's
fault. Republicans have a comforting myth of their own in the belief that President Bush's 2007 "surge"
of U.S. forces into Iraq ended the country's instability, which only returned after President Obama
fully withdrew troops from Iraq in 2011. But as the role of Walter Slocombe-the Democratic counterpart
to Doug Feith in more ways than one-illustrates, Clintons no less than Bushes are susceptible to
this personnel problem.
Republicans, meanwhile, should consider retired Lt. Col. Gian Gentile's verdict that "the reduction
in violence" in Iraq in 2007 "had more to do with the Iraqis than the Americans," specifically with
the Sunni tribesmen's newfound willingness to fight (for a price) alongside Americans against al-Qaeda
and with Moqtada al-Sadr's de-escalation of Shi'ite activity. But regardless of what the surge did
or did not contribute to quelling the bloodshed in Iraq, the intensity of the civil war that raged
there in the first place was in considerable part a product of misguided de-Baathification and disbanding
policies-and the Islamic State today depends on the military and intelligence forces that Bremer,
Feith, and Slocombe casually dismissed.
When you have the wrong diagnosis, you risk coming to the wrong solution, no matter how clever
you think you are. As the GOP candidates for the 2016 presidential election have made their campaigns
official, they have been pummeled with hindsight questions about the Iraq War and ISIS, and no one
has a harder time facing this than Jeb Bush. In order to correctly address what to do about the Islamic
State, it is important to acknowledge what specifically went wrong with decision-making in the Iraq
War.
This episode highlights a weakness in the executive branch that is ripe for exploitation under
any administration. When the neoconservative Frank Gaffney, speaking about George W. Bush, told
Vanity Fair , "This president has tolerated, and the people around him have tolerated, active,
ongoing, palpable insubordination and skullduggery that translates into subversion of his policies,"
it seems incredible to think that he failed to see the irony of his assertion. But for those who
have a deep understanding of how the government works, it is quite possible to undermine a president,
then step back and pretend to have had minimal involvement, and finally stand in judgment. But now
that the story is known, the American people can be the judges.
John Hay is a former executive branch official under Republican administrations.
"In a sense – it was analogous with 9/11 nobody in the State Department wanted the consulate
to be at risk of being overrun by terrorists anymore than nobody in the intelligence community
or DOD wanted the Twin Towers and the Pentagon to suffer hits. Of course, Benghazi was 0.01% as
significant a tactical failure as 9/11 was but the failure was due to people who had been properly
assigned responsibilities not doing their job."
1. I am not sure what your point is here. Whether anyone wanted the events to occur is not
really the question. The issue is simly the behavior of the staff at the embassy in relation to
their superiors. The Sec. of State failed to respond to a request for more security. That is her
fault – directly. She took no steps based on the record. She ignored the real time assessments.
That is not the executive's fault. That is hers. Period. That isn't a tactical failure, that is
a supply failure. That is a leadership failre. It is not as if she was not inflrmed.
2. The Pres. of the US cannot be held directly accountable for 9/11 because neither the previous
admin. not the releveant organizations informed of very specicif data sets that have changed the
history of that day.
The failure rests:
a. the previous admin
b. the agencies responsible for immigration management
the FBI
c. CIA
d the airlines
Well as previously noted. Back to your tactical failure. Well, Libya was foolish on its face.
We shuld have informed the UK that under the circumstances further destabilizing the region would
be distaterous at best. The tactical problem, weponizing fighters over who we had no command and
control. Here again, the utter failure of the State Dept. and the CIA to comprehend who the players
were and their capabilities. There's plenty more, but let's leave it at that - again, a major
player was the Sec of State. The same could said of Egypt, Syria all areas in which the supposed
expertise would come from the CIA and the State Deprtment - That's on Sec. Hillary Clinton – directly.
That even playing the tactical and strategic game you intend to muddy the waters of responsibility
with were explicated - the fault lies on her desk.
"If only the brilliant neocon plan to invade and reform the middle east had been carried out
by competent neocons! Peace and democracy would be flowing the Tigris by now!"
" it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level appointees to hijack
the policy process "
Especially when you have a president who's more interested in taking time off and clearing
brush, purposely allowing others to do his job. An administration with real leadership at the
top is not nearly so vulnerable to this kind of hijacking.
Irresponsible people in responsible positions, such as the neocons so note, the bankers who bet
the farm with our money, and pols on the take for reelection largesse need to do time.
"If only the brilliant neocon plan to invade and reform the middle east had been carried out by
competent neocons! Peace and democracy would be flowing the Tigris by now!"
I am not sure you are reading the same article I read. I guess one could make the case you
are advancing if they addressed some specifics, but that is not the case.
But there are credible reasons to beleive that the occupation would have been vastly different,
despite the civil conflict that had broken as the Us military rolled toward Bagdad.
Hay insinuates that there were things that could have been done AFTER the invasion that would
have prevented problems.
This is problematic.
The real army under Saddam Hussein, the Republican Guard, was Sunni. Shiites were used as the
fodder.
A Sunni army was not going to follow orders from a Shiite ruler - a Shiite ruler being the
inevitable result of elections. And a Shiite ruler was not going to tolerate a Sunni army or police
forces.
Bremer must have recognized this eventually, and went for a strategy of kicking the can down
the road.
I refer you to an article by General Odom some years back, and point out with regard to this
article Myth Number 2.
In May 2003, in the wake of the Iraq War and the ousting of Saddam Hussein, events took place
that set the stage for the current chaos in the Middle East. Yet even most well-informed Americans
are unaware of how policies implemented by mid-level bureaucrats during the Bush administration
unwittingly unleashed forces that would ultimately lead to the juggernaut of the Islamic State.
The lesson is that it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level
appointees to hijack the policy process. The Bay of Pigs invasion and Iran-Contra affair are familiar
instances, but the Iraq experience offers an even better illustration-not least because its consequences
have been even more disastrous.
The cast of characters includes President George W. Bush; L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, the first
civilian administrator of postwar Iraq; Douglas Feith, Bush's undersecretary of defense for policy;
Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's deputy secretary of defense; I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to
Vice President Richard B. Cheney (and Cheney's proxy in these events); Walter Slocombe, who had
been President Clinton's undersecretary of defense for policy, and as such was Feith's predecessor;
Richard Perle, who was chairman of Bush's defense policy board; and General Jay Garner, whom Bremer
replaced as the leader of postwar Iraq.
On May 9, 2003, President Bush appointed Bremer to the top civilian post in Iraq. A career
diplomat who was recruited for this job by Wolfowitz and Libby, despite the fact that he had minimal
experience of the region and didn't speak Arabic, Bremer arrived in Baghdad on May 12 to take
charge of the Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA. In his first two weeks at his post, Bremer
issued two orders that would turn out to be momentous. Enacted on May 16, CPA Order Number 1 "de-Baathified"
the Iraqi government; on May 23, CPA Order Number 2 disbanded the Iraqi army. In short, Baath
party members were barred from participation in Iraq's new government and Saddam Hussein's soldiers
lost their jobs, taking their weapons with them.
The results of these policies become clear as we learn about the leadership of ISIS. The
Washington Post , for example, reported in April that "almost all of the leaders of the Islamic
State are former Iraqi officers." In June, the New York Times identified a man "believed
to be the head of the Islamic State's military council," Fadel al-Hayali, as "a former lieutenant
colonel in the Iraqi military intelligence agency of President Saddam Hussein." Criticism of de-Baathification
and the disbanding of Iraq's army has been fierce, and the contribution these policies made to
fueling extremism was recognized even before the advent of the Islamic State. The New York
Times reported in 2007:
The dismantling of the Iraqi Army in the aftermath of the American invasion is now widely
regarded as a mistake that stoked rebellion among hundreds of thousands of former Iraqi soldiers
and made it more difficult to reduce sectarian bloodshed and attacks by insurgents.
This year the Washington Post summed up reactions to both orders when it cited a former
Iraqi general who asked bluntly, "When they dismantled the army, what did they expect those men
to do?" He explained that "they didn't de-Baathify people's minds, they just took away their jobs."
Writing about the disbanding policy in his memoir, Decision Points , George W. Bush acknowledges
the harmful results: "Thousands of armed men had just been told they were not wanted. Instead
of signing up for the new military, many joined the insurgency."
Yet in spite of the wide-ranging consequences of these de-Baathification and disbanding policies,
they-and the decision-making processes that led to them-remain obscure to most Americans. What
is more, it is unclear whether Bush himself knew about these policies before they were enacted.
In November 2003, the Washington Post claimed, "Before the war, President Bush approved
a plan that would have put several hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers on the U.S. payroll and kept
them available to provide security." There had apparently been two National Security Council meetings,
one on March 10 and another on March 12, during which the president approved a moderate de-Baathification
policy and a plan, as reported by the New York Times ' Michael R. Gordon, to "use the Iraqi
military to help protect the country." (The invasion of Iraq began on March 19.) President Bush
later told biographer Robert Draper that "the policy was to keep the army intact" but it "didn't
happen."
So the question remains: if CPA Orders 1 and 2 weren't Bush's policies, whose were they? In
2007, Doug Feith told the Los Angeles Times that "until everybody writes memoirs and all
the researchers look at the documents, some of these things are hard to sort out. You could be
in the thick of it and not necessarily know all the details." Now that the memoirs have been written,
it is time to establish just who the policymakers were in May 2003.
The various accounts present an array of neoconservative thinkers-notably Feith, Paul Wolfowitz,
and Walter Slocombe-who implemented their own policies rather than those of the president they
served. Moreover, one of the major influences on these policies was the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi,
who had thought he would be put in charge of postwar Iraq, having "been led to believe that by
Perle and Feith," as General Garner related to the journalist Thomas Ricks. And while the responsibility
for what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush-who, to his credit, avers as much in his
own memoir-this episode demonstrates how knowledgeable mid-level advisors can hijack the American
presidency to suit their own goals.
♦♦♦
At the start of May 2003, the chief administrative entity in Iraq was the Office of Reconstruction
and Humanitarian Assistance (OHRA), which was replaced shortly thereafter by the CPA under Bremer.
The head of OHRA was General Garner, who worked "under the eyes of senior Defense Department aides
with direct channels to Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and Under Secretary for Policy
Douglas J. Feith," according to the Washington Post . For his part, Garner strongly favored
a policy of maintaining the Iraqi army, and preparations towards this end began almost a year
earlier. For instance, Colonel John Agoglia told the New York Times that "Starting in June
2002 we conducted targeted psychological operations using pamphlet drops, broadcasts and all sorts
of means to get the message to the regular army troops that they should surrender or desert and
that if they did we would bring them back." The Times reported earlier that under Garner's
leadership, "Top commanders were meeting secretly with former Iraqi officers to discuss the best
way to rebuild the force and recall Iraqi soldiers back to duty when Mr. Bremer arrived in Baghdad
with his plan."
In the same story, the Times claimed that "The Bush administration did not just discuss
keeping the old army. General Garner's team found contractors to retrain it." Bremer, however,
showed up with policy ideas that diverged sharply from Garner's.
In his memoir, Bremer names the officials who approached him for his CPA job. He recounts telling
his wife that:
I had been contacted by Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and
by Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense. The Pentagon's original civil administration
in 'post-hostility' Iraq-the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, ORHA-lacked
expertise in high-level diplomatic negotiations and politics. I had the requisite skills
and experience for that position.
Regarding the de-Baathification order, both Bremer and Feith have written their own accounts
of the week leading up to it, and the slight discrepancy between their recollections is revealing
in what it tells us about Bremer-and consequently about Wolfowitz and Libby for having selected
him. At first blush, Bremer and Feith's justifications for the policy appear to dovetail, each
comparing postwar Iraq to postwar Nazi Germany. Bremer explains in a retrospective Washington
Post op-ed, "What We Got Right in Iraq," that "Hussein modeled his regime after Adolf Hitler's,
which controlled the German people with two main instruments: the Nazi Party and the Reich's security
services. We had no choice but to rid Iraq of the country's equivalent organizations." For his
part, Feith goes a step further, reasoning in his memoir War and Decision that the case
for de-Baathification was even stronger because "The Nazis, after all, had run Germany for a dozen
years; the Baathists had tyrannized Iraq for more than thirty."
Regarding the order itself, Bremer writes,
The day before I left for Iraq in May, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith presented
me with a draft law that would purge top Baathists from the Iraqi government and told me that
he planned to issue it immediately. Recognizing how important this step was, I asked Feith
to hold off, among other reasons, so I could discuss it with Iraqi leaders and CPA advisers.
A week later, after careful consideration, I issued this 'de-Baathification' decree, as drafted
by the Pentagon.
In contrast, Feith recalls that Bremer asked him to wait because "Bremer had thoughts of his
own on the subject, he said, and wanted to consider the de-Baathification policy carefully. As
the new CPA head, he thought he should announce and implement the policy himself."
The notion that he "carefully" considered the policy in his first week on the job, during which
he also travelled halfway around the globe, is highly questionable. Incidentally, Bremer's oxymoronic
statement-"a week later, after careful consideration"-mirrors a similar formulation of Wolfowitz's
about the disbanding order. Speaking to the Washington Post in November 2003, he said that
forming a new Iraqi army is "what we're trying to do at warp speed-but with careful vetting of
the people we're bringing on."
Simply put, Bremer was tempted by headline-grabbing policies. He was unlikely to question any
action that offered opportunities to make bold gestures, which made him easy to influence. Indeed,
another quality of Bremer's professional persona that conspicuously emerges from accounts of the
period is his unwillingness to think for himself. His memoir shows that he was eager to put Jay
Garner in his place from the moment he arrived in Iraq, yet he was unable to defend himself on
his own when challenged by Garner, who-according to Bob Woodward in his book State of Denial:
Bush at War, Part III -was "stunned" by the disbanding order. Woodward claims that when Garner
confronted Bremer about it, "Bremer, looking surprised, asked Garner to go see Walter B. Slocombe."
What's even more surprising is how Bremer doesn't hide his intellectual dependence on Slocombe.
He writes in his memoir:
To help untangle these problems, I was fortunate to have Walt Slocombe as Senior Adviser
for defense and security affairs. A brilliant former Rhodes Scholar from Princeton and a Harvard-educated
attorney, Walt had worked for Democratic administrations for decades on high-level strategic
and arms control issues.
In May 2003, the Washington Post noted of Slocombe that "Although a Democrat, he has
maintained good relations with Wolfowitz and is described by some as a 'Democratic hawk,'" a remark
that once again places Wolfowitz in close proximity to Bremer and the disbanding order. Sure enough,
in November 2003 the Washington Post reported:
The demobilization decision appears to have originated largely with Walter B. Slocombe,
a former undersecretary of defense appointed to oversee Iraqi security forces. He believed
strongly in the need to disband the army and felt that vanquished soldiers should not expect
to be paid a continuing salary. He said he developed the policy in discussions with Bremer,
Feith and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. 'This is not something that was dreamed
up by somebody at the last minute and done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad. It was
discussed,' Slocombe said. 'The critical point was that nobody argued that we shouldn't do
this.'
Given that the president agreed to preserve the Iraqi army in the NSC meeting on March 12,
Slocombe's statement is evidence of a major policy inconsistency. In that meeting, Feith, at the
request of Donald Rumsfeld, gave a PowerPoint presentation prepared by Garner about keeping the
Iraqi army; in his own memoir, Feith writes, "No one at that National Security Council meeting
in early March spoke against the recommendation, and the President approved Garner's plan." But
this is not what happened. What happened instead was the reversal of Garner's plan, which Feith
attributes to Slocombe and Bremer:
Bremer and Slocombe argued that it would better serve U.S. interests to create an entirely
new Iraqi army: Sometimes it is easier to build something new than to refurbish a complex and
badly designed structure. In any event, Bremer and Slocombe reasoned, calling the old army
back might not succeed-but the attempt could cause grave political problems.
Over time, both Bremer and Slocombe have gone so far as to deny that the policies had any tangible
effects. Bremer claimed in the Washington Post that "Virtually all the old Baathist ministers
had fled before the decree was issued" and that "When the draftees saw which way the war was going,
they deserted and, like their officers, went back home." Likewise Slocombe stated in a PBS interview,
"We didn't disband the army. The army disbanded itself. What we did do was to formally dissolve
all of the institutions of Saddam's security system. The intelligence, his military, his party
structure, his information and propaganda structure were formally disbanded and the property turned
over to the Coalition Provisional Authority."
Thus, according to Bremer and Slocombe's accounts, neither de-Baathification nor disbanding
the army achieved anything that hadn't already happened. When coupled with Bremer's assertion
of "careful consideration in one week" and Wolfowitz's claim of "careful vetting at warp speed,"
Bremer and Slocombe's notion of "doing something that had already been done" creates a strong
impression that they are hiding something or trying to finesse history with wordplay. Perhaps
Washington Post journalist Rajiv Chandrasekaran provides the best possible explanation
for this confusion in his book Imperial Life in the Emerald City , when he writes, "Despite
the leaflets instructing them to go home, Slocombe had expected Iraqi soldiers to stay in their
garrisons. Now he figured that calling them back would cause even more problems." Chandrasekaran
adds, "As far as Slocombe and Feith were concerned, the Iraqi army had dissolved itself; formalizing
the dissolution wouldn't contradict Bush's directive." This suggests that Slocombe and Feith were
communicating and that Slocombe was fully aware of the policy the president had agreed to in the
NSC meeting on March 12, yet he chose to disregard it.
♦♦♦
Following the disastrous decisions of May 2003, the blame game has been rife among neoconservative
policymakers. One of those who have expended the most energy dodging culpability is, predictably,
Bremer. In early 2007, he testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee,
and the Washington Post reported: "Bremer proved unexpectedly agile at shifting blame:
to administration planners ('The planning before the war was inadequate'), his superiors in the
Bush administration ('We never had sufficient support'), and the Iraqi people ('The country was
in chaos-socially, politically and economically')."
Bremer also wrote in May 2007 in the Washington Post , "I've grown weary of being a
punching bag over these decisions-particularly from critics who've never spent time in Iraq, don't
understand its complexities and can't explain what we should have done differently." (This declaration
is ironic, given Bremer's noted inability to justify the disbanding policy to General Garner.)
On September 4, 2007, the New York Times reported that Bremer had given the paper
exculpatory letters supposedly proving that George W. Bush confirmed the disbanding order. But
the Times concluded, "the letters do not show that [Bush] approved the order or even knew
much about it. Mr. Bremer referred only fleetingly to his plan midway through his three-page letter
and offered no details." Moreover, the paper characterized Bremer's correspondence with
Bush as "striking in its almost nonchalant reference to a major decision that a number of American
military officials in Iraq strongly opposed." Defending himself on this point, Bremer claimed,
"the policy was carefully considered by top civilian and military members of the American government."
And six months later Bremer told the paper, "It was not my responsibility to do inter-agency coordination."
Feith and Slocombe have been similarly evasive when discussing President Bush's awareness of
the policies. The Los Angeles Times noted that "Feith was deeply involved in the decision-making
process at the time, working closely with Bush and Bremer," yet "Feith said he could not comment
about how involved the president was in the decision to change policy and dissolve the army. 'I
don't know all the details of who talked to who about that,' he said." For his part, Slocombe
told PBS's "Frontline,"
What happens in Washington in terms of how the [decisions are made]-'Go ahead and do this,
do that; don't do that, do this, even though you don't want to do it'-that's an internal Washington
coordination problem about which I know little. One of the interesting things about the job
from my point of view-all my other government experience basically had been in the Washington
end, with the interagencies process and setting the priorities-at the other end we got output.
And how the process worked in Washington I actually know very little about, because the channel
was from the president to Rumsfeld to Bremer.
It's a challenge to parse Slocombe's various statements. Here, in the space of two sentences,
he claims both that his government experience has mostly been in Washington and that he doesn't
know how Washington works. As mentioned earlier, he had previously told the Washington Post
that the disbanding order was not "done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad"-in other
words, the decision was made in Washington. The inconsistency of his accounts from year to year,
and even in the same interview, adds to an aura of concealment.
This further illustrates the disconnect between what was decided by the NSC in Washington in
March and by the CPA in Iraq in May. In his memoir, Feith notes that although he supported the
disbanding policy, "the decision became associated with a number of unnecessary problems, including
the apparent lack of interagency review."
The blame game is nowhere more evident than in a 2007 Vanity Fair article entitled "Neo
Culpa," which was previewed online just before the 2006 midterm elections. Writer David Rose spoke
with numerous neoconservatives, who roundly censured George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Rumsfeld,
and Bremer for the chaos in Iraq. Speaking broadly about the Bush administration, Adelman said,
"They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era." And Perle complained,
"The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion,
and the differences were argued out endlessly. At the end of the day, you have to hold the president
responsible."
Yet Perle's reflection on the timeliness of decisions conflicts with President Bush's account
rather strikingly. In his memoir, Bush writes:
I should have insisted on more debate on Jerry's orders, especially on what message disbanding
the army would send and how many Sunnis the de-Baathification would affect. Overseen by longtime
exile Ahmed Chalabi, the de-Baathification program turned out to cut much deeper than we expected,
including mid-level party members like teachers.
In June 2004, Bill Kristol was already censuring the president for his "poor performance,"
musing that his school of thought has been collateral damage in a mismanaged foreign policy: neoconservatism,
he wrote, "has probably been weakened by the Bush administration's poor performance in implementing
what could be characterized as its recommended foreign policy." Kristol argued that "This failure
in execution has been a big one. It has put the neoconservative 'project' at risk. Much more important,
it has put American foreign policy at risk." Perle echoed this view two years later when he told
Vanity Fair , "Huge mistakes were made they were not made by neoconservatives, who had
almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall
of the regime in Baghdad."
This downplaying of neoconservative influence in "what happened after the downfall of the regime
in Baghdad" is curious, and Perle is not the only person to have tried it. Max Boot, writing in
the same 2004 collection as Kristol, does the same thing when, after naming Wolfowitz, Feith,
Libby, Elliott Abrams, and Perle as neoconservatives who served Bush, he argues:
Each of these policy-makers has been an outspoken advocate for aggressive and, if necessary,
unilateral action by the United States to promote democracy, human rights, and free markets,
and to maintain U.S. primacy around the world. While this list seems impressive, it also reveals
that the neocons have no representatives in the administration's top tier.
But apparently it didn't matter that there were no neoconservatives in top positions-not when
one considers the knowledge and prior government experience of Vice President Cheney, the neoconservatives'
sponsor. In A World Transformed , George H.W. Bush writes of Cheney that he "knew how policy
was made." Barton Gellman observes in Angler , his book about Cheney: "Most of the government's
work, Cheney knew, never reached the altitude of Senate-confirmed appointees. Reliable people
in mid-level posts would have the last word on numberless decisions about where to spend or not
spend money, whom to regulate, how to enforce." In the end avoiding the highest positions in the
administration makes it all the more easy to dodge blame.
♦♦♦
Americans are painfully familiar with stories like this one, in which a coterie of advisors
takes policy in a dangerous direction with little or no knowledge on the part of the president.
But the case of the Iraq War and the decisions that followed the toppling of Saddam Hussein has
a unique importance-because we are still living with the consequences, and others are dying for
them.
Democrats may be tempted to dismiss all that happened in the Bush years as simply the other
party's fault. Republicans have a comforting myth of their own in the belief that President Bush's
2007 "surge" of U.S. forces into Iraq ended the country's instability, which only returned after
President Obama fully withdrew troops from Iraq in 2011. But as the role of Walter Slocombe-the
Democratic counterpart to Doug Feith in more ways than one-illustrates, Clintons no less than
Bushes are susceptible to this personnel problem.
Republicans, meanwhile, should consider retired Lt. Col. Gian Gentile's verdict that "the reduction
in violence" in Iraq in 2007 "had more to do with the Iraqis than the Americans," specifically
with the Sunni tribesmen's newfound willingness to fight (for a price) alongside Americans against
al-Qaeda and with Moqtada al-Sadr's de-escalation of Shi'ite activity. But regardless of what
the surge did or did not contribute to quelling the bloodshed in Iraq, the intensity of the civil
war that raged there in the first place was in considerable part a product of misguided de-Baathification
and disbanding policies-and the Islamic State today depends on the military and intelligence forces
that Bremer, Feith, and Slocombe casually dismissed.
When you have the wrong diagnosis, you risk coming to the wrong solution, no matter how clever
you think you are. As the GOP candidates for the 2016 presidential election have made their campaigns
official, they have been pummeled with hindsight questions about the Iraq War and ISIS, and no
one has a harder time facing this than Jeb Bush. In order to correctly address what to do about
the Islamic State, it is important to acknowledge what specifically went wrong with decision-making
in the Iraq War.
This episode highlights a weakness in the executive branch that is ripe for exploitation under
any administration. When the neoconservative Frank Gaffney, speaking about George W. Bush, told
Vanity Fair , "This president has tolerated, and the people around him have tolerated,
active, ongoing, palpable insubordination and skullduggery that translates into subversion of
his policies," it seems incredible to think that he failed to see the irony of his assertion.
But for those who have a deep understanding of how the government works, it is quite possible
to undermine a president, then step back and pretend to have had minimal involvement, and finally
stand in judgment. But now that the story is known, the American people can be the judges.
John Hay is a former executive branch official under Republican administrations.
"In a sense – it was analogous with 9/11 nobody in the State Department wanted the consulate
to be at risk of being overrun by terrorists anymore than nobody in the intelligence community
or DOD wanted the Twin Towers and the Pentagon to suffer hits. Of course, Benghazi was 0.01% as
significant a tactical failure as 9/11 was but the failure was due to people who had been properly
assigned responsibilities not doing their job."
1. I am not sure what your point is here. Whether anyone wanted the events to occur is not
really the question. The issue is simly the behavior of the staff at the embassy in relation to
their superiors. The Sec. of State failed to respond to a request for more security. That is her
fault – directly. She took no steps based on the record. She ignored the real time assessments.
That is not the executive's fault. That is hers. Period. That isn't a tactical failure, that is
a supply failure. That is a leadership failre. It is not as if she was not inflrmed.
2. The Pres. of the US cannot be held directly accountable for 9/11 because neither the previous
admin. not the releveant organizations informed of very specicif data sets that have changed the
history of that day.
The failure rests:
a. the previous admin
b. the agencies responsible for immigration management
the FBI
c. CIA
d the airlines
Well as previously noted. Back to your tactical failure. Well, Libya was foolish on its face.
We shuld have informed the UK that under the circumstances further destabilizing the region would
be distaterous at best. The tactical problem, weponizing fighters over who we had no command and
control. Here again, the utter failure of the State Dept. and the CIA to comprehend who the players
were and their capabilities. There's plenty more, but let's leave it at that - again, a major
player was the Sec of State. The same could said of Egypt, Syria all areas in which the supposed
expertise would come from the CIA and the State Deprtment - That's on Sec. Hillary Clinton – directly.
That even playing the tactical and strategic game you intend to muddy the waters of responsibility
with were explicated - the fault lies on her desk.
"If only the brilliant neocon plan to invade and reform the middle east had been carried out
by competent neocons! Peace and democracy would be flowing the Tigris by now!"
" it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level appointees to hijack
the policy process "
Especially when you have a president who's more interested in taking time off and clearing
brush, purposely allowing others to do his job. An administration with real leadership at the
top is not nearly so vulnerable to this kind of hijacking.
Irresponsible people in responsible positions, such as the neocons so note, the bankers who bet
the farm with our money, and pols on the take for reelection largesse need to do time.
"If only the brilliant neocon plan to invade and reform the middle east had been carried out by
competent neocons! Peace and democracy would be flowing the Tigris by now!"
I am not sure you are reading the same article I read. I guess one could make the case you
are advancing if they addressed some specifics, but that is not the case.
But there are credible reasons to beleive that the occupation would have been vastly different,
despite the civil conflict that had broken as the Us military rolled toward Bagdad.
Hay insinuates that there were things that could have been done AFTER the invasion that would
have prevented problems.
This is problematic.
The real army under Saddam Hussein, the Republican Guard, was Sunni. Shiites were used as the
fodder.
A Sunni army was not going to follow orders from a Shiite ruler - a Shiite ruler being the
inevitable result of elections. And a Shiite ruler was not going to tolerate a Sunni army or police
forces.
Bremer must have recognized this eventually, and went for a strategy of kicking the can down
the road.
I refer you to an article by General Odom some years back, and point out with regard to this
article Myth Number 2.
Bush was 100% at fault. He chose to appoint Rumsfeld and Cheney as top members of his administration.
These were strong-willed men who had both served his father well. The problem was Bush Jr. was
not his father. The old man was older and more experienced than either of his underlings AND he
was the President. As a result these strong personalities were truly subordinate to Bush Sr. Both
men were older and vastly more experienced than the son, and he was no match for them.
Hence the Iraq policy was not a coherent policy set by the office of the POTUS but many strategies,
often conflicting, because POTUS was absent. Some (Garner) were working to replace Saddam with
someone better, leaving the government in place, to facilitate a quick exit. Others (Bremer) thought
they were working to establish a capitalist democracy in the Middle East. And some I suppose some
(Kay) thought the war had been about WMDs.
Wah wah, Bush was a victim. Yeepers. My takeaway: the minions, advisors, apparatchik melt away,
and Bush- as those before him, and inevitably those to follow – somehow are also given a free
pass through plausible deniability. No man is an island, and one only need look at an aerial photo
of DC to realize that there are a LOT of moving parts, many folks with impact, and a ton money
floating around to lubricate the whole deal. Little Versailles on the Potomac , with lethal global
consequences.
It is crucially important that we identify, fire, and shame those whose bad faith, corruption,
and/or incompetence did so much to wreck the Middle East and damage America.
Articles like this are a step in that direction. Please publish more of them.
I knew the moment that Bush chose Cheney as his vp back in 00 that we were going to go to war
and Bush's humble foreign policy was going to be flushed down the toilet.
The heading of "The Deciders" claims that "The disastrous Iraq policies that led to ISIS were
not President Bush's."
You're joking?
How were these pivotal, publicly-announced policies not Bush's?
Bush was President!
The May 16, 2003 CPA Order Number 1 "de-Baathified" the Iraqi government and the May 23, CPA
Order Number 2 disbanded the Iraqi army. "In short, Baath party members were barred from participation
in Iraq's new government and Saddam Hussein's soldiers lost their jobs, taking their weapons with
them."
John Hay says that considering the discussions of these two areas of Iraq occupation policy
at two National Security Council meetings, (March 10 and March 12) "it is unclear whether Bush
himself knew about these policies before they were enacted."
But when two such vitally important polices were announced on May 16th and May 23rd, if the
President had seen that the announced policies were contrary to the policies he favored – and
that Order Number 1 and Order Number 2 represented in effect a mid-level mutiny within his administration's
chain of command – it was certainly Bush's duty as President to immediately rescind those policies
and to fire all of those responsible.
But President Bush didn't rescind the policies.
He didn't fire those who had issued policies allegedly contrary to his own.
Instead, he said nothing contrary to either CPA Order Number 1 or CPA Order Number 2 and allowed
the orders to stand.
I have no idea why the heading of this John Hay article claims that "the disastrous Iraq policies
that led to ISIS were not President Bush's" when in fact those policies WERE President Bush's.
I said at the time, it was obvious these clueless people were re-living WWII, and that it was
completely inappropriate, as are most historical comparisons. Rumsfeld even looked and talked
like someone out of the 1940s. It was comical in a sad sort of way. Virtually everyone in Saddam's
government was required to be a Baathist, down to the lowest levels. And there simply was not
the depth of education in the general population to be able to throw out an entire government,
including all of the working bureaucrats and to be able to quickly recruit new qualified people
and ramp up a new government effectively. It was not a developed country like Germany or Japan.
And just think about it. People who had spent their working lives in the Iraq government were
dumped out on the streets. And we thought they would consider us liberators?
When the story of America is written it will say that the fall came, not due to external aggression,
but to our own banal incompetence, prideful ignorance and hubris ..
Another way of saying we get the government we deserve and we're gonna' get it; good and hard.
So your point is that George "I am the Decider" Bush should not be blamed because all of the people
that he hand-picked and then trusted implicitly with no oversight are the ones who really screwed
up, is that it?
Don't get me wrong – I'm all in favor of naming the names of all the advisors down the line,
and holding them appropriately responsible (seeing as how they all continue to be employed as
advisors to the current candidates); but that in no way lets W off the hook for his own incompetence
as a leader.
"Political progress has come to a near standstill, and most of the established benchmarks for
progress – including provincial elections, the passage of de-Baathification laws, and a plan for
oil revenue-sharing – are far from reach." – Democrat House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, January
10, 2008.
Two days before the Iraqi parliament unanimously passed the "Accountability and Justice" de-Baathification
law.
I'd say this puts culpability for the Iraq debacle squarely in the laps of every voter who cast
a ballot for GW Bush in 2000.
After all – not only Bush's lack of foreign policy experience, but his inability to really
speak in depth on foreign policy during the campaign, constituted huge red flags. Yet voters lined
up to vote for this man who not only was inexperienced but seemed disinterested in foreign policy
– a complete lightweight – because as I heard over and over they were confident that he would
surround himself with "smart people" who would guide him.
So basically – everyone who voted for Bush deliberately voted for those self-same "smart people",
instead of the highly experienced and clearly well informed Gore, had served in Vietnam, had served
on the House Intelligence Committee (and introduced and arms control plan), had sat on the Senate
Homeland Security and Armed Services Committees, and had a record of trying to pull US support
for Saddam back in the 80's, when the Reagan Administration was still sending arms and money (Reagan
threatened a veto of his bill).
The GOP voters chose Bush knowing full well that guys like Bremer, Feith, Wolfowitz, Libby,
Pearle, and of course Cheney were going to be the ones doing all the heavy lifting on our foreign
policy.
Whether he knew it or not Bush '43 inherited a mess left by his father and Clinton. All of those
PNAC members believed they could subjugate Iraq and the rest would fall in line were mistaken.
The men and women who died in the Middle East from 1990 thru today were wasted.
I think the headline and tagline actually do a disservice to this otherwise excellent article.
They bring the reader in with the assumption that the author is trying exculpate Bush by distancing
him from these terrible policies, but that assumed intent is not borne out by the actual text
("while the responsibility for what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush "). I think this
is a very informative chronicle of how government can be co-opted by mid-level bureaucrats, and
perhaps a title change might better reflect this focus.
There is great irony in the claim that Bush's de-Baathification policies in Iraq were inspired
by the de-Nazification policies in postwar Germany. For one of the lessons of that era was that
the policy of removing all Nazi Party members from positions of authority was foolish and made
governing Germany unmanageable. In due course, the policy of de-Nazification was loosened and
many functionaries of the Hitler regime, who had been NSDAP members but not ideologues and were
happy to serve the new order as they had been the old, were put in positions of authority and
the transition out of Allied Military Government and the restoration of a functioning German state,
a member of the anti-Soviet alliance, in the West was successfully accelerated. It was only late
in the Twentieth Century, with the rise of the neo-cons in American politics, that this history
was revised and the wisdom of even bringing ex-Nazi scientists to the U.S., who enabled us to
develop a new generation of weapons and win the "space race" with the Soviet Union, began to be
questioned. Magnanimity to the defeated in battle has always been the mark of a wise ruler. Incessant
reproaches for past sins is a prescription for unending division and strife in any society which
tolerates it.
I agree with those above who note that Bush was no more ignorant of the policies being implemented
by his government in Iraq than were the American people who heard it reported. He has no excuse
for not countermanding orders which were not his. He is responsible for all of them.
This was without a doubt Bush's fault and his decision. He was just not intellectually strong
enough to challenge or question the expertise of others. So he just let things flow as they did
without giving them the resistance and or rejections.
By pure coincidence I have been reading Woodward's book State of Denial mentioned in this article
for the last several weeks and the key players don't share the view that Bush was left out of
these decisions. It's a very compelling read.
If you've read Greg Palast's 2006 book "Armed Madhouse", where he talked about the State Department's
and National Security Council's pre-9/11 Plan A (which would have kept the Baathist power structure
pretty much intact) and the neocons' post-9/11 Plan B (which purged the Baathists from the military
and government), then you already know about all of this.
I vividly remember being laughed at, as far back as 2002, when I asserted that this entire bit
of inevitable, impending foolishness was due to half of Bush's Cabinet being drawn from the ranks
of PNAC.
The media (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, et al) only report the "news" that is "print to fit." They have
no knowledge of the truth (or no desire to report it).
Project for the New American Century . . . it isn't difficult; simply spend some time reading
the contents of their website. Why NOT learn all you can about the members of the President's
Cabinet?
The mainstream media isn't going to do it. It's up to us.
Saddam had left a Mao-styled revolution of guerilla nature in place before the invasion even started.
The work of Ali Ballout a journalist confirmed this in 2003. http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ballout1.html
There was no manner of invasion and occupation which would not have resulted in some type of
multi-pronged insurgencies and medium if not long term chaos.
Yes, the neocons assumed none of this, but they don't care much as long as they are not charged
with war crimes, their specific reputations are not harmed, and Israel is not threatened.
I absolutely hate the entire premise of the Iraq war but to play devil's advocate, are Conservative
non-interventionists saying that it would have been a success had we kept Saddam's army intact?
Certainly disbanding it was a disaster but I kind of shudder at the thought that this war can
somehow be justified on the basis that the occupation was simply botched.
On November 4, 1960 a group of us from my high school went to hear Dr. Wernher von Braun, who
was a featured speaker at the 76th Annual Convention of the Virginia Education Association in
Richmond. At the time von Braun was serving as director of the newly formed Marshall Space Flight
Center where he was the chief architect of the Saturn V launch vehicle, the superbooster that
would eventually propel the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon.
Dr. von Braun gave a very inspiration address and those in our group – most of whom were already
interested in a career in math, the sciences, and engineering-were thrilled.
The next week in school some of the teaching staff discussed with some of us who had attended
the speech the fact that Dr. von Braun had worked in Germany's rocket development program, where
he helped design and develop the V-2 at Peenemünde; during that time he had been a member of the
Nazi Party and the SS and had at times been involved in the selection and supervision of some
of the forced labor that was used in the V-2 program at Peenemünde. We all knew that, obviously,
Dr. von Braun and other German rocket scientists brought to the US after the war were exceptions
to the general US/Allied policy of de-Nazification. We, both students and teachers, had such an
interesting series of discussions with speakers on both sides of the issue.
William Dalton writes that "in due course, the policy of de-Nazification was loosened and many
functionaries of the Hitler regime, who had been NSDAP members but not ideologues and were happy
to serve the new order as they had been the old, were put in positions of authority and the transition
out of Allied Military Government and the restoration of a functioning German state."
I agree with two important points that William Dalton makes:
(1) "Magnanimity to the defeated in battle has always been the mark of a wise ruler. Incessant
reproaches for past sins is a prescription for unending division and strife in any society which
tolerates it."
(2) "There is great irony in the claim that Bush's de-Baathification policies in Iraq were
inspired by the de-Nazification policies in postwar Germany."
Without the de-Baathification, we may have ended up with a stable Iraqi government. That means
one that would now be headed by someone similar to Saddam Hussein. Until the people of Iraq can
resolve their differences – and they don't show any evidence of approaching this point – only
a despotic ruler can keep any order. The problem is that we don't want order. We want to chase
idealistic dreams. If we had any rational assessment of the situation in the Middle East, we wouldn't
have gone there in the first place. So the de-Baathification was logically consistent with the
misguided nature of our overall mission.
It is useful to remember the real goal behind deBaathification. And it wasn't because it was strategic
from a military/security standpoint. It was strategic from a purely ideological standpoint.
After WWII, the US government forced both Japan and Germany to accept labor unions, which had
been anathema in both nations prior to the war. Strong welfare provisions were incorporated into
both countries laws by the occupation authorities. And what do you know – both countries flourished
economically in the coming decades.
The Bush Administration was filled with Heritage vetted appointees who wanted Iraq to be a
new model – of what would happen if you took all the Heritage wet dreams and stick them into a
country and the moribund economy after the last decade of sanctions took off? It was to be a perfect
laboratory to demonstrate that right wing economic policies were the way to go. A flat tax, sale
of government assets to private companies, opening Iraq up to international corporations with
little or no regulation, dismantling Saddam's socialist economic infrastructure – these were seemingly
prioritized more by the people the Bush Administration sent to Iraq that security concerns. Dedication
to Heritage/free market principles was valued for Reconstruction authorities over knowledge and
experience in Middle Eastern geopolitics.
And you had to deBaathify Iraq, totally cleanse the government of Baathist officials and laws,
to make the Heritage Foundation's dream come true. In their mind, the deck was stacked – oil revenues
would guarantee success for their experiment, and provide a counter-narrative to the post-war
economic successes of Germany and Japan.
Alas – supply side economics can never fail – it can only be failed. See Kansas today.
"You're the one we voted for
So you must take the blame
For handing out authority
To men who were insane"
And again – those who voted for Bush in 2000 absolutely knew he was going to be handing out
that authority. They knowingly turned our foreign policy over to those "bureaucrats".
"Mr. Bush has unabashedly shown his dependence on Ms. Rice Ms. Rice's role is all the more
critical because Mr. Bush doesn't like to read briefing books on the nuts-and-bolts of national
security, and his lack of experience in foreign affairs has raised questions about his preparedness
for the White House. "
"While the junior Bush may lack his father's resume - CIA director, ambassador to China, architect
of the Gulf War victory - George W. has inherited some of his father's top aides, and with little
experience of his own, Bush says he will rely on their advice. "
"Mr Bush has shown little interest in getting to know the world beyond Texas, where he is governor,
having travelled abroad only three times in his adult life, excluding visits to neighbouring Mexico.
He has not even visited Canada. This means that Mr Bush, if he takes the White House, will inevitably
rely on more seasoned advisers in formulating America's future defence and foreign policy."
"I'd say this puts culpability for the Iraq debacle squarely in the laps of every voter who cast
a ballot for GW Bush in 2000."
I voted for G.W Bush for the Executive Office. And I have no issues taking responsibility for
my vote. I will also take responsibility for my failure in convincing him not to support:
1. the long term application of the PA
2. Invading Afghanistan as opposed to treating the matter as a course of law, thereby putting
the processes of the FBI, in conjunction with the State Department and if need be, the CIA, Special
Ops. – using an incision instead of a cudgel.
3. Not invading Iraq at all
I completely and utterly failed. That failure resides quite deep in my being. However, being
a conservative is not really responsible for the decisions made. In fact, if anything conservative
thought would have steered a far different course.
_____________________
I do not think for a minute that the author is denying where the ultimate responsibility lies.
To say that the "buck" stops at the executive office goes without saying.
The article dissects the failure to its managers. It's like Benghazi. Sure the executive must
ultimately bare responsibility. However, understanding how the director of the State Department
mismanaged matters is important in understanding government. Especially in terms of accountability.
And at its core is one of the reasons that big government (scale and efficiency) is problematic
to any organization. The ability of senior and midlevel managers to avoid responsibility for their
choices by blaming the upper echelons.
The lines of ownership get blurred through weak "delegated" accountability. It's similar to
the arguments made about 9/11. Nothing in the Admin. was available for them to act in CONUS on
the actors involved because that information was not passed on by the agencies that had it. The
general "hair on fire" threat analysis did not include known terrorists that had made it to the
US. It did not include data that the same were learning to fly airliners minus landing and take
offs(?). Any of the knowledgeable agencies could have acted minus direct involvement of the WH,
but they did not. Those agencies: CIA, FBI, State Department and the airlines application of "no
fly lists".
Sure September 11 occurred while Pres. Bush was in office, but there is a reason why one delegates
authority.
As to Iraq, absolutely, heads should have rolled. All of which is a matter of management style
within an organizations culture and environment. And on a scale this large - anyone who doesn't
comprehend that vital errors are only covered by chance more often than not, doesn't get this
article in my view.
I will skip the sad tales of the Iraqi government being Nazi's, by way of Chalabi and company.
But an examination of large scale conflicts, such as WWII, for example will reveal managerial
disasters that cost lost lives needlessly.
The Iraq example has one over riding reality. We never should invaded in the first place. Here
I think the Pres. ignored his instincts. My opinion despite the "cowboy" image, Pres. Bush is
not a decisive gunslinger and given the 9/11 scenarios. He needn't have been. I think no small
number of choices were undermined by others.
While I certainly appreciate sanctimonious retorts. The emotional anger and dismay experienced
by most of the country played no small roll in the decisions, including that of no small number
of democrats and liberals.
Forget the WH and Congress, trying explaining in sane language why actions taken should not
have been to members of the public was tantamount to treason.
So taking a cue from the vote for Pres. Bush to blame. How about anyone who supported the use
of the military in both campaigns.
The article makes telling points against Bremer, Feith, et al., but that does not and should not
absolve GWB. He was President, and the buck stopped with him.
I would add two points. First that wars are always messy affairs. Anyone who talks of surgical
wars is either a fool or a fraud (if not both). Second, this whole chain of events started with
GHW Bush's decision to go to war in 1990.
Rock Sash, I don't know if you were responding to my post but just in case you were thank you,
it provides a good explanation. In short, the more rational management of Iraq leads us closer
to the pre-invasion Iraq version of Iraq which of course means that we should not have invaded.
No one is suggesting that Saddam was a good guy and in fact, now that they have been birthed,
I wish the current govt of Iraq well. As someone who respects the sovereignty of nations I am
appalled at those who want to meddle further in Iraq by partitioning their country into three
separate countries to fix a problem that we created because we don't like that the Shiites are
the majority and are predictably aligned with Iran. No, let's leave them alone and let them re-take
the Sunni portion of Iraq and try to re-integrate it back into their country. If we meddle and
try to create 'Sunnistan' then the geniuses in our country are going to discover that it will
be harder than they think to keep it from becoming ISI(S-) 2.
If this is true, then clearly the inmates were running the asylum. And still are i.e. Benghazi.
And it was probably always thus, no matter whose administration was in charge. This suggests the
presence of some deep-seated structural problems not only within the Executive Department but
with the very way in which we presume to govern ourselves as a country.
@Connecticut Farmer If this is true, then clearly the inmates were running the asylum.
It seems to me that inmates running the asylum has been a feature of GOP foreign policy for
awhile (eg – Iran/Contra and Ollie North April Glaspie's assurances to Saddam that his border
dispute with Kuwait was not a concern to the US )
OTOH – Benghazi? I don't get the connection, except in that these days conservatives seem to
want to link Benghazi to everything.
"Conservative non-interventionists" worthy of the name would not attempt to justify the war,
period.
As far as voters owning a share of the guilt, I believe anyone who votes for candidates of
either of the corrupt duopoly rather than helping build alternative parties run the likely risk
of sharing
in any unjustified intervention ultimately carried out.
Granted this belief rests on the assumption both the GOP and Dems are either irredeemable or a
viable multiparty system is necessary to nudge them into redemption.
@ balconesfault who wrote: "After WWII, the US government forced both Japan and Germany to accept
labor unions, which had been anathema in both nations prior to the war. Strong welfare provisions
were incorporated into both countries laws by the occupation authorities."
You're right, balconesfault, that the "socialists" of the National Socialist German Workers
Party - like the "socialists" of the Union of Soviet "Socialist" Republics - banned membership
in all unions that were not under government control and they outlawed all strikes.
But you're wrong, balconesfault, with respect to Nazi welfare provisions. One of the means
by which the Nazis maintained strong popular support was through a generous welfare state that
particularly benefitted German lower classes. Hitler implemented price and rent controls, higher
corporate taxes, much higher taxes on capital gains, and subsidies to German farmers to protect
them from weather and price fluctuations. The Nazi government increased pension benefits substantially
and put in place a state-run health care system.
baconesfault – "After WWII, the US government forced both Japan and Germany to accept labor unions,
which had been anathema in both nations prior to the war. Strong welfare provisions were incorporated
into both countries laws by the occupation authorities. And what do you know – both countries
flourished economically in the coming decades."
Why must you always look at the world through donkey colored glasses?
Actually, the rejection of the US imposed economic straight jacket, which included price controls
is credited by economists in Germany for the economic success in Germany. The fathers of Ordo-liberalism,
Franz Bohm, Walter Euken, Ludwig Erhard, and others pushed these reforms. Erhard in particular,
as Economics minister defied the occupation authority and abolished the price controls and other
economic controls that were in place, and at the same time introduced the deutsche mark, replacing
the reichsmark. A hard money policy is a tenet of Ordoliberalism. They reject the concept of economic
stimulus.
Ordo-liberalism is a system that is a "third way" system between classical liberalism and the
socialist system. Its based on free market economics, but the adherents believe government is
required to ensure free markets remain free from monopolies and other manipulations that may occur
that would destroy a free market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism
@Johann Actually, the rejection of the US imposed economic straight jacket, which included
price controls is credited by economists in Germany for the economic success in Germany. The fathers
of Ordo-liberalism, Franz Bohm, Walter Euken, Ludwig Erhard, and others pushed these reforms.
OK – that's nice. You still did nothing to address the thesis.
The honey theory of Iraqi reconstruction stems from the most cherished belief of the war's
ideological architects: that greed is good. Not good just for them and their friends but good
for humanity, and certainly good for Iraqis. Greed creates profit, which creates growth, which
creates jobs and products and services and everything else anyone could possibly need or want.
The role of good government, then, is to create the optimal conditions for corporations to pursue
their bottomless greed, so that they in turn can meet the needs of the society. The problem is
that governments, even neoconservative governments, rarely get the chance to prove their sacred
theory right: despite their enormous ideological advances, even George Bush's Republicans are,
in their own minds, perennially sabotaged by meddling Democrats, intractable unions, and alarmist
environmentalists.
Iraq was going to change all that. In one place on Earth, the theory would finally be put
into practice in its most perfect and uncompromised form. A country of 25 million would not be
rebuilt as it was before the war; it would be erased, disappeared. In its place would spring forth
a gleaming showroom for laissez-faire economics, a utopia such as the world had never seen. Every
policy that liberates multinational corporations to pursue their quest for profit would be put
into place: a shrunken state, a flexible workforce, open borders, minimal taxes, no tariffs, no
ownership restrictions.
Great comments. I'll reiterate what I said previously about the general topic:
I don't think there are enough sane "mid-level" Republicans in DC to properly staff any incoming
administration, even a Paul one. I know that sounds harsh, but I know it in my gut, is that fair?
By all available lights, Cheney/Rumsfeld types and their lackeys still dominate the GOP on foreign
policy, hell, if even the Democrats are compromised, it is beyond me how anyone can believe that
a newly moderate and sensible GOP foreign policy staff has magically materialized in the last
eight years but is somehow still keeping largely silent. Where are they? Where's the proof that
the risks have been mitigated?
@Kurt Gayle But you're wrong, balconesfault, with respect to Nazi welfare provisions.
I did not say that the Nazi's did not have a welfare state (although they did limit beneficiaries
to those of Aryan blood). I merely noted that the reconstruction authorities incorporated strong
welfare provisions into the post-war laws of Germany and Japan, and that those countries economies
(and quality of life) flourished in subsequent years.
baconesfault – I don't think we are in much disagreement regarding the disaster that was Iraq's
occupation. I do not take issue with the fact that the Iraq economic disaster was set up by the
Bush administration. I don't think it was a failure of capitalism though. It was a long term Christmas
present for major corporations. And according to a friend of mine who was there as a civilian
working for the US Army Corps of Engineers, it was worse than crony capitalism. Outright theft
by contractors was rampant and purposely overlooked. I would not call that a failure of capitalism.
It was a predictable result of crony capitalism corruption and the lack of the rule of law.
"Benghazi? I don't get the connection, except in that these days conservatives seem to want to
link Benghazi to everything."
I am unclear if you understand the concept here. It is not generally referred to as surgical
warfare, though I get why you use the term. It's surgical "strike".
Those uses of force with very specific objectives and generally limitted goals. Ten tears too
late and anti-climatic at best, the capture of Bin Laden would be considred such an operation.
The Benghazi matter is simple. The executive in the WH delegatese State Deapt operations to
the Sec of State. While he is ultimately responsible because he sits at the head. The immediate
responsibility rests with those to whom he delegates authority. The Embassy personnnel send tepetaed
dispatches that the security environment in Libya id deteriorating and doing so quickly. They
dispatch the need for help. The State department misjudges, mischaracterizes or ignors the on
the scene damage reports and the call for help. Instead choosing to focus on the political response
to Libyan violence. Embassy is attacked and personnel are killed.
The Sec of State is immediately responsible. We now no so much more based on the details of
events. That anyone in the State Department should be ashamed for blaiming the matter on internet
videos or anything else other than our support for a rebellion, that backfired.
On the larger question, to accountability - Executives can mullify the impact by taking corrective
action and or holding his delegates responsible. I think the perception here is that no one has
been held accountable in either admin.
Perhaps, Sec. Clinton lost her position at the state department as consequence. But the accountability
for failed leadership in several disasterous foreign policy advances seems to be a bid for the
WH. Which begs the question - what does accountability mean.
In either admin. it seems to hold no value. I think the article demonstrates the issues very
well.
Very interesting article. I understand that it is not an apology or an excuse for W. Rather, it
is a deconstruction of the antics of what The Economist once referred to as "this most inept of
administrations".
It makes sense. So much attention is paid to the Executive that not enough is paid to the coterie
that comes with him. In W's case the was Cheney, Rove and those whom Bush Sr. referred to as "the
crazies in the basement".
Considering the role that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith et al played in ginning
up the war, it is not surprising that they and their cohort proceeded to screw it up once they
got it.
It was ill conceived and poorly executed and rightly stands as our most disastrous foreign
policy bungle ever. The fact that the authors still refuse to believe that it was ill conceived,
only poorly executed, shows what their judgement is worth. Nothing.
@EliteCommInc – I think the confusion I have here is over accountability for strategy, versus
accountability for tactics.
The de-Baathification of Iraq was a strategy. It was an enormous, ground changing plan, and
one would expect accountability for this to run directly to the Chief Executive, not only for
the giving responsibility for designing the strategy, but for approving the strategy itself.
Similarly, for the examples I brought up – Iran/Contra was a strategy. Selling weapons to Iran
and using money to fund insurgents in Nicaragua wasn't simply a matter of tactics. Again, it was
the responsibility of the POTUS to know this was going on, and Reagan failed on this count. Whether
or not the US had an interest in preserving the integrity of Kuwait's borders with Iraq was a
strategy, and not simply a tactic, and the President should have been involved in approving any
communications with Saddam on that point.
Benghazi was a tactical failure. In a sense – it was analogous with 9/11 nobody in the State
Department wanted the consulate to be at risk of being overrun by terrorists anymore than nobody
in the intelligence community or DOD wanted the Twin Towers and the Pentagon to suffer hits. Of
course, Benghazi was 0.01% as significant a tactical failure as 9/11 was but the failure was
due to people who had been properly assigned responsibilities not doing their job.
To the extent that someone dropped the ball with Benghazi, this wasn't due to mid-level bureaucrats
making their own policies independent of the POTUS. Our involvement in Libya itself was a strategy,
and Mr. Larison has repeatedly pointed out how it's a shame that the Benghazi committee has microfocused
on the tactics of protecting the consulate and the responsibility for failure to do so, rather
than on the strategy that put our diplomatic personnel in the middle of that tinderbox in the
first place.
That said, President Obama has clearly taken responsibility for the strategy. Our air cover
for Libyan rebels, and our subsequent diplomatic efforts, are on his plate.
Excuse me, but I knew before! the invasion that toppling Hussein and installing a Shiite regime
would unsettle that country and lead to civil war. I erred in thinking the civil war part would
happen sooner than it has. I am simply an informed housewife and librarian. George Bush should
have known, too, without any advisers telling him. Don't give me the both sides do it malarkey.
In the above cases within the strategy or tactic, it's remains the case of indivual failure.
________________
"The fact that the authors still refuse to believe that it was ill conceived, only poorly executed,
shows what their judgement is worth. Nothing."
In one of my rare defenses, I think you are dancing with an unknown. Whether the Iraq invasion
was wise or not is not really part of the question here. While one can acknowledge it's overall
veracity, ther is value in examining the details of what transpired afterwards that made matters
worse.
And i think disbanding the military was a huge contributor to subsequent events. And obviously
so. For the message was that members of the military were essentially now enemies of the state
they once fought to protect and as such they were on their own aort from state function. Excuse
me but departing weapons in hand to fight back against any reprisals or making the efforts of
the US and their newly established system makes perfect sense.
AHd they not disbanded the military which includes the admin. bureacracy, despite the head
having been dismantled would have vital foundational systems in place upon which basic services
would have remained functional, including and not the least of which was running water, electricty
and basic policing.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the invasion. Making assessments about subsequent decisions
and implementation are valuable in understanding what happened during the occupation. No doubt
that Iraqis patrolling the streets, who the people, the language, customs and had some legtmate
established authority would have been less problematic than US servicemen and, especially women
playingthat role.
We've seen the make-shift "fake news" list created by a
leftist feminist professor. Well, another fake news list has been revealed
and this one holds a lot more water.
This list contains the culprits who told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and lied
us into multiple bogus wars. These are the news sources that told us "if you like your doctor, you
can keep your doctor." They told us that Hillary Clinton had a 98% of winning the election. They
tell us in a never-ending loop that "The economy is in great shape!"
"... With Trump, exactly the same thing has happened as with my Five Star Movement, which was born of the Internet: the media were taken aback and asked us where we were before. We gathered millions of people in public squares and they marvelled. We became the biggest movement in Italy and journalists and philosophers continued to say that we were benefitting from people's dissatisfaction. ..."
"... the amateurs are the ones conquering the world and I'm rejoicing in it because the professionals are the ones who have reduced the world to this state. Hillary Clinton, Obama and all the rest have destroyed democracy and their international policies. ..."
"... If that's the case, it signifies that the experts, economists and intellectuals have completely misunderstood everything, especially if the situation is the way it is ..."
"... Brexit and Trump are signs of a huge change. If we manage to understand that, we'll also get to face it." ..."
"... Until now, these anti-establishment movements have come face-to-face with their own limits: as soon as they come to power they seem to lose their capabilities and reason for being. Alexis Tsipras, in Greece, for example ..."
"... President Juncker suggested modifying the code of ethics and lengthening the period of abstinence from any private work for former Commission members to three years. Is that enough? ..."
"... I have serious doubts about a potential change in the code of ethics being made by a former minister of a tax haven. ..."
"... We've always maintained this idea of total autonomy in decision-making, but we united over the common idea of a different Europe, a mosaic of autonomies and sovereignties. ..."
"... If he wants to hold a referendum on the euro, he'll have our support. If he wants to leave the Fiscal Stability Treaty – the so-called Fiscal Compact – which was one of our battles, we'll be there ..."
"... Renzi's negotiating power will also depend on the outcome of the constitutional referendum in December. We'll see whether he sinks or swims. ..."
"... Neoliberal Trojan Horse Obama has quite a global legacy. ..."
"... Maybe it's time for the Europeans to stop sucking American cock. Note that we barely follow your elections. It's time to spread your wings and fly. ..."
"... "The Experts* Destroyed The World" - Beppe Grillo. Never a truer word spoken, Beppe! YOU DA MAN!!! And these "Experts" - these self-described "ELITE" - did so - and are STILL doing so WITH MALICIOUS INTENT - and lining their pockets every fking step of the way! ..."
"... As the Jason Statham character says in that great Guy Richie movie "Revolver": "If there's ONE thing I've learnt about "Experts", it's that they're expert in FUCK ALL!" ..."
"... Apart from asset-stripping the economy & robbing the populace blind that is - and giving their countries away to the invader so indigenous populations cant fight back... or PURPOSELY angling for WW3 to hide their criminality behind the ULTIMATE & FINAL smokescreen. ..."
"... It NATO collapses so will the Euro project. The project was always American from the start. In recent years it has become a mechanism by which the Poles (and other assorted Eastern Europeans) can extract war guarantees out of the USA, UK and France. It is a total mess and people like Grillo add to the confusion by their flawed analysis. ..."
Whatever the reason, we agree with the next point he makes, namely the overthrow of "experts" by
amateurs.
euronews: "Do you think appealing to people's emotions is enough to get elected?
Is that a political project?"
Beppe Grillo: "This information never ceases to make the rounds: you don't
have a political project, you're not capable, you're imbeciles, amateurs And yet, the
amateurs are the ones conquering the world and I'm rejoicing in it because the professionals are
the ones who have reduced the world to this state. Hillary Clinton, Obama and all the rest have
destroyed democracy and their international policies. If that's the case, it signifies
that the experts, economists and intellectuals have completely misunderstood everything, especially
if the situation is the way it is. If the EU is what we have today, it means the European
dream has evaporated. Brexit and Trump are signs of a huge change. If we manage to understand
that, we'll also get to face it."
Bingo, or as Nassim Taleb put its, the "Intellectual-Yet-Idiot"
class. It is the elimination of these so-called "experts", most of whom have PhDs or other letters
next to their name to cover their insecurity, and who drown every possible medium with their endless,
hollow, and constantly wrong chatter, desperate to create a self-congratulatory echo
chamber in which their errors are diluted with the errors of their "expert" peers,
that will be the biggest challenge for the world as it seeks to break away from the legacy of a fake
"expert class" which has brought the entire world to its knees, and has unleashed the biggest political
tsunami in modern history.
One thing is certain: the "experts" won't go quietly as the "amateurs" try to retake what is rightfully
theirs.
... ... ...
Beppe Grillo, Leader of the Five Star Movement
"It's an extraordinary turning point. This corn cob – we can also call Trump that in a nice way –
doesn't have particularly outstanding qualities. He was such a target for the media, with such terrifying
accusations of sexism and racism, as well as being harassed by the establishment – such as the New
York Times – but, in the end, he won.
"That is a symbol of the tragedy and the apocalypse of traditional information. The television
and newspapers are always late and they relay old information. They no longer anticipate anything
and they're only just understanding that idiots, the disadvantaged, those who are marginalised –
and there are millions of them – use alternative media, such as the Internet, which passes under
the radar of television, a medium people no longer use.
"With Trump, exactly the same thing has happened as with my Five Star Movement, which was
born of the Internet: the media were taken aback and asked us where we were before. We gathered millions
of people in public squares and they marvelled. We became the biggest movement in Italy and journalists
and philosophers continued to say that we were benefitting from people's dissatisfaction. We'll
get into government and they'll ask themselves how we did it."
euronews
"There is a gap between giving populist speeches and governing a nation."
Beppe Grillo
"We want to govern, but we don't want to simply change the power by replacing it with our own. We
want a change within civilisation, a change of world vision.
"We're talking about dematerialised industry, an end to working for money, the start of working
for other payment, a universal citizens revenue. If our society is founded on work, what will happen
if work disappears? What will we do with millions of people in flux? We have to organise and manage
all that."
euronews
"Do you think appealing to people's emotions is enough to get elected? Is that a political project?"
Beppe Grillo
"This information never ceases to make the rounds: you don't have a political project, you're
not capable, you're imbeciles, amateurs
"And yet, the amateurs are the ones conquering the world and I'm rejoicing in it because the
professionals are the ones who have reduced the world to this state. Hillary Clinton, Obama and all
the rest have destroyed democracy and their international policies.
"If that's the case, it signifies that the experts, economists and intellectuals have completely
misunderstood everything, especially if the situation is the way it is. If the EU is what we
have today, it means the European dream has evaporated. Brexit and Trump are signs of a huge
change. If we manage to understand that, we'll also get to face it."
euronews
"Until now, these anti-establishment movements have come face-to-face with their own limits:
as soon as they come to power they seem to lose their capabilities and reason for being. Alexis Tsipras,
in Greece, for example "
Beppe Grillo
"Yes, I agree."
euronews
"Let's take the example of Podemos in Spain. They came within reach of power, then had to backtrack.
Why?"
Beppe Grillo
"Because there's an outdated way of thinking. Because they think power is managed by forming coalitions
or by making agreements with others.
"From our side, we want to give the tools to the citizens. We have an information system called
Rousseau, to which every Italian citizen can subscribe for free. There they can vote in regional
and local elections and check what their local MPs are proposing. Absolutely any citizen can even
suggest laws in their own name.
"This is something never before directly seen in democracy and neither Tsipras nor Podemos have
done it."
euronews
"You said that you're not interested in breaking up the European Union, but rather in profoundly
changing it. What can a small group of MEPs do to put into motion such great change?"
Beppe Grillo
"The little group of MEPs is making its voice heard, but there are complications In parliament,
there are lobby groups and commissions. Parliament decides, but at the same time doesn't decide.
"We do what we can, in line with our vision of a world based on a circular economy. We put forward
the idea of a circular economy as the energy of the future and the proposal has been adopted by the
European parliament."
euronews
"One hot topic at the Commission at the moment is the problem of the conflicts of interest concerning
certain politicians.
"President Juncker suggested modifying the code of ethics and lengthening the period of abstinence
from any private work for former Commission members to three years. Is that enough?"
Beppe Grillo
"I have serious doubts about a potential change in the code of ethics being made by a former
minister of a tax haven."
euronews
"You don't think the Commission is legitimate?"
Beppe Grillo
"Absolutely not. Particularly because it's a Commission that no one has actually elected. That's
what brought us closer to Nigel Farage: a democracy coming from the people."
euronews "You don't regret being allied with Farage?"
Beppe Grillo
"It was an alliance of convenience, made to give us enough support to enter parliament. We've
always maintained this idea of total autonomy in decision-making, but we united over the common idea
of a different Europe, a mosaic of autonomies and sovereignties.
"I'm not against Europe, but I am against the single currency. Conversely, I am for the idea of
a common currency. The words are important: 'common' and 'single' are two different concepts.
"In any case, the UK has demonstrated something that we in Italy couldn't even dream of: organising
a clear 'yes-no' referendum."
euronews
"That is 'clear' in terms of the result and not its consequences. In reality, the population is torn.
Many people's views have done u-turns."
Beppe Grillo
"Whatever happens, the responsibility returns entirely to the British. They made the decision."
euronews
"Doesn't it bother you that Italy's Prime Minister Matteo Renzi is playing the spoilsport in Europe?
Criticising European institutions was your battle horse and now he is flexing his muscles in Brussels."
Beppe Grillo
"Renzi has to do that. But he's just copying me and in doing so, strengthens the original."
euronews
"Whatever it may be, his position at the head of the government can get him results."
Beppe Grillo
"Very well. If he wants to hold a referendum on the euro, he'll have our support. If he wants
to leave the Fiscal Stability Treaty – the so-called Fiscal Compact – which was one of our battles,
we'll be there."
euronews
"In the quarrel over the flexibility of public accounts due to the earthquake and immigration, who
are you supporting?"
Beppe Grillo "On that, I share Renzi's position. I have nothing against projects and ideas. I have preconceptions
about him. For me, he is completely undeserving of confidence."
euronews
"Renzi's negotiating power will also depend on the outcome of the constitutional referendum in
December. We'll see whether he sinks or swims."
Beppe Grillo
"It's already lost for him."
euronews
"If he doesn't win, will you ask for early elections?"
Beppe Grillo
"Whatever happens, we want elections because the government as it stands is not legitimate and, as
a consequence, neither are we.
"From this point onwards, the government moves forward simply by approving laws based on how urgent
they are. And 90 percent of laws are approved using this method. So what good will it do to reform
the Senate to make the process quicker?"
euronews
"Can you see yourself at the head of the Italian government?"
Beppe Grillo
"No, no. I was never in the race. Never."
euronews
"So, Beppe Grillo is not even a candidate to become prime minister or to take on another official
role, if one day the Five Star Movement was to win the elections?"
Beppe Grillo
"The time is fast approaching."
euronews
"Really? A projection?"
Beppe Grillo
"People just need to go and vote. We're sure to win."
BabaLooey -> Nemontel •Nov 21, 2016 6:27 AM
euronews: "You don't think the Commission is legitimate?"
Beppe Grillo: "Absolutely not. Particularly because it's a Commission that no one has
actually elected. That's what brought us closer to Nigel Farage: a democracy coming from the people."
BOILED DOWN - THAT IS ALL THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID.
Blackhawks •Nov 21, 2016 3:15 AM
Neoliberal Trojan Horse Obama has quite a global legacy. People all over the world
are voting for conmen and clowns instead of his endorsed candidates and chosen successor. Having
previously exposed the "intellectual-yet-idiot" class, Nassim Taleb unleashes his acerbic
tone in 3 painfully "real news" tweets on President Obama's legacy...
Obama:
Protected banksters (largest bonus pool in 2010)
"Helped" Libya
Served AlQaeda/SaudiBarbaria(Syria & Yemen) https://t.co/bcNMhDgmuo
Maybe it's time for the Europeans to stop sucking American cock. Note that we barely follow
your elections. It's time to spread your wings and fly.
Yen Cross -> LetThemEatRand •Nov 21, 2016 3:27 AM
Amen~ The" European Toadies" should also institute " term limits" so those Jean Paul & Draghi][JUNKERS[]-
technocratic A-Holes can be done away with!
NuYawkFrankie •Nov 21, 2016 5:07 AM
"The Experts* Destroyed The World" - Beppe Grillo. Never a truer word spoken, Beppe! YOU
DA MAN!!! And these "Experts" - these self-described "ELITE" - did so - and are STILL doing so
WITH MALICIOUS INTENT - and lining their pockets every fking step of the way!
As the Jason Statham character says in that great Guy Richie movie "Revolver": "If there's
ONE thing I've learnt about "Experts", it's that they're expert in FUCK ALL!"
Apart from asset-stripping the economy & robbing the populace blind that is - and giving
their countries away to the invader so indigenous populations cant fight back... or PURPOSELY
angling for WW3 to hide their criminality behind the ULTIMATE & FINAL smokescreen.
Yep -THAT is how F'KING sick they are. These, my friends, are your "Experts", your self-decribed
"Elite" - and Soros is at the head of the parade.
lakecity55 -> NuYawkFrankie •Nov 21, 2016 6:18 AM
You know the old saying, "an expert's a guy from more than 20 miles outside of town."
tuetenueggel •Nov 21, 2016 5:17 AM
Which experts do you mean Beppe ?
All I Kow is that those "experts" are too stupid to piss a hole in the snow.
Oettinger ( not even speaking his mother tongue halfways correct )
Jean clown Juncker ( always drunk too is a kind of well structured day )
Schulz capo (who was too stupid as mayor of a german village so they fucked him out)
Hollande ( lefts are always of lower IQ then right wing people )
Blair ( war criminal )
and thousands more not to be named her ( due to little space availlable )
caesium •Nov 21, 2016 6:35 AM
It NATO collapses so will the Euro project. The project was always American from the start.
In recent years it has become a mechanism by which the Poles (and other assorted Eastern Europeans)
can extract war guarantees out of the USA, UK and France. It is a total mess and people like Grillo
add to the confusion by their flawed analysis.
The bedrock of Italy was always the Catholic faith which the country has abandoned. "The Faith
is Europe and Europe is the Faith" said Hilaire Belloc. A reality that Grillo is unable to grasp.
"... Thank you for this very good link. The swamp cant be drained with an election, the society has been infested and corrupt beyond redemption. There can't be a revolution either, because no charismatic figure could lead it, and the majority of the people prefer to bury their head in the sand. ..."
"... It'd be nice to think that the coming devolution won't be an exact repeat, e.g. a neo-Dark Age for hundreds of years, but who can say? Maybe science and philosophy won't be entirely lost this time around. But of course all speculation is rendered nul and void IF we have WW3 ..."
"... If Trump appoints any vetted neocons to high positions in his administration, he runs the risk of synchronized resignations if he decides to move closer to Russia. ..."
"... Fake Libertarians need to understand that Radical islam is a problem not because of America's wars in the Middle East or NATO. Radical islam is inherently violent. India has been a victim of this virus since the 8th century! India never invaded any country. ..."
Thank you for this very good link. The swamp cant be drained with an election, the society has
been infested and corrupt beyond redemption. There can't be a revolution either, because no charismatic
figure could lead it, and the majority of the people prefer to bury their head in the sand.
What will eventually happen is an economic implosion and chaos. The "elite" won't be able to
finance a repressive force since their "electronic money" will not be trusted, and everything
will fall apart.
And years after, small communities will gradually re-emerge since there will
be a need to protect the people with a local police force. But the notion of a super-state or
even more of a NWO will not survive, after an initial depopulation we'll have something similar
than what you had at the begining of the middle age, a life organized around small independant
comunities of 3,000 or 5,000 people.
Very close to my thinking ... and a precedent is the demize of the Roman Empire, when Europe devolved
into numerous small feudal regions, such as in England for over a thousand years, i.e after numerous
internal wars, such as the Wars of the Roses and the reign of Henry VIII, it wasn't until the
1600s and the so-called "Enlightenment" that England was unified ... and it wasn't until the 1700s
that Scotland was conquered and "Great Britain" existed, also having incorporated Wales and Ireland,
with at least Eire having gained independence during the 1920s, Wales never being really integrated,
nor Scotland now moving away from the centre of the whole shebang ... London always.
It'd be nice to think that the coming devolution won't be an exact repeat, e.g. a neo-Dark
Age for hundreds of years, but who can say? Maybe science and philosophy won't be entirely lost
this time around. But of course all speculation is rendered nul and void IF we have WW3 despite,
or because(?) of Trump and similar phenonema in the West.
If Trump appoints any vetted neocons to high positions in his administration, he runs the risk
of synchronized resignations if he decides to move closer to Russia.
And when that is picked up by the arch deceivers at the WaPo, NYT, WSJ etc, it will be embarrassing
for Mr Trump and for the foreign policy he campaigned on.
Mr. Trump, please move closer to Russia - Putin has longed for sane dialogue with the US for the
last 8 or more years and has gotten the cold shoulder.
Fake Libertarians need to understand that Radical islam is a problem not because of America's
wars in the Middle East or NATO. Radical islam is inherently violent. India has been a victim
of this virus since the 8th century! India never invaded any country.
Islam fundamentally is incompatible with a modern society.
"... Put together, these two trends have served the purposes of the highly centralized State and the globalized market that has resulted in an unprecedented concentration of power and wealth. ..."
"... The liberal left and significant portions further left tend to celebrate a negative cultural and sexual liberty while the Liberal right tends to celebrate an economic and political negative liberty. ..."
"... It ends up bringing about exactly the kinds of intolerant [neo]liberalis m(blatantly on display these days) it ascribes to all non-liberal positions. ..."
"The Archdruid report is useful but Greer should read Thomas Frank. Then he will stop conflating
"Left" and "Liberal."
The "Left" as well as the center-left/center-right (Hillary/traditional conservative Republican
crowd) both are strong supporters of a social-cultural liberalism, that since the 1960s has
heavily promoted individual rights and an equality of opportunity for self-expression.
The "Right" since at least the early 1980s( along with the Hillary crowd) has supported
an economic political liberalism that champions "free markets" liberated from the bureaucratic
State.
Put together, these two trends have served the purposes of the highly centralized State
and the globalized market that has resulted in an unprecedented concentration of power and wealth.
The liberal left and significant portions further left tend to celebrate a negative cultural
and sexual liberty while the Liberal right tends to celebrate an economic and political negative
liberty.
The Left's defense of existing negative liberty (and not being willing to think beyond it)
ends up undermining all modes of freedom because it tends to shut down debate about substantive
ends.
It ends up bringing about exactly the kinds of intolerant [neo]liberalis m(blatantly on
display these days) it ascribes to all non-liberal positions.
Is there anyplace for a positive concept of liberty in 2016?
It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all
need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part.
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberalism has been disastrous for the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial heartland, now little more than its wasteland ..."
"... The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate. ..."
"... two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair: offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. ..."
"... Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime. ..."
"... In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus, a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic) minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate, stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined. ..."
"... But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital (which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century capitalism. ..."
"... Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive governments to deal with this. ..."
"... Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though, was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. ..."
"... Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too, along with a number of social drivers. ..."
"... The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico. ..."
"... I contend that in some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision appeared in sharp relief with Brexit. ..."
"... Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity, so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions that predate the emergence of identity politics. ..."
"... It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the plight of their cherished white working class. ..."
"... The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity. Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory present. ..."
"... Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'. ..."
"... Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness' threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation. Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like a minority vote. ..."
"... Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority, much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'? ..."
"... I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective. ..."
"... In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s." ..."
"... Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: "the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate." ..."
"... In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found, a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.' ..."
"... In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country, and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time, more and more power. ..."
"... To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their 2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced to pay. ..."
"... This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman white underclass (or so they see it). ..."
"... You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you), you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back. Nobody trusts the elite at all. ..."
"... You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem. ..."
"... One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016: the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people. This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party. ..."
"... Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery. ..."
"... None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it. ..."
"... . It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part. ..."
"... This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to the Ivy League, which is 90% of them. ..."
"... Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a "boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win? ..."
"... "The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians." ..."
"... "It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of rubble.' ..."
"... "One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats, one would be quite mistaken." ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... "At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response, governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to, and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time, is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon known as Goodhart's law. (..) ..."
"... " what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically, and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right to vote. ..."
"... "The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened. ..."
"... "The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism. It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun." ..."
"... They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue collar work. ..."
"... trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been "correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic party, have to accept. ..."
"... trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama was defending keeping what was already there. ..."
"... "Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html ..."
"... Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. "" ..."
The question is no longer her neoliberalism, but yours. Keep it or throw it away?
I wish this issue was being seriously discussed. Neoliberalism has been disastrous for
the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial
heartland, now little more than its wasteland (cf. "flyover zone" – a pejorative term which
inhabitants of the zone are not too stupid to understand perfectly, btw).
The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied
them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary
production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent
living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate.
As noted upthread, two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair:
offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. The jobs that have been lost will not return,
and indeed will be lost in ever greater numbers – just consider what will happen to the trucking
sector when self-driving trucks hit the roads sometime in the next 10-20 years (3.5 million truckers;
8.7 in allied jobs).
Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable
giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that
would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations
for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum
wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence
life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime.
In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus,
a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal
distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic)
minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate,
stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined.
I appreciate and espouse the goals of identity politics in all their multiplicity, and also
understand that the institutions of slavery and sexism predated modern capitalist economies.
But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital
(which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired
as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their
capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse
or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century
capitalism.
Also: Faustusnotes@100
For example Indiana took the ACA Medicaid expansion but did so with additional conditions that
make it worse than in neighboring states run by democratic governors.
And what states would those be? IL, IA, MI, OH, WI, KY, and TN have Republican governors. Were
you thinking pre-2014? pre-2012?
To conclude and return to my original point: what's to become of the Rust Belt in future? Did
the Democratic platform include a New New Deal for PA, OH, MI, WI, and IA (to name only the five
Rust Belt states Trump flipped)?
" Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic
and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive
governments to deal with this.
Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization
launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial
and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though,
was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the
Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. "
What should have been one comment came out as 4, so apologies on that front.
I spent the last week explaining the US election to my students in Japan in pretty much the
terms outlined by Lilla and PIketty, so I was delighted to discover these two articles.
Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too,
along with a number of social drivers. It was therefore very easy to call for a show of hands
to identify students studying here in Tokyo who are trying to decide whether or not to return
to areas such as Tohoku to build their lives; or remain in Kanto/Tokyo – the NY/Washington/LA
of Japan put crudely.
I asked students from regions close to Tohoku how they might feel if the Japanese prime minister
decided not to visit the region following Fukushima after the disaster, or preceding an election.
The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an
apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained
that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans
did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico.
I then asked the students, particularly those from outlying regions whether they believe Japan
needed a leader who would 'bring back Japanese jobs' from Viet Nam and China, etc. Many/most agreed
wholeheartedly. I then asked whether they believed Tokyo people treated those outside Kanto as
'inferiors.' Many do.
Piketty may be right regarding Trump's long-term effects on income inequality. He is wrong,
I suggest, to argue that Democrats failed to respond to Sanders' support. I contend that in
some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root
and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed
was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision
appeared in sharp relief with Brexit.
Also worth noting is that the rust belts problems are as old as Reagan – even the term dates
from the 80s, the issue is so uncool that there is a dire straits song about it. Some portion
of the decline of manufacturing there is due to manufacturers shifting to the south, where the
anti Union states have an advantage. Also there has been new investment – there were no Japanese
car companies in the us in the 1980s, so they are new job creators, yet insufficient to make up
the losses. Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity,
so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions
that predate the emergence of identity politics.
It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves
on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the
plight of their cherished white working class. Suddenly it's not the forces of capital and
the objective facts of history, but a bunch of whiny black trannies demanding safe spaces and
protesting police violence, that drove those towns to ruin.
And what solutions do they think the dems should have proposed? It can't be welfare, since
we got the ACA (watered down by representatives of the rust belt states). Is it, seriously, tariffs?
Short of going to an election promising w revolution, what should the dems have done? Give us
a clear answer so we can see what the alternative to identity politics is.
basil 11.19.16 at 5:11 am
Did this go through?
Thinking with WLGR @15, Yan @81, engels variously above,
The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people
and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of
the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great
injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation
of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic
vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan
C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity.
Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory
present.
I get that the tropes around race are easy, and super-available. Privilege confessing is very
in vogue as a prophylactic against charges of racism. But does it threaten the structures that
produce this abjection – either as embittered, immiserated 'white working class' or as threatened
minority group? It is always *those* 'white' people, the South, the Working Class, and never the
accusers some of whom are themselves happy to vote for a party that drowns out anti-war protesters
with chants of USA! USA!
Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces
ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'.
--
Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making
that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness'
threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans
are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation.
Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like
a minority vote.
Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder
if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of
the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority,
much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are
denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape
really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'?
I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants
in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but
this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective.
The 'racialisation' of class in Britain has been a consequence of the weakening of 'class'
as a political idea since the 1970s – it is a new construction, not an historic one.
.
This is not to deny the existence of working-class racism, or to suggest that racism is
somehow acceptable if rooted in perceived socio-economic grievances. But it is to suggest that
the concept of a 'white working class' needs problematizing, as does the claim that the British
working-class was strongly committed to a post-war vision of 'White Britain' analogous to the
politics which sustained the idea of a 'White Australia' until the 1960s.
Yes, old, settled neighbourhoods could be profoundly distrustful of outsiders – all outsiders,
including the researchers seeking to study them – but, when it came to race, they were internally
divided. We certainly hear working-class racist voices – often echoing stock racist complaints
about over-crowding, welfare dependency or exploitative landlords and small businessmen, but
we don't hear the deep pathological racial fears laid bare in the letters sent to Enoch Powell
after his so-called 'Rivers of Blood' speech in 1968 (Whipple, 2009).
But more importantly, we also hear strong anti-racist voices loudly and clearly. At Wallsend
on Tyneside, where the researchers were gathering their data just as Powell shot to notoriety,
we find workers expressing casual racism, but we also find eloquent expressions of an internationalist,
solidaristic perspective in which, crucially, black and white are seen as sharing the same
working-class interests.
Racism is denounced as a deliberate capitalist strategy to divide workers against themselves,
weakening their ability to challenge those with power over their lives (shipbuilding had long
been a very fractious industry and its workers had plenty of experience of the dangers of internal
sectarian battles).
To be able to mobilize across across racialised divisions, to have race wither away entirely
would, for me, be the beginning of a politics that allowed humanity to deal with the inescapable
violence of climate change and corporate power.
*To add to the bibliography – David R. Roediger, Elizabeth D. Esch – The Production of Difference
– Race and the Management of Labour, and Denise Ferreira da Silva – Toward a Global Idea of Race.
And I have just been pointed at Ian Haney-López, White By Law – The Legal Construction of Race.
FWIW 'merica's constitutional democracy is going to collapse.
Some day - not tomorrow, not next year, but probably sometime before runaway climate change
forces us to seek a new life in outer-space colonies - there is going to be a collapse of the
legal and political order and its replacement by something else. If we're lucky, it won't be violent.
If we're very lucky, it will lead us to tackle the underlying problems and result in a better,
more robust, political system. If we're less lucky, well, then, something worse will happen .
In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from
the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional
continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s."
Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly
important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the
Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When
they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the
basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote:
"the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly
legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate."
In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing
of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found,
a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a
period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative
and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.'
Given that the basic point is polarisation (i.e. that both the President and Congress have
equally strong arguments to be the the 'voice of the people') and that under the US appalling
constitutional set up, there is no way to decide between them, one can easily imagine the so to
speak 'hyperpolarisation' of a Trump Presidency as being the straw (or anvil) that breaks the
camel's back.
In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country,
and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral
result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious
democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time,
more and more power.
nastywoman @ 150
Just study the program of the 'Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschland' or the Program of 'Die
Grünen' in Germany (take it through google translate) and you get all the answers you are looking
for.
No need to run it through google translate, it's available in English on their site. [Or one
could refer to the Green Party of the U.S. site/platform, which is very similar in scope and overall
philosophy. (www.gp.org).]
I looked at several of their topic areas (Agricultural, Global, Health, Rural) and yes, these
are general theses I would support. But they're hardly policy/project proposals for specific regions
or communities – the Greens espouse "think global, act local", so programs and projects must be
tailored to individual communities and regions.
To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the
Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their
2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced
to pay.
This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring
that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the
neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes
upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman
white underclass (or so they see it).
I expect at this point that Trump will be reelected comfortably. If not only the party itself,
but also most of its activists, refuse to actually change, it's more or less inevitable.
You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going
to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that
your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you),
you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't
stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or
not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back.
Nobody trusts the elite at all.
You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror
at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem.
One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016:
the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people.
This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party.
Folks, we have seen this before. Let's not descend in backbiting and recriminations, okay?
We've got some commenters charging that other commenters are "mansplaining," meanwhile we've got
other commenters claiming that it's economics and not racism/misogyny. It's all of the above.
Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists
also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has
happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising
to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the
existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able
to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery.
None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a
modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The
problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it.
Instead, what we're seeing is a whirlwind of finger-pointing from the Democratic leadership
that lost this election and probably let the entire New Deal get rolled back and wiped out. Putin
is to blame! Julian Assange is to blame! The biased media are to blame! Voter suppression is to
blame! Bernie Sanders is to blame! Jill Stein is to blame! Everyone and anyone except the current
out-of-touch influence-peddling elites who currently have run the Democratic party into the ground.
We need the feminists and the black lives matter groups and we also need the green party people
and the Bernie Sanders activists. But everyone has to understand that this is not an isolated
event. Trump did not just happen by accident. First there was Greece, then there was Brexit, then
there was Trump, next it'll be Renzi losing the referendum in Italy and a constitutional crisis
there, and after that, Marine Le Pen in France is going to win the first round of elections. (Probably
not the presidency, since all the other French parties will band together to stop her, but the
National Front is currently polling at 40% of all registered French voters.) And Marine LePen
is the real deal, a genuine full-on out-and-out fascist. Not a closet fascist like Steve Bannon,
LePen is the full monty with everything but a Hugo Boss suit and the death's heads on the cap.
Does anyone notice a pattern here?
This is an international movement. It is sweeping the world . It is the end of neoliberalism
and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp
out the authoritarian part.
Feminists, BLM, black bloc anarchiest anti-globalists, Sandernistas, and, yes, the former Hillary
supporters. Because it not just a coincidence that all these things are happening in all these
countries at the same time. The bottom 90% of the population in the developed world has been ripped
off by a managerial and financial and political class for the last 30 years and they have all
noticed that while the world GDP was skyrocketing and international trade agreements were getting
signed with zero input from the average citizen, a few people were getting very very rich but
nobody else was getting anything.
This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially
single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings
and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to
the Ivy League, which is 90% of them.
And the Democratic party is so helpless and so hopeless that it is letting the American Nazi
Party run to the left of them on health care, fer cripes sake! We are now in a situation
where the American Nazi Party is advocating single-payer nationalized health care, while the former
Democratic presidential nominee who just got defeated assured everyone that single-payer "will
never, ever happen."
C'mon! Is anyone surprised that Hillary lost? Let's cut the crap with the "Hillary
was a flawed candidate" arguments. The plain fact of the matter is that Hillary was running mainly
on getting rid of the problems she and her husband created 25 years ago. Hillary promised criminal
justice reform and Black Lives Matter-friendly policing policies - and guess who started the mass
incarceration trend and gave speeches calling black kids "superpredators" 20 years ago? Hillary
promised to fix the problems with the wretched mandate law forcing everyone to buy unaffordable
for-profit private insurance with no cost controls - and guess who originally ran for president
in 2008 on a policy of health care mandates with no cost controls? Yes, Hillary (ironically, Obama's
big surge in popularity as a candidate came when he ran against Hillary from the left, ridiculing
helath care mandates). Hillary promises to reform an out-of-control deregulated financial system
run amok - and guess who signed all those laws revoking Glass-Steagal and setting up the Securities
Trading Modernization Act? Yes, Bill Clinton, and Hillary was right there with him cheering the
whole process on.
So pardon me and lots of other folks for being less than impressed by Hillary's trustworthiness
and honesty. Run for president by promising to undo the damage you did to the country 25 years
ago is (let say) a suboptimal campaign strategy, and a distinctly suboptimal choice of presidential
candidate for a party in the same sense that the Hiroshima air defense was suboptimal in 1945.
Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a
"boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win?
Because we're back in the 1930s again, the economy has crashed hard and still hasn't recovered
(maybe because we still haven't convened a Pecora Commission and jailed a bunch of the thieves,
and we also haven't set up any alphabet government job programs like the CCC) so fascists and
racists and all kinds of other bottom-feeders are crawling out of the political woodwork to promise
to fix the problems that the Democratic party establishment won't.
Rule of thumb: any social or political or economic writer virulently hated by the current Democratic
party establishment is someone we should listen to closely right now.
Cornel West is at the top of the current Democratic establishment's hate list, and he has got
a great article in The Guardian that I think is spot-on:
"The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph
of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded
to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians."
Glenn Greenwald is another writer who has been showered with more hate by the Democratic establishment
recently than even Trump or Steve Bannon, so you know Greenwald is saying something important.
He has a great piece in The Intercept on the head-in-the-ground attitude of Democratic
elites toward their recent loss:
"It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political
force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite
a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the
Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local
levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced
no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of
rubble.'
"One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked
political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce
a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats,
one would be quite mistaken."
Last but far from least, Scottish economist Mark Blyth has what looks to me like the single
best analysis of the entire global Trump_vs_deep_state tidal wave in Foreign Affairs magazine:
"At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass
unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response,
governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to,
and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time,
is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon
known as Goodhart's law. (..)
" what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary
regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this
world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at
all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically,
and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right
to vote.
"The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary
order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as
the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from
those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that
are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened.
"In short, to understand the election of Donald Trump we need to listen to the trumpets blowing
everywhere in the highly indebted developed countries and the people who vote for them.
"The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism.
It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing
above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun."
You don't live here, do you? I'm really asking a genuine question because the way you are framing
the question ("SPECIFICS!!!!!!) suggests you don't. (Just to show my background, born and raised
in Australia (In the electoral division of Kooyong, home of Menzies) but I've lived in the US
since 2000 in the midwest (MO, OH) and currently in the south (GA))
If this election has taught us anything it's no one cared about "specifics". It was a mood,
a feeling which brought trump over the top (and I'm not talking about the "average" trump voter
because that is meaningless. The average trunp voter was a republican voter in the south who the
Dems will never get so examining their motivations is immaterial to future strategy. I'm talking
about the voters in the Upper Midwest from places which voted for Obama twice then switched to
trump this year to give him his margin of victory).
trump voters have been pretty clear they don't actually care about the way trump does (or even
doesn't) do what he said he would do during the campaign. It was important to them he showed he
was "with" people like them. They way he did that was partially racialized (law and order, islamophobia)
but also a particular emphasis on blue collar work that focused on the work. Unfortunately these
voters, however much you tell them they should suck it up and accept their generations of familial
experience as relatively highly paid industrial workers (even if it is something only their fathers
and grandfathers experienced because the factories were closing when the voters came of age in
the 80s and 90s) is never coming back and they should be happy to retrain as something else, don't
want it. They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue
collar work.
trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs
and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been
"correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about
how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic
party, have to accept.
The idea they don't want "government help" is ridiculous. They love the government. They just
want the government to do things for them and not for other people (which unfortunately includes
blah people but also "the coasts", "sillicon valley", etc.). Obama won in 2008 and 2012 in part
due to the auto bailout.
trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like
the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama
was defending keeping what was already there.
"Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the
automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable
labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses.
Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html
So yes. Clinton needed vague promises. She needed something more than retraining and "jobs
of the future" and "restructuring". She needed to show she was committed to their way of life,
however those voters saw it, and would do something, anything, to keep it alive. trump did that
even though his plan won't work. And maybe he'll be punished for it. In 4 years. But in the interim
the gop will destroy so many things we need and rely on as well as entrench their power for generations
through the Supreme Court.
But really, it was hard for Clinton to be trusted to act like she cared about these peoples'
way of life because she (through her husband fairly or unfairly) was associated with some of the
larger actions and choices which helped usher in the decline.
Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned
out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump
economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's
economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. ""
Both Republican Party and Democratic party degenerated into the racket. Neoliberal racket. It really goes back to
what Eric Hoffer
said: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into
a
racket ." It's a racket.
Notable quotes:
"... That's because I assumed that everybody realized that America standing up to the Soviet Union was, in some sense, a nationalist resistance. Americans just didn't want to be conquered by Russians. ..."
"... In contrast to all that, Donald Trump said: ..."
"... I view the word conservative as a derivative of the word conserve. We want to converse our money. We want to conserve our wealth We want to conserve our country. We want to save our country. ..."
"... it turned out that American Conservatism was just a transitional phase. And now it's over. ..."
"... terrified of the neoconservatives who didn't like the emphasis on immigration because of their own ethnic agenda, and he was very inclined to listen to the Congressional Republicans, who didn't want to talk about immigration because they are terrified too-because they are cowards, basically-and also because they have big corporate donors . And, I think that is part of the explanation. ..."
"... I think that goes to what happened to the American Conservative Movement. It wasn't tortured; it was bought . It was simply bought . I think the dominance of the Donorist class and the Donorist Party is one of the things that has emerged analytically within the past 10 years. ..."
"... So I think that is the reason for the end of the American Conservative Movement. It really goes back to what Eric Hoffer said: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket ." It's a racket. ..."
"... But the good news is, as John Derbyshire said a few minutes ago, that ultimately Conservatism -- or Rightism -- is a personality type. It underlies politics and it will crop up again-just as, to our astonishment, Donald Trump has cropped up. ..."
The core of conservatism, it seems to me, is this recognition and acceptance of the elemental emotions.
Conservatism understands that it is futile to debate the feelings of the
mother for her child-or such human instincts as the bonds of
tribe
,
nation , even
race . Of course, all are painfully vulnerable to deconstruction by rationalistic intellectuals-but
not, ultimately, to destruction. These commitments are Jungian rather than Freudian, not irrational
but a-rational-beyond the reach of reason.
This is one of the problems, by the way, with the American Conservative Movement. I was completely
astonished when it fell apart at the end of the Cold War -- I never thought it would. That's
because I assumed that everybody realized that America standing up to the Soviet Union was, in some
sense, a nationalist resistance. Americans just didn't want to be
conquered by Russians.
But, it turned out that there were people who had joined the anti-Communist coalition who
harbored messianic fantasies about
"global democracy" and and America as the first
"universal nation" (i.e. polity. Nation-states must have a specific ethnic core.) They also had
uses for the American military which hadn't occurred to me. But they didn't care about America-about
America as a nation-state, the political expression of a particular people, the Historic American
Nation. In fact, in some cases, it made them feel uneasy.
I thought about this this spring when Trump was debating in New Hampshire. ABC's John Muir asked
three candidates: "What does it mean to be Conservative?"
I'm going to quote from John Kasich:
blah, blah, blah, blah. Balanced budgets-tax cuts-jobs-"but once we have economic growth I believe
we have to reach out to people who live in the shadows." By this he meant, not illegal aliens, although
he did
favor Amnesty , but "the mentally ill, the drug addicted, the working poor [and] our friends
in the minority community."
That's because the Republican Party has lots of friends in the minority community.
Marco Rubio said:
it's about three things. The first is conservatism is about limited government, especially
at the federal level It's about free enterprise And it's about a strong national defense. It's
about believing, unlike Barack Obama, that the world is a safer and a better place when America
is the strongest military and the strongest nation on this planet. That's conservatism.
Kasich and Rubio's answers, of course, are not remotely "conservative" but utilitarian, economistic,
classical liberal. Note that Rubio even felt obliged to justify "strong national defense" in universalistic,
Wilsonian terms: it will make the world "a safer and a better place."
In contrast to all that, Donald Trump said:
I view the word conservative as a derivative of the word conserve. We want to converse
our money. We want to conserve our wealth We want to conserve our country. We want to save our
country.
Now, this caused a considerable amount of harrumphing among Conservative Inc. intellectuals and
various Republican politicians. Somebody called
John Hart , who writes a
thing called Opportunity Lives -has anybody heard of it? It's a very well-funded
Libertarianism Inc. website in Washington. Nobody has heard of it? Good. Hart said:
Trump's answer may have been how conservatives described themselves once: in 1957. But today's
modern conservative movement isn't a hoarding or protectionist philosophy. Conservatism isn't
about conserving; it's about growth.
"Growth"? Well, I don't think so. And not just because I remember
1957 . As I said,I think it turned out that American Conservatism was just a transitional
phase. And now it's over.
Why did it end? After
Buckley purged John O'Sullivan and all of us
immigration patriots from
National
Review in 1997, we spent a lot of time thinking about why he had done this. And there were
a lot of complicated psychological explanations: Bill was getting old, he was
jealous of his successor, the new Editor, John O'Sullivan, he was terrified of the
neoconservatives who didn't like the emphasis on immigration because of their
own ethnic
agenda, and he was very inclined to listen to the Congressional Republicans, who didn't want
to talk about immigration because they are terrified too-because they are cowards, basically-and
also because they have
big corporate donors . And, I think that is part of the explanation.
But
there was a similar discussion in the 1950s and 1960s, which I'm old enough to remember, about why
the Old Bolsheviks all
testified against themselves in the treason trials during
Stalin's Great
Purge . They all admitted to the most fantastic things-that they had been spies for the Americans
and the British and the capitalist imperialists all along, that they'd plotted to assassinate Comrade
Stalin. And there were all kinds of discussions as to why this was, and in fact a wonderful novel,
Darkness At Noon [
PDF
] by
Arthur Koestler , one of the
most remarkable novels in the last century, describing the exquisite psychological process by
which an old Bolshevik in prison came to the conclusion that he was going to have to say all these
things in the long-term interest of the Revolution.
Do you agree about Darkness At Noon , Paul? [ Paul Gottfried indicates assent
]
In other words, there is no complex
psychological explanation : they were just tortured. I think that goes to what happened to the
American Conservative Movement. It wasn't tortured; it was
bought . It was simply
bought . I think the dominance of the
Donorist class and the
Donorist Party is one of the things that has
emerged analytically within the past 10 years.
When I was first writing about American politics and got involved in American politics–and
I started by working for John Ashbrook (not
Ashcroft , Ash brook
) against
Nixon in 1972 –nobody thought about donors. We have only gradually become conscious of them.
And their absolute dominant role, and their ability to prohibit policy discussions, has really only
become clear in the last five to ten years.
I think, in retrospect, with
Buckley
, who
subsidized his lifestyle out of the National Review to a scandalous extent, that there
was some financial transaction. I think that now.
It's an open secret that
Rich Lowry did not want to come out and with
this anti-Trump issue that they published earlier this year, but he was
compelled to do it. That's not the type of thing that Lowry would normally do. He wouldn't take
that kind of risk, he's a courtier, he would never take the risk of not being invited to ride in
Trump's limousine in the case that Trump won. But, apparently, someone forced him to do it. And I
think that someone was a
donor and I think I know who it was.
So I think that is the reason for the end of the American Conservative Movement. It really
goes back to what
Eric Hoffer
said: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates
into a
racket ." It's a racket.
But the good news is, as
John Derbyshire said a few
minutes ago, that ultimately Conservatism -- or Rightism -- is a personality type. It underlies politics
and it will crop up again-just as, to our astonishment, Donald Trump has cropped up.
"... The economic point is that globalisation has boosted trade and overall wealth, but it has also created a dog eat dog world where western workers compete with, and lose jobs to, people far away who will do the work for much less. ..."
"... But neither Trump nor Farage have shown any evidence of how realistically they can recreate those jobs in the west. And realistically god knows how you keep the wealth free trade and globalisation brings but avoid losing the good jobs? At least the current mess has focused attention on the question and has said that patience has run out. ..."
"... Compared to the real economic problems, the identity politics is minor, but it is still an irritant that explains why this revolution is coming from the right not from the left. ..."
"... And what "age" has that been Roy? The "age" of: climate change, gangster bankers, tax heavens, illegal wars, nuclear proliferation, grotesque inequality, the prison industrial complex to cite just a few. That "age"? ..."
"... the right wing press detest one kind of liberalism, social liberalism, they hate that, but they love economic liberalism, which has done much harm to the working class. ..."
"... Most of the right wing press support austerity measures, slashing of taxes and, smaller and smaller governments. Yet apparently, its being socially liberal that is the problem ..."
A crucial point "WWC men aren't interested in working at McDonald's for $15 per hour instead
of $9.50. What they want is... steady, stable, full-time jobs that deliver a solid middle-class
life."
The economic point is that globalisation has boosted trade and overall wealth, but it has
also created a dog eat dog world where western workers compete with, and lose jobs to, people
far away who will do the work for much less.
But neither Trump nor Farage have shown any evidence of how realistically they can recreate
those jobs in the west. And realistically god knows how you keep the wealth free trade and globalisation
brings but avoid losing the good jobs? At least the current mess has focused attention on the
question and has said that patience has run out.
Compared to the real economic problems, the identity politics is minor, but it is still
an irritant that explains why this revolution is coming from the right not from the left.
If you're white and male it's bad enough losing your hope of economic security, but then to
be repeatedly told by the left that you're misogynist, racist, sexist, Islamophobic, transgenderphobic
etc etc is just the icing on the cake. If the author wants to see just how crazy identity politics
has become go to the Suzanne Moore piece from yesterday accusing American women of being misogynist
for refusing to vote for Hillary. That kind of maniac 'agree with me on everything or you're a
racist, sexist, homophobe' identity politics has to be ditched.
Reply
Funny, I've been a white male my whole life and not once have I been accused of being a misogynist,
racist, sexist, Islamophobic, or transgenderphobic. I didn't think being a white male was so difficult
for some people...
Reply
"Are we turning our backs on the age of enlightenment?".
And what "age" has that been Roy? The "age" of: climate change, gangster bankers, tax heavens,
illegal wars, nuclear proliferation, grotesque inequality, the prison industrial complex to cite
just a few. That "age"?
I agree hardly an age of enlightenment. My opinion... the so called Liberal Elite are responsible
for many of the issues in the list. The poor and the old in this country are not being helped
by the benefits system. Yet the rich get richer beyond the dreams of the ordinary man.
I would
pay more tax if I thought it might be spent more wisely...but can you trust politicians who are
happy to spend 50 billion on a railway line that 98% of the population will never use.
No solutions from me ...an old hippy from the 60s "Love and peace man " ...didn't work did
it :)
I have come under the impression that the right wing press detest one kind of liberalism,
social liberalism, they hate that, but they love economic liberalism, which has done much harm
to the working class.
Most of the right wing press support austerity measures, slashing of taxes and, smaller
and smaller governments. Yet apparently, its being socially liberal that is the problem.
"... Apparently lax and/or incompetent regulation of systemically important banks by bureaucrats, central bankers, and politicians may not be just a recent American phenomenon. ..."
"... He related how he was not only ignored by his bank, the Irish regulator but also all the major political parties. He then pointed out that the Irish regulator claims that it always – and it is the law after all – informs the regulator of the home country of banks which have subsidiaries in Ireland, about any serious problems. ..."
"... Mr Sugarman suggested Mr Draghi should be asked point-blank of he did or if he did not know . If he did not then the Irish regulator was at least incompetent, and may have lied, misled and perhaps even broken Irish laws. If he was told and did know, then Mr Draghi has serious questions to answer regarding his own dereliction of duty. ..."
Apparently lax and/or incompetent regulation of systemically important banks by bureaucrats, central
bankers, and politicians may not be just a recent American phenomenon.
As we read this, it could imperil the soundness of the financial system in Europe as well, as
is still apparently the case with The Banks in the states, despite assurances to the contrary.
Golem XIV asks some very good questions in the article below, recently posted on his blog
here.
Yesterday a very high-powered panel of international banking whistleblowers met and told their
stories in the European parliament . The questions raised were important. Among them was the Irish
Whistleblower, Jonathan Sugarman, who when UniCredit Ireland was breaking the law in very serious
ways reported it to the Irish regulator.
He related how he was not only ignored by his bank, the Irish regulator but also all the major
political parties. He then pointed out that the Irish regulator claims that it always – and it
is the law after all – informs the regulator of the home country of banks which have subsidiaries
in Ireland, about any serious problems.
In the case of UniCredit that would mean the Italian Central bank would have been told that
Italy's largest Bank was in serious breach of Irish law in ways that could endanger the whole
banking system. The head of the Italian Central Bank at the time was a certain Mr Mario Draghi.
Mr Sugarman suggested Mr Draghi should be asked point-blank of he did or if he did not know
. If he did not then the Irish regulator was at least incompetent, and may have lied, misled
and perhaps even broken Irish laws. If he was told and did know, then Mr Draghi has serious questions to answer regarding his own
dereliction of duty.
Surely not I hear you say. Well perhaps someone might ask him? Or is he above the law?
What is the Democratic Party's former constituency of labor and progressive reformers to do?
Are they to stand by and let the party be captured in Hillary's wake by Robert Rubin's Goldman
Sachs-Citigroup gang that backed her and Obama?
The 2016 election sounded the death knell for the identity politics. Its aim was to persuade
voters not to think of their identity in economic terms, but to think of themselves as women or
as racial and ethnic groups first and foremost, not as having common economic interests. This
strategy to distract voters from economic policies has obviously failed...
This election showed that voters have a sense of when they're being lied to. After eight years of
Obama's demagogy, pretending to support the people but delivering his constituency to his
financial backers on Wall Street. 'Identity politics' has given way to the stronger force of
economic distress. Mobilizing identity politics behind a Wall Street program will no longer
work."
"... This "regime change" U$A foreign policy, has been implemented around the globe for many many years now, all in the interests of big corporate profits, and global hegemony. The sad truth seems to be, there are no signs its about to change. ..."
"... No, you will not be seeing "Maidan". Middle America white (and not only) working class men are extremely well armed and are really angry still. So, if this rioting will come to Washington, who says that good ole' Ford Truck can not run over mountain bike of Tesla? Once the shooting starts (hopefully not) it will be a totally different game than Kiev "Maidan". There is also a trend, call it a hunch--most of US combat veterans from US endless wars tend to lean towards people like Trump. ..."
"... The coming conflict is between globalism and nationalism. The basic problem is numbers. Rule by monopolistic global corporations, at best, supports 20% of the population in the short term. It enriches the ruling elite and their servants and improvises everyone else. In the long term, climate change or a nuclear war, brought on by the blind needs of greed, will end the world as we know it. Brexit and the Trump Presidency proved that globalism and democracy are incompatible. For globalism to proceed in the middle term, it will require a surveillance police state, total propaganda, reeducation camps and the shutdown of this bar. ..."
"... Americans don't care who is devastated and destroyed by 'globalization' ... other than themselves. ..."
Although it is hilarious to see the Hillary supporters throwing a massive tantrum about 'fake
news,' it does make it clear just how powerful having direct access to information is in negating
money, mainstream media capture and control, and government propaganda.
I don't know how much the new Trump presidency will change the US intelligence agency culture.
But one has to assume they are apoplectic over their failure in Syria. Billions of dollars and
years wasted all because people have direct access to information unfiltered out of Syria.
It should have a completely unremarkable US regime change operation:
Send in the NGOs to agitate locals
Make promises of support for attacks on the government by the sole world superpower
Get selectively edited footage of your collaborators on the ground being attacked by the
government(after they attacked the government)
Pump out mass amounts of propaganda based off that footage: "Simple farmers rising up to
overthrow a brutal regime!"
Wield the tremendous economic power of the US to ensure the vast majority of smaller countries
are on board with military action sanctioned by the UN
Flood the country with arms for anyone no matter how crazy to attack the government
Fake chemical attacks, US intelligence agency compromised UN reports and inspectors, etc.
All of that derailed by nothing more than people having direct access to information uncensored
out of Syria.
I think it is safe to assume the US intelligence agencies are actively working on ways to make
it illegal or impossible for anyone to publish, share, or consume 'unauthorized' information from
countries that are targets of regime change.
The easiest way would be to designate any source of information not actively working with or
approved by the US intelligence agencies will be increasingly labeled as 'terror propaganda' and
US social media and Internet providers will be required to censor or shutdown any such sources.
This "regime change" U$A foreign policy, has been implemented around the globe for many
many years now, all in the interests of big corporate profits, and global hegemony. The sad truth
seems to be, there are no signs its about to change.
I was watching a travelogue program on PBS. The trip was to Cuba. The narrator traveled by train
across the country. A train line that was originally built in the 1870s by Spain to divide the
country for defensive and control purposes. The locomotives pulling the passenger cars were 1950s
USA manufactured vintage and date to a time when our Federal Government had good economic relations
with the Batista Regiem.
When I think of the cruel and unusual economic punishment dished out to Cuba by our Federal
Government all I can see is a bunch of financially poor peasants who bear the brunt of U.S. economic
warfare. Just as in the Middle East and now Europe economic sanction wars hurt the farmer, the
small business operator, the basic family unit, etc., while rich people get richer. Isn't it about
time to back off on the economic war against Cuba and the rest of the Planet? Our collective cruelty
seems to know no bounds?
Bernhard, I should think most of us reading and commenting here have pretty much accepted the
result of the US presidential elections and are glad that Killer Klinton's ambitions have crashed
and her future seems to be in a white house with steel bar columns and uniformed prison guards.
The focus is now on President-elect Donald Trump's likely cabinet appointments, who are the
most likely choices for critical positions like Defense Secretary and State Secretary, what the
process is and how that is being carried out (or not carried out), and what that says about Trump's
leadership and decision-making style, how he plans on being President and whether his choices
are the right choices for his agenda (if it is genuine) of reforming the political culture on
Capitol Hill, or "draining the swamp".
If indeed Trump is intent on bringing changes to Capitol Hill, then there's a strong likelihood
that the Soros-funded "Color Revolution" rioting around the US East and West Coasts will come
to Washington and we'll be seeing a re-enactment of the Kiev Maidan events there.
@2 stevens..thanks for your comments. lets hope open access to information continues.. the signs
of this happening don't look great, but they remain open still.. thankfully, moa is one of many
sites where sharing info is of great benefit and continues..
meanwhile obama, merkel, hollandaze and their italian counterpart have all agreed to continue
for another year, the sanctions on russia over ukraine.. the bozo head for nato jens stalenbread
or however his name is spelled, continues on with the disingenuous musings of an old king about
to reenact a version of humpty dumpty..
meanwhile the witch hunt on acedemics, or anyone associated with gulen continues in turkey..
erdogan was visiting pakistan the past few days and i happened to read this on the usa state dept
daily transcript from yesterday in the form of a question.
Question :"Turkish President Erdogan is in Pakistan today, and he publicly suggested to Pakistan
that the West was behind ISIS in order to hurt Muslims, quote, "It is certain that Western countries
are standing by Daesh. Now Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and many others are suffering from terrorism
and separatist terrorism."What's your comment on that? Do you think it's a reasonable statement?
MR KIRBY: No, I do not."
it is pretty funny how these daily press briefings highlight usa propaganda in such a distinct
and colourful manner.. fortunately the odd journalist asks questions that lift the veil that is
constantly being thrown out by these same masters of propaganda..
If indeed Trump is intent on bringing changes to Capitol Hill, then there's a strong likelihood
that the Soros-funded "Color Revolution" rioting around the US East and West Coasts will come
to Washington and we'll be seeing a re-enactment of the Kiev Maidan events there.
No, you will not be seeing "Maidan". Middle America white (and not only) working class
men are extremely well armed and are really angry still. So, if this rioting will come to Washington,
who says that good ole' Ford Truck can not run over mountain bike of Tesla? Once the shooting
starts (hopefully not) it will be a totally different game than Kiev "Maidan". There is also a
trend, call it a hunch--most of US combat veterans from US endless wars tend to lean towards people
like Trump.
The coming conflict is between globalism and nationalism. The basic problem is numbers. Rule
by monopolistic global corporations, at best, supports 20% of the population in the short term.
It enriches the ruling elite and their servants and improvises everyone else. In the long term,
climate change or a nuclear war, brought on by the blind needs of greed, will end the world as
we know it. Brexit and the Trump Presidency proved that globalism and democracy are incompatible.
For globalism to proceed in the middle term, it will require a surveillance police state, total
propaganda, reeducation camps and the shutdown of this bar.
As a retired officer of the U.S. Navy, I would be very disappointed if a majority of the officer
corps supported Hillary. It would be very disappointing if they put their increased chances of
promotion in new wars over the good of the country. Disappointing, but not exactly surprising.
It's great that there's some dialog between Trump and Putin. I think at least Western Syria will
be cleansed of jihadis as a result.
But Trump might be a little more hard nosed in the future. After the tensions are dialed down
and having the score at basically Russia 1, US 0, he's not going to be so pliable. He sure as
fuck isn't going to throw Israel under a bus. He's not going to roll over on all American commitments
in the region.
Trump's been getting a complete rundown on the big picture. It's no secret that until recently
he couldn't have found Damascus on a map. Now he knows about the Shiite Crescent and how the arms
can flow from Iran to Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon in volumes like never before and how upsetting
that is for Israel.
Now there's action towards taking Raqqa by the Kurds and who knows who else. The US and its
posse will provide the air cover and logistics plus lots of special ops once it kicks in. I'm
surprised the Kurds bit again after taking it up the arse from the US a couple of months ago They're
not going all in right now as things are ongoing in Mosul and will be for a while. But you don't
hear Assad and the Russians squawking much about it. It's like they both know that parts of Eastern
Syria are bye-bye.
Trump's good will towards Russia certainly doesn't extend to Iran. And no American will ever
call Hezbollah anything bur a terrorist organization after the Marine barracks truck bombing in
Beirut all those years ago. If Putin and Trump are going to come to a general understanding in
the ME there's going to have to be some give and take.
Putin's done quite a turnaround in taking Russia from a pariah state a couple of years ago
to the player on the world sage that it is now. It's looking good for him to keep his man in power
in Syria and to establish a permanent presence in the ME with Khmeimim and Tartus. Once Trump
is fully up to speed on the totality of American interests in the region he is bound by his office
not to walk away from them. There will have to be some serious deal-making.
Putin's done quite a turnaround in taking Russia from a pariah state a couple of years ago
to the player on the world sage that it is now.
Your timeline is a bit off. The coming of Putin was a direct result of NATO's 1999 aggression
against Yugoslavia, while War of 08-08-08 was the start of Russia's return into big league. So,
it is not a "couple of years". Results of War of 080808 actually stunned DC's neocon interventionist
cabal.
Buzzfeed did some analysis on Social media generated fake news during the election. An awful
lot of it was simply false. You can look at some of those headlines and judge for yourself.
Ironically, Paul Horner (guy behind "fake news empire" I linked in prior post) said:
He said he didn't do it for ideological reasons. "I hate Trump," he told The Post. "I thought
I was messing with the campaign, maybe I wasn't messing them up as much as I wanted - but I
never thought he'd actually get elected."
Just happens 70% + of fake news this election cycle (according to Buzzfeed) was anti-Clinton.
....and how the arms can flow from Libya and Zio-Ukraine to ISIS in Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon
in volumes like never before and how 'upsetting'(sic) that is for Israel.
Yeah, 'upsetting' to the Israel Likud former-Soviet mafia which fully supports ISIS and maintains
'Hezbullah' straw dog, to keep UN forces out of Greater Israel and torpedo the Two-State Solution
and the Right-of-Return agreements which Netanyahu freely boasted he lied about supporting.
MoA isn't another Likud psyop disinformation campaign for the new Trump-Israel First Regime.
Remember it was your team's counterfeit Yellow Cake Big Lie that assassinated the Baathists, and
paved the way for Shi'ia's defensive action against the Bush-Cheney IL Wahhabi's usurpers and
crusaders. You theory will do much better on Breitbart.
@2 Stevens, 'All of that derailed by nothing more than people having direct access to information
uncensored out of Syria.'
The US/GCC/NATO were on track and heading in for the kill before Russia stepped in. Americans
don't care who is devastated and destroyed by 'globalization' ... other than themselves.
Bernie's candidacy was proof of that: not a word on foreign policy. All the information in the
world won't change that. Americans don't put people living outside the US in the same category
as themselves. God put them all those others 'out there' to be killed by Americans ... when they
'need' killin'.
Italian Referendum next up - Renzi on the way out?
In a sense it's a bit of a pity because to me Renzi seems the least objectionable of the leaders
of the EU Big 6 - Merkel, Hollande, May, Rajoy, Rutte & Renzi.
He actually looks good when compared to the rest of them!
The House Foreign Affairs Committee pushing for war. This is what Trump has to deal with....
"The bill also sets the stage for the implementation of so-called safe zones and a no-fly zone
over Syria. It requires the administration to "submit to the appropriate congressional committee"
a report that "assesses the potential effectiveness, risks and operational requirements of the
establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part of all of Syria." Further, the bill calls
for the administration to detail the "operational and legal requirements for US and coalition
air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria."
"... "Nearly half of young Americans start their working lives with student debt, and 43 million Americans carry student loans. A new study by the Global Financial Literacy Excellence Center (GFLEC) at the George Washington University School of Business found that many borrowers are struggling to make student loan payments and regret their borrowing. ..."
"... GFLEC's newly published policy brief reports that most borrowers did not fully understand what they were taking on when they obtained student loans. Additionally, 54 percent of student loan holders did not try to figure out what their monthly payments would be before taking out loans. And 53 percent said that if they could go back and redo the process of taking out loans, they would do things differently. " ..."
Released earlier this week from George Washington University School of Business: "Study Finds
1 in 3 Student Loan Holders With Payments Due Are Late With Payments and More Than Half Regret
Their Borrowing"
"Nearly half of young Americans start their working lives with student debt, and 43 million
Americans carry student loans. A new study by the Global Financial Literacy Excellence Center
(GFLEC) at the George Washington University School of Business found that many borrowers are struggling
to make student loan payments and regret their borrowing.
GFLEC's newly published policy brief reports that most borrowers did not fully understand what
they were taking on when they obtained student loans. Additionally, 54 percent of student loan
holders did not try to figure out what their monthly payments would be before taking out loans.
And 53 percent said that if they could go back and redo the process of taking out loans, they
would do things differently. "
Odd. I was looking at the comment by Bannon about Spanish young adult unemployment (a serious
problem, as he says) and thinking, well, at least we don't have anything like that here.
No, our young adults aren't unemployed, are they? They are simply working to hand over major
parts of their future to their debt bosses.
And it really is so much better that way. After all, if ours were unemployed, they might take
to the streets like the Spaniards are doing.
"... For over a decade now, Chicago has been the epicenter of the fashionable trend of "privatization"-the transfer of the ownership or operation of resources that belong to all of us, like schools, roads and government services, to companies that use them to turn a profit. Chicago's privatization mania began during Mayor Richard M. Daley's administration, which ran from 1989 to 2011. Under his successor, Rahm Emanuel, the trend has continued apace. For Rahm's investment banker buddies, the trend has been a boon. For citizens? Not so much. ..."
"... the English word "privatization" derives from a coinage, Reprivatisierung, formulated in the 1930s to describe the Third Reich's policy of winning businessmen's loyalty by handing over state property to them. ..."
"... As president, Bill Clinton greatly expanded a privatization program begun under the first President Bush's Department of Housing and Urban Development. "Hope VI" aimed to replace public-housing high-rises with mixed-income houses, duplexes and row houses built and managed by private firms. ..."
"... The fan was Barack Obama, then a young state senator. Four years later, he cosponsored a bipartisan bill to increase subsidies for private developers and financiers to build or revamp low-income housing. ..."
"... However, the rush to outsource responsibility for housing the poor became a textbook example of one peril of privatization: Companies frequently get paid whether they deliver the goods or not (one of the reasons investors like privatization deals). For example, in 2004, city inspectors found more than 1,800 code violations at Lawndale Restoration, the largest privately owned, publicly subsidized apartment project in Chicago. Guaranteed a steady revenue stream whether they did right by the tenants or not-from 1997 to 2003, the project generated $4.4 million in management fees and $14.6 million in salaries and wages-the developers were apparently satisfied to just let the place rot. ..."
PGL on Chicago's parking meters. Yes Democratic Mayor Daley made a bad deal. If Trump does invest in infrastructure is this the kind of thing he'll be doing, selling off public
assets and leasing them back again, aka privatization?
Seems like two different things. Here's an In These Time article from January 2015 by the smart Rick Perlstein.
Welcome to Rahm Emanuel's Chicago, the privatized metropolis of the future.
BY RICK PERLSTEIN
In June of 2013, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel made a new appointment to the city's seven-member
school board to replace billionaire heiress Penny Pritzker, who'd decamped to run President Barack
Obama's Department of Commerce. The appointee, Deborah H. Quazzo, is a founder of an investment firm
called GSV Advisors, a business whose goal-her cofounder has been paraphrased by Reuters as saying-is
to drum up venture capital for "an education revolution in which public schools outsource to private
vendors such critical tasks as teaching math, educating disabled students, even writing report cards."
GSV Advisors has a sister firm, GSV Capital, that holds ownership stakes in education technology
companies like "Knewton," which sells software that replaces the functions of flesh-and-blood teachers.
Since joining the school board, Quazzo has invested her own money in companies that sell curricular
materials to public schools in 11 states on a subscription basis.
In other words, a key decision-maker for Chicago's public schools makes money when school boards
decide to sell off the functions of public schools.
She's not alone. For over a decade now, Chicago has been the epicenter of the fashionable
trend of "privatization"-the transfer of the ownership or operation of resources that belong to all
of us, like schools, roads and government services, to companies that use them to turn a profit.
Chicago's privatization mania began during Mayor Richard M. Daley's administration, which ran from
1989 to 2011. Under his successor, Rahm Emanuel, the trend has continued apace. For Rahm's investment
banker buddies, the trend has been a boon. For citizens? Not so much.
They say that the first person in any political argument who stoops to invoking Nazi Germany automatically
loses. But you can look it up: According to a 2006 article in the Journal of Economic Perspectives,
the English word "privatization" derives from a coinage, Reprivatisierung, formulated in the
1930s to describe the Third Reich's policy of winning businessmen's loyalty by handing over state
property to them.
In the American context, the idea also began on the Right (to be fair, entirely independent of
the Nazis)-and promptly went nowhere for decades. In 1963, when Republican presidential candidate
Barry Goldwater mused "I think we ought to sell the TVA"-referring to the Tennessee Valley Authority,
the giant complex of New Deal dams that delivered electricity for the first time to vast swaths of
the rural Southeast-it helped seal his campaign's doom. Things only really took off after Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher's sale of U.K. state assets like British Petroleum and Rolls Royce in the 1980s
made the idea fashionable among elites-including a rightward tending Democratic Party.
As president, Bill Clinton greatly expanded a privatization program begun under the first
President Bush's Department of Housing and Urban Development. "Hope VI" aimed to replace public-housing
high-rises with mixed-income houses, duplexes and row houses built and managed by private firms.
Chicago led the way. In 1999, Mayor Richard M. Daley, a Democrat, announced his intention to tear
down the public-housing high-rises his father, Mayor Richard J. Daley, had built in the 1950s and
1960s. For this "Plan for Transformation," Chicago received the largest Hope VI grant of any city
in the nation. There was a ration of idealism and intellectual energy behind it: Blighted neighborhoods
would be renewed and their "culture of poverty" would be broken, all vouchsafed by the honorable
desire of public-spirited entrepreneurs to make a profit. That is the promise of privatization in
a nutshell: that the profit motive can serve not just those making the profits, but society as a
whole, by bypassing inefficient government bureaucracies that thrive whether they deliver services
effectively or not, and empower grubby, corrupt politicians and their pals to dip their hands in
the pie of guaranteed government money.
As one of the movement's fans explained in 1997, his experience with nascent attempts to pay private
real estate developers to replace public housing was an "example of smart policy."
"The developers were thinking in market terms and operating under the rules of the marketplace,"
he said. "But at the same time, we had government supporting and subsidizing those efforts."
The fan was Barack Obama, then a young state senator. Four years later, he cosponsored a bipartisan
bill to increase subsidies for private developers and financiers to build or revamp low-income housing.
However, the rush to outsource responsibility for housing the poor became a textbook example
of one peril of privatization: Companies frequently get paid whether they deliver the goods or not
(one of the reasons investors like privatization deals). For example, in 2004, city inspectors found
more than 1,800 code violations at Lawndale Restoration, the largest privately owned, publicly subsidized
apartment project in Chicago. Guaranteed a steady revenue stream whether they did right by the tenants
or not-from 1997 to 2003, the project generated $4.4 million in management fees and $14.6 million
in salaries and wages-the developers were apparently satisfied to just let the place rot.
Meanwhile, the $1.6 billion Plan for Transformation drags on, six years past deadline and still
2,500 units from completion, while thousands of families languish on the Chicago Housing Authority's
waitlist.
Be that as it may, the Chicago experience looks like a laboratory for a new White House
pilot initiative, the Rental Assistance Demonstration Program (RAD), which is set to turn over some
60,000 units to private management next year. Lack of success never seems to be an impediment where
privatization is concerned.
"... It is frustrating that Piketty sticks to the "if only we gave the right incentives to this system" approach for combating both hyper-globalization and global warming. THIS DOES NOT WORK. The reason we are in this mess today is not because there weren't enough well-intentioned people running the system – it is that the system deliberately selects against ..."
"... But then again, he titled his book "Capital" without ever having read Marx. ..."
"... This is not to say that the movement to raise awareness about TPP and its ilk was not useful – the point is that there is no useful feedback mechanism between the political elite and the electorate... The link between the state and civil society is fundamentally broken. ..."
"... Sometimes you just need the right incentive. I propose this one: the opportunity to stay out of prison! ..."
It is frustrating that Piketty sticks to the "if only we gave the right incentives to this
system" approach for combating both hyper-globalization and global warming. THIS DOES NOT WORK.
The reason we are in this mess today is not because there weren't enough well-intentioned people
running the system – it is that the system deliberately selects against such people.
He laments the inefficacy of the Paris Accord and CETA and suggests instead to create more
institutions? More bureaucratic positions and trade clauses?
And who exactly will undertake such
a thing, the corporate lobbyists and billionaires? Or the civil society movements that had such
an impact on elites that it required a Trump victory to finally dump the TPP?*
But then again, he titled his book "Capital" without ever having read Marx.
*This is not to say that the movement to raise awareness about TPP and its ilk was not
useful – the point is that there is no useful feedback mechanism between the political elite
and the electorate... The link between the state and civil society is fundamentally
broken.
I hate/have to say this but it is very typical in the French spirit of things to propose a
new administrative entity to address any perceived problem instead of the Anglo-Saxon approach
of looking at which entity caused the problem and needs to be removed. Call it the negative liberty/positive
liberty dialectic if you like.
It's a culture issue. You fix culture by removing the bad apples (prosecution) and making the
incentives survivable for decent people (because it is more fun, at the end of the day, to be
a good person).
Dimitri Simes is highly questionable historian, mostly producing neocon-charged junk...
But some observation about reckless application of the US dominant position in the world after
dissolution of the USSR to crush small countries and control their resources (especially oil)
by neocon worth reading.
Notable quotes:
"... George H. W. Bush administration did not want to deprive the mujahideen of total victory by granting a role to the Soviet Union's Afghan clients. ..."
"... As late as 1999, during a period of strained U.S.-Russia relations following NATO airstrikes in Serbia, Vladimir Putin proposed U.S.-Russia cooperation against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It took until after 9/11, well after Islamist extremism had metastasized throughout the Greater Middle East, for the George W. Bush administration to agree to work in concert with Moscow in Afghanistan. ..."
"... the Obama administration called for the ouster of Bashar al-Assad's secular authoritarian regime in Damascus ..."
"... in Libya, where the administration decapitated a repressive regime that had made peace with the United States without planning-or even intending-to assist in establishing order and security on the ground. ..."
"... Few policies have alarmed Moscow as much as NATO's expansion. Just as George F. Kennan predicted in a letter to the National Interest ..."
"... After the Cold War, each state chose to disenfranchise the vast majority of its Russian-speaking population as well as other minority groups. Because post-independence Estonia and Latvia were continuations of states that existed between the First and Second World Wars, they asserted, only the descendants of those citizens could become citizens of the new states. Even many third-generation residents-meaning both they and their parents were born in Estonia or Latvia-were given second-class status, denied many jobs and deprived of participation in national politics. ..."
Nov 18, 2016 | nationalinterest.org
...U.S. interventions have contributed to the menace of radicalism. Indeed, Al Qaeda's origins
in Afghanistan are inseparable from U.S. support for radical Islamist fighters resisting the
Soviet invasion and U.S. decisions about post-Soviet Afghanistan. Toward the end of the war,
Mikhail Gorbachev's Soviet government proposed negotiations to establish a coalition government
in Kabul. Sensing Moscow's weak position, the usually pragmatic George H. W. Bush administration
did not want to deprive the mujahideen of total victory by granting a role to the Soviet Union's
Afghan clients. Once Boris Yeltsin's post-Soviet Russia ceased military support for the Kabul
regime, Washington got its wish. Yet the incoming Clinton administration did little to fill the
vacuum and allowed the Taliban to assume power and harbor Al Qaeda.
As late as 1999, during a
period of strained U.S.-Russia relations following NATO airstrikes in Serbia, Vladimir Putin
proposed U.S.-Russia cooperation against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It took until after 9/11, well
after Islamist extremism had metastasized throughout the Greater Middle East, for the George W.
Bush administration to agree to work in concert with Moscow in Afghanistan.
Likewise, U.S. policy in Iraq has contributed to new and unnecessary threats. Saddam
Hussein was a genocidal dictator, but had no ties to anti-American terrorist groups that could
justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq, particularly in the absence of weapons of mass
destruction. Nevertheless, if it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the first place, it was no less
a mistake to abandon a weak government with limited control of its own territory and a recent
history of violent internal conflict.
Outside Iraq, as instability spread from Tunisia to Egypt, Syria and Libya, the Obama
administration called for the ouster of Bashar al-Assad's secular authoritarian regime in
Damascus. U.S. officials were trying to promote stability on one side of the Iraq-Syria border
and regime change on the other-without investing much in either. That ISIS or a group like it
would emerge from this was entirely predictable.
The same can be said of other U.S. choices in the Middle East, as in Libya, where the
administration decapitated a repressive regime that had made peace with the United States without
planning-or even intending-to assist in establishing order and security on the ground. Why were
U.S. and NATO officials surprised that Libya became simultaneously safe for terrorists and unsafe
for many of its citizens, who then fled to Europe?
... ... ...
Few policies have alarmed Moscow as much as NATO's expansion. Just as George F. Kennan
predicted in a letter to the National Interest in 1998, NATO's relentless expansion
along Russia's borders fed a nationalist and militaristic mood across the country's political
spectrum. A bold move as this almost literally moved NATO to the suburbs of St. Petersburg,
incorporating Estonia and Latvia into NATO was especially difficult for Moscow to stomach.
Although today more than 25 percent of Estonia and Latvia's populations are ethnically Russian,
this figure was significantly higher at the time of the Soviet collapse. After the Cold War, each
state chose to disenfranchise the vast majority of its Russian-speaking population as well as
other minority groups. Because post-independence Estonia and Latvia were continuations of states
that existed between the First and Second World Wars, they asserted, only the descendants of
those citizens could become citizens of the new states. Even many third-generation
residents-meaning both they and their parents were born in Estonia or Latvia-were given
second-class status, denied many jobs and deprived of participation in national politics.
Demographics produced political reality in the form of nationalist and anti-Russian
governments. Granting those governments NATO membership confirmed Moscow's suspicions that NATO
remained what it was during the Cold War: an anti-Russian alliance. Worse for the United States,
Washington and its allies extended their security umbrella to these states without assessing how
to defend them short of war with a major nuclear power. Even if U.S. policy was guided by a
genuine desire to ensure independence for these long-suffering nations, it was unreasonable to
think that Washington could expand NATO-not to mention, promise Georgia and Ukraine eventual
membership-without provoking Moscow's countermove.
Few recall that Vladimir Putin originally sought to make Russia a major part of a united
Europe. Instead, NATO expansion predictably fueled an us-versus-them mentality in Moscow,
encouraging worst-case thinking about U.S. intentions. Russian leaders now see rearmament and the
search for new allies as appropriate responses to a U.S. policy that is clearer in its
denunciations of Russia than in its contributions to American national security.
Indeed, how can the United States benefit from new dividing lines in Europe reminiscent of the
Cold War? For that matter, how can Latvia or Estonia become more secure as frontline states in a
confrontation with an adversarial Russia?
The recent collapse of U.S.-Russia diplomacy in Syria has only worsened this problem.
Moscow had essentially accepted U.S. and Western sanctions as a fact of life following its
annexation of Crimea and, for two years, sought to demonstrate that Russia remained open for
business on key international issues. However, this posture-an essential ingredient in Russia's
support for the Iran nuclear deal-appears to be evaporating and its principal advocate, Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov, now says that so long as the sanctions remain in effect, Russia will no
longer work with the United States where it is to America's advantage.
AMERICA-RUSSIA tensions are particularly troubling given how maladroitly Washington has
approached its other major rival. In contrast to Russia, China is a full-scale superpower with a
robust economy and an impressive culture of innovation. Given its underlying strengths, U.S.
policy could not realistically have prevented China's emergence as a leading power in the
Asia-Pacific region. Still, this does not excuse Washington's ongoing failure to develop a
thoughtful long-term approach to the Chinese challenge.
... ... ...
For all their differences, however, Chinese and Russian leaders share the perception
that U.S. policy-including Washington's support for their neighbors-amounts to a containment
regime designed to keep them down. This perception is not insignificant. Beijing and Moscow can
profoundly complicate the conduct of U.S. security and foreign policy without a formal alliance
or overt hostility to America. Consider today's realities, including China-Russia diplomatic
coordination in the UN Security Council, a more permissive Russian attitude toward the transfer
of advanced weapons systems to China, and increasingly large and complex joint military
maneuvers. And this may only be the beginning.
... ... ...
If the next president pursues a new strategy, he or she should expect resistance from
America's entrenched foreign-policy establishment. Recent fiascos from Iraq to Libya have been
bipartisan affairs, and many will seek to defend their records. Similarly, foreign-policy elites
in both parties have internalized the notion that "American exceptionalism" is a license to
intervene in other countries and that "universal aspirations" guarantee American success.
Despite the presence of many individuals of common sense and integrity in government, U.S.
leaders have too often forgotten that jumping off a cliff is easier than climbing back to safety.
Notwithstanding the election of some well-informed and thoughtful individuals to the Senate and
House of Representatives, the Congress has largely abdicated its responsibility to foster serious
debate on foreign policy and has failed to fulfill its constitutional role as a check on
executive power. The mainstream media has become an echo chamber for a misbegotten and misguided
consensus.
Dimitri K. Simes, publisher and CEO of the National Interest, is president of the
Center for the National Interest. Pratik Chougule is managing editor of the National Interest.
Paul J. Saunders is executive director of the Center for the National Interest.
"... For over a decade now, Chicago has been the epicenter of the fashionable trend of "privatization"-the transfer of the ownership or operation of resources that belong to all of us, like schools, roads and government services, to companies that use them to turn a profit. Chicago's privatization mania began during Mayor Richard M. Daley's administration, which ran from 1989 to 2011. Under his successor, Rahm Emanuel, the trend has continued apace. For Rahm's investment banker buddies, the trend has been a boon. For citizens? Not so much. ..."
"... the English word "privatization" derives from a coinage, Reprivatisierung, formulated in the 1930s to describe the Third Reich's policy of winning businessmen's loyalty by handing over state property to them. ..."
"... As president, Bill Clinton greatly expanded a privatization program begun under the first President Bush's Department of Housing and Urban Development. "Hope VI" aimed to replace public-housing high-rises with mixed-income houses, duplexes and row houses built and managed by private firms. ..."
"... The fan was Barack Obama, then a young state senator. Four years later, he cosponsored a bipartisan bill to increase subsidies for private developers and financiers to build or revamp low-income housing. ..."
"... However, the rush to outsource responsibility for housing the poor became a textbook example of one peril of privatization: Companies frequently get paid whether they deliver the goods or not (one of the reasons investors like privatization deals). For example, in 2004, city inspectors found more than 1,800 code violations at Lawndale Restoration, the largest privately owned, publicly subsidized apartment project in Chicago. Guaranteed a steady revenue stream whether they did right by the tenants or not-from 1997 to 2003, the project generated $4.4 million in management fees and $14.6 million in salaries and wages-the developers were apparently satisfied to just let the place rot. ..."
PGL on Chicago's parking meters. Yes Democratic Mayor Daley made a bad deal. If Trump does invest in infrastructure is this the kind of thing he'll be doing, selling off public
assets and leasing them back again, aka privatization?
Seems like two different things. Here's an In These Time article from January 2015 by the smart Rick Perlstein.
Welcome to Rahm Emanuel's Chicago, the privatized metropolis of the future.
BY RICK PERLSTEIN
In June of 2013, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel made a new appointment to the city's seven-member
school board to replace billionaire heiress Penny Pritzker, who'd decamped to run President Barack
Obama's Department of Commerce. The appointee, Deborah H. Quazzo, is a founder of an investment firm
called GSV Advisors, a business whose goal-her cofounder has been paraphrased by Reuters as saying-is
to drum up venture capital for "an education revolution in which public schools outsource to private
vendors such critical tasks as teaching math, educating disabled students, even writing report cards."
GSV Advisors has a sister firm, GSV Capital, that holds ownership stakes in education technology
companies like "Knewton," which sells software that replaces the functions of flesh-and-blood teachers.
Since joining the school board, Quazzo has invested her own money in companies that sell curricular
materials to public schools in 11 states on a subscription basis.
In other words, a key decision-maker for Chicago's public schools makes money when school boards
decide to sell off the functions of public schools.
She's not alone. For over a decade now, Chicago has been the epicenter of the fashionable
trend of "privatization"-the transfer of the ownership or operation of resources that belong to all
of us, like schools, roads and government services, to companies that use them to turn a profit.
Chicago's privatization mania began during Mayor Richard M. Daley's administration, which ran from
1989 to 2011. Under his successor, Rahm Emanuel, the trend has continued apace. For Rahm's investment
banker buddies, the trend has been a boon. For citizens? Not so much.
They say that the first person in any political argument who stoops to invoking Nazi Germany automatically
loses. But you can look it up: According to a 2006 article in the Journal of Economic Perspectives,
the English word "privatization" derives from a coinage, Reprivatisierung, formulated in the
1930s to describe the Third Reich's policy of winning businessmen's loyalty by handing over state
property to them.
In the American context, the idea also began on the Right (to be fair, entirely independent of
the Nazis)-and promptly went nowhere for decades. In 1963, when Republican presidential candidate
Barry Goldwater mused "I think we ought to sell the TVA"-referring to the Tennessee Valley Authority,
the giant complex of New Deal dams that delivered electricity for the first time to vast swaths of
the rural Southeast-it helped seal his campaign's doom. Things only really took off after Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher's sale of U.K. state assets like British Petroleum and Rolls Royce in the 1980s
made the idea fashionable among elites-including a rightward tending Democratic Party.
As president, Bill Clinton greatly expanded a privatization program begun under the first
President Bush's Department of Housing and Urban Development. "Hope VI" aimed to replace public-housing
high-rises with mixed-income houses, duplexes and row houses built and managed by private firms.
Chicago led the way. In 1999, Mayor Richard M. Daley, a Democrat, announced his intention to tear
down the public-housing high-rises his father, Mayor Richard J. Daley, had built in the 1950s and
1960s. For this "Plan for Transformation," Chicago received the largest Hope VI grant of any city
in the nation. There was a ration of idealism and intellectual energy behind it: Blighted neighborhoods
would be renewed and their "culture of poverty" would be broken, all vouchsafed by the honorable
desire of public-spirited entrepreneurs to make a profit. That is the promise of privatization in
a nutshell: that the profit motive can serve not just those making the profits, but society as a
whole, by bypassing inefficient government bureaucracies that thrive whether they deliver services
effectively or not, and empower grubby, corrupt politicians and their pals to dip their hands in
the pie of guaranteed government money.
As one of the movement's fans explained in 1997, his experience with nascent attempts to pay private
real estate developers to replace public housing was an "example of smart policy."
"The developers were thinking in market terms and operating under the rules of the marketplace,"
he said. "But at the same time, we had government supporting and subsidizing those efforts."
The fan was Barack Obama, then a young state senator. Four years later, he cosponsored a bipartisan
bill to increase subsidies for private developers and financiers to build or revamp low-income housing.
However, the rush to outsource responsibility for housing the poor became a textbook example
of one peril of privatization: Companies frequently get paid whether they deliver the goods or not
(one of the reasons investors like privatization deals). For example, in 2004, city inspectors found
more than 1,800 code violations at Lawndale Restoration, the largest privately owned, publicly subsidized
apartment project in Chicago. Guaranteed a steady revenue stream whether they did right by the tenants
or not-from 1997 to 2003, the project generated $4.4 million in management fees and $14.6 million
in salaries and wages-the developers were apparently satisfied to just let the place rot.
Meanwhile, the $1.6 billion Plan for Transformation drags on, six years past deadline and still
2,500 units from completion, while thousands of families languish on the Chicago Housing Authority's
waitlist.
Be that as it may, the Chicago experience looks like a laboratory for a new White House
pilot initiative, the Rental Assistance Demonstration Program (RAD), which is set to turn over some
60,000 units to private management next year. Lack of success never seems to be an impediment where
privatization is concerned.
Does Finance care about bigotry?
Finance has a history of recognizing bigotry and promoting it if it makes loans more predictable.
Home values could drop if too many blacks moved to a neighborhood so finance created red-lining
to protect their investments while promoting bigotry.
Finance is all in favor of tearing down minority neighborhoods or funding polluters in those neighborhoods
to protect investments in gated communities and white sundown towns.
Finance is often part of the problem, not the solution.
All of what you say is true but I have some contrarian/devil's advocate thoughts.
Some finance people are smart and have an enlightened self-interest. Think of Robert Rubin,
George Soros or Warren Buffet. They often back Democrats. Think of Chuck Schumer. Think of Hillary
Clinton's speeches to the banks.
Finance often knocks down walls and will back whatever makes a profit. Often though as you
say it conforms to prejudice and past practices, like red-lining.
I think of the lines from the Communist Manifesto:
"The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal,
idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his
"natural superiors", and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest,
than callous "cash payment". It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour,
of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation.
It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible
chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom - Free Trade. In one word,
for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless,
direct, brutal exploitation.
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to
with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of
science, into its paid wage labourers."
But the cash nexus isn't enough spiritually or emotionally and when living standards stagnate
or decline, anxious people retreat into tribalism.
When I first glances at your question I immediately answered your query like you everyone here
did, 'no, finance does not care about bigotry except to the degree finance can profit from it.'
Then I realized there are too many assumptions contained in your question for me to respond
b/c I was thinking inside the box and not taking in all that impacts Finance and bigotry.
Your question assumes "Finance" is Private and for profit. But that is not true is it, since
there is Public, NGO, Charity, Socialistic, Communistic, et. al., Finance.
And, then there is the problem with the word "bigotry."
Your post makes clear to me that you are referring to American bigotry in housing, but that
means you ignore that "bigotry" exists largely from ones individual perspective, which we know
depends upon from where one sees it.
What I mean by that is Russia, China, Syria, Turkey, Iran, etc., all see and proclaim bigotry
in the USA but deny bigotry in their own countries.
If your point is simply that America Finance discriminates against people of color in Housing
or that such discrimination perpetuates bigotry then no one can disagree with you, imo, however,
your implication that that is done to perpetuate bigotry and racism is probably false since Finance
is amoral, looking to secure profit, and not out to discriminate against a particular group such
as people of color as long as they can profit.
"... "He spoke of the need to reform our trade deals so they aren't raw deals for the American people," she said. "He said he will not cut Social Security benefits. He talked about the need to address the rising cost of college and about helping working parents struggling with the high cost of child care. He spoke of the urgency of rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and putting people back to work. He spoke to the very real sense of millions of Americans that their government and their economy has abandoned them. And he promised to rebuild our economy for working people." ..."
"... And economic populists really care about race gender etc, we just think that focusing on social justice as a priority over economic equality inevitably leads to Trump or someone like him. ..."
"... I don't know who Clinton might represent more than American feminists, and they, or at least the ones over thirty with power and wealth, certainly seemed to feel possessive and empowered by her campaign and possible election. ..."
"... And white American feminists could not even get 50% of white working class women nationwide, and I suspect the numbers are even worse in the Upper Midwest swing states. In comparison, African-Americans delivered as always, 90% of their vote, across all classes and educational levels. Latinos delivered somewhere around 60-70%. ..."
"... You seem to have just ignored what Val, small, Helen, faustusnotes have been saying and inserted a straw man into the conversation. No you don't have to be a Marxist to worry about social discrimination, but being sensitive to social discrimination does make you sensitive to injustice in general. Who exactly are these people you are talking about? ..."
"... Over the past decade, a small but growing movement has realized that the Rube Goldberg neoliberalism of Obamacare–and many other parts of modern Democratic policy–is not sustainable. I've come to that conclusion painfully and slowly. I've taught the law for six years, and each year I get better at explaining how its many parts work, and fit together." ..."
"... I offered in an earlier comment, that the left looks askance at identity politics because of the recuperation of these – gender emancipation, anti-racism and anti-colonial struggles – by capital and the state. engels, above has offered Nancy Fraser linked here. ..."
"... I have no argument with the notion that Clinton was an imperfect candidate. Almost all candidates are (even a top-notch one like Obama) ..."
The idea that people who are against capitalism (or neoliberalism, if you want) are also not
generally against patriarchy and racist colonialism ( as a system ) is obviously false.
On the contrary it's people who are 'into' identity politics who generally are not against
these things (again, as a system). People who are into identity politics are against racism and
sexism, sure, but seem to have little if any idea as to why these ideas came into being and what
social purposes they serve: they seem to think they are just arbitrary lifestyle choices, like
not liking people with red hair, or preferring The Beatles to the Rolling Stones or something.
And if this is true, all we have to do is 'persuade' people not to 'be racist' or 'be sexist'
and then the problem goes away. Hence dehistoricised (and, let's face it, depoliticised) 'political
correctness'. which seems to insist that as long as you don't, personally , call any African-American
the N word and don't use the C word when talking about women, all problems of racism and sexism
will be solved.
The inability to look at History, and social structures, and the history of social structures,
and the purpose of these structures as a pattern of domination, inevitably leads to Clintonism
(or, in the UK, Blairism), which, essentially, equals 'neoliberalism plus don't use the N word'.
I'm not going to argue directly with people because some people are obviously a bit angry about
this but the question is not whether or not sexism or homophobia are good things (they obviously
aren't): the question is whether or not fighting against these things are necessarily left-wing,
and the answer is: depends on how you do it. For example, in both cases we have seen right-wing
feminism ('spice girls feminism') and right wing gay rights (cf Peter Thiel, Milo Yiannopoulos)
which sees 'breaking the glass ceiling' for women and gays as being the key point of the struggle.
I know Americans got terribly excised about having the first American female President and that's
understandable for its symbolic value, but here in the UK we now have our second female Prime
Minister.
So what? Who gives a shit? What's changed (not least, what's changed for women?)?. Nothing.
Eventually you are going to get your first female President. You will probably even someday
get your first gay President. Both of them may be Republicans. Think about that.
What's wrong with -(from the NYT):
'Democrats, who lost the White House and made only nominal gains in the House and Senate, face
a profound decision after last week's stunning defeat: Make common cause where they can with Mr.
Trump to try to win back the white, working-class voters he took from them
– while always reminding the people that F face von Clownstick actually is a Fascistic Racist
Birther.
and at the same time (from E. Warren):
"He spoke of the need to reform our trade deals so they aren't raw deals for the American
people," she said. "He said he will not cut Social Security benefits. He talked about the need
to address the rising cost of college and about helping working parents struggling with the
high cost of child care. He spoke of the urgency of rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure
and putting people back to work. He spoke to the very real sense of millions of Americans that
their government and their economy has abandoned them. And he promised to rebuild our economy
for working people."
Straw man much, hidari? Just to pick a random example of someone who thinks these things are important,
Ursula le guin Sure she's never made any state,nets about systematic oppression, and economic
systems? The problem you have when you try to claim that these ideas "cameo to being" through
social and structural factors is that you're wrong.
Everyone knows rape is as old as sex, the idea it's a product of a distorted economic system
is a fiction produced by Beardy white dudes to shut the girls up until after the revolution.
Which is exactly what you "reformers" of liberalism, who think it has lost its way in the maze
of identity politics, want to do. Look at the response of people like rich puchalsky to BLM –
trying to pretend it's equivalent to the system of police violence directed against occupy, as
if violence against white people for protesting is the same as e murder of black people simply
for being in public.
It's facile, it's shallow and it's a desperate attempt to stop the Democratic Party being forced
to respond to issues outside the concerns of white rust belt men – it's no coincidence that this
uprising g of shallow complaints against identity politics from the hard left occurs at the same
time we see a rust belt reaction against the new left. And the reaction from the hard left will
be as destructive for the dems as the rust belt reaction is for the country.
nastywoman 11.17.16 at 8:04 am
– and what a 'feast' for historians this whole 'deal' must be?
– as there are all kind of fascinating thought experiment around this man who orders so loudly and
in fureign language a Pizza on you-tube.
And wasn't it time that our fellow Americans find out that Adolf Hitler not only ordered Pizza
or complained about his I-Phone – NO! – that he also is very upset that Trump also won the erection?
And there are endless possibilities for histerical conferences about who is the 'Cuter Fascist
– or what Neo Nazis in germany sometimes like to discuss: What if Hitler only would have done 'good'
fascistic things?
Wouldn't he be the role model for all of US?
Or – as there are so many other funny hypotheticals
1) And economic populists really care about race gender etc, we just think that focusing on social
justice as a priority over economic equality inevitably leads to Trump or someone like him.
2) I don't know who Clinton might represent more than American feminists, and they, or at least
the ones over thirty with power and wealth, certainly seemed to feel possessive and empowered
by her campaign and possible election.
And white American feminists could not even get 50% of white working class women nationwide,
and I suspect the numbers are even worse in the Upper Midwest swing states. In comparison, African-Americans
delivered as always, 90% of their vote, across all classes and educational levels. Latinos delivered
somewhere around 60-70%.
American feminism has catastrophically, an understatement, failed over the last couple
generations, and class had very much to do with it, upper middle class advanced degreed liberal
women largely followed Clinton's model, leaned in, and went for the bucks rather than reaching
ou to their non-college sisters in the Midwest. Kinda like Mao staying in Shanghai, or Lenin in
Zurich and expecting the Feminist Revolution to happen in the countryside while they profit.
Feminism, also playing to its base of upper middle class women, has also shifted its focus
from economic and labor force issues, to a range of social and sexuality issues that are of
less concern to most women. Personally, I feel betrayed. The male-female wage gap has not narrow
appreciably since the 1990s, glass ceilings are still in place and, for me most importantly,
horizontal sex segregation in the market for jobs that don't require a college degree, where
roughly 2/3 of American women compete, is unabated. I looked at the most recent BLS stats for
occupations by gender recently. Of the two aggregated categories of occupations that would
be characterized as 'blue collar' work, women represent a little over 2 and 3 percent respectively.
For specific occupations under those categories more than half (eyeballing) don't even include
a sufficient number of women to report.
Again, it isn't hard to see why. Upper middle class women can easily imagine themselves, or
their daughters, needing abortions. The possibility that that option would not be available is
a real fear. They do not worry that they or their daughters would be stuck for most of their adult
lives cashiering at Walmart, working in a call center, or doing any of the other boring, dead-end
pink-collar work which are the only options most women have. And they don't even think of blue-collar
work.
Which Marxists always have expected and why we strongly prefer that the UMC and bourgeois be
kept out of the Party. It's called opportunism and is connected to reformism, IOW, wanting to
keep the system, just replace the old bosses with your owm.
You backed the war-mongering plutocrat and handed the world to fascism. Can you show responsibility
and humility for even a week?
You seem to have just ignored what Val, small, Helen, faustusnotes have been saying and inserted
a straw man into the conversation. No you don't have to be a Marxist to worry about social discrimination,
but being sensitive to social discrimination does make you sensitive to injustice in general.
Who exactly are these people you are talking about?
reason 11.17.16 at 8:43 am
Of course Hidari might have had a point if he was making an argument
about campaign strategy and emphasis, but he seems to be saying more that that, or are I wrong?
Over the past decade, a small but growing movement has realized that the
Rube Goldberg neoliberalism of Obamacare–and many other parts of modern Democratic policy–is not
sustainable. I've come to that conclusion painfully and slowly. I've taught the law for six years,
and each year I get better at explaining how its many parts work, and fit together."
basil 11.17.16 at 9:09 am
I offered in an earlier comment, that the left looks askance at identity
politics because of the recuperation of these – gender emancipation, anti-racism and anti-colonial
struggles – by capital and the state.
engels, above has offered Nancy Fraser linked here.
CT's really weird on identity. Whose work are we thinking through? 'Gender'and 'Race' are political
constructions that are most explicitly economic in nature. There were no black people before racism
made certain bodies available for the inhumanity of enslavement, and thus the enrichment of the slaver
class. Commentators oughtn't, I don't think, write as if there are actually existing black and white
people. As Dorothy Roberts – Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-Create Race
in the 21st Century (and Paul Gilroy – Against Race: Imagining Political Culture beyond the Color
Line, and Karen and Barbara Fields – Racecraft: The Soul of Inequality in American Life, etc put
it, it is racism that creates and naturalises race. Of course liberalism's logics of governance,
the necessity of making bodies available for control and exploitation constantly reproduce and entrench
race (and gender).
I offered that racialised people, particularly those gendered as women/queer, the ones who have
been refused whiteness, are also super suspicious of these deployments of identity politics, especially
by non-subjugated persons who've a political project for which they are weaponising subordinated
identities. It really is abusive and exploitative.
We must listen better. As the racialised and gendered are pointing out, it is incredible that
it has taken the threat of Trump, and now their ascension for liberals to tune in to the violence
waged against racialised, gendered, queer lives and bodies by White Supremacy. History will remember
that #BLM (like the record deportations, the Clintons' actual-existing-but-to-liberals invisible
border wall, the Obamacare farce in the OP, de Blasio's undocumented persons list, Rahm in Chicago,
the employment of David Brock, Melania's nudes, the crushing poverty of racialised women, the exploitation
of those violated by Trump, the re-invasion and desecration of Native American territory) happened
under a liberal presidency. That liberal presidency responded to BLM with a Blue Lives Matter law.
This is evidence of liberalism's inherently violent attitude towards those it pretends to care about.
All this preceded Trump.
If you are for gender emancipation or anti-race/racism, be against these all the time, not just
to tar your temporary electoral foes. Be feminist when dancing Yemenis gendered as women – some of
the poorest, most vulnerable humans – are droned at weddings. Be feminist when Mexico's farmers gendered
as women are dying at NAFTA's hand. Be feminist when poor racialised queer teens are dying in the
streets as you celebrate the right of wealthy gays to marry. Be feminist and reject people who've
got multiple sexual violence accusations against them and those who help them cover these up and
shame the victims. Be feminist and anti-racist and reject people who glory in making war on poor
defenceless people. Be feminist and anti-racist and reject white nationalists gendered female who
call racialised groups 'super-predators' to court racists. Reject people who say of public welfare
improvements – it will never, ever happen, this is not Denmark. The people who need those services
the most are vulnerable humans, racialised and gendered as women. Never say that politicians who
put poor migrants in cages on isolated islands are nice people. They absolutely aren't. Some of this
is really easy.
These puerile rhetorical gestures reveal the people for whom 2:30 a.m. on Wednesday was simply
a glass ceiling left unbroken by a woman who launched a massive Yemeni bombing campaign. Perhaps
as a mechanic of coping, it has become incredibly sexy for a certain class of liberals to dodge
any responsibility for the lives they, too, have compromised. They aren't the same ones who have
to worry about who will be the first person to call them a terrorist faggot ..For the rest of
us, the victory of this fascist is a confirmation of the biases we have known all along, no matter
public liberal consciousness's inabilities to wrangle them into submission."
– and just a suggestion I have learned from touring the rust belt – waaay before it was as 'fashionable'
as it is right now.
While we in some hotel room in Scranton fought our Ideological fights -(we had a French Camera
Assistant who insisted that America one day will elect 'a Fascist like Hitler') –
the mechanic we had scheduled to interview about his Camaro SS for the next day – had exchanged
all the spark plucks of his car.
bob mcmanus above, I really think social justice and economic justice are bound together, and that Universal Healthcare,
for example, as a fundamental right is a basic feminist and anti-racist goal. Most particularly because
the vulnerability of these groups, their economic hardship, their very capacity to live, to survive
is at stake in a marketised health care system.
Racialised outcomes for ACA.
Similarly with marketised higher education and skills training. How cynical that HRC used HBCUs
to argue that racialised people would suffer from free public tertiary education!
Dorothy Roberts' work for example has interesting perspectives on how race is created in part
through the differentiated access to healthcare. They discuss how this plays out for both maternal
and child mortality, and for breast cancer survival. 'Oh, the evidence shows that racialised women
are more vulnerable to x condition'. Exactly, because a racist and marketised system denies them
necessary healthcare.
A funny thing about the new comment moderation regime is that you can get two people posting in
rapid succession saying pretty much opposite things like me then Hidari. It seems as if (although
again it's not very clear) Hidari is suggesting capitalism created sexism and racism? Or something
like that? I'm definitely on better ground there though: patriarchy and sexism predate capitalism.
In fairness though, I think I understand what Hidari and engels are getting at. I know lots
of young people, women and people of colour, who probably fit their description in a way. They
are young, smart, probably a bit naive, and at least some of them probably from privileged backgrounds.
They appear driven by desire to succeed in a hierarchical academic system that still tends to
be dominated by white men at the upper levels, and they don't seem to question the system much,
at least not openly.
But can I just mention, some of our hosts here are actually fairly high up in that system.
Why aren't they being attacked as liberals or proponents of "identity politics"? Why is it only
when women or people of colour try to succeed in that very same academic system that it becomes
so wrong?
Another Nick, yes I can comment on that. I think it's fascinating that the old beardy leftists
and berniebros are fixated on Lena Dunham. Who else is fixated on Lena Dunham? The right bloggers,
who are inflamed with rage at everything she does. Who else is fixated on identity politics? The
right bloggers, who present it as everything wrong with the modern left, PC gone mad, censorship
etc. You guys should get together and have a party – you're made for each other.
Also, the Democrats don't have a "celebrity campaign mascot." So what are you actually talking
about?
basil @ 64
basil what in any conceivable world makes you think that feminists on CT don't know about the
issues you're talking about? I work in a school of public health and my entire work consists of
trying to address those sorts of issues, plus ecological sustainability.
Seriously this has all gone beyond straw-wo/manning. Some people here are talking to others
who exist only in their minds or something. The world's gone mad.
engels 11.17.16 at 12:06 pm
Umm Val and FaustusNoted, which part of-
identity politics isn't the same thing as feminism, anti-racism, LGBT politics, etc. They're
all needed now more than ever.
-was unclear to you?
I DON'T want to live in a world in which 'patriarchy and racism' are okay, I want to live in a
world in which America has a real Left, which represents the working class (black, white, gay, straight,
female, male-like other countries do to a greater lesser degree), and which is the only thing that
has a shot at stopping its descent into outright fascism.
it often gets thrown around as a kind of all-encompassing epithet
Point taken-but there's really nothing I can do to stop other people misusing terms (until
the Dictatorship of the Prolerariat anyway :) )
Cranky Observer 11.17.16 at 12:27 pm
= = = faustnotes @ 4:14 am The reason these conservative Dems come from those states is
that those states don't support radical welfare provisions – they don't want other people getting
a free lunch, and value personal responsibility over welfarism. = = =
As long as you don't count enormous agricultural, highway, postal service, and military base subsidies
as any form of "welfare", sure. And that's not even counting the colossal expenditures on military
force and bribes in the Middle East to keep the diesel-fuel-to-corn unroofed chemical factory (i.e.
farming) industry running profitably. Apparently the Republicans who hate the US Postal Service with
a vengeance, for example, are unaware that in 40% of the land area of the United States FedEx, UPS,
etc turn over the 'last hundred mile' delivery to the USPS.
Ps I'm kind of surprised this thread has been allowed to go on so long but I'm going to bow out
now-feel free to continue trying to smear me behind my back
bob mcmanus 11.17.16 at 12:35 pm
Would a real leftist let her daughter marry a hedge-fund trader?
I suppose they are a step above serial killers and child molesters, but c'mon. Quotes from Wiki,
rearranged in chronological order.
Beginning in the early 1990s, Mezvinsky used a wide variety of 419 scams. According to a federal
prosecutor, Mezvinsky conned using "just about every different kind of African-based scam we've ever
seen."[11] The scams promise that the victim will receive large profits, but first a small down payment
is required. To raise the funds needed to front the money for the fraudulent investment schemes he
was being offered, Mezvinsky tapped his network of former political contacts, dropping the name of
the Clinton family to convince unwitting marks to give him money.[12]
In March 2001, Mezvinsky was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 felony charges of bank
fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud
"In July 2010, Mezvinsky married Chelsea Clinton in an interfaith ceremony in Rhinebeck, New York.[12]
The senior Clintons and Mezvinskys were friends in the 1990s ; their children met on a Renaissance
Weekend retreat in Hilton Head Island, South Carolina."
Subsequent to his graduations, he worked for eight years as an investment banker at Goldman Sachs
before leaving to join a private equity firm, but later quit. In 2011, he co-founded a Manhattan-based
hedge fund firm, Eaglevale Partners, with two longtime partners, Bennett Grau and Mark Mallon.[1][8]
In May 2016, The New York Times reported that the Eaglevale Hellenic Opportunity Fund is said to
have lost nearly 90 percent of its value, [which equated to a 90% loss to investors] and sources
say it will be shutting down.[9][10] Emails discovered as part of Wikileaks' release of the "Podesta
emails" seemed to indicate that Mezvinsky had used his ties to the Clinton family to obtain investors
for his hedge fund through Clinton Foundation events.
Marcotte, Sady Doyle, Valenti, the Clinton operatives knew this stuff.
Prioritizing women's liberation over economic populism, just a little bit, doesn't quite cover
it. Buying fully into the most rapacious aspects of predatory capitalism is more lie it.
If Clinton is your champion, and I am still seeing sads at Jezebel, you have zero credilibity
on economic issues. She's one of the worst crooks to ever run for President. And we will see how
Obama fares on his immediate switch from President to his ambition to be a venture capitalist for
Silicon Valley. I'll bet Obama gets very very lucky!
Val @49 &
"they (at some confused and probably not fully conscious level) do seem to assume that violence
and oppression of women and people of colour never used to happen when white men (including white
working class men) had 'good jobs' .. patriarchy and racism predate neoliberalism by centuries."
"patriarchy and sexism predate capitalism."
I think this framing is misleading, because you're historically comparing forms of oppression
with economic systems, rather than varieties of one or the other.
Wouldn't the more relevant comparison be something like: patriarchy and sexism are coeval with
classism and economic inequality?
What concretely are racism and sexism, after all, but ideologies dependent upon power inequalities,
and what are those but inequalities of social position (man, father) and wealth and ownership
that make possible that power difference? How could sexism or racism have existed without class
or inequality?
novakant 11.17.16 at 1:32 pm
I have no argument with the notion that Clinton was an imperfect candidate. Almost all
candidates are (even a top-notch one like Obama)
Strawman (I have heard a lot of times before):
nobody criticizes Clinton for being imperfect, people criticize her for being a terrible, terrible
candidate and the DNC establishment for supporting this terrible, terrible candidate: she lost
against TRUMP for goodness' sake.
bob mcmanus: "In March 2001, Mezvinsky was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 felony
charges of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud "
Well, either I'm shocked to discover that Clinton was involved in her daughter's husband's
father's crimes some 20 years ago, or you've demonstrated that Clinton's daughter married a man
whose father was a crook. I'm guessing the latter, though I'm left wondering WTF that has to do
with Clinton's character.
engels 11.17.16 at 2:03 pm
One more:
"we cannot ignore the fact that the vast majority of white men and a majority of white women,
across class lines, voted for a platform and a message of white supremacy, Islamophobia, misogyny,
xenophobia, homophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-science, anti-Earth, militarism, torture, and policies
that blatantly maintain income inequality. The vast majority of people of color voted against
Trump, with black women registering the highest voting percentage for Clinton of any other demographic
(93 percent). It is an astounding number when we consider that her husband's administration oversaw
the virtual destruction of the social safety net by turning welfare into workfare, cutting food
stamps, preventing undocumented workers from receiving benefits, and denying former drug felons
and users access to public housing; a dramatic expansion of the border patrol, immigrant detention
centers, and the fence on Mexico's border; a crime bill that escalated the war on drugs and accelerated
mass incarceration; as well as NAFTA and legislation deregulating financial institutions.
"Still, had Trump received only a third of the votes he did and been defeated, we still would
have had ample reason to worry about our future.
"I am not suggesting that white racism alone explains Trump's victory. Nor am I dismissing
the white working class's very real economic grievances. It is not a matter of disaffection versus
racism or sexism versus fear. Rather, racism, class anxieties, and prevailing gender ideologies
operate together, inseparably, or as Kimberlé Crenshaw would say, intersectionally."
https://bostonreview.net/forum/after-trump/robin-d-g-kelley-trump-says-go-back-we-say-fight-back
Bob, a real feminist would not tell her daughter who to marry.
You claim to be an intersectional feminist but you say things like this, and you blamed feminists
for white dudes voting for trump. Are you a parody account?
Michael Sullivan 11.17.16 at 2:41 pm
Mclaren @ 25 "As for 63.7% home ownership stats in 2016, vast numbers of those "owned" homes
were snapped up by giant banks and other financial entities like hedge funds which then rented
those homes out. So the home ownership stats in 2016 are extremely deceptive."
There may be ways in which the home ownership statistic is deceptive or fuzzy, but it's hard
for me to imagine this being one of them.
The definition you seem to imply for home ownership (somebody somewhere owns the home) would
result in by definition 100% home ownership every year.
I'm pretty sure that the measure is designed to look at whether one of the people who live
in a home actually owns it. Ok, let's stuff the pretty sure, etc. and use our friend google. So
turns out that the rate in question is the percentage of households where one of the people in
the household owns the apartment/house. If some banker or landlord buys a foreclosure and then
rents the house out, that will be captured in the homeownership rate.
Where that rate may understate issues is that it doesn't consider how many people are in a
household. So if lots of people are moving into their parent's basements, or renting rooms to/from
unrelated people in their houses, those people won't be counted as renters or homeowners, since
the rate tracks households, not people. Where that will be captured is in something called the
headship rate, and represents the ratio of households to adults. That number dropped by about
1.5% between the housing bust and the recession, and appears to be recovering or at worst near
bottom (mixed data from two different surveys) as of 2013. So, yes, the drop in home ownership
rate is probably understated (hence the headline of my source article below) somewhat, but not
enormously as you imply, and the difference is NOT foreclosures - unless they are purchased by
another owner occupier, they DO show up in the home ownership rate. The difference is larger average
households: more adults living with other adults.
engels @70, "I DON'T want to live in a world in which 'patriarchy and racism' are okay, I want
to live in a world in which America has a real Left, which represents the working class (black,
white, gay, straight, female, male-like other countries do to a greater lesser degree), and which
is the only thing that has a shot at stopping its descent into outright fascism."
So many prominent people and such a large majority of voters have be so completely wrong, so
many times, on everything, for a year that I really am not confident about making any strong political
claims anymore. However, it has opened me to possibilities I wouldn't have previously considered.
One is this: I'm beginning to wonder (not believe, wonder), if a lot of working class and lower-to-middle
middle class Americans, including a lot of the ones who didn't vote or who switched from Obama
to Trump (not including those who were always on the right) would already be on board, or in the
long run be able of getting on board, with the picture Engels paints at 70.
That possibility seems outrageous because we assume this general group are motivated *primarily*
by resentment against women and people of color. But the more I read news stories that directly
interview them–not the rally goers, but the others–the more it seems that they will side with
*almost anyone* who they think is on their side, and *against anyone* who they think has contempt
or indifference for them. Put another way: they are driven by equal opportunity resentment to
whatever prejudices serve their resentment, rather than by a deeply engrained, fixed, rigid, kind
of prejudice. (I have in mind a number of recent articles, but one thing that struck me is interviews
with racially diverse factory workers, with Latinos and women, who voted for Trump.)
I also begin to wonder if there is as much, if not more, resistance to wide solidarity among
the left than among this group of voters who aren't really committed to either party. I begin
to think that many on the left are strongly, deeply, viscerally opposed to the middle range working
class, period, and not *just* to the racism and sexism that are all too often found there. I worry
the Democrats' class contempt, their conservative disgust for their social, educational, professional,
and economic inferiors is growing–partly based in reasonable disgust at the horrendous excesses
of the right, but partly class-based, pathological, and subterranean, independent of that reasonable
side.
I say this not to justify Trump voters or non-voters or to vilify Democrats, but actually with
a bit of optimism. For a very long time even many on the far left has looked at the old Marxist
model of wide solidarity among the proletariat with skepticism. But I'm wondering if that skepticism
is still justified. I wonder if what stands in the way of a truly diverse working class movement
is not the right but the left. If they're ready, and we've not been paying attention.
Are we really faced with a working class that rejects diversity? Are we really opposing to
them a professional class that truly accepts diversity? Isn't there a kind of popular solidarity
appearing, in awkward and sometimes ugly ways, that is destroying the presumptions of that opposition?
engels 11.17.16 at 3:32 pm Cornel West:
In short, the abysmal failure of the Democratic party to speak to the arrested mobility and
escalating poverty of working people unleashed a hate-filled populism and protectionism that threaten
to tear apart the fragile fiber of what is left of US democracy. And since the most explosive
fault lines in present-day America are first and foremost racial, then gender, homophobic, ethnic
and religious, we gird ourselves for a frightening future. What is to be done? First we must try
to tell the truth and a condition of truth is to allow suffering to speak. For 40 years, neoliberals
lived in a world of denial and indifference to the suffering of poor and working people and obsessed
with the spectacle of success. Second we must bear witness to justice. We must ground our truth-telling
in a willingness to suffer and sacrifice as we resist domination. Third we must remember courageous
exemplars like Martin Luther King Jr, who provide moral and spiritual inspiration as we build
multiracial alliances to combat poverty and xenophobia, Wall Street crimes and war crimes, global
warming and police abuse – and to protect precious rights and liberties .
Val: "It seems as if (although again it's not very clear) Hidari is suggesting capitalism created
sexism and racism? Or something like that? I'm definitely on better ground there though, patriarchy
and sexism predate capitalism."
If Hidari is coming from a more-or-less mainline contemporary Marxist position, this is a misunderstanding
of their argument, which is no more a claim that capitalism "created sexism and racism" than it
would be a claim that capitalism created class antagonism. What's instead being suggested is that
just as capitalism has systematized a specific form of class antagonism (wage laborer vs.
capitalist) as a perceived default whose hegemony and expansion shapes our perception of all other
potential antagonisms as anachronistic exceptions, so it has done the same with specific forms
of sexism and racism, the forms we might call "patriarchy" and "white supremacy". In fact the
argument is typically that antagonisms like white vs. POC and man vs. woman function as normalized
exceptions to the normalized general antagonism of wage laborer vs. capitalist, a space where
the process known since Marx as "primitive accumulation" can take place through the dispossession
of women and POC (up to and including the dispossession of their very bodies) in what might otherwise
be considered flagrant violation of liberal norms.
As theorists like
Rosa Luxemburg and
Silvia Federici
have elaborated, this process of accumulation is absolutely essential to the continued functioning
of capitalism - the implication being that as much as capitalism and its ideologists pretend to
oppose oppressions like racism and sexism, it can never actually destroy these oppressions without
destroying its own social basis in the process. Hence neoliberal "identity politics", in which
changing the composition of the ruling elite (now the politician shaking hands with Netanyahu
on the latest multibillion-dollar arms deal can be a black guy with a Muslim-sounding name! now
the CEO of a company that employs teenaged girls to stitch T-shirts for 12 hours a day can be
a woman!) is ideologically akin to wholesale liberation, functions not as a way to destroy racism
and sexism but as a compromise gambit to preserve them.
Another Nick 11.17.16 at 4:01 pm f
austusnotes, I asked if you could comment on the "identity politics" behind the Dem choice
of Lena Dunham for celebrity campaign mascot. ie. their strategy. What they were planning and
thinking? And how you think it played out for them?
Not a list of your favourite boogeymen.
"So what are you actually talking about?"
I was attempting to discuss the role of identity politics in the Clinton campaign. I asked
about Dunham because she was the most prominent of the celebrities employed by the Clinton campaign
to deploy identity politics. ie. she appeared most frequently in the media on their behalf.
Not seeing much discussion about actual policies there, economic or otherwise. It's really
just an entire interview based on identity politics. With bonus meta-commentary on identity politics.
Lena blames "white women, so unable to see the unity of female identity, so unable to look
past their violent privilege, and so inoculated with hate for themselves," for the election loss.
Why didn't the majority of white women vote for Hillary? Because they "hate themselves".
Ellison is a dud, Bernie tweets support for Schumer "there's nobody I know better prepared
and more capable of leading our caucus than Chuck Schumer"!
Well there's a good chunder maker in that statement eh? Hope dashed!
There are no doubt many who are better informed, more progressive and principled, more remote
from Wall Street and oligarchic capture than Chuck Schumer and Ellison. So there you have it –
this is reform in the Democrats after a crushing defeat.
Vale democrats, and now the journey becomes arduous with these voices to smother hope. A new
party is urgently needed (I know how difficult that is) and these voices of the old machine need
to be ignored for the sake of sanity.
"... Now you are worried about yourselves, but there are only the dead and their survivors left
for whom you didn't speak up for. Give me one reason why anybody should worry about you, who seem to
believe that only you count because you are Americans. My very best wishes for your precious safety
and comfort and may you continue to look in the mirror and see no one there. Trust me, a mirror does
not lie. ..."
"... https://youtu.be/G0R09YzyuCI Collapse of Complex Societies by Dr. Joseph Tainter ..."
"... Eliminate the social cancer of private finance and unfettered inheritance or continue to repeat
history to assured extinction. ..."
I understand some of you are very worried about the election of Donald Trump. But I want you
think about this:
First they went for Yugoslavia, and you didn't worry: a country died
Then they went for Afghanistan and you didn't worry: 220,000 Afghans have died.
Then, they went for Iraq, and you didn't worry: 1 million Iraqis died.
Then they went for Libya, and you didn't worry: 30,000 to 50,000 people died. Did you worry
when Qaddafi was murdered with a bayonet up his rectum? No. And someone even laughed.
Then they went for Ukraine, and you didn't worry: 10,000 people died and are dying.
Then they went for Syria, and you didn't worry: 250,000 people died
Then they went for Yemen: over 6,000 Yemenis have been killed and another 27,000 wounded.
According to the UN, most of them are civilians. Ten million Yemenis don't have enough to eat,
and 13 million have no access to clean water. Yemen is highly dependent on imported food, but
a U.S.-Saudi blockade has choked off most imports. The war is ongoing.
Then there is Somalia , and you don't worry
Then there are the countries that reaped the fallout from the collapse of Libya. Weapons looted
after the fall of Gaddafi fuel the wars in Mali, Niger, and the Central African Republic.
Now you are worried about yourselves, but there are only the dead and their survivors left
for whom you didn't speak up for. Give me one reason why anybody should worry about you, who seem
to believe that only you count because you are Americans. My very best wishes for your precious
safety and comfort and may you continue to look in the mirror and see no one there. Trust me,
a mirror does not lie.
Sincerely,
One who does not worry about you.
PS By the way the butcher bill I am here presenting is very conservative on the body count
and does not include the wounded, the homeless, the refugees, or the cost of the wars to you,
who continue to believe that before Trump the world was a nice and comfortable place--for you.
@ 33 Great comment, but remember the tribe. French revolution, Marxism, Russian revolution, Israel,
neoliberalism. I am from the hard "Grapes of Wrath" left. Marxism was a brilliant Jewish ploy
to split the left, then identity politics. Oh, they are so clever and we are so dumb...
Nice continuation of the Killary Pac comment. I want to take it further.
Since the Marxism ploy to split the left the folks that own private finance have developed/implemented
another ploy to redirect criticism of themselves/their tools by adding goyim to the fringes of
private finance to make it look like a respectable cornerstone of our "civilization".
Oh, they are so clever and we are so dumb...
Eliminate the social cancer of private finance and unfettered inheritance or continue to
repeat history to assured extinction.
"... The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and disable
their dominance. ..."
"... It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the neoliberal
turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution of income
between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments. In Europe,
the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle. ..."
"... When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features of
his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading money
center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New York Federal
Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury in the Obama Administration,
but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Citibank. The crisis served
to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political
power entirely into their hands as well. Simon Johnson called it a coup. ..."
"... Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980 drove
both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. ..."
"... It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences
were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified
this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility for
economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces" that just happened,
in a meteorological economics. ..."
"... This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could aid
the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting constraints.
..."
"... No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and draw
attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization
of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes the political
problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational clarity or
coherence. ..."
"... If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power,
Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional
critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected,
Obama isn't really trying. ..."
"... Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because
it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference. ..."
At the center of Great Depression politics was a political struggle over the distribution of
income, a struggle that was only decisively resolved during the War, by the Great Compression.
It was at center of farm policy where policymakers struggled to find ways to support farm incomes.
It was at the center of industrial relations politics, where rapidly expanding unions were seeking
higher industrial wages. It was at the center of banking policy, where predatory financial practices
were under attack. It was at the center of efforts to regulate electric utility rates and establish
public power projects. And, everywhere, the clear subtext was a struggle between rich and poor,
the economic royalists as FDR once called them and everyone else.
FDR, an unmistakeable patrician in manner and pedigree, was leading a not-quite-revolutionary
politics, which was nevertheless hostile to and suspicious of business elites, as a source of
economic pathology. The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek
to side-step and disable their dominance.
It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the
neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution
of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments.
In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle.
In retrospect, though the New Deal did use direct employment as a means of relief to good effect
economically and politically, it never undertook anything like a Keynesian stimulus on a Keynesian
scale - at least until the War.
Where the New Deal witnessed the institution of an elaborate system of financial repression,
accomplished in large part by imposing on the financial sector an explicitly mandated structure,
with types of firms and effective limits on firm size and scope, a series of regulatory reforms
and financial crises beginning with Carter and Reagan served to wipe this structure away.
When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features
of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading
money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New
York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury
in the Obama Administration, but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan
Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five
banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well. Simon
Johnson called it a coup.
I don't know what considerations guided Obama in choosing the size of the stimulus or its composition
(as spending and tax cuts). Larry Summers was identified at the time as a voice of caution, not
"gambling", but not much is known about his detailed reasoning in severely trimming Christina
Romer's entirely conventional calculations. (One consideration might well have been worldwide
resource shortages, which had made themselves felt in 2007-8 as an inflationary spike in commodity
prices.) I do not see a case for connecting stimulus size policy to the health care reform. At
the time the stimulus was proposed, the Administration had also been considering whether various
big banks and other financial institutions should be nationalized, forced to insolvency or otherwise
restructured as part of a regulatory reform.
Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980
drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. Accelerating
the financialization of the economy from 1999 on made New York and Washington rich, but the same
economic policies and process were devastating the Rust Belt as de-industrialization. They were
two aspects of the same complex of economic trends and policies. The rise of China as a manufacturing
center was, in critical respects, a financial operation within the context of globalized trade
that made investment in new manufacturing plant in China, as part of globalized supply chains
and global brand management, (arguably artificially) low-risk and high-profit, while reinvestment
in manufacturing in the American mid-west became unattractive, except as a game of extracting
tax subsidies or ripping off workers.
It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences
were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified
this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility
for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces" that
just happened, in a meteorological economics.
It is conceding too many good intentions to the Obama Administration to tie an inadequate stimulus
to a Rube Goldberg health care reform as the origin story for the final debacle of Democratic
neoliberal politics. There was a delicate balancing act going on, but they were not balancing
the recovery of the economy in general so much as they were balancing the recovery from insolvency
of a highly inefficient and arguably predatory financial sector, which was also not incidentally
financing the institutional core of the Democratic Party and staffing many key positions in the
Administration and in the regulatory apparatus.
This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could
aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting
constraints.
No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and
draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization
of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes
the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational
clarity or coherence.
The short version of my thinking on the Obama stimulus is this: Keynesian stimulus spending is
a free lunch; it doesn't really matter what you spend money on up to a very generous point, so
it seems ready-made for legislative log-rolling. If Obama could not get a very big stimulus
indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen
spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again,
if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really
trying.
Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism,
because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference.
Great comment. Simply great. Hat tip to the author !
Notable quotes:
"… The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and
disable their dominance. …"
"… It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the
neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution
of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist
commitments. In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle. …"
"… When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features
of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading
money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the
New York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury
in the Obama Administration, but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan
Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top
five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well.
Simon Johnson called it a coup. … "
"… Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980
drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. …"
"… It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences
were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified
this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility
for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces"
that just happened, in a meteorological economics. …"
"… This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could
aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting
constraints. …"
"… No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and
draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization
of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes
the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational
clarity or coherence. …"
"… If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of
power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular
and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic
Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really trying. …"
"… Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism,
because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference.
…"
"... We [Russia] have never initiated sanctions. These [sanctions] don't prevent us from building dialogue and continuing the dialogue on matters that are of interest to us, to Russia ..."
"... Russian President Vladimir Putin and outgoing US President Obama are likely to talk informally on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific summit in the Peruvian capital of Lima, Peskov said on Friday. ..."
"... The two administrations have not agreed on any separate meetings, but we can assume that President Putin and President Obama will cross paths on the sidelines of the forum and will talk ..."
"... "Russia, breaking international law. Turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East. The refugee and migration crisis. International terrorism. Hybrid warfare. And cyber-attacks," ..."
US President Barack Obama and EU leaders have agreed to keep anti-Russian sanctions in place for
a further year over the situation in Ukraine.
President Obama, who is on his final official visit to Europe, met with the leaders of Germany,
France, Italy, Spain and the UK on Friday.
Among the main topics on the agenda were extending sanctions against Russia, cooperation within
the framework of NATO, the rise of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in Iraq and Syria, and
possible new anti-Russian sanctions over Moscow's actions in Syria.
"The leaders also affirmed the importance of continued cooperation through multilateral institutions,
including NATO," the White House added.
Sanctions won't stop Russia from improving its dialogue and ties with other countries, Kremlin
spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.
"We [Russia] have never initiated sanctions. These [sanctions] don't prevent us from building
dialogue and continuing the dialogue on matters that are of interest to us, to Russia," Peskov
said.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and outgoing US President Obama are likely to talk informally
on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific summit in the Peruvian capital of Lima, Peskov said on Friday.
"The two administrations have not agreed on any separate meetings, but we can assume that
President Putin and President Obama will cross paths on the sidelines of the forum and will talk,"
Peskov said.
Also on Friday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg gave a speech at an event hosted by the
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF), where he said that Europe and the United States
"are close economic and trade partners" and mentioned potential threats for the alliance. "Russia,
breaking international law. Turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East. The refugee and migration
crisis. International terrorism. Hybrid warfare. And cyber-attacks," said Stoltenberg, listing
the perceived dangers.
"... "Welcome to the world of strategic analysis," Ivan Selin used to tell his team during the Sixties, "where we program weapons that don't work to meet threats that don't exist." Selin, who would spend the following decades as a powerful behind-the-scenes player in the Washington mandarinate, was then the director of the Strategic Forces Division in the Pentagon's Office of Systems Analysis. "I was a twenty-eight-year-old wiseass when I started saying that," he told me, reminiscing about those days. "I thought the issues we were dealing with were so serious, they could use a little levity." ..."
"Welcome to the world of strategic analysis," Ivan Selin used to tell his team during the
Sixties, "where we program weapons that don't work to meet threats that don't exist." Selin, who
would spend the following decades as a powerful behind-the-scenes player in the Washington mandarinate,
was then the director of the Strategic Forces Division in the Pentagon's Office of Systems Analysis.
"I was a twenty-eight-year-old wiseass when I started saying that," he told me, reminiscing about
those days. "I thought the issues we were dealing with were so serious, they could use a little
levity."
####
While I do have some quibbles with the piece (RuAF pilots are getting much more than 90 hours
a year flight time & equipment is overrated and unaffordable in any decent numbers), it is pretty
solid.
"... I know what it is like to have to juggle creditors to make it through a week. I know what it is like to have to swallow my pride and constantly dun people to pay me so that I can pay others. ..."
"... I know what it is like to dread going to the mailbox, because there will always be new bills to pay but seldom a check with which to pay them. I know what it is like to have to tell my daughter that I didn't know if I would be able to pay for her wedding; it all depended on whether something good happened. And I know what it is like to have to borrow money from my adult daughters because my wife and I ran out of heating oil ..."
"... Two-thirds of Americans would have difficulty coming up with the money to cover a $1,000 emergency, according to an exclusive poll released Thursday, a signal that despite years after the Great Recession, Americans' finances remain precarious as ever. ..."
"... These difficulties span all incomes, according to the poll conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Three-quarters of people in households making less than $50,000 a year and two-thirds of those making between $50,000 and $100,000 would have difficulty coming up with $1,000 to cover an unexpected bill. ..."
"... Even for the country's wealthiest 20 percent - households making more than $100,000 a year - 38 percent say they would have at least some difficulty coming up with $1,000 ..."
"... Chronicle for Higher Education: ..."
"... Meanwhile, 91% of all the profits generated by the U.S. economy from 2009 through 2012 went to the top 1%. As just one example, the annual bonuses (not salaries, just the bonuses) of all Wall Street financial traders last year amounted to 28 billion dollars while the total income of all minimum wage workers in America came to 14 billion dollars. ..."
"... "Between 2009 and 2012, according to updated data from Emmanuel Saez, overall income per family grew 6.9 percent. The gains weren't shared evenly, however. The top 1 percent saw their real income grow by 34.7 percent while the bottom 99 percent only saw a 0.8 percent gain, meaning that the 1 percent captured 91 percent of all real income. ..."
"... Adjusting for inflation and excluding anything made from capital gains investments like stocks, however, shows that even that small gains for all but the richest disappears. According to Justin Wolfers, adjusted average income for the 1 percent without capital gains rose from $871,100 to $968,000 in that time period. For everyone else, average income actually fell from $44,000 to $43,900. Calculated this way, the 1 percent has captured all of the income gains." ..."
"... There actually is a logic at work in the Rust Belt voters for voted for Trump. I don't think it's good logic, but it makes sense in its own warped way. The calculation the Trump voters seem to be making in the Rust Belt is that it's better to have a job and no health insurance and no medicare and no social security, than no job but the ACA (with $7,000 deductibles you can't afford to pay for anyway) plus medicare (since most of these voters are healthy, they figure they'll never get sick) plus social security (most of these voters are not 65 or older, and probably think they'll never age - or perhaps don't believe that social security will be solvent when they do need it). ..."
"... It's the same twisted logic that goes on with protectionism. Rust Belt workers figure that it's better to have a job and not be able to afford a Chinese-made laptop than not to have a job but plenty of cheap foreign-made widgets you could buy if you had any money (which you don't). That logic doesn't parse if you run through the economics (because protectionism will destroy the very jobs they think they're saving), but it can be sold as a tweet in a political campaign. ..."
"... The claim "Trump's coalition is composed of overt racists and people who are indifferent to overt racism" is incomplete. Trump's coalition actually consists of 3 parts and it's highly unstable: [1] racists, [2] plutocrats, [3] working class people slammed hard by globalization for whom Democrats have done little or nothing. ..."
"... The good news is that Trump's coalition is unstable. The plutocrats and Rust Belters are natural enemies. ..."
"... Listen to Steve Bannon, a classic stormfront type - he says he wants to blow up both the Democratic and the Republican party. He calls himself a "Leninist" in a recent interview and vows to wreck all elite U.S. institutions (universities, giant multinationals), not just the Democratic party. ..."
"... Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference. ..."
Eric places the blame for this loss squarely on economics, which, it seems to me, gets the analysis
exactly right. And the statistics back up his analysis, I believe.
It's disturbing and saddening to watch other left-wing websites ignore those statistics and
charge off the cliff into the abyss, screaming that this election was all about racism/misogyny/homophobia/[fill
in the blank with identity politics demonology of your choice]. First, the "it's all racism" analysis
conveniently lets the current Democratic leadership off the hook. They didn't do anything wrong,
it was those "deplorables" (half the country!) who are to blame. Second, the identity politics
blame-shifting completely overlooks and short-circuits any real action to fix the economy by Democratic
policymakers or Democratic politicians or the Democratic party leadership. That's particularly
convenient for the Democratic leadership because these top-four-percenter professionals "promise
anything and change nothing" while jetting between Davos and Martha's Vineyard, ignoring the peons
who don't make $100,000 or more a year because the peons all live in flyover country.
"Trump supporters were on average affluent, but they are always Republican and aren't numerous
enough to deliver the presidency (538 has changed their view in the wake of the election result).
Some point out that looking at support by income doesn't show much distinctive support for Trump
among the "poor", but that's beside the point too, as it submerges a regional phenomenon in a
national average, just as exit polls do. (..)
"When commentators like Michael Moore and Thomas Frank pointed out that there was possibility
for Trump in the Rust Belt they were mostly ignored or, even more improbably, accused of being
apologists for racism and misogyny. But that is what Trump did, and he won. Moreover, he won with
an amateurish campaign against a well-funded and politically sophisticated opponent simply because
he planted his flag where others wouldn't.
"Because of the obsession with exit polls, post-election analysis has not come to grips with
the regional nature of the Trump phenomenon. Exit polls divide the general electorate based on
individual attributes: race, gender, income, education, and so on, making regional distinctions
invisible. Moreover, America doesn't decide the presidential election that way. It decides it
based on the electoral college, which potentially makes the characteristics of individual states
decisive. We should be looking at maps, not exit polls for the explanation. Low black turnout
in California or high Latino turnout in Texas do not matter in the slightest in determining the
election, but exit polls don't help us see that. Exit polls deliver a bunch of non-explanatory
facts, in this election more than other recent ones." http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2016/11/11/23174/
"Donald Trump performed best on Tuesday in places where the economy is in worse shape, and
especially in places where jobs are most at risk in the future.
"Trump, who in his campaign pledged to be a voice for `forgotten Americans,' beat Hillary Clinton
in counties with slower job growth and lower wages. And he far outperformed her in counties where
more jobs are threatened by automation or offshoring, a sign that he found support not just among
workers who are struggling now but among those concerned for their economic future."
Meanwhile, the neoliberal Democrats made claims about the economy that at best wildly oversold
the non-recovery from the 2009 global financial meltdown, and at worst flat-out misrepresented
the state of the U.S. economy. For example, president Obama in his June 1 2016 speech in Elkhart
Indiana, said:
"Now, one of the reasons we're told this has been an unusual election year is because people
are anxious and uncertain about the economy. And our politics are a natural place to channel
that frustration. So I wanted to come to the heartland, to the Midwest, back to close to my
hometown to talk about that anxiety, that economic anxiety, and what I think it means. (..)
America's economy is not just better than it was eight years ago - it is the strongest, most
durable economy in the world. (..) Unemployment in Elkhart has fallen to around 4 percent.
(Applause.) At the peak of the crisis, nearly one in 10 homeowners in the state of Indiana
were either behind on their mortgages or in foreclosure; today, it's one in 30. Back then,
only 75 percent of your kids graduated from high school; tomorrow, 90 percent of them will.
(Applause.) The auto industry just had its best year ever. (..) So that's progress.(..) We
decided to invest in job training so that folks who lost their jobs could retool. We decided
to invest in things like high-tech manufacturing and clean energy and infrastructure, so that
entrepreneurs wouldn't just bring back the jobs that we had lost, but create new and better
jobs By almost every economic measure, America is better off than when I came here at the
beginning of my presidency. That's the truth. That's true. (Applause.) It's true. (Applause.)
Over the past six years, our businesses have created more than 14 million new jobs - that's
the longest stretch of consecutive private sector job growth in our history. We've seen the
first sustained manufacturing growth since the 1990s."
None of this is true. Not is a substantive sense, not in the sense of being accurate, not in
the sense of reflecting the facts on the ground for real working people who don't fly their private
jets to Davos.
The claim that "America's economy is the strongest and most durable economy in the world" is
just plain false. China has a much higher growth rate, at 6.9% nearly triple the U.S.'s - and
America's GDP growth is trending to historic long-term lows, and still falling. Take a look at
this chart of the Federal Reserve board's projections of U.S. GDP growth since 2009 compared with
the real GDP growth rate:
"[In the survey] [t]he Fed asked respondents how they would pay for a $400 emergency. The answer:
47 percent of respondents said that either they would cover the expense by borrowing or selling
something, or they would not be able to come up with the $400 at all. Four hundred dollars! Who
knew?
"Well, I knew. I knew because I am in that 47 percent.
" I know what it is like to have to juggle creditors to make it through a week. I know
what it is like to have to swallow my pride and constantly dun people to pay me so that I can
pay others. I know what it is like to have liens slapped on me and to have my bank account
levied by creditors. I know what it is like to be down to my last $5-literally-while I wait for
a paycheck to arrive, and I know what it is like to subsist for days on a diet of eggs.
I know what it is like to dread going to the mailbox, because there will always be new
bills to pay but seldom a check with which to pay them. I know what it is like to have to tell
my daughter that I didn't know if I would be able to pay for her wedding; it all depended on whether
something good happened. And I know what it is like to have to borrow money from my adult daughters
because my wife and I ran out of heating oil ."
" Two-thirds of Americans would have difficulty coming up with the money to cover a $1,000
emergency, according to an exclusive poll released Thursday, a signal that despite years after
the Great Recession, Americans' finances remain precarious as ever.
" These difficulties span all incomes, according to the poll conducted by The Associated
Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Three-quarters of people in households making less
than $50,000 a year and two-thirds of those making between $50,000 and $100,000 would have difficulty
coming up with $1,000 to cover an unexpected bill.
" Even for the country's wealthiest 20 percent - households making more than $100,000 a
year - 38 percent say they would have at least some difficulty coming up with $1,000 .
"`The more we learn about the balance sheets of Americans, it becomes quite alarming,' said
Caroline Ratcliffe, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute focusing on poverty and emergency savings
issues."
The rest of Obama's statistics are deceptive to the point of being dissimulations - unemployment
has dropped to 4 percent because so many people have stopped looking for work and moved into their
parents' basements that the Bureau of Labor Statistics no longer counts them as unemployed. Meanwhile,
the fraction of working-age adults who are not in the workforce has skyrocketed to an all-time
high. Few homeowners are now being foreclosed in 2016 compared to 2009 because the people in 2009
who were in financial trouble all lost their homes. Only rich people and well-off professionals
were able to keep their homes through the 2009 financial collapse. Since 2009, businesses did
indeed create 14 million new jobs - mostly low-wage junk jobs, part-time minimum-wage jobs that
don't pay a living wage.
"The deep recession wiped out primarily high-wage and middle-wage jobs. Yet the strongest employment
growth during the sluggish recovery has been in low-wage work, at places like strip malls and
fast-food restaurants.
"In essence, the poor economy has replaced good jobs with bad ones."
And the jobs market isn't much better for highly-educated workers:
New research released Monday says nearly half of the nation's recent college graduates work
jobs that don't require a degree.
The report, from the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, concludes that while
college-educated Americans are less likely to collect unemployment, many of the jobs they do have
aren't worth the price of their diplomas.
The data calls into question a national education platform that says higher education is better
in an economy that favors college graduates.
Don't believe it? Then try this article, from the Chronicle for Higher Education:
Approximately 60 percent of the increase in the number of college graduates from 1992 to
2008 worked in jobs that the BLS considers relatively low skilled-occupations where many participants
have only high school diplomas and often even less. Only a minority of the increment in our
nation's stock of college graduates is filling jobs historically considered as requiring a
bachelor's degree or more.
As for manufacturing, U.S. manufacturing lost 35,000 jobs in 2016, and manufacturing employment
remains 2.2% below what it was when Obama took office.
Meanwhile, 91% of all the profits generated by the U.S. economy from 2009 through 2012
went to the top 1%. As just one example, the annual bonuses (not salaries, just the bonuses) of
all Wall Street financial traders last year amounted to 28 billion dollars while the total income
of all minimum wage workers in America came to 14 billion dollars.
"Between 2009 and 2012, according to updated data from Emmanuel Saez, overall income per
family grew 6.9 percent. The gains weren't shared evenly, however. The top 1 percent saw their
real income grow by 34.7 percent while the bottom 99 percent only saw a 0.8 percent gain, meaning
that the 1 percent captured 91 percent of all real income.
Adjusting for inflation and excluding anything made from capital gains investments like
stocks, however, shows that even that small gains for all but the richest disappears. According
to Justin Wolfers, adjusted average income for the 1 percent without capital gains rose from $871,100
to $968,000 in that time period. For everyone else, average income actually fell from $44,000
to $43,900. Calculated this way, the 1 percent has captured all of the income gains."
Does any of this sound like "the strongest, most durable economy in the world"? Does any of
this square with the claims by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that "By almost every economic
measure, America is better off "? The U.S. economy is only better off in 2016 by disingenuous
comparison with the stygian depths of the 2009 economic collapse.
Hillary Clinton tied herself to Barack Obama's economic legacy, and the brutal reality for
working class people remains that the economy today has barely improved for most workers to what
it was in 2009, and is in many ways worse. Since 2009, automation + outsourcing/offshoring has
destroyed whole classes of jobs, from taxi drivers (wiped out by Uber and Lyft) to warehoues stock
clerks (getting wiped out by robots) to paralegals and associates at law firms (replaced by databases
and legal search algorithms) to high-end programmers (wiped out by an ever-increasing flood of
H1B via workers from India and China).
Yet vox.com continues to run article after article proclaiming "the 2016 election was all about
racism." And we have a non-stop stream of this stuff from people like Anne Laurie over at balloon-juice.com:
"While the more-Leftist-than-thou "progressives" - including their latest high-profile figurehead
- are high-fiving each other in happy anticipation of potential public-outrage gigs over the next
four years, at least some people are beginning to push back on the BUT WHITE WORKING CLASS HAS
ALL THE SADS!!! meme so beloved of Very Serious Pundits."
That's the ticket, Democrats double down on the identity politics, keep telling the pulverized
middle class how great the economy is. Because that worked so well for you this election.
= = = mclaren@9:52 am: The rest of Obama's statistics are deceptive to the point of being
dissimulations -[ ] Only rich people and well-off professionals were able to keep their homes
through the 2009 financial collapse. = = =
Some food for thought in your post, but you don't help your argument with statements such as
this one. Rich people and well-off professionals make up at most 10% of the population. US homeownership
rate in 2005 was 68.8%, in 2015 is 63.7. That's a big drop and unquestionably represents a lot
of people losing their houses involuntarily. Still, even assuming no "well-off professionals"
lost their houses in the recession that still leaves the vast majority of the houses owned by
the middle class. Which is consistent with foreclosure and sales stats in middle class areas from
2008-2014. Remember that even with 20% unemployment 80% of the population still has a job.
Similarly, I agree that the recession and job situation was qualitatively worse than the quantitative
stats depicted. Once you start adding in hidden factors not captured by the official stats, though,
where do you stop? How do you know the underground economy isn't doing far better than it was
in the boom years of the oughts, thus reducing actual unemployment? Etc.
Finally, you need to address the fundamental question: assuming all you say is true (arguendo),
how does destroying the Affordable Care Act, Social Security, and Medicare help those in the economically
depressed areas? I got hit bad by the recession myself. Know what helped from 2010 forward? Knowing
that I could change jobs, keep my college-age children on my spouse's heath plan, not get hit
with pre-existing condition fraud, and that if worse came to worse in a couple years I would have
the plan exchange to fall back on. Kansas has tried the Ryan/Walker approach, seen it fail, doubled
down, and seen that fail 4x as badly. Now we're going to make it up on unit sales by trying the
Ryan plan nationally? How do you expect that to "work out for you"?
WLGR 11.16.16 at 4:11 pm
mclaren @ 7: "high-end programmers (wiped out by an ever-increasing flood of H1B via workers
from India and China)"
I'm on board with the general thrust of what you're saying, but this is way, way over
the line separating socialism from barbarism. The fact that
it's not even true is beside the point, as is the (quite frankly) fascist metaphor of "flood"
to describe human fucking beings traveling in search of economic security, at least as long as
you show some self-awareness and contrition about your language. Some awareness about the insidious
administrative structure of the H1-B program would also be nice - the way it works is, an individual's
visa status more or less completely depends on remaining in the good graces of their employer,
meaning that by design these employees have no conceivable leverage in any negotiation
over pay or working conditions, and a program of unconditional residency without USCIS as a de
facto strikebreaker would have much less downward pressure on wages - but anti-immigration rhetoric
remaining oblivious to actual immigration law is par for the course.
No, the real point of departure here from what deserves to be called "socialism" is in the
very act of blithely combining effects of automation (i.e. traditional capitalist competition
for productive efficiency at the expense of workers' economic security) and effects of offshoring/outsourcing/immigration
(i.e. racialized fragmentation of the global working class by accident of birth into those who
"deserve" greater economic security and those who don't) into one and the same depiction of developed-world
economic crisis. In so many words, you're walking right down neoliberal capitalism's ideological
garden path: the idea that it's not possible to be anticapitalist without being an economic nationalist,
and that every conceivable alternative to some form of Hillary Clinton is ultimately reducible
to some form of Donald Trump. On the contrary, those of us on the socialism side of "socialism
or barbarism" don't object to capitalism because it's exploiting American workers , we
object because it's exploiting workers , and insisting on this crucial point against all
chauvinist pressure ("workers of all lands , unite!") is what fundamentally separates our
anticapitalism from the pseudo-anticapitalism of fascists.
Maclaren: I'm with you. I well remember Obama and his "pivot to deficit reduction" and "green
shoots" while I was screaming at the TV 'No!! Not Now!"
And then he tried for a "grand bargain" with the Reps over chained CPI adjustment for SS, and
he became my active enemy. I was a Democrat. Where did my party go?
Just chiming in here: The implicit deal between the elites and the hoi polloi was that the economy
would be run with minimal competence. Throughout the west, those elites have broken faith with
the masses on that issue, and are being punished for it.
I'm less inclined to attach responsibility to Obama, Clinton or the Democratic Party than some.
If Democrats had their way, the economy would have been managed considerably more competently.
Always remember that the rejection of the elites wasn't just a rejection of Democrats. The
Republican elite also took it in the neck.
I'll also dissent from the view that race wasn't decisive in this election. Under different
circumstances, we might have had Bernie's revolution rather than Trump's, but Trump's coalition
is composed of overt racists and people who are indifferent to overt racism.
I find the discussions over identity politics so intensely frustrating. A lot of people
on the left have gone all-in on self-righteous anger
Identity politics (and to some extent probably the rhetorical style that goes with it) isn't
a 'left' thing, it's a liberal thing. It's a bęte noire for many on the left-see eg. Nancy Fraser's
work.
The Anglo/online genus what you get when you subtract class, socialism and real-world organisation
from politics and add in a lot of bored students and professionals with internet connections in
the context of a political culture (America's) that already valorises individual aggression to
a unique degree.
As polticalfoorball @15 says. The Democrats just didn't have the political muscle to deliver on
those things. There really is a dynamic thats been playing out: Democrats don't get enough governing
capacity because they did poorly in the election, which means their projects to improve the economy
are neutered or allowed through only in a very weakened form. Then the next election cycle the
neuterers use that failure as a weapon to take even more governing capacity away. Its not a failure
of will, its a failure to get on top of the political feedback loop.
@15 politicalfootball 11.16.16 at 5:27 pm
"Throughout the west, those elites have broken faith with the masses on that issue, and are being
punished for it."
Could you specify some "elite" that has been punished?
'the economic theories and programs ascribed to John M. Keynes and his followers; specifically
: the advocacy of monetary and fiscal programs by government to increase employment and spending'
– and if it is done wisely – like in most European countries before 2000 it is one of the least
'braindead' things.
But with the introduction of the Euro – some governmental programs – lead (especially in Spain)
to horrendous self-destructive housing and building bubbles – which lead to the conclusion that
such programs – which allow 'gambling with houses' are pretty much 'braindead'.
Or shorter: The quality of Keynesianism depends on NOT doing it 'braindead'.
Cranky Observer in #11 makes some excellent points. Crucially, he asks: "Finally, you need to
address the fundamental question: assuming all you say is true (arguendo), how does destroying
the Affordable Care Act, Social Security, and Medicare help those in the economically depressed
areas?"
There actually is a logic at work in the Rust Belt voters for voted for Trump. I don't
think it's good logic, but it makes sense in its own warped way. The calculation the Trump voters
seem to be making in the Rust Belt is that it's better to have a job and no health insurance and
no medicare and no social security, than no job but the ACA (with $7,000 deductibles you can't
afford to pay for anyway) plus medicare (since most of these voters are healthy, they figure they'll
never get sick) plus social security (most of these voters are not 65 or older, and probably think
they'll never age - or perhaps don't believe that social security will be solvent when they do
need it).
It's the same twisted logic that goes on with protectionism. Rust Belt workers figure that
it's better to have a job and not be able to afford a Chinese-made laptop than not to have a job
but plenty of cheap foreign-made widgets you could buy if you had any money (which you don't).
That logic doesn't parse if you run through the economics (because protectionism will destroy
the very jobs they think they're saving), but it can be sold as a tweet in a political campaign.
As for 63.7% home ownership stats in 2016, vast numbers of those "owned" homes were snapped
up by giant banks and other financial entities like hedge funds which then rented those homes
out. So the home ownership stats in 2016 are extremely deceptive. Much of the home-buying since
the 2009 crash has been investment purchases. Foreclosure home purchases for rent is now a huge
thriving business, and it's fueling a second housing bubble. Particularly because in many ways
it repeats the financially frothy aspects of the early 2000s housing bubble - banks and investment
firms are issuing junks bonds based on rosy estimates of ever-escalating rents and housing prices,
they use those junk financial instruments (and others like CDOs) to buy houses which then get
rented out at inflated prices, the rental income gets used to fund more tranches of investment
which fuels more buy-to-rent home buying. Rents have already skyrocketed far beyond incomes on
the East and West Coast, so this can't continue. But home prices and rents keep rising. There
is no city in the United States today where a worker making minimum wage can afford to rent a
one-bedroom apartment and have money left over to eat and pay for a car, health insurance, etc.
If home ownership were really so robust, this couldn't possibly be the case. The fact that rents
keep skyrocketing even as undocumented hispanics return to Mexico in record numbers while post-9/11
ICE restrictions have hammered legal immigration numbers way, way down suggests that home ownership
is not nearly as robust as the deceptive numbers indicate.
Political football in #15 remarks: "I'll also dissent from the view that race wasn't decisive
in this election. Under different circumstances, we might have had Bernie's revolution rather
than Trump's, but Trump's coalition is composed of overt racists and people who are indifferent
to overt racism."
Race was important, but not the root cause of the Trump victory. How do we know this? Tump
himself is telling us. Look at Trump's first announced actions - deport 3 million undocumented
immigrants who have committed crimes, ram through vast tax cuts for the rich, and end the inheritance
tax.
If Trump's motivation (and his base's motivation) was pure racism, Trump's first announced
action would be something like passing laws that made it illegal to marry undocumented workers.
His first act would be to roll back the legalization of black/white marriage and re-instate segregation.
Trump isn't promising any of that.
Instead Trump's (bad) policies are based around enriching billionaires and shutting down immigration.
Bear in mind that 43% of all new jobs created since 2009 went to immigrants and you start to realize
that Trump's base is reacting to economic pressure by scapegoating immigrants, not racism by itself.
If it were pure racism we'd have Trump and Ryan proposing a bunch of new Nuremberg laws. Make
it illegal to have sex with muslims, federally fund segregated black schools and pass laws to
force black kids to get bussed to them, create apartheid-style zones where only blacks can live,
that sort of thing. Trump's first announced actions involve enriching the fantastically wealthy
and enacting dumb self-destructive protectionism via punitive immigration control. That's protectionism
+ class war of the rich against everyone else, not racism. The protectionist immigration-control
+ deportation part of Trump's program is sweet sweet music to the working class people in the
Rust Belt. They think the 43% of jobs taken by immigrants will come back. They don't realize that
those are mostly jobs no one wants to do anyway, and that most of those jobs are already in the
process of getting automated out of existence.
The claim "Trump's coalition is composed of overt racists and people who are indifferent
to overt racism" is incomplete. Trump's coalition actually consists of 3 parts and it's highly
unstable: [1] racists, [2] plutocrats, [3] working class people slammed hard by globalization
for whom Democrats have done little or nothing.
Here's an argument that may resonate: the first two groups in Trump's coalition are unreachable.
Liberal Democrats can't sweet-talk racists out of being racist and we certainly have nothing to
offer the plutocrats. So the only part of Trump's coalition that is really reachable by liberal
Democrats is the third group. Shouldn't we be concentrating on that third group, then?
The good news is that Trump's coalition is unstable. The plutocrats and Rust Belters are
natural enemies. Since the plutocrats are perceived as running giant corporations that import
large numbers of non-white immigrants to lower wages, the racists are not big fans of that group
either.
Listen to Steve Bannon, a classic stormfront type - he says he wants to blow up both the
Democratic and the Republican party. He calls himself a "Leninist" in a recent interview and vows
to wreck all elite U.S. institutions (universities, giant multinationals), not just the Democratic
party.
Why? Because the stormfront types consider elite U.S. institutions like CitiBank as equally
culpable with Democrats in supposedly destroying white people in the U.S. According to Bannon's
twisted skinhead logic, Democrats are allegedly race traitors for cultural reasons, but big U.S.
corporations and elite institutions are supposedly equally guilty of economic race treason by
importing vast numbers of non-white immigrants via H1B visas, by offshoring jobs from mostly caucasian-populated
red states to non-white countries like India, Africa, China, and by using elite U.S. universities
to trawl the world for the best (often non-white) students, etc. Bannon's "great day of the rope"
includes the plutocrats as well as people of color.
These natural fractures in the Trump coalition are real, and Democrats can exploit them to
weaken and destroy Republicans. But we have to get away from condemning all Republicans as racists
because if we go down that route, we won't realize how fractured and unstable the Trump coalition
really is.
The short version of my thinking on the Obama stimulus is this: Keynesian stimulus spending is
a free lunch; it doesn't really matter what you spend money on up to a very generous point, so
it seems ready-made for legislative log-rolling. If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed
thru a Democratic Congress long out of power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending
on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again, if the
stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really trying.
Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism,
because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference.
Ps. Should prob add that identity politics isn't the same thing as feminism, anti-racism, LGBT
politics, etc. They're all needed now more than ever.
What we don't need more of imo is a particular liberal/middle-class form of those things with
particular assumptions (meritocratic and individualist), epistemology (strongly subjectivist)
and rhetorical style (which often aims humiliating opponents from a position of relative knowledge/status
rather than verbal engagement).
I don't know why I'm even having to say this, as it's so obvious. The "leftists" (for want of
a better word) and feminists who I know are also against neoliberalism. They are against the selloff
of public assets to enterprises for private profit. They want to see a solution to the rapidly
shrinking job market as technology replaces jobs (no, it's not enough for the Heroic Workers to
Seize the Means of Production – the means of production are different now and the solution is
going to have to be more complex than just "bring back manufacturing" or "introduce tariffs".)
They want to roll back the tax cuts for the rich which have whittled down our revenue base this
century. They want corporations and the top 10% to pay their fair share, and concomitantly they
want pensioners, the unemployed and people caring for children to have a proper living wage.
They support a universal "single payer" health care system, which we social democratic squishy
types managed to actually introduce in the 1970s, but now we have to fight against right wing
governments trying to roll it back They support a better system of public education. They support
a science-based approach to climate change where it is taken seriously for the threat it is and
given priority in Government policy. They support spending less on the Military and getting out
of international disputes which we (Western nations) only seem to exacerbate.
This is not an exhaustive list.
Yet just because the same people say that the dominant Western countries (and my own) still
suffer from institutionalised racism and sexism, which is not some kind of cake icing but actually
ruin lives and kill people, we are "all about identity politics" and cannot possibly have enough
brain cells to think about the issues I described in para 1.
The slow recovery was only one factor. Wages have been stagnant since Reagan. And honestly,
if a white Republican president had stabilized the economy, killed Osama Bin Laden and got rid
of pre-existing condition issue with healthcare, the GOP would be BRAGGING all over it. Let's
remember that we have ONE party that has been devoted to racist appeals, lying and putting party
over country for decades.
Obama entered office as the economy crashed over a cliff. Instead of reforming the banks and
punishing the bankers who engaged in fraudulent activities, he waded into healthcare reform. Banks
are bigger today than they were in 2008. And tell me again, which bankers were punished for the
fraud? Not a one All that Repo 105 maneuvering, stuffing the retirement funds with toxic assets
– etc. and so on – all of that was perfectly legal? And if legal, all of that was totally bonusable?
Yes! In America, such failure is gifted with huge bonuses, thanks to the American taxpayer.
Meanwhile, homeowners saw huge drops the value of their homes. Some are still underwater with
the mortgage. It's a shame that politicians and reporters in DC don't get out much.
Concurrently, right before the election, ACA premiums skyrocketed. If you are self-insured,
ACA is NOT affordable. It doesn't matter that prior to ACA, premiums increased astronomically.
Obama promised AFFORDABLE healthcare. In my state, we have essentially a monopoly on health insurance,
and the costs are absurd. But that's in part because the state Republicans refused to expand Medicaid.
Don't underestimate HRC's serious issues. HRC had one speech for the bankers and another for
everyone else. Why didn't she release the GS transcripts? When did the Democrats become the party
of Wall Street?
She also made the same idiotic mistake that Romney did – disparage a large swathe of American
voters (basket of deplorables is this year's 47%.)
And then we had a nation of voters intent on the outsider. Bernie Sanders had an improbable
run at it – the Wikileaks emails showed that the DNC did what they could to get rid of him as
a threat.
Well America has done and gone elected themselves an outsider. Lucky us.
"... I can recall tales of insecure Eastern European Jewish immigrants pretending to be WASPS. ..."
"... To be blunt, Barack Obama was less "a president" than a talented actor playing at being presidential. ..."
"... Those of us who have encountered this deception are usually aware of its tell-tale signs, though, to be fair, it may have been diligently practiced for so long that it has become a "real" element of the perpetrator's core personality. For those unfamiliar with this deception, let me now offer a brief catalogue of these tactics. ..."
"... Central is the careful management of outward physical appearances. In theatrical terms, these are props and depending on circumstances, this might be a finely tailored suit, wingtip shoes, a crisp white shirt, a smart silk tie and all the rest that announce business-like competence. ..."
"... Mastering "white" language is equally critical and in the academy this includes everything from tossing around trendy terms, for example, "paradigmatic," to displaying what appears to be a mastering of disciplinary jargon. Recall how the Black Panthers seduced gullible whites with just a sprinkling of Marxist terminology. ..."
"... I recall one (white) colleague who gave a little speech praising a deeply flawed dissertation written by a black assistant professor up for tenure. He told the assembled committee that her dissertation reminded him of Newton's Principia Mathematica (can't make that stuff up). ..."
"... Obama as President repeatedly exhibits these characteristics. It is thus hardly accidental that he relies extensively on canned Teleprompter speeches. According to one compilation published in January 2013, Obama has used Teleprompters in 699 speeches during his first term in office. There is also his aversion to informal off-the-cuff discussions with the press and open mike who-knows-what-will-happen "Town Hall" meetings. Obama is also the first president I've ever seen who often favors a casual blue jacket monogrammed "President of the United States." ..."
"... I suspect that deep down Obama recognizes that almost everything is an act not unlike Eddy Murphy playing Professor Sherman Klump in The Nutty Professor . It is no wonder, then, that his academic records (particularly his SAT scores) are sealed and, perhaps even more important, many of his fellow college students and colleagues at the University of Chicago where he briefly taught constitutional law cannot recall him. It is hard to imagine Obama relishing the prospect of going head-to-head with his sharp-witted Chicago colleagues. ..."
"... As a mulatto raised by white grandparents in Hawaii, Obama is not a black American, with no cultural ties to black Americans and slavery, yet he later learned to throw out a black accent to fool the fools. As Stephen Colbert once observed, white Americans love Obama because he was raised the right way, by white people. That was intended as humor, but ..."
"... Obama has leased an ultra-expensive house in an exclusive neighborhood in DC just like the corrupt Bill Clinton prior to his multi-million dollar speaking and influence peddling efforts. Obama will not return to Chicago to help poor blacks, like Jimmy Carter did elsewhere after he left office. Obama doesn't need an Oscar, he got a Nobel Peace Prize for the same act. ..."
"... Congratulations on noticing what it takes to be a successful politician in ANY "Western" democracy. It doesn't matter if you are black, white, aquamarine or candy-striped, or whether you are a college professor, an "economist", or a "businessman". It's all bluff and acting. ..."
"... The single most critical element of a successful con is not the hucksters appearance, or mannerisms, or even the spiel, it is simply making the con something that the sucker wants to believe. ..."
"... I recognized Obama's type not from academia, but from corporate America. He was the token black higher up. He's smart enough not to obviously do something requiring termination (get drunk and harass a colleague at an office party, shred important document, etc.), and his mistakes can be blamed on team failures, so he gets "black guy's tenure"-a middle or upper management position after only a few years. ..."
"... This critique applies to almost every Presidential candidate, regardless of ethnicity. ..."
"... The most successful recent President was a former professional actor and thus well suited for the position. The latest President-elect is also a savvy media figure, and yet mocked for his obvious lack of intellectual heft. But in his case, he's not acting, it's reality TV. ..."
"... PS. Maybe some Jews around Trump are beginning to feel that China is the real danger to US power in the long run. So, what US should really do is patch things up with Russia for the time being, drive a wedge between China and Russia, and use Russia against China and then go after Russia. ..."
"... Really! Go after Russia? And how would you do that and why? What would "going after Russia" look like? What about the "horrific Rape of Russia" you spoke of? China and Russia have business to conduct, they're quite through with us, our dollar and our Fed. We'll be lucky if they allow us a piece of the action. Instead of Russia>China>Russia machinations, we might want to figure out strategies for doing some other business than patronizing our arms manufacturers. Hey, cap Jewish influence in the courts and business if you wish, but keeping the U.S. in an endless state of war, economic and otherwise is zero sum and worse for the little people. ..."
"... I've called him that for years. And Dubya was possibly our first "legacy" president: chosen entirely based on whom he's related to not on any individual qualities that would suit him for such a high office. Had Dubya been raised by regular people, he would have probably ended up as a hardware store manager. ..."
"... Amen to all. The whole deal is a fraud. All successful politicians are imposters, people who've mastered the art of deception. I'd go even further and say that the majority of "authority figures" are probably parasites and frauds to one degree or another. ..."
"... Overall, the current president has been a deception, a trivial self-absorbed person whose main concern has been himself turned outward onto issues of race and sexual orientation ..."
"... American politics at this level is fake. Everything is orchestrated, attire is handpicked, speeches are written by professionals and read off the teleprompter, questions from the public are actually from plants and rehearsed prior, armies of PR people are at work everywhere, journalists are just flunky propagandists, ..."
"... He will be the subject of future dissertations about the failure of the American political process and the influence of media and third parties like Soros. ..."
As the troubled Obama presidency winds down, the inevitable question is why so many people, including
a few smart ones were so easily fooled. How did a man with such a fine pedigree-Columbia, Harvard-who
sounded so brilliant pursue such political capital wasting and foolish policies as forcing schools
to discipline students by racial quotas? Or obsessing over allowing the transgendered to choose any
bathroom? And, of the utmost importance, how can we prevent another Obama?
I'll begin simply: Obama is an imposter, a man who has mastered the art of deception as a skilled
actor deceives an audience though in the case of Obama, most of the audience refused to accept that
this was all play-acting. Even after almost eight years of ineptitude, millions still want to believe
that he's the genuine article-an authentically super-bright guy able to fix a flawed America. Far
more is involved than awarding blacks the intellectual equivalent of diplomatic immunity.
When Obama first appeared on the political scene I immediately recognized him as an example of
the "successful" black academic who rapidly advances up the university ladder despite minimal accomplishment.
Tellingly, when I noted the paucity of accomplishment of these black academic over-achievers to trusted
professorial colleagues, they agreed with my analysis adding that they themselves had seen several
instances of this phenomenon, but admittedly failed to connect the dots.
Here's the academic version of an Obama. You encounter this black student who appears a liberal's
affirmative action dream come true -- exceptionally articulate with no trace of a ghetto accent, well-dressed,
personable (no angry "tude"), and at least superficially sufficient brain power to succeed even in
demanding subjects. Matters begin splendidly, but not for long. Almost invariably, his or her performance
on the first test or paper falls far below expectations. A research paper, for example was only "C"
work (though you generously awarded it a "B") and to make matters worse, it exhibited a convoluted
writing style, a disregard for logic, ineptly constructed references and similar defects. Nevertheless,
you accepted the usual litany of student excuses -- his claim of over-commitment, the material was unfamiliar,
and this was his first research paper and so on. A reprieve was granted.
But the unease grows stronger with the second exam or paper, often despite your helpful advice
on how to do better. Reality grows depressing -- what you see is not what you get and lacks any reasonable
feel-good explanation. The outwardly accomplished black student is not an Asian struggling with English
or a clear-cut affirmation action admittee in over his head. That this student may have actually
studied diligently and followed your advice only exacerbates the discomfort.
To repeat, the way to make sense out this troubling situation is to think of this disappointing
black student as a talented actor who has mastered the role of "smart college student." He has the
gift of mimicry, conceivably a talent rooted in evolutionary development among a people who often
had to survive by their wits (adaptive behavior captured by the phrase "acting white" or "passing").
This gift is hardly limited to blacks. I can recall tales of insecure Eastern European Jewish immigrants
pretending to be WASPS.
But what if the observer was unaware of it being only a theatrical performance and took the competence
at face value? Disaster. Russell Crowe as the Nobel Prize winning John Nash in A
Beautiful Mind
might give a stunning performance as a brilliant economist, but he would not last a minute
if he tried to pass himself off as the real thing at a Princeton economic department seminar.
To be blunt, Barack Obama was less "a president" than a talented actor playing at being presidential.
Those of us who have encountered this deception are usually aware of its tell-tale signs,
though, to be fair, it may have been diligently practiced for so long that it has become a "real"
element of the perpetrator's core personality. For those unfamiliar with this deception, let me now
offer a brief catalogue of these tactics.
Central is the careful management of outward physical appearances. In theatrical terms, these
are props and depending on circumstances, this might be a finely tailored suit, wingtip shoes, a
crisp white shirt, a smart silk tie and all the rest that announce business-like competence.
Future college or foundation president here we come (Obama has clearly mastered this sartorial ploy).
But for those seeking an appointment as a professor, this camouflage must be more casual but, whatever
the choice, there cannot be any hint of "ghetto" style, i.e., no flashy jewelry, gold chains, purple
"pimpish" suits, or anything else that even slightly hints of what blacks might consider authentic
black attire.
Mastering "white" language is equally critical and in the academy this includes everything
from tossing around trendy terms, for example, "paradigmatic," to displaying what appears to be a
mastering of disciplinary jargon. Recall how the Black Panthers seduced gullible whites with just
a sprinkling of Marxist terminology. Precisely citing a few obscure court cases or administrative
directives can also do the trick. Further add certain verbal styles common among professors or peppering
a presentation with correctly pronounced non-English words. I recall a talk by one black professor
from the University of Chicago who wowed my colleagues by just using-and correctly so-a few Yiddish
expressions.
Ironically, self-defined conservatives are especially vulnerable to these well-crafted performances.
No doubt, like all good thinking liberals, they desperately want to believe that blacks are just
as talented as whites so an Obama-like figure is merely the first installment of coming racial equality.
The arrival of this long-awaited black also provides a great opportunity to demonstrate that being
"conservative" does not certify one as a racist. Alas, this can be embarrassing and comical if over-done.
I recall one (white) colleague who gave a little speech praising a deeply flawed dissertation
written by a black assistant professor up for tenure. He told the assembled committee that her dissertation
reminded him of Newton's Principia Mathematica (can't make that stuff up).
Alas, the deception usually unravels when the imposter confronts a complicated unstructured situation
lacking a well-defined script, hardly surprising given the IQ test data indicate that blacks usually
perform better on items reflecting social norms, less well on abstract, highly "g" loaded items.
In academic job presentations, for example, a job candidate's intellectual limits often become apparent
during the Q and A when pressed to wrestle with technical or logical abstractions that go beyond
the initial well-rehearsed talk. Picture a job candidate who just finished reading a paper being
asked whether the argument is falsifiable or how causality might be established? These can be killer
questions that require ample quick footed intellectual dexterity and often bring an awkward silence
as the candidate struggles to think on his feet (these responses may rightly be judged far more important
than what is read from a paper). I recall one genuinely bewildered black job candidate who explained
a complicated measurement choice with "my Ph.D. advisor, a past president of the American Political
Science Association told me to do it this way."
Obama as President repeatedly exhibits these characteristics. It is thus hardly accidental
that he relies extensively on canned Teleprompter speeches. According to
one compilation published in January 2013, Obama has used Teleprompters in 699 speeches during
his first term in office. There is also his aversion to informal off-the-cuff discussions with the
press and open mike who-knows-what-will-happen "Town Hall" meetings. Obama is also the first president
I've ever seen who often favors a casual blue jacket monogrammed "President of the United States."
Perhaps the best illustration of these confused, often rambling moments occurs when he offers
impromptu commentary on highly charged, fast-breaking race-related incidents such as the Louis Henry
Gates
dustup
in Cambridge , Mass ("the police acted stupidly") and the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown shootings.
You could see his pained look as he struggles with being a "good race man" while simultaneously struggling
to sort out murky legal issues. This is not the usual instances of politicians speaking evasively
to avoid controversy; he was genuinely befuddled.
Similar signs of confused thinking can also be seen in other spontaneous remarks, the most famous
example might be his comment about those Americans clinging to their guns and Bibles. What was he
thinking? Did he forget that both gun and Bible ownership are constitutionally protected and the
word "cling" in this context suggests mental illness? Woes to some impertinent reporter who challenged
the President to clarify his oft-repeated "the wrong side of history" quip or explain the precise
meaning of, "That's not who were are"? "Mr. President, can you enlighten us on how you know you are
on the Right Side of History"?
I suspect that deep down Obama recognizes that almost everything is an act not unlike Eddy Murphy
playing Professor Sherman Klump in The Nutty
Professor . It is no wonder, then, that his academic records (particularly his SAT scores)
are sealed and, perhaps even more important, many of his fellow college students and colleagues at
the University of Chicago where he briefly taught constitutional law cannot recall him. It is hard
to imagine Obama relishing the prospect of going head-to-head with his sharp-witted Chicago colleagues.
Further add his lack of a publication in the Harvard Law Review, a perk as the President
of the Law Review (not Editor) and the credible
evidence that his two autobiographies where ghost written after their initial rejection as unsuitable
for publication. All and all, a picture emerges of an individual who knows he must fake it to convince
others of his intellectual talents, and like a skilled actor he has spent years studying the role
of "President." President Obama deserves an Academy award (which, of course would also be a step
toward diversity, to boot) for his efforts.
Carlton Meyer says: • Website
November 16, 2016 at 5:31 am GMT • 300 Words
This is why I often referred to Obama as a "Pentagon spokesman." Did you know his proposed
military budgets each year were on average higher than Bush or Reagan? People forget that is
first objective as President was to close our torture camp in Cuba. He could have issued an
Executive Order and have it closed in one day. DOJ aircraft could fly all the inmates away within
two hours before any court could challenge that, if they dared. It remains open.
Yet when Congress refused to act to open borders wider, he issued an Executive Order to grant
residency to five million illegals. And under Soros direction, he sent DoJ attack dogs after any
state or city that questioned the right of men who want to use a ladies room.
As a mulatto raised by white grandparents in Hawaii, Obama is not a black American, with no
cultural ties to black Americans and slavery, yet he later learned to throw out a black accent to
fool the fools. As Stephen Colbert once observed, white Americans love Obama because he was
raised the right way, by white people. That was intended as humor, but
Obama has leased an ultra-expensive house in an exclusive neighborhood in DC just like the
corrupt Bill Clinton prior to his multi-million dollar speaking and influence peddling efforts.
Obama will not return to Chicago to help poor blacks, like Jimmy Carter did elsewhere after he
left office. Obama doesn't need an Oscar, he got a Nobel Peace Prize for the same act.
3.anon says:
November 16, 2016 at 5:34 am GMT • 100 Words
What to make of the Michael Eric Dysons and the Cornell Wests of the world ?? How do they rise up the ranks of academia , become darlings of talk shows and news panels , all
the while dressed and speaking ghetto with zero talent or interest in appearing white . And zero
academic competency ??
6.CCZ, November 16, 2016 at 6:08 am GMT
Our first affirmative action President? I have yet to hear that exact description, even in a
nation with 60 million deplorable "racist" voters.
8.Tom Welsh, November 16, 2016 at 7:00 am GMT • 100 Words
Congratulations on noticing what it takes to be a successful politician in ANY "Western"
democracy. It doesn't matter if you are black, white, aquamarine or candy-striped, or whether you
are a college professor, an "economist", or a "businessman". It's all bluff and acting.
Why does anyone still find this surprising?
11.Alfa158, November 16, 2016 at 7:56 am GMT • 100 Words
The single most critical element of a successful con is not the hucksters appearance, or
mannerisms, or even the spiel, it is simply making the con something that the sucker wants to
believe. White people were desperate for a Magic Negro and they got one. Black people ended up
suffering from deteriorating economics and exploding intramural murder rates.
12.whorefinder, November 16, 2016 at 8:02 am GMT • 300 Words
Strikes a chord with me, and with Clint Eastwood (recall the 2012 RNC, where Eastwood mocked
Obama as an "empty chair").
I recognized Obama's type not from academia, but from corporate America. He was the token black
higher up. He's smart enough not to obviously do something requiring termination (get drunk and
harass a colleague at an office party, shred important document, etc.), and his mistakes can be
blamed on team failures, so he gets "black guy's tenure"-a middle or upper management position
after only a few years.
He then makes sure he shows up every weekday at 9am, but he's out the door at 5pm-and no weekends
for him. He's there for "diversity" drives and is prominently featured on the company brochures,
and might even be given an award or honorary title every few years to cover him, but he never
brings in clients or moves business positively in anyway. But he's quick to take the boss up on
the golfing trips. In short, he's realized he's there to be the black corporate shield, and
that's all he does. He's a lazy token and fine with being lazy.
It's why Obama had little problem letting Pelosi/Reid/Bill Clinton do all the heavy lifting on
Obamacare–not only was Obama out of his depth, he was just plain ol' fine with being out of his
depth, because someone else would do it for him. So he went golfing instead.
This is also why that White House press conference where Bill Clinton took over for him halfway
speaks volumes. Obama literally had no problem simply walking away from his presidential duties
to go party-because someone else would do it for him, as they always had.
It's also why he seems so annoyed when asked about the race rioting going on as a result of his
administration's actions. Hey, why do you think I gotta do anything? I just show up and people
tell me I did a great job!
13.Ramona, November 16, 2016 at 8:04 am GMT
It's been said for years that Obama amounts to no more than a dignified talk show host. The
observation has merit. Oscar-wise, though, only for ironic value.
15.Realist, November 16, 2016 at 9:50 am GMT • 100 Words
@Anon
"I think Obama is pretty smart if not genius. His mother was no dummy, and his father seems to
have been pretty bright too, and there are smart blacks."
Ann Dunham had a PhD in anthropology from a run of the mill university where she literally
studied women textile weaving in third world countries. Pure genius .right.
16.Fran Macadam, November 16, 2016 at 9:54 am GMT • 100 Words
This critique applies to almost every Presidential candidate, regardless of ethnicity. So few of
them have been other than those playing a role assigned by their donors. The most successful
recent President was a former professional actor and thus well suited for the position. The
latest President-elect is also a savvy media figure, and yet mocked for his obvious lack of
intellectual heft. But in his case, he's not acting, it's reality TV.
17.Jim Christian says:
November 16, 2016 at 9:59 am GMT • 200 Words @Anon
PS. Maybe some Jews around Trump are beginning to feel that China is the real danger to US power
in the long run. So, what US should really do is patch things up with Russia for the time being,
drive a wedge between China and Russia, and use Russia against China and then go after Russia.
Really! Go after Russia? And how would you do that and why? What would "going after Russia" look
like? What about the "horrific Rape of Russia" you spoke of? China and Russia have business to
conduct, they're quite through with us, our dollar and our Fed. We'll be lucky if they allow us a
piece of the action. Instead of Russia>China>Russia machinations, we might want to figure out
strategies for doing some other business than patronizing our arms manufacturers. Hey, cap Jewish
influence in the courts and business if you wish, but keeping the U.S. in an endless state of
war, economic and otherwise is zero sum and worse for the little people.
20.timalex, November 16, 2016 at 11:58 am GMT
Americans voted for and elected Obama because it made them feel virtuous in their mind and in the
eyes of the world. Obama has always been a psychopath. Psychopaths are good at lying and hiding things,even when
Presidents.
21.The Alarmist , November 16, 2016 at 12:03 pm GMT
So, you're saying he was an affirmative action hire.
22.Anon, November 16, 2016 at 12:28 pm GMT
Yeah and every white person in a position of power and privilege is "authentically intelligent".
America is a society run by and for phonies.
23.War for Blair Mountain, November 16, 2016 at 12:32 pm GMT • 100 Words
Barack Obama is a creation of the Cold War. His father was imported into the US through an
anti-commie Cold War foreign student program for young Africans. Barack Obama's nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc would not exist if the 1965 Immigration
Reform Act had not been passed. The 1965 Immigration Reform Act was another creation of the
anti-commie Cold War Crusade.
The anti-commie Cold War Crusade has been a Death sentence for The Historic Native Born White
American Majority.
It is now time to rethink the Cold War .very long overdue..
24.AndrewR, November 16, 2016 at 12:55 pm GMT • 100 Words
@CCZ
I've called him that for years. And Dubya was possibly our first "legacy" president: chosen entirely based on whom he's related
to not on any individual qualities that would suit him for such a high office. Had Dubya been raised by regular people, he would have probably ended up as a hardware store
manager.
25.Rehmat, November 16, 2016 at 1:36 pm GMT • 100 Words
I think after wining Nobel Peace Award without achieving peace anywhere in the world – Obama
deserve Oscar more than Nobel Prize for equating Holocaust as a religion with Christianity and
Islam in his speech at the UNGA in September 2012.
Oscar has a long tradition to award top slot for every Holocaust movie produced so far.
"There's no business like Shoah business," says YIVO Institute for Jewish Research, established
by Max Weinreich in Lithuania in 1925.
More than 70 movies and documentary on Jewish Holocaust have been produced so far to keep
Whiteman's guild alive. Holocaust Industry's main purpose is to suck trillions of dollars and
moral support for the Zionist entity. Since 1959 movie, The Diary of Anne Frank, 22 Holocaust
movies have won at least one Oscar ..
27.jacques sheete says: November 16, 2016 at 2:20 pm GMT • 200 Words
@Tom Welsh
Amen to all. The whole deal is a fraud. All successful politicians are imposters, people who've mastered the
art of deception. I'd go even further and say that the majority of "authority figures" are probably parasites and
frauds to one degree or another.
I enjoy democracy immensely. It is incomparably idiotic, and hence incomparably amusing. Does it
exalt dunderheads, cowards, trimmers, frauds, cads? Then the pain of seeing them go up is
balanced and obliterated by the joy of seeing them come down. Is it inordinately wasteful,
extravagant, dishonest? Then so is every other form of government: all alike are enemies to
laborious and virtuous men. Is rascality at the very heart of it? Well, we have borne that
rascality since 1776, and continue to survive. In the long run, it may turn out that rascality is
necessary to human government, and even to civilization itself – that civilization, at bottom, is
nothing but a colossal swindle.
- H. L. Mencken, Last Words (1926)
28.anonymous, November 16, 2016 at 2:34 pm GMT • 200 Words
The bar was set ridiculously low by his predecessor the village idiot Bush who could barely
put together a coherent sentence. After eight years of disaster people were hoping for
something different. Having a deranged person like McCain as his opposition certainly helped.
What choice did the American people have?
He received a Nobel Peace prize for absolutely nothing although I admit his reluctance to
barge into Syria was quite welcome. How many wars would we be in had the war-crazed McCain
gotten into office?
Overall, the current president has been a deception, a trivial self-absorbed person
whose main concern has been himself turned outward onto issues of race and sexual orientation.
American politics at this level is fake. Everything is orchestrated, attire is
handpicked, speeches are written by professionals and read off the teleprompter, questions
from the public are actually from plants and rehearsed prior, armies of PR people are at work
everywhere, journalists are just flunky propagandists, expressions of emotion are
calculated, the mass media is the property of the billionaire and corporate class and reflects
their interests, and so on down the line. The masses of Americans are just there to be managed
and milked. Look back at the history of the US: When haven't they been lying to us?
29.nsa, November 16, 2016 at 2:44 pm GMT • 100 Words
President is a very easy job. Almost anyone could fake it even actors, peanut farmers,
mulatto community organizers, illegitimate offspring of trailer park whores, haberdashers,
developers, soldiers, irish playboys, bicycle riding dry drunks, low rent CA shysters, daft
professors.
Play lots of golf. Hot willing young pussy available for the asking. Anyone call you a
name, have them audited. Invite pals onto the gravy train. Everyone kissing your ass and
begging for favors. Media nitwits hanging on every word. Afterwards, get filthy rich making
speeches and appearances. Tough job .
30.Anonymous, November 16, 2016 at 3:03 pm GMT • 100 Words
Manchurian Candidate, or Kenyan Candidate? Whatever he may be called, our current White
House resident is a colossal joke perpetrated on the world. Whoever covered all his tracks did
a masterful task. He will be the subject of future dissertations about the failure of the
American political process and the influence of media and third parties like Soros.
32.Lorax, November 16, 2016 at 3:17 pm GMT
Obama's grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham, was a "furniture salesman," for which role he
deserved an Oscar as well. It takes real acting ability to
pull off a lifetime career in Intelligence Service:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/08/07/obama's-cia-pedigree/
34.JoeFour, November 16, 2016 at 3:56 pm GMT
@AndrewR
"Had Dubya been raised by regular people, he would have probably ended up as a hardware
store manager."
AndrewR, I know you didn't mean it, but you have just insulted all of the thousands of
hardware store managers in this country.
"... Clinton's defeat is more than anything else a rejection of Obama. Obama descended into the fray to bolster her campaign and witnessed the rejection of his own presidency. Conquered, in the 2008 electoral campaign, with a pledge of support not only for Wall Street but also "Main Street", that is, the ordinary citizen. Since then, the middle class has witnessed its conditions deteriorate, the rate of poverty has increased while the rich have become even richer. Now, marketing himself as the champion of the middle class, the billionaire outsider, Donald Trump, has won the presidency. ..."
"... As her e-mails make clear, when she was Secretary of State, she convinced President Obama to engage in war to demolish Libya and to roll out the same operation against Syria. She was the one to promote the internal destabilization of Venezuela and Brazil and the US "Pivot to Asia" – an anti-Chinese manoeuvre. And yet again, she also used the Clinton Foundation as a vehicle to prepare the terrain in Ukraine for the Maidan Square putsch which paved the way for Usa/Nato escalation against Russia. ..."
"... Given that all this has not prevented the relative decline of US power, it is up to the Trump Administration to correct its shot, while keeping its gaze fixed on the same target. There is no air of reality to the hypothesis that Trump intends to abandon the system of alliances centered around US-led Nato. ..."
"... Trump could seek an agreement with Russia, an additional objective of which would be to pull it away from China. China: against which Trump announces economic measures, accompanied by an additional strengthening of US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region. ..."
"... Here you have the colossal financial groups that dominate the economy (the share value alone of the companies listed on Wall Street is higher than the entire US national income). ..."
"... Then you have the multinationals whose economic dimensions exceed those of entire states and which delocalize production to countries offering cheap labour. The knock-on effect? Domestically, factories will close and unemployment will increase, which will in turn lead to the conditions of the US middle class becoming even worse. ..."
"... It is 21st century capitalism, which the USA expresses in its most extreme form, that increasingly polarizes the rich and poor. 1% of the global population has more than the other 99%. The President[-elect], Trump, belongs to the class of the superrich. ..."
Clinton's defeat is more than anything else a rejection of Obama. Obama descended into the
fray to bolster her campaign and witnessed the rejection of his own presidency. Conquered, in the
2008 electoral campaign, with a pledge of support not only for Wall Street but also "Main Street",
that is, the ordinary citizen. Since then, the middle class has witnessed its conditions deteriorate,
the rate of poverty has increased while the rich have become even richer. Now, marketing himself
as the champion of the middle class, the billionaire outsider, Donald Trump, has won the presidency.
How will this change of guard at the White House change US foreign policy? Certainly, the core
objective of remaining the dominant global power will remain untouched. [Yet] this position is increasing
fragile. The USA is losing ground both within the economic and the political domains, [ceding] it
to China, Russia and other "emerging countries". This is why it is throwing the sword onto the scale.
This is followed by a series of wars where Hillary Clinton played the [lead] protagonist.
As her authorized biography reveals, she was the one as First Lady, to convince the President,
her consort, to engage in war to destroy Yugoslavia, initiating a series of "humanitarian interventions"
against "dictators" charged with "genocide".
As her e-mails make clear, when she was Secretary of State, she convinced President Obama
to engage in war to demolish Libya and to roll out the same operation against Syria. She was the
one to promote the internal destabilization of Venezuela and Brazil and the US "Pivot to Asia" –
an anti-Chinese manoeuvre. And yet again, she also used the Clinton Foundation as a vehicle to prepare
the terrain in Ukraine for the Maidan Square putsch which paved the way for Usa/Nato escalation against
Russia.
Given that all this has not prevented the relative decline of US power, it is up to the Trump
Administration to correct its shot, while keeping its gaze fixed on the same target. There is no
air of reality to the hypothesis that Trump intends to abandon the system of alliances centered around
US-led Nato. But he will of course thump his fists on the table to secure a deeper commitment,
particularly on military expenditure from the allies.
Trump could seek an agreement with Russia, an additional objective of which would be to pull
it away from China. China: against which Trump announces economic measures, accompanied by an additional
strengthening of US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region.
Such decisions, that will surely open the door for further wars, do not depend on Trump's warrior-like
temperament, but on centres of power wherein lies the matrix of command on which the White House
itself depends.
Here you have the colossal financial groups that dominate the economy (the share value alone
of the companies listed on Wall Street is higher than the entire US national income).
Then you have the multinationals whose economic dimensions exceed those of entire states and
which delocalize production to countries offering cheap labour. The knock-on effect? Domestically,
factories will close and unemployment will increase, which will in turn lead to the conditions of
the US middle class becoming even worse.
Then you have the giants of the war industry that extract profit from war.
It is 21st century capitalism, which the USA expresses in its most extreme form, that increasingly
polarizes the rich and poor. 1% of the global population has more than the other 99%. The President[-elect],
Trump, belongs to the class of the superrich.
"... The "my way" or the highway rhetoric from Clinton supporters on the campaign was sickening. When Bush was called a warmonger for Iraq, that was fine. When Clinton was called a warmonger for Iraq and Libya, the Clintonites went on the offensive, often throwing around crap like "if she was a man, she wouldn't be a warmonger!" ..."
"... On racism: "what I can say, from personal experience, is that the racism of my youth was always one step removed. I never saw a family member, friend, or classmate be mean to the actual black people we had in town. We worked with them, played video games with them, waved to them when they passed. What I did hear was several million comments about how if you ever ventured into the city, winding up in the "wrong neighborhood" meant you'd get dragged from your car, raped, and burned alive. Looking back, I think the idea was that the local minorities were fine as long as they acted exactly like us." ..."
"... I'm telling you, the hopelessness eats you alive. And if you dare complain, some liberal elite will pull out their iPad and type up a rant about your racist white privilege. Already, someone has replied to this with a comment saying, "You should try living in a ghetto as a minority!" Exactly. To them, it seems like the plight of poor minorities is only used as a club to bat away white cries for help. Meanwhile, the rate of rural white suicides and overdoses skyrockets. Shit, at least politicians act like they care about the inner cities." ..."
"... And the rural folk are called a "basket of deplorables" and other names. If you want to fight racism, a battle that is Noble and Honorable, you have to understand the nuances between racism and hopelessness. The wizard-wannabe idiots are a tiny fringe. The "deplorables" are a huge part of rural America. If you alienate them, you're helping the idiots mentioned above. ..."
Erm, atheist groups are known to target smaller Christian groups with lawsuits. A baker was sued
for refusing to bake a cake for a Gay Wedding. She was perfectly willing to serve the couple,
just not at the wedding. In California we had a lawsuit over a cross in a park. Atheists threatened
a lawsuit over a seal. Look, I get that there are people with no life out there, but why are they
bringing the rest of us into their insanity, with constant lawsuits. There's actually a concept
known as "Freedom from Religion" – what the heck? Can you imagine someone arguing about "Freedom
from Speech" in America? But it's ok to do it to religious folk! And yes, that includes Muslims,
who had to fight to build a Mosque in New York. They should've just said it was a Scientology
Center
The "my way" or the highway rhetoric from Clinton supporters on the campaign was sickening.
When Bush was called a warmonger for Iraq, that was fine. When Clinton was called a warmonger
for Iraq and Libya, the Clintonites went on the offensive, often throwing around crap like "if
she was a man, she wouldn't be a warmonger!"
The problem with healthcare in the US deserves its own thread, but Obamacare did not fix it;
Obamacare made it worse, especially in the rural communities. The laws in schools are fundamentally
retarded. A kid was suspended for giving a friend Advil. Another kid suspended for bringing in
a paper gun. I could go on and on. A girl was expelled from college for trying to look gangsta
in a L'Oreal mask. How many examples do you need? Look at all of the new "child safety laws" which
force kids to leave in a bubble. And when they enter the Real World, they're fucked, so they pick
up the drugs. In cities it's crack, in farmvilles it's meth.
Hillary didn't win jack shit. She got a plurality of the popular vote. She didn't win it, since
winning implies getting the majority. How many Johnson votes would've gone to Trump if it was
based on popular vote, in a safe state? Of course the biggest issue is the attack on the way of
life, which is all too real. I encourage you to read this, in order to understand where they're
coming from:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/
"Nothing that happens outside the city matters!" they say at their cocktail parties, blissfully
unaware of where their food is grown. Hey, remember when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans? Kind
of weird that a big hurricane hundreds of miles across managed to snipe one specific city and
avoid everything else. To watch the news (or the multiple movies and TV shows about it), you'd
barely hear about how the storm utterly steamrolled rural Mississippi, killing 238 people and
doing an astounding $125 billion in damage. But who cares about those people, right? What's newsworthy
about a bunch of toothless hillbillies crying over a flattened trailer? New Orleans is culturally
important. It matters. To those ignored, suffering people, Donald Trump is a brick chucked through
the window of the elites. "Are you assholes listening now?"
On racism: "what I can say, from personal experience, is that the racism of my youth was always
one step removed. I never saw a family member, friend, or classmate be mean to the actual black
people we had in town. We worked with them, played video games with them, waved to them when they
passed. What I did hear was several million comments about how if you ever ventured into the city,
winding up in the "wrong neighborhood" meant you'd get dragged from your car, raped, and burned
alive. Looking back, I think the idea was that the local minorities were fine as long as they
acted exactly like us."
"They're getting the shit kicked out of them. I know, I was there. Step outside of the city,
and the suicide rate among young people fucking doubles. The recession pounded rural communities,
but all the recovery went to the cities. The rate of new businesses opening in rural areas has
utterly collapsed."
^ That, I'd say, is known as destroying their lives. Also this:
"In a city, you can plausibly aspire to start a band, or become an actor, or get a medical
degree. You can actually have dreams. In a small town, there may be no venues for performing arts
aside from country music bars and churches. There may only be two doctors in town - aspiring to
that job means waiting for one of them to retire or die. You open the classifieds and all of the
job listings will be for fast food or convenience stores. The "downtown" is just the corpses of
mom and pop stores left shattered in Walmart's blast crater, the "suburbs" are trailer parks.
There are parts of these towns that look post-apocalyptic.
I'm telling you, the hopelessness eats you alive. And if you dare complain, some liberal elite
will pull out their iPad and type up a rant about your racist white privilege. Already, someone
has replied to this with a comment saying, "You should try living in a ghetto as a minority!"
Exactly. To them, it seems like the plight of poor minorities is only used as a club to bat away
white cries for help. Meanwhile, the rate of rural white suicides and overdoses skyrockets. Shit,
at least politicians act like they care about the inner cities."
And the rural folk are called a "basket of deplorables" and other names. If you want to fight
racism, a battle that is Noble and Honorable, you have to understand the nuances between racism
and hopelessness. The wizard-wannabe idiots are a tiny fringe. The "deplorables" are a huge part
of rural America. If you alienate them, you're helping the idiots mentioned above.
"... What Is Lost by Burying the Trans-Pacific Partnership? – The New York Times : "The Americans will have to explain their failure on the trade agreement to foreign leaders gathered in Lima, Peru, while China's leader, Xi Jinping, is there seeking progress toward an emerging alternative to the Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, known as R.C.E.P., which includes China, Japan and 14 other Asian countries but excludes the United States. ..."
"... 'In the absence of T.P.P., countries have already made it clear that they will move forward in negotiating their own trade agreements that exclude the United States,' Mr. Obama's Council of Economic Advisers wrote days before the election. 'These agreements would improve market access and trading opportunities for member countries while U.S. businesses would continue to face existing trade barriers.'" ..."
"... Foreign leaders and foreign populations hated the TPP because it wasn't a trade deal; it was a giveaways-to-big-corporations deal full of stuff about extending copyrights for Mickey Mouse and so on. ..."
I don't know enough about the finer points of the TPP to be for or against it.
But this article suggests that there are plans to exclude the US if it doesn't choose to be
a factor in world affairs.
What Is Lost by Burying the Trans-Pacific Partnership? – The New York Times : "The Americans
will have to explain their failure on the trade agreement to foreign leaders gathered in Lima,
Peru, while China's leader, Xi Jinping, is there seeking progress toward an emerging alternative
to the Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, known as R.C.E.P.,
which includes China, Japan and 14 other Asian countries but excludes the United States.
'In the absence of T.P.P., countries have already made it clear that they will move forward
in negotiating their own trade agreements that exclude the United States,' Mr. Obama's Council
of Economic Advisers wrote days before the election. 'These agreements would improve market access
and trading opportunities for member countries while U.S. businesses would continue to face existing
trade barriers.'"
Foreign leaders and foreign populations hated the TPP because it wasn't a trade deal; it was a
giveaways-to-big-corporations deal full of stuff about extending copyrights for Mickey Mouse and
so on.
China's trade deal is an *actual* trade deal and as such much more popular. We could join *it*.
"... "Class first" amongst men of the left has always signaled "ME first." What else could it mean? ..."
"... So "Black Lives Matter" actually means "Black Lives Matter First". Got it. So damn tired of identity politics. ..."
"... Meanwhile, in the usual way of such things, #BlackLivesMatter hashtag activism became fashionable, as the usual suspects were elevated to celebrity status by elites. Nothing, of course, was changed in policy, and so in a year or so, matters began to bubble on the ground again. ..."
"... I'm not tired of identity politics. I'm just tired of some identity-groups accusing other identity-groups of "identity-politics". I speak in particular of the Identity Left. ..."
"... Identity politics, any identity, is going to automatically split voters into camps and force people to 'pick' a side. ..."
"... The Faux Feminism of Hillary Rodham Clinton, I and many other writers argued that the bourgeois feminism Clinton represents works against the interests of the vast majority of women. This has turned out to be even more true than we anticipated. That branding of feminism has delivered to us the most sexist and racist president in recent history: Donald Trump. ..."
"... Hillary spoke to the million-dollar feminists-of-privilege who identified with her multi-million dollar self and her efforts to break her own Tiffany Glass ceiling. And she worked to get many other women with nothing to gain to identify with Hillary's own breaking of Hillary's own Tiffany Glass ceiling. ..."
"... For me (at least) the essence of the "Left" is justice. When we speak of Class we are putting focus on issues of economic justice. Class is the material expression of economic (and therefore political) stratification. Class is the template for analysing the power dynamics at play in such stratification. ..."
"... in the absence of economic justice, it's very difficult to obtain ANY kind of justice - whether such justice be of race, gender, legal, religious or sexual orientation. ..."
"... I find it indicative that the 1% (now) simply don't care one way or another about race or gender etc, PROVIDED it benefits or, has no negative effects on their economic/political interests. ..."
"... "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." ..."
"... In ship sinking incidents, where a lot of people are dumped in the water, many adopt the strategy of trying to use others as flotation devices, pushing them under while the "rich class" tootle off in the lifeboats. Sounds like a winner, all right. ..."
"... The rich class has enlisted the white indentured servants as their Praetorian Guard. The same play as after Bacon's Rebellion. ..."
"... Is what is actually occurring another Kristallnacht, or the irreducible susurrus of meanness and idiocy that is part of every collection of humans? It would be nice not to get suckered into elevating the painful minima over the importance of getting ordinary people to agree on a real common enemy, and organizing to claim and protect. ..."
"... If even one single banker had gone to jail for the mess (fed by Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II) that blew up in 2008, we would be having a different conversation. We are in a huge legitimacy crisis, in part because justice was never served on those who made tens of millions via fraud. ..."
"... The Malignant Overlords - the King or Queen, the Financial Masters of the Universe,, the tribal witch doctor- live by grazing on the wealth of the natural world and the productivity of their underlings. There are only a few thousand of them but they control finance and the Money system, propaganda organizations (in the USA called the Media) land and agriculture, "educational" institutions and entire armies of Homeland Insecurity police. ..."
"... Under them there are the sycophants– generals and officers, war profiteers and corporate CEO's, the intelligentsia, journalists, fake economists, and entertainment and sports heroes who grow fat feasting on the morsels left over after the .0001% have fed. And far below the Overlords are the millions of professional Bureaucrats whose job security requires unquestioning servitude. ..."
"... Race, gender identity, religion, etc. are the false dichotomies by which the oligarchs divide us. Saudi princes, African American millionaires, gay millionaires etc. are generally treated the same by the oligarchs as wasp millionaires. The true dichotomy is class, that is the dichotomy which dare not speak its name. ..."
"... For Trump it was so easy. He just says something that could be thought of as racist and then his supporters watch as the media morphs his words, removes context, or just ignores any possible non-racist motivations for his words. ..."
"... Just read the actual Mexican- rapists quote. Completely different then reported by the media. Fifteen years ago my native born Mexican friend said almost exactlly the same thing. ..."
"... whilst his GOP colleagues publicly recoiled in horror, there is no question that Trump was merely making explicit what Republicans had been doing for decades – since the days of Nixon in 1968. The dog whistle was merely replaced by a bull horn. ..."
"... Yes, class identity can be a bond that unites. However, in the US the sense of class identity remains underdeveloped. In fact, it is only with the Sanders campaign that large swaths of the American public have had practical and sustained exposure to the concept of class as a political force. For most of the electorate, the language of class is still rather alien, particularly since the "equality of opportunity" narrative even now is not completely overthrown. ..."
"... It seems inevitable that populist sentiment, which both Sanders and Trump have used to electoral advantage, will spill over into a variety of economic nationalism. ..."
"... Obama was a perfect identity candidate, i.e., not only capable of getting the dem nomination, but the presidency and than not jailing banksters NO MATTER WHAT THEY DID, OR WILL DO… ..."
"... One truism about immigration, to pick a topical item, is that uncontrolled immigration leads to overwhelming an area whether city, state or country. Regardless of how one feels about the other aspects of immigration, there are some real, unacknowledged limits to the viability of the various systems that must accommodate arrivals, particularly in the short term. Too much of a perceived ..."
"... There is an entrenched royal court, not unlike Versailles in some respects, where the sinecures, access to the White House tennis court (remember Jimmy Carter and his forest for the trees issues) or to paid "lunches in Georgetown" or similar trappings. Inflow of populist or other foreign ideas behind the veil of media and class secrecy represents a threat to overwhelm, downgrade (Sayeth Yogi Berra: It is so popular that nobody goes there anymore) or remove those perks, and to cause some financial, psychic or other pain to the hangers-on. ..."
"... Pretty soon, word filters out through WikiLeaks, or just on the front page of a newspaper in the case of the real and present corruption (What do you mean nobody went to jail for the frauds?). In those instances, the tendency of a populace to remain aloof with their bread and circuses and reality shows and such gets strained. ..."
"... Some people began noticing and the cognitive dissonance became to great to ignore no matter how many times the messages were delivered from on high. That led to many apparent outbursts of rational behavior ..."
if poor whites were being shot by cops at the rate urban blacks are, they would be screaming
too. blm is not a corporate front to divide us, any more than acorn was a scam to help election
fraud.
It's lazy analysis to suggest Race was a contributing factor. On the fringes, Trump supporters
may have racial overtones, but this election was all about class. I applaud sites like NC in continually
educating me. What you do is a valuable service.
"We won't need a majority of the dying "white working class" in our present and future feminine,
multiracial American working class. Just a minority."
Indeed, this site has featured links to articles elaborating the demographic composition of
today's "working class". And yet we still have people insisting that appeals to the working class,
and policies directed thereof, must "transcend" race and gender.
And, of course this "class first" orientation became a bone of contention between some loud
mouthed "men of the left" during the D-Party primary and "everyone else" and that's why the "Bernie
Bro" label stuck. It didn't help the Sanders campaign either.
"Class first" amongst men of the left has always signaled "ME first." What else could it
mean?
This is, actually, complicated. It's a reasonable position that black lives don't
matter because they keep getting whacked by cops and the cops are never held accountable. Nobody
else did anything, so people on the ground stood up, asserted themselves, and as part
of that created #BlackLivesMatter as an online gathering point; all entirely reasonable. #AllLivesMatter
was created, mostly as deflection/distraction, by people who either didn't like the movement,
or supported cops, and of course if all lives did matter to this crowd, they would have
done something about all the police killings in the first place.
Meanwhile, in the usual way of such things, #BlackLivesMatter hashtag activism became fashionable,
as the usual suspects were elevated to celebrity status by elites. Nothing, of course, was changed
in policy, and so in a year or so, matters began to bubble on the ground again.
Activist time (we might say) is often slower than electoral time. But sometimes it's faster;
see today's Water Cooler on the #AllOfUs people who occupied Schumer's office (and high time,
too). To me, that's a very hopefully sign. Hopefully, not a bundle of groups still siloed by identity
(and if that's to happen, I bet that will happen by working together. Nothing abstract).
I'm not tired of identity politics. I'm just tired of some identity-groups accusing other
identity-groups of "identity-politics". I speak in particular of the Identity Left.
"We won't need a majority of the dying "white working class" in our present and future
feminine, multiracial American working class. Just a minority."
That statement is as myopic a vision as the current political class is today. The statement
offends another minority, or even a possible majority. Identity politics, any identity, is
going to automatically split voters into camps and force people to 'pick' a side.
In False Choices: The Faux Feminism of Hillary Rodham Clinton, I and many other writers
argued that the bourgeois feminism Clinton represents works against the interests of the vast
majority of women. This has turned out to be even more true than we anticipated. That branding
of feminism has delivered to us the most sexist and racist president in recent history: Donald
Trump.
I wonder if there is an even simpler more colorful way to say that. Hillary spoke to the
million-dollar feminists-of-privilege who identified with her multi-million dollar self and her
efforts to break her own Tiffany Glass ceiling. And she worked to get many other women with nothing
to gain to identify with Hillary's own breaking of Hillary's own Tiffany Glass ceiling.
If the phrase "Tiffany Glass ceiling" seems good enough to re-use, feel free to re-use it one
and all.
For me (at least) the essence of the "Left" is justice. When we speak of Class we are putting
focus on issues of economic justice. Class is the material expression of economic (and therefore
political) stratification. Class is the template for analysing the power dynamics at play in such
stratification.
Class is the primary political issue because it not only affects everyone, but in the absence
of economic justice, it's very difficult to obtain ANY kind of justice - whether such justice
be of race, gender, legal, religious or sexual orientation.
I find it indicative that the 1% (now) simply don't care one way or another about race or gender
etc, PROVIDED it benefits or, has no negative effects on their economic/political interests.
"Just how large a spike in hate crime there has been remains uncertain, however. Several reports
have been proven false, and Potok cautioned that most incidents reported to the Southern Poverty
Law Center did not amount to hate crime.
All us ordinary people are insecure. Planet is becoming less habitable, war everywhere, ISDS
whether we want it or not, group sentiments driving mass behaviors with extra weapons from our
masters, soil depletion, water becoming a Nestle subsidiary, all that. But let us focus on maintaining
our favored position as more insecure than others, with a "Yes, but" response to what seems to
me the fundamental strategic scene:
"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war,
and we're winning."
Those mostly white guys, but a lot of women too, the "rich classs," are ORGANIZED, they have
a pretty simple organizing principle ("Everything belong us") that leads to straightforward strategies
and tactics to control all the levers and fulcrums of power. The senators in Oregon are "on the
right side" of a couple of social issues, but they both are all in for "trade deals" and other
big pieces of the "rich class's" ground game. In ship sinking incidents, where a lot of people
are dumped in the water, many adopt the strategy of trying to use others as flotation devices,
pushing them under while the "rich class" tootle off in the lifeboats. Sounds like a winner, all
right.
The comparison with 9/11 is instructive. That is not minimizing hate crimes. Within days after
9/11, my Sikh neighbor was assaulted and called a "terrorist". He finally decided to stop wearing
a turban, cut his hair, and dress "American". My neighborhood was not ethnically tense, but it is ethnically diverse, and my neighbor had
never seen his assailant before.
Yes, the rich classes are organized…organized to fleece us with unending wars. But don't minimize
other people's experience of what constitutes a hate crime.
In 1875, the first step toward the assassination of a black, "scalawag", or "carpetbagger"
public official in the South was a friendly visit from prominent people asking him to resign,
the second was night riders with torches, the third was night riders who killed the public official.
Jury nullification (surprise, surprise) made sure that no one was punished at the time. In 1876,
the restoration of "home rule' in Southern states elected in a bargain Rutherford B. Hayes, who
ended Reconstruction and the South entered a period that cleansed "Negroes, carpetbaggers, and
scalawags" from their state governments and put the Confederate generals and former plantation
owners back in charge. That was then called The Restoration. Coincidence that that is the name
of David Horowitz's conference where Donna Brazile was hobnobbing with James O'Keefe?
The rich class has enlisted the white indentured servants as their Praetorian Guard. The
same play as after Bacon's Rebellion.
Not minimizing - my very peaches-and-cream Scots-English daughter is married to a gentleman
from Ghana whose skin tones are about as dark as possible.
the have three beautiful children, and are fortunate to live in an area that is a hotbed of
"tolerance." I have many anecdotes too.
Do anecdotes = reality in all its complexity? Do anecdotes = policy? Is what is
actually occurring another Kristallnacht, or the irreducible susurrus of meanness and idiocy
that is part of every collection of humans? It would be nice not to get suckered into
elevating the painful minima over the importance of getting ordinary people to agree on a real
common enemy, and organizing to claim and protect.
If even one single banker had gone to jail for the mess (fed by Bush I, Clinton, and Bush
II) that blew up in 2008, we would be having a different conversation. We are in a huge legitimacy
crisis, in part because justice was never served on those who made tens of millions via fraud.
When there's no justice, its as if the society's immune system is not functioning.
Expect more strange things to appear, almost all of them aimed at sucking the remaining resources
out of the system with the knowledge that they'll never face consequences for looting. The fact
that they're killing the host does not bother them.
Corruption is both cause & effect of gross wealth inequities. Of course to the 1% it's not
corruption so much as merely what is owed as of a right to the privileged. (Thus, the most fundamental
basis of liberal democracy turns malignant: that ALL, even rulers & law makers are EQUALLY bound
by the Law).
The Malignant Overlords - the King or Queen, the Financial Masters of the Universe,, the
tribal witch doctor- live by grazing on the wealth of the natural world and the productivity of
their underlings. There are only a few thousand of them but they control finance and the Money
system, propaganda organizations (in the USA called the Media) land and agriculture, "educational"
institutions and entire armies of Homeland Insecurity police.
Under them there are the sycophants– generals and officers, war profiteers and corporate
CEO's, the intelligentsia, journalists, fake economists, and entertainment and sports heroes who
grow fat feasting on the morsels left over after the .0001% have fed. And far below the Overlords
are the millions of professional Bureaucrats whose job security requires unquestioning servitude.
Once upon a time there was what was known as the Middle Class who taught school or built things
in factories, made mortgage payments on a home, and bought a new Ford every other year. But they
now are renters, moving from one insecure job in one state to an insecure one across the country.
How else are they to maintain their sense of self-worth except by identifying a tribe that is
under them? If the members of the inferior tribe look just like you they might actually be more
successful and not a proper object of scorn. But if they have a black or brown skin and speak
differently they are the perfect target to make you feel that your life is not a total failure.
It's either that or go home and kick the dog or beat the wife. Or join the Army where you can
go kill a few foreigners and will always know your place in the hierarchy.
Class "trumps" race, but racial prejudice has its roots far back in human social history as
a tribal species where the "other" was always a threat to the tribe's existence.
Anyone who thinks it is only class and not also race is wearing some very strange blinders
No one with any sense is saying that, Katharine, and constantly bringing it up as some kind
of necessary argument (which, you may recall, was done as a way of trying to persuade people of
color Sanders wasn't working for them in the face of his entire history) perpetuates the falsehood
dichotomy that it has to be one or the other.
I can understand the desire to reduce the problems to a single issue that can then be subjected
to our total focus, but that's what's been done for the last fifty years; it doesn't work. Life
is too complex and messy to be fixed using magic pills, and Trump's success because those who've
given up hope of a cure are still enormously vulnerable to snake oil.
Race, gender identity, religion, etc. are the false dichotomies by which the oligarchs divide
us. Saudi princes, African American millionaires, gay millionaires etc. are generally treated
the same by the oligarchs as wasp millionaires. The true dichotomy is class, that is the dichotomy
which dare not speak its name.
yes, racism still exist, but the Democrats want to make it the primary issue of every election
because it is costs them nothing. I've never liked the idea of race based reparations because
they seem like another form of racism.
However, if the neolibs really believe racial disparity
and gender issues are the primary problems, why don't they ever support reparations or a large
tax on rich white people to pay the victims of racism and sexism and all the other isms?
Perhaps
its because that would actually cost them something. I think what bothers most of the Trumpets
out here in rural America is not race but the elevation of race to the top of the political todo
list.
For Trump it was so easy. He just says something that could be thought of as racist and
then his supporters watch as the media morphs his words, removes context, or just ignores any
possible non-racist motivations for his words.
Just read the actual Mexican- rapists quote. Completely
different then reported by the media. Fifteen years ago my native born Mexican friend said almost exactlly the same thing. Its a trap the media walks right into. I think most poor people of whiteness
do see racism as a sin, just not the only or most awful sin. As for Trump being a racist, I think
he would have to be human first.
… whilst his GOP colleagues publicly recoiled in horror, there is no question that Trump
was merely making explicit what Republicans had been doing for decades – since the days of Nixon
in 1968. The dog whistle was merely replaced by a bull horn.
Spot-on statement. Was watching Fareed Zakaria (yeah, I know, but he makes legit points from
time to time) and was pleasantly surprised that he called Bret Stephens, who was strongly opposed
to Trump, out on this. To see Stephens squirm like a worm on a hook was priceless.
"…what divides people rather than what unites people…"
Yes, class identity can be a bond that unites. However, in the US the sense of class identity
remains underdeveloped. In fact, it is only with the Sanders campaign that large swaths of the
American public have had practical and sustained exposure to the concept of class as a political
force. For most of the electorate, the language of class is still rather alien, particularly since
the "equality of opportunity" narrative even now is not completely overthrown.
Sanders and others on an ascendant left in the Democratic Party - and outside the Party - will
continue to do the important work of building a sense of class consciousness. But more is needed,
if the left wants to transform education into political power. Of course, organizing and electing
candidates at the local and state level is enormously important both to leverage control of local
institutions and - even more important - train and create leaders who can effectively use the
tools of political power. But besides this practical requirement, the left also needs to address
- or co-opt, if you will - the language of economic populism, which sounds a lot like economic
nationalism.
It seems inevitable that populist sentiment, which both Sanders and Trump have used to
electoral advantage, will spill over into a variety of economic nationalism. Nationalist
sentiment is the single most powerful unifying principle available, certainly more so than the
concept of class, at least in America. I don't see that changing anytime soon, and I do see the
Alt-Right using nationalism as a lever to try to coax the white working class into their brand
of identity politics. But America's assimilationist, "melting pot" narrative continues to be attractive
to most people, even if it is under assault in some quarters. So I think moving from nationalism
to white identity politics will not so easy for the Alt-Right. On the other hand, picking up the
thread of economic nationalism can provide the left with a powerful tool for bringing together
women, minorities and all who are struggling in this economy. This becomes particularly important
if it is the case that technology already makes the ideal of full (or nearly full) employment
nothing more than a chimera, thus forcing the question of a guaranteed annual income. Establishing
that kind of permanent safety net will only be possible in a polity where there are firm bonds
between citizens and a marked sense of responsibility for the welfare of all.
And if the Democratic Party is honest, it will have to concede that even the popular incumbent
President has played a huge role in contributing to the overall sense of despair that drove people
to seek a radical outlet such as Trump. The Obama Administration rapidly broke with its Hope and
"Change you can believe in" the minute he appointed some of the architects of the 2008 crisis
as his main economic advisors, who in turn and gave us a Wall Street friendly bank bailout that
effectively restored the status quo ante (and refused to jail one single banker, even though many
were engaged in explicitly criminal activity).
====================================================================
For those who think its just Hillary, its not. There is no way there will ever be any acknowledgement
of Obama;s real failures – he will no more be viewed honestly by dems than he could be viewed
honestly by repubs. Obama was a perfect identity candidate, i.e., not only capable of getting
the dem nomination, but the presidency and than not jailing banksters NO MATTER WHAT THEY DID,
OR WILL DO…
I imagine Trump will be one term, and I imagine we return in short order to our nominally different
parties squabbling but in lock step with regard to their wall street masters…
Democrats seem to be the more visible or clumsy in their attempts to govern themselves and
the populace, let alone understand their world. By way of illustration, consider the following.
One truism about immigration, to pick a topical item, is that uncontrolled immigration leads to
overwhelming an area whether city, state or country. Regardless of how one feels about the other
aspects of immigration, there are some real, unacknowledged limits to the viability of the various
systems that must accommodate arrivals, particularly in the short term. Too much of a perceived
good thing may be hazardous to one's health. Too much free stuff exhausts the producers,
infrastructure and support networks.
To extend and torture that concept further, just because, consider the immigration of populist
ideas to Washington. There is an entrenched royal court, not unlike Versailles in some respects,
where the sinecures, access to the White House tennis court (remember Jimmy Carter and his forest
for the trees issues) or to paid "lunches in Georgetown" or similar trappings. Inflow of populist
or other foreign ideas behind the veil of media and class secrecy represents a threat to overwhelm,
downgrade (Sayeth Yogi Berra: It is so popular that nobody goes there anymore) or remove those
perks, and to cause some financial, psychic or other pain to the hangers-on.
Pretty soon, word filters out through WikiLeaks, or just on the front page of a newspaper in
the case of the real and present corruption (What do you mean nobody went to jail for the frauds?).
In those instances, the tendency of a populace to remain aloof with their bread and circuses and
reality shows and such gets strained.
Some people began noticing and the cognitive dissonance
became to great to ignore no matter how many times the messages were delivered from on high. That
led to many apparent outbursts of rational behavior (What, you sold my family and me out and reduced
our prospects, so why should we vote for a party that takes us for granted, at best), which would
be counter-intuitive by some in our media.
"... The funny thing is that they've so learned to love the smell of their own farts (or propaganda) that they internalized an image of enlightened progressivism for themselves. This Trump election was probably the first clue that their self image is faulty and not widely shared by others. They are not taking it well. ..."
NYTimes still blames race on Trump's winning over Obama supporters in Iowa:
Trump clearly sensed the fragility of the coalition that Obama put
together - that the president's support in heavily white areas was built not
on racial egalitarianism but on a feeling of self-interest. Many white
Americans were no longer feeling that belonging to this coalition benefited
them.
Racial egalitarianism wasn't the reason for white support for Obama in 2008
and 2012 in Iowa. It reflected racial egalitarianism, but that support had to
do with perceived economic self-interest, just as the switch to Trump in 2016
did.
And what on earth is wrong with self-interest as a reason for voting?
Right. These corporatists use identity politics as a stalking horse to
rob the public blind, and then they spew invectives about racism and
mysogony wherever the public stops buying the bullcrap.
The funny thing is that they've so learned to love the smell of their own
farts (or propaganda) that they internalized an image of enlightened
progressivism for themselves. This Trump election was probably the first
clue that their self image is faulty and not widely shared by others. They
are not taking it well.
"... Judging by the volume of complaints from Clinton sycophants insisting that people did not get behind Clinton or that it was purely her gender, they won't. Why would anyone get behind Clinton save the 1%? Her policies were pro-war, pro-Wall Street, and at odds with what the American people needed. Also, we should judge based on policy, not gender and Clinton comes way short of Sanders in that regard – in many regards, she is the antithesis of Sanders. ..."
"... "Establishment Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this one. The only question is whether or not they are willing to take responsibility" I disagree. In my view, it is not a question at all. They have never taken responsibility for anything, and they never will. ..."
"... What would make Democrats focus on the working class? Nothing. They have lost and brought about destruction of the the Unions, which was the Democratic Base, and have become beholden to the money. The have noting in common with the working class, and no sympathy for their situation, either. ..."
"... What does Bill Clinton, who drive much of the policy in the '90s, and spent his early years running away form the rural poor in Arkansas (Law School, Rhodes Scholarship), have in common with working class people anywhere? ..."
"... Iron law of institutions applies. Position in the D apparatus is more important than political power – because with power come blame. ..."
"... I notice Obama worked hard to lose majorities in the house and Senate so he could point to the Republicans and say "it was their fault" except when he actually wanted something, and made it happen (such as TPP). ..."
"... Agreed with the first but not the second. It's typical liberal identity politics guilt tripping. That won't get you too far on the "white side" of Youngstown Ohio. ..."
"... Also suspect that the working-class, Rust-Belt Trump supporters will soon be thrown under the bus by their Standard Bearer, if the Transition Team appointments are any indicator: e.g. Privateers at SSA. ..."
"... My wife teaches primary grades in an inner city school. She has made it clear to me over the years that the challenges her children are facing are related to poverty, not race. She sees a big correlation between the financial status of a family and its family structure (one or more parents not present or on drugs) and the kids' success in school. Race is a minor factor. ..."
"... The problem with running on a class based platform in America is, well, it's America; and in good ol' America, we are taught that anyone can become a successful squillionare – ya know, hard work, nose-to-the-grindstone, blah, blah, blah. ..."
"... The rags to riches American success fable is so ingrained that ideas like taxing the rich a bit more fall flat because everyone thinks "that could be me someday. Just a few house flips, a clever new app, that ten-bagger (or winning lottery ticket) and I'm there" ("there" being part of the 1%). ..."
"... The idea that anyone can be successful (i.e. rich) is constantly promoted. ..."
"... I think this fantasy is beginning to fade a bit but the "wealth = success" idea is so deeply rooted in the American psyche I don't think it will ever fade completely away. ..."
"... If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy - which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog - you will come to an awful realization. It wasn't Beijing. It wasn't even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn't immigrants from Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn't any of that. ..."
"... Nothing happened to them. There wasn't some awful disaster. There wasn't a war or a famine or a plague or a foreign occupation. Even the economic changes of the past few decades do very little to explain the dysfunction and negligence - and the incomprehensible malice - of poor white America. So the gypsum business in Garbutt ain't what it used to be. There is more to life in the 21st century than wallboard and cheap sentimentality about how the Man closed the factories down. ..."
"... The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump's speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. ..."
"... White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America ..."
"... Poor or Poorer whites have been demonised since the founding of the original Colonies, and were continuously pushed west to the frontiers by the ruling elites of New England and the South as a way of ridding themselves of "undesirables", who were then left to their own resources, and clung together for mutual assistance. ..."
"... White trash is a central, if disturbing, thread in our national narrative. The very existence of such people – both in their visibility and invisibility – is proof that American society obsesses over the mutable labels we give to the neighbors we wish not to notice. "They are not who we are". But they are who we are and have been a fundamental part of our history, whether we like it or not". ..."
"... "To be sure, Donald Trump did make a strong appeal to racists, homophobes, and misogynists " ..."
"... working class white women ..."
"... Obama is personally likeable ..."
"... History tells us the party establishment will move further right after election losses. And among the activist class there are identity purity battles going on. ..."
"... Watch as this happens yet again: "In most elections, U.S. politicians of both parties pretend to be concerned about their issues, then conveniently ignore them when they reach power and implement policies from the same Washington Consensus that has dominated the past 40 years." That is why we need a strong third party, a reformed election system with public support of campaigns and no private money, and free and fair media coverage. But it ain't gonna happen. ..."
"... Obviously, if the Democrats nominate yet another Clintonite Obamacrat all over again, I may have to vote for Trump all over again . . . to stop the next Clintonite before it kills again. ..."
Ultimately the Establishment Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this one. The
only question is whether or not they are willing to take responsibility for what happened.
Judging by the volume of complaints from Clinton sycophants insisting that people did not
get behind Clinton or that it was purely her gender, they won't. Why would anyone get behind Clinton
save the 1%? Her policies were pro-war, pro-Wall Street, and at odds with what the American people
needed. Also, we should judge based on policy, not gender and Clinton comes way short of Sanders
in that regard – in many regards, she is the antithesis of Sanders.
Class trumps race, to make a pun. If the left doesn't take the Democratic Party back and clean
house, I expect that there is a high probability that 2020's election will look at lot like the
2004 elections.
I'd recommend someone like Sanders to run. Amongst the current crop, maybe Tulsi Gabbard or
Nina Turner seem like the best candidates.
"Establishment Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this one. The only question
is whether or not they are willing to take responsibility" I disagree. In my view, it is not a
question at all. They have never taken responsibility for anything, and they never will.
What would make Democrats focus on the working class? Nothing. They have lost and brought
about destruction of the the Unions, which was the Democratic Base, and have become beholden to
the money. The have noting in common with the working class, and no sympathy for their situation,
either.
What does Bill Clinton, who drive much of the policy in the '90s, and spent his early years
running away form the rural poor in Arkansas (Law School, Rhodes Scholarship), have in common
with working class people anywhere?
The same question applies to Hillary, to Trump and the remainder of our "representatives" in
Congress.
Without Unions, how are US Representatives from the working class elected?
What we are seeing is a shift in the US for the Republicans to become the populist party. They
already have the churches, and with Trump they can gain the working class – although I do not
underestimate the contempt help by our elected leaders for the Working Class and poor.
The have forgotten, if they ever believed: "There, but for the grace of God, go I".
Iron law of institutions applies. Position in the D apparatus is more important than political
power – because with power come blame.
I notice Obama worked hard to lose majorities in the house and Senate so he could point
to the Republicans and say "it was their fault" except when he actually wanted something, and
made it happen (such as TPP).
We know that class and economic insecurity drove many white people to vote for Trump. That's
understandable. And now we are seeing a rise in hate incidents inspired by his victory. So obviously
there is a race component in his support as well. So, if you, white person, didn't vote for Trump
out of white supremacy, would you consider making a statement that disavows the acts of extremist
whites? Do you vow to stand up and help if you see people being victimized? Do you vow not to
stay silent when you encounter Trump supporters who ARE obviously in thrall to the white supremacist
siren call?
Agreed with the first but not the second. It's typical liberal identity politics guilt
tripping. That won't get you too far on the "white side" of Youngstown Ohio.
And I wouldn't worry about it. When I worked at the at the USX Fairless works in Levittown
PA in 1988, I was befriended by one steelworker who was a clear raving white supremacist racist.
(Actually rather nonchalant about about it). However he was the only one I encountered who was
like this, and eventually I figured out that he befriended a "newbie" like me because he had no
friends among the other workers, including the whites. He was not popular at all.
I've always thought that Class, not Race, was the Third Rail of American Politics, and that
the US was fast-tracking to a more shiny, happy feudalism.
Also suspect that the working-class, Rust-Belt Trump supporters will soon be thrown under
the bus by their Standard Bearer, if the Transition Team appointments are any indicator: e.g.
Privateers at SSA.
My wife teaches primary grades in an inner city school. She has made it clear to me over
the years that the challenges her children are facing are related to poverty, not race. She sees
a big correlation between the financial status of a family and its family structure (one or more
parents not present or on drugs) and the kids' success in school. Race is a minor factor.
She also makes it clear to me that the Somali/Syrian/Iraqi etc. immigrant kids are going to
do very well even though they come in without a word of English because they are working their
butts off and they have the full support of their parents and community. These people left bad
places and came to their future and they are determined to grab it with both hands. 40% of her
class this year is ENL (English as a non-native language). Since it is an inner city school, they
don't have teacher's aides in the class, so it is just one teacher in a class of 26-28 kids, of
which a dozen struggle to understand English. Surprisingly, the class typically falls short of
the "standards" that the state sets for the standardized exams. Yet many of the immigrant kids
end up going to university after high school through sheer effort.
Bullying and extreme misbehavior (teachers are actually getting injured by violent elementary
kids) is largely done by kids born in the US. The immigrant kids tend to be fairly well-behaved.
On a side note, the CSA at our local farmer's market said they couldn't find people to pick
the last of their fall crops (it is in a rural community so a car is needed to get there). So
the food bank was going out this week to pick produce like squash, onions etc. and we were told
we could come out and pick what we wanted. Full employment?
The problem with running on a class based platform in America is, well, it's America; and
in good ol' America, we are taught that anyone can become a successful squillionare – ya know,
hard work, nose-to-the-grindstone, blah, blah, blah.
The rags to riches American success fable is so ingrained that ideas like taxing the rich
a bit more fall flat because everyone thinks "that could be me someday. Just a few house flips,
a clever new app, that ten-bagger (or winning lottery ticket) and I'm there" ("there" being part
of the 1%).
The idea that anyone can be successful (i.e. rich) is constantly promoted.
I think this fantasy is beginning to fade a bit but the "wealth = success" idea is so deeply
rooted in the American psyche I don't think it will ever fade completely away.
I'm recalling (too lazy to find the link) a poll a couple years ago that showed the number
of American's identifying as "working class" increased, and the number as "middle class" decreased.
It is both. And it is a deliberate mechanism of class division to preserve power. Bill Cecil-Fronsman,
Common Whites: Class and Culture in Antebellum North Carolina identifies nine classes
in the class structure of a state that mixed modern capitalist practice (plantations), agrarian
YOYO independence (the non-slaveowning subsistence farms), town economies, and subsistence (farm
labor). Those classes were typed racially and had certain economic, power, and social relations
associated with them. For both credit and wages, few escaped the plantation economy and being
subservient to the planter capitalists locally.
Moreover, ethnic identity was embedded in the law as a class marker. This system was developed
independently or exported through imitation in various ways to the states outside North Carolina
and the slave-owning states. The abolition of slavery meant free labor in multiple senses and
the capitalist use of ethnic minorities and immigrants as scabs integrated them into an ethnic-class
system, where it was broad ethnicity and not just skin-color that defined classes. Other ethnic
groups, except Latinos and Muslim adherents, now have earned their "whiteness".
One suspects that every settler colonial society develops this combined ethnic-class structure
in which the indigenous ("Indians" in colonial law) occupy one group of classes and imported laborers
or slaves or intermixtures ("Indian", "Cape Colored" in South Africa) occupy another group of
classes available for employment in production. Once employed, the relationship is exactly that
of the slaveowner to the slave no matter how nicely the harsh labor management techniques of 17th
century Barbados and Jamaica have been made kinder and gentler. But outside the workplace (and
often still inside) the broader class structure applies even contrary to the laws trying to restrict
the relationship to boss and worker.
Blacks are not singling themselves out to police; police are shooting unarmed black people
without punishment. The race of the cop does not matter, but the institution of impunity makes
it open season on a certain class of victims.
It is complicated because every legal and often managerial attempt has been made to reduce
the class structure of previous economies to the pure capitalism demanded by current politics.
So when in a post Joe McCarthy, post-Cold War propaganda society, someone wants to protest
the domination of capitalism, attacking who they perceive as de facto scabs to their higher incomes
(true or not) is the chosen mode of political attack. Not standing up for the political rights
of the victims of ethnically-marked violence and discrimination allows the future depression of
wages and salaries by their selective use as a threat in firms. And at the individual firm and
interpersonal level even this gets complicated because in spite of the pressure to just be businesslike,
people do still care for each other.
This is a perennial mistake. In the 1930s Southern Textile Strike, some organizing was of both
black and white workers; the unions outside the South rarely stood in solidarity with those efforts
because they were excluding ethnic minorities from their unions; indeed, some locals were organized
by ethnicity. That attitude also carried over to solidarity with white workers in the textile
mills. And those white workers who went out on a limb to organize a union never forgot that failure
in their labor struggle. It is the former textile areas of the South that are most into Trump's
politics and not so much the now minority-majority plantation areas.
It still is race in the inner ring suburbs of ethnically diverse cities like St. Louis that
hold the political lock on a lot of states. Because Ferguson to them seems like an invasion of
the lower class. Class politics, of cultural status, based on ethnicity. Still called by that
19h century scientific racism terminology that now has been debunked - race - Caucasoid, Mongoloid,
Negroid. Indigenous, at least in the Americas, got stuck under Mongoloid.
You go organize the black, Latino, and white working class to form unions and gain power, and
it will happen. It is why Smithfield Foods in North Carolina had to negotiate a contract. Race
can be transcended in action.
Pretending the ethnic discrimination and even segregation does not exist and have its own problems
is political suicide in the emerging demographics. Might not be a majority, but it is an important
segment of the vote. Which is why the GOP suppressed minority voters through a variety of legal
and shady electoral techniques. Why Trump wants to deport up to 12 million potential US citizens
and some millions of already birthright minor citizens. And why we are likely to see the National
Labor Review Board gutted of what little power it retains from 70 years of attack. Interesting
what the now celebrated white working class was not offered in this election, likely because they
would vote it down quicker because, you know, socialism.
Your comment reminded me of an episode in Seattle's history.
Link . The
unions realized they were getting beat in their strikes, by scabs, who were black. The trick was
for the unions to bring the blacks into the union. This was a breakthrough, and it worked in Seattle,
in 1934. There is a cool mural the union commissioned by,
Pablo O'Higgins , to
celebrate the accomplishment.
Speaking of class, and class contempt , one must recall the infamous screed published
by National Review columnist Kevin Williamson early this year, writing about marginalised white
people here is a choice excerpt:
If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my
own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and
alcohol addiction, the family anarchy - which is to say, the whelping of human children with
all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog - you will come to an awful realization. It wasn't
Beijing. It wasn't even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn't immigrants from
Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn't any of that.
Nothing happened to them. There wasn't some awful disaster. There wasn't a war or a famine
or a plague or a foreign occupation. Even the economic changes of the past few decades do very
little to explain the dysfunction and negligence - and the incomprehensible malice - of poor
white America. So the gypsum business in Garbutt ain't what it used to be. There is more to
life in the 21st century than wallboard and cheap sentimentality about how the Man closed the
factories down.
The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die.
Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap
theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory
towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your
goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American
underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used
heroin needles. Donald Trump's speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin.
Now it's not too much of a stretch of the imagination to state that Williamson's animus can
be replicated amongst many of the moneyed elite currently pushing and shoving their way into a
position within the incoming Trump Administration. The Trump campaign has openly and cynically
courted and won the votes of white people similar to those mentioned in Williamson's article,
and who – doubtlessly – will be stiffed by policies vigourously opposed to their welfare that
will be enacted during the Trump years. The truly intriguing aspect of the Trump election is:
what will be the consequences of further degradation of the "lower orders' " quality of life by
such actions? Wholesale retreat from electoral politics? Further embitterment and anger NOT toward
those in Washington responsible for their lot but directed against ethnic and racial minorities
"stealing their jawbs" and "getting welfare while we scrounge for a living"? I sincerely doubt
whether the current or a reconstructed Democratic Party can at all rally this large chunk of white
America by posing as their "champions" the class divide in the US is as profound as the racial
chasm, and neither major party – because of internal contradictions – can offer a credible answer.
[In addition to the growing inequality and concomitant wage stagnation for the middle and working
classes, 9/11 and its aftermath has certainly has contributed to it as well, as, making PEOPLE
LONG FOR the the Golden Age of Managerial Capitalism of the post-WWII era,]
Oh yeah, I noticed a big ol' hankerin' for that from the electorate. What definition could
the author be using for Managerial Capitalism that could make it the opposite of inequality? The
fight for power between administration and shareholders does not lead to equality for workers.
[So this gave force to the idea that the government was nothing but a viper's nest full of
crony capitalist enablers,]
I don't think it's an 'idea' that the govt is crony capitalists and enablers. Ds need to get
away from emotive descriptions. Being under/unemployed, houseless, homeless, unable to pay for
rent, utilities, food . aren't feelings/ideas. When that type of language is used, it comes across
as hand waving. There needs to be a shift of talking to rather than talking about.
If crony capitalism is an idea, it's simply a matter for Ds to identify a group (workers),
create a hierarchy (elite!) and come up with a propaganda campaign (celebrities and musicians
spending time in flyover country-think hanging out in coffee shops in a flannel shirt) to get
votes. Promise to toss them a couple of crumbs with transfer payments (retraining!) or a couple
of regulations (mandatory 3 week severance!) and bring out the obligatory D fall back- it would
be better than the Rs would give them. On the other hand, if it's factual, the cronies need to
be stripped of power and kicked out or the nature of the capitalist structure needs to be changed.
It's laughable to imagine liberals or progressives would be open to changing the power and nature
of the corporate charter (it makes me smile to think of the gasps).
The author admits that politicians lie and continue the march to the right yet uses the ACA,
a march to the right, as a connection to Obama's (bombing, spying, shrinking middle class) likability.
[[But emphasizing class-based policies, rather than gender or race-based solutions, will achieve
more for the broad swathe of voters, who comprehensively rejected the "neo-liberal lite" identity
politics]
Oops. I got a little lost with the neo-liberal lite identity politics. Financialized identity
politics? Privatized identity politics?
I believe women and poc have lost ground (economic and rights) so I would like examples of
successful gender and race-based (liberal identity politics) solutions that would demonstrate
that identity politics targeting is going to work on the working class.
If workers have lost power, to balance that structure, you give workers more power (I predict
that will fail as unions fall under the generic definition of corporatist and the power does not
rest with the members but with the CEOs of the unions – an example is a union that block the members
from voting to endorse a candidate, go against the member preference and endorse the corporatist
candidate), or you remove power from the corporation. Libs/progs can't merely propose something
like vesting more power with shareholders to remove executives as an ameliorating maneuver which
fails to address the power imbalance.
[This is likely only to accelerate the disintegration of the political system and economic
system until the elephant in the room – class – is honestly and comprehensively addressed.]
For a thorough exposition of lower-class white America from the inception of the Republic to
today, a must-read is Nancy Isenberg's White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in
America . Poor or Poorer whites have been demonised since the founding of the original
Colonies, and were continuously pushed west to the frontiers by the ruling elites of New England
and the South as a way of ridding themselves of "undesirables", who were then left to their own
resources, and clung together for mutual assistance.
Thus became the economic and cultural subset of "crackers", "hillbillies", "rednecks", and
later, "Okies", a source of contempt and scorn by more economically and culturally endowed whites.
The anti-bellum white Southern aristocracy cynically used poor whites as cheap tenant farming,
all the while laying down race-based distinctions between them and black slaves – there is always
someone lower on the totem pole, and that distinction remains in place today. Post-Reconstruction,
the South maintained the cult of white superiority, all the while preserving the status of upper-class
whites, and, by race-based public policies, assured lower-class whites that such "superiority"
would be maintained by denying the black populations access to education, commerce, the vote,
etc. And today, "white trash", or "trailer trash", or poorer whites in general are ubiquitous
and as American as apple pie, in the North, the Midwest, and the West, not just the South. Let
me quote Isenberg's final paragraph of her book:
White trash is a central, if disturbing, thread in our national narrative. The very
existence of such people – both in their visibility and invisibility – is proof that American
society obsesses over the mutable labels we give to the neighbors we wish not to notice. "They
are not who we are". But they are who we are and have been a fundamental part of our history,
whether we like it or not".
Presenting a plan for the future, which has a chance to be supported by the electorate, must
start with scrupulous, unwavering honesty and a willingness to acknowledge inconvenient facts.
The missing topic from the 2016 campaigns was declining energy surpluses and their pervasive,
negative impact on the prosperity to which we feel entitled. Because of the energy cost of producing
oil, a barrel today represents a declining fraction of a barrel in terms of net energy. This is
the major factor in sluggish economic performance. Failing to make this case and, at the same
time, offering glib and vacuous promises of growth and economic revival, are just cynical exercises
in pandering.
Our only option is to mange the coming decline in a way that does not descend into chaos and
anarchy. This can only be done with a clear vision of causes and effects and the wisdom and courage
to accept facts. The alternative is yet more delusions and wishful thinking, whose shelf life
is getting shorter.
To be fair to the article, Marshall did in fact say:
"To be sure, Donald Trump did make a strong appeal to racists, homophobes, and misogynists
"
IMO the point Marshall is making that race was not the primary reason #DJT
won. And I concur.
This is borne out by the vote tallies which show that the number of R voters from 2012 to 2016
was pretty much on the level (final counts pending):
2016 R Vote: 60,925,616
2012 R Vote: 60,934,407
(Source:
US Election Atlas )
Stop and think about this for a minute. Every hard core racist had their guy this
time around; and yet, the R's could barely muster the same amount of votes as Mittens
in 2012. This is huge, and supports the case that other things contributed far more than just
race.
Class played in several ways:
Indifference/apathy/fatigue: Lambert posted some data from Carl Beijer on this yesterday in his
Clinton Myths piece yesterday.
Anger: #HRC could not convince many people who voted for Bernie that she was interested in his
outreach to the working class. More importantly, #HRC could not convince working class white
women that she had anything other than her gender and Trump's boorishness as a counterpoint
to offer.
Outsider v Insider: Working class people skeptical of political insiders rejected #HRC.
If black workers were losing ground and white workers were gaining, one could indeed claim
that racism is a problem. However, both black and white workers are losing ground – racism simply
cannot be the major issue here. It's not racism, it's class war.
The fixation on race, the corporate funding of screaming 'black lives matter' agitators, the
crude attempts to tie Donald Trump to the KKK (really? really?) are just divide and conquer, all
over again.
Whatever his other faults, Donald Trump has been vigorous in trying to reach out to working
class blacks, even though he knew he wouldn't get much of their vote and he knew that the media
mostly would not cover it. Last I heard, he was continuing to try and reach out, despite the black
'leadership' class demanding that he is a racist. Because as was so well pointed out here, the
one thing the super-rich fear is a united working class.
Divide and conquer. It's an old trick, but a powerful one.
Suggestion: if (and it's a big if) Trump really does enact policies that help working class
blacks, and the Republicans peel away a significant fraction of the black vote, that would set
the elites' hair on fire. Because it would mean that the black vote would be in play, and the
Neoliberal Democrats couldn't just take their votes for granted. And wouldn't that be a thing.
that was good for 2016. I will look to see if he has stats for other years. i certainly agree
that poor whites are more likely to be shot; executions of homeless people by police are one example.
the kind of system that was imposed on the people of ferguson has often been imposed on poor whites,
too. i do object to the characterization of black lives matter protestors as "screaming agitators";
that's all too reminiscent of the meme of "outside agitators" riling up the local peaceful black
people to stand up for their rights that was characteristically used to smear the civil rights
movement in the 60's.
I might not have much in common at all with certain minorities, but it's highly likely that
we share class status.
That's why the status quo allows identity politics and suppresses class politics.
Having been around for sometime, I often wonder what The Guardian is going on about in the
UK as it is supposed to be our left wing broadsheet.
It isn't a left I even recognised, what was it?
I do read it to try and find out what nonsense it is these people think.
Having been confused for many a year, I think I have just understood this identity based politics
as it is about to disappear.
I now think it was a cunning ploy to split the electorate in a different way, to leave the
UK working class with no political outlet.
Being more traditional left I often commented on our privately educated elite and private schools
but the Guardian readership were firmly in favour of them.
How is this left?
Thank god this is now failing, get back to the old left, the working class and those lower
down the scale.
It was clever while it lasted in enabling neoliberalism and a neglect of the working class,
but clever in a cunning, nasty and underhand way.
Thinking about it, so many of these recent elections have been nearly 50% / 50% splits, has
there been a careful analysis of who neoliberalism disadvantages and what minorities need to be
bought into the fold to make it work in a democracy.
Women are not a minority, but obviously that is a big chunk if you can get them under your
wing. The black vote is another big group when split away and so on.
Brexit nearly 50/50; Austria nearly 50/50; US election nearly 50/50.
So, 85% of Blacks vote Hillary against Sanders (left) and 92% vote Hillary against Trump (right),
but is no race. It's the class issue that sends them to the Clintons. Kindly explain how.
Funny think about likeability, likeable people can be real sh*ts. So I started looking into
hanging out with less likeable people. I found that they can be considerably more appreciative
of friendship and loyalty, maybe because they don't have such easy access to it.
Entertainment media has cautiously explored some aspect so fthis, but in politics, "nice" is
still disproportionately values, and not appreciated as a possible flag.
Watch out buddy. They are onto you. I have seen some comments on democratic party sites claiming
the use of class to explain Hillary's loss is racist. The democratic party is a goner. History
tells us the party establishment will move further right after election losses. And among the
activist class there are identity purity battles going on.
Watch as this happens yet again: "In most elections, U.S. politicians of both parties pretend
to be concerned about their issues, then conveniently ignore them when they reach power and implement
policies from the same Washington Consensus that has dominated the past 40 years." That is why
we need a strong third party, a reformed election system with public support of campaigns and
no private money, and free and fair media coverage. But it ain't gonna happen.
Well it certainly won't happen by itself. People are going to have to make it happen. Here
in Michigan we have a tiny new party called Working Class Party running 3 people here and there.
I voted for two of them. If the Democrats run somebody no worse than Trump next time, I will be
free to vote Working Class Party to see what happens.
Obviously, if the Democrats nominate yet another Clintonite Obamacrat all over again, I
may have to vote for Trump all over again . . . to stop the next Clintonite before it kills again.
"... when "capitalism" failed to remedy class inequity, in fact worked to cause it, propaganda took over and focused on all sorts of things that float around the edges of class like race, opportunity, civil rights, etc – but not a word about money. ..."
"... "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." ..."
"... "The reason the elites don't like class politics is that the class division that forms against their class, once organized, is large enough to take them on." ..."
"... Class divides the 99% from the small elite who lead both political parties. That makes it an explosive threat. I'm speaking of actual economic class, not the media BS of pork rinds and NASCAR versus brie and art museums. ..."
"... I've always maintained that Class is the real third rail of American politics, and the US is fast tracking to a shiny, prettified version of feudalism. ..."
"... There are two elephants in the room, class and technology. Both are distorted by those in power in order to ensure their continued rule. It seems to me the technology adopted by a society determines its class structure. ..."
"... Add to that HRC's neocon foreign policy instincts ..."
"... This goes beyond corruption. It is one thing to be selling public infrastructure construction contracts to crony capitalist contributors (in the Clintons' case do we call them philanthropists?) – entirely another to be selling guns and bombs used by Middle Eastern despots to grind down (IOW blow up, murder) opposition to their corrupt regimes. ..."
"... In fact, most of Western Civilization (sic?) seems to be happy with the status quo of a 'post-industrial' America as the "exceptional nation" whose only two functions are consuming the world's wealth and employing military Keynesianism to maintain a global social order based on money created ex nihilo by US and international bankers and financiers. ..."
"... What we are witnessing is a political crisis because the system is geared against the citizen. ..."
"... And journalists/media are complicit. Where is the cutting investigative journalism? There is none – the headlines should be screaming it. Thanks God (or whoever) for blogs like these. ..."
"... Sooo, they spent a generation telling the white worker that he was a racist, sexist bigot, mocking his religion, making his kids read "Heather Has Two Mommies" in school, and blaming him for economic woes caused in New York and DC. ..."
"... Tryng lately to get my terminology straight, and I think the policies you itemized should be labeled neoliberal, not liberal/progressive. Neoliberalism seems to be the one that combines the worst features of the private sector with the worst features of the public sector, without the good points of either one. ..."
when "capitalism" failed to remedy class inequity, in fact worked to cause
it, propaganda took over and focused on all sorts of things that float around
the edges of class like race, opportunity, civil rights, etc – but not a
word about money.
That's why Hillary was so irrelevant and boring. If class
itself (money) becomes a topic of discussion, the free-market orgy will be
seen as a last ditch effort to keep the elite in a class by themselves by
"trading" stuff that can just as easily be made domestically, and just not
worth the effort anymore.
Identity politics divides just as well as class politics. It simply divides
into smaller (less powerful) groups. The reason the elites don't like class politics is that the class division that forms against their
class, once organized, is large enough to take them on.
"The reason the elites don't like class politics is that the class
division that forms against their class, once organized, is large enough
to take them on."
I believe there is another aspect to the shift we are seeing, and it
is demographics.
Specifically deplorable demographics.
It should be noted that the deplorable generation, gen x, are very much a mixed racial cohort.
They have not participated in politics much because they have been under attack since they were
children. They have been ignored up to now.
Deplorable means wretched, poor.
This non participation is what has begun to change, and will accelerate for the next 20 years
and beyond.
Demographically speaking, with analysis of the numbers right now are approximately…
GEN GI and Silent Gen – 22,265,021
Baby Boomers 50,854,027
Gen X 90,010,283
Millenials 62,649,947 18 Years to 34
25,630,521 (12-17 Years old)
Total 88,280,468
Artist Gen 48,820,896 and growing…
* Using the Fourth Turning Cultural Demographic Measurement vs. the politically convenient,
MSM supported, propaganda demographics. They would NEVER do such a thing right? Sure.
Class divides the 99% from the small elite who lead both political parties.
That makes it an explosive threat. I'm speaking of actual economic class, not the media BS of pork rinds and NASCAR versus brie and
art museums.
Hi Yves – great post!
I've always maintained that Class is the real third rail
of American politics, and the US is fast tracking to a shiny, prettified version
of feudalism.
I suspect that the working-class Trump voters in the Rust Belt will eventually disappointed in their
standard bearer, Transition Team staffing is any indication: e.g. Privateers back at SSA.
In the post-Reconstruction South poor whites and blacks alike were the victims
of political and legal institutions designed to create a divided and disenfranchised
work force for the benefit of landlords, capitalists and corporations. Poor whites
as well as poor blacks were ensnared in a system of sharecropping and debt peonage.
Poll taxes, literacy tests and other voter restrictions disenfranchised blacks
and almost all poor whites creating an electorate dominated by a white southern
gentry class.
Martin Luther King, Jr. clarified this at the end of his address at the conclusion of the Selma March
on March 25, 1965.
…You see, it was a simple thing to keep the poor white masses working for near-starvation wages in
the years that followed the Civil War. Why, if the poor white plantation or mill worker became dissatisfied
with his low wages, the plantation or mill owner would merely threaten to fire him and hire former Negro
slaves and pay him even less. Thus, the southern wage level was kept almost unbearably low.
Toward the end of the Reconstruction era, something very significant happened. That is what was known
as the Populist Movement. The leaders of this movement began awakening the poor white masses and the
former Negro slaves to the fact that they were being fleeced by the emerging Bourbon interests. Not
only that, but they began uniting the Negro and white masses into a voting bloc that threatened to drive
the Bourbon interests from the command posts of political power in the South.
To meet this threat, the southern aristocracy began immediately to engineer this development of a segregated
society…. If it may be said of the slavery era that the white man took the world and gave the Negro
Jesus, then it may be said of the Reconstruction era that the southern aristocracy took the world and
gave the poor white man Jim Crow. He gave him Jim Crow. And when his wrinkled stomach cried out for
the food that his empty pockets could not provide, he ate Jim Crow, a psychological bird that told him
that no matter how bad off he was, at least he was a white man, better than the black man. And he ate
Jim Crow. And when his undernourished children cried out for the necessities that his low wages could
not provide, he showed them the Jim Crow signs on the buses and in the stores, on the streets and in
the public buildings. And his children, too, learned to feed upon Jim Crow, their last outpost of psychological
oblivion.
Thus, the threat of the free exercise of the ballot by the Negro and the white masses alike resulted
in the establishment of a segregated society. They segregated southern money from the poor whites; they
segregated southern mores from the rich whites; they segregated southern churches from Christianity;
they segregated southern minds from honest thinking; and they segregated the Negro from everything.
That's what happened when the Negro and white masses of the South threatened to unite and build a great
society: a society of justice where none would prey upon the weakness of others; a society of plenty
where greed and poverty would be done away; a society of brotherhood where every man would respect the
dignity and worth of human personality.
There are two elephants in the room, class and technology. Both are distorted
by those in power in order to ensure their continued rule. It seems to me the technology
adopted by a society determines its class structure.
So much of todays discussion revolves around justifying the inappropriate use of
technology, it seems inevitable that only a major breakdown of essential technological
systems will afford the necessary space to address growing social problems.
E.F. Schumacher addressed all this in the 70's with his work on appropriate technologies. Revisiting
the ideas of human scale systems offers a way to actively and effectively deal with todays needs while
simultaneously trying to change larger perspectives and understanding of the citizenry. While Schumacher's
work was directed at developing countries, the impoverishment of the working class makes it relevant
in the US today.
Addressing our technology question honestly will lead to more productive changes in class structure
than taking on the class issue directly. Direct class confrontation is violent. Adopting human scale
technology is peaceful. In the end what stands for a good life will win out. I'm working for human scale.
Thought experiment: If you opposed Clarence Thomas and Sarah Palin does that
make you a racist and a sexist?
Or, is it only when someone votes against a supposed liberal? And when Hillary
supported Cuomo over Teachout for NY Governor, none of her supporters labeled her
a Cuomobros.
Hillary received millions fewer votes than Obama because she was a seriously flawed candidate who
could not muster any excitement. The only reason she received 60 million is because she was running
against Trump. The play on identity politics was pure desperation.
"So this gave force to the idea that
the government was nothing but a viper's nest full
of crony capitalist enablers
, which in turn helped to unleash populism on the right (the
Left being marginalised or co-opted by their Wall Street/Silicon Valley donor class). And this
gave us Trump.
Add to that HRC's neocon foreign policy instincts
, which could have got
us in a war with Russia and maybe the American electorate wasn't so dumb after all."
I voted for Hillary, but it was not easy.
I agree that identity politics of the DNC variety have passed their pull date. Good riddance.
Here's another thought experiment: were voters who chose Obama over Hillary
in the 2008 primary sexists? Were Hillary's voters racists?
I don't think you give the Democratic establishment enough credit for obtuseness by characterizing
their identity politics play as "desperation". I have several sisters who were sucked in by Hillary's
"woman" card, and it made them less than receptive to hearing about her record of pay-for-play, proxy
warmongering, and baseless Russia-bashing.
And it turned people like me – who would choose a woman over a man, other things being equal –
into sexists for not backing Hillary (I voted for Stein).
Yes. If Hillary had been elected I felt like we would have been played by someone
who is corrupt and with no real interest in the working/middle class. We would
have slogged through another 4 years with someone who arrogantly had both a private
and public position and had no real interest in climate change (she was very pro
fracking), financial change (giving hour long $250,000 speeches to banks) or health
care (she laughed at the idea of single payer although that's what most people
want).
Sanders had opposite views on these 3 issues and would have been an advocate of real change which
is why he was so actively opposed by the establishment and very popular with the people as evidenced
by his huge rallies.
Trump was seen by many as the only real hope for some change. As mentioned previously we've already
seen 2 very beneficial outcomes of his being elected by things calming down with Syria and Russia and
with TPP apparently being dead in the water.
Another positive could be a change in the DOJ to go after white collar criminals of which we have
a lot.
Climate change is I think an important blind spot but he has shown the capacity to be flexible and
not as much of an ideologue as some. It's possible that as he sees some of his golf courses go under
water he could change his mind. It can be helpful if someone in power changes his mind on an important
issue as this can relate better to other doubters to come to the same conclusion.
Getting back to class I watched the 2003 movie Seabiscuit a few days ago. This film was set in the
depression period and had clips of FDR putting people back to work. It emphasized the dignity that this
restored to them. It's a tall order but I think that's what much of Trump's base is looking for.
Whilst I agree with the points made, there is a BIG miss for me.
Unless I missed it – where are the comments on corruption? This is not a partisan point of view,
but to make the issue entirely focussed on class misses the point that the game is rigged.
Holder, an Obama pick, unless I am mistaken, looked the other way when it came to investigating and
prosecuting miscreants on Wall Street. The next in line for that job was meeting Bill behind closed
so that Hillary could be kept safe. Outrageous.
The Democratic party's attempts to make this an issue about race is so obviously a crass attempt
at manipulation that only the hard of thinking could swallow it.
The vote for Trump was a vote against corrupt insiders. Maybe he will turn out to be the same.
To your point; dumbfounded that a country that proposes to be waging a "War on Drugs" pardons
home grown banking entities that laundered money for drug dealers.
If you or I attempted such foolishness – we'd be incarcerate in a heartbeat.
Monty Python (big fan), at it's most silly and sophomoric – could not write this stuff…
Yep – para 7. A bit of a passing reference to the embedded corruption
and payola for congress and the writing of laws by lobbyists.
And yes, war on drugs is pretty much a diversionary tactic to give the impression that the
rule of law is still in force. It is for you an me……. for the connected, corrupt, not so much!
This goes beyond corruption. It is one thing to be selling public infrastructure
construction contracts to crony capitalist contributors (in the Clintons' case
do we call them philanthropists?) – entirely another to be selling guns and
bombs used by Middle Eastern despots to grind down (IOW blow up, murder) opposition
to their corrupt regimes.
In fact, most of Western Civilization (sic?) seems
to be happy with the status quo of a 'post-industrial' America as the "exceptional
nation" whose only two functions are consuming the world's wealth and employing
military Keynesianism to maintain a global social order based on money created
ex nihilo by US and international bankers and financiers.
This conspiracy has emerged from the Podesta emails. It was Clinton conspiring with mainstream
media to elevate Trump and then tear him down. We have to now look at all the media who endorsed
Hillary as simply corrupt. Simultaneously, Hillary said that Bernie had to be ground down to the
pulp. Further leaked emails showed how the Democratic National Committee sabotaged Sanders' presidential
campaign. It was Hillary manipulating the entire media for her personal gain. She obviously did
not want a fair election because she was too corrupt.
What is very clear putting all the emails together, the rise of Donald Trump was orchestrated
by Hillary herself conspiring with mainstream media, and they they sought to burn him to the ground.
Their strategy backfired and now this is why she has not come out to to speak against the violence
she has manipulated and inspired.
It seems to be clear the Democratic Party needs to purge itself of the Clinton – Obama influence.
Is Sanders' suggestion for the DNC head a good start or do we need to look elsewhere?
What are are getting now are attempts by the Dems (and let me state here I am not fan of the
Repubs – the distinction is a false one) to point to anything other than the problem that is right
in front of them.
What we are witnessing is a political crisis because the system is geared against the citizen.
And journalists/media are complicit. Where is the cutting investigative journalism? There is
none – the headlines should be screaming it. Thanks God (or whoever) for blogs like these.
There has been a coup I believe. The cooperation and melding of corporate and political power,
and the interchange of power players between the two has left the ordinary person nowhere to go.
This is not a left vs right, Dem vs Repub argument. Those are distinctions are there to keep us
busy and to provide the illusion.
Chris Hedges likend politics to American Pro Wrestling – that is what we are watching!
The idea that a guy who ran casinos in New Jersey, and whose background was
too murky to get a casino license in Nevada, will be the one to clean up corruption
in DC is a level of gullibility beyond my comprehension.
a lot of people out there need 10 baggers. I sure do.
Why work? I mean really. It sucks but what's your choice? The free market solution is to kill yourself
- that's what slaves could have done. If you don't like slavery, then just kill yourself! Why complain?
You're your own boss of "You Incorporated" and you can choose who to work for! Even nobody.
the 10-bagger should be just for billionaires. Even a millionaire has a hard time because there's
only so much you can lose before you're not a millionaire. Then you might have to work!
If most jobs didn't suck work wouldn't be so bad. That's the main thing, make jobs that don't suck
so you don't drown yourself in tattoos and drugs. It's amazing how many people have tattoos. Drugs are
less "deplorable" haha. Some are good - like alcohol, Xanax, Tylenol, red wine, beer, caffeine, sugar,
donuts, cake, cookies, chocolate. Some are bad, like the shlt stringy haired meth freaks take. If they
had good jobs it might give them something better to do,
How do you get good jobs and not shlt jobs? That's not entirely self evident. In the meantime, the
10 bagger at least gets you some breathing room so you can think about it. Even if you think for free,
it's OK since you don't have to work. Working gets in the way of a lot of stuff that you'd rather be
doing. Like nothing,
The amazing thing is this: no matter how much we whinge, whine, bitch moan, complain, rant, rail,
fulminate, gripe, huarrange (that mght be speled wrong), incite, joculate, kriticize, lambaste, malign,
naysay, prevaricate, query, ridicule, syllogize, temporize, ululate (even Baudelaire did that I red
on the internet), yell and (what can "Z" be? I don't want to have to look something up I'm too lazy,
how about "zenophobiasize" hahahahahahahah,
The amazing thing is: million of fkkkers want to come here and - get this! - THEY WON'T COMPLAIN
ABOUT ANY OF THE SHT WE DO!
""By making him aware he has more in common with the black steel workers by
being a worker, than with the boss by being white."
Sooo, they spent a generation telling the white worker that he was a racist, sexist bigot, mocking
his religion, making his kids read "Heather Has Two Mommies" in school, and blaming him for economic
woes caused in New York and DC.
Actually, too many white workers are racist, sexist, and think everyone is
a rabid Christian just like them. I ought to know because I live in red rural
Pennsylvania. I'm not mocking you folks, but I am greatly pissed off that you
just don't mind your own damn business and stop trying to force your beliefs
on others. And I don't want to hear that liberals are forcing their beliefs
on others; we're just asking you follow our laws and our Constitution when it
comes to liberty and justice for all.
And for every school that might have copies of "Heather Has Two Mommies," I can give you a giant
list of schools that want to ban a ton of titles because some parent is offended. One example is
the classic "Brave New World" by Aldus Huxley. "Challenged in an Advanced Placement language composition
class at Cape Henlopen High School in Lewes, Del. (2014). Two school board members contend that while
the book has long been a staple in high school classrooms, students can now grasp the sexual and
drug-related references through a quick Internet search." Source: Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom,
May 2014, p. 80.
Quick internet search, my ass. Too many conservatives won't even use the internet to find real
facts because that would counter the right-wing meme.
And for every school that might have copies of "Heather Has Two Mommies,"
I can give you a giant list of schools that want to ban a ton of titles
because some parent is offended.
And for every liberal/progressive politician, I can give a you basket of shitty policies, such
as charter schools, shipping jobs overseas, cutting social security, austerity, the grand bargain,
Obamacare, drones, etc.
Great. So the library has a copy of "Heather Has Two Mommies." Or not. Who cares? The United
Colors of Benetton worldview doesn't matter a fig when I'm trying to pay for rising health care,
rent, College education, retirement costs, etc.
Tryng lately to get my terminology straight, and I think the policies
you itemized should be labeled neoliberal, not liberal/progressive. Neoliberalism
seems to be the one that combines the worst features of the private sector
with the worst features of the public sector, without the good points
of either one.
It seems to me that you're referencing a certain historical model
of "liberal" that doesn't, nay, cannot exist anymore. A No-True-Scotsman
fallacy, as I see it.
We can only deal with what we have in play, not some pure historical
abstraction.
But for the sake of argument, let's say that a distinction can be made between neoliberal
and "real" liberalism. Both entities, however you want to differentiate/describe them, serve
as managers to capital. In other words, they just want to manage things, to fiddle with
the levers at the margin.
We need a transfer of power, not a new set of smart managers.
The right has spent a generation supporting rabidly bigoted media like Rush
Limbaugh and Fox News making sure the white working class blame all their ills
on immigrants, minorities, feminists and stirring up a Foaming Outrage of the
Week at what some sociology professor said at a tiny college somewhere.
Kiss up, kick down authoritarianism. It's never the fault of the people with all the money and
all the power who control their economic lives.
"... Trump has blamed George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for helping to create ISIS - but should add John Bolton to that list, who essentially agreed with all three on our regime change debacles. ..."
"... In 2011, Bolton bashed Obama "for his refusal to directly target Gaddafi" and declared, "there is a strategic interest in toppling Gaddafi… But Obama missed it." In fact, Obama actually took Bolton's advice and bombed the Libyan dictator into the next world. Secretary of State Clinton bragged , "We came, we saw, he died." ..."
"... All nuance is lost on the man. The fact that Russia has had a base in Syria for 50 years doesn't deter Bolton from calling for all out, no holds barred war in Syria. Bolton criticized the current administration for offering only a tepid war. For Bolton, only a hot-blooded war to create democracy across the globe is demanded. ..."
"... Bolton would not understand this because, like many of his generation, he used every privilege to avoid serving himself. Bolton said, with the threat of the Vietnam draft over his head, that "he had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy." ..."
"... But he's seems to be okay with your son or daughter dying wherever his neoconservative impulse leads us ..."
Bolton was one of the loudest advocates of overthrowing Saddam Hussein and still stupefyingly insists
it was the right call 13 years later. "I still think the decision to overthrow Saddam was correct,"
Bolton
said
just last year.
Trump, rightly, believes that decision was a colossal mistake that destabilized the region. "Iraq
used to be no terrorists," Trump said in 2015. "(N)ow it's the Harvard of terrorism."
"If you look at Iraq from years ago, I'm not saying he was a nice guy, he was a horrible guy,"
Trump said of Saddam Hussein, "but it was a lot better than it is right now."
Trump has said U.S. intervention in Iraq in 2003 "helped to throw the region into chaos and gave
ISIS the space it needs to grow and prosper." In contrast, Bolton has
said explicitly that he wants to repeat Iraq-style regime change in Syrian and Iran.
You can't learn from mistakes if you don't see mistakes.
Trump has blamed George W. Bush,
Barack
Obama and Hillary Clinton for helping to create ISIS - but should add John Bolton to that list,
who essentially agreed with all three on our regime change debacles.
In 2011, Bolton
bashed Obama "for his refusal to directly target Gaddafi" and declared, "there is a strategic
interest in toppling Gaddafi… But Obama missed it." In fact, Obama actually took Bolton's advice
and bombed the Libyan dictator into the next world. Secretary of State Clinton
bragged , "We came, we saw, he died."
When Trump was asked last year if Libya and the region would be more stable today with Gaddafi
in power, he
replied "100 percent." Mr. Trump is
100 percent right .
No man is more out of touch with the situation in the Middle East or more dangerous to our national
security than Bolton.
All nuance is lost on the man. The fact that Russia has had a base in Syria for 50 years doesn't
deter Bolton from calling for all out, no holds barred war in Syria. Bolton criticized the current
administration for offering only a tepid war. For Bolton, only a hot-blooded war to create democracy
across the globe is demanded.
Woodrow Wilson would be proud, but the parents of our soldiers should be mortified. War should
be the last resort, never the first. War should be understood to be a hell no one wishes for. Dwight
Eisenhower
understood
this when he wrote, "I hate war like only a soldier can, the stupidity, the banality, the futility."
Bolton would not understand this because, like many of his generation, he used every privilege
to avoid serving himself. Bolton said, with the threat of the Vietnam draft over his head, that "he
had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy."
But he's seems to be okay with your son or
daughter dying wherever his neoconservative impulse leads us: "Even before the Iraq War, John Bolton
was a leading brain behind the neoconservatives' war-and-conquest agenda," notes
The American Conservative's Jon Utley.
At a time when Americans thirst for change and new thinking, Bolton is an old hand at failed foreign
policy.
Nearly 60% (58.3%) of the population in Ukraine lives below the poverty line, according to data of
the M.V. Ptukha Institute of Demography and Social Surveys, the National Academy of Science of Ukraine.
In 2015, this indicator was half as much – 28.6%. "The poverty index has increased twofold along
with the actual cost of living," says Svetlana Polyakova , the leading research fellow at the Living
Standard Department at the Demography Institute. "In addition, within the past year, we saw a growth
of the poverty level defined by the UN criteria for estimation of internationally comparable poverty
line in Central and Eastern Europe."
The highest poverty line was registered among the families having at least one child – 38.6% and
pensioners – 23%. The situation may deteriorate this year. According to the State Service of Statistics,
savings of Ukrainians in April-June fell by 5.297billion hryvnias (more than $200 million at the
current exchange rate).
The cost of living in Ukraine in 2016 makes up 1,544 hryvnias (about $60).
Earlier, Prime Minister of Ukraine Volodymyr Groysman said the previous policy of populism and
"money printing and distribution to people" made the country weaker and the people poorer.
"... Earning your living in finance or the related co-dependent fields such as economics, business management, certain areas of law and, most especially, information technology, you quickly pick up on the cult mentality that pervades it. ..."
"... When, like so many of us, you're desperate to try to cling onto some semblance of middle class status, you're an easy and, although I'd strongly qualify this statement, understandable, target for buying into the group-think. ..."
"... " Markets " do not " demand " anything. ..."
"... But a "market" can - at the very most, through the use of pricing signals - induce actors to consider entering into a transaction. ..."
"... They provided credit to low income customers because it was insanely profitable. The reason it was insanely profitable was that the loans to the low income customers could be securitised and the commissions the banks earned on the sale of those securities paid for massive bonus pools which directly benefitted bank employees. ..."
"... Yes, I'd always be the first to agree with the proverb "In Heaven you get justice, here on Earth we have the law". The law and our legal systems are not perfect. But they are not that shabby either. ..."
"... If it is regulatory interventions, rather than criminal indictments, that the Streetwise Professor is referring to, the banks can and do leave no political stone unturned in their efforts to water down, delay and neuter regulatory bodies. Look , if you can do so without wincing, at what has happened to the SEC. ..."
"... It wasn't a " pre-crisis political bargain " that caused the Global Financial Crisis. It was financial innovation that was supposed to "free" the financial services industry to allow it to soar to ever greater heights, heights that couldn't be reached with cumbersome "legacy" thinking. If that sounds a lot like Mike Hearn's Blockchain justifications, it's because it is exactly the same thing. ..."
"... Innovation must never be viewed only through separate, disconnected lenses of "technology", "politics", "ethics", "economics", "power relationships" and "morality". Each specific innovation is subject to and either lives or dies by the interplay between these forces." ..."
"... I agree - however, "I don't mind people doing dangerous things" should require a little elucidation. What you likely meant to say was you don't mind people doing dangerous things, WITHIN REASON. ..."
"... Also, there is the rank unwillingness on the part of regulators to, you know, actually do their jobs. I can no longer count the number of times Yellen has sat in front of the Senate banking committee like a deer in headlights ..."
"... Excellent points, I thought that the Bush Wars were initiated to alleviate an oncoming recession as well as ensure W's reelection ..."
"... It did take them a while to get the pieces in place, the Banksters Real Estate Fraud Appraisals were identified as early as 2000, then the Banksters Fraudulent Loans peaked in 2006, and then we had the Banksters Fraudulent Reps and Warranties . ..."
"... Ah, the neo-liberals and the libertarians make their arguments by redefining terms and eliding facts. Once the audience agrees that up is down, why then their arguments are reasonable, dispassionate, and offered in dulcet tones of humble sincerity and objectivity. ..."
"... What a pleasure, then, to read your cold water smack-down of their confidence game. Perhaps they believed their own nonsense. Who knows. ..."
"... A third consequence of modern-day liberals' unquestioning, reflexive respect for expertise is their blindness to predatory behavior if it comes cloaked in the signifiers of professionalism. ..."
"... The difference in interpretation carries enormous consequences: Did Wall Street commit epic fraud, or are they highly advanced professionals who fell victim to epic misfortune? modern day liberals pretty much insist on the later view . Wall Street's veneer of professionalism is further buttressed by its technical jargon, which the financial industry uses to protect itself from the scrutiny of the public ..."
Earning your living in finance or the related co-dependent fields such as economics, business
management, certain areas of law and, most especially, information technology, you quickly pick up
on the cult mentality that pervades it.
When, like so many of us, you're desperate to try to cling onto some semblance of middle class
status, you're an easy and, although I'd strongly qualify this statement, understandable, target
for buying into the group-think. Or at least going along with it on the promise of continued
employment. While I'm letting myself off the hook in the process, I think that's forgivable. I and
others like me need the money. Besides, in our spare time, we might try to atone for our misdeeds
by using whatever means we have available, such as contributing to Naked Capitalism in whatever way
we can, to try to set the record straight.
Not quite so easily forgivable, though, are the members of an altogether different cadre who don't
give the impression of having to live paycheck to paycheck. What is it that motivates them? Why do
they willingly devise clever - and, I have to say it, some are exceptionally adept - ruses to defend
and further the causes of our élites?
... ... ...
As readers with not-so-long memories will recall, in the run-up to the Global Financial Crisis,
the TBTFs did indeed exercise the " FU Option ". As asset prices for the securities they held
fell precipitously, they held more and more of those assets on their balance sheets, refusing to
- or unable to - off-load them into a market that was shunning them. Eventually their capital cushions
were so depleted because of this, they became insolvent. Staring catastrophe in the face, governments
were put into a double-bind by the TBTFs: Rescue us through bail-outs or stand by and see our societies
suffer major collateral damage (bank runs, a collapse of world trade, ruining of perfectly good and
solvent businesses with the likelihood of mass unemployment and civil unrest).
In that situation, who was the " U " who was being " F "'ed? It was governments
and the public.
Faced with an asymmetry of power, in a reverse of the scenario painted by the Streetwise Professor
for OTC trading (where a notional seller tells a theoretical buyer they can go to Hell if they don't
want to pay the price the seller is asking), governments - and us - found themselves on the buy-side
of an " FU Option ". "F the-rest-of-us By Necessity" was a better description as we were
turned into forced buyers of what no other "market participant" would touch.
My dear Professor, allow me to give you , if I may risk the label of being impudent,
a lesson. If I am selling my prized Diana, Princess of Wales tea cups in a yard sale and you make
me a offer for them, that - I'm sure we'd agree on this point - is an OTC transaction. There's no
exchange (mercifully) for Diana, Princess of Wales tea cups. I put a price sticker on them. If you
want them, you pay the price I'm asking. Or else, you make me a different offer. If you don't pay
the price I want, or I don't accept the price you're offering, we do, indeed, have a genuine "
FU Option " scenario. But if instead my mother-in-law threatens to saw your face off with her
cheese grater if you don't buy my Diana, Princess of Wales tea cups at the price shown on the sticker,
then we no longer have an OTC transaction. We have extortion. See the difference?
That's not all. The piece discusses the differences between a proposed smart-contract based settlement
compared with a centralised counterparty which brings up some very valid points. But then it makes
a serious blunder which is introduced with some subtly but is all the more dangerous because of it.
I'll highlight the problem:
So the proposal does some of the same things as a CCP, but not all of them, and in fact omits
the most important bits that make central clearing central clearing. To the extent that these other
CCP services add value–or regulation compels market participants to utilize a CCP that offers these
services–market participants will choose to use a CCP, rather than this service. It is not a perfect
substitute for central clearing, and will not disintermediate central clearing in cases where the
services it does not offer and the functions it does not perform are demanded by market participants
, or by regulators.
Did you catch what is the most troubling thing in that paragraph? The technicalities of it are
fine, but the bigger framing is perilous. "Market participants" is given agency. And put on the same
level as actions taken by regulators. This is at best unintentionally misleading and at worse an
entirely deliberate falsehood.
The fallacious thinking which caused it is due to a traditional economist's mind-set. But this
mind-set is hopelessly wrong and every time we encounter it, we must challenge it. Regardless of
what other progressive goodies it is being bundled up with.
" Markets " do not " demand " anything.
A regulator or central bank can demand that a bank hold more capital and open its books
to check the underlying asset quality. The CFPB can demand that Wells Fargo stops opening fake accounts.
Even I can demand a pony. The power structures, laws, enforcement and levels of trust (to name the
main constraints) governing who is demanding what from whom determine how likely they will be to
have their demands met.
But a "market" can - at the very most, through the use of pricing signals - induce actors
to consider entering into a transaction. The pricing signal cannot make any potential
actor participate in that transaction. Not, probably, that it would have helped her much, but Hillary
Clinton could have created a market for left-wing bloggers to shill for Obamacare by offering Lambert
$1million to start churning out pro-ACA posts on his blog. But that market which Hillary could create
could not "demand" Lambert accept her offer. Lambert would not take that, or any other monetary amount,
and would never enter such a transaction. Markets have limits.
Whether unintentionally or by design, we have a nice example of bait and switch in the Streetwise
Professor's Blockchain article. If you run a critique of Blockchain, you'll likely attract an anti-libertarian
audience. It's a classic example of
nudge theory . If you can
lure readers in with the promise of taking a swipe at disruptive innovation nonsense but then lead
them to being suckered into a reinforcement of failed conventional free-market hogwash, that can
be a powerful propaganda tool.
But perhaps the Blockchain feature was an aberration, just a one-off? No.
Take, for example, this feature
on Deutsche Bank from earlier this month which I'll enter as Exhibit B - It's not the TBTFs Fault,
the Regulators / Governments / Some Guy / Made Us Do It
I'll leave the worst 'til last, but for now let's start with this little treasure:
the pre-crisis political bargain was that banks would facilitate income redistribution
policy by provide credit to low income individuals. This seeded the crisis (though like any complex
event, there were myriad other contributing causal factors), the political aftershocks of which
are being felt to this day. Banking became a pariah industry, as the very large legal settlements
extracted by governments indicate.
No, Streetwise Professor, banks did not provide credit to low income individuals as part of some
"political bargain". They provided credit to low income customers because it was insanely profitable.
The reason it was insanely profitable was that the loans to the low income customers could be securitised
and the commissions the banks earned on the sale of those securities paid for massive bonus pools
which directly benefitted bank employees.
Almost unimaginable wealth could be generated by individuals (the Naked Capitalism archive details
the full sordid story of the likes of Magnetar). The fact that this would all blow up eventually
was certainly predicable and even known by many actors in the prevailing milieu but they didn't care.
They knew they'd have already set themselves up for life financially even after just a few years
in that "game". Politics, for once, had nothing to do with it, save perhaps that regulators, which
are the politicians' responsibility, should have been better able to spot what was going on.
But the Streetwise Professor is only just getting started with the counterfactual misinformation:
It is definitely desirable to have mechanisms to hold financial malfeasors accountable,
but the Deutsche episode illustrates several difficulties. The first is that even the biggest
entities can be judgment proof, and imposing judgments on them can have disastrous economic externalities.
Another is that there is a considerable degree of arbitrariness in the process, and the results
of the process. There is little due process here, and the risks and costs of litigation mean that
the outcome of attempts to hold bankers accountable is the result of a negotiation between the
state and large financial institutions that is carried out in a highly politicized environment
in which emotions and narratives are likely to trump facts. There is room for serious doubt about
the quality of justice that results from this process.
A casual skim could leave the reader with the impression that the Streetwise Professor is lamenting,
rightly, the persistency of the TBTF model. But there's something really dastardly being concocted
here - the notion that in our societies, the rule of law is always and inevitably fallible and not
fit for the purpose of bringing errant TBTFs to justice. And that, if a case is brought against a
TBTF like Deutsche, then it can't help but become a political football.
Yes, I'd always be the first to agree with the proverb "In Heaven you get justice, here on
Earth we have the law". The law and our legal systems are not perfect. But they are not that shabby
either. Any quick parse through the judgments which the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.K. Supreme
Court or the European Court of Justice (to name only a few) hand down on complex cases - often running
to hundreds or even a thousand pages - demonstrates that courts can and do consider fairly and justly
the evidence that prosecutors present and make balanced rulings. And banks can utilize the same legal
safeguards that the law provides - they're not likely to be short of good legal advice options. Trying,
as the Steetwise Professor does, to claim that the TBTFs can't get justice is an insult to our judicial
systems and acceptance of this notion followed by any routine repetition serves to undermine faith
in the rule of law.
If it is regulatory interventions, rather than criminal indictments, that the Streetwise Professor
is referring to, the banks can and do leave no political stone unturned in their efforts to water
down, delay and neuter regulatory bodies.
Look , if you can do so without wincing, at
what has happened to the SEC.
It wasn't a " pre-crisis political bargain " that caused the Global Financial Crisis. It was
financial innovation that was supposed to "free" the financial services industry to allow it to soar
to ever greater heights, heights that couldn't be reached with cumbersome "legacy" thinking. If that
sounds a lot like Mike Hearn's Blockchain justifications, it's because it is exactly the same thing.
In summary, when you throw brickbats at a fellow blogger, it seems to me that you have a moral
obligation to put your cards on the table, to explain your motivations. I don't have to write for
a living ("just as well", I hear forbearing readers shout back). I don't take a penny from Naked
Capitalism's hard-wrung fundraisers, although Yves has generously offered a very modest stipend in
line with other contributors, I cannot conscientiously take anything for what I submit. I write in
the hope that I have some small insights that would help to undo some of the damage which big finance
has done to our cultures, our shared values and our aspirations for what we hope the future will
be for us and others.
That's what motivates me, anyway. After reading his output, I'm really still not at all sure what
is motivating the Streetwise Professor. Certainly there is nothing at all to suggest that he is interested
in rebuking or revising any of the traditional thought-forms which pass for the so-called science
of economics. Conventional economic theory is the ultimate in betrayal of the use of rational methodology
to provide air-cover for élite power grabs. It'll take more than a refutation of Blockchain spin
to convince me that the Streetwise Professor is ready to kick away the more odious ladders - like
being a professional economist - that have given him the leg-ups to the lofty perch he enjoys occupying.
About Clive
Survivor of nearly 30 years in a TBTF bank. Also had the privilege of working in Japan,
which was great, selling real estate, which was an experience bordering on the psychedelic.
View all posts by Clive →
I disagree on the first bit. Even at this blog, Yves mentiones not quite rarely the dangers
of tight coupling. The central exchanges create exactly that. Yes, the FU option of OTC is dangerous.
But then, everything is dangerous, and if I have to choose between tight coupling dangerous option
and loose coupling one, I'll chose the lose coupling one.
The problem is that the regulators refused to recognise that the institutions gamed the regulations
– moving stuff from trading to banking books. It is recognised now, under the new regulation,
although I still have some doubts about its effectivness.
To me all the para says is: markets demand services, and CCP don't offer them – and don't have
to. Regulators demand services (to be offered by CCP), and CCP deliver.
And sorry, I also disagree with your "markets participants demand". The text says "services
[ ] are demanded [by potential clients and by regulators]". I can't honestly see what's the problem
with that. Of course, regulatory demand, and a client demand are two different things – the former
you ignore at your peril, the second you can ignore to your heart's content.
But markets (or, I'd say agents that want to purchase – or sell) _always_ demand something,
and always offer something – otherwise there would not be any market or exchange of services (it
doesn't have to be there even with offer and demand, but in the absence of one it definitely won't
be there).
You could happily change the word to "require" "want" etc. and the meaning of the para would
remain unchanged.
The problem I had with the notion that OTC reduces tight coupling is that it gives the appearance
of reducing tight couple but doesn't actually do this. While "the market" is functioning within
its expected parameters, OTC is less tightly coupled than an Exchange. But as we saw first-hand
in the GFC, those markets function, right up until the point where they don't. By continuing to
function, or certainly giving the appearances of continuing to be functioning, they hide the stresses
which are building up within them but no-one can see. Unless you are deeply plumbed in to the
day-to-day operational activities of the OTC market and can spot signs - and that's all they are,
signs, you don't get to take a view of the whole edifice - you simply don't have a clue. There
were, at most, only a couple of dozen people in the organisation itself and outside it who knew
that my TBTF was a day away from being unable to open for business. That was entirely down to
information asymmetry and that asymmetry was 100% down to OTC prevalence.
And all the while TBTF isn't fixed, then as soon as the OTC market(s) fall off a cliff, the
public provision backstops can be forced to kick in. Yes, everything is dangerous. I don't mind
people doing dangerous things. But I do mind an awful lot being asked to pick up the pieces when
their dangerous things blow up in their faces and they expect me to sort the mess out. If that
is the dynamic, and to me, it most definitely is, then I want the actors who are engaged in the
dangerous things to be highly visible, I want them right where I can see them. Not hiding their
high-risk activities in an OTC venue that I'm not privy to.
And I stick by my objection to the - what I can't see how it isn't being deliberate - fuzziness
or obfuscation about who gets to "demand" and who is merely allowed "invite" parties to a transaction
to either perform or not perform of their own volition. This isn't an incidental semantic about
vocabulary. It goes to the heart of what's wrong with the Streetwise Professor's assessment of
innovation.
Innovation must never be viewed only through separate, disconnected lenses of "technology",
"politics", "ethics", "economics", "power relationships" and "morality". Each specific innovation
is subject to and either lives or dies by the interplay between these forces. My biggest lambaste
of the Streetwise Professor's commentaries is that he examines them only in terms of "technology"
and "economics". In doing so, he reaches partial and inaccurate conclusions.
A 10 year old child might "demand", "require", "ask for", "insist", "claim a right to have"
(use whatever word or phrase you like there) a gun and live ammunition. But they are not, and
should not be, permitted to enter into a transaction to obtain the said gun and ammo based only
on the availability of the technology and the economics that would allow them to satisfy the seller's
market clearing sale price if they saved their pocket money for a sufficient amount of time. The
other forces I listed in my above paragraph are also involved, and just as well.
"Innovation must never be viewed only through separate, disconnected lenses of "technology",
"politics", "ethics", "economics", "power relationships" and "morality". Each specific innovation
is subject to and either lives or dies by the interplay between these forces."
Very well said. I would argue further that "power relationships" structure how all the other
lenses actually operate. In the early sixteenth century the power relationship between the Church,
and Martin Luther, was such that the latter had an opening to redefine "morality"– in such a way
that the Pope's moral opinion was eventually no longer dispositive for Protestants.
In other words, the French invasion of Italy, late in the fifteenth century, weakened the papal
states enough to allow for defiance.
That last sentence, is of course a gross over-simplification! Anyone wishing to know the nitty-gritty
details of how foreign domination over the Italian peninsula was established by the middle of
the sixteenth century should read Machiavelli and Guicciardini.
The latter author's appeal to skepticism, when interpreting the actions and motivations of
powerful people, rings very true five centuries later:
" perché di accidenti tanto memorabili si intendino i consigli e i fondamenti; i quali spesso
sono occulti, e divulgati il piů delle volte in modo molto lontano da quell che č vero."
"Yes, everything is dangerous. I don't mind people doing dangerous things. But I do mind an
awful lot being asked to pick up the pieces when their dangerous things blow up in their faces".
I agree - however, "I don't mind people doing dangerous things" should require a little
elucidation. What you likely meant to say was you don't mind people doing dangerous things, WITHIN
REASON.
And let's face it, much of the prior GFC behaviour was unreasonably dangerous. As it turned
out, not that dangerous to its perpetrators .
Danger, like risk, is a cost-benefit calculation. When that calculation ONLY includes benefits
for its originator & suppresses any (real & calculatable) cost for the community it's already
looking suspiciously like an unreasonable danger .
The problem is that the regulators refused to recognise that the institutions gamed the
regulations – moving stuff from trading to banking books. It is recognised now, under the new
regulation, although I still have some doubts about its effectivness.
Also, there is the rank unwillingness on the part of regulators to, you know, actually
do their jobs. I can no longer count the number of times Yellen has sat in front of the Senate
banking committee like a deer in headlights as Warren tries to get her to give anything like
a straight answer as to why, to this day, many if not most TBTFs have no rapid selloff/solvency
plan (which is required by the Dodd-Frank law) or why those banks that fail their stress tests
(again and again) suffer no consequences as a result.
How is any of this supposed to work when so many are clearly acting in bad faith?
Earning your living in finance or the related co-dependent fields such as economics, business
management, certain areas of law and, most especially, information technology, you quickly
pick up on the cult mentality that pervades it.
If you do not subscribe to the "cult mentality," although I'd prefer to call it a dogma, because
it is a unswerving belief in an unproven fact in the face of evidence the fact is not only unproven,
but wrong, one is "not a team player" and then penalized.
If these libertarian want "open markets" and innovation they have to shed the human response
to proof. In their behavior they are no better than the medieval pope, and his court, who did
not want to believe a the earth travels around the sun.
Medieval popes were probably more open to Pythagorean/Copernican cosmologies than early 17th
century Jesuits (i.e. Bellarmine); the opposition of the latter to Galileo had nothing to do with
science and everything to do with Protestantism and Protestant biblical interpretation. Bellarmine
was wrong and what happened to Galileo was shameful. But many of the best astronomers of the time
were in fact Jesuits, and the traditional way the story is told is inaccurate on almost every
level (and a product of late 19th century Italian nationalism).
this was very interesting stuff. Since a lot of things were coming together in the 90s and
2000s that were all connected in a mess too big to understand simply as immoral banking (freeing
up capital like that was crazy but there must have been a reason to try it besides windfall profiteering
and flat-out gambling), I imagine the following: Greenspan and the TBTFs knew returns were diminishing
and set out to do something about it. Because growth and expanding markets were the only thing
that could keep up with a demand by pension funds (and then little Bush's idiotic war) for a minimum
8% return. But growth was slowing down so the situation required clever manipulations and incomprehensible
things like financial derivatives. Makes sense to me. And if this is even partially true then
there was a political mandate all mixed up with the GFC. The banks really did crazy stuff, but
with the blessing of the Fed. Later when Bernanke said about QE and nirp: "now we are in uncharted
territory" he was fibbing – the Fed had been in uncharted territory, trying to make things work,
for almost 20 years. And failing.
Excellent points, I thought that the Bush Wars were initiated to alleviate an oncoming
recession as well as ensure W's reelection
It did take them a while to get the pieces in place, the Banksters Real Estate Fraud Appraisals
were identified as early as 2000, then the Banksters Fraudulent Loans peaked in 2006, and then
we had the Banksters Fraudulent Reps and Warranties .
WORSE then a bunch of Used Car Salesman, but what else would you expect from people who KEEP
the State Income taxes withheld from their employees checks
This bug can manifest itself for arrays whose length (in elements) is 230 or greater (roughly
a billion elements). This was inconceivable back in the '80s, when Programming Pearls was written,
but it is common these days at Google and other places. In Programming Pearls, Bentley says
"While the first binary search was published in 1946, the first binary search that works correctly
for all values of n did not appear until 1962." The truth is, very few correct versions have
ever been published, at least in mainstream programming languages.
Sorting is, or ought to be, basic blocking and tackling. Very smart, not corrupt people worked
on this. And yet, 2006 – 1946 = 60 years later, bugs are still being discovered.
The nice thing about putting your cash in a coffee can in the back yard is that it won't evaporate
because some hacker gets clever about big numbers.
Ah, the neo-liberals and the libertarians make their arguments by redefining terms and
eliding facts. Once the audience agrees that up is down, why then their arguments are reasonable,
dispassionate, and offered in dulcet tones of humble sincerity and objectivity.
What a pleasure, then, to read your cold water smack-down of their confidence game. Perhaps
they believed their own nonsense. Who knows.
What is the Streetwise Professor's (note the word "professor") real view? Has he thought much
about it or simply imbibed his "owners'" views, making him a useful tool. I don't know.
From the book "Listen, Liberal."
" A third consequence of modern-day liberals' unquestioning, reflexive respect for expertise
is their blindness to predatory behavior if it comes cloaked in the signifiers of professionalism.
Take the sort of complexity we saw in the financial instruments that drove the last financial
crisis. For old-school regulators, I am told, undue financial complexity was an indication of
likely fraud. But for the liberal class, it is the opposite: an indicator of sophistication. Complexity
is admirable in its own right. The difference in interpretation carries enormous consequences:
Did Wall Street commit epic fraud, or are they highly advanced professionals who fell victim to
epic misfortune? modern day liberals pretty much insist on the later view . Wall Street's veneer
of professionalism is further buttressed by its technical jargon, which the financial industry
uses to protect itself from the scrutiny of the public. "
-Thomas Frank
Liberal democracy has always depended on its relationships with an illiberal Other of one
sort or another, and all too often "liberal progressivism" merely means responding to such
relationships in one's own society, the capitalist exploitation of a domestic proletariat,
by "outsourcing" our illiberal tendencies to consist largely of the imperial domination
and subjugation of foreigners.
(Which can even happen inside one's own borders, as long as it remains suitably "illegal";
notice how much less ideologically problematic it is to document the presence and labor of
the most brutally exploited migrant workers in e.g. China or the Gulf Arab states than in more
liberal societies like the US or EU.)
It's the height of either hypocrisy or obliviousness for those who consider themselves
liberal progressives to then act surprised when the people charged with carrying out this domination
and subjugation on our behalf - our Colonel Jessups, if you will - demand that we stop hiding
our society's illiberal underbelly and acknowledge/celebrate it for what it is , a demand
that may be the single most authentic marker of the transition from liberalism to fascism.
In Pareto "elite rotation" terms, the election of Trump definitely means rotation of the US
neoliberal elite. "Status quo" faction of the elite was defeated due to backlash over globalization
and disappearance of meaningful well-paid jobs, with mass replacement of them by McJobs and temps/contractors.
Whether openness about domination and subjugation is an "authentic marker of the transition
from [neo]liberalism to fascism" remains to be seen, unless we assume that this transition (to
the National Security State) already happened long ego.
In a way illegal immigrants in the USA already represented stable and growing "new slaves"
class for decades. Their existence and contribution to the US economy was never denied or suppressed.
And even Greenspan acknowledged that Iraq war was about oil. So Trump put nothing new on the table
other then being slightly more blunt.
Neoliberalism and neo-imperialism show pretty much the contradictions of the older globalist
orders (late 19th c), they are just now distributed so as re-intensify the differences, the combined
etc, and concentrate the accumulation.
And elites are fighting over the spoils.
Yes, neoliberalism and neo-imperialism are much better and more precise terms, then fuzzy notions
like "liberal progressivism" . May be we should use Occam razor and discard the term "[neo]liberal
progressivism". The term "soft neoliberals" is IMHO good enough description of the same.
As for contradictions of the "older globalist orders (late 19th c)" the key difference is that
under neoliberalism armies play the role of "can opener" and after then the direct occupation were
by-and-large replaced with financial institutions and with indirect
"debt slavery". In many cases neoliberal subjugation is achieved via color revolution mechanism,
without direct military force involved.
Neo-colonialism creates higher level of concentration of risks due to the greed of financial
elite which was demonstrated in full glory in 2008. As such it looks less stable then old colonialism.
And it generates stronger backlash, which typically has elements of anti-Americanism, as we see in
Philippines now. Merkel days might also be numbered.
Also TBTF banks are now above the law as imposing judgments on them after the crisis can have
disastrous economic externalities. At the same time the corruption of regulators via revolving door
mechanisms blocks implementing meaningful preventive regulatory reforms.
In other words, like with Soviet nomenklatura, with the neoliberal elite we see the impossibility
of basic change, either toward taming the TBTF or toward modification of an aggressive
neocolonial foreign policy
with its rampant militarism.
"... On Sunday's "60 Minutes," Trump said: "You know, we've been fighting this war for 15 years. … We've spent $6 trillion in the Middle East, $6 trillion - we could have rebuilt our country twice. And you look at our roads and our bridges and our tunnels … and our airports are … obsolete." ..."
"... They want to confront Vladimir Putin, somewhere, anywhere. They want to send U.S. troops to the eastern Baltic. They want to send weapons to Kiev to fight Russia in Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea. ..."
"... At the end of the Cold War, however, with the Soviet Empire history and the Soviet Union having disintegrated, George H.W. Bush launched his New World Order. His son, George W., invaded Iraq and preached a global crusade for democracy "to end tyranny in our world." ..."
"... Result: the Mideast disaster Trump described to Lesley Stahl, and constant confrontations with Russia caused by pushing our NATO alliance right up to and inside what had been Putin's country. ..."
"... The opportunity is at hand for Trump to reconfigure U.S. foreign policy to the world we now inhabit, and to the vital interests of the United States. ..."
However Donald Trump came upon the foreign policy views he espoused, they were as crucial to his
election as his views on trade and the border.
Yet those views are hemlock to the GOP foreign policy elite and the liberal Democratic interventionists
of the Acela Corridor. Trump promised an "America First" foreign policy rooted in the national interest, not in nostalgia.
The neocons insist that every Cold War and post-Cold War commitment be maintained, in perpetuity.
On Sunday's "60 Minutes," Trump said: "You know, we've been fighting this war for 15 years. …
We've spent $6 trillion in the Middle East, $6 trillion - we could have rebuilt our country twice.
And you look at our roads and our bridges and our tunnels … and our airports are … obsolete."
Yet the War Party has not had enough of war, not nearly.
They want to confront Vladimir Putin, somewhere, anywhere. They want to send U.S. troops to the
eastern Baltic. They want to send weapons to Kiev to fight Russia in Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea.
They want to establish a no-fly zone and shoot down Syrian and Russian planes that violate it,
acts of war Congress never authorized.
They want to trash the Iran nuclear deal, though all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies told us, with
high confidence, in 2007 and 2011, Iran did not even have a nuclear weapons program.
Other hardliners want to face down Beijing over its claims to the reefs and rocks of the South
China Sea, though our Manila ally is talking of tightening ties to China and kicking us out of Subic
Bay.
In none of these places is there a U.S. vital interest so imperiled as to justify the kind of
war the War Party would risk.
Trump has the opportunity to be the president who, like Harry Truman, redirected U.S. foreign
policy for a generation.
After World War II, we awoke to find our wartime ally, Stalin, had emerged as a greater enemy
than Germany or Japan. Stalin's empire stretched from the Elbe to the Pacific.
In 1949, suddenly, he had the atom bomb, and China, the most populous nation on earth, had fallen
to the armies of Mao Zedong.
As our situation was new, Truman acted anew. He adopted a George Kennan policy of containment
of the world Communist empire, the Truman Doctrine, and sent an army to prevent South Korea from
being overrun.
At the end of the Cold War, however, with the Soviet Empire history and the Soviet Union having
disintegrated, George H.W. Bush launched his New World Order. His son, George W., invaded Iraq and
preached a global crusade for democracy "to end tyranny in our world."
A policy born of hubris.
Result: the Mideast disaster Trump described to Lesley Stahl, and constant confrontations with
Russia caused by pushing our NATO alliance right up to and inside what had been Putin's country.
How did we expect Russian patriots to react?
The opportunity is at hand for Trump to reconfigure U.S. foreign policy to the world we now inhabit,
and to the vital interests of the United States.
What should Trump say?
As our Cold War presidents from Truman to Reagan avoided World War III, I intend to avert Cold
War II. We do not regard Russia or the Russian people as enemies of the United States, and we
will work with President Putin to ease the tensions that have arisen between us.
For our part, NATO expansion is over, and U.S. forces will not be deployed in any former republic
of the Soviet Union.
While Article 5 of NATO imposes an obligation to regard an attack upon any one of 28 nations
as an attack on us all, in our Constitution, Congress, not some treaty dating back to before most
Americans were even born, decides whether we go to war.
The compulsive interventionism of recent decades is history. How nations govern themselves
is their own business. While, as JFK said, we prefer democracies and republics to autocrats and
dictators, we will base our attitude toward other nations upon their attitude toward us.
No other nation's internal affairs are a vital interest of ours.
Europeans have to be awakened to reality. We are not going to be forever committed to fighting
their wars. They are going to have to defend themselves, and that transition begins now.
In Syria and Iraq, our enemies are al-Qaida and ISIS. We have no intention of bringing down
the Assad regime, as that would open the door to Islamic terrorists. We have learned from Iraq
and Libya.
Then Trump should move expeditiously to lay out and fix the broad outlines of his foreign policy,
which entails rebuilding our military while beginning the cancellation of war guarantees that have
no connection to U.S. vital interests. We cannot continue to bankrupt ourselves to fight other countries'
wars or pay other countries' bills.
The ideal time for such a declaration, a Trump Doctrine, is when the president-elect presents
his secretaries of state and defense.
"... The affluent and rich voted for Clinton by a much broader margin than they had voted for the Democratic candidate in 2012. Among those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000, Clinton benefited from a 9-point Democratic swing. Voters with family incomes above $250,000 swung toward Clinton by 11 percentage points. The number of Democratic voters amongst the wealthiest voting block increased from 2.16 million in 2012 to 3.46 million in 2016-a jump of 60 percent. ..."
"... Clinton's electoral defeat is bound up with the nature of the Democratic Party, an alliance of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus with privileged sections of the upper-middle class based on the politics of race, gender and sexual orientation ..."
"... Over the course of the last forty years, the Democratic Party has abandoned all pretenses of social reform, a process escalated under Obama. Working with the Republican Party and the trade unions, it is responsible for enacting social policies that have impoverished vast sections of the working class, regardless of race or gender. ..."
The elections saw a massive shift in party support among the poorest and wealthiest voters. The share
of votes for the Republicans amongst the most impoverished section of workers, those with family
incomes under $30,000, increased by 10 percentage points from 2012. In several key Midwestern states,
the swing of the poorest voters toward Trump was even larger: Wisconsin (17-point swing), Iowa (20
points), Indiana (19 points) and Pennsylvania (18 points).
The swing to Republicans among the $30,000 to $50,000 family income range was 6 percentage points.
Those with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 swung away from the Republicans compared to 2012
by 2 points.
The affluent and rich voted for Clinton by a much broader margin than they had voted for the
Democratic candidate in 2012. Among those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000, Clinton benefited
from a 9-point Democratic swing. Voters with family incomes above $250,000 swung toward Clinton by
11 percentage points. The number of Democratic voters amongst the wealthiest voting block increased
from 2.16 million in 2012 to 3.46 million in 2016-a jump of 60 percent.
Clinton was unable to make up for the vote decline among women (2.1 million), African Americans
(3.2 million), and youth (1.2 million), who came overwhelmingly from the poor and working class,
with the increase among the rich (1.3 million).
Clinton's electoral defeat is bound up with the nature of the Democratic Party, an alliance
of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus with privileged sections of the upper-middle
class based on the politics of race, gender and sexual orientation.
Over the course of the last forty years, the Democratic Party has abandoned all pretenses
of social reform, a process escalated under Obama. Working with the Republican Party and the trade
unions, it is responsible for enacting social policies that have impoverished vast sections of the
working class, regardless of race or gender.
They are afraid to call neoliberalism with it proper name and inverted alternative label "liberal
progressivism" instead. The content makes more sense if you substitute a proper term, which is done below.
Notable quotes:
"... In Great Britain it's all the fault of the guys who sold Range Rover and Jaguar to some Indians – and the Mini, Bentley and even Rolls Royce to the Germans – and instead of keeping on building stuff we all became either Bankers or Real Estate Agents – with the exceptions of everybody who doesn't have a job – or has a job he no like or get's payed bad. ..."
"... And do you know that there is this old American Indian saying that you can't eat money? ..."
"... The strategy for the 40 year-period since the final gasps of formal imperialism has been to use the military only just enough to ensure a playing field on which the educated elite can press their advantage. And of course use the educated elite to develop better weapons. ..."
"... Trump_vs_deep_state increasingly sounds like a viable strategy; start more and bigger wars so that valor is favored over cleverness. Win those wars, and take tribute from the defeated, instead of paying to rebuild them. If you change a regime, change it to a dictatorship; only a dictator can pay tribute. ..."
"... this has been posted on other threads, but to get a sense of the scale of the problem, have a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWMmBG3Z4DI ignoring of course everything that Wendy Schiller has to say ..."
"... What we are faced with here is a fundamental revolt against all 'neoliberal' trans-national organisations and entities: indeed against globalisation itself, which is why I suspect that in the long run Trump is simply waking up and smelling the coffee when he hints that the EU and Nato have no future (in the very long term the UN itself might be doomed). ..."
"... But apart from these outliers, as Owen Jones argued recently, for most European countries the future might be Poland, where the left has simply ceased to exist and all elected parties are right wing. ..."
"... The story isn't the 1% (well, it is, but not solely) but probably the top 10% (not only in income but educational attainment). ..."
"... I hope the [neo]liberal order survives and is improved, but, tbh, at this stage liberals (for a broad definition) need to start thinking seriously about how they're going to make it work for more people. And if they can't, but continue to get bogged down in the trivial nonsense that makes up so much of liberal politics these days (not personalising this to the OP or anyone here, but in general about contemporary politics) then they deserve to lose. ..."
"... Their reputations as liberals rests mostly on supporting social justice issues. I do not mean to minimize the importance of social justice but for these senators it carries no cost or risk. But when it comes to issues of income inequality, foreign policy (remember those defense contractors), substantive action on climate change or single-payer health care they are nowhere to be found. They will fight on trade issues, both being supporters of TPP, validating the view that they don't care about people working outside of liberal enclaves. ..."
"... The illiberal reality of periods of supposedly liberal governance are, then, quite beside the point. It is about "neoliberalism" (admittedly as wooly a term as they come) as a political narrative, project and agenda-this has fallen apart. ..."
"... [Neo]Liberal politics descended into moralism-smug condescension-instead of addressing people's fears at their root. ..."
The other day,
an article
by Chris Deerin , a writer for the Scottish Daily Mail, appeared on my twitter timeline, retweeted
and endorsed by several people I respect. The article argued Trump and Brexit mean that "neoliberalism"
have lost and that "the model that has more or less dominated Western politics for the past three
decades is defunct. It could not be more dead." "We" misused that hegemony and are responsible for
our own downfall:
We used our hegemony to take down barriers and borders, to connect and build, to (yes) line
our own pockets and smugly luxuriate in the goodness of our ideas and intentions. Meantime, we
forgot about those who weren't able to take part, who weren't benefiting, to whom free trade and
open borders meant greater hardship and uneasy cultural compromises. Or, let's be honest, we didn't
forget – we just chose to conveniently ignore. We stopped asking for their permission, ploughed
on through the warning signs, and fell off the end of the road.
Now "liberal" is a funny old word, mostly used as an insult these days by the Jacobin crowd on
the one hand and conservatives on the other. Still, I can't help but feel that my politics is being
condemned here as infeasible and dead whilst wondering whether it is in fact true that I've enjoyed
such "hegemony" for the past 30 years, because that certainly doesn't gel with my experience. To
get pedantic about it, 30 years takes us back to 1986. Mrs Thatcher was still in power in the UK
and her most illiberal single measure, Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 was still in the
future, outlawing British local authorities from "promoting" homosexuality. In the United States,
Ronald Reagan still had a few years to go, and would then be replaced by former CIA Director George
H.W. Bush. So whenever this neoliberal hegemony started, it was considerably more recently. Presumably,
in the US it starts with Bill Clinton - a man not without his illiberal side - but then gets interrupted
by George W. Bush, whose neoliberalism included Guantanamo and waterboarding, before "normal service'
got re-established by Barack Obama. In the UK, you could make a plausible case that some kind of
"neoliberalism" took power with Tony Blair in 1997 and then ran on all the way to 2010, though the
use of the word "liberal" to describe the attitudes and policies of successive Labour Home Secretaries
such as Straw, Blunkett, Clarke and Reid would be curious. In the United States, the past 30 years
has seen a massive expansion of the prison population, hardly the mark of neoliberalism
Since the article specifically identifies immigration as one of the areas of neoliberal triumph
during this period, it might be worth directing some attention there. Whilst the opening of the UK
to migration from new accession EU countries is a big element that supports the claim, pretty much
everything else in UK policy in the area does not. As the
Migration Observatory reported recently , British immigration law added 89 new types of immigration
offences from 1999 to 2016, compared with only 70 that were introduced between 1905 and 1998. There
was a massive increase in immigration detention in the UK over the same period and in recent years
a series of moral panics about "foreign criminals" that have led to a serious erosion of the rule
of law for some sections of society. Citizenship deprivation has become much more common, and is
now used to punish not only those taking up arms against the state but also some criminals. A tightening
of the spousal visa regime in the UK has separated tens of thousands of children from their parents
and prevented many British citizens from living on the territory with their partner of choice. Meanwhile
in the US, deportations of irregular migrants including people who entered the United States as small
children, disfigured the Obama administration. My Facebook is full of people up in arms about Donald
Trump saying he'll deport 2-3 million, but
where were they when Obama deported 2.5 million? neoliberalism, it would be nice to try some.
And from a social and economic justice perspective, the neoliberal agenda has gone backwards rather
than forwards over much of the period. The Rawlsian ideal of society as a system of co-operation
that both guarantees basic liberties but ensures that society works for the benefit of everyone,
and especially the least advantaged, looks further away now than it did in the 1970s. The "well ordered
society", in some respects recognizably the philosophical expression of the New Deal looks unimaginablly
distant from our present condition. Now political philosophers worry about the relevance of "ideal
theory", which can seem like a Byzantine discussion of the architecture of castles made of chocolate:
back then a fair society seemed almost close enough to touch.
(Not that there haven't been gains also over the past 30 years. Though Section 28 was a setback,
the cause of equality for women and LBGT people has advanced a lot, and in both the UK and the US
we now enjoy equal marriage, an idea unthinkable at the beginning of the period. Racial equality
presents a more mixed picture, notwithstanding the election of Obama.)
So what Deerin's article actually means by "neoliberalism" is a set of policies of free trade,
deregulation and privatization, pursued aggressively by governments of all stripes over the past
thirty years. These have indeed failed people, and policies of austerity coupled with bailouts for
the banks have enraged the voters, so that many people, nostalgic for a more equal and more functional
society but confused about who to blame, have channelled their resentments against immigrants and
minorities.
I wouldn't want to be misunderstood here. What is coming is far far worse than what we've had.
For all of their many faults, Blair, the Clintons, Obama, and even, occasionally, Bush and Cameron
paid lip-service to ideals of freedom and equality, to the rule of law, to the various international
treaties and obligations their countries were parties to, even as they often worked in practice to
evade them. Clinton practised interdiction of refugees on the high seas, but stayed committed to
the letter of the Refugee Convention. Cameron denied poor people access to justice and removed "foreign
criminals" to distant countries without due process, but he included the "rule of law" in the roster
of "British values". In the next period I expect a lot less of the shameful hypocrisy and a great
deal more shameless assertion of power against people who have the wrong skin colour or the wrong
class or live in the wrong country. But what has got us to where we are is not "liberalism"... it
is the systematic neglect of liberal respect for the rights of individuals coupled with the brutal
assertion of deregulation and privatization...
Obviously Mr. Deerin is, on its face, utilizing a very disputable definition of "liberal."
However, I think a stronger case could be made for something like Mr. Deerin's argument, although
it doesn't necessarily get to the same conclusion.
My observation is that the New Class (professionals, lobbyists, financiers, teachers, engineers,
etc.) have ruled the country in recent decades. For much of the twentieth century this class
was in some tension with corporations, and used their skills at influencing government policy
to help develop and protect the welfare state, since they needed the working class as a counterweight
to the natural influence of corporate money and power. However, somewhere around 1970 I think
this tension collapsed, since corporate managers and professionals realized that they shared the
same education, background and interests.
Vive la meritocracy. This "peace treaty" between former rivals allowed the whole newly enlarged
New Class to swing to the right, since they really didn't particularly need the working class
politically anymore. And since it is the hallmark of this class to seek prestige, power and money
while transferring risk away from themselves, the middle class and blue collar community has been
the natural recipient. Free trade (well, for non-professionals, anyway), neoliberalism, ruthless
private equity job cutting, etc., etc. all followed very naturally. The re-alignment of the Democratic
Party towards the right was a natural part of this evolution.
I think the 90% or so of the community who are not included in this class are confused and
bewildered and of course rather angry about it. They also sense that organized politics in
this country – being chiefly the province of the New Class – has left them with little leverage
to change any of this. Watching the bailouts and lack of prosecutions during the GFC made
them dimly realize that the New Class has very strong internal solidarity – and since somebody
has to pay for these little mistakes, everyone outside that class is "fair game."
So in that sense–to the extent that you define liberal as the ideology of the New Class
(neoliberal, financial-capitalistic, big corporate-friendly but opposed to non-meritocratic biases
like racism, sexism, etc.) is "liberalism", I think it is reasonable to say that it has bred resistance
and anger among the "losers." As far as having "failed", well, we'll see: the New Class still
controls almost all the levers of power. It has many strategies for channeling lower-class anger
and I think under Trump we'll see those rolled out.
Let me be clear, I'm not saying Donald Trump is leading an insurgency against the New Class
– but I think he tapped into something like one and is riding it for all he can, while not really
having the slightest idea what he's doing.
Perhaps some evolution in "the means of production" or in how governments are influenced
will ultimately develop to divide or downgrade the New Class, and break its lock on the corridors
of power, but I don't see it on the horizon just yet. If anyone else does, I'd love to hear more
about it.
nastywoman 11.13.16 at 9:48 pm ( )
It's not our fault I agree -(whatever these politics words are you used to call us)
In Great Britain it's all the fault of the guys who sold Range Rover and Jaguar to some
Indians – and the Mini, Bentley and even Rolls Royce to the Germans – and instead of keeping on
building stuff we all became either Bankers or Real Estate Agents – with the exceptions of everybody
who doesn't have a job – or has a job he no like or get's payed bad.
And in the United States of Trump it's even worst. There everything is either Made in China
or Made in Germany and Americans are just people who flip Hamburgers with Facebook and Google
and a few Bankers and a lot more people in Real Estate.
And do you know that there is this old American Indian saying that you can't eat money?
And now the people who got nothing to eat got so mad that all these Americans running around asking
each other whose fault it is.
And I think it's still the fault of the Germans because they now have our Rollses and Bentleys
and they sell them cars to the Americans and Trump for sure has some kind of Bently -(perhaps
even a Continental) and then the people say it's the fault of some political things.
If neoliberalism means political correctness, social constructivism (about gender, race,
etc), identity politics, and mass immigration then of course it has grown in influence over the
past 30 years. It is wilful blindness to say otherwise.
RichardM 11.13.16 at 10:21 pm
To give a view from somewhere up past low orbit, where the globe is the size of a boardgame,
it comes down to this. The US, or perhaps the 5 eyes countries, are a faction. That faction has
two assets that cause it it favor ceetain strategies. One asset is the most advanced military,
the other the best high-end educational system.
The strategy for the 40 year-period since the final gasps of formal imperialism has been
to use the military only just enough to ensure a playing field on which the educated elite can
press their advantage. And of course use the educated elite to develop better weapons.
This strategy is falling apart because the educated are no longer willing to volunteer effort
out of patriotism to develop better weapons; hence the F35. And because those who have plenty
of patriotism, but no particular globally-marketable skills, are offered no narrative that empowers
them, only insulting welfare.
Trump_vs_deep_state increasingly sounds like a viable strategy; start more and bigger wars so that
valor is favored over cleverness. Win those wars, and take tribute from the defeated, instead
of paying to rebuild them. If you change a regime, change it to a dictatorship; only a dictator
can pay tribute.
Arrest your domestic political opponents, or simply have them killed, and you don't need to
worry about meeting the demands of anyone outside your support base. So you have more money to
spend on weapons, even if they are not as high tech: F17s and A10s are enough to beat anyone without
nukes.
That change of strategy is what people mean when they say the end of 'liberal progressivism';
the end of the period where the educated were a key strategic resource.
The centre-left has done particularly bad in this new political situation. The centre
right has held up ok. The far right, is obviously doing fantastically. The far left continues
to trundle along, with some occasional successes (Greece, Nepal) although revolts are quickly
crushed, as they always are, with the remnants of the centre-left collaborating with the centre
and far right to crush it (cf also what's happening to Corbyn). (the 'pink tide' in South America
is also of course fast receding now that Venezuela has run into problems, what with the American
backed coups in Brazil and Honduras). And the centre ground per se has simply evaporated.
What we are faced with here is a fundamental revolt against all 'neoliberal' trans-national
organisations and entities: indeed against globalisation itself, which is why I suspect that in
the long run Trump is simply waking up and smelling the coffee when he hints that the EU and Nato
have no future (in the very long term the UN itself might be doomed). It's noticeable that
on the very very few occasions that the left has won power and actually prospered (e.g. Scotland)
it's very closely aligned, not to traditional internationalism, but to nationalism. CF also Plaid
Cymru which might yet become a force to be reckoned with.
But apart from these outliers, as Owen Jones argued recently, for most European countries
the future might be Poland, where the left has simply ceased to exist and all elected parties
are right wing.
The reasons for this trend are long and complicated (mainly economic, but also cultural), but
trends tend to keep on developing until something pretty harsh stops them: the trend towards totalitarianism
in the 1920s and 1930s was only stopped by WW2: can we really imagine such a cataclysm now, and
are we prepared to pay that price simply so that social democracy might yet again prosper afterwards?
We might not have a choice: WW3 might be upon us sooner than we think. As I pointed out in previous
threads the decline of Empires can be as dangerous as their rise and now that the American Empire
is now unarguably in decline sharks will start to circle: indeed they are already doing so.
Another point is this: 'Just consider a country like Bangladesh. It's a low-lying coastal plain;
it has hundreds of millions of people. As the sea level rises slightly, those people are going
to have to flee. New the chief environmental scientist of Bangladesh recently warned that tens
of millions of people are going to have to flee in the coming years, just from sea level rising.
And he made an interesting comment. He said that if we lived in a just world, these people would
be admitted into the rich countries, the United States, England, and others, because those are
the countries that are responsible for it, and have the capacity to absorb them.
If we think we have an immigrant crisis today, which is non-existent, what is it going to be
like when tens of millions of people are fleeing from rising sea levels? And that's just the beginning.
Just keep to South Asia. The water supply of South Asia comes mostly from glaciers in the Himalaya
Mountains. They are melting. What happens when they disappear? Thea are melting pretty fast. There
goes the water supply for South Asia. Couple of billion people. In India alone, right now, there
are already, about, estimated, 300 million people who barely have access to water. What's going
to happen to them? It's all over the place. Our coastal cities are going to disappear, and the
extreme weather events will increase'. (
http://www.jungundnaiv.de/2016/10/23/noam-chomsky-the-alien-perspective-episode-284-english/
)
Please note this is going to happen: it's now inevitable. Nothing can stop it. In 100 years
time there will be not millions but tens of millions, hundreds of millions of people in the Global
South who will be on the move to the North. And who, politically, will benefit from this? Not
the left.
I have noticed that people on the left don't like talking about this, because they have been
deluding themselves for decades that it won't happen.Well, it will, and it's time to start worrying
about how to keep the progressive flame alive in the increasingly bleak decades that lie ahead
(just to be clear, I don't mean, specifically the next 20 years time, when things will probably
hold together, I mean the 2nd half of the 21st century and beyond).
The other point is to look at the nature of the crisis. People look back to 1930 or even 1848.
Actually the left has not been in such a weak state since maybe the 1820s, and unlike then, there
is no clear path back to power, no clear way forward. I am not saying that I have any solutions,
but we should start by admitting the scale of the disaster and not comforting ourselves with false
hopes (of the 'if only Clinton had done this things would have been alright').
So we really need to rethink things from first principles and, to get back to topic of the
OP think about how to defend liberal values, when the entire trend of history seems to be turning
away form those values, and in a time of severe ecological crisis. We also need to think about
how to apply so to speak supranational values when the supranational entities which previously
instantiated those values no longer exist (or no longer exist in the shape they are in now).
bob mcmanus 11.13.16 at 10:40 pm
"Liberal progressive" is a redundancy. These words have histories: Richard Kline from Naked
Capitalism
Liberals, Progressives, and Radicals 2011, mostly America but some UK references
Posted without comment, wanting to reread both Kline and Bertram.
I am a very minor part of the Jacobin crowd, but today I think I will visit The New Inquiry
at the right and read what their crew of minority women have to say. And I want to mention race
in every comment.
I'm not sure if the distinction between various definitions of [neo]liberalism matters so much.
There's a lot I don't like about contemporary '[neo]liberalism' (in that I would favor a more
redistributionist and social democratic system), but I think I should be classified as someone
broadly in support of the current 'system' (which is to say pro EU, pro an open(ish) global economy,
sympathetic towards immigration etc) I don't get everything I want, but who does?
I get more
than most, and the current order works towards me and my ilk (younger, with access to third level,
ability to move for jobs so on and so forth).
I am not speaking for CB or his preferences here, but I think my profile could be generalised
from. We *are* catered towards. Look at the differences in labor market participation and unemployment
rates between people with differing levels of education. Look at whose values are represented
in the media. Look at whose policy preferences are represented in the political system. The
story isn't the 1% (well, it is, but not solely) but probably the top 10% (not only in income
but educational attainment).
I hope the [neo]liberal order survives and is improved, but, tbh, at this stage liberals
(for a broad definition) need to start thinking seriously about how they're going to make it work
for more people. And if they can't, but continue to get bogged down in the trivial nonsense that
makes up so much of liberal politics these days (not personalising this to the OP or anyone here,
but in general about contemporary politics) then they deserve to lose.
Dr. Hilarius 11.13.16 at 11:38 pm
Meyer at 4 says it well. In my own deep-blue state of Washington, we have two Democratic senators.
They have safe seats and don't face any realistic challenges from the right given voter demographics.
Yet I expect only the most tepid and symbolic action by them to resist Trump's likely policies.
They are already so tied to large corporate interests, including defense contractors, that they
will find ample opportunity for compromise, usually getting nothing of substance in return.
Their reputations as liberals rests mostly on supporting social justice issues. I do not
mean to minimize the importance of social justice but for these senators it carries no cost or
risk. But when it comes to issues of income inequality, foreign policy (remember those defense
contractors), substantive action on climate change or single-payer health care they are nowhere
to be found. They will fight on trade issues, both being supporters of TPP, validating the view
that they don't care about people working outside of liberal enclaves.
Too many liberal politicians sold out to lip service on identity politics while refusing to
antagonize their corporate supporters by pushing for economic changes which might have defused
some of the anger and alienation behind Trump's victory.
[Neo]Liberal politics has failed liberal principles-is that not the point?
The illiberal reality of periods of supposedly liberal governance are, then, quite beside
the point. It is about "neoliberalism" (admittedly as wooly a term as they come) as a political
narrative, project and agenda-this has fallen apart.
[Neo]Liberal politics descended into moralism-smug condescension-instead of addressing people's
fears at their root.
When it comes to countering extremism, [neo]liberal politicians and academics
alike are revealed as clueless and spent. Shaming the shameful just doesn't work. Not on
its own at least. But this is all that the establishmentarian [neo]liberal elite (for this is
not altogether imaginary) have to offer. Condemnation without persuasion, which can only follow
from an understanding of causation.
Hidari #9
"As I pointed out in previous threads the decline of Empires can be as dangerous as their rise
and now that the American Empire is now unarguably in decline sharks will start to circle: indeed
they are already doing so."
How is the American Empire in decline? And how do we measure its decline? Maybe the question
sounds naive, but I see lots of comments in threads here and there about purported U.S. decline
with no explanation for said conclusion.
British diplomat John Glubb wrote a book called "The Fate of Empires and Search For Survival."
Glubb noted that the average age of empires since the time of ancient Assyria (859-612 B.C.)
is 250 years. Only the Mameluke Empire in Egypt and the Levant (1250-1517) made it as far as
267 years. America is 238 years old and is exhibiting signs of decline. All empires begin,
writes Glubb, with the age of pioneers, followed by ages of conquest, commerce, affluence,
intellect and decadence. America appears to have reached the age of decadence, which Glubb
defines as marked by "defensiveness, pessimism, materialism, frivolity, an influx of foreigners,
the welfare state, [and] a weakening of religion."
The most important is probably the fact that the ideology of the current US empire -- neoliberalism
(called here "liberal progressivism") -- became discredited after 2008. What happened after the
collapse of the Marxist ideology with the USSR is well known. It took 46 years (if we assume that
the collapse started in 1945 as the result of victory in WWII, when the Soviet army has a chance
to see the standard of living in Western countries). Why the USA should be different ? Decline
of empires is very slow and can well take a half a century. Let's say it might take 50 years from
9/11 or October 2008.
One telling sign is the end of "American hegemony" in the global political sphere. One telling
sign is the end of "American hegemony" in the global political sphere. As Lupita hypothesized
here Trump might be the last desperate attempt to reverse this process.
Another, the deterioration of the standard of living of the USA population and declining infrastructure,
both typically are connected with the overextension of empire. In Fortune (
http://fortune.com/2015/07/20/united-states-decline-statistics-economic/
) Jill Coplan lists 12 signs of the decline.
Trump election is another sign of turmoil. The key message of his election is "The institutions
we once trusted deceived us" That includes the Democratic Party and all neoliberal MSM. Like was
the case with the USSR, the loss of influence of neoliberal propaganda machine is a definite sign
of the decline of empire.
Degeneration of the neoliberal political elite that is also clearly visible in the current set
of presidential candidates might be another sign. Hillary Clinton dragged to the car on 9/11 commemorative
event vividly reminds the state of health of a couple of members of Soviet Politburo .
"... Because the following talking points prevent a (vulgar) identity politics -dominated Democrat Party from owning its loss, debunking them is then important beyond winning your Twitter wars. I'm trying to spike the Blame Cannons! ..."
"... Remember, Trump won Wisconsin by a whisker. So for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that black voters stayed home because they were racist, costing Clinton Wisconsin. ..."
"... These former Obama strongholds sealed the election for Trump. Of the nearly 700 counties that twice sent Obama to the White House, a stunning one-third flipped to support Trump . ..."
"... The Obama-Trump counties were critical in delivering electoral victories for Trump. Many of them fall in states that supported Obama in 2012, but Trump in 2016. In all, these flipped states accounted for 83 electoral votes. (Michigan and New Hampshire could add to this total, but their results were not finalized as of 4 p.m. Wednesday.) ..."
"... And so, for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that counties who voted for the black man in 2012 were racist because they didn't vote for the white women in 2016. Bringing me, I suppose, to sexism. ..."
"... These are resilient women, often working two or three jobs, for whom boorish men are an occasional occupational hazard, not an existential threat. They rolled their eyes over Trump's unmitigated coarseness, but still bought into his spiel that he'd be the greatest job producer who ever lived. Oh, and they wondered why his behaviour was any worse than Bill's. ..."
"... pink slips have hit entire neighbourhoods, and towns. The angry white working class men who voted in such strength for Trump do not live in an emotional vacuum. They are loved by white working class women – their wives, daughters, sisters and mothers, who participate in their remaindered pain. I t is everywhere in the interviews. "My dad lost his business", "My husband hasn't been the same since his job at the factory went away" . ..."
"... So, for this talking point to be true, you have to believe that sexism simultaneously increased the male vote for Trump, yet did not increase the female vote for Clinton. Shouldn't they move in opposite directions? ..."
"... First, even assuming that the author's happy but unconscious conflation of credentials with education is correct, it wasn't the "dunces" who lost two wars, butchered the health care system, caused the financial system to collapse through accounting control fraud, or invented the neoliberal ideology that was kept real wages flat for forty years and turned the industrial heartland into a wasteland. That is solely, solely down to - only some , to be fair - college-educated voters. It is totally and 100% not down to the "dunces"; they didn't have the political or financial power to achieve debacles on the grand scale. ..."
"... Second, the "dunces" were an important part of Obama's victories ..."
"... Not only has polling repeatedly underplayed the importance of white voters without college degrees, it's underplayed their importance to the Obama coalition: They were one-third of Obama votes in 2012. They filled the gap between upper-class whites and working-class nonwhites. Trump gained roughly 15 percentage points with them compared to Romney in 2012. ..."
"... "No, you are ignorant! You threw away the vote and put Trump in charge." Please, it will be important to know what derogatory camp you belong in when the blame game swings into full gear. *snark ..."
"... 'Stupid' was the word I got very tired of in my social net. Two variant targets: ..."
"... 1) Blacks for not voting their interests. The responses included 'we know who our enemies are' and 'don't tell me what to think.' ..."
"... Mostly it was vs rural, non-college educated. iirc, it was the Secretary of Agriculture, pleading for funds, who said the rural areas were where military recruits came from. A young fella I know, elite football player on elite non-urban HS team, said most of his teammates had enlisted. So they are the ones getting shot at, having relatives and friends come back missing pieces of body and self. ..."
"... My guy in the Reserves said the consensus was that if HRC got elected, they were going to war with Russia. Not enthused. Infantry IQ is supposedly average-80, but they know who Yossarian says the enemy is, e'en if they hant read the book. ..."
This post is not an explainer about why and how Clinton lost (and Trump won). I think we're going
to be sorting that out for awhile. Rather, it's a simple debunking of common talking points by Clinton
loyalists and Democrat Establishment operatives; the sort of talking point you might hear on Twitter,
entirely shorn of caveats and context. For each of the three talking points, I'll present an especially
egregious version of the myth, followed by a rebuttals.
How Trump won the presidency with razor-thin margins in swing states
Of the more than 120 million votes cast in the 2016 election, 107,000 votes in three states
[Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania] effectively decided the election.
Of course, America's first-past-the-post system and the electoral college amplify small margins
into decisive results. And it was the job of the Clinton campaign to find those 107,000 votes and
win them;
the Clinton operation turned out to be weaker than anyone would have imagined when
it counted . However, because Trump has what might be called an institutional mandate - both
the executive and legislative branches and soon, perhaps, the judicial - the narrowness of his margin
means he doesn't have a popular mandate. Trump has captured the state, but by no means civil society;
therefore, the opposition that seeks to delegitimize him is in a stronger position than it may realize.
Hence the necessity for reflection; seeking truth from facts, as the saying goes. Because
the following talking points prevent a
(vulgar) identity politics -dominated Democrat Party from owning its loss, debunking them is
then important beyond winning your Twitter wars. I'm trying to spike the Blame Cannons!
Trump's win is a reminder of the incredible, unbeatable power of racism
The subtext here is usually that if you don't chime in with vehement agreement, you're a racist
yourself, and possibly a racist Trump supporter. There are two reasons this talking point is false.
First, voter caring levels dropped from 2012 to 2016, especially among black Democrats
.
Carl
Beijer :
From 2012 to 2016, both men and women went from caring about the outcome to not caring.
Among Democratic men and women, as well as Republican women, care levels dropped about 3-4
points; Republican men cared a little less too, but only by one point. Across the board, in
any case, the plurality of voters simply didn't care.
Beijer includes the following chart (based on Edison exit polling cross-referenced with total
population numbers from the US Census):
Beijer interprets:
White voters cared even less in 2016 then in 2012, when they also didn't care; most of that
apathy came from white Republicans compared to white Democrats, who dropped off a little less.
Voters of color, in contrast, continued to care – but their care levels dropped even more,
by 8 points (compared to the 6 point drop-off among white voters). Incredibly, that drop was
driven entirely by a 9 point drop among Democratic voters of color which left Democrats
with only slim majority 51% support; Republicans, meanwhile, actually gained support
among people of color.
Urban areas, where black and Hispanic voters are concentrated along with college-educated
voters, already leaned toward the Democrats, but Clinton did not get the turnout from these
groups that she needed. For instance, black voters did not show up in the same numbers they
did for Barack Obama, the first black president, in 2008 and 2012.
Remember, Trump won Wisconsin by a whisker. So for this talking point to be true, we have to
believe that black voters stayed home because they were racist, costing Clinton Wisconsin.
Second, counties that voted for Obama in 2012 voted for Trump in 2016 .
The Washington Post :
These former Obama strongholds sealed the election for Trump. Of the nearly 700 counties that twice sent Obama to the White House,
a stunning one-third flipped to support Trump
.
The Obama-Trump counties were critical in delivering electoral victories for Trump. Many
of them fall in states that supported Obama in 2012, but Trump in 2016. In all, these flipped
states accounted for 83 electoral votes. (Michigan and New Hampshire could add to this total,
but their results were not finalized as of 4 p.m. Wednesday.)
Here's the chart:
And so, for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that counties who voted for the
black man in 2012 were racist because they didn't vote for the white women in 2016. Bringing me,
I suppose, to sexism.
Talking Point: Clinton was Defeated by Sexism
Here's an article showing the talking point from
Newsweek :
This often vitriolic campaign was a national referendum on women and power.
(The subtext here is usually that if you don't join the consensus cluster, you're a sexist
yourself, and possibly a sexist Trump supporter). And if you only look at the averages this claim
might seem true :
On Election Day, women responded accordingly, as Clinton beat Trump among women 54 percent
to 42 percent. They were voting not so much for her as against him and what he brought to the
surface during his campaign: quotidian misogyny.
There are two reasons this talking point is not true. First, averages conceal, and what
they conceal is class . As you read further into the article, you can see it fall apart:
In fact, Trump beat Clinton among white women 53 percent to 43 percent, with
white women without college degrees going for [Trump]
two to one .
So, taking lack of a college degree as a proxy for being working class, for Newsweek's claim
to be true, you have to believe that working class women don't get a vote in their referendum,
and for the talking point to be true, you have to believe that working class women are sexist.
Which leads me to ask: Who died and left the bourgeois feminists in Clinton's base in charge of
the definition of sexism, or feminism? Class traitor
Tina Brown is worth repeating:
Here's my own beef. Liberal feminists, young and old, need to question the role they played
in Hillary's demise. The two weeks of media hyperventilation over grab-her-by-the-pussygate,
when the airwaves were saturated with aghast liberal women equating Trump's gross comments
with sexual assault, had the opposite effect on multiple women voters in the Heartland.
These are resilient women, often working two or three jobs, for whom boorish men are an
occasional occupational hazard, not an existential threat. They rolled their eyes over Trump's
unmitigated coarseness, but still bought into his spiel that he'd be the greatest job producer
who ever lived. Oh, and they wondered why his behaviour was any worse than Bill's.
Missing this pragmatic response by so many women was another mistake of Robbie Mook's campaign
data nerds. They computed that America's women would all be as outraged as the ones they came
home to at night. But pink slips have hit entire neighbourhoods, and towns. The angry white
working class men who voted in such strength for Trump do not live in an emotional vacuum.
They are loved by white working class women – their wives, daughters, sisters and mothers,
who participate in their remaindered pain. I t is
everywhere in the interviews. "My dad lost his business", "My husband hasn't been the same
since his job at the factory went away" .
Second, Clinton in 2016 did no better than Obama in 2008 with women (although she did
better than Obama in 2012). From
the New York Times analysis of the exit polls, this chart...
So, for this talking point to be true, you have to believe that sexism simultaneously increased
the male vote for Trump, yet did not increase the female vote for Clinton. Shouldn't they move
in opposite directions?
Talking Point: Clinton was Defeated by Stupidity
Here's an example of this talking point from
Foreign Policy , the heart of The Blob. The headline:
Trump Won Because Voters Are Ignorant, Literally
And the lead:
OK, so that just happened. Donald Trump always enjoyed massive support from uneducated,
low-information white people. As Bloomberg Politics reported back in August, Hillary Clinton
was enjoying a giant 25 percentage-point lead among college-educated voters going into the
election. (Whether that trend held up remains to be seen.) In contrast, in the 2012 election,
college-educated voters just barely favored Barack Obama over Mitt Romney. Last night we saw
something historic: the dance of the dunces. Never have educated voters so uniformly rejected
a candidate. But never before have the lesser-educated so uniformly supported a candidate.
The subtext here is usually that if you don't accept nod your head vigorously, you're stupid,
and possibly a stupid Trump supporter. There are two reasons this talking point is not true.
First, even assuming that the author's happy but unconscious conflation of credentials with
education is correct, it wasn't the "dunces" who lost two wars, butchered the health care
system, caused the financial system to collapse through accounting control fraud, or invented
the neoliberal ideology that was kept real wages flat for forty years and turned the industrial
heartland into a wasteland. That is solely, solely down to - only some , to be fair
- college-educated voters. It is totally and 100% not down to the "dunces"; they didn't have the
political or financial power to achieve debacles on the grand scale.
Second, the "dunces" were an important part of Obama's victories. From
The Week :
Not only has polling repeatedly underplayed the importance of white voters without college
degrees, it's underplayed their importance to the Obama coalition: They were one-third of Obama
votes in 2012. They filled the gap between upper-class whites and working-class nonwhites.
Trump gained roughly 15 percentage points with them compared to Romney in 2012.
So, to believe this talking point, you have to believe that voters who were smart when they
voted for Obama suddenly became stupid when it came time to vote for Clinton. You also have to
believe that credentialed policy makers have an unblemished record of success, and that only they
are worth paying attention to.
By just about every metric imaginable, Hillary Clinton led one of the worst presidential campaigns
in modern history. It was a profoundly reactionary campaign, built entirely on rolling back the
horizons of the politically possible, fracturing left solidarity, undermining longstanding left
priorities like universal healthcare, pandering to Wall Street oligarchs, fomenting nationalism
against Denmark and Russia, and rehabilitating some of history's greatest monsters – from Bush
I to Kissinger. It was a grossly unprincipled campaign that belligerently violated FEC Super PAC
coordination rules and conspired with party officials on everything from political attacks to
debate questions. It was an obscenely stupid campaign that all but ignored Wisconsin during the
general election, that pitched Clinton to Latino voters as their abuela, that centered an entire
high-profile speech over the national menace of a few thousand anime nazis on Twitter, and that
repeatedly deployed Lena Dunham as a media surrogate.
Which is rather like running a David Letterman ad in a Pennsylvania steel town. It must have seemed
like a good idea in Brooklyn. After all, they had so many celebrities to choose from.
* * *
All three talking points oversimplify. I'm not saying racism is not powerful; of course it is.
I'm not saying that sexism is not powerful; of course it is. But monocausal explanations in an election
this close - and in a country this vast - are foolish. And narratives that ignore economics and erase
class are worse than foolish; buying into them will cause us to make the same mistakes over and over
and over again.[1] The trick will be to integrate multiple causes, and that's down to the left; identity
politics liberals don't merely not want to do this; they actively oppose it. Ditto their opposite
numbers in America's neoliberal fun house mirror, the conservatives.
NOTES
[1] For some, that's not a bug. It's a feature.
NOTE
You will have noticed that I haven't covered economics (class), or election fraud at all. More
myths are coming.
Lambert Strether has been blogging, managing online communities, and doing system administration
24/7 since 2003, in Drupal and WordPress. Besides political economy and the political scene, he blogs
about rhetoric, software engineering, permaculture, history, literature, local politics, international
travel, food, and fixing stuff around the house. The nom de plume "Lambert Strether" comes from Henry
James's The Ambassadors: "Live all you can. It's a mistake not to." You can follow him on Twitter
at @lambertstrether. http://www.correntewire.com
"No, you are ignorant! You threw away the vote and put Trump in charge." Please, it will be
important to know what derogatory camp you belong in when the blame game swings into full gear.
*snark
'Stupid' was the word I got very tired of in my social net. Two variant targets:
1) Blacks
for not voting their interests. The responses included 'we know who our enemies are' and 'don't
tell me what to think.'
2) Mostly it was vs rural, non-college educated. iirc, it was the Secretary of Agriculture,
pleading for funds, who said the rural areas were where military recruits came from. A young fella
I know, elite football player on elite non-urban HS team, said most of his teammates had enlisted.
So they are the ones getting shot at, having relatives and friends come back missing pieces of
body and self.
My guy in the Reserves said the consensus was that if HRC got elected, they were going
to war with Russia. Not enthused. Infantry IQ is supposedly average-80, but they know who Yossarian
says the enemy is, e'en if they hant read the book.
"... Elite fragmentation is the core dynamic in play in America. The Neoliberal class, personified by the Clintons and the rest of the incestuous Washington Elite (Demopublicans), has used the self-serving corporate media to whip up a frenzy of hysteria that is ultimately aimed at the Elite camp that opposes their self-aggrandizement at the expense of the nation. ..."
"... The financial coup d'etat occurred in the presidency of Democrat Bill Clinton , when the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed, freeing the predatory financial elites to plunder the nation. ..."
"... Presidents G.W. Bush and Obama institutionalized the coup by bailing out the banks post-2008. ..."
"... The mainstream media in America is a corporate-owned media, or in the case of PBS, corporate-funded via sponsorships. Advertising rates are set by the size of the audience and the number of hours they consume the broadcast/feed. ..."
If you want to stop being played as a chump, turn off the CNN/MSM and disengage from the self-referential
social media distraction.
Let's start by asking: if Trump had lost and his supporters had angrily taken to the streets,
destroying private property and threatening police officers while proclaiming "not my president,"
would the mainstream media have characterized the rioters differently than it has the pro-Clinton
rioters?
Any fair-minded observer knows the answer is yes: the CNN/MSM would have lambasted the "rioting
deplorables" as "what's wrong with America."
Substitution is a useful tool to expose bias. How come the CNN/mainstream corporate media isn't
declaring the pro-Clinton rioters "deplorables"?
This tells us something else is going on here. I want to explain what's really going on, but first
we need to run a simple experiment:
Turn off CNN, PBS, CBS et al., your Twitter and Facebook feeds, etc. for seven days, and live
solely in the media-free real world for a week. If you're truly interested in understanding what's
really going on in America, then come back in a week and read the rest of the essay.
Have you pulled out the CNN/MSM/social media fearmongering/propaganda dripline for a few days?
This is a necessary step, as we shall soon see.
Everyone who is consuming CNN/MSM/ self-referential social media every waking hour is being played
as chumps. Start by asking yourself: cui bono --to whose benefit? Who is benefiting from the ceaseless
fearmongering of the CNN/social-media-parroting mainstream corporate media?
(Longtime readers know I start any analysis by asking cui bono .)
Two Power Elites have benefited enormously from the ceaseless media fearmongering: the owners
of the corporate media spewing the fearmongering, and the Neoliberal camp of the Ruling Elite.
The hysterical tone of the fearmongering serves the agenda of the Neoliberals, who are desperate
to maintain their grip on power.
As I have endeavored to explain over the past few years, America's Deep State no longer enjoys
a monolithic unity of world-view and narrative. The Deep State has fragmented into two conflicted
camps: the Neonconservatives, who espouse the globalist, interventionist foreign policy manifestation
of Neoliberalism, and a smaller, more forward-looking camp that understands Neoliberalism is actively
undermining our national security and our core national interests.
This split in the Deep State extends into the entire Ruling Elite. Thus we have the currently
dominant globalist Neoliberal camp personified by the Clintons, the Corporatocracy that has funded
them, the clubby Washington Elites (Demopublicans) and the Neocon camp of the Deep State.
The opposing camp of Elite "outsiders" is viewed as the enemy which threatens the wealth and power
of the self-serving Neoliberal Elites. Longtime readers have seen many accounts here over the years
that explain the key dynamic of Elite fragmentation: as self-serving personal aggrandizement poisons
the values of public service, the Elite splinters into a parasitic, predatory self-serving majority
and an Elite minority that sees the inevitable dissolution of the empire should the self-serving
few continue their predation of the many.
Here are a few of the many essays I've posted on this key dynamic. Please read a few of these
for context if you missed them the first time around:
Elite fragmentation is the core dynamic in play in America. The Neoliberal class, personified
by the Clintons and the rest of the incestuous Washington Elite (Demopublicans), has used the self-serving
corporate media to whip up a frenzy of hysteria that is ultimately aimed at the Elite camp that opposes
their self-aggrandizement at the expense of the nation.
This war within America's Power Elite is for all the marbles. This explains the absurd urgency
of the CNN/MSM fearmongering propaganda.
Let's deconstruct one of the many hysterical claims of the CNN/MSM: Trump's victory is a coup
d'etat. This absurd claim is akin to "the Martians are coming!" Right out of the gate, it is a clueless
mis-use of the term coup d'etat. If you actually want to understand the term, as opposed to using
it to whip up hysteria that profits the Corporate owners of CNN/MSM, then start by reading the 1968
classic
Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook by Edward Luttwak, and then move on to
The Quiet Coup by Simon Johnson (2010).
The financial coup d'etat occurred in the presidency of Democrat Bill Clinton , when the Glass-Steagall
Act was repealed, freeing the predatory financial elites to plunder the nation.
Presidents G.W. Bush and Obama institutionalized the coup by bailing out the banks post-2008.
So who does all the fearmongering benefit? The CNN/MSM, which profited immensely, and the Neoliberal
Elite, which distracted the populace from the fatal consequences of its dominance.
The mainstream media in America is a corporate-owned media, or in the case of PBS, corporate-funded
via sponsorships. Advertising rates are set by the size of the audience and the number of hours they
consume the broadcast/feed.
The MSM's fearmongering propaganda greatly expanded the number of eyeballs glued to their product
and increased the duration of consumers' time spent online. This increase in audience/duration has
been immensely profitable to the corporate media, which has relied on fearmongering to drive audience
since 9/11.
Consider this email from correspondent M.K. on his family's media consumption:
"I was struck awake this morning at 4 am with the realization that the left tried to win by selling
fear. I don't mean this in a hyperbolic way... I mean they purposefully, willfully planned to sell
fear as a tool to get the vote out. At first I didn't see the connection, but my subconscious did...
I'm a Agorist/Voluntarist and don't vote, because I don't wish to consent to my own enslavement...
you know the drill. On the day of voting my father (76) texted me to urge me to vote, because "my
children's future was at stake". This seemed odd to me, because it had never happened before and
he followed up with some more fearful statement.
The day after the election, my daughter, who tends to also be level headed, texted me the following:
"Uh oh... what does this mean for our country?". I tried to calm them both, but they were exceedingly
fearful.
I watched in amazement at the "cry ins", demonstrations other outward pouring of sadness, hate
and fear. Thus, I awoke and realized that both my father and daughter watch CNN. I really do believe
that they were programmed.... This was planned and executed exceedingly well.
As you realize, "fear is the enemy" or "fear is the opposite of love". Pick your quote, but it's
a powerful tool and it has been used to club my loved ones."
We can summarize the fanning of mass hysteria thusly: hyper-connectedness to a self-referential
corporate/elite-controlled media produces a fear-based mass hysteria.
This fear-based mass hysteria is the perfect mechanism to distract a populace from the reality
of a self-serving Elite that profits from their serfdom. Please glance at these four charts, which
tell a simple but profound truth:
Productivity has risen for 36 years, but the gains from that massive increase in wealth has been
captured by the few at the top of the wealth/power pyramid. If you want to understand who benefited
from the CNN/MSM fearmongering propaganda distraction, study these four charts.
The income of the bottom 95% has stagnated while productivity/wealth soared.
The gains flowed to the top .1% in wealth and the top 5% in income:
The self-serving Neoliberal Elite's CNN/mainstream media did a magnificent job of profiting from
fearmongering while distracting the serfs from their immiseration. If you want to stop being played
as a chump, turn off the CNN/MSM and disengage from the self-referential social media distraction.
After having ignored my facebook account virtually since I created it, I have finally gotten around
to having it removed. I have never sent a single "tweet" since most originate from people who
are plainly twits. Which is to say the like of narcissistic Hlllary voters.
The echo chamber in the funhouse should be left to snowflakes who need safespaces for lack
of accommodation by the real world, which is rapidly passing them by as they continue to indulge
their delusional group trance.
"As one lobbyist told me (in 2007), "Twenty-five years ago… it was 'just keep the government
out of our business, we want to do what we want to,' and gradually that's changed to 'how can
we make the government our partners?' It's gone from 'leave us alone' to 'let's work on this together
.'" Another corporate lobbyist recalled,"When they started, [management] thought government relations
did something else. They thought it was to manage public relations crises, hearing inquiries...
My boss told me, you've taught us to do things we didn't know could ever be done."
As companies became more politically active and comfortable during the late 1980s and the 1990s,
their lobbyists became more politically visionary. For example, pharmaceutical companies had long
opposed the idea of government adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, on the theory that
this would give government bargaining power through bulk purchasing, thereby reducing drug industry
profits. But sometime around 2000, industry lobbyists dreamed up the bold idea of proposing and
supporting what became Medicare Part D-a prescription drug benefit, but one which explicitly forbade
bulk purchasing-an estimated
$205 billion benefit
to companies over a 10-year period.
What makes today so very different from the 1970s is that corporations now have the resources
to play offense and defense simultaneously on almost any top-priority issue. When I surveyed corporate
lobbyists on the reasons why their companies maintained a Washington office, the top reason was
"to protect the company against changes in government policy." On a one-to-seven scale, lobbyists
ranked this reason at 6.2 (on average). But closely behind, at 5.7, was "Need to improve ability
to compete by seeking favorable changes in government policy."
Lost control of the Senate
Lost control of the House of Representatives
Lost control of dozens of state legislatures and Governorships.
The Republicans control 36 States of America - One more and they could in theory amend the Constitution.
In Wisconsin (notionally Democrat) the Legislature and Governor are both Republican controlled.
And Clinton didn't even campaign there when it was pretty obvious the State was not trending towards
her.
by Lambert Strether
Lambert here: Apparently, then, Neoliberal U plans to build "trust-based relations" and offer
"personalised attention" by gutting tenured faculty, shifting the teaching load to contingent faculty,
redistributing salaries to administrators, and socking money into fancy facilities. Let me know how
that works out.
By Philip Oreopoulos, Professor of Economics and Public Policy, University of Toronto, and
Uros Petronijevic, Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, York University.
Originally published at VoxEU .
Questions over the value of a university education are underscored by negative student experiences.
Personalised coaching is a promising, but costly, tool to improve student experiences and performance.
This column presents the results from an experiment comparing coaching with lower cost 'nudge' interventions.
While coaching led to a significant increase in average course grades, online and text message interventions
had no effect. The benefits of coaching appear to derive from the trust-based nature of relationships
and personalised attention.
Policymakers and academics share growing concerns about stagnating college completion rates and
negative student experiences. Recent figures suggest that only 56% of students who pursue a bachelors'
degree complete it within six years (Symonds et al. 2011), and it is increasingly unclear whether
students who attain degrees acquire meaningful new skills along the way (Arum and Roska 2011). Students
enter college underprepared, with those who procrastinate, do not study enough, or have superficial
attitudes about success performing particularly poorly (Beattie et al 2016).
Personalised Coaching to Improve Outcomes
A promising tool for improving students' college outcomes and experiences is personalised coaching.
At both the high school and college levels, an emerging recent literature demonstrates the benefits
of helping students foster motivation, effort, good study habits, and time-management skills through
structured tutoring and coaching. Cook et al. (2014) find that cognitive behavioural therapy and
tutoring generate large improvements in maths scores and high school graduation rates for troubled
youth in Chicago, while Oreopoulos et al. (forthcoming) show that coaching, tutoring, and group activities
lead to large increases in high school graduation and college enrolment among youth in a Toronto
public housing project. At the college level, Scrivener and Weiss (2013) find that the Accelerated
Study in Associates Program – a bundle of coaching, tutoring, and student success workshops – in
CUNY community colleges nearly doubled graduation rates and Bettinger and Baker (2014) show that
telephone coaching by Inside Track professionals boosts two-year college retention by 15% across
several higher-education institutions.
While structured, one-on-one support can have large effects on student outcomes, it is often costly
to implement and difficult to scale up to the student population at large (Bloom 1984). Noting this
challenge, we set out to build on recent advances in social-psychology and behavioural economics,
investigating whether technology – specifically, online exercises, and text and email messaging –
can be used to generate comparable benefits to one-on-one coaching interventions but at lower costs
among first-year university students (Oreopoulos and Petronijevic 2016).
Several recent studies in social-psychology find that short, appropriately timed interventions
can have lasting effects on student outcomes (Yeager and Walton 2011, Cohen and Garcia 2014, Walton
2014). Relatively large improvements on academic performance have been documented from interventions
that help students define their long-run goals or purpose for learning (Morisano et al. 2010, Yeager
et al. 2014), teach the 'growth mindset' idea that intelligence is malleable (Yeager et al. 2016),
and help students keep negative events in perspective by self-affirming their values (Cohen and Sherman
2014). In contrast to these one-time interventions, other studies in education and behavioural economics
attempt to maintain constant, low-touch contact with students or their parents at a low cost by using
technology to provide consistent reminders aimed at improving outcomes. Providing text, email, and
phone call updates to parents about their students' progress in school has been shown to boost both
parental engagement and student performance (Kraft and Dougherty 2013, Bergman 2016, Kraft and Rogers
2014, Mayer et al. 2015), while direct text-message communication with college and university students
has been used in attempts to increase financial aid renewal (Castleman and Page 2014) and improve
academic outcomes (Castleman and Meyer 2016).
Can Lower-Cost Alternatives to One-On-One Coaching Be Effective?
We examine whether benefits comparable to those obtained from one-on-one coaching can be achieved
at lower cost by either of two specific interventions (Oreopoulos and Petronijevic 2016). We examine
a one-time online intervention designed to affirm students' goals and purpose for attending university,
and a full-year text and email messaging campaign that provides weekly reminders of academic advice
and motivation to students. We work with a sample of more than 4,000 undergraduate students who are
enrolled in introductory economics courses at a large representative college in Canada, randomly
assigning students to one of three treatment groups or a control group. The treatment groups consist
of:
A one-time, online exercise completed during the first two weeks of class in the autumn; The online
intervention plus text and email messaging throughout the full academic year; and The online intervention
plus one-on-one coaching in which students are assigned to upper-year undergraduate students who
act as coaches.
Students in the control group are given a personality test measuring the Big Five personality
traits.
Figure 1 summarises our main results on course grades. Overall, we find large positive effects
from the coaching programme, amounting to approximately a 4.92 percentage-point increase in average
course grades; we also find that coached students experience a 0.35 standard-deviation increase in
GPA. In contrast, we find no effects on academic outcomes from either the online exercise or the
text messaging campaign, even after investigating potentially heterogeneous treatment effects across
several student characteristics, including gender, age, incoming high school average, international-student
status, and whether students live on residence.
Figure 1 . Main effects of interventions
Our results suggest that the benefits of personal coaching are not easily replicated by low-cost
interventions using technology. Many successful coaching programmes involve regular student-coach
interaction facilitated either by mandatory meetings between coaches and students or proactive coaches
regularly initiating contact (Scrivener and Weiss 2013, Bettinger and Baker 2014, Cook et al. 2014,
Oreopoulos et al. forthcoming). Our coaches initiated contact and built trust with students over
time, in person and through text messaging. Through a series of gentle, open-ended questions, the
coaches could understand the problems students were facing and provide clear advice, ending most
conversations with students being able to take at least one specific action to help solve their current
problems.
Our text messaging campaign offered weekly academic advice, resource information, and motivation,
but did not initiate communication with individual students about specific issues (e.g. help with
writing or an upcoming mid-term). The text-messaging team often invited students to reply to messages
and share their concerns but was unable to do this with the same efficacy as a coach, nor were we
able to establish the same rapport with students. Our inability to reach out to all students and
softly guide the conversation likely prevented us from learning the important details of their specific
problems. Although we provided answers and advice to the questions we received, we did not have as
much information on the students' backgrounds as our coaches did, and thus could not tailor our responses
to each student's specific circumstances.
Our coaches were also able to build trust with students by fulfilling a support role. Figure 2
provides an example of how the coaching service was more effective than the text messaging campaign
in this respect. The text messages attempted to nudge students in the right direction, rather than
provide tailored support. The left panel of Figure 2 shows three consecutive text messages, in which
we provide a tip on stress management, an inspirational quote, and a time-management tip around the
exam period. As in this example, it was often the case that students would not respond to such messages.
In contrast, the student-coach interaction in the right panel shows our coaches offering more of
a supportive role rather than trying to simply nudge the student in a specific direction. The coach
starts by asking an open-ended question, to which the student responds, and the coach then guides
the conversation forward. In this example, the coach assures the student that they will be available
to help with a pending deadline and shows a genuine interest in the events in the student's life.
Figure 2 . Distinguishing the text-messaging campaign and the coaching programme
Coaches also kept records of their evolving conversations with students and could check in to
ask how previously discussed issues were being resolved. Although we kept a record of all text message
conversations, a lack of resources prevented us from conducting regular check-ups to see how previous
events had unfolded, which likely kept us from helping students effectively with their problem and
from establishing the trust required for students to share additional problems.
Concluding Remarks
In sum, the two key features that distinguish the coaching service from the texting campaign are
that coaches proactively initiated discussion with students about their problems and could establish
relationships based on trust in which students felt comfortable to openly discuss their issues. Future
work attempting to improve academic outcomes in higher education by using technology to maintain
constant contact with students may need to acknowledge that simply nudging students in the right
direction is not enough. A more personalised approach is likely required, in which coaches or mentors
initially guide students through a series of gentle conversations and subsequently show a proactive
interest in students' lives. These conversations need not necessarily occur during face-to-face meetings,
but the available evidence suggests that they should occur frequently and be initiated by the coaches.
While such an intervention is likely to be costlier than the text messaging campaign in our study,
it is also likely to be more effective but still less costly than the personalised coaching treatment.
"Personalised coaching is a promising, but costly, tool to improve student experiences …"
… that used to be called, in the long ago time before the App Store, office hours.
Back in the day when there were these non-administrative inefficiencies called tenure track faculty.
Surely Mechanical Turk can find a disruptive application in this space.
However also way back when few students bothered to go to faculty office hours. (early 1970s)
. In addition how many students go to the departmental seminars in their major field? Again undergraduate
attendance at them is low.
Or join clubs in their major field that invite faculty to come talk about their research (which
is easy to get a prof to do to talk about his research). (Today of course you could do seminars
and the like via podcasts etc).
However of course the mentoring also takes student time which may also be scarce.
Do Economists Promote Ideology as
Science?
: Which is more important in
determining the policy positions of
economists, ideology or evidence? Is
economics, as some assert, little more
than a means of dressing up ideological
arguments in scientific clothing?
This certainly happens, especially among
economists connected to politically
driven think tanks – places like the
Heritage Foundation come to mind.
Economists who work for businesses also
have a tendency to present evidence more
like a lawyer advocating a particular
position than a scientist trying to find
out how the economy really works. But
what about academic economists who are
supposed to be searching for the truth
no matter the political implications?
Can we detect the same degree of bias in
their research and policy positions? ...
rayward :
Thoma's assessment seems fair enough. I'd make the point that, for some
academic economists, no amount of evidence is sufficient to overcome their bias.
"Where's the proof" is the refrain one hears often. And then there's the
question: what is evidence? The availability of lots of data is often used to
"prove" this or that theory, even when the "proof" is contrary to the historical
evidence one can see with her own eyes. Data used as obfuscation rather than
clarification. I appreciate that one historical event following another
historical event does not prove causation, but what's better proof than history.
RogerFox :
, -1
"Shouldn't theory be a guide
when the empirical evidence
is unconvincing one way or
the other?"
No - we don't
allow MDs to prescribe or
treat on the basis of theory
alone. It's unethical for
any professional
practitioner to give advice
that is not supported by
compelling evidence
demonstrating that the
advise is both safe and
effective - 'First, do no
harm.'
To a man, professional
economists shill for the
view that they are morally
free to treat real economies
and real people as their
personal lab rats. As a
group, economists are an
ethically challenged bunch
in this respect, and
probably in other respects
too.
anne ->
RogerFox...
, -1
To a man, professional
economists shill...
[ This
phrase begins a
mean-spirited lie, no matter
how the sentence is
finished. The point of the
malicious post however is
only to be destructive. ]
Avraam Jack Dectis :
, -1
.
Economics is the most
interesting science because
it is not settled and has
great effect upon the
affairs of man.
One of the
things that make it
interesting is the number of
variables that exist in most
economic situations as well
as the strong psychological
and sociological component
to the science, due to its
attempts to predict the
actions of humans, a
hierarchical herd based
status insane animal.
Undoubtedly, the desire
to promote personally
attractive policies is
something everyone must
fight.
On a side note, having
seen this blog referenced
elsewhere and finally
starting to read it
regularly, truly a nice
thing, I notice that Dr.
Thoma and I are the same age
for about three months per
year. I suspect that is
about all we have in common
since I just spent the last
18+ years getting openly and
notoriously poisoned by a
stalker gang, have hit men
following me and am so
unpopular and poorly
connected that I seem
remarkably unable to engage
any law enforcement on the
issue.
Which leads into the next
point-> Is the dynamism of
an economy a function of
freedom of speech, riule of
law, security of the citizen
and so forth. For decades
the USA, as it fought two
opposing powerful systems,
made that case yet now that
no longer seems to be the
case in the USA and in fact
this is confirmed by the
fact that nobody makes that
case convincingly anymore.
Can this deterioration of
culture and embrace of
expediency have a stifling
economic effect?
DeDude :
, -1
Economics as a science is
mainly hurt by two things.
1. The rich plutocrats
have a major stake in
advocating very specific
narratives, so they will
throw large sums behind
those narratives (and the
fight against anything
conflicting with them).
2. Economics does not
have anything resembling the
double blind placebo
controlled trials that help
medicine fight off the
narratives of those with
money and power.
RGC :
, -1
What sort of opinions are
economists allowed to have
if they want tenure, want to
be published in the major
journals or want to make a
living?
Keynes concluded
that government direction
was necessary for a viable
economy. Keynes'
"interpreters" in the US
buried that idea, and thus
became very important
economists - guys like Paul
Samuelson. The first ( and
only) US book to faithfully
represent Keynes' ideas
faded away soon after
publication.
I did not know there was a
debate. Krugman summed it
all up in Peddling
Prosperity. Folks know who
pays the rent, and opine
accordingly.
Syaloch :
, -1
I think problems arise when
economists are called upon
by politicians or the media
to give expert advice.
Within the sciences, "We
don't know the answer to
that" is a perfectly
acceptable response, and in
scientific fields where the
stakes are low that response
is generally accepted by the
public as well. "What is
dark matter made of?" "We
don't know yet, but we're
working on it." But in
politics, where the stakes
are higher, not having a
definitive answer is viewed
as a sign of weakness. How
often do you hear a
politician responding to a
"gotcha" question admit that
they don't know the answer
rather than trying to BS
their way through?
Given the timeliness of
news coverage the media
prefer to consult experts
who offer definitive
answers, especially given
their preference for pro/con
type interviews which
require experts on both
sides of an issue.
Economists who are put on
the spot this way feel
pressured to ditch the error
bars and give unambiguous
answers, even answers based
purely on theory with little
to no empirical backing, and
the more often they do this
the more often they're
invited back.
It is impossible to talk
about economics without
making essentially
ideological distinctions.
Private property and wage
labor are not "natural"
categories. Their adequacy
as human practices therefore
needs to be either defended
or criticized. To simply
take them "as given" is an
ideological waffle that begs
THE question.
Economists thus SHOULD
have, acknowledge and fully
disclose their ideological
biases. When evaluating
evidence they should make
every effort to set aside
and overcome their biases.
And they need to stay humble
about how Sisyphean,
incongruous and incomplete
their attempts at
objectivity are.
Let's not forget that
"The End of Ideology" was a
polemical tract aimed at
designating the ideology of
the managers and symbol
manipulators "above" and
beyond ideology. Similarly,
Marx's brilliant critique of
ideology degenerated into
polemic as its practitioners
adopted the mantle of
"science."
The End of Ideology: On the
Exhaustion of Political
Ideas in the Fifties is a
collection of essays
published in 1960 by Daniel
Bell, who described himself
as a "socialist in
economics, a liberal in
politics, and a conservative
in culture". He suggests
that the older,
grand-humanistic ideologies
derived from the nineteenth
and early twentieth
centuries had been
exhausted, and that new,
more parochial ideologies
would soon arise. He argues
that political ideology has
become irrelevant among
"sensible" people, and that
the polity of the future
would be driven by piecemeal
technological adjustments of
the extant system.
A very big question! Like
"what is the meaning of
life?" At least a
semester-long upper division
seminar course. ;-)
In a
nutshell (to put it
crudely), Marx labelled as
ideologists a cohort of
German followers of Hegel's
philosophy who envisioned
historical progress as the
result of the progressive
refinement of intellectual
ideas. Marx argued instead
that historical change
resulted from struggle
between social classes over
the material conditions of
life, fundamental to which
was the transformation of
nature through human
intervention into means of
subsistence.
Marx labelled as ideologists
a cohort of German followers
of Hegel's philosophy who
envisioned historical
progress as the result of
the progressive refinement
of intellectual ideas. Marx
argued instead that
historical change resulted
from struggle between social
classes over the material
conditions of life,
fundamental to which was the
transformation of nature
through human intervention
into means of subsistence.
[ What a superb introductory
or summary explanation. I
could not be more impressed
or grateful. ]
"And so - though we proceed
slowly because of our
ideologies, we might not
proceed at all without
them."
- Joseph Schumpeter,
"Science and Ideology," The
American Economic Review
39:2 (March 1949), at 359
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1812737
Many guys are not driven by
ideology, rather than
evidence. The problem with
this article is that we
cannot compare with other
professions and say
"economists are more/less
prone to promote ideology
than the average".
All human endeavors are
shaped by "ideology" in many
different ways. What is
important is to be aware of
and explicit about their
influences on our thought
and action.
If there are two sides to an
argument that radically
disagree then it is possible
that both sides may be
ideology, but both sides
cannot be science. Only the
correct argument can be
science. Of course ideology
is a bit too kind of a word
since the incorrect argument
is actually just a con game
by people out to lay claim
on greater unearned wealth.
Economists seem content with
trying to figure out how to
make 'it' work. Far better,
I think, to try and figure
out how it should be.
It was philosophers such as
Hume, Locke, Marx, Smith,
Rawls, ... who asked the
right questions. Laws and
economics come down to us
according to how we think
about such things; they
change when we change the
way we think. Seems we're in
a bit of a philosophical dry
patch, here. Someday, we
will have to develop a
better economic system,
might be now. Likewise,
there are laws rooted in
antiquity that were wrong
then and are wrong still.
"Ideology certainly
influences which questions
academic researchers believe
are the most important, but
there is nothing wrong with
that."
No "experiment" in
economics comes with the
degree of control that
experiments in physical
sciences take for granted,
so there is tremendous room
for ideology to come into
the discussion of whether a
data set really represents
the conditions the model is
supposed to consider. Since
reviewing another
economist's study entails
asking questions those
questions...
DrDick ->
Arne...
, -1
Please describe the
"experimentation" which
takes place in astronomy and
geology. Ideologies also
play important roles in
experimental sciences, such
as biology (for which we
have a lot of evidence.
"... Ideally, the next step would be for Trump and Putin to meet, with all their key ministers, in a long, Camp David like week of negotiations in which everything, every outstanding dispute, should be put on the table and a compromise sought in each case. Paradoxically, this could be rather easy: the crisis in Europe is entirely artificial, the war in Syria has an absolutely obvious solution, and the international order can easily accommodate a United States which would " deal fairly with everyone, with everyone - all people and all other nations " and " seek common ground, not hostility; partnership, not conflict ". ..."
"... The truth is that the USA and Russia have no objective reasons for conflict – only ideological issues resulting directly from the insane ideology of messianic imperialism of those who believe, or pretend to believe, that the USA is an "indispensable nation". What the world wants – needs – is the USA as a *normal* nation. ..."
"... The worst case? Trump could turn out to be a total fraud. I personally very much doubt it, but I admit that this is possible. More likely is that he just won't have the foresight and courage to crush the Neocons and that he will try to placate them. If he does so, they will instead crush him. It is a fact that while administrations have changed every 4 or 8 years, the regime in power has not, and that US internal and foreign policies have been amazingly consistent since the end of WWII. Will Trump finally bring not just a new administration but real "regime change"? I don't know. ..."
"... Alexander Solzhenitsyn used to say that regimes can be measured on a spectrum which ranges from regimes whose authority is their power and regimes whose power in in their authority. In the case of the USA we now clearly can see that the regime has no other authority than its power and that makes it both illegitimate and unsustainable. ..."
"... Finally, whether the US elites can accept this or not, the US Empire is coming to an end. ..."
"... With Hillary, we would have had a Titanic-like denial up to the last moment which might well have come in the shape of a thermonuclear mushroom over Washington DC. Trump, however, might use the remaining power of the USA to negotiate the US global draw-down thereby getting the best possible conditions for his country. ..."
So it has happened: Hillary did not win! I say that instead of saying that "Trump won" because
I consider the former even more important than the latter. Why? Because I have no idea whatsoever
what Trump will do next. I do, however, have an excellent idea of what Hillary would have done: war
with Russia. Trump most likely won't do that. In fact, he specifically said in his acceptance speech:
I want to tell the world community that while we will always put America's interests first,
we will deal fairly with everyone, with everyone - all people and all other nations. We will seek
common ground, not hostility; partnership, not conflict .
And Putin's reply was immediate:
We heard the statements he made as candidate for president expressing a desire to restore relations
between our countries. We realise and understand that this will not be an easy road given the
level to which our relations have degraded today, regrettably. But, as I have said before, it
is not Russia's fault that our relations with the United States have reached this point.
Russia is ready to and seeks a return to full-format relations with the United States. Let
me say again, we know that this will not be easy, but are ready to take this road, take steps
on our side and do all we can to set Russian-US relations back on a stable development track.
This would benefit both the Russian and American peoples and would have a positive impact on
the general climate in international affairs, given the particular responsibility that Russia
and the US share for maintaining global stability and security.
This exchange, right there, is enough of a reason for the entire planet to rejoice at the defeat
of Hillary and the victory of Trump.
Will Trump now have the courage, willpower and intelligence to purge the US Executive from the
Neocon cabal which has been infiltrating it for decades now? Will he have the strength to confront
an extremely hostile Congress and media? Or will he try to meet them halfway and naively hope that
they will not use their power, money and influence to sabotage his presidency?
I don't know. Nobody does.
One of the first signs to look for will be the names and backgrounds of the folks he will appoint
in his new administration. Especially his Chief of Staff and Secretary of State.
I have always said that the choice for the lesser evil is morally wrong and pragmatically misguided.
I still believe that. In this case, however, the greater evil was thermonuclear war with Russia and
the lesser evil just might turn out to be one which will gradually give up the Empire to save the
USA rather than sacrifice the USA for the needs of the Empire. In the case of Hillary vs Trump the
choice was simple: war or peace.
Trump can already be credited with am immense achievement: his campaign has forced the US corporate
media to show its true face – the face of an evil, lying, morally corrupt propaganda machine. The
American people by their vote have rewarded their media with a gigantic "f*ck you!" – a vote of no-confidence
and total rejection which will forever demolish the credibility of the Empire's propaganda machine.
I am not so naive as to not realize that billionaire Donald Trump is also one of the 1%ers, a
pure product of the US oligarchy. But neither am I so ignorant of history to forget that elites
do turn on each other , especially when their regime is threatened. Do I need to remind anybody
that Putin also came from the Soviet elites?!
Ideally, the next step would be for Trump and Putin to meet, with all their key ministers,
in a long, Camp David like week of negotiations in which everything, every outstanding dispute, should
be put on the table and a compromise sought in each case. Paradoxically, this could be rather easy:
the crisis in Europe is entirely artificial, the war in Syria has an absolutely obvious solution,
and the international order can easily accommodate a United States which would " deal fairly with
everyone, with everyone - all people and all other nations " and " seek common ground, not hostility;
partnership, not conflict ".
The truth is that the USA and Russia have no objective reasons for conflict – only ideological
issues resulting directly from the insane ideology of messianic imperialism of those who believe,
or pretend to believe, that the USA is an "indispensable nation". What the world wants – needs –
is the USA as a *normal* nation.
The worst case? Trump could turn out to be a total fraud. I personally very much doubt it,
but I admit that this is possible. More likely is that he just won't have the foresight and courage
to crush the Neocons and that he will try to placate them. If he does so, they will instead crush
him. It is a fact that while administrations have changed every 4 or 8 years, the regime in power
has not, and that US internal and foreign policies have been amazingly consistent since the end of
WWII. Will Trump finally bring not just a new administration but real "regime change"? I don't know.
Make no mistake – even if Trump does end up disappointing those who believed in him what happened
today has dealt a death blow to the Empire. The "Occupy Wall Street" did not succeed in achieving
anything tangible, but the notion of "rule of the 1%" did emerge from that movement and it stayed.
This is a direct blow to the credibility and legitimacy of the entire socio-political order
of the USA: far from being a democracy, it is a plutocracy/oligarchy – everybody pretty much accepts
that today. Likewise, the election of Trump has already proved that the US media is a prostitute
and that the majority of the American people hate their ruling class. Again, this is a direct blow
to the credibility and legitimacy of the entire socio-political order. One by one the founding
myths of the US Empire are crashing down and what remains is a system which can only rule by force.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn used to say that regimes can be measured on a spectrum which ranges
from regimes whose authority is their power and regimes whose power in in their authority. In the
case of the USA we now clearly can see that the regime has no other authority than its power and
that makes it both illegitimate and unsustainable.
Finally, whether the US elites can accept this or not, the US Empire is coming to an end.
With Hillary, we would have had a Titanic-like denial up to the last moment which might well
have come in the shape of a thermonuclear mushroom over Washington DC. Trump, however, might use
the remaining power of the USA to negotiate the US global draw-down thereby getting the best possible
conditions for his country. Frankly, I am pretty sure that all the key world leaders realize
that it is in their interest to make as many (reasonable) concessions to Trump as possible and work
with him, rather than to deal with the people whom he just removed from power.
If Trump can stick to his campaign promises he will find solid and reliable partners in
Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. Neither Russia nor China have anything at all to gain from a confrontation
or, even less so, a conflict with the USA. Will Trump have the wisdom to realize this and use it
for the benefit of the USA? Or will he continue with his anti-Chinese and anti-Iranian rhetoric?
"... Some of those applications are coming from the #NeverTrump crowd, the source said, and include former national security officials who signed one or more of the letters opposing Trump. ..."
"... Fifty GOP national security experts signed an August letter saying Trump "would put at risk our country's national security and well-being" because he "lacks the character, values and experience" to occupy the Oval Office, making him "the most reckless president in American history." ..."
"... Another bipartisan letter cited concern about potential foreign conflicts of interest Trump might encounter as president, and called on him to disclose them by releasing his tax returns. Trump has refused to do so, saying he is under audit and will make the returns public only once that is done. ..."
The extraordinary repudiation -- partly based on Trump's rejection of basic US foreign policy
tenets, including support for close allies -- helped spark the hashtag #NeverTrump. Now, a source
familiar with transition planning says that hard wall of resistance is crumbling fast.
There are "boxes" of applications, the source said. "There are many more than people realize."
Some of those applications are coming from the #NeverTrump crowd, the source said, and include
former national security officials who signed one or more of the letters opposing Trump. "Mea
culpas" are being considered -- and in some cases being granted, the source said -- for people who
did not go a step further in attacking Trump personally.
... ... ...
Fifty GOP national security experts signed an August letter saying Trump "would put at risk
our country's national security and well-being" because he "lacks the character, values and experience"
to occupy the Oval Office, making him "the most reckless president in American history."
Another bipartisan letter cited concern about potential foreign conflicts of interest Trump might
encounter as president, and called on him to disclose them by releasing his tax returns. Trump has
refused to do so, saying he is under audit and will make the returns public only once that is done.
It remains to be seen what kind of team Trump will pull together, how many "NeverTrumpers" will apply
for positions and to what degree the President-elect will be willing to accept them.
There's a fight underway within the Trump transition team about whether to consider "never Trumpers"
for jobs, one official tells CNN. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who is leading the transition
team, has been working to persuade Trump and other top officials to consider Republicans who openly
opposed his campaign. That has caused some friction with those who see no place for people who didn't
support their candidate.
A sweeping Pacific trade pact meant to bind the U.S.and Asia effectively died Friday, as Republican
and Democratic leaders in Congress told the White House they won't advance it in the election's aftermath,
and Obama administration officials acknowledged it has no way forward now.
The failure to pass the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership-by far the biggest trade agreement
in more than a decade-is a bitter defeat for President Barack Obama, whose belated but fervent support
for freer trade divided his party and complicated the campaign of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
The White House had lobbied hard for months in the hope of moving forward on the pact if Mrs.
Clinton had won.
The deal's collapse, which comes amid a rising wave of antitrade sentiment in the U.S., also dents
American prestige in the region at a time when China is flexing its economic and military muscles.
Just over a year ago, Republicans were willing to vote overwhelmingly in support of Mr. Obama's
trade policy. But as the political season approached and voters registered their concerns by supporting
Donald J. Trump, the GOP reacted coolly to the deal Mr. Obama's team reached with Japan and 10 others
countries just over a year ago in Atlanta. ...
"... America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national
security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because there
are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers. ..."
"... Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being
mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary
of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team. ..."
"... There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries
of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump
supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic,
and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions. ..."
"... Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit
them to infest his administration. ..."
"... PNAC: Project for New American Century. The main neocon lobby, it focused first on invading Iraq. Founded 1997, by William
Kristol & Robert Kagan. First action: open letter to Clinton advocating Iraq war. Members in the Iraq-War clique: Cheney, Rumsfeld,
Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Libby, Abrams, Wurmser, Perle. ..."
"... HE PROMISED he would appoint a special prosecutor, PROMISED... ..."
"... Trump should reverse the McCain Feingold bill. That would take some wind out of Soros' sails, at least temporarily because
that was Soros' bill. He wanted campaign finance reform which actually meant that he wanted to control campaign finance through 501C3
groups, or foundations such as Open Society, Moveon.org, Ella Baker society, Center for American progress, etc. He has a massive web
of these organizations and they fund smaller ones and all kinds of evil. ..."
"... Tyler, please rerun this! How George Sorros destroys countries, profits from currency trading, convinces the countries to privatize
its assets, buys them and then sells them for yet another profit: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-08/how-george-soros-singlehandedly...
..."
"... We know so little about Trump ... he's neoCon friendly to start with (remember he hired neoCon Grandee James Woolsey as an
advisor)... and remember too Trump is promising his own war against Iran ... ..."
"... JFK was gunned down in front of the whole world. ..."
"... If Trump really is a nationalist patriot he'll need to innoculate the Population about the Deep State... they in turn will
unleash financial disintegration and chaos, a Purple Revolution and then assassinate Trump (or have his own party impeach him) ..."
"... Organizing a means to receive the protestors' complaints may co-opt any organized effort to disrupt good political interaction
and it will also separate out the bad elements cited by Madsen. ..."
Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to "go quietly into that good night". On the morning
after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband,
former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned
in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent
the coming together of Democratic "Blue America" and Republican "Red America" into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete
ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon
George Soros.
The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros,
were, in fact, helping to launch Soros's "Purple Revolution" in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump
administration to push back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama. The Purple Revolution
will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.
It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of
Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation
faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the
Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide
Huma Abedin
. President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.
America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national
security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because
there are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers.
Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being
mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary
of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team.
There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries
of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump
supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic,
and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions.
Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit
them to infest his administration. If Mrs. Clinton had won the presidency, an article on the incoming administration would have
read as follows:
"Based on the militarism and foreign adventurism of her term as Secretary of State and her husband Bill Clinton's two terms
as president, the world is in store for major American military aggression on multiple fronts around the world. President-elect
Hillary Clinton has made no secret of her desire to confront Russia militarily, diplomatically, and economically in the Middle
East, on Russia's very doorstep in eastern Europe, and even within the borders of the Russian Federation. Mrs. Clinton has dusted
off the long-discredited 'containment' policy ushered into effect by Professor George F. Kennan in the aftermath of World War.
Mrs. Clinton's administration will likely promote the most strident neo-Cold Warriors of the Barack Obama administration, including
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, a personal favorite of Clinton".
President-elect Trump cannot afford to permit those who are in the same web as Nuland, Hadley, Bolton, and others to join his
administration where they would metastasize like an aggressive form of cancer. These individuals would not carry out Trump's policies
but seek to continue to damage America's relations with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, and other nations.
Not only must Trump have to deal with Republican neocons trying to worm their way into his administration, but he must deal with
the attempt by Soros to disrupt his presidency and the United States with a Purple Revolution
No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities
to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed
at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and
the other, ten years later, in 2014.
As the Clintons were embracing purple in New York, street demonstrations, some violent, all coordinated by the Soros-funded Moveon.org
and "Black Lives Matter", broke out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Nashville, Cleveland, Washington, Austin, Seattle,
Philadelphia, Richmond, St. Paul, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, and some 200 other cities across the United States.
The Soros-financed Russian singing group "Pussy Riot" released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled "Make America Great
Again". The video went "viral" on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump
presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans
to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street
protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros's Purple Revolution in America.
President-elect Trump is facing a two-pronged attack by his opponents. One, led by entrenched neo-con bureaucrats, including former
Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff,
and Bush family loyalists are seeking to call the shots on who Trump appoints to senior national security, intelligence, foreign
policy, and defense positions in his administration. These neo-Cold Warriors are trying to convince Trump that he must maintain the
Obama aggressiveness and militancy toward Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries. The second front arrayed against
Trump is from Soros-funded political groups and media. This second line of attack is a propaganda war, utilizing hundreds of anti-Trump
newspapers, web sites, and broadcasters, that will seek to undermine public confidence in the Trump administration from its outset.
One of Trump's political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair
Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of "a global power structure that is responsible
for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets
of a handful of large corporations and political entities". Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as
"anti-Semitic". President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros's
son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros's tactics
not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George
Soros, including his Purple Revolution.
"It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation
of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when
the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care."
None of those "pressing issues" involve the DOJ or the FBI.
Investigate, prosecute and jail Hillary Clinton and her crew.
Trump is going to need a hostage or two to deal with these fucks.
News for the Clintons, The R's and D's already united to vote against Hillary.
I do not understand why they think street protests will bring down a POTUS? And that would be acceptable in a major nation.
Why isn't the government cracking down the separatists in Oregon, California, and elsewhere? They are not accepting the legal
outcome of an election. They are calling for illegal secession. (Funny in 1861 this was a cause for the federal government to
attack the joint and seveal states of the union.) If a group of whites had protested Obama's election in 2008?
The people living in Kalispell are reviled and ridiculed for their separatist views. Randy Weaver and family for not accepting
politically correct views. And so on.
This is getting out of hand. There will be no walking this back.
Purple is the color of royalty! Are these fuckers proclaiming themselves as King and Queen of America? If so, get the executioner
and give them a "French Haircut"!
"Yes. And who are the neocons really? Progressives. Neocon is a label successfully used by criminal progressives to shield
their brand."
Well let's go a little bit deeper in examing the 'who' thing:
"The neoconservative movement, which is generally perceived as a radical (rather than "conservative") Republican right,
is, in reality, an intellectual movement born in the late 1960s in the pages of the monthly magazine Commentary , a media arm
of the American Jewish Committee , which had replaced the Contemporary Jewish Record in 1945. The Forward , the oldest American
Jewish weekly, wrote in a January 6th, 2006 article signed Gal Beckerman: " If there is an intellectual movement in America
to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it.... "
The idea of arresting the Clinton Crime, Fraud and Crime Family would be welcomed. BUT, who is going to arrest them? Loretta Lynch,
James Comey, WHO? The problem here is that our so called "authorities" are all in the same bed. The tentacles of the Eastern Elite
Establishment are everywhere in high office, academia, the media, Big Business, etc. The swamp is thoroughly infested with this
elite scum of those in the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Chatham House, Club of Rome,
Committee of 300, Jason Society and numerous other private clubs of the rich, powerful and influential. The Illuminati has been
exposed, however they aren't going down lightly. They still have massive amounts of money, they own the media and the banking
houses. Some have described it as MIMAC, the Military Industrial Media Academic Complex. A few months ago here at Zero Hedge,
there was an article which showed a massive flow chart of the elites and their organization
They could IF and WHEN Trump gets to Washington after 20 Jan 2017, simply implode the economy and blame t it on Trump. Sort
of what happened to Herbert Hoover in the late 1920's. Unfortunately the situation in the US will continue to deteriorate. George
Soros, a major financial backer of Hillary will see to that. Soros is a Globalist and advocate of one world government. People
comment that Soros should be arrested. I agree, BUT who is going to do that?
Agree. I think Trump will yank all the "aid" to Israel as well as "aid" to the Islamic murderers of the Palitrashian human garbage
infesting the area. This "aid" money is simply a bribe to keep both from killing each other. F**k all of them. None of our business
what they do.
We got progressives ( lots and lots of Jews in that group) who are the enemy of mankind and then we got Islam who are also
the enemy of mankind. Why help either of them? Makes no sense.
Soros is hated in Israel and has never set foot there but his foundations have done such harm that a bill was recently passed
to ban foreign funding of non profit political organizations
The fact that we all have to worry about the CIA killing a President Elect simply because the man puts America first, really says
it all.
The Agency is Cancer. Why are we even waiting for them to kill another one of our people to act? There should be no question
about the CIA's future in the US.
Dissolved & dishonored. Its members locked away or punished for Treason. Their reputation is so bad and has been for so long,
that the fact that you joined them should be enough to justify arrest and Execution for Treason, Crimes Against Humanity & Crimes
Against The American People.
There are entirely way too many Intelligence Agencies. Plus the Contractors, some of who shouldn't have high level clearance to
begin with which the US sub contracts the Intel / work out to.
For Fucks sake, Government is so incompetent it can't even handle it own Intel.
Something along the lines of Eurpoe's Five Eyes would be highly effective.
Fuck those Pure Evil Psychopaths at the CIA They're nothing more than a bunch of Scum Fuck murdering, drug running, money laundering
Global Crime Syndicate.
The FBI is still investigating the Clinton Foundation, Trump needs to encourage that through backdoor channels. Soro's needs to
be investigated, he has been tied to a conspiracy to incite violence, this needs to be documented and dealt with. Trump can not
ignore this guy. If any of these investigations come back with a recommendation to indict then that process needs to be started.
Take the fight to them, they are vulnerable!
Make a National APB Warrent for the apprehension & arrest of George Sooros for inciting violence, endsrgerimg the public & calling
for the murder of our Nations Police through funding of the BLM Group.
Have every Law Informent Agency in the Nation on alert. Also, issue a Bounty in the Sum of $5,000,000 for his immediate apprehension.
Trump needs to replace FBI chickenshits & sellouts with loyal people then get the FBI counter-terrorism to investigate and shut
down Soros & the various agencies instigating the riots. It's really simple when you quit over-thinking a problem. It's domestic
terrorism. It's the FBI's job to stop it.
I read what Paul said this morning and thought, despite Paul's hostility to Trump during the primaries most likely due to his
son, Rand's loss, that Paul gave good advice to Trump.
Let's face it Donald Trump is a STOP GAP measure. And demographic change over the next 4 years makes his re-election very, very
UNLIKELY. If he keeps his campaign promises he will be a GREAT president. However as ZH reported earlier he appears to be balking
from repealing Obamacare, I stress the word APPEARS.
Let us give him a chance. This is all speculation. His enemies are DEADLY as they were once they got total control in Russia,
they killed according to Solzhenitsyn SIXTY-SIX MILLION Russian Christians. The descendants of those Bolsheviks are VERY powerful
in the USSA. They control the Fed, Hollyweird, Wall Street, the universities...
Much of the media and advertising exist by pushing buttons that trigger appropriate financially lucrative reflexes in their
audiences, from pornography to romantic movies to team sports. Media profits are driven by competition over how best to push
those buttons. But the effort to produce politically and racially cuckolded Whites adds a layer of complexity: What buttons
do you push to make Whites complicit in their own racial and cultural demise?
Actually, there are a whole lot of them, which shouldn't be surprising. This is a very sophisticated onslaught, enabled
by control over all the moral, intellectual, and political high ground by the left. With all that high ground, there are a
lot of buttons you can push.
Our enemies see this as a pathetic last gasp of a moribund civilization and it is quite true for our civilization is dying.
Identity Christians describe this phase as Jacob's Troubles and what the secular Guillaume Faye would, I think, describe as the
catastrophe required to get people motivated. The future has yet to be written, however I cannot help but think that God's people,
the White people, are stirring from their slumber.
"PNAC: Project for New American Century. The main neocon lobby, it focused first on invading Iraq. Founded 1997, by William
Kristol & Robert Kagan. First action: open letter to Clinton advocating Iraq war. Members in the Iraq-War clique: Cheney, Rumsfeld,
Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Libby, Abrams, Wurmser, Perle.
JINSA, The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. "explaining the link between U.S. national security and Israel's
security" Served on JINSA's Advisory Board: Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Perle."
If Trump has probable cause on the Soros crimes, have his DoJ request a warrant for all of Soros's communications via the NSA,
empanel a grand jury, indict the bastard, and throw his raggedy ass in prison. It would be hard for him to run his retarded purple
revolution when he's getting ass-raped by his cell mate.
I agree. Thing is, I think as president he can simply order the NSA to cough up whatever they have, just like Obama could have
done at any point. The NSA is part of the Defense Department, right? What am I missing here?
But in respect to Soro's money and the Dalas shooting or other incited events, there should be a grand jury empanelled and
then charges brought against him. I think nothing short of him hiding in an embassy with all his money blocked by Swift is justice
for the violence that he funded.
It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation
of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when
the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on
Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide Huma Abedin. President Trump should not allow himself to be
distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.
And so it begins; I really hope that this is just some misinformation/disinformation, because HE PROMISED he would appoint
a special prosecutor, PROMISED...
The likes of Bill Kristol, Ben Shapiro and Jonah Goldberg get to catch up on their Torah for the forseeable future but the likes
of Lloyd Blankfein will probably get to entertain the court since they have probably crossed paths doing business in NYC. The
"real conservative" deeply introspective, examine-my-conscience crowd screwed themselves to the wall, god love them.
Trump should reverse the McCain Feingold bill. That would take some wind out of Soros' sails, at least temporarily because
that was Soros' bill. He wanted campaign finance reform which actually meant that he wanted to control campaign finance through
501C3 groups, or foundations such as Open Society, Moveon.org, Ella Baker society, Center for American progress, etc. He has a
massive web of these organizations and they fund smaller ones and all kinds of evil.
We know so little about Trump ... he's neoCon friendly to start with (remember he hired neoCon Grandee James Woolsey as an
advisor)... and remember too Trump is promising his own war against Iran ... (just in case you confused him with Mother Theresa)..
But then again JFK took office with a set of initiatives that were far more bellicose and provocative (like putting huge Jupiter
missile launchers on the USSR border in Turkey)... once he saw he light and fired the pro Nazi Dulles Gang , JFK was gunned
down in front of the whole world.
If Trump really is a nationalist patriot he'll need to innoculate the Population about the Deep State... they in turn will
unleash financial disintegration and chaos, a Purple Revolution and then assassinate Trump (or have his own party impeach him)
I'm guessing though that deep down Trump is quite comfortable with a neoCon cabinet... hell he already offered Jamie Diamon
the office of Treasry Secretary... no doubt a calculated gesture to signal compliance with the Deep State.
The Clintons do not do things by accident. Coordination of colors at the concession speech was meant for something. Perhaps the
purple revolution or maybe they want to be seen as royals. It doesn't really matter why they did it; the fact is they are up to
something. They will not agree to go away and even if they offered to just disappear with their wealth we know they are dishonest.
They will come back... that is what they do.
They must be stripped of power and wealth. This act must be performed publicly.
In order to succeed Mr. Trump I suggest you task a group to accomplish this result. Your efforts to make America great again
may disintegrate just like Obamacare if you allow the Clintons and Co. to languish in the background.
The protestors are groups of individuals who may seek association for any number of reasons. One major reason might be the loss
of hope for a meaningful and prosperous life. We should seek out and listen to the individuals within these groups. If they are
truly desirous of being heard they will communicate what they want without use of violence. Perhaps individuals join these protest
groups because they do not have a voice.
Organizing a means to receive the protestors' complaints may co-opt any organized effort to disrupt good political interaction
and it will also separate out the bad elements cited by Madsen.
The articles reporting that Mr. Trump has changed his response to the protestors is a good effort to discover the protestors'
complaints and channel their energy into beneficial political activity. Something must be done quickly though, before the protests
get out of hand, for if that happens the protestors will be criminals and no one will want to work with them.
In order to make America great again we need input from all of America. Mr. Trump you can harness the energy of these protestors
and let them know they are a part of your movement.
Classical economists are experts on today's capitalism, it is 18th and 19th Century capitalism, it's how it all started.
Adam Smith would think we are on the road to ruin.
"But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society.
On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going
fastest to ruin."
Exactly the opposite of today's thinking, what does he mean?
When rates of profit are high, capitalism is cannibalizing itself by:
1) Not engaging in long term investment for the future
2) Paying insufficient wages to maintain demand for its products and services.
Got that wrong as well.
Adam Smith wouldn't like today's lobbyists.
"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great
precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous,
but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of
the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions,
both deceived and oppressed it."
AMERICAN SPRING: She practiced overseas in Tunisia, Algeria, Oman, Jordan, Libya, Egypt... Now it's time to apply the knowledge
in her own country!
lakecity55 -> CoCosAB •Nov 12, 2016 7:53 AM
Really good chance these subversive operations will continue. Soros has plenty of money. Trump will have to do some rough stuff,
but he needs to, it's what we hired him for.
I've been reading the Grauniad , as it used to be affectionately known because of its frequent misprints, for nearly
fifty years, and I don't think I've ever found it as unreadable (not to mention smug and self-righteous) as it is today. Its earnest
and hectoring tone was always easy to parody ("Guardian Woman" had become a standing joke by the 1980s) but over the last few
years of reading it on the internet from abroad I am no longer sure what I actually read and what my subconscious invented in
the form of parody (was there really a headline like "Why is the Football Association Failing Transexual Goalkeepers?" or did
I just dream it?") If you want a classic example of a once distinguished publication ruined by identity politics, that would be
my nomination. (To be fair, the Independent 's coverage has been an order of magnitude worse.)
The real French equivalent of the Guardian by the way is Libération which has followed a similar, but even worse
trajectory, and specialises these days in front-page vilification of anyone who transgresses correct identity group thinking –
most recently the philosopher Michel Onfray who dared to make a few critical remarks about radical islam. Le Monde is a
neoliberal and neoconservative rag these days, but less unreadable than Libé.
Oh tempora, oh mores!
I now feel the same about The Economist, I used to read it for education, starting at Uni in 1967. It appears to me now to
be a Neo Liberal mouthpiece.
The Economist Group is owned by the Cadbury, Rothschild, Schroder, Agnelli and other family interests as well as a number of
staff and former staff shareholders.
I'll take your word about the French newspapers. I fled from the Lib after about 2 minutes perusal recently – it had been years
(many, many) since I read it.
And I just don't see that much difference between the guardian's neoliberalism and Le Monde's but, then again, I only dip into
Le Monde about once a week. Science articles are the only thing I read in any depth.
President-elect Donald J. Trump, who campaigned against the corrupt power of special interests,
is filling his transition team with some of the very sort of people who he has complained have
too much clout in Washington: corporate consultants and lobbyists.
Jeffrey Eisenach, a consultant who has worked for years on behalf of Verizon and other telecommunications
clients, is the head of the team that is helping to pick staff members at the Federal Communications
Commission.
Michael Catanzaro, a lobbyist whose clients include Devon Energy and Encana Oil and Gas, holds
the "energy independence" portfolio.
Michael Torrey, a lobbyist who runs a firm that has earned millions of dollars helping food
industry players such as the American Beverage Association and the dairy giant Dean Foods, is
helping set up the new team at the Department of Agriculture.
What? No steelworker? No auto-plant worker? Not even a family farmer? Might y'all have been
had ?
Who'd a thunk?
Bernie and Elizabeth to the rescue.
Now, please . Now .
But, hey, white blue collar folks: You get what you vote for. The problem for me is that I
get what you vote for. I said roughly 540 times here at AB in the last year: Trump isn't conquering
the Republican Party; he's the Republican Party's Trojan Horse. What was that y'all were saying about
wanting change so badly? Here it is.
Welcome to the concept of
industry regulatory capture
. Perfected to a science, and jaw-droppingly brazen.
LOL . Funny, but Bernie talked about this. Some of you listened. Then. Elizabeth Warren has talked
about it, a lot. Some of you listened. Back then. But she wasn't running for president. Hillary Clinton
was, instead. And
she couldn't talk about it because she had needed all those speaking fees , all the way up to
about a minute before she announced her candidacy.
Aaaaand, here come the judges. And of course the justices. Industry regulatory capture of the
judicial-branch variety.
I called this one right, in the title of
this post yesterday . I mean, why even wait until the body is buried? No reason at all.
So he thinks. But what if he's wrong?
Anyway can't wait for the political cartoons showing Trump on Ryan's lap, with Ryan's arm showing
reaching up under Trump's suit jacket.
It's effing asinine . Everyone's entitled to their little personal delusions, but why the
obsessiveness about this patent silliness? What is exactly is the emotional hold that Hillary Clinton
holds on these people? It's climate-change-denial-like.
Elizabeth Warren would have beaten Donald Trump in a landslide. So would have Bernie Sanders.
And brought in a Democratic-controlled Senate and House. Because both would have run a remarkably
campaign, under normal standards, not a special low bar.
An
organizational chart of Trump's transition team shows it to be crawling with corporate lobbyists,
representing such clients as Altria, Visa, Coca-Cola, General Electric, Verizon, HSBC, Pfizer,
Dow Chemical, and Duke Energy. And K Street is
positively
salivating over all the new opportunities they'll have to deliver goodies to their clients
in the Trump era. Who could possibly have predicted such a thing?
The answer is, anyone who was paying attention. Look at the people Trump is
considering
for his cabinet, and you won't find any outside-the-box thinkers burning to work for the little
guy. It's a collection of Republican politicians and corporate plutocrats - not much different
from who you'd find in any Republican administration.
And from reader EMichael in the Comments thread to this post about 35 minutes ago:
OH, it will be worse than that, much worse.
Bank regulation will go back to the "glory days" of the housing bubble, and Warren's CFPB will
be toast.
Buddy of mine works HR for a large bank. He has been flooded with resumes from current employees
of the CFPB the last couple of days.
Yup. HSBC ain't in that list for nothing. But, not to worry. Trump's kids will pick up lots of
real estate on the (real) cheap, after the crash. Their dad will give them all the tips, from experience.
And the breaking news this afternoon is that Pence–uh-ha;
this Mike Pence –has
replaced Christie as transition team head. Wanna bet that Comey told Trump today that Christie is
likely to be indicted in Bridgegate?
Next up, although down the road a few months: rumors that a grand jury has been convened to try
to learn how, exactly, Giuliani got all that info from inside the FBI two weeks ago. Once the FBI
inspector general completes his investigation. Or once New York's attorney general, Eric Schneiderman,
begins looking into violations of NY state criminal law.
"... my equation of Neoliberalism (or Post-Capitalism) = Wall Street + Identity Politics generated by the dematerialization of Capital. CDO's are nothing but words on paper or bytes in the stream; and identity politics has much less to do with the Body than the culture and language. Trumpists were interpellated as White by the Democrats and became ideological. Capital is Language. ..."
"... "Sanders and Trump inflamed their audiences with searing critiques of Capitalism's unfairness. Then what? Then Trump's response to what he has genuinely seen is, analytically speaking, word salad. Trump is sound and fury and garble. Yet - and this is key - the noise in his message increases the apparent value of what's clear about it. The ways he's right seem more powerful, somehow, in relief against the ways he's blabbing." ..."
"... But Trump's people don't use suffering as a metric of virtue. They want fairness of a sort, but mainly they seek freedom from shame. Civil rights and feminism aren't just about the law after all, they are about manners, and emotions too: those "interest groups" get right in there and reject what feels like people's spontaneous, ingrained responses. People get shamed, or lose their jobs, for example, when they're just having a little fun making fun. Anti-PC means "I feel unfree. ..."
"... The Trump Emotion Machine is delivering feeling ok, acting free. Being ok with one's internal noise, and saying it, and demanding that it matter. Internal Noise Matters. " my emp ..."
I thought someone above talked about Trump's rhetoric
1) Tom Ferguson at Real News Network post at Naked Capitalism says (and said in 2014) that
the Democratic coalition of Wall Street (Silicon Valley) + Identity Politics is imploding, because
it can't deliver populist goodies without losing part of it's core base.
Noted no for that, but for my equation of Neoliberalism (or Post-Capitalism) = Wall Street
+ Identity Politics generated by the dematerialization of Capital. CDO's are nothing but words
on paper or bytes in the stream; and identity politics has much less to do with the Body than
the culture and language. Trumpists were interpellated as White by the Democrats and became ideological.
Capital is Language.
2) Consider the above an intro to
Lauren
Berlant at the New Inquiry "Trump or Political Emotions" which I think is smart. Just a phrase
cloud that stood out for me. All following from Berlant, except parenthetical
It is a scene where structural antagonisms - genuinely conflicting interests - are described
in rhetoric that intensifies fantasy.
People would like to feel free. They would like the world to have a generous cushion for all
their aggression and inclination. They would like there to be a general plane of okayness governing
social relations
( Safe Space defined as the site where being nasty to those not inside is admired and approved.
We all have them, we all want them, we create our communities and identities for this purpose.)
"Sanders and Trump inflamed their audiences with searing critiques of Capitalism's unfairness.
Then what? Then Trump's response to what he has genuinely seen is, analytically speaking, word
salad. Trump is sound and fury and garble. Yet - and this is key - the noise in his message
increases the apparent value of what's clear about it. The ways he's right seem more powerful,
somehow, in relief against the ways he's blabbing."
(Wonderful, and a comprehension of New Media I rarely see. Cybernetics? Does noise increase
the value of signal? The grammatically correct tight argument crowd will not get this. A problem
I have with CT's new policy)
"You watch him calculating, yet not seeming to care about the consequences of what he says,
and you listen to his supporters enjoying the feel of his freedom. "
(If "civil speech" is socially approved signal, then noise = freedom and feeling. Every two
year old and teenage guitarist understands)
"But Trump's people don't use suffering as a metric of virtue. They want fairness of a
sort, but mainly they seek freedom from shame. Civil rights and feminism aren't just about the
law after all, they are about manners, and emotions too: those "interest groups" get right in
there and reject what feels like people's spontaneous, ingrained responses. People get shamed,
or lose their jobs, for example, when they're just having a little fun making fun. Anti-PC means
"I feel unfree."
The Trump Emotion Machine is delivering feeling ok, acting free. Being ok with one's internal
noise, and saying it, and demanding that it matter. Internal Noise Matters. " my emp
Noise again. Berlant worth reading, and thinking about.
What's bought [sic] us to this stage is a policy – whether it's been intentional
or unintentional or a mixture of both – of divide and rule, where society is broken down into
neat little boxes and were told how to behave towards the contents of each one rather than,
say, just behaving well towards all of them.
And this right here is why neoliberalism = identity politics and why both ought to be crushed
ruthlessly.
With President-elect Trump's victory last night, the last hopes of the Obama administration passing
the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) during the lame duck session of Congress have evaporated. The
passage of the TPP through Congress was dependent upon support from members of the Republican majority,
and there is no realistic prospect that they will now pass the deal given their elected President's
firmly expressed opposition to it. Even if they did so, the new President would presumably veto the
pact's implementing legislation.
President-elect Donald J. Trump, who campaigned against the corrupt power of special interests,
is filling his transition team with some of the very sort of people who he has complained have
too much clout in Washington: corporate consultants and lobbyists.
Jeffrey Eisenach, a consultant who has worked for years on behalf of Verizon and other telecommunications
clients, is the head of the team that is helping to pick staff members at the Federal Communications
Commission.
Michael Catanzaro, a lobbyist whose clients include Devon Energy and Encana Oil and Gas, holds
the "energy independence" portfolio.
Michael Torrey, a lobbyist who runs a firm that has earned millions of dollars helping food
industry players such as the American Beverage Association and the dairy giant Dean Foods, is
helping set up the new team at the Department of Agriculture.
What? No steelworker? No auto-plant worker? Not even a family farmer? Might y'all have been
had ?
Who'd a thunk?
Bernie and Elizabeth to the rescue.
Now, please . Now .
But, hey, white blue collar folks: You get what you vote for. The problem for me is that I
get what you vote for. I said roughly 540 times here at AB in the last year: Trump isn't conquering
the Republican Party; he's the Republican Party's Trojan Horse. What was that y'all were saying about
wanting change so badly? Here it is.
Welcome to the concept of
industry regulatory capture
. Perfected to a science, and jaw-droppingly brazen.
LOL . Funny, but Bernie talked about this. Some of you listened. Then. Elizabeth Warren has talked
about it, a lot. Some of you listened. Back then. But she wasn't running for president. Hillary Clinton
was, instead. And
she couldn't talk about it because she had needed all those speaking fees , all the way up to
about a minute before she announced her candidacy.
Aaaaand, here come the judges. And of course the justices. Industry regulatory capture of the
judicial-branch variety.
I called this one right, in the title of
this post yesterday . I mean, why even wait until the body is buried? No reason at all.
So he thinks. But what if he's wrong?
Anyway … can't wait for the political cartoons showing Trump on Ryan's lap, with Ryan's arm showing
reaching up under Trump's suit jacket.
It's effing asinine . Everyone's entitled to their little personal delusions, but why the
obsessiveness about this patent silliness? What is exactly is the emotional hold that Hillary Clinton
holds on these people? It's climate-change-denial-like.
Elizabeth Warren would have beaten Donald Trump in a landslide. So would have Bernie Sanders.
And brought in a Democratic-controlled Senate and House. Because both would have run a remarkably
campaign, under normal standards, not a special low bar.
An
organizational chart of Trump's transition team shows it to be crawling with corporate lobbyists,
representing such clients as Altria, Visa, Coca-Cola, General Electric, Verizon, HSBC, Pfizer,
Dow Chemical, and Duke Energy. And K Street is
positively
salivating over all the new opportunities they'll have to deliver goodies to their clients
in the Trump era. Who could possibly have predicted such a thing?
The answer is, anyone who was paying attention. Look at the people Trump is
considering
for his cabinet, and you won't find any outside-the-box thinkers burning to work for the little
guy. It's a collection of Republican politicians and corporate plutocrats - not much different
from who you'd find in any Republican administration.
And from reader EMichael in the Comments thread to this post about 35 minutes ago:
OH, it will be worse than that, much worse.
Bank regulation will go back to the "glory days" of the housing bubble, and Warren's CFPB will
be toast.
Buddy of mine works HR for a large bank. He has been flooded with resumes from current employees
of the CFPB the last couple of days.
Yup. HSBC ain't in that list for nothing. But, not to worry. Trump's kids will pick up lots of
real estate on the (real) cheap, after the crash. Their dad will give them all the tips, from experience.
And the breaking news this afternoon is that Pence–uh-ha;
this Mike Pence –has
replaced Christie as transition team head. Wanna bet that Comey told Trump today that Christie is
likely to be indicted in Bridgegate?
Next up, although down the road a few months: rumors that a grand jury has been convened to try
to learn how, exactly, Giuliani got all that info from inside the FBI two weeks ago. Once the FBI
inspector general completes his investigation. Or once New York's attorney general, Eric Schneiderman,
begins looking into violations of NY state criminal law.
"[Trump] has many tools to reverse the post World War II consensus on liberalizing U.S. trade
without needing congressional approval. For instance, he can withdraw from the North American Free
Trade Agreement, as he has threatened to do, by simply notifying the U.S.' Nafta partners, Mexico
and Canada, and waiting six months. Withdrawing from the World Trade Organization, which sets rules
for global trading and enforces tariffs, has a similar provision" [
Wall
Street Journal
, "Donald Trump Will Need to Leverage Size, Power of U.S. Economy to Remake Global
Trading System"]. "'Our major trading partners are far more likely to cooperate with an America resolute
about balancing its trade than they are likely to provoke a trade war,' wrote Trump economic advisers
Peter Navarro [
here
]
of the University of California-Irvine and investor Wilbur Ross in September. 'This is true for one
very simple reason: America's major trading partners are far more dependent on American markets than
America is on their markets.'"
TPP: "To take effect, TPP must be ratified by February 2018 by at least six countries that account
for 85 percent of the 12 members' aggregate economic output. This effectively means that the U.S.
and Japan, the world's third-largest economy and the second-largest that is a signatory nation, must
both be on board" [
DC
Velocity
].
TPP: "Mr. Trump's win also seals the fate of President Barack Obama's 12-nation trade agreement,
the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. The president-elect blamed the TPP on special interests who
want to "rape" the country" [
Wall
Street Journal
, "Donald Trump Win to Upend Trade Policy"]. "Mr. Obama had hoped to work with
Republican lawmakers to pass the TPP during the 'lame duck' session of Congress after the election,
where they faced an uphill battle even if Tuesday's vote had favored Hillary Clinton, who previously
backed the TPP negotiations. Now Republicans have little incentive to bring the TPP to a vote, since
Mr. Trump could easily threaten to unravel the deal when he takes office and block its implementation,
as well as punish lawmakers who vote for it."
TPP: "Donald Trump's historic victory Tuesday has killed any chance of Congress voting on President
Barack Obama's signature Asia-Pacific trade agreement while raising the odds of a damaging trade
confrontation with China - just two ways a Trump presidency could upend the global trading system
and usher in a new era of U.S. protectionism, analysts say" [
Politico
].
"'This is the end of globalization is we knew it … because what the U.S. is going to do is certainly
going to impact other countries' and their decisions on negotiations,' Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow
at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told Politico. 'TPP is now in the history
dustbin for sure,' Hufbauer said."
TPP: "House GOP election outcomes will be key as House Speaker Paul Ryan decides whether to bring
the TPP to a vote in the lame-duck session with GOP voters strongly against and the GOP 's high-donor
base demanding action. With an eye to conservative GOP threats to withhold support for his speakership
and a possible 2020 presidential run, Ryan's decision is complicated. Whether the TPP will get a
lame-duck vote is his call. Beyond whether he can muster the votes of representatives who weathered
the wrath of trade voters in this cycle and worry about the 2018 primaries lies the longer-term implications
of his even trying to do so with the GOP voter base so intensely against the pact" [Lori Wallach,
Eyes on Trade
].
". Clinton raised $154 million in September for her campaign and the party.
And people "getting the resources they needed"? Seems odd."
smells like the allegations thrown at the Clinton Foundation--insiders
directing very generous contracts to other insiders. with competence or
efficacy secondary.
How Podesta may have caused Clinton to weaken her position on Wall Street.
New Wikileak shows he pushed her to show "love" for Obama rather than criticism
of BHO's handling of reform
The next day, an OpEd under the byline of Hillary Clinton appeared at
Bloomberg News. Obama's name was mentioned four separate times in a highly
favorable light. Clinton said Obama had signed into law "important new
rules" after the 2008 financial crash; she was going to "build on the
progress we've made under President Obama"; "thanks to President Obama's
leadership" the economy is now on "sounder footing"; and the Dodd-Frank
financial reform legislation that Obama signed into law had "made important
reforms, but there's more to do."
Since Bloomberg News is heavily read by people on Wall Street, this was a
signal to them that Hillary Clinton would leave the bulk of her husband's
cash cow deregulation in place by following in the footsteps of Obama. What
Obama's administration had done in 2010 was to create the illusion of
regulating Wall Street by proposing hundreds of vaguely worded rules in the
Dodd-Frank legislation, then putting crony Wall Street regulators in charge
at the SEC and U.S. Treasury to be sure the rules were never actually
implemented in any meaningful way. (Under Dodd-Frank, the U.S. Treasury
Secretary now sits atop a new financial stability body known as the
Financial Stability Oversight Council. The crony Federal Reserve, which
failed to see the crisis coming, was given enhanced supervisory powers over
the largest Wall Street bank holding companies.) Obama even ignored one of
his own rules in Dodd-Frank. It called for Obama to appoint a Vice Chairman
for Supervision at the Federal Reserve to police Wall Street.[…]
There is another telling fact in the email. Hillary Clinton seems to have
had very little to do with actually fashioning her policies. Another Clinton
adviser, Dan Schwerin, indicates that WJC (William Jefferson Clinton, i.e.
Bill Clinton) had edited the OpEd with "further refinements from policy
team," but there is no mention that Hillary Clinton was involved in her own
OpEd that would bear her byline.
So not just by Podesta but victimized by her philandering husband one last
time? Awhile back Pat Lang suggested it was really Bill who pushed her into
running. The impeach-ee needed his legacy redeemed.
Hillary Clinton seems to have had very little to do with actually
fashioning her policies.
This is a point that has irked me ever since I waded into the Podesta
emails - how even the smallest public statement or even just a Tweet
required numerous rounds of revisions, feedback, vetting and tweaking from
the Clinton insiders.
It seemed that Clinton rarely had a fire in the belly on any particular
position. It was whatever her team determined was the most politcally
advantageous at the moment.
Maybe this is how most presidential candidates function, but it made me
see Clinton as Presidential Robot Version 2016, programmed by her team to
simulate the appearance of a person with convictions.
I'm sure she has some real convictions and I'm sure she has done real
good in the world. But maybe Assange is right - she has been consumed by
power and greed and was seduced by the possibility of more.
"... It is shockingly disappointing that MOA, this otherwise intelligent incisive, a deeply intellectual and factual blog's readership exhibit a trait common to overall American anti-intellectual sheeple constituency as Gore Vidal posited decades ago, having no shame expressing their utter confusion and ignorance about one fundamental fact of reality they are facing. ..."
"... Those political puppets, stooges of oligarchy are no alternatives to the calcified imperial system itself, they never have been and they never will. They are new/old faces of the same old 240 y.o. Anglo-American imperial regime based on ancient and modern slavery and they already declared it by submitting to it via pledging to run in this farcical rigged electoral fallacy. ..."
It is shockingly disappointing that MOA, this otherwise intelligent incisive, a deeply intellectual
and factual blog's readership exhibit a trait common to overall American anti-intellectual sheeple
constituency as Gore Vidal posited decades ago, having no shame expressing their utter confusion
and ignorance about one fundamental fact of reality they are facing.
THE FACT: The US elections are a staged political farce with NO MATERIAL IMPACT on the US imperial
policies, domestic or international WHATSOEVER. And that's the fact based on rock solid empirical
evidences also MOA proliferates that only a mental patient can deny.
SO WHAT THE F.U.CK ALL OF YOU PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT? "Voting" for this or that? NONSENSE;
Those political puppets, stooges of oligarchy are no alternatives to the calcified imperial
system itself, they never have been and they never will. They are new/old faces of the same old
240 y.o. Anglo-American imperial regime based on ancient and modern slavery and they already declared
it by submitting to it via pledging to run in this farcical rigged electoral fallacy.
All at the end will openly pledge unwavering support for the regime and their rotten deeply
corrupted parties while abandoning their gullible voters.
Supporters of any of these plastic puppets of oligarchy not unlike a cargo cult, are impatient,
nervous, excited and scared sitting and waiting before an impregnable curtain of political deceit,
lies and manipulation by the ruling elite in front of their wide shut eyes , turning to magic,
superstition, appeasement, making up stories, poems out of their incoherent utterances filed with
tautologies, innuendos and absurd, begging for mercy or praying for a caprice of good will to
save them ultimately in a form of fake, meaningless political turds passing as empty "political"
platform promises while blatantly abandoning their unalienable rights to independence, self-determination
and democratic system of people's rule, based on equality in the law, and one voter one vote principle,
for a role of a meddlesome spectators to their own execution.
THE FACT: The democratic electoral system worth participating does not exist in the US but
none of the candidates would utter this truth as long as they can benefit from the fraud and that
includes third parties. If this was a true change or revolution, that we desperately need, honest
leaders would not run their campaign within the corrupted system set up by and for two oligarchic
parties but they would decry and utterly reject it.
Think people, all the so-called candidates even third party candidates are just nibbling on
the behemoth of abhorrent and brutal US imperial power mostly with utterances that they never
intended to follow if they wanted to survive terror of the US security apparatus, while peddling
the lies about small incremental changes and stealing ours and our children future by asking us
to wait, be patient, and begging ruling elite for mercy and may be for some crumbs from an oligarchs'
table after they are not able to gorge themselves anymore with our blood sweat and tears.
Unfortunately, this time as well, millions of irrational, desperate and helpless in their daily
lives electoral zombies such as those, under a spell of exciting political masquerade, regrettably
also on this blog, will be aligning themselves with one or the other anointed by establishment
winner [whoever it will be] of a meaningless popularity/beauty contest, in a delusional feat of
transference of a fraction of elite's power to themselves just for a second of a thrill of illusion
of power, illusion of feelings that something depends on me, that I can make a difference, a delusion
of holding skies from falling and by that saving the world common among paranoid mental patients.
And they will continue to authorize their own suicide mission, since even baseless, continually
disproved hope of Sisyphus, of any chance of influencing of the political realm via means of begging
is the last thing that dies.
THE LOUD POLITICAL BOYCOTT OF THIS FARCE, UTTER REJECTION OF THIS FACADE OF DEMOCRATIC CHOICE,
REJECTION OF ANY POLITICAL LEGITIMACY OF THIS SORRY SPECTACLE IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE AVAILABLE
TO ANY DECENT PERSON, INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN CITIZEN WHO TAKES A MORAL STAND REJECTING ENSLAVEMENT
RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW.
THE REST WILL JUST PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEIR OWN CHAINS.
"... "Yet commentators who have been ready and willing to attribute Donald Trump's success to anger, authoritarianism, or racism rather than policy issues have taken little note of the extent to which Mr. Sanders's support is concentrated not among liberal ideologues but among disaffected white men." ... ..."
"... poor pk a leader of the Stalinist press ..."
"... the surprising success of Bernie Sanders -- a Brooklyn-born, Jewish socialist -- in the primaries is solid proof that the electorate was open to a coherent argument for genuine progressive change, and that a substantial portion of that electorate is not acting on purely racist and sexist impulses, as so many progressive commentators say. ..."
"... "I will live my life calmly and my children will be just fine. I will live my life calmly and my children will be just fine." That assumes you're about 85 years old...and don't have long to live! ..."
"... Laid out by whom? By the commercial "media" hype machine that has 12-16 hours of airtime to fill every day with the as sensationalized as possible gossip (to justify the price for the paid advertisements filling the remaining hours). ..."
"... Killary Clinton got no closer than Ann Arbor this weekend, a message! ..."
"... Mr. Krugman forgot to list the collusion of the DNC and the Clinton campaign to work against Sanders. ..."
"... putting crooked in the same sentence as Clinton or DNC is duplicative wording. This mortification is brought to US by the crooked and the stalinist press that calls crooked virtue. ..."
"... Krugman did so much to help create the mass of white working class discontent that is electing Trump. Krugman and co cheering on NAFTA/PNTR/WTO etc, US deindustrialization, collapse of middle class... ..."
"... Hopefully the working class masses will convince our rulers to abandon free trade before every last factory is sold off or dismantled and the US falls to the depths of a Chad or an Armenia. ..."
The Truth About the Sanders Movement
By Paul Krugman
In short, it's complicated – not all bad, by any means, but not the pure uprising of idealists
the more enthusiastic supporters imagine.
The political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels have an illuminating discussion
of Sanders support. The key graf that will probably have Berniebros boiling is this:
"Yet commentators who have been ready and willing to attribute Donald Trump's success to
anger, authoritarianism, or racism rather than policy issues have taken little note of the extent
to which Mr. Sanders's support is concentrated not among liberal ideologues but among disaffected
white men." ...
[ Yes, I do find defaming people by speculation or stereotype to be beyond saddening. ]
The fact that Obama either won, or did so much better than Hillary appears to be doing with, the
white working-class vote in so many key battleground states, as well as the surprising success
of Bernie Sanders -- a Brooklyn-born, Jewish socialist -- in the primaries is solid proof that
the electorate was open to a coherent argument for genuine progressive change, and that a substantial
portion of that electorate is not acting on purely racist and sexist impulses, as so many progressive
commentators say.
And her opponent was/is incapable of debating on substance, as there was/is neither coherence
nor consistency in any part of his platform -- nor that of his party....
Question is, will Krugman be able to move on after the election...and talk about something useful?
Like how to get Hillary to recognize and deal with inequality...
Barbara Ehrenreich: "Forget fear and loathing. The US election inspires projectile vomiting. The
most sordid side of our democracy has been laid out for all to see. But that's only the beginning:
whoever wins, the mutual revulsion will only intensify... With either Clinton or Trump, we will
be left to choke on our mutual revulsion."
"I will live my life calmly and my children will be just fine. I will live my life calmly
and my children will be just fine." That assumes you're about 85 years old...and don't have long
to live!
Laid out by whom? By the commercial "media" hype machine that has 12-16 hours of airtime to
fill every day with the as sensationalized as possible gossip (to justify the price for the paid
advertisements filling the remaining hours).
Something interesting today.... President Obama came to Michigan. I fully expected him to speak
in Detroit with a get out the vote message. Instead he is in Ann Arbor, speaking to an overwhelmingly
white and white-collar audience. On a related note, the Dems have apparently written off
the white blue collar vote in Michigan, even much of the union vote. the union leaders are pro
Clinton, but the workers not so much. Strange year.
The real danger of serious election-rigging: electronic voting machines. How do we know the machine
*really* recorded everyone's votes correctly? (Did any Florida county ever give Al Gore negative
something votes?)
That's a big subject but you are right, that is the biggest risk of significant fraud. Not just
the voting machines, but the automatic counting systems. Other forms of possible election fraud
are tiny by comparison.
Here is the transcript from 60 Minutes about the Luntz focus group rancor. Instructive to read
about the depth of feeling in case you didn't see the angry, disgusted faces of citizens.
putting crooked in the same sentence as Clinton or DNC is duplicative wording. This mortification
is brought to US by the crooked and the stalinist press that calls crooked virtue.
Before the 1970s the US was both rich and protectionist - no look at our horrible roads and hopeless
people - the miracle of free trade! : ,
November 07, 2016 at 07:13 PM
Krugman did so much to help create the mass of white working class discontent that is electing
Trump. Krugman and co cheering on NAFTA/PNTR/WTO etc, US deindustrialization, collapse of
middle class...
Hopefully the working class masses will convince our rulers to abandon free trade before
every last factory is sold off or dismantled and the US falls to the depths of a Chad or an Armenia.
"... We don't want World War 3 with Russia. We want our factories and jobs back, we would like to spend $1 trillion a year on infrastructure instead of blowing up yet another Middle Eastern nation. ..."
"... Fuck Hillary, Fuck the neolibcons, Fuck al-CIAda, Fuck the fascist banksters who eat our children for breakfast. ..."
"... Vote Trump in swing states. Vote Jill everywhere else. ..."
The heartland of the US is RED, solid RED.
The neolibcons are printing up their Newsweek mags with Madam President on the cover.
They don't have a clue about how pissed off the people in the "flyover states" are.
Fuck their rigged polls and lying news.
Sure Trump is behind or neck-and-neck . . . Just like we have 5% unemployment.
As long as you don't count the 1/3 of working age people who DON"T HAVE A JOB.
The deplorables can think of 650,000 reasons why Hillary should be in PRISON, even if the FBI
can't.
We don't want World War 3 with Russia. We want our factories and jobs back, we would like
to spend $1 trillion a year on infrastructure instead of blowing up yet another Middle Eastern
nation.
Fuck Hillary, Fuck the neolibcons, Fuck al-CIAda, Fuck the fascist banksters who eat our
children for breakfast.
Do not blow shit up, like the political system, without a clear idea where the pieces will
land and how you will put them back together. Crisis would benefit the right, not the left, given
the current correlation of class and political forces.
The best result. sadly, would be a resounding win for Mrs. Clinton. As the comment at 11 shows,
anything less than a crushing defeat will enable the alt-right and embolden the most reactionary
and nativist elements in society.
The notion that worsening conditions will automatically produce progressive revolution is a
pipe-dream. Beaten-down folks struggling to survive don't have the time or energy to organize.
Vote your conscience, your hopes. Takingg the long view, I am again voting, as I have for years,
for the Socialist Workers Party.
"... What America objects to in Russia is that Americans couldn't buy control of their oil, couldn't buy control of their natural resources, couldn't buy control of their public utilities and charge economic rents and continue to make Russia the largest stock market boom in the world as it was from 1994 through 1998 when there was the crisis. ..."
"... So the conflict is not one of economic systems. It's simply that America wants to control other countries and keep other countries within the dollar orbit. And what that means is that if the whole world saves in the form of dollars, that means saving by buying Treasury bonds. ..."
"... And other countries are trying to withdraw from this and America says, "Well, we can smash you." ..."
"... There really is no alternative, and that's the objective of control: to create a society in which there is no choice. That's what a free market [myth] is really all about: preventing any choice by the people except what the government gives them. ..."
"... has the illusion of choice in choosing either between which is the lesser evil. They get to vote for the lesser evil when it's all really the same process. ..."
> Ashcroft: What sort of president then will Hillary Clinton be?
> Hudson: A dictator. She… a vindictive dictator, punishing her enemies, appointing neocons in the secretary
of state, in the defense department, appointing Wall Street people in the Treasury and the Federal Reserve,
and the class war will really break out very explicitly. And she'll-as Warren Buffet said, there is
a class war and we're winning it.
> Ashcroft: As in the one percent are winning it.
> Hudson: The one percent are winning it. And she will try to use the rhetoric to tell people: "Nothing
to see here folks. Keep on moving," while the economy goes down and down and she cashes in as she's
been doing all along, richer and richer, and if she's president, there will not be an investigator of
the criminal conflict of interest of the Bill Clinton Foundation, of pay-to-play. You'll have a presidency
in which corporations who pay the Clintons will be able to set policy. Whoever has the money to buy
the politicians will buy control of policy because elections have been privatized and made part of the
market economy in the United States. That's what the Citizens United Supreme Court case was all about.
> Hudson: Well, after 1991 when the Soviet Union broke up, it really went neoliberal. And Putin is basically
a neoliberal. So there's not a clash of economic systems as there was between capitalism and communism.
What America objects to in Russia is that Americans couldn't buy control of their oil, couldn't buy
control of their natural resources, couldn't buy control of their public utilities and charge economic
rents and continue to make Russia the largest stock market boom in the world as it was from 1994 through
1998 when there was the crisis.
So the conflict is not one of economic systems. It's simply that America
wants to control other countries and keep other countries within the dollar orbit. And what that means
is that if the whole world saves in the form of dollars, that means saving by buying Treasury bonds.
And that means lending all of the balance-of-payments surplus that Russia or China or other countries
look at, by lending it to the U.S. Treasury, which will use that money to militarily encircle these
countries and threaten to do to any country that seeks to withdraw from the dollar system exactly what
they did to Iraq or Libya or Afghanistan, or now Syria.
And other countries are trying to withdraw from
this and America says, "Well, we can smash you." No country's going to invade any other country. There's
not going to be a military draft in any country 'cause the students; the population would rise up. Nobody's
going to invade, and you can't control or occupy a country if you don't have an army. So the only thing
that America can do-or any country can do militarily-is drop bombs.
And that's sort of the equivalent
of, just like the European Central Bank told Greece, "We'll close down your banks and the ATM machines
will be empty," America will say, "Well, we'll bomb you, make you look like Syria and Libya if you don't
turn over your oil, your pipelines, your utilities to American buyers so we can charge rents; we can
be the absentee landlords. We can conquer the world financially instead of militarily. We don't need
an army; we can use finance. And the threat of military warfare and bombing you to achieve things."
Other countries are trying to stay free of the mad bomber, and it's all about who's going to control
the world's natural resources: water, real estate, utilities-not a question of economic systems so much
anymore.
> Well, President Obama, even though he's a tool of Wall Street, at least he says, "It's not worth blowing
up the world to fight in the near east." Hillary says, "It is worth pushing the world back to the Stone
Age if they don't let us and me, Hillary, tell the world how to behave." That's a danger of the world
and that's why the Europeans should be terrified of a Hillary presidency and terrified of the direction
that America is doing, saying, "We want to control the world." It's not control the world through a
different economic philosophy. It's to control the world through ownership of their land, natural resources
and essentially, governments and monetary systems. That's really what it's all about. And the popular
press is not doing a good job of explaining that context, but I can assure you, that's what they're
talking about in Russia, China and South America.
> There really is no alternative, and that's the objective of control: to create a society in which
there is no choice. That's what a free market [myth] is really all about: preventing any choice by the people
except what the government gives them. That's what the Austrian school was all about in the 1920s, waging
war and assassination against the labor leaders and the socialists in Vienna, and that's what the free
marketers in Chile were all about in the mass assassinations of labor leaders, university professors,
intellectuals, and that's exactly the situation in America today without the machine guns, because the
population doesn't really feel that it has any alternative, but has the illusion of choice in choosing
either between which is the lesser evil. They get to vote for the lesser evil when it's all really the
same process.
After all, Clinton is not going to make it into the Oval Office unless she can secure the votes of
those who backed the far-more progressive Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries.
Clinton's camp have wielded various sticks to beat these voters into submission. Not least they
have claimed that a refusal to vote for Clinton is an indication of one's
misogyny . But it has not been an easy task. Actor Susan Sarandon, for example, has
stated that she is not going to "vote with my vagina". As she notes, if the issue is simply about
proving one is not anti-women, there is a much worthier candidate for president who also happens
to be female: Jill Stein, of the Green Party.
Sarandon, who supported Sanders in the primaries, spoke for a vast swath of voters excluded by
the two-party system when she told BBC Newsnight:
I am worried about the wars, I am worried about Syria, I am worried about all of these things
that actually exist. TTP [Trans-Pacific Partnership] and I'm worried about fracking. I'm worrying
about the environment. No matter who gets in they don't address these things because money has
taken over our system.
Given that both Donald Trump and Clinton represent big money – and big money only – Clinton's
supporters have been forced to find another stick. And that has been the "lesser evil" argument.
Clinton may be bad, but Trump would be far worse. Voting for a non-evil candidate like Jill Stein
– who has no hope of winning – would split the progressive camp and ensure Trump, the more evil candidate,
triumphs. Therefore, there is a moral obligation on progressive voters to back Clinton, however bad
her track record as a senator and as secretary of state.
There is nothing new about this argument. It had been around for decades, and has been corralling
progressives into voting for Democratic presidents who have still advanced US neoconservative policy
goals abroad and neoliberal ones at home.
America's pseudo-democracy
So is it true that Clinton is the lesser-evil candidate? To answer that question, we need to examine
those "policy differences" with Trump.
On the negative side, Trump's platform poses a genuine threat to civil liberties. His bigoted,
"blame the immigrants" style of politics will harm many families in the US in very tangible ways.
Even if the inertia of the political system reins in his worst excesses, as is almost certain, his
inflammatory rhetoric is sure to damage the façade of democratic discourse in the US – a development
not to be dismissed lightly. Americans may be living in a pseudo-democracy, one run more like a plutocracy,
but destroying the politics of respect, and civil discourse, could quickly result in the normalisation
of political violence and intimidation.
On the plus side, Trump is an isolationist, with little appetite for foreign entanglements. Again,
the Washington policy elites may force him to engage abroad in ways he would prefer not to, but his
instincts to limit the projection of US military power on the international stage are likely to be
an overall good for the world's population outside the US. Any diminishment of US imperialism is
going to have real practical benefits for billions of people around the globe. His refusal to demonise
Vladimir Putin, for example, may be significant enough to halt the gradual slide towards a nuclear
confrontation with Russia, either in Ukraine or in the Middle East.
Clinton is the mirror image of Trump. Domestically, she largely abides by the rules of civil politics
– not least because respectful discourse benefits her as the candidate with plenty of political experience.
The US is likely to be a more stable, more predictable place under a Clinton presidency, even as
the plutocratic elite entrenches its power and the wealth gap grows relentlessly.
Abroad, however, the picture looks worse under Clinton. She has been an enthusiastic supporter
of all the many recent wars of aggression launched by the US, some declared and some covert. Personally,
as secretary of state, she helped engineer the overthrow of Col Muammar Gaddafi. That policy led
to an outcome – one that was entirely foreseeable – of Libya's reinvention as a failed state, with
jihadists of every stripe sucked into the resulting vacuum. Large parts of Gadaffi's arsenal followed
the jihadists as they exported their struggles across the Middle East, creating more bloodshed and
heightening the refugee crisis. Now Clinton wants to intensify US involvement in Syria, including
by imposing a no-fly zone – or rather, a US and allies-only fly zone – that would thrust the US into
a direct confrontation with another nuclear-armed power, Russia.
In the cost-benefit calculus of who to vote for in a two-party contest, the answer seems to be:
vote for Clinton if you are interested only in what happens in the narrow sphere of US domestic politics
(assuming Clinton does not push the US into a nuclear war); while if you are a global citizen worried
about the future of the planet, Trump may be the marginally better of two terribly evil choices.
(Neither, of course, cares a jot about the most pressing problem facing mankind: runaway climate
change.)
So even on the extremely blinkered logic of Clinton's supporters, Clinton might not be the winner
in a lesser-evil presidential contest.
Mounting disillusion
But there is a second, more important reason to reject the lesser-evil argument as grounds for
voting for Clinton.
Trump's popularity is a direct consequence of several decades of American progressives voting
for the lesser-evil candidate. Most Americans have never heard of Jill Stein, or the other three
candidates who are not running on behalf of the Republican and Democratic parties. These candidates
have received no mainstream media coverage – or the chance to appear in the candidate debates – because
their share of the vote is so minuscule. It remains minuscule precisely because progressives have
spent decades voting for the lesser-evil candidate. And nothing is going to change so long as progressives
keep responding to the electoral dog-whistle that they have to keep the Republican candidate out
at all costs, even at the price of their own consciences.
Growing numbers of Americans understand that their country was "stolen from them", to use a popular
slogan. They sense that the US no longer even aspires to its founding ideals, that it has become
a society run for the exclusive benefit of a tiny wealthy elite. Many are looking for someone to
articulate their frustration, their powerlessness, their hopelessness.
Two opposed antidotes for the mounting disillusionment with "normal politics" emerged during the
presidential race: a progressive one, in the form of Sanders, who suggested he was ready to hold
the plutocrats to account; and a populist one, in the form of Trump, determined to deflect anger
away from the plutocrats towards easy targets like immigrants. As we now know from Wikileaks' release
of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta's emails, the Democats worked hard to rig their own primaries
to make sure the progressive option, Sanders, was eliminated. The Republicans, by contrast, were
overwhelmed by the insurrection within their own party.
The wave of disaffection Sanders and Trump have been riding is not going away. In fact, a President
Clinton, the embodiment of the self-serving, self-aggrandising politics of the plutocrats, will only
fuel the disenchantment. The fixing of the Democratic primaries did not strengthen Clinton's moral
authority, it fuelled the kind of doubts about the system that bolster Trump. Trump's accusations
of a corrupt elite and a rigged political and media system are not merely figments of his imagination;
they are rooted in the realities of US politics.
Trump, however, is not the man to offer solutions. His interests are too close aligned to those
of the plutocrats for him to make meaningful changes.
Trump may lose this time, but someone like him will do better next time – unless ordinary Americans
are exposed to a different kind of politician, one who can articulate progressive, rather regressive,
remedies for the necrosis that is rotting the US body politic. Sanders began that process, but a
progressive challenge to "politics as normal" has to be sustained and extended if Trump and his ilk
are not to triumph eventually.
The battle cannot be delayed another few years, on the basis that one day a genuinely non-evil
candidate will emerge from nowhere to fix this rotten system. It won't happen of its own. Unless
progressive Americans show they are prepared to vote out of conviction, not out of necessity, the
Democratic party will never have to take account of their views. It will keep throwing up leaders
– in different colours and different sexes – to front the tiny elite that runs the US and seeks to
rule the world.
Slavoj Žižek Says He'd Vote Trump: Hillary Clinton 'Is the Real Danger'
|
04 Nov 2016 | Slovenian-born philosopher and cultural theorist Slavoj Žižek said a
Hillary Clinton presidency is a greater danger to the nation than a President Donald
Trump. Žižek explained that while he is "horrified" by Trump, he believes a Trump
presidency could result in a "big awakening" that could set into motion the formation of
"new political processes." By contrast, Žižek said he sees Clinton as "the true
danger"--pointing specifically to her insincerity, her ties to the Wall Street banks,
and her dedication to the "absolute inertia" of our established political system.
"... fundamentally antiracism and other identitarian programs are not only the left wing of neoliberalism
but active agencies in its imposition of a notion of the boundaries of the politically thinkable " ..."
"... Feminism…? gender discrimination….? racial equality ? …. racism ? Yes, OK, looks good, let's
see what works best for us…. ..."
"... There is still the issue that some professions are more prestigious or lucrative than others
and attract many individuals with a skill set that would better serve other functions. ..."
"... Valuing people for who they are and integrating them into the social order implies that they
have something to contribute and that they have a responsibility for making things better for others,
not just making themselves more comfortable in public. ..."
"... The idea that we have progressed past prior barbarisms … we have forgotten that "the past is
prologue" among other things. ..."
"... This label of progressivism is just so coy and unconvincing in the face of neoliberalism's
full spectrum dominance of all facets of society and culture. ..."
"... I know Reagan was no conservative and Thatcher lost all moorings as an enlightened Tory as
the "project" became all consuming to the detriment of all else. The Tory today isn't conservative –
far from it – a real ideolgical zealot for the promotion of "me, myself and (at most) my class" in most
cases. ..."
"... Is Progressivism just a balm for those who want to feel good about themselves but don't want
to do think about anything in particular? In fact, it is just a cover for I'm ok, screw you pal when
the chips are down? ..."
"These responses [show] how fundamentally antiracism and other identitarian programs
are not only the left wing of neoliberalism but active agencies in its imposition of a notion
of the boundaries of the politically thinkable "
Yes: there we have it.
Neoliberalism (unlike conservatism, often mistaken for each other) has NO social/cultural
values…or, perhaps, more precisely, it has ANY social/cultural values which directly/indirectly
advance the 0.1%'s Will to wealth & power. (Likely, "wealth" is redundant, as it's a manifestation
of power). Neoliberalism is powerful, like all great "evils" because it is completely protean.
( It makes the Nazi's look child-like & naive: after all, the Nazi's actually "believed"
in certain things… [ evil nonsense, but that's not the point at the moment].
Feminism…? gender discrimination….? racial equality ? …. racism ? Yes, OK, looks good,
let's see what works best for us….
I often wonder if liberalism goes hand in hand with the availability of energy and resources…
shrink these and witness a surge in all types of discrimination.
You will notice that genocides are closely tied to the availability and distribution of
resources… we humans seem to be masters at inventing all kinds of reasons to explain why we deserve
the loot and not others.
There is still the issue that some professions are more prestigious or lucrative than others
and attract many individuals with a skill set that would better serve other functions. And
we do this under the guise that we can do whatever we want if we try hard enough.
There is a difference between PC and truly valuing every individual in society no matter their
job or profession.
There is a difference between PC and truly valuing every individual in society no matter
their job or profession.
This.
Mere inclusiveness, while not in itself a bad thing–being aware of other people's circumstances
is simply polite–it doesn't really get you much further past where you already are and in large
part can be satisfied with better rhetoric (or better PR, if you insist on being cynical about
such things), all the while capitalism goes on its merry way, because no real pressure to change
has been applied. Valuing people for who they are and integrating them into the social order
implies that they have something to contribute and that they have a responsibility for making
things better for others, not just making themselves more comfortable in public.
What so often gets lost in these conversations about safe spaces and what have you is that
we should have a sense of shared responsibility, responding TO others' circumstances while also
being responsible FOR the conditions that oppress us all to greater and lesser degrees.
In other words, it's about checking your privilege AND seizing the means of production, because
without the second one, the first just ends up being mere window dressing.
EATF – I really like these. I'll be sad when they conclude!
The idea that we have progressed past prior barbarisms … we have forgotten that "the past
is prologue" among other things. Progressives think that if we completely forget the past,
then the memes that created the sins of the past will become unthinkable, that like interrupted
family violence, a chain will be broken and we can heal. Such people don't believe in the existence
of Evil.
As a socialist, what I miss is the conservative (small c) conversation in our daily affairs.
This label of progressivism is just so coy and unconvincing in the face of neoliberalism's
full spectrum dominance of all facets of society and culture. The conservative gave voice
and depth to our internal doubts about how the future was all brite and new – at least the few
conservatives I knew.
I wonder would a conservative voice (seemingly non-existent any more) have argued for a more
instructive change from industrialisation into what we've now become – might they have mitigated
the course and provided pointers to alternatives?
Maybe they did and I wasn't listening.
I know Reagan was no conservative and Thatcher lost all moorings as an enlightened Tory
as the "project" became all consuming to the detriment of all else. The Tory today isn't conservative
– far from it – a real ideolgical zealot for the promotion of "me, myself and (at most) my class"
in most cases.
Is Progressivism just a balm for those who want to feel good about themselves but don't
want to do think about anything in particular? In fact, it is just a cover for I'm ok, screw you
pal when the chips are down?
I never really liked Disney films as a kid and I certainly don't like them now – but each to
their own.
I'm glad you're making these points. The arc of the story mirrors a number of conversations
I've been having lately with people from poor, white, rural backgrounds. The insistence by good
liberals of making a show of their concern for, and outrage over, both major and minor affronts
to people of color, women, LGBTQI people, etc., while at the same time making jokes about toothless,
inbred trailer-trash, is starting to really piss some people off. These are not conservative people.
These are people to the left of Chomsky.
For some reason, you can slander and shame poor white folks all you want…oh yeah, it's because
they're deplorable racist, fundamentalist Christians who vote for evil Republicans and probably
don't even have a GED, much less a college degree…so f- 'em. The good liberals, on the other hand,
are highly-educated, fundamentalist secular humanists, who've been to college and vote for evil
Democrats…which makes them God's chosen people, apparently. The rest are blasphemers, barely even
human, and deserve whatever they get.
Until we make a real commitment to both listening to everyone's suffering and then to doing
practical things, now, to remedy that suffering, we'll be doomed to Dollary Clump elections and
divide-and-conquer tactics forever after. Let's not go down that road, how about? How's about
let's try treating each other with respect and compassion for once, just to see how it goes? Every
other way lies damnation, imho.
Sorry: I'm not buying this episode: For instance, maybe the reason for the stress on smartness
is plain old class warfare.
The U.S. slavishly follows English fashions, and one of the fashions in England (with which
we have that Special Relationship) is that the upper classes made sure that their kids got into
Eton, Cambridge, Oxford–the whole self-perpetuating educational system of the Pythonesque English
"smart" twit.
So the U S of A has imitated its betters in producing a lot of Tony Blairs. Exhibit A: Chelsea
Clinton.
This has little to do with smartness. It is all about class privilege. (Which has little
to do with postmodernism and its supposed piercing insights.)
The title- Neoliberalisms Boarder Guard" – and this quote:
"Looking now at the other two principles – postmodernism and suffering – Wendy Brown
foretold that, as foci, they would be unable to coexist. Since the time of her prediction,
the balance between the two has shifted dramatically, and it has become clear that Brown was
rooting for the losing side. "
combine to make me wonder. Does liberalism simply accommodate itself to the prevailing ruling
power structure, regardless of that structure's philosophy? Is liberalism today a philosophy or
a social emollient? Desirable social traits do not challenge the ruling neoliberal philosophy,
although they make create a nice space within neoliberalism.
Not buying this episode: "High profile instances of genocide and torture don't appear every
day, and commitment flags without regular stimulation. And so we have taken seriously at least
one idea from postmodernism, the fascination with slight conceptual nuances, and the faith or
fear that these nuances can produce enormously consequential effects."
Oh really?
This sentence is on the order of, Who speaks of the Armenians?
Guantanamo is high profile. Homan Square is high profile. Yemen is genocide. What are the Dakota
Pipeline protests about? Genocide. Your bourgeois eyeglasses just don't allow you to look. It
has nothing to do with micro-aggressions.
"... He opened his remarks by bashing Donald Trump on student loan debt, but then surprisingly turned to bashing Hillary Clinton from her own stage. "Unfortunately, Hillary doesn't really care about this issue either," Vanfosson said. "The only thing she cares about is pleasing her donors, the billionaires who fund her campaign. The only people that really trust Hillary are Goldman Sachs, CitiGroup can trust Hillary, the military industrial complex can trust Hillary. Her good friend Henry Kissinger can trust Hillary." ..."
"... "She is so trapped in the world of the elite that she has completely lost grip on what it's like to be an average person," Vanfosson continued. "She doesn't care. Voting for another lesser of two evils, there's no point." ..."
Just a few days before the general election, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham
Clinton and her running mate Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) still can't unite her party. Supporters of
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, her Democratic primary rival, are disrupting her campaign's
efforts to take on GOP nominee Donald J. Trump, and in Iowa on Saturday one prominent Sanders
backer was actually escorted out of a Clinton campaign event for urging those present not to vote
for Clinton-for which he was cheered by the crowd.
Kaleb Vanfosson, the president of Iowa State University's Students for Bernie chapter, bashed
Hillary Clinton and told rally-goers at her own campaign event not to vote for her. He was
cheered.
He opened his remarks by bashing Donald Trump on student loan debt, but then surprisingly
turned to bashing Hillary Clinton from her own stage. "Unfortunately, Hillary doesn't really care
about this issue either," Vanfosson said. "The only thing she cares about is pleasing her donors,
the billionaires who fund her campaign. The only people that really trust Hillary are Goldman
Sachs, CitiGroup can trust Hillary, the military industrial complex can trust Hillary. Her good
friend Henry Kissinger can trust Hillary."
The crowd at the Clinton-Kaine event erupted in applause.
"She is so trapped in the world of the elite that she has completely lost grip on what
it's like to be an average person," Vanfosson continued. "She doesn't care. Voting for another
lesser of two evils, there's no point."
At that point, a Clinton staffer rushed on stage and grabbed the young man by the arm to
escort him off the stage and out of the event.
"... In fact, I would posit that the Ivy League, especially Yale, Princeton, Harvard and MIT, are the principal crime factories in America today. ..."
"... Brownback is in Kansas; UMKC is in Missouri. There is a Kansas City in Kansas, and another Kansas City in Missouri. Missouri is not as red as KS, but it's still a red state. ..."
"... UMKC is part of the state system and most likely receives no funding from the city. It was home to New Letters, a respected literary magazine edited by poet John Ciardi. I hail from Kanasa City and always thought of UMKC as a decent commuter school, mostly catering to the educational needs of adult city dwellers. But the evolution of both the Econ and jazz studies departments lead me to suspect things have changed. Whether that's by design or through organic happenstance I don't know. ..."
"... Couldn't a Marxian analysis of capitalism as a whole also shed some light on this issue? I think Hudson is pretty much right but I think, like Sanders, he's offering a reformist option as opposed to a full on critique of the entire system. ..."
"... Not that a revolution is the option you necessarily want to go with, I just think that Marx's criticism of capitalism has useful information that could help with shaping the perspective here. ..."
Michael
Hudson spends a half hour with Meet the Renegades explaining his views on money, finance, economic
training, rentier capitalism, and how debt overhangs operate. Hudson fans will recognize his regular
themes. This is a good segment for introducing people you know to Hudson and to heterodox economic
ideas.
I've always found it interesting that both Hudson and Bill Black are on the faculty of UMKC,
which is a state university in a pretty conservative state. It's possible that some of the funding
for UMKC comes from the municipality of Kansas City, MO, but that town has never been known as
a hotbed of radical intellectuality either.
Joseph Campbell didn't teach at an Ivy League either. Conformity starts with the faculty in
your own department … and the Ivy League is as status quo and status conscious as it gets.
The Ivy League are not much different than privately held corporations when you consider who
their alma materi are, how much money the alma materi have, and where Ivy League endowments come
from.
In fact, I would posit that the Ivy League, especially Yale, Princeton, Harvard and MIT, are
the principal crime factories in America today.
Please recall that the dood who financed Liberty Lobby and other white supremacist nonsense
was Koch family patriarch, Fred Koch, who was a trustee at MIT. (Ever hear Noam Chomsky complain
about that????? Of course not!)
Ah but is it really an inherently conservative state fiscally, or just socially? That is, are
the people like Brownback appealing to one sort of conservatism and using that to do a "trust
me" on the other sort?
I would say it's not unreasonable for anybody to delegate something they are not so sure of
to somebody they trust for other reasons.
Brownback is in Kansas; UMKC is in Missouri. There is a Kansas City in Kansas, and another
Kansas City in Missouri. Missouri is not as red as KS, but it's still a red state.
UMKC is part of the state system and most likely receives no funding from the city. It was
home to New Letters, a respected literary magazine edited by poet John Ciardi. I hail from Kanasa
City and always thought of UMKC as a decent commuter school, mostly catering to the educational
needs of adult city dwellers. But the evolution of both the Econ and jazz studies departments
lead me to suspect things have changed. Whether that's by design or through organic happenstance
I don't know.
If you are not on the money makers' distribution list, it would make sense to find other ways
to get some of that loot if you can't the traditional way…
You can be conservative in your social values but want change, i.e. liberalism, in the way
the monetary system distributes the money.
The UMKC is also the home of the Kansas City School of Economics, more commonly known as the
MMT School. Neither Hudson nor Black are MMTers per se, but both have grown by their affiliation
with the school.
Thanks for sharing this excellent interview. Watching it I realized the people I actually admire
more than Hudson are his students. They must care more about learning the truth than securing
wealth and job prospects on wall street.
Couldn't a Marxian analysis of capitalism as a whole also shed some light on this issue? I
think Hudson is pretty much right but I think, like Sanders, he's offering a reformist option
as opposed to a full on critique of the entire system.
Not that a revolution is the option you necessarily want to go with, I just think that Marx's
criticism of capitalism has useful information that could help with shaping the perspective here.
I asked Yves Smith at the Dallas meetup last week (paraphrasing) "Do you meet with Michael
Hudson and Bill Black… is the independent media community, or any community, organizing around
Michael Hudson and Bill Black… to not only support and promote Hudson's and Black's perspectives
but to help develop their concepts and 'fine tune' their messaging?" I said to Yves "Hudson and
Black are clearly the leaders we desperately need to rally behind and push into Washington… they
clearly know what needs to be done… a PR machine needs to be developed… to get their messages
out to our families, friends, and acquaintances… unfortunately, the current messaging is not good
enough… I can't get my family, friends, and others to engage and echo the messaging to their family,
friends, etc."
Michael Hudson has been good at repeating his central message… 'by increasing land, monopoly,
and finance rent costs… the 1% are a highly organized mafia methodically looting our economy…
effectively raping, pillaging and consequently destroying every component of our social structures'.
Very unfortunately, Bill Blacks central message seems to have been lost for years now… he doesn't
repeat his central message… 'the crimes must be stopped… there is no alternative… looting criminals
MUST be publicly exposed, investigated, indicted, prosecuted, convicted, punished and their loot
returned to society… by letting cheaters prosper, organized white-collar crime, perpetrated by
the top-most leaders of our public and private institutions, has become an epidemic… the very
fabric of civil society is being destroyed… we have no choice… the criminals must be stopped…
and the only way to do that is to publicly expose, investigate, indict, prosecute, punish, and
take back what is ours'.
In 2008, when I tuned out of the mainstream media and tuned into the independent media, I thought
the messages from Michael Hudson ("they are organized criminals… this is what they're doing…")
and Bill Black ("the criminals must be stopped… here's how we stopped the Savings & Loan criminals…)
would resonate and become common knowledge. I quickly discovered that it didn't even resonate
with close family and friends. Why???
I will send out this video… Michael Hudson at his best, speaking-wise. I don't expect to get
any reaction… why?… very frustrated…
Amen. Once you start noticing, it becomes hard to stop. In looking hard for a silver lining
to the current election storm clouds, public awareness of the MSM seems to have nudged a few toward
slightly more objectivity, although I may just be wishing for that after media fatigue ;)
"... I'll be interested to see how much Hillary tries to "work with Republicans" when it comes to foreign or domestic policy, as she's promising on the campaign trail. ..."
"... In a recent interview Biden was talking about how his "friends" in the Senate like McCain, Lindsy Graham, etc. - the sane ones who hate Trump - have to come out in support of the Republican plan to block Clinton from nominating a Supreme Court judge, because of if they don't, the Koch brothers will primary them. ..."
"... While I agree that the Republican party has been interested in whatever argument will win elections and benefit their donor class, doesn't the Democratic Party also have a donor class? Haven't Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton had a close relationship with some business interests? Did anyone go to jail after the asset bubble? Did welfare reform work or simply shift the problem out of view? How complicit are the Democrats in the great risk shift? ..."
"... I would think the scorched earth politics of the neoliberals required Democrats to shift to the right if they ever hoped to win an election, again. That is what it has looked like to me. The American equivalent of New Labor in Britain. So, we have a more moderate business-interest group of Democrats and a radical business-interest group of Republicans during the past 40 years. I think Kevin Phillips has made this argument. ..."
"... Our grand experimental shift back to classical theory involved supply side tax cuts, deregulation based on the magic of new finance theory, and monetarist pro-financial monetary policy. All of which gave us the masquerade of a great moderation that ended in the mother of all asset bubbles. While we shredded the safety net. ..."
"... Now the population is learning the arguments about free trade magically lifting all boats up into the capitalist paradise has blown up. We've shifted the risk onto the working population and they couldn't bear it. ..."
"... Economists lied to the American people about trade and continue to lie about the issue day in and day out. Brainwashing kids with a silly model called comparative advantage. ..."
This is all true but Krugman always fails to tell the other side of the story.
I'll be interested to see how much Hillary tries to "work with Republicans" when it comes
to foreign or domestic policy, as she's promising on the campaign trail.
The centrists always do this to push through centrist, neoliberal "solutions" which anger the
left.
In a recent interview Biden was talking about how his "friends" in the Senate like McCain,
Lindsy Graham, etc. - the sane ones who hate Trump - have to come out in support of the Republican
plan to block Clinton from nominating a Supreme Court judge, because of if they don't, the Koch
brothers will primary them.
Let's hope Hillary does something about campaign finance reform and Citizen United and takes
a harder line against obstructionist Republicans.
While I agree that the Republican party has been interested in whatever argument will win
elections and benefit their donor class, doesn't the Democratic Party also have a donor class?
Haven't Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton had a close relationship with some business
interests? Did anyone go to jail after the asset bubble? Did welfare reform work or simply shift
the problem out of view? How complicit are the Democrats in the great risk shift?
I would think the scorched earth politics of the neoliberals required Democrats to shift
to the right if they ever hoped to win an election, again. That is what it has looked like to
me. The American equivalent of New Labor in Britain. So, we have a more moderate business-interest
group of Democrats and a radical business-interest group of Republicans during the past 40 years.
I think Kevin Phillips has made this argument.
Our grand experimental shift back to classical theory involved supply side tax cuts, deregulation
based on the magic of new finance theory, and monetarist pro-financial monetary policy. All of
which gave us the masquerade of a great moderation that ended in the mother of all asset bubbles.
While we shredded the safety net.
Now the population is learning the arguments about free trade magically lifting all boats
up into the capitalist paradise has blown up. We've shifted the risk onto the working population
and they couldn't bear it.
Perhaps the less partisan take-way would be - is it possible for any political candidate to
get elected in this environment without bowing to the proper interests? How close did Bernie get?
And, how do we fix it without first admitting that the policies of both political parties have
not really addressed the social adjustments necessary to capture the benefits of globalization?
We need an evolution of both political parties - not just the Republicans. If we don't get it,
we can expect the Trump argument to take even deeper root.
Economists lied to the American people about trade and continue to lie about the issue day
in and day out. Brainwashing kids with a silly model called comparative advantage. East Asian
economists including Ha Joon Chang among others debunked comparative advantage and Ricardianism
long ago.
Manufacturing is everything. It is all that matters. We needed tariffs yesterday. Without them
the country is lost.
"... With the reopening of the FBI investigation of Hillary and related scandals exploding all around her, election theft is not only more risky but also less likely to serve the Oligarchy's own interests. ..."
"... A Hillary presidency could put our country into chaos. I doubt the oligarchs are sufficiently stupid to think that once she is sworn in, Hillary can fire FBI Director Comey and shut down the investigation. The last president that tried that was Richard Nixon, and look where that got him. ..."
"... If you were an oligarch, would you want your agent under this kind of scrutiny? If you were Hillary, would you want to be under this kind of pressure? ..."
"... "Clinton's presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported, but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by their initials or first names, including "Tatiana." The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls." ..."
Yes they can ;-). that's how two party system is functioning by default. Rank-and-file are typically
screwed. the only exception is so called "revolutionary situation", when the elite lost legitimacy
and can't dictate its will on the people below.
November 4, 2016
The election was set up to be stolen from Trump. That was the purpose of the polls rigged by overweighting
Hillary supporters in the samples. After weeks of hearing poll results that Hillary was in the
lead, the public would discount a theft claim. Electronic voting makes elections easy to steal,
and I have posted explanations by election fraud experts of how it is done.
Clearly the Oligarchy does not want Donald Trump in the White House as they are unsure that
they could control him, and Hillary is their agent.
With the reopening of the FBI investigation of Hillary and related scandals exploding all
around her, election theft is not only more risky but also less likely to serve the Oligarchy's
own interests.
Image as well as money is part of Oligarchic power. The image of America takes a big hit if
the American people elect a president who is currently under felony investigation.
Moreover, a President Hillary would be under investigation for years. With so much spotlight
on her, she would not be able to serve the Oligarchy's interests. She would be worthless to them,
and, indeed, investigations that unearthed various connections between Hillary and oligarchs could
damage the oligarchs.
In other words, for the Oligarchy Hillary has moved from an asset to a liability.
A Hillary presidency could put our country into chaos. I doubt the oligarchs are sufficiently
stupid to think that once she is sworn in, Hillary can fire FBI Director Comey and shut down the
investigation. The last president that tried that was Richard Nixon, and look where that got him.
Moreover, the Republicans in the House and Senate would not stand for it. House Committee
on oversight and Government Reform chairman Jason Chaffetz has already declared Hillary to be
"a target-rich environment. Even before we get to day one, we've got two years worth of material
already lined up." House Speaker Paul Ryan said investigation will follow the evidence.
If you were an oligarch, would you want your agent under this kind of scrutiny? If you
were Hillary, would you want to be under this kind of pressure?
What happens if the FBI recommends the indictment of the president? Even insouciant Americans
would see the cover-up if the attorney general refused to prosecute the case. Americans would
lose all confidence in the government. Chaos would rule. Chaos can be revolutionary, and that
is not good for oligarchs.
Moreover, if reports can be believed, salacious scandals appear to be waiting their time on
stage. For example, last May Fox News reported:
"Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender's
infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at
least 26 trips aboard the "Lolita Express" - even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail
for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by FoxNews.com.
"Clinton's presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported,
but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included
extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by
their initials or first names, including "Tatiana." The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired
nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young
girls."
Fox News reports that Epstein served time in prison for "solicitation and procurement of minors
for prostitution. He allegedly had a team of traffickers who procured girls as young as 12 to
service his friends on 'Orgy Island,' an estate on Epstein's 72-acre island, called Little St.
James, in the U.S. Virgin Islands."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/13/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known.html
Some Internet sites, the credibility of which is unknown to me, have linked Hillary to these flights.
http
Thomas Frank
writes in The Guardian that the WikiLeaks emails to and from Hillary Clinton's campaign manager
John Podesta "offer an unprecedented view into the workings of the elite, and how it looks after
itself." They provide "a window into the soul of the Democratic party and into the dreams and thoughts
of the class to whom the party answers."
This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids,
points us toward the most fundamental thing we know about the people at the top of this class: their
loyalty to one another and the way it overrides everything else. Of course Hillary Clinton staffed
her state department with investment bankers and then did speaking engagements for investment banks
as soon as she was done at the state department. Of course she
appears to think that any kind of
bank reform should "come from the industry itself". And of course no elite bankers were ever prosecuted
by the Obama administration. Read these emails and you understand, with a start, that the people
at the top tier of American life all know each other. They are all engaged in promoting one another's
careers, constantly.
Everything blurs into everything else in this world. The state department, the banks, Silicon
Valley, the nonprofits, the "Global CEO Advisory Firm"
that
appears to have solicited donations for the Clinton Foundation. Executives here go from foundation
to government to thinktank to startup. There are honors. Venture capital. Foundation grants. Endowed
chairs. Advanced degrees. For them the door revolves. The friends all succeed. They break every boundary.But
the One Big Boundary remains. Yes, it's all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren't part
of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don't have John Podesta's email address – you're out.
"... The emails currently roiling the US presidential campaign are part of some unknown digital collection amassed by the troublesome Anthony Weiner, but if your purpose is to understand the clique of people who dominate Washington today, the emails that really matter are the ones being slowly released by WikiLeaks from the hacked account of Hillary Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta. ..."
"... "What is remarkable is that, in the party of Jackson and Bryan and Roosevelt, smiling financiers now seem to stand on every corner, constantly proffering advice about this and that". ..."
"... Do they want more of the same + the Clinton's insatiable appetite for self-enrichmentand that permanent insincere smile? If not, why not give Trump a chance. If they don't like him, kick him out in four years' time. ..."
"... My feeling is this sort of behaviour has its equivalents throughout history and that when it peaks we have upheaval and decline. ..."
"... "Yes, it's all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren't part of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don't have John Podesta's email address – you're out." ..."
"... Of course you are quite correct, the Democratic Party is a fraud for working people and a collection of self serving elitist. If you have a solution to solve why people keep voting for them I would love to hear it. ..."
"... I am sure the people of Syria and Libya are grateful to these amazing people for destroying their countries and stealing their resources. ..."
"... What's left is a pretty ugly, self-righteous and corrupt crowd. Their attacks on Comey have been despicable, beneath contempt and absurd. I think they're going to lose and they will deserve to. ..."
"... "Former National Endowment for the Arts chairman Bill Ivey says a leaked e-mail to Clinton deputy John Podesta did not reveal a 'master plan' for maintaining political power via 'an unaware and compliant citizenry.'" ..."
"... I use work in these circles and the soul crushing thing is that elites look out for themselves and their careers and have no real personality, morals, values, character, backbone and certainly no interest in the people. They have personalities of wet fish and are generally cowardice and an embarrassment to mankind. In sort a waste of space ..."
The emails currently roiling the US presidential campaign are part of some unknown digital
collection amassed by the troublesome Anthony Weiner, but if your purpose is to understand the clique
of people who dominate Washington today, the emails that really matter are the ones being slowly
released by WikiLeaks from the hacked account of Hillary Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta.
They are last week's scandal in a year running over with scandals, but in truth their significance
goes far beyond mere scandal: they are a window into the soul of the Democratic party and into the
dreams and thoughts of the class to whom the party answers.
The class to which I refer is not rising in angry protest; they are by and large pretty satisfied,
pretty contented. Nobody takes road trips to exotic West Virginia to see what the members of this
class looks like or how they live; on the contrary, they are the ones for whom such stories are written.
This bunch doesn't have to make do with a comb-over TV mountebank for a leader; for this class, the
choices are always pretty good, and this year they happen to be excellent.
They are the comfortable and well-educated mainstay of our modern Democratic party. They are also
the grandees of our national media; the architects of our software; the designers of our streets;
the high officials of our banking system; the authors of just about every plan to fix social security
or fine-tune the Middle East with precision droning. They are, they think, not a class at all but
rather the enlightened ones, the people who must be answered to but who need never explain themselves.
...I think the WikiLeaks releases furnish us with an opportunity to observe the upper reaches
of the American status hierarchy in all its righteousness and majesty.
The dramatis personae of the liberal class are all present in this amazing body of work: financial
innovators. High-achieving colleagues attempting to get jobs for their high-achieving children. Foundation
executives doing fine and noble things. Prizes, of course, and high academic achievement.
...Hillary's ingratiating speeches to Wall Street are well known of course, but what is remarkable
is that, in the party of Jackson and Bryan and Roosevelt, smiling financiers now seem to stand on
every corner, constantly proffering advice about this and that. In one now-famous email chain, for
example, the reader can watch current US trade representative Michael Froman, writing from a Citibank
email address in 2008, appear to name President Obama's cabinet even before the great hope-and-change
election was decided (incidentally, an important clue to understanding why that greatest of zombie
banks was never put out of its misery).
The far-sighted innovators of Silicon Valley are also here in force, interacting all the time
with the leaders of the party of the people. We watch as Podesta appears to email Sheryl Sandberg.
He makes plans to visit Mark Zuckerberg (who, according to one missive, wants to "learn more about
next steps for his philanthropy and social action"). Podesta exchanges emails with an entrepreneur
about an ugly race now unfolding for Silicon Valley's seat in Congress; this man, in turn, appears
to forward to Podesta the remarks of yet another Silicon Valley grandee, who complains that one of
the Democratic combatants in that fight was criticizing billionaires who give to Democrats. Specifically,
the miscreant Dem in question was said to be:
"… spinning (and attacking) donors who have supported Democrats. John Arnold and Marc Leder
have both given to Cory Booker, Joe Kennedy, and others. He is also attacking every billionaire
that donates to [Congressional candidate] Ro [Khanna], many whom support other Democrats as well."
Attacking billionaires! In the year 2015! It was, one of the correspondents appears to write,
"madness and political malpractice of the party to allow this to continue".
There are wonderful things to be found in this treasure trove when you search the gilded words
"Davos" or "Tahoe".
... ... ...
Then there is the apparent nepotism, the dozens if not hundreds of mundane emails in which petitioners
for this or that plum Washington job or high-profile academic appointment politely appeal to Podesta
– the ward-heeler of the meritocratic elite – for a solicitous word whispered in the ear of a powerful
crony.
This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids,
points us toward the most fundamental thing we know about the people at the top of this class: their
loyalty to one another and the way it overrides everything else. Of course Hillary Clinton staffed
her state department with investment bankers and then did speaking engagements for investment banks
as soon as she was done at the state department. Of course she appears to think that any kind of
bank reform should "come from the industry itself". And of course no elite bankers were ever prosecuted
by the Obama administration. Read these emails and you understand, with a start, that the people
at the top tier of American life all know each other. They are all engaged in promoting one another's
careers, constantly.
Everything blurs into everything else in this world. The state department, the banks, Silicon
Valley, the nonprofits, the "Global CEO Advisory Firm" that appears to have solicited donations for
the Clinton Foundation. Executives here go from foundation to government to thinktank to startup.
There are honors. Venture capital. Foundation grants. Endowed chairs. Advanced degrees. For them
the door revolves. The friends all succeed. They break every boundary.
But the One Big Boundary remains. Yes, it's all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren't
part of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don't have John Podesta's email address – you're
out.
It's all polyarchy,plutocracy and powerful lobbyists for the arms and finance industries. The
average US citizen counts for nothing. The higher up on the socio-economic scale you are, the
more you count. Except for a brainwashed vote once every 4 years.
From today's Guardian…
"US politics tends to be portrayed as driven by geopolitical interests rather than personalities,
and so most ordinary Russians assume that little will change, whoever wins."
"And nothing will change for the average US citizen, just like in Britain. Looks like most ordinary
Russians have got it spot on.
And as if that were not enough, the elections are 'rigged' in various ways.
Americans have a great responsibility not only to their country but to other so-called advanced
western democracies which follow they US model. A radical change in US politics to bring it in line
with genuine concern for the interests of the average citizen would greatly assist efforts here on
the other side of the Atlantic to do the same.
Astonishing that registered Democrats rejected one of the cleanest politicians in modern US
history in order to nominate the Queen of Wall St. What do they hope to gain from expanded corporate
globalism and entrenchment of the corporate coup d'etat at home?
Except that it was the same party grandees (Super-delegates - the very word sticks in your
throat no?) who all but confirmed Clinton's appointment before a single ballot was cast by the
party rank and file.
"What is remarkable is that, in the party of Jackson and Bryan and Roosevelt, smiling financiers
now seem to stand on every corner, constantly proffering advice about this and that".
Spot on. There's amnesia today about where the Democratic party historically stood in regard
to Wall Street and its interests.
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards
. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see
our FAQs .
Real issues - like economic well-being for all - have been replaced by Democrats with mindless
identity politics. Clinton is literally running on "I will spend half a billion to reduce bullying",
on unisex bathrooms, and more women of color everywhere.
Is that what democracy should be all about? FDR and other real Democrats would die laughing
if they would see these current "progressive liberals" - they stand for nothing, they are a total
waste of time, as Obama so amply demonstrated.
The warning signals were screaming months ago and the mass media concocted a smear campaign against
Sanders because he wasn't owned and he was the wrong gender.
Sanders would have destroyed Trump in this election.
Yes he did endorse her. Because it is customary for the losing candidate(s) in the nomination
race to do so. He said he would endorse her if she won, right from the start of the process. For
the patently obvious reason, which he repeated again and again, that even a compromised HRC is
far better than Donald Trump.
And he kept his word, but not before he did his level best during the convention to get some
decent policies jammed into the Democratic Party platform.
And if the same sort of leakage had come from the Republicans you'd see exactly the same patronage
and influence peddling. If there's one area of politics that remains truly bipartisan it's the
gravitational pull of large sums of money.
We even read the pleadings of a man who wants to be invited to a state dinner at the White
House and who offers, as one of several exhibits in his favor, the fact that he "joined the DSCC
Majority Trust in Martha's Vineyard (contributing over $32,400 to Democratic senators) in July
2014".
Then there is the apparent nepotism, the dozens if not hundreds of mundane emails in which
petitioners for this or that plum Washington job or high-profile academic appointment politely
appeal to Podesta – the ward-heeler of the meritocratic elite – for a solicitous word whispered
in the ear of a powerful crony.
Something timeless about it all, isn't there? Like reading an account of court life in the
era of Charles II.
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards
. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see
our FAQs .
There's nothing revelatory in the fact that this is happening among the Democrats, there is surely
a carbon copy going on with the Republicans! But somehow I don't think Wikileaks will be releasing
anything about that, until the GoP happens to do something that steps on Putin's toes...
We'll find out the truth about how Wikileaks operates one day. The alignment between Wikileaks
releases and interests of Russian foreign policy became suspicious a long time before you read
on Breitbart that Clinton made it up. And I wasn't in any way denying or diminishing the activities
described in the article. There are just better articles out there, which consider corruption
in "the system" from all sides - which is exactly how it should be viewed, not more of this divide
and conquer bullshit.
It is clear that rigging had taken place in the Democrat primaries, Bernie Sanders was more popular
with a big chunk of the electorate including the young, here in the Guardian few people had a
bad word to say about him, compare that to Hillary who's only strong point seems to be that she
is a safer choice than Trump.
I'm not so sure anymore either. For the world, maybe Trump is better in the end (ofc Clinton is
by far better for the US). I knew what a hawk Clinton is but seeing her "obliterate Iran" comments
made me think she might be even more dangerous than I thought.
The corollary is, Trump is the only candidate that Hillary can beat. That bares some thinking
over, I believe, especially in the light of the way we know the political system and the Democrats
in particular work. Oh well . . .
It didn't matter so much when the right-wing parties were puppets of billionaires.
The political crisis arrived when the supposedly "left-wing" parties sold out to them too.
At which point, democratic choice evaporated.
Financial interests have today captured the entire body-politic of Britain and America, and
it really doesn't matter which party you vote for - Goldman Sachs will call the shots regardless.
And they see you as simply a cash-cow to be milked for the benefit of the very rich, themselves
included.
Your general point is broadly accurate - however I would have second thoughts before singling
out Goldman Sachs any more than say Morgan Stanley , Citigroup or Bank of America.
I think he meant Goldman Sachs as a term for the larger banking group of interests (as you listed).
Some call them the 'white shoe boys'. Everyone knows the banks control everything now.
you've got it the wrong way round....it's the groups you mention that plead NOT speak with politicians.
Please don't include those running hospitals and universities with the worldwide business and
finance mafia.
"This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids,
points us toward the most fundamental thing we know about the people at the top of this class:
their loyalty to one another and the way it overrides everything else."
This is quite a mundane observation. To which social group does a tendency for in-group loyalty
NOT apply? I think what it actually shows is that high status people mix together and are more
confident in using such forms of communication with powerful people (with whom they assume a connection)
for personal gain. Hardly surprising. And also only applies to the sample - those who emailed
- rather than the general class. That is, it's a bad sample because it is self selecting, and
therefore says something more about people who are willing to communicate in this way, rather
than their broader class.
So to be clear, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. One is about how often you are loyal
to your group, and the other is about the nature of loyalty itself.
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards
. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see
our FAQs .
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards
. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see
our FAQs .
That the people at the very top of their industry and professions know each other and communicate
with each other is hardly a surprise. Nor is it bad - it helps the world to function. Nor is it
necessarily corrupt provided they operate within the law. What is important is that getting to
the top of these professions is an opportunity open to everyone with the ability and the drive.
That, sadly, is not the case. Nepotism does not help either.
These people at the top of their professions have a track-record of abysmal failure. Goldman Sachs,
Citigroup and the other banks should have been allowed to collapse in 2008, as fitting punishment
for their greed and incompetence. Instead, they used their paid-for access to the Bush White House
to demand and acquire a trillion-dollar bailout.
[neo]Liberal may be a dirty word to call someone in America but the author of this piece seems
unaware it doesn't work quite the same way the other side of the Atlantic. May I suggest panty-waisted
pointy-head instead?
Better yet: Globalist. Its an underlying theme that we have seen unite the Clintons and Bush/Romney
families in this election cycle...we now know who the enemy is, and they have infiltrated both
the Democrats and the Republicans. They have a secret badge they wear pledging an allegiance to
a higher power: the Clinton/Bush/Romney families are the jack-booted thugs of the American globalists.
The more the administrative class' borderless "humanism" aligns with the oligarchy's desire for
cheap labor, the less objectionable those cuddly persons become.
It's very easy to make a case that HRC is unfit for the presidency... Except for the fact the
alternative is Trump. A clique arranges matters for themselves and the electorate is basically
told to go to hell.
What is over there is on it's way over here if it hasn't happened already. You can build big
corporations with a flourishing financial sector or you can build a nation. I would say choose
but you don't get a choice.
Good job in presenting Hillary as the poor victim, when she has the whole weight of the neo-liberal
media-banking system behind her... Next up in Orwell land...
"Along with the concept of American Dream runs the notion that every man and woman is entitled
to an opinion and to one vote, no matter how ridiculous that opinion might be or how uninformed
the vote. It could be that the Borderer Presbyterian tradition of "stand up and say your rightful
piece" contributed to the American notion that our gut-level but uninformed opinions are some
sort of unvarnished foundational political truths.
I have been told that this is because we redneck working-class Scots Irish suffer from what
psychiatrists call "no insight".
Consequently, we will never agree with anyone outside our zone of ignorance because our belligerent
Borderer pride insists on the right to be dangerously wrong about everything while telling those
who are more educated to "bite my ass!"
― Joe Bageant, Deer Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from America's Class War
A meritocracy always crashes and crushes its actors and puppet masters whenever merit is neither
exhibited nor warranted ...... for then is it too much alike a fraudulent ponzi to be anything
else.
What Americans need to ask themselves is: Are they happy with things as they are after 8 years
of Obama? Do they want more of the same + the Clinton's insatiable appetite for self-enrichmentand
that permanent insincere smile? If not, why not give Trump a chance. If they don't like him, kick
him out in four years' time.
Are Americans happy with things as they are after 8 years of a Republican Congress stonewalling
every attempt to improve things for ordinary people, even shutting down the whole government in
pursuit of their partisan agenda? The childish antics of our 'democratic representatives' have
diminished the ideals of democracy and would sink even further with Trump, who could do a lot
of damage in four years.
Bit ironic, given your user name "noteasilyfooled". You are aware that Donald Trump (in spite
of several attempts to lose his fortune) is a billionaire?
It has been ongoing through out history, ancient Greece and the beginning of democracy, Romans,
Kings, Queens, courts and courtiers. Is it really a surprise that if you do not have a Harvard
MBA, you won't rise through the ranks of Goldman's and McKinsey? It's no different here in England,
Ł50,000 and up to dine with Dave and George last year.
Most of the population trusts who they elect to do the jobs they themselves would not do or
could not do, it's steeped in history that the well educated take the helm. Politics is nepotism
and money has always played a very large part, for every party, not just the democrats. Let's
not pretend the republicans are innocent saints in all of this, if Wikileaks were to delve into
their actions there would be a shit storm, remember the NRA is part and parcel of the Republican
party.
Most of the population trusts who they elect to do the jobs they themselves would not do or
could not do
Not sure we do .. We're totally apathetic and cynical in regards to politics, and certainly
those who put themselves forward mostly aren't up to the job but are seemingly unemployable elsewhere;
look no further than the last PM and his idiot chum, and now the current PM and her front bench.
Would you employ 'em?..
Ehm, sorry, no. Remember there is a word, democracy , which is taken to mean that governments
act according to the wishes of the people who elected them. Your petty partisanship is blinding
you.
They are the comfortable and well-educated mainstay of our modern Democratic party. They
are also the grandees of our national media; the architects of our software; the designers
of our streets; the high officials of our banking system; the authors of just about every plan
to fix social security or fine-tune the Middle East with precision droning. They are, they
think, not a class at all but rather the enlightened ones, the people who must be answered
to but who need never explain themselves.
This is across the WHOLE of the West no matter whether right leaning or left leaning.
The really interesting question is whether it has always been like this (and we just don't have
the emails to prove it) or whether this is a fairly new phenomenon. My feeling is this sort
of behaviour has its equivalents throughout history and that when it peaks we have upheaval and
decline.
The current malaise goes back a long way but was catalysed by the end of the Cold War. Because
the West 'won' with a system of liberal capitalist democracy, politics took a back seat to business
interests. The Clintonian and Blairite 'third way' was billed as a practical compromise but the
reality was an abdication of politics. Into this vacuum stepped the kind of self-serving elite
the Podesta emails reveal. Arrangements are starting to break down and Michael Gove's much derided
statement that people have 'had enough of experts' is actually the most insightful thing that
has been said about 21st Century politics so far.
Yes, yes, Thomas. But one click on your name reveals an approach to these elections which about
as unbiased against Clinton as Comley's - it's pretty clear who you want to win.
Among other things, if Trump wins, though, there will be war in Europe within 2 years, as Putin
grabs the Baltic states and the USA sits back, arms folded - you heard it here first.
And by electing Trump, we are trying to fuck up all of the people you mention in your article
above. We can't completely, but through things like term limits we can make Washington a city
full of strangers to them. It is much more difficult to deal with strangers in the "back room"
as you can't trust them.
We need to make Washington as inaccessible to those folks as it is to Main Street America.
We have to break America for these globalist elites before America will work for Main Street
again.
Because the American oligarchy has now turned globalist, their goals are now contrary to those
of the American people, and that's why all Hillary has is empty slogans like "I'll fight for you"
while Trump is saying tangible things like "I'll build a wall" and "I'll renegotiate or tear up
NAFTA."
We are done with them, and this is just getting started.
"Yes, it's all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren't part of this happy, prosperous
in-group – if you don't have John Podesta's email address – you're out."
What's particularly interesting is to contrast the main-chance sleaziness of their internal jockeying
with the overwhelming self-righteousness of their pronouncements on public issues. No wonder the
voters want revenge.
Of course you are quite correct, the Democratic Party is a fraud for working people and a
collection of self serving elitist. If you have a solution to solve why people keep voting for
them I would love to hear it.
I think the point is that all politics is the same, democrat or republican. These people are self
serving leeches on the rest of society and they have us thanking them for it......well in the
USA they have you mindlessly chanting USA USA USA over and over again but you get my drift.
Wikileaks doesn't get 'directed'. It's very likely the leaks are from the inside of the Clinton
campaign. They've been very sloppy and not very tech savvy by all accounts.
That such a state of affairs exists is no surprise at all, especially as the whole proclaimed
basis of society in America is designed to produce it exactly.
They may couch it in different terms and dress it up to look like 'democracy and freedom',
but it is a selfish, greedy stampede where only the lucky or the nasty succeed.
We are forever told that anyone can achieve the 'American dream', but it is a complete myth.
The idea that if everyone just puts in the effort they could all live in limitless luxury is such
a false illusion you wonder why it hasn't been buried along with believing the world is flat and
the sun is a god.
no they don't! The freedom and democracy is just bullshot that cons the populace to not see that
it's really "nick all your stuff under the threat of violence". They're gangsters. That's all
they do.
Seriously? Your story is powerful people associate with each other and do each other favours?
Absent a pure dictatorship, that's how power works. Even then, I happen to know you're inferring
too much design in some of the events you describe.
This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their
kids, points us toward the most fundamental thing we know about the people at the top of this
class: their loyalty to one another and the way it overrides everything else.
We all know how people in power act in their own interests and that goes for both Parties, not
only the one singled out in this article.
What is less clear is how all this hysteria about personalities makes any difference to ordinary
people whose interests have been entirely sidelined in this election circus. Where is the discussion
about how Americans can get affordable healthcare, or a job that pays more than the minimum, or
how to respond to climate change, for instance?
The US presidential race signifies the way the political process has become irrevocably debased.
The e-mails merely highlight the cynicism of politicians who long ago ceded power to the financial
and corporate world.
Politicians don't really understand the complexities of finance, in the same way they are unable
to fathom the Middle east, or even what life has become like for huge swathes of the American
population. At the same time politicians have long ceased to be the engine of social progress,
in fact more often than not their policies are more likely to do great harm rather than good.
If anybody is surprised by the general tenor of these e-mails I assume they must have been
the sort of children who were heartbroken when one day their parents gently sat them down to break
it to them that Santa was actually Daddy in an oversized red suit.
" The dramatis personae of the liberal class are all present in this amazing body of work:
financial innovators. High-achieving colleagues attempting to get jobs for their high-achieving
children. Foundation executives doing fine and noble things. Prizes, of course, and high academic
achievement."
I am sure the people of Syria and Libya are grateful to these amazing people for destroying
their countries and stealing their resources.
Just look over here as former politicians get on the gravy train as they lose their seats or retire.
As for the Eton alumni - closer than the mafia ....
Yes ...just look at thsi stunning revent incisive Guardian journam=lism that has helped break
this open
"But if she wins, what an added bonus that, as the first woman to enter the White House, she
will also step through the door as by far the most qualified and experienced arrival there for
generations."
"Forget the FBI cache; the Podesta emails show how America is run"
First, no, no one in his right mind should forget the FBI cache which very likely contains
evidence of serious crimes by Clinton.
At the very least, they can prove she did not comply with subpoenas and destroyed evidence
and lied to the FBI.
Second, yes, the Podesta e-mails do show us something of how America is run, but the picture
is far from complete.
We've not had a enough look into the Clinton Foundation and its intertwining with the affairs
of a very senior official and the President himself.
One very much suspects Hillary of playing "pay for play" with foreign governments, much the
kind of corruption the US loves to accuse less-developed countries of.
After all, when the Clintons were in the White House, fund-raising gimmicks reached unprecedented
levels. President Bill came up with the offer of a sleep-over in the Lincoln Bedroom for rich
supporters who coughed up a $250,000 campaign contribution.
There are many indications, but no hard proof, of just how corrupt this foundation is. One
analyst who has spent some time studying it has called it a huge criminal scheme.
Let's not forget that Julian Assange, the man who gave us the Podesta material, has promised
revelations "which could put Hillary in jail" before the election.
You're right of course. All of politics is about doing favors for people high and low, you scratch
my back and I'll scratch yours. In the entire article the one real scandalous thing is that it
quotes from hacked personal emails that no on but those who wrote them have a right to see.
If anyone thinks that the immediate solution to not backing this type of behavior from one of
the major political parties is to elect a huckster riding the wave of righteous revulsion to all
of this, then they deserve everything that they will get when said huckster gets to the pinnacle
of power.
The solution does not lie with the other major political party either, boy would I love to
see a release of emails detailing how that organization is run. It is already in collapse due
to the eroding corruption resulting in downright robbery of the people, and on-going bigotry and
constant war-mongering to rob the world of its assets.
Nothing will happen to change any of this unless a realistic third party based on true service
to the people of this country gains national acceptance. The best thing that could come from these
emails and the fracturing of the Republican party would be that all disillusioned and disgruntled
citizens unite to form this third party. This will take the emergence of some genuine, selfless
leadership, but I have hopes that this can and will happen.
Otherwise, the future is not rosy, and one day we may look back at this hateful campaign with
nostalgia.
We have our own elite clubs in this country some of which have been here for centuries. All members
regardless of Party are connected through elite school networks and by of course the class system
which is copper fastened to keep the great unwashed out. Corruption, nepotism and cronyism are
all present here too even if concealed by the veil of respectability and having the right postcode.
From the comfort of their clubs, their marble homes and granite banks they rob the people of Britain
and the world.
I'd recommend reading "The Unwinding - An Inner History of the new America" by George Packer who
dissects this very well via potted biographies of several real people. The book also covers it's
opposite - the rising unemployment, de-industrialisation, repossessions and other themes. A very
useful background for understanding this election and whatever comes after. And a good read too
which can't always be said about such books.
Trump supporters say that Trump is not a politician or part of the Washington "establishment"
but he has built his empire by buying politicians for years. His flock is so fooled.
As someone who started in poverty and rose to do well through lots of hard work and lots of good
luck, the "revelation" that this country is controlled by a smug elite is not news. I may be liberal
but I have no illusions about the elitism and exclusionism that ruling cadres always exhibit.
And if I could achieve one thing, politically, in this lifetime it would be to break the back
of privilege in this country and on this planet forever, and make true meritocracy -- not cronyism,
not nepotism, not herdeitary wealth and power -- the ONLY determinant of success.
Then setup/ join a grassroots party.
I would like to see a pan-European, non-ideological party which will focus on getting people out
of the debt economy into economic and financial freedom. The price of housing and transportation
and education needs to be addressed. There needs to be less government, fewer MPs and more room
for people who create value and employment. There is a lot of innovation out there online for
example, but the mass of people are not being exposed to these options. A
This is how the rich, powerful and landed interest in all societies work. Constitutional democracy
was supposed to counter it`s worst excesses.
Voters everywhere understand how their governments have been subverted and that is why politicians
are mistrusted.
I was confused by your spelling for a second - David Icke.
One theory states that society would have had to crate a similar model if Icke hadn't provided
us with one. It is also, probably, better to blame alien overlords to human ones.
This is a pretty tame assessment. The more I see about HRC (who I once respected, not that long
ago) the more angry and saddened I feel. The Dems have lost their connection with the people they
were meant to represent. What's left is a pretty ugly, self-righteous and corrupt crowd. Their
attacks on Comey have been despicable, beneath contempt and absurd. I think they're going to lose
and they will deserve to.
The funniest thing about the comments of this article is the people who claim that electing Trump
will be different somehow. Trump will demolish the system, Trump will shake things up! Please!
Trump IS a part of this system, a system that has two clubs, A and B. Each club has its interests
and each club wants to elect a figure that would represent its interests. Moreover, clubs A and
B really work together, they are two groups of shareholders that are sometimes in disagreement
in the distribution of profit, but at the bottom line they are working for the same goal, the
enrichment of themselves and their associates. You have to be very naive to believe that POTUS,
a mere public relations figure, would be allowed to make any significiant executive decisions
in this company. That's not what a public relations officer does. The real decisions are with
the executives of the club, and they are not elected, they are admitted into the club. The real
question, however, is if it can be otherwise, if it has ever been otherwise, can we conceive of
a system that would be different. This should be the concern of all political experts, scientists
and journalists.
Yeah but he's going to build a wall, lock her up, tear up trade agreements with the neighbours,
bar Muslims from coming to the USA, create millions of well-paid jobs, open up loads of coal mines,
have a trade war with China, end lobbying, establish limited terms (if only a president could
have a third term) and sue umpteen women for alleging sexual assault.
"Just a bunch of expensive suits deciding on what's best for the world (and themselves)"
That's the wrong emphasis based on the points made in this article; surely it is "Just a bunch
of expensive suits deciding on what's best for the themselves (and the world)".
sanders said it and trump, an insider of independent means, are both right about the Clinton duo's
sleazy corruption. thank you Wikileaks, thank you perv Weiner, thank you Huma for sharing (one
of your) computers with your sex-fiend husband. thank you for sharing your total honesty and high
morality, all deserving that we citizens pay your pensions and salaries.
Its taken a while but i think I've decided. I genuinely want Clinton to lose, i think Trump will
be a disastrous president and the worst in history by far, and worse then Clinton.
That said
Clinton and the DNC deserve to lose for the horrific way they treated Sanders in the nomination
to see Clinton crowned the candidate... she does not deserve to win and i cannot face that smug
arrogant speech which will come if she does much less the next 4-8 years.
Lobbying, influence then a thin line to break into corruption and the system being run for the
selfish interest of the tiny few against the majority. The US is no exception to this, it is just
done more subtly with a smokescreen and sleight of hand.
I'm not sure where the "news" is in this piece. The same rules of engagement apply during Republican
administrations. The same rules of engagement apply in every administration in every country in
every part of our benighted World .... and, sadly, always have done. The only response to the
article that I can think of is that eternally useful Americanism ... "No s**t Sherlock."
it is the elite - both right and left wing who have accumulated all the power, know each other
very well and have one aim in life - to retain the power and priviledge for themselves, their
families and their peers - whether that is by social class, university, religion and yes race.
Bitter - you bet people are bitter - ignorant people who don't see they are all much of the same.
It's all about the power and the money that they have, you don't and you don't seem to care. Actually
you probably do have right power, money, class and race hence the pathetically flippant comment.
Well he's already aware of media bias and that a Deep State exists quietly in the background so
it will be interesting to see what happens after the election.
Brilliant. Absolutely and positively the best piece on the subject I have read. As an American,
once a cable installer who visited all the cliche homes of social-strata USA, I find a ray of
hope ij what you write. It is a hope that Americans will just admit the unbelievable folly of
Hillary Clinton as a choice for dog catcher, much less Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces.
For God's sake, or the sake of Howard Hughes even, this group would nuke Idaho for not approving
of a transexual-animal wedding ceremony, let along disagreeing on healthcare. You have framed
and illuminated a portrait of the macabre aristocracy now in charge. I hope more people read this.
Neither of the two main political parties have a candidate worth anyone's time. The choice
is between a sexual predator and a serial liar to see who will lead the richest most powerful
country on the face of the earth and these two are what the parties have puked up for us to choose
between. I cant imagine a general or admiral sitting in front of either of these two specimens
and thinking themselves proud to be led by them.
This entire cycle is a disgrace, vote for Hillary, impeach her in a year stick Kaine in as
a caretaker and then have a proper election in 2020, its the only sane way out of this disaster.
"Sexual predator", really? You mean like Bill Cosby and Bill Clinton, 2 men with RAPE accusations
following them around for decades? All Trump did was kiss women in show biz and beauty contests,
and they LET him. I guess you never saw Richard Dawson on Family Feud?
You know damn well, people who get to the top in so called western capitalist representative democracy,
only represent themselves. The very idea they care about the people in general is totally demolished
by observing the evidence, how countries function and where the money flows to and where from.
The people are no better than domesticated cattle being led out to graze and brought back in
the evening to be milked. Marx was right when he talked about wage slavery. The slavers are those
in the legislatures of the west.
I really like Thomas Frank, author of the brilliant Pity the Billionaire.
I can't help feeling here that he's really softballed the the US elite (the Democrats in this
case) by only mildly calling them on their epic corruption.
If seen from Main street, is it any wonder the US electorate have in their millions turned aournd
and said "no, you're not going to ensnare us again with your bullshit promises because you want
our vote, you are the problem and we're going to kick YOU out"
I mean how many times can they hope to fool the electorate with bought and paid for contestants,
all the while with the media having their back. When the media is as corrupt and 'owned' as the
US mainstream media, people look elsewhere and there they find voices that are far far more critical
of what their awful rulers get up to.
Trump and Clinton have been friends for years. So the electorate is fooled once again. Every time
the public start to get wind of what's going on, the establishment just adds another layer to
the onion. By the time the hoi polloi catch up, they've siphoned tens of billions, hundreds of
billions for themselves, and created all new distractions and onion layers for the next election.
People are undeniably stupid.
This confirms the existence of a shadow government, made up of rich and powerful industrialists
and bankers who control the way elections results turn out, so that they can help themselves.
From their standpoint, Trump will be a wart in their rear end, because he basically lacks the
sophistication needed to hide excretion under the carpet and walk over it smiling. He is already
full of it and therefore is of no use to them. They did not expect him to come this far. There
is a first time surprise for everything. They did not expect Sanders to gain momentum either.
But they managed to contain it, phew! Now with Clinton, they can continue with their merry ways,
earning billions more, settings fires across the globe and making more profits out them. It is
not just the Democratic party that is full of stench. It includes the other party as well. Right
wing and left wing belong to the same bird. All the campaign for voting, right to vote, participate
etc. are just window wash. American democracy is buried deep in the Arlington cemetery. What runs
now is Plutocracy, whose roots have cracked through the foundations and pillars of this country.
Either a bloody revolution will happen one day soon or America will go the way of Brazil.
The US public are pretty happy generally with extra-judicial killing (we call that murder in
the UK, remember this for later on in the post), seems little concern about the on-record comments
of Clinton regarding Libya.
In fact the on-record comments of Clinton generally, that doesn't even involve hacked email
accounts, are absolutely damning to most Europeans.
However.. here in the UK what passes for satire comedy TV shows have rigorously stuck to the
line Trump is an idiot, Clinton is a democrat.
I can understand their fascination with Trump.. he's an easy target.. but nobody in the UK media
seems to have the balls to call out the fact that Clinton is neck deep in 'extra judicial killing',
which I find odd.. More importantly I find this to be an absolutely damning indictment of British
media. This organ not withstanding.
Interesting, but this just tells of the usual cronyism and nepotism; unedifying as it is. We see
very little here though of her true masters; i.e. Goldman Sachs; or more specifically the people
who own GS who are Hiliary's puppet masters. I would be more worried about Hiliarys ambition apparently
to push for a conflict with Russia; a conflict that serves the Military industrial complex and
the bankers that own it. DT may be a Narcicist but as Michael Moore says; "the enemy of my enemy....."
It's all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren't part of this happy, prosperous
in-group – if you don't have XYZ's email address – you're out.
Great article that makes you think as a reader. For instance, though more ethical, it makes
you wonder how things are different in the BBC or The Guardian, or NYT, or other powerful organisations.
How far does merit count, how far does having the right background, how far not rocking the boat?
Hopefully the article will inspire others to look into the leaderships of American politics where
"everything blurs into everything in this world'.
The most shocking emails to me were the ones that revealed the Democratic Party had a substantial
role in creating and organizing groups like Catholics United, with the intent of using them to
try to liberalize the Catholic Church on issues like abortion and same sex marriage.
The same people who (rightly) cried foul over GW Bush crossing the church/state divide apparently
had no problem doing the same thing when it suited their agenda. I tend to vote Democratic, but
I don't know if I can continue to do that in the future. This kind of thing should not be happening
in America.
With a constitution like that of the US, with its establishment parties sharing a bought and sold
executive evey few years, and in the absence of representative parliamentary democracy, the psuedo
macarthyist insinuations of this article are as civilized as it can get.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599
"And as I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in
general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong
but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking
- and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging."
And there is the thinking of the elite rolled into a few sentences.
"Former National Endowment for the Arts chairman Bill Ivey says a leaked e-mail to Clinton
deputy John Podesta did not reveal a 'master plan' for maintaining political power via 'an unaware
and compliant citizenry.'"
One might think that after reading this article, that a liberal/progressive like me would hate
the Democratic Party and all of the elites in it. Well, you would be right (no pun intended),
but the folks that I really despise are on the GOP side of the equation.
My animosity begins with Eisenhower, who turned the Dulles brother lose on the world to start
so many of the fires that still rage today. Then came Nixon, with his "southern strategy", to
turn the hate and racism that existed in America since its founding into a political philosophy
that only an ignorant, half-assed Hollywood actor could fully weaponize. Then there was GWB who
threw jet fuel onto the still smoldering ashes left from the Dulles boys.
(And if you think you can throw LBJ back at me, consider that he saw no way out of Vietnam
simply because he knew the right was accuse him of being soft on communism - and so the big fool
pushed ever deeper into the Big Muddy.)
And the toxic fumes from those blazes then drifted over Donald J Trump and his fellow 16 clown
car occupants - all trying to out-hate each other.
There is simply no alternative to the Democratic Party because the GOP represents hate, misogyny,
racism, and the zombie legions that catered to the corporatocracy and the Christian right. It
was such a winning strategy that the Democratic Party created the Democratic Leadership Council
(DLC) - led by the likes of the Clinton's who out-repug'd the Repugnants, and stole their corporate
lunches. And this is what we have left (no pun intended).
First, Frank misunderstood Kansas. Now he says he was blind to the reality of the Democratic party
until the Podesta emails enlightened him. He's right though that the Democrats are never out of
power whether they win or lose elections (although it's always more convenient to win them, even
with a Clinton and the knowledge that he or she means nasty baggage to come). Republicans have
a lock on country clubs; Dems have a lock on government.
i understand that the republicans make up most of the governor positions as well as state houses
plus the fed. senate and congress...that is why america is now a banana republic [re: see the
fbi interference] and is why america is now an embarassment...run as it is by the republican duck
dynasty intellectual class. stay tuned as fascism follows. please don't stand close to me...you're
an american and embarrassing....
Trust me, middle and lower-class people also try to let eachother know that their kids need a
job, and can you help out. And I don't mind the bank exec promoting the dinner of locally grown/caught
produce with the tastesful wine pairing. Certainly pretty twee, but otherwise pretty normal.
What should be concentrated on is the amount of "OMG, they are complaining about billionaires!"
whining in these emails, and the amount of manipulative news cycle management and duplicitous
skullduggery that takes place.
And how about a law that prevents the Clintons from even stepping on Martha's Vineyard for
at least 4-5 years?
In all, a somewhat depressing but predictable confirmation that the Democratic party has embraced
the donor class to the extent that the donors are now the party's true constituents.
A self-interested, self-promoting, self-protecting "Elite" seeks to control and dominate. Clinton
is clearly integral to this abhorrent system. The USA is in desperate need of change yet the political
system is the antidote to any change. Trump is not the answer. Americans should be very worried.
The only benefit to Trump winning is that both parties will be blown up and recreated with new,
fresh faces - and Trump will be impeached within months.
Why isn't Trump the answer? No one can give me a valid rational reason. He is one of the few who
has shone light on the Swamp and is bringing the woke corrupt world down.
that elite you speak of happen to be your fellow americans and live on your street..unless of
course you live in a trailer park..in which case stop your whining and get yourself an education
and a better job instead of spending all your time watching wrestling and celebrity apprentice
and moaning about the elite...i notice trump hired his stupid kids instead of cracker jack executives...i
guess thats some of the nepotism you're crying about....ya rube.
Trump is different though. He socialized in these environments...the politicians...use hit him
up for donations....gossip too him about the goings on even try and sleep with him .
Trump does not drink so at these events he probably heard unlimited stories maybe even Bill Clinton
bragged to him.
For what ever reason he wants to bring
This scum down. Maybe they disgust him like they disgust us?
'This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids,
' I ss written as evidence of nepotism. But there is no mention of whether or not these requests
were successful. Nepotism requires that the person requesting the favour is granted it.
lol no she doesn't. she doesnt want single payer, neither did obama. she doesnt want a liberal
supreme court. she doesn't want the minimum wage raised to 15. she may support race gender lbgt
"fairness" as long as it is to her political advantage. but when it isn't, she will throw anybody
under the bus.
"Read these emails and you understand, with a start, that the people at the top tier of
American life all know each other. They are all engaged in promoting one another's careers,
constantly."
As long as that class division exists, nothing will ever change, and that class will never
relinquish that division of their own accord.
How different is this from anywhere else on the planet? There will always be " elites" composed
of well connected and/or powerful and/ or wealthy and/or famous people.
I have a good job in a good firm and i am inundated by emails from clients or their friends
trying to place their offspring. I decline politely, blame HR and PC, express my sincerest regrets
and delete.
As for wealthy and powerful people enjoying holidays in the company of other wealthy and powerful
people, so what? I spend my holiday with my friends and my friends tend to have the same professional
middle class background and outlook.
She should have said ."You guys are a bunch of cowardly, greedy, malformed humans. You are the
cream of everything wrong with society today.. And the worse of it all is,. you know it too. I
can smell it in this very room."
That's what!
If we followed the likes of Frank Democrats would be out of power for ever.
No, these Democrats would merely be members of the Republican Party, honestly declaring that the
people with money make the rules to benefit themselves. What's the moral point of being in power
if you have to be just as bad as the opposing party in order to stay in power?
I use work in these circles and the soul crushing thing is that elites look out for themselves
and their careers and have no real personality, morals, values, character, backbone and certainly
no interest in the people. They have personalities of wet fish and are generally cowardice and
an embarrassment to mankind. In sort a waste of space
A meritocracy wouldn't have such hob-nobbing going on for positions of power. There'd be no reason
to ask for special consideration for 'Johnny' -- since he would already have risen to the top
based on his own MERIT. So I don't understand why this author keeps insisting that this is a meritocracy
when the evidence is so clearly and so obviously the opposite.
Once upon a time these emails would have been front and centre of Guardian reporting, headline
news and leader columns, now a single opinion article tucked away from the front page. Truly the
gatekeepers have lost just as much credibility as the political class that they shill for.
It is well known that there is a deep state operating in America, if you want to learn something
instead of sneering and being ignorant, you could do worse than reading books such as these:
This is happening in America, which has always claimed that there are no classes here and everything
is done according to merit. So, yes, it's exactly like the triad you mention and it is the more
offensive for occurring in a country that expressly repudiates it.
That article adds up to zero, it does not tell us anything. There are people with networks, and
people promote other people they know. Nothing peculiar about this, it works like this in every
walk of life. By and large people with high stakes will choose other people who they know can
get very hard jobs done, otherwise their project becomes a failure. Can other talented people
break into these networks? They can and they do.
he's pretty powerful yes. he just runs interference for clinton controlled foundations as far
as i know, but i'm sure he will help out the big banks if called upon. your comment reeks of dishonesty.
The Democrats are as bad if not worse than the Republicans at deceit, manipulation of the media,
leaking false information, feeding out a narrative etc..
Its basically become like an arms race between the 2 parties to win by any means necessary
because they are so polarized.
The system needs to be overhauled and changed because its not fit for the 21st century. The
UK political system too needs to modernise because its creaking as well.
Frank (What's the matter with Frank? Frank) misses the point. completely. The amazing thing about
all these emails is how absolutely squeaky clean Podesta is. How many of us could say the same
if our personal emails from the last 10 years were blasted all over the internet?!? Not one --
not one! -- example of intemperate language, of bias, of unchained passions, of immaturity. I'm
proud to be his fellow citizen and would gladly let him serve as Chief of Staff again if he so
chose. Go Italian-Americans!
The Democratic Party faces exactly the same problem as the Labour Party in the UK.
They are both parties which are supposed to represent the interests of the working class and
middle class but they have been infiltrated by corrupt right wing groups lining their own pockets
and representing the interests of the oligarchy.
The Labour and Democratic parties need to work together to get these poisonous people out of
their organisations before they destroy they destroy them from within.
This is all fascinating, and disturbing, but sadly, not a surprise.
It also isn't restricted to the upper echelons of political parties either.
It is no coincidence we hear the same comedians/pundits/writers on Radio Four every week.
It is no coincidence we see the same people on tv.
It is no coincidence the sons and daughters of sons and daughters of the people who went to certain
universities go the same universities.
It is no coincidence certain arts grants go to a certain group of people a lot more than they
go to others.
It is no coincidence that European grants go to the same small groups of people running organisations.
I'll wager it is no coincidence at the Guardian certain people get work experience and internships.
Its the way the world works, and it stinks.
Great essay. It is hard to get all the thoughts about the elite into words when so much anger
and confusion exist now that all lines have blurred. No longer left and right, but top to bottom.
Whereas the world is mostly very grey for the bulk of us, these emails shed a light very clearly
on what is black and white and green all over for a few who are really in control. This election
has certainly pulled back the curtain and left everyone exposed. For so long Americans could pretend
there was virtue and dignity in the "democratic" foundation of our politics, but now with absolute
certainly we can see that it is not so and likely never was. No pretending anymore.
The class to which I refer is not rising in angry protest; they are by and large pretty satisfied,
pretty contented. Nobody takes road trips to exotic West Virginia to see what the members of this
class looks like or how they live; on the contrary, they are the ones for whom such stories are
written. This bunch doesn't have to make do with a comb-over TV mountebank for a leader; for this
class, the choices are always pretty good, and this year they happen to be excellent.
They are the comfortable and well-educated mainstay of our modern Democratic party. They
are also the grandees of our national media; the architects of our software; the designers of
our streets; the high officials of our banking system; the authors of just about every plan to
fix social security or fine-tune the Middle East with precision droning. They are, they think,
not a class at all but rather the enlightened ones, the people who must be answered to but who
need never explain themselves.
This is a good point. A lot of people who torpedoed Bernie Sanders' campaign against Hillary
Clinton in the primaries seem to be comfortable with little or no political change. They do not
seem willing to admit that the political and economic system in the US (and elsewhere) is fundamentally
broken, and effectively is in ruins.
You' re saying that one bad effect of hacks is that email security will be improved and it will
be harder to have secure communications. In effect, you hate the idea that the NSA can read our
emails, but you're worried that the Russians won't be able to. Personally, I don't want either
the government or Wikileaks to invade my privacy. You apparently think that data theft is OK as
long as Julian Assange does it.
That's an ahistorical understanding of the party. Yes, in the runup to the Civil War, the 'Democratic'
party was the party of proto-white supremacists, slave owners, and agriculturalists. But the party
system as it exists today with its alignment of Dems = liberal and Republicans = conservative
came into being around/after 1968. Claiming that today's 'Democrats' voted against slavery is
like claiming that today's 'Republicans' are worthy of being lauded for being abolitionists -
which would be high hypocrisy given their habits of racism and black voter suppression.
Righteousness and majesty...They are, they think, not a class at all but rather the enlightened
ones, the people who must be answered to but who need never explain themselves.
Exactly what Bernie Sanders was against, just think what 'could' have happened if he were the
nominee. The question is when will the email explicitly showing Clinton undermining him come out?
Hillary deserves every bit of what is coming out against her, she asked for it, she wants the
power and celebrity, but it comes with some pretty ugly stuff. As Mr. Sanders said, she is very
'ambitious', an understatement. If nothing comes out to prove her malice against Mr. Sanders,
I will always be convinced it is there somewhere. Now because of what the Democrats did against
him that was proven and oh by the way 'the Russians did it', we have her running neck and neck
with Trump. They asked for it, they got it.
Why is it that literally all Western democracies have developed totally incapable and immoral
political elites at the same time who seem to be lacking any kind of ethical compass?
It is blatantly obvious in the USA where both candidates are almost equally abysmal, but for
different reasons. But the same is also true in Germany, Great Britain, France and most other
Western countries I can judge on. How did that happen? Where are the politicians who are doing
the job for other reasons than self-fulfillment and ideology?
Trump, Clinton, May, Johnson, Farage, Hollande, Sarkozy, Le Pen, Merkel, Gabriel, Petry ...
and the rest are all product of a political system that is in a deep crisis. And this comes from
someone who has always and will always believe in democracy as such. But how can we finally get
better representatives of our political system again?
What the writer is describing and what the e-mails reveal, is, for anyone with half a brain not
too dumbed down by partisanship; is the structure of a system that isn't democracy at all, but
clearly an oligarchy. The super-rich rule and the rest are occasionaly alowed to vote for a candidate
chosen by the rich, giving the illusion of democracy.
Yup, that about sums it up. Yet in the case the choice is truly awful.
And whilst we are here let's remember that the European Parliament is very democratic. The
US system or the UK System would never allow so many nut jobs from UKIP, FN, Lega Nord and various
other facists have a voice. The EU parliament is very representative.
Good read. Money is like manure and if you spread it around it does a lot of good. But if you
pile it up in one place, like Silicon Valley or the banks, eventually it will smell pretty bad
and attract a lot of flies, like the one that seems attracted to Hillary.
You get some idea of just how batty the US electoral campaign system is when you consider that
John Podesta is the guy who has hinted at 'exposing' the US government 'cover up' of UFOs...and
even got Hillary Clinton making statements about looking into Area 51. Well, that's the vote of
all the multitude of conspiracy loons nicely in the bag -- It only shows just how desperate the
campaigns are.
world history has always provided that the wealthy look after themselves. What's new? Here, both
American candidates are wealthy. But Clinton appears to want to look after others and other will
look at and after her. I'm not sure what Trump can look after, perhaps his business dealings and
bankruptcy triumphs, and lawsuits. Perhaps America is going through a new type of revolution,
generational and the massive entry of the post-industrial age in America. How many Americans are
screaming for the past, while at least one U.S. automakers shifts some of their factories to Mexico
- e.g., Chrysler.
We get the candidates we deserve, in any so-called democracy. The west worships money and glitz
and celebrity, willingly watches "reality" TV, and in general can aspire to nothing better than
material superiority over the neighbours. The U.S., with its pathetic "American Dream," is the
most egregious victim of its own obsessions. Bernie Sanders, who in Canada, Britain, or western
Europe would be considered centrist, is vilified as a raving socialist. Genuinely well-disposed
people with a more humane alternative political vision lack the necessary millions to gain public
attention. And so one is left with Business-as-Usual Hillary Clinton (mendacious elitist one-percenter)
or the duplicitous demagogue Donald Trump (mendacious vulgar one-percenter).
The internet should be a democratic forum for intelligent discussion of alternatives but has
become largely the province of trolls and wingnuts. We should be able to do better.
I'm with MarkusKraut; not because of what the e-mails have discovered - I suspect we all suspected
this kind of machinery from BOTH parties - but because their discovery is entirely one-sided.
What does it prove? That the Republicans are any better? Or that Don is any more qualified to
be president than he was two weeks ago?
No. It proves one thing, and one thing only - that Republicans keep secrets better than
Dems do. At least the important ones.
And I say that as someone who was a security administrator for ten years. And I can guarantee
you one thing (and one thing only): The Russians would NOT have got past any e-mail server that
I built.
My worry is now not who gets elected - this was always a ship of fools - or who's to blame
(although I'm sure we'll be told in the first "hundred days"), but what it means for democracy.
And don't worry, I'm not going to try to equate democracy with Hillary (although I still support
her); but about secrecy .
E-mail has always been the most likely medium to be cracked (the correct term for illegal
hacking), and secrecy is anathema to democracy - always was, and always will be.
And having been caught with their pants down, I'd like to see the Democratic party, win or lose
this election, to say that ALL future e-mails will be a matter of public record. And challenge
the GOP to do the same.
Unfortunately, it'll simply be viewed as a failure of security that any administrator like
me could tell you is almost impossible, and they'll simply buy better servers for 2020.
I've never felt any of the mail to be particularly surprising, but merely a demonstration of what
a NeoLiberal society, run by money, looks like at a more granular level. I won't vote for a Trump,
but living in California I can vote Green without having to pull the lever for a Clinton. If California
goes Trump, then every other state in the nation will have swirled down the drain with him.
In the book 'Who Rules America" written by William Domhoff, first published in 1967, it laid out
how the ruling class sits on each others boards of directors, (which he called 'interlocking directorates",
inhabits certain think tanks and organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations or political
parties, goes to the same clubs, intermarries, and knows one another. I.E. the ruling class is
a coherent group of HUMAN BEINGS. People think they are some abstract, nameless wonder. They are
not. Podesta's e-mails, as Frank rightly notices, show the Democratic Party elite. Another set
will show the Republican Party elite, and how BOTH link to each other.
We are talking about the biggest war mongering outfit on the planet. An election. This ship is
being driven by assholes no one elected...and as per, walk away with money and knighthoods while
the fabric of our society is unravelling. Store water and tinned goods...or good luck on the help
line
Good comment except for the needless hand-wringing about reading "private" e-mails. The freak
show that is the 2016 US general election is yet another clear sign that neo-liberalism is a scam
run for and by bankers, corporate CEOs, kooky tech billionaires, corrupt politicians and other
wealthy and amoral sociopaths.
The media has become their propaganda arm and the divide between what people experience and
see and what the media tells them is happening grows ever wider. Alternative media outlets (although
some of these, such as VICE, are neo-lib shills also) and organisations like WikiLeaks are more
important than ever as they still speak truth to power. Even some dissidents and media 'agitators'
are coming down on the side of the establishment - I am thinking Snowden, Greenwald and Naomi
Klein all of whom have wagged their fingers at Julian Assange for doing a job the media used to
do.
A good rule of thumb that tells you who the establishment worries about is looking at who is
repeatedly denounced in the media. Trump, Assange and Putin currently have the powers that be
worried because they are giving them the proverbial two fingers (or one finger, depending on which
side of the Atlantic you are on) and exposing the rotten framework of lies and corruption that
hold the rickety system together. Media darlings like Snowden present no real threat and are tolerated,
even celebrated.
My analysis is that Trump would not be permitted to win. Why do I say that? Because he has had every
establishment off his side. Trump does not have one establishment, maybe with the exception of the
Evangelicals, if you can call them an establishment," said Assange. "Banks, intelligence, arms companies,
foreign money, etc. are all united behind Hillary Clinton. And the media as well. Media owners, and
the journalists themselves."
He is right, but the same was said about Brexit.
Cognitive Dissonance -> 1980XLS •Nov 4, 2016 8:10 AM
It seems the Shadow Government has decided to go full banana republic.
The sad fact is the vast majority of people simply don't believe this could happen 'here'.
Joe Davola -> two hoots •Nov 4, 2016 9:09 AM
In my opinion, the biggest thing to come out of these emails is the complete manipulation
of the "news". The only thing I can attribute it to is that the media are just another form
of the free-stuff crowd, because it's not as if Hillary offers a shining beacon of ideology. It's
easy to write stories when they're written for you, and it appears that you're really smart because
you "got the scoop".
Sure the Saudi angle is quite damning, but for most that's just too deep and difficult to piece
together - unless the news breaks it down to simple sound bytes (or an emoji). Heck, without Tyler
combing these dumps and lining them up with the overall picture of what was going down at the
time, it would be easy to just get swamped in the sheer volume. Much like the "we've printed out
50,000 emails" wasn't intended to help the investigation, it was intended to bog the process down.
Mike in GA -> I am a Man I am Forty •Nov 4, 2016 8:28 AM
Trump has pushed back on every issue that the establishment has thrown at him. Wikileaks has
helped with their steady drip of revealing emails giving us all a behind-the-scenes look at the
everyday thoughts of our "Leaders". The corruption, collusion and outright criminality thus exposed
could only have been accomplished by Trump - certainly no establishment Uniparty candidate would
so fearlessly take on the daily goring of everyone else's ox.
Now exposed, this corruption and criminality HAS to be addressed and can only be addressed
by an outsider, change-agent president. The opportunity to clean house so substantially does not
present itself often and may never again. If properly executed, the halls of power could largely
be purged of the criminal class so endemic in the wikileaked emails.
This is where it gets pretty hairy for Trump, and for America. These criminals, living large,
very large, on the taxpayer, will not go silently into the night. They will pull out every stop
to stop Trump or at least limit the damage. People will start dying a little faster in DC now.
Can anyone explain why that 55 y/o Major General, about to get the promotion of his lifetime
into the Air Force Missile Command would commit suicide? And why it took 2 months for the AF to
rule it a "suicide"? Rumor says he became privy to domestic EMP contingency plans and was unwilling
to comply.
When assassination becomes a tool of the ruling party, the Party has come to town.
"... Hillary led us to disaster in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya. ... Hillary and our failed Washington establishment have spent $6 trillion on wars in the Middle East, and now it's worse than it's ever been before. ..."
"... Okay, folks. She – I'll tell you what. She will get us into World War III. She will get us into World War III. I will tell you that. She's incompetent. She will get us into World War III. ..."
"... The arrogant political class never learns. They keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again. They keep telling the same lies. They keep producing the same failed results. ..."
"... Clinton on the other hand has a proven record of being a proactive hawk. She is willing to go to war and to kill people because the U.S. can. ..."
"... She is a political animal totally dependent on her sponsors. Economically she is pro-banks, pro-big-business and for further deregulation. A neoliberal. ..."
"... She is willing to go to war and to kill people because the U.S. can. ..."
"... That works only on the third world hellholes. The problem with Hillary (and her circle) is that they don't really know the difference between those hellholes and a thing called in US military lingo "near-peer" or "peer". They say that they know but they don't, neither does most of "academe". ..."
"... IMO, this vote is the only way to hold her to account. Once she is in, the Clinton machine will be using "We the People" as door mats. ..."
"... On domestic policy and economic policy, both candidates are abominable. Hillary is, even there I would argue, more dangerous because she actually understands the implications and effects of her policy positions and still holds them. ..."
"... On foreign policy, I have to agree that Hillary is far more dangerous. Even if Trump ditches his rational foreign policy positions for the standard inside-the-beltway neoconservatism, he has the advantage of being inept. ..."
"... clinton has spent her entire adult life avoiding accountability. a cursory glance at the behavior of her cultish followers shows that anyone trying to hold her to any standard gets screeched out of the room (never mind getting on any mainstream news channel). every time she screws up it's "someone else's fault". it's putin or the FBI or some variety of "bro". ..."
"... george carlin's "who owns you" should be required viewing for every US voter. ..."
"... The O'Bomber evidently said he doesn't understand Trump's popularity ... It isn't that Trump is popular it is that, due in part to the O'Bomber himself, the Killary is viewed as anathema. ..."
"... If elected Hillary would have as much contempt for the electorate as she had for her staff. ..."
"... In an e-mail sent from Comcast after Clinton was interviewed by NBC's Matt Lauer, Lauer came under fire after questioning Hillary on the e-mails, according to the technical crew after the show Hillary proceeded to pick up a full glass of water and throw it at the face of her assistant and then the screaming started, she was in full meltdown, she came apart literally unglued, she is the most foul mouthed woman I've ever heard, and that voice at screech level…"If that f-ing bastard wins we all hang from nooses! Lauer's finished and if I lose its all on your heads for screwing this up". She screamed "she'd get that f-ing Lauer fired for this". ..."
"... Donna Brazile was singled out by Clinton.."I'm so sick of your face, you stare at the wall like a brain dead buffalo while letting that fucking Lauer get away with this. What are you good for really? Get the f–k to work janitoring this mess.. do I make myself clear". ..."
"... Hope the Americans don't vote that psychopath Clinton in, if they do keep her away from that football. ..."
"... Oh well my twenty cents worth is that Trump doesn't have enough legislative support to do anything too drastic externally. ..."
"... The real issue of both candidates is their vice asshole nominee, cos I reckon which ever creep wins impeachment will be just around the corner. Of course Hillary is more likely to be impeached the open fbi investigation combined with an almost certain rethug majority in senate and a certain one in Congress means her odds of lasting the distance are not great. ..."
"... Trump has a lot of work to do to prevent the rethug 'leadership' taking a big bung from the sponsors to impeach him for some misdeed or another. ..."
"... There is absolutely no point in listening to what any modern pol says, the reality they peddle is mutable, changing according to their needs. Such types can only be measured by what they have done in the past & in the case of Mrs Clinton that is a farrago of broken promises & sell outs to her sponsors. ..."
"... I voted for Trump, despite being thoroughly on the left. Trump's vilification by the globalist elite means that he has to be doing something right. ..."
"... When a normal person tries to be a politician, they sound like Trump because normal people give themselves away when they stretch the truth. It's the dangerous psychos who sound good-natured and reasonable, because they can lie and don't feel a thing when they do it. ..."
"... Hmmmm. Do all the Hillbottoms like pizza parties? With beans and eggs. And lots of cheese. Remember, remember the 5th of November. The pedo-queen won't EVER forget the date. Tick-tock. ..."
For me, as a non U.S. person, the major issues of the U.S. presidential elections is always foreign
policy. There Trump is not hawkish at all. He has somewhat confused, unlearned blustering positions
on foreign policy but is basically a cautious, risk averse businessman. He consistently criticizes
the war mongering in Washington DC. Hillary Clinton is a run-of-the-mill warmongering neoconservative
compatible with the imperial "mainstream" of the power centers in Washington and elsewhere.
Trump has called up this contrast again and again (as
do I). In
a speech (vid at 53:20 min) in Grand Rapids Michigan on October 31 he again highlights these
points. Some excerpts (taken from
this partial transcript part 9, 10):
Hillary led us to disaster in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya. ... Hillary and our failed Washington
establishment have spent $6 trillion on wars in the Middle East, and now it's worse than it's
ever been before.
Had Obama and others gone to the beach, Obama could have gone to the golf course, we would
have been in much better shape.
We shouldn't have gone into the war, and she thinks I'm a hawk. Oh, Donald Trump.
...
Imagine if some of the money had been spent, $6 trillion in the Middle East, on building new schools
and roads and bridges right here in Michigan.
Now Hillary, trapped in her Washington bubble, that's blind to the lessons, wants to start
a shooting war in Syria in conflict with a nuclear armed Russia that could drag us into a World
War III.
Okay, folks. She – I'll tell you what. She will get us into World War III. She will get
us into World War III. I will tell you that. She's incompetent. She will get us into World War
III.
The arrogant political class never learns. They keep repeating the same mistakes over and
over again. They keep telling the same lies. They keep producing the same failed results.
Trump may well be lying when he says he does not seek a conflict with Russia or anyone else. Trump
surely lies on other issues. But those are mostly rather obvious lies and some are even a bit comical.
He is playing Reagan on economic issues, promising tax cuts that can not be financed (and which Reagan
had to take back in the end when he introduced the
biggest
tax hike ever). On many issues we do not know what Trump is really planning to do (or if he plans
at all). But he has never given the impression that he is hawkish or willing to incite a war.
Clinton on the other hand has a proven record of being a proactive hawk. She is willing to go
to war and to kill people because the U.S. can.
She is a political animal totally dependent on her sponsors. Economically she is pro-banks, pro-big-business
and for further deregulation. A neoliberal. The only "liberal" standpoints she has are on some hyped
identity issues relevant only for a very tiny group of people like transgenders. She told her real
voters, the people who pay her, that her public standpoint on many issues
is different from the one she will pursue. She did not mean that what she will pursue will be
less hawkish than her public stand, or that she will be more progressive on economic issues than
she openly claims.
Clinton assures us that Trump is
Putin's puppet who
will start a nuclear World War III with Russia. She doesn't say how that computes. Will Putin
order Trump to give him asylum in Washington while Moscow and Washington get nuked?
With Trump the U.S. would get a president who is a pretty unknown factor but, in my judgment,
a less dangerous one to the U.S. and the world than Clinton. With her the next useless and deadly
wars are practically guaranteed.
... ... ..
The citizens of the United States now have an opportunity to hold Secretary of State Clinton to
account for her " We came,
we saw, he died " war on Libya and for escalating the war on Syria. The militaristic (and failed)
pivot to Asia, the "regime changes" putsches in Honduras and Ukraine and the deterioration of relations
with Russia are also to a large part her work. Should the voters reward her for all the death, misery
and new dangers she created as Secretary of State by making her President?
... ... ...
Posted by b on November 3, 2016 at 03:22 PM |
Permalink
She is willing to go to war and to kill people because the U.S. can.
That works only on the third world hellholes. The problem with Hillary (and her circle)
is that they don't really know the difference between those hellholes and a thing called in US
military lingo "near-peer" or "peer". They say that they know but they don't, neither does most
of "academe".
In addition to Goldman, Mnuchin also worked at Soros Fund Management, whose founder, George
Soros, has funded many left-leaning causes. Where it gets even more bizarre is that Mnuchin has
donated frequently to Democrats, including to Clinton and Barack Obama.
On domestic policy and economic policy, both candidates are abominable. Hillary is, even there
I would argue, more dangerous because she actually understands the implications and effects of
her policy positions and still holds them. Trump doesn't seem to have anything more than a thin
grasp over any policy matter. He might get into office and forget about his giant tax cut.
On foreign policy, I have to agree that Hillary is far more dangerous. Even if Trump ditches
his rational foreign policy positions for the standard inside-the-beltway neoconservatism, he
has the advantage of being inept.
no idea why you value this guy's opinion...typical FP neoliberal yuppie nonsense. the fact that
he thinks anyone can or will "hold her accountable" after she gets voted in makes me wonder if
he can even tie his own shoelaces. as for "immoral", that just tells me he places "locker room
talk" at a lower moral realm than participation in genocide and plutocratic plunder.
how did that "hold me accountable" thing work out from 2008-2012? and when the voters had a
chance to hold obama accountable for his first term what did they do? voted him in again and then
went back to four years of paying zero attention to the world around them unless the MSM gave
them an occasional Two Minute Hate or some "tragedy" they were instructed to feel sad about.
clinton has spent her entire adult life avoiding accountability. a cursory glance at the
behavior of her cultish followers shows that anyone trying to hold her to any standard gets screeched
out of the room (never mind getting on any mainstream news channel). every time she screws up
it's "someone else's fault". it's putin or the FBI or some variety of "bro".
george carlin's "who owns you" should be required viewing for every US voter. not
only will she say anything to get elected but once she's in will laugh at the notion of anyone
telling her what to do. she has nothing but contempt for all voters and i wouldn't be surprised
if she held her own supporters even lower. how can you respect a group that has so little respect
for themselves or the truth?
On foreign policy, I have to agree that Hillary is far more dangerous. Even if Trump ditches
his rational foreign policy positions for the standard inside-the-beltway neoconservatism,
he has the advantage of being inept.
Are you suggesting that Obama and what he has in his admin currently are not-inept? I believe
last generation of American competent foreign policy professionals "died out" with Bill Clinton's
Admin arrival. For the last 20+ year US foreign policy "establishment", including its "academe"
and "analytical" branches, which work in concert with intelligence services is an embodiment of
incompetence and is a definition of unmitigated disaster.
The O'Bomber evidently said he doesn't understand Trump's popularity ... It isn't that Trump is
popular it is that, due in part to the O'Bomber himself, the Killary is viewed as anathema.
My hope is that IF Killary wins a revolution is sparked by simple disgust at how venal she
is ... or that IF Trump wins the dems (dims) provoke a disturbance that grows into a bloody damned
mess.
Maybe, just maybe, the blood in the streets will be deep enough to make shoes squish with each
step.
In the meantime, we've had light (really slight) showers here on the Llano Estacado.
if the choice is between which of the two is the better liar - i go with hillary... as a consequence,
if i was in the usa, i would be voting trump or green depending on the location..
and, as you note - ..."as a non U.S. person, the major issues of the U.S. presidential elections
is always foreign policy." and which one of the candidates is always talking russia 24/7 while
claiming to serve the interests of the indoctrinated usa public? one would have to be brain dead
to vote for hillary, in spite of what the lying msm says... a friend here in canada - an american
living in canada - informed me this morning that he saw a poll saying that 9 out of 10 canucks
would like to cut off relations with the usa if trump is elected.. kid you not.. i told him i
was the other 10% and that i would like to cut off relations with the usa if hillary is elected!
If elected Hillary would have as much contempt for the electorate as she had for her staff.
In an e-mail sent from Comcast after Clinton was interviewed by NBC's Matt Lauer, Lauer
came under fire after questioning Hillary on the e-mails, according to the technical crew after
the show Hillary proceeded to pick up a full glass of water and throw it at the face of her assistant
and then the screaming started, she was in full meltdown, she came apart literally unglued, she
is the most foul mouthed woman I've ever heard, and that voice at screech level…"If that f-ing
bastard wins we all hang from nooses! Lauer's finished and if I lose its all on your heads for
screwing this up". She screamed "she'd get that f-ing Lauer fired for this".
Donna Brazile was singled out by Clinton.."I'm so sick of your face, you stare at the wall
like a brain dead buffalo while letting that fucking Lauer get away with this. What are you good
for really? Get the f–k to work janitoring this mess.. do I make myself clear".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NfFAaPZqs8
Hope the Americans don't vote that psychopath Clinton in, if they do keep her away from that
football. The nuclear football (also known as the atomic football, the president's emergency
satchel, the button, the black box, or just the football) is a briefcase, the contents of which
are to be used by the President of the United States to authorize a nuclear attack
"...With Trump the U.S. would get a president who is a pretty unknown factor but, in my judgment,
a less dangerous one to the U.S. and the world than Clinton. With her the next useless and deadly
wars are practically guaranteed..
b,
Excellent piece, I hold the same opinion of Trump, I'm undecided whether to throw my lot in
with Trump or Jill Stein. Vote for Stein won't help her in California, Hillary too far ahead.
But vote for Stein may help the Green Party, the 5% need to be in future public debates.
Even if I'm wrong and vote for Trump, Dem will obstructs Trump in every twists and turns, just
they did to GW Bush. Whom should I vote?
Oh well my twenty cents worth is that Trump doesn't have enough legislative support to do
anything too drastic externally. yeah yeah I undertsand that as 'C in C' he can find an excuse
to blow the world away but since there's not a dollar in that and most of his energy is gonna
be directed at copping a good earner, he's not gonna waste time, energy or electoral capital shooting
the shit outta unwhites - unlike his predecessor or his opponent.
Of course there will be a rush of greedy rethug assholes trying to line up for jobs in a trump
administration but trump being who he is will rely heavily on yes men as he always has - he doesn't
trust anyone sufficiently to delegate and lacks the ability to build a clinton style organisation
full of rats ratting each other out to give him the checks & balances he would need to delegate
effectively.
Some ambitious rethugs will definitely take it upon themselves to operate for 'sponsors' in
spite of the donald but he must be used to that coming as he does from that grey area between
gangsterism and allegedly 'legitimate' business. He won't appreciate types who cop an earn without
paying him an 80% cut, so hopefully DC's exponents of 'wet work' will be kept busy purging the
trump administration and won't have time to be sticking their noses into other nations and purging
them.
The real issue of both candidates is their vice asshole nominee, cos I reckon which ever
creep wins impeachment will be just around the corner. Of course Hillary is more likely to be
impeached the open fbi investigation combined with an almost certain rethug majority in senate
and a certain one in Congress means her odds of lasting the distance are not great.
Trump has a lot of work to do to prevent the rethug 'leadership' taking a big bung from
the sponsors to impeach him for some misdeed or another. Remember this is the mob that got
the other Clinton for copping a bj - hardly presidential (in the weird hypocritical amerikan view)
but not illegal unless the whole rape culture thing is used and that I suspect even now to be
a step too far for rednecked rethugs.
Trump is more likely to meet with an accident or suffer heart failure but the means don't really
matter the reality is that in either case the veeps are highly likely to come into play.
In that case Kain & Pence - from what I can discern they are standard American hawks complete
with the required ignorance of the big wide world, assured sense of American exceptionalism and
love of watching what they cannot comprehend explode in a pink miasma of human body parts.
And they know how to keep sponsors happy which is why they were picked in the first place -
so however bad things are gonna get under ClintonInc or theDonald the only certainty is that they
will eventually get even worse.
US President Barack Obama has lashed out at Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's
supporters, saying his popularity among working-class Americans is "frustrating."
@h #40 "They are about governance. They are about policy positions"
Yeah right that must be why yer hero has done so much to avoid talking policy over the last
12 months. ClintonInc attacked the bernie idjit personally just as they have with trump. That
wouldn't be so important if anyone could trust ClintonInc to abide by stated dem policy but this
is a low life scumsucking mob of no-hopers who put themselves on offer to the highest bidder -
whatever the titular head of ClintonInc has said in the past or will say and do in the future
is irrelevant to the eternal now - how much are you offering continuum - where she lives.
There is absolutely no point in listening to what any modern pol says, the reality they
peddle is mutable, changing according to their needs. Such types can only be measured by what
they have done in the past & in the case of Mrs Clinton that is a farrago of broken promises &
sell outs to her sponsors.
Although we didn't discuss it, and so I can't guarantee that de Mesquita would agree, lesser
evilism as a voting strategy is stupid PROVIDED that the evils are of roughly the same level.
When it comes to foreign policy, I don't think that's true at all of Hillary vs. Trump. Hillary
is MUCH more evil than Trump. Furthermore, Hillary's "evil" in this regard involves a greater
chance of war with amply nuclear armed Russia. We're therefore dealing with an existential threat.
Yeah, she finally dialed that back, somewhat, at her last debate with Trump. (Now she says she'll
negotiate a no-fly zone with Russia.) That's good news, if it's really true that she was essentially
bluffing about the no-fly zone in Syria. But if there's a 5% chance she wasn't bluffing/lying,
then that 5% chance of an existentially threatening war scenario still relegates her to the "You
must be kidding" category, in my eyes.
I'm voting for Trump, and make no apologies for doing so.
It's too bad that Trump is SO inept as a politician. While he's improved, he hasn't impressed,
overall, with his snail's pace of improvement. He even botched the de facto coddling of ISIS oil
caravans, spouting wild allegations of Obama and Hillary "founding" ISIS. IMO, if he had used
his ample TV exposure to expose the Obama Admin's cozy, benign tolerance of ISIS, in it's early
stages, Obama would be so toxic that a) he could not help Hillary, much at all and b) Obama's
toxicity would rub off on Hillary. Trump could have used this horror story to virtually guarantee
him a win. Instead he turned lemonade into a lemon, and still hasn't figured out what an opportunity
he blew, nor how to recover.
@46 h, ' If you're an American and you hold the position that the U.S. founding documents were
built to support 'Oligarchy' I must ask, b/c you opened the door as to where you ever learned
such nonsense.'
I've been so pissed off at Mrs M.A.D. that i've avoided listening to the Der Drumpenfuerher. I
listened to a bit of his lunchtime speeches on Fuchs news today. The man is ape shit nuts. Immigration
policy is both foreign & domestic policy. US biz needs cheap "illegals" & Trump knows this. His
"round up the illegals," along w/his doubling down on the drug war, is all about the further militarization
of US society. He will double down on dismantling public education, use the loathsome ACA to further
assaults on Medicare/S.S. He will "cut corporate taxes to rebuild the inner cities," etc., etc.
There is so little difference on these issues you might as well flip a coin.
on FP, he said, "I will stop China from building 'fortresses' (sic) in the S China Sea." oh
yeah, he's really going to be some radical departure from Obomba and the "pivot to Asia". The
MSM so studiously lies about what the current admin is really up to that some things Trump says
sound judicious. Like comments on the M.E. & defeating ISIS. and what do those comments mean?
they mean doing the exact same shit we are doing right now. so much for saving "trillions." "we
will rebuild our military." you know what that means. Does he ever talk specifically about US/NATO
vs Russia, Ukraine, the Russian border, etc.? of course not. his "be nice to Putin" act is a bunch
of BS in response to Mrs. MAD's goading & insulting Putin in order to save her political ass.
good luck Average American. It does not matter in the slightest who wins: you & the world lose.
Might not have been the right decision, but I voted for Trump, despite being thoroughly on the
left. Trump's vilification by the globalist elite means that he has to be doing something right.
I'll also give this to him: he sounds like a sleaze most of the time, and this is a good thing
because it means he's a normal human being. When a normal person tries to be a politician, they
sound like Trump because normal people give themselves away when they stretch the truth. It's
the dangerous psychos who sound good-natured and reasonable, because they can lie and don't feel
a thing when they do it.
Hmmmm. Do all the Hillbottoms like pizza parties? With beans and eggs. And lots of cheese.
Remember, remember the 5th of November. The pedo-queen won't EVER forget the date. Tick-tock.
Further to throwing Comey under the bus yesterday, Obama had this to say:
"I trust her," Obama said. "I know her. And I wouldn't be supporting her if I didn't have absolute
confidence in her integrity."
No amount of Bleach-bit can remove that yellow streak running down his back and straight through
the entirety of his 'legacy'. Not once did he come down on the side opposite entrenched power
– in fact, we can now add major 'obstruction of justice' to his prior litany of failures to prosecute
white collar criminals as the basis for its own section, splitting criminal activity into two
parts, one domestic, the other for a raft of war crimes.
Great interview. Very worthwhile to listen in full...
Notable quotes:
"... you're in the age of globalism, where a select few uber rich control everything and no one can do anything about it. ..."
"... She is every bit as banal and myopic as tRump. It is not about merit----it is about surrogates and political clans supported by gangster capitalists. ..."
Michael Hudson just sits there and details the exact situation and the real truth, as he
has been doing for a long time now. Remember this video in six months.
HarryObrian > NilbogResident
No, you're in the age of globalism, where a select few uber rich control everything and
no one can do anything about it. Everyone was warned about this over 30 years ago but
there wasn't enough exposure to the facts for enough people to care or do anything about it.
Now that the facts and reality have hit you have all these lazy alarmists like Hudson who prey
on the fear of a few who really can't do anything about it but who haven't realized it yet. Oh
well, whine on.
sufferingsuccatash > NilbogResident
Hillary is not a qualified leader either. She is every bit as banal and myopic as tRump.
It is not about merit----it is about surrogates and political clans supported by gangster
capitalists.
0040 • a day ago
Another great video from Mr Hudson. Von Clausewitz's axiom that "War is politics by other
means" has never been made clearer.
NormDP
Hudson is right on. Trump is the lesser of two evils. Under Trump, checks and balances will
remain strong and active. Under Hillary, they will disappear.
Glen Ford says Hillary Grand Bargain on the way (should she win).
But in the interim, Clinton will have a unique opportunity to cut grand austerity deals with all
the "big elements" of Simpson-Bowles, to renege on her corporate trade promises, and to wage war
with great gusto in the name of a "united" country. Ever since the Democratic National Convention
it has been clear that the Clintonites are encouraged to consider everyone outside of their grand
circle to be suspect, subversive, or depraved. Their inclusive rhetoric is really an invocation of
a ruling class consensus, now that Trump has supposedly brought the ruling class together under one
banner. In Hillary's tent, the boardrooms are always in session.
"... In a sense Neoliberalism/Neoconservatism (neoconservatives are neoliberals with a gun) is recklessly revolutionary in old Marx's sense - it destroys the existing bonds that hold the society together. ..."
"the Left (or what passes for it in the US) is as much to blame as the Right
in that they haven't offered real substantive alternatives to the NeoLib/NeoCon
orthodoxy that seems to dominate US policymaking."
That's a very apt observation, especially in the part "the Left (or what
passes for it in the US) is as much to blame as the Right ".
The key question here" "Is neoliberalism a flavor of conservatism or not?".
Or it is some perversion of the left? I doubt that "Neolib/Neocon orthodoxy"
that is really completely dominant in the USA can be viewed as a flavor of
conservatism. IMHO it's actually more resembles Trotskyism with its idea of
"world revolution" and classic Marxist slogan "Working Men of All Countries,
Unite!"
The first slogan was replaced with "Permanent neoliberal revolution" and
"New American Militarism" that we saw in action in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Georgia,
Ukraine. They are eager to bring the neoliberal revolution into other countries
on the tips of bayonets.
The second was replaced by the slogan "Transnational corporate and financial
elites unite". Instead of Congresses of "Communist International" we have
similar congresses of financial oligarchy and neoliberal politicians like in
Davos.
In a sense Neoliberalism/Neoconservatism (neoconservatives are neoliberals
with a gun) is recklessly revolutionary in old Marx's sense - it destroys the
existing bonds that hold the society together.
Still in other sense it resembles " the ancien regime", especially in the
USA :
The opening chapters of Maistre's Considerations on France
are an unrelenting assault on the three pillars of the ancien regime:
the aristocracy, the church, and the monarchy. Maistre divides the
nobility into two categories: the treasonous and the clueless. The
clergy is corrupt, weakened by its wealth and lax morals. The monarchy is soft and lacks the will to punish. Maistre dismisses all three
with a line from Racine: "Now see the sad fruits your faults pro-duced, / Feel the blows you have yourselves induced."5
If we equate "ancien regime" with the neoliberalism, the quote suddenly
obtains quite modern significance. It does have a punch. Now we see Trump
supporters attacking neoliberalism with the same intensity. And we can
definitely divide the USA financial oligarchy into "the treasonous" and "the
clueless." While neoliberal MSM are as corrupt as "ancien regime" clergy, if
not more.
Like in the past there is a part of the USA conservatives that bitterly
oppose neoliberalism (paleoconservatives).
The key problem here is that as there is no real left (in European sense) in
the USA, the challenge to neoliberalism arose from the right. Trump with all
his warts is definitely anti-globalization candidate. That's why we see such a
hysteria in neoliberal MSM about his candidacy.
"... Among the more prominent exchanges released in the latest, 27th, Wikileaks release of Podesta emails is a thread from March 2016 which discusses a Politico article tilted " Clintonites: How we beat Bernie on trade ", and which reports that " Clinton faced internal pressure from her Brooklyn headquarters to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal she helped craft as secretary of State ." ..."
Among the more prominent exchanges released in the latest, 27th, Wikileaks release of Podesta
emails is a thread from
March 2016 which discusses a Politico article tilted "
Clintonites: How we beat Bernie on trade ", and which reports that " Clinton faced internal pressure
from her Brooklyn headquarters to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal she helped craft
as secretary of State ."
Senior Clinton strategist, Joel Benenson, is quoted in the piece as saying:
"Voters agree that we have to compete and win in a global economy and that means we have to
make things in the United States that we can sell to 95 percent of the world's consumers who happen
to live outside of the United States. What the data from the exit polls says is these voters were
more aligned with her fundamental view of trade ."
* * *
Clinton instead pushed back on Sanders' opposition to the Export-Import Bank, and doubled down
on the idea that America needs to compete and win in the global economy.
"We engaged with him on trade more forcefully," Benenson said. In the end, " I guess he came
off as an economic isolationist."
The article prompted Gene Sperling, former economic policy assistant to both Bill Clinton and
Obama to say:
" Do not get our spin here. Why we not hyping claw back, ROO, out front on steel, tough enforcement
on China?! Was this just her not talking to any of us and off on her own take?(But Joel is in
there ) please clarify."
To which, a clearly angry Tanden replies:
"Is Joel off reservation? Does he not get that this story makes Hillary seem politically craven
at best or a liar at worse? Or if this is campaign position, can I object ?"
She then adds: " Hard to say she believes what she says when Joel is spinning that she doesn't
mean what she is out there saying. Her language was pretty tough last week. "
Finally, she concludes that " Sanders or trump can move on this. "
By virtually every measurement, the United States is in deep crisis, as both a society and as the
headquarters of global capitalism. We can roughly measure the severity of some aspects of the crisis
with the tools of economic analysis. Such an analysis is quite useful in explaining why Washington
is so eager to risk war with Russia and China, whether in Syria or the South China Sea or along the
ever expanding borders of NATO. To put it simply, the U.S. and western Europe become smaller, in
terms of their economic influence, with every passing day, and cannot possibly maintain their political
dominance in the world except by military force, coercion and terror. Those are the only cards the
imperialists have left to play. The ruling circles in the U.S. are aware that time is not on their
side, and it makes them crazy -- or crazier than usual.
The ruling class's own analysts tell them that the center of the world economy is moving inexorably
to the East and the South; that this trend will continue for the foreseeable future; and that the
U.S. is already number two by some economic measures -- and dropping. The Lords of Capital know there
is no future for them in a world where the dollar is not supreme and where Wall Street's stocks,
bonds and derivatives are not backed by the full weight of unchallenged empire. Put another way,
U.S. imperialism is at an inflection point, with all the indicators pointing downward and no hope
of reversing the trend by peaceful means.
Now, that's actually not such a bad prognosis for the United States, as a country. The U.S. is
a big country, with an abundance of human and natural resources, and would do just fine in a world
among equals. But, the fate of the Lords of Capital is tied to the ongoing existence of empire. They
create nothing, but seek to monetize and turn a profit on everything. They cannot succeed in trade
unless it is rigged, and have placed bets in their casinos that are nominally seven times more valuable
than the total economic activity of planet Earth. In short, the Lords of Capital are creatures of
U.S. imperial dominance; they go out of business when the empire does.
Beat the Clock
The rulers are looking class death in the face -- and it terrifies them. And when the Lords of
Capital become frightened, they order their servants in politics and the war industries and the vast
national security networks to take care of the problem, by any means necessary. That means militarily
encircling Russia and China; arming and mobilizing tens of thousands of jihadist terrorists in Syria,
in an attempt to repeat the regime change in Libya; waging a war of economic sanctions and low-level
armed aggression against Iran; occupying most of the African continent through subversion of African
militaries; escalating subversion in Latin America; and spying on everyone on earth with a digital
connection. All this, to stop the clock that is ticking on U.S. and European world economic dominance.
Left political analysts that I greatly respect argue that Hillary Clinton and the mob she will
come in with in January will pull back from apocalyptic confrontation with Russia in Syria -- that
they're not really that crazy. But, I'm not at all convinced. The ruling class isn't just imagining
that their days are numbered; it's really true. And rulers do get crazy when their class is standing
at death's door.
For Black Agenda Radio, I'm Glen Ford. On the web, go to BlackAgendaReport.com.
"... The support Trump has enjoyed is directly tied to the frustration many across the country feel toward Washington and its entrenched leaders, and they shouldn't expect that sentiment to dissipate regardless of whether Trump or Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton wins at the ballot box on Nov. 8, he said. ..."
Billionaire tech investor Peter Thiel reiterated his support for Republican presidential nominee
Donald Trump Monday morning, telling a room of journalists that a Washington outsider in the White
House would recalibrate lawmakers who have lost touch with the struggles of most Americans.
Thiel said it was "both insane and somehow inevitable" that political leaders would expect this presidential
election to be a contest between "political dynasties" that have shepherded the country into two
major financial crises: the tech bubble burst in the early 2000s, and the housing crisis and economic
recession later that decade.
The support Trump has enjoyed is directly tied to the frustration many across the country feel
toward Washington and its entrenched leaders, and they shouldn't expect that sentiment to dissipate
regardless of whether Trump or Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton wins at the ballot box on Nov.
8, he said.
"What Trump represents isn't crazy and it's not going away," he said.
I'd actually argue the opposite. Thousands of people are turning to Trump as a cynical form of
rebellion. They think that voting for him will be interesting/fun. If you were to ask them how
a Hillary Clinton presidency would seriously make their lives worse, they'd have nothing serious
to answer. At best they might say that they'll be fine, but that the rest of the country would
suffer, and then spout of a bunch of nonsense as to why that would be. It's a luxury to be so
reckless, which is where America is right now. If millions of lives literally depended on the
outcome of this election, people would be much more careful about how they plan to vote.
"... So no mention of the Department of Justice tipping off the Clinton campaign Guardian? Surely that it a pretty damning new revelation. Corrupt to the core. No of course not, ignoring wikileaks and shilling more of the same old wall to wall Anti Trump scaremongering. ..."
"... We get it, Trump is a jerk. Hillary Clinton is systemically corrupt. ..."
"... And here I was thinking the Guardian was progressive… but you'll stoop to anything to get your chosen corporatist candidate over the line eh? ..."
"... Obama changed his tone. The Dems are in desperate mode. Kinda nice to see them on the defense. However they will never change their globalist agenda to sell off the rest of middle class. ..."
"... Trump against the entire establishment with unlimited funds. They sent out their top politicians/celebrities in full force and still can't flip Florida. If he wins with only popular support it will be the best upset in modern history. ..."
"... Obama has destroyed the nation with his identity politics, his lies, his elitist BS, his lack of awareness of the constitution, his constant pronouncing of guilt or innocence from the WH, his inviting key players in the BLM movement and the various idiot celebs like Jay-Z and Beyonce, to the WH, his arrogance, etc. ..."
"... As the above LA Times poll shows, Trump now has a monstrous 5.4% lead. His supporters are growing on a daily basis, as he continues to attract African-American supporters and Democrats in record-breaking numbers for a Republican candidate. ..."
"... Obama is a master of calling people racists without actually coming out with it. He is also a master of playing on people's fears. He has been such a disappointment. Instead of uniting the country he has kept it divided. ..."
"... The Obamas are hypocrites of the highest order,In 2007/8 they said the Clintons were toxic and Hillary should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. The Obamas cronyism for the powerful and elite makes my blood boil ..."
"... The Obamas swept into the White House on a dream ticket provided in the main by the black vote, With the first 2 yrs of hobnobbing with the rich, powerful and famous he was slow to do a thing for the voter and all of 8 yrs on he still hasn't and we all know he never will ? ..."
"... The condescending Obamas are now out rallying for the very same woman they denounced 8 yrs earlier. They are in essence expecting the voter to forget everything that went on before and vote the impeached X President and his caustic wife ..."
"... Sure... He's all that. But he said he doesn't want a nuclear war with Russia. Hillary on the other hand is really keen on the idea. All her MIC backers agree. ..."
"... And clinton has the official endorsement of all the republican neocons who wrote and implemented the project for the new American century which embarked your country on a series of illegal wars in the middle east, millions of people dead, and created international terrorism. Oh and your national debt rose to trillions and your country's Infrastructure is falling apart and you have absolutely nothing tangible to show for it. Good luck with Hillary guys. ..."
"... "But it was Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, who quote 'paid tribute' to Ronald Reagan's economic and foreign policy. She championed NAFTA - even though it has cost South Carolina thousands of jobs. And worst of all, it was Hillary Clinton who voted for George Bush's war in Iraq. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton. She'll say anything, and change nothing. It's time to turn the page. ..."
"... Shouldn't it be illegal, for Obama, a government official, to attempt to influence the election? The Guardian already reported that Obama has been campaigning more than any sitting president before him. ..."
"... And besides, is that what he does on taxpayers' dime? Shouldn't he in general be addressing important issues of the country? ..."
Massive multi billion dollar corporate entities and
financial conglomerates who have a vested self interest in
the election will throw everything they have got into the
system. No effort too extreme, nothing out of bounds.
65jangle 6h ago
So no mention of the Department of Justice tipping off the Clinton campaign Guardian?
Surely that it a pretty damning new revelation. Corrupt to the core. No of course not, ignoring
wikileaks and shilling more of the same old wall to wall Anti Trump scaremongering.
We get it, Trump is a jerk. Hillary Clinton is systemically corrupt.
And here I was thinking the Guardian was progressive… but you'll stoop to anything to get your
chosen corporatist candidate over the line eh?
BlueberryCompote -> ByzantiumNovum 6h ago
The lunatic Russophobia of the US State Department makes your intervention unnecessary as Obama probably was the last bulwark against insanity.
Obama changed his tone. The Dems are in desperate mode. Kinda nice to see them on the
defense. However they will never change their globalist agenda to sell off the rest of middle class.
Trump against the entire establishment with unlimited funds. They sent out their top
politicians/celebrities in full force and still can't flip Florida. If he wins with only popular
support it will be the best upset in modern history.
aldebaranredstar 8h ago
Obama has destroyed the nation with his identity politics, his lies, his elitist BS, his
lack of awareness of the constitution, his constant pronouncing of guilt or innocence from the WH,
his inviting key players in the BLM movement and the various idiot celebs like Jay-Z and Beyonce,
to the WH, his arrogance, etc.
He has not only destroyed the Dem Party--which is weaker than it has ever been--but the entire
nation with his Executive orders that got overturned by the SCOTUS--the man is pure hell. A bad
leader is a bad leader, no matter the color. People are disgusted with his actions as POTUS and
that is the bottom line cause of the rise of DT. Obama has waged war in his own nation--not only
overseas. Peace Prize--HAHAHA.
Flugler 8h ago
Walkover;
As the above LA Times poll shows, Trump now has a monstrous 5.4% lead. His supporters are
growing on a daily basis, as he continues to attract African-American supporters and Democrats in
record-breaking numbers for a Republican candidate.
In addition to this, the polls may be horribly off, as Trump has what many are calling the
"monster vote" waiting in the wings. This is in reference to the stunning amount of previously
unregistered voters who have never voted in their life but plan on showing up to the polls to
support Donald Trump, as internal polling is showing.
Further supporting how strong his momentum is across all categories is the fact that Donald
Trump now has the majority of support across ALL age categories. A huge development, considering
that he has been struggling with young voters throughout much of his campaign.
rocjoc43rd 8h ago
Obama is a master of calling people racists without actually coming out with it. He is
also a master of playing on people's fears. He has been such a disappointment. Instead of uniting
the country he has kept it divided. I wonder if he is keeping the country safe while he
spends the next week campaigning for his replacement.
mandyjeancole 8h ago
The Obamas are hypocrites of the highest order,In 2007/8 they said the Clintons were toxic
and Hillary should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. The Obamas cronyism for the
powerful and elite makes my blood boil
The Obamas swept into the White House on a dream ticket provided in the main by the black
vote, With the first 2 yrs of hobnobbing with the rich, powerful and famous he was slow to do a
thing for the voter and all of 8 yrs on he still hasn't and we all know he never will ?
The
condescending Obamas are now out rallying for the very same woman they denounced 8 yrs
earlier. They are in essence expecting the voter to forget everything that went on before and vote
the impeached X President and his caustic wife another bite of the proverbial cherry, Donald
Trumps somewhat blundering campaign has been mired in his apparent misogyny and he has come in
for the most horrendous criticism by the world's press while Mrs. Clintons lies and, deceit up
until now were considered acceptable for a 30 yr veteran of politics.
Mr. Trump maybe an
all-American dreamer, he may not always come across as the most coherent, but he loves his Country. and he wants what's best for it.....If America is looking for mistakes made look no
further than Europe, The powers that be.. have made the most catastrophic decisions that have in
turn left the once proud cultures of Europe in the grip of Islamic fundamentalist whose barbaric
in doctoring wants to take us back a 1000 yrs. Give Mr. Trump 4 yrs.. its not too long..He just
might surprise you. MJC
Meep_Meep 8h ago
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump decried Democratic rival Hillary Clinton as
"the candidate of yesterday," calling himself and his supporters "the movement of the future."
Yeah...the future!
DeAngelOfPi -> Brighton181 8h ago
Sure... He's all that. But he said he doesn't want a nuclear war with Russia. Hillary on
the other hand is really keen on the idea. All her MIC backers agree.
SoloLoMejor -> PostTrotskyite 9h ago
And clinton has the official endorsement of all the republican neocons who wrote and
implemented the project for the new American century which embarked your country on a series of
illegal wars in the middle east, millions of people dead, and created international terrorism. Oh
and your national debt rose to trillions and your country's Infrastructure is falling apart and
you have absolutely nothing tangible to show for it. Good luck with Hillary guys.
RememberRemember 9h ago
2016 Obama, perhaps you would like a word with 2008 Obama.
Obama: "I'm Barack Obama, running for president and I approve this message."
Announcer: "It's what's wrong with politics today. Hillary Clinton will say anything to get
elected. Now she's making false attacks on Barack Obama.
"The Washington Post says Clinton isn't telling the truth. Obama 'did not say that he liked
the ideas of Republicans.' In fact, Obama's led the fight to raise the minimum wage, close
corporate tax loopholes and cut taxes for the middle class.
"But it was Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, who quote 'paid tribute' to
Ronald Reagan's economic and foreign policy. She championed NAFTA - even though it has cost
South Carolina thousands of jobs. And worst of all, it was Hillary Clinton who voted for
George Bush's war in Iraq.
"Hillary Clinton. She'll say anything, and change nothing. It's time to turn the page.
Paid for by Obama for America."
calderonparalapaz 9h ago
A Hillary ad should be about Clinton Inc as the american dream. Thanks Teneo!
"Until the Friday blockbuster news that the FBI was reopening its probe into the Hillary email
server, the biggest overhang facing the Clinton Campaign was the escalating scandal involving the
Clinton Foundation, Doug Band's consultancy firm Teneo, and Bill Clinton who as a result of a
leaked memo emerged was generously compensated for potential political favors by prominent
corporate clients using Teneo as a pass-thru vehicle for purchasing influence.
In a section of the memo entitled "Leveraging Teneo For The Foundation," Band spelled out all of
the donations he solicited from Teneo "clients" for the Clinton Foundation. In all, there are
roughly $14mm of donations listed with the largest contributors being Coca-Cola, Barclays, The
Rockefeller Foundation and Laureate International Universities. Some of these are shown below
(the full details can be found in "Leaked Memo Exposes Shady Dealings Between Clinton Foundation
Donors And Bill's "For-Profit" Activities")"
the more the media hush up on Huma Abedin, the more there is to know. it was her & criminally
accused Weiner's PC which (in a folder innocuously labelled) had 650,000 emails. Abedin comments
"she did not now how the 650,000 emails got there" (sic). the US media continues to cover up this
aspect of the Trio story: Abedin-Clinton-Weiner... the fact that Weiner is buddy with Israel's
Netanyahu simply adds to this intertwined messy cover-up.
BoSelecta 9h ago
The Clintonite corruption spreads in to the Justice Department:
Shouldn't it be illegal, for Obama, a government official, to attempt to influence the
election? The Guardian already reported that Obama has been campaigning more than any sitting
president before him.
And besides, is that what he does on taxpayers' dime? Shouldn't he in general be
addressing important issues of the country?
ALostIguana -> vr13vr 9h ago
Hatch Act explicitly excludes the President and Vice-President. They can take part in
political campaigning. Most other members of the executive are constrained by the Hatch Act.
"it's also a kind of conspiracy theory that Tony Blair lied to the people about the
case for going to war in Iraq".
The words "a kind of" are being used in an extremely vague and attenuated state. Rather a large
number of people would interpret your meaning as "not in the slightest". Or are you trying to
insinuate, I would not say argue, that Tony Blair told the truth the people about the case for
going to war in Iraq?
I ask as one who supported Labour before the Iraq war, which I see as criminally dishonest to
a degree I would not have previously thought possible.
Trump mirrors resentment with the current political culture. Unfortunately very few readers in this
forum understand that the emergence of Trump as a viable candidate in the current race, the candidate
who withstand 24x7 air bombarment by corrupt neoliberabl MSM (like Guardian ;-) signify deep crisis
of neoliberalsm and neoliberal globalization.
Notable quotes:
"... "What Madison could not have foreseen was the extent to which unconstrained campaign finance and a sophisticated lobbying industry would come to dominate an entire nation, regardless of its size." ..."
"... That's it – finance and sophisticated lobbying. And you can add to that mass brainwashing at election campaigns by means of choice language and orchestration as advised by cognitive scientists who are expressly recruited for this purpose. Voters remain largely unaware of the mind control they are undergoing. And of course the essential prerequisite for all of this is financial power. ..."
"... Now read again in this light Gore Vidal's famous pronouncement… "Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically by definition be disqualified from ever doing so." ..."
"... Worse still, the political spectrum runs from right to right. To all intents and purposes, one single party, the US Neoliberal party, with 2 factions catering for power and privilege. Anything to the left of that is simply not an available choice for voters. ..."
"... Americans have wakened up to the fact that they badly need a government which caters for the needs of the average citizen. In their desperation some will still vote for Trump warts and all. This for the same sorts of reasons that Italians voted for Berlusconi, whose winning slogan was basically 'I am not a politician'. ..."
"... The right choice was Bernie Sanders. Sadly, not powerful enough. So Americans missed the boat there. But at least there was a boat to miss this time around. You can be sure that similar future boats will be sunk well in advance. Corporate power has learnt its lesson and the art of election rigging has now become an exact science. ..."
"... Donald Trump, Brexit and Le Pen are all in their separate ways rejections of the dogma of liberalism, social and economic, that has dominated the West for the past three decades. ..."
"... In 2010, Chomsky wrote : ..."
"... The United States is extremely lucky.....if somebody comes along who is charismatic and honest this country is in real trouble because of the frustration, disillusionment, the justified anger and the absence of any coherent response. ..."
"... Dangerous times. The beauty of democracy is we get what we deserve ..."
"... The worst thing about Donald Trump is that he's the man in the mirror. ..."
"... He is the distillation of all that we have been induced to desire and admire. ..."
"... I thought that he is the mirror image, the reverse, of the current liberal consensus. A consensus driven by worthy ideals but driven too far, gradually losing acceptance and with no self correcting awareness. ..."
"... Trump is awful - but by speaking freely he challenges the excesses of those who would limit free speech. Trump is awful - but by demonising minorities he challenges those who would excuse minorities of all responsibility. Trump is awful - but by flaunting his wealth he challenges those who keep their connections and wealth hidden for the sake of appearances. ..."
"... Trump is awful because the system is out of balance. He is a consequence, not a cause. ..."
"... Voting for Trump is voting for peace. Voting for Clinton is voting for WW3. ..."
"... It's quite clearly because Hillary as President is an utterly terrifying prospect. When half the population would rather have Trump than her, it must be conceded that she has some serious reputational issues. ..."
"... Personally, I'd take Trump over Hillary if I was a US citizen. He may be a buffoon but she is profoundly dangerous, probably a genuine psychopath and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Presidency. Sanders is the man America needs now, though, barring one of Hillary's many crimes finally toppling her, it's not going to happen... ..."
"... The true constitution is plutocracy tempered by scandal ..."
"... And the shame is we seem to be becoming desensitized to scandal. We cannot be said to live in democracies when our political class are so obviously bought by the vastly rich. ..."
"... One of the things it says is that people are so sick of Identity Politics from the Left and believe the Left are not very true to the ideals of what should be the Left. ..."
"... When the people who are supposed to care about the poor and working joes and janes prefer to care about the minorities whose vote they can rely on, the poor and the working joes and janes will show their frustration by supporting someone who will come along and tell it as it is, even if he is part of how it got that way. ..."
"... People throughout the world have awoken to the Left being Right Light but with a more nauseating moral superiority complex. ..."
"... he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics ..."
"... 'Encouraged by the corporate media, the Republicans have been waging a full-spectrum assault on empathy, altruism and the decencies we owe to other people. Their gleeful stoving in of faces, their cackling destruction of political safeguards and democratic norms, their stomping on all that is generous and caring and cooperative in human nature, have turned the party into a game of Mortal Kombat scripted by Breitbart News.' ..."
"... Many years ago in the British Military, those with the right connections and enough money could buy an officer's commission and rise up the system to be an incompetent General. As a result, many battles were mismanaged and many lives wasted due to the incompetent (wealthy privileged few) buying their way to the top. American politics today works on exactly the same system of wealthy patronage and privilege for the incompetent, read Clinton and Trump. Until the best candidates are able to rise up through the political system without buying their way there then the whole corrupt farce will continue and we will be no different to the all the other tin pot republics of the world. ..."
"... There's the "culture wars" aspect. Many people don't like being told they are "deplorable" for opposing illegal (or even legal) immigration. They don't like being called "racist" for disagreeing with an ideology. ..."
"... I like the phrase Monbiot ends with - "He is our system, stripped of its pretences" - it reminds me of a phrase in the Communist Manifesto - but I don't think it's true. "Our" system is more than capitalism, it's culture. And Clinton is a far more "perfect representation" of the increasingly censorious, narrow [neo]liberal culture which dominates the Western world. ..."
"... Finally, Monbiot misses the chance to contrast Clinton's and Trump's apparent differences with regard to confronting nuclear-armed Russia over the skies of Syria. It could be like 1964 all over again - except in this election, the Democrat is the nearest thing to Barry Goldwater. ..."
"... As a life-long despiser of all things Trump, I cannot believe that I am saying this: Trump is good for world peace. ..."
"... I fully agree with Monbiot, American democracy is a sham - the lobby system has embedded corruption right in the heart of its body politic. Lets be clear here though, whatever is the problem with American democracy can in theory at least be fixed, but Trump simply can not and moreover he is not the answer ..."
"... His opponent, war child and Wall Street darling can count her lucky stars that the media leaves her alone (with husband Bill, hands firmly in his pockets, nodding approvingly) and concentrates on their feeding frenzy attacking Trump on sexual allegations of abusing women, giving Hillery, Yes, likely to tell lies, ( mendacious, remember when she claimed to be under enemy fire in Bosnia? remember how evasive she was on the Benghazi attack on the embassy) Yes Trump is a dangerous man running against an also extremely dangerous woman. ..."
"... Extremely interesting reference to the Madison paper, but the issue is less about the size of the electorate, and more about the power that the election provides to the victor. ..."
"... Democracy in the US is so corrupted by money that it is no longer recognisable as democracy. You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure of politics is corrupt? ..."
"... When you look at speeches and conversations and debates with the so-called bogeyman, Putin, he is not at all in a league as low and vile as portrayed and says many more sensible things than anybody cares to listen to, because we're all brainwashed. We are complicit in wars (now in Syria) and cannot see why we have to connive with terrorists, tens of thousands of them, and they get supported by the war machine and friends like Saudis and Turkey which traded for years with ISIS. ..."
"... Clinton the war hawk, and shows us we are only capable of seeing one side and project all nastiness outward while we can feel good about ourselves by hating the other. ..."
"... It fits the Decline of an Empire image as it did in other Falls of Civilizations. ..."
"... Trump spoke to the executives at Ford like no one before ever has. He told them if they moved production to Mexico (as they plan to do) that he would slap huge tariffs on their cars in America and no one would buy them. ..."
"... What happens in Syria could be important to us all. Clinton doesn't hide her ambition to drive Assad from power and give Russia a kicking. It's actually very unpopular although the media doesn't like to say so; it prefers to lambast Spain for re-fueling Russian war ships off to fight the crazed Jihadists as if we supported the religious fanatics that want to slaughter all Infidels! There is an enormous gulf between what ordinary people want and the power crazy Generals in the Pentagon and NATO. ..."
"... USA has got itself in an unholy mess . It's politicians no longer work for the people . Their paymasters care not if life in Idaho resembles Dantes inferno . Trump has many faults but being "not Hilary" is not one of them. The very fact he is disliked by all the vested interests should make you take another look. And remember , the American constitution has many checks and balances , a President has a lot less power than most people imagine. ..."
"... Like many on the right, the left have unthinkingly accepted a narrative of an organized, conspiratorial system run by an elite of politicians and plutocrats. The problem with this narrative is it suggests politics and politicians are inherently nefarious, in turn suggesting there are no political solutions to be sought to problems, or anything people can do to challenge a global system of power. As Monbiot asks: "You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure of politics is corrupt?" Well, what indeed? ..."
"... I don't think you need to believe in an organised conspiracy and I don't see any real evidence that George Monbiot does. The trouble is that the corporate and political interests align in a way that absorbs any attempt to challenge them and the narrative has been written that of course politics is all about economics and of course we need mighty corporations to sustain us. ..."
"... Not long after the start of the presidential campaign I began to reflect that in Trump we are seeing materializing before us the logical result of the neoliberal project ..."
"... The Republican party essentially offered their base nothing – that was the problem. ..."
"... They couldn't offer all the things that ordinary Americans want – better and wider Medicaid, better and wider social security, tax increases on the rich, an end to pointless foreign wars and the American empire. ..."
"... The Democrats have largely the same funding base, but they at least deliver crumbs – at least a nod to the needs of ordinary people through half-hearted social programmes. ..."
"... Trump is imperfect because he wants normal relations rather than war with Russia. No, Hillary Clinton is the ultimate representation of the system that is abusing us. What will occur when Goldman Sachs and the military-industrial complex coalition get their, what is it, 5th term in office would be a great subject of many Guardian opinion pieces, actually. But that will have to wait till after November 8. ..."
"... And, of course, we also have Hillary's Wall Street speeches -- thanks to Wikileaks we have the complete transcripts, in case Guardian readers are unaware. They expose the real thinking and 'private positions' of the central character in the next episode of 'Rule by Plutocracy'. ..."
"... The democrats is the party practicing hypocrisy, pretending that they somehow representing the interest of the working class. They are the ones spreading lies and hypocrisy and manipulating the working class everyday through their power over the media. Their function is to appease the working class. The real obstacle for improving conditions for the working class historically has always been the Democratic party, not the Republican party. ..."
"... In what concerns foreign politics, Trump some times seems more reasonable than Clinton and the establishment. Clinton is the best coached politician of all times. She doesn't know that she's coached. She just followed the most radical groups and isn't able to question anything at all. The only thing that the coaches didn't fix until now is her laughing which is considered even by her coaches as a sign of weirdness. ..."
"... Western economies are now so beholden to the patronage of the essentially stateless multinational, it has become a political imperative to appease their interests - it's difficult to see a future in which an administration might resist this force, because at its whim, national economies face ruination. In light of such helplessness our political representatives face an easier path in simply accepting their lot as mere administrators who will tinker at the margins [and potentially reap the rewards of a good servant], rather than hold to principle and resist an overwhelming force. ..."
"... "Trump personifies the traits promoted by the media and corporate worlds he affects to revile; the worlds that created him. He is the fetishisation of wealth, power and image in a nation where extrinsic values are championed throughout public discourse. His conspicuous consumption, self-amplification and towering (if fragile) ego are in tune with the dominant narratives of our age." ..."
"... Yes, they don't care any more if we see the full extent of their corruption as we've given up our power to do anything about it. ..."
"... It was once very common to see Democratic politicians as neighbors attending every community event. They were Teamsters, pipe fitters, and electricians. And they were coaches and ushers and pallbearers. Now they are academics and lawyers and NGO employees and managers who pop up during campaigns. The typical income of the elected Democrats outside their government check is north of $100,000. They don't live in, or even wander through, the poorer neighborhoods. So they are essentially clueless that government services like busses are run to suit government and not actual customers. ..."
"... Yea, 15 years of constant wars of empire with no end in sight has pretty much ran this country in the ground. ..."
"... We all talk about how much money is wasted by the federal government on unimportant endeavors like human services and education, but don't even bat an eye about the sieve of money that is the Pentagon. ..."
"... Half a trillion dollars for aircraft carriers we don't need and are already obsolete. China is on the verge of developing wickedly effective anti-ship missiles designed specifically to target these Gerald R. Ford-class vessels. You might as well paint a huge bull's-eye on these ships' 4-1/2 acre flight deck. ..."
"... There are plenty more examples of this crap and this doesn't even include the nearly TWO trillion dollars we've spent this past decade-and-a-half on stomping flat the Middle East and large swaths of the Indian subcontinent. ..."
"... And all this time, our nation's infrastructure is crumbling literally right out from underneath us and millions upon millions of children and their families experience a daily struggle just to eat. Eat?! In the "greatest," wealthiest nation on earth and we prefer to kill people at weddings with drones than feed our own children. ..."
"... I'd like to read an unbiased piece about why the media narrative doesn't match the reality of the Trump phenomenon. He is getting enormous crowds attend his rallies but hardly any coverage of that in the filtered news outlets. Hillary, is struggling to get anyone turn up without paying them. There is no real enthusiasm. ..."
"... The buzzwords and tired old catch phrases and cliches used by the left to suppress any alternative discussion, and divert from their own misdemeanors are fooling no one but themselves. Trump supporters simply don't care any more how Hillary supporters explain that she lied about dodging sniper fire. Or the numerous other times she and her cohorts have been caught out telling fibs. ..."
"... Very true. Throughout history the rich, the powerful, the landed, ennobled interest and their friends in the Law and money changing houses have sought to control governments and have usually succeeded. ..."
"... In the Media today the rich are fawned over by sycophantic journalists and programme makers. These are the people who make the political weather and create the prevailing narratives. ..."
"... Working class people fancied themselves to above the common herd and thought themselves part of some elite. ..."
"... It's quite disturbing the lengths this paper will go to in order to slur and discredit Trump, labelling him dangerous and alluding to the sexual assault allegations. This even goes so far to a very lengthy article regarding Trumps lack of knowledge on the Rumbelows Cup 25 years ago. ..."
"... Whereas very little examination is made into Hillary Clinton's background which includes serious allegation of fraud and involvement in assisting in covering up her husband's alleged series of rapes. There are also issues in the wikileaks emails that merit analysis as well as undercover tapes of seioau issues with her campaign team. ..."
"... One of the most important characteristics of the so-called neoliberalism is its negative selection. While mostly successfully camouflaged, that negative selection is more than obvious this time, in two US presidential candidates. It's hard to imagine lower than those two. ..."
"... Well, OK George. Tell me: if Trump's such an establishment candidate, then why does the whole of the establishment unanimously reject him? Is it normal for Republicans (such as the Bushes and the neocons) to endorse Democrats? Why does even the Speaker of the House (a Republican) and even, on occasion, Trump's own Vice-Presidential nominee seem to be trying to undermine his campaign? If Trump is really just more of the same as all that came before, why is he being treated different by the MSM and the political establishment? ..."
"... Obviously, there's something flawed about your assumption. ..."
"... Trump has exposed the corruption of the political system and the media and has promised to put a stop to it. By contrast, Clinton is financed by the very banks, corporates and financial elites who are responsible for the corruption. This Trump speech is explicit on what we all suspected is going on. Everybody should watch it, irrespective of whether they support him or not! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tab5vvo0TJw ..."
"... "I know a lot of people in Michigan that are planning to vote for Trump and they don't necessarily agree with him. They're not racist or redneck, they're actually pretty decent people and so after talking to a number of them I wanted to write this. ..."
"... Donald Trump came to the Detroit Economic Club and stood there in front of Ford Motor executives and said "if you close these factories as you're planning to do in Detroit and build them in Mexico, I'm going to put a 35% tariff on those cars when you send them back and nobody's going to buy them." It was an amazing thing to see. No politician, Republican or Democrat, had ever said anything like that to these executives, and it was music to the ears of people in Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - the "Brexit" states. ..."
"... Mrs Clinton is also the product of our political culture. A feminist who owes everything to her husband and men in the Democratic Party. A Democrat who started her political career as a Republican; a civil right activist who worked for Gerry Goldwater, one of last openly racist/segregationist politicians. A Secretary of State who has no clue about, or training in, foreign policy, and who received her position as compensation for losing the election. A pacifist, who has never had a gun in her hands, but supported every war in the last twenty years. A humanist who rejoiced over Qaddafi's death ("we came, we won, he is dead!") like a sadist. ..."
"... One thing that far right politics offers the ordinary white disaffected voter is 'pay back', it is a promised revenge-fest, putting up walls, getting rid of foreigners, punishing employers of foreigners, etc., etc. All the stuff that far right groups have wet dreams about. ..."
"... Because neoliberal politics has left a hell of a lot of people feeling pissed off, the far right capitalizes on this, whilst belonging to the same neoliberal dystopia so ultimately not being able to make good on their promises. Their promises address a lot of people's anger, which of course isn't really about foreigners at all, that is simply the decoy, but cutting through all the crap to make that clear is no easy task, not really sure how it can be done, certainly no political leader in the western hemisphere has the ability to do so. ..."
"... Wrong as always. Trump *is* an outsider. He's an unabashed nationalist who's set him up against the *actual* caste that governs our politics: Neo-liberal internationalists with socially trendy left-liberal politics (but not so left that they don't hire good tax lawyers to avoid paying a fraction of what they are legally obliged to). ..."
"... Best represented in the Goldman Sachs executives who are donating millions to Hillary Clinton because they are worried about Trump's opposition to free trade, and they know she will give them *everything* they want. ..."
"... Trumps the closest thing we're gotten to a genuine threat to the system in a long, long time, so of course George Monbiot and the rest of the Guardian writers has set themselves against him, because if you're gonna be wrong about the EU, wrong about New Labour, wrong about social liberalism, wrong about immigration, why change the habit of a lifetime? ..."
"... Lies: Emails, policy changes based on polls showing a complete lack of conviction, corporate collusion, Bosnia, Clinton Foundation, war mongering, etc. Racist stereotypes: Super predators. Misogyny: Aside from her laughing away her pedophile case and allegedly threatening the women who came out against Bill, you've also got this sexist gem "Women are the primary victims of war". ..."
"... Alleged gropings: Well she's killed people by texting. So unless your moral compass is so out of whack that somehow a man JOKING about his player status in private is worse than Clinton's actions throughout her political career, then I guess you could make the case that Clinton at least doesn't have this skeleton in her closet. ..."
"... Refusal to accept democratic outcomes: No. He's speaking out against the media's collusion with the democratic party favoring Clinton over every other nominee, including Bernie Sanders. He's talking about what was revealed in the DNC leaks and the O'Keefe tapes that show how dirty the tactics have been in order to legally persuade the voting public into electing one person or the other. ..."
"... When do the conspiracy theories about the criminality of his opponent no longer count as conspiracies? When we have a plethora of emails confirming there is indeed fire next to that smoke, corruption fire, collusion fire, fire of contempt for the electorate. When we have emails confirming the Saudi Arabians are actually funding terrorist schools across the globe, emails where Hilary herself admits it, but will not say anything publicly about terrorism and Saudi Arabia, what's conspiracy and what's reality? ..."
"... Is it because Saudi Arabia funded her foundation with $23 million, or because it doesn't fit with her great 'internationalists' global agenda? ..."
"... Yep trump is a buffoon, but the failure of all media to deliver serious debate means the US is about to elect someone probably more dangerous than trump, how the hell can that be ..."
"... Nothing wrong with a liberal internationalist utopia, it sounds rather good and worth striving for. It's just that what they've been pushing is actually a neoliberal globalist nirvana for the 1 per cent ..."
"... The problem is the left this paper represents were bought off with the small change by neoliberalism, and they expect the rest of us to suck it up so the elites from both sides can continue the game ..."
"... we near the end of the neoliberal model. That the USA has a choice between two 'demopublicans' is no choice at all. ..."
"... This is the culmination of living in a post-truth political world. Lies and smears, ably supported by the corporate media and Murdoch in particular means that the average person who doesn't closely follow politics is being misinformed. ..."
"... The complete failure of right wing economic 'theories' means they only have lies, smears and the old 'divide and conquer' left in their arsenal. 'Free speech' is their attempt to get lies and smears equal billing with the truth. All truth on the other hand must be suppressed. All experts and scientists who don't regurgitate the meaningless slogans of the right will be ignored, traduced, defunded, disbanded or silenced by law. ..."
"... Not so much an article about Trump as much as a rant. George Monbiot writes with the utter conviction of one who mistakenly believes that his readers share his bigotry. When he talks about the 'alleged gropings' or the 'alleged refusal to accept democratic outcomes', that is exactly what they are 'alleged'. ..."
"... The Democratic Party has been dredging up porn-stars and wannabe models who now make claims that Trump tried to 'kiss them without asking'. ..."
"... The press also ignored the tapes of the DNC paying thugs to cause violence at Trump rallies, the bribes paid to the Clintons for political favours and the stealing of the election from Bernie Sanders. Trump is quite right to think the 'democratic outcome' is being fixed. Not only were the votes for Sanders manipulated, but Al Gore's votes were also altered and manipulated to ensure a win for Bush in the 2000 presidential election. The same interests who engineered the 2000 election have switched from supporting the Republican Party to supporting Clinton. ..."
"... Great article. The neoliberals have been able to control the narrative and in doing so have managed to scapegoat all manner of minority groups, building anger among those disaffected with modern politics. Easy targets - minorities, immigrants, the poor, the disadvantaged and the low-paid workers. ..."
"... The real enemy here are those sitting atop the corporate tree, but with the media controlled by them, the truth is never revealed. ..."
America's fourth president, James Madison, envisaged the United States constitution as representation
tempered by competition between factions. In the 10th federalist paper, written in 1787, he argued
that large republics were better insulated from corruption than small, or "pure" democracies, as
the greater number of citizens would make it "more difficult for unworthy candidates to practise
with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried". A large electorate would
protect the system against oppressive interest groups. Politics practised on a grand scale would
be more likely to select people of "enlightened views and virtuous sentiments".
Instead, the US – in common with many other nations – now suffers the worst of both worlds: a
large electorate dominated by a tiny faction. Instead of republics being governed, as Madison feared,
by "the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority", they are beholden to the not-so-secret
wishes of an unjust and interested minority. What Madison could not have foreseen was the extent
to which unconstrained campaign finance and a sophisticated lobbying industry would come to dominate
an entire nation, regardless of its size.
For every representative, Republican or Democrat, who retains a trace element of independence,
there are three sitting in the breast pocket of corporate capital. Since the supreme court decided
that there should be no effective limits on campaign finance, and, to a lesser extent, long before,
candidates have been reduced to tongue-tied automata, incapable of responding to those in need of
help, incapable of regulating those in need of restraint, for fear of upsetting their funders.
Democracy in the US is so corrupted by money that it is no longer recognisable as democracy. You
can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure of politics
is corrupt? Turn to the demagogue who rages into this political vacuum, denouncing the forces he
exemplifies. The problem is not, as Trump claims, that the election will be stolen by ballot rigging.
It is that the entire electoral process is stolen from the American people before they get anywhere
near casting their votes. When Trump claims that the little guy is being screwed by the system, he's
right. The only problem is that he is the system.
The political constitution of the United States is not, as Madison envisaged, representation tempered
by competition between factions. The true constitution is plutocracy tempered by scandal. In other
words, all that impedes the absolute power of money is the occasional exposure of the excesses of
the wealthy.
greatapedescendant 26 Oct 2016 4:11
A good read thanks. Nothing I really disagree with there. Just a few things to add and restate.
"What Madison could not have foreseen was the extent to which unconstrained campaign
finance and a sophisticated lobbying industry would come to dominate an entire nation, regardless
of its size."
That's it – finance and sophisticated lobbying. And you can add to that mass brainwashing
at election campaigns by means of choice language and orchestration as advised by cognitive scientists
who are expressly recruited for this purpose. Voters remain largely unaware of the mind control
they are undergoing. And of course the essential prerequisite for all of this is financial power.
Now read again in this light Gore Vidal's famous pronouncement… "Any American who is prepared
to run for president should automatically by definition be disqualified from ever doing so."
Which recalls Madison over 200 years before… "The truth is that all men having power ought
to be mistrusted."
What the US has is in effect is not a democracy but a plutocracy run by a polyarchy. Which
conserves some democratic elements. To which the US president is largely an obedient and subservient
puppet. And which openly fails to consider the needs of the average US citizen.
Worse still, the political spectrum runs from right to right. To all intents and purposes,
one single party, the US Neoliberal party, with 2 factions catering for power and privilege. Anything
to the left of that is simply not an available choice for voters.
Americans have wakened up to the fact that they badly need a government which caters for
the needs of the average citizen. In their desperation some will still vote for Trump warts and
all. This for the same sorts of reasons that Italians voted for Berlusconi, whose winning slogan
was basically 'I am not a politician'. Though that didn't work out too well. No longer able
to stomach more of the same, voters reach the stage of being willing to back anyone who might
bring about a break with the status quo. Even Trump.
The right choice was Bernie Sanders. Sadly, not powerful enough. So Americans missed the
boat there. But at least there was a boat to miss this time around. You can be sure that similar
future boats will be sunk well in advance. Corporate power has learnt its lesson and the art of
election rigging has now become an exact science.
UltraLightBeam 26 Oct 2016 4:11
Donald Trump, Brexit and Le Pen are all in their separate ways rejections of the dogma
of liberalism, social and economic, that has dominated the West for the past three decades.
The Guardian, among others, laments the loss of 'tolerance' and 'openness' as defining qualities
of our societies. But what's always left unsaid is: tolerance of what? Openness to what? Anything?
Everything?
Is it beyond the pale to critically assess some of the values brought by immigration, and to
reject them? Will only limitless, unthinking 'tolerance' and 'openness' do?
Once self-described 'progressives' engage with this topic, then maybe we'll see a reversal
in the momentum that Trump and the rest of the right wing demagogues have built up.
The United States is extremely lucky.....if somebody comes along who is charismatic
and honest this country is in real trouble because of the frustration, disillusionment, the
justified anger and the absence of any coherent response.
Dangerous times. The beauty of democracy is we get what we deserve.
DiscoveredJoys -> morelightlessheat 26 Oct 2016 6:11
The most telling part for me was:
The worst thing about Donald Trump is that he's the man in the mirror.
Except that instead of
He is the distillation of all that we have been induced to desire and admire.
I thought that he is the mirror image, the reverse, of the current liberal consensus. A consensus
driven by worthy ideals but driven too far, gradually losing acceptance and with no self correcting
awareness.
Trump is awful - but by speaking freely he challenges the excesses of those who would limit
free speech. Trump is awful - but by demonising minorities he challenges those who would excuse
minorities of all responsibility. Trump is awful - but by flaunting his wealth he challenges those
who keep their connections and wealth hidden for the sake of appearances.
Trump is awful because the system is out of balance. He is a consequence, not a cause.
Gman13 26 Oct 2016 4:25
Voting for Trump is voting for peace. Voting for Clinton is voting for WW3.
These events will unfold if Hillary wins:
1. No fly zone imposed in Syria to help "moderate opposition" on pretence of protecting civilians.
2. Syrian government nonetheless continues defending their country as terrorists shell Western
Aleppo.
3. Hillary's planes attack Syrian government planes and the Russians.
4. Russia and Syria respond as the war escalates. America intensifies arming of "moderate opposition"
and Saudis.
5. America arms "rebels" in various Russian regions who "fight for democracy" but this struggle
is somehow hijacked by terrorists, only they are not called terrorists but "opposition"
6. Ukranian government is encouraged to restart the war.
7. Iran enters the war openly against Saudi Arabia
8. Israel bombs Iran
9. Cornered Russia targets mainland US with nuclear weapons
10. Etc.
snakebrain -> Andthenandthen 26 Oct 2016 6:54
It's quite clearly because Hillary as President is an utterly terrifying prospect. When
half the population would rather have Trump than her, it must be conceded that she has some serious
reputational issues.
If Hillary and the DNC hadn't fixed the primaries, we'd now be looking at a Sanders-Trump race,
and a certain Democrat victory. As it is, it's on a knife edge as to whether we get Trump or Hillary.
Personally, I'd take Trump over Hillary if I was a US citizen. He may be a buffoon but
she is profoundly dangerous, probably a genuine psychopath and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near
the Presidency. Sanders is the man America needs now, though, barring one of Hillary's many crimes
finally toppling her, it's not going to happen...
jessthecrip 26 Oct 2016 4:29
Well said George.
The true constitution is plutocracy tempered by scandal
And the shame is we seem to be becoming desensitized to scandal. We cannot be said to live
in democracies when our political class are so obviously bought by the vastly rich.
Remko1 -> UnevenSurface 26 Oct 2016 7:43
You're mixing up your powers. legislative, executive and judicial are the powers of law. Money
and business are some of the keys to stay in command of a country. (there's also military, electorate,
bureaucracy etc.)
And if money is not on your side, it's against you, which gets quite nasty if your main tv-stations
are not state-run.
For example if the EU would (theoretically of course) set rules that make corruption more difficult
you would see that commercial media all over the EU and notoriously corrupted politicians would
start making propaganda to leave the EU. ;)
yamialwaysright chilledoutbeardie 26 Oct 2016 4:38
One of the things it says is that people are so sick of Identity Politics from the Left
and believe the Left are not very true to the ideals of what should be the Left.
When the people who are supposed to care about the poor and working joes and janes prefer
to care about the minorities whose vote they can rely on, the poor and the working joes and janes
will show their frustration by supporting someone who will come along and tell it as it is, even
if he is part of how it got that way.
People throughout the world have awoken to the Left being Right Light but with a more nauseating
moral superiority complex.
Danny Sheahan -> chilledoutbeardie 26 Oct 2016 5:25
That many people are so desperate for change that even being a billionaire but someone outside
the political elite is going to appeal to them.
Tom1Wright 26 Oct 2016 4:32
I find this line of thinking unjust and repulsive: the implication that Trump is a product
of the political establishment, and not an outsider, is to tar the entire Republican party and
its supporters with a great big flag marked 'racist'. That is a gross over simplification and
a total distortion.
UnevenSurface -> Tom1Wright 26 Oct 2016 5:05
But that's not what the article said at all: I quote:
he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs
the global economy and governs our politics
No mention of the GOP.
Tom1Wright -> UnevenSurface 26 Oct 2016 5:14
and I quote
'Encouraged by the corporate media, the Republicans have been waging a full-spectrum
assault on empathy, altruism and the decencies we owe to other people. Their gleeful stoving
in of faces, their cackling destruction of political safeguards and democratic norms, their
stomping on all that is generous and caring and cooperative in human nature, have turned the
party into a game of Mortal Kombat scripted by Breitbart News.'
HindsightMe 26 Oct 2016 4:33
the truth is there is an anti establishment movement and trump just got caught up in the ride.
He didnt start the movement but latched on to it. While we are still fixated on character flaws
the undercurrent of dissatisfaction by the public is still there. Hillary is going to have a tough
time in trying to bring together a divided nation
leadale 26 Oct 2016 4:37
Many years ago in the British Military, those with the right connections and enough money
could buy an officer's commission and rise up the system to be an incompetent General. As a result,
many battles were mismanaged and many lives wasted due to the incompetent (wealthy privileged
few) buying their way to the top. American politics today works on exactly the same system of
wealthy patronage and privilege for the incompetent, read Clinton and Trump. Until the best candidates
are able to rise up through the political system without buying their way there then the whole
corrupt farce will continue and we will be no different to the all the other tin pot republics
of the world.
arkley leadale 26 Oct 2016 5:48
As Wellington once said on reading the list of officers being sent out to him,
"My hope is that when the enemy reads these names he trembles as I do"
Some would argue however that the British system of bought commissions actually made the army
more effective in part because many competent officers had to stay in the field roles of platoon
and company commanders rather than get staff jobs and through the fact that promotion on merit
did exist for non-commissioned officers but there was a block on rising above sergeant.
Some would argue that the British class system ensured that during the Industrial Revolution
charge hands and foremen were appointed from the best workers but there was no way forward from
that, the result being that the best practices were applied through having the best practitioners
in charge at the sharp end.
rodmclaughlin 26 Oct 2016 4:37
"he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs the global
economy and governs our politics."
Obviously, Donald Trump is not an "outsider" in the economic
sense. Trump definitely belongs to the ruling "caste", or rather, "class". But he is by no means
the perfect representative of it. "The global economy", or rather, "capitalism", thrives better
with the free movement of (cheap) labour than without it. Economically, poor Americans would be
better off with more immigration control.
And there's more too it than economics. There's the "culture wars" aspect. Many people
don't like being told they are "deplorable" for opposing illegal (or even legal) immigration.
They don't like being called "racist" for disagreeing with an ideology.
I like the phrase Monbiot ends with - "He is our system, stripped of its pretences" - it
reminds me of a phrase in the Communist Manifesto - but I don't think it's true. "Our" system
is more than capitalism, it's culture. And Clinton is a far more "perfect representation" of the
increasingly censorious, narrow [neo]liberal culture which dominates the Western world.
Finally, Monbiot misses the chance to contrast Clinton's and Trump's apparent differences
with regard to confronting nuclear-armed Russia over the skies of Syria. It could be like 1964
all over again - except in this election, the Democrat is the nearest thing to Barry Goldwater.
nishville 26 Oct 2016 4:40
As a life-long despiser of all things Trump, I cannot believe that I am saying this: Trump
is good for world peace. He might be crap for everything else but I for one will sleep much
better if he is elected POTUS.
dylan37 26 Oct 2016 4:40
Agree, for once, with a piece by George. Trump is nothing new - we've seen his kind of faux-outsider
thing before, but he's amplifying it with the skills of a carnival barker and the "what me?" shrug
of the everyman - when we all know he's not. The election result can't be rigged because the game
is fixed from the start. A potential president needs millions of dollars behind them to even think
about running, and then needs to repay those bought favours once in office. Trump may just win
this one though - despite the polls, poor human qualities and negative press - simply because
he's possibly tapped into a rich seam of anti-politics and a growing desire for anything different,
even if it's distasteful and deplorable. It's that difference that might make the difference,
even when it's actually just more of the same. It's all in the packaging.
greenwichite 26 Oct 2016 4:41
Donald Trump is a clumsy, nasty opportunist who has got one thing right - people don't want globalisation.
What people want, is clean, high-tech industries in their own countries, that automate the
processes we are currently offshoring. They would rather their clothes were made by robots in
Rochdale than a sweat-shop in India.
Same goes for energy imports: we want clean, local renewables.
What people don't want is large, unpleasant multinational corporations negotiating themselves
tax cuts and "free trade" with corrupt politicians like Hillary Clinton.
Just my opinion, of course...
TheSandbag -> greenwichite 26 Oct 2016 4:50
Your right about globalisation, but I think wrong about the automation bit. People want Jobs because
its the only way to survive currently and they see them being shipped to the country with the
easiest to exploit workforce. I don't think many of them realize that those jobs are never coming
back. The socioeconomic system we exist in doesn't work for 90% of the population who are surplus
to requirements for sustaining the other 10%.
Shadenfraude 26 Oct 2016 4:43
I fully agree with Monbiot, American democracy is a sham - the lobby system has embedded corruption
right in the heart of its body politic. Lets be clear here though, whatever is the problem with
American democracy can in theory at least be fixed, but Trump simply can not and moreover he is
not the answer.
... ... ...
oddballs 26 Oct 2016 5:24
Trump threatened Ford that if they closed down US car plants and moved them to Mexico he would
put huge import tariffs on their products making them to expensive.
Export of jobs to low wage countries, how do you think Americans feel when they buy 'sports
wear, sweater, t-shirts shoes that cost say 3 $ to import into the US and then get sold for20
or 50 times as much, by the same US companies that moved production out of the country.
The anger many Americans feel how their lively-hoods have been outsourced, is the lake of discontent
Trump is fishing for votes.
His opponent, war child and Wall Street darling can count her lucky stars that the media
leaves her alone (with husband Bill, hands firmly in his pockets, nodding approvingly) and concentrates
on their feeding frenzy attacking Trump on sexual allegations of abusing women, giving Hillery,
Yes, likely to tell lies, ( mendacious, remember when she claimed to be under enemy fire in Bosnia?
remember how evasive she was on the Benghazi attack on the embassy)
Yes Trump is a dangerous man running against an also extremely dangerous woman.
onepieceman 26 Oct 2016 5:31
Extremely interesting reference to the Madison paper, but the issue is less about the size
of the electorate, and more about the power that the election provides to the victor.
One positive outcome that I hope will come of all of this is that people might think a little
more carefully about how much power an incoming president (or any politician) should be given.
The complacent assumption about a permanently benign government is overdue for a shakeup.
peccadillo -> Dean Alexander 26 Oct 2016 5:43
Democracy in the US is so corrupted by money that it is no longer recognisable as democracy.
You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure
of politics is corrupt?
Having missed that bit, I wonder if you actually read the article.
tater 26 Oct 2016 5:46
The sad thing is that the victims of the corrupt economic and political processes are the small
town folk who try to see Trump as their saviour. The globalisation that the US promoted to expand
its hegemony had no safeguards to protect local economies from mega retail and finance corporations
that were left at liberty to strip wealth from localities. The Federal transfer payments that
might have helped compensate have been too small and were either corrupted pork barrel payments
or shameful social security payments. For a culture that prides itself on independent initiative
and self sufficiency this was always painful and that has made it all the easier for the lobbyists
to argue against increased transfer payments and the federal taxes they require. So more money
for the Trumps of this world.
And to the future. The US is facing the serious risk of a military take over. Already its foreign
policy emanates from the military and the corruption brings it ever closer to the corporations.
If the people don't demand better the coup will come.
MrMopp 26 Oct 2016 6:12
There's a reason turnout for presidential elections is barely above 50%.
Wised up, fed up Americans have long known their only choice is between a Coke or Pepsi President.
Well, this time they've got a Dr. Pepper candidate but they still know their democracy is just
a commodity to be bought and sold, traded and paraded; their elections an almost perpetual presidential
circus.
That a grotesque like Trump can emerge and still be within touching distance of the Whitehouse
isn't entirely down to the Democrats disastrous decision to market New Clinton Coke. Although
that's helped.
The unpalatable truth is, like Brexit, many Americans simply want to shake things up and shake
them up bigly, even if it means a very messy, sticky outcome.
Anyone with Netflix can watch the classic film, "Network" at the moment. And it is a film of
the moment.
"I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression.
Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's worth. Banks
are going bust. Shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street
and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it. We know the
air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TVs while some local
newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if
that's the way it's supposed to be.
We know things are bad - worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is
going crazy, so we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living
in is getting smaller, and all we say is: 'Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms.
Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won't say anything. Just leave
us alone.'
Well, I'm not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get MAD! I don't want you to protest. I
don't want you to riot - I don't want you to write to your congressman, because I wouldn't know
what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and
the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you've got to get mad. [shouting]
You've got to say: 'I'm a human being, god-dammit! My life has value!'
So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to
get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell: I'M AS MAD
AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!
I want you to get up right now. Sit up. Go to your windows. Open them and stick your head out
and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take this anymore!' Things have got to change.
But first, you've gotta get mad!...You've got to say, I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO
TAKE THIS ANYMORE! Then we'll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and
the oil crisis. But first, get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and
yell, and say it: I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"
And that was in 1976. A whole lot of shit has happened since then but essentially, Coke is
still Coke and Pepsi is still Pepsi.
Forty years later, millions are going to get out of their chairs. They are going to vote. For
millions of Americans of every stripe, Trump is the "I'M AS MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE
THIS ANYMORE", candidate.
And he's in with a shout.
André De Koning 26 Oct 2016 6:13
Trump is indeed the embodiment of our collective Shadow (As Jung called this unconscious side
of our Self). It does reflect the degeneration of the culture we live in where politics has turned
into a travesty; where all projections of this side are on the Other, the usual other who we can
collectively dislike. All the wars initiated by the US have started with a huge propaganda programme
to hate and project our own Shadow on to this other. Often these were first friends, whether in
Iran or Iraq, Libya: as soon as the oil was not for ""us" , they were depicted as monsters who
needed action: regime change through direct invasion and enormous numbers of war crimes or through
CIA programmed regime change, it all went according to shady plans and manipulation and lies lapped
up by the masses.
When you look at speeches and conversations and debates with the so-called bogeyman, Putin,
he is not at all in a league as low and vile as portrayed and says many more sensible things than
anybody cares to listen to, because we're all brainwashed. We are complicit in wars (now in Syria)
and cannot see why we have to connive with terrorists, tens of thousands of them, and they get
supported by the war machine and friends like Saudis and Turkey which traded for years with ISIS.
The Western culture has become more vile than we could have imagined and slowly, like the frog
in increasingly hot water, we have become used to neglecting most of the population of Syria and
focusing on the rebel held areas, totally unaware of what has happened to the many thousands who
have lived under the occupation by terrorists who come from abroad ad fight the proxy war for
the US (and Saudi and the EU). Trump dares to embody all this, as does Clinton the war hawk,
and shows us we are only capable of seeing one side and project all nastiness outward while we
can feel good about ourselves by hating the other.
It fits the Decline of an Empire image as it did in other Falls of Civilizations.
tashe222 26 Oct 2016 6:28
Lots of virtue signalling from Mr. M.
Trump spoke to the executives at Ford like no one before ever has. He told them if they
moved production to Mexico (as they plan to do) that he would slap huge tariffs on their cars
in America and no one would buy them.
Trump has said many stupid things in this campaign, but he has some independence and is not
totally beholden to vested interests, and so there is at least a 'glimmer' of hope for the future
with him as Potus.
Yes, when the Archdruid first posted that it helped me understand some of the forces that were
driving Trump's successes. I disagree with the idea that voting for Trump is a good idea because
it will bring change to a moribund system. Change is not a panacea and the type of change he is
likely to bring is not going to be pleasant.
Hanwell123 -> ArseButter 26 Oct 2016 6:59
What happens in Syria could be important to us all. Clinton doesn't hide her ambition to
drive Assad from power and give Russia a kicking. It's actually very unpopular although the media
doesn't like to say so; it prefers to lambast Spain for re-fueling Russian war ships off to fight
the crazed Jihadists as if we supported the religious fanatics that want to slaughter all Infidels!
There is an enormous gulf between what ordinary people want and the power crazy Generals in the
Pentagon and NATO.
unsubscriber 26 Oct 2016 6:43
George always writes so beautifully and so tellingly. My favourite sentence from this column is:
Their gleeful stoving in of faces, their cackling destruction of political safeguards and democratic
norms, their stomping on all that is generous and caring and cooperative in human nature, have
turned the party into a game of Mortal Kombat scripted by Breitbart News.
Cadmium 26 Oct 2016 6:51
Trump is not a misogynist, look the word up. He may be crude but that's not the same thing. He
also represents a lot more people than a tiny faction. He is also advocating coming down on lobbying,
which is good. He may be a climate change denier but that's because a lot of his supporters are,
he'd probably change if they did. The way to deal with it is with rational argument, character
assassination is counterproductive even if he himself does it. Although he seems to do it as a
reaction rather than as an attack. He probably has a lot higher chance of winning than most people
think since a lot of people outside the polls will feel represented by him and a lot of those
included in the polls may not vote for Hilary.
ID4755061 26 Oct 2016 6:52
George Monbiot is right. Trump is a conduit for primal stuff that has always been there and never
gone away. All the work that has been done to try to change values and attitudes, to make societies
more tolerant and accepting and sharing, to get rid of xenophobia and racism and the rest, has
merely supressed all these things. Also, while times were good (that hasn't been so for a long
time) most of this subterranean stuff got glossed over most of the time by some kind of feel good
factor and hope for a better future.
But once the protections have gone, if there is nothing to feel good about or there is little
hope left, the primitive fear of other and strange and different kicks back in. It's a basic survival
instinct from a time when everything around the human species was a threat and it is a fundamental
part of us and Trump and Palin at al before him have got this, even if they don't articulate it
this way, and it works and it will always work. It's a pure emotional response to threat that
we can't avoid, the only way out of it, whihc many of use use, is to use our intellects to challenge
the kick of emotion and see it for what it is and to understand the consequences of giving it
free reign. It's this last bit that Trump, Palin, Farage and their ilk just don't get and never
will, we aill always be fighting this fight.
PotholeKid 26 Oct 2016 6:56
Political culture includes the Clintons and Bushes, the Democratic party and Republican party.
exploring that culture using the DNC and Podesta leaks as reference, paints a much better picture
of the depth of depravity this culture represents..Trump is a symptom and no matter how much the
press focuses on maligning his character. The Clintons share a huge responsibility for the corruption
of the system. Mr. Monbiot would serve us well by looking at solutions for cleaning up the mess,
what Trumps likes to call "Draining the swamp"
lonelysoul72 26 Oct 2016 6:59
Trump for me , he is horrendous but Clinton is worse.
nooriginalthought 26 Oct 2016 7:06
"Democracy in the U.S. is so corrupted by money it is no longer recognisable as democracy."
Sounds like a quote from Frank Underwood. To catch a thief sometimes you need the services of
a thief. With a fair degree of certainty we can be sure a Clinton administration will offer us
continuity .
If that is what you think the world needs fine.
If you believe globalization to be of benefit only to the few .
If you believe Russia has no rights to a sphere of influence on its boarders.
If you believe America's self appointed role as world policemen a disaster.
If you believe trade agreements a backdoor to corporate control.
If your just pissed off with politicians .
Your probably going to vote Trump. Looking forward to a long list of articles here in November
prophecies of Armageddon a la brexit. You liberal lefties , you'll never learn. If you want to
know what people are thinking , you got to get out of the echochamber.
nooriginalthought -> aurlius 26 Oct 2016 7:45
Sorry , hate having to explain myself to the dim witted.
USA has got itself in an unholy mess . It's politicians no longer work for the people .
Their paymasters care not if life in Idaho resembles Dantes inferno .
Trump has many faults but being "not Hilary" is not one of them. The very fact he is disliked
by all the vested interests should make you take another look.
And remember , the American constitution has many checks and balances , a President has a lot
less power than most people imagine.
Pinkie123 26 Oct 2016 7:21
While it is impossible to credibly disagree with the general thrust of this, some of Monbiot's
assumptions exemplify problems with left-wing thinking at the moment.
But those traits ensure that he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his
caste, the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics. He is our system, stripped
of its pretences.
Like many on the right, the left have unthinkingly accepted a narrative of an organized,
conspiratorial system run by an elite of politicians and plutocrats. The problem with this narrative
is it suggests politics and politicians are inherently nefarious, in turn suggesting there are
no political solutions to be sought to problems, or anything people can do to challenge a global
system of power. As Monbiot asks: "You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what
do you do when the entire structure of politics is corrupt?" Well, what indeed?
I think Monbiot a principled, intelligent left-wing commentator, but at the same time he epitomises
a left-wing retreat into pessimism in the face of a putatively global network of power and inevitable
environmental catastrophe. In reality, while there is no shortage of perfidious, corrupt corporate
interests dominating global economies, there is no organized system or shadowy establishment -
only a chaotic mess rooted in complex political problems. Once you accept that reality, then it
becomes possible to imagine political solutions to the quandaries confronting us. Rather than
just railing against realities, you can envision a new world to replace them. And a new kind of
world is something you very rarely get from the left these days. Unlike the utopian socialists
of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, there is little optimism or imagination - just anger,
pessimism and online echo chambers of 'clictivists'.
Like the documentarian Adam Curtis says, once you conclude that all politics is corrupt then
all you can do is sit there impotently and say: 'Oh dear'.
deltajones -> Pinkie123 26 Oct 2016 8:12
I don't think you need to believe in an organised conspiracy and I don't see any real evidence
that George Monbiot does. The trouble is that the corporate and political interests align in a
way that absorbs any attempt to challenge them and the narrative has been written that of course
politics is all about economics and of course we need mighty corporations to sustain us.
Even the left has largely taken on that narrative and it's seen as common sense. Challenging
this belief system is the toughest job that there is and we see that in the howling indignation
hurled at Jeremy Corbyn if he makes the slightest suggestion of nationalisation of the railways,
for instance.
ianfraser3 26 Oct 2016 7:29
Not long after the start of the presidential campaign I began to reflect that in Trump
we are seeing materializing before us the logical result of the neoliberal project, the ultimate
shopping spree, buy an election.
furiouspurpose -> IllusionOfFairness 26 Oct 2016 8:08
The Republican party essentially offered their base nothing – that was the problem.
They couldn't offer all the things that ordinary Americans want – better and wider Medicaid,
better and wider social security, tax increases on the rich, an end to pointless foreign wars
and the American empire. None of these things were acceptable to their funders so that only
left emotional issues – anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-god, pro-gun. And all of the emotional issues
are on the wrong side of history as the US naturally grows more politically progressive. So the
Republican party couldn't even deliver on the emotionally driven agenda. I think their base realised
that they were being offered nothing – and that's why they turned to Trump. Perhaps a fascist
blowhard could bulldoze the system to deliver on the emotional side of the offer. That's why Trump
broke through
The Democrats have largely the same funding base, but they at least deliver crumbs – at
least a nod to the needs of ordinary people through half-hearted social programmes. In the
end the African Americans decided that Hillary could be relied upon to deliver some crumbs – so
they settled for that. That's why Sanders couldn't break through.
fairleft 26 Oct 2016 7:55
Trump is imperfect because he wants normal relations rather than war with Russia. No, Hillary
Clinton is the ultimate representation of the system that is abusing us. What will occur when
Goldman Sachs and the military-industrial complex coalition get their, what is it, 5th term in
office would be a great subject of many Guardian opinion pieces, actually. But that will have
to wait till after November 8.
Such commentary would be greatly aided the Podesta emails, which enlighten us as to the mind
and 'zeitgeist' of the HIllary team. And, of course, we also have Hillary's Wall Street speeches
-- thanks to Wikileaks we have the complete transcripts, in case Guardian readers are unaware.
They expose the real thinking and 'private positions' of the central character in the next episode
of 'Rule by Plutocracy'.
But, of course, opinion columns and think pieces on the Real Hillary and the Podesta emails
will have to wait ... forever.
toffee1 26 Oct 2016 7:58
Trump shows the true face of the ruling class with no hypocrisy. He is telling us the truth.
If we have a democracy, we should have a party representing the interests of the business class,
why not. The democrats is the party practicing hypocrisy, pretending that they somehow representing
the interest of the working class. They are the ones spreading lies and hypocrisy and manipulating
the working class everyday through their power over the media. Their function is to appease the
working class. The real obstacle for improving conditions for the working class historically has
always been the Democratic party, not the Republican party.
Kikinaskald Cadmium 26 Oct 2016 8:39
In fact presidents don't usually have much affect, they're prey to their advisors. Generally true.
But Obama was able to show that he was able to distance himself up to a certain point from what
was around him. He was aware of the power of the establishment and of their bias. So, when the
wave against Iran was as strong as never before, he made a deal with Iran. He also didn't want
to intervene more actively in Syria and even in what concerns Russia, he seems to have moderate
positions.
In what concerns foreign politics, Trump some times seems more reasonable than Clinton
and the establishment. Clinton is the best coached politician of all times. She doesn't know that
she's coached. She just followed the most radical groups and isn't able to question anything at
all. The only thing that the coaches didn't fix until now is her laughing which is considered
even by her coaches as a sign of weirdness.
Kikinaskald -> J.K. Stevens 26 Oct 2016 9:09
She is considered to be highly aggressive, she pushed for the bombing of a few countries and
intervening everywhere..
Unfortunately all politics in the west is based on a similar model with our own domestic landscape
perhaps most closely resembling that in the US. We've always been peddled convenient lies of course,
but perhaps as society itself becomes more polarised [in terms of distribution of wealth and the
social consequences of that], the dissonance with the manufactured version of reality becomes
ever sharper. It is deeply problematic because traditional popular media is dominated by the wealthy
elite and the reality it depicts is as much a reflection of the consensual outlook of that elite
as it is deliberate, organised mendacity [although there's plenty of that too].
Western economies are now so beholden to the patronage of the essentially stateless multinational,
it has become a political imperative to appease their interests - it's difficult to see a future
in which an administration might resist this force, because at its whim, national economies face
ruination. In light of such helplessness our political representatives face an easier path in
simply accepting their lot as mere administrators who will tinker at the margins [and potentially
reap the rewards of a good servant], rather than hold to principle and resist an overwhelming
force.
Meanwhile the electorate is become increasingly disaffected by this mainstream of politics
who they [rightly] sense is no longer truly representative of their interests in any substantive
way. To this backdrop the media has made notable blunders in securing the status quo. It has revealed
the corruption and self-seeking of many in politics and promoted the widespread distrust of mainstream
politicians for a variety of reasons. While the corruption is real and endemic, howls of protest
against political 'outsiders' from this same press is met with with the view that the political
establishment cannot be trusted engendered by the same sources.
The narrative for Brexit is somewhat similar. For many years the EU was the whipping boy for
all our ills and the idea that it is fundamentally undemocratic in contrast to our own system,
so unchallenged that it is taken for fact, even by the reasonably educated. Whilst I'm personally
deflated and not a little worried by our exit, it comes as little surprise that a distorted perspective
on the EU has led to a revolt against it.
There are of course now very many alternative narratives to those which are the preserve of
monied media magnates, but they're disparate, fractured and unfocused.
Only the malaise has any sort of consistency about it and it is bitterly ironic that figures
like Trump and Farage can so effectively plug into that in the guise of outsiders, to offer spurious
alternatives to that which is so desperately needed. It's gloomy stuff.
Western economies are now so beholden to the patronage of the essentially stateless
multinational, it has become a political imperative to appease their interests - it's difficult
to see a future in which an administration might resist this force, because at its whim, national
economies face ruination. In light of such helplessness our political representatives face
an easier path in simply accepting their lot as mere administrators who will tinker at the
margins [and potentially reap the rewards of a good servant], rather than hold to principle
and resist an overwhelming force.
I have been an advocate of this point for a long time.There is a saying in politics in America
that'' the only difference between a Democrat and a Republican is the speed at which they drop
to their knees when big business walks into the room''.
How it is going to be stopped or indeed if there is the will to do so,I do not know. The proponents
and those who have most to lose have been incredibly successful in propagating the myth that 'you
to can have what I have'and have convinced a sizeable minority that there is no alternative.
Until that changes and is exposed for the illusion that it is ,we are I fear heading for something
far worse than we have now.
"Trump personifies the traits promoted by the media and corporate worlds he affects
to revile; the worlds that created him. He is the fetishisation of wealth, power and image
in a nation where extrinsic values are championed throughout public discourse. His conspicuous
consumption, self-amplification and towering (if fragile) ego are in tune with the dominant
narratives of our age."
Because this is who we are and this is how we role. We got on rickety ships and braved the
cowardly waters to reach these shores, with tremendous realworld uncertainty and absolute religious
zeal. We are the manly men and womanly women who manifested our destiny, endured the cruel nature
naturing, and civilized the wild wild west, at the same time preserving our own wildness and rugged
individualism. Why should we go all soft and namby-pamby with this social safety nonsense? Let
the roadkills expire with dignified indignity on the margins of the social order. We will bequeath
a glorious legacy to the Randian ubermenschen who will inherit this land from us. They will live
in Thielian compounds wearing the trendiest Lululemons. They will regularly admonish their worses
with chants of: "Do you want to live? Pay, pal". If we go soft, if we falter, how will we ever
be able to look in the eye the ghosts of John Wayne, Marion Morrison, Curtis LeMay, Chuck Heston,
Chuck Norris, and the Great Great Ronnie Himself? Gut-check time folks, suck it up and get on
with the program.
"The political constitution of the United States is not, as Madison envisaged, representation
tempered by competition between factions. The true constitution is plutocracy tempered by scandal."
The Founders had a wicked sense of humor. They set up the structure of various branches so
as to allow for the possibility of a future take-over by the Funders. That leaves room for the
exorbitant influence of corporations and wealthy individuals and the rise of the Trumps, leading
to the eventual fall into a Mad Max world.
"Yes, [Trump] is a shallow, mendacious, boorish and extremely dangerous man. But those traits
ensure that he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that
runs the global economy and governs our politics. He is our system, stripped of its pretences."
It is irrelevant if everyone sees the emperor/system has no clothes, it quite enjoys walking
around naked now that it has absolute power.
'It is irrelevant if everyone sees the emperor/system has no clothes, it quite enjoys
walking around naked now that it has absolute power.'
Yes, they don't care any more if we see the full extent of their corruption as we've given
up our power to do anything about it.
chiefwiley -> Luftwaffe 26 Oct 2016 9:31
It was once very common to see Democratic politicians as neighbors attending every community
event. They were Teamsters, pipe fitters, and electricians. And they were coaches and ushers and
pallbearers. Now they are academics and lawyers and NGO employees and managers who pop up during
campaigns.
The typical income of the elected Democrats outside their government check is north of $100,000.
They don't live in, or even wander through, the poorer neighborhoods. So they are essentially
clueless that government services like busses are run to suit government and not actual customers.
It's sort of nice to have somebody looking after our interests in theory, but it would
be at least polite if they deemed to ask us what we think our best interests are. Notice the nasty
names and attributes being hurled at political "dissidents," especially around here, and there
should be little wonder why many think the benevolent and somewhat single minded and authoritarian
left is at least part of their problems.
ghstwrtrx7 -> allblues 26 Oct 2016 14:02
Yea, 15 years of constant wars of empire with no end in sight has pretty much ran this
country in the ground.
We all talk about how much money is wasted by the federal government on unimportant endeavors
like human services and education, but don't even bat an eye about the sieve of money that is
the Pentagon.
Half a trillion dollars for aircraft carriers we don't need and are already obsolete. China
is on the verge of developing wickedly effective anti-ship missiles designed specifically to target
these Gerald R. Ford-class vessels. You might as well paint a huge bull's-eye on these ships'
4-1/2 acre flight deck.
And then there there's the most egregious waste of money our historically over-bloated defense
budget has ever seen: The Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightening II Joint Strike Fighter. Quite a mouthful,
isn't? When you hear how much this boondoggle costs the American taxpayer, you'll choke: $1.5
Trillion, with a t. What's even more retching is that aside from already being obsolete, it doesn't
even work.
There are plenty more examples of this crap and this doesn't even include the nearly TWO
trillion dollars we've spent this past decade-and-a-half on stomping flat the Middle East and
large swaths of the Indian subcontinent.
And all this time, our nation's infrastructure is crumbling literally right out from underneath
us and millions upon millions of children and their families experience a daily struggle just
to eat. Eat?! In the "greatest," wealthiest nation on earth and we prefer to kill people at weddings
with drones than feed our own children.
I can't speak for anyone else other than myself, but that, boys and girls, has a decided miasma
of evil about it.
transplendent 26 Oct 2016 9:49
I'd like to read an unbiased piece about why the media narrative doesn't match the reality
of the Trump phenomenon. He is getting enormous crowds attend his rallies but hardly any coverage
of that in the filtered news outlets. Hillary, is struggling to get anyone turn up without paying
them. There is no real enthusiasm.
If Hillary doesn't win by a major landslide (and I mean BIGLY) as the MSM would lead us to
believe she is going to, it could be curtains for the media, as what little credibility that is
not already swirling around the plughole will disappear down it once and for all.
The buzzwords and tired old catch phrases and cliches used by the left to suppress any
alternative discussion, and divert from their own misdemeanors are fooling no one but themselves.
Trump supporters simply don't care any more how Hillary supporters explain that she lied about
dodging sniper fire. Or the numerous other times she and her cohorts have been caught out telling
fibs.
leftofstalin 26 Oct 2016 10:06
Sorry George YOU and the chattering classes you represent are the reason for the rise of the
far right blinded by the false promises of new labour and it's ilk the working classes have been
demonized as striking troublemakers benefit frauds racists uneducated bigots etc etc and going
by the comments on these threads from remainders you STILL don't understand the psyche of the
working class
Gary Ruddock 26 Oct 2016 10:07
When Obama humiliated Trump at that dinner back in 2011 he may have set a course for his own
destruction. Lately, Obama does not appear anywhere near as confident as he once did.
Perhaps Trump has seen the light, seen the error of his ways, maybe he realizes if he doesn't
stand up against the system, then no one will.
transplendent 26 Oct 2016 10:38
Trump's only crime, is he buys into the idea of national identity and statehood (along with
every other nation state in the world mind you), and Hillary wants to kick down the doors and
hand over the US to Saudi Arabia and any international vested interest who can drop a few dollars
into the foundation coffers. I can't see Saudi Arabia throwing open the doors any day soon, unless
it is onto a one way street.
N.B. The Russians are not behind it.
gjjwatson 26 Oct 2016 11:10
Very true. Throughout history the rich, the powerful, the landed, ennobled interest and
their friends in the Law and money changing houses have sought to control governments and have
usually succeeded.
In the Media today the rich are fawned over by sycophantic journalists and programme makers.
These are the people who make the political weather and create the prevailing narratives.
I remember when President Reagan railed against government whilst he was in office, he said
the worst words a citizen could hear were "I`m from the government, I`m here to help you".
Working class people fancied themselves to above the common herd and thought themselves
part of some elite.
All of this chimes of course with American history and it`s constitution written by slave owning
colonists who proclaimed that "all men are created equal".
bonhiver 26 Oct 2016 12:10
It's quite disturbing the lengths this paper will go to in order to slur and discredit
Trump, labelling him dangerous and alluding to the sexual assault allegations. This even goes
so far to a very lengthy article regarding Trumps lack of knowledge on the Rumbelows Cup 25 years
ago.
Whereas very little examination is made into Hillary Clinton's background which includes
serious allegation of fraud and involvement in assisting in covering up her husband's alleged
series of rapes. There are also issues in the wikileaks emails that merit analysis as well as
undercover tapes of seioau issues with her campaign team.
Whereas it is fair to criticise Trump for a lot of stuff it does appear that there is no attempt
at balance as Clinton's faults appear to get covered up om this paper.
Whereas I can not vote in the US elections and therefore the partisan reporting has no substantive
effect on how I may vote or act it is troubling that a UK newspaper does not provide the reader
with an objective as possible reporting on the presidential race.
It suggests biased reporting elsewhere.
thevisitor2015 26 Oct 2016 12:46
One of the most important characteristics of the so-called neoliberalism is its negative
selection. While mostly successfully camouflaged, that negative selection is more than obvious
this time, in two US presidential candidates. It's hard to imagine lower than those two.
seamuspadraig 26 Oct 2016 13:37
Well, OK George. Tell me: if Trump's such an establishment candidate, then why does the
whole of the establishment unanimously reject him? Is it normal for Republicans (such as the Bushes
and the neocons) to endorse Democrats? Why does even the Speaker of the House (a Republican) and
even, on occasion, Trump's own Vice-Presidential nominee seem to be trying to undermine his campaign?
If Trump is really just more of the same as all that came before, why is he being treated different
by the MSM and the political establishment?
Obviously, there's something flawed about your assumption.
CharlesPDXOr -> seamuspadraig 26 Oct 2016 13:58
I think the answer to your question is in the article: because Trump has brought the truth
of the monied class into the open. He is a perfect example of all that class is and tries to pretend
it is not. And when the commoners see this in front of them, a whole lot of them are disgusted
by it. That doesn't sit well back in the country club and the boardroom, where they work so hard
to keep all of that behind closed doors. They hate him because he is one of them and is spilling
the beans on all of them.
bill9651 26 Oct 2016 13:01
Trump has exposed the corruption of the political system and the media and has promised to
put a stop to it. By contrast, Clinton is financed by the very banks, corporates and financial
elites who are responsible for the corruption. This Trump speech is explicit on what we all suspected
is going on. Everybody should watch it, irrespective of whether they support him or not!
Michael Moore explaining why a lot of people like him
"I know a lot of people in Michigan that are planning to vote for Trump and they don't necessarily
agree with him. They're not racist or redneck, they're actually pretty decent people and so after
talking to a number of them I wanted to write this.
Donald Trump came to the Detroit Economic Club and stood there in front of Ford Motor executives
and said "if you close these factories as you're planning to do in Detroit and build them in Mexico,
I'm going to put a 35% tariff on those cars when you send them back and nobody's going to buy
them." It was an amazing thing to see. No politician, Republican or Democrat, had ever said anything
like that to these executives, and it was music to the ears of people in Michigan and Ohio and
Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - the "Brexit" states.
You live here in Ohio, you know what I'm talking about. Whether Trump means it or not, is kind
of irrelevant because he's saying the things to people who are hurting, and that's why every beaten-down,
nameless, forgotten working stiff who used to be part of what was called the middle class loves
Trump. He is the human Molotov Cocktail that they've been waiting for; the human hand grande that
they can legally throw into the system that stole their lives from them. And on November 8, although
they lost their jobs, although they've been foreclose on by the bank, next came the divorce and
now the wife and kids are gone, the car's been repoed, they haven't had a real vacation in years,
they're stuck with the shitty Obamacare bronze plan where you can't even get a fucking percocet,
they've essentially lost everything they had except one thing - the one thing that doesn't cost
them a cent and is guaranteed to them by the American constitution: the right to vote.
They might be penniless, they might be homeless, they might be fucked over and fucked up it doesn't
matter, because it's equalized on that day - a millionaire has the same number of votes as the
person without a job: one. And there's more of the former middle class than there are in the millionaire
class. So on November 8 the dispossessed will walk into the voting booth, be handed a ballot,
close the curtain, and take that lever or felt pen or touchscreen and put a big fucking X in the
box by the name of the man who has threatened to upend and overturn the very system that has ruined
their lives: Donald J Trump.
They see that the elite who ruined their lives hate Trump. Corporate America hates Trump. Wall
Street hates Trump. The career politicians hate Trump. The media hates Trump, after they loved
him and created him, and now hate. Thank you media: the enemy of my enemy is who I'm voting for
on November 8.
Yes, on November 8, you Joe Blow, Steve Blow, Bob Blow, Billy Blow, all the Blows get to go
and blow up the whole goddamn system because it's your right. Trump's election is going to be
the biggest fuck you ever recorded in human history and it will feel good."
Michael Moore
Debreceni 26 Oct 2016 14:15
Mrs Clinton is also the product of our political culture. A feminist who owes everything
to her husband and men in the Democratic Party. A Democrat who started her political career as
a Republican; a civil right activist who worked for Gerry Goldwater, one of last openly racist/segregationist
politicians. A Secretary of State who has no clue about, or training in, foreign policy, and who
received her position as compensation for losing the election. A pacifist, who has never had a
gun in her hands, but supported every war in the last twenty years. A humanist who rejoiced over
Qaddafi's death ("we came, we won, he is dead!") like a sadist.
Both candidates have serious weaknesses. Yet Trump is very much an American character, his
vices and weaknesses are either overlooked, or widely shared, secretively respected and even admired
(even by those who vote against him). Clinton's arrogance, elitism and hypocrisy, coupled with
her lack of talent, charisma and personality, make her an aberration in American politics.
BabylonianSheDevil03 26 Oct 2016 15:26
One thing that far right politics offers the ordinary white disaffected voter is 'pay back',
it is a promised revenge-fest, putting up walls, getting rid of foreigners, punishing employers
of foreigners, etc., etc. All the stuff that far right groups have wet dreams about.
Farage used the same tactics in the UK. Le Pen is the same.
Because neoliberal politics has left a hell of a lot of people feeling pissed off, the
far right capitalizes on this, whilst belonging to the same neoliberal dystopia so ultimately
not being able to make good on their promises. Their promises address a lot of people's anger,
which of course isn't really about foreigners at all, that is simply the decoy, but cutting through
all the crap to make that clear is no easy task, not really sure how it can be done, certainly
no political leader in the western hemisphere has the ability to do so.
ProseBeforeHos 26 Oct 2016 15:45
"But those traits ensure that he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste,
the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics."
Wrong as always. Trump *is* an outsider. He's an unabashed nationalist who's set him up
against the *actual* caste that governs our politics: Neo-liberal internationalists with socially
trendy left-liberal politics (but not so left that they don't hire good tax lawyers to avoid paying
a fraction of what they are legally obliged to).
Best represented in the Goldman Sachs executives who are donating millions to Hillary Clinton
because they are worried about Trump's opposition to free trade, and they know she will give them
*everything* they want.
Trumps the closest thing we're gotten to a genuine threat to the system in a long, long
time, so of course George Monbiot and the rest of the Guardian writers has set themselves against
him, because if you're gonna be wrong about the EU, wrong about New Labour, wrong about social
liberalism, wrong about immigration, why change the habit of a lifetime?
aofeia1224 26 Oct 2016 16:09
"What is the worst thing about Donald Trump? The lies? The racist stereotypes? The misogyny?
The alleged gropings? The apparent refusal to accept democratic outcomes?"
Lies: Emails, policy changes based on polls showing a complete lack of conviction, corporate
collusion, Bosnia, Clinton Foundation, war mongering, etc.
Racist stereotypes: Super predators. Misogyny: Aside from her laughing away her pedophile case
and allegedly threatening the women who came out against Bill, you've also got this sexist gem
"Women are the primary victims of war".
Alleged gropings: Well she's killed people by texting. So unless your moral compass is
so out of whack that somehow a man JOKING about his player status in private is worse than Clinton's
actions throughout her political career, then I guess you could make the case that Clinton at
least doesn't have this skeleton in her closet.
Refusal to accept democratic outcomes: No. He's speaking out against the media's collusion
with the democratic party favoring Clinton over every other nominee, including Bernie Sanders.
He's talking about what was revealed in the DNC leaks and the O'Keefe tapes that show how dirty
the tactics have been in order to legally persuade the voting public into electing one person
or the other.
Besides that, who cares about his "refusal" to accept the outcome? The American people protested
when Bush won in 2000 saying it was rigged. Same goes with Obama saying the same "anti democratic"
shit back in 2008 in regards to the Bush Administration.
Pot call kettle black
caravanserai 26 Oct 2016 16:16
Republicans are crazy and their policies make little sense. Neo-conservatism? Trickle down
economics? Getting the poor to pay for the mess created by the bankers in 2008? Trump knows what
sells to his party's base. He throws them red meat. However, the Democrats are not much better.
They started to sell out when Bill Clinton was president. They pretend to still be the party of
the New Deal, but they don't want to offend Wall Street. US democracy is in trouble.
rooolf 26 Oct 2016 16:24
When do the conspiracy theories about the criminality of his opponent no longer count as
conspiracies? When we have a plethora of emails confirming there is indeed fire next to that smoke,
corruption fire, collusion fire, fire of contempt for the electorate. When we have emails confirming
the Saudi Arabians are actually funding terrorist schools across the globe, emails where Hilary
herself admits it, but will not say anything publicly about terrorism and Saudi Arabia, what's
conspiracy and what's reality?
Is it because Saudi Arabia funded her foundation with $23 million, or because it doesn't
fit with her great 'internationalists' global agenda?
Either way there seems to be some conspiring of some sort
When is it no longer theory? And where does the guardian fit into this corrupted corporate
media idea?
Yep trump is a buffoon, but the failure of all media to deliver serious debate means the
US is about to elect someone probably more dangerous than trump, how the hell can that be
What the author overlooks is the media's own complicity in allowing this to develop
Unfortunately the corruption of the system is so entrenched it takes an abnormality like trump
to challenge it
Hard to believe, but trump is a once in a lifetime opportunity to shake shit up, not a pleasant
one, in fact a damn ugly opportunity, but the media shut him down, got all caught up in self preservation
and missed the opportunity
it what comes next that is scary
BScHons -> rooolf 26 Oct 2016 17:09
Nothing wrong with a liberal internationalist utopia, it sounds rather good and worth striving
for. It's just that what they've been pushing is actually a neoliberal globalist nirvana for the
1 per cent
rooolf BScHons 26 Oct 2016 17:17
Totally agree
The problem is the left this paper represents were bought off with the small change by
neoliberalism, and they expect the rest of us to suck it up so the elites from both sides can
continue the game
Talking about the environment and diversity doesn't cut it
mrjonno 26 Oct 2016 17:02
Well said as ever George. Humanity is in a total mess as we near the end of the neoliberal
model. That the USA has a choice between two 'demopublicans' is no choice at all.
I would go further in your analysis - media controlled by these sociopaths has ensured that our
society shares the same values - we are a bankrupt species as is.
As long as you are here to provide sensible analysis, along with Peter Joseph, I have hope
that we can pull out of the nosedive that we are currently on a trajectory for.
Thank you for your sane input into an otherwise insane world. Thank you Mr Monbiot.
annedemontmorency 26 Oct 2016 19:08
We'll ignore the part about the inability to accept democratic outcomes since that afflicts
so many people and organisations - Brexit , anyone?
More to the point is how the summit of US politics produces candidates like Trump and Clinton.
Clinton is suffering the same damage the LibDems received during their coalition with the Tories
.Proximity to power exposed their inadequacies and hypocrisy in both cases.
Trump - unbelievably - remains a viable candidate but only because Hillary Clinton reeks of
graft and self interest.
The obvious media campaign against Trump could also backfire - voters know a hatchet job when
they see one - they watch House of Cards.
But politics is odd around the whole world.
The Guardian is running a piece about the Pirate party in Iceland.
Why go so far? - the most remarkable coup in recent politics was UKIP forcing a vote on the
EU which it not only won it did so in spite of only ever having ONE MP out of 630.
Trump may be America's UKIP - he resembles them in so many ways.
ID6209069 26 Oct 2016 20:35
It's possible that something like this was inevitable, in a nation which is populated by "consumers"
rather than as citizens. There are "valuable demographics" versus those that aren't worthy of
the attention of the constant bombardment of advertising. I jokingly said last year that as I
was turning 55 last year, I am no longer in the 'coveted 29-54 demo'. My worth as a consumer has
been changed merely by reaching a certain age, so I now see fewer ads about cars and electronics
and more about prescription medicines. The product of our media is eyeballs, not programs or articles.
The advertising is the money maker, the content merely a means of luring people in for a sales
pitch, not to educate or inform. If that structure sells us a hideous caricature of a successful
person and gives him political power, as long as the ad dollars keep rolling in.
GreyBags 26 Oct 2016 21:19
This is the culmination of living in a post-truth political world. Lies and smears, ably
supported by the corporate media and Murdoch in particular means that the average person who doesn't
closely follow politics is being misinformed.
The complete failure of right wing economic 'theories' means they only have lies, smears
and the old 'divide and conquer' left in their arsenal. 'Free speech' is their attempt to get
lies and smears equal billing with the truth. All truth on the other hand must be suppressed.
All experts and scientists who don't regurgitate the meaningless slogans of the right will be
ignored, traduced, defunded, disbanded or silenced by law.
We see the same corrupted philosophy in Australia as well.
JamesCameron 7d ago
Yet Trump, the "misogynist, racist and bigot"' has more women in executive and managerial positions
than any comparable company, pays these women the same or more than their male counterparts and
fought the West Palm Beach City Council to be allowed to open his newly purchased club to blacks
and Jews who had been banned until then. I suspect his views do chime with Americans fed up with
political correctness gone mad as well as the venality of the administration of Barak Obama, a
machine politician with dodgy bagmen from Chicago – the historically corrupt city in Illinois,
the most corrupt state in the Union. Finally, unlike The Hilary, he has actually held down a job,
worked hard and achieved success and perhaps they are more offended by what she does than what
he says.
aucourant 7d ago
Not so much an article about Trump as much as a rant. George Monbiot writes with the utter
conviction of one who mistakenly believes that his readers share his bigotry. When he talks about
the 'alleged gropings' or the 'alleged refusal to accept democratic outcomes', that is exactly
what they are 'alleged'.
The Democratic Party has been dredging up porn-stars and wannabe models who now make claims
that Trump tried to 'kiss them without asking'. This has become the nightly fare of the mainstream
media in the USA. At the same time the media ignores the destruction of Clinton's emails, the
bribing of top FBI officials who are investigating the destroyed tapes and the giving of immunity
to all those who aided Clinton in hiding and destroying subpoenaed evidence.
The press also ignored the tapes of the DNC paying thugs to cause violence at Trump rallies,
the bribes paid to the Clintons for political favours and the stealing of the election from Bernie
Sanders. Trump is quite right to think the 'democratic outcome' is being fixed. Not only were
the votes for Sanders manipulated, but Al Gore's votes were also altered and manipulated to ensure
a win for Bush in the 2000 presidential election. The same interests who engineered the 2000 election
have switched from supporting the Republican Party to supporting Clinton.
Anomander64 6d ago
Great article. The neoliberals have been able to control the narrative and in doing so
have managed to scapegoat all manner of minority groups, building anger among those disaffected
with modern politics. Easy targets - minorities, immigrants, the poor, the disadvantaged and the
low-paid workers.
The real enemy here are those sitting atop the corporate tree, but with the media controlled
by them, the truth is never revealed.
mochilero7687 5d ago
Perhaps next week George will write in detail about all the scandals Hildabeast has caused
and been involved in over the past 40 years - which have cost the US govt tens of millions of
dollars and millions of man hours - but I won't be holding my breath.
"... The roster of retired military officers endorsing Hillary Clinton in September glittered with decoration and rank. One former general led the American surge in Anbar, one of the most violent provinces in Iraq. Another commanded American-led allied forces battling the Taliban in Afghanistan . Yet another trained the first Iraqis to combat Islamic insurgents in their own country. ..."
"... After 15 years at war, many who served in Iraq or Afghanistan are proud of their service but exhausted by its burdens. They distrust the political class that reshaped their lives and are frustrated by how little their fellow citizens seem to understand about their experience. ..."
"... "When we jump into wars without having a real plan, things like Vietnam and things like Iraq and Afghanistan happen," said William Hansen, a former Marine who served two National Guard tours in Iraq. "This is 16 years. This is longer than Vietnam." ..."
The roster of retired military officers endorsing
Hillary Clinton in September glittered with decoration and rank. One former general led the American
surge in Anbar, one of the most violent provinces in Iraq. Another commanded American-led allied
forces battling the Taliban in
Afghanistan . Yet another trained the first Iraqis to combat Islamic insurgents in their own
country.
But as Election Day approaches, many veterans are instead turning to
Donald
J. Trump , a businessman who avoided the Vietnam draft and has boasted of gathering foreign policy
wisdom by watching television shows.
Even as other voters abandon Mr. Trump, veterans remain among his most loyal supporters, an unlikely
connection forged by the widening gulf they feel from other Americans.
After 15 years at war, many who served in Iraq or Afghanistan are proud of their service but
exhausted by its burdens. They distrust the political class that reshaped their lives and are frustrated
by how little their fellow citizens seem to understand about their experience.
Perhaps most strikingly, they welcome Mr. Trump's blunt attacks on America's entanglements overseas.
"When we jump into wars without having a real plan, things like Vietnam and things like Iraq
and Afghanistan happen," said William Hansen, a former Marine who served two National Guard tours
in Iraq. "This is 16 years. This is longer than Vietnam."
In small military towns in California and North Carolina, veterans of all eras cheer Mr. Trump's
promises to fire officials at the
Department of Veterans Affairs . His attacks on political correctness evoke their frustrations
with tortured rules of engagement crafted to serve political, not military, ends. In Mr. Trump's
forceful assertion of strength, they find a balm for wounds that left them broken and torn.
"He calls it out," said Joshua Macias, a former Navy petty officer and fifth-generation veteran
who lives in the Tidewater region of Virginia, where he organized a "Veterans for Trump" group last
year. "We have intense emotion connected to these wars. The way it was politicized, the way they
changed the way we fight in a war setting - it's horrible how they did that."
"... With US belief in "conspiracy theory" over 50 percent (see our previous article here ) elites are showing increasingly concern that they have lost control of their narrative. ..."
"... The article explains that if people grow paranoid about government, then the "norms" of government will collapse. ..."
"... The article also has parallels to an article we analyzed recently here by Cass Sunstein. His Bloomberg editorial suggested that nothing was more important from a political standpoint than returning "civility" to Congress and politics generally. ..."
"... The NeoCons will take the United States in the same direction it is going until its' bust. Endless war, run down infrastructure and poverty is the future. Tax receipts are falling fast and government can't pay the big bills with service sector jobs. ..."
"... Decommissioning the plethora of foreign airbases and dismantling NATO would see the Bankster/MIC die a death. Gotta starve those beasts pronto. ..."
"... "Conspiracy theory is called "paranoid politics" in this article but it amounts to the same thing." ..."
"... "conspiracy theory" ..."
"... "paranoid" ..."
"... "we should" ..."
"... "paranoid politics" ..."
"... "good" ..."
"... necessarily controlled ..."
"... "The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost invariably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And if he is not romantic personally, he is apt to spread discontent among those who are." ..."
With US belief in "conspiracy theory" over 50 percent (see our previous article
here ) elites are showing increasingly concern that they have lost control of their narrative.
This article again illustrates elite push back. The article explains that if people grow paranoid
about government, then the "norms" of government will collapse.
Conspiracy theory is called "paranoid politics" in this article but it amounts to the same thing.
The article also has parallels to an article we analyzed recently
here
by Cass Sunstein. His Bloomberg editorial suggested that nothing was more important from a political
standpoint than returning "civility" to Congress and politics generally.
This article runs along the same lines: Negative perceptions of the US government can make the
process of "governing" dysfunctional.
Herdee •Nov 1, 2016 12:13 AM
The NeoCons will take the United States in the same direction it is going until its' bust.
Endless war, run down infrastructure and poverty is the future. Tax receipts are falling fast
and government can't pay the big bills with service sector jobs.
WTFUD •Oct 31, 2016 11:14 PM
Major Civil Unrest is required in the USSofA to alleviate the pressure on Russia, the Elites'
would be bogeyman. The rest of the world would benefit too.
Decommissioning the plethora of foreign airbases and dismantling NATO would see the Bankster/MIC
die a death. Gotta starve those beasts pronto.
PoasterToaster •Oct 31, 2016 10:30 PM
Bankers hiding behind "government" and using the moral authority it carries in people's heads
to carry out their dirty deeds. But now the people have seen behind the curtain and the dope at
the controls has been found wanting. Writing is on the wall for them and they know it.
"The rise of paranoid politics could make America ungovernable"
We in America aren't supposed to be "governed". And our state of mind is none of your goddamned
business.
One of the most delightful ironies (to those with a sufficiently macabre sense of humour) is that
declassified CIA documents from the 1960s have proven that the mass media promotion of the
"conspiracy theory" meme was deliberately developed by the CIA, using their media assets.
Many people have developed ways to discuss the relatively slim differences between being "paranoid"
versus being realistic. After several decades of enjoying the luxury to
spend most of my time attempting to understand the political processes, my conclusion has always
been that THE MORE I LEARNED, THE WORSE IT GOT.
It is barely possible to exaggerate the degree to which "we should" seriously consider
"paranoid politics" as being the most realistic. Governments
are only "good" in the sense that they are the biggest forms of organized crime,
dominated by the best organized gangs of criminals. In my view, that conclusion can both
be derived from the basic principles of the ways that general energy systems operate, as well
as empirically confirmed by an overwhelming abundance of well-documented evidence. Indeed, more
rational evidence and logical arguments result in that any deeper analysis of politics ALWAYS
discovers and demonstrates the ways that civilization is necessarily controlled
by applications of the methods of organized crime, whose excessive successfulness are more and
more spinning out of control.
As H.L. Menchen stated:
"The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out
for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost invariably
he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and
intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And if he is not romantic
personally, he is apt to spread discontent among those who are."
The important things which most governments DO,
that are "dishonest, insane and intolerable,"
are ENFORCE FRAUDS by private banks.
Given those social FACTS, it is barely possible to develop a sufficiently
"paranoid politics," to encompass the degree to which the existing
political economy, based upon enforcing frauds, is being driven by advancing technologies
towards becoming exponentially more fraudulent. The problem is NOT that some
people are becoming too critical, but that the majority of them have not yet become critical enough
... "We need" to go beyond being merely superficially cynical, in order to become profoundly
cynical enough to perhaps cope with how and why governments ARE the biggest forms of organized
crime, dominated by the best organized gangs of criminals.
In my view, most of the content published on Zero Hedge, which engages in various
superficially correct analyses of those problems, tends to never engage in deeper levels of analysis,
due to the degree to which the resulting conclusions are way worse than anything which could be
adequately admitted and addressed. Rather, it is barely possible to exaggerate the degree to which
one is justifiably paranoid about the ways that the ruling classes in
Globalized Neolithic Civilization are becoming increasingly psychotic psychopaths:
THE EXCESSIVE SUCCESSFULNESS OF CONTROLLING CIVILIZATION
BY APPLICATIONS OF THE VARIOUS METHODS OF ORGANIZED CRIME
HAS RESULTED IN CIVILIZATION MANIFESTING CRIMINAL INSANITY!
Radical Marijuana -> medium giraffe •Nov 1, 2016 12:25 AM
Yes, mg, the CIA, in ways which were, of course, ILLEGAL, attempted to discredit those who
did not believe the official story regarding the assination of President Kennedy.
The most relevant conclusion of that documentary was that, at the highest levels, there is
no difference, because they blend together, between organized crime and government agencies such
as the CIA, which was effectively the American branch of the secret police employed by the international
bankers.
The attack on Iraq, the attack on Libya, the attack on Syria happened because the leader in each
of these countries was not a puppet of the West. The human rights record of a Saddam or a Gaddafi
was irrelevant. They did not obey orders and surrender control of their country.
The same fate awaited Slobodan Milosevic once he had refused to sign an "agreement" that demanded
the occupation of Serbia and its conversion to a market economy. His people were bombed, and he was
prosecuted in The Hague. Independence of this kind is intolerable.
As WikLeaks has revealed, it was only when the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad in 2009 rejected
an oil pipeline, running through his country from Qatar to Europe, that he was attacked.
From that moment, the CIA planned to destroy the government of Syria with jihadist fanatics –
the same fanatics currently holding the people of Mosul and eastern Aleppo hostage.
Why is this not news? The former British Foreign Office official Carne Ross, who was responsible
for operating sanctions against Iraq, told me: "We would feed journalists factoids of sanitised intelligence,
or we would freeze them out. That is how it worked."
The West's medieval client, Saudi Arabia – to which the US and Britain sell billions of dollars'
worth of arms – is at present destroying Yemen, a country so poor that in the best of times, half
the children are malnourished.
Jill Stein to win over the hearts of some progressives and jump start her far-left "
people-powered
" movement.
"This is Jill Stein's moment," said longtime Democratic pollster and Fox News contributor Pat
Caddell.
"There are many Clinton voters who would rather vote their conscience than vote for a major party.
According to the latest Breitbart/Gravis poll, when given the choice of whether you should vote for
a major party candidate or vote your conscience, 44% of Clinton voters said you should vote your
conscience," Caddell explained.
Even before the FBI director's dramatic announcement on Friday, the ABC News/Washington Post
tracking poll
indicated that "loosely affiliated or reluctant Clinton supporters"- which includes white women
and young voters under the age of 30- seem to be floating off and "look less likely to vote."
Caddell explained that the polling data suggests "there are many people who are ambivalent
about Clinton who don't want to vote for Trump. Given these new revelations from WikiLeaks and the
re-intensity of the concern regarding the corruption of her emails, these ambivalent voters need
a place to go and Jill Stein-being not only a progressive woman, but an honest progressive woman-is
the obvious choice for so many of these voters, particularly for those who supported Bernie Sanders."
Indeed, nearly 60 percent of voters- including 43 percent of Democrats- believe America needs
a third major political party,
according to a Gallup poll released late last month.
As one former Bernie Sanders supporter told Breitbart News, "It's come to this: voting for
Hillary Clinton is voting for the lesser of two evils. But voting for the lesser of two evils is
still voting for evil, and I'm tired of voting for evil. That's why I'm voting for Jill Stein.
"
This sentiment has been echoed by Stein herself who has argued, "it's time to reject the lesser
of two evils and stand up for the greater good."
Stein seems ready to capitalize on the FBI's announcement as well as the steady stream of WikiLeaks
revelations that have exposed, what Stein has characterized as, the Clinton camp's "hostility" to
progressives.
"The FBI has re-opened the Clinton investigation. Will the American people rise up and vote for
honest change?" Stein asked on Friday, via Twitter.
... ... ...
Clinton's strained relationship with progressives has been well documented and could
present Stein– who has demonstrated a remarkable ability to articulately prosecute the progressive
case against Clinton– with an opening, especially as polling reveals a significant chunk of Clinton
voters believe voting their conscience ought to trump voting for a major political party.
As Politico reported in a piece
titled "WikiLeaks poisons Hillary's relationship with left" :
Some of the left's most influential voices and groups are taking offense at the way they
and their causes were discussed behind their backs by Clinton and some of her closest advisers
in the emails, which swipe liberal heroes and causes as "puritanical," "pompous", "naive", "radical"
and "dumb," calling some "freaks," who need to "get a life." […] among progressive operatives,
goodwill for Clinton - and confidence in key advisers featured in the emails including John Podesta,
Neera Tanden and Jake Sullivan - is eroding…
Even before the FBI's announcement, many noted that it was becoming increasingly difficult
to view a vote for Clinton as anything other than a vote to continue the worst aspects of political
corruption.
As columnist Kim Strassel recently
wrote , the
one thing in this election of which one can be certain is that "a Hillary Clinton presidency will
be built, from the ground up, on self-dealing, crony favors, and an utter disregard for the law."
As such, "anyone who pulls the lever for Mrs. Clinton takes responsibility for setting up the
nation for all the blatant corruption that will follow," Strassel
concludes
. "She just doesn't have a whole lot of integrity,"
said far-left progressive Cornel West.
West
endorsed Stein over Clinton explaining Stein is "the only progressive woman in the race."
"The Clinton train- [of] Wall Street, security surveillance, militaristic- is not going in
the same direction I'm going," West
told Bill Maher earlier this year.
She's a neoliberal… [I] believe neoliberalism is a disaster when it comes to poor people
and when it comes to people in other parts of the world dealing with U.S. foreign policy and militarism.
Oh, absolutely. Ask the people in Libya about that. Ask the people in the West Bank about that.
West has separately
explained that Clinton's "militarism makes the world a less safe place" and that her globalist
agenda created the "right-wing populism" that has fueled Trump's rise.
Clinton policies of the 1990s generated inequality, mass incarceration, privatization of schools
and Wall Street domination. There is also a sense that the Clinton policies helped produce the
right-wing populism that we're seeing now in the country. And we think she's going to come to
the rescue? That's not going to happen.
"It's too easy to view him [Trump] as an isolated individual and bash him," West
told Maher. "He's speaking to the pain in the country because white, working class brothers have
been overlooked by globalization, by these trade deals"– trade deals which Stein also opposes.
Stein has railed against the passage of TPP, which she and her party have described as "NAFTA
on steroids" that would "enrich wealthy corporations by exporting jobs and pushing down wages." They
have argued that the deal essentially amounts to a "global corporate coup" that "would give corporations
more power than nations" by letting them "challenge our laws".
Stein is
against the "massive expanding wars," "the meltdown of the climate," "the massive Wall Street
bailouts," and "the offshoring of our jobs."
Pointing to Clinton's "dangerous and immoral" militarism, Stein has
warned that "a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for war" and has explained how under a Clinton
presidency, "we could very quickly slide into nuclear war" or could start an air-war with Russia.
"No matter how her staff tries to rebrand her" Clinton is "not a progressive," Stein has
said -rather Clinton is a "corporatist hawk" that "
surrounds
herself with people who are hostile progressives" such as Debbie Wasserman Schultz "after she sabotaged
Bernie [Sanders]." Stein has warned progressives that the role of corporate Democrats like Clinton
is to "prevent progressives from defying corporate rule."
Stein has made a point to
highlight the fact that "we're now seeing many Republican leaders join Hillary Clinton in a neoliberal
uni-party that will fuel right-wing extremism," by continuing to push its "neoliberal agenda [of]
globalization, privatization, deregulation, [and] austerity for the rest of us."
In contrast to Clinton's corporatist "uni-party", Stein and her party have explained that their
campaign represents a "people's party with a populist progressive agenda" that-unlike Democrats and
Republicans- is not "funded by big corporate interests including Wall St. Banks, fossil fuel giants,
& war profiteer."
Stein is a Harvard Medical School graduate, a mother to two sons, and a practicing physician,
who became an environmental-health activist and organizer in the late 1990s. As the Green Party's
2012 presidential candidate, Stein already holds the record for the most votes ever received by a
female candidate for president in a general election.
In Jill Stein, her party writes, "progressives have a peace candidate not beholden to the billionaire
class."
The Clinton administration was bombing Iraq three times a week during 1999 and 2000 at a cost
of over $2 billion a year. Regardless of who the next president was going to be, I think you could
make a strong case that they were going to war in Iraq.
Yes ($2b p/yr bombing), and as the Counterpunch article states plenty of Gore quotes to "make
strong case".
My view: GWB admin "sold" Iraq to us not just because of WMD, but as response to
declarations
Sadaam was behind 9/11. Whole admin, Rice/Rummy/Cheney said this all the time, every where they
could. Limbaugh, FOX... 24/7 saturation promoting this. I remember many "anonymous" quotes in Pentagon
saying Rummy was running around after towers were hit saying "how can we tie this to Iraq".
Wolfowitz was "architect" of Iraq "liberation"... he'd been promoting this back to early PNAC
days. Wolfy was too "nuts" even for Bush Sr., got canned early on in his admin. Throw in Feith, Elliot
Abrams and the rest, GWB was surrounded with ultra neo-con, hard line Likud'niks who really didn't
give a rip about the US. Iraq was about Israel's "security", and those guys had been writing about
it for years.
None of them would have been in a Gore administration. And Gore's statements in CounterPunch,
they do speak for themsleves. But I'm not sure he wasn't trying to just be a good soldier, let Junior
have his way.
Another thing: Blix had full access in Iraq. Outside of US, he was highly regarded. Here, the
24/7 neo-con media machine I mentioned above never let up on Blix. He was a "low life" "old Europe"
bureaucrat... it was brutal. Really, really 'animal farm' brutal.
Bush's UN "in your face" (either with us or against us) speech clearly designed to bully Security
Counsel, Powell's "clear and convincing evidence" which was all bull shit & concocted by Cheney's
office... none of this would have existed in Gore Whitehouse, and I'd put down a good bet Gore would
have been very content to trust and allow Blix to finish his work. Gore just didn't have all these
ulterior motives.
One of the most memorable things in my mind of single minded purpose driving Wolfowitz/Feith etc.
and the sickness behind it... I don't recall the timeline precisely, but I think not long after Junior
announced "mission accomplished", among other things Bremmer had a big press brew-haa-haa introducing
their "occupying authority" new flag for their "liberated" Iraq: it was almost a replica of Israel's
flag. I don't have links, but maybe others recall this. It was a big, nuclear power backed fuck-you
to Iraq and the middle east saying "hey, what do you think of that m****er f***ers!!!!".
I can't imagine any of that from Gore. Bush was an entirely malleable, unaccomplished adolescent
completely manipulated by the Likud neo-cons. Gore had clear ideas what he wanted to do (whatever
one thinks about that) and didn't demonstrate any of Bush's reckless stupidity.
So anyway, really academic exercise now, but Gore never demonstrated the kind of utter non-sensical,
insanely radical (I'd say christian based psychopathic behavior & words) that came out of GWB's mouth
and his entire admin. I can't imagine these crazies would have had any presence whatsoever in his
administration. And Gore's dedication and "sweat equity" towards Climate change and renewables...
whatever people think of that, sure as hell wasn't borne from being bought-and-paid-for by the fossil
fuel industry. GWB's admin was, top to bottom. Plenty of evidence to suggest getting Iraq's oil fields
was big part of their calculus to "liberate".
So just academic at this point, but that's my own view FWIW.
The success of [civil rights and anti-apartheid] movements did not end racism, but drove
it underground, allowing neoliberals to exploit racist and tribalist political support while
pursuing the interests of wealth and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white)
poor.
That coalition has now been replaced by one in which the tribalists and racists are dominant.
For the moment at least, [hard] neoliberals continue to support the parties they formerly controlled,
with the result that the balance of political forces between the right and the opposing coalition
of soft neoliberals and the left has not changed significantly.
There's an ambiguity in this narrative and in the three-party analysis.
Do we acknowledge that the soft neoliberals in control of the coalition that includes the inchoate
left also "exploit racist and tribalist political support while pursuing the interests of wealth
and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white) poor."? They do it with a different
style and maybe with some concession to economic melioration, as well as supporting anti-racist
and feminist policy to keep the inchoate left on board, but . . .
The new politics of the right has lost faith in the hard neoliberalism that formerly furnished
its policy agenda of tax cuts for the rich, war in the Middle East and so on, leaving the impure
resentment ungoverned and unfocused, as you say.
The soft neoliberals, it seems to me, are using anti-racism to discredit economic populism
and its motivations, using the new politics of the right as a foil.
The problem of how to oppose racism and tribalism effectively is now entangled with soft neoliberal
control of the remaining party coalition, which is to say with the credibility of the left party
as a vehicle for economic populism and the credibility of economic populism as an antidote for
racism or sexism. (cf js. @ 1,2)
The form of tribalism used to mobilize the left entails denying that an agenda of economic
populism is relevant to the problems of sexism and racism, because the deplorables must be deplored
to get out the vote. And, because the (soft) neoliberals in charge must keep economic populism
under control to deliver the goods to their donor base.
"... Grenville regards understanding the opposition to globalization by the Trump constituency as essential. If we are discussing America, we do not need to look to illegal immigration, or undocumented workers to find hostility to out-group immigrants along religious and ethnic lines. ..."
"... These tendencies are thrown into sharper relief when this hostility is directed towards successfully assimilated immigrants of a different color who threaten the current occupants of a space – witness the open racism and hostility displayed towards Japanese immigrants on the west coast 1900-1924, or so. A similar level of hostility is sometimes/often displayed towards Koreans. The out-grouping in Japan is tiered and extends to ethnicity and language of groups within the larger Japanese community, as it does in the UK, although not as commonly along religious lines as it does elsewhere. ..."
"... European workers have done much better in the new global economy.(The problems in Europe center around mass migration of people who resist assimilation and adoption of a Humanistic world view.) The answer is simple and horrifying. ..."
"... A large percentage of American workers consistently vote against their own interest which has allowed the republican party in service to a powerful elite billionaire class ..."
"... The combination of these reliable cadre of deplorables , controlled by faux news and hate radio , and the lack of political engagement by the low income Americans , has essentially turned power over to the billionaire class. ..."
I read an interesting piece in the Nikkei, hardly an left-leaning publication citing Arlie
Hochschild's "Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right."
Doubtless some here would like to see more misery heaped upon those who do not look to the
Democratic party as saviors, but Hochschild is rarely regarded as a defender of the American right.
Few dispute that a significant subset of any given population is going to regard in-group/out-group
distinctions along the highly imprecise lines of 'race' and ethnicity, or religion. The question,
for some, is what percentage?
The Nikkei article by Stephen Grenville concludes: Over the longer term, the constituency for
globalization has to be rebuilt, the methodology for multilateral trade agreements has to be revived…"
Grenville regards understanding the opposition to globalization by the Trump constituency
as essential. If we are discussing America, we do not need to look to illegal immigration, or
undocumented workers to find hostility to out-group immigrants along religious and ethnic lines.
These tendencies are thrown into sharper relief when this hostility is directed towards
successfully assimilated immigrants of a different color who threaten the current occupants of
a space – witness the open racism and hostility displayed towards Japanese immigrants on the west
coast 1900-1924, or so. A similar level of hostility is sometimes/often displayed towards Koreans.
The out-grouping in Japan is tiered and extends to ethnicity and language of groups within
the larger Japanese community, as it does in the UK, although not as commonly along religious
lines as it does elsewhere.
Generally, I think John is right. The term 'racist' no longer carries any of the stigma
it once held in part because the term is deployed so cynically and freely as to render it practically
meaningless. HRC and Bill and their supporters (including me, at one time) are racists for as
long as its convenient and politically expedient to call them racists. Once that moment has passed,
the term 'racist' is withdrawn and replaced with something like Secretary of State, or some other
such title.
I've no clear 'solution' other than to support a more exact and thoughtful discussion of the
causes of fear and anxiety that compels people to bind together into in-groups and out-groups,
and to encourage the fearful to take a few risks now and again.
I've no clear 'solution' other than to support a more exact and thoughtful discussion of the causes
of fear and anxiety that compels people to bind together into in-groups and out-groups, and to
encourage the fearful to take a few risks now and again.
Here's my take on this. The question
to ask is why has this happened? European workers have done much better in the new global
economy.(The problems in Europe center around mass migration of people who resist assimilation
and adoption of a Humanistic world view.) The answer is simple and horrifying.
A large percentage of American workers consistently vote against their own interest which
has allowed the republican party in service to a powerful elite billionaire class form a
reliable cadre of highly visible and highly vocal deplorables which even though slightly less
than half the population of those who bother to vote have virtually shut down democratic safeguards
which could have mitigated what has happened due to globalization. The combination of these
reliable cadre of deplorables , controlled by faux news and hate radio , and the lack of political
engagement by the low income Americans , has essentially turned power over to the billionaire
class.
... ... ...
Alesis 10.30.16 at 12:13 pm
A strategy that doesn't work inside the tent is DOA outside it. As it stands many liberals (largely
white and this is an important distinction) share with the right a deep discomfort with acknowledging
the centrality of racism to American politics.
Race is the foundational organizing principle
of American life and it represents a considerable strain to keep it in focus. Donald Trump will
win the majority of white voters as the racial resentment coalition has since the 1930s. An effective
strategy for the long term is focused on breaking that near century long hold.
I'd suggest the direct approach. Call racism what it is and ask white voters directly what
good it has done for them lately. Did railing against Mexican rapists brings any jobs back?
Or the racism of the middle class. People are tribal and arguably it is baked into our DNA.
That doesn't excuse the mental laziness of trafficking in stereotypes but one could make a case
that racism is as much a matter of ignorance as of evil character.
Obama with his "bitter clingers" and HIllary with her "deplorables" are talking about people
about whom they probably know almost nothing.
One of the long ago arguments for school integration was that propinquity fosters mutual understanding.
This met with a lot of resistance. And for people like our Pres and would be Pres a broader view
of the electorate would be inconvenient.
Neoconservatism
The Autobiography of an Idea
By Irving Kristol
Irving Kristol has been a formidable presence in American intellectual life for over forty
years. After an early stint as an editor at Commentary, he helped to start three other influential
magazines -- Encounter, in 1953; The Public Interest, in 1965; and The National Interest, in 1985.
A Trotskyist in his student days, Kristol has moved in stages to the right, first becoming
a liberal anticommunist, then a conservative antiliberal. At one point in this evolution, in the
early 1970s, he embraced the label "neoconservative," which the socialist Michael Harrington had
introduced as a pejorative. Since then he has happily made himself so entirely synonymous with
neoconservatism that he now offers his latest collection of essays as its, not his, "autobiography."
But a label is not necessarily evidence of a coherent philosophy, or of a living one. As Kristol
himself acknowledges, neoconservatism has been swallowed by the larger conservative movement--[neoliberalism movement and ideology --NNB].
And his own views have evolved far beyond what he and others originally conceived as neoconservatism.
Several of his early collaborators at The Public Interest, notably Daniel Bell and Daniel Patrick
Moynihan, have long since parted ways. And well they might, considering the tone and substance
of Kristol's writing in recent years.
When neoconservatism first took shape in the late 1960s and '70s, it seemed to be different
from the older varieties of the American right. The Public Interest, and Kristol himself, accepted
the New Deal, but rejected the political and cultural currents of the '60s.
Yet even with
respect to the policies of that era, their stance was meliorism, not repudiation. They presented
themselves as defending the achievements of a capitalist civilization, often positively described
as liberal and secular, from the assaults of a radicalized liberalism. Nearly all were from New
York, most were Jewish, and they carried with them a sensibility that was urban and modern, even
when arguing on behalf of moral and cultural standards that were traditional or, to use Kristol's
preferred term, "bourgeois."
People who know neoconservatism only from that era might therefore be surprised to read
Kristol's recent fulminations against "secular humanism" and his praise of Christian fundamentalism.
Remembering the calm civility of his earlier essays, they might especially fasten on the following
passage from an article, written in 1993, with which Kristol concludes his new book: "So far from
having ended, my cold war has increased in intensity, as sector after sector of American life
has been ruthlessly corrupted by the liberal ethos.... Now that the other 'Cold War' is over,
the real cold war has begun." ...
The Myth of the Powell Memo
A secret note from a future Supreme Court justice did not give rise to today's conservative infrastructure.
Something more insidious did.
By Mark Schmitt
At one end of a block of Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, D.C., sometimes known as "Think
Tank Row"-the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Brookings Institution are neighbors-a
monument to intellectual victory has been under reconstruction for a year. It will soon be the
home of the American Enterprise Institute, a 60,000-square-foot Beaux-Arts masterpiece where Andrew
Mellon lived when he was treasury secretary during the 1920s. AEI purchased the building with
a $20 million donation from one of the founders of the Carlyle Group, a private-equity firm.
Right Moves
The Conservative Think Tank in American Political Culture Since 1945
By Jason Stahl
In the story of the rise of the political right in America since the late 1970s, think tanks,
and sometimes the glorious edifices in which they are housed, have played an iconic role. The
Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the libertarian Cato Institute, along
with their dozens of smaller but well-funded cousins, have seemed central to the "war of ideas"
that drove American policy in the 1980s, in the backlash of 1994, in the George W. Bush era, and
again after 2010.
For the center left, these institutions have become role models. While Brookings or the Urban
Institute once eschewed ideology in favor of mild policy analysis or dispassionate technical assessment
of social programs, AEI and Heritage seemed to build virtual war rooms for conservative ideas,
investing more in public relations than in scholarship or credibility, and nurturing young talent
(or, more often, the glib but not-very-talented). Their strategy seemed savvier. Conservative
think tanks nurtured supply-side economics, neoconservative foreign policy, and the entire agenda
of the Reagan administration, which took the form of a twenty-volume tome produced by Heritage
in 1980 called Mandate for Leadership.
In the last decade or so, much of the intellectual architecture of the conservative think tanks
has been credited to a single document known as the Powell Memo. This 1971 note from future Supreme
Court Justice Lewis Powell to a Virginia neighbor who worked at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce urged
business to do more to respond to the rising "New Left," countering forces such as Ralph Nader's
nascent consumer movement in the courts, in media, and in academia....
DeDude -> anne... , -1
The part where the neo-con-men get the scientific process wrong is where they begin with the conclusion,
before they even collect any facts. And then they whine that Universities are full of Liberals.
No they are full of scientists - and they are supposed to be.
Rank Name Donations
1 Tom Steyer $38 million
2 Donald Sussman $23.4 million
3 Miriam & Sheldon Adelson $21.5 million
4 Robert Mercer $20.2 million
5 Michael Bloomberg $20.1 million
6 Fred Eychaner $20 million
7 Paul Singer $17.3 million
8 George Soros $16.5 million
9 Maurice "Hank" Greenberg $15.1 million
10 Elizabeth & Richard Uihlein $14 million
"...That is, even central banks that follow some kind of Taylor rule in a flexible inflation-targeting
regime are susceptible to the knowledge problem...
The biggest information challenge comes from attempting to measure the output gap in real
time. The output gap is the difference between the economy's actual and potential level of output
and is subject to two big measurement problems.
First, real-time output data generally get revised and often on the same order of magnitude
as the estimated output gap itself.
Second, potential output estimates are based on trends that rely on ever-changing endpoints.
Orphanides finds the latter problem to be the biggest contributor to real-time misperceptions
of the output gap. This means that even if real-time data improved such that there were fewer
revisions, there would still be a sizable problem measuring the real-time output gap."
Conservative ideologues tell us government/central planners are inefficient because of the
"knowledge problem." Well so are private sector central planners. See the big banks and the housing
bubble/financial crisis. Or Samsung and its exploding Note 7. Or Volkswagon and its cheating on
benchmark tests.
This "output gap" is another rightwing diversion. It is useful to them precisely because it
is impossible to measure and therefore people can argue about it ad infinitum.
Meanwhile we have a lot of people who can't get a decent job at a living wage. That can
be easily measured and it could be easily remedied. And it is what average people actually care
about. So they want to make sure that isn't discussed. They want to discuss something with no
clear answer instead.
"Former Fed Vice Chairman Alan Blinder said he's skeptical that fiscal policy will be loosened
a great deal if Clinton wins the election, as seems likely based on recent voter surveys.
"She is promising not to make budget deficits bigger by her programs," said Blinder, who is
now a professor at Princeton University. "Whatever fiscal stimulus there is ought to be small
enough for the Fed practically to ignore it.""
Blinder is skeptical that Clinton will do enough to force the Fed to modulate their plans,
even though PGL and Sanjait tell us otherwise.
Clinton's infrastructure plans should be "substantially" larger as Krugman and Summers write.
This would help close the output gap. This would help with the job market and increasing incomes
and lowering personal debt loads.
But PGL can't admit this because he's a petulant child who thinks Germany still uses the Deutsche
Mark.
"The recent decision by the Fed to raise interest rates is the latest example of the rigged
economic system. Big bankers and their supporters in Congress have been telling us for years that
runaway inflation is just around the corner. They have been dead wrong each time. Raising interest
rates now is a disaster for small business owners who need loans to hire more workers and Americans
who need more jobs and higher wages. As a rule, the Fed should not raise interest rates until
unemployment is lower than 4 percent. Raising rates must be done only as a last resort - not to
fight phantom inflation."
"... The international community considers backroom corporate trade deals as one example of the general problem of fragmentation. The US government tries to end-run the UN Charter with NATO. It tries to end-run ILO conventions with the WTO. It tries to end-run economic and social rights with ISDS. It tries to end-run sovereign debt principles (e.g. A/69/L.84) with the Paris Club and the IMF. In response, the international community has been working to synthesize the different legal regimes in an objective way. ..."
"... Corporate special pleading gets subsumed in old-time diplomacy, finding common ground, so the pitched-battle narrative is absent, but when Zayas comes out and says ISDS cannot negate human rights, this is the context. They're trying to preserve a non-hierarchical regime in which the only absolute is the purposes and principles of the UN: peace and development, which comes down to human rights. ..."
The international community considers backroom corporate trade deals as one example of
the general problem of fragmentation. The US government tries to end-run the UN Charter with NATO.
It tries to end-run ILO conventions with the WTO. It tries to end-run economic and social rights
with ISDS. It tries to end-run sovereign debt principles (e.g. A/69/L.84) with the Paris Club
and the IMF. In response, the international community has been working to synthesize the different
legal regimes in an objective way.
Corporate special pleading gets subsumed in old-time diplomacy, finding common ground,
so the pitched-battle narrative is absent, but when Zayas comes out and says ISDS cannot negate
human rights, this is the context. They're trying to preserve a non-hierarchical regime in which
the only absolute is the purposes and principles of the UN: peace and development, which comes
down to human rights.
What I do not get is how one can call himself/herself a democrat and be jingoistic monster.
That's the problem with Democratic Party and its supporters. Such people for me are DINO ("Democrats
only in name"). Closet neocons, if you wish. The level of militarism in the current US society
and MSM is really staggering. anti-war forces are completely destroyed (with the abandonment of
draft) and are limited for libertarians (such as Ron Paul) and paleoconservatives. There is almost
completely empty space on the left. Dennis Kucinich is one of the few exceptions
(see
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/10/27/must-read-of-the-day-dennis-kucinich-issues-extraordinary-warning-on-d-c-s-think-tank-warmongers/
)
I think that people like Robert Kagan, Victoria Nuland and Dick Cheney can now proudly join
Democratic Party and feel themselves quite at home.
BTW Hillary is actually very pleasant with people of the same level. It's only subordinates,
close relatives and Security Service agents, who are on the receiving end of her wrath. A typical
"kiss up, kick down personality".
The right word probably would not "nasty", but "duplicitous".
Or "treacherous" as this involves breaking of previous agreements (with a smile) as the USA
diplomacy essentially involves positioning the country above the international law. As in "I am
the law".
Obama is not that different. I think he even more sleazy then Hillary and as such is more difficult
to deal with. He also is at his prime, while she is definitely past hers:
== quote ==
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday it was hard for him to work with the current
U.S. administration because it did not stick to any agreements, including on Syria.
Putin said he was ready to engage with a new president however, whoever the American people
chose, and to discuss any problem.
== end of quote ==
Syria is an "Obama-approved" adventure, is not it ? The same is true for Libya. So formally
he is no less jingoistic then Hillary, Nobel Peace price notwithstanding.
Other things equal, it might be easier for Putin to deal with Hillary then Obama, as she
has so many skeletons in the closet and might soon be impeached by House.
Identity politics provides cover for, and diversion from, class rule and from the deeper structures
of class, race, gender, empire, and eco-cide that haunt American and global life today – structures
that place children of liberal white North Side Chicago professionals in posh 40 th -story
apartments overlooking scenic Lake Michigan while consigning children of felony-branded Black custodians
and fast food workers to cramped apartments in crime-ridden South Side neighborhoods where nearly
half the kids are growing up at less than half the federal government's notoriously inadequate poverty
level. Most of the Black kids in deeply impoverished and hyper-segregated neighborhoods like Woodlawn
and Englewood (South Side) or North Lawndale and Garfield Park (West Side) can forget not only about
going to a World Series game but even about watching one on television. Their parents don't have
cable and the Fox Sports 1 channel. There's few if any local restaurants and taverns with big-screen
televisions in safe walking distance from their homes. Major League Baseball ticket prices being
what they are, few of the South Side kids have even seen the White Sox – Chicago's South Side American
League team, whose ballpark lacks the affluent white and gentrified surroundings of Wrigley Field.
(Thanks in no small part to the urban social geography of race and class in Chicago, the White Sox
winning the World Series in 2005 – thei
... ... ...
There is, yes, I know, the problem of Democrats in the White House functioning to stifle social movements
and especially peace activism (the antiwar movement has still yet to recover from the Obama experience).
But there's more good news here about a Hillary presidency. Not all Democratic presidents are equally
good at shutting progressive activism down. As the likely Green Party presidential candidate Jill
Stein (for whom I took five minutes to early vote in a "contested state" three weeks ago) noted in
an interview with me last April (when the White Sox still held first place in their division), Hillary
Clinton will have considerably less capacity to deceive and bamboozle progressive and young workers
and citizens than Barack Obama enjoyed in 2007-08 . "Obama," Stein noted, was fairly new on the
scene. Hillary," by contrast, "has been a warmonger who never found a war she didn't love forever!"
Hillary's corporatist track record – ably documented in Doug Henwood's book
My
Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency (her imperial track record receives equally
impressive treatment in Diana Johnstone's volume
Queen of Chaos:
The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton ) – is also long and transparently bad. All that and
Mrs. Clinton's remarkable lacks of charisma and trustworthiness could be useful for left activism
and politics in coming years.
For what it's worth, the first and most urgent place to restore such activism and politics
is in the area where Barack Obama has been most deadening: foreign policy, also known (when conducted
by the U.S.) as imperialism. When it comes to prospects for World War III, it is by no means clear
that the saber-rattling, regime-changing, NATO-expanding, and Russia-baiting Hillary Clinton is the
"lesser evil" compared to the preposterous Trump. That's no small matter. During a friend's birthday
party the night the Cubs clinched the National League pennant, I asked fellow celebrants and inebriates
if they were prepared for the fundamental realignment of the space-time continuum that was coming
when the North Siders won the league championship. That was a joke, of course, but there's nothing
funny about the heightened chances of a real downward existential adjustment resulting from war between
nuclear superpowers when the "lying neoliberal warmonger" Hillary Clinton gets into office and insists
on recklessly imposing a so-called no-fly zone over Russia-allied Syria.
"... In two party politics, generally political parties are mediating institutions, which moderate the claims of the interest groups composing them. However, when it switches to immutable characteristics, political parties become the vehicles of extremism, as each party tries to the "outbid" the other party in claims for dominance for its members. Further, each victory by the rival party spurs fears and polarization by the losers. Generally, you see de-stablization and violence in its wake. Its a good way to destroy a democracy. ..."
Then comes the final punchline, "Lives That Matter." Obviously, the answer to the question
is "black." But Doug has "a lot to say about this." Which suggests that he doesn't think the answer
is that simple. Perhaps he thinks "all lives matter," or that "blue lives matter," the phrasing
used by those who defend the status quo of policing and criminal justice. Either way, this puts
him in direct conflict with the black people he's befriended. As viewers, we know that "Black
Lives Matter" is a movement against police violence, for the essential safety and security of
black Americans. It's a demand for fair and equal treatment as citizens, as opposed to a pervasive
assumption of criminality.
Thompson, Zamata, and Jones might see a lot to like in Doug, but if he can't sign on to the
fact that black Americans face unique challenges and dangers, then that's the end of the game.
Tucked into this six-minute sketch is a subtle and sophisticated analysis of American politics.
It's not that working blacks and working whites are unable to see the things they have in common;
it's that the material interests of the former-freedom from unfair scrutiny, unfair detention,
and unjust killings-are in direct tension with the identity politics of the latter (as represented
in the sketch by the Trump hat). And in fact, if Hanks' character is a Trump supporter, then all
the personal goodwill in the world doesn't change the fact that his political preferences are
a direct threat to the lives and livelihoods of his new friends, a fact they recognize.
What Bouie doesn't seem to get is that black identity politics and the preferences of those who
espouse them are a direct threat to the livelihoods and interests of many whites - and even, at times,
their lives (
hello, Brian Ogle! ).
Consider this insanity from Michigan State University, pointed out by a reader this morning. It's
the Facebook page of Which Side
Are You On? , radical student organization whose stated purpose is:
Michigan State University has chosen to remain silent on the issue of racial injustice and
police brutality. We demand that the administration release a statement in support of the Movement
for Black Lives; and, in doing so, affirms the value of the lives of its students, alumni, and
future Spartans of color while recognizing the alienation and oppression that they face on campus.
In the absence of open support, MSU is taking the side of the oppressor.
Got that? Either 100 percent agree with them, or you are a racist oppressor. It's fanatical, and
it's an example of bullying. But as we have seen over the past year, year and a half, Black Lives
Matter and related identity politics movements (Which Side Are You On? says it is not affiliated
with BLM) are by no means only about police brutality. If they were, this wouldn't be a hard call.
No decent person of any race supports police brutality. To use Bouie's terms, the material interests
of non-progressive white people are often in direct tension with the identity politics of many blacks
and their progressive non-black allies. This is true beyond racial identity politics. It's true of
LGBT identity politics also. But progressives can't see that, because to them, what they do is not
identity politics; it's just politics.
You cannot practice and extol identity politics for groups favored by progressives without
implicitly legitimizing identity politics for groups disfavored by progressives.
Some of my best friends are supporters of police brutality.
In all seriousness, if one's identity preference is for dominance by your group, then obviously,
a member of your group dominating the other group isn't going to bother you. Nor, on the other
side, will you be troubled if your group shoots perceived agents of the other side. But note,
the justification for racial primacy or racial supremacy is always rhetorically made by asserting
claims or the threat of racial primacy or racial supremacy by the Other. Further, racial tensions
are always caused by the behavior of the Other, and your groups actions are always "self defense".
Of course, your actions are always portrayed as "aggression" by the Other, and lead to ratcheting
up of anti-social behavior, but hey.
I sort of assume that is not how most whites feel, but the reality is whether it is or not,
if you turn the political question from legal equality for blacks to legal primacy or dominance,
then you will push whites into taking the adversary position.
In two party politics, generally political parties are mediating institutions, which moderate
the claims of the interest groups composing them. However, when it switches to immutable characteristics,
political parties become the vehicles of extremism, as each party tries to the "outbid" the other
party in claims for dominance for its members. Further, each victory by the rival party spurs
fears and polarization by the losers. Generally, you see de-stablization and violence in its wake.
Its a good way to destroy a democracy.
I love "Black Lives Matter" as a slogan, because it is ambiguous enough to be either a claim
for dominance or primacy. Obviously, whether a BLM will support the assertion "All Lives Matter"
is a litmus test for whether they are asserting racial supremacy or racial primacy. But plausible
deniability is baked in.
I don't mind identity politics, by which I assume you mean people appealing to voters to vote
for their pet interest because it will help people with a particular set of characteristics or
"identity". This is just people looking out for and lobbying the voting public on their interests,
which is what democracy is all about.
What I don't like is the stunning illogic and flawed reasoning behind some of the appeals,
such as the "you're either with BLM or against black people" arguments, the policing of miniscule
variations in speech (eg pronouns) as signs of haaaaaaaate, and the labeling of all white people
as "white supremacists" unless they self-flagellate and take personal blame for all the police
shootings. And, I think these people know that the reasoning is flawed. It's just that they also
know that if you repeat it long and loud enough and have enough leaders behind you willing to
fire or otherwise silence anyone who points out the flaws in your arguments, then you can convince
everyone that it all makes sense.
I think what is being lost is really the underlying logic of morality itself. Kids are being
taught that it doesn't matter what your intention is, it doesn't matter what your reasoning is,
it doesn't even matter whether an outcome is predictable from your action. What matters is how
the people in identity groups feel about your action. It's consequentialism run amok.
It's as if someone took Catholic reasoning on morality (grave matter, full knowledge, deliberate
consent, don't do wrong things in order to achieve good ends, principle of double effect), reversed
it, and then decided that this upside-down reasoning will be our new publicly mandated morality.
It's fascinating to watch but I feel a bit frightened for my children, because they will have
to deal with this new and deeply flawed public morality.
"Let me explain something to you. Are you sitting down? Because this is going to come as a shock.
Ready? We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics. A lot of people fought
and died to end white supremacy. Replacing it with a form of politics that treats blacks as some
sort of chosen people because of the color of their skin is regress, and puts that progress towards
equal justice for all, regardless of their skin color, in jeopardy."
For the most part, probably a fair observation. And it only took a couple of hundred years
(or more, depending on where you chose to say "white identity politics" started and when (or if)
you chose to say it ended).
Low long have black identity politics had any influence?
How long does it take, and at what "price" to atone for the past? Haven't we been grappling
with that since Lincoln's second inaugural address?
Will black identity politics be around longer than that? And when will white identity politics
end? Not to mention all of the other identity politics in society. But, identity politics always
takes at least two sides. You can never have identity politics without "the other." Black identity
politics wouldn't last without white identity politics, and vice versa. So too for feminism identity
politics, religious identity politics…and…so…on… Each has its counterpart on the other side.
In a perfect world, identity politics would not exist, but in the real world, they have existed
for as long as politics.
Not that I don't see some hope. By and large, the younger generation gives me every hope that,
some day, we might get over this, but probably not until a few score more generational replacements
happen. But that too, might be a source of reassurance. A few score generations isn't really that
long a time, after all.
How in the blue blazes do you possibly do you go from folks having confidence in the police
to them ALSO NOT being bothered by police brutality? How are those two things linked in your mind?
Can you not possibly fathom that another human being could have confidence in an institution (or
a group) while ALSO condemning the bad actors in that institution (or group)? Or in your mind
do a few bad actors condemn an entire group?
Here is your "logic" re-written in another way. Does it help you see my point?
61% of non-white people have either "very little" or a "no" of confidence in the police. I'm not
saying all 61% of those people are OK with attacking or murdering the police, but they seem not
to be that bothered by it.
Now possibly I am the only who finds your thought process disturbing and wonders how many other
folks make the same leap of absurdity.
In reply the religious liberty comments, I think almost everyone who supports BLM would say that
it is about giving African Americans basic human rights in the United States. You might not agree
with that, but that's how things stand from their point of view. To many liberals, religious liberty
seems like special pleading, even though to you it seems like the advancement of a universal principal.
"Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing
another." Karl Marx
"All that is not race in this world is trash… All historical events… are only the expression
of the race's instinct of self-preservation." Adolf Hitler
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly
and applying the wrong remedies." Groucho Marx
I do not think that all politics is "identity" politics.
The Populists going after the gold standard, or the New Dealers attempting to deal with the
problems of labor and capital, where not primarily about identity politics.
Certainly, there was lots of identity politics on the state level, whether in the South, or
in states like NY, in the battle between upstate WASPs and ethnic political machines in NYC.
Today we are increasingly nationalizing identity politics. Moreover, we are mainstreaming a
slogan based on racial primacy /supremacy, e.g. "Black Lives Matter". You are seeing increasing
attacks on traditional American symbols and calls for their replacement with "diverse" symbols.
This is not just identity politics, it is ethnopolitics.
The reality is that the political symbol is in the heart of the people a promise that they'll
be treated preferentially. I think that is part of the racial tension post-Obama. We elected an
African-American, who appointed a lot of African-Americans, but on the street, he hasn't done
$#!+ to help Blacks.
Now, if I thought that whites would just lay down and not resist racial subjugation and discrimination,
I wouldn't be concerned. But I doubt whites are seriously going to go gracefully into that good
night as the bottom rung of a racial caste system.
"Virtue signaling" is very different from "virtue"–you can't tell a white nationalist from
a white liberal based on their housing or dating preferences.
If whites collectively grow to FEAR other groups politically, say due to demographic displacement
and claims by minorities for primacy/supremacy, they will change teams overnight. All this anti-racism
rhetoric presupposes white noblese oblige and security.
Any serious movement from equality to some claim of primacy or supremacy is likely to trigger
a counter-movement toward a claim of primacy or supremacy by the other group. Moreover, once you
polarize racially, the political process encourages extremism, not moderation.
One reason not to worship the U.S. Constitution is the limited understanding of factionalism
by Madison, who accounted for interest group factions (which can break up or wax and wane) but
failed to consider identity group factions based on immutable characteristics. It is these identity-based
factions which frequently destroy attempts to create liberal democracy the world over.
The reality is that representative democracy is only an effective system in ethnically homogeneous
societies with a strong ethic of individualism (rooted in Protestant ancestors). While Korea and
Japan get along politically, their political systems are "different" from a Western perspective,
mostly due to lower levels of individualism.
China is probably a better model for most countries than liberal democracy, because multiethnic
societies generally degenerate into authoritarianism anyway.
This is why, given multiculturalism and secularism, the likelihood of a serious institutional
transformation in America seems increasingly a certain bet.
Here's the brutal truth. We created Black Lives Matter.
We did it with 400 years of brutal policies, physical violence, economic apartheid and ill
conceived do gooder nonsense that could not even begin to counter the former impacts.
In the 1950's and 1960's you had one branch of the Federal Government - the Federal Housing
Authority– both building low income housing in the decaying neighborhoods that were the result
of FHA red-lining polices that were was causing the decay - total madness. The black community
has yet to recover from that by the way - trillions in lost equity in today's dollars.
We are incredibly lucky to JUST have Black Lives Matter. It's a miracle that the black community
hasn't amassed in force and burned large swaths of this country to the ground peppering us with
automatic weapons fire along the way for good measure.
It's a testament to their fortitude, generosity and patience as a people. That they have formed
this group is inevitable.
To lump BLM in with the white coddled SJW ignores their unique history and context. BLM has
no obligation whatsoever to be rational, or contrite, or forgiving, or magnanimous.
What has that ever gotten them in this country? Here's a hint, f%$k all. That's what it's gotten
them.
[NFR: Well, BLM can behave however it wants to, but don't be surprised if being irrational
and bullying gets you nowhere, except on campus run by noodle-spined administrators. - RD]
On the other hand, the notion of color-blind standards is a joke.
If you belong to a group that has an average IQ of 100 in economic competition with a group
that has an average IQ of 85, and you believe that hiring/firing be based on merit, you are promoting
a standard that benefits your group over the other guys.
Likewise, if you are from the second group, you are arguing for proportional representation
in the work force (and especially the elite), and you are promoting a standard that benefits your
group over the other guys.
If you look at Anglo-Saxons v. Blacks, Anglo-Saxons always want meritocracy.
However, if you look at elite admissions in the early 20th Century, when Anglo-Saxons were
competing against Jews, they implemented a quota system that benefited Anglo-Saxons. They also
generated a lot of Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories blaming their failures on Jewish nepotism,
rather than say Jews just being smarter.
The problem for America is someone will decide on a standard, and that decision will privilege
one group over another. Always.
The more groups, the more divisive and polarizing each decision becomes, until democracy stops
being capable of functioning, e.g. making decisions, even bad ones.
You can have "racial equality", but not "racial equality" in accordance with a definition that
all groups will ever agree upon. Further, many persons in all groups will secretly desire supremacy
no matter the rhetoric, so will work to undermine and limit nominal "equality" every political
chance they get.
" A lot of people fought and died to end white supremacy"
And what has it done? American social capital has been destroyed, our society is slowly turning
into an atomized hell, and our politics will increasingly resemble tribal warfare. The fiction
that we could make race irrelevant needs to die, group differences are real and ethnic tribalism
is hardwired into humans by our DNA. Our founders chose to limit citizenship to whites of good
character for a reason, just as Japan seeks to remain Japanese for a reason. Diversity + close
proximity = war
All politics is not identity politics. America has a rich tradition in positions of relative privilege
taking on the political cause of disenfranchised groups.
Given how many well off white people, including men, are Democrats, I really don't see why
progressives would even make that argument.
This article showed me how many people in the US live a completely different life than I do. Not
only did it change my understanding of race relations and prompt a great deal more study but it
made me more aware, generally, of how little I know of how the other 99.9% live.
Lots of hypocrites in this comment thread commenting that "identity politics is just politics,
period." Okay, white nationalism it is, then! Time to bring David Duke back out from whatever
rock he's been under and put him at the top of the ticket. Maybe Louis Farrakhan can run for something,
too. After all, why would anti-semitism ever go out of fashion, anyway! Isnt' that just identity
politics which is just regular politics, like marginal tax cuts and subsidies for electric cars?
-I don't think it's that difficult to understand the anger, stridency, and even vitriol coming
from SJW/BLM supporters. With BLM, it's a mostly righteous indignation over a long history of
abusive police tactics and laws, exploded by multiple recent captured instances of police abuse.
As for LGBTQ-issues, I think many advocates–especially those in the vanguard–view themselves
as participants in the Second Civil Rights Movement–that the laws and cultural attitudes they
are fighting against are analogous to Jim Crow and racism. There is some degree of truth to this.
The danger comes with the disturbingly common–or at least effective–practice of refusing to
grant their opponents *any* goodwill. Like racists, opponents of full legal and cultural inclusion–if
not acceptance–are deemed to be totally devoid of any redeeming features, and thus ought to be
opposed relentlessly and by any means necessary. The same goes for those who aren't indulgent
or repentant enough. We can partly thank the poisonous legacy of Marcuse's "tolerance" for this.
We can also thank old-fashioned lust for power–especially to take down "the elite" or to take
revenge–and the intoxicating feeling of being on the cutting edge of righteousness.
How do you deal with this? As KD suggested above, if one group sees itself as against others
and acts accordingly, then those others will fall into the "tribal struggle" mindset as well.
If extremist social justice advocates (SJAs) define themselves in opposition to other attitudes,
values, etc–and more importantly, if they refuse to engage in respectful dialogue and are not
willing to compromise–then those who endorse those attitudes, values, etc will inevitably see
themselves as being defined through opposition to SJAs. Thus the poison of identity politics–it
exacerbates, rather than seeks to contain Us vs Them antagonism.
The only ways I see out of it are direct, full-throated defenses of SJA's targets–such as last
year's "Coddling of the American Mind" and U Chicago's defense of free expression and respectful
challenging debate. Ignoring it–as many seem wont to do by dismissals of "oh, they're just stupid
college kids, they'll grow out of it"–isn't viable because though many will, some will pursue
positions of power and influence. Besides, the less challenged, the more the extreme views will
be seen as respectable if not correct.
-The debate over which groups are or are not practicing identity politics: In (academic) political
theory, "identity politics" narrowly refers to a style of politics based on the self-organization
of *oppressed* groups and pursuit of policy changes to their advantage. Identity comes to the
forefront of members of oppressed groups' consciousness because it is that defining characteristic
that puts them in an inferior position.
The way some have described it here suggests it's more like practicing politics in a way meant
to provide benefits for oneself–but that's just self-interest. A better broad view of identity
politics would focus on the deliberate and open advocacy of benefits for a particular group one
is a member of, when that group is defined by a specific and fundamental trait relevant to one's
sense of self. In other words, if the phrase "As a (adjective) (personal-characteristic noun),
I believe/support/oppose X" is central to your approach to politics, you're practicing identity
politics.
JWJ, you are missing the entire point of identity politics.
The morality inheres in the identity, not in the behavior.
If brutality occurs, it is not a behavior, it is an identity ("Police"). If you are confident
in "Police" you are thus confident in "brutality" because the behavior is not separable from the
identity. And for similar reasons, your confidence in brutes means that you, too are a brute (of
course this goes double if you are white, since all whites are brutes, for similar reasons).
Identity politics is the refusal to separate identity from acts. Whiteness *is* slaveowning,
blackness *is* victimhood, and so on, regardless of whether one has ever owned or been a slave;
these things are irrelevant; they inhere in the identity.
How long does it take, and at what "price" to atone for the past? Haven't we been grappling
with that since Lincoln's second inaugural address?
But here's the problem. It's not like the whites who are supporting Trump got fat, rich and
happy during their period of "white identity." Whatever privilege attaches to whiteness it hasn't
exactly trickled down (even in a Trumped-up fashion) to Trump voters. No doubt Mr. Bonner is either
upper middle class or high status (academic, journalist or government employee). But low status
whites see the world a bit differently. This is the real tragedy (or, if you're a fat cat, the
beauty) of the situation. The lower classes will always fight among themselves for scraps, the
high status (but often low pay) elites would scold the various parties for their various thoughtcrimes
and the fat cats will high five and do the truffle shuffle, bouncing their greased bellies against
each other. Thanks for doing your part.
"Now, you can try to make an argument that they are wrong, that they *are* getting equal treatment
from law enforcement and that this is all in their heads. You can try, but in all fairness, the
anecdotal and empirical evidence seem not to be on your side."
No, when correcting for crime rates, there is no racial discrepancy in police killings. In
fact, blacks are underrepresented and whites overrepresent, given the underlying proportion of
criminality in the communities.
"Replacing it with a form of politics that treats blacks as some sort of chosen people because
of the color of their skin is regress,
Who, exactly, is making this argument? Not BLM and not the mainstream liberal political establishment.
"
Uh, Hilary "whites must listen" Clinton. And lots more.
"However, if you look at elite admissions in the early 20th Century, when Anglo-Saxons were competing
against Jews, they implemented a quota system that benefited Anglo-Saxons. "
Why shouldn't the people who, you know, built the universities remain in charge of them? No
one asks Brandeis to become a WASP bastion.
"In the 1950's and 1960's you had one branch of the Federal Government - the Federal Housing Authority–
both building low income housing in the decaying neighborhoods that were the result of FHA red-lining
polices that were was causing the decay - total madness. The black community has yet to recover
from that by the way - trillions in lost equity in today's dollars"
LOL, someone's been drinking the TNC Kool-aid (purple, I imagine). It causes people to reverse
causality.
The neighborhoods were redlined because they were poor risk. They were poor risk because of
their demographic composition.
"It's a miracle that the black community hasn't amassed in force and burned large swaths of this
country to the ground peppering us with automatic weapons fire along the way for good measure."
There's not one word in the BLM guiding principles page about the police. Not one word. If you
go to their home pager and click on "what we believe" this is what you get.
If we would look into how much blacks have been killed by the police last year, the figure will
be about few hundred at maximum. If we would look into the same category for whites, the result
will be few thouthands, minimum. If we look into the statistics abut the main cause of death for
the same period, it will be black on black homicide for blacks and car accident for whites. Also,
blacks are about 13% of the American population or so, but make at least as much homicides as
whites do. And most homicides are comitted within offenders race group.
If anything, whites become targets of poluce brutality much more often. And yet, BLM are out
there preching, as if police is hunting them for no reason. That's everything you need to know
about BLM and their so called care about black lives.
That's the main problems with such groups. They don't really want to improve the lot of the
groups they are supposedly fighting for. They are just exaggerating the problem and imitating
fighting for something important, because they'll get money and recognition for it. Without real
risk to boot.
The BLM radical movement is built on a lie. Blacks are 12% of the population yet commit 53% of
murders and 70% of gun crime. In this era of cell phones, know the number of black people who
have dubious interactions with police, thanks to the scandalous behavior of the news media. We
can be sure police brutality is not an epidemic because the examples offered as evidence are,at
best , dubious. Each example given, eg Ferguson Missouri or Trayvon Martin, are at best arguably
due to the bad behavior by the black person. The real epidemic is black crime, black fatherlessness,
and too many people indulging this "I'm a victim" culture. Shame on you Mr. Dreher for delineation
this into a black and white cipher in this article. The entire country suffers from this epidemic
of black crime and the false narrative that black people are mistreated by society. This is just
another example of the madness on the political left the radical extreme hateful positions that
are exposed on that side it seems solely.
"What Bouie doesn't seem to get is that black identity politics and the preferences of those who
espouse them are a direct threat to the livelihoods and interests of many whites - and even, at
times, their lives (hello, Brian Ogle!)."
OK, livelihoods and interests I can understand even if there's the fact that if you're an average
white dude, an international student, a student with a soccer scholarship, an out of state student,
or a a legacy admission is just as likely to knock you out of your preferred school as a non-white
student is.
However, can you point me to the radio host, politician, TV commentator, or even popular Twitter
celebrity who says the people who killed Brian Ogle should go free?
Because on the other hand, there's plenty of politicians, TV commentators, writers, radio hosts,
etc. who think the police are doing a great job and that police brutality is just a liberal myth.
But in general, the whole paragraph is why for the most part, black Americans will never trust
white conservatives – you seem to imply that black Americans want carte blanche to kill white
people while in reality, black people just want to be treated as well as a confirmed mass murderer
was treated by police – to be fed some Burger King like Dylan Roof perhaps.
A moderate, peaceful, and democratic form of white identity politics that was widely representative
of the white population would be acceptable as far as I am concerned. The problem is that white
nationalists can't go two seconds without demonizing Jews, denying the holocaust, trying to justify
the Confederacy, attacking the basic assumptions of liberal democracy, and admiring various obscure
mid-20th century fascist/pseudo-fascist far right intellectuals. In that sense, white nationalists
are the equivalent of the New Black Panther Party and the Nation of Islam, as opposed to the NAACP
or BLM. That does not mean that BLM and the NAACP are not harmful to the interests of whites,
but they do not advocate a separate black ethnostate, antisemitism, or ethnic cleansing of whites.
Just watched the SNL skit. Best thing they have done all election season. It's important we understand
the motivations behind Trump's rise instead of pushing them under the surface where they fester.
I hate the term "identity politics." Identity politics are politics. Straight white people, even
liberals (hello Bernie bros), often try to exclude themselves from the definition by casting their
own thoughts as neutral while casting everyone with a marked "identity" as practicing identity
politics. People are always speaking from a point of view, and in politics they are usually advocating
to change things that negatively impact a group they are associated with.
How is the fight for "religious liberty" different from BLM? How is it not a form of identity
politics?
I agree that certain groups, especially at the university level, take into a totalitarian direction,
but casting some activism as "identity politics" while excluding other forms of special pleading
makes no sense to me.
I agree that *all* identity politics are a moral poison, white, black, Christian, Muslim, or anything
else. It is a sad fact of human nature that we are tribal and care more for people like ourselves.
This reminds me of the parable of the Good Samaritan. If we are to follow the parable, then
we are to treat others of different religions and different countries exactly as if they our neighbors,
meaning as if they are in our tribe. This is quite the opposite of identity politics.
"freedom from unfair scrutiny, unfair detention, and unjust killings" for blacks…. are a
direct threat to the livelihoods and interests of many whites.
I've moved things around a bit but in essence this is correct.
If I've got this wrong Rod, kindly let me know how.
Huh.
I didn't realize that oppressing blacks was such a huge industry for white people.
It seems somehow relevant in the context of this discussion.
I'm amazed. Truly and utterly amazed. The demand of blacks to be treated like citizens deserving
the respect and protection of the law and agents of the law like everyone else is "a direct threat
to the livelihoods and interests of many whites."
I mean, I know that white supremacy is a thing in the U.S., but is it really that ingrained
and tenacious? Really?
form of white identity politics that was widely representative of the white population
That's an oxymoron. No form of "white identity" politics would be or could be "widely representative
of the white population."
A lot of the black rhetoric we're getting lately is belated recognition that "black people"
don't really have enduring common interests that bind them all, and the defensive necessity to
provide safety for each other in the face of vicious and pervasive persecution just isn't really
strong enough to maintain a tenuous identity or unity much longer. As Jesse B. Semple remarked
when his "white boss" asked "What does The Negro want now?" … there are fifty eleven different
kinds of Negroes in the USA. That's even more true of "whites," always has been, and the hue an
cry that a bit of affirmative action is tantamount to creating a massive common race interest
is just nonsense.
How is the fight for "religious liberty" different from BLM? How is it not a form of identity
politics?
Because religion is a search for truth, and religious liberty affirms that there are lots of
different searches going on, which are neither binding upon nonbelievers, nor to be suppressed
by the skeptical or powerful?
It is nice to see America can laugh about things this year!
While we can be complain about SJWs and BLMs, doesn't the conservative movement need the same
exact lecture here? What was the speech that made Trump popular with Republicans? It was "Mexicans
are rapist" speech that originally made 35 – 40% of the party support him the summer of 2015.
(And Donald's speeches to African-Americans is not the way to win their votes either!)
I almost think the best thing for the Republican Party this year is for Trump to lose Texas
so the Party learns to better respect Hispanic-Americans. (Unlikely to happen though and Texas
is not turning blue long term.)
Jesse: "However, can you point me to the radio host, politician, TV commentator, or even popular
Twitter celebrity who says the people who killed Brian Ogle should go free?
Because on the other hand, there's plenty of politicians, TV commentators, writers, radio hosts,
etc. who think the police are doing a great job and that police brutality is just a liberal myth….
But in general, the whole paragraph is why for the most part, black Americans will never trust
white conservatives – you seem to imply that black Americans want carte blanche to kill white
people while in reality, black people just want to be treated as well as a confirmed mass murderer
was treated by police – to be fed some Burger King like Dylan Roof perhaps."
+1,000.
I'd add that there are commentators, politicians, writers, etc. who seem to think that police
brutality is justified because of crime rates, as though the Constitution, not to mention just
basic fairness and protection against needless violence, applies only to the law-abiding.
"That does not mean that BLM and the NAACP are not harmful to the interests of whites, but they
do not advocate a separate black ethnostate, "
If they did, they'd be working for the interests of whites.
[NFR: You longtime readers know that I reject M_Young's white identity politics. I want
to take this opportunity to remind you all that when you cheer on left-wing, racial and sexual
identity politics, you implicitly cheer on his. - RD]
There is a literature on the collective behavior of groups in cooperation/competition models.
Groups (even artificial ones created by randomly assigning college undergraduates) will compete
to maximize their relative power against other groups, even if it leads to collectively a lower
standard of living (in other words, they would rather be relatively richer in a poorer world than
than relatively poorer in a richer world).
In interest group politics, say labor v. capital, you have groups which, while fighting each
other for power, are permeable. People move from one group or the other, and even if they don't,
it is possible to move.
Identity groups are based on putatively immutable characteristics. In identity politics, identity
groups struggle against each other for dominance. Claims can be of three varieties: equality ("All
Lives Matter"), primacy ("Black Lives Matter"), and dominance ("Only Black Lives Matter").
When political parties are defined on identity grounds, elections become censuses rather than
"free" elections. You vote for the party that represents your group, because you are afraid of
dominance by the other group. Further, you justify claims for primacy or dominance based on fears
about the relative power of the other group.
Political systems that polarize on identity end up in a census election where the winning coalition
of groups dominates the other groups, and the group in the electoral minority has no possibility
of exercising power. Because elections are censuses, and you don't have the numbers. What typically
happens is that minorities turn to violence, and often racial unrest results in military rule.
It is pretty clear that multiculturalism is precipitating the resurgence of identity politics,
and if we believe the polls, that trend is about to accelerate. Further, ethnic polarization of
one political party always triggers ethnic polarization in other parties, even over elite objections,
as it becomes necessary to appeal to voters.
This is why some version the Alt-Right represents the future of Conservative politics, even
if the Conservative Establishment doesn't like the Alt-Right. It is structural, and you see the
same type of political dynamic in Nigeria, Sri Lanka, post-Independence India, as well as places
like the Ottoman Empire or Germany.
What is fueling the Alt-Right is the policies around immigration and non-assimilation/multiculturalism,
combined with demands for racial primacy and racial dominance by minorities (e.g. safe spaces
where others are forcibly excluded).
It could be halted today, but instead we are doubling down on the root causes of ethnic anxieties.
Further, I don't know what would be "Left-Wing" about pushing whites into a white ethnic voting
block intended to subordinate opponents, given their majority status for a few decades, and even
as a plurality, they would have the largest plurality.
Much as many people desire "racial equality", when one group argues for "primacy", politically,
you are never going to get "equality" unless a rival group claims primacy for itself. This is
basic bargaining theory. Hence, the inevitability of white with egalitarian preferences going
over toward white nationalism. Unfortunately, the most probable result will be greater polarization,
not compromise.
P.S. Yes, I understand "racial primacy" for certain racial groups means "racial equality",
just as "war is peace".
"I hate the term "identity politics." Identity politics are politics. Straight white people,
even liberals (hello Bernie bros), often try to exclude themselves from the definition by casting
their own thoughts as neutral while casting everyone with a marked "identity" as practicing identity
politics. People are always speaking from a point of view, and in politics they are usually advocating
to change things that negatively impact a group they are associated with.
How is the fight for "religious liberty" different from BLM? How is it not a form of identity
politics?"
Exactly.
The phrase "identity politics" is meant to render illegitimate the concerns of the person who
is accused of practicing them. Thus, people don't have to grapple with the actual issue and see
whether or not there's a legitimate problem that needs to be addressed. Rod spends a lot of time
here complaining about the failings of Black Lives Matter, and very little acknowledging that
they have a very legitimate issue that they are pushing to solve.
Religious liberty is not strictly identity politics, because religious affiliations in American
society are voluntary. However, religious preferences are pretty inelastic, so you have approximate
features of identity politics.
However, LGBT ideology claims "sexual orientation" is an immutable characteristic. So LGBT
is identity politics.
In some Islamic societies, apostacy is punished by death, so Islam is pretty immutable. So
in a strict Muslim society seeking to crack down on alcohol sales, the crack down would be an
exercise in identity politics, even if alcohol vendors weren't an identity group.
How is the fight for "religious liberty" different from BLM? How is it not a form of identity
politics?
Religious liberty is a universal freedom and it applies to all, including atheists and agnostics.
(and, contrary to the narrative, being itself a civic right, it doesn't impinge on other "civil
rights")
Identity politics, on the other hand, is the fostering of tribalism. It's a degrading thing: it
considers humans as dogs that have to bite at each other to get a greater share of the kibble
bowl.
If you look at politics post-independence in Trinidad and Guyana, or Sri Lanka, you see the emergence
of ethnic identity politics converting Communist and Socialist parties, and their leaders, from
universalist political programs to ethnic-based programs, depending on what ethnic groups they
derived more political support from.
Although, I suppose some people think that because America is majority white, the same kind
of political trends won't play out here. I think human nature is human nature, and identity politics
is identity politics, and the result is never good for someone.
"No decent person of any race supports police brutality"
I've known FAR too many "decent" middle and upper-middle class burb-dwellers who are perfectly
comfortable with police brutality. They believe that citizens get the policing they deserve. Rodney
King? "If you saw the entire tape, not just the excerpt on the evening news, you'd understand
why the officers acted that way". Black Lives Matter? "All they have to do is follow the law and
not disrespect the police". Unarmed, non-threatening, law-abiding minority killed by police? "There
must be more to the story".
moral blindness? all politics is identity politics. the fact that white, Christian, property-owning,
heterosexual, males looked out for their interests for the first 200+ years of the plutocracy
was identity politics in spades. the push-back from BLM, NOW, the LGBT community, and even Trump
supporters are as well. I had a very good History professor in the 80's. he taught politics is
merely a group or individual looking out for its vested, economic interests. the Karl Marx vs.
Adam Smith stuff (ideology) is merely a demographic extension of this. what you call identity
politics is more about the relationship between wealth and power, than left or right.
It is certainly a peculiar advance that in a country founded on identity color politics those
who have benefited and manipulated color politics to their advantage in every way --
are finding logical flaws in the very system they have created for themselves.
On its face - should raise serious doubts about the veracity of the complaint.
"No decent person of any race supports police brutality." Explain what you mean by "decent" person.
This is a term similar to the term "elites" be bandied about in this election without anyone saying
who they include in that group. All I get in response to my inquiries are quotations from dictionaries.
So, please explain what is meant by "decent person."
[NFR: If you believe it's okay for the police to brutalize people because of their race,
or to brutalize anyone, you are not a decent person, in my view. - RD]
This bit is much better than everything else SNL has commented on the 2016 election. I still think
SNL caters way too much to African American chauvinism though.
How much traction would BLM have if it were not funded by George Soros?, or any other identity
group if they had not been funded by billionaires with an interest in destabilizing the American
polity??
BTW, although it is not necessarily identity politics, the political principle that groups maximize
their relative power over say the welfare of the totality also explains the problem of elites.
All elites want to maximize their relative power over other groups, and so it is really competition
(e.g. fear of revolution or being conquered) that keeps them "honest", otherwise they will grind
the common man down to subsidence if they have the chance.
All of American history includes the strong presence of white identity politics.
Stop pretending otherwise. What else explains racialized chattel slavery and Jim crow and redlining
and so forth?
[NFR: Let me explain something to you. Are you sitting down? Because this is going to come
as a shock. Ready? We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics. A lot of
people fought and died to end white supremacy. Replacing it with a form of politics that treats
blacks as some sort of chosen people because of the color of their skin is regress, and puts that
progress towards equal justice for all, regardless of their skin color, in jeopardy. - RD]
…to be fed some Burger King like Dylan Roof perhaps.
You're either ignorant of the context of that situation, or you're deliberately taking it out
of context. Roof was arrested by a tiny police department and held until the FBI showed up. He
was arrested after 10pm and had not eaten for a while. The police department didn't even have
the facilities to prepare a meal. Instead of automatically being suspicious, maybe you should
consider that the police were making sure to not do something that could harm the prosecution
in such an important case.
But that's how it's done, huh? Exaggerate things to the extreme, and then wonder why white
people don't understand.
"Black Lives Matter and related identity politics movements (Which Side Are You On? says it is
not affiliated with BLM) are by no means only about police brutality."
Yep. It's also about Israeli "genocide" of Palestinians, if you haven't heard:
http://bit.ly/2eJeXDZ
I remember libertarians complaining in the aughts that it was almost impossible to partake
in antiwar demonstrations with the left because it was never about MERELY war. Environmental degradation,
environmental racism (yes, that's a thing), and all manner of other unrelated items were seen
as a mandatory part of what naive libertarians thought was the goal of simply extracting the US
military from the Middle East.
Ideology is a helluva thing. It's an all-encompassing worldview that looks bizarre to people
who aren't already steeped in one.
[NFR: Let me explain something to you. Are you sitting down? Because this is going to come as
a shock. Ready? We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics. A lot of people
fought and died to end white supremacy. Replacing it with a form of politics that treats blacks
as some sort of chosen people because of the color of their skin is regress, and puts that progress
towards equal justice for all, regardless of their skin color, in jeopardy. - RD]
Let me explain something to you too! I'd ask you to sit down, but you're probably already in
your fainting couch!
We have, sort of, in some parts of the country, in some ways moved away from white identity
politics! Just because white identity politics doesn't look like lynching doesn't mean it doesn't
exist.
All politics is identity politics! Why wouldn't it be? We create visions of the good and we
view it through our prism of identity. The fact that in our nation the axis about race doesn't
change that it does exist.
And no one is asking for 'blacks' to be treated as some chosen people – at even the most exaggerated,
most 'blacks' are asking for some acknowledgement that racial damage was done and it's going to
take racially conscious solutions (and some people like reparations!).
But also, here's the reality – the damage to large groups of people in this country was explicitly
because of who they were. Why would the solutions necessarily be universal?
If we both could have had 5, but then I was allowed to unfairly steal 4 from you, it wouldn't
then be fair if my solution to the problem was to give both of us 5 again.
Quote: Taken all in all, though, I am proud to call myself a philosemite, and even at low
points like the Spectator affair still, at the very least, an anti-antisemite. I recall the numberless
kindnesses I have received at the hands of Jews, friendships I treasure and lessons I have learnt.
I cherish those recollections.
"We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics."
The word 'steadily' is doing quite a lot of heavy lifting here. It seems the distance from
full on Jim Crow to 'young bucks eating T bone steaks' is vanishingly small in historical time.
If we could quantify and graph the prevalence of white identity politics, would that graph be
pointing up or down?
The comment made above is entirely correct: identity politics is just ordinary politics. Anyone
who tells you differently is selling something.
"Thompson, Zamata, and Jones might see a lot to like in Doug, but if he can't sign on to the fact
that black Americans face unique challenges and dangers,"
There's the BS right there. Doug might well admit that and accept it and still think that BLM
is full of crap. That's my position. Bouie doesn't get to own the conversation like that and neither
does BLM.
Just like the NRA doesn't get to claim that anyone who fails to bow to its agenda and policies
hates safety.
Just because I disagree with the Sierra Clubs position on zero-cut goals on public land do
they get to say I hate the earth?
"So the desire to be treated fairly is framed as identity politics?"
So black people want to be killed more often by police?
There's at least one famous study famously made famous in the NYT, by a really great black
economist from Harvard, indicating that black people are killed LESS often in interactions with
cops.
Yep. That data is limited and incomplete. But so is the data you prefer.
"We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics. A lot of people fought and died
to end white supremacy… RD"
In fact, the idea of a biologically-based white supremacy never held the political or social
field to itself during the last two centuries in either Europe or America.
This was because it was contested by important currents of both Christian and liberal thought
on human equality. These ideas of Christian and liberal equality were powerful enough to sustain
the successful 60 year international campaign of the world's leading 19th century Empire. the
British, to abolish slavery and were as well a significant factor behind the U.S. civil war.
Any serious reading of the history of the late 19th and early 20th century reveals how ethnic
and "racial" conflicts were created and manipulated by unscrupulous politicians of that time and
how these "identities" contributed to the radical destabilization and destruction of domestic
and international peace.
The 20th century Nazis represented the apogee of "white" supremacy and their European and American
opponents in World War II repudiated with extreme force their odious race "science."
Contemporary identity politics seeks to reassert and re-legitimize a supposed biological basis
for political conflict. The historical evidence is clear that this is not a story that can in
any way end well.
Replacing it with a form of politics that treats blacks as some sort of chosen people..
Chosen people that are still more likely to be the victims of police brutality. I'm pretty
sure they'd rather pass on being chosen and get on with being treated like everyone else.
You act as if "identity politics" only happens on the left. Small-o "orthodox Christians" are
a tribe who practice "identity politics." All politics is local, Tip O'Neill taught us. A corollary
of that is "all politics are tribal."
I (and other liberals) get dismissed as being nonsensical for wanting to be respected on the
basis of our identity, but the minute a Christian baker has to do business equally with a gay
person, it's tyranny.
What is the Benedict Option, if not Christian identity politics put into maximum effect?
The thing that infuriates me (and people like me) is the assumption that we are the "other"
and the view expressed here is the "default." As I see it, it's our tribe against yours. Your
right to lead is no more evident than mine. We fight for the right to lead. Someone wins, and
someone loses.
I realize this a conservative blog, but try approaching the other side as moral equals, instead
of with an a priori assumption that the left is tribal, and the right has the voice of G-d Himself
as their trumpeter of all that is good and true.
In any given society, the dominant majority defines the norm – in every area of life and culture
– by using themselves as the yardstick. They are normal, everybody different (and their different
stuff) is abnormal.
This is all perfectly natural. It's why there's pretty much no such thing as "white music"
or "white food" in America – whatever was traditional to whites was just called music and food.
If it comes from white culture, it doesn't get a special name, and it doesn't get widely recognized
as something specific to white people. It's just the norm.
This is why white identity politics isn't usually called white identity politics, yet any politics
arising out of a nonwhite experience is defined as abnormal and gets a special name.
Seen from any perspective other than the traditionally dominant one, it's rather clear that
the driving force on the American right has long been white identity politics. The Republican
Party didn't get over 90% white by accident. Some people may have the privilege of calling their
own politics the norm and assigning a name to the rest, but it's all identity politics whether
they want to see it or not.
Then comes the final punchline, "Lives That Matter." Obviously, the answer to the question
is "black." But Doug has "a lot to say about this."
The beautiful thing about the skit is that it left all this hanging… it didn't try to write
the final outcome, but left a range of variables and a variety of possible outcomes to the viewer's
imagination.
The problem with over-analysis is that it erases this well done ending, by trying to pin down
exactly what the outcome is or was or would have been or should have been. Of course, each analysis
erases many possibilities, which is a form of vandalism.
In a small way, this reminds me of when I heard a woman state during Bible study that she likes
the New International Version because it makes everything clear. This cemented my late in life
preference for the King James Version, because by trying to make "everything clear," many nuances
and layers of meaning are erased. The KJV is sufficiently poetic, and sufficiently archaic, that
sometimes there may be five or ten or twenty layers of meaning there, and perhaps that is exactly
what God intended.
(Dain, the term "identity politics" was "coined" as much by Nigel Farage, who openly espouses
it, as it was by "the campus left.")
Environmental degradation, environmental racism (yes, that's a thing), and all manner of
other unrelated items were seen as a mandatory part…
This is a mislocation coined by the campus left… more precisely, by 1970s would-be Marxists,
who latched onto the fuzzy notion that Marxism explains everything and that culture is all a "superstructure"
resting on an economic "base." They then promulgated, spontaneously, not with much thought, that
whatever your pet issue is, Marxism will deliver the desired result. And the Maoist slogan "unite
the many to defeat the few" was best served by including everyone's favorite issue in one big
happy family of agendas. There was even a short-lived "Lavender and Red League." It doesn't work,
Marx and Mao may both be turning in their graves over such petty horse manure, Lenin would certainly
call it an infantile disorder, but nobody every accused the post-1970 would-be leftists of professionalism,
or profound strategic thinking, or even ability to articulate a coherent working class demand.
Joe the Plutocrat: "moral blindness? all politics is identity politics."
No, it can and should be a contest of universal principles and ideas. The Marxian idea that
such is just "false consciousness" is bunk and commits the genetic fallacy.
I want to take this opportunity to remind you all that when you cheer on left-wing, racial
and sexual identity politics, you implicitly cheer on his.
Yeppers. Because if "people of color" can have their "safe spaces," off limits to white people,
then white people are utterly and completely justified in seeking "white spaces," off limits to
people of color.
The assertion is that since people of color have historically been oppressed, they now have
additional rights to request accommodations that would never be granted to their historic oppressors.
Nope. Don't work that way. What's good for the goose is indeed good for the gander – no matter
how many "microagressions' the geese detect.
"We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics."
Right… because both political parties in America are just so diverse. Oh wait, one's the white
people party and one is everyone else. In short, the everyone else party isn't the divisive one…
[NFR: It is in the nature of progressive protest movements that they portray all things
as having gotten no better, because if things *have* improved, it's harder for them to hold on
to power and raise money. That's what's happening here. Anybody who doesn't think white supremacy
and the identity politics that supported it is vastly weaker today than it was in 1960 is either
a fool, or willfully blind. - RD]
The original sin of conservatism is not giving "the other" equal rights and privileges. Whether
it is blacks getting shot by police, the war on drugs (that disproportionately affects the poor),
jim crow like immigration laws, not letting gays marry, not giving equal funding to poor school
districts or any of the other many inequalities conservatives want to perpetuate.
Nobody is "the chosen people" just because they gain some kind of right or privilege white
middle class straight people already have.
Thanks for the clarification. I had just assumed that the Narrative - the cops being buddy
buddy with Roof and getting him some BK in the middle of the day on the way back to Charleston
- was correct. I should have known better.
As an interesting comparison, look at the treatment of one Trenton Trenton (I kid you not)
Lovell, killer of LA Sheriff Deputy Steve Owen. Shot himself, he was patched up by paramedics,
sent to the hospital where he was treated at taxpayer expense, and when fit enough for trial,
arraigned.
Good luck getting anyone on the left to recognize the fallacy of special pleading when it's
right in front of their eyes.
This special pleading, I do not think it means what you think it does. BLM is not asking to
that African Americans be treated in a different fashion than anyone else. Rather, their argument
is that they are disproportionately burdened by the manner in which police interact with them
and that they are asking that they be just be treated the same as the majority of the country.
A basic argument for fairness and equality, in other words.
Now, you can try to make an argument that they are wrong, that they *are* getting equal treatment
from law enforcement and that this is all in their heads. You can try, but in all fairness, the
anecdotal and empirical evidence seem not to be on your side.
Replacing it with a form of politics that treats blacks as some sort of chosen people because
of the color of their skin is regress,
Who, exactly, is making this argument? Not BLM and not the mainstream liberal political establishment.
I'm sorry, but I appear to have missed the mainstreaming of black nationalism.
CenturyLink Inc. is in advanced talks to merge with Level 3 Communications Inc., a deal
that would give the telecommunications companies greater heft in a brutally competitive industry.
Terms of the deal couldn't be learned. As of Thursday afternoon before the Journal's report
of the talks, Level 3, based in Broomfield, Colo., had a market value of $16.8 billion. CenturyLink,
based in Monroe, La., was worth $15.2 billion.
CenturyLink is a former rural telephone exchange operator which bought former Baby Bell, Qwest
(U S West) in 2011.
CenturyLink is a miserable, crappy telco - so spectacularly bad it makes the cable company
look like a paragon of customer friendliness by comparison. CTL's share price has declined
by about a third since its acquisition of Qwest, reflecting CTL's braindead managerial incompetence.
If this merger goes through, we'll have a Big Three of dinosaur telcos: AT&T, Verizon, and
CenturyLink.
My experience has been just the opposite. I have had excellent, reliable DSL service from CenturyLink
and good technical support. Perhaps it's because I live somewhere there is still some competition
– a duopoly with Comcast. I do have to call them every 6 or 12 months and talk to a retention
service rep to keep the charges down.
CenturyLink does seem slow in getting fiber to the end of the block everywhere in my city.
I know lots of people who have been stuck for years down at 5Mbps, which is not enough these days.
The routers they provide for customers (which most people call modems even though they're not)
are crap. I tried getting a router from CenturyLink that supports 802.11n so I could use 5GHz
(2.4GHz is very crowded in my neighborhood) – that's when I found out that 5GHz support is OPTIONAL
under the 802.11n standard. Of course CenturyLink went with the cheaper model. Returning the router
was no problem and the refund appeared promptly and correctly on my bill.
The return of monopolization is traced by Barry C. Lynn in his 2010 book, Cornered: The
New Monopoly Capitalism and the Economics of Destruction . It goes back to the decision of the
Reagan administration to reinterpret antitrust regulation to emphasize efficiency over competition.
No previous 20th century administration would have allowed the A&P chain to become a behemoth
like Walmart.
"... America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse that the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War. ~John le Carre ..."
"... If 15 years of endless wars, trillions of dollars of wasted money, hundreds of thousands of casualties on all sides and metastasizing terrorist threat with no end in sight doesn't give one a little pause before advocating more of the same, then we might have a problem. ..."
"... Hillary said twice during the debates that "America is great because America is good." Translation: We can do whatever we damn well please because we can. Lord, help us all. I'm so sick of hearing this and our endless criminal wars. ..."
"... Yes but they are usually in full agreement with the Koch brothers, who have been financing WGBH Educational Foundation since 2008 (owners of PBS, Frontline and most of the "content" shows on NPR). ..."
America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this the worst I can remember:
worse than McCarthyism, worse that the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous
than the Vietnam War. ~John le Carre
historical madness/hysterical madness … take your pick.
It is terrifying to watch Clinton rave about adopting a more "muscular, aggressive" approach
to foreign affairs - with little or no push back from the national media, either party or even
many citizens. Hell, they are applause lines at her rallies.
If 15 years of endless wars, trillions of dollars of wasted money, hundreds of thousands
of casualties on all sides and metastasizing terrorist threat with no end in sight doesn't
give one a little pause before advocating more of the same, then we might have a problem.
she's a scorned woman beginning with her father. she's passive-aggressive with women…projects
her never ending insecurities. SO she has something to prove…vengeance is mine.
Hillary said twice during the debates that "America is great because America is good." Translation:
We can do whatever we damn well please because we can. Lord, help us all. I'm so sick of hearing
this and our endless criminal wars.
"Battlegrounds: The Fight for Mosul and Election Day Disruptions" (podcast) [Foreign Policy
Editor's Roundtable].
"…historians will look back on it as "a forty year's war," without ever once giving a reason
for us to be there. Soothing NPR voices, no anger, a lot of laughter. Smart people."
This is what the "smart people" are so able to do: always find the humor in war and poverty
and keep it ever so polite. It's really revolting. Could have gone under Guillotine Watch.
Guess I'm happy to be stupid and angry.
Yes but they are usually in full agreement with the Koch brothers, who have been financing
WGBH Educational Foundation since 2008 (owners of PBS, Frontline and most of the "content"
shows on NPR).
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday it was hard for him to work with the current U.S.
administration because it did not stick to any agreements, including on Syria.
Putin said he was ready to engage with a new president however, whoever the American people chose,
and to discuss any problem.
"... Hillary has suggested on several occasions publicly that Trump cannot be trusted with the 'Nuclear Codes' because he is erratic and unstable. Now that most people agree that no matter where they came from the Wikileaks is telling the truth we can see how Hillary's own people are scared of her 'mood swings' and her health problems.... ..."
"... She is the one who should not have access to the Nuclear Codes much less be running for President ..."
"... Hillary's own campaign team is waging a war on women. ..."
"... The American media, nothing but despicable State Sycophant Propaganda Ministry runt traitors! ..."
"... Whether Russia is behind it or not is irrelevant. Its not like the USA is an innocent player in hacking other countries. What's of importance is the contents of the emails. Whoever hacked them - if any at all (they were most likely provided by disgruntled DNC insiders) did not alter them (as proven by security checks). HRC, the DNC and her campaign team are deeply corrupt, hence she is unqualified to lead the USA. ..."
"... So here's the REAL story. Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams. ..."
"... It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video. ..."
"... Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor. ..."
Hillary has suggested on several occasions publicly that Trump cannot be trusted with the 'Nuclear
Codes' because he is erratic and unstable. Now that most people agree that no matter where they came
from the Wikileaks is telling the truth we can see how Hillary's own people are scared of her 'mood
swings' and her health problems....
She is the one who should not have access to the Nuclear
Codes much less be running for President because she also is a Criminal and belongs in Federal
Prison.
This is coded speech microaggression. They are discriminating against her because she is a
woman, implying she is 'moody' you know 'hysterical'... hysterectomy... its sexist, its misogynist
its harassment, its abuse, its hate speech.
Come on Liberal media, where are you ... call it out... this is your bread and butter...
Hillary's own campaign team is waging a war on women.
They did it to Sarah Palin and Barbara Bachman... You know they'd do it if Trump said Hillary
was 'moody'.
The American media, nothing but despicable State Sycophant Propaganda Ministry runt traitors!
Whether Russia is behind it or not is irrelevant. Its not like the USA is an innocent player
in hacking other countries. What's of importance is the contents of the emails. Whoever hacked
them - if any at all (they were most likely provided by disgruntled DNC insiders) did not alter
them (as proven by security checks). HRC, the DNC and her campaign team are deeply corrupt, hence
she is unqualified to lead the USA.
Wikileaks needs to get this out (I have not verified the info sent to me last night):
So here's the REAL story. Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve
US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission.
Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some
of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July
25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot
Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance
team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept
in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to
retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down
orders given to multiple commando teams.
It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus
wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then,
Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking
points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video.
Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about,
why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks
after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone
knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy
without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing
the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone
KNEW he was a traitor.
So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised...and a woman that
is a serial liar, perjured herself multiple times at the Hearing whom is running for POTUS. Only
the Dems, with their hands out, palms up, will support her. Perhaps this is why no military aircraft
was called in…because the administration knew our enemies had Stingers.
Tim Kaine: "I don't think we can dignify documents dumped by WikiLeaks and just assume that they're
all accurate and true,"
They were confirmed true when John Podesta's Twitter password was distributed in one of the
WikiLeaks email releases and his Twitter account was hijacked the same day by a troll saying,
"Trump 2016! Hi pol". Checkmate b!tch. see more DNC Russian Hacker Pepe
Regular Guy •
12 minutes ago The way they parse words, the Kaine statement still doesn't state the documents
are not accurate. He makes an editorial statement to mislead the listener into thinking there
is some reason to question the facts.
Sounds pretty much like poor temperament to me when you have mood problems. Can we please put
national security on hold for now, we have to check her mood ring. It is imperative for the best
outcome that we check her head space. WOW! That's a real dumb explanation. Maybe if we use the
word mood instead of temperament that will be better than telling people she has health problems
in her head.
"... A few comparisons are in order. In their fine review of French history since 1870, Alice L. Conklin, Sarah Fishman, and Robert Zaretsky point out that French leaders at Vichy had several bargaining chips they could use against Hitler, but decided not to play them "because they had other priorities on their mind, including a 'National Revolution' to remake France, politically, socially, and economically." ..."
"... Petain was accompanied by legions of experts, administrators, and technocrats, who shared Petain's disdain for ordinary people and democratic processes, and by strident French fascists who even welcomed their country's defeat. Indeed, although fascists hated democracy, they also believed that Petain's measures did not go far enough to remake the country's institutions. The main thing this menagerie of "minorities" -- to use Stanley Hoffmann's phrase -- had in common was the loathing they shared of their own country. ..."
"... France was saved from its Vichy insanities by a country that was proclaimed, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, as the "last best hope on earth" -- that is, by the United States. The question is: Who will save America from its own Vichy regime? ..."
For the French, revisiting the time period when the Vichy Regime ruled what was left of the
country after its humiliating defeat by the Germans in 1940 involves trauma. But the lessons
imparted by those dark years of Nazi occupation transcend historical era and nationality,
touching upon equivalent circumstances in the United States for the past few years. Equivalent,
not identical: clearly, phalanxes of Nazi troops aren't goose-stepping down Pennsylvania
Avenue....
A few comparisons are in order. In their fine review of French history since 1870, Alice L. Conklin,
Sarah Fishman, and Robert Zaretsky point out that French leaders at Vichy had several bargaining
chips they could use against Hitler, but decided not to play them "because they had other priorities
on their mind, including a 'National Revolution' to remake France, politically, socially, and economically."
France's new leader, the 84-year-old Marshall Petain, was a deeply reactionary veteran who loathed
the Third Republic crushed by the Germans and vowed to take advantage of France's crisis to obliterate
the past and install a centralized, authoritarian government. His rejection of liberalism, egalitarianism,
and democracy prompted measures designed to return France to its pre-revolutionary roots: cities,
industrial plants, and factories were rejected in favor of a return to nature, to villages and small
shops. On top of this heap of nouveau-peasantry loomed the Marshall himself, whose grandfatherly
physiognomy was plastered on buildings in public arenas all over the country to remind French subjects
of who was in charge.
Petain was accompanied by legions of experts, administrators, and technocrats, who shared Petain's
disdain for ordinary people and democratic processes, and by strident French fascists who even welcomed
their country's defeat. Indeed, although fascists hated democracy, they also believed that Petain's
measures did not go far enough to remake the country's institutions. The main thing this menagerie
of "minorities" -- to use Stanley Hoffmann's phrase -- had in common was the loathing they shared
of their own country.
... .. ..
Further, like his aged counterpart before him, President Obama took advantage of a crisis to
"transform" American institutions instead of grappling with the country's main problems --
national debt, unemployment, recession, and burgeoning entitlement costs, to name a few. He made
matters worse by augmenting entitlements, exploding federal deficits, exacerbating unemployment,
and blaming others for the inevitable mess that ensued...
... ... ...
France was saved from its Vichy insanities by a country that was proclaimed, in the words of Abraham
Lincoln, as the "last best hope on earth" -- that is, by the United States. The question is: Who
will save America from its own Vichy regime?
Dr. Marvin Folkertsma is a professor of political science and Fellow for American Studies with
The Center for Vision & Values
at Grove City College. The author of several books, his latest release is a high-energy
novel titled "The Thirteenth Commandment."
"... Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich has just penned an extremely powerful warning about the warmongers in Washington D.C. Who funds them, what their motives are, and why it is imperative for the American people to stop them. ..."
"... Washington, DC, may be the only place in the world where people openly flaunt their pseudo-intellectuality by banding together, declaring themselves "think tanks," and raising money from external interests, including foreign governments, to compile reports that advance policies inimical to the real-life concerns of the American people. ..."
"... As a former member of the House of Representatives, I remember 16 years of congressional hearings where pedigreed experts came to advocate wars in testimony based on circular, rococo thinking devoid of depth, reality, and truth. I remember other hearings where the Pentagon was unable to reconcile over $1 trillion in accounts, lost track of $12 billion in cash sent to Iraq, and rigged a missile-defense test so that an interceptor could easily home in on a target. War is first and foremost a profitable racket. ..."
"... According to the front page of this past Friday's Washington Post, the bipartisan foreign-policy elite recommends the next president show less restraint than President Obama. Acting at the urging of "liberal" hawks brandishing humanitarian intervention, read war, the Obama administration attacked Libya along with allied powers working through NATO. ..."
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only
one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and
the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority
of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit
of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich has just penned an extremely powerful warning about the
warmongers in Washington D.C. Who funds them, what their motives are, and why it is imperative for
the American people to stop them.
Washington, DC, may be the only place in the world where people openly flaunt their pseudo-intellectuality
by banding together, declaring themselves "think tanks," and raising money from external interests,
including foreign governments, to compile reports that advance policies inimical to the real-life
concerns of the American people.
As a former member of the House of Representatives, I remember 16 years of congressional hearings
where pedigreed experts came to advocate wars in testimony based on circular, rococo thinking
devoid of depth, reality, and truth. I remember other hearings where the Pentagon was unable to
reconcile over $1 trillion in accounts, lost track of $12 billion in cash sent to Iraq, and rigged
a missile-defense test so that an interceptor could easily home in on a target. War is first and
foremost a profitable racket.
How else to explain that in the past 15 years this city's so called bipartisan foreign policy
elite has promoted wars in Iraq and Libya, and interventions in Syria and Yemen, which have opened
Pandora's box to a trusting world, to the tune of trillions of dollars, a windfall for military
contractors. DC's think "tanks" should rightly be included in the taxonomy of armored war vehicles
and not as gathering places for refugees from academia.
According to the
front page of this past Friday's Washington Post, the bipartisan foreign-policy elite recommends
the next president show less restraint than President Obama. Acting at the urging of "liberal"
hawks brandishing humanitarian intervention, read war, the Obama administration attacked Libya
along with allied powers working through NATO.
The think tankers fell in line with the Iraq invasion. Not being in the tank, I did my own
analysis of the call for war in October of 2002, based on readily accessible information, and
easily concluded that there was no justification for war. I distributed it widely in Congress
and led 125 Democrats in voting against the Iraq war resolution. There was no money to be made
from a conclusion that war was uncalled for, so, against millions protesting in the United States
and worldwide, our government launched into an abyss, with a lot of armchair generals waving combat
pennants. The marching band and chowder society of DC think tanks learned nothing from the Iraq
and Libya experience.
The only winners were arms dealers, oil companies, and jihadists. Immediately after the fall
of Libya, the black flag of Al Qaeda was raised over a municipal building in Benghazi, Gadhafi's
murder was soon to follow, with Secretary Clinton quipping with a laugh, "We came, we saw, he
died." President Obama apparently learned from this misadventure, but not the Washington policy
establishment, which is spoiling for more war.
The self-identified liberal
Center for American Progress (CAP) is now calling for Syria to be bombed, and estimates America's
current military adventures will be tidied up by 2025, a tardy twist on "mission accomplished."
CAP, according to
a report in The Nation, has received funding from war contractors Lockheed Martin and Boeing,
who make the bombers that CAP wants to rain hellfire on Syria.
As the drumbeat for an expanded war gets louder, Allen and Lister
jointly signed an op-ed in the Sunday Washington Post, calling for an attack on Syria. The
Brookings Institute,
in a report to Congress , admitted it received $250,000 from the US Central Command, Centcom,
where General Allen shared leadership duties with General David Petraeus. Pentagon money to think
tanks that endorse war? This is academic integrity, DC-style.
And why is Central Command, as well as the Food and Drug Administration, the US Department
of transportation, and the US Department of Health and Human Services giving money to Brookings?
Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, who famously
told Colin
Powell , "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we
can't use it," predictably
says of this current moment , "We do think there needs to be more American action." A former
Bush administration top adviser is also
calling for the United States to launch a cruise missile attack on Syria.
The American people are fed up with war, but a concerted effort is being made through fearmongering,
propaganda, and lies to prepare our country for a dangerous confrontation, with Russia in Syria.
The demonization of Russia is a calculated plan to resurrect a raison d'ętre for stone-cold
warriors trying to escape from the dustbin of history by evoking the specter of Russian world
domination.
It's infectious. Earlier this year the BBC broadcast
a fictional show that contemplated
WWIII, beginning with a Russian invasion of Latvia (where 26 percent of the population is ethnic
Russian and 34 percent of Latvians speak Russian at home).
The imaginary WWIII scenario conjures Russia's targeting London for a nuclear strike. No wonder
that by the summer of 2016
a poll showed two-thirds of UK citizens approved the new British PM's launching a nuclear
strike in retaliation. So much for learning the lessons detailed in the Chilcot report.
As this year's presidential election comes to a conclusion, the Washington ideologues are regurgitating
the same bipartisan consensus that has kept America at war since 9/11 and made the world a decidedly
more dangerous place.
The DC think tanks provide cover for the political establishment, a political safety net, with
a fictive analytical framework providing a moral rationale for intervention, capitol casuistry.
I'm fed up with the DC policy elite who cash in on war while presenting themselves as experts,
at the cost of other people's lives, our national fortune, and the sacred honor of our country.
Any report advocating war that comes from any alleged think tank ought to be accompanied by
a list of the think tank's sponsors and donors and a statement of the lobbying connections of
the report's authors.
It is our patriotic duty to expose why the DC foreign-policy establishment and its sponsors
have not learned from their failures and instead are repeating them, with the acquiescence of
the political class and sleepwalkers with press passes.
It is also time for a new peace movement in America, one that includes progressives and libertarians
alike, both in and out of Congress, to organize on campuses, in cities, and towns across America,
to serve as an effective counterbalance to the Demuplican war party, its think tanks, and its
media cheerleaders. The work begins now, not after the Inauguration. We must not accept war as
inevitable, and those leaders who would lead us in that direction, whether in Congress or the
White House, must face visible opposition.
Just like Ron Paul (with whom he agrees on matters of foreign policy and the Fed), he was painted
by MSM as a kook. I wonder why. While I understand that many here would never vote for him because
he believes in things like social programs, so do all of the Republicans in Congress. He would
have made a far better president than zero or McCain.
"... An important essay indeed in that ideological influence is pervasive in writing by economists, which should be no problem as such, but economists should be aware of ideological influence in the work that they do. The problem is being unaware that work is ideological, so that the work is presented as simple truth allowing for no alternative presentation and argument. ..."
"... RBC economists are very well compensated for saying that no government intervention is needed in the economy, as are those saying that minimum wages harm employment. ..."
"... Actually a lot of academics are not exactly paid that well. This crowd does this sort as a religion. The problem is that those of us who never accepted perfect markets and instant market clearing were closed out of publications for 30 years. Now if RBC explained the real world - fine. But it had zero explanation for the last 9 years. ..."
"... Mankiw is paid well. ..."
"... Krugman is paid well. ..."
"... Speaking as an academic, in the university system with the lowest paid faculty in the nation, I am well aware of that. It is not the academic salaries, but the research grants and consulting contracts that matter here. ..."
"... Upton Sinclair is always right. ..."
"... "I suspect there is a reluctance among the majority of economists to admit that some among them may not be following the scientific method but may instead be making choices on ideological grounds." ..."
"... The RBC crowd is arrogant enough to argue that Keynes was practicing junk science. They knew his writings and just ignored it. ..."
"... That US economists are completely clueless is obvious to anyone who travels around the world. That free trade economies such as the US are complete basket cases is obvious to anyone who visits mercantilist economies such as Singapore, Japan, Israel etc. US trained economists only have prestige because the masses don't know how backward and poverty-stricken the US has become under the policies they relentlessly justify and apologize for. ..."
Being honest about ideological influence in economics : Noah Smith has an
article that talks about Paul Romer's recent
critique
of macroeconomics. ... He says the fundamental problem with macroeconomics is lack of data,
which is why disputes seem to take so long to resolve. That is not in my view the whole story.
If we look at the rise of Real Business Cycle (RBC) research a few decades ago, that was only
made possible because economists chose to ignore evidence about the nature of unemployment in
recessions. There is overwhelming evidence that in a recession employment declines because workers
are fired rather than choosing not to work, and that the resulting increase in unemployment is
involuntary (those fired would have rather retained their job at their previous wage). Both facts
are incompatible with the RBC model.
In the RBC model there is no problem with recessions, and no role for policy to attempt to
prevent them or bring them to an end. The business cycle fluctuations in employment they generate
are entirely voluntary. RBC researchers wanted to build models of business cycles that had nothing
to do with sticky prices. Yet here again the evidence was quite clear...
Why would researchers try to build models of business cycles where these cycles required no
policy intervention, and ignore key evidence in doing so? The obvious explanation is ideological.
I cannot prove it was ideological, but it is difficult to understand why - in an area which as
Noah says suffers from a lack of data - you would choose to develop theories that ignore some
of the evidence you have. The fact that, as I argue
here , this bias may have expressed itself in the insistence on following a particular methodology
at the expense of others does not negate the importance of that bias. ...
I suspect there is a reluctance among the majority of economists to admit that some among them
may not be following the scientific method but may instead be making choices on ideological grounds.
This is the essence of Romer's critique, first in his own area of growth economics and then for
business cycle analysis. Denying or marginalizing the problem simply invites critics to apply
to the whole profession a criticism that only applies to a minority.
An important essay indeed in that ideological influence is pervasive in writing by economists,
which should be no problem as such, but economists should be aware of ideological influence in
the work that they do. The problem is being unaware that work is ideological, so that the work
is presented as simple truth allowing for no alternative presentation and argument.
The point of Sophocles Oedipus cycle for Sophocles and for Freud was found in the Oracle at Delphi
with which the cycle begins. The inscription at Delphi read "Know Thyself."
Know your ideological bent or leaning. The tragedy of Oedipus was in not knowing himself.
Under Fidel Castro's rule Cuba bucked the historical trend--moving not toward but far away
from political democracy.
Under Fidel Castro it looks as though Cuba lost two generations of economic growth --
generations that other neighboring economies like Mexico, Costa Rica, and Puerto Rico made
very good use of. The only good thing you can say about Castro is that Cuba continued to have
the social indicators of a middle-income country even as it became a poor one.
It was always incomprehensible that an anti-Democratic dictator who managed to turn a
middle-income country into a poor one would have fans. Yet there are still people in the class
not of stooges looking for their Stalin, but fools who have found their Fidel.
-- Brad DeLong
[ Importantly, the economics here happen to be wildly wrong but is there any concern about
how Cuba actually fared in real per capita growth relative to Mexico, Costa Rica or Puerto
Rico since 1971 when record keeping begins?
Since 1971, real per capita GDP in Cuba has grown faster than real per capita GDP in Mexico, Guatemala,
El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama, faster than in Puerto Rico, Jamaica, Trinidad and
Bermuda, faster than in Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina, faster than in Ecuador, Bolivia,
Uruguay and Paraguay, faster than in Spain and Portugal.
Real per capita growth in the Dominican Republic and Chile alone among Spanish or Portuguese
language countries has been faster than in Cuba.
Since 1971, real per capita GDP in Cuba has also grown faster than real per capita GDP in Peru...
Correcting:
Since 1971, real per capita GDP in Cuba has grown slightly slower than real per capita GDP
in Paraguay...
Completing:
Since 1971, real per capita GDP in Cuba has grown faster than real per capita GDP in Mexico,
Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama, faster than in Puerto Rico,
Jamaica, Trinidad and Bermuda, faster than in Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, Brazil and Argentina,
faster than in Ecuador, Bolivia and Uruguay, faster than in Spain and Portugal.
Real per capita growth in the Dominican Republic, Chile and Paraguay alone among Spanish or
Portuguese language countries has been faster than in Cuba.
RBC economists are very well compensated for saying that no government intervention is needed
in the economy, as are those saying that minimum wages harm employment.
Actually a lot of academics are not exactly paid that well. This crowd does this sort as a religion.
The problem is that those of us who never accepted perfect markets and instant market clearing
were closed out of publications for 30 years. Now if RBC explained the real world - fine. But
it had zero explanation for the last 9 years.
I write "a lot" and you read "all". More evidence that my internet stalker flunked pre-K. BTW
- Mankiw is not part of the RBC crowd but PeterK is too stupid to know that. Geesh.
Lord - what a stupid comment. Krugman does make his believes against evidence. I see this is another
post you did not bother to read before posting one of your patented pointless rants.
Speaking as an academic, in the university system with the lowest paid faculty in the nation,
I am well aware of that. It is not the academic salaries, but the research grants and consulting
contracts that matter here.
Speaking as an academic, in the university system with the lowest paid faculty in the nation,
I am well aware of that. It is not the academic salaries, but the research grants and consulting
contracts that matter here.
RBC economists are very well compensated for saying that no government intervention is needed
in the economy, as are those saying that minimum wages harm employment.
Real business-cycle theory (RBC theory) are a class of New Classical macroeconomics models
in which business-cycle fluctuations to a large extent can be accounted for by real (in contrast
to nominal) shocks. Unlike other leading theories of the business cycle, RBC theory sees business
cycle fluctuations as the efficient response to exogenous changes in the real economic environment.
That is, the level of national output necessarily maximizes expected utility, and governments
should therefore concentrate on long-run structural policy changes and not intervene through discretionary
fiscal or monetary policy designed to actively smooth out economic short-term fluctuations.
According to RBC theory, business cycles are therefore "real" in that they do not represent
a failure of markets to clear but rather reflect the most efficient possible operation of the
economy, given the structure of the economy.
"I suspect there is a reluctance among the majority of economists to admit that some among them
may not be following the scientific method but may instead be making choices on ideological grounds."
How is the ridiculous RBC theory different from saying, as many prominent economists do, that
presidents do not significantly influence economic growth and job creation?
Thus, I have heard repeatedly that FDR, Reagan, Clinton and Obama should not get credit for
the economic recoveries and job creation that occurred during their presidencies. Likewise, Hoover,
Carter and the Bushes should not be blamed for the economic debacles that occurred during their
presidencies. Apparently, these were all just real business cycles that no president has responsibility
for.
Of course voters do not agree at all, re-electing all of the "lucky" presidents while throwing
out all of the "unlucky" ones. For example, Carter, who is now regarded as a good president, was
buried in a massive landslide: 489-49 by a second rate actor who was regarded as a fool by many.
(Trump will outperform Carter!)
Either RBC is correct or presidents and their policies do matter a lot. Economists have to
decide where they stand.
The RBC crowd never really got that much into politics. Of course assuming markets always clear
and are perfect in every other way is a silly way to model a real world economy.
"you would choose to develop theories that ignore some of the evidence you have". It first this
New Classical/RBC crowd put forth all sorts of fancy new econometrics thinking if you looked at
the data the right way, their model would be confirmed. Only problem is their model says aggregate
demand can have only very transitional effects but the data show persistent effects. Shocks in
other words have sustained real effects.
So when their model was shown to be faulty by the evidence, they gave up on econometrics and
turned to calibration which is just fancy math designed to hide the failure of their models.
SWL continues noting David Card's research on the effects of increases in minimum wages:
'As Card points out in the interview his research involved no advocacy, but was simply about
examining empirical evidence. So the friends that he lost objected not to the policy position
he was taking, but to him uncovering and publishing evidence. Suppressing or distorting evidence
because it does not give the answer you want is almost a definition of an illegitimate science.'
Greg Mankiw searches high and low for anything that goes along with his view that higher wage
floors lead to less employment demand. Of course this kind of bias favors people like Donald Trump
who built that DC hotel under budget by ignoring the minimum wage laws.
Much of the economic models debates hinge on "sticky wages" which are irrefutable from all empirics.
What I haven't seen yet though is a sound testable hypothesis that supports the empirical observation.
In other words, we know by empirics it's true, but we really don't yet know why its true or true
in most, but certainly not all cases -- e.g. Greece recently for example. Many suppositions have
been described but none have to my knowledge been put into the form of testable hypothesis to
suppot the suppositions with "scientific" methods..
How does the relate to RBC models and ideology embedded in models?
RBC ignores the empirics for what can be said to be ideological reasons. But models which include
those observations have no hypothesis proven to support the observations either, so then those
models are equally using unscientific methods in their construction, which just so happens to
support a different ideological position.
I don't disagree at all that models must use observations in their construction but it doesn't
put those models at any greater scientific method advantage.
"It appears, therefore, that we have a sort of asymmetry on the two sides of the critical level
above which true inflation sets in. For a contraction of effective demand below the critical level
will reduce its amount measured in cost-units; whereas an expansion of effective demand beyond
this level will not, in general, have the effect of increasing its amount in terms of cost-units.
"This result follows from the assumption that the factors of production, and in particular
the workers, are disposed to resist a reduction in their money-rewards, and that there is no corresponding
motive to resist an increase. This assumption is, however, obviously well founded in the facts,
due to the circumstance that a change, which is not an all-round change, is beneficial to the
special factors affected when it is upward and harmful when it is downward.
"If, on the contrary, money-wages were to fall without limit whenever there was a tendency
for less than full employment, the asymmetry would, indeed, disappear. But in that case there
would be no resting-place below full employment until either the rate of interest was incapable
of falling further or wages were zero.
"In fact we must have some factor, the value of which in terms of money is, if not fixed, at
least sticky, to give us any stability of values in a monetary system.
"The view that any increase in the quantity of money is inflationary (unless we mean by inflationary
merely that prices are rising) is bound up with the underlying assumption of the classical theory
that we are always in a condition where a reduction in the real rewards of the factors of production
will lead to a curtailment in their supply." The General Theory, pp. 303-304.
yes, Keynes supposition, among other was precisely what I was referring to by knowing the observation
is true but not why it is.
Everybody knows it is true by observation that the sun rises in the east and settles in the
west 1x in roughly 24 hours give or take a winter/summer trend change. But it took an awfully
long time before Copernicus figured out why that was the case... and from his theory testable
hypothesis were developed to show that the hypothesis were confirmed.
With sticky wages we don't know why. E.G.
Wages will not go below [this level] because [insert testable hypothesis]. A testable hypothesis
takes the form
Lower Bound of Wage = [insert independent measurable variables and their relationships here]
As I said, lower bounds to wages are empirically observed. Now show why in repeatable results
with the equations using the independent variables that apply under the conditions imposed by
he hypothesis.
Until that is the observation is used in models because it suits ones interest to do so...
i.e. they like the results of the models better. It isn't a scientifically founded model... the
assumption is no better than rational expectations.
"If, on the contrary, money-wages were to fall without limit whenever there was a tendency
for less than full employment, . . . there would be no resting-place below full employment until
either the rate of interest was incapable of falling further or wages were zero."
Absent sticky wages, at ZLB interest, wages would fall to zero whenever there was a tendency
for less than full employment and nobody works for zero wages.
RBC also ignores anything that would explain why we have recessions at all. Its assumption that
markets instantly clear is key to their model but we know that markets are not so perfect.
A few years ago I would have suggested otherwise. But recent research notes you are right. Obama's
CEA is noting this but he will not be President for long. Our next President needs to take this
head on. Trump won't. Will Clinton? We will see.
"There is overwhelming evidence that in a recession employment declines because workers are fired
rather than choosing not to work, and that the resulting increase in unemployment is involuntary"
see Keynes called it involuntary unemployment NOT cyclical unemployment
as all the politicians are saying now a days, words mean something
Simon-Wren Lewis is making a common mistake as I see it. The limitations and assumptions of a
model should not be conflated with evidence against the model. Not considering certain types of
data is a limitation of a model; not evidence against that model. If an RBC model does not include
certain types of data, then the best approach is to try and understand that data and attempt to
show how it fits into the existing model. Another model should be considered only when certain
limitations appear intractable. Because there are almost always lots of ways to model the same
problem, at least in the social sciences, if you create a new model every time you come across
a limitation, you'll end up running around in circles.
This makes no sense to me. So how about explaining what you meant with real world examples? I
choose the examples of involuntary unemployment and wage stickiness, and the effects of raising
the minimum wage.
"The limitations and assumptions of a model should not be conflated with evidence against the
model."
I don't think this is what SWL is saying and am fairly certain it is not what Romer is saying:
The problem is not limitation or contradiction, it is central variables assumed to confer verisimilitude
that cannot and assumptions considered true that are not.
The assumptions of the model are false and therefore should be construed as evidence against
using the model. I'm saying that's faulty reasoning.
The "my model is better than your model" argument is not a good way to approach problems at
a theoretical level. It's sometimes okay at an applied level. One thing that's hard to wrap one's
head around is that a model can still be useful even when its assumptions are false. When data
is sparse, all useful theories will have to rely on false or incomplete assumptions. Usually a
better approach is to extend rather than start over to keep people from running in too many different
directions.
"Not considering certain types of data is a limitation of a model; not evidence against that
model. If an RBC model does not include certain types of data, then the best approach is to try
and understand that data and attempt to show how it fits into the existing model"
Henry Carey - a real American economist, sadly forgotten to history : , -1
That US economists are completely clueless is obvious to anyone who travels around the world.
That free trade economies such as the US are complete basket cases is obvious to anyone who visits
mercantilist economies such as Singapore, Japan, Israel etc. US trained economists only have prestige
because the masses don't know how backward and poverty-stricken the US has become under the policies
they relentlessly justify and apologize for.
CETA: "EU's Canada free-trade CETA deal could be back on as Walloons agree to last-minute deal"
[
Telegraph
].
"Belgium's Prime Minister Charles Michel said that Wallonia was now in agreement, and the regional
parliaments may now agree to CETA by the end of Friday night, opening the door to the deal being
signed. Mr Tusk said that once the regional votes had taken place, he will inform Canadian Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau. Any extra concessions given to Wallonia may mean other countries will want
to look again at the deal, however." (The BBC's headline, then -
"EU-Canada trade deal: Belgians break Ceta deadlock"
- is quite irresponsible. As is–
CETA: "Belgium breaks Ceta deadlock" [
EUObserver
].
Not quite:
Belgium's political entities agreed to a declaration on Thursday (26 October), which gives
their government a green light to sign Ceta, the EU-Canada trade pact.
The agreement was promptly sent to EU ambassadors in Brussels, to be discussed later in the
afternoon.
After a week of marathon negotiations, Belgian prime minister Charles Michel said that Thursday's
talks had calmed "outstanding concerns".
As part of the trade-off, Belgium will ask the European Court of Justice to clarify the proposed
investment court system, which was one of the most controversial elements of the trade deal.
Ceta was due to be signed off by EU leaders and Canada's prime minister Justin Trudeau at a
summit in Brussels on Thursday. Trudeau cancelled the trip during the night as no agreement had
been reached in Brussels.
It's not known when the summit will take place, or whether the Belgian go-ahead was the last
hurdle.
The other 27 EU countries must first accept the Belgian deal.
At their meeting on Thursday, EU ambassadors will be accompanied by lawyers and representatives
of the EU institutions, who will examine the legality and consequences of the text.
The Walloon parliament will vote on the agreement on Friday.
Still, how do we slay these undead deals? The same thing happened with TPP.
CETA: "The great CETA swindle" [
Corporate
Europe Observatory
]. "The latest PR move is a "joint interpretative declaration" on the trade
deal hammered out by Ottawa and Brussels and published by investigative journalist collective Correctiv
last Friday. It is designed to alleviate public concerns but in fact does nothing to fix CETA's flaws.
In September, Canada's Trade Minister, Chrystia Freeland, and her German counterpart, Sigmar Gabriel,
had announced such a text to appease Social Democrats, trade unions and the wider public who fear
that CETA would threaten public services, labour and environmental standards and undermine governments'
right to regulate in the public interest. Several governments, notably Austria, had linked their
'yes' to CETA to the declaration. [But] According to environmental group Greenpeace, the declaration
therefore has the 'legal weight of a holiday brochure'."
Legal experts have also warned that the declaration "could be misleading for non-lawyers, who
might think that the Declaration will alter or override the CETA". But it does not change CETA's
legal terms – and it is these terms which have raised concerns. As Canadian law Professor Gus
van Harten explains: "Based on principles of treaty interpretation, the CETA will be interpreted
primarily according to the text of its relevant provisions…. The Declaration would play a subsidiary
role, if any, in this interpretative process." In other words, legally (and thus politically),
the CETA text is far more important than the declaration – and the former could prevail over the
latter in case of a conflictive interpretation.
The post then goes on to analyze the provisions of the declaration in detail, comparing them to
the text. (Readers may remember that
TPP advocates have made the same sort of claim for the TPP Preamble, which the text also over-rides
.
So, the Belgians are smart to get a court ruling on this. And we might also expect the adminsitration
to use similar tactics to (the toothless distraction of) the CETA "resolution" in the upcoming attempt
to pass the TPP.
"Belgian officials were discussing a working document aimed at addressing Wallonia's concerns
on the trade deal. The document, published by Belgian state media RTBF, shows that Belgium is moving
toward requesting additional safeguards for the agricultural sector 'in cases of market turbulence.'
It also puts forward a number of requests regarding the investor court system, including 'progressing
towards hiring judges on a permanent basis'" [
Politico
].
This seems to be a
different
document from the "declaration"; it was leaked by a different
source.
Here is is; it's in French
.
TPP: "Eight major financial services industry associations made an appeal to congressional leaders
to support passage of the TPP this year, arguing that the deal is 'vital to ensuring that the U.S.
financial services sector remains a vibrant engine for domestic and global growth'" [
Politico
].
What the heck is a "vibrant engine"? Maybe a screw loose or something? Needs a tightening to stop
the shaking and shimmying?
TPP: "Health, labor and consumer groups are warning President Barack Obama to refrain from including
a 12-year monopoly period for biological drugs in legislation to implement the TPP as a means for
addressing congressional concerns over the pact. The groups argue that such a move could undermine
future efforts to shorten that protection period under U.S. law" [
Politico
].
"The letter, signed by Doctors Without Borders, the AFL-CIO, AARP, Oxfam and Consumers Union, also
expresses concern over reports that the administration is prepared to negotiate side letters with
TPP countries to reinforce U.S. lawmaker demands that countries respect a 12-year protection period,
which reflects U.S. law."
"The case against free trade – Part 1" [
Bill
Mitchell
].
It is striking to me how even on the left the discussion of U.S. militarism and imperialism has
been marginalized and does not come up much in casual conversation. We had an active peace movement
through the worst days of the Cold War, and then there was a bit of a resurgence of it in response
to the Iraq War. But Obama's acceptance of the core assumptions of the 'War on Terror' (even as
he waged it more responsibly) seems to have led to the war party co-opting the liberals as well
until there is no longer an effective opposition. The rhetoric of 'humanitarian intervention'
has been hugely successful in that effort.
One of the most depressing things about this election campaign to me has been to see the Democrats
using their full spectrum media dominance not to fight for a mandate for left policies, but to
run a coordinated and effective propaganda campaign for greater U.S. military involvement in the
Middle East and Eastern Europe, focusing on demonizing Putin and on humanitarian intervention
rhetoric around Aleppo and the like.
Paul Krugman's recent posts have been most peculiar. Several have looked uncomfortably like special
pleading for political figures he likes, notably Hillary Clinton. He has, in my judgement, stooped
rather far down in attacking people well below him in the public relations food chain
Perhaps the most egregious and clearest cut case is his refusal to address the substance of a
completely legitimate, well-documented article by David Dayen outing Krugman, and to a lesser degree,
his fellow traveler Mike Konczal, in abjectly misrepresenting Sanders' financial reform proposals
The Krugman that was early to stand up to the Iraq War, who was incisive before and during the
crisis has been very much in absence since Obama took office. It's hard to understand the loss of
intellectual independence. That may not make Krugman any worse than other Democratic party apparatchiks,
but he continues to believe he is other than that, and the lashing out at Dayen looks like a wounded
denial of his current role. Krugman and Konczal need to be seen as what they are: part of the Vichy
Left brand cover for the Democratic party messaging apparatus. Krugman, sadly, has chosen to diminish
himself for a not very worthy cause.
"... The Russian-Turkish plan to pipe Russian gas through Turkey and then on to Macedonia and thence into southern Europe has long been opposed by the West, which is seeking to block the Russians at every turn. Now the Western powers have found an effective way to stop it: by overthrowing the pro-Russian government of Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski . ..."
"... Speaking of which: the government of President Petro Poroshenko is leading the country into complete financial insolvency and veritable martial law. ..."
"... which makes it a crime to criticize the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) that fought on the side of the Germans during World War II. ..."
The
Russian-Turkish plan to pipe Russian gas
through Turkey and then on to Macedonia and thence into southern Europe has long been opposed
by the West, which is
seeking
to block the Russians at every turn. Now the Western powers have found an effective way to stop
it: by overthrowing the pro-Russian government of Macedonian Prime Minister
Nikola Gruevski.
The original plan was for the pipeline to go through Bulgaria, but
Western pressure on the government there nixed that and so the
alternative was to pipe the gas through Macedonia and Greece. With the Greeks uninterested in
taking dictation from the EU – and relatively impervious, at the moment, to Western-sponsored regime
change – the Macedonians were deemed to be the weak link in the pro-Russian chain. That was the cue
for the perpetually aggrieved Albanians to play their historic role as the West's willing proxies.
After a long period of dormancy, suddenly the "National
Liberation Army" (NLA) of separatist Albanians rose up, commandeering police stations in Kumanovo
and a nearby village earlier this month. A 16-hour gun battle ensued, with 8 Macedonian police and
14 terrorists killed in the fighting. The NLA, which
reportedly received
vital assistance from Western powers during the 2001 insurgency, claimed responsibility for the
attacks.
Simultaneously, the opposition Social Democratic Union party (SDSM)
– formerly the ruling League of Communists under the Stalinist Tito regime – called for mass demonstrations
over a series of recent government scandals. SDSM has
lost the last three elections, deemed "fair" by the OCSE, with Gruevski's conservative VMRO-DPMNE
(Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization – Democratic Party for Macedonian National Unity)
enjoying a comfortable majority in parliament. But that doesn't matter to the "pro-democracy" regime-changers:
SDSM leader Zoran Zaev
declared "This will not be a protest where we gather, express discontent and go home. We will
stay until Gruevski quits."
Macedonia has a long history of manipulation at the hands of the NATO powers, who nurtured the
Muslim-Kosovar insurgency to impose their will on the components of the former Yugoslavia. As in
Kosovo, the Albanians of Macedonia were willing pawns of the West, carrying out terrorist attacks
on civilians in pursuit of their goal of a "Greater Albania."
During the 2001 Albanian insurgency, an outgrowth of the Kosovo war, the EU/US used the NLA as
a battering ram against the Slavic authorities. The NLA was never an authentic indigenous force,
but actually
an arm of the US-armed-and-trained "Kosovo Liberation Army," which now rules over the gangster
state of Kosovo, crime capital of Europe. A "peace accord," the Ohrid Agreement, was brokered by
the West, which kept the NLA essentially intact, albeit formally "dissolved," while the Macedonian
government was blackmailed into submission. I wrote about it at the time,
here
and here.
Follow that last link to read about the George Soros connection. Soros was originally a big booster
of Macedonia, handing them a
$25 million aid package and holding the country up as a model of multiculturalism. However, the
Macedonians soon turned against him when he sided with the Albanians in their demands for government-subsidized
Albanian-language universities and ethnic quotas for government jobs. When he told them to change
the name of the country to "Slavomakejonija," they told him to take a walk. Soros, a longtime promoter
of Albanian separatism – he played sugar daddy to a multitude of front groups that promoted the Kosovo
war – is now getting his revenge.
Prime Minister Gruevski, for his part, charges that the sudden uptick in ethnic violence and political
turmoil is the work of Western "NGOs" and intelligence agencies (or do I repeat myself?) with the
latter playing a key role in releasing
recordings of phone conversations incriminating several top government officials. A not-so-implausible
scenario, given what happened
in neighboring Ukraine.
Speaking of which: the government of President Petro Poroshenko is leading the country into
complete financial insolvency and veritable martial law. Aid money from the West is going into
the prosecution of the ongoing civil war, and the country has already
defaulted on its huge debt in all but the formal sense. Opposition politicians and journalists
are routinely murdered and their deaths reported as "suicides," while it is now illegal to describe
the ongoing conflict with the eastern provinces as anything but a "Russian invasion." Journalists
who contradict the official view are imprisoned: Ruslan Kotsaba, whose arrest I reported on in this
space, is still being held, his
"trial" a farce that no Western journalist has seen fit to report on. Kotsaba's "crime"? Making
a video in which he denounced the war and called on his fellow Ukrainians to resist being conscripted
into the military. Antiwar activists throughout the country have been rounded up and imprisoned.
Any journalist connected to a Russian media outlet has been arrested.
Yes, these are the "European values" Ukraine is now putting into practice. Adding ignominy to
outrage, a law was recently passed – in spite of
this Reuters piece urging Poroshenko to veto it – which makes it a crime to criticize the
Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) that fought on the
side of the Germans during World War II. As Ha'aretzreports, a group of 40 historians
from major Western academic institutions issued an open letter protesting this outrage:
"Not only would it be a crime to question the legitimacy of an organization (UPA) that slaughtered
tens of thousands of Poles in one of the most heinous acts of ethnic cleansing in the history
of Ukraine, but also it would exempt from criticism the OUN, one of the most extreme political
groups in Western Ukraine between the wars, and one which collaborated with Nazi Germany at the
outset of the Soviet invasion in 1941. It also took part in anti-Jewish pogroms in Ukraine and,
in the case of the Melnyk faction, remained allied with the occupation regime throughout the war."
Ukraine is showing its true colors, which I identified
last year, to the point where even the usually compliant Western media is forced to admit the
truth.
"... It has recently turned out that Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk, a vocal proponent of Ukraine's European integration, made huge contributions to the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary Clinton was the US Secretary of State. Although the foundation swore off donations from foreign governments while Mrs. Clinton was serving as a state official, it continued accepting money from private donors. Many of them had certain ties to their national governments like Viktor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian businessman and ex-parliamentarian. ..."
"... Viktor Pinchuk has always been one of the most vocal proponents of Ukraine's European integration. In 2004 Pinchuk founded the Yalta European Strategy (YES) platform in Kiev. YES is led by the board including ex-president of Poland Aleksander Kwasniewski and former NATO Secretary General Javier Solana. According to the website of the platform, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Kofi Annan, Radoslaw Sikorski, Vitaliy Klitschko, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Petro Poroshenko and other prominent figures have participated in annual meetings of YES since 2004. ..."
"... Experts note that after the coup, the Ukrainian leadership has actually become Washington's puppet government. Several foreign citizens, including American civilian Natalie Jaresko, Lithuanian investment banker Aivaras Abromavicius and Georgia-born Alexander Kvitashvili have assumed high posts in the Ukrainian government. It should be noted that Natalie Jaresko, Ukraine's Financial Minister, have previously worked in the US State Department and has also been linked to oligarch Viktor Pinchuk. ..."
A sinister atmosphere surrounds the Clinton Foundation's role in Ukrainian military coup of February
2014, experts point out.
It has recently turned out that Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk, a vocal proponent of Ukraine's
European integration, made huge contributions to the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary Clinton was
the US Secretary of State. Although the foundation swore off donations from foreign governments while
Mrs. Clinton was serving as a state official, it continued accepting money from private donors. Many
of them had certain ties to their national governments like Viktor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian businessman
and ex-parliamentarian.
Remarkably, among individual donors contributing to the Clinton Foundation in the period between
1999 and 2014, Ukrainian sponsors took first place in the list, providing the charity with almost
$10 million and pushing England and Saudi Arabia to second and third places respectively.
It is worth mentioning that the Viktor Pinchuk Foundation alone transferred at least $8.6 million
to the Clinton charity between 2009 and 2013. Pinchuk, who acquired his fortune from a pipe-making
business, served twice as a parliamentarian in Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada and was married to the daughter
of ex-president of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma.
Although the Clinton's charity denies that the donations were somehow connected with political
matters, experts doubt that international private sponsors received no political support in return.
In 2008 Pinchuk pledged to make a five-year $29 million contribution to the Clinton Global Initiative
in order to fund a program aimed at training future Ukrainian leaders and "modernizers." Remarkably,
several alumni of these courses are current members of Ukrainian parliament. Because of the global
financial crisis, the Pinchuk Foundation sent only $1.8 million.
Experts note that during Mrs. Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, Viktor Pinchuk was introduced
to some influential American lobbyists. Curiously enough, he tried to use his powerful "friends"
to pressure Ukraine's then-President Viktor Yanukovych to free Yulia Tymoshenko, who served a jail
term.
Viktor Pinchuk has always been one of the most vocal proponents of Ukraine's European integration.
In 2004 Pinchuk founded the Yalta European Strategy (YES) platform in Kiev. YES is led by the board
including ex-president of Poland Aleksander Kwasniewski and former NATO Secretary General Javier
Solana. According to the website of the platform, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice,
Kofi Annan, Radoslaw Sikorski, Vitaliy Klitschko, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Petro Poroshenko and other prominent
figures have participated in annual meetings of YES since 2004.
No one would argue that proponents of Ukraine's pro-Western course played the main role in organizing
the coup of February 2014 in Kiev. Furthermore, the exceptional role of the United States in ousting
then-president Viktor Yanukovich has also been recognized by political analysts, participants of
Euromaidan and even by Barack Obama, the US President.
Experts note that after the coup, the Ukrainian leadership has actually become Washington's puppet
government. Several foreign citizens, including American civilian Natalie Jaresko, Lithuanian investment
banker Aivaras Abromavicius and Georgia-born Alexander Kvitashvili have assumed high posts in the
Ukrainian government. It should be noted that Natalie Jaresko, Ukraine's Financial Minister, have
previously worked in the US State Department and has also been linked to oligarch Viktor Pinchuk.
So far, experts note, the recent "game of thrones" in Ukraine has been apparently instigated by
a few powerful clans of the US and Ukraine, who are evidently benefitting from the ongoing turmoil.
In this light the Clinton Foundation looks like something more than just a charity: in today's world
of fraudulent oligopoly we are facing with global cronyism, experts point out, warning against its
devastating consequences.
[IMO, Noah muddles the message, but it is a important
topic that gets muddled by everyone else too. Economists with
a financial bent had no problem apparently with the bank
mergers that started in the seventies and everyone loved the
auto maker mergers of the first half of the 2oth century.
Efficiency itself is an amorphous term. Mergers can be an
efficient use of capital since they deliver lower competition
and higher profits. JP Morgan did not want to be in a
industry that he could not dominate. Efficiency is different
for a fish than a capital owner. Mergers are good for
regulatory capture and ineffishient for fish. Mergers are
inefficient for workers that want higher wages or the
unemployed that want jobs. Market power and regulatory
capture can be efficient vehicles for taking advantage of
trade agreements to offshore production and increase returns
to capital all while lowering both prices and quality as well
as reducing domestic wages. Efficiency is in the eyeballs of
the beholder especially if they make good soup.]
Reply
Tuesday,
reason
-> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
,
October 25, 2016 at 06:58 AM
But Keynes was saying something quite different - he wasn't
actually talking about policy but about economics (the task
of economists). He was saying that understanding short term
fluctuations was as important as predicting the long term.
Still relevant in this age of irrelevant general equilibrium
models.
I always looked at Keynes as a fellow traveler, one who wrote
obtusely at times for the express purpose of couching his
meaning in sweetened platitudes that at a second glance were
drenched in cynicism and sarcasm, at least when it came to
his opinions of economists and politicians and the capital
owning class that they both served.
OK, "obtusely" was a poor choice of words, at least with
regards to Keynes. Keynes realized WWI was a big mistake, the
Treaty at Versailles was an abomination with regards to
German restitution, and he was accused of anti-Semitism just
for being honest about Jewish elites in the Weimar Republic.
It was not that Keynes was insensitive, unpatriotic, or
anti-Semitic, but that Keynes was just correct on all counts.
JohnH -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
, -1
This is a good example of economists working in lock step
with investors: "Economists with a financial bent had no
problem apparently with the bank mergers that started in the
seventies and everyone loved the auto maker mergers of the
first half of the 2oth century."
I think it has been
questioned for decades whether increased efficiency in
banking actually materialized in the wake of industry
consolidation. Local market oligopolies may well have
generated higher profits and the appearance of more
efficiency. And concentration certainly facilitated collusion
as we have seen in many markets, including LIBOR.
What concentration indisputably caused was a dramatic
increase in the political power of the Wall Street banking
cartel, which owns not only the Federal Reserve but also a
lot of powerful politicians...a subject on which 'liberal'
economists are generally agnostic, since politics is outside
their silo.
The article ignored the effect of mergers on supplier
relationships, often one of near monopsony (oligopsony?). DOJ
seems to be focused on unit pricing to consumers(though
perhaps not with cable) to the point that most managements
understand that they have free rein to squeeze suppliers. And
so they merge to do so.
It may be that more contribution to increasing margins is
from purchase prices than selling prices.
"... There are a variety of potential threats around the world today: tensions in the South China Seas, a nuclear North Korea, conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and civil wars in the Middle East are just a few. In order to better think about these challenges and how they relate to U.S. national security, the Center for the National Interest partnered with the Charles Koch Institute to host a foreign policy roundtable which addressed the question: What is the most pressing issue for America's foreign policy? ..."
"... Mearsheimer argues that the second problematic dimension of U.S. foreign policy is that the United States is "heavily into transformation." By "transformation," Mearsheimer means that "We believe that what we should do in the process of running the world is topple governments that are not liberal democracies and transform them into [neo]liberal democracies." ..."
"... according to Mearsheimer, the United States is pursuing "a hopeless cause; there is a huge literature that makes it clear that promoting democracy around the world is extremely difficult to do, and doing it at the end of a rifle barrel is almost impossible." ..."
"... "It's remarkably difficult to understand why we still continue to think we can dominate the world and pursue the same foreign policy we've been pursuing at least since 2001, when it has led to abject failure after abject failure." ..."
"... Andrew Bacevich opines that the United States needs to "come to some understanding of who we are and why we do these things – a critical understanding of the American identity." Notre Dame's Michael Desch agrees: "That cuts to the core of American political culture. I think the root of the hubris is deep in the software that animates how we think about ourselves, and how we think about the world." ..."
There are a variety of potential threats around the world today: tensions in the South China
Seas, a nuclear North Korea, conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and civil wars in the Middle East
are just a few. In order to better think about these challenges and how they relate to U.S. national
security, the Center for the National Interest partnered with the Charles Koch Institute to host
a foreign policy roundtable which addressed the question: What is the most pressing issue for America's
foreign policy?
Watch the rest of the videos in the "Grand Strategy" series.
John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago doesn't shy away from a bold answer: The most pressing
issue is that the United States has a "fundamentally misguided foreign policy." Mearsheimer argues
that there are two dimensions to U.S. foreign policy that get the United States into "big trouble."
First, he says, "We believe that we can dominate the globe, that we can control what happens in every
nook and cranny of the world." The problem with this is that "the world is simply too big and nationalism
is much too powerful of a force to make it possible for us to come close to doing that."
Mearsheimer argues that the second problematic dimension of U.S. foreign policy is that the United
States is "heavily into transformation." By "transformation," Mearsheimer means that "We believe
that what we should do in the process of running the world is topple governments that are not liberal
democracies and transform them into [neo]liberal democracies."
The United States has engaged in numerous international military interventions over the past fifteen
years, primarily in the Middle East. Proponents of these interventions argue that they are necessary
in order to build stable democracies in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. However, according to Mearsheimer,
the United States is pursuing "a hopeless cause; there is a huge literature that makes it clear that
promoting democracy around the world is extremely difficult to do, and doing it at the end of a rifle
barrel is almost impossible."
So why has the United States continued to pursue policies and strategies that fail to convert
U.S. military might into political ends?
Eugene Gholz of the University of Texas at Austin suggests that the root of the issue could be
American hubris. The United States has made the mistake of "thinking we can control things we can't
control." Mearsheimer agrees with Gholz, although he finds the situation perplexing: "It's remarkably
difficult to understand why we still continue to think we can dominate the world and pursue the same
foreign policy we've been pursuing at least since 2001, when it has led to abject failure after abject
failure."
Several other scholars chime in to offer their own thoughts on this thorny issue. Boston University's
Andrew Bacevich opines that the United States needs to "come to some understanding of who we are
and why we do these things – a critical understanding of the American identity." Notre Dame's Michael Desch agrees: "That cuts to the core of American political culture. I think the root of the hubris
is deep in the software that animates how we think about ourselves, and how we think about the world."
Harvard University's Stephen Walt offers yet another possibility. Walt asks if the U.S. commitment
to its current misguided and damaging foreign policy is due to "deep culture" or if it is result
of "the national security apparatus we built after World War II." Walt thinks it is the latter: the
United States "was not a highly interventionist country until after the Second World War." After
World War II, "we built a large national security state, we had bases everywhere, and then we discovered
that we can't let go of any of that, even though the original reason for building it is gone."
Did the other panelists agree with Walt? Did anyone suggest a different problem as a candidate
for the most pressing issue? Watch the full video above to see and be sure to check out the other
videos of CNI and CKI's panel of nationally acclaimed foreign policy scholars addressing additional
questions.
Lloyd Blankfein is all in for HRC, so we know what sort of
economy we will get.
The Clinton administration will have a
tough balance, throwing enough crumbs to the left to keep
them happy while giving payback for the speaking fees.
Before Anne demands that you identify who this is - let me
help. Lloyd Craig Blankfein is an American business
executive. He is the CEO and Chairman of Goldman Sachs.
Now
was that so hard? As for "we know what sort of economy we
will get". No Rusty - we do not know WTF you mean by this. So
get to it as man splain this to us.
Since both major parties are owned by plutocrats, we get a
choice between quicker or slower misery. And since Hillary is
in bed with the neocons, we also get the probability of major
conflagration or US oppression of the globe.
If a
progressive/populist revolt doesn't change the current path
we are all screwed.
Nothing new Strobe
Talbott was closeted, and brought Mrs Kagan aka Victoria
Nuland in to State in 1993.
Bill bearded the bear breaking Kosovo and Bosinia out of
Serbia...........
The down payment for Kyiv in 2012 was in 1996.
likbez -> ilsm...
, -1
Nuland occupies a special place among neocons.
This former associate of Dick Cheney managed to completely
destroy pretty nice European county, unleashing the horror of
real starvation on the population.
Ukraine now is essentially Central African country in the
middle of the Europe. Retirees often live on less then $1 a
day. most adults (and lucky retirees) on less then $3 a day.
$6 a day is considered a high salary. At the same time
"oligarchs" drive on Maybachs, and personal jets.
Sex tourism is rampant. Probably the only "profession"
that prospered since "Maydan".
Young people try to get university education and emigrate
to any county that would accept them (repeating the story of
Baltic countries and Poland).
Now this a typical IMF debt slave with no chances to get
out of the hole.
Politically this is now a protectorate of the USA with the
USA ambassador as the real, de-facto ruler of the country.
Much like Kosovo is.
Standard of living dropped approximately three times since
2014.
"If the country continues on its present course, Odessa's
reformist governor Mikheil Saakashvili has noted
sarcastically, Ukraine will not reach the level of GDP it had
under former president Viktor Yanukovych for another fifteen
years"
"In Kiev, which is by far the wealthiest city in Ukraine,
payment arrears for electricity have risen by 32 percent
since the beginning of this year."
"... "We have not run this campaign as a campaign against the GOP with the big broad brush - we've run it against Donald Trump," Kaine told the Associated Press. "We're going to get a lot of Republican votes, and that will also be part of, right out of the gate, the way to bring folks back together." ..."
"... In an interview, Kaine said Saturday that he and Hillary Clinton have already discussed how to work with Republicans if they win the presidential election against Trump and his running-mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, in a little more than two weeks. He said that tackling economic anxieties, finding common policy ground with the GOP, and perhaps bringing Republicans into the administration would be elements of unity, though he added that he and Clinton did not discuss cabinet positions, the AP reported. ..."
"... So the plan isn't to try and turn the Senate blue? What kind of work can a Clinton/Kaine administration "get done" with a GOP congress? My first guess would be giving big business something they want in "exchange" for something they want like a repatriation tax holiday to gently suggest corporations bring some of the money they have overseas back to the US and using a small portion of that money to pay for infrastructure spending business associations like the US COC have been advocating for years. ..."
"... It's not like the Dems have a chance of taking congress or at least the Senate so why do anything that might annoy the GOP. Since the GOP are usually so reasonable and the slightest suggestion Dems may want to take over Congress would be the straw that broke the camel's back and turn the generally reasonable GOP into a well oiled "no" machine. ..."
Sen. Tim Kaine said he's already reaching out to Republicans as the Democratic
vice presidential hopeful looks for ways to repair damage done between the two parties during
th divisive race for the White House.
"We have not run this campaign as a campaign against the GOP with the big broad brush -
we've run it against Donald Trump," Kaine told the Associated Press. "We're going to get a lot
of Republican votes, and that will also be part of, right out of the gate, the way to bring folks
back together."
In an interview, Kaine said Saturday that he and Hillary Clinton have already discussed
how to work with Republicans if they win the presidential election against Trump and his running-mate,
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, in a little more than two weeks. He said that tackling economic anxieties,
finding common policy ground with the GOP, and perhaps bringing Republicans into the administration
would be elements of unity, though he added that he and Clinton did not discuss cabinet positions,
the AP reported.
Kaine, who is in his fourth year as a senator from Virginia after serving as the state's governor,
said Clinton is stepping up efforts to help Democrats recapture Senate control, but he hasn't
made a specific pitch for a Democratic Senate. He's focusing his efforts on finding policies Republicans
and Democrats can agree on.
"I have very good relations with Republicans in the Senate," Kaine said.
"There's some people
who really want to get some good work done."
[So the plan isn't to try and turn the Senate blue? What kind of work can a Clinton/Kaine administration
"get done" with a GOP congress? My first guess would be giving big business something they want
in "exchange" for something they want like a repatriation tax holiday to gently suggest corporations
bring some of the money they have overseas back to the US and using a small portion of that money
to pay for infrastructure spending business associations like the US COC have been advocating
for years.
It's not like the Dems have a chance of taking congress or at least the Senate so why do anything
that might annoy the GOP. Since the GOP are usually so reasonable and the slightest suggestion
Dems may want to take over Congress would be the straw that broke the camel's back and turn the
generally reasonable GOP into a well oiled "no" machine.
That's explains vicious campaign by neoliberal MSM against Trump and swiping under the carpet all
criminal deeds of Clinton family. They feel the threat...
Notable quotes:
"... It should be remembered that fascism does not succeed in the real world as a crusade by race-obsessed lumpen. It succeeds when fascists are co-opted by capitalists, as was unambiguously the case in Nazi Germany and Italy. And big business supported fascism because it feared the alternatives: socialism and communism. ..."
"... That's because there is no more effective counter to class consciousness than race consciousness. That's one reason why, in my opinion, socialism hasn't done a better job of catching on in the United States. The contradictions between black and white labor formed a ready-made wedge. ..."
It should be remembered that fascism does not succeed in the real world as a crusade by
race-obsessed lumpen. It succeeds when fascists are co-opted by capitalists, as was unambiguously
the case in Nazi Germany and Italy. And big business supported fascism because it feared the alternatives:
socialism and communism.
That's because there is no more effective counter to class consciousness than race consciousness.
That's one reason why, in my opinion, socialism hasn't done a better job of catching on in the
United States. The contradictions between black and white labor formed a ready-made wedge.
The North's abhorrence at the spread of slavery into the American West before the Civil War
had more to do a desire to preserve these new realms for "free" labor-"free" in one context, from
the competition of slave labor-than egalitarian principle.[…]
There is more to Clintonism, I think, than simply playing the "identity politics" card to
screw Bernie Sanders or discombobulate the Trump campaign. "Identity politics" is near the core
of the Clintonian agenda as a bulwark against any class/populist upheaval that might threaten
her brand of billionaire-friendly liberalism.
In other words it's all part of a grand plan when the Clintonoids aren't busy debating the finer
points of her marketing and "mark"–a term normally applied to the graphic logo on a commercial product.
"... Hillary Clinton's nomination and the euphoria in the press (one NPR female reporter said she has seen women weeping over the possibility of Hillary becoming president) eclipses any discussion about the real issues facing the country. ..."
"... Notice how the term "women's issues" is used by the media and certain politicians to suggest that there is only one acceptable position for females on any given topic. To the left, women's issues appear to mean abortion rights, same-sex marriage, higher taxes, bigger government and electing more women who favor such things. ..."
"... As the husband of a successful woman with a master's degree and accomplished daughters and granddaughters, that's how we feel about Hillary Clinton. We're all for a female president, just not this one. ..."
Have you heard that Hillary Clinton is the "first woman" ever to be nominated for president by a
major political party? Of course you have. The media have repeated the line so often it is broken
news.
Hillary Clinton's nomination and the euphoria in the press (one NPR female reporter said
she has seen women weeping over the possibility of Hillary becoming president) eclipses any discussion
about the real issues facing the country.
To quote Clinton in another context, "what difference does it make" that she is a woman? A liberal
is a liberal, regardless of gender, race or ethnicity.
Must we go through an entire list of "firsts" before we get to someone who can solve our collective
problems, instead of making them worse? Many of those cheering this supposed progress in American
culture, which follows the historic election of the "first African-American president," are insincere,
if not disingenuous. Otherwise, they would have applauded the advancement of African-Americans like
Gen. Colin Powell, Justice Clarence Thomas, former one-term Rep. Allen West (R-FL), Sen. Tim Scott
(R-SC) and conservative women like Sarah Palin, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), former presidential
candidate Carly Fiorina, Rep. Mia Love (R-UT) and many others.
Immigrants who entered the country legally and became citizens are virtually ignored by the media.
They champion instead illegal immigrants and the liberals who support them.
The reason for this disparity in attitude and coverage is that conservative blacks, women and
Hispanics hold positions anathema to the left. Conservative African-Americans have been called all
kinds of derogatory names in an effort to get them to convert to liberal orthodoxy, and they're ostracized
if they don't convert. If conservative, a female is likely to be labeled a traitor to her gender,
or worse.
Notice how the term "women's issues" is used by the media and certain politicians to suggest
that there is only one acceptable position for females on any given topic. To the left, women's issues
appear to mean abortion rights, same-sex marriage, higher taxes, bigger government and electing more
women who favor such things.
When it comes to accomplished conservative female leaders, one of the greatest and smartest of
our time was the late Jeane Kirkpatrick, Ronald Reagan's consequential U.S. ambassador to the United
Nations. As Jay Nordlinger wrote in his review of Peter Collier's book "Political Woman" for National
Review, "In a saner world, Jeane Kirkpatrick would have been lionized by feminists. She had risen
from the oil patch to the commanding heights of U.S. foreign policy. But her views were 'wrong.'"
Collier writes that Kirkpatrick, who was a Democrat most of her life, recalled feminist icon Gloria
Steinem once referring to her as "a female impersonator." Author Naomi Wolf called her "a woman without
a uterus" and claimed that she had been "unaffected by the experiences of the female body." Kirkpatrick
responded, "I have three kids, while she, when she made this comment had none."
The left gets away with these kinds of smears because they largely control the media and the message.
No Republican could escape shunning, or worse, if such language were employed against a female Democrat.
Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin, born in Philadelphia to Philippine citizens, has written
about some of the printable things she's been called -- "race traitor," "white man's puppet," "Tokyo
Rose," "Aunt Tomasina."
As the cliche goes, if liberals didn't have a double standard, they would have no standards at
all.
There's an old joke about a woman with five children who was asked if she had it to do over again
would she have five kids. "Yes," she replied, "just not these five."
As the husband of a successful woman with a master's degree and accomplished daughters and
granddaughters, that's how we feel about Hillary Clinton. We're all for a female president, just
not this one.
"... I would agree that Trump is horrible candidate. The candidate who (like Hillary) suggests complete degeneration of the US neoliberal elite. ..."
"... But the problem is that Hillary is even worse. Much worse and more dangerous because in addition to being a closet Republican she is also a warmonger. In foreign policy area she is John McCain in pantsuit. And if you believe that after one hour in White House she does not abandon all her election promises and start behaving like a far-right republican in foreign policy and a moderate republican in domestic policy, it's you who drunk too much Cool Aid. ..."
"... In other words, the USA [workers and middle class] now is in the political position that in chess is called Zugzwang: we face a choice between the compulsive liar, unrepentant, extremely dangerous and unstable warmonger with failing health vs. a bombastic, completely unprepared to governance of such a huge country crook. ..."
The key problems with Democratic Party and Hillary is that they lost working class and middle
class voters, becoming another party of highly paid professionals and Wall Street speculators
(let's say top 10%, not just 1%), the party of neoliberal elite.
It will be interesting to see if yet another attempt to "bait and switch" working class and
lower middle class works this time. I think it will not. Even upper middle class is very resentful
of Democrats and Hillary. So many votes will be not "for" but "against". This is the scenario
Democratic strategists fear the most, but they can do nothing about it.
She overplayed "identity politics" card. Her "identity politics" and her fake feminism are
completely insincere. She is completely numb to human suffering and interests of females and minorities.
Looks like she has a total lack of empathy for other people.
"What scares me is my knowledge of her career-long investment in trying to convince the
generals and the admirals that she is a 'tough bitch', ala Margaret Thatcher, who will not
hesitate to pull the trigger. An illuminating article in the NY Times (
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html ) revealed
that she always advocates the most muscular and reckless dispositions of U.S. military forces
whenever her opinion is solicited. "
Usually people are resentful about Party which betrayed them so many times. It would be interesting
to see how this will play this time.
Beverly Mann October 23, 2016 12:00 pm
It will be interesting to see if yet another attempt to "bait and switch" working class and
lower middle class works this time?
Yup. The Republicans definitely have the interests of the working class and lower middle class
at heart when they give, and propose, ever deeper tax cuts for the wealthy, the repeal of the
estate tax that by now applies only to estates of more than $5 million, complete deregulation
of the finance industry, industry capture of every federal regulatory agency and cabinet department
and commission or board, from the SEC, to the EPA, to the Interior Dept. (in order to hand over
to the oil, gas and timber industries vast parts of federal lands), the FDA, the FTC, the FCC,
the NLRB, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Justice Dept. (including the Antitrust
Division)-to name only some.
And OF COURSE it's to serve the interests of the working class and lower middle class that
they concertedly appoint Supreme Court justices and lower federal court judges that are unabashed
proxies of big business.
And then there's the incessant push to privatize Social Security and Medicare. It ain't the
Dems that are pushing that.
You're drinking wayyy too much Kool Aid, likbez. Or maybe just reading too much Ayn Rand, at
Paul Ryan's recommendation.
beene October 23, 2016 10:31 am
I would suggest despite most of the elite in both parties supporting Hillary, and saying
she has the election in the bag is premature. In my opinion the fact that Trump rallies still
has large attendance; where Hillary's rallies would have trouble filling up a large room is a
better indication that Trump will win.
Even democrats are not voting democratic this time to be ignored till election again.
likbez October 23, 2016 12:56 pm
Beverly,
=== quote ===
Yup. The Republicans definitely have the interests of the working class and lower middle class
at heart when they give, and propose, ever deeper tax cuts for the wealthy, the repeal of the
estate tax that by now applies only to estates of more than $5 million, complete deregulation
of the finance industry, industry capture of every federal regulatory agency and cabinet department
and commission or board, from the SEC, to the EPA, to the Interior Dept. (in order to hand
over to the oil, gas and timber industries vast parts of federal lands), the FDA, the FTC,
the FCC, the NLRB, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Justice Dept. (including
the Antitrust Division) -- to name only some.
And OF COURSE it's to serve the interests of the working class and lower middle class that
they concertedly appoint Supreme Court justices and lower federal court judges that are unabashed
proxies of big business.
=== end of quote ===
This is all true. But Trump essentially running not as a Republican but as an independent on
(mostly) populist platform (with elements of nativism). That's why a large part of Republican
brass explicitly abandoned him. That does not exclude that he easily will be co-opted after the
election, if he wins.
And I would not be surprised one bit if Dick Cheney, Victoria Nuland, Paul Wolfowitz and Perle
vote for Hillary. Robert Kagan and papa Bush already declared such an intention. She is a neocon.
A wolf in sheep clothing, if we are talking about real anti-war democrats, not the USA brand of
DemoRats. She is crazy warmonger, no question about it, trying to compensate a complete lack of
diplomatic skills with jingoism and saber rattling.
The problem here might be that you implicitly idealize Hillary and demonize Trump.
I would agree that Trump is horrible candidate. The candidate who (like Hillary) suggests
complete degeneration of the US neoliberal elite.
But the problem is that Hillary is even worse. Much worse and more dangerous because in
addition to being a closet Republican she is also a warmonger. In foreign policy area she is John
McCain in pantsuit. And if you believe that after one hour in White House she does not abandon
all her election promises and start behaving like a far-right republican in foreign policy and
a moderate republican in domestic policy, it's you who drunk too much Cool Aid.
That's what classic neoliberal DemoRats "bait and switch" maneuver (previously executed
by Obama two times) means. And that's why working class now abandoned Democratic Party. Even unions
members of unions which endorses Clinton are expected to vote 3:1 against her. Serial betrayal
of interests of working class (and lower middle class) after 25 years gets on nerve. Not that
their choice is wise, but they made a choice. This is "What's the matter with Kansas" all over
again.
It reminds me the situation when Stalin was asked whether right revisionism of Marxism (social
democrats) or left (Trotskyites with their dream of World revolution) is better. He answered "both
are worse" :-).
In other words, the USA [workers and middle class] now is in the political position that
in chess is called Zugzwang: we face a choice between the compulsive liar, unrepentant, extremely
dangerous and unstable warmonger with failing health vs. a bombastic, completely unprepared to
governance of such a huge country crook.
Of course, we need also remember about existence of "deep state" which make each of
them mostly a figurehead, but still the power of "deep state" is not absolute and this is a very
sad situation.
Beverly Mann, October 23, 2016 1:57 pm
Good grace.
Two points: First, you apparently are unaware of Trump's proposed tax plan, written by Heritage
Foundation economists and political-think-tank types. It's literally more regressively extreme
evn than Paul Ryan's. It gives tax cuts to the wealthy that are exponentially more generous percentage-wise
than G.W. Bush's two tax cuts together were, it eliminates the estate tax, and it gives massive
tax cuts to corporations, including yuge ones.
Two billionaire Hamptons-based hedge funders, Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah, have
been funding a super PAC for Trump and since late spring have met with Trump and handed him policy
proposals and suggestions for administrative agency heads and judicial appointments. Other yuge
funders are members of the Ricketts family, including Thomas Ricketts, CEO of TD Ameritrade and
a son of its founder.
Two other billionaires funding Trump: Forrest Lucas, founder of Lucas Oil and reportedly Trump's
choice for Interior Secretary if you and the working class and lower middle class folks whose
interests Trump has at heart get their way.
And then there's Texas oil billionaire Harold Hamm, Trump's very first billionaire mega-donor.
One of my recurring pet peeves about Clinton and her campaign is her failure to tell the public
that these billionaires are contributing mega-bucks to help fund Trump's campaign, and to tell
the public who exactly they are. As well as her failure to make a concerted effort to educate
the public about the the specifics of Trump's fiscal and deregulatory agenda as he has published
it.
As for your belief that I idealize Clinton, you obviously are very new to Angry Bear. I was
a virulent Sanders supporter throughout the primaries, to the very end. In 2008 I originally supported
John Edwards during the primaries and then, when it became clear that it was a two-candidate race,
supported Obama. My reason? I really, really, REALLY did not want to see another triangulation
Democratic administration. That's largely what we got during Obama's first term, though, and I
was not happy about it.
Bottom line: I'm not the gullible one here. You are.
likbez, October 23, 2016 2:37 pm
You demonstrate complete inability to weight the gravity of two dismal, but unequal in their
gravity options.
All your arguments about Supreme Court justices, taxes, inheritance and other similar things
make sense if and only if the country continues to exist.
Which is not given due to the craziness and the level of degeneration of neoliberal elite and
specifically Hillary ("no fly zone in Syria" is one example of her craziness). Playing chickens
with a nuclear power for the sake of proving imperial dominance in Middle East is a crazy policy.
Neocons rule the roost in both parties, which essentially became a single War Party with two
wings. Trump looks like the only chance somewhat to limit their influence and reach some détente
with Russia.
Looks like you organically unable to understand that your choice in this particular case is
between the decimation of the last remnants of the New Deal and a real chance of WWIII.
This is not "pick your poison" situation. Those are two events of completely difference magnitude:
one is reversible (and please note that Trump is bound by very controversial obligations to his
electorate and faces hostile Congress), the other is not.
We all should do our best to prevent the unleashing WWIII even if that means temporary decimation
of the remnants of New Deal.
Neoliberalism after 2008 entered zombie state, so while it is still strong, aggressive and
bloodthirsty it might not last for long. And in such case the defeat of democratic forces on domestic
front is temporary.
"... The oligarchy has spent decades on a project to "defund the Left," and they've succeeded in ways we're only just now grasping. "Defunding the Left" doesn't mean denying funds to the rotten Democratic Party; it means defunding everything that threatens the 1%'s hold on wealth and power. ..."
Yves here. Mark Ames wrote this post for our fundraiser five years ago. We've turned into a fundraiser
staple, since as long as Larry Summers is with us, this is the sort of classic worth reading regularly.
Think of it as our analogue to Christmas perennials like The Grinch That Stole Christmas or It's
a Wonderful Life. But not to worry, Ames being Ames and NC being NC, this is the antithesis of sappy.
(Mark, you are on notice that if by some miraculous bit of good fortune, Summers retreats from the
public sphere, we'll need you to provide an updated slant on elite venality).
And in the spirit of Christmas come a couple months early, we hope you'll leave something nice
in our stocking, um, Tip Jar -- We are raising our donor target to 1350 (Lambert has yet to update our thermometer) to help us
reach our final financial target for original reporting.
If you've been reading Naked Capitalism for any period of time without giving back in donations-and
most of us have been hooked from the time we discovered Yves Smith's powerful, sharp voice and brilliant
mind-then you you've been getting away with murder. Naked Capitalism is that rare blog that makes
you smarter. Smarter about a lot of things, but primarily about Yves' area of expertise, finance.
By a quirk of historical bad luck, the American Left has gone two generations without understanding
finance, or even caring to understand. It was the hippies who decided half a century ago that finance
was beneath them, so they happily ceded the entire field-finance, business, economics, money-otherwise
known as "political power"-to the other side. Walking away from the finance struggle was like that
hitchhiker handing the gun back to the Manson Family. There's a great line from Charles Portis's
anti-hippie novel, "Dog of the South" that captures the Boomers' self-righteous disdain for "figures":
He would always say-boast, the way those people do-that he had no head for figures and couldn't
do things with his hands, slyly suggesting the presence of finer qualities.
That part about the hands-that would refer to the hippies' other great failure, turning their
backs on Labor, because Labor didn't groove with the Hippies' Culture War. So the Left finds itself,
fifty years later, dealing with the consequences of all those years of ruinous neglect of finance
and labor-the consequences being powerlessness and political impotence.
That's why Yves Smith is so important to anyone who cares about politics and the bad direction
this country is taking. In 2008, the Left suddenly discovered that although it could bray with the
best of 'em about how bad foreign wars are, and how wrong racism and sexism an homophobia are, it
was caught completely and shamefully by surprise by the financial collapse of 2008. The ignorance
was paralyzing, politically and intellectually. Even the lexicon was alien. Unless of course you
were one of the early followers of Yves Smith's blog.
It wasn't always this way.
Back in the 1930s, the Left was firmly grounded in economics, money and finance; back then, the
Left and Labor were practically one. With a foundation in finance and economics, the Left understood
labor and political power and ideology and organization much better than the Left today, which at
best can parry back the idiotic malice-flak that the Right specializes in spraying us with. We're
only just learning how politically stunted and ignorant we are, how much time and knowledge we've
lost, and how much catching up we have to do.
Which is why Yves Smith's Naked Capitalism is one of the 99%'s most valuable asset in the long
struggle ahead: She is both analyst and educator, with a rare literary talent (especially for finance).
One thing that's protected the financial oligarchy is the turgid horrible prose that they camouflage
their toxic ideas and concepts in. Yves is one of the rare few who can make reading finance as emotionally
charged as it needs to be.
Naked Capitalism is our online university in finance and politics and ideology. Whereas other
online universities are set up to turn millions of gullible youths into debt-shackled Wall Street
feeding cows, Naked Capitalism is the opposite: Completely free, consistently brilliant, vital, and
necessary, making us smarter, teaching us how we might one day overthrow the financial oligarchy.
One other difference between Naked Capitalism and online university swindles: (Stanley Kaplan cough-cough!)
Your donations won't end up paying Ezra Klein's salary.
Which brings me back to my whole "Shame on you!" point I was trying to make earlier. When it comes
to fundraising, nothing works like shaming. That's how those late-night commercials work: You're
sitting there in your nice comfortable home, and then suddenly there's this three-legged dog hobbling
into its cage, with big wet eyes, and then some bearded pedophile comes on and says, "Poor Rusty
has endured more abuse and pain than you can ever imagine, and tomorrow, he will be gassed to death
in a slow, horrible poison death chamber. And you-look at you, sitting there with your Chunky Monkey
and your central heating, what kind of sick bastard are you? Get your goddamn Visa Mastercard out
and send money to Rusty, or else his death is on your head. I hope you sleep well at night."
Now I know that this sort of appeal wouldn't work on the Naked Capitalism crowd-too many economists
here, and as everyone knows, you can't appeal to economists' hearts because, well, see under "Larry
Summers World Bank Memo"… I can imagine Larry watching that late night commercial with the three-legged
dog, powering a 2-liter bottle of Diet Coke and devouring a bag of Kettle Salt & Vinegar potato chips,
calculating the productive worth of the three-legged dog, unmoved by the sentimental appeal. Larry
grabs a dictaphone: "Item: How to end dog-gassings? Solution: Ship all three-legged stray dogs to
sub-Saharan Africa. Africans won't even notice. Dogs saved. Private capital freed up. Problem solved."
So some of you have no hearts, and some of us have no shame. But we all do understand how vital
Naked Capitalism has been in educating us. I'm sure that the other side knows how dangerous a site
like this is, because as we become more educated and more political, we become more and more of a
threat.
The oligarchy has spent decades on a project to "defund the Left," and they've succeeded in
ways we're only just now grasping. "Defunding the Left" doesn't mean denying funds to the rotten
Democratic Party; it means defunding everything that threatens the 1%'s hold on wealth and power.
One of their greatest successes, whether by design or not, has been the gutting of journalism,
shrinking it down to a manageable size where its integrity can be drowned in a bathtub. It's nearly
impossible to make a living as a journalist these days; and with the economics of the journalism
business still in free-fall like the Soviet refrigerator industry in the 1990s, media outlets are
even less inclined to challenge power, journalists are less inclined to rock the boat than ever,
and everyone is more inclined to corruption (see: Washington Post, Atlantic Monthly). A ProPublica
study in May put it in numbers: In 1980, the ratio of PR flaks to journalists was roughly 1:3. In
2008, there were 3 PR flaks for every 1 journalist. And that was before the 2008 shit hit the journalism
fan.
This is what an oligarchy looks like. I saw the exact same dynamic in Russia under Yeltsin: When
he took power in 1991, Russia had the most fearless and most ideologically diverse journalism culture
of any I've ever seen, a lo-fi, hi-octane version of American journalism in the 1970s. But as soon
as Yeltsin created a class of oligarchs to ensure his election victory in 1996, the oligarchs snapped
up all the free media outlets, and forced out anyone who challenged power, one by one. By the time
Putin came to power, all the great Russian journalists that I and Taibbi knew had abandoned the profession
for PR or political whoring. It was the oligarchy that killed Russian journalism; Putin merely mopped
up a few remaining pockets of resistance.
The only way to prevent that from happening to is to support the best of what we have left. Working
for free sucks. It can't hold, and it won't.
There are multiple ways to give. The first is here on the blog,
the Tip Jar , which takes you
to PayPal. There you can use a debit card, a credit card or a PayPal account (the charge will be
in the name of Aurora Advisors).
You can also send a check (or multiple post dated checks) in the name of Aurora Advisors Incorporated
to
Aurora Advisors Incorporated
903 Park Avenue, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10075
Please also send an e-mail to [email protected] with the headline "Check is in the mail"
(and just the $ en route in the message) to have your contribution included in the total number of
donations.
So donate now to Naked Capitalism
. If you can't afford much, give what you can. If you can afford more, give more. If you can
give a lot, give a lot. Whether you can contribute $5 or $5,000, it will pay for itself, I guarantee
you. This isn't just giving, it's a statement that you are want a different debate, a different society,
and a different culture.
Who knows, maybe we'll win; maybe we'll even figure out a way to seal Larry Summers in a kind
of space barge, and fire him off into deep space, to orbit Uranus for eternity. Yves? Could it be
financed?
And you-look at you, sitting there with your Chunky Monkey and your central heating, what
kind of sick bastard are you? Get your goddamn Visa Mastercard out and send money to Rusty,
or else his death is on your head. I hope you sleep well at night.
I'd already shelled out for the NC fundraiser, but this one got me to pull out the MasterCard
and finally get around to becoming a subscriber to Ames' fantastic Radio War Nerd podcast, which
I discovered thanks to the NC commentariat.
Interesting how people become the Other over time. Go back to the videos of crowds taunting
and attacking black kids being escorted by federal marshals into "white" schools, and you see
clean-shaven crew cuts and perms and wife-beater t-shirts and pegged pants and real boots. Go
look at the videos of redneck activity now, NASCAR and "mudding" (pickups with huge tires and
engines slogging through pits of slimy red Georgia mud" and gatherings of motorboats on Southern
lakes, and it's all beards and pony tails (on guys and gals? Says Jeff Foxworthy) and tie-died
clothing (along with the Confederate battle flags and gunz and all.
I got my BA in history from Lake Forest College, in a snotty sick-wealthy northern suburb of
Chicago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Forest_College
My years there, '69-72, after my volunteer "service" in the US Army and a year doing "Racket"
duty in Vietnam, were a "hippie" tour de force. All social concerns and "anti-war" (actually "escape
the draft" by young people who were largely those who could not get into the really prestigious
Ivy League facilities, despite great family wealth, or who had been booted from the same. Heavy
drug use, supine administration ("laissez faire"), endless debates over Marxism Leninism Trotskyism
etc. Ineffectual "peace marches," to do stuff like "blocking" an unused entrance to Ft. Sheridan,
just down the road - a few TV reporters to document the tomfoolery - "Stop The War Machine!" Motions
toward communes, DOA when the practicalities of sharing, comity, ran up against the selfish consumerism
of the privileged: ""I don't get my own room and stereo? I get to copulate with others, but you,
my steady, must remain my sole property!" It helped the transformation that the daughter of the
Dean did a Janis Joplin at the very end of my matriculation there - all of a sudden the local
police were invited in, to search student rooms and cars and engage in all the funsies of "drug
enforcement" with stings, etc.
Lake Forest very quickly morphed, once the draft ended, into a very much focused "business
school," to teach the young budding not-ready-for-MIT-or-Wharton capitalists the rudiments of
their craft. Graduating about 450 looting-ready young folks a year. ?(Not all of them, of course…)
Pretty amazing, not surprising.
Neither the rednecks nor the "hippies" were much interested in what the parasites were doing
to "FIRE" over those decades and generations. That's the thing about parasites: most of what they
do is invisible until the infection gets severe and vital organs are damaged, while the host goes
about generating the nutrition that feeds the critters until whooops! Time to shed some segments
into the water supply, lay some eggs, encyst, find another host…
"... From Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies. The Fed is their stronghold. How in the world will Trump deal with these rabid "crazies in the basement"? ..."
"... When Putin came to power he inherited a Kremlin every bit as corrupt and traitor-infested as the White House nowadays. As for Russia, she was in pretty much the same sorry shape as the Independent Nazi-run Ukraine. Russia was also run by bankers and AngloZionist puppets and most Russians led miserable lives. ..."
Option two: Trump wins. Problem: he will be completely alone. The Neocons have total, repeat
total, control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts. From Clinton
to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies.
The Fed is their stronghold. How in the world will Trump deal with these rabid "crazies in the
basement"?
When Putin came to power he inherited a Kremlin every bit as corrupt and traitor-infested
as the White House nowadays. As for Russia, she was in pretty much the same sorry shape as the
Independent Nazi-run Ukraine. Russia was also run by bankers and AngloZionist puppets and most
Russians led miserable lives.
"... I think race-specific programs are a dead end as they will create great resentment, but universal programs and ESPECIALLY a job guarantee would be tremendously helpful in improving the U.S. racial situation. ..."
"... And it prevents the constant attacks on recipients of benefits as being unworthy, criminal, drug-taking, undeserving folk who should be drug-tested, monitored, controlled, suspected. ..."
"... Privileges like the selection of judges or the creation of special loopholes in the tax law, or other privileges only a political donation of the right amount might purchase. And it should be plain that some of the privileges described are not privileges at all but basic rights of human kind borne within any notion of the just. ..."
"... I think race-specific programs are a dead end as they will create great resentment, but universal programs and ESPECIALLY a job guarantee would be tremendously helpful in improving the U.S. racial situation. ..."
"... When the BLM (I think) asked Bernie about reparations, he said he didn't think it was a good idea, that free college etc would help everyone. ..."
PlutoniumKun is 100% on-target. Moreover, non-universal benefits have tremendous overhead cost
in terms of paperwork, qualifications, etc., while a universal benefit can be minimally bureaucratic.
I think race-specific programs are a dead end as they will create great resentment, but
universal programs and ESPECIALLY a job guarantee would be tremendously helpful in improving the
U.S. racial situation.
On the baby bonds, it's foolish to have a "$50 endowment for a child of Bill Gates". Instead
it would be better to just provide $50,000 to ALL babies including Bill Gates' child, and tax
Bill Gates more.
As the saying goes, "programs for the poor are poor programs." Bill Gates' child should be
allowed to use the same public libraries, go to the same (free) public universities, etc. etc.
I doubt Bill Gates' child will need to take up the guaranteed job, but if he needs or wants to
(perhaps because of a quarrel with his parent) he should be able to.
And it prevents the constant attacks on recipients of benefits as being unworthy, criminal,
drug-taking, undeserving folk who should be drug-tested, monitored, controlled, suspected.
Universality removes many of the privileges the rich enjoy - $50K for all babies including
Bill Gates child - and as privileges are dismantled in this way the remaining privileges of the
rich will stand all the more glaring for their unfairness - to all. Privileges like the selection
of judges or the creation of special loopholes in the tax law, or other privileges only a political
donation of the right amount might purchase. And it should be plain that some of the privileges
described are not privileges at all but basic rights of human kind borne within any notion of
the just.
I think race-specific programs are a dead end as they will create great resentment,
but universal programs and ESPECIALLY a job guarantee would be tremendously helpful in improving
the U.S. racial situation.
I've been thinking about this bit a lot. When the BLM (I think) asked Bernie about reparations,
he said he didn't think it was a good idea, that free college etc would help everyone.
I don't recall any elaboration on his part, but I wondered at the time, how would they be allocated?
Full black, one-half black, one quarter, quadroon, octoroon, mulatto, 'yaller'? That's wholly
back to Jim Crow, or worse. I refer, of course to the
artificial division
of Huttus and Tutsis which, you may recall,
did not work out so well
. Barack Obama, would he qualify? None of his ancestors were slaves.
I am looking forward to the book by Darity and Muller, but they would have to do a lot of persuading
to get me to get comfy with reparations.
The country that gives every expecting mother a new baby package is Finland. They started the
practice in the 1930's when their infant mortality rate was at ten percent. Now they have one
of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world.
The Walloon mouse : ...Instead of decrying people's stupidity and ignorance in rejecting trade
deals, we should try to understand why such deals lost legitimacy in the first place. I'd put
a large part of the blame on mainstream elites and trade technocrats who pooh-poohed ordinary
people's concerns with earlier trade agreements.
The elites minimized distributional concerns, though they turned out to be significant for
the most directly affected communities. They oversold aggregate gains from trade deals, though
they have been smallish since at least NAFTA. They said sovereignty would not be diminished though
it clearly was in some instances. They claimed democratic principles would not be undermined,
though they are in places. They said there'd be no social dumping though there clearly is at times.
They advertised trade deals (and continue to do so) as "free trade" agreements, even though Adam
Smith and David Ricardo would turn over in their graves if they read, say, any of the TPP chapters.
And because they failed to provide those distinctions and caveats now trade gets tarred with
all kinds of ills even when it's not deserved. If the demagogues and nativists making nonsensical
claims about trade are getting a hearing, it is trade's cheerleaders that deserve some of the
blame.
One more thing. The opposition to trade deals is no longer solely about income losses. The
standard remedy of compensation won't be enough -- even if carried out. It's about fairness, loss
of control, and elites' loss of credibility. It hurts the cause of trade to pretend otherwise.
... ... ..
Trump would propose and/or enact, he listed the following six:
"A Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress."
"A hiring freeze on all federal employees."
"A requirement that for every new federal regulation, 2 existing regulations must be eliminated."
"A 5-year ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government."
"A lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government."
"A complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections."
"
~~WWW~
Lot of reform is needed but may be
The forgotten spirit of American protectionism : , -1
The free traders have human economic history precisely inverted. Countries that practice protectionism
almost uniformly become wealthy and technologically advanced. Countries that don't become or remain
terribly sad, poverty-stricken producers of worthless raw materials and desperate labor migrants.
This has been true at least going back to Byzantium and its economic conquest by Genoa and Venice.
That the US thrived pre-1970 free trade is no coincidence. There is no alternative to protectionism.
Free trade = no industry = no money = no future.
I think he is trying to talk about soft neoliberalism vs rejection of neoliberalism as discredited
economics dogma and ideology. I think like Marxism neoliberalism has religious elements in it (as in
"secular religion") so will not go away completely much like obscure religious cults does not dissapper
they on a given date second coming of Christ did not happen.
Notable quotes:
"... new research showing that policies like public housing , welfare and public education spending are more beneficial than conservatives have recognized in decades past. ..."
"... But there are not one, but two big trends in liberal economic thinking. One wants to modify the economic thinking of the past few decades, and the other wants to rip it up. I expect to see a lot of the economic debate in the coming years play out not between the left and right, but between these two strains of thought. ..."
"... The New Center-Left Consensus is attractive to academics and policy wonks. It draws on an eclectic mix of mainstream economic theory, empirical studies and historical experience. It refuses to assume, as many conservatives and libertarians do, that free markets are always the best unless there is a glaring case for government intervention. ..."
In 2015, Forbes writer Adam Ozimek
suggested that a "new liberal consensus" is forming in the economic-policy world. The data back
him up. Many economics professors now
tend to favor government intervention in the economy more than the general public. And the profession's
biggest public stars, from Paul Krugman to Thomas Piketty to Joseph Stiglitz, are now more likely
to lean
to the left than to the right. Meanwhile, I've tried to document the flood of new research
showing that policies like
public housing ,
welfare and public education
spending are more beneficial than conservatives have recognized in decades past.
But there are not one, but two big trends in liberal economic thinking. One wants to
modify the economic thinking of the past few decades, and the other wants to rip it up. I expect
to see a lot of the economic debate in the coming years play out not between the left and right,
but between these two strains of thought.
The research and people I've been writing about fit into what we might call the New Center-Left
Consensus. This strain of thought is based on data and empiricism. Support for higher minimum wages,
for example,
has grown among economists because a large amount of careful
empirical analysis has
shown that minimum wage hikes don't usually cause sizable immediate disruptions in local labor markets.
These economists aren't ignorant of the basic theory of labor supply and demand -- the kind that
every undergrad econ student is forced to learn. They just realize that
it might not be the right theory in this case.
The New Center-Left Consensus is attractive to academics and policy wonks. It draws on an
eclectic mix of mainstream economic theory, empirical studies and historical experience. It refuses
to assume, as many conservatives and libertarians do, that free markets are always the best unless
there is a glaring case for government intervention. It's more willing to entertain all kinds
of ways that government can improve the economy, from welfare to infrastructure spending to regulation,
but it also recognizes that these won't always work. It embraces a philosophy of careful experimentation.
Sometimes the new center-left is even in favor of deregulation -- for example, loosening
zoning restrictions and reducing
occupational licensing . It's not ideologically opposed to the free market.
The best evangelist of the New Center-Left Consensus might be President Barack Obama. In an amazingly
well-informed
editorial in the Economist, he recently laid out a comprehensive picture of the economy and policy.
I have little doubt that Obama's understanding was heavily informed by his chief economic adviser,
Jason Furman ,
who has become a titan of center-left policy advocacy. Obama mixes a healthy respect for capitalism
with a desire to use government to temper the market's excesses.
But there's a second strain of progressive economic thinking that is gaining attention and strength.
This alternative could be called the New Heterodox Explosion. It's basically a movement to purge
mainstream economics from progressive policy-making and thought.
The New Heterodox Explosion rose in large part out of strongly left-leaning intellectual circles,
particularly sociology, the humanities and other disciplines outside economics. It has also found
a home in some economics departments in other countries (most notably the U.K.). Recently, it has
started to permeate blogs and the media.
The new website Evonomics , for example, is
heavily devoted to strongly worded critiques of the entire edifice of modern [neoliberal] economics
and it's where the work of many of the most outspoken champions of the New Heterodox Explosion appears.
These include evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson, activist and venture capitalist Nick Hanauer,
speechwriter Eric Liu and Eric Beinhocker of the Institute for New Economic Thinking. In a spate
of recent blog posts and editorials, these thinkers have
advocated replacing mainstream economic theory with thinking based on evolution, and/or on complexity
theory.
Though it's difficult to boil down these critiques to a few sentences, one basic theme of Wilson,
Hanauer, et al.'s thinking is that modern economics is based on selfishness. Mainstream theories
model human beings as atomistic individuals pursuing their own wants. But, say these Evonomics writers,
people are social beings who care a lot about their fellow humans, and are also deeply embedded in
larger social structures and organizations like communities, nations and cultures.
I'm sympathetic to this point of view. I'm not at all sure that economies can be completely understood
by looking at individual decisions, any more than I'm certain the growth of a tree can be understood
simply by looking at the motions of the particles in the leaves and roots. And I do wish that economists
dedicated a lot more thought and attention to the phenomena they call "
externalities "
and "
social preferences ."
But I'm also very wary of applying the Evonomics ideas to policy-making without a lot more work.
First, the connection to evolution and complexity theory often seems less than solid. Nobody
really knows if economies evolve the way organisms do. And efforts to connect complexity theory
to economics, led by the Santa Fe Institute
, have been going on for quite some time without any dramatic breakthroughs.
So while the New Center-Left Consensus is fully formed and ready for application in the real world,
the New Heterodox Explosion is still in its infancy. Center-left ideas have tons of very careful
academic empirical work behind them, while those wishing to tear up economics and start over are
still working mostly with broad analogies. I hope that the New Heterodox Explosion -- which of course
extends far beyond the few writers and ideas I've cited in this post -- becomes a rich source of
new and innovative economic ideas. But it still has a long way to go to match the intellectual heft
of the center-left.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and
its owners.
Noah Smith is a Bloomberg View columnist. He was an assistant professor of finance at Stony
Brook University, and he blogs at Noahpinion.
"... Social mobility is the kind of equality professional and managerial elites support. ..."
"... High rates of social mobility are not inconsistent with systems of stratification that concentrate power and privilege in a ruling elite. Certainly the circulation of elites strengthens the idea of hierarchy furnishing it with fresh talent and legitimating their ascendancy as a function of merit rather than birth. ..."
"... Look at the root of the problem: capitalism is a profit seeking competition based social organization. This is not meant as a judgement, but it can be demonstrated that capitalism and any other form of social organization based on profit seeking, in principle, is unsustainable within a closed system, such as planet Earth, without periodic destruction of its material wealth and human population. ..."
Social mobility is the kind of equality professional and managerial elites support.
Our present society seems quite mobile and highly stratified.
Historically social mobility became an interpretation of opportunity only after more hopeful interpretations
of opportunity (yeoman idea– your own plot of land– rather than Horatio Alger) began to fade out of the
American experience (sometime after 1890 when social stratification could no longer be ignored).
High rates of social mobility are not inconsistent with systems of stratification that concentrate
power and privilege in a ruling elite. Certainly the circulation of elites strengthens the idea of hierarchy
furnishing it with fresh talent and legitimating their ascendancy as a function of merit rather than
birth.
Social policy that would support a wider distribution of land would give a significant support to
a parents' ability to bequeth property to their children–as seen, for example, in the Homstead Act.
Think tradition of Jefferson, Lincoln and Orestes Brownson.
I just listened to this podcast yesterday. It's Glenn Loury not William Darity,
Jr. unless they had practically the same life. But there are at least a dozen lines
that are verbatim from the podcast.
http://loveandradio.org/2016/10/the-enemy-within/
Look at the root of the problem: capitalism is a profit seeking competition
based social organization. This is not meant as a judgement, but it can be demonstrated
that capitalism and any other form of social organization based on profit seeking,
in principle, is unsustainable within a closed system, such as planet Earth, without
periodic destruction of its material wealth and human population. And this destruction
becomes increasingly severe and threatening to the existence of the entire system
as this social organization, such as capitalism, evolves.
As far as the fundamental premise 'that everyone can prosper in the individual race for wealth given
equal starting opportunities are provided' is not questioned all these studies calling for creation
of "truly equal opportunities" will only exacerbate the problem, which is being practically done (explicitly
or implicitly, knowingly or unknowingly) by many famous liberal economists, including Joseph Stiglitz,
Robert Reich, Bill Black, Michael Hudson, etc., who are trying to find the ways to fix and improve capitalism
without touching the fundamentals.
This is not to say that social economic reforms that practically improve the lives of millions poor
people are wrong or useless. Fighting cancer can be helpful, but only until and unless it kills the
host. So, all these studies, policies, proposals, etc. can be helpful and productive only if clear awareness
of the nature of the disease (capitalism) they are trying to treat exists.
CETA's collapse is equivalent to the Budapest COMECON council session of
28/6/91. Corporate central planning has flopped down dead alongside Soviet
central planning. The Western Bloc is finally breaking up.
The Walloons, part of a barely real country. The Walloons, who brought you
much of Belgian colonialism, which got a bad name even among colonialists. The
Walloons, who oppressed the Flemings. There were cases of Dutch speakers being
condemned to death in courts that were in French and refused to provide
translation.
And yet the Walloons, a singularly unsuccessful people, are derailing a bad
trade deal.
Enlightening times. And times in which we cannot assume that we know where
our allies will come from.
Liberation weighs in with an interesting analysis: La Vallonie considers
CETA to be a Trojan horse bearing the subsidiaries of U.S. companies into
Belgium:
Shipping: "China is to build a deepwater tanker port in Malaysia off the
Malacca Strait, a key gateway for Chinese oil imports.The $1.9bn port,
located on the coast of Malacca City, will be able to accommodate very large
crude carriers" [Lloyd's List].
But, if the point of the TPP is to hem in China by excluding them and
bringing Malaysia into our "orbit" then why would they do this?
Unless, of course they know that any deal will make Malaysia a key gateway
to the American market and thus allow them to use it to wash their goods
through the TPP for cheap market access in the exact same way that they do it
now via Mexico.
It appears Belgium's Wallonia has put a nail on the coffin
of the EU-Canada trade agreement (CETA) by vetoing it. The
reasons, The Economist puts it, "are hard to understand."
Well, yes and no. Canada is one of the most progressive
trade partners you could hope to have, and it is hard to
believe that Walloon incomes or values are really being
threatened. But clearly something larger than the specifics
of this agreement is at stake here.
Instead of decrying people's stupidity and ignorance in
rejecting trade deals, we should try to understand why such
deals lost legitimacy in the first place. I'd put a large
part of the blame on mainstream elites and trade technocrats
who pooh-poohed ordinary people's concerns with earlier trade
agreements.
The elites minimized distributional concerns, though they
turned out to be significant for the most directly affected
communities. They oversold aggregate gains from trade deals,
though they have been smallish since at least NAFTA. They
said sovereignty would not be diminished though it clearly
was in some instances. They claimed democratic principles
would not be undermined, though they are in places. They said
there'd be no social dumping though there clearly is at
times. They advertised trade deals (and continue to do so) as
"free trade" agreements, even though Adam Smith and David
Ricardo would turn over in their graves if they read, say,
any of the TPP chapters.
And because they failed to provide those distinctions and
caveats now trade gets tarred with all kinds of ills even
when it's not deserved. If the demagogues and nativists
making nonsensical claims about trade are getting a hearing,
it is trade's cheerleaders that deserve some of the blame.
One more thing. The opposition to trade deals is no longer
solely about income losses. The standard remedy of
compensation won't be enough -- even if carried out. It's
about fairness, loss of control, and elites' loss of
credibility. It hurts the cause of trade to pretend
otherwise.
Reply
Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 09:32 AM
Peter K. -> Peter K....
, -1
Wallonia is adamantly blocking the EU's trade deal with
Canada
"HEY Canada, f!@# you." Within hours this tweet (the
result of a hack) from the Belgian foreign minister's account
was replaced with a friendlier message: "keep calm and love
Canada". Yet his country's actions are closer to the
original. On October 14th the regional parliament of Wallonia
voted to block the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement
(CETA), a trade deal between the European Union and Canada.
"... Nonsense. You would have to be so incompetent as to need a daily caregiver to be a "liberal" activist and not know Hillary Clinton despises you. ..."
"... Didn't click on the link. I presume this is just face-saving blather from inside the pen. ..."
"... It's compatible with Hillary's three-act campaign's third act of "putting the Party back together" with the solvent glue of conflation and the structural adhesive of Stronger Together ("get in mah fasces, maggots"). ..."
Some fun dish in here: WikiLeaks poisons Hillary's relationship with left. After learning
how Clinton feels about them, liberals vow to push back against her agenda and appointments.
Nonsense. You would have to be so incompetent as to need a daily caregiver to be a "liberal"
activist and not know Hillary Clinton despises you.
Didn't click on the link. I presume this is just face-saving blather from inside the pen.
Gotta pretend you're not in the pen to get more calves in there with you. If they can actually
see the wires and the prods, it takes more effort to get them down the chute.
It's a decent bit of dish, but what one gets out of the forced synonymy of "liberal" and "left"
and "progressive" depends on what priors one brings in with it, and I don't think I'll wait for
the third time around before calling it as enemy design.
It's compatible with Hillary's three-act
campaign's third act of "putting the Party back together" with the solvent glue of conflation
and the structural adhesive of Stronger Together ("get in mah fasces, maggots").
Today's aptrogram from professional political kayfabe: Amanda Marcotte → At Drama, Moan Etc.
I agree with this. All a person has to do is look at a few of her votes in the Senate to see
how right wing she is. Some examples (which I posted during the primaries - sorry for the repetition):
Her vote in favor of the insidious bankruptcy reform act:
The 2001 bill did not become law, but it was similar to the 2005 bill (S. 256) which did
become law. Hillary Clinton was not present for the 2005 vote, because her husband was having
surgery for a partially collapsed lung:
She is a Democrat only by name. In reality she is a wolf in sheep clothing -- a neoliberal (and
a neocon -- a warmonger with the distinct anti-Russian bet) that betrayed working people
and middle class long ago and pandering only to the top 1%. The while "clitonized" Democratic party
is the party of top 1% (top 10% at best). Rejection of Hillary is just rejection of Demorats
(neoliberal democrats) betrayal of working and middle classes. It remains to be seen f Wall Street
managed to push her thrith the thoat of Americal people, despite all re revultion her candidacy
evoke, her corruption and her failing health.
The soullessness of [Clinton's] campaign - all ambition and entitlement - emerges
almost poignantly in the emails, especially when aides keep asking what the campaign
is about. In one largely overlooked passage,
Clinton
complains
that her speechwriters have not given her any overall theme or
rationale. Isn't that the candidate's job? Asked
one of her aides
, Joel Benenson: "Do we have any sense from her what she believes
or wants her core message to be?"
It's that emptiness at the core that makes every policy and
position negotiable and politically calculable. Hence the
embarrassing about-face
on the Trans-Pacific Partnership after the popular winds
swung decisively against free trade.
So too with financial regulation, as in Dodd-Frank
.
As she told
a Goldman Sachs gathering, after the financial collapse there was "a
need to do something because, for political reasons . . . you can't sit idly by and
do nothing."
Of course, we knew all this. But we hadn't seen it so clearly laid out.
Illicit and illegal as is WikiLeaks, it is the camera in the sausage factory. And
what it reveals is surpassingly unpretty.
Who on the left is genuinely excited about voting for Hillary Clinton? Sure, there
are some, but
she strikes me as being a Democratic figure who's a lot like Mitt
Romney was on the Right: the perfect distillation of a kind of Establishmentarianism
within their own party.
(I hasten to say that whatever my disagreement with Romney
over policy might have been, he always struck me as a thoroughly decent person. Hillary
Clinton … not.) It is hard to think of two more different figures on the Right than Mitt
Romney and Donald Trump - temperamentally and otherwise. Yet within four years, the GOP
convulsed so much that it got Donald Trump. What Trump's triumph over the GOP
Establishment showed was its deep weakness. It just needed a strong push.
Might that be the case for the Democrats post-Clinton? Who is the Donald Trump of the
Democratic Party? Where might he come from? I don't think we can see him (or her) now,
but I have a hunch that he's out there.
I find it hard to believe that the Democrats
are not going to be immune to the same economic and cultural forces that dismantled the
GOP. I could be wrong. Her sort of conniving, careerist, technocratic liberalism surely
is not long for this world. Yes?
Posted in
Democrats
,
Presidential politics
. Tagged
Charles
Krauthammer
,
Donald Trump
,
Hillary Clinton
.
There was a time, not long ago, when deficit scolds were
actively dangerous - when their huffing and puffing came
quite close to stampeding Washington into really bad policies
like raising the Medicare age (which wouldn't even have saved
money) and short-term fiscal austerity. At this point their
influence doesn't reach nearly that far. But they continue to
play a malign role in our national discourse - because they
divert and distract attention from much more deserving
problems, depriving crucial issues of political oxygen.
You saw that in the debates: four, count them, four
questions about debt from the Committee for a Responsible
Federal Budget, not one about climate change. And you see it
again in today's New York Times, with Pete Peterson (of
course) and Paul Volcker (sigh) lecturing us * about the
usual stuff.
What's so bad about this kind of deficit scolding? It's
deeply misleading on two levels: the problem it purports to
lay out is far less clearly a major issue than the scolds
claim, and the insistence that we need immediate action is
just incoherent.
So, about that supposed debt crisis: right now we have a
more or less stable ratio of debt to GDP, and no hint of a
financing problem. So claims that we are facing something
terrible rest on the presumption that the budget situation
will worsen dramatically over time. How sure are we about
that? Less than you may imagine.
Yes, the population is getting older, which means more
spending on Medicare and Social Security. But it's already
2016, which means that quite a few baby boomers are already
drawing on those programs; by 2020 we'll be about halfway
through the demographic transition, and current estimates
don't suggest a big budget problem.
Why, then, do you see projections of a large debt
increase? The answer lies not in a known factor - an aging
population - but in assumed growth in health care costs and
rising interest rates. And the truth is that we don't know
that these are going to happen. In fact, health costs have
grown much more slowly since 2010 than previously projected,
and interest rates have been much lower. As the chart above
shows, taking these favorable surprises into account has
already drastically reduced long-run debt projections. These
days the long-run outlook looks vastly less scary than people
used to imagine.
Still, it's probably true that something will eventually
have to be done to bring spending and revenues in line. But
that brings me to the second point: why is this a crucial
issue right now?
Are debt scolds demanding that we slash spending and raise
taxes right away? Actually, no: the economy is still weak,
interest rates still low (meaning that the Fed can't offset
fiscal tightening with easy money), and as a matter of
macroeconomic prudence we should probably be running bigger,
not smaller deficits in the medium term. So proposals to
"deal with" the supposed debt problem always involve
long-term cuts in benefits and (reluctantly) increases in
taxes. That is, they don't involve actual policy moves now,
or for the next 5-10 years.
So why is it so important to take up the issue right now,
with so much else on our plate?
Put it this way: yes, it's possible that we may at some
point in the future have to cut benefits. But deficit scolds
talk as if they offer a way to avoid this fate, when in fact
their solution to the prospect of future benefit cuts is … to
cut future benefits.
If you try really hard, you can argue that locking in
policies now for this future adjustment will make the
transition smoother. But that is really a second-order issue,
hardly deserving to take up a lot of our time. By putting the
debt question aside, we are NOT in any material way making
the future worse.
And that is a total contrast with climate change, where
our failure to act means pouring vast quantities of
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, materially increasing
the odds of catastrophe with every year we wait.
So my message to the deficit scolds is this: yes, we may
face some hard choices a couple of decades from now. But we
might not, and in any case there aren't any choices that must
be made now. Meanwhile, there are genuinely scary things
happening as we speak, which we should be taking on but
aren't. And your fear-mongering is distracting us from these
real problems. Therefore, I would respectfully request that
you people just go away.
"... media largely went with the austerity narrative, can be partly explained by a neoliberal ethos.
Having spent years seeing the big banks lauded as wealth creating titans, it was difficult for many
to comprehend that their basic business model was fundamentally flawed and required a huge implicit
state subsidy. On the other hand they found it much easier to imagine that past minor indiscretions
by governments were the cause of a full blown debt crisis. ... ..."
"... Brexit is a major setback for neoliberalism ..."
"... Not only is it directly bad for business, it involves (for both trade and migration) a large
increase in bureaucratic interference in market processes. To the extent she wants to take us back to
the 1950s, Theresa May's brand of conservatism may be very different from Margaret Thatcher's neoliberal
philosophy. ..."
"... I think he misses the point here that much of the press coverage of these issues reflects the
economic interests of the media companies and the highly paid journamalists ..."
Neoliberalism and austerity : I
like
to treat neoliberalism not as some kind of coherent political philosophy, but more as a set
of interconnected ideas that have become commonplace in much of our discourse. That the private
sector entrepreneur is the wealth creator, and the state typically just gets in their way. That
what is good for business is good for the economy, even when it increases monopoly power or involves
rent seeking. Interference in business or the market, by governments or unions, is always bad.
And so on. ...
I do not think austerity could have happened on the scale that it did without this dominance
of this neoliberal ethos. Mark Blyth has
described
austerity as the biggest bait and switch in history. It took two forms. In one the financial crisis,
caused by an under regulated financial sector lending too much, led to bank bailouts that increased
public sector debt. This leads to an outcry about public debt, rather than the financial sector.
In the other the financial crisis causes a deep recession which - as it always does - creates
a large budget deficit. Spending like drunken sailors goes the cry, we must have austerity now.
In both cases the nature of what was going on was pretty obvious to anyone who bothered to
find out the facts. That so few did so, which meant that the media largely went with the austerity
narrative, can be partly explained by a neoliberal ethos. Having spent years seeing the big banks
lauded as wealth creating titans, it was difficult for many to comprehend that their basic business
model was fundamentally flawed and required a huge implicit state subsidy. On the other hand they
found it much easier to imagine that past minor indiscretions by governments were the cause of
a full blown debt crisis. ...
While in this sense austerity might have been a useful distraction from the problems with neoliberalism
made clear by the financial crisis, I think a more important political motive was that it appeared
to enable the more rapid accomplishment of a key neoliberal goal: shrinking the state. It is no
coincidence that austerity typically involved cuts in spending rather than higher taxes... In
that sense too austerity goes naturally with neoliberalism. ...
An interesting question is whether the same applies to right wing governments in the UK and
US that used immigration/race as a tactic for winning power. We now know for sure, with both Brexit
and Trump, how destructive and dangerous that tactic can be. As even the neoliberal fantasists
who voted Leave are finding out, Brexit is a major setback for neoliberalism.
Not only is it directly bad for business, it involves (for both trade and migration) a
large increase in bureaucratic interference in market processes. To the extent she wants to take
us
back to the 1950s, Theresa May's brand of conservatism may be very different from Margaret
Thatcher's neoliberal philosophy.
To the extent she wants to take us back * to the 1950s, Theresa May's brand of conservatism
may be very different from Margaret Thatcher's neoliberal philosophy.
[ When Teresa May became Prime Minister, I was puzzled for a time by the impression analysts
were leaving that May was moderate or even liberal in looking to a less class-structured or focused
Britain. The impression I had was that May would be comfortable with the British class structure
of a century back, and meant to turn Britain socially as far back as possible. Possibly my impression
was reasonable. ]
The Brexit vote takes us back not to the 1970s when we joined, but back to the 1950s. Britain
first tried to join the European Union in 1961, but was rebuffed by De Gaulle in 1963. Theresa
May's call for the return of Grammar schools * (selection into different schools at the age of
11) also takes us back to the 1950s. One of the major achievements of the Labour government of
the 1960s was to largely phase out selection at 11....
Good piece, but I think he misses the point here that much of the press coverage of these
issues reflects the economic interests of the media companies and the highly paid journamalists.
It also overlooks the concerted decades long attack of conservatives on the government.
Peter K. : , -1
Neoliberalism via Obama's Fed. Will Hillary's be any different?
Has Macroeconomic Policy Been Different Since the Crisis?
by David Beckworth
Brad DeLong wonders whether macroeconomic policy has been different in the post-2009 recovery.
If we assume the role of macroeconomic policy is to stabilize aggregate demand growth, then my
answer is an unequivocal yes. Macroeconomic policy was very different during the recovery than
in previous periods.
It was different in two key ways. First, aggregate demand growth was kept below its pre-crisis
trend growth rate. Since the recovery started in 2009Q3, NGDP growth has averaged 3.3 percent.
This is well below the 5.4 percent of 1990-2007 period (blue line in the figure below) or a 5.7
percent for the entire Great Moderation period of 1985-2007. Any way you slice it, macroeconomic
policy has dialed back the trend growth of nominal spending. This can be seen in the figure below.
[figure]
Second, aggregate demand growth was not allowed to bounce back at a higher growth rate during
the recovery like it has in past recessions. Put differently, macroeconomic policy in the past
allowed aggregate demand to run a bit hot after a recession before settling it back down to its
trend growth rate. This kept the growth path or level of NGDP stable. You can see this if the
figure above by noting how the growth rate (black line) would typically go above the trend (blue
line) temporarily after a recession.
Had macroeconomic policy allowed this NGDP growth to follow its typical bounce-back pattern
after a recession, we would have seen something like the red line in the figure. This line is
the dynamic forecast from a simple AR model based on the Great Moderation period. This naive forecast
shows one would have expected NGDP growth to have reached as much as 8 percent during the recovery
before settling back down. Instead we barely got over 3 percent growth.
So yes, macroeconomic policy has been different since the crisis. This policy choice, in my
view, is a key reason whey the recovery was so anemic.
P.S. Speaking of NGDP growth, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard NGDP has a sobering piece in the Telegraph
noting that nominal demand has been persistently falling since late 2014. This decline in nominal
economic activity, in my view, is tied to the Fed's implicit tightening of monetary policy via
the talking up of rate hikes since mid-2014.
As Europeans assess the fallout from the U.K.'s
Brexit referendum
, they face a series of elections that could equally shake the political establishment. In the
coming 12 months, four of Europe's five largest economies have votes that will almost certainly mean
serious gains for right-wing populists and nationalists. Once seen as fringe groups, France's National
Front, Italy's Five Star Movement, and the Freedom Party in the Netherlands have attracted legions
of followers by tapping discontent over immigration, terrorism, and feeble economic performance.
"The Netherlands should again become a country of and for the Dutch people," says Evert Davelaar,
a Freedom Party backer who says immigrants don't share "Western and Christian values."
... ... ....
The populists are deeply skeptical of European integration, and those in France and the Netherlands
want to follow Britain's lead and quit the European Union. "Political risk in Europe is now far more
significant than in the United States," says Ajay Rajadhyaksha, head of macro research at Barclays.
... ... ...
...the biggest risk of the nationalist groundswell: increasingly fragmented parliaments that will
be unable or unwilling to tackle the problems hobbling their economies. True, populist leaders might
not have enough clout to enact controversial measures such as the Dutch Freedom Party's call to close
mosques and deport Muslims. And while the Brexit vote in June helped energize Eurosceptics, it's
unlikely that any major European country will soon quit the EU, Morgan Stanley economists wrote in
a recent report. But they added that "the protest parties promise to turn back the clock" on free-market
reforms while leaving "sclerotic" labour and market regulations in place. France's National Front,
for example, wants to temporarily renationalise banks and increase tariffs while embracing cumbersome
labour rules widely blamed for chronic double-digit unemployment. Such policies could damp already
weak euro zone growth, forecast by the International Monetary Fund to drop from 2 percent in 2015
to 1.5 percent in 2017. "Politics introduces a downside skew to growth," the economists said.
Its from World Socialist Web Site by thier analysys
does contain some valid points. Especially about betrayal of nomenklatura, and, especially, KGB nomenklatura,which was wholesale bought
by the USA for cash.
Note that the author is unable or unwilling to use the tterm "neoliberalism". Looks like orthodox Marxism has problem with this
notion as it contradict Marxism dogma that capitalism as an economic doctrine is final stage before arrival of socialism. Looks like
it is not the final ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Russia Since 1980 ..."
"... History reveals that the grandsons of the Bolshevik coup d'état didn't destroy the Soviet Union in a valiant effort to advance the cause of communist prosperity or even to return to their common European home; instead, it transformed Soviet managers and ministers into roving bandits (asset-grabbing privateers) with a tacit presidential charter to privatize the people's assets and revenues to themselves under the new Muscovite rule of men ..."
"... The scale of this plunder was astounding. It not only bankrupted the Soviet Union, forcing Russian President Boris Yeltsin to appeal to the G-7 for $6 billion of assistance on December 6, 1991, but triggered a free fall in aggregate production commencing in 1990, aptly known as catastroika. ..."
"... In retrospect, the Soviet economy didn't collapse because the liberalized command economy devised after 1953 was marked for death. The system was inefficient, corrupt and reprehensible in a myriad of ways, but sustainable, as the CIA and most Sovietologists maintained. It was destroyed by Gorbachev's tolerance and complicity in allowing privateers to misappropriate state revenues, pilfer materials, spontaneously privatize, and hotwire their ill-gotten gains abroad, all of which disorganized production. ..."
"... The rapid growth and increasing complexity of the Soviet economy required access to the resources of the world economy. ..."
"... For the Soviet bureaucracy, a parasitic social caste committed to the defense of its privileges and terrified of the working class, the revolutionary solution to the contradictions of the Soviet economy was absolutely unthinkable. The only course that it could contemplate was the second-capitulation to imperialism. ..."
"... In other words, the integration of the USSR into the structure of the world capitalist economy on a capitalist basis means not the slow development of a backward national economy, but the rapid destruction of one which has sustained living conditions which are, at least for the working class, far closer to those that exist in the advanced countries than in the third world. ..."
"... The Fourth International ..."
"... The End of the USSR, ..."
"... The report related the destruction of the USSR by the ruling bureaucracy to a broader international phenomenon. The smashing up of the USSR was mirrored in the United States by the destruction of the trade unions as even partial instruments of working-class defense. ..."
"... Millions of people are going to see imperialism for what it really is. The democratic mask is going to be torn off. The idea that imperialism is compatible with peace is going to be exposed. The very elements which drove masses into revolutionary struggle in the past are once again present. The workers of Russia and the Ukraine are going to be reminded why they made a revolution in the first place. The American workers are going to be reminded why they themselves in an earlier period engaged in the most massive struggles against the corporations. The workers of Europe are going to be reminded why their continent was the birthplace of socialism and Karl Marx. [p. 25] ..."
This analysis has been vindicated by scholarly investigations into the causes of the Soviet economic collapse that facilitated
the bureaucracy's dissolution of the USSR. In Russia Since 1980, published in 2008 by Cambridge University Press, Professors
Steven Rosefielde and Stefan Hedlund present evidence that Gorbachev introduced measures that appear, in retrospect, to have been
aimed at sabotaging the Soviet economy. "Gorbachev and his entourage," they write, "seem to have had a venal hidden agenda that caused
things to get out of hand quickly." [p. 38] In a devastating appraisal of Gorbachev's policies, Rosefielde and Hedlund state:
History reveals that the grandsons of the Bolshevik coup d'état didn't destroy the Soviet Union in a valiant effort to advance
the cause of communist prosperity or even to return to their common European home; instead, it transformed Soviet managers and ministers
into roving bandits (asset-grabbing privateers) with a tacit presidential charter to privatize the people's assets and revenues to
themselves under the new Muscovite rule of men. [p. 40]
Instead of displaying due diligence over personal use of state revenues, materials and property, inculcated in every Bolshevik
since 1917, Gorbachev winked at a counterrevolution from below opening Pandora's Box. He allowed enterprises and others not only
to profit maximize for the state in various ways, which was beneficial, but also to misappropriate state assets, and export the proceeds
abroad. In the process, red directors disregarded state contracts and obligations, disorganizing inter-industrial intermediate input
flows, and triggering a depression from which the Soviet Union never recovered and Russia has barely emerged. [p. 47]
Given all the heated debates that would later ensue about how Yeltsin and his shock therapy engendered mass plunder, it should
be noted that the looting began under Gorbachev's watch. It was his malign neglect that transformed the rhetoric of Market Communism
into the pillage of the nation's assets.
The scale of this plunder was astounding. It not only bankrupted the Soviet Union, forcing Russian President Boris Yeltsin
to appeal to the G-7 for $6 billion of assistance on December 6, 1991, but triggered a free fall in aggregate production commencing
in 1990, aptly known as catastroika.
In retrospect, the Soviet economy didn't collapse because the liberalized command economy devised after 1953 was marked for
death. The system was inefficient, corrupt and reprehensible in a myriad of ways, but sustainable, as the CIA and most Sovietologists
maintained. It was destroyed by Gorbachev's tolerance and complicity in allowing privateers to misappropriate state revenues, pilfer
materials, spontaneously privatize, and hotwire their ill-gotten gains abroad, all of which disorganized production. [p. 49]
The analysis of Rosefielde and Hedlund, while accurate in its assessment of Gorbachev's actions, is simplistic. Gorbachev's policies
can be understood only within the framework of more fundamental political and socioeconomic factors. First, and most important, the
real objective crisis of the Soviet economy (which existed and preceded by many decades the accession of Gorbachev to power) developed
out of the contradictions of the autarkic nationalist policies pursued by the Soviet regime since Stalin and Bukharin introduced
the program of "socialism in one country" in 1924. The rapid growth and increasing complexity of the Soviet economy required
access to the resources of the world economy. This access could be achieved only in one of two ways: either through the spread
of socialist revolution into the advanced capitalist countries, or through the counterrevolutionary integration of the USSR into
the economic structures of world capitalism.
For the Soviet bureaucracy, a parasitic social caste committed to the defense of its privileges and terrified of the working
class, the revolutionary solution to the contradictions of the Soviet economy was absolutely unthinkable. The only course that it
could contemplate was the second-capitulation to imperialism. This second course, moreover, opened for the leading sections
of the bureaucracy the possibility of permanently securing their privileges and vastly expanding their wealth. The privileged caste
would become a ruling class. The corruption of Gorbachev, Yeltsin and their associates was merely the necessary means employed by
the bureaucracy to achieve this utterly reactionary and immensely destructive outcome.
On October 3, 1991, less than three months before the dissolution of the USSR, I delivered a lecture in Kiev in which I challenged
the argument-which was widely propagated by the Stalinist regime-that the restoration of capitalism would bring immense benefits
to the people. I stated:
In this country, capitalist restoration can only take place on the basis of the widespread destruction of the already existing
productive forces and the social- cultural institutions that depended upon them. In other words, the integration of the USSR
into the structure of the world capitalist economy on a capitalist basis means not the slow development of a backward national economy,
but the rapid destruction of one which has sustained living conditions which are, at least for the working class, far closer to those
that exist in the advanced countries than in the third world. When one examines the various schemes hatched by proponents of
capitalist restoration, one cannot but conclude that they are no less ignorant than Stalin of the real workings of the world capitalist
economy. And they are preparing the ground for a social tragedy that will eclipse that produced by the pragmatic and nationalistic
policies of Stalin. ["Soviet Union at the Crossroads," published in The Fourth International (Fall- Winter 1992, Volume
19, No. 1, p. 109), Emphasis in the original.]
Almost exactly 20 years ago, on January 4, 1992, the Workers League held a party membership meeting in Detroit to consider the
historical, political and social implications of the dissolution of the USSR. Rereading this report so many years later, I believe
that it has stood the test of time. It stated that the dissolution of the USSR "represents the juridical liquidation of the workers'
state and its replacement with regimes that are openly and unequivocally devoted to the destruction of the remnants of the national
economy and the planning system that issued from the October Revolution. To define the CIS [Confederation of Independent States]
or its independent republics as workers states would be to completely separate the definition from the concrete content which it
expressed during the previous period." [David North, The End of the USSR, Labor Publications, 1992, p. 6]
The report continued:
"A revolutionary party must face reality and state what is. The Soviet working class has suffered a serious defeat. The bureaucracy
has devoured the workers state before the working class was able to clean out the bureaucracy. This fact, however unpleasant, does
not refute the perspective of the Fourth International. Since it was founded in 1938, our movement has repeatedly said that if the
working class was not able to destroy this bureaucracy, then the Soviet Union would suffer a shipwreck. Trotsky did not call for
political revolution as some sort of exaggerated response to this or that act of bureaucratic malfeasance. He said that a political
revolution was necessary because only in that way could the Soviet Union, as a workers state, be defended against imperialism." [p.
6]
I sought to explain why the Soviet working class had failed to rise up in opposition to the bureaucracy's liquidation of the Soviet
Union. How was it possible that the destruction of the Soviet Union-having survived the horrors of the Nazi invasion-could be carried
out "by a miserable group of petty gangsters, acting in the interests of the scum of Soviet society?" I offered the following answer:
We must reply to these questions by stressing the implications of the massive destruction of revolutionary cadre carried out within
the Soviet Union by the Stalinist regime. Virtually all the human representatives of the revolutionary tradition who consciously
prepared and led that revolution were wiped out. And along with the political leaders of the revolution, the most creative representatives
of the intelligentsia who had flourished in the early years of the Soviet state were also annihilated or terrorized into silence.
Furthermore, we must point to the deep-going alienation of the working class itself from state property. Property belonged to
the state, but the state "belonged" to the bureaucracy, as Trotsky noted. The fundamental distinction between state property and
bourgeois property-however important from a theoretical standpoint-became less and less relevant from a practical standpoint. It
is true that capitalist exploitation did not exist in the scientific sense of the term, but that did not alter the fact that the
day-to-day conditions of life in factories and mines and other workplaces were as miserable as are to be found in any of the advanced
capitalist countries, and, in many cases, far worse.
Finally, we must consider the consequences of the protracted decay of the international socialist movement...
Especially during the past decade, the collapse of effective working class resistance in any part of the world to the bourgeois
offensive had a demoralizing effect on Soviet workers. Capitalism assumed an aura of "invincibility," although this aura was merely
the illusory reflection of the spinelessness of the labor bureaucracies all over the world, which have on every occasion betrayed
the workers and capitulated to the bourgeoisie. What the Soviet workers saw was not the bitter resistance of sections of workers
to the international offensive of capital, but defeats and their consequences. [p. 13-14]
The report related the destruction of the USSR by the ruling bureaucracy to a broader international phenomenon. The smashing
up of the USSR was mirrored in the United States by the destruction of the trade unions as even partial instruments of working-class
defense.
In every part of the world, including the advanced countries, the workers are discovering that their own parties and their own
trade union organizations are engaged in the related task of systematically lowering and impoverishing the working class. [p. 22]
Finally, the report dismissed any notion that the dissolution of the USSR signified a new era of progressive capitalist development.
Millions of people are going to see imperialism for what it really is. The democratic mask is going to be torn off. The idea
that imperialism is compatible with peace is going to be exposed. The very elements which drove masses into revolutionary struggle
in the past are once again present. The workers of Russia and the Ukraine are going to be reminded why they made a revolution in
the first place. The American workers are going to be reminded why they themselves in an earlier period engaged in the most massive
struggles against the corporations. The workers of Europe are going to be reminded why their continent was the birthplace of socialism
and Karl Marx. [p. 25]
The aftermath of the dissolution of the USSR: 20 years of economic crisis, social decay, and political reaction
According to liberal theory, the dissolution of the Soviet Union ought to have produced a new flowering of democracy. Of course,
nothing of the sort occurred-not in the former USSR or, for that matter, in the United States. Moreover, the breakup of the Soviet
Union-the so-called defeat of communism-was not followed by a triumphant resurgence of its irreconcilable enemies in the international
workers' movement, the social democratic and reformist trade unions and political parties. The opposite occurred. All these organizations
experienced, in the aftermath of the breakup of the USSR, a devastating and even terminal crisis. In the United States, the trade
union movement-whose principal preoccupation during the entire Cold War had been the defeat of Communism-has all but collapsed. During
the two decades that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, the AFL-CIO lost a substantial portion of its membership, was reduced
to a state of utter impotence, and ceased to exist as a workers' organization in any socially significant sense of the term. At the
same time, everywhere in the world, the social position of the working class-from the standpoint of its influence on the direction
of state policy and its ability to increase its share of the surplus value produced by its own labor-deteriorated dramatically.
Certain important conclusions flow from this fact. First, the breakup of the Soviet Union did not flow from the supposed failure
of Marxism and socialism. If that had been the case, the anti-Marxist and antisocialist labor organizations should have thrived in
the post-Soviet era. The fact that these organizations experienced ignominious failure compels one to uncover the common feature
in the program and orientation of all the so-called labor organizations, "communist" and anticommunist alike. What was the common
element in the political DNA of all these organization? The answer is that regardless of their names, conflicting political alignments
and superficial ideological differences, the large labor organizations of the post-World War II period pursued essentially nationalist
policies. They tied the fate of the working class to one or another nation-state. This left them incapable of responding to the increasing
integration of the world economy. The emergence of transnational corporations and the associated phenomena of capitalist globalization
shattered all labor organizations that based themselves on a nationalist program.
The second conclusion is that the improvement of conditions of the international working class was linked, to one degree or another,
to the existence of the Soviet Union. Despite the treachery and crimes of the Stalinist bureaucracy, the existence of the USSR, a
state that arose on the basis of a socialist revolution, imposed upon American and European imperialism certain political and social
restraints that would otherwise have been unacceptable. The political environment of the past two decades-characterized by unrestrained
imperialist militarism, the violations of international law, and the repudiation of essential principles of bourgeois democracy-is
the direct outcome of the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
The breakup of the USSR was, for the great masses of its former citizens, an unmitigated disaster. Twenty years after the October
Revolution, despite all the political crimes of the Stalinist regime, the new property relations established in the aftermath of
the October Revolution made possible an extraordinary social transformation of backward Russia. And even after suffering horrifying
losses during the four years of war with Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union experienced in the 20 years that followed the war a stupendous
growth of its economy, which was accompanied by advances in science and culture that astonished the entire world.
But what is the verdict on the post-Soviet experience of the Russian people? First and foremost, the dissolution of the USSR set
into motion a demographic catastrophe. Ten years after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Russian population was shrinking at an
annual rate of 750,000. Between 1983 and 2001, the number of annual births dropped by one half. 75 percent of pregnant women in Russia
suffered some form of illness that endangered their unborn child. Only one quarter of infants were born healthy.
The overall health of the Russian people deteriorated dramatically after the restoration of capitalism. There was a staggering
rise in alcoholism, heart disease, cancer and sexually transmitted diseases. All this occurred against the backdrop of a catastrophic
breakdown of the economy of the former USSR and a dramatic rise in mass poverty.
As for democracy, the post-Soviet system was consolidated on the basis of mass murder. For more than 70 years, the Bolshevik regime's
dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in January 1918-an event that did not entail the loss of a single life-was trumpeted as an
unforgettable and unforgivable violation of democratic principles. But in October 1993, having lost a majority in the popularly elected
parliament, the Yeltsin regime ordered the bombardment of the White House-the seat of the Russian parliament-located in the middle
of Moscow. Estimates of the number of people who were killed in the military assault run as high as 2,000. On the basis of this carnage,
the Yeltsin regime was effectively transformed into a dictatorship, based on the military and security forces. The regime of Putin-Medvedev
continues along the same dictatorial lines. The assault on the White House was supported by the Clinton administration. Unlike the
dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, the bombardment of the Russian parliament is an event that has been all but forgotten.
What is there to be said of post-Soviet Russian culture? As always, there are talented people who do their best to produce serious
work. But the general picture is one of desolation. The words that have emerged from the breakup of the USSR and that define modern
Russian culture, or what is left of it, are "mafia," "biznessman" and "oligarch."
What has occurred in Russia is only an extreme expression of a social and cultural breakdown that is to be observed in all capitalist
countries. Can it even be said with certainty that the economic system devised in Russia is more corrupt that that which exists in
Britain or the United States? The Russian oligarchs are probably cruder and more vulgar in the methods they employ. However, the
argument could be plausibly made that their methods of plunder are less efficient than those employed by their counterparts in the
summits of American finance. After all, the American financial oligarchs, whose speculative operations brought about the near-collapse
of the US and global economy in the autumn of 2008, were able to orchestrate, within a matter of days, the transfer of the full burden
of their losses to the public.
It is undoubtedly true that the dissolution of the USSR at the end of 1991 opened up endless opportunities for the use of American
power-in the Balkans, the Middle East and Central Asia. But the eruption of American militarism was, in the final analysis, the expression
of a more profound and historically significant tendency-the long-term decline of the economic position of American capitalism. This
tendency was not reversed by the breakup of the USSR. The history of American capitalism during the past two decades has been one
of decay. The brief episodes of economic growth have been based on reckless and unsustainable speculation. The Clinton boom of the
1990s was fueled by the "irrational exuberance" of Wall Street speculation, the so-called dot.com bubble. The great corporate icons
of the decade-of which Enron was the shining symbol-were assigned staggering valuations on the basis of thoroughly criminal operations.
It all collapsed in 2000-2001. The subsequent revival was fueled by frenzied speculation in housing. And, finally, the collapse in
2008, from which there has been no recovery.
When historians begin to recover from their intellectual stupor, they will see the collapse of the USSR and the protracted decline
of American capitalism as interrelated episodes of a global crisis, arising from the inability to develop the massive productive
forces developed by mankind on the basis of private ownership of the means of production and within the framework of the nation-state
system.
"... Clinton says publically she believes that. Meanwhile supposedly smart economists like Tyler Cowen say they don't. Boston Fed President Rosengren says there are too many jobs. We need more unemployed. I'm Fed Up with regional Fed Presidents like him. ..."
"... Class issues are now a tough nut to crack, partly I think because the Democrats and some liberals take demands for economic fairness and try to give us identity politics instead, ..."
"... The meritocratic class who Krugman speaks for and centrist politicians like Clinton will slow-walk class issues like how Tim Geithner slow-walked financial reform. It's part of their job description and milieu. ..."
"... It's funny when neo-liberals/libertarians hate an activity engaged in by workers in what is clearly the product of a free market -- exercising the right of free association and organizing to do collective bargaining -- while think it is perfectly OK -- indeed, so "natural" that any question wouldn't even occur to them -- for owners of capital to organize themselves under the special protections of the state-created corporation. ..."
"... It's understandable, though, that they would consider the corporation to be ordained by natural law: the Founding Fathers, after all, were dedicated to the proposition that all men and corporations are endowed with certain unalienable rights by their Creator. (Never mind that the creator of the corporations is the state.) ..."
I liked how Hillary said in the third debate that she was for raising the minimum wage because
people who work full time shouldn't live in poverty. And "Donald" is against it. That's why people
are voting for her.
That's an ethical or moral notion, combined with "morally neutral" economics. People who work
hard full time, play by the rules and pay their dues shouldn't live in poverty.
Clinton says publically she believes that. Meanwhile supposedly smart economists like Tyler
Cowen say they don't. Boston Fed President Rosengren says there are too many jobs. We need more
unemployed. I'm Fed Up with regional Fed Presidents like him.
Think about the debate between the centrists and progressives over Trump supporters. The centrists
argue Trump supporters (nor anyone else besides a few) aren't suffering from economic anxiety
- that it's racism all of the way down. Matt Yglesias. Dylan Matthews. Krugman. Meyerson. Etc.
The progressives admit there's racism, but there's a wider context. The Nazis were racists,
but there was also the Treaty of Versailles and the Great Depression. And Germany got better in
the decades after the war just as the American South is better than it once was. Steve Randy Waldman
and James Kwak discussed in blog post how the wider context should be taken into consideration.
On some "non-economic issues" there has been progress even though the recent decades haven't
been as booming as the post-WWII decades were with rising living standards for all.
A black President. Legalized gay marriage. Legalized pot. I wouldn't have thought these things
as likely to happen when I was a teenager because of the bigoted authoritarian nature of many
voters and elites. During the Progressive era and when the New Deal was enacted, racism and sexism
and bigotry and anti-science thinking was virulent. Yet economic progress was made on the class
front.
Class issues are now a tough nut to crack, partly I think because the Democrats and some
liberals take demands for economic fairness and try to give us identity politics instead,
not that the latter isn't worthwhile. Partly b/c of what Mike Konczal discussed in his recent
Medium piece.
If we can just apply the morality and politics of electing a black President and legalizing
gay marriage and pot, to class issues. The meritocratic class who Krugman speaks for and centrist
politicians like Clinton will slow-walk class issues like how Tim Geithner slow-walked financial
reform. It's part of their job description and milieu.
But Clinton did talk to it during the third debate when she said she'd raise the minimum wage
because people who work full time shouldn't live in poverty. That is a morale issue as the new
Pope has been talking about.
Hillary should have joked last night about what God's Catholic representative here on Earth
had to say about Trump.
urban legend said...
It's funny when neo-liberals/libertarians hate an activity engaged in by workers in what is
clearly the product of a free market -- exercising the right of free association and organizing
to do collective bargaining -- while think it is perfectly OK -- indeed, so "natural" that any
question wouldn't even occur to them -- for owners of capital to organize themselves under the
special protections of the state-created corporation.
It's understandable, though, that they would consider the corporation to be ordained by
natural law: the Founding Fathers, after all, were dedicated to the proposition that all men and
corporations are endowed with certain unalienable rights by their Creator. (Never mind that the
creator of the corporations is the state.)
"... Once again, during the last hour of the third debate, Clinton reiterated her position on a 'no fly zone' and 'safe zones' in Syria. She is absolutely committed to this policy position which aligns with the anonymous 50+ state dept lifers and Beltway neocons stance. ..."
"... Trump's candidacy = sovereignty - NO War. Clinton's candidacy = Globalism - WAR. Your vote is either for War or against War. It's that simple... ..."
"... Simply incredible the borg,and all those who say she is a lock are in for a big surprise,as Americans don't believe the serial liars anymore. ..."
"... It will be a 'fuck you' vote more than a vote for The Don. ..."
"... The dems forgot to switch off the internet. The anti-Trump MSM campaign is so total and over the top because it has to be --> CNN is so last century. No one is getting out of bed to vote Hillary. ..."
"... Step away from your TVs, smartphones and computers with your brains in the air. Let them breathe freely. ..."
"... Clinton seems to have had some of the questions ahead of time. She seemed to be reading the answers off a telepromter in her lecturn. ..."
"... He should declare that Hillary helped arm Al Qaeda to topple Assad for her banker buddies (cant mention the Jewishness/Israeli Firsterism of the 'neocons' of course, not because false but because true) and will be happy to send African Americans and Latinos to die for 'oil companies' and her 'banker friends' and after decades of establishment Dems promising the sky, maybe they dont need an inveterate liar who arms Islamic terrorists. ..."
"... Hillary armed Al Qaeda and possibly ISIS - both AngloZionist proxies. How in the fuck is she not in jail??? ..."
"... As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, duopolistic elections are merely mechanisms of manufactured consent. When each of the major parties are controlled by the different factions of the oligarchy, there is only afforded the option to vote for the ideology put forth by each oligarchic group. ..."
"... What fascinates me is how Obama went all public about Trumps assertions of rigged elections. It appears the puppet masters are very afraid of a "cynical" (realistic) population. Manufactured consent only works if people play the game. As evidenced in South Africa when no one showed up to vote, the government collapsed. ..."
"... "Your vote is either for War or against War. It's that simple." Is this being lost sight off amongst all the noise? I hope not, for the sake of the Ukrainians and the Syrians. And for the sake of the countries yet to be destabilised. ..."
"... A vote for Clinton = War and a vote for Trump = NO war ..."
"... Don't know when WH was created but the whitehelmets.org domain name was registered (in Beirut not Syria) in August 2014 and it is hosted on Cloudflare in Texas. Maybe it took some time get the brand recognition going? ..."
"... she also tends to repeat the same talking points 900 times so i knew what she'd say before she said it. did catch her whining about imaginary "russian rigging". again; no surprise there. ..."
"... as for trump, he mentioned abortion stuff more than usual in what i'm guessing is an attempt to win back any jesus freaks he lost with the billy bush tape. ..."
"... For the first time I listened to a Trump speech - delivered in Florida on the 13th of this month. What struck me is how much the media attacks on him and his family have got to him. He mentions how he could have settled for a leisurely retirement, but that he felt he had to do something for his country. ..."
"... perhaps he hadn't quite realized the array of power that is lined up against him. They are not going to let one dude wreck their party. ..."
"... It examines Trump through the prism as a likely "Jacksonian Conservative", who are not dissimilar to traditional conservatives but are not non-interventionists as such, just far more honest about their interventionism (as they are unburdened by the neocon bullshit about "killing them to make them barbarians more civilised") and really only likely to want to apply aggression where they feel that fundamental American interests are threatened. ..."
"... Getting Julian Assange's internet connection cut off just makes the Obama regime look even more stupid and pathetic now. The document dumps keep on coming. Did they really think they would stop that by shutting off the LAN in the Ecuadoran embassy? ..."
"... The underlying problem seems to be that John Podesta bought into the marketing bullshit about The Cloud. So he kept all his very sensitive correspondence at his Gmail account, apparently using it as the archive of his correspondence. ..."
"... I don't know if we'll ever know who hacked his account. It is not that hard to do, so it doesn't really require a "state actor". Google only gives you a few tries at entering your password, so Podesta's account couldn't have been hacked by randomly trying every possibility. Somehow, the hacker got the actual password. Either it was exposed somewhere, or it was obtained by spear phishing . That involves sending your target an email that directs him to a Web page that asks him to enter his password. All that's required to do that is being able to write a plausible email, and setting up a Web site to mimic the Web site where the account you want to hack resides, Gmail in this case. ..."
"... Nearly all information technology security breaches are insider jobs, genuine crackers/hackers are rare. Wikileaks is by far the most likely being fed from the inside of the DNC etc. and/or from their suppliers or security detail by people that are disgusted, have personal vendettas, and so on. It's the real Anonymous, anyone anywhere, not the inept CIA stooges or the faux organized or ideological pretenders. In addition any analyst at the NSA with access to XKeyScore can supply Wikileaks with all the Podesta emails on a whim in less than half an hour of "work" and the actual data to be sent would be gotten with a single XKeyScore database query. That sort of query is exactly what the XKeyScore backend part was built to do as documented by Snowden and affirmed by Binney and others. ..."
"... Duterte may well be flawed but he has a keen nose for where things are heading, Filipinos should be proud of him. ..."
"... 'Hillary "We will follow ISIS to Raqqa to take it "back"' (take Raqqa back from the Syrians?) ..."
"... The crazy hyper-entitled White Supremacist bi*ch is beyond any belief. ..."
"... Jesus Christ, Adolf F. Hitler would've blushed if he said some of her shit. This woman admits she is a war criminal in real time. ..."
"... If Hillary is elected, she will be haunted by her 'mistakes' and by the exposure of her double face by Wikileaks. She is stigmatized as 'crooked Hillary' and as an unreliable decision maker. From now on, all her decisions will be tainted with suspicion. I doubt that she'll be able to lead the country properly during the 4 years she hopes to stay in power. ..."
"... the United States has strayed from its democratically-based roots to become a banking and corporate plutocracy. ..."
The candidates are not the first to blame for this. The first to blame are the moderators of such
debates, the alleged journalists 8and their overlords) who do not ask questions that are relevant
for the life of the general votes and who do not intervene at all when the debaters run off course.
The second group to blame are the general horse-race media who each play up their (owner's) special-interest
hobbyhorses as if those will be the decisive issue for the next four years. The candidates fight
for the attention of these media and adopt to them.
I didn't watch yesterday's debate but every media I skimmed tells me that Clinton was gorgeous
and Trump very bad. That means she said what they wanted to hear and Trump didn't. It doesn't
say what other people who watched though of it. Especially in the rural parts of the country they
likely fear the consequences of climate change way more than Russia, ISIS and Iran together.
Another reason why both candidates avoided to bring up the issues low in the list above is that
both hold positions that are socially somewhat liberal and both are corporatists. None of those low
ranked issues is personally relevant to them. No realistic answer to these would better their campaign
finances or their personal standing in the circles they move in. Personally they are both east coast
elite and don't give a fu***** sh** what real people care about.
As far as I can discern it from the various reports no new political issues were touched. Clinton
ran her usual focus group tested lies while Trump refrained from attacking her hard. A huge mistake
in my view. He can beat her by attacking her really, really hard, not on issues but personality.
Her disliked rate (like Trump's) is over -40%. She is vulnerable on many, many things in her past.
Her foreign policy is way more aggressive than most voters like. Calling this back into mind again
and again could probably send her below -50%. Who told him to leave that stuff alone? Trump is a
major
political disruption . He should have emphasized that but he barely hinted at it for whatever
reason.
The voters are served badly -if at all- by the TV debates in their current form. These do not
explain real choices. That is what this whole election circus should be about. But that is no longer
the case and maybe it never was.
I watched a couple of minutes of the Hillary&Donald show. Then got a book and read instead.
Granted the Queen of Chaos will now have an empire to rule over ... but there will be no honeymoon
- there are a lot of issues that will dog her heels irrespective of the so-called press trying
to help cover-up. The good news in that is the probability of political gridlock. The bad news
is that the QoC will have almost no control over her neo-con handlers, the military nor the CIA
...
It's going to be a helluva ride. The DuhMurriKKKan people have little to do with anything ...
and it is possible the economy may show a slight increase as the DuhMurriKKKan people do what
they've been trained to do: go on a shopping spree for shit they don't need on the grounds that
it'll make them feel better.
Plus, the DNC bus did dump shit in the street in Georgia ... a fitting symbol for politics
in Dumb-shit-MurriKKKah. Doh!
"In this venue, your honours, in this venue, I announce my separation from the United States,"
Duterte said to applause at a Chinese forum in the Great Hall of the People attended by Chinese
Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli. "Both in military, not maybe social, but economics also. America has
lost."
Obviously, TheRealDonald's missing Minot nuke will be visiting the Duterte presidential compound
shortly after the Trump-Clinton fraud selection, then Der Decider, whoever plays that 'hope and
chains' spox role for Deep State, will announce it was a 'Russian strike', against US 'peace-keeping'
forces in the Western Pacific, and then proceed accordingly to attack and occupy Crimea, to 'protect
our BFF in the Middle East, Israel'.
Deep State has already cued up a SCOTUS decision on Citizens United Ultra for 2017. QEn+ already
cued up to support junk T-bonds for 'The Wall' or 'The Infrastructure'. US national 'debt' (sic)
will hit $25,000,000,000,000 by 2020, then it's game over.
as an American citizen, I am truly terrified of this election. Hillary Clinton will most likely
start WW3 to serve her masters in Saudi Arabia which seek to eliminate Iran and Russia. Most of
us who read this page see Russia as the country fighting terrorist and the US as the one supporting
terrorism. Not good. The problem is Trump does himself no favors with the women voters. This election
I think also put the world and the normally clueless and self centered American citizens that
we are in alot of trouble. The fact that these are the two candidates means we are in serious
decline. The world has known that for a while and to be honest, a multi polar world is a good
thing
Hillary Clinton will most likely start WW3 to serve her masters in Saudi Arabia which seek
to eliminate Iran and Russia
Saudis are dumb, it was about them, now famous, Lavrov's phrase--debily, blyad' (fvcking morons),
but even they do understand that should the shit hit the fan--one of the first targets (even in
the counter-force mode) will be Saudi territory with one of the specific targets being Saudi royal
family and those who "serve" them. It is time to end Wahhabi scourge anyway.
I watched, it was boring. And I agree, Trump should have been more on the offensive, but with
more precision, not just his usual rambling.
jdmckay | Oct 20, 2016 10:26:19 AM | 11 He tried to distance himself from Putin, oddly the only thing he had going for him in my book
(realization Putin's got things done right, things we should have done, and US has lied about
it). Trump backed off...
YES, major point.
Once again, during the last hour of the third debate, Clinton reiterated her position on a
'no fly zone' and 'safe zones' in Syria. She is absolutely committed to this policy position which
aligns with the anonymous 50+ state dept lifers and Beltway neocons stance.
This irresponsible, shortsighted, deadly position alone disqualifies her completely from serving
as Commander in Chief.
Imagine, if you will, she wins. She convenes her military advisors and they discuss how to
implement this policy - no fly zone. Dunsford tells her, again, if said policy were to be implemented
we, the US, would risk shooting down a Russian fighter jet(s) who is safeguarding, by invitation,
the air space of the sovereign state of Syria. She says that is a risk we must take b/c our 'clients'
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel are demanding such action and Assad must go.
Kaboom - we either have a very real WWIII scenario on our hands OR a complete revolt by our
armed forces...nobody in their right mind wants to go to war with Russia...and I'm no longer convinced
she's in her right mind.
So, what if Hillary wants WWIII?
What if this is in her and her fellow travelers long-term game 'Global' plan?
What if she's insane enough to believe the U.S. and our allies could beat Russia and their
allies?
What if she gets back into the WH and we spend the next four years poking, taunting, propagandizing
pure hate and fear at the bear all the while brainwashing the American psyche to hate, loathe
and fear all things Russian? How maddening will that be? Haven't we already been through enough
psychological warfare?
What if one of the next steps in the New World Order or Global governments game plan is to
untether the U.S. military from the shores of the U.S. and grow it into a Global government military
force? You know, the world's police force.
What if they scenario'd out WWIII plans and the implementation of a no fly zone in Syria is
where it all begins?
What if this is the reason Clinton isn't budging from her 'no fly zone' position? She wants
war. She believes we can win the war. If we win the war the American Globalists morph into 'World'
leaders.
Who in the hell would want this other than those that are quietly leading and championing this
monster. I don't. Do you?
This election is about one thing and one thing only. The people of the United States, our founding
documents, our sovereignty vs the American Globalist class, their control and their Global government
wet dream.
Trump's candidacy = sovereignty - NO War. Clinton's candidacy = Globalism - WAR. Your vote
is either for War or against War. It's that simple...
Simply incredible the borg,and all those who say she is a lock are in for a big surprise,as
Americans don't believe the serial liars anymore.
dahoit | Oct 20, 2016 10:47:07 AM | 14
I believe your assertion is correct. A low turn out, monster win is out there. It will
be a 'fuck you' vote more than a vote for The Don. I would imagine a lot of people are in
for a shock - and a bigger shock than the public backlash against austerity that Brexit was, where
'respected' polling was off by 10 points by election day.
The dems forgot to switch off the internet. The anti-Trump MSM campaign is so total and
over the top because it has to be --> CNN is so last century. No one is getting out of bed to
vote Hillary.
Scylla and Charybdis. Does it really matter much which one wins? I await the collapse of this
empire and pray that it does not totally explode. What we say and/or think will make absolutely
no difference to the final result. The controllers are in control and have been so since the assassination
'60s.
Step away from your TVs, smartphones and computers with your brains in the air. Let them
breathe freely.
The Strait of Messina is dangerous waters so the American public's only logical recourse is
to steer the ship of democracy towards sense and sensibility and let go the anchor of "None of
The Above". The people must demand new candidates who are worthy of holding the Office of the
President. The federal bureaucracy will continue to run the government through September of 2017,
plenty of time for a new election.
Declare Tuesday, November 8th a national day of voter independence and stay home!
That's a simply ludicrous position to take! Trump's 'The Wall' together with 'Defeat ISIS'
together with 'Stand with Israel' is EXACTLY the same Yinon Plan as Clinton's, although it probably
spares the poor folks in Crimea, now under the Russian Oligarchy, and does nothing at all for
the poor folks of Ukraine, now under the Israeli Junta Coup.
Either candidate is proposing soon $TRILLION Full Battle Rattle NeoCon DOD-DHS-NSA-CIA There's
zero daylight between them. The only difference is Trump will make sure that the Exceptionals
are relieved of any tax burden, while Clinton will make sure the burden falls on the Middle Class.
Again, there is zero daylight between them. For every tax increase, Mil.Gov.Fed.Biz receives the
equivalent salary increase or annual bonus.
This whole shittery falls on the Middle Class, and metastasizes OneParty to Stage Five.
Trump won't win in any case. His role was to throw FarRightRabbinicals off the cliff, and make
Hillary appear to voters to be a Nice Old Gal Centrist. She's not. The whole thing was rigged
from the 1998 and 9/11 coup, from Bernie and Donald, on down the rabbit hole.
Debates are to convince, not to illuminate. What a person did not figure out before the debates,
it is rather hopeless to explain.
Thus the stress on issues that are familiar even to the least inquisitive voters, heavily overrepresented
among the "undecided voters" who are, after all, the chief target. Number one, who is, and who
is not a bimbo?
The high position of Putin on the topic list is well deserved. This is about defending everything
we hold pure and dear. We do not want our daughters and our e-mail violated, unless we like to
read the content. Daughters are troublesome enough, but the threat to e-mails is something that
is hard to understand, and that necessitates nonsense. Somehow Putin gets in the mix, rather than
Microsoft, Apple, Google and other companies that destroyed the privacy of communications with
crappy software.
But does it matter? It is like exam in literature or history. It does not matter what the topic
is, but we want to see if the candidates can handle it to our satisfaction. For myself, I like
Clinton formula: "You will never find me signing praises of foreign dictators and strongmen who
do not love America". It is so realistic! First, given her age and fragile throat, I should advise
Mrs. Clinton to refrain from singing. And if she does, the subject should be on the well vetted
list, "leaders who love America". That touches upon some thorny issues, like "what is love", but
as long as Mrs. Clinton does not sing, it is fine.
Trump, if I understand him, took a more risky path, namely, the he is more highly regarded
by people who count, primarily Putin, than schwartzer Obama and "not so well looking chick" Clinton.
Why primarily Putin? It is a bit hard to see who else. The person should have some important leadership
position. And he/she should be on the record saying something nice about Trump. At that point
the scope of name-dropping is narrow.
Wasn't ''PEOPLES GET THE GOVERNMENT THEY DESERVE'',the regime change war cry of so called ''US''?.Dont
see why Madame ''we came we saw he died'' become POTUS approves ''no fly'' wet dream of war mongers
gets shot down by ''evil '' putin and aliies from the skies of Syria onto the ground in pieces.Than
discrimination for hundreds of years while ''americans'' figure out what happened withdrawing
into a shell like a wounded animal leaving the rest of the world to live in peace!
He should declare that Hillary helped arm Al Qaeda to topple Assad for her banker buddies
(cant mention the Jewishness/Israeli Firsterism of the 'neocons' of course, not because false
but because true) and will be happy to send African Americans and Latinos to die for 'oil companies'
and her 'banker friends' and after decades of establishment Dems promising the sky, maybe they
dont need an inveterate liar who arms Islamic terrorists.
Hillary armed Al Qaeda and possibly ISIS - both AngloZionist proxies. How in the fuck is
she not in jail???
As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, duopolistic elections are merely mechanisms of manufactured
consent. When each of the major parties are controlled by the different factions of the oligarchy,
there is only afforded the option to vote for the ideology put forth by each oligarchic group.
Each party defines their ideology to distinguish itself from the other to assure a divided
population. They also manipulate the population via identity politics and state it in such a way
that voters decisions are not rationally resolved but emotionally so, to assure that sufficient
cognitive dissonance is developed to produce a risky shift to a make a decision in favor of a
candidate that would otherwise be unacceptable.
Rigged from the get go is definitely true.
What fascinates me is how Obama went all public about Trumps assertions of rigged elections.
It appears the puppet masters are very afraid of a "cynical" (realistic) population. Manufactured
consent only works if people play the game. As evidenced in South Africa when no one showed up
to vote, the government collapsed.
"Your vote is either for War or against War. It's that simple." Is this being lost sight
off amongst all the noise? I hope not, for the sake of the Ukrainians and the Syrians. And for
the sake of the countries yet to be destabilised.
Where has Trump once advocated for a no fly zone let alone war? Links and sources please. Enlighten
me.
The only candidate who has been steadfast in support of a no fly zone in Syria is Clinton.
Trump avoids the entire Syrian mess like the plague. Have you not heard him attack Hillary on
her Iraq vote, Libyan tragedy, Syria etc? He's not only attacking her for her incompetence and
dishonesty, but b/c he finds these wars/regime changes abominable. As do I.
A vote for Clinton = War and a vote for Trump = NO war
I share your frustration. In my opinion televised 'debates' should be banned, and we should go
back to the time-honored technique of looking at the record. Whether Clinton is smooth or has
a weird smile, or Trump is composed or goes on a rant, makes no difference to me.
I know what Hillary Clinton will do, which is, what she has done for the past 20+ years. She
will aggressively fight even more wars, maybe even attacking Russian forces in Syria (!). She
will spend trillions on all this 'nation-destroying' folly, and of course, that will necessitate
gutting social security because deficits are bad. She will throw what's left of our retirement
funds to the tender mercies of Wall Street, and after they are through with us we will be lucky
to get pennies on the dollar. She will open the borders even more to unchecked third-world immigration,
which will kill the working class. She will push for having our laws and judiciary over-ruled
by foreign corporate lawyers meeting in secret (TPP etc. are not about trade - tariffs are already
near zero - they are about giving multinational corporations de-facto supreme legislative and
judicial power. Really). She will remain the Queen of Chaos, the candidate of Wall Street and
War, who never met a country that she didn't want to bomb into a post-apocalyptic wasteland.
Trump? He says a lot of sensible things, and despite his mouthing off in public, he has a track
record of amicably cooperating with people on long-term projects. But he has no track record in
governance, so of course, I don't really know. He's a gamble.
But right now I am so fed up with the status quo that I am willing to roll the dice. Trump
2016.
I agree Trump has had chance after chance to effectively attack Clinton. But here is the problem.
Much of that attack would have had to be done from a leftist angle. Outside of Russia, Trump looks
to be as much a militarist as Obama at least. The gop money daddies are just as militarist as
the democratic party money daddies. The gop is pro-war just they don't want democrats running
them.
Benghazi is a perfect example. They refuse to attack Clinton on her pro-war, destroy everybody
policies, so they they make up attacks about the handling of the Benghazi attacks, rather than
the reason why Americans were there--to send arms to jihadist terrorists in Syria. (By the way
this is why silence on Obama letting criminal banksters go--they would have done the same thing.)
Trump is intellectually challenged. He could have seen what was happening and brought along
his base to an anti-war position and attracted more people. His base was soft clay in his hands
as even he noticed. However he had no skills as political leader to understand nor the ability
to sculpt his base and win the election, which was given Clinton's horrible numbers, his to lose.
Q: Where you are on the question of a safe zone or a no-fly zone in Syria?
TRUMP: I love a safe zone for people. I do not like the migration. I do not like the people
coming. What they should do is, the countries should all get together, including the Gulf states,
who have nothing but money, they should all get together and they should take a big swath of land
in Syria and they do a safe zone for people, where they could to live, and then ultimately go
back to their country, go back to where they came from.
Q: Does the U.S. get involved in making that safe zone?
TRUMP: I would help them economically, even though we owe $19 trillion.
Source: CBS Face the Nation 2015 interview on Syrian Refugee crisis , Oct 11, 2015
I don't know about your read of Trump's response, but I don't think he's talking about the
same kind of safe zone the Brookings Institute has in mind aka carving up Syria. His answer suggests
he's thinking a 'safe zone' as more in terms of a temporary refugee zone/space/camp...'they do
a safe zone for people, where they could to live, and then ultimately go back to their country,
go back to where they came from.'
btw, does anyone know which exact month in 2013 the WH were founded?
It´s a minor detail, but it would fit so neatly if it is after the first week of September '13
when the "humanitarian" airstrike for the false-flag Ghouta attack was called off. Demonstrating
it was conceived as Project R2P Intervention 2.0 after the first one failed.
Don't know when WH was created but the whitehelmets.org domain name was registered (in
Beirut not Syria) in August 2014 and it is hosted on Cloudflare in Texas. Maybe it took some time
get the brand recognition going?
Le Mesurier claims that he persoanlly trained the first group of 20 volunteers in early 2013.
It seems these 20 'carefully vetted moderate rebels' each went on to train further groups of 20.
So, if we allow 1-2 months training, it looks like mid-late 2013 might be a reasonable date for
them to take an effective role in the PR business.
b, 'The voters are served badly -if at all- by the TV debates in their current form. These do
not explain real choices. That is what this whole election circus should be about. But that is
no longer the case and maybe it never was.'
No 'maybe' ... the 'political' process in the US is a complete fraud. The present political
class must be removed and replaced. People term 3rd Party/Write-in votes as 'protest votes' but
they can - must in my view - be more than that. They must be the first step taken to simply seize
power and control of the USA by US citizens. We cannot have a democracy - anywhere - without an
engaged demos. That's just the way it is.
No
to Clinton, no to Trump . No to the elephants and the jackasses and the menagerie. It will
take a decade/a dozen years. If we had begun in 2004 we'd be there by now.
downloaded it from youtube late last night. that gave me the option of skimming past hillary and
her WASPy passive aggressive act. she also tends to repeat the same talking points 900 times
so i knew what she'd say before she said it. did catch her whining about imaginary "russian rigging".
again; no surprise there.
as for trump, he mentioned abortion stuff more than usual in what i'm guessing is an attempt
to win back any jesus freaks he lost with the billy bush tape. the fact that he supposedly
went so far down in the polls from that tape makes the whole thing seem pointless ("who can pander
to uptight morons with moronic priorities more") but saying silly stuff about overturning roe
v wade seemed desperate. even if he got to appoint more than the one judge replacing the fat dead
greaseball he probably won't get another. and even in that case he would need approval from a
congress that agrees on nothing but their hatred for him.
even the things that got more mentions didn't matter. all i saw on the screeching MSM (especially
CliNtoN) was "oh mah gerd he said he's waiting until election day to comment on the election!
that means riots and bloodshed cuz that's what goes on in our dumb fuck heads all day!"
at least canada will be spared all the rich whining hipster pieces of trash like lena dunham.
small consolation.
For the first time I listened to a Trump speech - delivered in Florida on the 13th of this
month. What struck me is how much the media attacks on him and his family have got to him. He
mentions how he could have settled for a leisurely retirement, but that he felt he had to do something
for his country.
It's almost as if he'd already decided to back off, convincing himself
that maybe he can do more outside the White House. There is a resigned tone to his voice especially
the way he finishes sentences. Maybe he just knows, or was told, that he'd be assassinated if
he ever got elected. Or perhaps he hadn't quite realized the array of power that is lined
up against him. They are not going to let one dude wreck their party.
Good, substantive
interview with Jill Stein . Includes insightful discussion on ME, Syria & relations with Putin/Russia.
Especially for those not familiar with her may find this interesting. Conducted yesterday (10/19).
Nah, it's ludicrous. 'Cuz this is like the gazillionth time I posted this. And will sadly have
to do it a few more times in the next three weeks.
The Donald Trump dove myth dies hard.
In the past five years, Trump has consistently pushed one big foreign policy idea: America
should steal other countries' oil....
"In the old days when you won a war, you won a war. You kept the country," Trump said. "We
go fight a war for 10 years, 12 years, lose thousands of people, spend $1.5 trillion, and then
we hand the keys over to people that hate us on some council." He has repeated this idea for
years, saying during one 2013 Fox News appearance, "I've said it a thousand times."
....To be clear: Trump's plan is to use American ground troops to forcibly seize the most
valuable resource in two different sovereign countries. The word for that is colonialism.
Trump wants to wage war in the name of explicitly ransacking poorer countries for their
natural resources - something that's far more militarily aggressive than anything Clinton has
suggested.
This doesn't really track as "hawkishness" for most people, mostly because it's so outlandish.
A policy of naked colonialism has been completely unacceptable in American public discourse
for decades, so it seems hard to take Trump's proposals as seriously as, say, Clinton's support
for intervening more forcefully in Syria....
He also wants to bring back torture that's "much tougher" than waterboarding. "Don't kid
yourself, folks. It works, okay? It works. Only a stupid person would say it doesn't work,"
he said at a November campaign event. But "if it doesn't work, they deserve it anyway, for
what they're doing."
....The problem is that Trump's instincts are not actually that dovish. Trump... has a consistent
pattern of saying things that sound skeptical of war, while actually endorsing fairly aggressive
policies.
....In a March 2011 vlog post uncovered by BuzzFeed's Andrew Kaczynski and Christopher Massie,
Trump full-throatedly endorsed intervening in the country's civil war - albeit on humanitarian
grounds, not for its oil.
"Qaddafi in Libya is killing thousands of people, nobody knows how bad it is, and we're
sitting around," Trump said. "We should go in, we should stop this guy, which would be very
easy and very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it, and save these lives."
In a later interview, he went further, endorsing outright regime change: "if you don't get
rid of Gaddafi, it's a major, major black eye for this country."
Shortly after the US intervention in Libya began in March 2011, Trump criticized the Obama
administration's approach - for not being aggressive enough. Trump warned that the US was too
concerned with supporting the rebels and not trying hard enough to - you guessed it - take
the oil.
"I would take the oil - and stop this baby stuff," Trump declared. "I'm only interested
in Libya if we take the oil. If we don't take the oil, I'm not interested."
Throw in a needy, fragile ego -- the braggadocio is overcompensation -- and a hairtrigger temper,
and the invasion scenarios write themselves.
And by the way, he's apparently not really that good a businessman either.
Riches-to-Riches Trump Spins Fake Horatio Alger Tale . If he'd put his money into S&P 500
index fund, he'd be worth about eight times what he likely is now. Which is very likely substantially
less than what he says he is. Good reason to withhold the tax returns, no?
So I guess his only recommendation is a reality show with the tagline "You're fired!" All surface,
no depth, the ultimate post-modernist candidate. No fixed mean to that text, alright, he both
invites you to write your interpretation but polices "the other" outside of it.
Interesting that the first post-modern candidate is a bloodthirsty fascist (given his refusal
to accept the electoral results, I would now consider this not wholly inappropriate).
But then again, someone as innocent as
Chauncey Gardiner was
unlikely to emerge from the media.
Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
" Obama: Vote Rigging Is Impossible - If In Favor Of Hillary Clinton | Main
October 20, 2016
This Election Circus Is A Disservice To The People
Via Adam Johnson:
"Total mentions all 4 debates:
Russia/Putin 178
ISIS/terror 132
Iran 67
...
Abortion 17
Poverty 10
Climate change 4
Campaign finance 3
Privacy 0"
The candidates are not the first to blame for this. The first to blame are the moderators of such
debates, the alleged journalists 8and their overlords) who do not ask questions that are relevant
for the life of the general votes and who do not intervene at all when the debaters run off course.
The second group to blame are the general horse-race media who each play up their (owner's) special-interest
hobbyhorses as if those will be the decisive issue for the next four years. The candidates fight
for the attention of these media and adopt to them.
I didn't watch yesterday's debate but every media I skimmed tells me that Clinton was gorgeous
and Trump very bad. That means she said what they wanted to hear and Trump didn't. It doesn't
say what other people who watched though of it. Especially in the rural parts of the country they
likely fear the consequences of climate change way more than Russia, ISIS and Iran together.
Another reason why both candidates avoided to bring up the issues low in the list above is
that both hold positions that are socially somewhat liberal and both are corporatists. None of
those low ranked issues is personally relevant to them. No realistic answer to these would better
their campaign finances or their personal standing in the circles they move in. Personally they
are both east coast elite and don't give a fu***** sh** what real people care about.
As far as I can discern it from the various reports no new political issues were touched. Clinton
ran her usual focus group tested lies while Trump refrained from attacking her hard. A huge mistake
in my view. He can beat her by attacking her really, really hard, not on issues but personality.
Her disliked rate (like Trump's) is over -40%. She is vulnerable on many, many things in her past.
Her foreign policy is way more aggressive than most voters like. Calling this back into mind again
and again could probably send her below -50%. Who told him to leave that stuff alone? Trump is
a major political disruption. He should have emphasized that but he barely hinted at it for whatever
reason.
The voters are served badly -if at all- by the TV debates in their current form. These do not
explain real choices. That is what this whole election circus should be about. But that is no
longer the case and maybe it never was.
Posted by b on October 20, 2016 at 09:11 AM | Permalink
Comments
I didn't watch too.
Posted by: Jack Smith | Oct 20, 2016 9:22:12 AM | 1
I don't follow US elections closely, but my take on this - Trump had made a deal. He pretends
to be fighting, but he is not. Dunno what was that - either he was intimidated, blackmailed, bought
off, or any combination of thereof, and it doesn't matter actually.
Hail to the first Lady President of the United States. Best luck to Middle East, Eastern Europe
and SE Asia - they all gonna need it. Oh, and dear US voters - don't blame yourself, you don't
have any influence on the election, so it's not your fault. You'll pay the price too, though.
Posted by: Wizzy | Oct 20, 2016 9:27:47 AM | 2
"But that is no longer the case and maybe it never was"
It was when the League of Women Voters ran the show but when they wouldn't agree to selling
out the citizens in Amerika is when we got this dog and phoney show.
I didn't watch and I'll be Voting Green.
rg the lg | Oct 20, 2016 10:19:53 AM | 10
Strictly speaking, if the voters aren't getting what they want from the politicians in a democracy,
and they're too chickenshit to demand reform or else - then they should blame themselves because
it IS their fault.
We're getting really, really sick of the bullshit that passes for politics in 2 Party Oz. We
sent them a subtle message in 2015 by voting for independents and splinter groups and the "Government"
governs with a majority of 1 seat. Next election there will either be a responsive non-traitorous
Government, or a revolution. Some of them are starting to wake up and others are pretending not
to notice. But the writing is on the wall...
I've had a good look at your "The Donald Trump dove myth" article and I must admit that its
quality far exceeds your own verbal rubbish.
It examines Trump through the prism as a likely "Jacksonian Conservative", who are not
dissimilar to traditional conservatives but are not non-interventionists as such, just far more
honest about their interventionism (as they are unburdened by the neocon bullshit about "killing
them to make them barbarians more civilised") and really only likely to want to apply aggression
where they feel that fundamental American interests are threatened.
To me, that's a big step up from the NEOCON/NEOLIB false pretense garbage. I'd far rather have
an honest RATIONAL and RISK ASSESSING thug than a two faced snake, which better describes your
C**tory and her Kissenger/Albright gang of perfectly murderable certified war criminals. You can
call him a "fascist" if you like. You obviously prefer the 1984 thuggery to more honest, above
the table varieties. To each one his own.
One last note. Those goons that the Dems kept sending to Trump's rallies to stir violence up,
there's now the fucking Himalayas of evidence that it's entirely real and beyond any doubt.
Guess who was the historical king of criminal spamming of shit stirring goons at political
adversaries' rallies? The Bolsheviks and your own fixated Fascists/Nazis. Looks like your Hillary
learned from the best, inspired by the best, via her fascist mentor Klitsinger et num al.
So, enjoy your Clintory, dear Pom, and good luck as you and yer Britannia're gonna need it
if that discard of a dementia stricken half-human wins the elections.
Getting Julian Assange's internet connection cut off just makes the Obama regime look even
more stupid and pathetic now. The document dumps keep on coming. Did they really think they would
stop that by shutting off the LAN in the Ecuadoran embassy?
The underlying problem seems to be that John Podesta bought into the marketing bullshit
about The Cloud. So he kept all his very sensitive correspondence at his Gmail account, apparently
using it as the archive of his correspondence.
I don't know if we'll ever know who hacked his account. It is not that hard to do, so it
doesn't really require a "state actor". Google only gives you a few tries at entering your password,
so Podesta's account couldn't have been hacked by randomly trying every possibility. Somehow,
the hacker got the actual password. Either it was exposed somewhere, or it was obtained by
spear
phishing . That involves sending your target an email that directs him to a Web page that
asks him to enter his password. All that's required to do that is being able to write a plausible
email, and setting up a Web site to mimic the Web site where the account you want to hack resides,
Gmail in this case.
Nearly all information technology security breaches are insider jobs, genuine crackers/hackers
are rare. Wikileaks is by far the most likely being fed from the inside of the DNC etc. and/or
from their suppliers or security detail by people that are disgusted, have personal vendettas,
and so on. It's the real Anonymous, anyone anywhere, not the inept CIA stooges or the faux organized
or ideological pretenders. In addition any analyst at the NSA with access to XKeyScore can supply
Wikileaks with all the Podesta emails on a whim in less than half an hour of "work" and the actual
data to be sent would be gotten with a single XKeyScore database query. That sort of query is
exactly what the XKeyScore backend part was built to do as documented by Snowden and affirmed
by Binney and others.
The powers that be can cheat but people can ignore their efforts, it's what happens in every
revolution and civil war. It's hard to see how a second Clinton presidency will have any shred
of legitimacy in the US or in the world.
Duterte may well be flawed but he has a keen nose for where things are heading, Filipinos
should be proud of him.
Don't believe anyone who says what you do or don't do doesn't matter.
CLINTON: Well, I am encouraged that there is an effort led by the Iraqi army, supported by
Kurdish forces, and also given the help and advice from the number of special forces and other
Americans on the ground. But I will not support putting American soldiers into Iraq as an occupying
force. I don't think that is in our interest, and I don't think that would be smart to do.
In fact, Chris, I think that would be a big red flag waving for ISIS to reconstitute itself.
The goal here is to take back Mosul. It's going to be a hard fight. I've got no illusions
about that. And then continue to press into Syria to begin to take back and move on Raqqa,
which is the ISIS headquarters.
I am hopeful that the hard work that American military advisers have done will pay off
and that we will see a real - a really successful military operation. But we know we've got
lots of work to do. Syria will remain a hotbed of terrorism as long as the civil war, aided
and abetted by the Iranians and the Russians, continue.
Considering Lynn Forester de Rothschild's apparent hand in potential President Hillary Clinton's
economic policy, such theories don't appear so far from the truth - and only further prove the
United States has strayed from its democratically-based roots to become a banking and corporate
plutocracy.
This is a bit misinformed conclusion. Some of you may know "Wizard of Oz". It is a famous novel
for children that was used for the screenplay of an adorable movie with the same title. Not everybody
knows that it was also a novel for the adults, with a key: a political satire against banking
and corporate plutocracy that controlled the government of USA around 1900. If I recall, the title
figure of the Wizard was Mark Hanna, and Wicked Witch of the East stood for eastern banks which
at that time included the largest banks that were behind Mark Hanna (who in turn was the puppeteer
of the President). Certain things change in the last 120 years, for example, the rich and famous
largely abandoned the mansions in Rhode Island, but New York remains the financial capital. I
somewhat doubt that Rothschild secretly have the sway over this crowd, if one would have to point
to the most powerful financial entity I would pick Goldman Sachs. Yes, it helped that Lady de
Rothschild was sociable, amiable and communicated well with Hillary and numerous gentlemen who
could drop 100,000 on a plate to please the hostess, but at the end of the day, things were quite
similar when Rothschild largely sticked to Europe.
The structural problem is not a conspiracy, but simply, capitalism. Any way you cut it, democracy
relies on convincing the citizens what is good and what is bad for them, and that still requires
money. Money can come from numerous small donors or few large ones, or some combination. Unfortunately,
large donors have disproportional influence, until a politician creates his/her brand, too few
small donors would know about him/her. Nice thing about Sanders was that he operates largely outside
the circle of large donors. That said, both Clintons and Obama entered the political scene as
"outsiders".
I met rich people only few times in my life, and I must admit, it is a pleasant experience.
Sleeping is comfortable, food is good, when you go to restaurant the owner greets your party very
politely and explains the best dishes of the day and so on. In politics, there are reactionary
fat cats and progressive fat cats, but needless to say, they tend to share certain perspective
and they skew the media, the academia and the policies in a certain direction.
If Hillary is elected, she will be haunted by her 'mistakes' and by the exposure of her double
face by Wikileaks. She is stigmatized as 'crooked Hillary' and as an unreliable decision maker.
From now on, all her decisions will be tainted with suspicion. I doubt that she'll be able to
lead the country properly during the 4 years she hopes to stay in power.
@ Piotr Berman who wrote: The structural problem is not a conspiracy, but simply, capitalism.
I heartily disagree. Capitalism is a myth created to cover for decisions made by those who
own private finance.....part of my undergraduate degree is in macro economics. Your assertion
that the Rothschild influence is restricted to Europe is laughable.
Joe6pac has it right......the United States has strayed from its democratically-based roots
to become a banking and corporate plutocracy.
I believe that it is Piotr Berman that is misinformed.
With single-bid ("plurality") voting you only have two candidates to choose from.
I have described the strategic hedge simple score election method all over the Internet. It
is simple in the sense that does not require easily hackable voting machines, and can easily work
with hand counted paper ballots at non-centralized voting places. It is not hampered by any requirement
to cater to so-called "sincere," "honest" (actually artless and foolish) voters. It easily thwarts
both the spoiler effect and the blind hurdle dilemma (the "Burr Dilemma"). It just works.
Strategic hedge simple score voting can be described in one simple sentence: Strategically
bid no vote at all for undesired candidates (ignore them as though they did not exist), or strategically
cast from five to ten votes for any number of candidates you prefer (up to some reasonable limit
of, say, twelve candidates), and then simply add all the votes up.
Both IRV-style and approval voting methods suffer from the blind hurdle dilemma, which can
be overcome with the hedge voting strategy. An example of usage of the hedge strategy, presuming
the case of a "leftist" voter, would be casting ten votes for Ralph Nader, and only eight or nine
for Al Gore. This way, the voter would only sacrifice 20 or 10 percent of their electoral influence
if Nader did not win.
Don't be fooled by fake "alternatives like "IRV" and "approval voting".
And demand hand counted paper ballots that cannot be rigged by "Russian hackers".
Reagan delivered Stingers to the Northern Alliance and Taliban, why is Reagan not in prison?
Because of people like Ollie North and Dick Armitage. Because the Deep State is in control under
Continuance of Government, ever since the 2001 military coup.
Trump may have gone to Catholic prep school, but he's no choir boy either.
Hillary will win, it's in the bag, and she won't be haunted by anything at all, she doesn't
have an introspective bone in her hagsack. She will be our Nero for 21st C.
"We came, we saw, he died, haww, haww, haww."
Should have been bodybagged and tagged and disposed of at sea, her, not M.
"... Point being that not only would The Clintons have the Democratic Party machine to rely on for potential vote rigging in this stage of the process (distinguishing vs. primaries simply for rhetorical focus), ..."
"... but with the clear reality of the Republican Party elite also backing her, she can rely on at least some of the Republican Party machine also being available for potential vote rigging, and who have their experience in Florida, Ohio, etc to bring to the table. ..."
"... The longer term issue is the Imperial Oligarchy has now taken off the mask, they have abandoned the pretense of 2 party competition to unite behind the defender of status quo interests, with WikiLeaks detailing the gory bits of their corruption and malfeasance. And everybody in the system is tainted by that, both parties, media, etc. It has overtly collapsed to the reality of a single Party of Power (per the term Oligarch media like to use re: Russia for example). ..."
"... the Clinton faction is 100% "bi-partisan" and about confluence of both Oligarchic parties. ..."
"... I would say the Democratic primary was even a mirror of this, I would guess that Clinton had hoped to win more easily vs Sanders without rigging etc... essentially between Sanders and Trump turning anything but "radical status quo" into boogymen. ..."
"... That just reveals how close to the line the Imperial Oligarchy feels compelled to play... and, I suppose, how confident they are in the full spectrum of tools at their disposal to manipulate democracy. ..."
"... But that is also shown merely by the situation we are in, with the collapse of the two party system in order to maintain the strength of Imperial Oligarchy. ..."
Point being that not only would The Clintons have the Democratic Party machine to rely on
for potential vote rigging in this stage of the process (distinguishing vs. primaries simply for
rhetorical focus),
but with the clear reality of the Republican Party elite also backing her, she can rely
on at least some of the Republican Party machine also being available for potential vote rigging,
and who have their experience in Florida, Ohio, etc to bring to the table.
The longer term issue is the Imperial Oligarchy has now taken off the mask, they have abandoned
the pretense of 2 party competition to unite behind the defender of status quo interests, with
WikiLeaks detailing the gory bits of their corruption and malfeasance. And everybody in the system
is tainted by that, both parties, media, etc. It has overtly collapsed to the reality of a single
Party of Power (per the term Oligarch media like to use re: Russia for example).
And the craziest thing of course is not that this all happened by accident because some "scary
clown" appeared, but that this was nearly exactly planned BY The Clinton faction themselves (promoting
Trump in order to win vs. "scary clown"). Most notably, not simply as a seizure of power by Democratic
Party "against" Republicans... They are very clear the Clinton faction is 100% "bi-partisan"
and about confluence of both Oligarchic parties.
I would say the Democratic primary was even a mirror of this, I would guess that Clinton
had hoped to win more easily vs Sanders without rigging etc... essentially between Sanders and
Trump turning anything but "radical status quo" into boogymen. Only surprise was how well
Sanders did, necessitating fraud etc, with polls in fact showing Sanders was BETTER placed to
defeat Trump than Clinton.
That just reveals how close to the line the Imperial Oligarchy feels compelled to play...
and, I suppose, how confident they are in the full spectrum of tools at their disposal to manipulate
democracy.
But that is also shown merely by the situation we are in, with the collapse of the two
party system in order to maintain the strength of Imperial Oligarchy.
On September 28 the French mission to the UN claimed that two hospitals in east-Aleppo had been bombed.
It documented this in a tweet with
a picture of destroyed buildings in Gaza. The French later deleted that tweet.
It is not the first time such false claims and willful obfuscations were made by "western" officials.
But usually they shy away from outright lies.
Not so the US Secretary of State John Kerry. In a press event yesterday, before talks with the French
Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault about a new UN resolution,
he said (vid
@1:00) about Syria:
Last night, the regime attacked yet another hospital, and 20 people were killed and 100 people
were wounded. And Russia and the regime owe the world more than an explanation about why they
keep hitting hospitals and medical facilities and children and women.These are acts that beg for
an appropriate investigation of war crimes. And those who commit these would and should be held
accountable for these actions.
No opposition group has claimed that such an extremely grave event happened. None. No press agency
has a record of it. The MI-6 disinformation outlet SOHR in Britain, which quite reliably notes every
claimed casualty and is frequently cited in "western" media", has not said anything about such an
event anywhere in Syria.
The grave incident Kerry claimed did not happen. Kerry made it up. (Was it supposed to happen, got
canceled and Kerry missed the memo?) Kerry used the lie to call for war crime investigations and
punishment. This in front of cameras, at an official event with a foreign guest in the context of
a United Nations Security Council resolution.
This is grave. This is nearly as grave as Colin Powell's false claims of WMD in Iraq in front of
the UN Security Council.
Early reports, like
this one at CBSNEWS, repeat the Kerry claim:
Kerry said Syrian forces hit a hospital overnight, killing 20 people and wounding 100, describing
what would be the latest strike by Moscow or its ally in Damascus on a civilian target.
But the New York Times write up of the event, which includes Kerry's demand for war crime investigations,
does not mention the hospital bombing claim. Not at all. For the self-acclaimed "paper of record",
Kerry's lie did not happen. Likewise the Washington Post which in its own write up
makes no mention of the false Kerry claim.
The latest AP write up by Matthew Lee
also omits the lie. This is curious as Matt Lee is obviously aware of it. The State Departments
daily press briefing yesterday
had a whole section
on it. Video (@3:30)
shows that it is Matt who asks these questions:
QUESTION: Okay. On to Syria and the Secretary's comments earlier this morning, one is: Do you
know what strike he was talking about in his comments overnight on a hospital in Aleppo?
MR KIRBY: I think the Secretary's referring actually to a strike that we saw happen yesterday
on a field hospital in the Rif Dimashq Governorate. I'm not exactly positive that that's what
he was referring to, but I think he was referring to actually one that was --
QUESTION: Not one in Aleppo?
MR KIRBY: I believe it was – I think it was – I think he – my guess is – I'm guessing here that
he was a bit mistaken on location and referring to one --
...
QUESTION: But you don't have certainty, though?
MR KIRBY: I don't. Best I got, best information I got, is that he was most likely referring to
one yesterday in this governorate, but it could just be an honest mistake.
QUESTION: If we could – if we can nail that down with certainty what he was talking about --
MR KIRBY: I'll do the best I can, Matt.
...
This goes on for a while. But there was no hospital attack in Rif Dimashq nor in Aleppo. Later on
DoS spokesman Kirby basically admits that Kerry lied: "I can't corroborate that."
It also turns out that Kerry has no evidence for any war crimes and no plausible way to initiate
any official international procedure about such. And for what? To bully Russia? Fat chance, that
would be a hopeless endeavor and Kerry should know that.
Kerry is desperate. He completely lost the plot on Syria. Russia is in the lead and will do whatever
needs to be done. The Obama administration has, apart from starting a World War, no longer any way
to significantly influence that.
Kerry is only one tool of the Obama administration. Later that day the US Director of National Intelligence,
James Clapper, made other
accusations against Russia:
The US Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directedthe recent
compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.
The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by
the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed
efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.
Such activity is not new to Moscow-the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across
Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope
and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized
these activities.
Translation: "WE DO NOT KNOW at all ("we are confident", "we believe", "directed") who did these
hacks and WE DO NOT HAVE the slightest evidence ("consistent with","based on the scope and sensitivity")
that Russia is involved, so let me throw some chaff and try to bamboozle you all."
The former British ambassador Craig Murray calls it
a
blatant neocon lie. It was obviously the DNC that manipulated the US election by, contrary to
its mandate, promoting Clinton over Sanders. The hackers only proved that. It is also easy to see
why these accusations are made now. Murray:
That the Obama administration has made a formal accusation of Russia based on no evidence is,
on one level, astonishing. But it is motivated by desperation. WikiLeaks have already announced
that they have a huge cache of other material relating to Hillary's shenanigans. The White House
is simply seeking to discredit it in advance by a completely false association with Russian intelligence.
The Obama administration is losing it. On Syria as well as on the election it can no longer assert
its will. Trump, despite all dirty boy's club talk he may do, has a significant chance to catch the
presidency. He (-44%) and Clinton (-41%) are
more disliked by the U.S electorate, than Putin (-38%). Any solution in Syria will be more in
Russia's than the Washington's favor.
Such desperation can be dangerous. Kerry is gasping at straws when he lies about Russia. The president
and his colleagues at the Pentagon and the CIA have more kinetic means to express themselves. Could
they order up something really stupid?
For-profit colleges may be playing defense in the public perception, but they have not given up their
offensive game, if their recent contributions to Congress are any indication.
For-profit education colleges and trade groups donated more than $1.4 million to federal candidates,
parties and elected officials during the first eight months of 2016, according to the most recent
tally by the Center for Responsive Politics. Lobbyists for the sector spent an additional $2.6 million.
(Nonprofit colleges are not permitted to donate to candidates.)
The top recipients in Congress are, or were, running for election, and all but one of the incumbents
have a leadership position on or are members of one of the powerful committees that help determine
the flow of federal money to for-profit colleges. The top three recipients can count for-profit sector
groups among their top campaign contributors.
For-profit colleges and advocates gave $657,531 to 139 incumbents and candidates running for the
House of Representatives. Click
HERE for list
of House members and candidates (by amount of contribution). There were 54 Senators and candidates
for the Senate who received contributions, for a total of $378,758 between January and August of
this year. Click
HERE for list
of Senators and candidates (by amount of contribution.)
More than a third of the money donated to sitting Senators has gone to members of the Armed Services
committee and most of that went to its powerful chairman, John McCain (R-AZ). Last year the Pentagon
banned the biggest for-profit college, the University of Phoenix, from recruiting on military bases
and receiving federal tuition, citing deceptive practices. But McCain lobbied loud and hard and succeeded
in reversing the ban in January.
Republicans running for Congress scooped up 72 percent of contributions from the for-profit education
sector during the first eight months of this year. That's a change from 2010, when they only received
39 percent of contributions. The Presidential race this year, however, has favored the Democrat,
Hillary Clinton.
Some of the biggest donors so far this year are for-profit institutions that have drawn scrutiny
from federal agencies for high student debt levels and low graduation rates. Bridgepoint, at the
top of the list, is under investigation by the Justice Department; it also must pay millions of dollars
in fines to resolve the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's accusation that its private student
loan advertisements misled students. Corinthian Colleges filed for bankruptcy last year and this
year was forced to pay massive fines for defrauding students.
Meredith Kolodner
is a staff writer at The Hechinger Report. She previously covered schools for the
New York Daily News and was an editor at InsideSchools.org and for The Investigative Fund at the
Nation Institute. She's also covered housing, schools, and local government for the Press of Atlantic
City and The Chief-Leader newspaper and her work has appeared in the New York Times and the American
Prospect. Kolodner is a graduate of Brown University and Columbia University's Graduate School of
Journalism and an active New York City public school parent. She is grateful to her 11th grade English
teacher who persistently gave her Cs on essays until she finally stopped burying the lead.
"... It is high time for the U.S. to return to paper-ballots and manual vote counting. The process is easier, comprehensible, less prone to manipulations and reproducible. Experience in other countries show that it is also nearly as fast, if not faster, than machine counting. There is simply no sensible reason why machines should be used at all. ..."
"... There is simply no sensible reason why machines should be used at all." Of course there is - to rig elections. What do you think they are used for. ..."
"... The price to pay is the ability to be alerted when vote rigging is going on. Bush won in 2000 because his people controlled the processes that mattered in Florida. ..."
"... There are the same allegations about 2004 in regards to Ohio. ..."
"... Here's the best statistical analysis of US vote count irregularities to date. Not a pretty picture. ..."
"... There is more needed than just paper ballots. A proportional system, a limit on donations and partisan/donor government posts, a stop to the corporate and lobbyist revolving doors. ..."
"... At present the US seem to be on their way to a one party system. Any democratic process will take place within this "private" club including a very small part of the population. ..."
"... for the 1 percent the system is not rigged, they have a preferred globalization candidate, and a police state fall back should the peasants rebell. ..."
"... US citizens are reduced to vote in a block to this power in the Senate and the House in continuous cycles. In the end that blocks any political progress there might be. ..."
"... There's lots of evidence that the 2004 election was stolen for Bush in Ohio. ..."
"... "smartmatic" is obviously the right choice. it's a name we know and trust. Like Deibold, Northrup, KBR, and Bellingcat. The integrity stands for itself. ..."
"... Just think of how many residents of graveyards will be voting their consciences (or lack thereof) this year. Remember Chicago advise - vote early, vote often. ..."
"... obomber has a friend in the vote rigging business. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-18/robert-creamer ..."
"... Concerted media campaign (scripted) against Trump portrays him as hysterical. Recall the trumped-up "(Howard) Dean Scream". ..."
"... Hillary is as nasty and hysterical as Trump or worse. She uses the F bomb regularly. Screams at her subordinates and she annihilated several countries worth of women and children. ..."
"... We should all be aware of what occurred in the two Baby Bush elections as far as voter machine tabulations and judicial fraud in his becoming president in both elections and the likely murder(s) to cover the fraud up. Small plane crashes being almost untraceable. ..."
"... paper vote or bust. Everything else hides an attempt at control and ultimately fraud. ..."
"... How does that help Trump? Most DNC *and* RNC Deep State insiders favor Hillary. ..."
"... Who is leaking all this stuff so well-timed together? Might just be the FBI, finding itself unable to prosecute officially, not only for fear of retribution, but also because the heap of shit that would get uncovered could be enough for the rest of the world to declare war on the US. ..."
"... In Vietnam, as in Iraq, the U.S. government pushed hard to get an election to sanctify its puppet regime. Ellsberg, who spent two years in Vietnam after his time in the Pentagon, aided some of the key U.S. officials in this effort who sought an honest vote. But when U.S. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge heard their pitch, he replied, "You've got a gentleman in the White House right now [Johnson] who has spent most of his life rigging elections. I've spent most of my life rigging elections. I spent nine whole months rigging a Republican convention to choose Ike as a candidate rather than Bob Taft." Lodge later ordered, "Get it across to the press that they shouldn't apply higher standards here in Vietnam than they do in the U.S." ..."
"... Why is policy discussion absent from this election cycle? Its all Trump bashing,wo one iota of his policies being broadcast? ..."
"... Obomba, the most un-criticised POTUS in American history, is a laughable pos concerned about his terrible corrupt legacy of death war and division which Trump will reveal, once in. ..."
"... Election Fraud within the Outlaw US Empire has a long history. One very intrepid investigator and expert on this is Brad Friedman who runs the Brad Blog, whose current lead item is about this very topic. ..."
"... The Vote 'No Confidence' movement is growing. It's being actively discussed on FB and ZH now ..."
"... Trump say the election is rigged ? Obama's setting up a straw mam by changing the story to election fraud. There may well be fraud in the voting process but we are unlikely to ever know how much. But as to the election being rigged , that's so plainly obvious it's painful. ..."
"... And Germany doesn't allow electronic voting machines. Gotta be a clue there somewhere. ..."
"... There is ample evidence of election fraud, vote fraud, and various types of 'rigging' or 'organising' in the US it is just too long to go into in a short post. ..."
"... Poll Pro-HRC results are not trustworthy. They aren't necessarily outright fabricated (is easy to do and very hard to detect / prosecute), nor even fraudulently carried out, but 'arranged' to give the desired result, which might even, in some cases, be perfectly unconscious, just following SOP. (I could outline 10 major problems / procedures that twist the results.) ..."
"... Then, the media take it up, and cherry-pick the results, pro HRC. That includes internet sites like real clear politics, which I noticed recently is biased (paid?) in favor of HRC. ..."
"... It is amazing to me, yet very few ppl actually dig into the available info about the polls. (Maybe 300 ppl in the world?) HRC needs these fakelorum poll results because they will 'rig' the election as best as they can, they need to point back to them: "see we were winning all the time Trump deplorables yelling insults who cares" - Pathetic. Also, of course, controlling the polls while not the same as 'riggin' the election is part of the same MO. (See Podesta e-mails from Wikileaks.) ..."
"... I think things could get pretty ugly on Nov 9 if Trump wins because i don't see Hillary going quietly into the night and the dems have seeded "putin is rigging" the election idea to contest the results. Plus the establishment that wants Hillary controls the media and the executive office. ..."
"... Trump's delegitimizing the election before it takes place is definitely color revolution stuff - the carrot revolution? ..."
"... "Hillary Clinton now says her "number one priority" in Syria is the removal of Bashar al-Assad, putting us on the path of war with Syria and Russia next year. ..."
"... no-fly zone" over Syria will certainly be followed by the shooting down of both Russian and U.S. jets, in an unpredictable escalation that could easily spread ..."
"... Note the sums are shards of chewed peanuts and their shells. MSM are bought, controlled and are put in a lowly position, and pamper to power, any.… They will go where the money is but it takes them a long time to figure out who what where why etc. and what they are supposed to do. They cannot be outed as completely controlled, so have to do some 'moves' to retain credibility, and their clients/controllers understand that. Encouraging a corrupt 4th Estate has its major downsides. ..."
"... Rigged. Right. Let me tell you about rigged. The US system is rigged in a far larger sense than any Americans realize. It's rigged to blow off the Constitution. ..."
"... the idea of the Electoral College was that every four years communities vote for a local person who could be trusted to go to Washington and become part of the committee that chooses a president and vice-president. ..."
"... The process is "supposed" to be more akin to the Holy See choosing a pope. The electors were to meet in Washington, debate the possibilities, come up with short list, go to the top person on the list and ask if they would be willing to be president (or vice-president, as the case may be), and if they agreed, the deal was done. If not, go to the second person. ..."
"... And demand hand counted paper ballots that cannot be rigged by "Russian hackers". It's called simple score because it is almost the same as other well-known forms of score (and "range") voting, except it's optimized for hand counted paper ballots (i.e. no machines). ..."
"... Need to comb through the propositions carefully. Against big business and self serving liberals.. BTW, I'm a Californian from the Central Valley. Oh! How I wish there is a proposition. Should Hussein Obomo II charge for crimes against humanity? ..."
"... it is absolutely evident that Donald Trump is not only facing the mammoth Clinton political machine, but, also the combined forces of the viciously dishonest Mainstream Media." ..."
"... "When was the last time the media threw 100% of its support behind one party's presidential candidate? What does that say about the media?" ..."
"... Do you feel comfortable with the idea that a handful of TV and print-news executives are inserting themselves into the process and choosing our leaders for us?" ..."
"... It looks like ALL of the Neocon war criminals and architects of the mass slaughters in Iraq (Libya, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc) are standing with Hillary Clinton: ..."
"... Here's a partial list of neocon war criminals supporting Miss Neocon: Paul Wolfowitz (aka, the Prince of Darkness), Eliot Cohen, Richard Perle, David Wurmser, Robert Kagan, Max Boot, Bill Kristol, Dov Zakheim, Douglas Feith, Michael Ledeen, Marc Grossman, David Frum, Michael Chertoff, John Podhoretz, Elliot Abrams, Alan Dershowitz, etc ..."
"... All neocons stand with the CrookedC*nt because there hasn't been nearly enough pointless war, slaughter, dismemberment, death or trauma, it needs to go on FOREVER. ..."
"... To be blunt. It is not only MSM who are prostitutes of oligarchic ruling elite but all or most even so called left-leaning or independent media are all under guise of phony "opposition" or diversity of opinion where there is none. ..."
"... MSM even lacks this basic foundation of a rational thought and must be dismissed entirely. ..."
"... The freedom of speech and press, democracy and just simple decency are simply not allowed in these US under penalty of social marginalizing or even death as Assange and Manning are facing. The entire message of MSM propaganda false flag soldiers is fear. ..."
"... The US Elections themselves are regularity defrauded (read Greg Palast) for decades in thousands of well-documented different and additional ways to polls such as: ..."
"... No independent verification of the vote or serious reporting by international observers about violations, or independent exit polls, and many, many more ways every election is stolen as anybody who opens eyes can see. ..."
"... "The individual loses his substance by voluntarily bowing to an overpowering and distant oligarchy, while simultaneously "participating" in sham democracy." ..."
"... Remember this is a person that actually publicly admits he took 6 months off (from what?) to campaign for Mr Changey Hopey, The drone Bombing Nobel Peace Prize winner, so it's not like he could ever 5have any political insights worth listening to, now is it? ..."
"... Oddly, I looked to Russia for inspiration. RF believes in international law so greatly that she strives mightily at every turn to make it the way nations interact. And what we can see if we choose, is that this effort is paying off. The world is changing because of what Russia believes in. ..."
"... Although Clinton Won Massachusetts by 2%, Hand Counted Precincts in Massachusetts Favored Bernie Sanders by 17% ..."
"... Massachusetts, one of the participating states for the Super Tuesday election results, may need further scrutiny to allay concerns over election fraud using electronic voting machines. 68 out of the state's 351 jurisdictions used hand counted ballots and showed a much larger preference of 17% for Bernie Sanders than the rest of the jurisdictions tabulated by electronic voting machine vendors ES&S, Diebold and Dominion. Hillary Clinton was declared the winner of Massachusetts by 1.42 %. ..."
"... In the Dominican Republic's last elections (May 2016) voters forced the Electoral Office to get rid of the electronic count in favor of paper ballots, which were counted both, by scanner and by hand, one by one, in front of delegates from each party. This action avoided a credibility crisis and everything went smooth. ..."
Obama was asked about Trump's voter fraud assertions on Tuesday [..] He responded with a blistering
attack on the Republican candidate, noting that U.S. elections are run and monitored by local
officials, who may well be appointed by Republican governors of states, and saying that cases
of significant voter fraud were not to be found in American elections.
Obama said there was "no serious" person who would suggest it was possible to rig American
elections , adding, "I'd invite Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes."
That is curious. There are a lot of "non serious" persons in the Democratic Party who tell us
that Russia is trying to manipulate the U.S. elections. How is it going to that when it's not possible?
Is rigging the election only impossible when it is in favor of Hillary Clinton? This while rigging
the elections in favor of Donald Trump, by Russia or someone else, is entirely possible and even
"evident"?
Curious.
That said - I do believe that the U.S. election can be decided through manipulation. We have evidently
seen that in 2000 when Bush was "elected" by a fake "recount" and a Supreme Court decision.
The outcome of a U.S. presidential election can depend on very few votes in very few localities.
The various machines and processes used in U.S. elections can be influenced. It is no longer comprehensible
for the voters how the votes are counted and how the results created. *
The intense manipulation attempts by the Clinton camp, via the DNC against Sanders or by
creating a Russian boogeyman to propagandize against Trump, lets me believe that her side is well
capable of considering and implementing some vote count shenanigan. Neither are Trump or the Republicans
in general strangers to dirty methods and manipulations.
It is high time for the U.S. to return to paper-ballots and manual vote counting. The process
is easier, comprehensible, less prone to manipulations and reproducible. Experience in other countries
show that it is also nearly as fast, if not faster, than machine counting. There is simply no sensible
reason why machines should be used at all.
* (The German Constitutional Court prohibited the use of all voting machines in German
elections because for the general voters they institute irreproducible vote counting which leads
to a general loss of trust in the democratic process. The price to pay for using voting machines
is legitimacy.)
Posted by b on October 19, 2016 at 01:54 AM |
Permalink
I just found out that many states in the US use electronic voting systems made by Smartmatic which
is part of the SGO Group. Lord Mark Malloch-Brown is the chairman of SGO. This man is heavily
entangled with Soros. Hillary is Soros' candidate. You simply can't make this sh*t up
No. The price to pay is the ability to be alerted when vote rigging is going on. Bush won
in 2000 because his people controlled the processes that mattered in Florida.
There are the same allegations about 2004 in regards to Ohio.
There is more needed than just paper ballots. A proportional system, a limit on donations
and partisan/donor government posts, a stop to the corporate and lobbyist revolving doors.
And diverse political parties that present voters with a choice. At present the US seem
to be on their way to a one party system. Any democratic process will take place within this "private"
club including a very small part of the population.
But democracy never meant the power of the poor. So, no, for the 1 percent the system is
not rigged, they have a preferred globalization candidate, and a police state fall back should
the peasants rebell.
And in the end, this is the way things are run in Russia and China, with a lot less media circus.
Add - a limit to presidential power for one person. US citizens are reduced to vote in
a block to this power in the Senate and the House in continuous cycles. In the end that blocks
any political progress there might be. The US are the oldest modern democracy. It is like
being stuck in the age of steam engines.
Good one, wj2! Here's some more info on Lord Malloch-Brown and George Soros, courtesy of WikiPedia:
Malloch Brown has been closely associated with billionaire speculator George Soros. Working
for Refugees International, he was part of the Soros Advisory Committee on Bosnia in 1993–94,
formed by George Soros. He has since kept cordial relations with Soros, and rented an apartment
owned by Soros while working in New York on UN assignments. In May 2007, Soros' Quantum Fund
announced the appointment of Sir Mark as vice-president. In September 2007, The Observer reported
that he had resigned this position on becoming a government minister in the UK. Also in May
2007, Malloch Brown was named vice-chairman of Soros Fund Management and the Open Society Institute,
two other important Soros organisations.
DOOOOOOOOOM! "smartmatic" is obviously the right choice. it's a name we know and trust. Like
Deibold, Northrup, KBR, and Bellingcat. The integrity stands for itself. With a population
so gleefully ignorant and self centered as D'uhmerica, you should be lowering your expectations
significantly.
Are honest elections even legal in Texas and Louisiana? How about Massachusetts and New York?
They may be legal there but it would be dangerous to try to enforce that.
Just think of how many residents of graveyards will be voting their consciences (or lack thereof)
this year. Remember Chicago advise - vote early, vote often.
PB 13 "Concerning attacks from both sides, Trump is definitely more hysterical."
Concerted media campaign (scripted) against Trump portrays him as hysterical. Recall the
trumped-up "(Howard) Dean Scream".
Trump's hysterical rants (and the smear campaign) are played up in a organized attempt to knock
him out. People are getting kneecapped (Billy Bush) to demonstrate to others the wrath that may
be visited upon them for supporting the wrong candidate.
Take Bill O'Reilly for example, He told a subordinate female employee (documented court record)
that he wanted to "get a few wines in her and soap up her tits in the shower with a loofah and
falafel. There was a settlement and the story was under-reported. Forgotten and forgiven. In fact
Bill O stands as an arbiter of moral virtue.
Hillary is as nasty and hysterical as Trump or worse. She uses the F bomb regularly. Screams
at her subordinates and she annihilated several countries worth of women and children.
It is simply "not in the script" to malign Hillary with her own words and obnoxious behavior.
By the way, she is also a drunk.
We should all be aware of what occurred in the two Baby Bush elections as far as voter machine
tabulations and judicial fraud in his becoming president in both elections and the likely murder(s)
to cover the fraud up. Small plane crashes being almost untraceable.
https://spectregroup.wordpress.com/2008/12/26/bushs-it-guy-killed-in-plane-crash/
Who is leaking all this stuff so well-timed together? Might just be the FBI, finding itself
unable to prosecute officially, not only for fear of retribution, but also because the heap of
shit that would get uncovered could be enough for the rest of the world to declare war on the
US.
Daniel Ellsberg, in his book Secrets , recounts what he had learned during his government
service about the honesty of U.S. elections. As reported in
Counterpunch :
In Vietnam, as in Iraq, the U.S. government pushed hard to get an election to sanctify
its puppet regime. Ellsberg, who spent two years in Vietnam after his time in the Pentagon,
aided some of the key U.S. officials in this effort who sought an honest vote. But when U.S.
Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge heard their pitch, he replied, "You've got a gentleman in the
White House right now [Johnson] who has spent most of his life rigging elections. I've spent
most of my life rigging elections. I spent nine whole months rigging a Republican convention
to choose Ike as a candidate rather than Bob Taft." Lodge later ordered, "Get it across to
the press that they shouldn't apply higher standards here in Vietnam than they do in the U.S."
But Lodge's comments were downright uplifting compared with a meeting that Ellsberg attended
with former Vice President Richard Nixon, who was visiting Vietnam on a "fact-finding mission"
to help bolster his presidential aspirations. Former CIA operative Edward Lansdale told Nixon
that he and his colleagues wanted to help "make this the most honest election that's ever been
held in Vietnam." Nixon replied, "Oh, sure, honest, yes, honest, that's right … so long as
you win!" With the last words he did three things in quick succession: winked, drove his elbow
hard into Lansdale's arm, and slapped his own knee.
12,13,will you clowns keep your zippers closed? Your propaganda is unseemly, and we'll see just
whose victory will be huge Nov.8,won't we? Why does anyone put any credence in serial liar polls?
Why is policy discussion absent from this election cycle? Its all Trump bashing,wo one iota
of his policies being broadcast?
That is his vote rigging angle, that the MSM is corrupt and is politically assassinating him
daily,not the polls themselves being a major factor in the rigging accusations.
Obomba, the most un-criticised POTUS in American history, is a laughable pos concerned
about his terrible corrupt legacy of death war and division which Trump will reveal, once in.
And only commie morons would oppose that.
Election Fraud within the Outlaw US Empire has a long history. One very intrepid investigator
and expert on this is Brad Friedman who runs the Brad Blog, whose current lead item is about this
very topic. I suggest those interested in learning more take the time to investigate his
site and its many years of accumulated evidence proving Election Fraud a very big problem,
http://bradblog.com/
The Vote 'No Confidence' movement is growing. It's being actively discussed on FB and ZH now.
A bloviating bunko artist vers a grifting crypto neocon is not a 'choice', it's a suicide squad
lootfest it's taking America down.
In Humboldt County California we still use paper ballots. Our polling place also has one electronic
voting machine sitting in a corner for voters who can't use the paper ballots. I have never seen
it being used. There was a transparency program that I think they still do where all ballots were
scanned and the images made available online for the public to double check results. I'm no wiz
with machine vision but I think I could knock together enough code to do my own recount.
I'm not paying much attention but doesn't Trump say the election is rigged ? Obama's setting
up a straw mam by changing the story to election fraud. There may well be fraud in the voting
process but we are unlikely to ever know how much. But as to the election being rigged , that's
so plainly obvious it's painful.
And Germany doesn't allow electronic voting machines. Gotta be a clue there somewhere.
There is ample evidence of election fraud, vote fraud, and various types of 'rigging' or 'organising'
in the US it is just too long to go into in a short post. (See for ex. Adjuvant @ 6, john
@ 18)
Ideally, one would have to divide it into different types. It is also traditional, which some
forget, I only know about that from 'realistic' novels, I recently read Dos Passos' Manhattan
Transfer, and was amazed how little things change (despite horse-drawn carriages, rouge, spitoons,
cigars, sauerkraut, etc.) - see karlof1 @ 25.
Poll Pro-HRC results are not trustworthy. They aren't necessarily outright fabricated (is
easy to do and very hard to detect / prosecute), nor even fraudulently carried out, but 'arranged'
to give the desired result, which might even, in some cases, be perfectly unconscious, just following
SOP. (I could outline 10 major problems / procedures that twist the results.)
Then, the media take it up, and cherry-pick the results, pro HRC. That includes internet
sites like real clear politics, which I noticed recently is biased (paid?) in favor of
HRC.
It is amazing to me, yet very few ppl actually dig into the available info about the polls.
(Maybe 300 ppl in the world?) HRC needs these fakelorum poll results because they will 'rig' the
election as best as they can, they need to point back to them: "see we were winning all the time
Trump deplorables yelling insults who cares" - Pathetic. Also, of course, controlling the polls
while not the same as 'riggin' the election is part of the same MO. (See Podesta e-mails from
Wikileaks.)
This is also the reason for the mad accusations of Putin interference in US elections - if
somebody is doing illegit moves it is Trump's supporter Putin and so the 'bad stuff' is 'foreign
take-over' and not 'us', and btw NOT the Republicans, or Trump circle, which is very telling.
I didn't see the O Keefe, Project Veritas, vids mentioned. Here the first one. There is a second
one up and more coming.
I think things could get pretty ugly on Nov 9 if Trump wins because i don't see Hillary going
quietly into the night and the dems have seeded "putin is rigging" the election idea to contest
the results. Plus the establishment that wants Hillary controls the media and the executive office.
Trump's delegitimizing the election before it takes place is definitely color revolution
stuff - the carrot revolution?
It is an interesting experiment if you can make people vote for a candidate they don't like
by it being the only way to prevent a candidate they dislike even more. You just showed you aren't
able to.
"Hillary Clinton now says her "number one priority" in Syria is the removal of Bashar al-Assad,
putting us on the path of war with Syria and Russia next year.
Any "no-fly zone" over Syria will certainly be followed by the shooting down of both Russian
and U.S. jets, in an unpredictable escalation that could easily spread
Russia will not back down if we start shooting down its aircraft. Is Hillary willing to risk
nuclear war with Russia in order to protect al-Qaeda in Syria?
96% of disclosed campaign contributions from journalists went to the Clinton campaign.
From the MSM: TIME.
Note the sums are shards of chewed peanuts and their shells. MSM are bought, controlled
and are put in a lowly position, and pamper to power, any.… They will go where the money is but
it takes them a long time to figure out who what where why etc. and what they are supposed to
do. They cannot be outed as completely controlled, so have to do some 'moves' to retain credibility,
and their clients/controllers understand that. Encouraging a corrupt 4th Estate has its major
downsides.
Rigged. Right. Let me tell you about rigged. The US system is rigged in a far larger sense
than any Americans realize. It's rigged to blow off the Constitution.
If you want to know how badly rigged, ask any voter when they leave the voting venue: "What
is the name of the elector you just voted for?" You'll get either: 1) a dumb stare; 2) a laugh,
or 3) a "WTF is an elector?"
Under the Constitution, Americans vote for electors. They do not vote for presidents, and there's
a reason for that. It's called "mass stupidity."
The Fondling Fathers were smart enough to know that the people are too stupid to choose their
own leader. So the idea of the Electoral College was that every four years communities vote
for a local person who could be trusted to go to Washington and become part of the committee that
chooses a president and vice-president.
There is not "supposed" to be any campaign, candidates, or polls. The process is "supposed"
to be more akin to the Holy See choosing a pope. The electors were to meet in Washington, debate
the possibilities, come up with short list, go to the top person on the list and ask if they would
be willing to be president (or vice-president, as the case may be), and if they agreed, the deal
was done. If not, go to the second person. Pretty much how the CEO of a large corporation
is chosen.
Having the people of a community vote for the local person who would be the most trustworthy
to deliberate on who should be president is a reasonable objective. I mean, essentially the question
for the voter would be reduced to: "What person in our community would be least likely to be bought
off?" But having a gang-bang of 60 million voting Americans who don't really know shit about the
morons they are voting into office . . . that, on its face, is a sign of mass self-deception and
insanity. It is mass stupidity perpetuating itself.
The circus that the US presidential election has turned into – including the grotesque primaries
– just goes to show how fucking stupid Americans are. The system is an embarrassment to the entire
country. And it is an act of flipping-off the Fondling Fathers and their better judgment every
four years. But worst of all, the present system is virtually certain to eventually produce the
most powerful person in the world who is a complete moron, and who will precipitate a global catastrophe
– economic, or military, or both.
And demand hand counted paper ballots that cannot be rigged by "Russian hackers". It's
called simple score because it is almost the same as other well-known forms of score (and "range")
voting, except it's optimized for hand counted paper ballots (i.e. no machines).
Just got my mail-in ballots from the postman. Voting against all Democrats except, for POTUS.
Take a few days and vote either Jill Stein or Donald Trump.
Need to comb through the propositions carefully. Against big business and self serving
liberals.. BTW, I'm a Californian from the Central Valley. Oh! How I wish there is a proposition.
Should Hussein Obomo II charge for crimes against humanity?
"For any minimally conscious American citizen, it is absolutely evident that Donald Trump
is not only facing the mammoth Clinton political machine, but, also the combined forces of the
viciously dishonest Mainstream Media."
-Boyd D. Cathey, "The Tape, the Conspiracy, and the Death of the Old Politics", Unz Review
"When was the last time the media threw 100% of its support behind one party's presidential
candidate? What does that say about the media?"
Do you feel comfortable with the idea that a handful of TV and print-news executives are
inserting themselves into the process and choosing our leaders for us?"
If Jill Stein needs 5% of the vote in order to be considered a legitimate candidate (or to bring
the Green party up to legitimate third-party status for the 2020 election), then you can rest
assured that no matter how many votes she actually gets, her percentage will never be above 4.99%.
Just like when Obama swept into office in 2008, the powers-that-be made sure the Democrats never
had a filibuster-proof majority. Give 'em just enough to believe that the system works, but never
enough to create a situation where the lack of change can't be explained away by "gridlock". Brilliant
in its malevolence, really.
It looks like ALL of the Neocon war criminals and architects of the mass slaughters in Iraq
(Libya, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc) are standing with Hillary Clinton:
Here's a partial list of neocon war criminals supporting Miss Neocon: Paul Wolfowitz (aka,
the Prince of Darkness), Eliot Cohen, Richard Perle, David Wurmser, Robert Kagan, Max Boot, Bill
Kristol, Dov Zakheim, Douglas Feith, Michael Ledeen, Marc Grossman, David Frum, Michael Chertoff,
John Podhoretz, Elliot Abrams, Alan Dershowitz, etc
All neocons stand with the CrookedC*nt because there hasn't been nearly enough pointless
war, slaughter, dismemberment, death or trauma, it needs to go on FOREVER.
To be blunt. It is not only MSM who are prostitutes of oligarchic ruling elite but all or
most even so called left-leaning or independent media are all under guise of phony "opposition"
or diversity of opinion where there is none.
Actually MOA is one of few, more or less independent, aligning itself with any sane ideology,
a welcome island of order in the ocean of media cacophony and I often disagreed with MOA but I
appreciate its logical consistency and integrity, hard facts based journalism,no matter from what
moral stand MOA writings are coming from. MSM even lacks this basic foundation of a rational
thought and must be dismissed entirely.
But there is much, much more rigging going on, on massive, even global scale. The fraud is
so massive and so visible that blinds people from the truth about it. From the truth of how massively
they are being controlled in their opinions and thoughts.
The freedom of speech and press, democracy and just simple decency are simply not allowed
in these US under penalty of social marginalizing or even death as Assange and Manning are facing.
The entire message of MSM propaganda false flag soldiers is fear.
It may seem shocking for people under spell of overwhelming propaganda, but this government
run by Global oligarchs is dangerous to our physical and mental health and must be eradicated
as a matter of sanitary emergency.
Let's sweep all those political excretions into the sewage pipes where they belong. But first
we have to recognize the scale of their influence and their horrifying daily routine subversion
of social order, gross malfeasance or even horrendous crimes also war crimes covered up by MSM.
Only after we get rid of this abhorrent, brutal regime, cut the chains of enslavement we can
have decent democracy or voting, not before.
John Stuart Mill - "Government shapes our character, values, and intellect. It can affect
us positively or negatively. When political institutions are ill constructed, "the effect is
felt in a thousand ways in lowering the morality and deadening the intelligence and activity
of the people"
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, "I had come to see that everything was radically connected
with politics, and that however one proceeded, no people would be other than the nature of
its government.
And here we are, believing the shit those mofos and feeding us about freedom and democracy
citing bought and sold lies as "scientific research" concocted for one reason alone, to fuck us
up , exploit and discard when not needed.
Here is, in a small part, about how they do it, starting from phony polls that suppose to sway
you one way or another into following supposed projected winner anointed by the establishment.
Polls are routinely skewed, even MSM pundits say use polls they can trust i.e. which give them
results their bosses seek.
Now over hundred top newspapers and media outlets endorsed Hillary so you can safely remove
them from your list of polls you can rely on.
Anyway most polls are rigged even more than elections themselves, mostly by skewing the content
of a poling sample like in the above example. If you poll Dems about Reps that exactly you get
what you seek. But they are more insidious like doubling or tripling polling sample and then pick
an choose what answers they like, or focus sample on the area you know there is overall support
for your thesis or assertion of candidate regardless of official affiliation, and many more down
to raw rigging by fixing numbers or adjustments.
The US Elections themselves are regularity defrauded (read Greg Palast) for decades in
thousands of well-documented different and additional ways to polls such as:
By limiting selection of possible candidates and their access to statewide or national ballot
box via rigged undemocratic caucuses and primaries and other unreasonable requirements, goal-seeking
ad-hoc rules. by eliminating and/or confusing voters about voting at proper physical location
often changed in last moments, forcing into never counted provisional vote by purposely hiding
registered lists, purging made up "felons" from voter lists, requiring expensive or unavailable
or costly to obtain due to extensive travel, identifying documents, threatening citizen (of color)
with deportation, accusing them of voter fraud [baseless challenging that automatically pushes
voter into provisional vote], or strait offering meaningless provisional ballots instead of proper
ballot for people who can't read (English) well, eliminating students and military vote when needed
on phony registration issues, signature, pictures, purposefully misspelled names, mostly non-British
names etc., reducing number of polling places where majority votes for "rouge" candidate, forcing
people to stand in line for hours or preventing people from voting al together.
Selecting remote polling locations with obstructed public access by car or transit, paid parking,
exposed to weather elements, cold, wind and rain in November.
Hacking databases before and after vote, switching votes, adding votes for absent voters, and
switching party affiliations and vote at polling places as well up in the data collating chain,
county, state, filing in court last minute frivolous law suits aimed to block unwanted candidates
or challenging readiness of the polling places in certain neighborhoods deemed politically uncertain,
outrageous voting ON a WORKING DAY (everywhere else voting is on Sunday or a day free of work)
skewing that way votes toward older retired people.
Massive lying propaganda of whom we vote for, a fraudulent ballot supposedly voting for "candidates"
but in fact voting on unnamed electors, party apparatchiks instead, violating basic democratic
principle of transparency of candidates on the ballot and secrecy of a voter, outrageous electorate
college rules design to directly suppress democracy. Requirement of approval of the electoral
vote by congress is an outrageous thing illegal in quasi-democratic western countries due to division
of powers.
Outrageous, voting day propaganda to discourage voting by phony polling and predictions while
everywhere else there is campaigning ban, silence for two to three days before Election Day.
No independent verification of the vote or serious reporting by international observers
about violations, or independent exit polls, and many, many more ways every election is stolen
as anybody who opens eyes can see.
All the above fraud prepared by close group of election criminals on political party payroll,
months/years before election date often without any contribution from ordinary polling workers
who believe that nothing is rigged.
If somebody thinks that they would restrain themselves this time, think again. The regime,
in a form of mostly unsuspecting county registrars are tools of the establishment and will do
everything, everything they can and they can a lot, to defraud those elections and push an establishment
candidate down to our throats, without a thought crossing their comatose minds. "Just doing their
jobs like little Eichmanns of NAZI regime".
One way or another your vote will be stolen or manipulated up and down the ticket at will
and your participation would mean one thing legitimizing this abhorrent regime.
We must reject those rigged elections and demand that establishment must go, all of them GOP,
DNC and that including Hillary before any truly democratic electoral process worth participating
may commence.
"The individual loses his substance by voluntarily bowing to an overpowering and distant
oligarchy, while simultaneously "participating" in sham democracy."
C. Wright Mills,"The Power Elite" (1956)
Any sane person must thus conclude that an act of voting in the current helplessly tainted
and rigged political system is nothing but morally corrupting tool that divides us, conflicts
us, extorts from us an approval for the meaningless political puppets of the calcified, repugnant
oligarchic US regime, in a surrealistic act of utter futility aimed just to break us down,
to break our sense of human dignity, our individual will and self-determination since no true
choice is ever being offered to us and never will.
Idea of political/electoral boycott, unplugging from the system that corrupts us and ALTERNATIVE
POLITICAL PROCESS designed, developed and implemented for benefit of 99% of population is the
only viable idea to express our political views that are absent from official regime candidates'
agendas and from the rigged ballots. Let's not be afraid, it was already successfully done
in the past. It works." Without courage there is only slavery.
Remember this is a person that actually publicly admits he took 6 months off (from what?)
to campaign for Mr Changey Hopey, The drone Bombing Nobel Peace Prize winner, so it's not like
he could ever 5have any political insights worth listening to, now is it?
Grow up.
I took the time off (I'm a software engineer) after the primaries (having supported neither
BO or HRC) because that's who get got. We were coming off 8 years of BushCo which was, in summary...
a horror. The republicans were 100% unrepentant, and McCain was a far louder and steadfast supporter
of Iraq then Hillary... wasn't even close. McCain burried his Abramhoff investigation, sealed
their findings for 50 years. And his running mate was not just bereft of any policy expertise,
she was a loudmouth loon... even FOX canceled her post election show.
I was well aware of BO's questions/limitations. He didn't put his time in as a Senator and
sponsored no meaningful legislation. He played it safe. He had no real policy track record. And
as a Senator he quietly slipped away and hob-nobbed with Bush several times (no other Dem Senator
at the time did this that I was aware). So yeah, Obama was on open question.
I was going to pass on this election, but I've read a lot here about it and started to consider
what as a US voter I might do.
Oddly, I looked to Russia for inspiration. RF believes in international law so greatly
that she strives mightily at every turn to make it the way nations interact. And what we can see
if we choose, is that this effort is paying off. The world is changing because of what Russia
believes in.
I believe in voting. I believe in multiple parties. I believe the game is totally rigged but
sometimes you can win, except that you have to play for this to happen. I believe that you have
to be the thing you want.
I believe in a Green Party and I admire the sanity that comes from Dr. Jill Stein every time
I encounter her position. This is the world I believe in. This is the world I'll vote for and
support, with all tools that comes to hand, forever.
~~
I don't believe in the view that aspiring for betterment is foolish or naive, or the view that
current status cannot change or be changed. Such views fail to acknowledge the physical reality
of a new universe manifesting in each moment, always different in some way from that of the previous
moment. Such views are lost, bewildered, behind the curve, forever.
Term limits are useless. There could never be a Cynthia McKinney or a Dennis Kucinich -- Ever!
Term limited representatives would by definition be track record-free representatives. If you
really would like positive change, you simply need to get strategic hedge simple score voting:
SHSV
Although Clinton Won Massachusetts by 2%, Hand Counted Precincts in Massachusetts Favored
Bernie Sanders by 17%
Mar 06 2016
J.T. Waldron
Massachusetts, one of the participating states for the Super Tuesday election results,
may need further scrutiny to allay concerns over election fraud using electronic voting machines.
68 out of the state's 351 jurisdictions used hand counted ballots and showed a much larger preference
of 17% for Bernie Sanders than the rest of the jurisdictions tabulated by electronic voting machine
vendors ES&S, Diebold and Dominion. Hillary Clinton was declared the winner of Massachusetts by
1.42 %.
In the Dominican Republic's last elections (May 2016) voters forced the Electoral Office to
get rid of the electronic count in favor of paper ballots, which were counted both, by scanner
and by hand, one by one, in front of delegates from each party. This action avoided a credibility
crisis and everything went smooth.
"... I think that Trump is referring to Clinton's use of her private, insecure server for confidential e-mails of which she ordered 30,000 to be deleted and had Obama intervene to stop an FBI investigation. Honest and transparent, I think not. ..."
"... In "normal" circumstances she would have been disqualified as a candidate and possibly be facing criminal proceedings. Let's face it, neither candidate is at all suitable as leader of the western world. ..."
"... The current bedrocks of the capitalist system are at breaking point. Parliamentary democracy and the nation state are crumbling under various pressures. They may be saves but I think we are entering the period when they will be replaced. I have no idea what with though. ..."
"... Remember when U.S. NGOs were "respected" bodies around the world. Now we know they were spies and subverters, now banned from all self respecting countries around the world. ..."
"... Remember how the U.S. went into Iraq for De4mocracy. Now we know it was oil and deliberate mayhem. ..."
"... Ditto Afghanistan, Libya, and their failed attempt to lay waste Syria. ..."
"... Ukraine is just a stand alone shithole created by the U.S., lied about by them, down to the downing of MH17 ..."
"... If you want lies and deceit, look at the U.S ..."
"... Not to be too critical, but most of what you mentioned was perpetrated under a single presidential administration. Cheney was dividing Iraqi oilfields way before the "invasion". Bush was just a puppet. You know, the kind of guy you would like to have a beer with. Just a good ole'boy. ..."
"... Is Hillary trying to stir up her own counter revolution in case she loses too? It seems like a fatally flawed attempt. People barely have the energy to turn out to vote for her, let alone take up arms for her. ..."
"... The DNC rigged the vote to nominate Clinton over Sanders. Why wouldn't they employ the same tricks in the election itself? ..."
"... Any individual with a shred of decency should be extremely disturbed by the actions of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC. They privately discussed methods of discrediting Sanders based SOLELY on his religious affiliation. ..."
"... Despite having a tonne of shit thrown at him and the msm and big money donors squarely in Clinton's corner, Trump's still standing. Polls released today: LA Times +2 Trump; NBC +6 Clinton; Rasmussen +1 Clinton ..."
The fight over vote rigging in 2016 is a proxy war for a much deeper crisis: the legitimacy of
American democracy
Nearly 90% of Trump supporters agreed with a Rand Corporation survey statement that "people like
me don't have any say about what the government does." The irony here is that Trump voters are historically
some of the most enfranchised, with some of his strongest support coming from white protestant men.
A study done during the primaries also found that Trump backers make an average of $72,000 per year,
compared with a $61,000 average among likely Clinton voters.
... ... ...
Corporate citizens – as defined by Citizens United – now have an easier time getting a hold of
their elected representative than just about any other American. In other words, money talks in Washington,
and Super Pacs have spend just under $795m this election cycle. Because lobbying money courses through
every level of politics, the most successful candidates are the best at making friends in the Fortune
500.
Meanwhile, just
six
in 10 Americans are confident their votes will be accurately cast and counted. And unlike in
systems based on proportional representation, our winner-take-all electoral model creates some of
the highest barriers to entry for political outsiders of any democracy on earth.
Americans' distrust of politics is about more than just elections, though. Congressional approval
ratings have declined steadily
since
2009 , and now sit at just 20% – a high in the last few years. Unions – which used to cudgel
Democrats into representing working people's interests – are at their weakest point in decades, and
lack the sway they once held at the highest levels of government.
Declines in organized labor have been paired with the disappearance of steady and well-paid work,
either succumbed to automation or shipped overseas by free trade agreements. A jobless recovery from
the financial crisis has left many adrift in the economy, while executives from the firms that drove
it got golden parachutes courtesy of the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve.
On the table now are to very different responses to these crises. Using an apocryphal quote from
Frederich Engels, Rosa Luxemburg once
wrote
: "Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into
barbarism."
SmartestRs 2d ago
I think that Trump is referring to Clinton's use of her private, insecure server for confidential
e-mails of which she ordered 30,000 to be deleted and had Obama intervene to stop an FBI investigation.
Honest and transparent, I think not.
In "normal" circumstances she would have been disqualified
as a candidate and possibly be facing criminal proceedings. Let's face it, neither candidate is
at all suitable as leader of the western world.
furiouspurpose
When Mrsfuriouspurpose got a gig as a poll clerk on the EU referendum she offered everyone
who came through the door a pencil to write their cross.
Many brought their own pens and a fair few explained that they were concerned that pencil could
be rubbed out and wanted to make sure – just in case.
It ain't only the yanks who are getting suspicious about how honest our democracy has become.
davidc929 -> furiouspurpose
The current bedrocks of the capitalist system are at breaking point. Parliamentary democracy
and the nation state are crumbling under various pressures. They may be saves but I think we are
entering the period when they will be replaced. I have no idea what with though.
Kholrabi
Remember when U.S. NGOs were "respected" bodies around the world.
Now we know they were spies and subverters, now banned from all self respecting countries around
the world.
Remember how the U.S. went into Iraq for De4mocracy.
Now we know it was oil and deliberate mayhem.
Ditto Afghanistan, Libya, and their failed attempt to lay waste Syria.
Ukraine is just a stand alone shithole created by the U.S., lied about by them, down to the
downing of MH17.
If you want lies and deceit, look at the U.S.
Trump is right in his accusations. Idle chatter is just that, wasteful of time and distracting
idle chatter,
Thomas Hosking -> Kholrabi
Not to be too critical, but most of what you mentioned was perpetrated under a single presidential
administration. Cheney was dividing Iraqi oilfields way before the "invasion". Bush was just a
puppet. You know, the kind of guy you would like to have a beer with. Just a good ole'boy.
DaanSaaf -> Kholrabi
Ukraine is just a stand alone shithole created by the U.S.,
tbf, that was as much the handiwork of the EU as it ever was the US
leadale
For better or for worse, the 2016 presidential campaign was all about him.
Not about his policies. Not about calm analysis of what was wrong and how it could be fixed.
It was always about him. And now, the nation's attention is still focused on him and his peccadillos…rather
than Ms Clinton and her scams, corruptions, and Deep State flimflams.
'Remember, it's a rigged system. It's a rigged election,' said the candidate over the weekend.
Is the election really rigged? Probably not in the way Mr Trump intends listeners to believe.
But the 'system' is so rigged that the election results hardly matter.
A real conservative would shift the debate away from fanny pinching and other ungentlemanly comportment
to how it is rigged. Americans want to know. How come the economy no longer grows as it used to?
How come most Americans are poorer today than they were in 1999? How come we no longer win our
wars?
He would explain to listeners that much of the rigging took place while Hillary and Bill Clinton
were collecting more than $150 million in speaking fees, telling us how to improve the world!
Then, he would help listeners put two and two together - explaining how the fake dollar corrupted
the nation's economy…and its politics, too.
And he would offer real solutions.
As it is, nobody seems to care. Not the stock market. Not the bond market. Not commentators. Not
Hillary. Not Donald. Nobody.
Bill Bonnar - Daily reckoning
Ken Weller -> leadale
Actually, he did address those issues quite frequently, including during the debate. It's the
media that is trying to dictate what the important issues are.
Ken Weller
I recall that in previous elections, notably the 2004 presidential, progressive voices rightly
pointed to possible election rigging. I even remember DNC chair Howard Dean interviewing Bev Harris
of blackboxvoting.org about how this could be achieved. Now that Trump's people are concerned
about the issue, it's suddenly crazy.
Meanwhile, Clinton's camp has put forth there own conspiracy
theory that Russia may somehow rig it for Trump, never mind that that the voting machines are
disconnected from the internet and thus hackers.
Brett Hankinson -> Ken Weller
Is Hillary trying to stir up her own counter revolution in case she loses too? It seems like
a fatally flawed attempt. People barely have the energy to turn out to vote for her, let alone
take up arms for her.
Trump is far more effective and newsworthy because he's inciting violence during the US election
and it actually seems plausible that violence could result. He doesn't even need to win the popular
vote to wreck the place.
Whodeaux Brett Hankinson
It's win/win for Trump and his ilk. Or rather, if he wins then obviously he wins. If he loses
he can just say he won, his fanbois will take over bird sanctuaries left and right, and when FBI
and National Guard inevitably kill some of them he can screech about how Real Mericans® are being
picked on by those nasty Globalist Bankers and the Entitlement Class, those two terms being the
current dog whistles for what the John Birchers used to call Jews and Blacks.
Trump doesn't seem to realize actual people are going to be actually dead before this is all
over. One cannot untoast bread.
MountainMan23
The DNC rigged the vote to nominate Clinton over Sanders. Why wouldn't they employ the
same tricks in the election itself?
Our voting machines & tabulators are insecure - that's a known fact.
So the concern among all voters (not just Trump supporters) is real & justified.
HiramsMaxim MountainMan23
If I were a Sanders supporter I would be furious.
Hell, I'm not a Sanders supporter, and I am still furious. What matters an individual's vote,
if the outcome has already been determined by The Powers That Be?
Todd Owens HiramsMaxim
Any individual with a shred of decency should be extremely disturbed by the actions of
Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC. They privately discussed methods of discrediting Sanders
based SOLELY on his religious affiliation.
"It might may (sic) no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief.
Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he
is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps
would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist," Bradley Marhsall, former CFO of the
DNC.
This is identity politics at its absolute worst.
HiramsMaxim ButtChocolate
Its a little more sophisticated than that.
In the Podesta email dumps, there is plenty of evidence of particular members of the Press
actively colluding with the Clinton campaign, and even submitting articles for review by the campaign
before publishing.
So, he is taking what are, at the very least, journalistic standards lapses, and spins it into
something larger. He takes a little fear, and makes a big story out of it. And, because these
media organisations cannot admit what they are doing, or deny the generally accepted verity of
the Wikileaks dumps, he gets a free shot.
Remember, to all the good progressives out there, Trump is not trying to appeal to you, convince
you, or make you like him. In fact, the more you hate him, the more "ideologically pure" he looks
to his supporters.
Example: Look at The Guardian reporting of the firebombing at the Republican office here in
NC. Any reasonable person would agree that firebombing is wrong. But, TG could not even use that
word. The article they published bent over backwards to minimise the action, and blame it on Trump.
Sure, that plays well to The Guardian readership. But, it just confirms (well, at least it
appears to confirm) the loud cries of media bias that Trump and his supporters rail against. The
irony is that when the same types of things happen domestically, by a Press that thinks it is
"helping" their preferred candidate, it only confirms the worst suspicions of the opposition.
And, it only taked one or two examples to give Trump room to condemn all media.
Trump has one overwhelming skill on display here. He is able to bait the media, and they cannot
resist rising to that bait. He is, for lack of a better term, a World Class Troll.
Harryy
"as his support slips"
Despite having a tonne of shit thrown at him and the msm and big money donors squarely
in Clinton's corner, Trump's still standing. Polls released today: LA Times +2 Trump; NBC +6 Clinton;
Rasmussen +1 Clinton
HiramsMaxim Harryy
It is facinating that the last two weeks of ugliness on both sides has had just about zero
effect on people.
Its as if both sides have already made up their minds, and refuse to pay attention to the Media.
"... The Official Monster Raving Loony Party is a registered political party established in the United Kingdom in 1983 by the musician David Sutch, better known as "Screaming Lord Sutch, 3rd Earl of Harrow" or simply "Screaming Lord Sutch". It is notable for its deliberately bizarre policies and it effectively exists to satirise British politics, and to offer itself as an poignant alternative for protest voters, especially in constituencies where the party holding the seat is unlikely to lose it and everyone else's vote would be quietly wasted. ..."
I watched that yesterday. Funny and a complete take down of Jill Stein. How come a British comedian
knows more about our issues than one of our candidates for the White House? Oh wait - even Jill
Stein knows more than Donald Trump. If it were not for that Constitutional matter, I'd say Oliver
for President.
Fred C. Dobbs -> pgl... , -1
All politics is 'wacky',
the third-party kind is
the wackiest of all.
Maybe the UK does it best.
The Official Monster Raving Loony Party is a registered political party established in
the United Kingdom in 1983 by the musician David Sutch, better known as "Screaming Lord Sutch,
3rd Earl of Harrow" or simply "Screaming Lord Sutch". It is notable for its deliberately bizarre
policies and it effectively exists to satirise British politics, and to offer itself as an poignant
alternative for protest voters, especially in constituencies where the party holding the seat
is unlikely to lose it and everyone else's vote would be quietly wasted.
(Wikipedia)
"... a simple fact (that escapes many participants of this forum, connected to TBTF) the that Hillary is an unrepentant neocon, a warmonger that might well bring another war, possibly even WWIII. ..."
"... One of the systemic dangers of psychopathic females in high political positions is that remaining as reckless as they are, they try to outdo men in hawkishness. ..."
"... Enthusiasm of people in this forum for Hillary is mainly enthusiasm for the ability of TBTF to rip people another four years. ..."
"... The level of passive social protest against neoliberal elite (aka "populism" in neoliberal media terms) scared the hell of Washington establishment. Look at neoliberal shills like Summers, who is now ready to abandon a large part of his Washington consensus dogma in order for neoliberalism to survive. ..."
"... And while open revolt in national security state has no chances, Trump with all his warts is a very dangerous development for "status quo" supporters, that might not go away after the elections. ..."
Trump is winning with people in their 50s and they have a higher chance of voting than millennials
do. That plus voter suppression may hand this to Trump yet. There was an LA Times poll this month
that showed a small Trump lead. An outlier, sure, but the same poll was right about Obama in 2012
when other polls were wrong. Just saying
likbez -> Adamski... , -1
> "Trump is winning with people in their 50s and they have a higher chance of voting than millennials
do."
Yes. Thank you for making this point.
Also people over 50 have more chances to understand and reject all the neoliberal bullshit
MSM are pouring on Americans.
As well as a simple fact (that escapes many participants of this forum, connected to TBTF)
the that Hillary is an unrepentant neocon, a warmonger that might well bring another war, possibly
even WWIII.
One of the systemic dangers of psychopathic females in high political positions is that
remaining as reckless as they are, they try to outdo men in hawkishness.
Enthusiasm of people in this forum for Hillary is mainly enthusiasm for the ability of
TBTF to rip people another four years.
Not that Trump is better, but on warmongering side he is the lesser evil, for sure.
The level of passive social protest against neoliberal elite (aka "populism" in neoliberal
media terms) scared the hell of Washington establishment. Look at neoliberal shills like Summers,
who is now ready to abandon a large part of his Washington consensus dogma in order for neoliberalism
to survive.
And while open revolt in national security state has no chances, Trump with all his warts
is a very dangerous development for "status quo" supporters, that might not go away after the
elections.
That's why they supposedly pump Hillary with drugs each debate :-).
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump added one more accusation against Democratic rival
Hillary Clinton: "inappropriately" getting the debate questions.
Trump's tweet with the latest allegation comes the day after the final presidential debate in
which he refused to commit to the outcome of the Nov. 8 election.
Why didn't Hillary Clinton announce that she was inappropriately given the debate questions -
she secretly used them! Crooked Hillary.
- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 20, 2016
Less than two hours after sending the tweet, the real estate mogul told a rally in Ohio that he
would accept the results of the election - if he wins.
"I would like to promise and pledge . . . that I will totally accept the results of this great
and historic presidential election if I win."
Trump later said in the rally that he would accept a clear result but reserves the right to contest
a questionable outcome.
Trump's comments about the election results during the debate were blasted by politicians on both
sides of the aisle, including Governor Charlie Baker and Libertarian vice presidential candidate
Bill Weld, a former governor of Massachusetts. Weld called the debate remarks "the death knell for
[Trump's] candidacy."
Senator John McCain of Arizona, a top Republican who withdrew his support of Trump earlier this
month, said he conceded defeat "without reluctance" in 2008 when then-Senator Barack Obama won the
presidential election. McCain said the loser has always congratulated the winner, calling the person
"my president."
"That's not just the Republican way or the Democratic way. It's the American way. This election
must not be any different," McCain said in a statement.
Trump and his supporters have been making unsubstantiated claims that the election is rigged,
putting officials on the defense weeks before most voters head to the polls. Civil rights activists
have called some of the accusations a thinly veiled racist attack.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump added one more accusation against Democratic rival
Hillary Clinton: "inappropriately" getting the debate questions.
Trump's tweet with the latest allegation comes the day after the final presidential debate
in which he refused to commit to the outcome of the Nov. 8 election.
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Why didn't Hillary Clinton announce that she was inappropriately given the debate questions
- she secretly used them! Crooked Hillary.
10:55 AM - 20 Oct 2016
Less than two hours after sending the tweet, the real estate mogul told a rally in Ohio that
he would accept the results of the election - if he wins.
"I would like to promise and pledge ... that I will totally accept the results of this great
and historic presidential election if I win."
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
(But he didn't want the job anyway.)
President? It would be a demotion, says
Donald Trump Jr http://dailym.ai/2eJLQ71
via @MailOnline - Oct 20
Donald Trump Jr said last night moving into the White House would be a 'step down' for his
father.
Trump Jr was being interviewed on Fox News after the third presidential debate in Las Vegas
and was asked how he thought the Republican candidate had performed during the final presidential
debate. ...
"... As I have tirelessly explained, the U.S. economy is not just neoliberal (the code word for
maximizing private gain by any means available, including theft, fraud, embezzlement, political fixing,
price-fixing, and so on)--it is neofeudal , meaning that it is structurally an updated version of Medieval
feudalism in which a top layer of financial-political nobility owns the engines of wealth and governs
the marginalized debt-serfs who toil to pay student loans, auto loans, credit cards, mortgages and taxes--all
of which benefit the financiers and political grifters. ..."
"... The media is in a self-referential frenzy to convince us the decision of the century is between
unrivaled political grifter Hillary Clinton and financier-cowboy Donald Trump. Both belong to the privileged
ruling Elite: both have access to cheap credit, insider information ( information asymmetry ) and political
influence. ..."
"... If you exit the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, etc. at a cushy managerial rank with a fat pension and
lifetime benefits and are hired at a fat salary the next day by a private "defense" contractor--the
famous revolving door between a bloated state and a bloated defense industry--the system works great.
..."
Brimming with hubris and self-importance, the ruling Elite and mainstream media cannot believe
they have lost the consent of the governed.
Every ruling Elite needs the consent of the governed: even autocracies, dictatorships and corporatocracies
ultimately rule with the consent, however grudging, of the governed.
The American ruling Elite has lost the consent of the governed. This reality is being masked by
the mainstream media, mouthpiece of the ruling class, which is ceaselessly promoting two false narratives:
The "great divide" in American politics is between left and right, Democrat/Republican
The ruling Elite has delivered "prosperity" not just to the privileged few but to the unprivileged
many they govern.
Both of these assertions are false. The Great Divide in America is between the ruling Elite and
the governed that the Elite has stripmined. The ruling Elite is privileged and protected, the governed
are unprivileged and unprotected. That's the divide that counts and the divide that is finally becoming
visible to the marginalized, unprivileged class of debt-serfs.
The "prosperity" of the 21st century has flowed solely to the ruling Elite and its army of technocrat
toadies, factotums, flunkies, apparatchiks and apologists. The Elite's army of technocrats and its
media apologists have engineered and promoted an endless spew of ginned-up phony statistics (the
super-low unemployment rate, etc.) to create the illusion of "growth" and "prosperity" that benefit
everyone rather than just the top 5%. The media is 100% committed to promoting these two false narratives
because the jig is up once the bottom 95% wake up to the reality that the ruling Elite has been stripmining
them for decades.
As I have tirelessly explained, the U.S. economy is not just neoliberal (the code word
for maximizing private gain by any means available, including theft, fraud, embezzlement, political
fixing, price-fixing, and so on)--it is neofeudal , meaning that it is structurally an updated
version of Medieval feudalism in which a top layer of financial-political nobility owns the engines
of wealth and governs the marginalized debt-serfs who toil to pay student loans, auto loans, credit
cards, mortgages and taxes--all of which benefit the financiers and political grifters.
The media is in a self-referential frenzy to convince us the decision of the century is between
unrivaled political grifter Hillary Clinton and financier-cowboy Donald Trump. Both belong to the
privileged ruling Elite: both have access to cheap credit, insider information ( information asymmetry
) and political influence.
The cold truth is the ruling Elite has shredded the social contract by skimming the income/wealth
of the unprivileged. The fake-"progressive" pandering apologists of the ruling Elite--Robert Reich,
Paul Krugman and the rest of the Keynesian Cargo Cultists--turn a blind eye to the suppression of
dissent and the looting the bottom 95% because they have cushy, protected positions as tenured faculty
(or equivalent). They cheerlead for more state-funded bread and circuses for the marginalized
rather than demand an end to exploitive privileges of the sort they themselves enjoy.
Consider just three of the unsustainably costly broken systems that enrich the privileged Elite
by stripmining the unprivileged:
healthcare (a.k.a. sickcare because sickness is profitable, prevention is unprofitable),
higher education
Imperial over-reach (the National Security State and its partner the privately owned Military-Industrial
Complex).
While the unprivileged and unprotected watch their healthcare premiums and co-pays soar year after
year, the CEOs of various sickcare cartels skim off tens of millions of dollars annually in pay and
stock options. The system works great if you get a $20 million paycheck. If you get a 30% increase
in monthly premiums for fewer actual healthcare services--the system is broken.
If you're skimming $250,000 as under-assistant dean to the provost for student services (or equivalent)
plus gold-plated benefits, higher education is working great. If you're a student burdened with tens
of thousands of dollars in student loan debt who is receiving a low-quality, essentially worthless
"education" from poorly paid graduate students ("adjuncts") and a handful of online courses that
you could get for free or for a low cost outside the university cartel--the system is broken.
If you exit the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, etc. at a cushy managerial rank with a fat pension and
lifetime benefits and are hired at a fat salary the next day by a private "defense" contractor--the
famous revolving door between a bloated state and a bloated defense industry--the system works great.
If you joined the Armed Forces to escape rural poverty and served at the point of the spear somewhere
in the Imperial Project--your perspective may well be considerably different.
Unfortunately for the ruling Elite and their army of engorged enablers and apologists, they have
already lost the consent of the governed.
They have bamboozled, conned and misled the bottom 95% for decades, but their phony facade of
political legitimacy and "the rising tide raises all boats" has cracked wide open, and the machinery
of oppression, looting and propaganda is now visible to everyone who isn't being paid to cover their
eyes. Brimming with hubris and self-importance, the ruling Elite and mainstream media cannot believe
they have lost the consent of the governed. The disillusioned governed have not fully absorbed this
epochal shift of the tides yet, either. They are aware of their own disillusionment and their own
declining financial security, but they have yet to grasp that they have, beneath the surface of everyday
life, already withdrawn their consent from a self-serving, predatory, parasitic, greedy and ultimately
self-destructive ruling Elite.
"... At bottom, the success of despotic governments and Big Brother societies hinges upon a certain
number of political, financial, and cultural developments. The first of which is an unwillingness in
the general populace to secure and defend their own freedoms, making them completely reliant on corrupt
establishment leadership. For totalitarianism to take hold, the masses must not only neglect the plight
of their country, and the plight of others, but also be completely uninformed of the inherent indirect
threats to their personal safety. ..."
"... The prevalence of apathy and ignorance sets the stage for the slow and highly deliberate process
of centralization. ..."
"... People who are easily frightened are easily dominated. This is not just a law of political
will, but a law of nature. Many wrongly assume that a tyrant's power comes purely from the application
of force. In fact, despotic regimes that rely solely on extreme violence are often very unsuccessful,
and easily overthrown. ..."
"... They instill apprehension in the public; a fear of the unknown, or a fear of the possible consequences
for standing against the state. They let our imaginations run wild until we see death around every corner,
whether it's actually there or not. When the masses are so blinded by the fear of reprisal that they
forget their fear of slavery, and take no action whatsoever to undo it, then they have been sufficiently
culled. ..."
"... The bread and circus lifestyle of the average westerner alone is enough to distract us from
connecting with each other in any meaningful fashion, but people still sometimes find ways to seek out
organized forms of activism. ..."
"... In more advanced forms of despotism, even fake organizations are disbanded. Curfews are enforced.
Normal communications are diminished or monitored. Compulsory paperwork is required. Checkpoints are
instituted. Free speech is punished. Existing groups are influenced to distrust each other or to disintegrate
entirely out of dread of being discovered. All of these measures are taken by tyrants primarily to prevent
ANY citizens from gathering and finding mutual support. People who work together and organize of their
own volition are unpredictable, and therefore, a potential risk to the state. ..."
"... Destitution leads not just to hunger, but also to crime (private and government). Crime leads
to anger, hatred, and fear. Fear leads to desperation. Desperation leads to the acceptance of anything
resembling a solution, even despotism. ..."
"... Autocracies pretend to cut through the dilemmas of economic dysfunction (usually while demanding
liberties be relinquished), however, behind the scenes they actually seek to maintain a proscribed level
of indigence and deprivation. The constant peril of homelessness and starvation keeps the masses thoroughly
distracted from such things as protest or dissent, while simultaneously chaining them to the idea that
their only chance is to cling to the very government out to end them. ..."
"... When law enforcement officials are no longer servants of the people, but agents of a government
concerned only with its own supremacy, serious crises emerge. Checks and balances are removed. The guidelines
that once reigned in police disappear, and suddenly, a philosophy of superiority emerges; an arrogant
exclusivity that breeds separation between law enforcement and the rest of the public. Finally, police
no longer see themselves as protectors of citizens, but prison guards out to keep us subdued and docile.
..."
"... Tyrants are generally men who have squelched their own consciences. They have no reservations
in using any means at their disposal to wipe out opposition. But, in the early stages of their ascent
to power, they must give the populace a reason for their ruthlessness, or risk being exposed, and instigating
even more dissent. The propaganda machine thus goes into overdrive, and any person or group that dares
to question the authority or the validity of the state is demonized in the minds of the masses. ..."
"... Tyrannical power structures cannot function without scapegoats. There must always be an elusive
boogie man under the bed of every citizen, otherwise, those citizens may turn their attention, and their
anger, towards the real culprit behind their troubles. By scapegoating stewards of the truth, such governments
are able to kill two birds with one stone. ..."
"... Citizen spying is almost always branded as a civic duty; an act of heroism and bravery. Citizen
spies are offered accolades and awards, and showered with praise from the upper echelons of their communities.
..."
"... Tyrannies are less concerned with dominating how we live, so much as dominating how we think
..."
"... Lies become "necessary" in protecting the safety of the state. War becomes a tool for "peace".
Torture becomes an ugly but "useful" method for gleaning important information. Police brutality is
sold as a "natural reaction" to increased crime. Rendition becomes normal, but only for those labeled
as "terrorists". Assassination is justified as a means for "saving lives". Genocide is done discretely,
but most everyone knows it is taking place. They simply don't discuss it. ..."
As we look back on the horrors of the dictatorships and autocracies of the past, one particular
question consistently arises; how was it possible for the common men of these eras to NOT notice
what was happening around them? How could they have stood as statues unaware or uncaring as their
cultures were overrun by fascism, communism, collectivism, and elitism? Of course, we have the advantage
of hindsight, and are able to research and examine the misdeeds of the past at our leisure. Unfortunately,
such hindsight does not necessarily shield us from the long cast shadow of tyranny in our own day.
For that, the increasingly uncommon gift of foresight is required…
At bottom, the success of despotic governments and Big Brother societies hinges upon a certain
number of political, financial, and cultural developments. The first of which is an unwillingness
in the general populace to secure and defend their own freedoms, making them completely reliant on
corrupt establishment leadership. For totalitarianism to take hold, the masses must not only neglect
the plight of their country, and the plight of others, but also be completely uninformed of the inherent
indirect threats to their personal safety. They must abandon all responsibility for their destinies,
and lose all respect for their own humanity. They must, indeed, become domesticated and mindless
herd animals without regard for anything except their fleeting momentary desires for entertainment
and short term survival. For a lumbering bloodthirsty behemoth to actually sneak up on you, you have
to be pretty damnably oblivious.
The prevalence of apathy and ignorance sets the stage for the slow and highly deliberate process
of centralization. Once dishonest governments accomplish an atmosphere of inaction and condition
a sense of frailty within the citizenry, the sky is truly the limit. However, a murderous power-monger's
day is never quite done. In my recent article
'The
Essential Rules of Liberty' we explored the fundamentally unassailable actions and mental preparations
required to ensure the continuance of a free society. In this article, let's examine the frequently
wielded tools of tyrants in their invariably insane quests for total control…
People who are easily frightened are easily dominated. This is not just a law of political
will, but a law of nature. Many wrongly assume that a tyrant's power comes purely from the application
of force. In fact, despotic regimes that rely solely on extreme violence are often very unsuccessful,
and easily overthrown. Brute strength is calculable. It can be analyzed, and thus, eventually
confronted and defeated.
Thriving tyrants instead utilize not just harm, but the imminent THREAT of harm. They instill
apprehension in the public; a fear of the unknown, or a fear of the possible consequences for
standing against the state. They let our imaginations run wild until we see death around every
corner, whether it's actually there or not. When the masses are so blinded by the fear of reprisal
that they forget their fear of slavery, and take no action whatsoever to undo it, then they have
been sufficiently culled.
In other cases, our fear is evoked and directed towards engineered enemies. Another race, another
religion, another political ideology, a "hidden" and ominous villain created out of thin air.
Autocrats assert that we "need them" in order to remain safe and secure from these illusory monsters
bent on our destruction. As always, this development is followed by the claim that all steps taken,
even those that dissolve our freedoms, are "for the greater good". Frightened people tend to shirk
their sense of independence and run towards the comfort of the collective, even if that collective
is built on immoral and unconscionable foundations. Once a society takes on a hive-mind mentality
almost any evil can be rationalized, and any injustice against the individual is simply overlooked
for the sake of the group.
In the past, elitist governments would often legislate and enforce severe penalties for public
gatherings, because defusing the ability of the citizenry to organize or to communicate was paramount
to control. In our technological era, such isolation is still used, but in far more advanced forms.
The bread and circus lifestyle of the average westerner alone is enough to distract us from connecting
with each other in any meaningful fashion, but people still sometimes find ways to seek out organized
forms of activism.
Through co-option, modern day tyrant's can direct and manipulate opposition movements. By creating
and administrating groups which oppose each other, elites can then micromanage all aspects of
a nation on the verge of revolution. These "false paradigms" give us the illusion of proactive
organization, and the false hope of changing the system, while at the same time preventing us
from seeking understanding in one another. All our energies are then muted and dispersed into
meaningless battles over "left and right", or "Democrat versus Republican", for example. Only
movements that cast aside such empty labels and concern themselves with the ultimate truth of
their country, regardless of what that truth might reveal, are able to enact real solutions to
the disasters wrought by tyranny.
In more advanced forms of despotism, even fake organizations are disbanded. Curfews are
enforced. Normal communications are diminished or monitored. Compulsory paperwork is required.
Checkpoints are instituted. Free speech is punished. Existing groups are influenced to distrust
each other or to disintegrate entirely out of dread of being discovered. All of these measures
are taken by tyrants primarily to prevent ANY citizens from gathering and finding mutual support.
People who work together and organize of their own volition are unpredictable, and therefore,
a potential risk to the state.
You'll find in nearly every instance of cultural descent into autocracy, the offending government
gained favor after the onset of economic collapse. Make the necessities of root survival an uncertainty,
and people without knowledge of self sustainability and without solid core principles will gladly
hand over their freedom, even for mere scraps from the tables of the same men who unleashed famine
upon them. Financial calamities are not dangerous because of the poverty they leave in their wake;
they are dangerous because of the doors to malevolence that they leave open.
Destitution leads not just to hunger, but also to crime (private and government). Crime
leads to anger, hatred, and fear. Fear leads to desperation. Desperation leads to the acceptance
of anything resembling a solution, even despotism.
Autocracies pretend to cut through the dilemmas of economic dysfunction (usually while
demanding liberties be relinquished), however, behind the scenes they actually seek to maintain
a proscribed level of indigence and deprivation. The constant peril of homelessness and starvation
keeps the masses thoroughly distracted from such things as protest or dissent, while simultaneously
chaining them to the idea that their only chance is to cling to the very government out to end
them.
This is the main symptom often associated with totalitarianism. So much so that our preconceived
notions of what a fascist government looks like prevent us from seeing other forms of tyranny
right under our noses. Some Americans believe that if the jackbooted thugs are not knocking on
every door, then we MUST still live in a free country. Obviously, this is a rather naďve position.
Admittedly, though, goon squads and secret police do eventually become prominent in every failed
nation, usually while the public is mesmerized by visions of war, depression, hyperinflation,
terrorism, etc.
When law enforcement officials are no longer servants of the people, but agents of a government
concerned only with its own supremacy, serious crises emerge. Checks and balances are removed.
The guidelines that once reigned in police disappear, and suddenly, a philosophy of superiority
emerges; an arrogant exclusivity that breeds separation between law enforcement and the rest of
the public. Finally, police no longer see themselves as protectors of citizens, but prison guards
out to keep us subdued and docile.
As tyranny grows, this behavior is encouraged. Good men are filtered out of the system, and
small (minded and hearted) men are promoted.
At its pinnacle, a police state will hide the identities of most of its agents and officers,
behind masks or behind red tape, because their crimes in the name of the state become so numerous
and so sadistic that personal vengeance on the part of their victims will become a daily concern.
Tyrants are generally men who have squelched their own consciences. They have no reservations
in using any means at their disposal to wipe out opposition. But, in the early stages of their
ascent to power, they must give the populace a reason for their ruthlessness, or risk being exposed,
and instigating even more dissent. The propaganda machine thus goes into overdrive, and any person
or group that dares to question the authority or the validity of the state is demonized in the
minds of the masses.
All disasters, all violent crimes, all the ills of the world, are hoisted upon the shoulders
of activist groups and political rivals. They are falsely associated with fringe elements already
disliked by society (racists, terrorists, etc). A bogus consensus is created through puppet media
in an attempt to make the public believe that "everyone else" must have the same exact views,
and those who express contrary positions must be "crazy", or "extremist". Events are even engineered
by the corrupt system and pinned on those demanding transparency and liberty. The goal is to drive
anti-totalitarian organizations into self censorship. That is to say, instead of silencing them
directly, the state causes activists to silence themselves.
Tyrannical power structures cannot function without scapegoats. There must always be an
elusive boogie man under the bed of every citizen, otherwise, those citizens may turn their attention,
and their anger, towards the real culprit behind their troubles. By scapegoating stewards of the
truth, such governments are able to kill two birds with one stone.
Ultimately, the life of a totalitarian government is not prolonged by the government itself,
but by the very people it subjugates. Citizen spies are the glue of any police state, and our
propensity for sticking our noses into other peoples business is highly valued by Big Brother
bureaucracies around the globe.
There are a number of reasons why people participate in this repulsive activity. Some are addicted
to the feeling of being a part of the collective, and "service" to this collective, sadly, is
the only way they are able to give their pathetic lives meaning. Some are vindictive, cold, and
soulless, and actually get enjoyment from ruining others. And still, like elites, some long for
power, even petty power, and are willing to do anything to fulfill their vile need to dictate
the destinies of perfect strangers.
Citizen spying is almost always branded as a civic duty; an act of heroism and bravery.
Citizen spies are offered accolades and awards, and showered with praise from the upper echelons
of their communities. People who lean towards citizen spying are often outwardly and inwardly
unimpressive; physically and mentally inept. For the average moral and emotional weakling with
persistent feelings of inadequacy, the allure of finally being given fifteen minutes of fame and
a hero's status (even if that status is based on a lie) is simply too much to resist. They begin
to see "extremists" and "terrorists" everywhere. Soon, people afraid of open ears everywhere start
to watch what they say at the supermarket, in their own backyards, or even to family members.
Free speech is effectively neutralized.
In the end, it is not enough for a government fueled by the putrid sludge of iniquity to lord
over us. At some point, it must also influence us to forsake our most valued principles. Tyrannies
are less concerned with dominating how we live, so much as dominating how we think. If they
can mold our very morality, they can exist unopposed indefinitely. Of course, the elements of
conscience are inborn, and not subject to environmental duress as long as a man is self aware.
However, conscience can be manipulated if a person has no sense of identity, and has never put
in the effort to explore his own strengths and failings. There are many people like this in America
today.
Lies become "necessary" in protecting the safety of the state. War becomes a tool for "peace".
Torture becomes an ugly but "useful" method for gleaning important information. Police brutality
is sold as a "natural reaction" to increased crime. Rendition becomes normal, but only for those
labeled as "terrorists". Assassination is justified as a means for "saving lives". Genocide is
done discretely, but most everyone knows it is taking place. They simply don't discuss it.
All tyrannical systems depend on the apathy and moral relativism of the inhabitants within
their borders. Without the cooperation of the public, these systems cannot function. The real
question is, how many of the above steps will be taken before we finally refuse to conform? At
what point will each man and woman decide to break free from the dark path blazed before us and
take measures to ensure their independence? Who will have the courage to develop their own communities,
their own alternative economies, their own organizations for mutual defense outside of establishment
constructs, and who will break under the pressure to bow like cowards? How many will hold the
line, and how many will flee?
For every American, for every human being across the planet who chooses to stand immovable
in the face of the very worst in mankind, we come that much closer to breathing life once again
into the very best in us all.
"... In ['William Darity, Jr.'s] his view, the capacity of parents and grandparents to invest in their children is contingent on their wealth position" [ iNet ]. ..."
"... "What drives white-collar criminals? Often, these are successful people who possess great wealth, have impeccable education, and hold much influence within their respective industries, yet they risk it all by breaking the law" [ ProMarket ]. "Incentives specifically play a big role in fostering white-collar crime, according to Soltes, especially when financial managers are pressured to succeed and have to make rapid decisions one after the other, their potential victims far from view. 'I was doing exactly what I was incentivized to do. We wouldn't have gone through all this trouble if we just wanted to cheat,' says Enron CFO Andrew Fastow in the book.'" ..."
"In ['William Darity, Jr.'s] his view, the capacity of parents and grandparents to invest
in their children is contingent on their wealth position" [
iNet ].
"The real driver of inequality, then, is not an individual's level of education and productivity,
but the resources that parents and grandparents are able to transmit." Hence: "[S]tratification economics."
Might go down easier than "class warfare," I dunno.
"What drives white-collar criminals? Often, these are successful people who possess great
wealth, have impeccable education, and hold much influence within their respective industries, yet
they risk it all by breaking the law" [
ProMarket
]. "Incentives specifically play a big role in fostering white-collar crime, according to Soltes,
especially when financial managers are pressured to succeed and have to make rapid decisions one
after the other, their potential victims far from view. 'I was doing exactly what I was incentivized
to do. We wouldn't have gone through all this trouble if we just wanted to cheat,' says Enron CFO
Andrew Fastow in the book.'"
"Mike Konczal has an interesting piece on how the progressives are unlikely to win over Trump's
base of white, male, working class voters – even if they take their concerns to heart and propose
policies that will help them… Konczal might well be right, but I want to entertain the possibility
that he is wrong" [
Dani Rodrik ]. I will say that Konczal knows how to generate buzz. More:
"Konczal might well be right, but I want to entertain the possibility that he is wrong…. If
left-liberals take for granted that the white middle class is essentially racist, hate the federal
government, oppose progressive taxation, don't think big banks and dark money are a problem …
and so on, then indeed many of the remedies that progressives have to offer will fail to resonate
and there is little that can be done. But why should we assume that these are the givens of political
life?
A large literature in social psychology and political economy suggests that identities are
malleable as are voters' perceptions of how the world works and therefore which policies serve
their interests. A large part of the right's success derives from their having convinced lower
and middle class voters that the government is corrupt and inept. Can't progressives alter that
perception?
Note that Rodrik has exactly the same conflation of "progressive," "left," and "liberal" that
Konczal does. Je repete : Liberals (and conservatives) want to divide the working class, and
they use their distinctive flavors of identity politics to do so. The left wishes to unite them.
And both liberals and conservatives will deny that identity is malleable (Clinton's "irredeemables")
not only because to admit that would smash any number of rice bowls, but because it would smash their
social functions as factions. What should give the left hope in Rodrik's rejoinder - hope that Konczal
is, quite naturally, attempting to strangle in its cradle - is the notion that identity is malleable;
Occupy, with the 99% concept, proved that. Thomas Frank, with his 10%, takes the same approach. Of
course, 99 and 10 don't add to 100, so there's some analytical work to be done, but the way forward
beyond identity politics is clear.
For-profit colleges may be playing defense in the public perception, but they have not given up their
offensive game, if their recent contributions to Congress are any indication.
For-profit education colleges and trade groups donated more than $1.4 million to federal candidates,
parties and elected officials during the first eight months of 2016, according to the most recent
tally by the Center for Responsive Politics. Lobbyists for the sector spent an additional $2.6 million.
(Nonprofit colleges are not permitted to donate to candidates.)
The top recipients in Congress are, or were, running for election, and all but one of the incumbents
have a leadership position on or are members of one of the powerful committees that help determine
the flow of federal money to for-profit colleges. The top three recipients can count for-profit sector
groups among their top campaign contributors.
For-profit colleges and advocates gave $657,531 to 139 incumbents and candidates running for the
House of Representatives. Click
HERE for list
of House members and candidates (by amount of contribution). There were 54 Senators and candidates
for the Senate who received contributions, for a total of $378,758 between January and August of
this year. Click
HERE for list
of Senators and candidates (by amount of contribution.)
More than a third of the money donated to sitting Senators has gone to members of the Armed Services
committee and most of that went to its powerful chairman, John McCain (R-AZ). Last year the Pentagon
banned the biggest for-profit college, the University of Phoenix, from recruiting on military bases
and receiving federal tuition, citing deceptive practices. But McCain lobbied loud and hard and succeeded
in reversing the ban in January.
Republicans running for Congress scooped up 72 percent of contributions from the for-profit education
sector during the first eight months of this year. That's a change from 2010, when they only received
39 percent of contributions. The Presidential race this year, however, has favored the Democrat,
Hillary Clinton.
Some of the biggest donors so far this year are for-profit institutions that have drawn scrutiny
from federal agencies for high student debt levels and low graduation rates. Bridgepoint, at the
top of the list, is under investigation by the Justice Department; it also must pay millions of dollars
in fines to resolve the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's accusation that its private student
loan advertisements misled students. Corinthian Colleges filed for bankruptcy last year and this
year was forced to pay massive fines for defrauding students.
Meredith Kolodner
is a staff writer at The Hechinger Report. She previously covered schools for the
New York Daily News and was an editor at InsideSchools.org and for The Investigative Fund at the
Nation Institute. She's also covered housing, schools, and local government for the Press of Atlantic
City and The Chief-Leader newspaper and her work has appeared in the New York Times and the American
Prospect. Kolodner is a graduate of Brown University and Columbia University's Graduate School of
Journalism and an active New York City public school parent. She is grateful to her 11th grade English
teacher who persistently gave her Cs on essays until she finally stopped burying the lead.
"... "Now we have the three [Goldman] transcripts. Everyone can read them, and everyone should. What they show is Clinton's extraordinary understanding of our world - its leaders and their politics, terrorist groups and their vulnerabilities, the interplay of global forces, and the economic well-being of Americans" ..."
"... I think this debate especially was "priced in" - any Trump supporter at this stage has lost the capacity for changing minds, especially as so much of it is anti-Hillary. ..."
"... It is astounding that with all her money and MSM support/collusion HRC is only a few digits ahead in the polls. I still see a slim chance that Trump will win, if his hidden and shy voters go out and some of Hillary's stay home (lazy and complacent). ..."
"... Having said that, the establishment is terrified of a Trump win, and so many of those voting machines don't leave an audit trail… ..."
I can tell what how the press stories will read from the headlines and the writers, so I won't
bother to link to them.
See the NC debate live blog for a rice bowl-free discussion.
"Trump had done well, delivering his best prepared and most substantive performance, but it
wasn't nearly good enough to reshape the race. He came into Las Vegas trailing big time, and surely
leaves the same way" [
New York Post ]. "Absent an unforeseeable black swan event that tips the table in his favor,
Hillary Clinton is headed to the White House." Although I'd bet the terrain is quite different
today from the terrain Clinton imagined back when she was influence peddling at Goldman in 2015.
... ... ..
And then there's this, which does seem to under cut the bizarre "our electoral system is perfection
itself" narrative that Democrat loyalists are pushing:
... ... ...
UPDATE "But the negativity in this campaign has been something else, and the debates have been
very heavy on character attacks. In terms of the overall impact on the health of American democracy,
I think there's one thing that's particularly concerning: These two candidates, whose personal
conduct and character have been impugned over and over, both went through competitive primaries.
There were other candidates. Clinton and Trump both won their nominations, fairly and decisively.
But for people who might tune in sporadically, the conclusion that this is the best we can do
might produce real dismay." [
FiveThirtyEight ]. Yes, it's called a legitimacy crisis.
"The stream posted on his Facebook wasn't anything different than what people saw on CNN or
Fox News or MSNBC, just a livestream of the debate, but more than 170,000 watched it at once.
By the time the broadcast ended, more than 8.7 million had tuned in at some point. Compare that
to the half a million views Time posted for its debate lifestream, or the nearly 900,000 who watched
BuzzFeed News'" [
Independent Journal Review ]. "Welcome to the first broadcast of Trump TV."
War Drums
"Anyone who believes the United States is not fighting enough wars in the Middle East can be
happy this week. We have just plunged into another one. Twice in recent days, cruise missiles
fired from an American destroyer have rained down on Yemen. The Pentagon, a practiced master of
Orwellian language, calls this bombing 'limited self-defense'" [
Boston Globe ]. "American forces were already involved in Yemen's civil war. Since 2002, our
drone attacks have reportedly killed more than 500 Yemenis, including at least 65 civilians. We
are also supplying weapons and intelligence to Saudi Arabia, which has killed thousands of Yemenis
in bombing raids over the last year and a half - including last week's attack on a funeral in
which more than 100 mourners were killed." But I'm sure none of the mourners were women or people
of color. So that's alright, then.
Wikileaks
"Now we have the three [Goldman] transcripts. Everyone can read them, and everyone should.
What they show is Clinton's extraordinary understanding of our world - its leaders and their politics,
terrorist groups and their vulnerabilities, the interplay of global forces, and the economic well-being
of Americans" [
RealClearPolitics ].
This is the line the Moustache of Understanding took. Which is all you need to know, really
Although this writer is a little vague on
just how they are "extraordinary."
"Walmart, Wendy Clark, Target and Apple: More WikiLeaked Clinton Campaign Messaging Secrets"
[
Advertising Age ].
The Trail
"Trump Holds On To 1-Point Lead As Debate Sparks Fly - IBD/TIPP Poll" [
Investors Business Daily ]. Incidentally, IBD sounds like the sort of publication Trump would
read.
There is one corner of Washington where Donald Trump's scorched-earth presidential campaign
is treated as a mere distraction and where bipartisanship reigns. In the rarefied world of
the Washington foreign policy establishment, President Obama's departure from the White House
- and the possible return of a more conventional and hawkish Hillary Clinton - is being met
with quiet relief.
The Republicans and Democrats who make up the foreign policy elite are laying the groundwork
for a more assertive American foreign policy via a flurry of reports shaped by officials who
are likely to play senior roles in a potential Clinton White House. …
This consensus is driven by broad-based backlash against a president who has repeatedly
stressed the dangers of overreach and the limits of American power, especially in the Middle
East. "There's a widespread perception that not being active enough or recognizing the limits
of American power has costs," said Philip Gordon, a senior foreign policy adviser to Obama
until 2015. "So the normal swing is to be more interventionist." …
Smart investors will go long producers of canned food and manufacturers of fallout shelter
materials.
George Saunders strives mightily to have us believe our economic situation has nothing to do
with the attractiveness of The Donald to certain constituencies. But even he has to acknowledge
what people are angry about (emphasis added):
"All along the fertile interstate-highway corridor, our corporations, those new and
powerful nation-states, had set up shop parasitically, so as to skim off the drive-past money
, and what those outposts had to offer was a blur of sugar, bright color, and crassness
that seemed causally related to more serious addictions. Standing in line at the pharmacy in an
Amarillo Walmart superstore, I imagined some kid who had moved only, or mostly, through such bland,
bright spaces, spaces constructed to suit the purposes of distant profit, and it occurred to me
how easy it would be, in that life, to feel powerless, to feel that the local was lame, the abstract
extraneous, to feel that the only valid words were those of materialism ("get" and "rise")-words
that are perfectly embodied by the candidate of the moment.
Something is wrong, the common person feels, correctly: she works too hard and gets too little;
a dulling disconnect exists between her actual day-to-day interests and (1) the way her leaders
act and speak, and (2) the way our mass media mistell or fail entirely to tell her story.
What does she want? Someone to notice her over here, having her troubles. "
Pavel, October 20, 2016 at 4:06 pm
I blissfully ignored the televised "debate" last night though I followed the comments here
at NC and on Twitter for a while. Not sure my blood pressure would survive 90 mins of Hillary's
voice and smug smile or anything about Trump.
It is amusing to note the OUTRAGE that Trump might dare question the election results. Jesus
H Christ the media are just taking us all for amnesiac idiots, aren't they?
I think this debate especially was "priced in" - any Trump supporter at this stage has
lost the capacity for changing minds, especially as so much of it is anti-Hillary.
It is astounding that with all her money and MSM support/collusion HRC is only a few digits
ahead in the polls. I still see a slim chance that Trump will win, if his hidden and shy voters
go out and some of Hillary's stay home (lazy and complacent).
Having said that, the establishment is terrified of a Trump win, and so many of those voting
machines don't leave an audit trail…
Twice in recent days, cruise missiles fired from an American destroyer have rained down
on Yemen.
Whoaaa. There may still be doubts about this. After all, what do the Houthis gain, especially
right after the Saudis have outdone themselves in atrocities.
Officials Saturday night were uncertain about what exactly happened, if there were multiple
incoming missiles or if there was a malfunction with the radar detection system on the destroyer.
Even if the Yemenis did, I fail to see why this is considered shocking and unacceptable. I
get that decades of kowtowing to Israel has conditioned the United States to not understand that
a blockade is inherently an act of war, but quite aside from starving the people of Yemen we've
been directly supporting the Saudi bombing. We've been belligerents in this conflict from the
start.
TPP: "CLINTON ADVISERS WALK THE KNIFE'S EDGE ON TPP: The hand wringing over Clinton's stance on the
TPP was even more evident in another batch of hacked emails posted by WikiLeaks on Wednesday. The
exchange from Oct. 6, like other emails allegedly* from the account of Clinton campaign chairman
John Podesta, is focused on the Democratic candidate's statement following the conclusion of TPP
negotiations last October and how to balance the former secretary of State's previous support for
the deal with demands from her base. 'The goal here was to
minimize our vulnerability to the
authenticity attack
and not piss off the WH [White House] any more than necessary," wrote chief
speechwriter Dan Schwerin when sending out a draft of the statement" [
Politico
].
The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you've got it made. * Politico, can we
can get an asterisk on that allegedly? Something like "* Bob from Legal made us put this 'allegedly'
in, after he got a call from John." What say?
TPP: "El Salvador Ruling Offers a Reminder of Why
the TPP Must Be Defeated" [
The
Nation
(Re Silc)]. "Last week, the tribunal at the center of the proposed TPP ruled against a
global mining firm that sued El Salvador, but only after seven years of deliberations and over $12
million spent by the government of El Salvador. Equally outrageous, legal shenanigans by the Australian-Canadian
firm OceanaGold around corporate ownership will likely prevent El Salvador from ever recouping a
cent…. [N]o one should be complacent about defeating the TPP. Despite Hillary Clinton's professed
opposition to the agreement, she is not picking up the phone to convince members of Congress to vote
no."
TPP: "The Case for the TPP: Responding to the Critics" [
United
States Chamber of Commerce
]. These guys are rolling in dough. Is this really the best they can
do? Claim: "The TPP Will Undermine Regulations Protecting Health, Safety and the Environment."The
COC's answer: "ISDS has been included in approximately 3,000 investment treaties and trade agreements
over the past five decades. These neutral arbitrators have no power to overturn laws or regulations;
they can only order compensation." In the billions, right? No chilling effect there!
TISA: "Meanwhile, news out of Europe cast doubt on whether negotiators will actually finish TISA
this year because the EU cannot agree on how to handle cross-border data flows. The European Commission's
trade and justice departments have been squabbling for months over the issue, which Froman acknowledged
is an important outstanding concern. EU trade officials want data flows included in the pact, opening
up new markets for Europe's data economy to expand, while data protection officials are more concerned
about strong safeguards for privacy" [
Politico
].
"... Headed by Lenin, Marx's followers discussed finance capital mainly in reference to the drives of imperialism. ..."
"... It was left to Veblen to deal with the rentiers' increasingly dominant yet corrosive role, extracting their wealth by imposing overhead charges on the rest of society. ..."
"... Veblen described how the rentier classes were on the ascendant rather than being reformed, taxed out of existence or socialized. His Theory of Business Enterprise (1904) emphasized the divergence between productive capacity, the book value of business assets and their stock-market price (what today is called the Q ratio of market price to book value). He saw the rising financial overhead as leading toward corporate bankruptcy and liquidation. Industry was becoming financialized, putting financial gains ahead of production. Today's financial managers use profits not to invest but to buy up their company's stock (thus raising the value of their stock options) and pay out as dividends, and even borrow to pay themselves. Hedge funds have become notorious for stripping assets and loading companies down with debt, leaving bankrupt shells in their wake in what George Ackerlof and Paul Romer have characterized as looting. ..."
"... In emphasizing how financial "predation" was hijacking the economy's technological potential, Veblen's vision was as materialist and culturally broad as that of Marxists ..."
Edited excerpt from Michael Hudson and Ahmet Oncu, eds.,
Absentee Ownership and its Discontents: Critical Essays on the legacy of Thorstein Veblen ....................
From Marx to Veblen
Early (and most non-Marxist) socialism aimed to achieve greater equality mainly by taxing away
unearned rentier income and keeping natural resources and monopolies in the public domain. The Marxist
focus on class conflict between industrial employers and workers relegated criticism of rentiers
to a secondary position, leaving that fight to more bourgeois reformers. Financial savings were treated
as an accumulation of industrial profits, not as the autonomous phenomenon that Marx himself emphasized
in Volume 3 of Capital.
Headed by Lenin, Marx's followers discussed finance capital mainly in reference to the drives
of imperialism. The ruin of Persia and Egypt was notorious, and creditors installed collectors in
the customs houses in Europe's former Latin American colonies. The major problem anticipated was
war spurred by commercial rivalries as the world was being carved up. It was left to Veblen to deal
with the rentiers' increasingly dominant yet corrosive role, extracting their wealth by imposing
overhead charges on the rest of society. The campaign for land taxation and even financial reform
faded from popular discussion as socialists and other reformers became increasingly Marxist and focused
on the industrial exploitation of labor.
Veblen described how the rentier classes were on the ascendant rather than being reformed, taxed
out of existence or socialized. His Theory of Business Enterprise (1904) emphasized the divergence
between productive capacity, the book value of business assets and their stock-market price (what
today is called the Q ratio of market price to book value). He saw the rising financial overhead
as leading toward corporate bankruptcy and liquidation. Industry was becoming financialized, putting
financial gains ahead of production. Today's financial managers use profits not to invest but to
buy up their company's stock (thus raising the value of their stock options) and pay out as dividends,
and even borrow to pay themselves. Hedge funds have become notorious for stripping assets and loading
companies down with debt, leaving bankrupt shells in their wake in what George Ackerlof and Paul
Romer have characterized as looting.
In emphasizing how financial "predation" was hijacking the economy's technological potential,
Veblen's vision was as materialist and culturally broad as that of Marxists, and as rejecting of
the status quo. Technological innovation was reducing costs but breeding monopolies as the Finance,
Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sectors joined forces to create a financial symbiosis cemented by
political insider dealings – and a trivialization of economic theory as it seeks to avoid dealing
with society's failure to achieve its technological potential. The fruits of rising productivity
were used to finance robber barons who had no better use of their wealth than to reduce great artworks
to the status of ownership trophies and achieve leisure class status by funding business schools
and colleges to promote a self-congratulatory but deceptive portrayal of their wealth-grabbing behavior.
Absentee Ownership and its Discontents: Critical Essays on the legacy of Thorstein Veblen By
Michael Hudson and Ahmet Oncu
From Marx to Veblen
Early (and most non-Marxist) socialism aimed to achieve greater equality mainly by taxing away
unearned rentier income and keeping natural resources and monopolies in the public domain. The
Marxist focus on class conflict between industrial employers and workers relegated criticism of
rentiers to a secondary position, leaving that fight to more bourgeois reformers. Financial savings
were treated as an accumulation of industrial profits, not as the autonomous phenomenon that Marx
himself emphasized in Volume 3 of Capital.
Headed by Lenin, Marx's followers discussed finance capital mainly in reference to the
drives of imperialism. The ruin of Persia and Egypt was notorious, and creditors installed
collectors in the customs houses in Europe's former Latin American colonies. The major problem
anticipated was war spurred by commercial rivalries as the world was being carved up.
It was left to Veblen to deal with the rentiers' increasingly dominant yet corrosive role,
extracting their wealth by imposing overhead charges on the rest of society. The campaign
for land taxation and even financial reform faded from popular discussion as socialists and other
reformers became increasingly Marxist and focused on the industrial exploitation of labor.
Veblen described how the rentier classes were on the ascendant rather than being reformed,
taxed out of existence or socialized. His Theory of Business Enterprise (1904) emphasized the
divergence between productive capacity, the book value of business assets and their stock-market
price (what today is called the Q ratio of market price to book value). He saw the rising financial
overhead as leading toward corporate bankruptcy and liquidation. Industry was becoming financialized,
putting financial gains ahead of production. Today's financial managers use profits not to invest
but to buy up their company's stock (thus raising the value of their stock options) and pay out
as dividends, and even borrow to pay themselves. Hedge funds have become notorious for stripping
assets and loading companies down with debt, leaving bankrupt shells in their wake in what George
Ackerlof and Paul Romer have characterized as looting.
In emphasizing how financial "predation" was hijacking the economy's technological potential,
Veblen's vision was as materialist and culturally broad as that of Marxists , and as rejecting
of the status quo. Technological innovation was reducing costs but breeding monopolies as the
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sectors joined forces to create a financial symbiosis
cemented by political insider dealings – and a trivialization of economic theory as it seeks to
avoid dealing with society's failure to achieve its technological potential.
The fruits of rising productivity were used to finance robber barons who had no better use
of their wealth than to reduce great artworks to the status of ownership trophies and achieve
leisure class status by funding business schools and colleges to promote a self-congratulatory
but deceptive portrayal of their wealth-grabbing behavior.
Kind of like Obama's gift of mandated health insurance
coverage given to a health insurance industry that is
consolidating more and more every day...and becoming an
oligopoly?
Of course, we already know how this ends from
privatization of retirement plans in Britain and in
Chile--it's a boon mainly to the finance industry.
"Britain's experience with individual accounts has been
troubling. None other than the business oriented Wall
Street Journal, in fact, headlined an article on the
British experience: "Social Security Switch in U.K. is
Disastrous; A Caution to the U.S.?"[7] While the Journal
article mainly focused on a multi-billion dollar fraud
scandal in which British pension sellers gave workers bad
investment advice, others have critically noted the
system's unexpectedly high administrative costs and the
growing income inequality among the nation's workers"
http://www.eoionline.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/social-security/PensionPrivatizationBritainBoondoggle-Sep00.pdf
What else would you expect from the Clintons, who have
spent a good part of their careers sucking up to the
finance industry?
This is the smoking gun behind the corruption of the Fed during the 2008 crisis. I want to
see how they tell the world that this was all legal.
END PRIVATE FINANCE! The folks that own private finance also own the US and many other governments.....with
or without vote rigging as one of their tools.
"... Much of the content of these speeches to U.S. bankers dealt with foreign policy, and virtually all of that with warfare, potential warfare, and opportunities for military-led domination of various regions of the globe. This stuff is more interesting and less insultingly presented than the idiocies spewed out at the public presidential debates. But it also fits an image of U.S. policy that Clinton might have preferred to keep private. Just as nobody advertised that, as emails now show, Wall Street bankers helped pick President Obama's cabinet, we're generally discouraged from thinking that wars and foreign bases are intended as services to financial overlords. "I'm representing all of you," Clinton says to the bankers in reference to her efforts at a meeting in Asia. Sub-Saharan Africa has great potential for U.S. "businesses and entrepreneurs," she says in reference to U.S. militarism there. ..."
"... "We're going to ring China with missile 'defense,'" Clinton tells Goldman Sachs. "We're going to put more of our fleet in the area." ..."
"... In public debates, Clinton demands a "no fly zone" or "no bombing zone" or "safe zone" in Syria, from which to organize a war to overthrow the government. In a speech to Goldman Sachs, however, she blurts out that creating such a zone would require bombing a lot more populated areas than was required in Libya. ..."
"... Clinton also makes clear that Syrian "jihadists" are being funded by Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar. In October 2013, as the U.S. public had rejected bombing Syria, Blankfein asked if the public was now opposed to "interventions" - that clearly being understood as a hurdle to be overcome. Clinton said not to fear. "We're in a time in Syria," she said, "where they're not finished killing each other . . . and maybe you just have to wait and watch it." ..."
"... Regarding China again, Clinton claims to have told the Chinese that the United States could claim ownership of the entire Pacific as a result of having "liberated it." She goes on to claim to have told them that "We discovered Japan for heaven's sake." And: "We have proof of having bought [Hawaii]." Really? From whom? ..."
"... it's fascinating that even the bankers in whom Clinton confides her militarist mania ask her identical questions to those I get asked by peace activists at speaking events: "Is the U.S. political system completely broken?" "Should we scrap this and go with a parliamentary system?" ..."
In the speech transcripts from June 4, 2013, October 29, 2013, and October 19, 2015, Clinton was
apparently paid sufficiently to do something she denies most audiences. That is, she took questions
that it appears likely she was not secretly briefed on or engaged in negotiations over ahead of time.
In part this appears to be the case because some of the questions were lengthy speeches, and in part
because her answers were not all the sort of meaningless platitudes that she produces if given time
to prepare.
Much of the content of these speeches to U.S. bankers dealt with foreign policy, and
virtually all of that with warfare, potential warfare, and opportunities for military-led domination
of various regions of the globe. This stuff is more interesting and less insultingly presented than
the idiocies spewed out at the public presidential debates. But it also fits an image of U.S. policy
that Clinton might have preferred to keep private. Just as nobody advertised that, as emails now
show, Wall Street bankers helped pick President Obama's cabinet, we're generally discouraged from
thinking that wars and foreign bases are intended as services to financial overlords. "I'm representing
all of you," Clinton says to the bankers in reference to her efforts at a meeting in Asia. Sub-Saharan
Africa has great potential for U.S. "businesses and entrepreneurs," she says in reference to U.S.
militarism there.
Yet, in these speeches, Clinton projects exactly that approach, accurately or not, on other nations
and accuses China of just the sort of thing that her "far left" critics accuse her of all the time,
albeit outside the censorship of U.S. corporate media. China, Clinton says, may use hatred of Japan
as a means of distracting Chinese people from unpopular and harmful economic policies. China, Clinton
says, struggles to maintain civilian control over its military. Hmm. Where else have we seen these
problems?
"We're going to ring China with missile 'defense,'" Clinton tells Goldman Sachs. "We're going
to put more of our fleet in the area."
On Syria, Clinton says it's hard to figure out whom to arm - completely oblivious to any options
other than arming somebody. It's hard, she says, to predict at all what will happen. So, her advice,
which she blurts out to a room of bankers, is to wage war in Syria very "covertly."
In public debates, Clinton demands a "no fly zone" or "no bombing zone" or "safe zone" in Syria,
from which to organize a war to overthrow the government. In a speech to Goldman Sachs, however,
she blurts out that creating such a zone would require bombing a lot more populated areas than was
required in Libya. "You're going to kill a lot of Syrians," she admits. She even tries to distance
herself from the proposal by referring to "this intervention that people talk about so glibly" -
although she, before and at the time of that speech and ever since has been the leading such person.
Clinton also makes clear that Syrian "jihadists" are being funded by Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar.
In October 2013, as the U.S. public had rejected bombing Syria, Blankfein asked if the public was
now opposed to "interventions" - that clearly being understood as a hurdle to be overcome. Clinton
said not to fear. "We're in a time in Syria," she said, "where they're not finished killing each
other . . . and maybe you just have to wait and watch it."
That's the view of many ill-meaning and many well-meaning people who have been persuaded that
the only two choices in foreign policy are bombing people and doing nothing. That clearly is the
understanding of the former Secretary of State, whose positions were more hawkish than those of her
counterpart at the Pentagon. It's also reminiscent of Harry Truman's comment that if the Germans
were winning you should help the Russians and vice versa, so that more people would die. That's not
exactly what Clinton said here, but it's pretty close, and it's something she would not say in a
scripted joint-media-appearance masquerading as a debate. The possibility of disarmament, nonviolent
peacework, actual aid on a massive scale, and respectful diplomacy that leaves U.S. influence out
of the resulting states is just not on Clinton's radar no matter who is in her audience.
On Iran, Clinton repeatedly hypes false claims about nuclear weapons and terrorism, even while
admitting far more openly than we're used to that Iran's religious leader denounces and opposes nuclear
weapons. She also admits that Saudi Arabia is already pursuing nuclear weapons and that UAE and Egypt
are likely to do so, at least if Iran does. She also admits that the Saudi government is far from
stable.
Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein asks Clinton at one point how a good war against Iran might
go - he suggesting that an occupation (yes, they use that forbidden word) might not be the best move.
Clinton replies that Iran can just be bombed. Blankfein, rather shockingly, appeals to reality -
something Clinton goes on at obnoxious length about elsewhere in these speeches. Has bombing a population
into submission ever worked, Blankfein asks. Clinton admits that it has not but suggests that it
just might work on Iranians because they are not democratic.
Regarding Egypt, Clinton makes clear her opposition to popular change.
Regarding China again, Clinton claims to have told the Chinese that the United States could claim
ownership of the entire Pacific as a result of having "liberated it." She goes on to claim to have
told them that "We discovered Japan for heaven's sake." And: "We have proof of having bought [Hawaii]."
Really? From whom?
This is ugly stuff, at least as damaging to human lives as the filth coming from Donald Trump.
Yet it's fascinating that even the bankers in whom Clinton confides her militarist mania ask her
identical questions to those I get asked by peace activists at speaking events: "Is the U.S. political
system completely broken?" "Should we scrap this and go with a parliamentary system?"
Et cetera.
In part their concern is the supposed gridlock created by differences between the two big parties,
whereas my biggest concern is the militarized destruction of people and the environment that never
seems to encounter even a slight traffic slowdown in Congress. But if you imagine that the people
Bernie Sanders always denounces as taking home all the profits are happy with the status quo, think
again. They benefit in certain ways, but they don't control their monster and it doesn't make them
feel fulfilled.
> If we don't get Trump's protectionism we will quickly become a country as poor as Armenia or
Moldova - stripped of industry and wealth, dependent on remittances from our migrant workers in Asia
and Europe.
While neoliberalism is clearly bad and Washington consensus needs to be reversed, that's a clear
exaggeration. The USA still the leader is some important areas of high technology as well as military
technology.
Moreover, while it is clear that neoliberalism is bad and tends to devour the society, what is
the most viable alternative to neoliberalism in very unclear.
The people who are afraid of the resurgence of national socialist sentiments are clearly wrong,
because combination of inverted totalitarism and national security state already (after 9/11)achieved
the same goals (for the US elite, not for the US people) as giving power to national socialists.
And with much less violence. I am not even sure that Trump is supported by military-industrial complex
is "sine qua non" for any national socialist leader. Looks like he is not.
Growth of nationalism (aka "American exceptionalism" as the USA flavor of the same) is given.
The uniqueness of the USA is that extreme nationalism is not persecuted and even is encouraged as
well as Russophobia, which by-and-large displaced anti-Semitism.
Barak Obama (aka Barry Soetoro) publicly claimed that he is big adherent of American exceptionalism;
and this it's official endorsement -- making him a sense a nationalistic leader. As strange as it
sounds for a "serial betrayer" and the king of "baiot and switch".
I suspect the USA might also see some resurgence of paleoconservatism as neoliberalism became more
and more moved into background as another failed ideology. But political forces behind it remains
very strong; so it can exists in zombie states for several years, if not decades. Much depends on
how acute will be "peak/plato oil" crisis that probably might hit the USA after 2020.
And the USA remains the center of the global neoliberal empire and global enforcer of neoliberal
consensus. As long as this is true the USA population might still be treated somewhat better then
population of other countries.
Althouth certain strata of the US population even now leave essentially in third world country
(those with McJobs and much of the retail (Walmart and friends) are two examples.
And this will continue because the elite now is scared of the strength of the wave of anti globalization
sentiment (that Trump supporters signifies) as hell.
Look what Summers and other prominent neoliberal shills (sorry, economists) have written recently.
They considerably shifted their positions away from "pure" neoliberalism. Especially "Rubin's
boy Larry".
"... Please name some of these "centrist" economic policies of Obama's. ..."
"... Fact is, he made most of Bush Jr.'s tax cuts permanent. He slashed spending. He gave fraudulent bankers sweetheart deals buying up toxic assets with taxpayer money and QE purchases while giving Americans conned by them nothing. His healthcare reforms appear to have been written by the insurance companies (yet another looting scheme.) ..."
"... Obama promised hope and change and delivered neither. He is as centrist Keynesian as Ronald Reagan. (Hillary, of course, is unapologetically neocon; she's been targeting the neocon vote since wrapping up the nomination.) ..."
"... "Obama signed a law extending all of the Bush tax cuts for two years in 2010 and almost all of them indefinitely in 2013. The big features of Bush's plans -- the 10 percent tax bracket, across-the-board rate cuts, more generous estate-tax exemptions and equal standard deductions for married couples and two individuals -- are now locked into U.S. law." ..."
"... "At its height in 2010, 'discretionary spending' under Obama reached 9.1% of GDP. That was largely due to the stimulus law intended to dig the country out of a deep recession. But even at that high level, it wasn't that much higher than the 40-year average of 8.4% and was still below the 40-year peak of 10% reached in 1983. Today, levels [of 6.8%] are well below the long-term average. And the Congressional Budget Office projects that by 2023 discretionary spending will fall to 5.3% of GDP, the lowest since 1962." ..."
"... As for Obamacare, insurance companies are jacking up premiums and deductibles. If Obama had wanted to provide insurance for the 50 million uninsured (which he only reduced by 20 million) he could've extended Medicare with a public option and covered them all without giving healthcare insurance companies an excuse to fleece Americans even more. ..."
"... ACA is why progressive must reject Hillary's soft right-centrist pap. The issue with ACA exchanges is escape........ The compromises pushed by the GOP were all for insurance companies. Single payer was needed to keep the thugs honest. ..."
"... I really wish more liberals would learn about these things..." You mean you wish liberals were more gullible. Obama ran on a public option during the primaries, promised his health care reforms would include it. In the end it was all empty talk. The reason Obama and Hillary have the PRIVATE position that a public option is never going to happen under their watch is ..."
"... The public option is a Trojan Horse. It will eat into the healthcare insurance industry's market share, which is why they pay Obama and Hillary the big bucks to protect it. ..."
"... The 1983 and 2010 discretionary included too much of GDP on war. Proving Bastiat that "security spending" is less useful than almost any other use of the money. ..."
"... Total is one feature, opportunity lost [on war profiteers blowing up evil doers] while spending Yuuuge is a few onion peels deeper. ..."
"... The left/right economic spectrum is objective and immutable. In the center is the Keynesian mixed-market system that was abandoned when Reagan came to power for right-wing free-market reforms that were continued on by both Republican and Democratic presidents that followed. The country is further to the right now than when Reagan left power. ..."
"... The economic spectrum is defined: 100% left is communism or full government control over the economy; 100% right is libertarianism or no government involvement in the economy. In the center is the Keynesian demand-side economic system that created modern living standards during the Progressive New Deal Era that began with FDR and was ended by Reagan. ..."
"... To consider Obama's rule center-left is to be completely ignorant of the left/right economic spectrum. Norway is a left-leaning centrist Keynesian country. If you think America and Norway are the same I suggest (for starters) you watch Michael Moore's documentary: "Where to Invade Next." ..."
"... By milquetoast I imagine you mean instead of delivering big promised changes from the Bush Jr. era, he did absolutely nothing. He continued both the neocon war-profiteering and neoliberal economic reforms. He will attempt to ram the TPP through after the election during the lame duck session. ..."
"... If Americans hate anyone it is establishment lapdog Republicans and Democrats. Krugman's ridiculous rhetoric shows they are growing increasingly desperate. They should be: their neoliberal era is coming to a close; their gravy train is about to go off the rails. (Krugman got in on it too late.) ..."
"... Starting wars is not "milquetoast, moderately successful center-left rule." It is a neocon scam run by the DNC establishment. Was Obama always a shill for the war machine, and his Iraq vote a Manchurian candidate? ..."
Please name some of these "centrist" economic policies of Obama's.
Fact is, he made most of Bush Jr.'s tax cuts permanent. He slashed spending. He gave fraudulent
bankers sweetheart deals buying up toxic assets with taxpayer money and QE purchases while giving
Americans conned by them nothing. His healthcare reforms appear to have been written by the insurance
companies (yet another looting scheme.)
Obama promised hope and change and delivered neither. He is as centrist Keynesian as Ronald
Reagan. (Hillary, of course, is unapologetically neocon; she's been targeting the neocon vote since
wrapping up the nomination.)
"... he made most of Bush Jr.'s tax cuts permanent." Yeah, except the ones on higher incomes.
"He slashed spending." Not really. The sequester hostage deal cuts were more than offset by other Obama-led spending,
like ARRA short term and ACA long term.
"He gave fraudulent bankers sweetheart deals buying up toxic assets with taxpayer money and
QE purchases while giving Americans conned by them nothing. "
Not even close. The Treasury and Fed buy assets at market prices, which is the complete opposite
of "sweetheart deals." Notably, the Treasury and Fed have both profited from these purchases.
"His healthcare reforms appear to have been written by the insurance companies (yet another
looting scheme.)"
The insurance companies lobbied against ACA and are clearly not profiting on exchange plan
issuance.
"Obama signed a law extending all of the Bush tax cuts for two years in 2010 and
almost all of them indefinitely in 2013. The big features of Bush's plans -- the 10 percent tax
bracket, across-the-board rate cuts, more generous estate-tax exemptions and equal standard deductions
for married couples and two individuals -- are now locked into U.S. law."
From CNN Money:
"At its height in 2010, 'discretionary spending' under Obama reached 9.1% of
GDP. That was largely due to the stimulus law intended to dig the country out of a deep recession.
But even at that high level, it wasn't that much higher than the 40-year average of 8.4% and was
still below the 40-year peak of 10% reached in 1983. Today, levels [of 6.8%] are well below the
long-term average. And the Congressional Budget Office projects that by 2023 discretionary spending
will fall to 5.3% of GDP, the lowest since 1962."
Re: "sweetheart deals" I got that line from Stigtilz's "Freefall." Clearly a book you didn't
read.
As for Obamacare, insurance companies are jacking up premiums and deductibles. If Obama had
wanted to provide insurance for the 50 million uninsured (which he only reduced by 20 million)
he could've extended Medicare with a public option and covered them all without giving healthcare
insurance companies an excuse to fleece Americans even more.
(Developed countries pay 12% GDP for extensive healthcare benefits; the US pays 18% GDP for
its patchwork system that leaves 31 million without. The inflated costs - 6% GDP or about $1T
a year - are largely from insurance corporation looting.)
"Obama signed a law extending all of the Bush tax cuts for two years in 2010 and almost all of
them indefinitely in 2013. "
Yeah, and hidden in that "almost all" qualifier is exactly what I said previously: that the
BTCs for higher incomes were NOT extended.
And I didn't even mention before how ACA raised taxes further on the rich, with an additional
surtaxes on both incomes and capital gains for $200k plus earners.
The result has been that the top 1% now pay the highest effective tax rates they've paid since
the mid 90s, while everyone else pays relatively lower.
Reducing taxes on the not rich and raising taxes on the rich counts as center-left, at least,
in any sensible accounting.
"From CNN Money: "At its height in 2010, 'discretionary spending' under Obama reached 9.1%
of GDP.
...
And the Congressional Budget Office projects that by 2023 discretionary spending will fall to
5.3% of GDP, the lowest since 1962."
Your use of this passage to try to make your point has so many layers of fudge it might as
well be tiramisu.
First, 2010 was a peak not just because of the ARRA spending, which is another thing I already
mentioned, but also because of high *cyclical* spending on things like unemployment benefits.
Spending always goes up during downturns. That's not a policy or ideological shift, that's
just the nature of automatic stabilizers.
You conflate all those things by pointing to the decline in spending off the cyclical peak
as being somehow less than "centrist."
Second, you have for no good reason chosen to point only too discretionary spending. So lets
talk about what that category includes and doesn't.
The biggest component of discretionary spending is defense spending. Is it "center-left" to
promote higher defense spending? No way. And in fact, the sequester hostage deal cuts are half
defense cuts.
Another thing to note about discretionary spending is that its been declining for decades,
as "non-discretionary" spending has come to increasingly dominate the budget. And that non-discretionary
spending continues to go up.
Also, like I already said (see a trend here?), the major policy changes affecting non-defense
discretionary spending were the sequester and ACA, and guess what? They offset.
So how is this not centrist? You want to paint Obama as some major spending cutter, but on
balance he hasn't. He's cut deficits a little bit by raising taxes on the rich by a bit more than
he's lowered them on everyone else.
Not centrist? Pfft.
"Re: "sweetheart deals" I got that line from Stigtilz's "Freefall." Clearly a book you didn't
read."
Clearly you can't even defend your own assertion, so you retreat to a weak argument from authority.
"As for Obamacare, insurance companies are jacking up premiums and deductibles."
No, they are jacking up premiums, by an average of 9%, which is far lower than they used to
rise in the individual market on average pre-ACA, and follows a few years of way below trend rate
increases.
You were saying?
" If Obama had wanted to provide insurance for the 50 million uninsured (which he only reduced
by 20 million) he could've extended Medicare with a public option and covered them all without
giving healthcare insurance companies an excuse to fleece Americans even more."
Ugh. Just painful.
Yes, a *single payer* system like Medicare for all would cover everyone, and probably be less
expensive (though at present Medicare is the most generous single payer system on the planet,
so it actually wouldn't save as much as international comparisons would lead you to believe).
But the "public option" has nothing to do with Medicare or universal single payer coverage.
It would simply be the government setting up an insurance company to offer policies on the exchanges
for premiums. That's not at all the same as Medicare, and not universal. It could serve as a valuable
competitor to private plans on the exchanges, which is why center-left Dems like Obama and Hillary
Clinton support it, but you don't appear to be aware of that support or even what "public option"
means.
Obama raised taxes on the rich while cutting taxes on everyone else. In the sequester hostage
deal he acquiesced to, they cut defense spending and non-defense discretionary equally, but Obama
also expanded non-defense discretionary, by actually a greater amount, with the passage of ACA,
not to mention the temporary but significant spending that was passed under ARRA. Based on this
history he's supposedly not "centrist"? WTF?
"Yeah, and hidden in that "almost all" qualifier is exactly what I said previously: that the BTCs
for higher incomes were NOT extended."
So you have a beef with Bloomberg? Puke your apologist rhetoric at them. "The result has been
that the top 1% now pay the highest effective tax rates they've paid since the mid 90s, while
everyone else pays relatively lower. So how is this not centrist?"
The top tax bracket during the centrist Keynesian post-war era varied from 90% to 70%. Obama
raised the rate from 35% to 40%. Still deep in right-wing "low tax, small government" neoclassical
territory.
"No, they are jacking up premiums, by an average of 9%, which is far lower than they used to
rise"
From Bill Clinton on the ACA: "So you've got this crazy system where all of a sudden, 25 million
more people have healthcare and then the people that are out there busting it-sometimes 60 hours
a week-wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half. It's the craziest thing
in the world."
"Yes, a *single payer* system like Medicare for all would cover everyone … But the 'public
option' has nothing to do with … universal single payer coverage"
You missed my point completely. A primary goal of the ACA was to provide "affordable" healthcare
insurance to the 50 million people without. A goal it clearly failed at given 31-million still
have no healthcare insurance.
I said that with the public option alone, all 50-million could've gotten public healthcare
insurance or benefits without affecting anyone else's premiums and deductions. I.e., it would've
been a more effective patchwork reform.
Obviously a pubic option that covers 50-million is completely different from a single-payer
system that would cover all 325-million Americans. Of course, this is completely irrelevant to
my original point.
"But the 'public option' has nothing to do with Medicare"
From Wikipedia: "The Public Option Act, in contrast, would have allowed all citizens and permanent
residents to buy into a public option by participating in the public Medicare program."
"Please, just stop."
You should heed your own advice. You are only fooling yourself with your weasel rhetoric and
pathetic attempts at browbeating.
ACA is why progressive must reject Hillary's soft right-centrist pap. The issue with ACA exchanges
is escape........ The compromises pushed by the GOP were all for insurance companies. Single payer
was needed to keep the thugs honest.
Shifting to banking...... Who would have bought that $2T in MBS's (now sitting in a FR virtual
vault) at what market*? When do those MBS's go back into the 'market'? *Clearing price ['market']
assumes a 'rational' buyer. The FR is a rationalizing buyer, with intent not usual to "markets".
"I see no evidence of that" Believe it. Hillary Clinton has consistently supported the public
option. That is an important "leftward" expansion of ACA. She has also proposed to *double* funding
for Federally Qualified Health Centers (think County Health clinics) that serve as the front line
of providing primary healthcare to the nations poor and working poor.
Both of those initiatives would be enormously impactful on their own. And those are in addition
to the litany of other proposals she has put forth, recently and over her entire working life,
to improve access, affordability and quality of care for everyone.
" I really wish more liberals would learn about these things..." You mean you wish liberals
were more gullible. Obama ran on a public option during the primaries, promised his health care
reforms would include it. In the end it was all empty talk. The reason Obama and Hillary have
the PRIVATE position that a public option is never going to happen under their watch is :
"Progressives supported [the public option] as a voluntary transition toward single-payer insurance,
while conservatives opposed it as a government 'takeover' of health care." -- Health Affairs "The
Origins And Demise Of The Public Option"
The public option is a Trojan Horse. It will eat into the healthcare insurance industry's
market share, which is why they pay Obama and Hillary the big bucks to protect it.
"ACA is why progressive must reject Hillary's soft right-centrist pap. The issue with
ACA exchanges is escape........ The compromises pushed by the GOP were all for insurance companies.
Single payer was needed to keep the thugs honest."
Yeah ... what?
The GOP didn't compromise at all on ACA. They contributed zero votes. It was the best bill
that the Dems could get all 60 Dem senators to agree on. If you want to talk about compromises
for insurance companies, like the preclusion of the public option or the reduction in the Medicare
age limit, it wasn't the GOP who pushed for those, it was Joe Lieberman and other waffly Dems.
"Shifting to banking......
Who would have bought that $2T in MBS's (now sitting in a FR virtual vault) at what market*?
When do those MBS's go back into the 'market'?"
Why don't you do a little googling and educate yourself instead of JAQing off to me?
During the crisis, the Fed bought MBS at an enormous discount, precisely because the crisis
crashed market liquidity and sellers were desperate. Although the Fed has also profited from purchases
since, as insolvency rates on mortgages have continued to steadily decline.
MBS don't need to be sold on market to generate income and profit. They are debt instruments
that spit out cash over time. They actually liquidate themselves because homeowners almost never
carry mortgage loans to term. AFAIK the Fed continues to buy them to maintain its balance sheet,
which generates a small amount of interest income (only a few tens of billions...), but it's a
pretty good income considering the Fed's cost of capital is near zero when it is printing money
to deliberately expand monetary supply.
The 1983 and 2010 discretionary included too much of GDP on war. Proving Bastiat that "security
spending" is less useful than almost any other use of the money.
Total is one feature, opportunity lost [on war profiteers blowing up evil doers] while
spending Yuuuge is a few onion peels deeper.
The left/right economic spectrum is objective and immutable. In the center is the Keynesian
mixed-market system that was abandoned when Reagan came to power for right-wing free-market reforms
that were continued on by both Republican and Democratic presidents that followed. The country
is further to the right now than when Reagan left power.
The economic spectrum is defined: 100% left is communism or full government control over
the economy; 100% right is libertarianism or no government involvement in the economy. In the
center is the Keynesian demand-side economic system that created modern living standards during
the Progressive New Deal Era that began with FDR and was ended by Reagan.
To consider Obama's rule center-left is to be completely ignorant of the left/right economic
spectrum. Norway is a left-leaning centrist Keynesian country. If you think America and Norway
are the same I suggest (for starters) you watch Michael Moore's documentary: "Where to Invade
Next."
By milquetoast I imagine you mean instead of delivering big promised changes from the Bush
Jr. era, he did absolutely nothing. He continued both the neocon war-profiteering and neoliberal
economic reforms. He will attempt to ram the TPP through after the election during the lame duck
session.
If Americans hate anyone it is establishment lapdog Republicans and Democrats. Krugman's
ridiculous rhetoric shows they are growing increasingly desperate. They should be: their neoliberal
era is coming to a close; their gravy train is about to go off the rails. (Krugman got in on it
too late.)
Starting wars is not "milquetoast, moderately successful center-left rule." It is a neocon
scam run by the DNC establishment. Was Obama always a shill for the war machine, and his Iraq
vote a Manchurian candidate?
"... First, Clinton's neoliberalism is so bone deep that she refers to Medicare as a "single market" rather than "single payer"; ..."
"... Clinton frames solutions exclusively ..."
"... Policy Sciences ..."
"... Stalin spent his early days in a seminary. Masters of broken promises. I'm more interested in Clinton's Chinese connections. Probably tied through JP Morgan. The Chinese are very straightforward in their, dare I say, inscrutible way. The ministers are the ministers, and the palace is the palace. ..."
"... SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't feel particularly courageous. I mean, if we're going to be an effective, efficient economy, we need to have all part of that engine running well, and that includes Wall Street and Main Street. ..."
"... Because she wont pay for quality speechwriters or coaching. Because she is a shyster, cheapskate and a fraud. They hired the most inept IT company to 'mange' their office server who then (in a further fit of cheapskate stupidity) hired an inept IT client manager who then (in a further fit of cheapskate stupidity) asked Reddit for a solution. ..."
"... One can say a lot of justifiable bad things about Ronald Reagan, but, he had competent advisors and he used them! With Hillary, Even if she knows she has accessed the best advice on the planet her instinct it to not trust it because "she knows better" and she absolutely will not tolerate dissent. Left to her own devices, she simply copies other people's thinking/ homework instead of building her own ideas with it. ..."
"... What surprises me is that Goldmans paid her for these speeches, you know? Hillary C typically pays "the audience" to listen to, and come to her speeches. You know? You know! ..."
"... I heard Hillary speak in summer '92, when Bill was running for Prez. She. was. amazing. No joke. Great speech, great ideas, great points. I thought then she should be the candidate. But there was in her speech just a tiny undercurrent of "the ends justify the means." i.e. 'we need to get lots of money so we can do good things.' Fast forward 20+ years. Seems to me that for the Clintons the "means" (getting lots of money) has become the end in itself. Reassuring Wall St. is one method for getting money – large, large amounts of money. ..."
"... A fine illustration of the maxim that "crime makes you stupid." ..."
"... in that context ..."
"... So I guess the moral of the story is (a) more deterioration, this time from 2008 to 2016, and (b) Clinton can actually make a good decision, but only when forced to by a catastrophe that will impact her personally. Whether she'll be able to rise to the occasion if elected is an open question, but this post argues not. ..."
"... Bingo! Think about it: She was speaking to a group of people whose time is "valued" at 100's if not 1,000's of dollars per hour. She took up their "valuable" time but provided nothing except politics-as-usual blather tailored to that particular audience. Yet she was paid $225k for a single speech… ..."
"... Hillary is a remarkably inarticulate person, which calls into question her intellectual fitness for the job (amidst many other questions, of course). I entirely agree with your depiction of her speeches as mindless drivel. ..."
"... Not to otherwise compare them, but Bush I's inarticulateness made him seem a buffoon, and that was not the case, either. ..."
"... Matt Tiabbi, Elizabeth Warren, Benie Sanders, Noam Chompsky–all those used to seem like bastions of integrity have, thanks to Hillary, been revealed as slimy little Weasels who should henceforth be completely disregarded. I'd have to thank Hillary for pulling back the nlindets on that; if not for this election I might have been still foolishly listening to these people. ..."
"... What scares me most about Clinton is her belligerence towards Russia and clamoring for a no-fly zone in Syria. The no-fly zone will mean war with Russia. If only Clinton were saying this, we might be safe, but the entire Washington deep state seems to be of one mind in favor of a war. During the cold war this would have been inconceivable; everyone understood a nuclear war must not be allowed. This is no longer true and it is terrifying. Every war game the pentagon used to simulate a war with the U.S.S.R. escalated into an all out nuclear war. What is the "plan B" Obama is pursuing in Syria? ..."
"... The current fear/fever over nuclear war with Russia requires madness in the Kremlin - of which there is no evidence. Our Rulers are depending on Putin and his cohorts being the sane ones as rhetoric from the US and the West ratchets ever upwards. ..."
"... But then, the Kremlin is looking for any hint of sanity on US and NATO side and is finding little… ..."
"... Curtis LeMay tried to provoke a nuclear war with the Soviets in the 1950's. By and large, however, the American state understood a nuclear war was unwinnable and avoided such a possibility. A no-fly zone in Syria would start a war with Russia. William Polk, who participated in the Cuban missle crisis and U.S. nuclear war games, argues in this article ..."
"... both of which present a clinical assessment that Hillary suffers from Parkinson's. Seems like an elephant in the room. ..."
"... The absolute vacuousness of Clinton's remarks, coupled with her ease at neoliberal conventional wisdom, make it clear that Goldman's payments were nothing more (or less) than a $675,000 anticipatory "so no quid pro quo ..."
"... The leaked emails confirm - even though she herself never writes them, which is really odd, when you consider that Podesta is her Campaign Chair and close ally going back decades - that she is compulsively secretive, controlling, and resistant to admitting she's wrong. The chain of people talking about how to get her to admit she was wrong about Nancy Reagan and AIDS was particularly fascinating that way; she was flat out factually inaccurate, and it had the potential to do tremendous harm to her campaign with a key donor group, and it was apparently still a major task to persuade her to say "I made a mistake." ..."
"... basically, every real world policy problem is related to every other real world policy problem ..."
"... Most noticeable thing is her subservience to them like a fresh college grad afraid of his boss at his first job ..."
As readers know, WikiLeaks has
released transcripts
of the three speeches to Goldman Sachs that Clinton gave in 2013, and for which she was paid
the eyewatering sum of $675,000. (The link is to an email dated January 23, 2016, from Cllinton staffer
Tony Carrk , Clinton's research director, which pulls out
"noteworthy quotes" from the speeches. The speeches themselves are attachments to that email.)
Readers, I read them. All three of them. What surprises - and when I tell you I had to take a
little nap about halfway through, I'm not making it up! - is the utter mediocrity of Clinton's thought
and mode of expression[1]. Perhaps that explains Clinton's
otherwise inexplicable refusal to release them. And perhaps my sang froid is preternatural,
but I don't see a "smoking gun," unless forking over $675,000 for interminable volumes of shopworn
conventional wisdom be, in itself, such a gun. What can Goldman Sachs possibly have thought they
were paying for?
WikiLeaks has, however, done voters a favor - in these speeches, and in the DNC and Podesta email
releases generally - by giving us a foretaste of what a Clinton administration will be like, once
in power, not merely on policy (the "first 100 days"), but on how they will make decisions. I call
the speeches a "munitions dump," because the views she expresses in these speeches are bombs that
can be expected to explode as the Clinton administration progresses.
With that, let's contextualize and comment upon some quotes from the speeches
The Democrats Are the Party of Wall Street
Of course, you knew that, but it's nice to have the matter confirmed. This material was flagged
by Carrk (as none of the following material will have been). It's enormously prolix, but I decided
to cut only a few paragraphs. From
Clinton's second
Goldman speech at the AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium:
MR. O'NEILL: Let's come back to the US. Since 2008, there's been an awful lot of seismic activity
around Wall Street and the big banks and regulators and politicians.
Now, without going over how we got to where we are right now , what would be your
advice to the Wall Street community and the big banks as to the way forward with those two important
decisions?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I represented all of you for eight years. I had great relations and
worked so close together after 9/11 to rebuild downtown, and a lot of respect for the work you
do and the people who do it, but I do - I think that when we talk about the regulators and the
politicians, the economic consequences of bad decisions back in '08, you know, were devastating,
and they had repercussions throughout the world.
That was one of the reasons that I started traveling in February of '09, so people could, you
know, literally yell at me for the United States and our banking system causing this everywhere.
Now, that's an oversimplification we know, but it was the conventional wisdom [really?!].
And I think that there's a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding
and really politicizing [!] what happened with greater transparency, with greater openness on
all sides, you know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we prevent it from happening?
You guys help us figure it out and let's make sure that we do it right this time .
And I think that everybody was desperately trying to fend off the worst effects institutionally,
governmentally, and there just wasn't that opportunity to try to sort this out, and that
came later .
I mean, it's still happening, as you know. People are looking back and trying to, you know,
get compensation for bad mortgages and all the rest of it in some of the agreements that are being
reached.
There's nothing magic about regulations, too much is bad, too little is bad. How do you get
to the golden key, how do we figure out what works? And the people that know the industry
better than anybody are the people who work in the industry .
…
And we need banking. I mean, right now, there are so many places in our country where
the banks are not doing what they need to do because they're scared of regulations , they're
scared of the other shoe dropping, they're just plain scared, so credit is not flowing the way
it needs to to restart economic growth.
So people are, you know, a little - they're still uncertain, and they're uncertain both because
they don't know what might come next in terms of regulations, but they're also uncertain because
of changes in a global economy that we're only beginning to take hold of.
So first and foremost, more transparency, more openness, you know, trying to figure out,
we're all in this together , how we keep this incredible economic engine in this country
going. And this [finance] is, you know, the nerves, the
spinal column.
And with political people, again, I would say the same thing, you know, there was a lot
of complaining about Dodd-Frank, but there was also a need to do something because for political
reasons , if you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were
losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it's all the fault of
Wall Street, you can't sit idly by and do nothing, but what you do is really important.
And I think the jury is still out on that because it was very difficult to sort of sort through
it all.
And, of course, I don't, you know, I know that banks and others were worried about continued
liability [oh, really?] and other problems down the road, so it would be better if we could
have had a more open exchange about what we needed to do to fix what had broken and then try to
make sure it didn't happen again, but we will keep working on it.
MR. O'NEILL: By the way, we really did appreciate when you were the senator from New York and
your continued involvement in the issues (inaudible) to be courageous in some respects to associated
with Wall Street and this environment. Thank you very much.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't feel particularly courageous. I mean, if we're going to be
an effective, efficient economy, we need to have all part of that engine running well, and that
includes Wall Street and Main Street.
And there's a big disconnect and a lot of confusion right now. So I'm not interested in,
you know, turning the clock back or pointing fingers , but I am interested in trying to
figure out how we come together to chart a better way forward and one that will restore confidence
in, you know, small and medium-size businesses and consumers and begin to chip away at the unemployment
rate [five years into the recession!].
So it's something that I, you know, if you're a realist, you know that people have different
roles to play in politics, economics, and this is an important role, but I do think that there
has to be an understanding of how what happens here on Wall Street has such broad consequences
not just for the domestic but the global economy, so more thought has to be given to the process
and transactions and regulations so that we don't kill or maim what works, but we concentrate
on the most effective way of moving forward with the brainpower and the financial power
that exists here.
"Moving forward." And not looking back. (It would be nice to know what "continued liability"
the banks were worried about;
accounting
control fraud ? Maybe somebody could ask Clinton.) Again, I call your attention to the weird
combination of certainty and mediocrity of it; readers, I am sure, can demolish the detail. What
this extended quotation does show is that Clinton and Obama are as one with respect to the
role of the finance sector. Politico describes Obama's famous meeting with the bankster CEOs:
Arrayed around a long mahogany table in the White House state dining room last week, the CEOs
of the most powerful financial institutions in the world offered several explanations for paying
high salaries to their employees - and, by extension, to themselves.
"These are complicated companies," one CEO said. Offered another: "We're competing for talent
on an international market.".
But President Barack Obama wasn't in a mood to hear them out. He stopped the conversation and
offered a blunt reminder of the public's reaction to such explanations. "Be careful how you make
those statements, gentlemen. The public isn't buying that.".
"My administration," the president added, "is the only thing between you and the pitchforks."
And he did! He did! Clinton, however, by calling the finance sector the "the nerves, the spinal
column" of the country, goes farther than Obama ever did.
So, from the governance perspective, we can expect the FIRE sector to dominate a Clinton administration,
and the Clinton administration to service it. The Democrats are the Party of Wall Street. The bomb
that could explode there is corrupt dealings with cronies (for which the Wikileaks material provides
plenty of leads).
Clinton Advocates a "Night Watchman" State
The next quotes are shorter, I swear! Here's a quote from
Clinton's third
Goldman speech (not flagged by Carrk, no doubt because hearing drivel like this is perfectly
normal in HillaryLand):
SECRETARY CLINTON: And I tell you, I see any society like a three-legged stool. You have to
have an active free market that gives people the chance to live out their dreams by their own
hard work and skills. You have to have a functioning, effective government that provides
the right balance of oversight and protection of freedom and privacy and liberty and all the rest
of it that goes with it . And you have to have an active civil society. Because there's
so much about America that is volunteerism and religious faith and family and community activities.
So you take one of those legs away, it's pretty hard to balance it. So you've got to get back
to getting the right balance.
Apparently, the provision
of public services is not within government's remit -- What are Social Security and Medicare?
"All the rest of it"? Not only that, who said the free market was the only way to "live
out their dreams"? Madison, Franklin, even Hamilton would have something to say about that! Finally,
which one of those legs is out of balance? Civil society? Some would advocate less religion in politics
rather than more, including many Democrats. The markets? Not at Goldman? Government? Too much militarization,
way too little concrete material benefits, so far as I'm concerned, but Clinton doesn't say, making
the "stool" metaphor vacuous.
From a governance perspective, we can expect Clinton's blind spot on government's role in provisioning
servies to continue. Watch for continued privatization efforts (perhaps aided by Silicon Valley).
On any infrastructure projects, watch for "public-private partnerships." The bomb that could explode
there is corrupt dealings with a different set of cronies (even if the FIRE sector does
have a finger in every pie).
Clinton's Views on Health Care Reflect Market Fundamentalism
MR. O'NEILL: [O]bviously the Affordable Care Act has been upheld by the supreme court. It's
clearly having limitation problems [I don't know what that means]. It's unsettling, people still
- the Republicans want to repeal it or defund it. So how do you get to the middle on that clash
of absolutes?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this is not the first time that we rolled out a big program with the
limitation problems [Clinton apparently does].
I was in the Senate when President Bush asked and signed legislation expanding Medicare benefits,
the Medicare Part D drug benefits. And people forget now that it was a very difficult implementation.
As a senator, my staff spent weeks working with people who were trying to sign up, because
it was in some sense even harder to manage because the population over 65, not the most computer-literate
group, and it was difficult. But, you know, people stuck with it, worked through it.
Now, this is on - it's on a different scale and it is more complex because it's trying to create
a market. In Medicare, you have a single market , you have, you know, the government
is increasing funding through government programs [sic] to provide people over 65 the drugs they
needed.
And there were a few variations that you could play out on it, but it was a much simpler market
than what the Affordable Care Act is aiming to set up.
Now, the way I look at this, Tim, is it's either going to work or it's not going to work.
First, Clinton's neoliberalism is so bone deep that she refers to Medicare as a "single market"
rather than "single payer"; but then
Clinton erases single payer whenever possible . Second, Clinton frames solutions exclusively
in terms of markets (and not the direct provision of services by government);
Obama does the same on health care in JAMA , simply erasing the possibility of single payer.
Third, rather than advocate a simple, rugged, and proven system like Canadian Medicare (single payer),
Clinton prefers to run an experiment ("it's either going to work or it's not going to work")
on the health of millions of people (and, I would urge, without their informed consent).
From a governance perspective, assume that if the Democrats propose
a "public option," it will be miserably inadequate. The bomb that could explode here is the ObamaCare
death spiral.
The Problems Are "Wicked," but Clinton Will Be Unable to Cope With Them
MR. BLANKFEIN: The next area which I think is actually literally closer to home but where American
lives have been at risk is the Middle East, I think is one topic. What seems to be the ambivalence
or the lack of a clear set of goals - maybe that ambivalence comes from not knowing what outcome
we want or who is our friend or what a better world is for the United States and of Syria, and
then ultimately on the Iranian side if you think of the Korean bomb as far away and just the Tehran
death spot, the Iranians are more calculated in a hotter area with - where does that go? And I
tell you, I couldn't - I couldn't myself tell - you know how we would like things to work out,
but it's not discernable to me what the policy of the United States is towards an outcome either
in Syria or where we get to in Iran.
MS. CLINTON: Well, part of it is it's a wicked problem , and it's a wicked
problem that is very hard to unpack in part because as you just said, Lloyd, it's not clear
what the outcome is going to be and how we could influence either that outcome or a different
outcome.
(I say "cope with" rather than "solve" for reasons that will become apparent.) Yes, Syria's bad,
as vividly shown by Blankfein's fumbling question, but I want to focus on the term "wicked problem,"
which comes from the the field of strategic planning, though it's also infiltrated
information technology
and management
theory . The concept originated in a famous paper by Horst W. J. Rittel and Melvin M. Webber
entitled: "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning" (PDF), Policy Sciences 4 (1973), 155-169.
I couldn't summarize the literature even if I had the time, but here is Rittel and Webber's introduction:
There are at least ten distinguishing properties of planning-type problems, i.e. wicked ones,
that planners had better be alert to and which we shall comment upon in turn. As you will see,
we are calling them "wicked" not because these properties are themselves ethically deplorable.
We use the term "wicked" in a meaning akin to that of "malignant" (in contrast to "benign") or
"vicious" (like a circle) or "tricky" (like a leprechaun) or "aggressive" (like a lion, in contrast
to the docility of a lamb). We do not mean to personify these properties of social systems by
implying malicious intent. But then, you may agree that it becomes morally objectionable for the
planner to treat a wicked problem as though it were a tame one, or to tame a wicked problem prematurely,
or to refuse to recognize the inherent wickedness of social problems.
And here is a list of Rittel and Webber's ten properties of a "wicked problem" (
and a critique ):
There is no definite formulation of a wicked problem Wicked problems have no stopping rule Solutions
to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad. There is no immediate and no ultimate
test of a solution to a wicked problem. Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one-shot operation";
because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly.
Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions,
nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the
plan. Every wicked problem is essentially unique. Every wicked problem can be considered to be
a symptom of another [wicked] problem. The causes of a wicked problem can be explained in numerous
ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem's resolution. [With wicked
problems,] the planner has no right to be wrong.
Of course, there's plenty of controversy about all of this, but if you throw these properties
against the Syrian clusterf*ck, I think you'll see a good fit, and can probably come up with other
examples. My particular concern, however, is with property #3:
Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad
There are conventionalized criteria for objectively deciding whether the offered solution to
an equation or whether the proposed structural formula of a chemical compound is correct or false.
They can be independently checked by other qualified persons who are familiar with the established
criteria; and the answer will be normally unambiguous.
For wicked planning problems, there are no true or false answers. Normally, many parties are
equally equipped, interested, and/or entitled to judge the solutions, although none has the power
to set formal decision rules to determine correctness. Their judgments are likely to differ widely
to accord with their group or personal interests, their special value-sets, and their ideological
predilections. Their assessments of proposed solutions are expressed as "good" or "bad" or, more
likely, as "better or worse" or "satisfying" or "good enough."
(Today, we would call these "many parties" "stakeholders.") My concern is that a Clinton administration,
far from compromising - to be fair, Clinton does genuflect toward "compromise" elsewhere - will try
to make wicked planning problems more tractable by reducing the number of parties to policy decisions.
That is, exactly, what "irredeemables" implies[2], which is unfortunate, especially when the cast
out amount to well over a third of the population. The same tendencies were also visible in the Clinton
campaigns approach to Sanders and Sanders supporters, and the general strategy of bringing the Blame
Cannons to bear on those who demonstrate insufficient fealty.
From a governance perspective, watch for many more executive orders acceptable to neither right
nor left, and plenty of decisions taken in secret. The bomb that could explode here is the
legitimacy of a Clinton administration, depending on the parties removed from the policy discussion,
and the nature of the decision taken.
Conclusion
I don't think volatility will decrease on November 8, should Clinton be elected and take office;
if anything, it will increase. A ruling party in thrall to finance, intent on treating government
functions as opportunities for looting by cronies, blinded by neoliberal ideology and hence incapable
of providing truly universal health care, and whose approach to problems of conflict in values is
to demonize and exclude the opposition is a recipe for continued crisis.
NOTES
[1]
Matt Taibbi takes the view that "Speaking to bankers and masters of the corporate universe, she
came off as relaxed, self-doubting, reflective, honest, philosophical rather than political, and
unafraid to admit she lacked all the answers." I don't buy it. It all read like the same old Clinton
to me, and I've read a lot of Clinton (see, e.g.,
here ,
here ,
here ,
here ,
here , and
here ).
[2] One is irresistibly reminded of Stalin's "No man, no problem," although some consider Stalin's
methods to be unsound. oho
October 17, 2016 at 1:14 pm
I had never read this article before. Near perfect diagnosis and even more relevant today than
it was then. For everyone's benefit, the central thesis:
Typically, these countries are in a desperate economic situation for one simple reason-the
powerful elites within them overreached in good times and took too many risks. Emerging-market
governments and their private-sector allies commonly form a tight-knit-and, most of the time,
genteel-oligarchy, running the country rather like a profit-seeking company in which they are
the controlling shareholders.
…
Of course, the U.S. is unique. And just as we have the world's most advanced economy, military,
and technology, we also have its most advanced oligarchy.
In a primitive political system, power is transmitted through violence, or the threat of
violence: military coups, private militias, and so on. In a less primitive system more typical
of emerging markets, power is transmitted via money: bribes, kickbacks, and offshore bank accounts.
Although lobbying and campaign contributions certainly play major roles in the American political
system, old-fashioned corruption-envelopes stuffed with $100 bills-is probably a sideshow today,
Jack Abramoff notwithstanding.
Instead, the American financial industry gained political power by amassing a kind of
cultural capital-a belief system. Once, perhaps, what was good for General Motors was good
for the country. Over the past decade, the attitude took hold that what was good for Wall Street
was good for the country. The banking-and-securities industry has become one of the top contributors
to political campaigns, but at the peak of its influence, it did not have to buy favors the
way, for example, the tobacco companies or military contractors might have to. Instead, it
benefited from the fact that Washington insiders already believed that large financial institutions
and free-flowing capital markets were crucial to America's position in the world.
A hypothesis (at least for "Main Street") proven true between 2009 and 2016:
Emerging-market countries have only a precarious hold on wealth, and are weaklings globally.
When they get into trouble, they quite literally run out of money -- or at least out of foreign
currency, without which they cannot survive. They must make difficult decisions; ultimately,
aggressive action is baked into the cake. But the U.S., of course, is the world's most powerful
nation, rich beyond measure, and blessed with the exorbitant privilege of paying its foreign
debts in its own currency, which it can print. As a result, it could very well stumble along
for years-as Japan did during its lost decade-never summoning the courage to do what it needs
to do, and never really recovering.
Lastly, the "bleak" scenario from 2009 that today looks about a decade too early, but could
with minor tuning (Southern instead of Eastern Europe, for example) end up hitting in a big way:
It goes like this: the global economy continues to deteriorate, the banking system in east-central
Europe collapses, and-because eastern Europe's banks are mostly owned by western European banks-justifiable
fears of government insolvency spread throughout the Continent. Creditors take further hits
and confidence falls further. The Asian economies that export manufactured goods are devastated,
and the commodity producers in Latin America and Africa are not much better off. A dramatic
worsening of the global environment forces the U.S. economy, already staggering, down onto
both knees. The baseline growth rates used in the administration's current budget are increasingly
seen as unrealistic, and the rosy "stress scenario" that the U.S. Treasury is currently using
to evaluate banks' balance sheets becomes a source of great embarrassment.
…
The conventional wisdom among the elite is still that the current slump "cannot be as
bad as the Great Depression." This view is wrong. What we face now could, in fact, be worse
than the Great Depression-because the world is now so much more interconnected and because
the banking sector is now so big. We face a synchronized downturn in almost all countries,
a weakening of confidence among individuals and firms, and major problems for government finances.
If our leadership wakes up to the potential consequences, we may yet see dramatic action on
the banking system and a breaking of the old elite. Let us hope it is not then too late.
That's a good reminder to us at NC that not all our readers have been with us since 2009 and
may not be familiar with the great financial crash and subsequent events. I remember reading the
Johnson article when it came out. And now, almost eight years later…
There's a reason that there's a "Banana Republic" category. Every time I read an article about
the political economy of a second- or third-world country I look for how it applies to this country,
and much of the time, it does, particularly on corruption.
We truly must consider the possibility Goldman wrote the 3 speeches, then paid Hillary to give
them.
Next, leak them to Wiki. Everything in them is pretty close to pure fiction – but it is neolib
banker fiction. Just makes it all seem more real when they do things this way.
Yike's, I'm turning into a crazy conspiracy theorist.
Don't fall for the 'status quo's' language Jedi mind trick crazyboy. I like to call myself
a "sane conspiracy theorist." You can too!
As for H Clinton's 'slavish' adherence to the Bankster Ethos; in psychology, there is the "Stockholm
Syndrome." Here, H Clinton displays the markers of "Wall Street Syndrome."
Ugh. Mindless drivel. Talking points provided by Wall St itself would sound identical.
Then there's this: She did NOT represent Wall St and the Banks while a Senator. They cannot
vote. They are not people. They are not citizens. She represented the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE that
can VOTE. You cannot represent a nonexistent entity like a corporation as an ELECTED official.
You can ONLY represent those who actually can, or do, vote. End of story.
I saw a video in high school years back that mentioned a specific congressional ruling that
gave Congress the equivalent to individual rights. I swear it was also in the 30s but I cannot
recall and have never been able to find what it was I saw. Do you have any insight here?
Historical Background and Legal Basis of the Federal Register / CFR Publications System
Why was the Federal Register System Established ?
New Deal legislation of the 1930's delegated responsibility from Congress to agencies to
regulate complex social and economic issues
Citizens needed access to new regulations to know their effect in advance
Agencies and Citizens needed a centralized filing and publication system to keep track of rules
Courts began to rule on "secret law" as a violation of right to due process under the Constitution
But don't forget. She is the most qualified candidate… EVER . Remind me again
how this species was able to bring three stranded Apollo 13 astronauts back from the abyss, the
vacuum of space with some tape and tubing.
This is like watching a cheap used car lot advertisement where the owner delivers obviously
false platitudes as the store and cars collapse, break, and burst into flames behind them.
Stalin spent his early days in a seminary. Masters of broken promises. I'm more interested
in Clinton's Chinese connections. Probably tied through JP Morgan. The Chinese are very straightforward
in their, dare I say, inscrutible way. The ministers are the ministers, and the palace is
the palace.
The show is disappointing, the debaters play at talking nuclear policy, but have *nothing*
to say about Saudi Arabia's new arsenal.
When politicos talk nuclear, they only mean to allege a threat to Israel, blame Russia, or
fear-monger the North Koreans.
We're in the loop, but only the quietest whispers of the conflict in Pakistan are available.
It sounds pretty serious, but there is only interest in attacking inconvenient Arabs.
On Trump, what an interesting study in communications. The no man you speak of. Even himself
caught between his own insincerity towards higher purpose and his own ego as 'the establishment'
turns on him.
The proles of his support are truely a silent majority. The Republicans promised us Reagan
for twenty years, and it's finally the quasi-Democrat Trump who delivers.
> This is like watching a cheap used car lot advertisement where the owner delivers obviously
false platitudes as the store and cars collapse, break, and burst into flames behind them.
+100
With a wall of American flags waving in the background as the smoke and flames rise.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't feel particularly courageous. I mean, if we're going to
be an effective, efficient economy, we need to have all part of that engine running well, and
that includes Wall Street and Main Street.
this all reads like a cokehead's flow of consciousness on some ethereal topic with no intellectual
content on the matter to express. I would have said extemporaneous, but you know it was all scripted,
so that's even worse.
PHOTOJOURNALIST
"Do you know what the man is saying? Do you? This is dialectics.
It's very simple dialectics. One through nine, no maybes, no
supposes, no fractions - you can't travel in space, you can't go out
into space, you know, without, like, you know, with fractions - what
are you going to land on, one quarter, three-eighths - what are you
going to do when you go from here to Venus or something - that's
dialectic physics, OK? Dialectic logic is there's only love and hate, you
either love somebody or you hate them."
"Da5id's voice is deep and placid, with no trace of stress. The syllables roll off his tongue
like drool. As Hiro walks down the hallway he can hear Da5id talking all the way. 'i ge en i ge
en nu ge en nu ge en us sa tu ra lu ra ze em men….'" –Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash
Completely agree. When I first read excerpts from her speeches, I was appalled at the constant
use of "you know" peppering most of her sentences. To me, people who constantly bifurcate sentences
with "you know" are simply blathering. They usually don't have any in-depth knowledge of the subject
matter on which they are opining. Compare Hillary being asked to comment on a subject with someone
such as Michael Hudson or Bill Black commenting on a subject and she simply sounds illiterate.
I have this feeling that her educational record is based on an ability to memorize and parrot
back answers rather than someone who can reach a conclusion by examining multiple concepts.
Here's what I don't understand: The lady (and her husband) have LOADS of money. Yet this is
the best that she can do?
Really?
Heck, if I had half the Clintons' money, I'd be hiring the BEST speechwriters, acting coaches,
and fashion consultants on the planet. And I'd be taking their advice and RUNNING with it. Sheesh.
Some people have more money than sense.
Because she wont pay for quality speechwriters or coaching. Because she is a shyster, cheapskate
and a fraud. They hired the most inept IT company to 'mange' their office server who then (in
a further fit of cheapskate stupidity) hired an inept IT client manager who then (in a further
fit of cheapskate stupidity) asked Reddit for a solution.
Its in the culture: Podesta does it, Blumenthal does it
And now they blame the Russians!!!! Imagine the lunacy within the white house if this fool
is elected.
I think she is just not that smart. Maybe intelligent but not flexible enough to do much with
it.
Smart people seek the advice of even smarter people and knowing that experts disagree, they
make sure that there is dissent on the advisory team. Then they make up their mind.
One can say a lot of justifiable bad things about Ronald Reagan, but, he had competent
advisors and he used them! With Hillary, Even if she knows she has accessed the best advice on
the planet her instinct it to not trust it because "she knows better" and she absolutely will
not tolerate dissent. Left to her own devices, she simply copies other people's thinking/ homework
instead of building her own ideas with it.
I don't think so. The "you know" has a name, it's called a "verbal tick" and is one of the
first things that is attacked when one learns how to speak publicly. Verbal ticks come in many
forms, the "ums" for example, or repeating the last few words you just said, over and over again.
The brain is complex. The various parts of the brain needed for speech; cognition, vocabulary,
and vocalizations, actually have difficulty synchronizing. The vocalization part tends to be faster
than the rest of the brain and can spit out words faster than the person can put them together.
As a result, the "buffer" if you will runs empty, and the speech part of the brains simply fills
in the gaps with random gibberish.
You can train yourself out of this habit of course – but it's something that takes practice.
So I take HRC's "you know" as evidence that these are unscripted speeches and is directly improvising.
How come her responses during the debates are not peppered with these verbal ticks. At least,
I don't recall her saying you know so many times. Isn't she improvising then?
As Lambert said, HRC doesn't do unscripted. The email leaks even sends us evidence that her
interviews were scripted and town hall events were carful staged. Even sidestepping that however,
dealing with verbal ticks is not all that difficult with a bit of practice and self-awareness.
"You know" is an insidious variation on "like" and "andum", the latter two being bias neutral
forms of mental vapor lock of tbe speech center pausing for higher level intellectual processes
to refill the speech centers tapped out RAM.
The "you know" variant is an end run on the listener's cognitive functions logic filters. Is
essence appropriating a claim to the listener.
I detest "you knows" immediately with "no i dont know, please explain."
The same with "they say" i will always ask "who are they?"
I think this is important to fo do to ppl for no ofher reason thanto nake them think critically
even if it is a fleeting annoyance.
Back on HRC, i have maintai we that many people overrate her intellectual grasp. Personally
I think she is a hea ily cosched parrot. "The US has achieved energy independence"…. TILT. Just
because you state things smugly doesnt mean its reality.
I think what I call the lacunae words are really revealing in people's speech. When she says
"you know" she is emphasizing that she and the listener both know what she is "talking around."
Shared context as a form of almost - encryption, you could say. "This" rather than '"finance"
Here rather than at Goldman.I don't know what you'd call it exactly- free floating referent? A
habit, methinks, of avoiding being quoted or pinned down. It reminds me of the leaked emails…everyone
is very careful to talk around things and they can because they all know what they are talking
about. Hillary is consistently referred to, in an eerie H. Rider Haggard way, as "her" - like
some She Who Must Not Be Named.
What surprises me is that Goldmans paid her for these speeches, you know?
Hillary C typically pays "the audience" to listen to, and come to her speeches. You know? You
know!
This election cycle just proves how bad things have become. The two top presidential candidates
are an egotistical ignoramus and the quintessential establishment politician and they are neck
and neck because the voting public is Planet Stupid. Things will just continue to fall apart in
slow motion until some spark (like another financial implosion) sets off the next revolution.
"Now, without going over how we got to where we are right now, what would be your advice
to the Wall Street community and the big banks as to the way forward with those two important
decisions?
"SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I represented all of you [Wall St] for eight years."
I heard Hillary speak in summer '92, when Bill was running for Prez. She. was. amazing.
No joke. Great speech, great ideas, great points. I thought then she should be the candidate.
But there was in her speech just a tiny undercurrent of "the ends justify the means." i.e. 'we
need to get lots of money so we can do good things.' Fast forward 20+ years. Seems to me that
for the Clintons the "means" (getting lots of money) has become the end in itself. Reassuring
Wall St. is one method for getting money – large, large amounts of money.
I heard similar impressions of her at the time, from women who had dealt with her: Book smart.
Street smart. Likeable. But what might have been the best compromise you could get in one decade,
may have needed re-thinking as you moved along in time. The cast of players changes. Those who
once ruled are now gone. Oh, but the money! And so old ideas can calcify. I'm not suggesting that
Trump is even in the ballpark in terms of making compromises, speeches, life changes or anything
else to have ever been proud of. Still, the capacity to grow and change is important in a leader.
So where are we going now?
A fine illustration of the maxim that "crime makes you stupid."
I've said this once, but I'll say it again: After the 2008 caucus debacle, Clinton fired the
staff and rejiggered the campaign. They went to lots of small venues, like high school
gyms - in other words, "deplorables" territory - and Clinton did her detail, "I have a plan" thing,
which worked really well in that context because people who need government to deliver
concrete material benefits like that, and rightly. They also organized via cheap phones, because
that was how to reach their voters, who weren't hanging out at Starbucks. And, history being written
by the winners, we forget that using that strategy, Clinton won all the big states and (if all
the votes are counted) a majority of the popular vote. So, good decision on her part. And so from
that we've moved to the open corruption of the Clinton Foundation and Clinton campaign apparatus
that takes 11 people to polish and approve a single tweet.
So I guess the moral of the story is (a) more deterioration, this time from 2008 to 2016,
and (b) Clinton can actually make a good decision, but only when forced to by a catastrophe that
will impact her personally. Whether she'll be able to rise to the occasion if elected is an open
question, but this post argues not.
"Apparently, the provision of public services is not within government's remit! What are Social
Security and Medicare? "
What is the US Post Office? Rumor has it that the PO is mentioned in the US Constitution, a
fact that is conveniently forgotten by Strict Constructionists.
With respect to regulation, I think it should be less a case of quantity, and more one of quality,
but Clinton seems to want to make it about finding the sweet spot of exactly how many regulations
will be the right amount.
In general, when companies are willing to spot you $225,000 to speak for some relatively short
period of time, willing to meet your demands regarding transportation, hotel accommodations, etc.,
why would you take the chance of killing the goose that's laying those golden eggs by saying anything
likely to tick them off?
I'd like to think she's kind of embarrassed to have people see how humdrum/boring her speeches
were for how much she was paid to give them, but I think there's got to be more "there" somewhere
that she didn't want people to be made aware of – and it doesn't necessarily have to be Americans,
it could be something to do with foreign governments, foreign policy, trade, etc.
After learning how many people it takes to send out a tweet with her name on it, I have no
idea how she managed this speech thing, unless one of her requirements was that she had to be
presented with all questions in advance, so she could be prepared.
I am more depressed by the day, as it's really beginning to sink in that she's going to be
president, and it all just makes me want to stick needles in my eyes.
Also the "Wicked Problems" definitions are very, very interesting. Thank you for bringing those
in! I would add that these wicked problems lead to more wicked problems. It is basically dishonesty,
and to protect the lie you double down with more, and more, and more…. Most of Clinton's decisions
and career seem to be knots of wicked problems.
The wicked problem is quickly becoming our entire system of governance. Clinton has been described
as the malignant tumor here before, but even she is a place holder for the rot. One head of the
Hydra that I feel Establishment players would generally be okay with sacrificing if it came to
it (and maybe I am wrong there–but it seems as if a lot of the push fro her comes from her inner
circle and others play along).
Hail Hydra! Immortal Hydra! We shall never be destroyed! Cut off one limb and two more shall
take its place! We serve the Supreme Hydra, as the world shall soon serve us!
I've heard/read in some places Hillary Clinton described as a "safe pair of hands". I don't
understand where this characterization comes from. She's dangerous.
If she wins with as strong of an electoral map as Obama in '08, she'll take it as a strong
mandate and she'll have an ambitious agenda and likely attempt to overreach. I've been meaning
to call my congressional reps early and say "No military action on Syria, period!"
She might use a "public option" as an ACA stealth bailout scheme, but I don't think the public
has much appetite to see additional resources being thrown at a "failed experiment". I worry that
Bernie's being brought on board for this kind of thing. He should avoid it.
Is she crazy enough to go for a grand bargain right away? That seems nutty and has been a "Waterloo"
for many presidents.
Remember how important Obama's first year was. Bailouts and ACA were all done that first year.
How soon can we put President Clinton II in lame duck status?
Not really surprised by the intellectual and rhetorical poverty demonstrated by these speeches.
Given the current trajectory of our politics, the bar hasn't really been set very high. In fact
it looks like we're going to reach full Idiocracy long before originally predicted.
You ask, " What can Goldman Sachs possibly have thought they were paying for? "
But I think you know. Corruption has become so institutionalized that it is impossible to point
to any specific Quid Pro Quo. The Quo is the entire system in which GS operates and the care and
feeding of which the politicians are paid to administer.
We focus on HRC's speeches and payments here but I wonder how many other paid talks are given
to GS each year by others up and down the influence spectrum. As Bill Black says, a dollar given
to a politician provides the largest possible Return on Investment of any expenditure. It is Wall
Street's long-term health insurance plan.
Yeah we know which part of the "stool" we'll be getting.If the finance sector is "the nerves,
the spinal column" of the country, I suggest the country find a shallow pool in which to shove
it – head first.
I skimmed the /. comments on a story about this yesterday; basically everyone missed the obvious
and went with vox-type responses ("she's a creature of the system / in-fighter / Serious Person").
"So I'm not interested in, you know, turning the clock back or pointing fingers,
but I am interested in trying to figure out how we come together to chart a better way
forward and one that will restore confidence in, you know, small and medium-size businesses and
consumers and begin to chip away at the unemployment rate [five years into the recession!]."
Basically, even better than a get out of jail free card, in that it is rather a promise that
we won't go back and ever hold you responsible, and we have done the best we could so far to avoid
having you own up to anything or be held accountable in any way beyond some niggling fines, which
of course, you are happy to pay, because in the end, that is simply a handout to the legal industry,
who are your best drinking buddies.
The latter part of that quote is just mumbo jumbo non-sequitir blathering. Clinton appears
to know next to nothing about finance, only that it generates enormous amounts of cash for the
oh so deserving work that God told them to do.
+1 exactly: There will be no retrospective prosecutions and none in the future either, trust
me! Not the she is any better than Eric Holder but she is certain she should be paid more than
him.
Bingo! Think about it: She was speaking to a group of people whose time is "valued" at
100's if not 1,000's of dollars per hour. She took up their "valuable" time but provided nothing
except politics-as-usual blather tailored to that particular audience. Yet she was paid $225k
for a single speech…
I've only skimmed through the speech transcripts; did I miss something of substance?
Hillary is a remarkably inarticulate person, which calls into question her intellectual
fitness for the job (amidst many other questions, of course). I entirely agree with your depiction
of her speeches as mindless drivel.
However, you may be overthinking the "wicked problem" language. While it is certainly
possible that she is familiar with the literature that you cite, nothing else in her speeches
suggests that she commands that level of intellectual detail. This makes me think that somewhere
along the line she befriended someone from the greater Boston area who uses "wicked" the way Valley
Girls use "like". When I first heard the expression decades ago, I found it charming and incorporated
it into my own common usage. And I don't use it anything like you describe. To me it is simply
used for emphasis. Nothing more or less than that, but I am amused to see an entire literature
devoted to the concept of a "wicked problem".
I remain depressed by this election. No matter how it turns out, it's going to wicked suck
; )
I think the inarticulateness/cliche infestation is a ploy and a deflection; this is a very
intelligent woman who can effectively marshall language when she feels the need. That need was
more likely felt in private meetings with the inner cabal at Goldman.
Not to otherwise compare them, but Bush I's inarticulateness made him seem a buffoon, and
that was not the case, either.
Finally, as a thought experiment, I'd like to suggest that, granting that Clintonismo will
privilege those interests which best fortify their arguments with cash, it's also true that Bill
and Hillary are all about Bill and Hillary. In other words, it could be that she has the same
hustler's disregard toward the lumpen Assistant Vice Presidents filling that room at GS as she
does for the average voter. Thus, the empty, past-their-expiration-date calories.
Sure, she'll take their money and do their bidding, but why even bother to make any more effort
than necessary? On a very primal level with these two, it's all about the hustle and the action,
and everyone's a potential rube.
As in, when Bill put his presidency on the line, the base were expected to circle the wagons.
As in, "I'm With Her". Not "She's With Us", natch. It's *always* about the Clintons.
"Speaking to bankers and masters of the corporate universe, she came off as relaxed, self-doubting,
reflective, honest, philosophical rather than political, and unafraid to admit she lacked all
the answers."
seriously, matt taibbi? next, i would like to hear about the positive, feelgood, warmfuzzy
qualities of vampire squids (hugs cthulhu doll).
Matt Tiabbi, Elizabeth Warren, Benie Sanders, Noam Chompsky–all those used to seem like
bastions of integrity have, thanks to Hillary, been revealed as slimy little Weasels who should
henceforth be completely disregarded. I'd have to thank Hillary for pulling back the nlindets
on that; if not for this election I might have been still foolishly listening to these people.
agree w you except about Bernie. he always said he'd support the nominee. the suddenness of
his capitulation has led many of us to believe he was threatened. somewhere I read something about
"someone" planting kiddieporn on his son's computer if he didn't do…… I dunno. I reserve judgement
on Sanders until I learn more,…. if i ever do
Clinton's remarks were typically vague, as one might expect from a politician; she doesn't
want to be pinned down. This may be part of the banality of her remarks.
What scares me most about Clinton is her belligerence towards Russia and clamoring for
a no-fly zone in Syria. The no-fly zone will mean war with Russia. If only Clinton were saying
this, we might be safe, but the entire Washington deep state seems to be of one mind in favor
of a war. During the cold war this would have been inconceivable; everyone understood a nuclear
war must not be allowed. This is no longer true and it is terrifying. Every war game the pentagon
used to simulate a war with the U.S.S.R. escalated into an all out nuclear war. What is the "plan
B" Obama is pursuing in Syria?
In the Russian press every day for a long time now they have been discussing the prospect of
a conflict. Russia has been conducting civil defense drills in its cities and advised its citizens
to recall any children living abroad. This is never reported in our press, which only presents
us with caricatures of Putin. Russians are not taken seriously.
During the cold war this would have been inconceivable; everyone understood a nuclear war
must not be allowed.
No it wasn't. Far from it. By some miracle, the globe escaped instant incineration but only
barely. The Soviets, to their credit, were not about to risk nuclear annihilation to get one
up on the US of Perfidy. Our own Dauntless Warriors were more than willing, and I believe it's
only through dumb luck that a first strike wasn't launched deliberately or by deliberate "accident."
Review the Cold War concept of Brinkmanship.
The current fear/fever over nuclear war with Russia requires madness in the Kremlin - of
which there is no evidence. Our Rulers are depending on Putin and his cohorts being the sane
ones as rhetoric from the US and the West ratchets ever upwards.
But then, the Kremlin is looking for any hint of sanity on US and NATO side and is finding
little…
Curtis LeMay tried to provoke a nuclear war with the Soviets in the 1950's. By and large,
however, the American state understood a nuclear war was unwinnable and avoided such a possibility.
A no-fly zone in Syria would start a war with Russia. William Polk, who participated in the Cuban
missle crisis and U.S. nuclear war games, argues in this article
" "the nerves, the spinal column" of the country, goes farther than Obama ever did."
But this description is technically true. That is finance's proper function, co-ordinating
the flow of capital and resources, especially from where they're in excess to where they're needed.
It's a key decision-making system – for the economy, preferably not for society as a whole. That
would be the political system.
So on this basic level, the problem is that finance, more and more, has put its own institutional
and personal interests ahead of its proper function. It's grown far too huge, and stopped performing
its intended function – redistributing resources – in favor of just accumulating them, in the
rather illusory form of financial instruments, some of them pure vapor ware.
So yes, this line reflects a very bad attitude on Hillary's part, but by misappropriating a
truth – pretty typical propaganda.
No, finance does NOT "channel resources". Wash your mouth out. This is more neoliberal cant.
Financiers do not make investments in the real economy. The overwhelming majority of securities
trading is in secondary markets, which means it's speculation. And when a public company decides
whether or not to invest in a new project, it does not present a prospectus on that new project
to investors. It runs the numbers internally. For those projects, the most common source of funding
is retained earnings.
Clinton shows that she is either a Yale Law grad who does not have the slightest idea that
Wall Street does very little in the economy but fleece would-be investors, or that she is an obsequious
flatterer of those from whom she openly takes bribes.
Having heard Hillary, Chelsea (yes, she's being groomed) and many, many other politicians over
the years, including a stint covering Capitol Hill, Mme C's verbal style does not surprise to
me at all but rather strikes me as perfectly serviceable. It is a mellifluous drone designed to
lull the listener into thinking that she is on their side, and the weakness of the actual statements
only becomes clear when reading them on the page later (which rarely happens). The drowsy listener
will catch, among the words strung together like Christmas lights, just the key terms and concepts
that demonstrate knowledge of the brief and a soothing layer of vague sympathy. Those who can
award her $600K can assume with some confidence that, rhetoric aside, she will be in the tank
when needed. The rest of us have to blow away the chaff and peer into the yawning gaps lurking
behind the lawyerly parsing. In all fairness, this applies to 90% of seekers of public office.
The absolute vacuousness of Clinton's remarks, coupled with her ease at neoliberal conventional
wisdom, make it clear that Goldman's payments were nothing more (or less) than a $675,000 anticipatory
"so no quid pro quo here" bribe.
Who on earth gives up their vote to a politician who is so shameless an corrupt that she openly
accepts bribes from groups who equally shamelessly and corruptly are looting the commons? Apparently
many, but not me.
Nothing like making lemons out of lemonade, is there?
There really is a question why she didn't do this doc dump herself when Bernie asked. Yeah,
sure, she would have been criticized ("damned if you do, damned if you don't") but because of
who she is she'll be criticized no matter what. There is nothing she can do to avoid it.
Not only is there no smoking gun, it's almost as if she's trying to inject a modicum of social
conscience into a culture that has none. And no, she isn't speaking artfully; nor is she an orator.
Oh. Not that we didn't know already.
The most galling aspect is her devotion to the neoLibCon status quo. Steady as she goes. Apparently
a lot of people find the status quo satisfactory. Feh.
If this document dump came out during the primary campaign, then HRC may have lost. Even Black,
Southern ladies can smell the corrupting odor clinging to these "speeches".
Given the way DNC protected her during the primaries, and what looked like a pretty light touch
by Bernie and (who? O'Malley was it?) toward her, I doubt these speeches would have been her undoing.
Dull and relatively benign, and policy-wise almost identical to Obama's approach to the bankers'
role in the economic unpleasantness. "Consensus" stuff with some hint of a social conscience.
Not effective and not enough to do more than the least possible ("I told them they ought to
behave better. Really!") on behalf of the Rabble.
But not a campaign killer. Even so, by not releasing transcripts during the primary, she faced
- and still faces - mountains of criticism over it. No escape. Not for her.
I'm not sure that's an appropriate strategy for dealing with multiple interlocking wicked problems,
but I'm not sure why. Suppose we invoke the Precautionary Principle - is incremental change
really the way to avoid harm?
The Consensus (of Opinions That Matter) says it is. On the other hand, blowing up the System
leads to Uncertainty, and as we know, we can't have that. Mr. Market wouldn't like it…
The leaked emails confirm - even though she herself never writes them, which is really
odd, when you consider that Podesta is her Campaign Chair and close ally going back decades -
that she is compulsively secretive, controlling, and resistant to admitting she's wrong. The chain
of people talking about how to get her to admit she was wrong about Nancy Reagan and AIDS was
particularly fascinating that way; she was flat out factually inaccurate, and it had the potential
to do tremendous harm to her campaign with a key donor group, and it was apparently still a major
task to persuade her to say "I made a mistake."
So while I think you are wrong that the speeches wouldn't have hurt her in the primary, I also
think Huma would have had to knock her out and tie her up (not in a fun way) to get those speeches
released.
I can't imagine a worse temperament to govern, particularly under the conditions she'll be
facing. But she'll be fully incompetent before too long, so I don't suppose it matters that much.
I'm morbidly curious to see how long they can keep her mostly hidden and propped up for limited
appearances, before having to let Kaine officially take over. Will we be able to figure out who's
actually in power based on the line-up on some balcony?
Fair points, though the "temperament" issue may be one that follows from the nature of the
job - even "No Drama Obama" is said to have a fierce anger streak, and secrecy, controlling behavior,
and refusing to admit error is pretty typical of presidents, VPs, and other high officials. The
King/Queen can do no wrong, dontchaknow. (cf: Bush, GW, and his whole administration for recent
examples. History is filled with them, though.)
As for Hillary's obvious errors in judgment, I think they speak for themselves and they don't
speak well of her.
TINA vs WATA (we are the alternative)…the next two years are gonna be interesting…evil is often
a cover for total incompetence and exposure…our little tsarina will insist brigades that dont
exist move against enemies that are hardly there…when she & her useless minions were last in/on
the seat of power(j edger version of sop) the netizens of the world were young and dumb…now not
so much…
I got into wicked problems 35 years ago in the outstanding book by Ian Mitroff and R. O. Mason,
"Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions." First page of Chapter One has subsection title COMPLEXITY,
followed by "A Little Experiment" Lets try the experiment with current problems.
One could come up with a list of major problems, but here is the one used by C. West Churchman
mentioned along with Horst Riddle. Churchman back in the 80's said that the problems of the world
were M*P**3, or M, P cubed, or M * P * P *P with the letters standing for Militarism, Population,
Poverty and Pollution.
Here is how they ran the exercise
1. Suppose there were a solution to any of these 4 problems, would that solution be related
to the other problems. Clearly.
2. Thus 'whenever a policy maker attempts to solve a complex policy problem, it is related
to all the others
Repeated attempts in other contexts give the same result: basically, every real world
policy problem is related to every other real world policy problem
This is from page 4, the second page of the book.
I ran this exercise for several years in ATT Bell Labs and ATT.
List major problems
How long have they been around? (most for ever except marketing was new after breakup in
'84
If one was solved, would that solution be related in any way to the other ones?
Do you know of any program that is making headway? (occasionally Quality was brought up)
This could be done in a few minutes, often less than 5 minutes
5. Conclusion: long term interdependent problems that are not being addressed
Thus the only grade that matters in this course on Corporate Transformation that now begins
is that you have new insights on these problems. This was my quest as an internal consultant in
ATT to transform the company. I failed.
I was a Sanders supporter. Many here will disagree, but if Clinton wins I don't think she's
going to act as she might have acted in 2008, if she had won.
Clinton is a politician, and *all* politicians dissemble in private, unless they're the mayor
of a small town of about 50 people – and even then! Politicians – in doing their work – *must*
compromise to some degree, with the best politicians compromising in ways that bring their constituents
more benefit, than not.
That said, Clinton is also a human being who is capable of change. This election cycle has
been an eye opener for both parties. If Clinton wins (and, I think she will), the memory of how
close it was with Sanders and the desperate anger and alienation she has experienced from Trump
supporters (and even Sanders' supporters) *must* have already gotten her thinking about what she
is going to have to get done to insure a 2020 win for Democrats, whether or not she is running
in 2020.
In sum, I think Clinton is open to change, and I don't believe that she is some deep state
evil incarnate; sge's *far* from perfect, and she's not "pure" in her positioning – thank god!,
because in politics, purists rarely accomplish anything.
If Clinton reverts to prior form (assuming she makes (POTUS), 2020 will make 2016 look like
a cakewalk, for both parties – including the appearance of serious 3rd party candidates with moxy,
smarts, and a phalanx of backers (unlike the current crop of two – Johnson and Stein).
"... The corridor between Manhattan and Washington is a well trodden highway for the personalities we have all gotten to know in the period since the massive deregulation of Wall Street: Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner and many others. ..."
"... General Petraeus' expertise in these areas is unclear. His ability to peddle influence, however, is a known and valued commodity. ..."
"... Petraeus also obtained a sinecure as a non-resident senior fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. The Ivy League is, of course, the preferred bleaching tub and charm school of the American oligarchy. ..."
"... The Cathedral has no central administrator, but represents a consensus acting as a coherent group that condemns other ideologies as evil. ..."
"... "you believe that morality has been essentially solved, and all that's left is to work out the details." ..."
"... Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called "groupthink," the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. ..."
"... A more elusive aspect of cultural assimilation is the sheer dead weight of the ordinariness of it all once you have planted yourself in your office chair for the 10,000th time. ..."
"... No wonder so few people are whistle-blowers, quite apart from the vicious retaliation whistle-blowing often provokes: Unless one is blessed with imagination and a fine sense of irony, growing immune to the curiousness of one's surroundings is easy. To paraphrase the inimitable Donald Rumsfeld, I didn't know all that I knew, at least until I had had a couple of years away from the government to reflect upon it. ..."
"... It's probably not a coincidence that the American media elite live, work, and socialize in New York and Washington, ..."
"... It's a kind of corporatism. ..."
"... They pretend to be merrily neutral servants of the state, giving the best advice possible on national security or financial matters. But they hold a very deep ideology of the Washington consensus at home, which is deregulation, outsourcing, de-industrialization and financialization. ..."
"... And they believe in American exceptionalism abroad, which is boots on the ground everywhere, it's our right to meddle everywhere in the world. And the result of that is perpetual war. ..."
The corridor between Manhattan and Washington is a well trodden highway for the personalities
we have all gotten to know in the period since the massive deregulation of Wall Street: Robert
Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner and many others.
Not all the traffic involves persons connected with the purely financial operations of the
government: In 2013, General David Petraeus
joined KKR (formerly Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) of 9 West 57th Street, New York, a private equity
firm with $62.3 billion in assets. KKR specializes in management buyouts and leveraged finance.
General Petraeus' expertise in these areas is unclear. His ability to peddle influence, however,
is a known and valued commodity. Unlike Cincinnatus, the military commanders of the Deep
State do not take up the plow once they lay down the sword. Petraeus also obtained a sinecure
as a non-resident senior fellow at the
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. The Ivy League is, of course,
the preferred bleaching tub and charm school of the American oligarchy.
Lofgren goes on to say that Silicon Valley is a node of the Deep State too, and that despite the
protestations of its chieftains against NSA spying, it's a vital part of the Deep State's apparatus.
More:
The Deep State is the big story of our time. It is the red thread that runs through the war
on terrorism, the financialization and deindustrialization of the American economy, the rise of
a plutocratic social structure and political dysfunction. Washington is the headquarters of the
Deep State, and its time in the sun as a rival to Rome, Constantinople or London may be term-limited
by its overweening sense of self-importance and its habit, as Winwood Reade said of Rome, to "live
upon its principal till ruin stared it in the face."
The Cathedral - The self-organizing consensus of Progressives and Progressive ideology
represented by the universities, the media, and the civil service. A term
coined by blogger Mencius Moldbug. The Cathedral has no central administrator, but represents
a consensus acting as a coherent group that condemns other ideologies as evil. Community
writers have enumerated the
platform of Progressivism as women's suffrage, prohibition, abolition, federal income tax,
democratic election of senators, labor laws, desegregation, popularization of drugs, destruction
of traditional sexual norms, ethnic studies courses in colleges, decolonization, and gay marriage.
A defining feature of Progressivism is that "you believe that morality has been essentially
solved, and all that's left is to work out the details." Reactionaries see Republicans as
Progressives, just lagging 10-20 years behind Democrats in their adoption of Progressive norms.
You don't have to agree with the Neoreactionaries on what they condemn - women's suffrage? desegregation?
labor laws? really?? - to acknowledge that they're onto something about the sacred consensus that
all Right-Thinking People share. I would love to see a study comparing the press coverage from 9/11
leading up to the Iraq War with press coverage of the gay marriage issue from about 2006 till today.
Specifically, I'd be curious to know about how thoroughly the media covered the cases against the
policies that the Deep State and the Shallow State decided should prevail. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy
here, not at all. I'm only thinking back to how it seemed so obvious to me in 2002 that we should
go to war with Iraq, so perfectly clear that the only people who opposed it were fools or villains.
The same consensus has emerged around same-sex marriage. I know how overwhelmingly the news media
have believed this for some time, such that many American journalists simply cannot conceive that
anyone against same-sex marriage is anything other than a fool or a villain. Again, this isn't a
conspiracy; it's in the nature of the thing. Lofgren:
Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist
Irving L. Janis called
"groupthink," the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers.
This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating
biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the
town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has
to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe
of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always
going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something
when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
A more elusive aspect of cultural assimilation is the sheer dead weight of the ordinariness
of it all once you have planted yourself in your office chair for the 10,000th time. Government
life is typically not some vignette from an Allen Drury novel about intrigue under the
Capitol dome. Sitting and staring at the clock on the off-white office wall when it's 11:00 in
the evening and you are vowing never, ever to eat another piece of takeout pizza in your life
is not an experience that summons the higher literary instincts of a would-be memoirist.
After a while, a functionary of the state begins to hear things that, in another context, would
be quite remarkable, or at least noteworthy, and yet that simply bounce off one's consciousness
like pebbles off steel plate: "You mean the
number of terrorist groups we are fighting is classified?" No wonder so few people
are whistle-blowers, quite apart from the vicious retaliation whistle-blowing often provokes:
Unless one is blessed with imagination and a fine sense of irony, growing immune to the curiousness
of one's surroundings is easy. To paraphrase the inimitable Donald Rumsfeld, I didn't know all
that I knew, at least until I had had a couple of years away from the government to reflect upon
it.
When all you know is the people who surround you in your professional class bubble and your social
circles, you can think the whole world agrees with you, or should. It's probably not a coincidence
that the American media elite live, work, and socialize in New York and Washington, the two
cities that were attacked on 9/11, and whose elites - political, military, financial - were so genuinely
traumatized by the events.
Anyway, that's just a small part of it, about how the elite media manufacture consent. Here's
a final quote, one from
the Moyers interview with Lofgren:
BILL MOYERS: If, as you write, the ideology of the Deep State is not democrat or republican,
not left or right, what is it?
MIKE LOFGREN: It's an ideology. I just don't think we've named it. It's a kind of
corporatism. Now, the actors in this drama tend to steer clear of social issues. They
pretend to be merrily neutral servants of the state, giving the best advice possible on national
security or financial matters. But they hold a very deep ideology of the Washington consensus
at home, which is deregulation, outsourcing, de-industrialization and financialization.
And they believe in American exceptionalism abroad, which is boots on the ground everywhere,
it's our right to meddle everywhere in the world. And the result of that is perpetual war.
This can't last. We'd better hope it can't last. And we'd better hope it unwinds peacefully.
I, for one, remain glad that so many of us Americans are armed. When the Deep State collapses
- and it will one day - it's not going to be a happy time.
Questions to the room: Is a Gorbachev for the Deep State conceivable? That is, could you foresee
a political leader emerging who could unwind the ideology and apparatus of the Deep State, and not
only survive, but succeed? Or is it impossible for the Deep State to allow such a figure to thrive?
Or is the Deep State, like the Soviet system Gorbachev failed to reform, too entrenched and too far
gone to reform itself? If so, what then?
"... That the economic system is being cannibalized to generate the outsized economic claims on income for capital and their minions among the executive classes is worrying, as is the stagnation and the slow reaction to climate change and other similar issues. The 10% don't seem to be entirely ready to accept the parasitism in every detail. If you poison Flint's water or Well Fargo charges for fake accounts, there's some kind of reaction from at least some of the managerial / professional classes. We have Elizabeth Warren and she can be amazingly effective even if she seems like a lonely figure. ..."
"... But, mostly the parasitism of the financial sector affects the bottom 50%; the 10% get cash back on their credit cards. ..."
"... I personally know a guy who is an expert on the liver and therefore on the hazards posed by Tylenol (acetaminophen or paracetamol); it is quite revealing to hear about how he's attacked by interested corporations. ..."
"... The inverted totalitarianism that Bruce and Rich are referencing here is only apparently a successful marriage of the impulse to control complex processes and the technologies which promise the possibility of that control. ..."
"... Never mind how powerful their tools, managers who want to avoid catastrophic delusions will have to learn a little humility. My advice to them: feed that to your big data and your AI, right along with your fiat money, your global capital flows, and your commodified and devalued labor force. and see where you wind up. Where you're headed now is a dead end. ..."
"... it is not left neoliberalism versus right neoliberalism, but left neoliberalism versus something that is: a: worse b: a predictable consequence of neoliberalism. A being true makes B no less true, and vice versa. ..."
"... Trump is a dispicable human being but he has touched those who are desperate for a change. Unfortunately for them, Trump could never be the change they need – whilst Clinton is just more of the same sh*t as we've had for the last 40 years or more. Bernie was the best hope for change but the establishment made sure he could not win by the manipulation of the "super delegate vote"! ..."
But, isn't "boring" an argument too? A third way to
dissolve all the noisier contention, make it meaningless and then complain of
its meaninglessness?
I haven't quite recovered from merian challenging your argument from pattern
and precedent as decontextualized and ahistorical or then announcing that she
was not a supporter of Clinton after having previously justified her own
unqualified (though time-limited) support for Clinton.
I see the rhetorical power of Luttwak's "perfect non-sequitur", which Adam
Curtis explains as a basis for the propaganda of the inverted totalitarian
state in some detail. I've long argued that the dominating power of
neoliberalism - not just as the ideology of the managerial classes, but as the
one ideology to rule them all at the end of history - has to do with the way
(left) neoliberals argue almost exclusively with conservative libertarians
(right neoliberals). It is in that narrow, bounded dynamic of one completely
synthetic and artificial thesis with another closely related and also
completely synthetic and artificial antithesis that we got stuck in the
Groundhog Day, where history tails off after a few weeks and evidence consists
of counterfactuals projected a few weeks into the future.
It is not a highly contested election. It just looks like one and sounds
like one, but the noise (and it is all noise in the end) is drowning out
anyone's ability to figure out what is going on. And, really, nothing is going
on - or rather, nothing about which voters have a realistic choice to make.
That's the problem. (Left) neoliberalism was born* in the decision to abandon
the actual representation of a common interest (and most especially a working
class interest). Instead, it is all about combining an atomizing politics of
personal identity with Ezra Klein's wonkiness, where statistics are used to
filter out more information than revealed and esoteric jargon obscures the
rest. Paul Krugman, Reagan Administration veteran and Enron advisor, becomes
the authoritative voice of the moderate centre-Left.
*That's why the now ancient Charles Peters' Neoliberal Manifesto matters -
not because Peters was or is important, but because it was such a clear and
timely statement of the managerial / professional class Left abandoning
advocacy for the poor or labor interests against the interests of capital,
corporations and the wealthy. The basic antagonism of interests in politics was
to be abandoned and what was gained was financial support from capital and
business corporations. The Liberal Class, the institutional foundations of
which were eroding rapidly in the 1980s, with the decline of social
affiliation, mainline Protestant religions, public universities, organized
labor could no longer be relied upon to fund the chattering classes so the
chattering classes represented by Peters found a new gig and rationalized it,
and that is the (left) neoliberalism we know today as Vox speak.
The 10% gets free a completely artificial (because not rooted in class
interests or any interests) ideology bought and paid for by the 1/10th of 1%
and the executive class) ideology, but it gets it free and as long as the
system continues to lumber along, employing them (which makes them the 10%)
they remain complacent. They don't understand their world, but their world
seems to work anyway, so why worry? Any apparently alarming development can be
normalized by confusion and made boring.
More than 20 years after Luttwak / McMurtry, I would think inability of the
10% to understand how the world works might be the most worrying thing of all.
The 10% are the people who make the world work in a technical sense - that is
the responsibility of the professionals and professional managers, after all.
That the economic system is being cannibalized to generate the outsized
economic claims on income for capital and their minions among the executive
classes is worrying, as is the stagnation and the slow reaction to climate
change and other similar issues. The 10% don't seem to be entirely ready to
accept the parasitism in every detail. If you poison Flint's water or Well
Fargo charges for fake accounts, there's some kind of reaction from at least
some of the managerial / professional classes. We have Elizabeth Warren and she
can be amazingly effective even if she seems like a lonely figure.
But, mostly
the parasitism of the financial sector affects the bottom 50%; the 10% get cash
back on their credit cards.
I read with fascination articles about the travails
of that Virginia Tech guy who persisted in the Flint Water case; again, a
lonely figure.
I personally know a guy who is an expert on the liver and
therefore on the hazards posed by Tylenol (acetaminophen or paracetamol); it is
quite revealing to hear about how he's attacked by interested corporations.
And yet . In the more or less cobwebbed corners of the Internet, like CT, we
are in fact having this conversation, and others much like it - even when, as
inevitably happens, it leaves us vulnerable to accusations of leftist onanism
by self-appointed realists of the status quo. They may not be easy to ignore,
but knowing that their opinions can't possibly be as securely held as they
claim, and are in fact more vulnerable to events than they're capable of
imagining, we shouldn't feel obliged to pay their denunciations any more
attention than they deserve.
The inverted totalitarianism that Bruce and Rich
are referencing here is only apparently a successful marriage of the impulse to
control complex processes and the technologies which promise the possibility of
that control.
If we really want to foster a future in which institutions are
stable again, and can successfully design and implement effective protections
for the general welfare, we're going to have to get a lot more comfortable with
chaos, unintended consequences, the residual perversity, in short, of
large-scale human interactions.
Never mind how powerful their tools, managers
who want to avoid catastrophic delusions will have to learn a little humility.
My advice to them: feed
that
to your big data and your AI, right along
with your fiat money, your global capital flows, and your commodified and
devalued labor force. and see where you wind up. Where you're headed now is a
dead end.
> It is not a highly contested election. It just looks like one and sounds like
one, but the noise (and it is all noise in the end) is drowning out anyone's
ability to figure out what is going on.
Pretty sure it is. Precisely because
it is not left neoliberalism versus
right neoliberalism, but left neoliberalism versus something that is:
a: worse
b: a predictable consequence of neoliberalism.
A being true makes B no less true, and vice versa.
The 50-55 year old male, white, college-educated former exemplar of the
American Dream, still perhaps living in his lavishly-equipped suburban
house, with two or three cars in the driveway, one or two children in
$20,000 per annum higher education (tuition, board and lodging – all extras
are extra) and an ex-job 're-engineered' out of existence, who now exists on
savings, second and third mortgages and scant earnings as a self-described
'consultant', has become a familiar figure in the contemporary United
States.
It isn't liberal or conservative. It lives in a [neoliberal] fantasy
land where your station in life is merit based. If you are poor, it's a
personal failing. Rich, you earned every penny.
They incorrectly believe the American Dream is something more than a
fairytale rich people tell themselves to justify the misery they inflict
on the poor.
It's pro technocrat; "we have a perfect solution if it would just get
implemented . It won't rock the apple cart and will have minimum benefits
but it makes us look like we care."
boo321
, 14 Oct 2016 07:53
Neoliberalism has failed the poor, disadvantaged and disabled. Making
these people pay for the mistakes, corruption of our banks and major
institutions is indicative of the greedy rich and elite who don't give a
toss for their suffering.
Trump is a dispicable human being but he has touched those who are
desperate for a change. Unfortunately for them, Trump could never be the
change they need – whilst Clinton is just more of the same sh*t as we've
had for the last 40 years or more. Bernie was the best hope for
change but the establishment made sure he could not win by the
manipulation of the "super delegate vote"!
"... The email in question was even sent from Froman's Citibank email address (rookie!) and includes "A list of African American, Latino and Asian American candidates, broken down by Cabinet/Deputy and Under/Assistant/Deputy Assistant level, plus a list of Native American, Arab/Muslim American and Disabled American candidates. " ..."
"... It correctly identified Eric Holder for the Justice Department , Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security, Robert Gates for Defense, Rahm Emanuel for chief of staff , Peter Orszag for the Office of Management and Budget, Arne Duncan for Education, Eric Shinseki for Veterans Affairs, Kathleen Sebelius for Health and Human Services , Melody Barnes for the Domestic Policy Council, and more. For the Treasury, three possibilities were on the list: Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and Timothy Geithner. ..."
"... This was October 6. The election was November 4. And yet Froman, an executive at Citigroup, which would ultimately become the recipient of the largest bailout from the federal government during the financial crisis, had mapped out virtually the entire Obama cabinet, a month before votes were counted. And according to the Froman/Podesta emails, lists were floating around even before that. ..."
"... Many already suspected that Froman, a longtime Obama consigliere, did the key economic policy hiring while part of the transition team. We didn't know he had so much influence that he could lock in key staff that early, without fanfare, while everyone was busy trying to get Obama elected. The WikiLeaks emails show even earlier planning; by September the transition was getting pre-clearance to assist nominees with financial disclosure forms. ..."
Perhaps the most startling discovery of the WikiLeaks dumps so far didn't come from the most recent
emails surrounding the various Hillary scandals, though there are many great ones, but from 2008
when John Podesta served as co-chair of President-elect Barack Obama's transition team. The email
came from Michael Froman, a former Citibank executive, who single-handedly built the entire cabinet
of what was supposed to be the "main street" President.
The email in question
was even sent from Froman's Citibank email address (rookie!) and includes "A list of African American,
Latino and Asian American candidates, broken down by Cabinet/Deputy and Under/Assistant/Deputy Assistant
level, plus a list of Native American, Arab/Muslim American and Disabled American candidates. "
Apparently Obama wasn't as worried about placing women in senior-level positions, but Froman decided
to offer up some suggestions anyway.
"While you did not ask for this, I prepared and attached a similar document on women."
Froman even went ahead and "scoped out" which people should be appointed to which cabinet positions.
"At the risk of being presumptuous, I also scoped out how the Cabinet-level appointments might
be put together, probability-weighting the likelihood of appointing a diverse candidate for each
position (given one view of the short list) and coming up with a straw man distribution."
As
New Republic points out, the Froman appointments ended up being almost entirely right.
The cabinet list ended up being almost entirely on the money . It correctly identified Eric
Holder for the Justice Department , Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security, Robert Gates for Defense, Rahm Emanuel for chief of staff , Peter Orszag for the Office of Management and Budget, Arne Duncan
for Education, Eric Shinseki for Veterans Affairs, Kathleen Sebelius for Health and Human Services
, Melody Barnes for the Domestic Policy Council, and more. For the Treasury, three possibilities
were on the list: Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and Timothy Geithner.
This was October 6. The election was November 4. And yet Froman, an executive at Citigroup,
which would ultimately become the recipient of the largest bailout from the federal government
during the financial crisis, had mapped out virtually the entire Obama cabinet, a month before
votes were counted. And according to the Froman/Podesta emails, lists were floating around even
before that.
Many already suspected that Froman, a longtime Obama consigliere, did the key economic policy
hiring while part of the transition team. We didn't know he had so much influence that he could
lock in key staff that early, without fanfare, while everyone was busy trying to get Obama elected.
The WikiLeaks emails show even earlier planning; by September the transition was getting pre-clearance
to assist nominees with financial disclosure forms.
So if this history is any guide then the real power within a future Clinton administration is
being formed right now. In fact, another email from January 2015 reveals that Elizabeth Warren was
already "intently focused on personnel issues" almost two full years ago as evidenced by the
following recap of a
conversation that the Hillary campaign had with her Chief of Staff, Dan Geldon.
He was intently focused on personnel issues, laid out a detailed case against the Bob Rubin
school of Democratic policy makers, was very critical of the Obama administration's choices ,
and explained at length the opposition to Antonio Weiss. We then carefully went through a list
of people they do like, which EW sent over to HRC earlier.
We spent less time on specific policies, because he seemed less interested in that.
He spoke repeatedly about the need to have in place people with ambition and urgency who recognize
how much the middle class is hurting and are willing to challenge the financial industry.
To the extent there are any purists left, this should clear up any illusion of who controls the
political powers that be.
He missed the foreign policy aspect of Hillary vs Trump candidacy. A vote for Hillary is vote for
continuation of wars of expansion of neoliberal empire.
Notable quotes:
"... reforms that political leaders promised would ensure prosperity for all – such as trade and financial liberalization – have not delivered. Far from it. And those whose standard of living has stagnated or declined have reached a simple conclusion: America's political leaders either didn't know what they were talking about or were lying (or both). ..."
"... Thus, many Americans feel buffeted by forces outside their control, leading to outcomes that are distinctly unfair. Long-standing assumptions – that America is a land of opportunity and that each generation will be better off than the last – have been called into question. The global financial crisis may have represented a turning point for many voters: their government saved the rich bankers who had brought the US to the brink of ruin, while seemingly doing almost nothing for the millions of ordinary Americans who lost their jobs and homes. The system not only produced unfair results, but seemed rigged to do so. ..."
"... Support for Trump is based, at least partly, on the widespread anger stemming from that loss of trust in government. ..."
"... The simplistic neo-liberal market-fundamentalist theories that have shaped so much economic policy during the last four decades are badly misleading, with GDP growth coming at the price of soaring inequality. Trickle-down economics hasn't and won't work. Markets don't exist in a vacuum. The Thatcher-Reagan "revolution," which rewrote the rules and restructured markets for the benefit of those at the top, succeeded all too well in increasing inequality, but utterly failed in its mission to increase growth. ..."
But several underlying factors also appear to have contributed to the closeness of the race. For
starters, many Americans are economically worse off than they were a quarter-century ago. The median
income of full-time male employees is lower than it was 42 years ago, and it is increasingly difficult
for those with limited education to get a full-time job that pays decent wages.
Indeed, real (inflation-adjusted) wages at the bottom of the income distribution are roughly where
they were 60 years ago. So it is no surprise that Trump finds a large, receptive audience when he
says the state of the economy is rotten. But Trump is wrong both about the diagnosis and the prescription.
The US economy as a whole has done well for the last six decades: GDP has increased nearly six-fold.
But the fruits of that growth have gone to a relatively few at the top – people like Trump, owing
partly to massive tax cuts that he would extend and deepen.
At the same time, reforms that political leaders promised would ensure prosperity for all – such
as trade and financial liberalization – have not delivered. Far from it. And those whose standard
of living has stagnated or declined have reached a simple conclusion: America's political leaders
either didn't know what they were talking about or were lying (or both).
Trump wants to blame all of America's problems on trade and immigration. He's wrong. The US would
have faced deindustrialization even without freer trade: global employment in manufacturing has been
declining, with productivity gains exceeding demand growth.
Where the trade agreements failed, it was not because the US was outsmarted by its trading partners;
it was because the US trade agenda was shaped by corporate interests. America's companies have done
well, and it is the Republicans who have blocked efforts to ensure that Americans made worse off
by trade agreements would share the benefits.
Thus, many Americans feel buffeted by forces outside their control, leading to outcomes that are
distinctly unfair. Long-standing assumptions – that America is a land of opportunity and that each
generation will be better off than the last – have been called into question. The global financial
crisis may have represented a turning point for many voters: their government saved the rich bankers
who had brought the US to the brink of ruin, while seemingly doing almost nothing for the millions
of ordinary Americans who lost their jobs and homes. The system not only produced unfair results,
but seemed rigged to do so.
Support for Trump is based, at least partly, on the widespread anger stemming from that loss of
trust in government. But Trump's proposed policies would make a bad situation much worse. Surely,
another dose of trickle-down economics of the kind he promises, with tax cuts aimed almost entirely
at rich Americans and corporations, would produce results no better than the last time they were
tried.
In fact, launching a trade war with China, Mexico, and other US trading partners, as Trump promises,
would make all Americans poorer and create new impediments to the global cooperation needed to address
critical global problems like the Islamic State, global terrorism, and climate change. Using money
that could be invested in technology, education, or infrastructure to build a wall between the US
and Mexico is a twofer in terms of wasting resources.
There are two messages US political elites should be hearing. The simplistic neo-liberal market-fundamentalist
theories that have shaped so much economic policy during the last four decades are badly misleading,
with GDP growth coming at the price of soaring inequality. Trickle-down economics hasn't and won't
work. Markets don't exist in a vacuum. The Thatcher-Reagan "revolution," which rewrote the rules
and restructured markets for the benefit of those at the top, succeeded all too well in increasing
inequality, but utterly failed in its mission to increase growth.
This leads to the second message: we need to rewrite the rules of the economy once again, this
time to ensure that ordinary citizens benefit. Politicians in the US and elsewhere who ignore this
lesson will be held accountable. Change entails risk. But the Trump phenomenon – and more than a
few similar political developments in Europe – has revealed the far greater risks entailed by failing
to heed this message: societies divided, democracies undermined, and economies weakened.
on October 10, 2016 In August, I
blogged about
a New York Times story on a corruption investigation of City College President Lisa Coico.
On Friday, the Times
reported that Coico abruptly resigned. Today, the Times has a long
piece on the corruption and potential criminality that led to Coico's resignation (upon threat
of firing).
On the one hand, the piece paints a portrait of a college president so fantastically corrupt,
it's almost comical.
Ms. Coico, who had an annual salary of $400,000 at that point [2011], was using the college's
main fund-raising vehicle, the 21st Century Foundation, to pay tens of thousands of dollars for
housekeeping, furniture, seasonal fruits and organic maple-glazed nuts, among other items .By
August 2011, according to an email between two school officials, the college had begun to itemize
more than $155,000 of her spending in three categories - "college," "personal" and "iffy."
On the other hand, it's just one blood-boiling outrage after another, where the criminality flows,
like lava, from the mountain of largesse that Coico was legally allowed in the first place.
The Times also questioned whether Ms. Coico had repaid a $20,000 security deposit for
a rental home , or kept the money for herself .Ms. Coico had a housing allowance
of $5,000 per month when she was hired, which was increased to $7,500 per month in July
2010. We have adjuncts at CUNY who can't pay their rent. Mostly because the pay is so low, but
sometimes, as occurred at Brooklyn College last month, because CUNY can't be bothered to get its
act together so that people are paid on time. Yet a college president, who's already earning a
$400,000 salary (and remember that was in 2011; God knows what she was raking in upon her resignation)
plus a housing allowance of $7500, gets additional help to put down a $20,000 security deposit
on a rental home in Westchester?
On top of it all, the article makes plain that CUNY officials have been nervous about and watchful
of Coico's spending since her first year at the college:
Behind the scenes, there were also questions about her personal spending going back to the
middle of 2011, roughly a year after her appointment .Anxious about the amount she was spending,
especially given the fact that many of City College's students come from low-income families
and struggle to pay even its modest tuition, some began "questioning its appropriateness, since
the president had a substantial housing allowance meant for such things," said one longtime
official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid being entangled in the investigation.
She was later ordered by Frederick P. Schaffer, CUNY 's general counsel, to repay the college
$51,000, or roughly one-third of the expenses in question, because she had not received prior
approval for moving and other expenses. She fulfilled that obligation by January 2016.
Ms. Coico was also informed that any furniture bought with foundation funds - including
$50,000 worth for a rental home in Larchmont, N.Y. - belonged to City College. Moreover, she
was asked to return a $20,000 security deposit at the end of her lease in Larchmont.
Ms. Coico and her husband bought another home in Westchester County in April 2013, property
records show. When asked if she repaid the $20,000 deposit, the college declined to comment.
But this summer, The Times took a closer look at her expenses, and
reported that CUNY 's Research Foundation , which manages research funds for the entire
system, had ultimately covered Ms. Coico's personal expenses from her early years as president.
Using Research Foundation funds that way raised concerns because they could include money from
federal grants, which are typically earmarked for research-related expenses, such as staff
and equipment, and have strict guidelines about how they are used.
Two weeks after the Times report was published, a subpoena was issued by the office of
Robert L. Capers, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New York.
The memo in question is just one paragraph long and is bureaucratic in nature.
Addressed to an employee at the provost's office named Luisa Hassan, and dated Sept. 15,
2011, it begins, "As we have discussed," and is attributed to Ron Woodford, a manager at the
college's 21st Century Foundation. It goes on to say that some of Ms. Coico's expenses "were
inadvertently paid" by that foundation, when they should have been paid by CUNY 's Research
Foundation. The memo then asks Ms. Hassan to process an invoice for $155,176 to "rectify the
funding source," for what it calls "start-up expenses associated with the appointment of the
new president."
Were the memo proved to be backdated or manufactured, the responsible parties could be open
to charges such as obstruction of justice, legal experts said.
The whole story, in my experience, is CUNY , all too CUNY . Not just the opéra bouffe of corruption
but also the creaking machinery of self-correction.
Here you have a garden-variety miscreant, thieving one piece of the pie after another from
an institution that has so little to begin with. Even the things Coico did that weren't criminal
should have been enough to get her fired. On ethical grounds alone.
But what did CUNY do? Lots of whispering emails, lots of back and forth between cowed and ineffective
administrators, culminating each time, it seems, with a polite-and sometimes unheeded-request
to Coico that she correct the problem. As if it were all a simple misunderstanding or oversight.
Indeed, in the one instance when CUNY seemed more determined to take action, an extensive internal
investigation of just one of Coico's questionable moves led to her being
exonerated by the institution. Whether she was in that instance correct in her actions, surely
her track record might have raised enough red flags to lead to a much wider investigation rather
than a declaration, with much fanfare, of her innocence.
Not once, it seems, until the very last minute-the Times reported on Friday that it
was a smoking-gun email from the newspaper that led to the abrupt resignation of Coico, leaving
City College with no replacement, save the acting provost, who was herself replacing someone else;
all suggesting that Coico's being pushed out was unplanned, unrehearsed, and unprepared for-did
CUNY execute a plan to get rid of Coico. From what I can tell (and in my experience, as I said,
this is how CUNY often operates), the institution allowed this higher-ed hoodlum to happily continue
in her position, secure in the knowledge that if she ever did anything too egregious or got caught,
that she'd get a mild entreaty to fix the error.
If there is one potential bit of good news in this story, it's this:
And over the weekend, speculation intensified among staff and faculty members as to whether
people close to the president would also be implicated, and whether the federal investigation
would spread to other parts of CUNY , the largest public urban university in the country.
One can only hope that that speculation turns out to be true.
Dr. Hilarius 10.10.16 at 9:05 pm
A good example of the failure of university president as CEO model of governance. Model comes
complete with ineffectual trustees and administrators.
Brett 10.10.16 at 9:34 pm
Aren't there people above her who are supposed to be watch-dogs on this as well? Did they just
not care that she was stealing from the college, because they'd rather not go through the hassle
of hiring another college president? Was it okay as long as she was compliant and enthusiastic
in making budget cuts?
Tabasco 10.10.16 at 10:54 pm
It seems to be a failure on so many levels: a hiring failure (CEOs who lie, cheat and steal almost
always did so in previous jobs); a failure of auditing and accountability systems; a failure of
governance; and most of all, a failure of culture. Unless these are fixed, it will happen again.
From the other coast:
Robert Huttenback.
Thirty years ago, this was, but having witnessed the whole mess from far too close up for
comfort, I suppose I'm not all that surprised at the detailed similarities with the Coico case
you're reporting on here. The Wikipedia entry gives only the gist, but the details in all their
sleaziness are still available elsewhere on the Web for anyone who has the stomach to wade through
them. To quote from our swine of the hour, If you're a star, they let you do it. The depressing
thing is that we don't seem to have any institutions left where this casual breach of trust isn't
routine.
kidneystones 10.11.16 at 3:39 am
"That's what is done by tin-pot dictators spanning the globe from North Korea to Zimbabwe."
Excellent post, Corey. Yes, I'm aware that the quote is from Beauchamp, but I think it fits
just as well, if not better here.
I'm an adjunct with bona fides and a publication history to receive research funding from universities,
just not quite often enough. I reference the tin-pot dictators for two reasons.
Tabasco and Brett get to the nub. Ms. Coico and her husband are earning far more than almost
all faculty and certainly far more than I. There's an enormous gulf separating Ms.Coico and the
adjuncts who can't actually rely on being paid their pennies on time. Suffice to say that Ms.
Coico is likely blissfully aware of that gulf and our problems, and much more painfully aware
on the enormous gulf separating her and her husband from the world-class grifters she aspires
to join, which I suggest is her principal preoccupation.
As the CEO, a large part of her job is groveling for cash before the truly rich. This has to
wear on her. And as we've learned, only partisan imbeciles believe that candidate X is the only
wealthy person paying well to ensure he/she pays the absolute minimum in taxes, and who (occasionally)
moves into the 'grey' areas of compliance. See senior civil servants at both the state and national
level.
There are, like it or not, two sets of rules in America, whether that makes America a tin-pot
dictatorship or no. If one happens to be poor and a minority one can expect to face the full brunt
of the law for even the smallest infraction. And that's if you're not beaten, or shot by 'accident'
along the way. If you're wealthy and white, you can do whatever you like until and after, in many
cases, you get caught.
The reason, I suggest, that those charged with supervising Ms. Coico did not act earlier is
that they did not wish to attract any unwanted legal scrutiny into their own practices, those
of their peers, and especially of the donor class who fork over part of the class.
It's their world, we just live in it.
kidneystones 10.11.16 at 3:42 am
Part of class? Yes, why not that too.
William Timberman puts his finger right into the wound.
Sebastian H 10.11.16 at 5:01 am
The whole thing is crazy, but I can't get past the $20,000 security deposit for a rental home.
What kind of a house is that?
Louis Proyect 10.11.16 at 11:19 am
Interesting that she was hired to boost the science department based on her own scientific background.
Remind you of another college president out in Illinois?
As a non-native speaker of English, I am wondering not for the first time about how the term corrupt
is used in the English world. Is it not correct that corruption means taking money (or some other
form of payment) in exchange for doing somebody an undeserved favour, e.g. a professor accepting
money to pass a student who should really have been failed? I would have thought that what is
described here was embezzlement instead?
Sorry if this is not the most productive contribution, but I am wondering.
steve 10.11.16 at 7:12 pm
Corruption is a general term for premeditated unethical actions. Embezzlement would be a specific
criminal change.
J-D 10.11.16 at 8:58 pm
I think it's common for 'corruption' to be used to refer to the misuse of official authority for
private benefit; so if somebody has official authority to expend funds for stipulated purposes,
and misuses that authority to expend some of those funds for a private benefit unconnected with
those stipulated purposes, that could be described as corrupt conduct.
CCNY Drudge 10.12.16 at 12:50 am
What you don't mention but is how despicable it is that a high level administrator tried to set
up two low level employees with no decision authority with a faked document. Yes, CUNY administrators
should be held accountable for their non-action and sticking their heads in the sand, but don't
exonerate the CCNY faculty who closed their eyes for the ethical problems and remained silent,
just because of their comfortable teaching hours under this president or other perks, or just
because they didn't want to rock the boat, just grumble at the water cooler. They had the academic
freedom and union protection, and the majority of them did nothing. They were like the Republican
Party facing Trump.
Karl Kolchack 10.12.16 at 1:01 am
A professional colleague of mine was prosecuted and fired for falsifying a relocation voucher for
a grand total of around $2200. Of course, this was way back in 1991, when such garbage was far
less tolerated that it seems to be these days.
This demonstrates on so many levels how administrators within CUNY are so poorly managed to the
point where they create their own "Game of Thrones." It is no wonder why the current Governor
of New York has a negative opinion of CUNY and wants a deeper look at our administrative levels
across CUNY. You can bet your last dollar that what the former CCNY President has done, has also
infected many of the departments within CCNY and across CUNY. This was no anomaly. The seeds were
planted ions ago and watered by the City and State at the expense of our students CUNY was meant
to help.
Library Love 10.12.16 at 4:37 pm
This sickens me to no end. I'm a librarian at CCNY and I have taken money out of my own pocket
for office supplies etc. for my office and for students. This is just disgusting. I knew she was
up to something but I had no idea it was this bad.
"... Unfortunately, Ip's position is reflective of the cognitive capture of an entire class of professionals. This is not rocket science and, as we have repeatedly seen, senior bank managers are far from rocket scientists. These financial intermediaries should be broken up and the FDIC-insured portions formally converted to public utilities. The Glass-Steagall Act should be reinstated and the primary role of banks in the nation's payments system and depository institutions restored. ..."
Now in fairness to Ip, he's relying on a study by Natasha Sarin and Larry Summers that relies on
the market value of banks as the basis for his conclusion.
The key paragraph :
They discovered that markets think banks are much more likely now to lose half their market
value than before the crisis. They interpret this as a "decline in the franchise value of major
financial institutions, caused at least in part by new regulations." The counterintuitive implication:
The bevy of rules designed to make banking safer may, by endangering their long-term viability,
ultimately achieve the opposite.
This is a perverse interpretation. Since when should the status of banks, right before they would
have destroyed the global economy absent extreme interventions by central banks and governments around
the world, be considered a sound benchmark?
Moreover, Sarin and Summers, thanks to the strong bias in executive compensation for share price
growth, have fallen for the canard that it is desirable or necessary for the health of a business.
Normally, the logic of issuing common stock is to fund expansion (remember, I helped companies do
this in a former life at Goldman). And common stock is not the preferred way to fund growth. Retained
earning is first, and borrowing is second. So if the banking industry for broader societal reasons,
needs to shrink or at least not grow, there's no reason to be particularly worried about lackluster
stock prices.
... ... ...
Banks enjoy such extensive subsidies that they should not be regarded as private institutions
. Even though most banks are public, as we wrote in 2013, they are in fact not profitable
in the absence of government subsidies. That means they should not be regarded as private institutions.
Any returns to shareholders are in fact a stealth transfer from taxpayers. That means they should
be regulated as utilities.
As we wrote :
The point is that the banking industry has been profitable (at times, seemingly very profitable)
only at the result of long standing government intervention to assure its profitability. It is
no exaggeration to say that the banking industry enjoys so much public support that it can in
no way be considered to be a private enterprise. But we've put in place the worst of all possible
worlds: we've allowed an industry that couldn't figure out how to operate profitably on its own
to extract undeservedly large subsidies, with the result that financial services industry has
become extractive. Its pay is wildly out of line with the social benefits it provides (indeed,
many of its most predatory activities are also its best remunerated) and it has also grown disproportionately
large, sucking resources away from better uses (we'd clearly be better off if math and physics
grads were tackling real world problems rather than devising better HFT algorithms. And when you
have bank branches displacing liquor stores, you know something is out of whack).
The cost of periodic financial crises is so great that the banking industry is value-destoying
to society . Again, that means that measures that reduce the odds of a crisis are entirely
justified. From a 2010 paper by the Bank of England's Andrew Haldane calculated the cost of financial
train wrecks:
….these losses are multiples of the static costs, lying anywhere between one and five times
annual GDP. Put in money terms, that is an output loss equivalent to between $60 trillion and
$200 trillion for the world economy and between Ł1.8 trillion and Ł7.4 trillion for the UK. As
Nobel-prize winning physicist Richard Feynman observed, to call these numbers "astronomical" would
be to do astronomy a disservice: there are only hundreds of billions of stars in the galaxy. "Economical"
might be a better description.
It is clear that banks would not have deep enough pockets to foot this bill. Assuming that
a crisis occurs every 20 years, the systemic levy needed to recoup these crisis costs would be
in excess of $1.5 trillion per year. The total market capitalisation of the largest global banks
is currently only around $1.2 trillion. Fully internalising the output costs of financial crises
would risk putting banks on the same trajectory as the dinosaurs, with the levy playing the role
of the meteorite.
Yves here. Haldane's working estimate of costs of one times global GDP was criticized as high
at the time; it now looks spot on.
So a banking industry that creates global crises is negative value added from a societal standpoint.
It is purely extractive . Even though we have described its activities
as looting (as in paying themselves so much that they bankrupt the business), the wider consequences
are vastly worse than in textbook looting.
Ip's defense of the role of banks is inaccurate . From Ip:
When central banks ease the supply of credit, they rely on banks to transmit the benefits to
the broader economy by making loans, handling trades and moving money between people, companies
and countries. Shrinking, unprofitable banks hobble that transmission channel.
This is the debunked "loanable funds" theory: that when money is on sale, businesses will go out
and invest more. That theory was partially debunked by Keynes and dispatched by Kaldor, but zombie-like,
still haunts the halls of central banks.
Businessmen see the cost of money as a possible constraint on growth, not a spur to it. They decide
to invest in expansion if they see an opportunity in their market. The big exception? Businesses
where the cost of funding is one of the biggest costs. What businesses are like that? Financial speculation.
And we've seen the failure of this tidy tale in the wake of the crisis. Providing super cheap
money has not induced businessmen to run out and ramp up their operations. Instead, one of the biggest
outcomes has been corporate financial speculation: issuing debt to buy back their own shares.
That isn't to say that banks aren't important. Payment systems are extremely important. But depicting
banks as needing to have robust profits to play their role is not well founded. Japanese banks had
razor thin profits in the years when Japan was going from strength to strength. And, what led them
to ruin was rapid deregulation forced on them by the US in the 1980s (remember that Japan is a military
protectorate of the US), not their profit levels.
Ip underplays the role of ZIRP, QE, and negative interest rates in the fall in bank profits
. The measures that helped goose asset prices and forestalled a day of reckoning are now
haunting banks and central bankers. In fact, the fact that QE and ZIRP have killed low-risk sources
of profits like income from float and easy yield-curve profits likely has much more to do with the
stock market's dour take on banks than regulations. Mr. Market is well aware of the fact that central
banks don't seem to have the foggiest idea how to get themselves out of the super low interest rate
corner they've painted themselves into.
Ip hates market discipline . One of the biggest problems with public companies
is that shareholders seldom act as activists and force managements to address problems they see.
It's easier to sell your holdings and move on.
Yet here, we see the uncharacteristic outcome that investors really are worried that banks will
do Bad Things and are avoiding banks that might do that, which in turn is leading banks to get out
of dodgy businesses.
Per Ip :
Indeed, investors must now discount the possibility that any bank could be one scandal away
from indictment and a crippling, multibillion-dollar fine. Banks have responded by exiting or
downsizing businesses that carry the most reputational risk, such as international money transfers
and issuing mortgages to less creditworthy borrowers.
What Ip fails to mention is that investors also love institutions that can tell a tale, whether
it is real or not, that they've are a better, smarter actor in a sector that others have pulled out
of. In other words, the process at work looks like perfectly normal creative destruction. But the
message is that banks are so special that they deserve a free pass.
The worst of this is that Ip, being full time on the banking beat, no doubt has seen the same
studies I have, and more, that stress how hypertrophied banking systems are an economic negative.
To see someone who should know better instead reveal that he is cognitively captured is, sadly, far
from surprising.
Unfortunately, Ip's position is reflective of the cognitive capture of an entire class of professionals.
This is not rocket science and, as we have repeatedly seen, senior bank managers are far from
rocket scientists. These financial intermediaries should be broken up and the FDIC-insured portions
formally converted to public utilities. The Glass-Steagall Act should be reinstated and the primary
role of banks in the nation's payments system and depository institutions restored.
Speculation in derivatives and markets by or booked in FDIC-insured banks should be disallowed,
legislation passed to stop the recidivist looting and control frauds, and criminal prosecution
of criminal behavior required. If individuals at these institutions want to continue to speculate,
they can do so with their own money and that of their bondholders and shareholders; rather than
that of government (taxpayers), the central bank, and bank depositors.
"Everybody agrees that better education and improved skills, for as many people as
possible, is crucial to increasing productivity and living standards and to tackling rising
inequality. But what if everybody is wrong?… As for inequality, we may need to offset it through
overt redistribution, with higher minimum wages or income support unrelated to people's price in the
job market, and through generous provision of high-quality public goods." Of course, Clinton has
already foreclosed this possibility; after all, some of the redistribution would go to "irredeemables."
"... When Hillary Clinton recently declared half of Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables", Zaitchik told another reporter, the language "could be read as another way of saying 'white-trash bin'." ..."
When Hillary Clinton recently declared half of Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables", Zaitchik
told another reporter, the language "could be read as another way of saying 'white-trash bin'."
Clinton
quickly apologized for the comment, the context of which contained compassion for many Trump voters.
But making such generalizations at a $6m fundraiser in downtown New York City, at which some attendees
paid $50,000 for a seat, recalled for me scenes from the television political satire Veep in which
powerful Washington figures discuss "normals" with distaste behind closed doors.
Beginning in the 1970s, it has increasingly become an organ of this same class. Affluent
white-collar professionals are today the voting bloc that Democrats represent most faithfully,
and they are the people whom Democrats see as the rightful winners in our economic order. Hillary
Clinton, with her fantastic résumé and her life of striving and her much-commented-on
qualifications, represents the aspirations of this class almost perfectly.
"... There seems plenty of evidence in the Pacific in particular that many countries, from Myanmar and Philippines to Australia are trying to follow a strategy of neutrality, playing the big powers off each other, rather than attaching themselves to the US or China. I suspect we'll see more of this in the Middle East and Europe and even South America. ..."
"... In Obama's case, he seems to bang on about American Exceptionalism more than anyone I can remember. Is Obama worried in case Joe Sixpack questions his background? ..."
"... Nobody forced Obama to continue drone strikes over much of the muslim world. Nobody forced him to put known ideological neocons into key positions of influence and power in State and the Pentagon. Nobody forced him to give Israel a free hand in Gaza and the occupied strip. Nobody forced him to help the French and British destroy the wealthiest country in Africa (Libya) and turn it into an Isis stronghold. ..."
"... Nobody forced him to encourage Ukrainian Nazi's to attack ethnic Russians without consequence. ..."
"... Nobody forced him to pursue a 'tilt to the Pacific' aimed at isolating China with the inevitable blow-back that we are now seeing. Nobody forced him to interfere in Syria with the aim of getting rid of Assad. Nobody forced him to continue a policy of isolating and undermining progressive democratic governments in South and Central America. ..."
"... He's proven very good at giving the notion that all these things 'just happened' as he sat back looking on sadly. I don't buy it. ..."
"... I suspect his judgment is not that he had to be a neoliberal to get to the top (Change! Hope!), but he needed to be a neoliberal to ensure he stayed at the top without either an assassins bullet, or a stray recording/email, knocking him off the summit. ..."
"... I believe he made it to President because he was a Neolib who could make the population believe there would be change. ..."
"... The fact that Trump is actually a thing shows how screwed up the US is. I can't imagine a president making decisions without dissonance, conflicts or contradictions. ..."
"... Many view Obama as a type of Manchurian candidate , sleeper agent or otherwise not who he has been crafted to be. ..."
"... As plausible deniability goes, Obama merges statecraft with tradecraft seamlessly between overt and covert political propaganda. Charming and disarming to democrats and ideals, his passive stances are often a buffer to the more dangerous background signal being sent as a lurking threat. ..."
"... Moneta is correct. The TBTB knew what was coming. So much as Bernanke with his academic expertise on QE and the Great Depression was preemptively put in place in 2006 at the Fed, Obama was heavily backed by Wall Street under conditions that would have been made clear to him in the 2006-2008 period. ..."
"... The most important element of TPTB 's program in backing Obama was the installation of Eric Holder as Attorney General, after Holder had been a primary architect of MERS and mortgage securitization at Covington Burling. Again, a preemptive move to protect Wall Street and forestall any prosecution of those at the top there (and Holder furthermore was conveniently a POC to continue the apparent Change!Hope! pitch). ..."
"... I think of it as the Eric Holder administration in retrospect, actually. ..."
"... What made him rise to the "top" were a multitude of promises made to his party and independents, which he later failed to fulfill. And his failure is almost 100%. He gained the nomination and beat Clinton, who was and is a neo-con, by promising to be different. Instead, he outdid Bush in his war mongering. The promises he made were in part why he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, in advance of him actually having done anything, the award of which is sorely regretted now by those who made it. PlutoniumKun listed some of the things Obama could have avoided but did anyway. One item he failed to mention was the US support of Saudi Arabia in its war on Yemen which has now resulted in the US possibly being liable for the war crimes committed there. ..."
"... the perfect Trojan Horse. and could not be criticized for the longest time because he is a minority. now we have a woman who will "make history". never mind what they get up to while in office. ..."
"... Not only did Obama have a free hand in Congress, he had the biggest popular mandate for reform of any president since 1932. And he fucked up. ..."
"... In March of 2009, I recall an FT editorial by Martin Wolf of the Financial Times asking if Obama was already a failure. I had a nagging feeling he was right, and he was. ..."
"... On Foreign Policy, Obama's got the thawing of relations with Cuba and the Iran deal. We'll see if those are consolidated as a legacy or rolled-back by his successor. ..."
"... With regard to pretty much everything else Obama tried to do, he's failed pretty badly. But supplying weapons to Al Nusra in Syria takes the cake for me. What happened to "don't do stupid stuff?" ..."
"... Obama can and has accomplished a great deal in his presidency. The problem is he was accomplishing what he promised to his other supporters - not us. ..."
"... Obama has always been in thrall to his paymasters as demonstrated by his actions during his administrations. ..."
"... What is larger, 200,000 or 6,000. The first nnumber is the number of people who attended candidate 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2008. Heady, hopey changey times they were. The latter number is the number of people who attended president 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2013. ..."
"... It is amusing to portray 0bama as a limp-wristed impotent figurehead. He isn't, he believes in American exceptionalism with "every fiber" of his body. ..."
"... 0bama surpassed Bush in creating a number of calamities, and has been heavy handed with our supposed allies, thus destroying the myth of about the supposed "partnership." ..."
Not mentioned, of course, is that TPP etc., are central to the US's strategy to counter Russia
and China, and it seems these Pacts are on the verge of failing miserably.
There seems plenty of evidence in the Pacific in particular that many countries, from Myanmar
and Philippines to Australia are trying to follow a strategy of neutrality, playing the big powers
off each other, rather than attaching themselves to the US or China. I suspect we'll see more
of this in the Middle East and Europe and even South America.
Also, militarily its worth pointing out that Russia and China etc., do not have to match the
US's fleets to gain equality on the oceans. They just have to have the technology for areal denial
– i.e. sufficient long range missiles to make the US reluctant to send aircraft carriers within
striking distance. This is similar to the early 20th Century situation where relatively cheap
submarines allowed weaker countries to prevent the traditional great Naval Powers from having
things their own way. Although in its own way, this proved very destabilising.
The other factor not mentioned is that the the neocons have squandered the US's greatest single
strength – its 'soft' power. The US is simply not respected and liked around the world the way
it was even in the Cold War. I think the hysteria around Obama's election was at least partly
based around the worlds longing for a US they could like. Among other things, Obama squandered
that and left everyone with a choice between two detestable individuals, both of which are sure
to make things worse.
Thank you. Well said. Area denial is also cheaper and, probably, less corrupt.
That is such a good point about the soft power squandered by Obama. I wonder if that will come
to be seen as a failure on the scale that Kennan thought about Slick Willie's reversal of policy
towards Russia.
A question for readers based in the US. I am the child of immigrants who came to the UK from
a colony mentioned by Hiro in the mid-1960s, although we have ancestors who left these islands
for that francophone colony in the early 19th century. Most, but not all immigrants in the UK
and their children take tales of British superiority (vide why the UK will make Brexit a success)
with a bucket of salt.
Do our US peers do that? Obama seems like these British ministers of immigrant stock who need
to prove that they belong and so adopt these positions that others / natives rarely bother with
or express. In Obama's case, he seems to bang on about American Exceptionalism more than anyone
I can remember. Is Obama worried in case Joe Sixpack questions his background?
On another note, thank you (to PK) for the anecdote about RC churchgoers. I was away on Monday
evening and unable to say so.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can argue this with regard to foreign policy where (unlike
domestic policy) the president has a much freer hand.
Nobody forced Obama to continue drone strikes over much of the muslim world. Nobody forced
him to put known ideological neocons into key positions of influence and power in State and the
Pentagon. Nobody forced him to give Israel a free hand in Gaza and the occupied strip. Nobody
forced him to help the French and British destroy the wealthiest country in Africa (Libya) and
turn it into an Isis stronghold.
Nobody forced him to encourage Ukrainian Nazi's to attack ethnic Russians without consequence.
Nobody forced him to pursue a 'tilt to the Pacific' aimed at isolating China with the inevitable
blow-back that we are now seeing. Nobody forced him to interfere in Syria with the aim of getting
rid of Assad. Nobody forced him to continue a policy of isolating and undermining progressive
democratic governments in South and Central America.
He's proven very good at giving the notion that all these things 'just happened' as he
sat back looking on sadly. I don't buy it.
I agree that he has demonstrated a neoliberal-lite ideology, although its a little complicated
by the fact that he has several times seemed to have shown that he 'gets' that current policy
is wrong headed, but he has consistently shown little or no indication to stand up to the hard
liners within the administration. I don't believe he has any foreign policy ideology other than
his famous 'don't do stupid' policy, and as such will always go with establishment groupthink.
I suspect his judgment is not that he had to be a neoliberal to get to the top (Change!
Hope!), but he needed to be a neoliberal to ensure he stayed at the top without either an assassins
bullet, or a stray recording/email, knocking him off the summit.
I believe he made it to President because he was a Neolib who could make the population
believe there would be change. 10 years ago most of the population probably did not even
know the word neolib existed. And most of the population thought helocs were God's gift to the
USA.
The fact that Trump is actually a thing shows how screwed up the US is. I can't imagine
a president making decisions without dissonance, conflicts or contradictions.
The us was based on a frontier mentality yet liberals think one Neolib president who spoke
of change could change course.
It's going to take a few presidents because society determines individuals' roles. When someone
is very different, society might accept one eccentric touch but not multiple all at once.
For example, maybe the us needs to go single payer but the golf from private to nationalized
is so vast that you can only get there by iteration unless there is a huge shock that permits
the leaders to do it in one scoop.
Many view Obama as a type of
Manchurian candidate
, sleeper agent or otherwise not who he has been crafted to be. Combine that with a deep
distrust by much of the populace, to the extent that they pay attention , of the media, as the
latter as a group have largely demonstrated a profound disregard for truth and objectivity.
Politicians at least swear an oath upon taking office, even if many immediately ignore it,
while so-called journalists no longer attempt to self-police or maintain integrity. The media
seem to want to act as unelected officials with a seat at the top table.
As plausible deniability goes, Obama merges statecraft with tradecraft seamlessly between
overt and covert political propaganda. Charming and disarming to democrats and ideals, his passive
stances are often a buffer to the more dangerous background signal being sent as a lurking threat.
good guy / bad guy writ large. It can be argued that he has used the same role play domestically
where most of his constitutional prejudices have been corporate and most of his financial policies
equally republican.
See:
Obama Resists Hawks As U.S., Russia Step Up War Threats Over Syria
"Nobody forced Obama…" is a formidable listing while apologists are generally sympathetic to
his charm and graceful very likeable personality.
In fact, (after all is said and done) Obama (as world leaders go) may well go down in history
as even a great president and world shaker where amoral realism is counted after all the smoke
and mirrors clear.
History is written by the victor as Napoleon stated succinctly. I suggest to you that his "legacy"
that is currently being groomed so carefully, includes some items that researchers and historians
will also have to explain more comprehensively than any cult of personality will cover.:
see: https://www.stpete4peace.org/obama-fact-sheet
http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html
PK wrote: 'he had to be a neoliberal to get to the top (Change! Hope!), but he needed to be
a neoliberal to ensure he stayed at the top without either an assassins bullet, or a stray recording/email,
knocking him off the summit.'
Moneta is correct. The TBTB knew what was coming. So much as Bernanke with his academic
expertise on QE and the Great Depression was preemptively put in place in 2006 at the Fed, Obama
was heavily backed by Wall Street under conditions that would have been made clear to him in the
2006-2008 period.
The most important element of TPTB 's program in backing Obama was the installation of
Eric Holder as Attorney General, after Holder had been a primary architect of MERS and mortgage
securitization at Covington Burling. Again, a preemptive move to protect Wall Street and forestall
any prosecution of those at the top there (and Holder furthermore was conveniently a POC to continue
the apparent Change!Hope! pitch).
I think of it as the Eric Holder administration in retrospect, actually.
What made him rise to the "top" were a multitude of promises made to his party and independents,
which he later failed to fulfill. And his failure is almost 100%. He gained the nomination and
beat Clinton, who was and is a neo-con, by promising to be different. Instead, he outdid Bush
in his war mongering. The promises he made were in part why he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize,
in advance of him actually having done anything, the award of which is sorely regretted now by
those who made it. PlutoniumKun listed some of the things Obama could have avoided but did anyway.
One item he failed to mention was the US support of Saudi Arabia in its war on Yemen which has
now resulted in the US possibly being liable for the war crimes committed there.
the perfect Trojan Horse. and could not be criticized for the longest time because he is
a minority. now we have a woman who will "make history". never mind what they get up to while
in office.
maybe cause he talked a lot about change? you know, closing guantanamo, appointing liberals
to the bench, prosecuting war criminals and financial criminals, stuff like that. not starting
any more wars in the middle east. more will come to me if i think about it. oh yeah, marching
with striking union workers. trying to get the public option. taking a hard look at the fisa court.
sorry, running out of time here.
Of course it was doable. You are apparently overlooking the fact that for the first 2 years
of the Obama presidency he pretty much had a free hand. Both houses of Congress were in the hands
of democrats. Only later did the excuse of Republican vitriol have any weight. And lest you forget,
the voters weighed Obama in the 2010 mid-terms and found him lacking. Most analysts point to the
Democrat losses in that election as a result of Obama's failure to carry out his promised agenda.
In March of 2009, I recall an FT editorial by Martin Wolf of the Financial Times asking if
Obama was already a failure. I had a nagging feeling he was right, and he was.
On Foreign Policy, Obama's got the thawing of relations with Cuba and the Iran deal. We'll
see if those are consolidated as a legacy or rolled-back by his successor.
With regard to pretty much everything else Obama tried to do, he's failed pretty badly. But
supplying weapons to Al Nusra in Syria takes the cake for me. What happened to "don't do stupid
stuff?"
It's really about acting like Hillary's idea of Lincoln. Obama had the nation behind him and
Congress, the Bully Pulpit mentioned below, the power to appoint and request the resignations
of the leaders of the Executive Branch arms of power, he could have lobbied for changing Rule
22 in the Senate his first year and changed the Senate rules for filibuster, and if Congress sends
him a bill he doesn't like he can NOT sign it, and if there is a bill he does like he can actually
get behind that bill and twist a few Congressional arms to get what he wants.
Obama can and has
accomplished a great deal in his presidency. The problem is he was accomplishing what he promised
to his other supporters - not us.
This is the very purpose of the bully pulpit presented to Obama in '08. Obama has always
been in thrall to his paymasters as demonstrated by his actions during his administrations.
What is larger, 200,000 or 6,000. The first nnumber is the number of people who attended
candidate 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2008. Heady, hopey changey times they were. The latter number
is the number of people who attended president 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2013.
It is amusing to portray 0bama as a limp-wristed impotent figurehead. He isn't, he believes
in American exceptionalism with "every fiber" of his body.
The results are clear, most regular everyday Euros are quite cynical about the US. 0bama
surpassed Bush in creating a number of calamities, and has been heavy handed with our supposed
allies, thus destroying the myth of about the supposed "partnership."
"... Now we're in a situation in which superexploitation options are largely gone. Routine profit generation has become difficult due to global productive overcapacity, leading to behavioral sinkish behavior like the US cannibalizing its public sector to feed capital. ..."
"... Since the late 19th century US foreign policy has been organized around the open markets mantra. It may be possible for the Chinese, with their greater options for economy manipulation, to avoid the crashes the US feared from lack of market access. ..."
"... But the current situation on its face does not have anything like the colonial escape valve available in the 19th century. ..."
"... To the extent that colonialism or neocolonialism does not actually hold fixed boundary ground is irrelevant, since assets are more differential and flexible needing only corporate law to sustain strict boundaries on possession or instruments that convert to the same power over assets. No one, of course, wants to assess stocks and bonds as instruments of global oppression or exploitation that far exceeds 19th century's crude colonial rule. ..."
"... The TPP is a corporate power grab, a 5,544-page document that was negotiated in secret by big corporations while Congress, the public, and unions were locked out. ..."
"... Multinationals like Google, Exxon, Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, UPS, FedEx, Apple, and Walmart are lobbying hard for it. Virtually every union in the U.S. opposes it. So do major environmental, senior, health, and consumer organizations. ..."
"... The TPP will mean fewer jobs and lower wages, higher prices for prescription drugs, the loss of regulations that protect our drinking water and food supply, and the loss of Internet freedom. It encourages privatization, undermines democracy, and will forbid many of the policies we need to combat climate change ..."
"... "Though the Obama administration touts the pact's labor and environmental protections, the official Labor Advisory Committee on the TPP strongly opposes it, arguing that these protections are largely unenforceable window dressing." ..."
global scenario that the down-to-earth presidents of China and Russia seem to have in mind
resembles the sort of balance of power that existed in Europe.
The article floats away here. China and Russia might want to have something that "resembles"
that time, but the analogy overlooks the fact that the relatively calm state of affairs -
Franco-Prussian war? - on the European continent after Napoleon coexisted with savage colonial
expansion. The forms of superexploitation thereby obtained did much to help stabilize Europe,
even as competition for colonial lands became more and more destabilizing and were part of what
led to WW1.
Now we're in a situation in which superexploitation options are largely gone. Routine profit
generation has become difficult due to global productive overcapacity, leading to behavioral
sinkish behavior like the US cannibalizing its public sector to feed capital.
Since the late 19th century US foreign policy has been organized around the open markets
mantra. It may be possible for the Chinese, with their greater options for economy manipulation,
to avoid the crashes the US feared from lack of market access.
But the current situation on its face does not have anything like the colonial escape valve
available in the 19th century.
Of course, duplicitous political COPORATISM means systems over a systemic characterized by
marked or even intentional deception that is now sustained and even spearheaded by state
systems.
Many contemporary liberal idealists living in urban strongholds of market mediated comfort
zones will not agree to assigning such strong description to an Obama administration. It is
too distant and remote to assign accountability to global international finance and currency
wars that have hegemonic hedge funds pumping and dumping crisis driven anarchy over global
exploit (ruled by market capital fright / fight and flight).
To the extent that colonialism or neocolonialism does not actually hold fixed boundary
ground is irrelevant, since assets are more differential and flexible needing only corporate
law to sustain strict boundaries on possession or instruments that convert to the same power
over assets. No one, of course, wants to assess stocks and bonds as instruments of global
oppression or exploitation that far exceeds 19th century's crude colonial rule.
Recall, however, how "joint stock" corporations first opened chartered exploit at global
levels under East and West Trading power aggregates that were profit driven enter-prize. So in
reality the current cross border market system of neoliberal globalization is, in fact, a
stealth colonialism on steroids.
TPP is part of that process in all its stealthy dimensions.
"The TPP is a corporate power grab, a 5,544-page document that was negotiated in secret
by big corporations while Congress, the public, and unions were locked out.
Multinationals like Google, Exxon, Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, UPS, FedEx, Apple, and Walmart
are lobbying hard for it. Virtually every union in the U.S. opposes it. So do major
environmental, senior, health, and consumer organizations.
The TPP will mean fewer jobs and lower wages, higher prices for prescription drugs, the
loss of regulations that protect our drinking water and food supply, and the loss of
Internet freedom. It encourages privatization, undermines democracy, and will forbid many
of the policies we need to combat climate change."
This is very handy, thanks. However the conclusion stops short of what the SCO is saying and
doing. They have no interest in an old-time balance of power. They want rule of law, a very
different thing. Look at Putin's Syria strategy: he actually complies with the UN Charter's
requirement to pursue pacific dispute resolution. That's revolutionary. When CIA moles in Turkey
shot that Russian jet down, the outcome was not battles and state-sponsored terror, as CIA
expected. The outcome was support for Turkey's sovereignty and rapprochement. Now when CIA starts
fires you go to Russia to put them out.
While China maintains its purist line on the legal principle of non-interference, it is
increasingly vocal in urging the US to fulfill its human rights obligations. That will sound
paradoxical because of intense US vilification of Chinese authoritarianism, but when you push for
your economic and social rights here at home, China is in your corner. Here Russia is leading by
example. They comply with the Paris Principles for institutionalized human rights protection
under independent international oversight. The USA does not.
When the USA goes the way of the USSR, we'll be in good hands. The world will show us how
developed countries work.
"RULE OF LAW" up front and personal (again?)
Now why would the USA be worried about global rule of law?
An Interesting ideal. No country above the law.
"…US President Barack Obama has vetoed a bill that would have allowed the families of the
victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks to sue the government of Saudi Arabia.
In a statement accompanying his veto message, Obama said on Friday he had
"deep sympathy" for the 9/11 victims' families and their desire to seek justice for
their relatives.
The president said, however, that the bill would be "detrimental to US national interests"
and could lead to lawsuits against the US or American officials for actions taken by groups
armed, trained or supported by the US.
"If any of these litigants were to win judgements – based on foreign domestic laws as
applied by foreign courts – they would begin to look to the assets of the US government held
abroad to satisfy those judgments, with potentially serious financial consequences for the
United States," Obama said."
-----------------------
To the tune of "Moma said…" by The Shirelles –
….Oh don't you know…Obama said they be days like this,
…..they would be days like this Obama said…
One interesting irony is that in Obama's TPP "The worst part is an Investor-State
Dispute Settlement provision, which allows a multinational corporation to sue to override
any U.S. law, policy, or practice that it claims could limit its future profits."
"Though the Obama administration touts the pact's labor and environmental protections, the
official Labor Advisory Committee on the TPP strongly opposes
it, arguing that these protections are largely unenforceable window dressing."
Britain's Economy Was Resilient After 'Brexit.'
Its Leaders Learned the Wrong Lesson.
http://nyti.ms/2dOx0Is
via @UpshotNYT
NYT - Neil Irwin - OCT. 10, 2016
This article must begin with a mea culpa. When British
voters decided in June that they wanted to depart the
European Union, I agreed with the conventional wisdom that
the British economy would probably slow and that uncertainty
put it at risk of recession.
Advocates of "Brexit" argued that was hogwash, and the
early evidence suggests they were right. For example, surveys
of purchasing managers showed that both the British
manufacturing and service sectors plummeted after the vote in
July, yet were comfortably expanding in August and September.
But the events of the last couple of weeks suggest that
British leaders are drawing the wrong conclusions from the
fact that their predictions proved right. The British
currency is plummeting again, most immediately because of
comments from French and German leaders suggesting they will
take a tough line in negotiating Brexit. But the underlying
reason is that the British government is ignoring the lessons
from the relatively benign immediate aftermath of the vote.
The British pound fell to about $1.24 on Friday from $1.30
a week earlier and continued edging down Monday. Even if you
treat a "flash crash" in the pound on Asian markets Thursday
night as an aberration - it fell 6 percent, then recovered in
a short span - these types of aberrations seem to happen only
when a market is already under severe stress. (See, for
example, the May 2010 flash crash of American stocks, during
a flare-up of the eurozone crisis).
Sterling, as traders refer to the currency, is acting as
the global market's minute-to-minute referendum on how
significant the economic disruption from Brexit will end up
being. So what does the latest downswing represent? It's
worth understanding why British financial markets and the
country's economy stabilized quickly after the Brexit vote to
begin with.
The vote set off a chaotic time of political disruption,
especially the resignation of the prime minister, David
Cameron, who had advocated for the country's remaining part
of the E.U. Theresa May won the internal battle to become the
next prime minister, which was to markets and business
decision makers a relatively benign result.
Down, Down, Down for the Pound
The British currency plummeted after the country's vote to
leave the European Union, and again this week.
(graph at the link: Ł at ~$1.45 Jan-June 30,
then down to $1.30-1.35 thru Sep 30,
then plunging to $1.24.)
Ms. May, the former home secretary, is temperamentally
pragmatic. She reluctantly supported remaining in the union.
And while she pledged to follow through on leaving it
("Brexit means Brexit," she said), she seemed like the kind
of leader who would ensure that some of the worst-case
possibilities of how Brexit might go wouldn't materialize.
Exporters would retain access to European markets. London
could remain the de facto banking capital of Europe. All
would be well.
Meanwhile, the Bank of England sprang into action to
cushion the economic blow of Brexit-related uncertainty.
Despite the inflationary pressures created by a falling
pound, the bank, projecting loss of jobs and economic output,
cut interest rates and started a new program of quantitative
easing to try to soften the blow.
All of that - the prospect of "soft Brexit" and easier
monetary policy - helped financial markets stabilize and then
rally, and kept the economic damage mild, as the purchasing
managers' surveys show.
But in the last couple of weeks, the tenor has shifted.
The May government has sent a range of signals indicating
it will take a hard line in negotiations with European
governments over the terms of Brexit. At a conservative party
conference, she pledged to begin the "Article 50" process of
formally unwinding Britain's E.U. membership by the end of
March, declaring that the government's negotiators would
insist that Britain would assert control of immigration and
not be subject to decisions of the European Court of Justice.
That sets up confrontational negotiations between the
British government and its E.U. counterparts. European
leaders will be reluctant to allow Britain continued free
access to its markets, which the May government wants,
without similarly free movement of people across borders.
And beyond the substance of the negotiations, the British
government has signaled in recent days that it is looking
inward, and will be hostile to those who are not British
citizens. ...
The much-hyped severe Brexit
recession does not, so far, seem to be materializing – which
really shouldn't be that much of a surprise, because as I
warned, the actual economic case for such a recession was
surprisingly weak. (Ouch! I just pulled a muscle while
patting myself on the back!) But we are seeing a large drop
in the pound, which has steepened as it becomes likely that
this will indeed be a very hard Brexit. How should we think
about this?
Originally, stories about a pound plunge were tied to that
recession prediction: domestic investment demand would
collapse, leading to sustained very low interest rates, hence
capital flight. But the demand collapse doesn't seem to be
happening. So what is the story?
For now, at least, I'm coming at it from the trade side –
especially trade in financial services. It seems to me that
one way to think about this is in terms of the "home market
effect," an old story in trade but one that only got
formalized in 1980.
Here's an informal version: imagine a good or service
subject to large economies of scale in production, sufficient
that if it's consumed in two countries, you want to produce
it in only one, and export to the other, even if there are
costs of shipping it. Where will this production be located?
Other things equal, you would choose the larger market, so as
to minimize total shipping costs. Other things may not, of
course, be equal, but this market-size effect will always be
a factor, depending on how high those shipping costs are.
In one of the models I laid out in that old paper, the way
this worked out was not that all production left the smaller
economy, but rather that the smaller economy paid lower wages
and therefore made up in competitiveness what it lacked in
market access. In effect, it used a weaker currency to make
up for its smaller market.
In Britain's case, I'd suggest that we think of financial
services as the industry in question. Such services are
subject to both internal and external economies of scale,
which tends to concentrate them in a handful of huge
financial centers around the world, one of which is, of
course, the City of London. But now we face the prospect of
seriously increased transaction costs between Britain and the
rest of Europe, which creates an incentive to move those
services away from the smaller economy (Britain) and into the
larger (Europe). Britain therefore needs a weaker currency to
offset this adverse impact.
Does this make Britain poorer? Yes. It's not just the
efficiency effect of barriers to trade, there's also a
terms-of-trade effect as the real exchange rate depreciates.
But it's important to be aware that not everyone in
Britain is equally affected. Pre-Brexit, Britain was
obviously experiencing a version of the so-called Dutch
disease. In its traditional form, this referred to the way
natural resource exports crowd out manufacturing by keeping
the currency strong. In the UK case, the City's financial
exports play the same role. So their weakening helps British
manufacturing – and, maybe, the incomes of people who live
far from the City and still depend directly or indirectly on
manufacturing for their incomes. It's not completely
incidental that these were the parts of England (not
Scotland!) that voted for Brexit.
Is there a policy moral here? Basically it is that a
weaker pound shouldn't be viewed as an additional cost from
Brexit, it's just part of the adjustment. And it would be a
big mistake to prop up the pound: old notions of an
equilibrium exchange rate no longer apply.
Britain's Economy Was Resilient After 'Brexit.'
Its Leaders Learned the Wrong Lesson.
http://nyti.ms/2dOx0Is
via @UpshotNYT
NYT - Neil Irwin - OCT. 10, 2016
This article must begin with a mea culpa. When British
voters decided in June that they wanted to depart the
European Union, I agreed with the conventional wisdom that
the British economy would probably slow and that uncertainty
put it at risk of recession.
Advocates of "Brexit" argued that was hogwash, and the
early evidence suggests they were right. For example, surveys
of purchasing managers showed that both the British
manufacturing and service sectors plummeted after the vote in
July, yet were comfortably expanding in August and September.
But the events of the last couple of weeks suggest that
British leaders are drawing the wrong conclusions from the
fact that their predictions proved right. The British
currency is plummeting again, most immediately because of
comments from French and German leaders suggesting they will
take a tough line in negotiating Brexit. But the underlying
reason is that the British government is ignoring the lessons
from the relatively benign immediate aftermath of the vote.
The British pound fell to about $1.24 on Friday from $1.30
a week earlier and continued edging down Monday. Even if you
treat a "flash crash" in the pound on Asian markets Thursday
night as an aberration - it fell 6 percent, then recovered in
a short span - these types of aberrations seem to happen only
when a market is already under severe stress. (See, for
example, the May 2010 flash crash of American stocks, during
a flare-up of the eurozone crisis).
Sterling, as traders refer to the currency, is acting as
the global market's minute-to-minute referendum on how
significant the economic disruption from Brexit will end up
being. So what does the latest downswing represent? It's
worth understanding why British financial markets and the
country's economy stabilized quickly after the Brexit vote to
begin with.
The vote set off a chaotic time of political disruption,
especially the resignation of the prime minister, David
Cameron, who had advocated for the country's remaining part
of the E.U. Theresa May won the internal battle to become the
next prime minister, which was to markets and business
decision makers a relatively benign result.
Down, Down, Down for the Pound
The British currency plummeted after the country's vote to
leave the European Union, and again this week.
(graph at the link: Ł at ~$1.45 Jan-June 30,
then down to $1.30-1.35 thru Sep 30,
then plunging to $1.24.)
Ms. May, the former home secretary, is temperamentally
pragmatic. She reluctantly supported remaining in the union.
And while she pledged to follow through on leaving it
("Brexit means Brexit," she said), she seemed like the kind
of leader who would ensure that some of the worst-case
possibilities of how Brexit might go wouldn't materialize.
Exporters would retain access to European markets. London
could remain the de facto banking capital of Europe. All
would be well.
Meanwhile, the Bank of England sprang into action to
cushion the economic blow of Brexit-related uncertainty.
Despite the inflationary pressures created by a falling
pound, the bank, projecting loss of jobs and economic output,
cut interest rates and started a new program of quantitative
easing to try to soften the blow.
All of that - the prospect of "soft Brexit" and easier
monetary policy - helped financial markets stabilize and then
rally, and kept the economic damage mild, as the purchasing
managers' surveys show.
But in the last couple of weeks, the tenor has shifted.
The May government has sent a range of signals indicating
it will take a hard line in negotiations with European
governments over the terms of Brexit. At a conservative party
conference, she pledged to begin the "Article 50" process of
formally unwinding Britain's E.U. membership by the end of
March, declaring that the government's negotiators would
insist that Britain would assert control of immigration and
not be subject to decisions of the European Court of Justice.
That sets up confrontational negotiations between the
British government and its E.U. counterparts. European
leaders will be reluctant to allow Britain continued free
access to its markets, which the May government wants,
without similarly free movement of people across borders.
And beyond the substance of the negotiations, the British
government has signaled in recent days that it is looking
inward, and will be hostile to those who are not British
citizens. ...
Reply
Tuesday,
Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs...
,
Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 07:17 AM
The much-hyped severe Brexit
recession does not, so far, seem to be materializing – which
really shouldn't be that much of a surprise, because as I
warned, the actual economic case for such a recession was
surprisingly weak. (Ouch! I just pulled a muscle while
patting myself on the back!) But we are seeing a large drop
in the pound, which has steepened as it becomes likely that
this will indeed be a very hard Brexit. How should we think
about this?
Originally, stories about a pound plunge were tied to that
recession prediction: domestic investment demand would
collapse, leading to sustained very low interest rates, hence
capital flight. But the demand collapse doesn't seem to be
happening. So what is the story?
For now, at least, I'm coming at it from the trade side –
especially trade in financial services. It seems to me that
one way to think about this is in terms of the "home market
effect," an old story in trade but one that only got
formalized in 1980.
Here's an informal version: imagine a good or service
subject to large economies of scale in production, sufficient
that if it's consumed in two countries, you want to produce
it in only one, and export to the other, even if there are
costs of shipping it. Where will this production be located?
Other things equal, you would choose the larger market, so as
to minimize total shipping costs. Other things may not, of
course, be equal, but this market-size effect will always be
a factor, depending on how high those shipping costs are.
In one of the models I laid out in that old paper, the way
this worked out was not that all production left the smaller
economy, but rather that the smaller economy paid lower wages
and therefore made up in competitiveness what it lacked in
market access. In effect, it used a weaker currency to make
up for its smaller market.
In Britain's case, I'd suggest that we think of financial
services as the industry in question. Such services are
subject to both internal and external economies of scale,
which tends to concentrate them in a handful of huge
financial centers around the world, one of which is, of
course, the City of London. But now we face the prospect of
seriously increased transaction costs between Britain and the
rest of Europe, which creates an incentive to move those
services away from the smaller economy (Britain) and into the
larger (Europe). Britain therefore needs a weaker currency to
offset this adverse impact.
Does this make Britain poorer? Yes. It's not just the
efficiency effect of barriers to trade, there's also a
terms-of-trade effect as the real exchange rate depreciates.
But it's important to be aware that not everyone in
Britain is equally affected. Pre-Brexit, Britain was
obviously experiencing a version of the so-called Dutch
disease. In its traditional form, this referred to the way
natural resource exports crowd out manufacturing by keeping
the currency strong. In the UK case, the City's financial
exports play the same role. So their weakening helps British
manufacturing – and, maybe, the incomes of people who live
far from the City and still depend directly or indirectly on
manufacturing for their incomes. It's not completely
incidental that these were the parts of England (not
Scotland!) that voted for Brexit.
Is there a policy moral here? Basically it is that a
weaker pound shouldn't be viewed as an additional cost from
Brexit, it's just part of the adjustment. And it would be a
big mistake to prop up the pound: old notions of an
equilibrium exchange rate no longer apply.
More evidence Larry Summers is in recovery from autistsm-spectrum economics?
Concretely, this means rejecting austerity economics in favour of investment economics. At a time
when markets are pointing to the problem over the next generation as being inadequate rather than
excessive inflation, central bankers need to spur demand and co-operate with governments.
Enhancing infrastructure investment in the public and private sector should be a fiscal policy
priority.
You bourgeoisie had better can the autism insults or you'll find yourself
in a world you no longer understand because your "inferiors" told you to take
a long walk off a short pier.
It is perfectly economically rational for any one of us to go medieval on you, every bit as much
as it is for a Black man to cap you for using the N-bomb. Get over yourself. Now.
Well, even if his lips are moving and the words seem to be coming out right,
should Summers get anywhere close to implementation (God forbid), he'll screw
it up or corrupt it catastrophically.
It's what he does. Fails upward and sideways and diagonally.
He is the model of failure of an entire generation.
The extent to which Samantha Power is being groomed for high office is more
and more pronounced. Currently she's getting lots of coverage in Korea with
military. It's as if Clinton and Trump are both such damaged goods that a more
suitable woman is being brought into the wings. It reminds me of when I heard
Obama speak at the Dem convention while a senator, and of a speech I heard
Theresa May give several years ago.
Key people are being moved into position and it has nothing to do with
elections.
Exclusive:
A prominent neocon paymaster, whose outfit dispenses
$100 million in U.S. taxpayers' money each year, has called on America to "summon the
will" to remove Russian President Putin from office, reports Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
The neoconservative president of the U.S.-taxpayer-funded National Endowment for
Democracy [NED] has called for the U.S. government to "summon the will" to engineer
the overthrow of Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying that the 10-year-old murder
case of a Russian journalist should be the inspiration.
Carl Gershman, who has headed NED since its founding in 1983, doesn't cite any
evidence that Putin was responsible for the death of Anna Politkovskaya but uses
a full column
in The Washington Post on Friday to create that impression,
calling her death "a window to Vladimir Putin, the Kremlin autocrat whom Americans
are looking at for the first time."
Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly
on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)
Gershman wraps up his article by writing: "Politkovskaya saw the danger [of
Putin], but she and other liberals in Russia were not strong enough to stop it. The
United States has the power to contain and defeat this danger. The issue is whether
we can summon the will to do so. Remembering Politkovskaya can help us rise to this
challenge."
That Gershman would so directly call for the ouster of Russia's clearly popular
president represents further proof that NED is a neocon-driven vehicle that seeks
to create the political circumstances for "regime change" even when that means
removing leaders who are elected by a country's citizenry.
And there is a reason for NED to see its job in that way. In 1983, NED essentially
took over the CIA's role of influencing electoral outcomes and destabilizing
governments that got in the way of U.S. interests, except that NED carried out those
functions in a quasi-overt fashion while the CIA did them covertly.
NED also serves as a sort of slush fund for neocons and other favored U.S. foreign
policy operatives because a substantial portion of NED's money circulates through
U.S.-based non-governmental organizations or NGOs.
That makes Gershman an influential neocon paymaster whose organization dispenses
some $100 million a year in U.S. taxpayers' money to activists, journalists and NGOs
both in Washington and around the world. The money helps them undermine governments
in Washington's disfavor – or as Gershman would prefer to say, "build democratic
institutions," even when that requires overthrowing democratically elected leaders.
NED was a lead actor in the Feb. 22, 2014 coup ousting Ukraine's elected President
Viktor Yanukovych in a U.S.-backed putsch that touched off the civil war inside
Ukraine between Ukrainian nationalists from the west and ethnic Russians from the
east. The Ukraine crisis has become a flashpoint for the dangerous New Cold War
between the U.S. and Russia.
Before the anti-Yanukovych coup, NED was funding scores of projects inside
Ukraine, which Gershman had identified as "the biggest prize" in a Sept. 26, 2013
column also published in The Washington Post.
In that column, Gershman
wrote
that after the West claimed Ukraine, "Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may
find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself."
In other words, Gershman already saw Ukraine as an important step toward an even
bigger prize, a "regime change" in Moscow.
Less than five months after Gershman's column, pro-Western political activists and
neo-Nazi street fighters – with strong support from U.S. neocons and the State
Department – staged a coup in Kiev driving Yanukovych from office and installing a
rabidly anti-Russian regime, which the West promptly dubbed "legitimate."
Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine's Azov battalion. (As filmed by
a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)
In reaction to the coup and the ensuing violence against ethnic Russians, the
voters of Crimea approved a referendum with 96 percent of the vote to leave Ukraine
and rejoin Russia, a move that the West's governments and media decried as a Russian
"invasion" and "annexation."
The new regime in Kiev then mounted what it called an "Anti-Terrorism Operation"
or ATO against ethnic Russians in the east who had supported Yanukovych and refused
to accept the anti-constitutional coup in Kiev as legitimate.
The ATO, spearheaded by
neo-Nazis from the Azov battalion
and other extremists, killed thousands
of ethnic Russians, prompting Moscow to covertly provide some assistance to the
rebels, a move denounced by the West as "aggression."
Blaming Putin
In his latest column, Gershman not only urges the United States to muster the
courage to oust Putin but he shows off the kind of clever sophistry that America's
neocons are known for. Though lacking any evidence, he intimates that Putin ordered
the murder of Politkovskaya and pretty much every other "liberal" who has died in
Russia.
Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy.
It is a technique that I've seen used in other circumstances, such as the lists of
"mysterious deaths" that American right-wingers publish citing people who crossed the
paths of Bill and Hillary Clinton and ended up dead. This type of smear spreads
suspicion of guilt not based on proof but on the number of acquaintances and
adversaries who have met untimely deaths.
In the 1990s, one conservative friend of mine pointed to the Clintons' "mysterious
deaths" list and marveled that even if only a few were the victims of a Clinton death
squad that would be quite a story, to which I replied that if even one were murdered
by the Clintons that would be quite a story – but that there was no proof of any such
thing.
"Mysterious deaths" lists represent a type of creepy conspiracy theory that shifts
the evidentiary burden onto the targets of the smears who must somehow prove their
innocence, when there is no evidence of their guilt (only vague suspicions). It is
contemptible when applied to American leaders and it is contemptible when applied to
Russian leaders, but it is not beneath Carl Gershman.
Beyond that, Gershman's public musing about the U.S. somehow summoning "the will"
to remove Putin might - in a normal world - disqualify NED and its founding president
from the privilege of dispensing U.S. taxpayers' money to operatives in Washington
and globally. It is extraordinarily provocative and dangerous, an example of classic
neocon hubris.
While the neocons do love their tough talk, they are not known for thinking
through their "regime change" schemes. The idea of destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia
with the goal of ousting Putin, with his 82 percent approval ratings, must rank as
the nuttiest and most reckless neocon scheme of all.
Gershman and his neocon pals may fantasize about making Russia's economy scream
while financing pro-Western "liberals" who would stage disruptive protests in Red
Square, but he and his friends haven't weighed the consequences even if they could
succeed.
Given the devastating experience that most Russians had when NED's beloved Russian
"liberals" helped impose American "shock therapy" in the 1990s - an experiment that
reduced average life expectancy by a full decade - it's hard to believe that the
Russian people would simply take another dose of that bitter medicine sitting down.
Even if the calculating Putin were somehow removed amid economic desperation, he
is far more likely to be followed by a much harder-line Russian nationalist who might
well see Moscow's arsenal of nuclear weapons as the only way to protect Mother
Russia's honor. In other words, the neocons' latest brash "regime change" scheme
might be their last – and the last for all humanity.
A Neocon Slush Fund
Gershman's arrogance also raises questions about why the American taxpayer should
tolerate what amounts to a $100 million neocon slush fund which is used to create
dangerous mischief around the world. Despite having "democracy" in its name, NED
appears only to favor democratic outcomes when they fit with Official Washington's
desires.
CIA Director William Casey.
If a disliked candidate wins an election, NED acts as if that is prima facie
evidence that the system is undemocratic and must be replaced with a process that
ensures the selection of candidates who will do what the U.S. government tells them
to do. Put differently, NED's name is itself a fraud.
But that shouldn't come as a surprise since NED was created in 1983 at the urging
of Ronald Reagan's CIA Director William J. Casey, who wanted to off-load some of the
CIA's traditional work ensuring that foreign elections turned out in ways acceptable
to Washington, and when they didn't – as in Iran under Mossadegh, in Guatemala under
Arbenz or in Chile under Allende – the CIA's job was to undermine and remove the
offending electoral winner.
In 1983, Casey and the CIA's top propagandist, Walter Raymond Jr., who had been
moved to Reagan's National Security Council staff, wanted to create a funding
mechanism to support outside groups, such as Freedom House and other NGOs, so they
could engage in propaganda and political action that the CIA had historically
organized and paid for covertly. The idea emerged for a congressionally funded entity
that would serve as a conduit for this money.
In
one undated letter
to then-White House counselor Edwin Meese III, Casey
urged creation of a "National Endowment," but he recognized the need to hide the
strings being pulled by the CIA "Obviously we here [at CIA] should not get out front
in the development of such an organization, nor should we appear to be a sponsor or
advocate," Casey wrote.
The National Endowment for Democracy took shape in late 1983 as Congress decided
to also set aside pots of money - within NED - for the Republican and Democratic
parties and for organized labor, creating enough bipartisan largesse that passage was
assured.
But some in Congress thought it was important to wall the NED off from any
association with the CIA, so a provision was included to bar the participation of any
current or former CIA official, according to one congressional aide who helped
write the legislation.
This aide told me that one night late in the 1983 session, as the bill was about
to go to the House floor, the CIA's congressional liaison came pounding at the door
to the office of Rep. Dante Fascell, a senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs
Committee and a chief sponsor of the bill.
The frantic CIA official conveyed a single message from CIA Director Casey: the
language barring the participation of CIA personnel must be struck from the bill, the
aide recalled, noting that Fascell consented to the demand, not fully recognizing its
significance – that it would permit the continued behind-the-scenes involvement of
Raymond and Casey.
The aide said Fascell also consented to the Reagan administration's choice of Carl
Gershman to head NED, again not recognizing how this decision would affect the future
of the new entity and American foreign policy.
Gershman, who had followed the classic neoconservative path from youthful
socialism to fierce anticommunism, became NED's first (and, to this day, only)
president. Though NED is technically independent of U.S. foreign policy, Gershman in
the early years coordinated decisions on grants with Raymond at the NSC.
For instance, on Jan. 2, 1985, Raymond
wrote
to
two NSC Asian experts that "Carl Gershman has called concerning a possible grant to
the Chinese Alliance for Democracy (CAD). I am concerned about the political
dimension to this request. We should not find ourselves in a position where we have
to respond to pressure, but this request poses a real problem to Carl.
"Senator [Orrin] Hatch, as you know, is a member of the board. Secondly, NED has
already given a major grant for a related Chinese program."
Neocon Tag Teams
From the start, NED became a major benefactor for Freedom House, beginning with a
$200,000 grant in 1984 to build "a network of democratic opinion-makers." In NED's
first four years, from 1984 and 1988, it lavished $2.6 million on Freedom House,
accounting for more than one-third of its total income, according to a study by the
liberal Council on Hemispheric Affairs that was entitled "Freedom House: Portrait of
a Pass-Through."
The Washington Post building. (Photo credit: Daniel X. O'Neil)
Over the ensuing three decades, Freedom House has become almost an NED subsidiary,
often joining NED in holding policy conferences and issuing position papers, both
organizations pushing primarily a neoconservative agenda, challenging countries
deemed insufficiently "free," including Syria, Ukraine (in 2014) and Russia.
Indeed, NED and Freedom House often work as a kind of tag-team with NED financing
"non-governmental organizations" inside targeted countries and Freedom House berating
those governments if they crack down on U.S.-funded NGOs.
For instance, on Nov. 16, 2012, NED and Freedom House
joined together
to denounce legislation passed by the Russian parliament
that required recipients of foreign political money to register with the government.
Or, as NED and Freedom House framed the issue: the Russian Duma sought to
"restrict human rights and the activities of civil society organizations and their
ability to receive support from abroad. Changes to Russia's NGO legislation will soon
require civil society organizations receiving foreign funds to choose between
registering as 'foreign agents' or facing significant financial penalties and
potential criminal charges."
Of course, the United States has a nearly identical Foreign Agent Registration Act
that likewise requires entities that receive foreign funding and seek to influence
U.S. government policy to register with the Justice Department or face possible fines
or imprisonment.
But the Russian law would impede NED's efforts to destabilize the Russian
government through funding of political activists, journalists and civic
organizations, so it was denounced as an infringement of human rights and helped
justify Freedom House's rating of Russia as "not free."
Another bash-Putin tag team has been The Washington Post's editors and NED's
Gershman. On July 28, 2015,
a Post editorial
and
a companion column
by Gershman led readers to believe that Putin was
paranoid and "power mad" in worrying that outside money funneled into NGOs threatened
Russian sovereignty.
The Post and Gershman were especially outraged that the Russians had enacted the
law requiring NGOs financed from abroad and seeking to influence Russian policies to
register as "foreign agents" and that one of the first funding operations to fall
prey to these tightened rules was Gershman's NED.
The Post's editors wrote that Putin's "latest move … is to declare the NED an
'undesirable' organization under the terms of a law that Mr. Putin signed in May
[2015]. The law bans groups from abroad who are deemed a 'threat to the foundations
of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, its defense capabilities and
its national security.'
"The charge against the NED is patently ridiculous. The NED's
grantees in Russia last year
ran the gamut of civil society. They advocated
transparency in public affairs, fought corruption and promoted human rights, freedom
of information and freedom of association, among other things. All these activities
make for a healthy democracy but are seen as threatening from the Kremlin's ramparts.
"The new law on 'undesirables' comes in addition to
one signed in 2012
that gave authorities the power to declare
organizations '
foreign
agents
' if they engaged in any kind of politics and receive money from
abroad. The designation, from the Stalin era, implies espionage."
However, among the relevant points that the Post's editors wouldn't tell their
readers was the fact that Russia's Foreign Agent Registration Act was modeled after
the American Foreign Agent Registration Act and that NED President Gershman had
already publicly made clear - in his Sept. 26, 2013
column
- that his goal was to oust Russia's elected president.
In his July 28, 2015 column, Gershman further deemed Putin's government
illegitimate. "Russia's newest anti-NGO law, under which the National Endowment for
Democracy … was
declared an "undesirable organization"
prohibited from operating in
Russia, is the latest evidence that the regime of President Vladimir Putin faces a
worsening crisis of political legitimacy," Gershman wrote, adding:
"This is the context in which Russia has passed the law prohibiting Russian
democrats from getting any international assistance to promote freedom of expression,
the rule of law and a democratic political system. Significantly, democrats have not
backed down. They have not been deterred by the criminal penalties contained in the
'foreign agents' law and other repressive laws. They know that these laws contradict
international law, which allows for such aid, and that the laws are meant to block a
better future for Russia."
The reference to how a "foreign agents" registration law conflicts with
international law might have been a good place for Gershman to explain why what is
good for the goose in the United States isn't good for the gander in Russia. But
hypocrisy is a hard thing to rationalize and would have undermined the propagandistic
impact of the column.
Also undercutting the column's impact would be an acknowledgement of where NED's
money comes from. So Gershman left that out, too. After all, how many governments
would allow a hostile foreign power to sponsor politicians and civic organizations
whose mission is to undermine and overthrow the existing government and put in
someone who would be compliant to that foreign power?
And, if you had any doubts about what Gershman's intent was regarding Russia, he
dispelled them in his Friday column in which he calls on the United States to "summon
the will" to "contain and defeat this danger," which he makes clear is the continued
rule of Vladimir Putin.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories
for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book,
America's Stolen Narrative,
either in
print
here
or as an e-book (from
Amazon
and
barnesandnoble.com
).
I watched Obama's recent town hall with veterans and was shocked when, in
response to a question similar to the one just asked, he said that the U.S.
can't be everywhere, that we need to focus on conflicts that are a direct
threat to the United States. Syria isn't a direct threat, he said. As bad as
the humanitarian crisis there is, he suggested that we don't have a dog in that
fight and need to let others take care of it.
Heaven forbid that Trump agree with Obama, but it would have been a good
response.
Agreed, and I should have included that caveat. I also listened to his
entire speech in Hiroshima, which I thought was one of his best ever, or
should I say "best written." Given that he had been pushing a $1 trillion
nuclear upgrade program, it was nuclear-grade hypocrisy.
Nonetheless, it was remarkable that he went on the record with that
position on Syria when his appointed heir to the throne is calling for a
no-fly zone and confrontation with Russia.
"... The banking and corporate elites certainly have a problem. The agenda for many decades has been to steal and rape enough from the 99% to maintain positive balance sheets and earnings per share. ..."
"... Fewer and fewer of the 99% can now afford to pay for the promoted goods and services. It has reached a tipping point. Name one major bank that could afford to mark-to-mark its balance sheet assets. Name one S&P corporation that has shown solid earnings growth absent stock buybacks. And from here on, it only gets worse. ..."
Global debt has now reached about a hundred and fifty-two trillion dollars
. This includes government debt, household debt, non-financial firms' debt. What does
all this debt mean for the global financial system and for everyday people here, Michael?
That works out to only USD $20,540 for every man, woman and child on the planet. I'm sure the
debt serfs can take double or triple that.
Yup, barely over 2 million dollars per 1 percenter. You can barely buy a passable vacation
mansion for that, let alone staff it with peons. C'mon, guys, work harder for (and borrow more
from) your betters!
The banking and corporate elites certainly have a problem. The agenda for many decades
has been to steal and rape enough from the 99% to maintain positive balance sheets and earnings
per share.
It has worked too well, but pure math has a way of biting the 1% in the ass.
Fewer and fewer of the 99% can now afford to pay for the promoted goods and services. It
has reached a tipping point. Name one major bank that could afford to mark-to-mark its balance
sheet assets. Name one S&P corporation that has shown solid earnings growth absent stock buybacks.
And from here on, it only gets worse.
WASHINGTON, Aug. 31 (UPI) - General Dynamics – Ordnance and Tactical Systems has been awarded
a $39 million modification to a foreign military sales contract for various bomb bodies.
The contract falls under the U.S. Army and involves sales to Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates,
France and Iraq.
The modification calls for 162 MK82-1 bomb bodies, 7,245 MK82-6 bomb bodies and 9,664 MK84-10
bomb bodies. …
Only barrel bombs can commit atrocities – Western, "liberal" modern advanced expensive high tech
weapons have special self righteous code imprinted in them that prevents the slaughter of the TRULY
innocent…
"Ordnance and Tactical Systems has been awarded a $39 million modification to a foreign military
sales contract for various bomb bodies"
Oh, and it helps the economy…i.e., the richest, and isn't that who the economy is for?
Thousands of Yemenis, many of them armed, gathered at the United Nations headquarters in
Yemen's capital Sanaa on Sunday calling for an international investigation into an air strike
on a wake this weekend that was widely blamed on Saudi-led forces.
The attack – that killed at least 140 people on Saturday – hit a hall where rows of the
city's notables had gathered for the wake of the interior minister's father.
The Saudi-led coalition has denied any role in the incident, believed to be one of the deadliest
strikes in the 18-month-old war in which at least 10,000 people have been killed. …
And when the Saudis deny any role in a mass-casualty attack, you can take it to the bank.
Or at least
Tony Podesta's bank account.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Seven years ago this week, when a young American president learned
he'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize barely nine months into his first term -
arguably before he'd made any peace - a somewhat embarrassed Barack Obama asked his
aides to write an acceptance speech that addressed the awkwardness of the award.
But by the time his speechwriters delivered a draft, Obama's focus had shifted to
another source of tension in his upcoming moment in Oslo: He would deliver this
speech about peace just days after he planned to order 30,000 more American troops
into battle in Afghanistan.
... ... ...
He has ordered drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and Syria that have killed
civilians and sparked tension in those countries and across the international community. What
began as a secret program has become more transparent as Obama has aimed to leave legal limits
for his predecessor on the use of unmanned warplanes.
"The top trade negotiators involved in the Trade in
Services Agreement (TiSA) will meet in Washington later
this month to review their latest market access offers and
prepare the groundwork for a final deal in December" [
Bloomberg
].
"The high-level meeting follows a successful September
negotiating round and recent signals from Washington that
a TiSA deal could be forged before the end of the year."
Yikes! Dark horse coming up on the outside!
"TTIP AG TALKS SET TO DRIFT: The U.S. summarily
rejected a European Union request for three days of
agriculture talks at this week's Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership round, further indicating that
political uncertainty has limited what either side is able
to discuss in the negotiations, sources close to the talks
say" [
Politico
].
"'I think we can get there,' Lew said, referring to a
vote on the Asia-Pacific pact. He argued that voting for
TPP should be easier than voting for last year's Trade
Promotion Authority bill because it has tangible benefits
that will grow the economy. He said current voter angst is
not due to TPP itself but rather to other domestic needs
that the government has not adequately addressed" [
Politico
].
"'If we were investing more in infrastructure, which I
believe we should, if we were investing more
smartly
in education and training and in child care, I'm not so
sure we'd be in the same place,' Lew said." I think
"hysteresis" is the word for the fact that you can't
reverse a 40-year screw job handwaving about a policy
pivot. And whenever you hear a liberal use the word
"smart," get your back against the nearest wall.
"The American Brexit Is Coming" [James Stavridis,
Foreign Policy
]. "The case for the TPP is economically
strong, but the geopolitical logic is even more
compelling. The deal is one that China will have great
difficulty accepting, as it would put Beijing outside a
virtuous circle of allies, partners, and friends on both
sides of the Pacific. Frankly, that is a good place to
keep China from the perspective of the United States….
Over 2,500 years ago, during the Zhou dynasty, the
philosopher-warrior Sun Tzu wrote the compelling study of
conflict The Art of War. There is much wisdom in that slim
volume, including this quote: "The supreme art of war is
to subdue the enemy without fighting." The United States
can avoid conflict best in East Asia by using a robust
combination of national tools - with the TPP at the top of
the list. Looking across the Atlantic to the Brexit
debacle, we must avoid repeating the mistake in the
Pacific." And we get?
"12 U.S. Senators Outline TPP's Fundamental Flaws, Tell
President Obama it Shouldn't Be Considered Until
Renegotiated" (PDF) [
Public
Citizen
]. Brown, Sanders, Blumenthal, Merkley,
Franken, Markey, Schatz, Casey, Warren, Whitehouse, Hirono,
and Baldwin call for renegotiation. "It is simply not
accurate to call an agreement progressive if it does not
require trading partners to ban trade in goods made with
forced labor or includes a special court for corporations
to challenge legitimate, democratically developed public
policies."
"The way ahead" [Barack Obama,
The Economist
]. "Lifting productivity and wages also
depends on creating a global race to the top in rules for
trade. While some communities have suffered from foreign
competition, trade has helped our economy much more than
it has hurt. Exports helped lead us out of the recession.
American firms that export pay their workers up to 18%
more on average than companies that do not, according to a
report by my Council of Economic Advisers. So, I will keep
pushing for Congress to pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership
and to conclude a Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership with the EU. These agreements, and stepped-up
trade enforcement, will level the playing field for
workers and businesses alike." I should really get out my
Magic Marker's for this one.
Steve C
October 7, 2016 at 4:45 pm
"Global race to the top" is vintage Obama propaganda. A "smart" sounding
phrase meant to obscure the impact of TPP on the non-elite. The adoring
comments make it all the worse. He sure knows the lingo to appeal to educated
professionals.
This is a lot of patented, soaring Obama verbiage that boils down to
surrendering to global corporations and the big banks.
Yeah, no one is thinking through the analogy to note that there are very
few races where everyone wins. In point of fact, except for those where
finishing is considered an accomplishment like marathons, there is only one
winner and what's left are also ran and losers. So why are we involved in a
situation where most are going to lose?
Oct 7, 2016 6:01 PM
Zero Hedge
0
SHARES
While the media is transfixed with the just released Washington Post leak of a
private Donald Trump conversation from 2005
in which he was speaking "lewdly" about
women, and for which he has apologized, roughly at the same time, Wikileaks released
part one of what it dubbed the "
Podesta
emails
", which it describes as "a series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign
Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was
President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also owns the
Podesta Group with his brother Tony, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the
Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank."
While the
underlying story in this specific case involves the alleged kickbacks received by the
Clinton Foundation from the Russian government-controlled "Uranium One", a story which
has been profiled previously by the NYT, and about which Wikileaks adds that "as Russian
interests gradually took control of Uranium One
millions of dollars were donated to
the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the
deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer.
Although Mrs Clinton had an
agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton
Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly
disclosed by the Clintons",
what caught our attention is an email from Tony
Carr,
a Research Director at
Hillary for America
, in which he lay outs hundreds of excerpts from the heretofore
missing transcripts of Hillary Clinton's infamous Wall Street speeches, with an emphasis
on those which should be flagged as they may be damaging to Hillary.
But first, here are the greatest hits as conveniently flagged by the Clinton Campaign
itself on page one of the 80 page addendum dubbed "
awkward"
Hillary Clinton: "I'm Kind Of Far Removed" From The Struggles Of The
Middle Class "Because The Life I've Lived And The Economic, You Know, Fortunes That
My Husband And I Now Enjoy."
"And I am not taking a position on any policy,
but I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over
the feeling that the game is rigged. And I never had that feeling when I was growing
up. Never. I mean, were there really rich people, of course there were. My father
loved to complain about big business and big government, but we had a solid middle
class upbringing. We had good public schools. We had accessible health care. We
had our little, you know, one-family house that, you know, he saved up his money,
didn't believe in mortgages. So I lived that. And now, obviously, I'm kind of far
removed because the life I've lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my
husband and I now enjoy, but I haven't forgotten it." [Hillary Clinton Remarks at
Goldman-Black Rock, 2/4/14]
When A Questioner At Goldman Sachs Said She Raised Money For Hillary
Clinton In 2008, Hillary Clinton Joked "You Are The Smartest People
."
"PARTICIPANT: Secretary, Ann Chow from Houston, Texas. I have had the honor to
raise money for you when you were running for president in Texas. MS. CLINTON: You
are the smartest people. PARTICIPANT: I think you actually called me on my cell
phone, too. I talked to you afterwards." [ Speech to Goldman Sachs, 2013 IBD Ceo
Annual Conference, 6/4/13]
Hillary Clinton Joked That If Lloyd Blankfein Wanted To Run For Office, He
Should "Would Leave Goldman Sachs And Start Running A Soup Kitchen Somewhere
.
" "MR. BLANKFEIN: I'm saying for myself. MS. CLINTON: If you were going
to run here is what I would tell you to do -- MR. BLANKFEIN: Very
hypothetical. MS. CLINTON: I think you would leave Goldman Sachs and start running a
soup kitchen somewhere. MR. BLANKFEIN: For one thing the stock would go
up. MS. CLINTON: Then you could be a legend in your own time both when you were
there and when you left." [ Speech to Goldman Sachs, 2013 IBD Ceo Annual Conference,
6/4/13]
Hillary Clinton Noted President Clinton Had Spoken At The Same Goldman
Summit Last Year, And Blankfein Joked "He Increased Our Budget."
"SECRETARY
CLINTON: Well, first, thanks for having me here and giving me a chance to know a
little bit more about the builders and the innovators who you've gathered. Some of
you might have been here last year, and my husband was, I guess, in this very same
position. And he came back and was just thrilled by- MR. BLANKFEIN: He increased
our budget. SECRETARY CLINTON: Did he? MR. BLANKFEIN: Yes. That's why
we -- SECRETARY CLINTON: Good. I think he-I think he encouraged you to
grow it a little, too. But it really was a tremendous experience for him, so I've
been looking forward to it and hope we have a chance to talk about a lot of things."
[Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]
Clinton Said When She Got To State, Employees "Were Not Mostly Permitted
To Have Handheld Devices."
"You know, when Colin Powell showed up as
Secretary of State in 2001, most State Department employees still didn't even have
computers on their desks. When I got there they were not mostly permitted to have
handheld devices. I mean, so you're thinking how do we operate in this new
environment dominated by technology, globalizing forces? We have to change, and I
can't expect people to change if I don't try to model it and lead it." [Clinton
Speech For General Electric's Global Leadership Meeting – Boca Raton, FL, 1/6/14]
Clinton Joked It's "Risky" For Her To Speak To A Group Committed To
Futures Markets
Given Her Past Whitewater Scandal. "Now, it's always a
little bit risky for me to come speak to a group that is committed to the futures
markets because -- there's a few knowing laughs -- many years ago, I actually traded
in the futures markets. I mean, this was so long ago, it was before computers were
invented, I think. And I worked with a group of like-minded friends and associates
who traded in pork bellies and cotton and other such things, and I did pretty well. I
invested about a thousand dollars and traded up to about a hundred thousand. And then
my daughter was born, and I just didn't think I had enough time or mental space to
figure out anything having to do with trading other than trading time with my
daughter for time with the rest of my life. So I got out, and I thought that would be
the end of it." [Remarks to CME Group, 11/18/13]
Hillary Clinton Said Jordan Was Threatened Because
"They Can't Possibly
Vet All Those Refugees So They Don't Know If, You Know, Jihadists Are Coming In Along
With Legitimate Refugees."
"So I think you're right to have gone to the
places that you visited because there's a discussion going on now across the region
to try to see where there might be common ground to deal with the threat posed by
extremism and particularly with Syria which has everyone quite worried, Jordan
because it's on their border and they have hundreds of thousands of refugees and they
can't possibly vet all those refugees so they don't know if, you know, jihadists are
coming in along with legitimate refugees. Turkey for the same reason." [Jewish
United Fund Of Metropolitan Chicago Vanguard Luncheon, 10/28/13]
Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And
Open Markets.
"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and
open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as
we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere."
[05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]
* * *
Here is the full email by Carrk as of January 25, 2016 laying out all the potentially
delicate issues that the Clinton campaign would wish to avoid from emerging. One thing
to note: as Michael Tracey points out, the
Hillary campaign had all the transcripts
at her disposal all along, despite repeated deflection.
Perhaps as a result of this
leak she will now release the full transcripts for the "proper context."
Attached are the flags from HRC's paid speeches we have from HWA. I put some
highlights below. There is a lot of policy positions that we should give an extra scrub
with Policy.
Hillary Clinton: "I'm Kind Of Far Removed" From The Struggles Of The Middle
Class "Because The Life I've Lived And The Economic, You Know, Fortunes That My Husband
And I Now Enjoy."
"And I am not taking a position on any policy, but I do think
there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that
the game is rigged. And I never had that feeling when I was growing up. Never. I mean,
were there really rich people, of course there were. My father loved to complain about
big business and big government, but we had a solid middle class upbringing. We had
good public schools. We had accessible health care. We had our little, you know,
one-family house that, you know, he saved up his money, didn't believe in mortgages. So
I lived that. And now, obviously, I'm kind of far removed because the life I've lived
and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven't
forgotten it." [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Goldman-Black Rock, 2/4/14]
CLINTON SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION ON POLICY
Clinton: "But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room
Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least.
So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position."
CLINTON: You just have to
sort of figure out how to -- getting back to that word, "balance" -- how to balance the
public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and
that's not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of
our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and
working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors,
Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against
Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward
called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept
going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always
has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's
watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then
people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private
position. And finally, I think -- I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to
know what the facts are. I mean, it's like when you guys go into some kind of a deal,
you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that
renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what's going
to work and what's not going to work. [Clinton Speech For National Multi-Housing
Council, 4/24/13]
CLINTON TALKS ABOUT HOLDING WALL STREET ACCOUNTABLE ONLY FOR POLITICAL
REASONS
Clinton Said That The Blame Placed On The United States Banking System For
The Crisis "Could Have Been Avoided In Terms Of Both Misunderstanding And Really
Politicizing What Happened."
"That was one of the reasons that I started
traveling in February of '09, so people could, you know, literally yell at me for the
United States and our banking system causing this everywhere. Now, that's an
oversimplification we know, but it was the conventional wisdom. And I think that there's
a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really
politicizing what happened with greater transparency, with greater openness on all
sides, you know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we prevent it from happening?
You guys help us figure it out and let's make sure that we do it right this time. And I
think that everybody was desperately trying to fend off the worst effects
institutionally, governmentally, and there just wasn't that opportunity to try to sort
this out, and that came later." [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium,
10/24/13]
* * *
Clinton: "Even If It May Not Be 100 Percent True, If The Perception Is That
Somehow The Game Is Rigged, That Should Be A Problem For All Of Us."
"Now, it's
important to recognize the vital role that the financial markets play in our economy and
that so many of you are contributing to. To function effectively those markets and the
men and women who shape them have to command trust and confidence, because we all rely
on the market's transparency and integrity. So even if it may not be 100 percent true,
if the perception is that somehow the game is rigged, that should be a problem for all
of us, and we have to be willing to make that absolutely clear. And if there are
issues, if there's wrongdoing, people have to be held accountable and we have to try to
deter future bad behavior, because the public trust is at the core of both a free market
economy and a democracy." [Clinton Remarks to Deutsche Bank, 10/7/14]
CLINTON SUGGESTS WALL STREET INSIDERS ARE WHAT IS NEEDED TO FIX WALL
STREET
Clinton Said Financial Reform "Really Has To Come From The Industry Itself."
"Remember what Teddy Roosevelt did. Yes, he took on what he saw as the
excesses in the economy, but he also stood against the excesses in politics. He didn't
want to unleash a lot of nationalist, populistic reaction. He wanted to try to figure
out how to get back into that balance that has served America so well over our entire
nationhood. Today, there's more that can and should be done that really has to come from
the industry itself, and how we can strengthen our economy, create more jobs at a time
where that's increasingly challenging, to get back to Teddy Roosevelt's square deal.
And I really believe that our country and all of you are up to that job." [Clinton
Remarks to Deutsche Bank, 10/7/14]
* * *
Speaking About The Importance Of Proper Regulation, Clinton Said "The People
That Know The Industry Better Than Anybody Are The People Who Work In The Industry."
"I mean, it's still happening, as you know. People are looking back and trying to, you
know, get compensation for bad mortgages and all the rest of it in some of the
agreements that are being reached. There's nothing magic about regulations, too much is
bad, too little is bad. How do you get to the golden key, how do we figure out what
works? And the people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who
work in the industry. And I think there has to be a recognition that, you know, there's
so much at stake now, I mean, the business has changed so much and decisions are made so
quickly, in nano seconds basically. We spend trillions of dollars to travel around the
world, but it's in everybody's interest that we have a better framework, and not just
for the United States but for the entire world, in which to operate and trade." [Goldman
Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]
CLINTON ADMITS NEEDING WALL STREET FUNDING
Clinton Said That Because Candidates Needed Money From Wall Street To Run For
Office, People In New York Needed To Ask Tough Questions About The Economy Before
Handing Over Campaign Contributions.
"Secondly, running for office in our
country takes a lot of money, and candidates have to go out and raise it. New York is
probably the leading site for contributions for fundraising for candidates on both sides
of the aisle, and it's also our economic center. And there are a lot of people here who
should ask some tough questions before handing over campaign contributions to people who
were really playing chicken with our whole economy." [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative
Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]
* * *
Clinton: "It Would Be Very Difficult To Run For President Without Raising A
Huge Amount Of Money And Without Having Other People Supporting You Because Your
Opponent Will Have Their Supporters."
"So our system is, in many ways, more
difficult, certainly far more expensive and much longer than a parliamentary system, and
I really admire the people who subject themselves to it. Even when I, you know, think
they should not be elected president, I still think, well, you know, good for you I
guess, you're out there promoting democracy and those crazy ideas of yours. So I think
that it's something -- I would like -- you know, obviously as somebody who has been
through it, I would like it not to last as long because I think it's very distracting
from what we should be doing every day in our public business. I would like it not to
be so expensive. I have no idea how you do that. I mean, in my campaign -- I lose
track, but I think I raised $250 million or some such enormous amount, and in the last
campaign President Obama raised 1.1 billion, and that was before the Super PACs and all
of this other money just rushing in, and it's so ridiculous that we have this kind of
free for all with all of this financial interest at stake, but, you know, the Supreme
Court said that's basically what we're in for. So we're kind of in the wild west, and,
you know, it would be very difficult to run for president without raising a huge amount
of money and without having other people supporting you because your opponent will have
their supporters. So I think as hard as it was when I ran, I think it's even harder
now." [Clinton Speech For General Electric's Global Leadership Meeting – Boca Raton, FL,
1/6/14]
CLINTON TOUTS HER RELATIONSHIP TO WALL STREET AS A SENATOR
Clinton: As Senator, "I Represented And Worked With" So Many On Wall Street
And "Did All I Could To Make Sure They Continued To Prosper" But Still Called For
Closing Carried Interest Loophole.
In remarks at Robbins, Gellar, Rudman & Dowd
in San Diego, Hillary Clinton said, "When I was a Senator from New York, I represented
and worked with so many talented principled people who made their living in finance.
But even thought I represented them and did all I could to make sure they continued to
prosper, I called for closing the carried interest loophole and addressing skyrocketing
CEO pay. I also was calling in '06, '07 for doing something about the mortgage crisis,
because I saw every day from Wall Street literally to main streets across New York how a
well-functioning financial system is essential. So when I raised early warnings about
early warnings about subprime mortgages and called for regulating derivatives and over
complex financial products, I didn't get some big arguments, because people sort of
said, no, that makes sense. But boy, have we had fights about it ever since." [Hillary
Clinton's Remarks at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in San Diego, 9/04/14]
* * *
Clinton On Wall Street: "I Had Great Relations And Worked So Close Together
After 9/11 To Rebuild Downtown, And A Lot Of Respect For The Work You Do And The People
Who Do It."
"Now, without going over how we got to where we are right now, what
would be your advice to the Wall Street community and the big banks as to the way
forward with those two important decisions? SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I represented all
of you for eight years. I had great relations and worked so close together after 9/11
to rebuild downtown, and a lot of respect for the work you do and the people who do it,
but I do -- I think that when we talk about the regulators and the politicians, the
economic consequences of bad decisions back in '08, you know, were devastating, and they
had repercussions throughout the world." [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments
Symposium, 10/24/13]
CLINTON TALKS ABOUT THE CHALLENGES RUNNING FOR OFFICE
Hillary Clinton Said There Was "A Bias Against People Who Have Led Successful
And/Or Complicated Lives," Citing The Need To Divese Of Assets, Positions, And Stocks.
"SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah. Well, you know what Bob Rubin said about that. He said,
you know, when he came to Washington, he had a fortune. And when he left Washington, he
had a small -- MR. BLANKFEIN: That's how you have a small fortune, is you
go to Washington. SECRETARY CLINTON: You go to Washington. Right. But,
you know, part of the problem with the political situation, too, is that there is such a
bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives. You know, the
divestment of assets, the stripping of all kinds of positions, the sale of stocks. It
just becomes very onerous and unnecessary." [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators
Summit, 10/29/13]
CLINTON SUGGESTS SHE IS A MODERATE
Clinton Said That Both The Democratic And Republican Parties Should Be
"Moderate."
"URSULA BURNS: Interesting. Democrats? SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh,
long, definitely. URSULA BURNS: Republicans? SECRETARY CLINTON: Unfortunately, at the
time, short. URSULA BURNS: Okay. We'll go back to questions. SECRETARY CLINTON: We
need two parties. URSULA BURNS: Yeah, we do need two parties. SECRETARY CLINTON: Two
sensible, moderate, pragmatic parties." [Hillary Clinton Remarks, Remarks at Xerox,
3/18/14]
* * *
Clinton: "Simpson-Bowles… Put Forth The Right Framework. Namely, We Have To
Restrain Spending, We Have To Have Adequate Revenues, And We Have To Incentivize Growth.
It's A Three-Part Formula… And They Reached An Agreement. But What Is Very Hard To Do Is
To Then Take That Agreement If You Don't Believe That You're Going To Be Able To Move
The Other Side."
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this may be borne more out of hope
than experience in the last few years. But Simpson-Bowles -- and I know you heard from
Erskine earlier today -- put forth the right framework. Namely, we have to restrain
spending, we have to have adequate revenues, and we have to incentivize growth. It's a
three-part formula. The specifics can be negotiated depending upon whether we're acting
in good faith or not. And what Senator Simpson and Erskine did was to bring Republicans
and Democrats alike to the table, and you had the full range of ideological views from I
think Tom Coburn to Dick Durbin. And they reached an agreement. But what is very hard
to do is to then take that agreement if you don't believe that you're going to be able
to move the other side. And where we are now is in this gridlocked dysfunction. So
you've got Democrats saying that, you know, you have to have more revenues; that's the
sine qua non of any kind of agreement. You have Republicans saying no, no, no on
revenues; you have to cut much more deeply into spending. Well, looks what's happened.
We are slowly returning to growth. It's not as much or as fast as many of us would like
to see, but, you know, we're certainly better off than our European friends, and we're
beginning to, I believe, kind of come out of the long aftermath of the '08 crisis.
[Clinton Speech For Morgan Stanley, 4/18/13]
* * *
Clinton: "The Simpson-Bowles Framework And The Big Elements Of It Were Right…
You Have To Restrain Spending, You Have To Have Adequate Revenues, And You Have To Have
Growth."
CLINTON: So, you know, the Simpson-Bowles framework and the big
elements of it were right. The specifics can be negotiated and argued over. But you
got to do all three. You have to restrain spending, you have to have adequate revenues,
and you have to have growth. And I think we are smart enough to figure out how to do
that. [Clinton Speech For Morgan Stanley, 4/18/13]
CLINTON IS AWARE OF SECURITY CONCERNS AROUND BLACKBERRIES
Clinton: "At The State Department We Were Attacked Every Hour, More Than Once
An Hour By Incoming Efforts To Penetrate Everything We Had. And That Was True Across
The U.S. Government."
CLINTON: But, at the State Department we were attacked
every hour, more than once an hour by incoming efforts to penetrate everything we had.
And that was true across the U.S. government. And we knew it was going on when I would
go to China, or I would go to Russia, we would leave all of our electronic equipment on
the plane, with the batteries out, because this is a new frontier. And they're trying
to find out not just about what we do in our government. They're trying to find out
about what a lot of companies do and they were going after the personal emails of people
who worked in the State Department. So it's not like the only government in the world
that is doing anything is the United States. But, the United States compared to a
number of our competitors is the only government in the world with any kind of
safeguards, any kind of checks and balances. They may in many respects need to be
strengthened and people need to be reassured, and they need to have their protections
embodied in law. But, I think turning over a lot of that material intentionally or
unintentionally, because of the way it can be drained, gave all kinds of information not
only to big countries, but to networks and terrorist groups, and the like. So I have a
hard time thinking that somebody who is a champion of privacy and liberty has taken
refuge in Russia under Putin's authority. And then he calls into a Putin talk show and
says, President Putin, do you spy on people? And President Putin says, well, from one
intelligence professional to another, of course not. Oh, thank you so much. I mean,
really, I don't know. I have a hard time following it. [Clinton Speech At UConn,
4/23/14]
* * *
Hillary Clinton: "When I Got To The State Department, It Was Still Against
The Rules To Let Most -- Or Let All Foreign Service Officers Have Access To A
Blackberry."
"I mean, let's face it, our government is woefully, woefully
behind in all of its policies that affect the use of technology. When I got to the
State Department, it was still against the rules to let most -- or let all Foreign
Service Officers have access to a Blackberry. You couldn't have desktop computers when
Colin Powell was there. Everything that you are taking advantage of, inventing and
using, is still a generation or two behind when it comes to our government." [Hillary
Clinton Remarks at Nexenta, 8/28/14]
* * *
Hillary Clinton: "We Couldn't Take Our Computers, We Couldn't Take Our
Personal Devices" Off The Plane In China And Russia.
"I mean, probably the most
frustrating part of this whole debate are countries acting like we're the only people in
the world trying to figure out what's going on. I mean, every time I went to countries
like China or Russia, I mean, we couldn't take our computers, we couldn't take our
personal devices, we couldn't take anything off the plane because they're so good, they
would penetrate them in a minute, less, a nanosecond. So we would take the batteries
out, we'd leave them on the plane." [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Nexenta, 8/28/14]
* * *
Clinton Said When She Got To State, Employees "Were Not Mostly Permitted To
Have Handheld Devices."
"You know, when Colin Powell showed up as Secretary of
State in 2001, most State Department employees still didn't even have computers on their
desks. When I got there they were not mostly permitted to have handheld devices. I
mean, so you're thinking how do we operate in this new environment dominated by
technology, globalizing forces? We have to change, and I can't expect people to change
if I don't try to model it and lead it." [Clinton Speech For General Electric's Global
Leadership Meeting – Boca Raton, FL, 1/6/14]
* * *
Hillary Clinton Said You Know You Can't Bring Your Phone And Computer When
Traveling To China And Russia And She Had To Take Her Batteries Out And Put them In A
Special Box.
"And anybody who has ever traveled in other countries, some of
which shall remain nameless, except for Russia and China, you know that you can't bring
your phones and your computers. And if you do, good luck. I mean, we would not only
take the batteries out, we would leave the batteries and the devices on the plane in
special boxes. Now, we didn't do that because we thought it would be fun to tell
somebody about. We did it because we knew that we were all targets and that we would be
totally vulnerable. So it's not only what others do to us and what we do to them and how
many people are involved in it. It's what's the purpose of it, what is being collected,
and how can it be used. And there are clearly people in this room who know a lot about
this, and some of you could be very useful contributors to that conversation because
you're sophisticated enough to know that it's not just, do it, don't do it. We have to
have a way of doing it, and then we have to have a way of analyzing it, and then we have
to have a way of sharing it." [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]
* * *
Hillary Clinton Lamented How Far Behind The State Department Was In
Technology, Saying "People Were Not Even Allowed To Use Mobile Devices Because Of
Security Issues."
"Personally, having, you know, lived and worked in the White
House, having been a senator, having been Secretary of State, there has traditionally
been a great pool of very talented, hard-working people. And just as I was saying about
the credit market, our personnel policies haven't kept up with the changes necessary in
government. We have a lot of difficulties in getting-when I got to the State
Department, we were so far behind in technology, it was embarrassing. And, you know,
people were not even allowed to use mobile devices because of security issues and cost
issues, and we really had to try to push into the last part of the 20
th
Century in order to get people functioning in 2009 and '10." [Goldman Sachs Builders And
Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]
CLINTON REMARKS ARE PRO KEYSTONE AND PRO TRADE
Clinton: "So I Think That Keystone Is A Contentious Issue, And Of Course It
Is Important On Both Sides Of The Border For Different And Sometimes Opposing Reasons…"
"So I think that Keystone is a contentious issue, and of course it is important
on both sides of the border for different and sometimes opposing reasons, but that is
not our relationship. And I think our relationship will get deeper and stronger and put
us in a position to really be global leaders in energy and climate change if we worked
more closely together. And that's what I would like to see us do." [Remarks at
tinePublic, 6/18/14]
* * *
Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open
Trade And Open Markets.
"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open
trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and
sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the
hemisphere." [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]
* * *
Hillary Clinton Said We Have To Have A Concerted Plan To Increase Trade; We
Have To Resist Protectionism And Other Kinds Of Barriers To Trade.
"Secondly, I
think we have to have a concerted plan to increase trade already under the current
circumstances, you know, that Inter-American Development Bank figure is pretty
surprising. There is so much more we can do, there is a lot of low hanging fruit but
businesses on both sides have to make it a priority and it's not for governments to do
but governments can either make it easy or make it hard and we have to resist,
protectionism, other kinds of barriers to market access and to trade and I would like to
see this get much more attention and be not just a policy for a year under president X
or president Y but a consistent one." [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 32]
CLINTON IS MORE FAVORABLE TO CANADIAN HEALTH CARE AND SINGLE PAYER
Clinton Said Single-Payer Health Care Systems "Can Get Costs Down," And "Is
As Good Or Better On Primary Care," But "They Do Impose Things Like Waiting Times."
"If you look at countries that are comparable, like Switzerland or Germany, for
example, they have mixed systems. They don't have just a single-payer system, but they
have very clear controls over budgeting and accountability. If you look at the
single-payer systems, like Scandinavia, Canada, and elsewhere, they can get costs down
because, you know, although their care, according to statistics, overall is as good or
better on primary care, in particular, they do impose things like waiting times, you
know. It takes longer to get like a hip replacement than it might take here." [Hillary
Clinton remarks to ECGR Grand Rapids, 6/17/13]
* * *
Clinton Cited President Johnson's Success In Establishing Medicare And
Medicaid And Said She Wanted To See The U.S. Have Universal Health Care Like In Canada.
"You know, on healthcare we are the prisoner of our past. The way we got to develop any
kind of medical insurance program was during World War II when companies facing
shortages of workers began to offer healthcare benefits as an inducement for
employment. So from the early 1940s healthcare was seen as a privilege connected to
employment. And after the war when soldiers came back and went back into the market
there was a lot of competition, because the economy was so heated up. So that model
continued. And then of course our large labor unions bargained for healthcare with the
employers that their members worked for. So from the early 1940s until the early 1960s
we did not have any Medicare, or our program for the poor called Medicaid until
President Johnson was able to get both passed in 1965. So the employer model continued
as the primary means by which working people got health insurance. People over 65 were
eligible for Medicare. Medicaid, which was a partnership, a funding partnership between
the federal government and state governments, provided some, but by no means all poor
people with access to healthcare. So what we've been struggling with certainly Harry
Truman, then Johnson was successful on Medicare and Medicaid, but didn't touch the
employer based system, then actually Richard Nixon made a proposal that didn't go
anywhere, but was quite far reaching. Then with my husband's administration we worked
very hard to come up with a system, but we were very much constricted by the political
realities that if you had your insurance from your employer you were reluctant to try
anything else. And so we were trying to build a universal system around the
employer-based system. And indeed now with President Obama's legislative success in
getting the Affordable Care Act passed that is what we've done. We still have primarily
an employer-based system, but we now have people able to get subsidized insurance. So
we have health insurance companies playing a major role in the provision of healthcare,
both to the employed whose employers provide health insurance, and to those who are
working but on their own are not able to afford it and their employers either don't
provide it, or don't provide it at an affordable price. We are still struggling. We've
made a lot of progress. Ten million Americans now have insurance who didn't have it
before the Affordable Care Act, and that is a great step forward. (Applause.) And what
we're going to have to continue to do is monitor what the costs are and watch closely to
see whether employers drop more people from insurance so that they go into what we call
the health exchange system. So we're really just at the beginning. But we do have
Medicare for people over 65. And you couldn't, I don't think, take it away if you
tried, because people are very satisfied with it, but we also have a lot of political
and financial resistance to expanding that system to more people. So we're in a learning
period as we move forward with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. And I'm
hoping that whatever the shortfalls or the glitches have been, which in a big piece of
legislation you're going to have, those will be remedied and we can really take a hard
look at what's succeeding, fix what isn't, and keep moving forward to get to affordable
universal healthcare coverage like you have here in Canada. [Clinton Speech For
tinePublic – Saskatoon, CA, 1/21/15]
* * *
Below is the full 80 page documents of "speech flags" in Hillary speeches:
"... What struck me was not so much Clinton's statements about letting Wall Street regulate Wall Street, the fact that she is "out of touch" with Main Street, or her favorable comments about single payer (very ironic given how she has not advocated for this publicly). No, what struck me is that she is NOT a leader. ..."
"... No, Clinton is many things, but not a leader. She is revealed as the perfect tool for the elite. Occasionally piping up to express some concern, but so distanced and entrenched in the establishment that she will never do anything of consequence for working Americans. ..."
"... I didn't even read the stuff about the blackberries and computer nonsense. She is incompetent with technology, doesn't understand digital security and is dangerously arrogant about her ignorance. Stipulated. ..."
What struck me was not so much Clinton's statements about letting Wall Street regulate Wall Street,
the fact that she is "out of touch" with Main Street, or her favorable comments about single payer (very
ironic given how she has not advocated for this publicly). No, what struck me is that she is NOT a leader.
Opposed to Citizens United?
… it's so ridiculous that we have this kind of free for all with all of this financial interest
at stake, but, you know, the Supreme Court said that's basically what we're in for. So we're kind of
in the wild west, and, you know, it would be very difficult to run for president without raising a huge
amount of money.
Sorta like, "Meh! This stinks, but this is how the world works so I'm gonna go raise me some cash."
A Forceful Champion of Wall Street Reform?
I called for closing the carried interest loophole and addressing skyrocketing CEO pay. I also
was calling in '06, '07 for doing something about the mortgage crisis, because I saw every day from
Wall Street literally to main streets across New York how a well-functioning financial system is essential.
So when I raised early warnings about early warnings about subprime mortgages and called for regulating
derivatives and over complex financial products, I didn't get some big arguments, because people sort
of said, no, that makes sense.
Really? She called for reinstatement of Glass-Steagall? I don't remember her anywhere near the scene
of the crime in '06/07. She (may have) made a few comments here and there but never took any real action
or was serious about meaningful reform. Still isn't.
And then there is this gem.
We need two parties. .. Two sensible, moderate, pragmatic parties.
A Model of Two Sensible, Pragmatic Parties Working Together: Simpson-Bowles
Simpson-Bowles framework and the big elements of it were right. The specifics can be negotiated
and argued over. But you got to do all three. You have to restrain spending, you have to have adequate
revenues, and you have to have growth. And I think we are smart enough to figure out how to do that.
Oh, no, we aren't! Not when "figuring it out" means following neoliberal dogma to extract more from
labor and give more and more and more to the 1%.
No, Clinton is many things, but not a leader. She is revealed as the perfect tool for the
elite. Occasionally piping up to express some concern, but so distanced and entrenched in the establishment
that she will never do anything of consequence for working Americans.
I didn't even read the stuff about the blackberries and computer nonsense. She is incompetent
with technology, doesn't understand digital security and is dangerously arrogant about her ignorance.
Stipulated.
She comes across as either naive or duplicitous, re Latin America "coming
out of 2 decades of doing well," but now having to deal with disruption and
regime change.
Mankiw should be the lead negotiator for the administration, explaining to
the dining hall workers why they're paid what they're worth, and no more.
Maybe he could throw in e-access codes to his textbook as a sweetener.
When the great crime of this millennium happened and Jabba the Hut was in
charge of Harvaaaaard, Jabba was getting paid millions to lose billions. Too
bad he wasn't paid tens of millions to increase productivty and lose tens of
billions, wiping the fountainhead of corruption out.
This is absolutely deplorable! These folks had to strike for 35K/yr at
rich-ass Harvard? Unreal.
Why is it that White Collar types have such contempt for Blue Collar people?
I'm sick and tired of being looked down upon, made fun of, and laughed at
because I'm not an office drone. I can't stand how these jokers refer to
themselves as "professionals" all the damned time too, as if the rest of us are
a bunch of amateurs, blathering all the goddamned time about free market this,
free market that, this goodthink cause, that goodthink cause, union bad, gov't
bad, private sector good, yada yada.
Absolutely–an inferiority complex. It's why so many white collar types
drive pick-up trucks. Makes them look like they know how to do something
useful.
Yes, the perfectly unscratched pick-up truck more than a year
old. It's such an epic fail because it's "girly" and they were
going instead for "manly". Either is, no doubt, a fine thing, but
not when epically fail.
Soon the elite will have the race track option for their
supercars, an AV version of track lapping where they strap
themselves into the driver's seat and let the car scare the crap
out of them.
"... Krugman is such a deplorable hack. I know we are supposed to accept bribe-taking politicians and the economy run by looting robber barons. But can't we even have a goddamn fourth estate? ..."
"... The way Krugman murders journalism ethics by outright campaigning for one of the most corrupt politicians in American history is outrageous. Barfing up her disgusting campaign memes verbatim as if he's coordinating his columns with her war room. ..."
"... If you're a scientist you would know that economics does not remotely resemble a science. One familiar with the history of math and science will notice that their development (based on discovered facts) forms a tree-like structure. One discovery branches out to more discoveries. The growth is therefore exponential. ..."
Sure...Krugman will occasionally pay lip service to green energy.
The problem is that 'liberal' economists tend to keep separate silos for green energy and infrastructure.
Question is, why do they refuse to connect the dots between climate change mitigation, green
energy, fiscal stimulus, and lots of jobs? And why do they prioritize more road and bridges, which
will only make climate change worse?
Krugman is an abhorrent neoliberal hack (as well as Hillary stooge).
Who actually understand very little about climate change clearly being non-specialist without
any training of physics and geophysics. He is a second rate neoclassical economist with penchant
for mathiness (and a very talented writer).
The key question here is Clinton warmongering and the threat of nuclear war with Russia. Washington
neocon chichenhawks became recently realty crazy. Obama looks completely important and does not
control anything.
I think this is more immediate threat then climate change.
Oil depletion (which already started and will be in full force in a couple of decades) might
take care about climate change as period of "cheap oil" (aka "oil age") probably will last less
then 100 years and as such is just a blip in Earth history.
End of cheap oil also might lead to natural shrinking of human population -- another factor
in the global climate change and a threat to natural ecosystems.
Hillary is the fracking Queen. Claiming she's a champion of the environment is as ridiculous portraying
Donald Trump a feminist.
Obomba is another pretender on the environment. The Paris Agreement commits to absolutely nothing
but more talk at a future time. China signed on and is still keeping its commitment to do absolutely
nothing to reduce emissions until 2030. (By the time the West has exported the lion share of its
emissions to the country in a pointless GHG emissions shell game; emission per capita have skyrocketed
since 2002! a 25% increase!)
Krugman is such a deplorable hack. I know we are supposed to accept bribe-taking politicians
and the economy run by looting robber barons. But can't we even have a goddamn fourth estate?
The way Krugman murders journalism ethics by outright campaigning for one of the most corrupt
politicians in American history is outrageous. Barfing up her disgusting campaign memes verbatim
as if he's coordinating his columns with her war room.
So to all the pretend liberals out there who offer the people nothing more than more corruption,
lies, war-profiteering and public trust liquidation: you deserve Trump. And I pray that you get
him. (After him, a New Deal; and the 'me generation,' the Void.)
If you're a scientist you would know that economics does not remotely resemble a science.
One familiar with the history of math and science will notice that their development (based on
discovered facts) forms a tree-like structure. One discovery branches out to more discoveries.
The growth is therefore exponential.
Economic history does not follow this pattern.
With science there are paradigm shifts that occur with groundbreaking discoveries like the
theories of relativity and quantum mechanics. The Friedmanian paradigm shift was founded on jettisoning
all the enormously successful work Keynes accomplished and digging up failed 19th century ideology,
repeating disastrous history.
Even psychology follows the pattern. Although it began with a lot of unsubstantiated Aristotelian
philosophizing, it was a starting point from which a significant body of definite knowledge and
medical treatments developed. A real social science. (Not perfect. It was recently discovered
that about 50% of published psychological experiments were not reproducible.)
As an anthropologist you should know about cliques and group-think. Have an inkling of how
corruption could gradually develop and spread among upper-echelon cliques to the point where the
government, the economy, the courts and the news media become captured by the upper class. Understand
how cowards would rather look the other way than take a stand and deal with it: "see no evil,
hear no evil, speak no evil."
As an anthropologist, I can assert with confidence that you are babbling about things you do not
really understand at all. I have issues with a lot of economics, but you are completely incoherent.
Completely incoherent? Then it should be easy enough for you to tear apart what I wrote. It was
certainly easy enough for me to tear into Krugman's crass political pandering. But all you got
is lame generalizations. Stock insults that could be said about anything.
What issues do you have with "a lot of economics?" I bet you can't come up with anything. Come
on. Out with it! Say something intelligent about anything, if you are at all capable, Mr. Dick.
I have yet to read anything from you that indicates you have any knowledge about anything.
It is Dr. Dick, since I have a Ph.D. If you ever read the comments on this blog, you would know
full well what those issues are, since I have raised them here many times. For a start the assumption
of "rational actors" (only partially true), the assumption of economic maximization (people maximize
many different things which affect their economic choices), and the assumption of "rational markets"
(this ignores pervasive information assymetry and active deceit).
In the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 – an invasion which many Iraqis believe left their country in the worst condition
it has been since the Mongol invasion of 1258 -- there was much discussion in the media about the Bush Administration's goal for
"nation-building" in that country. Of course, if there ever were such a goal, it was quickly abandoned, and one hardly ever hears
the term "nation-building" discussed as a U.S. foreign policy objective anymore.
The stark truth is that the U.S. really has no
intentions of helping to build strong states in the Middle East or elsewhere. Rather, as we see time and again – e.g., in Yugoslavia,
Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Ukraine – the goal of U.S. foreign policy, whether stated or not, is increasingly and more aggressively
the destruction and balkanization of independent states. However, it is important to recognize that this goal is not new.
In my continued talks with people who insist that voting for Clinton is the
only choice because TRUMP, I just got I would rather have war with Russia than
Putin deciding American policy because the President owes him money.
After I decimated that one by asking if everyone in Congress owes Putin as
well, I continued by noting that Congress is also a stumbling block if ACA was
really their only concern.
That they better figure out how to move to a country with a real health care
system or give up being an artist and find a better paying job with employer
provided insurance because the idea that Clinton has some magic method of
preventing it from dying is a fantasy.
The President cannot unilaterally do anything to stop insurance companies
from dropping out and no legislation saving it is going to pass in a Congress
where one or both of the Houses have Republican majorities. Sure she might stop
them from cutting their subsidy, but even with Clinton they have a couple of
years at most before they are royally screwed. Especially since Clinton's
Democratic Party is not bothering to try to fight every race in an attempt to
get the House, and even have grabbed money from the state parties for her
campaign.
Every once in a while I get a little annoyed with people who want to accuse
me of not being realistic and believing in unicorns when it is beyond clear
that they are dreaming.
I should note that they also pulled out the SCOTUS canard. I have to thank
Clinton for picking Kaine since just quoting his record as Governor pretty much
destroys the idea that she picks liberals.
"... Any argument that democracy can't work because of mass ignorance also has to answer the question: what evidence is there that people are worse informed/more actively mislead than in the twentieth century? Yellow journalism, for example, is nothing new historically. ..."
"... The Left get a bloody nose from the electorate over a major shift in the course society is going to take for the first time in 30 years and suddenly democracy isn't a satisfactory way of deciding things. ..."
"... How convenient. I've always said the Left don't really give a sh*t about the people they purport to represent, its all just a facade to gain power. I think the response to the Brexit vote pretty much settles it. ..."
"... So much for Democracy http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10769041/The-US-is-an-oligarchy-study-concludes.html ..."
"... I think direct democracy is untenable. It would bring forth every economically bankrupt and socially disastrous policy under the sun. Don't be under any illusions about that. ..."
I suppose immigration is particularly sensitive because the newcomers will likely settle and become British citizens, thus giving
them the vote and a say in how the country is run. If the newcomers fail to assimilate then they may vote in ways that the "native"
population object to and bring about changes that would not otherwise have occurred.
Imagine for example a referendum on the
monarchy that is won by republicans based on the votes from first generation immigrants who, understandably, are less likely to
have attachment to the institution. I suppose another way to put it is: do the original inhabitants of a territory have a right
to prevent social/cultural/political/economic change brought about by newcomers?
@AndrewD what is your point? That there are no such people as British people? That those who live here have no more rights than
those who don't?
Brexit in a nutshell: decades of treating the population of the UK as if they are nobodies: ask them "are you happy to continue
being treated as if you are worthless nobodies?" Answer "no".
My point is that the concept of "original inhabitents" for any part of the world (save possibly a small part of East Africa) is
meaningless in historical terms. Historically, immigrants came with "fire and slaughter". Justify your statement about the rights
of those here over other immigrants to come in any way other than a claim we were here first.
The difference between Daniel Kahnemann and Jason Brennan is that Kahnemann talks about the biases we all (including him) have
and Brennan talks about the biases that "they" have. Which is why I take Kahnemann seriously and not Brennan. What's more, Dan
Kahan's work on motivated reasoning suggests that it affects Type 2 (slow) thinking as well and that the bias is greatest among
the most educated. In other words, we're all prone to cognitive biases and there's no justification from that to restrict the
franchise.
Any argument that democracy can't work because of mass ignorance also has to answer the question: what evidence is there
that people are worse informed/more actively mislead than in the twentieth century? Yellow journalism, for example, is nothing
new historically.
The Left get a bloody nose from the electorate over a major shift in the course society is going to take for the first time
in 30 years and suddenly democracy isn't a satisfactory way of deciding things.
How convenient. I've always said the Left don't really give a sh*t about the people they purport to represent, its all
just a facade to gain power. I think the response to the Brexit vote pretty much settles it.
AndrewD - "Justify your statement about the rights of those here over other immigrants to come in any way other than a claim we
were here first."
well that's just about the whole of human history. If everyone has rights to be everywhere then no-one gets to influence what
happens in "their" area. I like my neighbours but they live in their house and I live in mine.
More specifically and recently, the switch of who "we" are from the UK to Europe has created a bonanza for some people and
left others on the scrap heap.
For example, you're relying on the idea of an in group and an out group. What about the Scots, who are pro-immigration ATM? Are
they part of your in group or not? What about people in your street that like immigration? Where are your borders? Then think
about Europe where, to put it mildly, there has been a recent history of "fluid" boundaries.
@aragon Ah good, I wondered how long it would be before the Appeal to Nature fallacy reared its head. Social Darwinism anybody?
How do you reconcile the fact that the areas of the UK that saw the most EU immigration were the areas that were the most tolerant
of it, and vice versa?
Lastly your wisdom of crowds reference is a bit silly. What we saw in the referendum was crowd psychology rather than diverse
collections of independently deciding individuals, because the media drip fed them their views over 20 years or more.Crowds can
be made to behave stupidly too.
"What about the Scots, who are pro-immigration ATM? Are they part of your in group or not?" this is a critical question that
recent referenda have thrown up, even more so than left/right and class. The scots are part of my group but I suspect increasingly
I am not part of theirs.
"What about people in your street that like immigration?" well once out of the EU we can all vote for parties that reflect
our views on immigration. While in the EU over 450 million people have the right of residence and our various opinions matter
not a jot.
@ Tonybirte. so people who disagree with you have been drop fed views over 20 years and are too stupid to see the truth.
Are you sure its not you who has been drip-fed views over the past 20 years? Are you absolutely sure you are not the one behaving
stupidly? Have you done your due diligence?
Gastro George, the Scots are not pro-immigration. Opinion polling suggests they are less opposed to it than the UK as a whole,
but still opposed overall.
I think direct democracy is untenable. It would bring forth every economically bankrupt and socially disastrous policy
under the sun. Don't be under any illusions about that.
"... I got tired of lambasting macroeconomics a while ago, and the "macro wars" mostly died down in the blogosphere around when the recovery from the Great Recession kicked in. But recently, there have been a number of respected macroeconomists posting big, comprehensive criticisms of the way academic macro gets done. Some of these criticisms are more forceful than anything we bloggers blogged about back in the day! ..."
"... First, there's Paul Romer's latest, " The Trouble With Macroeconomics ". The title is an analogy to Lee Smolin's book " The Trouble With Physics ". Romer basically says that macro (meaning business-cycle theory) has become like the critics' harshest depictions of string theory - a community of believers, dogmatically following the ideas of revered elders and ignoring the data. The elders he singles out are Bob Lucas, Ed Prescott, and Tom Sargent. ..."
"... In response to the observation that the shocks [in DSGE models] are imaginary, a standard defense invokes Milton Friedman's (1953) methodological assertion from unnamed authority that "the more significant the theory, the more unrealistic the assumptions (p.14)." More recently, "all models are false" seems to have become the universal hand-wave for dismissing any fact that does not conform to the model that is the current favorite. ..."
"... We [macroeconomists] tend to view research as being the process of posing a question and delivering a pretty precise answer to that question...The research agenda that I believe we need is very different. It's hugely messy work. We need...to build a more evidence-based modeling of financial institutions. We need...to learn more about how people actually form expectations. We need [to use] firm-based information about residual demand functions to learn more about product market structure. At the same time, we need to be a lot more flexible in our thinking about models and theory, so that they can be firmly grounded in this improved empirical understanding. ..."
"... This is a somewhat misleading way of putting it, but it allows me to illustrate some important points about 'unrealistic' assumptions. In real world modelling in Physics 'unrealistic' assumptions are ubiquitous. What matters is not literal realism of assumptions but robustness.of conclusions. ..."
"... Simplifying assumptions are context specific, ie ad hoc, and never axiomatic.The ad hoc nature of simplifying assumptions is a feature, not a bug as the above example illustrates. ..."
"... Robustness is critical. As we move from our simplifying assumptions towards greater realism/precision, the conclusion should not change in any material way, and we use the simplifications because the gain in accuracy of the conclusions is not worth the added complexity and consequent loss of tractability in the model. ..."
"... This is indeed excellent. The three criteria for evaluating assumptions/simplifications, the precise definition of ad hoc, and the crystal-clear example of point mass for orbits vs rotation. ..."
"... So, we are witnessing a battle between a declining DSGE scam and ascending "Realistic assumptions" scam. ..."
"... Both approaches are worthless, but I guess it will give an excuse to macroeconomists why they are useless: we just used the wrong paradigm, now we are switching to the new one. Just many more years of research is needed and we will be ready. Science!, as they say. ..."
"... Science, IEHO, has three touchstones. Coherence - your model and its assumptions should not contradict each other or lead to contradictory conclusions. Consilience - a good theory has a broad reach for explaining reality. Consensus - a theory which is coherent and consilient should lead to a consensus among practicioners. It is only within a strong consensus that people can talk to each other and extend the field. ..."
"... It appears that macro misses out on a number of these. ..."
"... "Romer basically says that macro (meaning business-cycle theory)" ..."
"... In either case, I think this is another big problem with macro, its obsession with business cycles as opposed to long-term thriving and prosperity. eg, Gerald Friedman got tied in knots by this; he was trying to use "stimulus" thinking and arguments to talk about about multi-decadal possibilities. ..."
"... I'm fond of observing that in addition to "cargo cult science", macroeconomics has often been likened to a religion. What religions do when the mainstream becomes intolerable for one reason or another is schism. Then after a number of years what used to be the mainstream dies out and the former schismatics become the mainstream. ..."
"... Psychology went through this kind of crisis some years ago when the scientists split off from the clinicians, and created the Association for Psychological Science to contrast with the clinically-oriented American Psychological Association (the APA is the one that publishes the unscientific but influential Diagnostic and Statistical Manual). ..."
"... In order to be scientific, the standard method is to actually try predicting. Prediction is messy and provably fails to converge to any possible theory, but there are other authentic sciences that have this same theoretical limitation, like meteorology. This doesn't prevent meteorologists from constructing theories which make predictions that demonstrably get better and better year after year. ..."
"... For twenty years Romer has been implying (and recently saying) that economists who don't accept endogenous growth theory have abandoned the canons of science and are either blind or indifferent to the truth. Over the same twenty years he seems to have produced very little theoretical work, while his targets have remained working economists. (Why, after all, should anyone continue to do theory, since Romer has discovered the truth?) ..."
I got tired of lambasting macroeconomics a while ago, and the "macro wars" mostly died down in
the blogosphere around when the recovery from the Great Recession kicked in. But recently, there
have been a number of respected macroeconomists posting big, comprehensive criticisms of the way
academic macro gets done. Some of these criticisms are more forceful than anything we bloggers blogged
about back in the day! Anyway, I thought I'd link to a couple here.
First, there's Paul Romer's latest, "
The Trouble
With Macroeconomics ". The title is an analogy to Lee Smolin's book "
The Trouble With Physics ". Romer basically says that macro (meaning business-cycle theory) has
become like the critics' harshest depictions of string theory - a community of believers, dogmatically
following the ideas of revered elders and ignoring the data. The elders he singles out are Bob Lucas,
Ed Prescott, and Tom Sargent.
Romer says that it's obvious that monetary policy affects the real economy, because of the Volcker
recessions in the early 80s, but that macro theorists have largely ignored this fact and continued
to make models in which monetary policy is ineffectual. He says that modern DSGE models are no better
than old pre-Lucas Critique simultaneous-equation models, because they still take lots of assumptions
to identify the models, only now the assumptions are hidden instead of explicit. Romer points to
distributional assumptions, calibration, and tight Bayesian priors as ways of hiding assumptions
in modern DSGE models. He cites
an interesting
2009 paper by Canova and Sala that tries to take DSGE model estimation seriously and finds (unsurprisingly)
that identification is pretty difficult.
As a solution, Romer suggests chucking formal modeling entirely and going with more general, vague
but flexible ideas about policy and the macroeconomy, supported by simple natural experiments and
economic history.
Romer's harshest zinger (and we all love harsh zingers) is this:
In response to the observation that the shocks [in DSGE models] are imaginary, a standard
defense invokes Milton Friedman's (1953) methodological assertion from unnamed authority that
"the more significant the theory, the more unrealistic the assumptions (p.14)." More recently,
"all models are false" seems to have become the universal hand-wave for dismissing any fact that
does not conform to the model that is the current favorite.
The noncommittal relationship with the truth revealed by these methodological evasions...goes
so far beyond post-modern irony that it deserves its own label. I suggest "post-real."
Ouch. He also calls various typical DSGE model elements names like "phlogiston", "aether", and "caloric".
Fun stuff
. (Though I do think he's too harsh on string theory, which often is just a kind of math that
physicists do to keep themselves busy, and has no danger of hurting anyone, unlike macro theory.)
Meanwhile, a few weeks earlier, Narayana Kocherlakota wrote a post called "
On the Puzzling Prevalence of Puzzles ". The basic point was that since macro data is fairly
sparse, macroeconomists should have lots of competing models that all do an equally good job of matching
the data. But instead, macroeconomists pick a single model they like, and if data fails to fit the
model they call it a "puzzle". He writes:
To an outsider or newcomer, macroeconomics would seem like a field that is haunted by its lack
of data...In the absence of that data, it would seem like we would be hard put to distinguish
among a host of theories...[I]t would seem like macroeconomists should be plagued by underidentification...
But, in fact, expert macroeconomists know that the field is actually plagued by failures to fit
the data – that is, by overidentification.
Why is the novice so wrong? The answer is the role of a priori restrictions in macroeconomic theory...
The mistake that the novice made is to think that the macroeconomist would rely on data alone
to build up his/her theory or model. The expert knows how to build up theory from a priori restrictions
that are accepted by a large number of scholars...[I]t's a little disturbing how little empirical
work underlies some of those agreed-upon theory-driven restrictions – see p. 711 of Lucas (JMCB,
1980) for a highly influential example of what I mean.
In fact, Kocherlakota and Romer are complaining about much the same thing: the overuse of unrealistic
assumptions. Basically, they say that macroeconomists, as a group, have gotten into the habit of
assuming stuff that just isn't true. In fact, this is what the Canova and Sala
paper
says too, in a much more technical and polite way:
Observational equivalence, partial and weak identification problems are widespread and typically
produced by an ill-behaved mapping between the structural parameters and the coefficients of the
solution.
That just means that the model elements aren't actually real things.
(This critique resonates with me. From day 1, the thing that always annoyed me about macro was how
people made excuses for assumptions that were either unverifiable or just flatly contradictory to
micro data. The usual excuse was the "
pool player analogy " - the idea that the pieces of a model don't have to match micro data as
long as the resulting model matches macro data. I'm not sure that's how Milton Friedman wanted his
metaphor to be used, but that seems to be the way it does get used. And when the models didn't
match macro data either, the excuse was "all models are wrong," which really just seems to be a way
of saying "the modeler gets to choose which macro facts are used to validate his theory". It seemed
that to a large extent, macro modelers were just allowed to do whatever they wanted, as long as their
papers won some kind of behind-the-scenes popularity contest. But I digress.)
So what seems to unite the new heavyweight macro critics is an emphasis on realism . Basically,
these people are challenging the idea, very common in econ theory, that models shouldn't worry about
being realistic. (Paul Pfleiderer is another economist who has recently made
a similar complaint , though not in the context of macro.) They're not saying that economists
need 100% perfect realism - that's the kind of thing you only get in physics, if anywhere. As
Paul
Krugman and
Dani Rodrik have emphasized, even the people advocating for more realism acknowledge that there's
some ideal middle ground. But if Romer, Kocherlakota, etc. are to be believed, macroeconomists aren't
currently close to that optimal interior solution.
Updates
Olivier Blanchard is a bet less forceful, but he's definitely also
one of the new heavyweight
critics . Among his problems with DSGE models, at least as they're currently done, are 1. "unappealing"
assumptions that are "at odds with what we know about consumers and firms", and 2. "unconvincing"
estimation methods, including calibration and tight Bayesian priors. Sounds pretty similar to Romer.
Meanwhile,
Kocherlakota
responds to Romer . He agrees with Romer's criticism of unrealistic macro assumptions, but he
dismisses the idea that Lucas, Prescott, and Sargent are personally responsible for the problems.
Instead, he says it's about the incentives in the research community. He writes:
We [macroeconomists] tend to view research as being the process of posing a question and delivering
a pretty precise answer to that question...The research agenda that I believe we need is very
different. It's hugely messy work. We need...to build a more evidence-based modeling of financial
institutions. We need...to learn more about how people actually form expectations. We need [to
use] firm-based information about residual demand functions to learn more about product market
structure. At the same time, we need to be a lot more flexible in our thinking about models and
theory, so that they can be firmly grounded in this improved empirical understanding.
Kocherlakota says that this isn't a "sociological" issue, but I think most people would call it that.
Since journals and top researchers get to decide what constitutes "good" research, it seems to me
that to get the changes in focus Kocherlakota wants, a sociological change is exactly what would
be required.
Kocherlakota now has another post describing
how
he thinks macro ought to be done . Basically, he thinks researchers - as a whole, not just on
their own! - should start with toy models to facilitate thinking, then gather data based on what
the toy models say is important, then build formal "serious" models from the ground up to match that
data. He contrasts this with the current approach of tweaking existing models.
My question
is: Who is going to enforce this change? If a few established researchers start doing things
the way Kocherlakota wants, they'll certainly still get published (because they're famous old people),
but will the young folks follow? How likely is it that established researchers en masse are going
to switch to doing things this way, and demanding that young researchers do the same, and using their
leverage as reviewers, editors, and PhD advisers to make that happen? This doesn't seem like the
kind of change that can be brought about by a few young smart rebels forcing everyone else to recognize
the value of their approach - the existing approach, which Kocherlakota dislikes, already succeeds
in getting publication and prestige, so the rebels would simply coexist alongside the old approach,
rather than overthrowing it. How could this cultural change be put into effect?
Also: Romer
now has a follow-up
to his original post, defending his original post against the critics. This part stood out to
me as particularly persuasive:
The whine I hear regularly from the post-real crowd is that "it is really, really hard to do research
on macro so you shouldn't criticize any of our models unless you can produce one that is better."
This is just post-real Calvinball used as a shield from criticism. Imagine someone saying to a
mathematician who finds an error in a theorem that is false, "you can't criticize the proof until
you come up with valid proof." Or try this one on and see how it feels: "You can't criticize the
claim that vaccines cause autism unless you can come up with a better explanation for autism."
Sounds right to me. The old like that "it takes a theory to kill a theory" just seems wrong to me.
Sometimes all it takes is evidence.
I've already commented at lenght on Romer at
Mark Thoma's. So I'll just use something you wrote on physics to make a tangential comment
on unrealistic assumptions.
"They're not saying that economists need 100% perfect realism - that's the kind of thing
you only get in physics, if anywhere"
This is a somewhat misleading way of putting it, but it allows me to illustrate some important
points about 'unrealistic' assumptions. In real world modelling in Physics 'unrealistic' assumptions are ubiquitous. What matters is
not literal realism of assumptions but robustness.of conclusions.
Consider a point-mass. There is no such thing. Yet it is a perfectly legitimate simplifying
assumption about a planet if you are interested in studying its orbit around its sun. It is not
a legitimate assumption if you are interested in studying a planet's rotation about its axis
The most important points underlying such simplifying assumptions are:
1. Simplifying assumptions are context specific, ie ad hoc, and never axiomatic.The ad hoc
nature of simplifying assumptions is a feature, not a bug as the above example illustrates.
2. Robustness is critical. As we move from our simplifying assumptions towards greater realism/precision,
the conclusion should not change in any material way, and we use the simplifications because the
gain in accuracy of the conclusions is not worth the added complexity and consequent loss of tractability
in the model.
3. Out of sample performance of the model.
* Richard Feynman:
"...in order to understand physical laws you must understand that they are all some kind of
approximation.
The trick is the idealizations. To an excellent approximation of perhaps one part in 10^10,
the number of atoms in the chair does not change in a minute, and if we are not too precise we
may idealize the chair as a definite thing; in the same way we shall learn about the characteristics
of force, in an ideal fashion, if we are not too precise. One may be dissatisfied with the approximate
view of nature that physics tries to obtain (the attempt is always to increase the accuracy of
the approximation), and may prefer a mathematical definition; but mathematical definitions can
never work in the real world. A mathematical definition will be good for mathematics, in which
all the logic can be followed out completely, but the physical world is complex, as we have indicated
in a number of examples, such as those of the ocean waves and a glass of wine. When we try to
isolate pieces of it, to talk about one mass, the wine and the glass, how can we know which is
which, when one dissolves in the other? The forces on a single thing already involve approximation,
and if we have a system of discourse about the real world, then that system, at least for the
present day, must involve approximations of some kind.
This system is quite unlike the case of mathematics, in which everything can be defined, and
then we do not know what we are talking about. In fact, the glory of mathematics is that we do
not have to say what we are talking about. The glory is that the laws, the arguments, and the
logic are independent of what "it" is.
Indeed. That was part of the reason for redundantly using the phrase :) . The other reason
was that the usage is strictly accurate. ad hoc = for this particular purpose (Shorter OED)
It is difficult to see how simplifying assumptions underlying real world models can be anything
but ad hoc (context-specific)
For a mathematician to object to ad hoc statements would be understandable, but for someone
concerned with real world modelling to do so is mind-boggling.
It is worth pointing out that the economists who do so object have never in their life built
a model that works, for any definition of 'works' acceptable anywhere outside economics.
This is indeed excellent. The three criteria for evaluating assumptions/simplifications, the
precise definition of ad hoc, and the crystal-clear example of point mass for orbits vs rotation.
I'd like to bring in my pet bailiwick, accounting. Our (national) accounting systems are rife
with assumptions and simplifications - they are economic models. (Or in Feynman's excellent
term, "idealizations.") And those assumptions are effectively invisible to almost everyone. If
I had a nickel for every time I've heard "it's an accounting identity" as if that was somehow
synonymous with "truth"...
Just one example, relating to a rather important economic measure - income:
The national-accounting sages know that the appropriateness of this basic conceptual construct
is a very open question. But that fact is invisible to almost everyone. National accounts could
be depicted quite differently (yes, with everything still balancing).
Economists' thinking is completely owned by the conceptual constructs, the idealizations, embodied
in our national-accounting structures. And they frequently display zero understanding of the constructs
that they are (we are) using to think with.
I've been critical of you in the past, but that is a really good comment, 100% on the ball.
But I will add that the simplifying assumption you used to illustrate your point, may not be true,
but it is nearly true (without the scales being considered). And many simplifying assumptions
used in economics are not nearly true.
Informally we might - and sometimes do - say that the assumption (point-mass) is 'nearly true',
but it is not quite correct. It is an idealization that satisfies criterion (2): robustness, and
the resulting model satisfies criterion (3); out-of-sample performance.
Of course this is very different from the sort of assumptions common in economics which are
often patently false - and this is the critical point - making them more realistic materially
changes the conclusions ie the assumptions in the models fail to satisfy the robustness criterion.
And, at least in DSGE/RBC macro to talk of in-sample fit or out-of-sample performance of the resulting
model would imply a libelous misuse of the terms.
Actually, as Romer notes, the situation in economics is often even worse.with assumptions being
not merely false ( with non-robust conclusions) but entirely meaningless in terms of real world
observables. Assumptions of the sort that are deservedly derisively dismissed as not even wrong
in every scientific or engineering discipline.
It's not just an argument about having models with realistic assumptions. It is also an argument
about the extent to which mathematics and models can usefully provide the answers we need to know.
Basically we are going back to Keynes's (1937) arguments about the limitations of "pretty and
polite techniques". Edgeworth was also very much aware of the limitations of mathematics in economics.
And so have many others, for a long time.
I have been critical of Romer in the past. His growth theory for me does not answer the critical
questions that I think are the most important into understanding why certain countries get on
to a growth curve and others do not. But I now really have to admire his honesty.
It is not true that we do not have a lot of macro data. The National Accounts contain scores
of (largely stock-flow consistent) data. The point is: one of the big failures of DSGE economists
is their failureto establish a measurement system which produces data consistent with the DSGE
models. Keynes, who even established his own government statistical office, the present day ONS,
and, in a more indirect sense, Smith, Marshall as well and Veblen did establish systems of measurement
to measure data consistent with their models and ideas. Read Mitra Kahn http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/1276/
or my efforts
DSGE economists never bothered to do this. Weird (well, not that weird - taking account of
real life data would have meant taking unemployment and the government serious... Or the fact
that the National Accounts identities only hold for nominal variables, not for deflated real variables).
Anyway - as there is no system of DSGE consistent measurement of the macro-economy it can't be
called a valid science.There are however systems consistent with the ideas of Keynes and Veblen...
So, we are witnessing a battle between a declining DSGE scam and ascending "Realistic assumptions"
scam.
Both approaches are worthless, but I guess it will give an excuse to macroeconomists why
they are useless: we just used the wrong paradigm, now we are switching to the new one. Just many
more years of research is needed and we will be ready. Science!, as they say.
I'm curious how many economists are simply too blind to understand that this will lead nowhere
and how many are simply cynical beyond belief.
I just don't understand the mentality. Wouldn't you like to do something productive? Like produce
actual knowledge? Can you guys be satisfied with infinite curve fitting?
Science, IEHO, has three touchstones. Coherence - your model and its assumptions should not contradict each other or lead to contradictory
conclusions. Consilience - a good theory has a broad reach for explaining reality. Consensus - a theory which is coherent and consilient should lead to a consensus among practicioners.
It is only within a strong consensus that people can talk to each other and extend the field.
It appears that macro misses out on a number of these.
"Romer basically says that macro (meaning business-cycle theory)"
Are you equating macro with business-cycle theory, or are you saying that Romer does?
In either case, I think this is another big problem with macro, its obsession with business
cycles as opposed to long-term thriving and prosperity. eg, Gerald Friedman got tied in knots
by this; he was trying to use "stimulus" thinking and arguments to talk about about multi-decadal
possibilities.
" (Though I do think he's too harsh on string theory, which often is just a kind of math that
physicists do to keep themselves busy, and has no danger of hurting anyone, unlike macro theory.)"
I find it hard to believe Noah understands string theory well enough to justify such a strong
opinion of it only existing to keep theorists employed. As much as I like "The Trouble With Physics"
those reading should keep in mind that Lee Smolin acknowledges that maybe there is something to
string theory.
And again, the focus of string theory in theoretical physics is harmful to the expansion of
knowledge and economic growth if too many brains not only barked up the wrong tree - nothing wrong
with that - but *continued* to bark up the wrong tree for years, ignoring other paths of understanding
physics, which is Smolin's main point.
I'm fond of observing that in addition to "cargo cult science", macroeconomics has often
been likened to a religion. What religions do when the mainstream becomes intolerable for one
reason or another is schism. Then after a number of years what used to be the mainstream dies
out and the former schismatics become the mainstream.
Psychology went through this kind of crisis some years ago when the scientists split off
from the clinicians, and created the Association for Psychological Science to contrast with the
clinically-oriented American Psychological Association (the APA is the one that publishes the
unscientific but influential Diagnostic and Statistical Manual).
All that heterodox economists need to do is gain some self-confidence and stop calling themselves
derogatory names. That won't make them scientific, but it'll be a step in the right direction.
In order to be scientific, the standard method is to actually try predicting. Prediction is
messy and provably fails to converge to any possible theory, but there are other authentic sciences
that have this same theoretical limitation, like meteorology. This doesn't prevent meteorologists
from constructing theories which make predictions that demonstrably get better and better year
after year.
Why don't all these macro critics stop publishing in "unscientific" mainstream journals and
setup their own J.Econ.Sci. that has rigorous scientific standards? Many of them have tenure or
non-academic jobs (e.g. Roemer) and don't need to kowtow to committees who care only about established
impact factors. It's been done elsewhere. It wasn't so long ago that one of the most prestigious
biology journals Cell, was just an upstart new face on the block. All it takes is a strong editor
and a pool of like-minded peer reviewers.
I think Paul Romer's self-serving ad hominem attacks should be identified as just that. One
would hardly blame the older generation of Nobel laureates of conspiring to deny economic pre-eminence
to Romer - look at how he behaves! - but I think they probably have better things to do.
I admit I haven't completely digested Romer's latest thunderbolt - I'm basing my comments more
on Romer's "mathiness" series of a year ago. In that case, I went back and read the "mathy" papers
that Romer was attacking. Mathy they were, but the Lucas and Moll paper at least was very clear
about why it didn't see increasing returns-to-scale in growth models convincing: the intellectual
property-driven economic sector just isn't, in their view, big enough. (BTW, that's almost exactly
the same argument made by William Nordhaus against the AI "singularity" folks: it could happen,
but none of today's macroeconomic data suggest that it is happening.)
To come back to the current discussion, I have no particular sympathy with the Lucas-Prescott-Sargent
rational expectations / microfoundations / real business cycle approach - but the needed discussion
of the defects of RBC has been underway for some time. And note that Romer's opening distillation
of RBC makes its problems all about a supposed "exogenous" component, for which the subtext is
that RBC's authors don't accept Romer's "endogenous" growth theory.
For twenty years Romer has been implying (and recently saying) that economists who don't accept
endogenous growth theory have abandoned the canons of science and are either blind or indifferent
to the truth. Over the same twenty years he seems to have produced very little theoretical work,
while his targets have remained working economists. (Why, after all, should anyone continue to
do theory, since Romer has discovered the truth?)
I wish Romer well at the World Bank. There is no doubt that his ideas around urbanization,
for example, will bring an important and updated perspective to a development bank. But the very
move suggest to me that the World Bank has not failed to note Romer's ability to propagandize
an economic agenda - and that it values his political skills as much as his reputation as an economic
theorist.
It's easy to poke holes in existing methodology, but it's much more difficult to come up with
viable alternatives and solutions. Do those who knock DSGE models really think we should go back
to 1970's macro and reuse old-school Keynesian models? The empirical evidence against Keynesian
multipliers is overwhelming (See Ramey for an overview). Methodologically, Keynesian models make
just as many implausible, ad hoc assumptions as DSGE models, if not more. Their forecast accuracy
is no better; private forecasters are mostly selling stories and scenarios, not forecasts that
in any way will prove ex post to be accurate.
I think you are repeating - and it is a good reminder - the classic Mark Blaug argument that
economists should not abandon the "best available" theory (even if its deficiencies are manifest)
if there is no better replacement. I have no problem with that.
However, I think the discussion right now is about those manifest defects. And there are stirrings
about what comes next. Noah has blogged several times on the new "empirical turn". And the Keynesians,
who have never gone away, may yet stand up a rehabilitated theory. For a usable business cycle
theory, there are really three tests to satisfy:
1) Normal forecasting capability (as you mention);
2) Convincing comparative statics on the effects of monetary or fiscal intervention. (RBC omitted
this almost by definition.)
3) Some ability to detect pressures that are building toward a major shock. (I call this 'the
Cassandra feature', since the predictions are unlikely to be believed or heeded.) Whether any
model could really offer this is open to question, but it's a real question. The Fed always talks
about "risks to the economy", but is the perception of those risks coming from the model? How
did Warren Buffet know that the pile of financial derivatives would collapse, but bankers and
regulators and economists not know it? One answer, at least for economists, is that rational expectations
theory forces prediction of any kind of discontinuity completely out of the model. That part of
Paul Romer's complaint seems to me to be valid.
"... There is indeed a wing of heterodox economics that is anti-mathematical. Known as "Critical Realism" and centred on the work of Tony Lawson at Cambridge UK, it attributes the failings of economics to the use of mathematics itself... ..."
"... Steve also offers some useful criticism of Milton Friedman's ideas about how to evaluate a model's empirical success ( I agree ). ..."
"... The problem with 'heterodox economics' is that it is self-definition in terms of the other. It says 'we are not them' - but says nothing about what we are. This is because it includes everything outside of the mainstream, from reasonably well-defined and coherent schools of thought such as Post Keynesians, Marxists and Austrians, to much more nebulous and ill-defined discontents of all hues. To put it bluntly, a broad definition of 'people who disagree with mainstream economics' is going to include a lot of cranks. People will place the boundary between serious non-mainstream economists and cranks differently, depending on their perspective. ..."
"... Aside from rejecting standard neoclassical economics, the Marxists and the Austrians don't have a great deal in common. ..."
"... Noah seems to define heterodox economics as 'non-mathematical' economics. This is inaccurate. There is much formal modelling outside of the mainstream. ..."
"... Noah's post unfortunately seems to have elicited some rather defensive responses from the heterodox community, along the lines of " But we DO like mathematics! " or even, " Actually our mathematics is better than yours ". But this is to buy into Noah's core proposition. The heterodox economics community should - and, to be fair, in most cases does - reject it outright. Economics is not, and cannot be , exclusively mathematical...There is no need for the heterodox economic community to be defensive about vagueness. ..."
The other day I wrote
a Bloomberg View post arguing that heterodox macroeconomics is not in any better shape than mainstream
macroeconomics. As you might expect, this drew some lively responses.
One or two of the responses seemed to be arguing against the title of my post, rather than
the contents. That's understandable, since titles are important. In this case, though, it probably
detracted from the debate a great deal. The Bloomberg title people are good, and they usually get
things right, but once in a while the title they choose doesn't quite capture the point I'm trying
to make. This was one of those cases. The title they gave my post was "Economics Without Math Is
Trendy, But It Doesn't Add Up." But actually, this wasn't what I was arguing. My point about non-mathy
models wasn't that these are bad, useless, or inferior. It was that they're different from
mathy models, and so comparing non-mathy models with mathy ones is an apples-to-oranges comparison.
Both types of models have their uses, but you can't really compare one to the other. I make that
pretty clear in the text of
my post , but most of the people who responded tended to focus more on the title. Oh well. These
things happen.
Anyway, on to some of the responses. The numbering here is arbitrary, corresponding to the order
in which the tabs were open on my browser. (Note: The ordering has changed; see #4.)
Response 1: Steve Keen
First, we have
a
response by Steve Keen . Steve, unlike others, did get the point I was making about mathy vs.
non-mathy models (Thanks, Steve!), and had some good commentary on the subject:
There is indeed a wing of heterodox economics that is anti-mathematical. Known as "Critical
Realism" and centred on the work of Tony Lawson at Cambridge UK, it attributes the failings of
economics to the use of mathematics itself...
What Noah might not know is that many heterodox economists are critical of this approach as well.
In response to
a paper by Lawson that effectively defined "Neoclassical" economics as any economics that
made use of mathematics (which would define me as a Neoclassical!), Jamie Morgan edited a book
of replies to Lawson entitled
What is Neoclassical Economics? (including a chapter by me). While the authors agreed with
Lawson's primary point that economics has suffered from favouring apparent mathematical elegance
above realism, several of us asserted that mathematical analysis is needed in economics, if only
for the reason that Noah gave in his article[.]
Steve also offers some useful criticism of Milton Friedman's ideas about how to evaluate a model's
empirical success (
I agree ).
Steve also makes the useful point that linearization critically hampers many mainstream models
(
I agree ).
Steve points out that non-mathy models can make qualitative forecasts. That's true. However, my
point was that these are often a lot less actionable than quantitative forecasts. A non-mathy model
might tell you that private-sector debt is dangerous, but it might not tell you how much of
it is dangerous, or how dangerous. For that, you'd need some kind of mathy model. Steve definitely
seems to get this point too, though, so I'm not disagreeing.
Steve then discusses overfitting of data, and points out that many mainstream models do this too.
That's certainly true, although I think DSGE models tend to be a lot more parsimonious than SFC models
or stuff like FRB/US. Actually, overfitting is one of the big criticisms of the most popular DSGE
models in use at central banks.
Steve then addresses the idea that heterodox models are similar to mainstream ones. I never said
they were, although I said there are some similarities between the FRB/US model and Wynne Godley-type
SFC models. In fact, there are some similarities, though there are also differences. But in general,
most heterodox models are very different from most mainstream models.
Steve also discusses my (admittedly too brief) mention of agent-based models, and has some good
comments:
Largely speaking, this is true - if you want to use these models for macroeconomic forecasting.
But they are useful for illustrating an issue that the mainstream avoids: "emergent properties".
A population, even of very similar entities, can generate results that can't be extrapolated from
the properties of any one entity taken in isolation...Neoclassical economists unintentionally
proved this about isolated consumers as well, in what is known as the Sonnenschein-Mantel-Debreu
theorem. But they have sidestepped its results ever since...Multi-agent modelling may not lead
to a new policy-oriented theory of macroeconomics. But it acquaints those who do it with the phenomenon
of emergent properties - that an aggregate does not function as a scaled-up version of the entities
that comprise it. That's a lesson that Neoclassical economists still haven't absorbed.
I think this is right. Agent-based models have so far served as a demonstration of the fragility
of representative agent models. In the future, they might be much more than that.
So anyway, I'd say I pretty much agree with Steve's response. Good stuff. (Though
this person on Reddit had some problems with it.)
Response 2: Ari Andricopolous
Ari
has a response as well . His response comes in the form of a list of things that he thinks macro
models should not include. The list is:
Microfoundations
Neoliberal_rationality/
Loanable funds
Interest rate effects
The financial sector
It's pretty clear that the last item on this list is misplaced, since Ari thinks one should
include the financial sector in models.
Whether macro models should be microfounded is a big open question, but I'd like to note that
by saying they shouldn't be, Ari is saying that agent-based models are bad. Agent-based models are
as microfounded as they come.
As for rationality, I kind of disagree...humans observe and learn and adapt (OK, some more than
others, I'll grant). Even though perfect rationality is probably pretty unrealistic, to insist that
models totally ignore human observation, learning, and adaptation seems very dangerous for the realism
of any model.
As for the loanable funds thing...yeah, OK, sure.
Response 3: Jo Michell
Jo Michell's response might have been the first to go up, but it's later on this list because...the
numbering is arbitrary!
Jo, which I believe is short for "Jörmungandr", has a helpful diagram of the "schools" of macroeconomic
thought. He also pushes back on the notion that "heterodox" is a useful classification at all:
The problem with 'heterodox economics' is that it is self-definition in terms of the other.
It says 'we are not them' - but says nothing about what we are. This is because it includes everything
outside of the mainstream, from reasonably well-defined and coherent schools of thought such as
Post Keynesians, Marxists and Austrians, to much more nebulous and ill-defined discontents of
all hues. To put it bluntly, a broad definition of 'people who disagree with mainstream economics'
is going to include a lot of cranks. People will place the boundary between serious non-mainstream
economists and cranks differently, depending on their perspective.
Another problem is that these schools of thought have fundamental differences. Aside from
rejecting standard neoclassical economics, the Marxists and the Austrians don't have a great deal
in common.
This is a good and useful point. My Bloomberg post really did bite off more than it could chew. My
point was that there wasn't something better and more successful out there that by rights ought to
already have displaced the (unsuccessful) mainstream approach. But in making that point, I touched
on a number of different types of alternatives that aren't really closely connected. And I left out
others (for example, Steve Keen's own work, and the Austrians).
Jo, unfortunately, appears to have gotten tripped up by the title:
Noah seems to define heterodox economics as 'non-mathematical' economics. This is inaccurate.
There is much formal modelling outside of the mainstream.
Well, no, I don't define it that way, otherwise I wouldn't have discussed SFC models and agent-based
models in my post.
Jo goes on to make some good points about mainstream models, and some of the problems they encounter.
Response 4: Frances Coppola
Frances Coppola, whom I cited in my Bloomberg post,
also has
a response . I responded to this post earlier, but Frances changed it, so I moved my response
down to #4.
Frances still seems to misunderstand my post somewhat, and to have been tripped up by the title:
Noah's core proposition is that economics has no validity unless it is expressed in mathematical
terms. He says that economics without mathematics doesn't add up.
Actually, I didn't make such a claim. Nor do I believe it.
What I wrote was:
Broad idea-sketching is certainly a valuable activity. If theorists get lost in the specifics
of their models, they can blind themselves to truly new hypotheses and mechanisms that would let
them make big, radical changes. I do think this has happened to some degree in mainstream macro...But
that doesn't mean that broad idea-sketching is a replacement for formal models. It's not an apples-to-apples
comparison.
My point is that although non-mathematical econ is often valuable, it's not comparable to mathematical
econ. Both have their place. But to say that a non-quantitative theory was successful at predicting
the Great Recession, while a quantitative theory failed, is to hold the two theories to very different
standards, since "predict" means different things for quantitative theories than it does for non-quantitative
theories.
Frances goes on to discuss some of the limitations of purely quantitative models. She's broadly
right. She then criticizes some heterodox theorists who, in her opinion, focus too much on math:
Noah's post unfortunately seems to have elicited some rather defensive responses from the
heterodox community, along the lines of "
But we DO like mathematics! " or even, "
Actually our mathematics is better than yours ". But this is to buy into Noah's core proposition.
The heterodox economics community should - and, to be fair, in most cases does - reject it outright.
Economics is not,
and cannot be , exclusively mathematical...There is no need for the heterodox economic community
to be defensive about vagueness.
Again, Frances demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of my thesis. I never said that econ theory should
be exclusively mathematical, nor do I believe it. This confusion is partly the result of the title,
and partly the result of me just not explaining my thesis well enough.
Anyway, those are the responses I've seen. Thanks to everyone who took the time to respond!
"... Not since the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq has Official Washington's political/punditry class clamored more single-mindedly – and openly – for the U.S. government to commit a gross violation of international law, now urging a major military assault on the government of Syria while also escalating tensions with nuclear-armed Russia. ..."
"... And, like the frenzied war fever of 2002-2003, today's lawless consensus is operating on a mix of selective, dubious and false information – while excluding from the public debate voices that might dare challenge the prevailing "group think." It's as if nothing was learned from the previous disaster in Iraq. ..."
"... U.S. regional "allies" have been funding and arming radical jihadist groups, including Al Qaeda terrorists ..."
"... the claim about "moderate" Syrian rebels is a fraud; the "moderates" have served essentially as a P.R. cut-out for the U.S. and its "allies" to supply Al Qaeda and its allies with sophisticated weapons while pretending not to. ..."
Official Washington has a new "group think" that is even more dangerous than the one that led
to the Iraq War. This one calls for U.S. escalation of conflicts against Syria and nuclear-armed
Russia.
Not since the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq has Official Washington's political/punditry
class clamored more single-mindedly – and openly – for the U.S. government to commit a gross violation
of international law, now urging a major military assault on the government of Syria while also escalating
tensions with nuclear-armed Russia.
And, like the frenzied war fever of 2002-2003, today's lawless consensus is operating on a mix
of selective, dubious and false information – while excluding from the public debate voices that
might dare challenge the prevailing "group think." It's as if nothing was learned from the previous
disaster in Iraq.
Most notably, there are two key facts about Syria that Americans are not being told: one,
U.S. regional "allies" have been funding and arming radical jihadist groups, including Al Qaeda terrorists
, there almost since the conflict began in 2011 and, two, the claim about "moderate" Syrian
rebels is a fraud; the "moderates" have served essentially as a P.R. cut-out for the U.S. and its
"allies" to supply Al Qaeda and its allies with sophisticated weapons while pretending not to.
.................................
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/05/new-group-think-for-war-with-syriarussia/
"... Some combination of improved public infrastructure, better education, more encouragement for private investment, and more-effective regulation is likely to promote faster growth, which would increase the natural rate of interest and, thus, reduce the probability that we may find ourselves again struggling to avoid Keynes's infamous liquidity trap. If the natural rate can be lifted by appropriate policies, the economic near-stagnation that many countries have experienced in recent years may well turn out not to be that secular after all. ..."
"... A truly orthodox monetarist believes that monetary policy IS a panacea, that counter-cyclical fiscal policy is inflationary and debt expanding such that it should never be used. ..."
[If Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer is not a strictly orthodox monetarist then I cannot see any
reason for anyone else to be one. ]
...But, second, the virtues of sound monetary policy notwithstanding, we must not forget, as former
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke reminded us on numerous occasions, that "monetary policy is not a panacea."17
For instance, as I mentioned recently elsewhere, policies to boost productivity growth and the
longer-run potential of the economy are more likely to be found in effective fiscal and regulatory
measures than in central bank actions.18
Some combination of improved public infrastructure, better
education, more encouragement for private investment, and more-effective regulation is likely
to promote faster growth, which would increase the natural rate of interest and, thus, reduce
the probability that we may find ourselves again struggling to avoid Keynes's infamous liquidity
trap. If the natural rate can be lifted by appropriate policies, the economic near-stagnation
that many countries have experienced in recent years may well turn out not to be that secular
after all.
[A truly orthodox monetarist believes that monetary policy IS a panacea, that counter-cyclical
fiscal policy is inflationary and debt expanding such that it should never be used.]
Notice that Fishers remedies do not include policy actions to support increased consumption/demand
apparently believing that Investment is done for what purpose? Could he not have said that people
might increase Investment in productive purposes if they felt they could sell their produced offerings
profitably. Then I would like him to say that the creation of credit is not productive as it comes
almost costlessly (a corporate bond, even a mortgage contract cost little to produce), the same
with a govt bond or govt currency, or the electronic registration of a stock, or the creation
of derived financial instruments defined by ink on paper.
Inputs like labor, equipment and supplies of materials produce offerings, but financial assets
need almost none of these inputs. We need much more flow going to getting real offerings marketed.
But why does investing-wherewithal take such risks in hoping to organize all these inputs and
marketing efforts when the huge volumes of high trading frequency lead to returns of added wherewithal
coming to comfortable offices anywhere, to be churned again in the trading of non-production based
financial things.
Have central banks (and others in the financial asset trading club) become so distanced from
the production economics of Wicksall and Keynes that they can no longer even talk about basic
demand for goods and services as a reason to Invest?
How about a set of remarks focused on aggregate demand for real offerings.
How about a set of remarks focused on how to redirect the economic wherewithal churning about
in the financial asset trading marketplaces and convert more and more of this wherewithal into
taking risks on real production and marketing businesses (more than ample supply of wherewithal
now). The central bank leaders could talk more about how they can serve in making this conversion
happen well, in coordination with other public policies such as those that help support more basic
demand and happier more dynamic animal spirits in society, so to speak.
Can we replace Fisher with a deputy who sees everything first via the lens of demand side thinking
followed by labor market considerations, long before they see solutions coming from "encouraging
private investment" in financial assets?
Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer is a very conventional orthodox establishment economist, just not
a strictly orthodox monetarist. I was in no way lauding Fischer other than by just spelling his
last name correctly. However he can serve as a benchmark that distinguishes orthodox establishment
economics from the even more narrow and rigid orthodox monetarism.
My misspelling was not intended as a passive aggressive disrespect. But of course I called for
his replacement, and I did this to bring attention to matters important to me, not just as an
ad hominem attack on Mr. Fischer.
I do not want more policies to encourage capital formation and husbandry, nor do I want managers
of capital to use public means or subsidues so they can get better educated workforces and eak
more out of them so their capital is further favored (of course there are public good reasons
for public effirts here, but its purposes are not just to encourage more investment because it
is further subsidized), and the same with public efforts to build better infrastructure if the
idea of 'better' is because it subsidizes investors (not perhaps because it makes society safer
to have a more reilient and efficient energy delivery system that also helps with climate change
concerns too), or better regulation of the financial system so its risks are spread better and
investors are encouraged to trade even more in them. So here I've taken each of Fischers recommendations
and addressed them, pointing out how these statements can be seen as supporting the investing
class nit the real economy of demand side considerations about economics.
Perhaps the Deputy Director didn't intend for these remarks to be read that way. After all
he talked about Wicksell, and I'm pretty sure his views were tied to the world of real production,
anf Fischer even talked about production. So maybe I'm too willing to read with suspicion, or
he is not cautious enough in his writing, or he needs to be replaced (because I read this the
way he meant it).
Conventional orthodox establishment economists worry about inflation even after they deliver 1.6
percent growth for 2016.
And they insist monetary policy doesn't work well which is somewhat of a contradiction as they're
worrying about inflation and monetary policy working too well.
If you read the Sept. 2008 minutes of the FOMC they are worrying about inflation 48 hours after
Lehman failed and the implosion of the financial system. Just 8 years ago and they don't seem
to have learned.
Noah Smith from yesterday: "Most of the profession does
believe in the power of monetary policy. The dominant form of
macroeconomic model for at least a decade has been so-called
New Keynesian models, which say that interest rates play a
very large role in stabilizing the economy. These are also
the dominant form of modern macro model in use at central
banks...
Now, the big question is whether faith in monetary policy
might have been misplaced. The seemingly small effects of
quantitative easing, and the difficulty of dealing with very
low interest rates, are causing some macroeconomists to cast
about for alternatives to the New Keynesian paradigm.
It sure seems like the economics profession is confused,
very confused. Sadly, that will not keep them from
demagoguing their favorite policy and insulting those who
dare to point out the obvious problems and mistakes.
"Morning Trade was let down - along with many on Twitter - that there was no mention of the TPP [in
the Vice-Presidential Debate], a deal that both vice presidential candidates initially supported until
they signed on as running-mates and flip-flopped" [
Politico
].
Especially given that in Trump's strong first half-hour, he hammered Clinton with it.
"In conference at Yale Law School, DeLauro pushes to stop controversial Trans Pacific Partnership"
[
New
Haven Register
]. Detailed report of speech. ".S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-3, said the administration
will be "relentless" in its pursuit of a positive vote on the Trans Pacific Partnership in the lame
duck Congress, something she and a coalition in Congress are hoping to stop…. '(T)he agreement is undemocratic
in its drafting, undemocratic in its contents and it cannot be passed during an unaccountable lame duck
period,' she told Yale Law students and staff in attendance."
"Obama Hails Enforcement on Trade Deals to Win Support for T.P.P." [
New
York Times
]. "Such actions against other countries' subsidies, dumping and market barriers, however,
do not address two big concerns of trade skeptics: currency manipulation and workers' rights."
"The French decision follows Uruguay and Paraguay leaving the controversial US backed TISA negotiations
last year and the recent humiliating back down of the EU on Investor State Dispute Resolution. With
Germany and France so critical and Great Britain on the way out of the EU, it is hard to see how the
European Commission can continue the negotiations" [
Public
Services International
].
Now the predatory class claims to be aghast at what its
policies have enabled--Trump. But are Trumps policies really
the problem...or is the problem that doesn't use the
reassuring, coded language that the predatory class has
carefully crafted to cover its exploitation?
Maybe instead of Al Gore, Michael Moore should hit the stump with Clinton
to work the crowd and sign people up to MoveOn.org membership since it will
be needed to defend Hillary in her up-coming impeachment trial in the
Republican Senate. It will bring back memories as we relive the Clinton
years all over again. And while the oxygen gets sucked out policy discussion
from Hillary's impeachment, she can get to work on Grand Bargain and finally
privatize SS and maybe no-fly zone & WW3, too. With so much stuff like that
going on, people should be sufficiently distracted from from their
shittacular healthcare, declining wages, and student loaners lurking in
basements as the number of states experiencing Obamacare "collapse" go from
current 4-7 to who knows … 10-20 or so.
The other European referendum,
soon to be known as the Italian Job. Interesting the way the article touches on
the issue of
the elite against the people.
Olens defended Georgia's gay marriage ban and sued the federal government over the transgender
bathroom directive. That's why students organized Monday afternoon's protest and drafted a petition
that has more than 5,000 signatures.
In the petition, students ask the Georgia Board of Regents to not appoint Olens as KSU's next
president.One student, who wouldn't give 11Alive his name, said he's disappointed.
"The support groups would probably be disbanded and not to mention the scholarships that are
offered for people active in LGBT rights," he said
After the rally ended, he stayed around to continue the protest.
"I feel it's my duty. I'm a student here and I have to make sure the school is safe for me
and students. If this place becomes unsafe, I'd have to leave," he said.
Oh for pity's sake, this snowflake thinks hiring the Georgia AG as the school's president would
lead to anti-gay pogroms? I hate the way this Orwellian "safe space" concept has become the cudgel
with which campus progressives use to club the expression of opinions with which they disagree. Anyway,
the reader comments:
Okay, a couple things. First, KSU gives scholarships for "people active in LGBT rights"? I'd
love to know details on that. Second, note the alleged disqualification here: Olens defended the
laws of his state - laws that were created by a democratically elected legislature. In other words,
he did the job he is elected to do. But as you and I know, this now constitutes Thoughtcrime.
Leonard Witt, a KSU professor, wrote
a column
criticizing the choice in which he concludes: "Let's, this time, show the world that
Cobb County carries the torch for all its diverse communities." Yes, diverse communities - as
long as one of those communities isn't Christians or people fulfilling the duties of their elected
office.
Now, I should note that as a college professor myself I happen to agree with Witt's other point:
that a college president should be an academic, not someone plucked from business or politics.
If I taught at KSU, I would oppose Olens for that reason. But this is something different: opposition
to him because of something he believes, and because he did his job according to the constitution
of the state of Georgia.
Eventually we're going to have to call explanations like Witt's the "Eich Maneuver," as an
homage to Mozilla's preposterous explanation that they had to fire Eich because of how much they
value diversity of viewpoint.
The reader says to be sure to note this reasoning from KSU's Prof. Witt (what follows is a quote
from Witt's column):
Already the KSU LGBTQ community members are signing petitions. A headline in Project Q, a popular
Atlanta blog, screams out "Gay marriage bigot Sam Olens to become KSU president." Unfair? Perhaps,
but how do we know,since the selection process is coming from the darkest corners of state government.
As attorney general, Olens ardently opposed both gay marriage and now gender neutral bathrooms.
Hence, the headline.
Given Cobb County's history, try as the chancellor may argue otherwise, important national
constituencies are going to be outraged about the secret meetings aimed at appointing a candidate
who they know will infuriate the LGBTQ community and their allies at Kennesaw State, in Cobb County
and throughout the state and nation.
The nation's largest foundations that support higher education demand respecting diversity
in all its forms. An active foe of gay marriage or transgender neutral bathrooms for KSU president?
Cobb County again? We have better places to put our money. Google, Microsoft, Apple, Nike and
just about every other major corporation may well openly or silently boycott Kennesaw State University.
Plus, the tainted brand name will not exactly be a student resume builder.
Says the reader:
Echoes of Indiana and RFRA.
If we don't keep up with the LGBT agenda, no corporations will
want to do business with us!
And note the fear that we could "infuriate the LGBTQ community
and their allies." If I even mentioned to my academic colleagues that something could upset we
Christians and our allies, I'd probably hear laughter.
We should be hearing Republican politicians, churches, and civic leaders calling this stuff out
for what it is: diversity McCarthyism. Olens may or may not be qualified to run the university, but
what these SJWs are attempting is frightening - or should be. Where does it stop?
Bobby M. Wilson
(bio)
In the era of neoliberalism, human beings are made accountable for their
predicaments or circumstances according to the workings of the market as
opposed to finding faults in larger structural and institutional forces like
racism and economic inequality. The market exchange is an ethic in itself,
capable of acting as a guide for all of human action (
Harvey
2005
). In many ways, the discourse of neoliberalism represents a radical
inversion of the notion of "human agency," as conceived through the
prophetic politics of Martin Luther King. As originally conceived, human
agency focused on people's capability of doing things that can make a
difference, that is, to exercise some sort of power and self-reliance. As a
central concern among many in the social sciences, this concept sought to
expose the power of human beings. Reverend Martin Luther King's prophetic
politics were determinedly "this worldly" and social in their focus. He
encouraged people to direct their attention to matters of social justice
rather than concern for personal well-being or salvation. He believed in the
power of people to make a difference.
But the concept of "justice" has
been reconstructed to fit neoliberal political and economic objectives. This
reconstruction is part of a larger discourse to reconstitute liberalism to
include human conduct. The invisible hand of the market not only allocates
resources but also the conduct of citizens. Economie agency is no longer
just about the market allocation of resources, but the allocation of people
into cultural worlds. This represents a radical inversion of the economic
agent as conceived by the liberalism of Adam Smith. As agents, humans are
implicated as players and partners in the market game. The context in which
individuals define themselves is privatized rather than publicized; the
focus of concerns is on the self rather than the collective. Power operates
internally, not externally, by inducing people to aim for
"self-improvement." The effect has been to negate the "social" in issues of
"justice" or "injustice." Individual subjects are rendered responsible,
shifting the responsibility for social risk (unemployment, poverty, etc.) to
the individual.
Black inner city spaces compete freely within a deregulated global
market. Central cities of large metropolitan areas have become the epicenter
of segregation. In 1988, approximately 55% of black students in the South
attended schools that were 50% to 100% minorities. By 2000, almost 70%
attended such schools. Only 15% of intensely segregated white schools are
schools of concentrated poverty, whereas 88% of the intensely segregated
racial minority schools are schools of concentrated poverty. Fifty years
after the
Brown
decision, we continue to heap more disadvantages on
children in poor communities. The community where a student resides
[End Page 97]
and goes to school is now the best predictor of
whether that student will go to college and succeed after graduation. High
school graduation rates in the South were lowest in the most isolated
black-majority districts-those separated by both race and poverty. Across
the South, we have created public and private systems that encourage the
accumulation of wealth and privilege in mostly white and socially isolated
communities separated by ever greater distances from the increasingly
invisible working poor (
Orfield
and Mei 2004
).
The most fundamental difference between today's segregated black
communities and those of the past is the much higher level of joblessness (
Wilson
1997
). Black unemployment and poverty level consistently remains at
twice the level of the total population. Access to jobs, already
disproportionately tenuous for black workers, has become even more
constricted in the current era of global capital. Without meaningful work,
the impact of racially segregated communities is much more pervasive and
devastating. The vast majority of intensely racial and ethnic segregated
minority places face a growing surplus labor determined to survive by any
means necessary. Two-thirds of the people in prison are now racial and
ethnic minorities. The proportion of young black males who are incarcerated,
on parole, or on probation nationwide continues to reach record levels.
Blacks represent 12.3% of the total population but make up 43.7% of the
incarcerated population. The number of black men in prisons increased from
508,800 in...
"... the point that there's no ethical consumption under capitalism is a good one, repeated often but not often enough, even if in your case it comes in the stale clichéd context of "therefore First-World leftists need to shut up". ..."
"... in still-existing Communist Party regimes like the People's Republic of China, the party cadres are the neoliberal capitalist elites, no political transition required at all. ..."
"... It's George Orwell's final ironic revenge on those who would conscript his Animal Farm into service as a procapitalist propaganda tract: they forget that the final lines aren't just an indictment of the pigs (Communist nomenklatura) for being no better than the men (capitalists) but also of the men for being no better than the pigs. ..."
A side note: there was some conversation above about the interests of an aristocracy, which
of course prompted the idea that the aristocracy is long gone. But meritocracy is a kind of
aristocracy.
This is an interesting observation. BTW other aspect of the same is related to the "Iron law
of oligarchy". Also both aristocracy and meritocracy are just variants of oligarchy. The actual
literal translation from the Greek is the "rule of the few".
At the same time traditional aristocracy is not fixed either and always provided some "meritocratic"
mechanisms for entering its ranks. Look, for example, at British system where prominent scientists
always were awarded lordship. Similar mechanism was used in in many countries where low rank military
officers, who displayed bravery and talent in battles were promoted to nobility and allowed to
hold top military positions. Napoleonic France probably is one good example here.
Neoliberal elite like traditional aristocracy also enjoys the privilege of being above the
law. And like in case of traditional aristocracy the democratic governance is limited to members
of this particular strata. Only they can be viewed as political actors.
USSR nomenklatura is yet another example of the same. It was so close in spirit to neoliberal
elite, that the transition in 1991 was almost seamless.
In other words, vertical mobility can't be completely suppressed without system losing the
social stability and that's was true for classic aristocracy as well as modern neoliberal elite
(actually vertical mobility is somewhat higher in European countries then in the USA; IMHO it
is even higher in the former Eastern block).
Re Will G-R: Your constant references to "liberals" as if they are all hideous, foul, disgusting,
and evil, dripping in blood of the victims of global capitalism's exploitative ways (do you
have a smartphone by the way? [I don't]; do you know who mined its ingredients?) is getting
perhaps a bit, um, repetitive.
If by liberals we would understand neoliberals, this might not be an overstatement. Neoliberals
destroy the notion of social justice and pervert the notion of the "rule of the law". See, for
example, The Neo-Liberal State by Raymond Plant
social justice is incompatible with the rule of law because its demands cannot be embodied
in general and impartial rules; and rights have to be the rights to non-interference rather
than understood in terms of claims to resources because rules against interference can be understood
in general terms whereas rights to resources cannot. There is no such thing as a substantive
common good for the state to pursue and for the law to embody and thus the political pursuit
of something like social justice or a greater sense of solidarity and community lies outside
the rule of law.
But surely, it might be argued, a nomocratic state and its laws have to
acknowledge some set of goals. It cannot be impartial or indifferent to all goals.
Law cannot be pointless. It cannot be totally non-instrumental. It has to facilitate
the achievement of some goals. If this is recognized, it might be argued, it will
modify the sharpness of the distinction between a nomocratic and telocratic state,
between a civil association and an enterprise association.
IMHO for neoliberals social justice and the rule of law is applicable only to Untermensch.
For Ubermensch (aka "creative class") it undermines their individual freedom and thus they need
to be above the law.
To ensure their freedom and cut "unnecessary and undesirable interference" of the society in
their creative activities the role of the state should be limited to safeguarding the free market
as the playground for their "creativity" (note "free" as in "free ride", not "fair")
LFC, the point that there's no ethical consumption under capitalism is a good one, repeated
often but not often enough, even if in your case it comes in the stale clichéd context of "therefore
First-World leftists need to shut up". The point about repetition is particularly ironic,
though, coming in the midst of yet another repetitive liberal circlejerk about Donald Trump blowing
the Gabriel's trumpet of a civilization-destroying neo-Nazi apocalypse.
likbez: "USSR nomenklatura is yet another example of the same. It was so close in spirit to
neoliberal elite, that the transition in 1991 was almost seamless."
One doesn't even have to compare different types of government to grasp this point, when
in still-existing Communist Party regimes like the People's Republic of China, the party cadres
are the neoliberal capitalist elites, no political transition required at all.
It's George Orwell's final ironic revenge on those who would conscript his Animal Farm
into service as a procapitalist propaganda tract: they forget that the final lines aren't
just an indictment of the pigs (Communist nomenklatura) for being no better than the men (capitalists)
but also of the men for being no better than the pigs.
"It's George Orwell's final ironic revenge on those who would conscript his Animal Farm
into service as a procapitalist propaganda tract: they forget that the final lines aren't just
an indictment of the pigs (Communist nomenklatura) for being no better than the men (capitalists)
but also of the men for being no better than the pigs."
"... Smart young things joining the workforce soon discover that, although they have been selected for their intelligence, they are not expected to use it. They will be assigned routine tasks that they will consider stupid. If they happen to make the mistake of actually using their intelligence, they will be met with pained groans from colleagues and polite warnings from their bosses. After a few years of experience, they will find that the people who get ahead are the stellar practitioners of corporate mindlessness. ..."
"... The Stupidity Paradox ..."
"... they quickly found themselves working long hours on 'boring' and 'pointless' routine work. After a few years of dull tasks, they hoped that they'd move on to more interesting things. But this did not happen. As they rose through the ranks, these ambitious young consultants realised that what was most important was not coming up with a well-thought-through solution. It was keeping clients happy with impressive PowerPoint shows. Those who did insist on carefully thinking through their client's problems often found their ideas unwelcome. If they persisted in using their brains, they were often politely told that the office might not be the place for them. ..."
Each summer, thousands of the best and brightest graduates join the workforce. Their well-above-average
raw intelligence will have been carefully crafted through years at the world's best universities.
After emerging from their selective undergraduate programmes and competitive graduate schools,
these new recruits hope that their jobs will give them ample opportunity to put their intellectual
gifts to work. But they are in for an unpleasant surprise.
Smart young things joining the workforce soon discover that, although they have been selected
for their intelligence, they are not expected to use it. They will be assigned routine tasks that
they will consider stupid. If they happen to make the mistake of actually using their intelligence,
they will be met with pained groans from colleagues and polite warnings from their bosses. After
a few years of experience, they will find that the people who get ahead are the stellar practitioners
of corporate mindlessness.
One well-known firm that Mats Alvesson and I studied for our
book The
Stupidity Paradox (2016) said it employed only the best and the brightest. When these smart
new recruits arrived in the office, they expected great intellectual challenges. However,
they quickly found themselves working long hours on 'boring' and 'pointless' routine work. After
a few years of dull tasks, they hoped that they'd move on to more interesting things. But this
did not happen. As they rose through the ranks, these ambitious young consultants realised that
what was most important was not coming up with a well-thought-through solution. It was keeping
clients happy with impressive PowerPoint shows. Those who did insist on carefully thinking through
their client's problems often found their ideas unwelcome. If they persisted in using their brains,
they were often politely told that the office might not be the place for them.
... ... ...
Organisations hire smart people, but then positively encourage them not to use their intelligence.
Asking difficult questions or thinking in greater depth is seen as a dangerous waste. Talented
employees quickly learn to use their significant intellectual gifts only in the most narrow and
myopic ways.
Those who learn how to switch off their brains are rewarded. By avoiding thinking too much,
they are able to focus on getting things done. Escaping the kind of uncomfortable questions that
thinking brings to light also allows employees to side-step conflict with co-workers. By toeing
the corporate line, thoughtless employees get seen as 'leadership material' and promoted. Smart
people quickly learn that getting ahead means switching off their brains as soon as they step
into the office. ... ... ...
We found many ways that all kinds of organisations positively encouraged intelligent people
not to fully use their intelligence. There were rules and routines that prompted them to focus
energies on complying with bureaucracy instead of doing their jobs. There were
doctors who spent
more time 'playing the tick-box game' than actually caring for patients;
teachers who spent more time negotiating new bureaucratic procedures than teaching children.
We met Hans, a manager in a local government agency: after a visit from a regulator, his office
received a list of 25 issues in need of improvement. So Hans's agency developed 25 new policies
and procedures. The result: the regulator was happy, but there was no change in actual practice.
Such stories showed us how mindless compliance with rules and regulations can detract people from
actually doing their jobs. The doctors, teachers and government officials all knew that the rules
and regulations they spent their days complying with were pointless diversions. However, they
chose not to think about this too much. Instead, they just got on with ticking the boxes.
Another significant source of stupidity in firms we came across was a deep faith in leadership.
In most organisations today, senior executives are not content with just being managers. They
want to be leaders. They see their role as not just running their business but also transforming
their followers. They talk about 'vision', 'belief' and 'authenticity' with great verve. All this
sounds like our office buildings are brimming with would-be Nelson Mandelas. However, when you
take a closer look at what these self-declared leaders spend their days doing, the story is quite
different.
... ... ...
As Jan Wallander, the ex-chairman of Sweden's Handelsbanken, said: 'Business leaders are just
as fashion-conscious as teenage girls choosing jeans.' Many companies adopt the latest management
fads, no matter how unsuitable they are. If Google is doing it, then it's good enough reason to
introduce nearly any practice, from mindfulness to big-data analytics.
,,, ,,, ,,,
One last source of corporate stupidity we came across was company culture. Often, these cultures
imprison employees in narrow ways of viewing the world, such as the common obsession with constant
change.
... ... ...
What's more, people in corporations have short attention spans. Perpetrators of blunders will
likely have moved onwards (often upwards) before their mistakes becomes obvious. 'Always try to
outrun your mistakes' was one middle-manager's key career advice.
... ... ...
In a world where stupidity dominates, looking good is more important than being right. Advanced
practitioners of corporate stupidity often spend less time on the content of their work and more
on its presentation. They know that a decision-maker sees only the PowerPoint show and reads just
the executive summary (if they're lucky). They also realise that most stupid ideas are routinely
accepted when they're presented well. Decision-makers will likely forget much of the content by
the time they walk out the door. And when things go wrong, they can say: 'They didn't read the
fine-print.'
Negotiating corporate stupidity also requires assuming that the boss knows best. This means doing
what your boss wants, no matter how idiotic. What is even more important is that you should do
what your boss's boss wants. You will look like you are loyal and it will save time arguing for
your position. When things go wrong, you can blame your boss.
Working in a stupefied firm often means blinding others with bullshit. A very effective way
to get out of doing anything real is to rely on a flurry of management jargon. Develop strategies,
generate business models, engage in thought leadership. This will get you off the hook of doing
any actual work. It will also make you seem like you are at the cutting edge. When things go wrong,
you can blame the fashionable management idea.
Olens defended Georgia's gay marriage ban and sued the federal government over the transgender
bathroom directive. That's why students organized Monday afternoon's protest and drafted a petition
that has more than 5,000 signatures.
In the petition, students ask the Georgia Board of Regents to not appoint Olens as KSU's next
president.One student, who wouldn't give 11Alive his name, said he's disappointed.
"The support groups would probably be disbanded and not to mention the scholarships that are
offered for people active in LGBT rights," he said
After the rally ended, he stayed around to continue the protest.
"I feel it's my duty. I'm a student here and I have to make sure the school is safe for me
and students. If this place becomes unsafe, I'd have to leave," he said.
Oh for pity's sake, this snowflake thinks hiring the Georgia AG as the school's president would
lead to anti-gay pogroms? I hate the way this Orwellian "safe space" concept has become the cudgel
with which campus progressives use to club the expression of opinions with which they disagree. Anyway,
the reader comments:
Okay, a couple things. First, KSU gives scholarships for "people active in LGBT rights"? I'd
love to know details on that. Second, note the alleged disqualification here: Olens defended the
laws of his state - laws that were created by a democratically elected legislature. In other words,
he did the job he is elected to do. But as you and I know, this now constitutes Thoughtcrime.
Leonard Witt, a KSU professor, wrote
a column
criticizing the choice in which he concludes: "Let's, this time, show the world that
Cobb County carries the torch for all its diverse communities." Yes, diverse communities - as
long as one of those communities isn't Christians or people fulfilling the duties of their elected
office.
Now, I should note that as a college professor myself I happen to agree with Witt's other point:
that a college president should be an academic, not someone plucked from business or politics.
If I taught at KSU, I would oppose Olens for that reason. But this is something different: opposition
to him because of something he believes, and because he did his job according to the constitution
of the state of Georgia.
Eventually we're going to have to call explanations like Witt's the "Eich Maneuver," as an
homage to Mozilla's preposterous explanation that they had to fire Eich because of how much they
value diversity of viewpoint.
The reader says to be sure to note this reasoning from KSU's Prof. Witt (what follows is a quote
from Witt's column):
Already the KSU LGBTQ community members are signing petitions. A headline in Project Q, a popular
Atlanta blog, screams out "Gay marriage bigot Sam Olens to become KSU president." Unfair? Perhaps,
but how do we know,since the selection process is coming from the darkest corners of state government.
As attorney general, Olens ardently opposed both gay marriage and now gender neutral bathrooms.
Hence, the headline.
Given Cobb County's history, try as the chancellor may argue otherwise, important national
constituencies are going to be outraged about the secret meetings aimed at appointing a candidate
who they know will infuriate the LGBTQ community and their allies at Kennesaw State, in Cobb County
and throughout the state and nation.
The nation's largest foundations that support higher education demand respecting diversity
in all its forms. An active foe of gay marriage or transgender neutral bathrooms for KSU president?
Cobb County again? We have better places to put our money. Google, Microsoft, Apple, Nike and
just about every other major corporation may well openly or silently boycott Kennesaw State University.
Plus, the tainted brand name will not exactly be a student resume builder.
Says the reader:
Echoes of Indiana and RFRA.
If we don't keep up with the LGBT agenda, no corporations will
want to do business with us!
And note the fear that we could "infuriate the LGBTQ community
and their allies." If I even mentioned to my academic colleagues that something could upset we
Christians and our allies, I'd probably hear laughter.
We should be hearing Republican politicians, churches, and civic leaders calling this stuff out
for what it is: diversity McCarthyism. Olens may or may not be qualified to run the university, but
what these SJWs are attempting is frightening - or should be. Where does it stop?
Donald J. Deadbeat got rich working the system. I.e.
legally. The Clintons, on the other hand, got all their
riches from betraying the people, liquidating the public
trust and selling off American government to oligarchs
domestic and foreign. They made over $100-million in
speaking fees alone cashing in on promissory bribes.
For every criticism against Trump there exists one
worse against Hillary.
Whichever bottom-feeder ends up president it will be
bad news for the party they captured. Better for
progressives if Trump blows up the Republican party than
the Goldwater Girl destroying the Democratic party
(saddling it with a 12-year Great Recession by 2020.)
The former will produce a New Deal revolution led by
someone like Elizabeth Warren in 2020, which will usher in
a new era for civilization.
The latter will kick the New Deal can down the road to
2024 with something like a Ted Cruz presidency in 2020.
Given the state of the global economy, which is teetering
on the verge of collapse into fascist revolutions and
world war, that will probably mean just kicking the can.
Bobby M. Wilson
(bio)
In the era of neoliberalism, human beings are made accountable for their
predicaments or circumstances according to the workings of the market as
opposed to finding faults in larger structural and institutional forces like
racism and economic inequality. The market exchange is an ethic in itself,
capable of acting as a guide for all of human action (
Harvey
2005
). In many ways, the discourse of neoliberalism represents a radical
inversion of the notion of "human agency," as conceived through the
prophetic politics of Martin Luther King. As originally conceived, human
agency focused on people's capability of doing things that can make a
difference, that is, to exercise some sort of power and self-reliance. As a
central concern among many in the social sciences, this concept sought to
expose the power of human beings. Reverend Martin Luther King's prophetic
politics were determinedly "this worldly" and social in their focus. He
encouraged people to direct their attention to matters of social justice
rather than concern for personal well-being or salvation. He believed in the
power of people to make a difference.
But the concept of "justice" has
been reconstructed to fit neoliberal political and economic objectives. This
reconstruction is part of a larger discourse to reconstitute liberalism to
include human conduct. The invisible hand of the market not only allocates
resources but also the conduct of citizens. Economie agency is no longer
just about the market allocation of resources, but the allocation of people
into cultural worlds. This represents a radical inversion of the economic
agent as conceived by the liberalism of Adam Smith. As agents, humans are
implicated as players and partners in the market game. The context in which
individuals define themselves is privatized rather than publicized; the
focus of concerns is on the self rather than the collective. Power operates
internally, not externally, by inducing people to aim for
"self-improvement." The effect has been to negate the "social" in issues of
"justice" or "injustice." Individual subjects are rendered responsible,
shifting the responsibility for social risk (unemployment, poverty, etc.) to
the individual.
Black inner city spaces compete freely within a deregulated global
market. Central cities of large metropolitan areas have become the epicenter
of segregation. In 1988, approximately 55% of black students in the South
attended schools that were 50% to 100% minorities. By 2000, almost 70%
attended such schools. Only 15% of intensely segregated white schools are
schools of concentrated poverty, whereas 88% of the intensely segregated
racial minority schools are schools of concentrated poverty. Fifty years
after the
Brown
decision, we continue to heap more disadvantages on
children in poor communities. The community where a student resides
[End Page 97]
and goes to school is now the best predictor of
whether that student will go to college and succeed after graduation. High
school graduation rates in the South were lowest in the most isolated
black-majority districts-those separated by both race and poverty. Across
the South, we have created public and private systems that encourage the
accumulation of wealth and privilege in mostly white and socially isolated
communities separated by ever greater distances from the increasingly
invisible working poor (
Orfield
and Mei 2004
).
The most fundamental difference between today's segregated black
communities and those of the past is the much higher level of joblessness (
Wilson
1997
). Black unemployment and poverty level consistently remains at
twice the level of the total population. Access to jobs, already
disproportionately tenuous for black workers, has become even more
constricted in the current era of global capital. Without meaningful work,
the impact of racially segregated communities is much more pervasive and
devastating. The vast majority of intensely racial and ethnic segregated
minority places face a growing surplus labor determined to survive by any
means necessary. Two-thirds of the people in prison are now racial and
ethnic minorities. The proportion of young black males who are incarcerated,
on parole, or on probation nationwide continues to reach record levels.
Blacks represent 12.3% of the total population but make up 43.7% of the
incarcerated population. The number of black men in prisons increased from
508,800 in...
I know that it's a digression, but I really should write some more about hobbits. The one thing that
would shake my convictions as an anarchist would be a political leader who promises to wipe out their
barbaric "mathom culture".
First of all, they never can get ahead economically because of this
premodern habit of putting their economic surplus into items that they pass around aimlessly. And
the way they waste food - has anyone seen the depravity of their so-called wedding parties? I know
that drones are a harsh remedy, but really.
And of course the feminist case for bombing hobbits is as strong as it ever was. Has anyone even
heard of a female hobbit? Of course you haven't, because they keep them in those primitive holes,
and they only appear in brief cameos when the hobbits have to conceal their unadmitted homosocial
orientation. Strong hobbit women will be much better off if we kill the men keeping them down as
well as some of their children.
And lastly, genocide. Are their even any members of other racial groups living in the Shire? Where
did they all go? Hobbit society is deeply racist, and those holes are dumping groups for bodies as
well as potential storehouses for chemical weapons. I know that some people say that we shouldn't
bomb them, but that's only because those people can't even imagine what it's like not to have the
privilege that they do.
In all seriousness, Tolkien was a consummate reactionary and LotR is an allegorical defense of
racism and imperialism on many levels - everything from the noble white monarch rallying "men of
the West" to stand against the dark hordes of the East and South, to the depiction of
preindustrial peasant life as an idyllic paradise disturbed not by Western nobles themselves but
by the malign influence of Eastern/Southern foreigners, to details as small as the relationship
between Frodo and Sam modeled on an ideal Victorian-era relationship between a lower-aristocratic
British army officer and his commoner manservant. (Juxtapose the imagery this video at the
timestamp side by side with this one.) As people of the left, we shouldn't bring that particular
story into our discourse as an allegory without this point being made explicitly at least once.
That said, when considering our doctrines on liberty, it's clear that we may leave out of
consideration those backward states of hobbit society in which the race itself may be considered
as in its nonage. The early difficulties in the way of spontaneous progress are so great, that
there is seldom any choice of means for overcoming them; and a ruler full of the spirit of
improvement is warranted in the use of any expedients that will attain an end, perhaps otherwise
unattainable. Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with hobbits, provided the
end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a
principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when hobbitkind have
become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion. Until then, there is nothing for
them but implicit obedience to a Sharkey or a Wormtongue, if they are so fortunate as to find
one.
In all seriousness, Tolkien was a consummate reactionary and LotR is an allegorical defense
of racism and imperialism on many levels…
Once the US establishes American-Style Democracy in The Shire, a new timeline begins. First, the
ethnic cleansing and establishment of enclaves for the survivors. After about a hundred years they'll
have to end slavery. About fifty years after that, they'll have to let women vote.
"... I think Trump may be the one and only person to increase the likelihood the US will still be an independent country in ten years. ..."
"... Trump may have some issues, but at least he psychologically identifies with the US. Most US elites think of themselves as world citizens and really couldn't care less if the US becomes like the DRC. ..."
"... Univision's lead owner is Hillary's largest contributor, the Israeli-American media mogul Haim Saban: ..."
"... This convenient FCC rule change hands them a nice exit strategy. Not convinced to contribute to the Clinton Foundation yet? They make magic happen. ..."
There is a real risk the media will be wholly foreign owned very soon. The FCC under Pres.
Obama eliminated the rule on foreign ownership. This, the TPP, and giving up internet control
are of a piece.
I think Trump may be the one and only person to increase the likelihood the US will still
be an independent country in ten years. With Clinton we may end up losing our sovereignty
by 2020. Trump may have some issues, but at least he psychologically identifies with the US.
Most US elites think of themselves as world citizens and really couldn't care less if the US becomes
like the DRC.
I trust Trump's instincts much more than Hillary's. The continued existence of an independent
US will be very, very important for the world to have any degree of pluralism. Any global hegemony
is likely to be unpleasant for most people.
Grupo Televisa, a Mexican company with a minority stake in the Spanish-language station
Univision, might now be able to increase its ownership.
Univision's lead owner is Hillary's largest contributor, the Israeli-American media mogul
Haim Saban:
On June 27, 2006, Saban Capital Group led a group of investors bidding for Univision
Communications, the largest Spanish-language media company in the United States.
Other investors in the Saban-led group were Texas Pacific Group of Fort Worth, Texas and
Thomas H. Lee Partners. The group was successful in acquiring Univision with a bid valued at
$13.7 billion.
This convenient FCC rule change hands them a nice exit strategy. Not convinced to contribute
to the Clinton Foundation yet? They make magic happen.
"... At the same time traditional aristocracy is not fixed either and always provided some "meritocratic" mechanisms for entering its ranks. Look, for example, at British system where prominent scientists always were awarded lordship. Similar mechanism was used in many countries where low rank military officers, who displayed bravery and talent in battles were promoted to nobility and allowed to hold top military positions. Napoleonic France probably is one good example here. ..."
"... Neoliberal elite like traditional aristocracy also enjoys the privilege of being above the law. And like in case of traditional aristocracy the democratic governance is limited to members of this particular strata. Only they can be viewed as political actors. ..."
"... The USSR nomenklatura is yet another example of the same. It was so close in spirit to neoliberal elite, that the transition in 1991 was almost seamless. ..."
"... vertical mobility can't be completely suppressed without system losing the social stability and that's was true for classic aristocracy as well as modern neoliberal elite ..."
A side note: there was some conversation above about the interests of an aristocracy, which
of course prompted the idea that the aristocracy is long gone. But meritocracy is a kind of
aristocracy.
This is an interesting observation. BTW other aspect of the same is related to the "Iron law
of oligarchy". Also both aristocracy and meritocracy are just variants of oligarchy. The actual
literal translation from the Greek is the "rule of the few".
At the same time traditional aristocracy is not fixed either and always provided some "meritocratic"
mechanisms for entering its ranks. Look, for example, at British system where prominent scientists
always were awarded lordship. Similar mechanism was used in many countries where low rank military
officers, who displayed bravery and talent in battles were promoted to nobility and allowed to
hold top military positions. Napoleonic France probably is one good example here.
Neoliberal elite like traditional aristocracy also enjoys the privilege of being above
the law. And like in case of traditional aristocracy the democratic governance is limited to members
of this particular strata. Only they can be viewed as political actors.
The USSR nomenklatura is yet another example of the same. It was so close in spirit to neoliberal
elite, that the transition in 1991 was almost seamless.
In other words, vertical mobility can't be completely suppressed without system losing the
social stability and that's was true for classic aristocracy as well as modern neoliberal elite
(actually vertical mobility is somewhat higher in European countries then in the USA; IMHO it
is even higher in former Eastern block).
"... Self-determination and national independence were powerful ideas, and many Western politicians,
at least in certain countries, recognized that the "winds of change," in Macmillan's words, were blowing,
and that they had best try to adjust and accommodate them. ..."
@Anarcissie The [U.S.] leadership wisely declined to support any attempt to restore the British, French,
Dutch, Belgian etc. empires because they had a new model in mind. Thus these empires had to be
wound down and dissolved, and so they were.
British and French decolonization(s) were different in that France fought two protracted wars
(Indochina and Algeria) in an effort to hang on to its colonies, and in the former war (Indochina)
France did so with US financial support (so much for your argument about the US dictating all
outcomes). Britain, by contrast, left most (though not all - e.g.
Kenya ) of its colonies
relatively peacefully.
Self-determination and national independence were powerful ideas, and many Western politicians,
at least in certain countries, recognized that the "winds of change," in Macmillan's words, were
blowing, and that they had best try to adjust and accommodate them.
A quote from R.H. Jackson, "The Weight of Ideas in Decolonization"[*]:
Something besides declining military power or economic disinterest on the part of the imperial
powers was involved in decolonization - certainly British decolonization. The cabinet and colonial
papers on which this judgment is based make reference not to any fundamental alteration in
Britain's military posture or economic interests but rather to "the large body of opinion in
this country, in Africa, and internationally," which by the late 1940s was already demanding
"more rapid political, economic and social development" and by 1960 would accept nothing less
than complete decolonization…. [There was] a fundamental shift of normative ideas and a corresponding
change of mind on the part of most sovereign governments and the public opinion influencing
them concerning the right to sovereign statehood.
[*] In Judith Goldstein and R.O. Keohane, eds., Ideas and Foreign Policy (1993), pp.
128-29.
Will G-R 10.04.16 at 3:24 pm @ 394 -
The analogy between wives (in purdah, though) and prostitutes in business on the street it apt.
The latter would have a certain freedom of life and action, like slaves or serfs being tuned loose
to become the proles of a social order. They would still be subordinated to masters, but it would
be harder for them to identify and act against their masters.
But as to racism and sexism, these mostly inhibit production and consumption, so, given its
fetishization of production, capitalism should war against them.
As Uncle Karl notes in the Manifesto, 'Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted
disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois
epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and
venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before
they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air….'
In short, capitalism destroys all culture and relations that it encounters and replaces them
with its own culture and set of relations. The irrationalities of racial and sexual peculiarity
and segregation are replaced by an atomized, degendered, deracinated, atomized population who
relate to each other through money, markets, employment, consumption patterns. Or they did. Now
that employment and production are in decline, something else may be happening.
"... Trump isn't attempting to appeal to neocons or neoliberals. (New Classical or New Keynesian.) That's Hillary's job. So losing this guy (neocon Bush economist) means nothing. ..."
"... Accusations of corruption against Hillary are ridiculous! Have you ever listened to Hillary's voice? Her speeches are like music to the ears! The only reason why corporations across various industrial complexes - financial, healthcare, private prison, military, Big Oil, etc. - pay Hillary $250k a speech is because they can afford to. The rest of society - the moochers - can only dream of being wealthy enough to enjoy a Hillary speech! ..."
"... I'm so tired of people hating on the rich and disparaging the Clintons' 'democratic innovation' techniques. They are clearly nothing more than envious ingrates and ignoramuses! ..."
"... All of the neoclassical tax cutting over the past 35 years has only provided a net benefit to the upper class. Only 30% of the US economy is related to international trade. So very little of the debt created with tax cuts has trickled down into trade deficits. ..."
"... But trade-liberalization/outsourcing policies, on the other hand, explain how a trade deficit has an accompanying budget deficit (according to the Twin Deficits hypothesis.) If a country is spending more on imports than it is earning in exports it will have to borrow the money to pay for them. ..."
"... Trump's absurd tax cuts would only benefit the top 20%. They would not increase demand for imports or increase the trade deficit. All of this money would be in the form of whopping budget deficits and growing government debt. It would be a spectacular failure. A better one than what Hillary would bring: because the Republicans would be on the hook for it. (If Hillary wins, the Democrats are on the hook for a 12 year Great Recession by 2020. That kicks the New Deal can down the road to 2024.) ..."
"... Sanders supporters dislike Republicans more than Hillary supporters do according to polls. They're not going to go for trickle-down economics. Sanders's message was that the problem with the economy and political system are people like Trump. That's why he proposed a significant financial transaction tax. Sanders supporters agree with Sanders, Dean Baker and Jared Bernstein that corporate trade deals could be made more fair. ..."
"... "Corporate" trade deals aren't the issue. It is capital markets. Republicans wants a total abolition of regulations on capital markets. Not only will Trumps deficits need more foreign finance, he will gut the economy to bring that foreign finance in or gut the economy if it doesn't come in if he trade saber rattles. The only other option is much such large government spending cuts, that creates a recession as well creating capital flight. ..."
"... Mankiw reveals like Krugman he's never been to East Asia, nor is he the least bit curious about why the US developed in the first place. If he had studied economic development or East Asia he would know that blistering high interest rates (+50%) were common in the East Asian countries during their periods of stunning growth. Rising interest rates from the reduced flow of capital would also be associated with - for the first time in 40 years -- positive incentives to invest in US tradable goods production. ..."
"... Watch Charles Ferguson's Inside Job for information on how morally and financially compromised US economists are. ..."
"... And Mankiw does this specifically in the context of offering support to idiotic Republican policies, to pander to the Republican mandarins who hire him every 4 years as economic adviser to their Presidential candidate (and to sell more textbooks at Red-state schools). ..."
"... Why does Mankiw think he deserves to sell his own ass like a two-bit prison whore, while Navarro and Ross can't? ..."
Trump isn't attempting to appeal to neocons or neoliberals. (New Classical or New Keynesian.)
That's Hillary's job. So losing this guy (neocon Bush economist) means nothing.
This argument against Trump's economic plan would appear to be nonsensical. Interest rates
are not marked to international markets. They are set by the central bank to manage demand and
inflation. (According to 'orthodox' economics, protectionism would negatively affect GDP and put
a downward pressure on demand, inflation and interest rates. So this argument is doubly senseless.)
I can't imagine that many economists understand international trade or they wouldn't be in
favor of the highly mercantlist global economy that free-trade globalization has produced.
The 35 years of trade deficits the US has run with undeveloped mercantilist countries is a
triple whammy: 1) jobs, production and investment flow out of the country reducing GDP, real incomes
and demand; 2) the trade deficit has an accompanying budget deficit (according to the Twin Deficits
hypothesis); this creates rising government debt; spending cuts further depress demand; 3) for
every dollar that flows out of the country from imported goods, a dollar must flow back into the
country in the form of foreign investment (i.e. debt owed to foreign countries.)
This process is certainly no Carnot engine. Simply a linear process of wealth being transferred
from one source to another (much of it in debt.) A process that is quickly running out of steam.
My impression is that only a return to the progressive Keynesian New Deal era (that began with
FDR and ended with Reagan) can prevent the global economy from collapsing into fascist revolutions
and world war. (Repeating the history of the 1930s; Trump would make a better Herbert Hoover than
Hillary, that's for sure.)
Accusations of corruption against Hillary are ridiculous! Have you ever listened to Hillary's
voice? Her speeches are like music to the ears! The only reason why corporations across various
industrial complexes - financial, healthcare, private prison, military, Big Oil, etc. - pay Hillary
$250k a speech is because they can afford to. The rest of society - the moochers - can only dream
of being wealthy enough to enjoy a Hillary speech!
I'm so tired of people hating on the rich and disparaging the Clintons' 'democratic innovation'
techniques. They are clearly nothing more than envious ingrates and ignoramuses!
All of the neoclassical tax cutting over the past 35 years has only provided a net benefit
to the upper class. Only 30% of the US economy is related to international trade. So very little
of the debt created with tax cuts has trickled down into trade deficits.
But trade-liberalization/outsourcing policies, on the other hand, explain how a trade deficit
has an accompanying budget deficit (according to the Twin Deficits hypothesis.) If a country is
spending more on imports than it is earning in exports it will have to borrow the money to pay
for them.
Clearly any form of non-regulated stimulus (tax cuts or income redistribution) that primes
anemic demand by putting more money in the hands of the bottom 80% will produce a bigger trade
deficit. The only way to eliminate a trade deficit with a mercantilist country is with tariffs.
If Trump's plan is to raise GDP by eliminating the trade deficit with some form of regulatory
measures, then clearly this could not raise the trade deficit.
Trump's absurd tax cuts would only benefit the top 20%. They would not increase demand
for imports or increase the trade deficit. All of this money would be in the form of whopping
budget deficits and growing government debt. It would be a spectacular failure. A better one than
what Hillary would bring: because the Republicans would be on the hook for it. (If Hillary wins,
the Democrats are on the hook for a 12 year Great Recession by 2020. That kicks the New Deal can
down the road to 2024.)
Sanders supporters dislike Republicans more than Hillary supporters do according to polls.
They're not going to go for trickle-down economics. Sanders's message was that the problem with
the economy and political system are people like Trump. That's why he proposed a significant financial
transaction tax. Sanders supporters agree with Sanders, Dean Baker and Jared Bernstein that corporate
trade deals could be made more fair.
Ben Groves -> Peter K.... , -1
"Corporate" trade deals aren't the issue. It is capital markets. Republicans wants a total
abolition of regulations on capital markets. Not only will Trumps deficits need more foreign finance,
he will gut the economy to bring that foreign finance in or gut the economy if it doesn't come
in if he trade saber rattles. The only other option is much such large government spending cuts,
that creates a recession as well creating capital flight.
Sanders doesn't support deregulated capital markets, he can swagger about 'trade'.
Saigo Takamori : , -1
Mankiw reveals like Krugman he's never been to East Asia, nor is he the least bit curious
about why the US developed in the first place. If he had studied economic development or East
Asia he would know that blistering high interest rates (+50%) were common in the East Asian countries
during their periods of stunning growth. Rising interest rates from the reduced flow of capital
would also be associated with - for the first time in 40 years -- positive incentives to invest
in US tradable goods production.
US economists are paid to confuse people and be confused. Watch Charles Ferguson's Inside
Job for information on how morally and financially compromised US economists are.
No wonder the US is an economic basket case on the cusp of becoming a third world country.
Thanks economists! You guys have the best advice! Free trade and comparative advantage are real
winners! Just ask Haiti, the second most open economy in the Americas after the US.
I've watched Mankiw, on video, on several occasions, make patently false claims about economic
policy based on first-year macro that's completely and utterly disproven at even a third-year
level.
And Mankiw does this specifically in the context of offering support to idiotic Republican
policies, to pander to the Republican mandarins who hire him every 4 years as economic adviser
to their Presidential candidate (and to sell more textbooks at Red-state schools).
Why does Mankiw think he deserves to sell his own ass like a two-bit prison whore, while
Navarro and Ross can't?
"... As a side note, it's obvious that there are at least three separate US policies active in Syria. The Defense Dept supports the largely Kurdish YPG against ISIS, the CIA works with Gulf backers to support the Free Syrian Army – an amalgam of mostly ineffective "moderate" rebels and effective, but murderous, Islamists affiliated to al-Qaeda, and State hovers around making noises about Assad, variously placating and irritating the Turks and dickering with the Russians. Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess. stevenjohnson , 10.02.16 at 12:59 pm LFC @300 It is unclear to me how a change from an independent secular national state in Syria to a patchwork of sectarian statelets wholly dependent upon foreign support is anything but a regime change. Unless of course, the phrase "regime change" merely means the murder of a designated leader and his replacement by someone acceptable to the regime changers. ..."
"... CIA of course, as more or less the President's Praetorian Guard over humanity at large, is no more under the Secretary of State than the Pentagon. ..."
"... It seems to have been forgotten that the democratic rebels were lynching black Africans within days of their glorious uprising. Barack Obama is too tan for the Klan, thus it was advisable for a loyal servant to provide an excuse for a half-Kenyan man to support the mass murder of darker skinned people. ..."
"... She repeated the performance in the Benghazi affair, where she loyally excused the murder of Stevens as a religious mob, instead of a falling out with his jihadi employees ..."
"... Lee A. Arnold is sort of correct there was once a genuine democratic Syrian opposition, largely inspired by the economic liberalization (neoliberalization according to many CTers,) in the face of the stresses of the world economic downturn and the prolonged Syrian droughts. Nonetheless there was from almost the very beginning an organized Islamist element that relied on violence, and refused to negotiate any reforms whatsoever, despite the Assad government's attempt to do so. Whether he was sincere is moot. ..."
"... Arnold's other point that Trump's professed plans are not for peace but victory is correct. Whether he has any real ideas how to achieve this other than firing generals until he gets a winner is anybody's guess. Like Nixon, Trump has a secret plan. ..."
"... The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles and isn't committed to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's not quite on board with plans for general war. (Yes, the purpose of this program is to prepare for general nuclear war, or at minimum, plausible threat of imminent general nuclear war.) It is unclear whether this was leaked to make her look good to the public, or to discredit her with the military's higher ups. (It is likely dissident military played a role in the leak, either way.) ..."
"... I firmly believe!…most ordinary people don't vote interests, they vote the national good. It's the rich and their favored employees who vote their interests. ..."
As a side note, it's obvious that there are at least three separate US policies active in
Syria. The Defense Dept supports the largely Kurdish YPG against ISIS, the CIA works with Gulf
backers to support the Free Syrian Army – an amalgam of mostly ineffective "moderate" rebels and
effective, but murderous, Islamists affiliated to al-Qaeda, and State hovers around making noises
about Assad, variously placating and irritating the Turks and dickering with the Russians.
Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either
Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess.
stevenjohnson, 10.02.16 at 12:59 pm
LFC @300 It is unclear to me how a change from an independent secular national state in Syria
to a patchwork of sectarian statelets wholly dependent upon foreign support is anything but a
regime change. Unless of course, the phrase "regime change" merely means the murder of a designated
leader and his replacement by someone acceptable to the regime changers.
@306 "And (Clinton) also played an instrumental role in destroying Libya…"
@316 "Hillary Clinton served as the US Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, which makes her at
least one of the prime architects of US foreign policy…"
It was NATO which attacked Libya. The prime "architects" were well known, namely, Cameron and
Sarkozy. The US role in this matter was conducted largely through NATO, the CIA and international
diplomacy. In the US, relations with Cameron and Sarkozy would be conducted largely by either
Obama personally, with other diplomatic duties taken up by the UN ambassador Samantha Power, a
figure that has always been in an ambiguous relationship with the Secretary of State. CIA
of course, as more or less the President's Praetorian Guard over humanity at large, is no more
under the Secretary of State than the Pentagon.
It seems to have been forgotten that the democratic rebels were lynching black Africans
within days of their glorious uprising. Barack Obama is too tan for the Klan, thus it was advisable
for a loyal servant to provide an excuse for a half-Kenyan man to support the mass murder of darker
skinned people. Enter that dutiful public servant, able to suffer undeserved ignominy in
service to her country. (She repeated the performance in the Benghazi affair, where she loyally
excused the murder of Stevens as a religious mob, instead of a falling out with his jihadi employees.)
Lee A. Arnold is sort of correct there was once a genuine democratic Syrian opposition,
largely inspired by the economic liberalization (neoliberalization according to many CTers,) in
the face of the stresses of the world economic downturn and the prolonged Syrian droughts. Nonetheless
there was from almost the very beginning an organized Islamist element that relied on violence,
and refused to negotiate any reforms whatsoever, despite the Assad government's attempt to do
so. Whether he was sincere is moot.
Arnold's other point that Trump's professed plans are not for peace but victory is correct.
Whether he has any real ideas how to achieve this other than firing generals until he gets a winner
is anybody's guess. Like Nixon, Trump has a secret plan.
Peter T @320 "As a side note, it's obvious that there are at least three separate US policies
active in Syria…Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose
that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess." Skipping over
the question of how obvious it is to CT and its regular commentariat that the military has a semi-independent
policy, the idea of Presidential leadership does sort of include a vague notion that the President
sets the policy, not the generals. The facts being otherwise show how the US is a deeply militaristic
polity. I would add the CIA is very much the President's army. State is more or less, Other, on
the multiple choice exam. Trump's hint he would fire generals til he finds a winner suggests he
more or less agrees that the military is an independent enterprise in the political market (which
is what US governance seems to be modeled on.)
The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles and isn't committed
to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's not quite on board
with plans for general war. (Yes, the purpose of this program is to prepare for general nuclear
war, or at minimum, plausible threat of imminent general nuclear war.) It is unclear whether this
was leaked to make her look good to the public, or to discredit her with the military's higher
ups. (It is likely dissident military played a role in the leak, either way.)
The fact that these kinds of issues are ignored in favor of twaddle about Clinton Foundation,
emails and the actions of the Secretary State, an office whose relevance has been dubious for
decades, says much about the level of democratic discourse.
Rich Puchalsky, the primary reason so many white workers vote Republican is because they are
voting values, which are religious, not policies. Even more to the point, the notion that voting
is like a market transaction (a very liberal idea) founders on the fact…
I firmly believe!…most ordinary people don't vote interests, they vote the national good.
It's the rich and their favored employees who vote their interests.
As to the religious bigotry, well, once it was necessary to say or write "racial bigotry,"
because everyone knew bigotry to be an expression of religious belief. Today, the very notion
of religious bigotry is more or less forbidden as some sort of expression of anti-religious fanaticism.
"... Backing away from openly bombing the Syrian government when the English PM couldn't get the vote from Parliament is not restraint. Signing a booby trapped pact with the Iranian government which will not end sanctions is not restraint. Endorsing the Indian attack on Pakistan is not restraint. Endorsing the Saudi invasion of Yemen is not restraint. A trillion dollar upgrade of nuclear weapons is not restraint. Supporting IS all the time and bombing it some time is not restraint. ..."
"In fact, Clinton has shown a number of indications that she is not competent at all, that she
is, unlike Obama, going to unleash the U.S. foreign policy establishment and military-industrial
complex in all its decadent schizophrenia without any governor or restraint at all."
Backing away from openly bombing the Syrian government when the English PM couldn't get
the vote from Parliament is not restraint. Signing a booby trapped pact with the Iranian government
which will not end sanctions is not restraint. Endorsing the Indian attack on Pakistan is not
restraint. Endorsing the Saudi invasion of Yemen is not restraint. A trillion dollar upgrade of
nuclear weapons is not restraint. Supporting IS all the time and bombing it some time is not restraint.
The raving chorus of criticism of Clinton's foreign policy on ostensibly leftist grounds that
falsifies the current state of affairs is viciously reactionary, especially when indissolubly
mixed with openly reactionary criticisms. The falsification of what exactly is different about
Trump's candidacy is also part and parcel. It's all very like the fake leftists who said defeating
the Scottish referendum wasn't an endorsement of English imperialism, then pretended to act surprised
when the rightward surge they helped to build led to a racist campaign for Brexit.
Putin is weak. He sacrificed a struggle against fascism in Ukraine for a naval base, rather
than call on popular support. Then he doubled down on another naval base in Syria, despite having
no idea how to reach a solution. He can't cope with the economic warfare the US is waging, he
only tries to use simple repression of the population at large and an elaborate combination of
select repression and appeasement of the oligarchs he ultimately serves. Putin is popular I think
largely because he appears to be the human face of capitalism. He's falsely sold himself as the
corrective to Yeltsin, when in truth he is just the normalization of Yeltsinism. Yetltsin did
the dirty work of attacking the people of Russia in the name of capitalist restoration. Now, Putin
is just business as usual.
"... ...First of all, for all extents and purposes they *are* the governing class, and they aren't simply failing to be subversive, they are defending their class interest. I know that this will cue any number of remarks about how someone is a college professor and isn't governing anything - as if someone in corporate upper management somewhere is really governing anything either - but what holds the neoliberal order in place is that it serves the interests of the managerial class, which includes professionals and other symbolic-manipulation people as its lower tier. ..."
"... A side note: there was some conversation above about the interests of an aristocracy, which of course prompted the idea that the aristocracy is long gone. But meritocracy is a kind of aristocracy. ..."
"... I'll quote wiki: "One study […] found that of nine developed countries, the United States and United Kingdom had the lowest intergenerational vertical social mobility with about half of the advantages of having a parent with a high income passed on to the next generation." That's not perfect, but it's getting better. ..."
"... to the extent that the people parroting this line are professional-class hangers-on of the global financial elite and neoliberalism serves their class interests ( at least until academic/media sinecures are next in line for outsourcing ), their aversion to subversive radical politics makes perfect sense as a simple matter of vested interest. ..."
...First of all, for all extents and purposes they *are* the governing class, and they
aren't simply failing to be subversive, they are defending their class interest. I know that this
will cue any number of remarks about how someone is a college professor and isn't governing anything
- as if someone in corporate upper management somewhere is really governing anything either -
but what holds the neoliberal order in place is that it serves the interests of the managerial
class, which includes professionals and other symbolic-manipulation people as its lower tier.
Second, I'm not sure about the merits of the whole Manufacturing Consent line of critique,
but defending elite opinion as the only respectable opinion sort of is accomplishing something.
Sure, individual votes are meaningless, and any one person's contribution negligible. But there
is a recurring trope of people wondering whether someone is a paid troll because people are actually
paid - whether by David Brooks or by Putin - to do exactly this kind of thing. And they are paid
to do it because it works, or at any rate people think that it works. Even better if people do
it on a volunteer basis.
A side note: there was some conversation above about the interests of an aristocracy, which
of course prompted the idea that the aristocracy is long gone. But meritocracy is a kind of aristocracy.
Look at how much effort people put into ensuring that their children are high-status, degreed,
good job holders just like themselves, and how successful that generally is.
I'll quote wiki: "One study […] found that of nine developed countries, the United States
and United Kingdom had the lowest intergenerational vertical social mobility with about half of
the advantages of having a parent with a high income passed on to the next generation." That's
not perfect, but it's getting better.
Will G-R 10.03.16 at 9:33 pm
You're right, Rich: to the extent that the people parroting this line are professional-class
hangers-on of the global financial elite and neoliberalism serves their class interests (
at least
until academic/media sinecures are next in line for outsourcing ), their aversion to subversive
radical politics makes perfect sense as a simple matter of vested interest.
But I like to think of my point as less Chomskian and more Žižekian, in that while Chomsky's
manufactured consent is presented as a simple way to cover other people's interests with ideological
mystification, Žižek's fetishism (like Marx's before him) is presented as a way for people to
cover their own interests by imagining their mystification as itself a demystification.
It's not that professional-class liberals don't realize the truth that they should be fighting
against oppression - they do realize this, but it's false realization concealing from them the
deeper truth that they're actually fighting for oppression.
Tommy Breen, the low profile boss of support services group
DCC who earned
a relatively modest €737,000 in the year to March 2016, offered the best value for money, according
to rankings by consultants Mercer Kepler.
Alison Cooper, chief executive of consumer goods group Imperial Brands, who was paid Ł3.58m in
2015, and George Weston, boss of international food group
ABF, who
earned Ł3.05m in 2015, were in second and third place.
The total pay of all three is below the average pay of Ł5.5m for a FTSE 100 chief executive in
2015, according to the High Pay Centre.
In contrast, only two of the top 10 best paid FTSE 100 CEOs in 2015 made the top 30 in the value
for money rankings. This was
Shire chief
executive Flemming Ornskov, who earned Ł14.6m last year, and RELX boss Erik Engstrom, who was awarded
Ł10.9m.
None of the other top 10 best paid bosses last year, which included Sir Martin Sorrell, who earned
Ł70.4m at WPP
, Rakesh Kapoor, awarded Ł23.2m at
Reckitt Benckiser
, Jeremy Darroch, on Ł16.9m at Sky, or Bob Dudley, on Ł13.3m at
BP , made
the top 30 value for money list. The index only lists the top 30.
Full details of Mrs May's plans will not be laid out until later in the autumn when BIS, the business
department, launches a consultation. Some of the policies are already known: disclosure of pay ratios,
annual binding shareholder votes on pay and having worker and consumer representatives on boards.
Other investors and business groups have been critical of the planned government reforms, warning
that they may force up pay levels. An annual binding vote, they warn, could create uncertainty, which
in turn might prompt demands for extra compensation.
The Mercer survey looks at the relationship between value created and money earned by a chief
executive. The value is calculated by taking the company's total shareholder return relative to the
FTSE and its sector.
Money earned is the chief executive's three-year average realised pay figure, which is adjusted
for the size of the company. Chief executive pay correlates strongly with company size as well as
performance.
Gordon Clark, partner at Mercer Kepler, said: "Our research puts all companies on a level playing
field when comparing whether their executives offer value for money. It does this by controlling
for differences in sector, size and complexity.
"Executives who create the most value for shareholders relative to their peers, and relative to
their pay, offer the best value for money."
"... free-market ideology seems - to many Americans, and also incidentally to me - to have mostly hit a wall in terms of its ability to improve our lives, and so society will inevitably embrace an alternative, despite the protests of diehard free-marketers. ..."
"... I always think of free enterprise as being like fire. Fire is amazingly useful and powerful. It can do things that nothing else can, but you don't burn down your house to read after dark or burn yourself alive to cook dinner. ..."
"... Neoliberal economics seems to me at least, to be promoted for its political implications. Rather its a justification to keep power in the hands or peoples who currently have it. ..."
"... A very important place to look for the failure of free market ideology is where it doesn't even show up. Social security, WIC, and rural education in some areas are good examples. ..."
"... I dont know if Noah had this specifically in mind or not but a point I would make especially about the examples he chose would be that there is no other way to privatize the prisons. Privatization helps when the incentives for profit can actually help drive innovations or improve productivity. In the case of prisons that isn't possible. ..."
"... Privatizing prisons was one of the worst ideas in human history. Allowing some private investors to profit off misery is about as sick as can be. there have been no innovations to come form this experiment. All that happens is an income stream gets diverted, cuts are made to services and workforce to trim "fat" and then someone gets the bright idea that people who have committed a crime and are "paying" with their lack of freedom (supposedly the highest goal of theses Faux conservatives) should also start paying monetarily for things. People actually have to start paying for their own bondage. ..."
"... "Twenty years ago President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. The ending of legal entitlement to welfare has had a dramatic effect on low-income children. Welfare rolls fell rapidly and never recovered even as child poverty roared back in the wake of the Great Recession. Only 26 percent of potentially eligible families received aid by 2013, compared to 68 percent in 1996 when the the law was passed." ..."
"... I predict a coming split on the left between the reality-based, populist left and the more political, careerist center-left. And not just in the U.S. ..."
"... Private property, the bedrock of the "free market" system doesn't just happen. It requires the buy in of the entire society (or an extreme police state I suppose. Unfortunately I don't think that bothers a lot of the free market uber alles people). ..."
"... There is a simple way of making sure that our Hybrid health system costs as much as the European counterparts: mandate that no pharmaceutical or medical devices company can price discriminate. You can only sell here if you sell at the same prices across the world. The prices will drop very quickly. We will stop subsidizing the world for a change. ..."
"... The Free Marketeers just want to return us to a time when life was nasty, brutish and short. ..."
"... Free market failures are usually based on some company that has figured out a way to pass some of their costs on to society. The costs might be poverty, pollution, or excess risk, but in each case, the government is left to impose Pigovian Taxes in the form of regulation (or occasionally in the form of taxes). ..."
"... The term "free-market" clearly needs some fine-tuning. In Singapore, employers are required to comply with health and safety regulations, industrial relations guidance, and a variety of good employment practices and guidelines. ..."
"... So what gives? Easy. Instead of concentrating on bumper-stickers like "free trade", Singapore concentrated on education, and on weeding out corruption. As a result, Singapore has almost none of the problems mentioned in the article. ..."
I recently wrote
a Bloomberg View post about political-economic ideologies, and how society is quicker to change
than individual human beings. The upshot was that free-market ideology seems - to many Americans,
and also incidentally to me - to have mostly hit a wall in terms of its ability to improve our lives,
and so society will inevitably embrace an alternative, despite the protests of diehard free-marketers.
Bryan
Caplan is flabbergasted at the notion that free-market ideology (aka "neoliberalism") has actually
been tried in the U.S.:
The claim that "free-market dogma" is the "reigning economic policy" of the United States or any
major country seems so absurd, so contrary to big blatant facts (like government spending as a
share of GDP, for starters), that I'm dumb-founded.
This is pretty much exactly the attitude I described in my post! "Of course neoliberalism hasn't
failed; we just never really tried it."
David Henderson has
a longer
and more measured response . He challenges the idea that free-market ideology has demonstrated
any failures at all.
Now I could simply make a weak claim - i.e., that free-market ideology seems to have hit
a wall, and that in the end, that general perception is much more important than what I personally
think. But instead, I'll make the much stronger claim - I'll defend the idea that free-market ideology
has, in fact, really hit a wall in terms of its effectiveness.
Exhibit A: Tax cuts. Tax cuts, one of free-marketers' flagship policies, appear
to have given our economy a boost in the 1960s, and a smaller boost in the 1980s. But any economic
boost from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 was so small as to be invisible to all but (possibly)
the most careful econometricians. Notably, a number of attempts to encourage savings - capital
gains tax cuts, estate tax cuts, and the like - have not halted the steady decline in personal
savings rates.
Exhibit B: Financial deregulation and light-touch regulation. It seems
clear to me that under-regulation of derivatives markets and mortgage lending played a big role
in the financial crisis. The counter-narrative, that government intervention caused the crisis,
has never held much water, and has been debunked by many papers. This was a private-sector blowup.
Exhibit C: Light-touch regulation of monopoly. The evidence is mounting
that industrial concentration is an increasing problem for the U.S. economy. Some of this might
be due to intellectual property, but much is simply due to naturally increasing returns to scale.
Exhibit D: The China shock. While most trade booms seem to lead to widely
shared gains, the China trade boom in the 2000s - which free marketers consistently championed
and hailed - probably did not. High transaction costs (retraining costs, moving costs, and others)
lead to a very large number of American workers being deeply and permanently hurt by the shock,
as evidenced by recent work by Autor, Dorn, and Hanson.
Exhibit E: Faux-privatization. True privatization is when the government halts
a nationalized industry and auctions off its assets. Faux-privatization is when the government
outsources an activity to contractors, often without even competitive bidding. Faux-privatization
has been a notable bust in the prison industry, and school voucher programs have also been extremely
underwhelming. Charter schools have fared a bit better, but even there the gains have been modest
at best.
Exhibit F: Welfare reform. Clinton's welfare reform saved the taxpayer
very little money, and appears to have had little if any effect on poverty in the U.S.
Exhibit G: Research funding cuts. The impact of these is hard to measure,
but cuts in government funding of research appear to have saved the taxpayer very little money,
while dramatically increasing the time that scientists have to devote to writing grant proposals,
and increasing risk aversion in scientists' choice of research topics.
Exhibit H: Health care. The U.S. health care system is a hybrid private-public
system, but includes a proportionally much larger private component than any other developed nation's
system. Free-marketers have fought doggedly to prevent the government from playing a larger role.
Our hybrid system delivers basically the same results as every other developed country's system,
at about twice the cost. Private health care cost growth has been much faster than cost growth
for Medicare and other government-provided programs, indicating that much of our excess cost has
been due to the private component of our system, not the public part.
I could go on, but these are the big ones I can think of. In some of these cases, free-market
policies seem to have produced some gains in the late 20th century, but by the 21st century all appeared
to be either having no effect, or actively harming the economy.
No, this is nowhere near as big a failure as that of communism (though in some ways, notably health
care and financial deregulation, we've done worse than the somewhat-socialist nations of Europe).
The analogy with communism was a way of illustrating a certain mindset, not to draw an equivalence
between the results of neoliberalism and communism.
Also, I personally think there is still scope for many neoliberal policies to improve our economy.
Reduced occupational licensing, urban land-use deregulation, simplification of the tax code, and
various other kinds of deregulation all seem to show promise. If free-market policies have hit a
wall, it's a porous wall - in real life, nothing is as cut-and-dry as in our ideological debates.
But overall, I think the last decade and a half have shown clearly diminishing returns, and sometimes
negative returns, from neoliberal reforms. So our society is right to be looking for alternative
policy packages. Though that doesn't necessarily mean we'll choose a good alternative - I
think Sanders-style socialism would probably be a mistake.
I always think of free enterprise as being like fire. Fire is amazingly useful and powerful.
It can do things that nothing else can, but you don't burn down your house to read after dark
or burn yourself alive to cook dinner.
Neoliberal economics seems to me at least, to be promoted for its political implications.
Rather its a justification to keep power in the hands or peoples who currently have it.
"Tax cuts, one of free-marketers' flagship policies, appear to have given our economy a boost
in the 1960s, and a smaller boost in the 1980s. But any economic boost from the Bush tax cuts
of 2001 and 2003 was so small as to be invisible to all but (possibly) the most careful econometricians."
Why would this be surprising to a neo-liberal/free marketer? The Kennedy and Reagan cuts both
reduced the top marginal income tax rate by 20 percentage points. The Bush cuts lowered the it
by 4.6 points and the top corporate rate was unchanged. It's also strange that you would lump
the 2001 and 2003 cuts together in this context. During the four years after the '03 rate cut
, GDP growth averaged a little over 3% annually. Perhaps that's not spectacular, but it's considerably
higher than anything we've seen during the current expansion, no?
Also like some other commenters, I don't understand your point on "faux privatization."
A very important place to look for the failure of free market ideology is where it doesn't
even show up. Social security, WIC, and rural education in some areas are good examples.
Also anything environmental, including global climate change as above (pro tip: Coase applies
to low transaction cost scenarios). Barry Bozeman of science policy econ fame has a schema of
public success/public failure/private success/private failure. (Tobacco regulation in the 1970s
is an example of public failure, for instance.) But even that doesn't capture the failure of a
no-show like elder poverty before social security: a non-diversifiable, irreversible, and widely
experienced risk of being old and poor, possibly as a result of a bad sector/geography/business
cycle/ genetics draw.
I dont know if Noah had this specifically in mind or not but a point I would make especially
about the examples he chose would be that there is no other way to privatize the prisons. Privatization
helps when the incentives for profit can actually help drive innovations or improve productivity.
In the case of prisons that isn't possible.
Privatization has simply meant taking an income stream from the govt and guaranteeing it to
some private contractor. You cant get the incentives to line up in prisons. The goal of society
is to keep people out of prison, we think it is a success (I would hope) if no one goes to jail
this month. That means no one has done anything jail worthy. But private prison systems need customers
so they will push for guaranteed quotas, which only the state can send them because only the state
gets to adjudicate what is a crime and what the punishment will be, not private parties.
Privatizing prisons was one of the worst ideas in human history. Allowing some private
investors to profit off misery is about as sick as can be. there have been no innovations to come
form this experiment. All that happens is an income stream gets diverted, cuts are made to services
and workforce to trim "fat" and then someone gets the bright idea that people who have committed
a crime and are "paying" with their lack of freedom (supposedly the highest goal of theses Faux
conservatives) should also start paying monetarily for things. People actually have to start paying
for their own bondage.
The school privatizations aren't nearly as grotesque as the prisons but they also get
the incentives badly skewed and should be scaled back.
I think your arguments are ridiculous. Profit can be achieved through efficiencies and expense
reductions too. And just because the private prison operators can "push for guaranteed quotas"
doesn't mean the customers (government) has to provide them.
Expense reductions....hah! Pay cuts to the workers and cheaper services (fewer meals etc) to
the inmates. There is nothing that private prisons can do BETTER than the public ones..... and
they have to pay stockholders.
Again... its sick to have a for profit prison system. Profit off of punishment!! Lets get more
punishment!!
Regulation is too broad a brush to paint with. Instead of writing about it monolithically,
you really have to dive into specifics. Some are helpful, many are not. I'm guessing absent some
regulation, we'd see very small improvements in the economy, but certainly that's still worthwhile
goal, no?
"Exhibit F: Welfare reform. Clinton's welfare reform saved the taxpayer very little money,
and appears to have had little if any effect on poverty in the U.S."
"Twenty years ago President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act. The ending of legal entitlement to welfare has had a dramatic effect on low-income
children. Welfare rolls fell rapidly and never recovered even as child poverty roared back in
the wake of the Great Recession. Only 26 percent of potentially eligible families received aid
by 2013, compared to 68 percent in 1996 when the the law was passed."
Little effect on poverty? The neoliberal "center-left" has become corrupt. You just can't make
up your own facts and own history just b/c suits Hillary Clinton. That's what the Republicans
have done for decades and it hasn't served them very well.
I predict a coming split on the left between the reality-based, populist left and the more
political, careerist center-left. And not just in the U.S.
I think this whole discussion is so blinkered because it doesn't consider the political elements
of political economy.
Private property, the bedrock of the "free market" system doesn't just happen. It requires
the buy in of the entire society (or an extreme police state I suppose. Unfortunately I don't
think that bothers a lot of the free market uber alles people).
Why would people who don't benefit from a society agree to its rules? I see a lot of people
here bemoaning the spending, etc. But the spending is some of what ameliorates the problems for
the losers of the capitalist system. Because there has to be losers, that's capitalism.
I suppose there could be market based distribution like basic income. But there we are always
going to have taxes and distribution because otherwise there are the guillotines.
Regarding regulations, they are also necessary to retain support for the system. One way is
it gives people a way to direct a counterbalance to the power of the big winners. Extreme deregulation
removes the ability for most people to have a say in the direction of their society. One dollar
one vote isn't the same as one person one vote. If government isn't allowed a say in the direction
of the economy then most people loose the ability to have their say in the direction of the economy.
There is a simple way of making sure that our Hybrid health system costs as much as the
European counterparts: mandate that no pharmaceutical or medical devices company can price discriminate.
You can only sell here if you sell at the same prices across the world. The prices will drop very
quickly. We will stop subsidizing the world for a change.
Free market advocated love to cite the rapid growth of the US before WW II when the US was
very close to a free market economy with very small government. But this more rapid growth was
essentially all due to more rapid population growth. From 1850 to 1960 the trend growth rate of
per capita real GDP was 0.14%. Since 1950 it has been 0.21%, or approximately double the earlier
trend when we did not have large government. Bu 1850 most of the essential elements of free market
capitalism eaw in place-- fractional ownership of firms, large and efficient stock and bond markets,
modern double entry bookkeeping, etc.--were in place. By making 1950 the end point the rapid growth
of the 1940s had offset the negative impact of the depression so it is not a bias comparison.
Both free market ideology and communist ideology are 19th century doctrines. Marxists are stuck
in a time loop dating from the 1840s to the 1860s when everyone was still debating whether slavery
was a good idea. Free Marketeers, similarly, have their clock stuck in the 1890s when Alfred Marshall
wrote his Principles of Economics. Of course, the Free Marketeers were big supporters of child
labor, and opponents of women's suffrage, workers compensation, and all forms of social insurance.
Isn't it about time for economists to move out of the 19th century and into the 21st century?
Both economic and social conditions are dramatically different now than 150 years ago. I, for
one, can't see why anyone would want to return to the 19th century! It was a ghastly period in
our history, finally culminating in the First World War. The Free Marketeers just want to
return us to a time when life was nasty, brutish and short.
Instead, we should realize the primary problem in economics has been solved. We are living
in a post scarcity society. When the biggest decisions we face are whether to get a 4tb harddrive
rather than a 2tb harddrive, or a 60 inch television rather than a 55 inch television, it can
safely be said that scarcity is no longer a problem.
Which leads to my questions -- If there is enough food for everyone, why should anyone starve?
If we are bulldozing houses because we overbuilt, why should anyone be homeless? If we have enough
doctors, hospitals and drugs, why should anyone remain untreated?
It strikes me that our society has imposed artificial restrictions that serve no purpose other
than to create the most misery for the greatest number of people.
Free market failures are usually based on some company that has figured out a way to pass
some of their costs on to society. The costs might be poverty, pollution, or excess risk, but
in each case, the government is left to impose Pigovian Taxes in the form of regulation (or occasionally
in the form of taxes).
The example of government-funded research is simply the same process in reverse (public benefits
instead of public costs.)
America has a free market, if you compare it to, for example, North Korea. But our freedom
pales in comparison to, say, Bangladesh (where the government can't even enforce basic property
rights, much less environmental regulations).
The term "free-market" clearly needs some fine-tuning. In Singapore, employers are required
to comply with health and safety regulations, industrial relations guidance, and a variety of
good employment practices and guidelines.
If you read the laws and guidelines (not to mention the price controls and state-linked
enterprises), you would assume that this was some Communist dystopia, yet Singapore is considered
the most pro-business country on Earth (by a wide margin).
So what gives? Easy. Instead of concentrating on bumper-stickers like "free trade", Singapore
concentrated on education, and on weeding out corruption. As a result, Singapore has almost none
of the problems mentioned in the article.
"... By Alejandro Reuss, a historian, economist, and co-editor of Triple Crisis blog and ..."
"... magazine. Originally published at Triple Crisis ..."
"... This is the first part of a three-part series on the historical trajectory of European social democracy towards the so-called "Third Way"-a turn away from class-struggle politics and a compromise with neoliberal capitalism-and its role in the shaping of the Economic and Monetary Union of the EU. It is a continuation of his earlier series "The Eurozone Crisis: Monetary Union and Fiscal Disunion" ( Part 1 and Part 2 ). His related article "An Historical Perspective on Brexit: Capitalist Internationalism, Reactionary Nationalism, and Socialist Internationalism" is available here . ..."
"... All of these governments were led by figures who had turned away from the traditional social-democratic politics of class struggle (in even the moderated form prevalent in the postwar period), while still promising to temper neoliberal capitalism. This approach became known as the "Third Way," a term especially associated with the "New Labour" program of Blair in the U.K., but also used to describe similar shifts in other countries. As Swedish political scientist Peo Hansen puts it, Blair expressed "unconditional espousal of capitalist globalization and … further liberalization of labour markets." ..."
"... "Wage dumping, tax dumping and welfare dumping," Lafontaine declared, "are not our [social democrats'] response to the globalization of markets!" That was too much for Schroeder and other social democratic leaders in Europe, and Lafontaine resigned under pressure in 1999. ..."
"... The Third way movements, so called, used the language of reform, the language of toned-down class struggle to gain power but have never worked toward any of the goals implicit in that language. The opposite is true. Politicians like The Clintons, and Obama in the US, and Blair in the UK, have worked steadily to erode the gains made by workers struggles in the 20th century, and have done far more to that end than any right wing ideologue could have. . There have a been a few bitter lesson for the working class in it 1. Like it or not, there is a class struggle 2. class struggle doesn't end when you gain a few concessions 3. You cant hire opportunistic politicians to carry on that struggle for you by voting for them once every few years. ..."
"... legitimation crisis of capital from the standpoint of capitalists themselves, ..."
"... "The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money. But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords, no usurers and no tax gatherers." ..."
"... "But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin." ..."
Posted on
September 30, 2016
by
Yves Smith
By Alejandro Reuss, a historian, economist, and co-editor of Triple
Crisis blog and
Dollars & Sense
magazine. Originally published at
Triple Crisis
This is the first part of a three-part series on the historical
trajectory of European social democracy towards the so-called "Third Way"-a turn away from class-struggle
politics and a compromise with neoliberal capitalism-and its role in the shaping of the Economic
and Monetary Union of the EU. It is a continuation of his earlier series "The Eurozone Crisis: Monetary
Union and Fiscal Disunion" (
Part
1
and
Part 2
). His related article "An Historical Perspective on Brexit: Capitalist Internationalism,
Reactionary Nationalism, and Socialist Internationalism" is available
here
.
The idea of a united Europe was not unique to neoliberal politicians or financial capitalists,
even if their vision was the one that ended up winning out. Rather, this idea cut across the entire
political spectrum, from forces clearly associated with giant capitalist corporations and high finance
to those associated with the working-class movement. Just as there have been "anti-Europe" or "euroskeptic"
forces on the political left and right, there were also diverse forces in favor of European unification,
each with its own vision of what a united Europe could be.
Going back to the mid-20th century, leaders of the social democratic, reformist left envisioned
a future "Social Europe." The European Social Charter, adopted by the Council of Europe in 1961,
promulgated a broad vision of "social and economic rights," including objectives like full employment,
reduction of work hours, protection of workers' rights to organize and bargain collectively, rights
to social security and medical assistance, protection of the rights of migrants, and so on.
Figures on the revolutionary left, like the Belgian Marxist economist and Trotskyist leader Ernest
Mandel, advocated a "United Socialist States of Europe." This was an expression not only of revolutionary
internationalism, but also of Mandel's view that the working class could no longer confront increasingly
internationalized capital through political action confined to the national level.
In other words, the question was not just whether Europe would become united, but (if it did)
what form such unification would take.
Triumph of the "Modernizers"
The vision of social democracy on a grand scale did not come to pass, nor even was there significant
movement in that direction when social democratic parties led the governments of the largest and
most powerful countries in the EU. During overlapping periods in the late 1990s, the Labour Party's
Tony Blair was prime minister in the U.K., the Socialist Lionel Jospin was prime minister in France
(though in "cohabitation" with Conservative president Jacques Chriac), the L'Ulivo (Olive Tree) coalition's
Romano Prodi led the government in Italy, and the Social Democrat Gerhard Schroeder (leading the
so-called "Red-Green" coalition, with the Green Party as junior partner) was the chancellor of Germany.
All of these governments were led by figures who had turned away from the traditional social-democratic
politics of class struggle (in even the moderated form prevalent in the postwar period), while still
promising to temper neoliberal capitalism. This approach became known as the "Third Way," a term
especially associated with the "New Labour" program of Blair in the U.K., but also used to describe
similar shifts in other countries. As Swedish political scientist Peo Hansen puts it, Blair expressed
"unconditional espousal of capitalist globalization and … further liberalization of labour markets."
Jospin, who campaigned as a critic of neoliberalism, quickly shifted to "multiple privatization schemes
and policy reshufflings favourable to business." Prodi was "firmly in the camp of the 'modernisers'."
The case of Germany is especially instructive: The finance minister in the Social Democratic-Green
coalition government, Oskar Lafontaine, was notable for swimming against the neoliberal tide-criticizing
the EU's fiscal constraints and inflation-targeting monetary policy, and proposing the adoption of
common tax and social welfare policies. That is, he was arguing for EU-wide social democratic reforms
to end "race to the bottom" dynamics (on wages, taxes, etc.) emerging in the EU.
"Wage dumping, tax
dumping and welfare dumping," Lafontaine declared, "are not our [social democrats'] response to the
globalization of markets!" That was too much for Schroeder and other social democratic leaders in
Europe, and Lafontaine resigned under pressure in 1999.
Lafontaine would later become a founder and leader of Die Linke (The Left), which is certainly
to the left of the Social Democrats. He was not, however, a revolutionary who threatened to upset
the reformist apple cart. Rather, argues Hansen, Lafontaine was a "political liability among his
own for merely sticking with a set of very traditional social democratic policies and values."
The Third way movements, so called, used the language of reform, the language
of toned-down class struggle to gain power but have never worked toward any of
the goals implicit in that language. The opposite is true. Politicians like The
Clintons, and Obama in the US, and Blair in the UK, have worked steadily to erode
the gains made by workers struggles in the 20th century, and have done far more
to that end than any right wing ideologue could have. . There have a been a few
bitter lesson for the working class in it 1. Like it or not, there is a class struggle
2. class struggle doesn't end when you gain a few concessions 3. You cant hire
opportunistic politicians to carry on that struggle for you by voting for them
once every few years.
I'll once again jump in, hands waving, to recommend Wolfgang Streeck's "Buying
Time" and Peter Mair's "Ruling the Void" to anyone who wants a more developed take
on this subject. Streeck is particularly good on how Marxist theorists missed the
boat on the possibility of a
legitimation crisis of capital from the standpoint
of capitalists themselves,
as opposed to the standpoint of the working and
- I'll cautiously add - professional-managerial classes.
There's also a useful periodization of the changes in sources of state funding, accompanied by consideration
of the politics accompanying those changes. Mair is great on how "catch-all" parties
developed out of the more class struggle-oriented parties the article refers to.
(It's a real shame Mair died relatively young.).
@hemeantwell – And I'll add Bill Mitchell's recently published book "Eurozone
Dystopia – Groupthink and Denial on a Grand Scale". It traces the development
of the Eurozone from the early Franco-German rivalry going back to the 1940's.
Of course it emphasizes the economic mistakes in the creation of the Eurozone,
but also has a deep dive into the political issues and errors that led to those
mistakes.
"This, of course, has always been a fundamental contradiction when left-social democratic parties
have swept to power: the political consciousness of its working class base demands a direct attack
on the inequities and injustices of capitalism but not to the extent of overthrowing capitalism
itself. Social democracy is thus philosophically idealist about fundamentally altering the dynamics
of capitalism while ignoring that those reforms will never change capitalism's core dynamic of
class rule and exploitation, but it will cloak this under the rubric of pragmatism and the endless
possibility of voting in a bourgeois electoral system. In an era of expanding worldwide demand
and growth of industry in the core, the social democratic system of working class empowerment
could be tolerated as it tamed the wilder impulses of the working class while creating the consumers
now lauded as the "middle class" of 20th century capitalism's 30-year golden age in the post-WWII
era. Social democracy never won the working class political control, but the power wielded by
socialist parties allowed segments of the working class access an increasing share of capital's
immense accumulation in the post-war era.
Syriza has arrived on the scene decades after the last meaningful acts of social-democracy
could occur. Capitalism in the core has long since ceased to need to make deals with socialist
parties as representatives of an industrial proletariat; those jobs have been replaced by shifting
industrial work to the periphery as the capitalist world-system tends to do specifically as acounter
to the success of mid-century social-democracy, or by increasing mechanization in the core – again,
a tendency within capitalism well described by Marx. Straitjacketed by a capitalism that no longer
needs to tame a restless proletariat into a large consumer class, Syriza faces immense pressure
from "the institutions" to allow continued profiteering from privatization and bond repayment
– the very things that constitute super-profit in the financial era of this end of capitalism's
long-cycle. Add to this the European Union's structure itself, which was built to constrain any
national attempts at left-reformism, and Syriza's determination not to even bluff about a Grexit
– which might provide a modicum of control over at least the nation's currency and deficit spending
– and there is little room for a party like Syriza to deliver on its promises."
Neo-Liberalism is dying a natural death. It was all about the private sector and the successful pure capitalist model.
Have you heard a policy maker expect the private sector to do much in the last eight years
since 2008?
No, it's all been about national institutions.
Central Banks for monetary policy and Governments for fiscal policy.
The private sector is interested in easy profits and not the potential losses when the going get
tough.
The IMF and others now realise there is a problem with global aggregate demand (due to inequality).
The current suggestions are helicopter money, fiscal stimulus and redistribution through taxation.
Pure capitalism polarises personal wealth, destroying demand.
This week in the FT, Larry Summers was talking about the problems of the disappearing middle
class in the US (the polarisation of personal wealth).
Middle class consumption made a significant contribution to GDP and as it disappears GDP is affected.
Neo-Liberalism destroys itself. The expansion of globalisation is complete. The maintenance of consumption with debt has reached the end of the road.
The polarisation of personal wealth has impoverished the global consumer and is killing demand.
There is too much money at the top leading to negative yield on many investments.
With such subdued demand there is little to invest in.
Supply never did create its own demand – someone just made it up.
Central bankers have to throw in trillions to keep this failing system in the permanent stagnation
of the "New Normal".
What should come next: Collectivization. Workers uniting to form their own worker-owned
enterprises. Imagine an employee-owned Uber etc. Its the only way out for the masses.
To make automation work for us, end exclusion & stop this race to the bottom.
Neo-liberal capitalism is in crisis and no one seems to know how to move on
from today's "Secular Stagnation". Capitalism is in crisis for a very good reason.
Today's ideal is small state, raw capitalism, which is actually how capitalism started, and
we chose to ignore the work of the Classical Economists that studied it first hand in the past.
They realised capitalism has two sides the productive side, where "earned" income is generated
and the unproductive, parasitic, rentier side where "unearned" income is generated.
Today's neoclassical economics is missing this distinction and everyone is going for the easy
money in the unproductive side of capitalism.
The UK now dreams of giving up work and living off the "unearned" income from a BTL portfolio,
extracting the "earned" income of generation rent.
The UK dream is to be like the idle rich, rentier, living off "unearned" income and doing nothing
productive.
Adam Smith:
"The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining
of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour
of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant
and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money. But
every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords, no usurers and no
tax gatherers."
Capitalism incorporates a welfare state for the idle rich and we can see our Aristocracy living
in luxury and leisure off the "unearned increment" today.
In our ignorance of the reality of small state, raw capitalism, we have been busy promoting
the unproductive side of capitalism to the masses by encouraging the BTL investor.
When you encourage too many people into the unproductive side of capitalism they are going
to bleed it dry.
Adam Smith would think we are on the road to ruin:
"But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall
with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor
countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin."
Exactly the opposite of today's thinking, what does he mean?
When rates of profit are high, capitalism is cannibalising itself by:
1) Not engaging in long term investment for the future
2) Paying insufficient wages to maintain demand for its products and services
In the 18th Century they would have understood today's problems with growth and demand.
Having forgotten the work of the Classical Economists, we set today's goal as maximising profit
which actually undermines and eventually destroys capitalism itself.
Amazon didn't pay out profits as dividends and re-invested them, look how big it's grown.
Just imagine if all companies were doing that.
We have undermined, and are destroying capitalism itself, because we didn't understand it.
Small state, raw capitalism existed before and we should have taken on board the lessons the
economists learnt at the time when they studied it.
The Classical Economists always expected the bankers to get behind the productive
side of capitalism. Everyone has now forgotten the two sides of capitalism and about 80% of lending goes into
real estate, inflating the cost of living with high mortgage payments and rent.
This in turn raises the cost of living and the minimum wage, making Western labour uncompetitive
in international markets. It also reduces the purchasing power within the economy, reducing
demand for products and services.
All known and seen over two hundred years ago in the first round of small state, raw capitalism.
(In those days it was just high rents, but the effect is the same).
Thank you for your posts. They are greatly appreciated. It
reminds me 2011 discussions about political sustainability of
neoliberalism in Crooked Timber (cited via Economist):
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/07/neoliberalism
== quote ==
OVER at the Crooked Timber blog, Henry Farrell comments on Doug
Henwood's response to Matthew Yglesias' argument for a higher,
employment-boosting inflation target, which I endorsed in my
last post. Mr Henwood dislikes Mr Yglesias' apparent
"neoliberal" preference for monetary over fiscal remedies to
high unemployment. He writes:
From an elite point of view, the primary problem with a
jobs program-and with employment-boosting infrastructure
projects-is that they would put a floor under employment,
making workers more confident and less likely to do what the
boss says, and less dependent on private employers for a
paycheck. It would increase the power of labor relative to
capital.
I think we're supposed to understand "elite" as roughly
synonymous with "neoliberal" here. "Neoliberalism" has become
something of a term of abuse on the left, though its denotation
remains vague. It is something of which Mr Yglesias and I,
despite our considerable ideological differences, are regularly
accused. This newspaper is even denounced from time to time as a
neoliberal rag. Anyway, as a sort of neoliberal (a neoclassical
liberal), let me say that from my point of view the problem with
jobs programmes, as compared to textbook monetary policy, is not
that they increase the power of labour relative to capital. It's
that they do little to sustainably increase demand for labour.
And nothing reduces the power of labour relative to capital more
than low demand for labour. But I digress.
Mr Farrell notes that Mr Yglesias is a better leftist than Mr
Henwood gives him credit for, but thinks Mr Henwood is "on to
something significant" in his complaints about Yglesian
left-leaning neoliberalism.
Neo-liberals tend to favor a combination of market mechanisms
and technocratic solutions to solve social problems. But these
kinds of solutions tend to discount politics – and in particular
political collective action, which requires strong collective
actors such as trade unions. This means that vaguely-leftish
versions of neo-liberalism often have weak theories of politics,
and in particular of the politics of collective action. I see
Doug and others as arguing that successful political change
requires large scale organized collective action, and that this
in turn requires the correction of major power imbalances (e.g.
between labor and capital).
They're also arguing that neo-liberal policies at best tend
not to help correct these imbalances, and they seem to me to
have a pretty good case. Even if left-leaning neo-liberals are
right to claim that technocratic solutions and market mechanisms
can work to relieve disparities etc, it's hard for me to see how
left-leaning neo-liberalism can generate any self-sustaining
politics.
The implied premise here seems to be that labour-union social
democracy is an ideology that generates self-sustaining
politics. But Mr Yglesias pops up in the comments to say:
[T]he self-assurance that there's some non-neoliberal
miracle formula for political sustainability seems refuted by
the fact that the pre-neoliberal paradigm in the United
States was not, in fact, politically sustainable.
== end of quote ==
My impression that neoliberalism can continue to exist in the
current zombie state (when ideology is completely discredited,
but power of multinationals is still in full swing and there are
no viable alternatives other then returning to a modernized
variant of the New Deal) until the real "peak/plato oil" crisis
hits the civilization. That might be several decades away.
Communism as an ideology was dead probably soon after WWII
but managed to survive in zombie state for another 40 years.
Trump and, especially, Sanders both signal that the backlash
against neoliberal globalization is mounting in the USA, but
whether Trump can outrun "status quo" candidate Hillary remains
to be seen. The power of neoliberal media and neoliberal
brainwashing might yet be way too strong for staging "another
Brexit".
One possibility is that neoliberal elite might resort to
unleashing another world war to solve the existing problems.
Hillary in this sense is a real unmitigated danger.
Pundits have declared a "New Cold War." If only! The Cold War was a time when leaders focused
on reducing tensions between nuclear powers. What we have today is much more dangerous: Washington's
reckless and irresponsible aggression toward the other major nuclear powers, Russia and China.
During my lifetime American presidents worked to defuse tensions with Russia. President John F.
Kennedy worked with Khrushchev to defuse the Cuban Missile Crisis. President Richard Nixon negotiated
SALT I and the anti-ballistic missile treaty, and Nixon opened to Communist China. President Carter
negotiated SALT II. Reagan worked with Soviet leader Gorbachev and ended the Cold War. The Berlin
Wall came down. Gorbachev was promised that in exchange for the Soviet Union's agreement to the reunification
of Germany, NATO would not move one inch to the East.
Peace was at hand. And then the neoconservatives, rehabilitated by the Israeli influence in the
American press, went to work to destroy the peace that Reagan and Gorbachev had achieved. It was
a short-lasting peace. Peace is costly to the profits of the military/security complex. Washington's
gigantic military and security interests are far more powerful than the peace lobby.
Since the advent of the criminal Clinton regime, every American president has worked overtime
to raise tensions with Russia and China.
China is confronted with the crazed and criminal Obama regime's declaration of the "pivot to Asia"
and the prospect of the US Navy controlling the sea lanes that provision China.
Russia is even more dangerously threatened with US nuclear missile bases on her border and with
US and NATO military bases stretching from the Baltics to the Black Sea.
Russia is also threatened with endless provocations and with demonization that is clearly intended
to prepare Western peoples for war against "the Russian threat." Extreme and hostile words stream
from the mouth of the Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, who has called the president
of Russia "the new Hitler" and threatened Russia with military force. Insouciant Americans are capable
of electing this warmonger who would bring Armageddon upon the earth.
Yesterday, Israel's voice in the US, the New York Times, added to Hillary's demonization of the
most responsible leader in the world with this editorial: "Vladimir Putin's Outlaw State." This irresponsible
and propagandistic editorial, no doubt written by the neoconservatives, blames all the troubles in
Ukraine and Syria on Putin. The NYT presstitutes know that they have no case, so they drag in the
US-orchestrated false report on MH-17 recently released by Washington's Netherlands vassal.
This report is so absurd as to cast doubt on whether intelligence exists anywhere in the Western
world. Russia and the now independent Russian provinces that have separated from Ukraine have no
interest whatsoever in shooting down a Malaysian airliner. But despite this fact, Russia, according
to the orchestrated report, sent a surface-to-air missile, useful only at high altitude, an altitude
far higher than the Ukrainian planes fly that are attacking Russians in the separated republics,
to the "rebels" so that the "rebels" could shoot down a Malaysian airliner. Then the missile system
was sent back to Russia.
How insouciant does a person have to be to believe this propaganda from the New York Times?
Does the New York Times write this nonsense because it is bankrupt and lives on CIA subsidies?
It is obvious that the Malaysian airliner was destroyed for the purpose of blaming Russia so that
Washington could force Europe to cooperate in applying illegal sanctions on Russia in an attempt
to destabilize Russia, a country that placed itself in the way of Washington's determination to destabilize
Syria and Iran.
In a recent speech, the mindless cipher, who in his role as US Secretary of Defense serves as
a front man for the armaments industry, declared the one trillion dollars (1,000 billion dollars
or 1,000,000 million dollars, that is, one million dollars one million times) that Washington is
going to spend of Americans' money for nuclear force renewal is so we can "get up in the morning
to go to school, to go to work, to live our lives, to dream our dreams and to give our children a
better future."
But Russia's response to this buildup in Washington's strategic nuclear weapons is, according
to Defense Secretary Aston B. Carter, "saber rattling" that "raises serious questions about Russia's
leaders commitment to strategic stability."
Do you get the picture? Or are you an insouciant American? Washington's buildup is only so that
we can get up in the morning and go to school and work, but Russia's buildup in response to Washington's
buildup upsets "strategic stability."
What the Pentagon chief means is that Russia is supposed to sit there and let Washington gain
the upper hand so Washington can maintain "strategic stability" by dictating to Russia. By not letting
Washington prevail, Russia is upsetting "strategic stability."
US Secretary of State John Kerry, who has been broken and tamed by the neoconservatives, recently
displayed the same point of view with his "ultimatum" to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
In effect, Kerry told Lavrov that Russia must stop helping Syria resist the jihadist forces and allow
the US-supported ISIS to regain the initiative and reduce Syria to the chaos in which Washington
left Libya and Iraq. Otherwise, Kerry said that the agreement to cooperate is off.
There can be no cooperation between the US and Russia over Syria, because the two government's
goals are entirely different. Russia wants to defeat ISIS, and the US wants to use ISIS to overthrow
Assad. This should be clear to the Russians. Yet they still enter into "agreements" that Washington
has no intention of keeping. Washington breaks the agreements and blames Russia, thus creating more
opportunities to paint Russia as untrustworthy. Without Russia's cooperation in setting themselves
up for blame, Russia's portrait would not be so black.
The headline set the stage: "Russia's Brutal Bombing of Aleppo May Be Calculated, and It May
Be Working." According to the NYT report, Russia was not bombing ISIS. Russia was "destroying
hospitals and schools, choking off basic supplies, and killing aid workers and hundreds of civilians."
The NYT asks: "What could possibly motivate such brutality?"
The NYT answers: Russia is "massacring Aleppo's civilians as part of a calculated strategy
. . . designed to pressure [moderates] to ally themselves with extremists," thereby discrediting
the forces that Washington has sent to overthrow Syria and to reduce the country to chaos.
When America's Newspaper of Record is nothing but a propaganda ministry, what is America?
Pundits keep explaining that Washington's 15 year old wars in the Middle East are about controlling
the routing of energy pipelines. Little doubt this is a factor as it brings on board powerful American
energy and financial interests. But this is not the motive for the wars. Washington, or the neoconservatives
who control the US government, intend to destabilize the Russian Federation, the former Soviet Central
Asian countries, and China's Muslim province by adding Syria and then Iran to the chaos that Washington
has created in Iraq and Libya. If Washington succeeds in destroying Syria as it succeeded in destroying
Libya and Iraq, Iran becomes the last buffer for Russia. If Washington then knocks off Iran, Russia
is set up for destabilization by jihadists operating in Muslim regions of the Russian Federation.
This is clear as day. Putin understands this. But Russia, which existed under Washington's domination
during the Yeltsin years, has been left threatened by Washington's Fifth Columns in Russia. There
are a large number of foreign-financed NGOs in Russia that Putin finally realized were Washington's
agents. These Washington operatives have been made to register as foreign-financed, but they are
still functioning.
Russia is also betrayed by a section of its elite who are allied economically, politically, and
emotionally with Washington. I have termed these Russians "America Worshipers." Their over-riding
cause is to have Russia integrated with the West, which means to be a vassal of Washington.
Washington's money even seems to have found its way into Russian "think tanks" and academic institutions.
According
to this report, two think tanks, one Russian one American, possibly funded by Washington's money,
have concluded that "US,Russia 'Have far more common interests than differences' in Asia-Pacific."
This "academic report" is a direct assault on the Russian/Chinese alliance. It makes one wonder
whether the report was funded by the CIA The Russian media fall for the "common interest" propaganda,
because they desire to be included in the West. Like Russian academics, the Russian media know English,
not Chinese. Russia's history since Peter the Great is with the West. So that is where they want
to be. However, these America Worshipping Russians cannot understand that to be part of the West
means being Washington's vassal, or if they do understand the price, they are content with a vassal's
status like Germany, Great Britain, France, and the rest of the European puppet states.
To be a vassal is not an unusual choice in history. For example, many peoples chose to be Rome's
vassals, so those elements in Russia who desire to be Washington's vassal have precedents for their
decision.
To reduce Russia's status to Washington's vassal, we have Russian-US cooperation between the Moscow-based
Institute of World Economy and International Relations and the US-based International Institute for
Strategic Studies. These two co-conspirators against Russian sovereignty are working to destroy Russia's
strategic alliance with China and to create a US-Russian Pacific Alliance in its place. One of the
benefits, the joint report declares, is "maintaining freedom of navigation and maritime security."
"Freedom of navigation" is Washington's term for controlling the sea lanes that supply China.
So now we have a Russian institute supporting Washington's plans to cut off resource flow into China.
This idiocy on the part of the Moscow-based Institute of World Economy and International Relations
is unlikely to reassure China about its alliance with Russia. If the alliance is broken, Washington
can more easily deal with the two constraints on its unilateralism.
Additionally, the joint report says that Moscow could cooperate with Washington in confidence-building
measures to resolve territorial disputes in the Asia-Pacific region. What this means is that Russia
should help Washington pressure China to give up its territorial claims.
One cannot but wonder if the Moscow-based Institute of World Economy and International Relations
is a CIA front. If it is not, the CIA is getting a free ride.
The foreign policy of the United States rests entirely on propagandistic lies. The presstitute
media, a Ministry of Propaganda, establishes an orchestrated reality by treating lies as fact. News
organizations around the world, accustomed as they are to following Washington's lead, echo the lies
as if they are facts.
Thus Washington's lies–such as Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, Iranian nukes, Assad's
use of chemical weapons, Russian invasions–become the reality.
Russia's very capable spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, understands that Washington uses the Western
media to control explanations by shaping public opinion. She terms it a "reality show." However,
Zakharova thinks
the problem is that Washington misuses "international relations and international platforms for addressing
internal issues." By this she means that Obama's foreign policy failures have made him hysterical
and impudent as he strives to leave a legacy, and that American/Russian relations are poisoned by
the US presidential campaign that is painting Trump as a "Putin stooge" for not seeing the point
of conflict with Russia.
The situation is far more serious than Zakharova realizes. Russians seem unable to get their minds
around the fact that the neoconservatives are serious about imposing Washington's hegemony on the
rest of the world. The neoconservative doctrine declares that it is the principal goal of US foreign
policy to prevent the rise of any country that would have sufficient power to serve as a check on
American unilateralism. This neoconservative doctrine puts Russia and China in Washington's crosshairs.
If the Russian and Chinese governments do not yet understand this, they are not long for this world.
The neoconservative doctrine fits perfectly with the material interests of the US military/security
complex. The US armaments and spy industries have had 70 years to entrench themselves with a huge
claim on the US budget. This politically powerful interest group has no intention of letting go of
its hold on US resources.
As long ago as 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his last public address to the American
people warned that the Cold War confronted Americans with a new internal danger as large as the external
Soviet threat:
"Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors
in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American
makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no
longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent
armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women
are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more
than the net income of all United States corporations.
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in
the American experience. The total influence - economic, political, even spiritual - is felt in
every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative
need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil,
resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence,
whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous
rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.
We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper
meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and
goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
President Eisenhower's warning that our liberties were equally at stake from the military/security
complex as from the Soviet Threat did not last 24 hours. The military/security complex buried Eisenhower's
warning with extraordinary hype of the Soviet Threat.
In truth, there was no Soviet threat. Stalin had buffered Russia from the West with his control
of Eastern Europe, just as Washington controlled Western Europe. Stalin had eliminated Trotsky and
his supporters who stood for world revolution. Stalin declared "socialism in one country."
Stalin terminated international communism. But the American military/security complex had much
money to gain from the Amerian taxpayers in order to "protect America from International Communism."
So the fact that there was no effort on the part of the Soviet Union to subvert the world was ignored.
Instead, every national liberation movement was declared by the US military/industrial complex to
be a "falling domino" of the Communist takeover of the world.
Ho Chi Minh begged Washington for help against the French colonialists in Vietnam. Washington
told him to go to hell. It was Washington that sent Ho Cho Minh to seek communist support.
The long Vietnam war went on for years. It enriched the military/security complex and officers'
pensions. But it was otherwise entirely pointless. There were no dominoes to fall. Vietnam won the
war but is open to American influence and commerce.
Because of the military/security complex more than 50,000 Americans died in the war and many thousands
more suffered physical and psychological wounds. Millions of Vietnamese suffered death, maiming,
birth defects and illnesses associated with Washington's use of Agent Orange.
The entire war was totally pointless. It achieved nothing but destruction of innocents.
This is Washington's preferred way. The corrupt capitalism that rules in America has no interest
in life, only in profit. Profit is all that counts. If entire countries are destroyed and left in
ruins, all the better for American armaments industries.
Yes, please, a new Cold War. We need one desperately, a conflict responsibly managed in place
of the reckless, insane drive for world hegemony emanating from the crazed, evil criminals in Washington
who are driving the world to Armageddon.
There is a real risk the media will be wholly foreign owned very soon. The
FCC under Pres. Obama eliminated the rule on foreign ownership. This, the TPP,
and giving up internet control are of a piece.
I think Trump may be the one and only person to increase the likelihood the
US will still be an independent country in ten years. With Clinton we may end
up losing our sovereignty by 2020. Trump may have some issues, but at least he
psychologically identifies with the US. Most US elites think of themselves as
world citizens and really couldn't care less if the US becomes like the DRC. I
trust Trump's instincts much more than Hillary's. The continued existence of an
independent US will be very, very important for the world to have any degree of
pluralism. Any global hegemony is likely to be unpleasant for most people.
Grupo Televisa, a Mexican company with a minority stake in the
Spanish-language station Univision, might now be able to increase its
ownership.
Univision's lead owner is Hillary's largest contributor, the
Israeli-American media mogul Haim Saban:
On June 27, 2006, Saban Capital Group led a group of investors bidding
for Univision Communications, the largest Spanish-language media company
in the United States.
Other investors in the Saban-led group were Texas Pacific Group of
Fort Worth, Texas and Thomas H. Lee Partners. The group was successful in
acquiring Univision with a bid valued at $13.7 billion.
This convenient FCC rule change hands them a nice exit strategy.
Convinced to contribute to the Clinton Foundation yet?
They make magic
happen.
"... ...Second, it should acknowledge at least to itself that it has damaged its credibility by repeatedly holding out the prospects of much more tightening than the market anticipated, being ignored by the market, and then having the market turn out to be right. It should recognize output and inflation and unemployment would all be closer to their target levels today and in their forecasts if rates had not been increased last December... ..."
[It is wonderful to see Larry Summers has redeeming social value. As far as monetary policy
goes then Larry has nailed it here.]
...First, it should acknowledge that the neutral rate is now close to zero and it may well remain
under 2 percent for the foreseeable future...
...Second, it should acknowledge at least to itself that it has damaged its credibility by
repeatedly holding out the prospects of much more tightening than the market anticipated, being
ignored by the market, and then having the market turn out to be right. It should recognize output
and inflation and unemployment would all be closer to their target levels today and in their forecasts
if rates had not been increased last December...
...Third, the Fed should make real the idea that its inflation target is symmetric by being clear
that in the late stage of prolonged expansion with low unemployment it is comfortable with inflation
rising a little bit above 2 percent with the confidence that it will decline when the next recession
comes...
... Fourth, the Fed should make clear that it sees risk as asymmetric right now...
[I can agree with all that without changing my view of last December's 25 basis point FFR hike.
That hike did very little to change the economic conditions compared to how much it did to change
the conversation. How could the hawks be capitulating to the doves now had they not gotten their
chance to be proven wrong? That goes double for the neo-Fisherites.]
"... This really cements Obama's status as "Clueless B." If nothing else, this shows clearly the mans contempt for black Africans. ..."
"... Says a lot about "special relationships", as well, that Mags Thatcher didn't rate a half staff salute from Pres. Obama but Shimon Peres does. Now I hates me some Mags, but one can't help noticing these things! Oh but, Shimon Peres was an esteemed partner for peace ..."
obama in his speech at shimon peres funeral put him in the same category as mandela. it should
be remembered that peres was the father of israel's nuke program and was selling nukes to south
africa when mandela was in jail. oops, too much reality.
Says a lot about "special relationships", as well, that Mags Thatcher didn't rate a half staff
salute from Pres. Obama but Shimon Peres does. Now I hates me some Mags, but one can't help noticing
these things! Oh but, Shimon Peres was an esteemed partner for peace (yeah right, the
peace of the grave maybe…)
Republican vice presidential nominee Mike Pence slammed Hillary Clinton as the "architect"
of the Obama administration's foreign policy on Friday, saying the two made the Middle East unrecognizable
in less than a decade.
Pence said in Fort Wayne, Indiana:
After seven and a half years, Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's policies have weakened America's
place in the world and emboldened the enemies of this country. Terrorist attacks at home and abroad,
attempted coup among allies - I mean, if you looked at a picture of a map of the wider Middle
East the day Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton took over American foreign policy, and you took
a picture of a map today, it wouldn't even look like the same part of the world.
"You know, this teaches us that weakness arouses evil. And I would submit to you, my fellow Hoosiers,
that Hillary Clinton, the architect of Barack Obama's foreign policy, that Hillary Clinton and Barack
Obama's foreign policy have been leading from behind, moving red lines, feigning resets with Russia,
and paying ransom to terrorist-sponsoring states," Pence continued. "That is the very image of weakness
on the world stage."
"Let me make you a promise: When Donald Trump becomes President of the United States, we won't
be paying ransom to terrorists or terrorist-sponsoring states," he said to applause. "They'll be
paying a price. They'll be paying a price if they threaten the American people, or they threaten
our allies."
Pence added he's looking forward to exposing Clinton's record during Tuesday night's vice presidential
debate.
RE: Debate Night Message: The Markets Are Afraid of Donald Trump
[ Justin Wolfers convincingly argues that Wall Street's darling in this election is Hillary Clinton
and not Donald Trump although that was probably an unintended consequence of making his case without
reading between his own line.]
Wall Street fears a Trump presidency. Stocks may lose 10 to 12 percent of their value if he wins
the November election, and there may be a broader economic downturn.
These conclusions arise from close analysis of financial markets during Monday's presidential
debate, which provides a fascinating case study of the complex interconnections between American
politics and economics. The market's judgment stands in sharp opposition to Donald J. Trump's claims
that his presidency would be good for business.
Decoding these market signals is no easy task because it is difficult to disentangle correlation
from causation. Ideally we would observe stock prices in parallel universes with identical economic
conditions, with a single exception: In one, Mr. Trump has a good shot at becoming president, while
in the other, his chances are low.
Monday's presidential debate provided a rough approximation of this experiment. At 9 p.m., before
the debate began, the betting markets gave Mr. Trump a 35 percent chance of becoming president. Two
hours later, after the debate, we had entered the parallel universe in which economic conditions
were the same, but Mr. Trump's chances had fallen a tad below 30 percent...
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl,
Ron... , -1
"The stock market has forecast nine of the last five recessions." Paul Samuelson (1966), quoted
in: John C Bluedorn et al. Do Asset Price Drops Foreshadow Recessions? (2013), p. 4
[Of course the real question is how well do the betting markets predict the stock market? The
only question actually answered was "Who do you love?"]
"... Isn't the title of his article backward? Shouldn't it be "The economic damage wrought by those in power (including me) is causing the decline of the middle class". Poor Larry doesn't appear to understand cause and effect. ..."
"... You better believe the man is not stupid and understands this very well. Cue Upton Sinclair's "it is difficulty to convince a man to understand something" quote. ..."
"... It is very common for former officials to come forward with critical accounts of current goings-on *including their own term in office* after they have retired from their post. While in office they can simply not let on this kind of thing. It is not polite, or inconsistent with what they are hired and paid to do. (Which is the second and here unstated part of the Sinclair quote.) ..."
"... Let me see. The rich run the country, and the government. and they have figured out how to suck $400 Billion per year out of the real economy and into their financial pockets. And Larry proposes that the government, controlled by these same rich, remember, adopt policies which will put an end to the feeding frenzy. ..."
"... Even that "reduction" is debate-able. Summers ignores the credit boom and the 98-06 spending orgy. Credit markets drive spending more than base income. Ig spending starts rising "above potential" in 2017-19, then his thesis will collapse along with another correction/recession in the early 20's. ..."
"... America ran a "soft" national socialist economy during and after WWII. ..."
"... Trump supports a complete deregulation of capital markets while the Clinton's a modest firming of them. This is what people don't understand. It isn't trade that determines national production and consumption. ..."
"... You simply can't bring back the Nazi/Soviet bubble back that created the late 20th century middle class. The Capitalists won't allow it. The system is going back to where it was in March of 1929. It always was. ..."
"... Yeah okay, except you might be able to explain it to the kleptocrats better if you use simple economics to show that there'll be more interest income for them if they just lift their jackboot off the throat of the working class, instead of trying to stripmine the West for dirt and dumping their trillions in tax haven accounts earning negative rates. ..."
"... The median household income is approximately $56,000, therefore the IMF study places the breakpoint between "middle" and "high" income at $84,000 (150% of median income). It strikes me that this is unrealistically low. The really meaningful divergence in lifestyles and consumption behavior certainly occurs at a significantly higher level than this. ..."
"... The other question this study raises is, what is the quantifiable extent to which economic growth in the mid-90's to the mid-aughts (prior to the meltdown) was the result of the debt bubble (more broadly than just housing bubble). It would be very interesting to see an estimate of the aggregate impact on the economy has been from the suppression of workers' wages over the past several decades. ..."
"... I don't follow the argument to be honest. The US has a chronic trade deficit. It doesn't actually suffer from inadequate domestic demand, but from an overvalued dollar. His argument might hold for other countries though. ..."
"... That doesn't mean that a "hollowed-out" middle class doesn't have a negative impact on the economy, but it means that you won't see the problem looking at the macro-data (apart from productivity growth statistics perhaps) but in the structure of the economy. It is very hard to find a new high value added niche in mass markets today, because of the lack of disposable income of the masses. ..."
"... Such an article can be viewed as a sign of the collapse of neoliberal model. ..."
This level of reduction in spending is huge. For example, it exceeds by a significant margin
the
impact in any year of the Obama stimulus program. Alone it would be enough to account for
a significant reduction in
neutral real
interest rates . If consumers were spending 3 percent more, there would be scope to maintain
full employment at interest rates much closer to normal. And there would be much less of a problem
of monetary policy's
inability to respond to the next recession.
What is the policy implication? Principally, it is the macroeconomic importance of supporting
middle class incomes. This can be done in a range of ways from promoting workers right to
collectively bargain to raising spending on infrastructure to making the tax system more progressive.
...
Isn't the title of his article backward? Shouldn't it be "The economic damage wrought by those
in power (including me) is causing the decline of the middle class". Poor Larry doesn't appear
to understand cause and effect.
cm -> David...
You better believe the man is not stupid and understands this very well. Cue Upton
Sinclair's "it is difficulty to convince a man to understand something" quote.
It is very common for former officials to come forward with critical accounts of current
goings-on *including their own term in office* after they have retired from their post. While
in office they can simply not let on this kind of thing. It is not polite, or inconsistent
with what they are hired and paid to do. (Which is the second and here unstated part of the
Sinclair quote.)
Let me see. The rich run the country, and the government. and they have figured out how
to suck $400 Billion per year out of the real economy and into their financial pockets. And Larry
proposes that the government, controlled by these same rich, remember, adopt policies which will
put an end to the feeding frenzy.
Ha, Ha, Ha. No. I think not. Any policy our- *their* government would adopt would be purely
cosmetic. If, after 40 years of depredations, they finally feel the need to put lipstick on this
particular pig.
To be sure, 3 % per year will probably be lethal to society, and sooner rather than later.
But, sustainability has never been a feature of capitalism.
Polarization has reduced "consumer spending" by more than 3 percent or about $400 billion annually.
Consumer spending. Not spending (investment). I'm not disagreeing with Summers, just pointing
out the qualification.
Even that "reduction" is debate-able. Summers ignores the credit boom and the 98-06 spending
orgy. Credit markets drive spending more than base income. Ig spending starts rising "above potential"
in 2017-19, then his thesis will collapse along with another correction/recession in the early
20's.
Most of the myth of the American middle class was a Nazi/Soviet driven illusion. America
ran a "soft" national socialist economy during and after WWII. It was about organic
cohesiveness between government, business and labor. It is part of the reason Hillary is getting
her own white nationalist support, even though they don't like her.
Most of Trumps are ex-neocons, other various "old" white nationalist like conman, gambler David
Duke (aka, I took my non-white mistress to France for a abortion) and other useless tools like
Stormfront, which only represent 25% of the total "white nationalist" vote, yet because of jewish
pact money, get the most noise in the media.
Trump supports a complete deregulation of capital markets while the Clinton's a modest
firming of them. This is what people don't understand. It isn't trade that determines national
production and consumption.
You simply can't bring back the Nazi/Soviet bubble back that created the late 20th century
middle class. The Capitalists won't allow it. The system is going back to where it was in March
of 1929. It always was.
ken melvin :
Well known, the housing prices in the Bay Area are insane. Along with goes the 'house poor'
syndrome. The 'middle class' spends all it's money on housing, leaving little or nothing for such
as dining out, skiing trips, triops o the beach, ...
As consequence, those restaurants that used to cater to the dining out of these folks are all
closed. So, the little resort town stops, motels, ... on the way to ski resorts, the beach, etc.
Dan Kervick said...
The decline of the middle class IS economic damage, not just a cause of economic damage. You
don't have to demonstrate that the decline of the middle class has had some negative impact on
some further economic aggregate, such as the aggregate purchased output of consumables, in order
to see it as a form of damage in itself.
pgl -> Dan Kervick...
I absolutely agree. So well said as this is a very important point. Regardless of all the other
issues that may be attributable to income inequality - we need to address income inequality period.
vic twente -> pgl...
Yeah okay, except you might be able to explain it to the kleptocrats better if you use
simple economics to show that there'll be more interest income for them if they just lift their
jackboot off the throat of the working class, instead of trying to stripmine the West for dirt
and dumping their trillions in tax haven accounts earning negative rates.
vic twente -> vic twente...
Point being it's the kleptocrat class who has to decide to let the working class gain some
income improvement and increased ability to consume. Unless of course you're all for just killing
the lot of them, in which case I merely find your position intriguing and may subscribe to your
newsletter.
Dan Kervick -> vic twente...
I agree that's probably part of what Summers is up to in this piece. His audience is the big
wheels, and he's probably aiming at convincing them that the problems of the middle class are
ultimately their problem as well.
reason -> Dan Kervick...
Yes, let me third that. A very good point. Another case of treating the "economy" as that it
is something that has a value independent of the people that it is supposed to be serving.
Who Ma Weeny said...
decline of the middle class is causing even more economic damage than we realized: I have just
come across an International Monetary Fund working paper on income polarization in the United
States that makes an important contribution to the secular stagnation
.....
policy implication? Principally, it is the macroeconomic importance of supporting middle class
incomes. This can be done in a range of ways from promoting workers right
"
By definition, income polarization is the divide between upper vs lower caste, not middle caste.
Forget middletons! We need less contrast between upper and lower caste. Even Keynesian-s admit
that it is the transfer of buying power from upper to lower caste that "stimulates", lower propensity
to upper propensity to consume. Hell! LS, don't stop off in the middle!
A Boy Named Sue said...
Lets remember, Larry Summers was one of the persons who drove Brooksley Born out of town for
sending up the red flag on toxic derivatives.
Summers was one of the free market crowd under Clinton, Rubin, and Greenspan who ignored the warnings
of toxic derivative tradings.
While Summers is able to have a change of heart, unlike many conservatives, he was a part of the
neo-liberal elite who helped crashed the economy.
Would I ever expect an apology out of him? No.
Tom aka Rusty -> A Boy Named Sue...
If I remember correctly Summers was a big advocate of "too big to prosecute" and had at least
one ugly conversation with Elizabeth Warren at the White House.
Tom aka Rusty -> Tom aka Rusty ...
More correctly he did not want to prosecute foreclosure fraud because it might slow market
clearing in the housing sector.
Chris Lowery said...
The median household income is approximately $56,000, therefore the IMF study places the
breakpoint between "middle" and "high" income at $84,000 (150% of median income). It strikes me
that this is unrealistically low. The really meaningful divergence in lifestyles and consumption
behavior certainly occurs at a significantly higher level than this.
And if the authors had performed their analyses using a higher breakpoint, they probably would
have seen much greater income stagnation and a greater divergence in the propensity to consume.
I haven't delved into the math, but I'd guess they might have seen an even greater impact -- as
if 3% weren't enough! -- on the economy from lower consumption.
The other question this study raises is, what is the quantifiable extent to which economic
growth in the mid-90's to the mid-aughts (prior to the meltdown) was the result of the debt bubble
(more broadly than just housing bubble). It would be very interesting to see an estimate of the
aggregate impact on the economy has been from the suppression of workers' wages over the past
several decades.
kaleberg said...
I don't have a lot of hope, but at least they are realizing that square wheels don't seem to
rotate all that well. All of this was rather obvious back in 1930. That's why the New Deal created
a US middle class, to get a sustainable economy. This is only non-obvious now thanks to a well
funded disinformation campaign that succeeded in the 1980s.
David said...
I totally argree that middle class income stagnation and income inequality decrease aggregate
demand and probably hurts consumer confidence. But it also creates political instability. For
40 years the Republican Party has resentment, tribalism, and increasingly less subtle racist tropes
to push for policies that increase inequality and Trump is doing that on steroids.
The Republican Party needs be called out on this bait and switch.
reason said...
I don't follow the argument to be honest. The US has a chronic trade deficit. It doesn't
actually suffer from inadequate domestic demand, but from an overvalued dollar. His argument might
hold for other countries though.
That doesn't mean that a "hollowed-out" middle class doesn't have a negative impact on
the economy, but it means that you won't see the problem looking at the macro-data (apart from
productivity growth statistics perhaps) but in the structure of the economy. It is very hard to
find a new high value added niche in mass markets today, because of the lack of disposable income
of the masses.
Again, I appeal, please let us concentrate on more on the dynamics of the economy (for instance
the life cycle of new products and new processes) and less on comparative static (equilibrium)
perspective. Far too much talk about "growth" or "productivity" sees these processes as governed
by magic, rather than by observable dynamics. I sincerely believe that this is the direction economics
needs to go.
likbez said...
Such an article can be viewed as a sign of the collapse of neoliberal model.
Summers was/is a staunch supporter of deregulation of financial sector. He also played a role
of a hired gun in killing Glass-Steagall.
Later with his fees for speaking (for example, $135K for a single speech from Goldman Sachs)
he became a walking illustration of the corruption of the academy by special interests. Essentially
he became an academic lobbyist for financial industry.
During his stint in the Clinton administration, Summers was successful in pushing for capital
gains tax cuts.
The crisis exposed some serious flaws in our economic thinking. It has highlighted the need to
look at economic policy with more critical, fresh approaches. It has also revealed the limitations
of existing tools for structural analysis in factoring in key linkages, feedbacks and trade-offs
– for example between growth, inequality and the environment.
We should seize the opportunity to develop a new understanding of the economy as a highly complex
system that, like any complex system, is constantly reconfiguring itself in response to multiple
inputs and influences, often with unforeseen or undesirable consequences. This has many implications.
It suggests policymakers should be constantly vigilant and more humble about their policy prescriptions,
act more like navigators than mechanics, and be open to systemic risks, spillovers, strengths, weaknesses,
and human sensitivities. This demands a change in our mind-sets, and in our textbooks. As John Kenneth
Galbraith once said, "the conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking."
This is why at the OECD we launched an initiative called New Approaches to Economic Challenges
(NAEC). With this initiative we want to understand better how the economy works, in all its complexity,
and design policies that reflect this understanding. Our aim is to consider and address the unintended
consequences of policies, while developing new approaches that foster more sustainable and inclusive
growth.
Complexity is a common feature of a growing number of policy issues in an increasingly globalised
world employing sophisticated technologies and running against resource constraints.
The report of the OECD Global Science Forum (2009) on Applications of Complexity Science for Public
Policy reminds us of the distinction between complicated and complex systems. Traditional science
(and technology) excels at the complicated, but is still at an early stage in its understanding of
complex phenomena like the climate.
For example, the complicated car can be well understood using normal engineering analyses. An
ensemble of cars travelling down a highway, by contrast, is a complex system. Drivers interact and
mutually adjust their behaviours based on diverse factors such as perceptions, expectations, habits,
even emotions. To understand traffic, and to build better highways, set speed limits, install automatic
radar systems, etc., it is helpful to have tools that can accommodate non-linear and collective patterns
of behaviour, and varieties of driver types or rules that might be imposed. The tools of complexity
science are needed in this case. And we need better rules of the road in a number of areas.
This is not an academic debate. The importance of complexity is not limited to the realm of academia.
It has some powerful advocates in the world of policy. Andy Haldane at the Bank of England has thought
of the global financial system as a complex system and focused on applying the lessons from other
network disciplines – such as ecology, epidemiology, and engineering – to the financial sphere. More
generally, it is clear that the language of complexity theory – tipping points, feedback, discontinuities,
fat tails – has entered the financial and regulatory lexicon. Haldane has shown the value of adopting
a complexity lens, providing insights on structural vulnerabilities that built up in the financial
system. This has led to policy suggestions for improving the robustness of the financial system.
Closer to home, Bill White, Chairman of our Economic and Development Review Committee (EDRC) has
been an ardent advocate of thinking about the economy as a complex system. He has spoken in numerous
OECD meetings – in part as an explanation and in part as a warning – that systems build up as a result
of cumulative processes, can have highly unpredictable dynamics and can demonstrate significant non-linearity.
As a result Bill has urged policymakers to accept more uncertainty and be more prudent. He also urged
economists to learn some exceedingly simple but important lessons from those that have studied or
work with complex systems such as biologists, botanists, anthropologists, traffic controllers, and
military strategists.
Perhaps the most important insight of complexity is that policymakers should stop pretending that
an economy can be controlled. Systems are prone to surprising, large-scale, seemingly uncontrollable,
behaviours. Rather, a greater emphasis should be placed on building resilience, strengthening policy
buffers and promoting adaptability by fostering a culture of policy experimentation.
At the OECD, we are starting to embrace complexity. For several years we have been mapping the
trade "genome" with our Trade in Value Added (TiVA) database to explain the commercial interconnections
between countries.
We have examined the possibilities for coupling economic and other systems models, for example
environmental (climate) and societal (inequalities). Our work on the Costs of Inaction and Resource
Constraints: Implications for Long-term Growth (CIRCLE) is a key example of linking bio-physical
models and economic models to gauge the impact of environmental degradation and climate change on
the economy.
We are also looking at governing complex systems in areas as diverse as education and international
trade policy. And we are looking at the potential for tapping big data – an indispensable element
of complexity modelling approaches. But there remains much to do to fully enrich our work with the
perspectives of complexity.
The OECD is delighted to work with strong partners – the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET)
Oxford, and the European Commission to help policy-makers advance the use of complex systems thinking
to address some of the most difficult challenges.
An important question remains. How can the insights and methods of complexity science be applied
to assist policymakers as they tackle difficult problems in areas such as environmental protection,
financial regulation, sustainability or urban development?
At the Workshop on Complexity and Policy on 29-30 September at the OECD, we will help find the
answer – stimulate new thinking, new policy approaches and ultimately better policies for better
lives.
[Sometimes when it seems like you are just howling at the moon there really is a new day coming.]
I think it is both correct,
and entirely wrong-headed.
Firstly, we have not believed that the economy can be controlled (we were just trying
to steer it) - the guiding principle was that it didn't need to be controlled which is something
completely different. It also falls into the trap of talking about "the economy" as though
the economy was an organism that had its own purposes, rather than as a set of institutions
that ultimately exist to serve human beings (a job which it achieves with quite varying
degrees of success). I won't say this approach is necessarily bound to fail, I just doubt
that it will be alone sufficient.
The OECD is one of those institutions.
Yep, they have plenty of their own assumptions. Complexity has been mentioned here before.
Exactly what they mean is indeterminable from the general principles mentioned, but examples
are worthwhile. You might read them to mean be cautious about leaps of faith such as financial
deregulation because bad stuff CAN happen.
"...Perhaps the most important
insight of complexity is that policymakers should stop pretending that an economy can be
controlled. Systems are prone to surprising, large-scale, seemingly uncontrollable, behaviours.
Rather, a greater emphasis should be placed on building resilience, strengthening policy
buffers and promoting adaptability by fostering a culture of policy experimentation..."
[In context I took this more to mean that economic models are probabilistic at best rather
than deterministic rather than that it said policy makers in the OECD were performing central
planning of the economy, which everyone knows is not true.]
Firstly, we have not believed
that the economy can be controlled (we were just trying to steer it) - the guiding principle
was that it didn't need to be controlled which is something completely different. It also
falls into the trap of talking about "the economy" as though the economy was an organism
that had its own purposes, rather than as a set of institutions that ultimately exist to
serve human beings (a job which it achieves with quite varying degrees of success)....
Re: Stop pretending that an economy can be controlled -
OECD Insights
"The crisis exposed some serious flaws in
our economic thinking. It has highlighted the need to look
at economic policy with more critical, fresh approaches.
It has also revealed the limitations of existing tools for
structural analysis in factoring in key linkages,
feedbacks and trade-offs – for example between growth,
inequality and the environment.
We should seize the opportunity to develop a new
understanding of the economy as a highly complex system
that, like any complex system, is constantly reconfiguring
itself in response to multiple inputs and influences,
often with unforeseen or undesirable consequences. This
has many implications. It suggests policymakers should be
constantly vigilant and more humble about their policy
prescriptions, act more like navigators than mechanics,
and be open to systemic risks, spillovers, strengths,
weaknesses, and human sensitivities. This demands a change
in our mind-sets, and in our textbooks. As John Kenneth
Galbraith once said, "the conventional view serves to
protect us from the painful job of thinking."
..................................
Complex systems such as chemical processes are managed by
feedback control systems that specify a desired output and
then measure deviation from that control point (the error
signal) to adjust the inputs and thus return to the
desired setpoint.
I have promoted the use of control theory concepts in
economics before. From a previous post:
Auto-control:
Did you ever think about how you keep the temperature
in your house at a comfortable level even though the
weather is unpredictable and can change a lot?
Well, maybe the level of the economy could be controlled
on similar principles. Maybe economists could borrow from
the control theory that is employed in air conditioning
thermostats.
For example, if we wanted to maintain full employment we
could adjust inputs in a similar manner to the way heat
and cooling is adjusted in your house. Just as heat is
added when the temperature gets too low, government jobs
could be added when private employment falls short. When
the temperature starts to get too high ( full employment
is achieved), heat could be sucked out ( no more jobs
would be added and/or higher taxes could be imposed) to
cool things off.
This is an appealing analogy because, like the weather,
the economy is inherently unpredictable and, like the air
conditioning in your house, you could keep things
comfortable without the need of forecasting the
unknowable.
So maybe economists should forsake their DSGE models and
instead study control theory.
...................
In my view such approaches are not promoted because they
require central control by the state and our elite
establishment quashes such threats to their dominance.
That is why Keynes' conclusions were subverted:
"The context is as follows: in an interview with the
leftist British journalist Kingsley Martin (1897–1969) in
the New Statesman of January 1939, Keynes – commenting on
the need for a new interventionist economic system and at
the same time the need to avoid the authoritarianism of
the Fascist and communist states – said this:
"The question is whether we are prepared to move out of
the nineteenth-century laissez faire state into an era of
liberal socialism, by which I mean a system where we can
act as an organized community for common purposes and to
promote social and economic justice, whilst respecting and
protecting the individual-his freedom of choice, his
faith, his mind and its expression, his enterprise and his
property." (Moggridge 1982: 500 = Keynes and Martin 1939:
123).
............
Many people now accept that we have traveled the wrong
path since the 1950's. I would submit that economists
would do well to go back to the ideas of Keynes, Kalecki,
Lerner and perfect those concepts within a framework of
automatic stabilization. This would be greatly facilitated
if some prominent economists would have the guts to say
again what Keynes was saying in the 30's.
What would a recommended reading of or about Abba Lerner
be? Though Lerner is frequently mentioned, I still have no
idea where to begin reading. Would this do?
The Lerner symmetry theorem is a result used in
international trade theory, which states that, based on an
assumption of a zero balance of trade (that is, the value
of exported goods equals the value of imported goods for a
given country), an ad valorem import tariff (a percentage
of value or an amount per unit) will have the same effects
as an export tax. The theorem is based on the observation
that the effect on relative prices is the same regardless
of which policy (ad valorem tariffs or export taxes) is
applied.
The theorem was developed by economist Abba P. Lerner
in 1936.
Functional Finance and Full Employment: Lessons from
Lerner for Today?
By Mathew Forstater
The Asian Crisis, with the fallout in Latin America and
the transition economies; the Russian default; continuing
troubles in Japan; weaknesses in the structure of the new
European EMU; volatility on Wall Street; deflationary
pressures in the global economy: recent economic
developments invite a reconsideration of some of our most
deeply held beliefs concerning economic theory and public
policy. Even within the hallowed halls of mainstream
economics, voices of dissent can be heard. Paul Krugman,
Joseph Stiglitz, and Jeffrey Sachs are among those whose
recent proclamations indicate that we have entered a
period in which orthodox views are being openly
questioned, creating an atmosphere characterized by a
crisis of confidence.
Such periods of impending crisis and open expressions
of self-doubt, questioning our most deeply held beliefs
about the way the world works, creates a climate in which
the ideas of the great unorthodox thinkers of the past may
be revisited. The work of those who in the past dedicated
their lives to formulating solutions to the challenges of
modern capitalist economies may contain lessons applicable
to the contemporary situation. It is in this spirit that
this paper revisits the early works of Abba Lerner,
outlining fifteen such lessons regarding macroeconomic
theory and policy, as fresh in the context of the current
scene as they were some five decades ago when they were
first formulated.
Lesson #1: Full employment, price stability, and a
decent standard of living for all are fundamental
macroeconomic goals, and it is the responsibility of the
state to promote their attainment.
Lesson #2: Policies should be judged on their ability
to achieve the goals for which they are designed and not
on any notion of whether they are "sound" or otherwise
comply with the dogmas of traditional economics.
Lesson #3: "Money Is a Creature of the State"
Lesson #4: Taxing is not a funding operation.
Lesson #5: Government Borrowing is not a funding
operation.
Lesson #6: The primary purpose of taxation is to
influence the behavior of the public.
Lesson #7: The primary purpose of government bond sales
is to regulate the overnight interest rate.
Lesson #8: Bond sales logically follow from, rather
than precede, government spending....
Functional Finance: Monetary and Fiscal Policy for
Sovereign Currencies
By L. Randall Wray
Today we will lay out Abba Lerner's approach to policy.
In the 1940s he came up with what he called the functional
finance approach to policy.
Lerner's Functional Finance Approach. Lerner posed two
principles:
First Principle: if domestic income is too low,
government needs to spend more. Unemployment is sufficient
evidence of this condition, so if there is unemployment it
means government spending is too low.
Second Principle: if the domestic interest rate is too
high, it means government needs to provide more "money",
mostly in the form of bank reserves.
The idea is pretty simple. A government that issues its
own currency has the fiscal and monetary policy space to
spend enough to get the economy to full employment and to
set its interest rate target where it wants. (We will
address exchange rate regimes later; a fixed exchange rate
system requires a modification to this claim.) For a
sovereign nation, "affordability" is not an issue-it
spends by crediting bank accounts with its own IOUs,
something it can never run out of.If there is unemployed
labor, government can always afford to hire it-and by
definition, unemployed labor is willing to work for money.
Lerner realized that this does not mean government
should spend as if the "sky is the limit"-runaway spending
would be inflationary (and, as discussed many times, it
does not presume that government spending won't affect the
exchange rate). When Lerner first formulated the
functional finance approach (in the early 1940s),
inflation was not a major concern-the US had recently
lived through deflation in the Great Depression. However,
over time, inflation became a serious concern, and Lerner
proposed a form of wage and price controls to constrain
inflation that he believed would result as the economy
nears full employment. Whether or not that would be an
effective and desired way of attenuating inflation
pressures is not our concern here. The point is that
Lerner was only arguing that government should use its
spending power with a view to moving the economy toward
fullemployment-while recognizing that it might have to
adopt measures to fight inflation.
Lerner rejected the notion of "sound finance"-that is
the belief that government ought to run its finances as if
it were like a household or a firm. He could see no reason
for the government to try to balance its budget annually,
over the course of a business cycle, or ever. For Lerner,
"sound" finance (budget balancing) was not "functional"-it
did not help to achieve the public purpose (including, for
example, full employment). If the budget were occasionally
balanced, so be it; but if it never balanced, that would
be fine too. He also rejected any attempt to keep a budget
deficit below any specific ratio to GDP, as well as any
arbitrary debt to GDP ratio. The "correct" deficit would
be the one that achieves full employment.
Similarly the "correct" debt ratio would be the one
consistent with achieving the desired interest rate
target. This follows from his second principle: if
government issues too much debt, it has by the same token
issued too few bank reserves and cash. The solution is for
the treasury and central bank to stop selling bonds,and,
indeed, for the central bank to engage in open market
purchases (buying treasuries by crediting the selling
banks with reserves). That will allow the overnight rate
to fall as banks obtain more reserves and the public gets
more cash.
Essentially, the second principle just says that
government ought to let the banks,households, and firms
achieve the portfolio balance between "money" (reserves
and cash) and bonds desired. It follows that government
bond sales are not really a "borrowing" operation required
to let the government deficit spend. Rather, bond sales
are really part of monetary policy, designed to help the
central bank to hit its interest rate target. All of that
is consistent with the modern money view advanced
previously....
Young people reject neoliberalism... And thus they reject Hillary. As simple as that...
Notable quotes:
"... Here is my own wild take on why millennials don't support Clinton "enough": Many younger American voters, perhaps a sufficient number of them to seriously imperil Clinton's chances, have significant ideological differences with the candidate. That's my theory ..."
"... I would like to suggest that the threat these young voters pose to technocratic [neo]liberalism is not the possibility of electing Donald Trump. Despite Clinton's flagging numbers, her chances of success remain high. Rather, the fear is that if younger voters really are committed to a host of ideological positions at odds with the mainstream of the Democratic Party, then that Party, without a Trump-sized cudgel, is doomed. ..."
"... So why have liberal pundits resisted such a move? Why are they intent on not just defeating but discrediting the ideological preferences of the young left, dismissing them not as a legitimate divergence but as mere ignorance and confusion? ..."
The given causes vary but the consensus is clear: Young voters are pathological and the cure is
to disabuse them of their ignorance.
Here is my own wild take on why millennials don't support Clinton "enough": Many younger American
voters, perhaps a sufficient number of them to seriously imperil Clinton's chances, have significant
ideological differences with the candidate. That's my theory. Many liberal pundits seem unimpressed
by this idea perhaps because it suggests that votes must be earned in a democracy, but it does have
the benefit of the evidence.
... ... ...
I would like to suggest that the threat these young voters pose to technocratic [neo]liberalism
is not the possibility of electing Donald Trump. Despite Clinton's flagging numbers, her chances
of success remain high. Rather, the fear is that if younger voters really are committed to a host
of ideological positions at odds with the mainstream of the Democratic Party, then that Party, without
a Trump-sized cudgel, is doomed. It should not escape anybody's notice that politics by negative
definition-the argument, at bottom, that "we're better than those guys"-has become the dominant electoral
strategy of the Democratic Party, and that despite the escalation of the "those guys" negatives,
the mere promise to be preferable has yielded diminishing returns. At some point, the Democratic
Party will either need to embrace a platform significantly to the left of their current orthodoxy,
or they will lose.
... ... ...
This might not seem such a bad thing. Positions shift. Parties evolve. A serious threat of millennial
desertion might lead to a natural compromise: support, in exchange for real policy concessions going
forward. So why have liberal pundits resisted such a move? Why are they intent on not just defeating
but discrediting the ideological preferences of the young left, dismissing them not as a legitimate
divergence but as mere ignorance and confusion?
Emmett Rensin is a writer based in Iowa City, Iowa. His previous work has appeared in Vox,The
New Republic, The Atlantic and The Los Angeles Review of Books (where he is a contributing editor).
Follow him on Twitter at @EmmettRensin.
"... Why all the bullshit jobs? And why are the most necessary and useful jobs, almost inevitably the lowest prestige and lowest paid? Capitalism. It's a nasty, nasty, nasty tangle of perverse incentives and evil. ..."
Why all the bullshit jobs? And why are the most necessary and useful jobs, almost inevitably
the lowest prestige and lowest paid? Capitalism. It's a nasty, nasty, nasty tangle of perverse
incentives and evil.
The answer clearly isn't economic: it's moral and political. The ruling class has figured
out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger (think
of what started to happen when this even began to be approximated in the '60s). And, on the other
hand, the feeling that work is a moral value in itself, and that anyone not willing to submit
themselves to some kind of intense work discipline for most of their waking hours deserves nothing,
is extraordinarily convenient for them. David Graeber from
http://evonomics.com/why-capitalism-creates-pointless-jobs-david-graeber/
Also, as several here have noted, one can work without a job if they have such resources as
land or a workshop and, dare I say it, an income.
"... The United States does not have a UN or Congressional mandate for intervening in the Syria war. The US military have rebelled against their own government, they are nothing but a stateless armed mercenaries. ..."
"... We all know that Putin is an intelligence officer and that he never says anything accidentally. Putin had his foreign service affirm that in light of the US military sabotage of the cease fire agreement, Obama has lost control of the US military for the whole world to hear. ..."
"... Lavrov repeating this direct statement that the US milady forces are not controlled by the US government. "Obama supported the cooperation between our countries. Looks like the US military doesn't listen to their President". Using the UN platform, he openly stated that SOMEONE can attack and kill anybody in the world, under the US flag and the US president can do nothing about this. ..."
"... Russia's a message was that a group of people has control over the US military and uses them as they please. It means that the US is not even a regional power… It means that the US is like Somali ten years ago. We know who are those people who control the US military; which cannot be said about the "schizophrenic" world community, the incurable gang members. ..."
"... well, all of the issues that you detail are good for business (the arms and military business). As such, well, money talks and talks over reason. ..."
"... We actually made the threat worse. Far worse. Even if we completely pull out now – which we should do – we'll be dealing with blowback in the form of long-burning hatred and terror attacks for many years to come. The idiots who recommended this policy ought to be hounded out of government and public life. ..."
"... Every word Colonel Davis has written is true. But the colonial wars of the Empire matter hardly at all to the citizens of the metropole. ..."
"... The GWOT (like the war on drugs) provides a lot of people a lot of money and interesting jobs. That's the strategy. That's why neither is ending in the next generation. ..."
"... The endless wars that the US and it's partners in crime start are Hegelian problem reaction solution theater. The terrorists are state actor sock puppets . Funded, armed and provided political support as proxies for their state actor controllers to advance their regime change and hegemony goals through irregular warfare. The public is lied to by the politicians paying for and directing these needless tragedies. Nowhere has this been made more clear than Syria. Where all of the crime by the NATO/Israel/GCC axis powers has been laid bare for the world to see. It's an embarrassment as an American watching our politicians and diplomats spew their lies, nonsense and stupidity about an unnecessary war that they obviously started and are deliberately perpetuating. ..."
"... The contemporary mission of the US armed forces is to make military contractors rich. ..."
"... As an addendum the foreign policy elite use the military to scare the world into political alignment with the US. ..."
"... At no time has it been more true that "war is a racket" as Gen. Smedley Butler noted long ago. In my view, the National Security State is our largest unit of organized crime. ..."
"... Davis, poor fellow, talks of the "wholesale failure" of American foriegn policy. Actually it has been a wholesale success for the Neo-Cons, the military industrial complex, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and others, no? Simply one example–if Davis has not figured out that the US and coalition's Iraq War aimed to leave Iraq in chaos and effectively destroyed, he has not taken his military service blinders off. Thank you, sir, for your service to the one percent. ..."
One has to wonder just how much longer the American
people will silently permit the categorical failure of American foreign policy, both in
theory and in practice. The evidence confirming the totality of our failure is breathtaking
in scope and severity. Changes are needed to preserve U.S. national security and economic
prosperity.
Recent headlines have captured the character of this
failure. Fifteen years after the invasion of Afghanistan, the Special Inspector General for
Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR) released
finding
s that
"corruption substantially undermined the U.S. mission in Afghanistan from the very
beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom. … We conclude that failure to effectively address
the problem means U.S. reconstruction programs, at best, will continue to be subverted by
systemic corruption and, at worst, will fail."
Earlier this month, a British
Parliament study
found that the result of Western military intervention in Libya "was political and economic
collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises,
widespread human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across the region
and the growth of ISIL in North Africa."
Bottom line: The use of military power since 2001 has:
Turned a previously whole
and regionally impotent Iraq that balanced Iran into a factory of terrorism and a client
of Tehran;
Turned Afghanistan from a
country with a two-sided civil war-contained within its own borders-into a dysfunctional
state that serves as a magnet for terrorists.
Turned a Libya that suffered
internal unrest, but didn't threaten its neighbors or harbor terrorists, into an
"unmitigated failure" featuring a raging civil war, serving as an African beachhead for
ISIS and a terrorist breeding ground;
Contributed to the expansion
of al-Qaeda into a "franchise" group, spawned a new strain when ISIS was born out of the
vacuum created by our Iraq invasion, and seen major terrorist threats explode worldwide;
Joined other nations in
battles in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and other areas within Africa whose only result has
been the expansion of the threat and the deepening of the suffering of the civil
populations.
These continued and deepening failures kill unknown
numbers of innocent civilians each year, intensify and spread the
hatred many have of America
,
and incrementally weaken our national security. But these military failures have another,
less obvious but more troubling cost.
Perpetual fighting dissipates the fighting strength of
the armed forces. The non-stop employment of the U.S. Air Force in flying sorties, bombing
runs, and strategic airlift has been orders of magnitude higher than what it was in the 15
years prior to 9/11, dramatically cutting short the
lifespan
of each
aircraft, increasing the maintenance requirements, and
depleting stocks of bombs
and missiles.
The U.S. Army and Marine Corps have put thousands of
miles of grueling use on their tanks and other armored vehicles and
worn out countless weapons
.
The refurbishing and replacement costs for these vehicles has been enormous, and-like the
Air Force-the Army has severely shortened the lifespan of its armored fleet. But not only
have these permanent military operations degraded the vehicles, the damage has come at the
expense of conventional military training.
This might be the most alarming cost. The Army has
recognized this problem and has belatedly begun to reorient some of the
training time to high-end
conventional battle. But it will take many years of focused training to rebuild the
strength the military had prior to Desert Storm or even the opening operations of Operation
Iraqi Freedom in 2003.
Entire generations of leaders and troops at every level
have grown up training almost exclusively on small-scale counterinsurgency (COIN) warfare.
As one who has fought in both high-end armored warfare
and small-scale COIN, I can tell you that creating effective battle units for conventional
war is far, far more difficult and time consuming.
Likewise, the Air Force has not fought against a modern
adversary with fleets of effective fighter jets, bombers, and potent air-defense
capabilities. Such operations are orders of magnitude more difficult than attacking
insurgents on the ground who pose no threat to aircraft.
It is critical to understand that no insurgency or terror
group represents an existential threat to viability of the United States. Failure in a
conventional battle to a major power, however, can cripple the nation.
It is discouraging to see the administration, Congress,
and the Department of Defense fully tethered to the perpetual application of military power
against small-scale threats. Terrorism definitely represents a threat to U.S. interests,
and we must defend against it. But the obsession with using major military assets on these
relatively small-scale threats has not only failed to stem the threat, it has in part been
responsible for expanding it. Meanwhile, the unhealthy focus on the small-scale has
weakened-and continues to weaken-our ability to respond to the truly existential threats.
If the incoming administration does not recognize this
deterioration of our military power and take steps to reverse it, our weakness may one day
be exposed in the form of losing a major military engagement that we should have won
easily. The stakes couldn't be higher. A change in foreign policy is critically needed. We
will either change by choice or we will change in the smoldering aftermath of catastrophic
military failure. I pray it is the former.
Daniel L. Davis is a foreign-policy fellow and
military expert at Defense Priorities. He retired from the U.S. Army as a lieutenant
colonel after 21 years of active service. He was deployed into combat zones four times in
his career, beginning with Operation Desert Storm in 1991, and also to Iraq in 2009 and
Afghanistan twice (2005, 2011).
"... Right now, the SYSTEM(establishment) is rigged favoring Hillary. Trump is no saint but unpredictable as perceived by deep state and the MSM. What more damage he can do compared to Bush, Obama or the Hilabama. At least he is challenging the status quo and the establishment, unlike any other candidates in the past! ..."
"... I am vacillating about whom to vote. Bernie would have been my choice. Now Trump vote by default is a protest vote, against the rigged system. Not the best choice but I am fed up with status quo. It needs a jolt and now, only Trump can do that. ..."
"... Paul Ryan went on record that if Trump is elected they'll just ignore him and further the agenda hammered out for them by their Kochtopus overlords. Which is exactly what I have expected would be the case all along. This isn't a damned game, but the more I hear the more it seems that's how it's being viewed, as if the final winner has no real-world relevance. ..."
"... Amen. These so-called "best and brightest" like Clinton and Obama are not only morally bankrupt, the awful truth is they are also obviously poorly informed and self-evidently not very bright either. Obama could, in fact, be almost the definition of the "empty suit". ..."
"... I no longer entertain any such illusions, Hilary and Obama know full well what the consequences of their actions are, all the way from Yemen to Minnesota health insurers. Obama is working toward a sexy retirement golfing with billionaires and raising funds for his Library, as for Hilary, her lust for pure unbridled power for its own sake knows no bounds. From the hallowed halls of Goldman Sachs to the board room at Monsanto, Hilary knows *precisely* where she can get the funds to satisfy her blood and power lusts. ..."
"... Well, her leaked audio fits in with her new plan to give all those "basement dwellers" something to do – that National Service Reserve thing…… But yea, all you stupid millennials – get off the couch and vote for Hillary because she told you to!! And then get off her lawn! ..."
"... Beyond a tone-deafness in self-expression that's astonishing for an experienced politician (even if she did not expect the statement to become public), I find it amazing that there is not even a hint of the thought, "well, maybe there's something about our economy that we need to adjust." ..."
"... Maybe not super generous, but the U.S. medical system already costs more than single payer, so there is more than that going on than just "can't afford it". I have often though the citizens of an empire must be kept in abject poverty, so they don't get to questioning the empire thing (maybe they learned from Vietnam). ..."
"... As Hillary derides those who think we ought to be more like Scandinavia, with free college, free national health care, what she isn't making clear is that America the nation is paying more military money than most of the rest of the world combined. In her mindset, we are the Global Police, and if that $791 billion of military spending reduces us to recession, unaffordable college, unaffordable medical care, and a few dozen people owning over half of all the assets in a nation of 300 million, well that's the price of being the Good Guys. ..."
"... What this tells me about Hillary is she thinks the economy is fine, thinks the current economic policies and trade deals are fine, and has no intention of changing anything. For her, the current economic situation is the best of all possible worlds. ..."
"... Not to mention selling cluster bombs and white phosphorus to the same Saudi despots who use them against Yemeni civilians with the US's assistance. 10s of thousands have been killed and there is a dreadful famine affecting hundreds of thousands. ..."
"... But Trump called a woman fat, so he is the evil one. ..."
About that hacked audio, I suddenly saw it all over youtube last night on various progressive
channels from around midnight on. Well, here is a primary source! 2 minutes of Hillary explaining
that Bernie supporters are basement dwelling barista losers without futures who are too naive
to understand how politics really work. And she confirms she's center-right, in case anyone was
fooled by her recent ostensible leftness:
...Right now, the SYSTEM(establishment) is rigged favoring Hillary. Trump is no saint but
unpredictable as perceived by deep state and the MSM. What more damage he can do compared to Bush,
Obama or the Hilabama. At least he is challenging the status quo and the establishment, unlike
any other candidates in the past!
I am vacillating about whom to vote. Bernie would have been my choice. Now Trump vote by
default is a protest vote, against the rigged system. Not the best choice but I am fed up with
status quo. It needs a jolt and now, only Trump can do that.
A vote for Greens is not a vote for Hillary. A vote for the Green candidate is a vote for the
Green candidate.
The GOP should have vetted someone who wasn't a buffoon and who wasn't going to treat minority
populations with disdain and use their pain as a tool. In much the same way that the Democratic
Party shouldn't have ignored the pain of average Americans and rigged their primary for Hillary.
You're entitled to your own strategy for how to vote, however be gracious enough to let others
have that same courtesy.
The GOPs idea of 'vetting' was the usual one this go-round: They gave a lot of media attention
to the crazies like Rubio and Cruz and Trump. The way it always worked before was the media would
then focus on the 'grown-up' or the 'serious' candidate. In this case it was JEB!
The problem was Trump went off the reservation talking about things the Republican base actually
cares about. And stole a lot of Bernie's thunder since Bernie had a long list of no-go issues
(we can rail against the banks but can't actually do anything about them)
It didn't help that JEB! so obviously didn't want the job. Maybe because he can see the trainwreck
coming down the pike. For the same reason Trump ended the debate by shouting about the bubble
economy. (When it wasn't his turn, natch)
"…vote for Greens not worthless. If they average 5% of the vote nationwide they will get
matching funds in 2020. Please consider this and also spread the word."
And by 2020, if the Republicans gain control of all three branches of government, those "matching
funds" will be a memory. I know I'm going to catch flack for this, but in the sense that too many
of the younger voters have had an all but nonexistent education in political science, history
and civics, Clinton is at least right on that score. I've seen it too often-and been attacked
for trying to point out that election fraud and party corruption are not what we should
be focused on now when the future of the republic is in jeopardy.
How any intelligent human being can say, much less believe, that allowing Trump to be elected
will "teach the Democrats" anything is beyond my comprehension. After all, it's not as if anything
that happens after that will affect them in any discernible way. It will be the poor and the elderly
and the people of color who'll bear the weight of a GOP-owned government.
Paul Ryan went on record that if Trump is elected they'll just ignore him and further the
agenda hammered out for them by their Kochtopus overlords. Which is exactly what I have expected
would be the case all along. This isn't a damned game, but the more I hear the more it seems that's
how it's being viewed, as if the final winner has no real-world relevance.
In a rush to judgment, I decided Clinton did not understand ACA when she said its problems
could be addressed with incremental changes. Nice to have proof this is one more area the self
proclaimed policy wonk is unaware of the details of the policy and its effects.
Don't confuse her awareness with her propaganda talking points. She is perfectly aware of what
ACA is for and she is glad. Does she want us to share her awareness? No.
I agree she understands its true purpose. Where I differ is that I don't for a moment belief
that either Clinton or Obama have a clue what is really in that law or what its true effect would
be over time. I think it of it this way – both of them understood the true purpose of overthrowing
Qaddafi, neither of them or the architects of that strategy began to understand that it would
not just continue to destabilize the region it would destabilize Europe.
Do you think either of them recognized that forcing people to buy garbage insurance with no
health care attached in order to entrench insurance companies was going to significantly help
their opponents? Endanger Clinton's election? Or that it might not last long enough for the opening
of the Obama library because the sheer weight of it was unsustainable?
True, they don't care, but it also shows how stupid not caring is.
I don't think they cared if it helped their "opponents." Remaining in power is less important
than the payout afterwards – I think they just don't think in the long term because the short
term is good enough for their purposes.
Amen. These so-called "best and brightest" like Clinton and Obama are not only morally
bankrupt, the awful truth is they are also obviously poorly informed and self-evidently not very
bright either. Obama could, in fact, be almost the definition of the "empty suit".
Look at who goes onto the success track out of the Ivies, if it isn't legacy offspring dimbulbs
like Chelsea, it's frequently superficially articulate suck-ups who can be trusted to faithfully
and unquestioningly follow orders and has almost an inverse relationship with objective merit
of the sort we are sold.
I was ahead of the curve and saw that the fix was in before Obama's inauguration, boy that
was an unpopular stance. Then I went through a long internal debate: is he stupid or is he evil?
I chose "stupid" for quite a while, giving the benefit of the doubt, I just *wanted to believe*
that Lucy would not pull the football away at the last minute this time around.
I no longer entertain any such illusions, Hilary and Obama know full well what the consequences
of their actions are, all the way from Yemen to Minnesota health insurers. Obama is working toward
a sexy retirement golfing with billionaires and raising funds for his Library, as for Hilary,
her lust for pure unbridled power for its own sake knows no bounds. From the hallowed halls of
Goldman Sachs to the board room at Monsanto, Hilary knows *precisely* where she can get the funds
to satisfy her blood and power lusts.
Funny how that leaked in a week where Clinton, and the Obamas were busy explaining political
reality according to the usual suspects to those same basement dwellers. You know the one where
any vote not for Clinton was automatically the same as voting for Trump, and voters couldn't really
do that because Hillary was not perfect. But now we have proof that Clinton isn't just "not perfect"
she isn't even interested in the concerns of those voters the entitled turds were lecturing.
Well according to Hillary and Obama a vote for Jill Stein is the same as a vote against Hillary.
Then that means that a vote for Trump is like two votes against Hillary! Think about it.
Well, her leaked audio fits in with her new plan to give all those "basement dwellers"
something to do – that National Service Reserve thing……
But yea, all you stupid millennials – get off the couch and vote for Hillary because she told
you to!! And then get off her lawn!
Uh I don't even see what is so bad about anything she says at least in the clip (maybe I'm
missing some larger context). Otherwise much ado about nothing. Look I'm not a fan of Hillary's
policies, it's unlikely I'd vote for Hillary but … really … mountains out of molehills. It's like
Trump's comment about how it might be a 400 pound person who hacked the DNC and suddenly it's
a fat person's rights issue or something, and frankly his statement was more offensive than this,
only in context it was a common throwaway nerd stereotype in the face of Hillary falsely blaming
a nuclear power.
But no not everyone who has been in an election or more knows any history is bewildered. When
times are bad the choice is always go left or go right. And go right always ends in disaster,
but if going left is blocked, it's exactly what people will do even so. The way to avoid that
it to keep the left alive, but the ruling class will risk the hard right over going left every
time.
Free health care of course is not "going as far as Scandinavia" but is what every developed
country on earth has pretty much except the U.S.. So yes it's offensive if one imagined Hillary
was for single payer, but did anyone seriously think this? It is not like she has campaigned on
it.
OK, if you don't see it, you don't see it. Just take my word for it then: whatever slim chance
Hillary had to win just went out the window. Other than that it's not a big deal.
After all we've (1%) done? for those educated? basement living? baristas?!!
Each one of those is problematic (based on memes mocking millenials) not to mention she's doing
it in a room of 1%ers. The rich flat out mocking the people they victimize is not going to go
over well. Her statements are worse than Rmoney's 47% garbage. MSM can ignore it, which takes
care of half the citizenry but the other half is on-line.
Beyond a tone-deafness in self-expression that's astonishing for an experienced politician
(even if she did not expect the statement to become public), I find it amazing that there is not
even a hint of the thought, "well, maybe there's something about our economy that we need to adjust."
It's clear that the only adjustment HRC feels necessary is citizens' expectations of their
future in the USA. This person is not fit for public service at any level. I hope every voter
who's thinking of voting for her listens carefully to exactly what she said here and ponders what
it reveals about her assessment of the challenges we face.
It's unclear what people just don't understand about Scandinavia. Higher taxes? Yea it's true
people might balk at Scandinavian level taxes, however at the actual point in the continuum the
U.S. actually exists in, I think a lot of people would trade higher taxes for the benefits of
a welfare state (not dealing with insurance companies, not facing poverty in old age – and hey
paid sick time and paid 6 week vacations).
When I was in the insurance biz I met a Swedish woman who was an up and coming exec in the
company. She had been a school teacher in Sweden and had moved to the U.S. to earn more and pay
less taxes. Her plan, once she had made her pile, was to move back to Sweden explaining, "because
I would never want to be old in America."
What Americans don't understand about Scandinavia is that those countries don't have a bloated
military – or any military really – to protect their 'exorbitant privilege'.
An Empire cannot be a welfare state, and vice versa.
Maybe not super generous, but the U.S. medical system already costs more than single payer,
so there is more than that going on than just "can't afford it". I have often though the citizens
of an empire must be kept in abject poverty, so they don't get to questioning the empire thing
(maybe they learned from Vietnam).
An Empire's priorities are usually not with the welfare and general well-being of its citizenry.
In fact its population can best be kept in a precarious state in order to lower labor costs,
limit social demands and, or course, fill the lower military ranks.
Quite a revealing mindset on Hillary's part. Reminds me of Romney dismissing 47% of the population
as free riders.
As Hillary derides those who think we ought to be more like Scandinavia, with free college,
free national health care, what she isn't making clear is that America the nation is paying more
military money than most of the rest of the world combined. In her mindset, we are the Global
Police, and if that $791 billion of military spending reduces us to recession, unaffordable college,
unaffordable medical care, and a few dozen people owning over half of all the assets in a nation
of 300 million, well that's the price of being the Good Guys.
This brings up a new (old) definition of nationalism; the simple idea that you take care of
your own people and infrastructure first, and that your military expenses are only for defensive
purposes - not for establishing 800+ military bases all over the world, and dividing the entire
globe into theaters of war. That's what our military and political leaders have done, following
the wishes of the very, very few ultra wealthy who make billions every year off this system.
A nation, any nation, has no more precious and priceless resource than the minds of its young
people. The health and wellbeing of its young people. Where do they think the citizens of coming
decades are going to come from? Some other country?
America the nation is dying because America's Empire is pulling up the floorboards and chopping
up the furniture to feed the flames of endless wars around the world, wars which accomplish nothing
for America but poverty of its citizens. We need voters and political leaders who will stand against
America's Empire, who will dismantle it and return our attention to becoming a leading nation
among nations, not Number One in arms sales, not Number One in blood spilled, not Number One in
war crimes.
wow…… clueless in bubble-land. So a bad economy for most (since 2008 at least) and poor job
prospects for most is a matter of "mind set" ? Oh, if only the young did positive thinking. That
would fix everything.
What this tells me about Hillary is she thinks the economy is fine, thinks the current
economic policies and trade deals are fine, and has no intention of changing anything. For her,
the current economic situation is the best of all possible worlds. If people can't find decent
jobs it's their own fault.
Her audio clip sounds like Mitt Romney's 47 percent comment: "And so my job is not to worry
about those people - I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and
care for their lives." – Romney
"What this tells me about Hillary is she thinks the economy is fine, thinks the current economic
policies and trade deals are fine, and has no intention of changing anything. For her, the current
economic situation is the best of all possible worlds."
This is why the concept of a Buy Nothing Month in October is being mentioned as a means of
passive protest. No discretionary purchases. Cash only for essentials to hammer Wells Fargo and
the credit card tapeworms in the economy.
Most people are already down to essentials, and those who aren't likely agree with Hillary
or don't see why they should suffer more for a very tenuous possibility of doing mild harm to
their tormentors.
Poor, brave Hillary - trapped between the Deplorables and the Basement Dwellers (presumably
on their way to becoming the Morlocks and the Eloi). What I find hysterical is the way she depicts
herself as the sane one in a world gone mad.
It's appalling that Hillary and her media toadies are playing up the fact that Trump called
women fat, while that same media completely ignores that Hillary took money from Saudi Arabia
to send America to war against Libya.
Seriously, in the entire history of the human race has there ever, ever been a more singularly
corrupt act than to take money from a foreign power to send your own nation to war against some
other nation? And all we hear about is that Trump called women fat! These people are out of their
minds.
Not to mention selling cluster bombs and white phosphorus to the same Saudi despots who
use them against Yemeni civilians with the US's assistance. 10s of thousands have been killed
and there is a dreadful famine affecting hundreds of thousands.
But Trump called a woman fat, so he is the evil one.
The famine is affecting millions. Yemen is enduring the worst humanitarian crisis on the
planet. That is a war for Saudi Arabia to flex its muscle against Iran and shiites to counteract
their economic weakness from oil price declines. No one has any real geopolitical interest there.
Only Trump brings attention to Yemen on the campaign trail. Not the media, and definitely not
Clinton who gleefully increased weapons sales to Saudi Arabia while she was at State.
The Obama/Hilary government in action. Anyone voting for a continuation is complicit.
So yes, you can have a president who did not call someone "fat"….but be sure and keep a photo
of the Yemeni girl with her arms blown off on your bedside table to remind you the price you paid
for that crucial advantage.
OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL
Re: Syria, Yemen, Honduras, Poland, Ukraine, Brazil et alia ad nauseam.
What we need is an American Anti-Imperialist League, it should have a former president, a titan
of industry, and a famous celebrity as founding members.
Oh, look, we had one already, with Grover Cleveland, Andrew Carnegie, and Mark Twain:
"... Hey get that straight, NBC paid her Six Hundred Thousand a year for the years she was there. And I apologize I was under the impression that her contract was allowed to lapse, but it was renewed once. They really were paying her for nothing after the first year… ..."
"... You and your son might want to think about the fact that extended families living together has been historically and still is the norm for many. My son works in the building trades and doesn't make enough money to buy a house in our neighborhood. He has been living with me for several years and our relationship is very good. ..."
About that hacked audio, I suddenly saw it all over youtube last night on various progressive
channels from around midnight on. Well, here is a primary source! 2 minutes of Hillary explaining
that Bernie supporters are basement dwelling barista losers without futures who are too naive to
understand how politics really work. And she confirms she's center-right, in case anyone was fooled
by her recent ostensible leftness:
Our son is one of those recent grads Hillary disdains. He has just picked up his third slightly
above minimum wage part time job. He has had two interviews in his chosen field only to be told at
the end of each the companies were 'just looking' at the job field prospects and did not actually
have an open job available…. he has applied for a number of generic type jobs that just require a
college degree as well… to no response so far. He is personalble, bright and according to the managers
at his part time jobs he was a great interviewee…
He has severe kidney stone issues that require hospitalization and stents about once a year –
often for ten day stays and so we have chosen to pay for a Cadillac policy for him ourselves so he
gets the quality care he needs ( no the ACA was useless – he tried) . He is embarrassed we have to
do this for him… He spends every bit of his meager pay paying off his small student loan debt so he can at least get
that burden off and keeping his ancient little car in repair. He refused to allow us to help him
pay his loans and or buy him a better car. He lives at home and feels terrible about it – and so
is constantly doing all the home work he can during the few hours between his jobs to 'make up' for
needing our help. Friends go out to dinner and movies sports games etc and have stopped asking him
because he usually does not have the money …. So….. He is on his way to depression I think…. all that work in college. He has a solid 3.4 GPA and a 3.7
GPA in his field.and he is willing to move anywhere immediately and would not mind a job that entailed
a lot of travel…. But I guess Hillary just thinks he is some unmotivated stupid despite all that….
I know a vote for Stein is totally useless but other that leaving it blank I have no options here.
This country is tanking….I cannot believe this is happening to my son. Spouse and I walked out of
college with a 3.1 and 3.0 gpas directly into decent paying career jobs and an upward trajectory
that continues to this day… he is smarter and works harder than either of us ever have frankly….
Meanwhile Chelsea (who "doesn't care about being rich" or whatever nonsense she spouted) is grifted
into a $500K/year do-nothing job at NBC, marries a hedge fund manager, and flies in private jets.
And her mom and dad make $300,000 for one hour speeches.
Hey get that straight, NBC paid her Six Hundred Thousand a year for the years she was there.
And I apologize I was under the impression that her contract was allowed to lapse, but it was
renewed once. They really were paying her for nothing after the first year…
And don't forget the various Boards she serves on, mostly Clinton entities.
You and your son might want to think about the fact that extended families living together
has been historically and still is the norm for many. My son works in the building trades and
doesn't make enough money to buy a house in our neighborhood. He has been living with me for several
years and our relationship is very good. I am the son of a man who abandoned his own children,
which perhaps accounts for my finding our arrangement particularly gratifying and take great pleasure
in his company as well as that of his friends and lovers.
brilliant son in college, nothing out there at all except 711 jobs. the store he works and
was on shift at got robbed twice on consecutive nights and i had to ask him to stop going there
for his safety.
it is sad sad sad how the future of the kids is being destroyed. the 0.01% have "arranged"
sinecures for their kids and they dont care about our kids. Go into debt to get an education no
one seems to need to pay overpaid professors and administrators at the university, and then carry
that around your neck all your life.
I hope your son does find what he's looking for. I'm worried for my own children and what they
will do too.
What strikes me the most about stories like yours is how much luck factors into things. Graduating
into a recession is horrible. Decisions that made sense 4 years prior to graduation suddenly seem
irresponsible when the day comes to leave college.
So much of my own career has benefitted from being in the right place at the right time, and
I could only have been at this place at that time because I graduated when I did. Sure, I've hustled
and taken advantage of opportunities too. I've always been willing to get dirty and do the things
other people weren't willing to do. But the fact is that I was in a position to do all of that
because of many things that had nothing to do with how hard I worked, how smart I was, or what
degrees I had. If I had been born a year later, graduated a year earlier, chosen a slightly different
discipline… so many things would be different for me now. It's one reason why I don't complain
too much about taxes.
"... Ridiculing the anachronism of Marxism is a pastime, but what are to do with neoclassical economics? Even if I believed that world leaders ceremonially signing agreements were willing to act in (corrupt) principle, there is still the small matter of technocratic palsy among the economists. I mean, did you read the 5th IPCC summary? Responding will cost growth. ..."
"... What I do get explicitly from Marxism which is mostly only implicit in neoclassical economics is that increasing inequality is bad news for managing resource limits and externalities. ..."
"... The demands of the masses can be crammed down, but at a cost to social discipline as well as poverty. The power of the rich to marshal resources to mitigate the effects and externalize and socialise costs will exacerbate the main drivers. ..."
Throwing around a Marxist accented capitalism label as all purpose explanator does not seem to
me to providing much insight independent of what is projected onto it, and calling for Monty Python
revolution proves as much, imho. That said, neoclassical economics is even less helpful.
Quite apart from the impulses of sociopathic or philanthropic financiers - are they the same
or different people? - the official doctrine of economic analysis, in which framework public policy
must be drawn, has been remarkably unhelpful in developing a common understanding of what needs
to be done, imho.
Ridiculing the anachronism of Marxism is a pastime, but what are to do with neoclassical
economics? Even if I believed that world leaders ceremonially signing agreements were willing
to act in (corrupt) principle, there is still the small matter of technocratic palsy among the
economists. I mean, did you read the 5th IPCC summary? Responding will cost growth.
But, not to worry, we will be able to extract carbon at scale real soon and reverse overshoot.
The optimistic reply seems to reject the need for an overarching framework of ideas to give
context and orientation: apparently, solar electricity will keep getting cheaper - here is a price
per kWh - problem solved. Which problem? . . .?
What I do get explicitly from Marxism which is mostly only implicit in neoclassical economics
is that increasing inequality is bad news for managing resource limits and externalities.
The demands of the masses can be crammed down, but at a cost to social discipline as well
as poverty. The power of the rich to marshal resources to mitigate the effects and externalize
and socialise costs will exacerbate the main drivers.
"... By Alejandro Reuss, a historian, economist, and co-editor of Triple Crisis blog and ..."
"... magazine. Originally published at Triple Crisis ..."
"... This is the first part of a three-part series on the historical trajectory of European social democracy towards the so-called "Third Way"-a turn away from class-struggle politics and a compromise with neoliberal capitalism-and its role in the shaping of the Economic and Monetary Union of the EU. It is a continuation of his earlier series "The Eurozone Crisis: Monetary Union and Fiscal Disunion" ( Part 1 and Part 2 ). His related article "An Historical Perspective on Brexit: Capitalist Internationalism, Reactionary Nationalism, and Socialist Internationalism" is available here . ..."
"... legitimation crisis of capital from the standpoint of capitalists themselves, ..."
"... "This, of course, has always been a fundamental contradiction when left-social democratic parties have swept to power: the political consciousness of its working class base demands a direct attack on the inequities and injustices of capitalism but not to the extent of overthrowing capitalism itself. Social democracy is thus philosophically idealist about fundamentally altering the dynamics of capitalism while ignoring that those reforms will never change capitalism's core dynamic of class rule and exploitation, but it will cloak this under the rubric of pragmatism and the endless possibility of voting in a bourgeois electoral system. In an era of expanding worldwide demand and growth of industry in the core, the social democratic system of working class empowerment could be tolerated as it tamed the wilder impulses of the working class while creating the consumers now lauded as the "middle class" of 20th century capitalism's 30-year golden age in the post-WWII era. Social democracy never won the working class political control, but the power wielded by socialist parties allowed segments of the working class access an increasing share of capital's immense accumulation in the post-war era. ..."
Posted on
September 30, 2016
by
Yves Smith
By Alejandro Reuss, a historian, economist, and co-editor of Triple
Crisis blog and
Dollars & Sense
magazine. Originally published at
Triple Crisis
This is the first part of a three-part
series on the historical trajectory of European social democracy towards the
so-called "Third Way"-a turn away from class-struggle politics and a compromise
with neoliberal capitalism-and its role in the shaping of the Economic and
Monetary Union of the EU. It is a continuation of his earlier series "The
Eurozone Crisis: Monetary Union and Fiscal Disunion" (
Part
1
and
Part 2
). His related article "An Historical Perspective on Brexit:
Capitalist Internationalism, Reactionary Nationalism, and Socialist
Internationalism" is available
here
.
The idea of a united Europe was not unique to neoliberal politicians or
financial capitalists, even if their vision was the one that ended up winning
out. Rather, this idea cut across the entire political spectrum, from forces
clearly associated with giant capitalist corporations and high finance to those
associated with the working-class movement. Just as there have been
"anti-Europe" or "euroskeptic" forces on the political left and right, there
were also diverse forces in favor of European unification, each with its own
vision of what a united Europe could be.
Going back to the mid-20th century, leaders of the social democratic,
reformist left envisioned a future "Social Europe." The European Social
Charter, adopted by the Council of Europe in 1961, promulgated a broad vision
of "social and economic rights," including objectives like full employment,
reduction of work hours, protection of workers' rights to organize and bargain
collectively, rights to social security and medical assistance, protection of
the rights of migrants, and so on.
Figures on the revolutionary left, like the Belgian Marxist economist and
Trotskyist leader Ernest Mandel, advocated a "United Socialist States of
Europe." This was an expression not only of revolutionary internationalism, but
also of Mandel's view that the working class could no longer confront
increasingly internationalized capital through political action confined to the
national level.
In other words, the question was not just whether Europe would become
united, but (if it did) what form such unification would take.
Triumph of the "Modernizers"
The vision of social democracy on a grand scale did not come to pass, nor
even was there significant movement in that direction when social democratic
parties led the governments of the largest and most powerful countries in the
EU. During overlapping periods in the late 1990s, the Labour Party's Tony Blair
was prime minister in the U.K., the Socialist Lionel Jospin was prime minister
in France (though in "cohabitation" with Conservative president Jacques
Chriac), the L'Ulivo (Olive Tree) coalition's Romano Prodi led the government
in Italy, and the Social Democrat Gerhard Schroeder (leading the so-called
"Red-Green" coalition, with the Green Party as junior partner) was the
chancellor of Germany.
All of these governments were led by figures who had turned away from the
traditional social-democratic politics of class struggle (in even the moderated
form prevalent in the postwar period), while still promising to temper
neoliberal capitalism. This approach became known as the "Third Way," a term
especially associated with the "New Labour" program of Blair in the U.K., but
also used to describe similar shifts in other countries. As Swedish political
scientist Peo Hansen puts it, Blair expressed "unconditional espousal of
capitalist globalization and … further liberalization of labour markets."
Jospin, who campaigned as a critic of neoliberalism, quickly shifted to
"multiple privatization schemes and policy reshufflings favourable to
business." Prodi was "firmly in the camp of the 'modernisers'."
The case of Germany is especially instructive: The finance minister in the
Social Democratic-Green coalition government, Oskar Lafontaine, was notable for
swimming against the neoliberal tide-criticizing the EU's fiscal constraints
and inflation-targeting monetary policy, and proposing the adoption of common
tax and social welfare policies. That is, he was arguing for EU-wide social
democratic reforms to end "race to the bottom" dynamics (on wages, taxes, etc.)
emerging in the EU. "Wage dumping, tax dumping and welfare dumping," Lafontaine
declared, "are not our [social democrats'] response to the globalization of
markets!" That was too much for Schroeder and other social democratic leaders
in Europe, and Lafontaine resigned under pressure in 1999.
Lafontaine would later become a founder and leader of Die Linke (The Left),
which is certainly to the left of the Social Democrats. He was not, however, a
revolutionary who threatened to upset the reformist apple cart. Rather, argues
Hansen, Lafontaine was a "political liability among his own for merely sticking
with a set of very traditional social democratic policies and values."
The Third way movements, so called, used the language of reform, the
language of toned-down class struggle to gain power but have never worked
toward any of the goals implicit in that language. The opposite is true.
Politicians like The Clintons, and Obama in the US, and Blair in the UK, have
worked steadily to erode the gains made by workers struggles in the 20th
century, and have done far more to that end than any right wing ideologue could
have. . There have a been a few bitter lesson for the working class in it 1.
Like it or not, there is a class struggle 2. class struggle doesn't end when
you gain a few concessions 3. You cant hire opportunistic politicians to carry
on that struggle for you by voting for them once every few years.
I'll once again jump in, hands waving, to recommend Wolfgang Streeck's
"Buying Time" and Peter Mair's "Ruling the Void" to anyone who wants a more
developed take on this subject. Streeck is particularly good on how Marxist
theorists missed the boat on the possibility of a
legitimation crisis of
capital from the standpoint of capitalists themselves,
as opposed to the
standpoint of the working and - I'll cautiously add - professional-managerial
classes. There's also a useful periodization of the changes in sources of state
funding, accompanied by consideration of the politics accompanying those
changes. Mair is great on how "catch-all" parties developed out of the more
class struggle-oriented parties the article refers to. (It's a real shame Mair
died relatively young.).
"This, of course, has always been a fundamental contradiction when
left-social democratic parties have swept to power: the political
consciousness of its working class base demands a direct attack on the
inequities and injustices of capitalism but not to the extent of
overthrowing capitalism itself. Social democracy is thus philosophically
idealist about fundamentally altering the dynamics of capitalism while
ignoring that those reforms will never change capitalism's core dynamic of
class rule and exploitation, but it will cloak this under the rubric of
pragmatism and the endless possibility of voting in a bourgeois electoral
system. In an era of expanding worldwide demand and growth of industry in
the core, the social democratic system of working class empowerment could be
tolerated as it tamed the wilder impulses of the working class while
creating the consumers now lauded as the "middle class" of 20th century
capitalism's 30-year golden age in the post-WWII era. Social democracy never
won the working class political control, but the power wielded by socialist
parties allowed segments of the working class access an increasing share of
capital's immense accumulation in the post-war era.
Syriza has arrived on the scene decades after the last meaningful acts of
social-democracy could occur. Capitalism in the core has long since ceased
to need to make deals with socialist parties as representatives of an
industrial proletariat; those jobs have been replaced by shifting industrial
work to the periphery as the capitalist world-system tends to do
specifically as acounter to the success of mid-century social-democracy, or
by increasing mechanization in the core – again, a tendency within
capitalism well described by Marx. Straitjacketed by a capitalism that no
longer needs to tame a restless proletariat into a large consumer class,
Syriza faces immense pressure from "the institutions" to allow continued
profiteering from privatization and bond repayment – the very things that
constitute super-profit in the financial era of this end of capitalism's
long-cycle. Add to this the European Union's structure itself, which was
built to constrain any national attempts at left-reformism, and Syriza's
determination not to even bluff about a Grexit – which might provide a
modicum of control over at least the nation's currency and deficit spending
– and there is little room for a party like Syriza to deliver on its
promises."
This level of reduction in spending is huge. For example, it exceeds
by a significant margin the
impact in any year
of the Obama stimulus program. Alone it would
be enough to account for a significant reduction in
neutral real interest rates
. If consumers were spending 3 percent
more, there would be scope to maintain full employment at interest
rates much closer to normal. And there would be much less of a problem
of monetary policy's
inability to respond
to the next recession.
What is the policy implication? Principally, it is the macroeconomic
importance of supporting middle class incomes. This can be done in a
range of ways from promoting workers right to
collectively bargain
to raising spending on infrastructure to
making the tax system more progressive. ...
The Guardian is, increasingly (if you'll pardon the phrase) getting on my tits at the moment. Is there anything worse in the
mainstream media than a Progressive In Name Only newspaper?
The BBC's fair and balanced news and current affairs departments (
driven
by its sinister business unit ) are perhaps worse because of its greater reach, but it's a tight race.
Clive, intemperate: The agony of the Guardian is indeed interesting. A while back, I read that its site was the most used among
English-language newspapers, particularly by U.S. readers looking for some balance.
With regard to the U.S. political coverage, and their rah-rah Clintonism, as evinced by the resurrection of the likes of Jill
Abramson, I tend to cut them some slack. I find that many English (in particular, the English) are somewhat tone-deaf about U.S.
culture and folkways. I imagine some Guardian Uxonian editors, who once spent a week in NYC with a side trip to LA, and who have
actually eaten corn on the cob, thinking that they understand the U.S. Constitution and U.S. politics. But they still don't know
how to pronounce Illinois and Arkansas.
The anti-Corbyn hysteria shows detachment from their roots. The Guardian editors should get in a car and head out for a field
trip to Manchester (do they recall Manchester?) to find out more about Brexit and Corbyn. A trip to the English nether-regions
would do them some good.
And yet I can't complain too much: How often do they present Douthat, Bruni, and Brooks as sages?
"... The current US presidential election shows, perhaps better than anything else, just how far that decadence has gone. Hillary Clinton's campaign is floundering in the face of Trump's challenge because so few Americans still believe that the [neo]liberal shibboleths in her campaign rhetoric mean anything at all. ..."
"... Even among her supporters, enthusiasm is hard to find, and her campaign rallies have had embarrassingly sparse attendance. Increasingly frantic claims that only racists, fascists, and other deplorables support Trump convince no one but true believers, and make the concealment of interests behind shopworn values increasingly transparent. Clinton may still win the election by one means or another, but the broader currents in American political life have clearly changed course. ..."
"... Or one could take the idea that "Health" or "College" reform is merely funneling ever more resources to insurance companies and College administrations with precious little if any improvement in the real cost or quality to the users of the service. ..."
Ironies of this sort are anything but unusual in political history. It's astonishingly common
for a movement that starts off trying to overturn the status quo in the name of some idealistic
abstraction or other to check its ideals at the door once it becomes the status quo. If anything,
American liberalism held onto its ideals longer than most and accomplished a great deal more
than many, and I think that most of us-even those who, like me, are moderate Burkean conservatives-are
grateful to the liberal movement of the past for ending such obvious abuses as chattel slavery
and the denial of civil rights to women, and for championing the idea that values as well as
interests deserve a voice in the public sphere. It deserves the modern equivalent of a raised
hat and a moment of silence, if no more, as it finally sinks into the decadence that is the
ultimate fate of every successful political movement.
The current US presidential election shows, perhaps better than anything else, just
how far that decadence has gone. Hillary Clinton's campaign is floundering in the face of Trump's
challenge because so few Americans still believe that the [neo]liberal shibboleths in her campaign
rhetoric mean anything at all.
Even among her supporters, enthusiasm is hard to find, and her campaign rallies have
had embarrassingly sparse attendance. Increasingly frantic claims that only racists, fascists,
and other deplorables support Trump convince no one but true believers, and make the concealment
of interests behind shopworn values increasingly transparent. Clinton may still win the election
by one means or another, but the broader currents in American political life have clearly changed
course.
=====================================
Great article IMHO – I certainly agree about the portion concerning immigration.
And for an example of a contradiction – Police unions and big cities. Unions do much more than
raise wages and pensions – many of the protections of police by hamstringing complaint investigations
against the police are exposing a fissure that has reached the point of earthquake.
Or one could take the idea that "Health" or "College" reform is merely funneling ever more
resources to insurance companies and College administrations with precious little if any improvement
in the real cost or quality to the users of the service.
The Guardian is, increasingly (if you'll pardon the phrase) getting on my tits at the moment. Is there anything worse in the
mainstream media than a Progressive In Name Only newspaper?
The BBC's fair and balanced news and current affairs departments (
driven
by its sinister business unit ) are perhaps worse because of its greater reach, but it's a tight race.
Clive, intemperate: The agony of the Guardian is indeed interesting. A while back, I read that its site was the most used among
English-language newspapers, particularly by U.S. readers looking for some balance.
With regard to the U.S. political coverage, and their rah-rah Clintonism, as evinced by the resurrection of the likes of Jill
Abramson, I tend to cut them some slack. I find that many English (in particular, the English) are somewhat tone-deaf about U.S.
culture and folkways. I imagine some Guardian Uxonian editors, who once spent a week in NYC with a side trip to LA, and who have
actually eaten corn on the cob, thinking that they understand the U.S. Constitution and U.S. politics. But they still don't know
how to pronounce Illinois and Arkansas.
The anti-Corbyn hysteria shows detachment from their roots. The Guardian editors should get in a car and head out for a field
trip to Manchester (do they recall Manchester?) to find out more about Brexit and Corbyn. A trip to the English nether-regions
would do them some good.
And yet I can't complain too much: How often do they present Douthat, Bruni, and Brooks as sages?
To keep a little more of that tuition money, the college is considering slightly ratcheting
down financial aid.
They are also going to offer buyouts to a number of employees later
this fall.
"When you have a reduction in your enrollment, you're going to need a proportionate reduction
in faculty and staff,"
Robinson said. "We definitely need to get smaller."
Adding to the problem, there were fewer unrestricted donations - donations that are free to use
for whatever the college might need - than expected last year, but more donations overall.
Gifts that were received were earmarked for specific programs and buildings on campus, not necessarily
for the general fund.
(can't put your name on a general fund)
By next year the college won't be able to break even, but by 2018 Robinson and his team expects
to present a balanced budget to the Board of Trustees.
Despite the budget issues, the college is still on strong footing and is looking ahead, said Alex
Bertoni, spokesperson for the college.
"The college is doing well, and the students here are thriving," he said. "We're going
to continue to invest in the long-term.
" (that long-term does not look good for a lot of
students, to me)
bolding and comments in () mine. I am an eye-roller for sure, and they got a workout here.
The ghastly horror of competition roils the cozy academic cartel:
Georgia Tech's master's [sic] in computer science costs less than one-eighth as much as its
most expensive rival - if you learn online.
With one of the top 10 computer science departments in the nation, according to U.S. News &
World Report, Georgia Tech had a reputation to uphold. So it made the online program as much like
the residential program as possible.
Tuition for a 30-credit master's in computer science from the University of Southern California
runs $57,000. Syracuse, Johns Hopkins and Carnegie Mellon charge over $43,000 for the same degree.
Most prestigious colleges are currently sticking with the model that lets them offer degrees
for $57,000 instead of the roughly $7,000 that it costs at Georgia Tech.
Paying CEOs so much in stocks puts their focus on the share price instead of building for the
long run.
By
Joe Biden
Sept. 27, 2016 7:14 p.m. ET
135 COMMENTS
Short-termism-the notion that companies forgo long-run investment to boost near-term stock
price-is one of the greatest threats to America's enduring prosperity. Over the past eight years,
the U.S. economy has emerged from crisis and maintained an unprecedented recovery. We are now
on the cusp of a remarkable resurgence. But the country can't unlock its true potential without
encouraging businesses to build for the long-run.
Private investment-from new factories, to research, to worker training-is perhaps the greatest
driver of economic growth, paving the way for future prosperity for businesses, their supply chains
and the economy as a whole. Without it robust growth is nearly impossible. Yet all too often,
executives face pressure to prioritize today's share price over adding long-term value.
The origins of short-termism are rooted in policies and practices that have eroded the incentive
to create value: the dramatic growth in executive compensation tied to short-term share price;
inadequate regulations that allow share buybacks without limit; tax laws that designate an investment
as "long-term" after only one year; a subset of activist investors determined to steer companies
away from further investment; and a financial culture focused on quarterly earnings and short-run
metrics.
Consider the evolution in the structure of CEO compensation. In the 1980s, roughly three-fourths
of executive pay at S&P 500 companies was in the form of cash salary and bonuses, and the rest
in investment options and stock, according to an article in the Annual Review of Financial Economics.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 included a provision to link executive pay to the
performance of the company. But it didn't work as intended. By the time I became vice president,
only 40% of executive pay was in cash, with the bulk being tied to investment options and stock.
Now more than ever, there is a direct link between share price and CEO pay.
Performance-based pay encourages executives to think in the short-term. Ever since the Securities
and Exchange Commission changed the buyback rules in 1982, there has been a proliferation in share
repurchases. Today buybacks are the norm. According to economist William Lazonick , from 2003-12,
companies on the S&P 500 spent 37% of their earnings on dividends and a full 54% on buybacks-leaving
less than 10% for reinvestment.
This emphasis on returning profits to shareholders has led to a significant decline in business
investment. Total investment as a share of the economy has fallen to about 11% today, down from
a high of about 15% in the early 1980s, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. With interest
rates at historically low levels, and business confidence in the U.S. far ahead of its economic
competitors, there should be more investment, not less.
I am not blaming CEOs. The business leaders I've met over the course of my career want to build
their firms and contribute to the economy, not simply send checks to investors or buy back their
own stock. Sometimes they succeed. Other times the pressures to lift the short-run share price
are simply too great.
As these short-term pressures mount, most of the harm is borne by workers. As any economist
will tell you, productivity is typically the most important driver of increasing wages. But productivity
will never flourish without businesses investing in endeavors like on-the-job training, new equipment,
and research and development. In short, business investment boosts productivity, which lifts wages.
A continued economic resurgence requires solving the short-termism puzzle. The federal government
can help foster private enterprise by providing worker training, building world-class infrastructure,
and supporting research and innovation. But government should also take a look at regulations
that promote share buybacks, tax laws that discourage long-term investment and corporate reporting
standards that fail to account for long-run growth. The future of the economy depends on it.
[You go, Joe! He even references William Lazonick.
Lazonick wrote about the new economy business model (NEBM) versus the old, but never really
pinned down what changed in the taxation on returns to capital that caused it. Also, Lazonick
seemed to believe that the rapid capital formation used in the NEBM justified the low taxation
on capital gains. That was a big mistake. Scarce capital has never been a obstacle in the US since
early in the 20th century except when a financial shock locked up capital allocation.
Dividends payouts are sometimes seen as short term payouts to shareholders, but if not for
the capital gains tax preference that would not be true. Paying dividends reduces a firms capital,
but increases the desirability of its shares both as a source of income and as a performer which
boost share price more than the underlying reduction of equity due to capital payout. So, dividends
versus capital gains is not an either or in the short term. Over the longer term accumulated dividends
from a firm that invests in itself are a better incentive for reinvestment than a capital gains
windfall at some point in that longer term. The capital gains preference makes selling shares
more desirable than holding shares and M&A more desirable than internal investment.
In 1954 the dividends tax credit was rescinded in that year's tax act. It had been in effect
since 1913 except for 1936-1939. I know that I should provide references, but since I started
writing about this five years ago most of the evidence has been taking off the WWW.
The dividends tax credit returned to the individual taxpayer the amount of their tax liability
on their dividends income that had been paid in corporate taxes by the issuing firms. This served
as an incentive to shareholders to prefer higher corporate tax rates with fewer loopholes. Higher
effective corporate tax rates encourage firms to increase their expenses in wages and exempt reinvestments
that lowers their taxable profits.
If we wanted even less short termism then we should have higher capital gains tax rates with
reductions per year of holding term along with the dividends tax credit. Rescinding the dividends
tax credit might be considered desirable because it was a tax increase on the wealthy, but in
1954 both Congress and POTUS were Republican which is worth considering. Democrats had done it
before in 1936, but reversed it in 1939. Joe Biden's article on short termism is probably a lot
more significant than it will ever been given credit for which goes a long ways to explain how
corporatism and globalization have had such devastating effects on jobs and wages. We not only
do not know what we are doing, but we don't know what we have done either.]
Sure huge executive stock options have a perverse effect on corporate financial decisions, but
"higher capital gains tax rates with reductions per year of holding term along with the dividends
tax credit" would go a long ways to changing the incentives created by stock options as well.
By higher capital gains tax rates I mean much higher, at least before holding term exclusions.
Also, an inflation adjustment to the basis for capital gains calculation for each year of holding
term equal to each year's SSA COLA would eliminate the pressure against SSA COLA that is exerted
by agents of the wealthy against the interest of retired wage class seniors.
The only way to limit executive pay is to tax it at very high levels. Reagan blew up the top tax
rate and set the stage for executive pay to skyrocket.
From that WaPo story: "According to a new paper from Temple University's Steven Balsam published
by the Economic Policy Institute, the big flaw in 162(m) was its broad exemption of "performance-based"
pay. The $1 million cap only applied to traditional salaries, bonuses and grants of company stock."
Sort of a silly way of measuring compensation it seems. I agree that a higher tax rate on income
would help but be careful to define income as total compensation.
Of course the other thing one might consider is to have a Board of Directors that answers to
shareholders and not upper management.
The tax incentives on dividends relative to capital gains work for executive pay, monopoly, investment,
and wage worker channels. Dividends can be used for just taking profits but they produce more
over the longer term from investment returns. Capital gains are never more than a one time windfall
although stable share price is useful for equities as collateral.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , -1
Since CEOs are usually the shareholders with the most power then affecting their incentives as
shareholders can be very effective. Getting CEOs to not raise their own pay is futile. Changing
the game for everyone to favor internal investment over M&A as a use for retained earnings is
necessary. The downside of my recommendation is that IPOs will no longer make angel investors
insanely rich over night. Boohoo!
It seems to me this line from Wren-Lewis is the biggie as far
as the Great Recession/Longer Depression is concerned:
"A
recession initiated by a financial crisis is also likely to
see consumers reducing their own borrowing, and so
(erroneous) analogies between governments and households
resonate."
In 2008/9 the public was (rightly) convinced that the
collapse was due to deflation of a financial bubble blown up
by many years of excessive private borrowing and debt-fueled
over-consumption: too much credit card debt; too much
borrowing against (inflated) home values; two much
speculative gambling with, and ponzi profiting from, cutesy
and overvalued financial instruments. That correct,
instinctive evaluation of the situation was backed up by
numbers showing that the total private debt to GDP ratio had
reached a level unseen since 1928, and by the sudden
discovery of the many analyses of many experienced, sober,
but neglected financial observers who had been predicting
some kind of collapse for years.
Since the public was thus primed to believe that, going
forward, the private economy had to reduce its overall debt
load, it was very easy to convince them that governments,
being just another part of the overall economy, had to do the
same thing.
But what Wren-Lewis doesn't seem to mention is that the
public had already been primed by decades of Norquistian,
Petersonian and Rubinite deficit-hectors, debt-despairers and
entitlement-exterminators to believe that our deficits were a
very bad thing, that government was too big, and that we were
headed for a "fiscal train wreck" because of our
undisciplined budgets and government spending. They were thus
easily convinced that the financial crisis also had something
to to with the problems alleged by this bipartisan team of
budget Casandras all finally coming a-cropper.
We had endless cadres of Republican politicians promoting
hysteria over the public debt and also decrying the very size
of government, whether deficit-financed or not.
We had Bill Clinton running around bragging about his
"reinvention" (shrinking) of government and his dot-com
boom-assisted surprise surplus.
We had Joe Biden telling everyone that the financial
collapse was caused by "putting two wars on a credit card".
We had the Concord Coalition and the Peterson Institute
gearing up their zombies for the Fix the Debt onslaught that
eventually saddled us with an economic discourse driven by a
stupid budget-reduction commission in the middle a deep
recession!
Hatred of governments and their spending habits had
already given us years of gradually building stagnation due
to declining public investment and a consequent secular shift
from capital formation to consumption. But the voters saw
only that all of the Serious People in both parties were
strongly in favor of this "disciplined" decimation of
government. So why in the world wouldn't they end up
supporting its continuation?
"... Most workers suffer serious consequences when they mess up on their jobs. Custodians get fired
if the toilet is not clean. Dishwashers lose their job when they break too many dishes, but not all
workers are held accountable for the quality of their work. ..."
"... At the top of the list of people who need not be competent to keep their job are economists.
Unlike workers in most occupations, when large groups of economists mess up they can count on the media
covering up their mistakes and insisting it was just impossible to understand what was going on. ..."
Economists Keep Getting It Wrong Because the Media Coverup Their Mistakes
Most workers suffer serious consequences when they mess up on their jobs. Custodians get
fired if the toilet is not clean. Dishwashers lose their job when they break too many dishes,
but not all workers are held accountable for the quality of their work.
At the top of the list of people who need not be competent to keep their job are economists.
Unlike workers in most occupations, when large groups of economists mess up they can count on
the media covering up their mistakes and insisting it was just impossible to understand what was
going on.
This is first and foremost the story of the housing bubble. While it was easy * to recognize
that the United States and many other countries were seeing massive bubbles that were driving
their economies, which meant that their collapse would lead to major recessions, the vast majority
of economists insisted there was nothing to worry about.
The bubbles did burst, leading to a financial crisis, double-digit unemployment in many countries,
and costing the world tens of trillions of dollars of lost output. The media excused this extraordinary
failure by insisting that no one saw the bubble and that it was impossible to prevent this sort
of economic and human disaster. Almost no economists suffered any consequences to their career
as a result of this failure. The "experts" who determined policy in the years after the crash
were the same people who completely missed seeing the crash coming.
We are now seeing the same story with trade. The New York Times has a major magazine article
** on the impact of trade on the living standards of workers in the United States and other wealthy
countries. The subhead tells readers:
"Trade is under attack in much of the world, because economists failed to anticipate the accompanying
joblessness, and governments failed to help."
Of course many economists did not anticipate the negative impact of trade, but of course many
of us did. The negative impact was entirely predictable and predicted. (Here are a few from Center
for Economic and Policy Research, *** **** ***** there are many more books and papers from my
friends at the Economic Policy Institute.) The argument is straightforward: trade policy has been
designed to put manufacturing workers in direct competition with low paid workers in the developing
world. This costs jobs and puts downward pressure on the wages of these workers. It also puts
downward pressure on the wages of less-educated workers more generally, as displaced manufacturing
workers seek jobs in retail and other sectors. Stagnating wages and increasing inequality are
the predicted result of this pattern of trade, not a surprising outcome.
If economists were like custodians and dishwashers, the failure to recognize this obvious outcome
of trade policy would have put them out on the street. Instead, we get major news outlets like
the New York Times, telling us this is all a remarkable surprise. No one could have seen that
trade would have bad outcomes for large segments of the workforce. Rather than lose their jobs,
economists can still draw comfortable six figure salaries as they tell reporters how it was impossible
for them to understand the economy.
Economic theory tells us that if economists don't face consequences for completely messing
up on the job then they have no incentive to get things right. If the custodian never pays any
price for not cleaning the toilet, then they won't clean the toilet. In the same way, if the media
and the country always grant a "who could have known" amnesty to large chunks of the economics
profession when it gets things completely wrong, then there is no reason to expect that economists
will ever get things right. All they have to do is say the same things as other elite economists
say, and if it turns out to be wrong, the NYT will just run major news articles explaining that
no one could have known better.
There is one other important point that needs emphasis here. There was nothing inherent to
trade that required growing inequality, it was the structure of trade policy that gave us this
result. There are millions of very bright ambitious people in the developing world who would be
very happy to study to meet U.S. standards and work as doctors, dentists, lawyers and other professionals
in the United States. We could have designed trade agreements to facilitate this process.
The result would be massive economic gains in the form of lower cost health care, dental care,
legal services and other professionals services. In the case of physicians alone, if the increased
supply brought the pay of our doctors down to the levels of Western Europe and Canada, we would
save close to $100 billion a year. This comes to roughly $700 a year in savings for every family
in the United States. And, this would lead to a reduction in inequality.
Our elite economists have chosen not to discuss this sort of trade opening. (They also rarely
discuss reducing rather than increasing protectionist barriers like patents and copyrights.) These
issues are discussed in more depth in my forthcoming book, "Rigged: How Globalization and the
Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer" (coming to a website near
year in October). But the key point here is that economists should know better, and if they were
doing their job, they did.
"The argument is straightforward: trade policy has been designed to put manufacturing workers
in direct competition with low paid workers in the developing world. This costs jobs and puts
downward pressure on the wages of these workers. It also puts downward pressure on the wages of
less-educated workers more generally, as displaced manufacturing workers seek jobs in retail and
other sectors. Stagnating wages and increasing inequality are the predicted result of this pattern
of trade, not a surprising outcome."
This is surprising to PGL and Krugman who argue the Fed will just adjust to keep full employment
or at least that's what the models tell them.
Dean is talking about protectionism for drug companies, doctors etc. and free trade for the rest
of us. On this score he is exactly right and I have said so many times. This is a very different
issue from the macroeconomic ones. I would accuse you of once again misrepresenting what I have
said. But to be fair - you are too stupid to get these distinctions so maybe you are not lying.
I do wish I had a smarter internet stalker.
Tom aka Rusty -> anne... , -1
Baker get the diagnosis correct.
Baker's standard solutions do very little for blue collar workers. Having a cheaper doctor
and lawyer don't help much for the unemployed and underemployed.
Simon Wren-Lewis has an excellent new paper * trying to
explain the widespread resort to austerity in the face of a
liquidity trap, which is exactly the moment when such
policies do the most harm. His bottom line is that
"austerity was the result of right-wing opportunism,
exploiting instinctive popular concern about rising
government debt in order to reduce the size of the state."
I think this is right; but I would emphasize more than he
does the extent to which both the general public and Very
Serious People always assume that reducing deficits is the
responsible thing to do. We have some polling from the 1930s,
showing a strong balanced-budget bias even then:
[Chart]
I think Simon would say that this is consistent with his
view that large deficits grease the rails for deficit phobia,
since Franklin Roosevelt's administration did run up deficits
and debt that were unprecedented for peacetime. But has there
ever been a time when the public favored bigger deficits?
Meanwhile, as someone who was in the trenches during the
US austerity fights, I was struck by how readily mainstream
figures who weren't especially right-wing in general got
sucked into the notion that debt reduction was THE central
issue. Ezra Klein documented this phenomenon ** with respect
to Bowles-Simpson: ***
"For reasons I've never quite understood, the rules of
reportorial neutrality don't apply when it comes to the
deficit. On this one issue, reporters are permitted to openly
cheer a particular set of highly controversial policy
solutions. At Tuesday's Playbook breakfast, for instance,
Mike Allen, as a straightforward and fair a reporter as
you'll find, asked Simpson and Bowles whether they believed
Obama would do 'the right thing' on entitlements - with 'the
right thing' clearly meaning 'cut entitlements.' "
Meanwhile, as Brad Setser points out, the International
Monetary Fund - whose research department has done heroic
work puncturing austerity theories and supporting a broadly
Keynesian view of macroeconomics - is, in practice, pushing
for fiscal contraction **** almost everywhere.
Again, this doesn't exactly contradict Simon's argument,
but maybe suggests that there is a bit more to it.
Austerity is defined as a fiscal contraction that causes a
significant increase in aggregate unemployment. For the
global economy, or an economy with a flexible exchange rate,
or a monetary union as a whole, an increase in unemployment
following a fiscal consolidation can and should be avoided
because monetary policy can normally offset the demand impact
of the consolidation. The tragedy of global austerity after
2010 was that fiscal consolidation was not delayed until
monetary policy was able to do this.
An individual member of a currency union that requires a
greater fiscal contraction than the union as a whole cannot
use its own monetary policy to offset the impact of fiscal
consolidation. Even in this case, however, a sharp and deep
fiscal contraction is unlikely to be optimal. Providing this
economy is in a union where the central bank acts as a
sovereign lender of last resort, a more gradual fiscal
adjustment is likely to minimise the unemployment cost.
As the theory behind these propositions is simple and
widely accepted, the interesting question is why global
austerity happened. Was austerity an unfortunate accident, or
is there a more general political economy explanation for why
it occurred? Answering this question is vital to avoid the
next global recession being followed by yet more austerity.
The answer is that politicians and pundits have a flawed
understanding of inflation and its relationship to
hyperinflation.
Some economists promoted a seriously flawed interpretation of
the 1970s stagflation that solidified myths about inflation.
As Max Planck said, "Science advances one funeral at a time."
We need the current generation of economists and their failed
models to be replaced by a new generation that does not
suffer from the same mythology.
Peter K. -> anne...
, -1
If one just read Krugman or Kevin Drum you wouldn't
understand how Bill Clinton declared "the era of Big
Government is over" or how after he was first elected he
listened to his top two economic advisers Robert Rubin and
Alan Greenspan and dropped his middle class spending campaign
promise in favor of deficit reduction.
Greenspan promised Clinton lower rates in exchange for
reducing government. Clinton ended "welfare as we knew it."
But Greenspan didn't regulate this increase in private
investment. It led to the tech-stock bubble and a shadow
banking system which was susceptible to a banking panic.
According to Hillary, Bush's tax cuts caused the housing
bubble and Great Recession. It's a little more complicated.
But this cuts against Krugman and Drum's narrative that the
Clinton years were nothing but awesome.
Summers told Brooksley Born that derivatives shouldn't be
regulated b/c the market is magic.
Obama reinforced the narrative that government should
tighten its belt during hard times like households do. This
is exactly wrong.
Maybe it's understandable for politicians to pander for
short-term political expediency but it's hurts the long-term
ideological conflict.
There's the right and there's the left and Obama and
Clinton tried to straddle the two ideologies which just
waters down the left's appeal and pull.
That's why the millennials and more progressive workers
aren't as excited for Hillary's candidacy. That's why Sanders
energized them.
Now I agree with Sanders that a Trump Presidency would be
a disaster, but this doesn't preclude me from correcting
Krugman's outlook as some center-leftists would insist in
their binary thinking.
It seems to me this line from Wren-Lewis is the biggie as far
as the Great Recession/Longer Depression is concerned:
"A
recession initiated by a financial crisis is also likely to
see consumers reducing their own borrowing, and so
(erroneous) analogies between governments and households
resonate."
In 2008/9 the public was (rightly) convinced that the
collapse was due to deflation of a financial bubble blown up
by many years of excessive private borrowing and debt-fueled
over-consumption: too much credit card debt; too much
borrowing against (inflated) home values; two much
speculative gambling with, and ponzi profiting from, cutesy
and overvalued financial instruments. That correct,
instinctive evaluation of the situation was backed up by
numbers showing that the total private debt to GDP ratio had
reached a level unseen since 1928, and by the sudden
discovery of the many analyses of many experienced, sober,
but neglected financial observers who had been predicting
some kind of collapse for years.
Since the public was thus primed to believe that, going
forward, the private economy had to reduce its overall debt
load, it was very easy to convince them that governments,
being just another part of the overall economy, had to do the
same thing.
But what Wren-Lewis doesn't seem to mention is that the
public had already been primed by decades of Norquistian,
Petersonian and Rubinite deficit-hectors, debt-despairers and
entitlement-exterminators to believe that our deficits were a
very bad thing, that government was too big, and that we were
headed for a "fiscal train wreck" because of our
undisciplined budgets and government spending. They were thus
easily convinced that the financial crisis also had something
to to with the problems alleged by this bipartisan team of
budget Casandras all finally coming a-cropper.
We had endless cadres of Republican politicians promoting
hysteria over the public debt and also decrying the very size
of government, whether deficit-financed or not.
We had Bill Clinton running around bragging about his
"reinvention" (shrinking) of government and his dot-com
boom-assisted surprise surplus.
We had Joe Biden telling everyone that the financial
collapse was caused by "putting two wars on a credit card".
We had the Concord Coalition and the Peterson Institute
gearing up their zombies for the Fix the Debt onslaught that
eventually saddled us with an economic discourse driven by a
stupid budget-reduction commission in the middle a deep
recession!
Hatred of governments and their spending habits had
already given us years of gradually building stagnation due
to declining public investment and a consequent secular shift
from capital formation to consumption. But the voters saw
only that all of the Serious People in both parties were
strongly in favor of this "disciplined" decimation of
government. So why in the world wouldn't they end up
supporting its continuation?
Exactly. This all having started with the 70s arrival of
monetarism, essentially a gold standard with no gold. While
no one really paid attention to gold standard (depressionary)
budgeting until Clinton I, the rhetoric was being put into
place such that, even today, the Democrats still hail
Clinton's "balanced budget" disaster as if it were God's
gift, when in reality it was the kickoff to consumers
cannibalizing the home equity just to keep pace, and the
ultimate reason the 2008 crash was so severe on household
spending. Hillary Clinton; be forewarned.
If governmental fat cats and billionaire lobbyists would
spend more time at fixing the obvious, they would have less
time for looting the public treasure. Do you see how they
could have prevented the HD, Hoboken disaster?
They could have removed the overpowered transformers that
oversupplied coulombs to the Catenary wire that supplied
current to the Pantograph of the Hoboken train that just now
crashed into the station full of passengers. All the
transformers at the end of the line should be scaled down to
prevent this sort of disaster, plus all the transformers near
a curves in the roadbed should be scaled back to prevent
excess power from speeding train up enough to jump the track.
No!
You can't always depend on the engineer's judgment to
prevent these disasters. Can't always depend on
high-tech-safety devices to prevent! Hell! High-tech can be
hacked by the North Koreans. You need to change the deep
infrastructure of power available.
Most people have a flawed understanding of inflation.
Sustainable inflation means BOTH wages and prices go up.
Most people think of inflation only in terms of price
increases so we get: Prices go up, wages stay the same: BAD.
A minimum level of inflation is necessary to allow relative
prices and wages to reset smoothly.
Prices and wages are sticky downward.
It is unsustainable for a business to deflate prices below
fixed costs.
A price can be reset downward by inflation (if inflation is
high enough) erosion and thus is less likely to be below
fixed costs.
Businesses don't cut wages of employees, they layoff
employees.
Businesses don't only cut prices, they cut production.
Workers with leverage and fixed payments cannot afford to
work for less.
Inflation allows relative wages to deflate without causing
issues with fixed payments.
Everyone agrees that deflation is bad because it is
associated with lower output and higher unemployment.
Inflation and deflation are a continuum. Inflation that is
too low is only marginally better than deflation.
Inflation must be high enough to absorb relative price resets
demanded by the majority of economic shocks or the process of
resetting wages and prices will be extended and be a
continued drag on an economy.
The evidence clearly suggests that US inflation in the 21st
Century has been much too low. A higher inflation target is
clearly necessary.
People misunderstand hyperinflation.
Hyperinflation is associated with an increased money supply.
The increased money supply is an effect of hyperinflation not
its cause.
Under hyperinflation, an economy needs increasingly larger
amounts of currency for transactions, so governments print
more money to meet demand.
Hyperinflation is caused by loss of confidence in a
currency.
Under hyperinflation, the risk of complete loss of buying
power of a currency factors into the price that vendors are
willing to accept for goods and services.
Example: In the 1865 US, Confederate currency hyper inflated,
not because too much was printed, but because the Confederate
government was facing elimination and the currency no longer
being honored. 90 percent of the currency could have been
eliminated and prices still would have hyperinflated.
Major Myths:
Printing money does not cause hyperinflation, loss of
confidence does.
A higher rate of inflation does not make hyperinflation more
likely.
A lower rate of inflation is NOT always better for an economy
than a higher rate.
Politicians and pundits need to unlearn these inflation
myths.
DrDick -> pgl...
, -1
Krugman makes some good points, adding to Wren Lewis's
excellent observations. I would point out, however, that
neither of them acknowledges that most of our media are
economic and policy illiterates and incapable of
understanding the issues, while the general public has been
sold on the idiocy that national budgets are just like
household budgets (mostly by that same illiterate media).
"... I think one reason Sanders was respected by some of these people, even when his views were radically opposed to theirs, was because this theme of fairness resonated with them, they sensed he was operating on a similar principle, even if disagreeing on the content. ..."
"... I actually find it easier to imagine why someone listening to the debate might place forlorn hope in Trump than to conjure up the people who could listen to Clinton's platitudes and not recall any of the history. Corey Robin is right that Trump is a standard Republican in everything but style, but there was also a break between the Republican electorate and the Republican establishment that put Trump on that stage, and Clinton has embraced the Republican establishment. ..."
"... In Labour Party politics, the insistence of the PLP on Tory-lite policy stances seems, from my great distance, farcical. The Clinton embrace of the Republican establishment drains the last drop of populism from the Democrats even while Late Trump proves how ill-suited the Republicans are to populist appeal despite years of petty demagoguery. ..."
"... I think Trump differs very substantially from the standard Republican politician. Sure he mostly channels the same meme's, but he is willing to consume some sacred ideological cows at the same time. ..."
"... Given that Trump loudly opposes trade deals, it is difficult to say that he on economics is a typical Republican. People vote for Trump because they think the system is rigged against them, and Hilary Clinton is running as the candidate of the status quo. They will see Hilary's resemblance to past candidates as a reminder of what they have gotten from the past 40 years of government policy. ..."
"... Clinton is socially embedded but apparently unaware of the deficiencies of elite performance. This makes her a favorite of the new class, but also makes it very difficult to rally broad popular support or avoid policy disaster. ..."
"... She wants George W Bush's vote. No joke. Why so many on the left are clueless about this and what it implies about policy is left as an exercise. ..."
"... Sure, he supported the Iraq War, but at least he lies about it. And Hillary (with Lester Holt's help) successfully maneuvered around her own vulnerability on that score. She doesn't need to be invoking GW Bush. ..."
"... aside from the Iran agreement, HRC has pretty much carried the neocons water. ..."
"... in the primaries, Trump seriously trashed Bush's most excellent Mesopotamian adventure. Hillary can't do that without creating blowback from her vote for the war. ..."
"... She may well believe that, but if so it's self-deception. She'll get nothing from Republicans in Congress, who will treat her as even more illegitimate than Obama. ..."
"... No way the median Republican member of Congress will open up to a primary challenge just because Clinton is playing nice with the Bushes. ..."
"... Only of the many unhelpful aspects of the HRC presidency will be that since her reachout to Republicans turns off base Dems, she is likely to face a Repub House and Senate, who will be at least as obstructive to her as they have been to Obama. That leaves her room to abandon all the half-hearted dog treats she threw to the Bernie supporters as "now impossible", and plenty of room to get "bipartisan" on passing the TPP and cutting SS. ..."
"... And it won't impede her military desires to enlarge the empire one iota. ..."
"... The comments here strike me as very sensible and sober. Given that the CT community shares little with a great swath of the electorate and in fact share HRC's view that they are both deplorable and irredeemable, its probably sound reasoning to deduce that if people here thought HRC won, a great many 'others' believe the opposite. ..."
"... Hillary succeeded in the first debate because she didn't fall over, cough a lot, and looked alive in that bright, red dress. That isn't enough to convince voters that she's not the candidate of the past. ..."
"... We begin from the assumption that Clinton is standard-bearer of "neoliberalism," and then interpret everything she does as evidence of that. ..."
"... the Democratic Party was once the party of the working class and old-style liberalism, but, starting with Bill Clinton, they abandoned this, and now they have lost the loyalty of the working class. In actuality, the last old-style liberal in the Democratic Party was Mondale, and he lost the popular vote by eighteen percentage points, more than anyone since. ..."
"... In foreign policy, we need a new term that we can drain of all meaning, and so Clinton becomes a "neoconservative," virtually indistinguishable from Charles Krauthammer, and eager to rain down destruction on the rest of the world. ..."
"... A no-fly zone? Those neocons will stop at nothing! ..."
Against a background anxiety surrounding a
sense that things are not working. The old ideologies are not working, every
thing has to change and we hate much of the change we do see creeping up. The
conservative party serves up a wrecking ball. The reform party serves up the
status quo warmed over. ("Intelligent surge") We fear change. We fear the
continuation of the status quo and the degeneration the status quo promises to
continue.
Yan
09.27.16 at 5:46 pm
"On the other hand, there's a not so small current in American politics that
would hear that, that Trump didn't pay his taxes, and think, with him, that he
was indeed smart for having outsmarted the system. …This is a nation of conmen
(and women)…"
I think this is right but misleading, since the voters who
probably liked that comment don't see themselves as conmen out for a quick
buck, but as victims gaming a rigged system. They think taxes are an injustice,
and that they're John Dillinger fighting for their rightful earnings against
the thieving IRS.
This is generally important for understanding Trump voters: for all their
quirks, at bottom they are, like most Americans, very strongly motivated by a
skewed notion of fairness: they think others are cutting in line, getting a
handout, getting special rights and favors.
I think one reason Sanders was respected by some of these people, even
when his views were radically opposed to theirs, was because this theme of
fairness resonated with them, they sensed he was operating on a similar
principle, even if disagreeing on the content.
bruce wilder
09.27.16 at 6:20 pm
Watching British Labour Party politics from afar is like seeing Democratic
Party politics in a fun house mirror. One thing that is writ in primary colors
and big block letters in the Labour Party struggle is the tension between the
new class and everyone else seeking protection from the globalizing plutocracy
and whose only ideological models are anachronisms.
I actually find it
easier to imagine why someone listening to the debate might place forlorn hope
in Trump than to conjure up the people who could listen to Clinton's platitudes
and not recall any of the history. Corey Robin is right that Trump is a
standard Republican in everything but style, but there was also a break between
the Republican electorate and the Republican establishment that put Trump on
that stage, and Clinton has embraced the Republican establishment.
In Labour Party politics, the insistence of the PLP on Tory-lite policy
stances seems, from my great distance, farcical. The Clinton embrace of the
Republican establishment drains the last drop of populism from the Democrats
even while Late Trump proves how ill-suited the Republicans are to populist
appeal despite years of petty demagoguery.
I think Trumps policies frequently look like a generic Republicans because he
didn't enter this election as a serious candidate, and now that he's the actual
nominee he's been scrambling to come up with any policies at all. So he's
copying from the party that nominated him.
His campaign has always been very ad hoc. Look at his "make Mexico pay for
the wall" thing. He clearly just threw that out there as bluster, then when it
went viral cobbled together a pseudo plan to make it sound plausible.
His line on taxes was perfect, unfortunately. On taxes, for a lot of people
the question is whether he behaved legally. If you can legally not pay taxes
but you do anyway, you're a chump. Can anyone who does their own taxes honestly
say that they've chosen to NOT take an exemption or deduction for which they
were qualified? I can't.
The people who feel this way may wish it wasn't legal for Trump to do this.
But as far as condemning him for it assuming it WAS legal… maybe they can drum
up some generic resentment of the rich, or tell themselves that he probably
broke the law somewhere, somehow, but that's about it. They're not going to
adopt a principled belief that he should pay taxes he doesn't have to pay. And
if Democrats push on this there's no shortage of "rich democrat does lawful but
resentment inducing rich-guy thing" stories that can be used as a smokescreen.
Now… are Trumps taxes actually on the level? Probably not. I suppose the IRS
will tell us eventually, after the election. It's not like Trump will release
them in the meantime.
Other than that Hillary Clinton won but it won't matter because
conservatives live in a creepy little bubble where HRC is a shadowy murderess
who assassinates her rivals and must be kept from the throne at all costs.
Omega Centauri
09.27.16 at 6:28 pm
I think Trump differs very substantially from the standard Republican
politician. Sure he mostly channels the same meme's, but he is willing to
consume some sacred ideological cows at the same time.
Just recently he
said he'd allow over the counter contraception. He tried to Savage war hero
John McCain because he'd been captured. He hasn't just thrown away the dog
whistle, he is willing to jetison any part of the ideology he finds
inconvenient.
Watson Ladd
09.27.16 at 6:51 pm
Given that Trump loudly opposes trade deals, it is difficult to say that he
on economics is a typical Republican. People vote for Trump because they think
the system is rigged against them, and Hilary Clinton is running as the
candidate of the status quo. They will see Hilary's resemblance to past
candidates as a reminder of what they have gotten from the past 40 years of
government policy.
bruce wilder
09.27.16 at 7:06 pm
Omega Centauri @ 21
Listening to Trump has a way of casting his audience into
the same position as the dogs in a Gary Larson
Far Side
cartoon, where
the dogs only hear a few words they are hungry to hear.
Clinton's patter seems more conventionally structured, but its highlights
are righteous self-regard, well past its sell-by date.
There is no coherence (beyond class interest) to Trump. He is a socially
isolated Billionaire who is lazy, inattentive, arrogant . . . but put him in
front of an audience and he will talk randomly until he finds a laugh or
applause.
Clinton is socially embedded but apparently unaware of the deficiencies
of elite performance. This makes her a favorite of the new class, but also
makes it very difficult to rally broad popular support or avoid policy
disaster.
She will win the election, but after that . . . things are unlikely to go
well.
People make the observation that both have high negatives. But, beneath
those high negatives, each has pursued coalition-building strategies almost
guaranteed to narrow their respective bases of support below a majority
threshold.
Why isn't Clinton saying "Trump is a more reckless, less coherent George W.
Bush"
She wants George W Bush's vote. No joke. Why so many on the
left are clueless about this and what it implies about policy is left as an
exercise.
politicalfootball
09.27.16 at 7:46 pm
I wouldn't read too much into HRCs apparent decision not to tar Trump with
Bush.
That's a charge that simply wouldn't stick. Trump has quite
persuasively separated himself from the Bushes - and vice versa.
Sure, he supported the Iraq War, but at least he lies about it. And
Hillary (with Lester Holt's help) successfully maneuvered around her own
vulnerability on that score. She doesn't need to be invoking GW Bush.
I would be curious for Bruce to explain anything that Hillary has actually
done
to get Bush's vote. Seems to me she continues to run to the left.
Omega Centauri
09.27.16 at 8:33 pm
I'm not Bruce, but
aside from the Iran agreement, HRC has pretty much
carried the neocons water.
But, I think its mainly that the Bushes see
Trump as crazy beyond the pale, and Clinton as a somewhat steady hand. Also
in the primaries, Trump seriously trashed Bush's most excellent Mesopotamian
adventure. Hillary can't do that without creating blowback from her vote for
the war.
JimV
09.27.16 at 8:56 pm
I agree with Bruce Wilder than HRC doesn't want to offend Republicans
unnecessarily. He seems to see it as a character flaw, and maybe it is, but it
could be simply that she can get more done in office if she doesn't make a lot
of bitter Republican enemies. And I think it is the polite way to behave even
with those with whom you disagree, but I won't lobby for that motive here.
If
Trump avoided taxes legally and that is a smart, enviable thing to do, why
doesn't he release his tax information to show how smart he was? Why is he
really hiding the information? Inquiring campaign adds will want to know, if
people can't figure that out for themselves.
Ideology: I like the ideology that climate science is not a hoax, that
universal health insurance is a good thing with more work needed on it, and
some other parts of HRC's agenda that do not seem to be the current ideology
(in power).
"Smart surge": that was another palpable hit by Bruce Wilder (along with
"no-fly zone in Syria"). Ouch. (I'm not being sarcastic, if it is difficult to
tell.) I'm going to write her a letter opposing that. She's sent me a couple
letters, so I should have her return address. I think I haven't recycled the
last one yet.
Layman
09.27.16 at 9:25 pm
"…it could be simply that she can get more done in office if she doesn't make a
lot of bitter Republican enemies."
She may well believe that, but if so
it's self-deception. She'll get nothing from Republicans in Congress, who will
treat her as even more illegitimate than Obama.
There's no obvious
incentive for them to do anything else, and the base think she's a murderer and
traitor.
No way the median Republican member of Congress will open up to a
primary challenge just because Clinton is playing nice with the Bushes.
marku52
09.27.16 at 9:46 pm
Only of the many unhelpful aspects of the HRC presidency will be that since
her reachout to Republicans turns off base Dems, she is likely to face a Repub
House and Senate, who will be at least as obstructive to her as they have been
to Obama. That leaves her room to abandon all the half-hearted dog treats she
threw to the Bernie supporters as "now impossible", and plenty of room to get
"bipartisan" on passing the TPP and cutting SS.
And it won't impede
her military desires to enlarge the empire one iota.
A Trump presidency would be hated by all parties to the duo-gopoly, and
would be stymied at everything.
The point about not paying tax is on point, I think. I wrote something yonks
ago about Berlusconi and 'patrimonial populism' – the idea being that
Berlusconi was seen as both the figurehead of the nihilistic "screw politics"
crowd and a national sugar daddy, dishing out favours from the national budget
in just the same way that he lobbed sweeteners to business partners. One
Italian commentator spotted a graffito that called on Berlusconi to abolish
speed limits – "Silvio, let us speed on the autostrada!" Because you knew
he
would, and if you voted for him, hey, maybe he'd let you do it too.
(Berlusconi hasn't been in government for a while, but he was Prime Minister
for ten years in total between 1994 and 2011. He's still involved in three
court cases relating to corruption and fraud, and has been found guilty in
another; he served a sentence of house arrest and community service. He will be
80 on Thursday.)
kidneystones
09.27.16 at 10:05 pm
The comments here strike me as very sensible and sober. Given that the CT
community shares little with a great swath of the electorate and in fact share
HRC's view that they are both deplorable and irredeemable, its probably sound
reasoning to deduce that if people here thought HRC won, a great many 'others'
believe the opposite.
derrida derider
09.27.16 at 11:17 pm
The best way to assess how a national TV debate went is to watch the whole
thing with the sound turned off. Swing voters are almost by definition the
least interested watchers who will just not care about coherence, patter,
policy, ideology, etc because they don't just don't care about politics much.
Subconscious impressions, mainly set by body language with perhaps the odd
striking expression, are what persuades or dissuades them.
ZM 09.27.16 at 11:24 pm @ 45:
'This is a paper by Paul Gilding on a war time mobilisation response,
although he isn't connected to the Democrats I don't think: WAR. What Is It
Good For? WWII Economic Mobilisation An Analogy For Climate Action
http://media.wix.com/ugd/148cb0_1bfd229f6638410f8fcf230e12b1e285.pdf
'
I criticized the war metaphor before, mostly on literary or stylistic grounds,
but having seen this publication, I feel it is necessary to offer as well a
practical consideration, out of character as that may be. War metaphors and
models appeal to many people because a good-sized war, especially in our era,
appears as an existential crisis, and in properly organized wartime all
dissidence and discussion are swept away by the power of necessity, harnessed
by great leaders and experts. It is a paradise of authority.
kidneystones
09.28.16 at 12:25 am
@ 52 "My main takeaway from the debate is that it finally refuted any notion
that Trump has any idea what he's doing."
What markers did Trump provide that are significantly different from any of
the ravings that propelled him past a stable of extremely well-funded and
politically-skilled GOP politicians?
The fact that a rodeo clown like Trump is even on the same stage as HRC
suggests that whatever his perceived defects here, Trump commands the
attention, affection, and respect of almost as many Americans, perhaps more,
than the candidate of Goldman-Sachs.
Trump is not going to 'win' any of the debates. Trump is marketing the Trump
brand on the biggest stage possible. What actually takes place on stage is
negligible in a world where superficiality is much more important than
substance.
What will happen is that Trump is going to remind the audience that Hillary
does indeed sound very clever and well-grounded. Then, he'll catalogue the
questions: 'How can HRC credibly claim not to know what the initial 'C' means
on a classified document?' etc.
The most recent good poll I saw on HRC identified the voters' principal
concerns with HRC: Syria, Libya, emails – in short, her judgment and her
honesty.
Hillary succeeded in the first debate because she didn't fall over,
cough a lot, and looked alive in that bright, red dress. That isn't enough to
convince voters that she's not the candidate of the past.
As others have noted, the Dukakis title doesn't make any sense to me at all.
She's done.
kidneystones
09.28.16 at 12:30 am
And then there's the health issue (the one that can't be wished away).
The Arizona Republic, Arizona's biggest newspaper (Phoenix), just endorsed
Clinton for President, the first time it has endorsed a Democrat in its
126-year history.
Glen Tomkins
09.28.16 at 1:56 pm
Rich,
"…that no one is really pushing these propaganda lines on people."
That's the very thing, isn't it? That's what US politics has gotten too.
There is a very conventional approach to a national campaign that dictates that
you do messaging, which means that you carefully avoid saying anything with any
public policy entailments. Having the candidate say anything of this sort is
especially to be avoided, because that ties the campaign most concretely to
specifics, and specific public policy your side advocates can be fitted into a
different, hostile, theoretical frame by the other side. Yet candidates have to
say things, it's expected. So they have refined a method that avoids
propagandizing for anything in terms more concrete than "Make America Great
Again", or "Stronger Together", both of which are brilliant at hinting at
whatever good thing you might want them to mean, without pushing any actual
policy.
In that silence from the campaigns themselves step all of the sorts of
sophisticated people such as those of us in the CT commentariat. The media rise
no higher on the intellectual food chain than the attempt to fill the silence
with theorizing about campaigns as horse races, who's winning and why. We here
at CT are a superior sort, so we tend to weave in theories about the actual
supposed subject of politics, public policy. But at all levels of this effort,
we theorize because we are of the species Homo theoreticus, and we must have
theories. The more sophisticated we are the more we need them. We fill the
silence by propagandizing on a DIY, freebie basis.
Not that any of this is new. Swift told us all about it in Tale of a Tub,
the oracle of our age. Think of this campaign as a tub bobbing on the waves.
Worry it as you will, and it just moves to the next wave.
Glen Tomkins: "We here at CT are a superior sort, so we tend to weave in
theories about the actual supposed subject of politics, public policy."
Does
not fit the observables. These theories are not about public policy and are not
good on any theoretical level (even if you consider this goodness to be
possible if it is decoupled from fact and is purely a matter of internal
consistency).
Almost all of these "theories" are based on a simple three-step;
1. HRC is the lesser evil.
2. I can't stand voting for someone purely as the lesser evil: my ego
requires that I affirmatively support someone.
3. Therefore the lesser evil is really kind of good and anyone against it is
bad.
As usual, I find a lot of discussion here about worlds totally unlike the one
that I live in.
We begin from the assumption that Clinton is
standard-bearer of "neoliberalism," and then interpret everything she does as
evidence of that.
Um… people.. she was Secretary of State. Can we really
think of no reason she might favor an agreement that includes the US and east
Asia, but not China, other than subservience to international capital? Can we
think of no reason a Secretary of State might want to encourage fracking in
Bulgaria other than anticipated future contributions from the oil and gas
industry? (Hint: Russia is monopoly supplier of natural gas to Europe, and not
shy about reminding them of that.)
In this imaginary world,
the Democratic Party was once the party of the
working class and old-style liberalism, but, starting with Bill Clinton, they
abandoned this, and now they have lost the loyalty of the working class. In
actuality, the last old-style liberal in the Democratic Party was Mondale, and
he lost the popular vote by eighteen percentage points, more than anyone since.
In foreign policy, we need a new term that we can drain of all meaning,
and so Clinton becomes a "neoconservative," virtually indistinguishable from
Charles Krauthammer, and eager to rain down destruction on the rest of the
world.
Um.. people… destruction has been raining down on Syria for years
now. There have been 400,000 people killed, and, as you may have noticed, a
whole lot of refugees. The left doesn't seem to be overly concerned about this,
other than bitterly oppose any attempts to use military force to do anything
about it.
A no-fly zone? Those neocons will stop at nothing!
If Obama
had carried out his threat over the "red line" by striking at the Syrian air
force, it would have saved many, many lives, but that would be imperialism.
Possibly people at CT, even Americans, have gotten used to thinking of
politics in parliamentary terms, in which platforms actually have some
practical effect, and winning means winning a legislative majority. (That's the
only way a Sanders candidacy would have made sense.) As you know, though, the
US doesn't work that way, and so the question is what can get done. If Clinton
is able to actually carry out the things she is talking about – an increase in
the minimum wage, paid family leave, increased infrastructure spending -- it
will make a much bigger difference in people's lives than bringing back
Glass-Steagall would.
likbez
09.28.16
at 4:45 pm
@80
Rich,
This "HRC is the lesser evil" is a very questionable line of thinking that
is not supported by the facts.
How Hillary can be a lesser evil if by any reasonable standard she is a war
criminal. War criminal like absolute zero is an absolute evil. You just can't
go lower.
Trump might be a crook, but he still did not committed any war crimes. Yet.
"... It is not clear what the NYT thinks it is telling readers with this comment. The economy grows and creates jobs, sort of like the tree in my backyard grows every year. The issue is the rate of growth and job creation. While the economy has recovered from the lows of the recession, employment rates of prime age workers (ages 25-54) are still down by almost 2.0 percentage points from the pre-recession level and almost 4.0 percentage points from 2000 peaks. There is much research ** *** showing that trade has played a role in this drop in employment. ..."
"... It is not surprising that Ford's CEO would say that shifting production to Mexico would not cost U.S. jobs. It is likely he would make this claim whether or not it is true. Furthermore, his actual statement is that Ford is not cutting U.S. jobs. If the jobs being created in Mexico would otherwise be created in the United States, then the switch is costing U.S. jobs. The fact that Michigan and Ohio added 75,000 jobs last year has as much to do with this issue as the winner of last night's Yankees' game. ..."
"... The piece goes on to say that the North American Free Trade Agreement has "for more than two decades has been widely counted as a main achievement of [Bill Clinton]." It doesn't say who holds this view. The deal did not lead to a rise in the U.S. trade surplus with Mexico, which was a claim by its proponents before its passage. It also has not led to more rapid growth in Mexico which has actually fallen further behind the United States in the two decades since NAFTA. ..."
"... It is worth noting that none of the analyses that provide the basis for this assertion take into the account the impact of the increased protectionism, in the form of longer and stronger patent and copyright protections, which are a major part of the TPP. These forms of protection are equivalent to tariffs of several thousand percent on the protected items. As they apply to an ever growing share of the economy, the resulting economic losses will expand substantially in the next decade, especially if the TPP is approved. ..."
NYT Editorial In News Section for TPP Short on Substance
When the issue is trade deals, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the New York Times
throws out its usual journalistic standards to push its pro-trade deal agenda. Therefore it is
not surprising to see a story * in the news section that was essentially a misleading advertisement
for these trade deals.
The headline tells readers that Donald Trump's comments on trade in the Monday night debate
lacked accuracy. The second paragraph adds:
"His aggressiveness may have been offset somewhat by demerits on substance."
These comments could well describe this NYT piece.
For example, it ostensibly indicts Trump with the comment:
"His [Trump's] first words of the night were the claim that "our jobs are fleeing the country,"
though nearly 15 million new jobs have been created since the economic recovery began."
It is not clear what the NYT thinks it is telling readers with this comment. The economy
grows and creates jobs, sort of like the tree in my backyard grows every year. The issue is the
rate of growth and job creation. While the economy has recovered from the lows of the recession,
employment rates of prime age workers (ages 25-54) are still down by almost 2.0 percentage points
from the pre-recession level and almost 4.0 percentage points from 2000 peaks. There is much research
** *** showing that trade has played a role in this drop in employment.
The NYT piece continues:
"[Trump] singled out Ford for sending thousands of jobs to Mexico to build small cars and worsening
manufacturing job losses in Michigan and Ohio, but the company's chief executive has said 'zero'
American workers would be cut. Those states each gained more than 75,000 jobs in just the last
year."
It is not surprising that Ford's CEO would say that shifting production to Mexico would
not cost U.S. jobs. It is likely he would make this claim whether or not it is true. Furthermore,
his actual statement is that Ford is not cutting U.S. jobs. If the jobs being created in Mexico
would otherwise be created in the United States, then the switch is costing U.S. jobs. The fact
that Michigan and Ohio added 75,000 jobs last year has as much to do with this issue as the winner
of last night's Yankees' game.
The next sentence adds:
"Mr. Trump said China was devaluing its currency for unfair price advantages, yet it ended
that practice several years ago and is now propping up the value of its currency."
While China has recently been trying to keep up the value of its currency by selling reserves,
it still holds more than $4 trillion in foreign reserves, counting its sovereign wealth fund.
This is more than four times the holdings that would typically be expected of a country its side.
These holdings have the effect of keeping down the value of China's currency.
If this seems difficult to understand, the Federal Reserve now holds more than $3 trillion
in assets as a result of its quantitative easing programs of the last seven years. It raised its
short-term interest rate by a quarter point last December, nonetheless almost all economists would
agree the net effect of the Fed's actions is the keep interest rates lower than they would otherwise
be. The same is true of China and its foreign reserve position.
The piece goes on to say that the North American Free Trade Agreement has "for more than
two decades has been widely counted as a main achievement of [Bill Clinton]." It doesn't say who
holds this view. The deal did not lead to a rise in the U.S. trade surplus with Mexico, which
was a claim by its proponents before its passage. It also has not led to more rapid growth in
Mexico which has actually fallen further behind the United States in the two decades since NAFTA.
In later discussing the TPP the piece tells readers:
"Economists generally have said the Pacific nations agreement would increase incomes, exports
and growth in the United States, but not significantly."
It is worth noting that none of the analyses that provide the basis for this assertion
take into the account the impact of the increased protectionism, in the form of longer and stronger
patent and copyright protections, which are a major part of the TPP. These forms of protection
are equivalent to tariffs of several thousand percent on the protected items. As they apply to
an ever growing share of the economy, the resulting economic losses will expand substantially
in the next decade, especially if the TPP is approved.
Hillary Clinton's campaign manager Robby Mook and other top Democrats refused to answer whether
Clinton wants President Barack Obama to withdraw the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) from consideration
before Congress during interviews with Breitbart News in the spin room after the first presidential
debate here at Hofstra University on Monday night.
The fact that Mook, Clinton campaign
spokesman Brian Fallon, and Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairwoman Donna Brazile each refused
to answer the simple question that would prove Clinton is actually opposed to the Trans Pacific Partnership
now after praising it 40 times and calling it the "gold standard" is somewhat shocking.
After initially ignoring the question entirely four separate times, Mook finally replied to Breitbart
News. But when he did respond, he didn't answer the question:
BREITBART NEWS: "Robby, does Secretary Clinton believe that the president should withdraw the
TPP?"
ROBBY MOOK: "Secretary Clinton, as she said in the debate, evaluated the final TPP language
and came to the conclusion that she cannot support it."
BREITBART NEWS: "Does she think the president should withdraw it?"
ROBBY MOOK: "She has said the president should not support it."
Obama is attempting to ram TPP through Congress as his last act as president during a lame duck
session of Congress. Clinton previously supported the TPP, and called it the "Gold Standard" of trade
deals. That's something Brazile, the new chairwoman of the DNC who took over after Rep. Debbie Wasserman
Schultz (D-FL) was forced to resign after email leaks showed she and her staff at the DNC undermined
the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and in an untoward way forced the nomination
into Clinton's hands, openly confirmed in her own interview with Breitbart News in the spin room
post debate. Brazile similarly refused to answer if Clinton should call on Obama to withdraw the
TPP from consideration before Congress.
TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that
exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal
representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving
the interests of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class;
it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president
candidates. There is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton
will not even consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped
once on the issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election
if she does. As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations.
"... Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't that the Neoliberal end game? ..."
"... The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner of Europe and the US. ..."
"... And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong with this picture? ..."
"... "Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy" says the heading. So Obama's "Asian pivot" was meant to thwart China's development. ..."
"... And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force, e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits. ..."
"... They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional. ..."
"... "These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help. ..."
"... Now we are waking up to the realisation that we are the big loosers of globalisation. ..."
"... "The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid. ..."
"... I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil. ..."
"... The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys totalled almost 3bn. ..."
"... By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight. ..."
"... a collapse of the chinese economy would collapse the American economy as well ..."
"... Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government. ..."
"... America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch, a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced ..."
"... The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other nations including the UK is as well. ..."
"... "China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia." These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle Sam's "yes man". ..."
"... The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using force is beyond stupidity. ..."
"... It also destabilises the entire region. Something the Americans are masters of. ..."
"... Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia. ..."
"... Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war, banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations". ..."
"... Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy. ..."
"... Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines ..."
"... China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth. In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's $60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum. ..."
"... TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does. As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations. ..."
"... Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes. ..."
"... Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip .... ..."
"... They tell their employers what they want to hear. ..."
"... Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is madness. I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering? ..."
"... The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course. ..."
"... What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah. ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football. ..."
"... Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and also become global military power. ..."
"... Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments' priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US. ..."
"... Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. ..."
"... China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony. ..."
"... The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China. ..."
"... The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial US. ..."
Before the pivot could even get underway the Saudis threw their rattle out of the pram and drew
US focus back to the Middle East and proxy war two steps removed with Russia. Empires don't get
to focus, they react to each event and seek to gain from the outcome so the whole pivot idea was
flawed.
Obama's foreign policy has been clumsy and amoral. It remains to be seen whether it will become
more so in an effort to double down. Under Clinton it definitely will, under Trump who knows but
random isn't a recommendation.
Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different
game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't
that the Neoliberal end game?
So the Rand Think Tank would sooner have war now than later. Who wouldda guessed that.
The Chinese want to improve trade and business with the rest of the world. The US answer? destroy
China militarily. so who best to lead the world. I think the article answers that question unintentionally.
The rest of the world has had it up to the ears with American military invasions, regeime changes,
occupations and bombing of the world. They are ready for China´s approach to international relations.
it is about time the adults took over the leadership of the world. Europe and the USA and their
offspring have clearly failed.
China has been handed everything it needs to fly solo: money, factories, IP, etc. Fast forwarding
into the western civic model limits (traffic, pollution, etc.), its best bet is to offload US
"interests" and steer clear.
No clear sign India's learned/recovered from British occupation, as they let tech create more
future Kanpurs.
The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner
of Europe and the US.
Was it really worth expanding NATO to Russia's borders instead of offering neutrality to former
Soviet States and thus retain Russia's confidence in global matters that far out weigh the interests
of the neo-cons?
neutrality? Russia invaded non-NATO members Georgie, Ukraine, and Moldavia, and created puppet-states
on their soil.
The Jremlin-rules are simple: the former Sovjet states should be ruled by a pro-Russian dictator
(Bella-Russia, Kazachstan, etc. etc...). Democracies face boycots, diplomatic and military support
of rebels, and in the end simply a military invasion.
The only reason why the baltic states are now thriving democracies, is that they are NATO members.
And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently
bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with
their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong
with this picture?
When Obama took office his first major speech was in Cairo - where he said
"I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around
the world," US President Barack Obama said to the sounds of loud applause which rocked not
only the hall, but the world. "One based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based
upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead,
they overlap, and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and
the dignity of all human beings."
He displayed a dangerous mix of innocence, foolishness, disregard for the truth and misunderstanding
of the nature of Islamic regimes - does the West have common values with Lebanon which practices
apartheid for Palestinians, Saudi, where women cannot drive a car, Syria, where over 17,000 have
died in Assad's torture chambers, we can go on and on.
And on China - Trump has it right - China has been manipulating its currency exchange rate
for years, costing western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits and something
needs to be done about it.
" America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap,
and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of
all human beings. "
He spoke about the whole of Islam, not specific " Islamic regimes ". And he is correct
on it. All religions share a great deal of values with the USAmerican constition and even each
other .
The overwhelming majority of USAmerican muslims have accepted the melting pot with their whole
heart, second generation children have JOINED its fighting forces to protect the interest of the
USA all over the world. Normally this full an integration is reached with the third generation.
The west has won against those religious fanatics. How else to explain that exactly the people
those claim to speak turn up with us?
And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones
who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force,
e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They
are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits.
They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American
corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have
to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional.
"These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing
US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help.
Interesting in particular to see RAND is still in its Cold War mindset. There's famous footage
of RAND analysts in the 60s (I think) discussing putative nuclear war with the USSR and concluding
that the US was certain of 'victory' following a missile exchange because its surviving population
(after hundreds of millions of deaths and the destruction of almost all urban centres) would be
somewhat larger.
China's island claims are all about a broader strategic aim- getting unencumbered access to
the Pacific for its growing blue water navy. It's not aimed at Taiwan or Japan in any sort of
specific sense and, save for the small possibility of escalation following an accident (ships
colliding or something), there's very little risk of conflict in at least the medium term.
It's crucial to remember just how much China and the US depend upon each other economically.
The US is by far China's largest single export market, powering its manufacturing economy. In
return, China uses the surplus to buy up US debt, which allows the Americans to borrow cheaply
and keep the lights on. Crash China and you crash the US- and vice versa.
For now, China is basically accepting an upgraded number 2 spot (along with the US acknowledging
them as part of a 'G2'), but supporting alternative governance structures when it doesn't like
the ones controlled by the US/Japan (so the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the BRICS etc.).
This doesn't mean that the two don't see each other as long term strategic and economic rivals.
But the risks to both of rocking the boat are gigantic and not in the interest of either party
in the foreseeable future. Things that could change that:
a. a succession of Trump-like US presidents (checks and balances are probably sufficient to
withstand one, were it to come to that);
b. a revolution in China (possible if the economy goes South- and what comes next is probably
not liberal democracy but anti-Japanese or anti-US authoritarian nationalism);
c. an unpredictable chain of events arising from N Korean collapse or a regional nuclear race
(Japan-China is a more likely source of conflict than US-China).
"The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would
be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries
mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to
the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US
is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid.
The writing is on the wall: the future is with China. All the US can do is make nice or reap the
dire consequences. If China can clean up its human rights record, I would be happy to see them
supplant or rival the US as a global hegemon. After all, looked at historically, haven't they
earned it? - An American, born and bred, but no nationalist
Well, that is naďve. Look at China and how the Chinese people are governed. Look at the US. And
please don't tell me you don't see a difference. I'll take a world with the US as the global hegemon
any day.
A regional counter balance is needed. Cooperation is hindered by Japan. They should be the center
point of a regional alliance strong enough to contain China with US help, but it doesn't work:
whilst everybody fears China, everybody hates Japan.
The reason is they failed miserably to rebuild trust after WWII, rather than going cap in hand,
acknowledging respondibility for atrocities and other crimes and injustice, and compensate victims,
they kept their pride and isolation. They are now paying the price - possibly together with the
rest of us.
Maybe a full scale change after 7 decades of to-little-to-late diplomacy can still achieve
sth.
The ass the US should kick sits in Tokyo - something they failed to do properly after WWII,
when they managed it well in West Germany (ok - they had help from the Brits there, who for all
their failings understand foreign nations far better), where it facilitated proper integration
into European cooperation.
I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil.
Countries that do well don't need to crack down on dissidents to the point of kidnappings
or spend millions of stupid man made islands that pisses everyone off but have all the military
value of a threatening facial tattoo. The South China Sea tactics is partially Chinese "push until
something pushes back" diplomacy but also stems from the harsh realisation that their resources
can be easily choked of and even the CPC knows it can't hold down a billion plus Chinese people
once the hunger sets it.
China is facing the dilemna that as it brings people out of poverty it reduces the supply of
the very cheap labor that makes it rich. You can talk about Lenovo all you want, no one is buying
a Chinese car anytime soon. Nor is any airline outside of China going to buy one of their planes.
Copyright fraud is one thing the West can retaliate easily upon and will if they feel China has
gone too far. Any product found in a western court to be a blatant copy can effectively be banned.
The next step is to refuse to recognize Chinese copyright on the few genuine innovations that
come out of it.
Plus the deal Deng Xiaoping made with the urban classes is fraying. It was wealth in exchange
for subservience. The people in the cities stay out of direct politics but quality of life issues,
safety, petty corruption and pollution are angering them and scaring them hence the vast amount
of private Chinese money being sunk into global real estate.
The military growth and dubious technobabble is just typical Chinese mianzi gaining. If you
do have a brand new jet stealth jet fighter, you don't release pictures of it to the world press.
They got really rattled when Shinzo Abe decided the JSDF can go and deliver slappings abroad to
help their friends if needed. Because an army that spends a lot of time rigging up Michael Bayesque
set maneuvers for the telly is not what you want to pit against top notch technology handled by
obsessive perfectionists.
No one plays hardball with China because we all like cheap shit. But once that is over then
China is a very vulnerable country with not one neighbour they can call a friend. They know it.
Obama hasn't failed.. It's the histrionics that prove it not the other way round.
The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing
up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China
and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly
the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys
totalled almost 3bn.
No-one is buying a Chinese car? Check the sales for Wuling. They produce the small vans that
are the lifeblood of the small entrepreneur. BYD are already exporting electric buses to London.
The likes of VW, BMW, Land Rover, are all in partnership with Chinese auto-makers and China is
the largest car market in the world.
Corruption has been actively attacked and over a quarter of a million officials have been brought
to book in Xi's time in office. The pollution causing steel and coal industries are being rapidly
contracted and billions spent on re-training.
Plus the fact that while the Chinese are mianzi gazing, the last thing they think about is
politics. They simply don't want to know.
By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has
just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight.
The conclusion is that bi-lateral talks, not US led pissing contests are the way forward.
"What has happened is the ICA has ruled against China in the SCS..." Nothing new. The UN Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf had also ruled against the
UK and the International Court of Justice had ruled against the US.
Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling
of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for
all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government.
Just look at how gobsmacked the US Military & President were over such a stupidly undertaken
sale by the LNP. This diplomatically lunatic sell off by the LNP of such a vital national asset
has effectively taken-out any influence or impact Australia may have, or exert, over critical
issues happening on our northern doorstep.
If there was ever a case for buying back a strategic national asset, this is definitely the
one. Oh, if folks are worried about the $Billions in penalties incurred, simple solution - just
stop the $Billions of Diesel Fuel Rebates gifted to Miners for, say, 10 years..... Done!
America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch,
a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent
and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a
far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli
occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria,
Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced.
Europe
is under siege by endless tides of refugees that are the direct consequence of America's neo-Conservative
and militant foreign policy. Meanwhile, America's neo-liberal economic and trade policies have
not only decimated her own manufacturing base and led to gross inequality but also massive dislocations
in South America, Middle East, Europe, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Tired, irritated, frustrated,
exhausted, cynical, violent, moral-less, deeply corrupt, and rudderless, America is effectively
bankrupt and on the verge of becoming another Greece, if not for the saving grace of the petro-Dollar.
Europe would be well-advised to keep the Yanks at arm's length so as to escape as much as possible
the fallout from her complete collapse. As for Britain, soon to be divorced from the EU, time
draws nigh to end the humiliating, one-sided servitude that is the 'Special Relationship' and
forge an independent foreign policy. The tectonic plates of history is again shifting, and there
nothing America can do to stop it.
I don't know America probably occupies the most prime geographical spot on the planet, and buffered
by two oceans. It doesn't have to worry about refugees and the other problems and ultimately they
can produce enough food and meet all of its energy needs domestically. And it's the third most
populous nation on earth and could easily grow its population with immigration.
The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations
except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other
nations including the UK is as well.
Given the facts it would be daft a write off America. Every European nation have lost their
number one spot in history and they seem to be doing just fine. Is there some reason why this
can't be America's destiny as well? Does it really have to end in flames?
"China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia."
These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle
Sam's "yes man".
The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with
their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using
force is beyond stupidity.
Pivot to Asia is about one thing only, sending more war ships to encircle China. But for what
purpose exactly? It does one thing though, it united china by posing as a threat.
Those blaming Obama most stridently for not keeping China in its box are those most responsible
for China's rise. American and Western companies shafted their own people to make themselves more
profit. They didn't care what the consequences might be, as long as the lmighty "Shareholder Value"
continued to rise. Now they demand that the taxes from all those people whose jobs they let go
be used to contain the new superpower that they created. As usual, Coroporate America messes
things up then demands to know what someone else is going to do about it
Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world
would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia.
Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior
would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war,
banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations".
Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not
surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy.
fuck his pivot.....this ain't syria.....having destroyed the middle east it was our turn.....this
is americas exceptionalism........stay #1 by desabilising/destroying everyone else.....p.s. shove
the TPP also..........
The real question is why should not China be more dominant in Asia... i understands the USA tendency
especially since the fall of the soviet union at seing themselves as the only world superpower.
And i understand why China would like to balance tbat especially in her own neighborhood.
Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico
or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely
across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines,... and considering that the
chinese have a long memory of werstern gunboat diplomacy and naval for e projection, if i was
them i would feel a little uncomfortable at how vulnerable my newfound trade is... especially
when some western politician so clearly think that china needs to be contained...
China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth.
In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's
$60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum.
Much of this money has been funnelled into 'investments' that will never yield a return. The most almighty crash is coming. Which will be interesting to say the least.
Now that is interesting but odd. They are buying phuqing HUGE swathes of land in Africa, investing
everywhere they can on rest of the planet. All seemingly on domestic debt then.
Yes. The Japanese went on a spending spree abroad in the 1980s, while accumulating debt at home,
and when that popped the economy entered 20 years of stagnation, as bad debts hampered the financial
system.
The Chinese bubble is far larger, and made worse by the fact that much of the debt has been
taken on by inefficient state owned enterprises and local government, spending not because the
figures make sense but to meet centrally-dictated growth targets. Much of the rest has been funnelled
into real estate, which now makes up more than twice the share of the Chinese economy than is
the case in the UK. Property prices in some major Chinese cities have reached up to 30 times local
incomes, making London look cheap in comparison.
TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit
every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations
and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests
of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly
opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There
is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even
consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the
issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does.
As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations.
Don't believe for a second Hillary won't ram through a version of the TPP/IP if she wins. What
she's actually said is that she's against it in its current form
Remember she is part of an owned by the 0.1% that stand to benefit from the agreement, she
will do their bidding and be well rewarded. A few cosmetic changes will be applied to the agreement
so she can claim that she wasn't lying pre-election and we'll have to live with the consequences.
Well done all you globalists for failing to spot the bleedin obvious...that millions of homes
worldwide full of 'Made In China' was ultimately going to pay for the People's Liberation
Army. Still think globalisation is wonderful ?
Quite. How can you believe in a liberal, global free market and then do business with the Socialist
Republic of China, that is the antithesis of free markets. The name is above the door, so there's
no use acting all surprised when it doesn't pan out the way you planned it.
Anything good can be made evil, including globalization. Imagine fair trade completely globalized
so very nation relies on every other nation for goods. That type of shared destiny is the only
way to maintain peace because humans are tribalist to a fault. We evolved in small groups, our
social dynamics are not well suited to large diverse groups. If nation has food but nation B does
not, nation B will go to war with nation A, so hopefully both nations trade and alleviate that
situation. Nations with high economic isolation are beset by famines and poverty. Germany usually
beats China in total exports and Germany is a wonderful place to live. It's not globalization
that is the problem, it's exploitation and failure of our leaders to follow and enforce the Golden
Rule.
Roll out the barrel.....
Well said and you are so right.
15 years ago, I had a conversation in an airport with an American. I remarked that, by outsourcing
manufacturing to China the US had sold its future to an entity that would prove to be their enemy
before too long. I was derided and ridiculed. I wonder where that man is and whether he remembers
our conversation.
Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one
police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won
freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a
moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes.
I despair of "normalcy bias" and the insulting term "conspiracy theorist". People have lost
the ability to work things out for themselves and the majority knows nothing about Agenda 21 aka
Sustainable Development Goals 2030, until the land grabs start and private ownership is outlawed.
... the study also suggests that, if war cannot be avoided, the US might be best advised to
strike first, before China gets any stronger and the current US military advantage declines further
..
Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip ....
Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is
madness.
I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts
to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering?
1. With respect, Mr Tidsall is badly off track in painting China as the one evil facing an innocent
world.
2. The fact is that US' belief in and repeated resort to force has created a huge mess in the
Middle East, brought true misery to millions, and truly thrown Europe in turmoil in the bargain.
3. Besides this Middle East mess, the US neoliberal economic policies have wreaked havoc, culminating
in an unprecedented financial and economic crisis that has left millions all over the world without
any hope for the future
4. Hence Mr Tidsall's pronouncement:
This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive China without compromising
or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.
Ought to read:
This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive United States
without compromising or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.
5. US would be better advised to focus on its growing social problems, evident in the growing
random killings, police picking on blacks, etc, and on its fast decaying infrastructure. We now
read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just kills and
kills all over the world.
6. Mr Tidsall, may I request that you kindly focus on realities rather than come up with opinion
that approaches science fiction
I agree that Mr Tisdall's treatment of the US is somewhat naive and ignorant. However couldn't
it be that both countries are capable of aggression and assertiveness? The US's malign influence
is mainly focussed on the Middle East and North Africa region, while China's is on its neighbours.
China's attitude to Taiwan is pure imperialism, as is its treatment of dissenting voices on the
mainland and in Hong Kong. China's contempt for international law and the binding ruling by the
UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal is also deeply harmful to peace and justice in the region and worldwide.
We now read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just
kills and kills all over the world.
Very superficial indeed - compare, just as one example, the number of Nobel prizes won by American
scientists recently with those by Chinese. The US is still, in general, far ahead of China in
terms of scientific research (though China is making rapid progress). (That is not intended to
excuse US killing of course.)
The US follows the USSR path of increasingly ignoring the needs of its own population in order
to retain global dominance. It will end the same as the USSR. That which cannot continue will
not continue.
Xi is not looking for a fight. His first-choice agent of change is money, not munitions.
According to Xi's "One Belt, One Road" plan, his preferred path to 21st-century Chinese hegemony
is through expanded trade, business and economic partnerships extending from Asia to the Middle
East and Africa. China's massive Silk Road investments in central and west Asian oil and gas
pipelines, high-speed rail and ports, backed by new institutions such as the Asia Infrastructure
Investment Bank, are part of this strategy, which simultaneously encourages political and economic
dependencies. Deng Xiaoping once said to get rich is glorious. Xi might add it is also empowering.
The most realistic assessment on Xi and China.
The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to
have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two
spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course.
A Grim and over-paranoid predicament: US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition";
China is well aware it remains a poor nation compared to developed world and is decades behind
of US in military, GDP per capital and science, that is not including civil liberty, citizen participation,
Gov't transparency and so on. China is busy building a nation confident of its culture and history,
military hegemony plays no part of its dream.
US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition"
Oh come on, $20 Trillion in debt and with Social Security running out of money, there will
be no more to lend the government.
China has forged an agreement with Russia for all its needs in oil ( Russia has more oil than
Saudi Arabia) and payment will not be in US dollars. Russia will not take US$ for trade and the
BRICS nations will squeeze the US$ out of its current situation as reserve currency. When the
dollars all find their way back to the USA hyperinflation will cause misery.
Before the Chinese or anyone else gets any ideas, they should reflect on the size of the US defence
budget, 600 billion dollars in 2015, and consider what that might imply in the event of conflict.
a third of that budget goes in profit for the private companies they employ to make duds like
the F35 - so you can immediately reduce that to 400 billion. The US have been fighting third world
countries for 50 years, and losing, their military is bloated, out of date and full of retrograde
gear that simply wont cut it against the Russians. Privately you would find that most top line
military agree with that statement. They also have around 800 bases scattered world wide, spread
way too thin. Its why theyve stalled in Ukraine and can't handle the middle east. The Russians
spend less than $50 billion but have small, highly mobile forces, cutting edge missile defence
systems (which will have full airspace coverage by 2017). The Chinese policy of A2D/AD or access
denial has got the US surface fleet marooned out in the oceans as any attempt to get close enough
to be effective would be met with a hail of multiple rocket shedding war heads. The only place
where it is probable (but my no means certain) that the US still has the edge is in submarine
warfare, although again if the Russians and Chinese have full coverage of their airspace nothing
(or little) would get through.
Two theorys are in current operation about the election and the waring factions in the NSA and
the CIA 1) HRC wins but is too much of a warmonger and would push america into more wars they
simply cannot win 2) there is a preference for Trump to win amongst the MIC because he would (temporarily)
seek 'peace' with the Russians thus giving the military the chance to catch up - say in 3 or 4
years - plus all the billions and billions of dollars that would mean for them.
Overwhelming fire power no longer wins wars, the US have proved that year in year out since
the end of the second world war, theyve lost every war theyve started/caused/joined in. Unless
you count that limited skirmish on British soil in Grenada - and I guess we could call Korea a
score draw. The yanks are bust and they know it, the neocons are all bluster and idiots like Breedlove,
Power and Nuland are impotent because they don't have right on their side or the might to back
it up. The US is mired in the middle east, locked out of asia and would grind to halt in Europe
against the Russians. (every NATO wargame simulation in the last 4 years has conclusively shown
this) Add to that the fact that the overwhelming majority of US citizens dont have the appetite
for a conventional war and in the event of a nuclear war the US would suffer at least as much
as Europe and youve got a better picture of where we are at.
Well it is just ABOUT money.Also during Vietnam and Iraq war US was biggest spender.
Nobody in US still thinks that Vietnam war was a good idea and the same applies to Iraq.Iraq war
will be even in history books for biggest amount spend to achieve NOTHING.
Chinese military spending is at least on a par with American. A huge part of American military
money goes to personnel salary while China does NOT pay to Chinese soldiers for their service
as China holds a compulsory military service system.
This article assumes China is evil and the US is the righteous protector of all nations in the
SE Asian region against the evil China which is obviously out to destroy the hapless SE Asian
nations. This assumption is obviously nonsense. The US itself is rife with racial problems. Everybody
has seen what it had done to Vietnam. Nobody believes that a racist US that cares nothing for
the welfare of its own black, Latino and Asian population will actually care for the welfare of
the same peoples outside of the US and especially in SE Asia.
The truth is China is not the evil destroyer of nations. The truth is the US is the evil destroyer
of nations. The US has brought nothing but bloodshed and destruction to the SE Asian regions for
the last 200 years. The US had killed millions of Filipinos during it colonial era. The US had
killed millions of Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. The US had incited pogroms against the ethnic
Chinese unceasingly. The May 13 massacre in Malaysia, the anti-Chinese massacres in the 1960's
and the 1990's in Indonesia, and many other discrimination and marginalization of ethnic Chinese
throughout the entire SE Asia are all the works of the US. It is the US that is the killer and
destroyer.
Therefore, it is a good thing that the evil intents of the US had failed. With the all but
inevitable rise of China, the influence of the Japanese and the americans will inevitably wane.
The only danger to China is the excessive xenocentrism of the Dengist faction who is selling out
China to these dangerous enemies. If the CPC government sold out China's domestic economy, then
China will become a colony of the Japanese and americans without firing a single shot. And the
Chinese economy will slide into depression as it had done in the Qing Dynasty and Chinese influence
in the SE Asian region will collapse.
Therefore, the task before the CPC government is to ban all foreign businesses out of China's
domestic economy, upgrade and expand China's education and R&D, urbanize the rural residents and
expand the Chinese military, etc. With such an independent economic, political and military policies,
China will at once make itself the richest and the most powerful nation in the world dwarfing
the Japanese and American economies and militaries. China can then bring economic prosperity and
stability to the SE Asian region by squeezing the evil Japanese and americans out of the region.
Lets be honest what has Obama achieved,he got the Nobel peace prize for simply not being George
Bush Jr he has diplayed a woeful lack of leadership with Russia over Syria Libya and the Chinese
Simply being the first African American president will not be a legacy
Do you know of one Leninist state that ever built a prosperous modern industrial nation? Therein
lies the advantage and the problem with China. China is totally export dependant and therefore
its customers can adversely affect its economy - put enough chinese out of work and surely political
instability will follow. A threatened dictatorship with a large army, however, is a danger to
its neighbors and the world.
China are now net consumers. You need to read up on whats happening, not from just the western
press. They are well on their way to becoming the most powerful nation on earth, they have access
(much like Russia) to over two thirds of the population of the worlds consumers and growing (this
is partially why sanctions against Russia have been in large part meaningless) China will never
want for buyers of their products (the iphone couldnt be made without the Chinese) with the vast
swaithes of unplumbed Russian resources becoming available to them its hard to see how the west
can combat the Eurasians. The wealth is passing from west to east, its a natural cycle the 'permanant
growth' monkies in the west have been blind to by their own greed and egotism. Above all the Chinese
are a trading nation, always seeking win/win trading links. The west would be better employed
trading and linking culturally with the Chinese rather than trying to dictate with military threats.
The west comprises only 18% of the global population and our growth and wealth is either exhausted
or locked away in vaults where it is doing no one any good. Tinme to wise up or get left behind.
Tisdall...absolute war-monger and neo-con "dog of war". Is this serious journalism? The rise of
China was as inevitable as the rise of the US in the last century..."no man can put a stop to
the march of a nation". It's Asias century and it's not the first time for China to be the No
1 economy in the world. They have been here before and have much more wisdom than the west...for
too long the tail has wagged the dog...suck it up Tisdall!
The US grand strategy post-Bush was to reposition itself at the heart of a liberal economic system
excluding China through TTIP with the EU and TPP with Asia-Pac ex. China and Russia. The idea
was that this would enable the US to sustain its hegemony.
It has been an absolute failure. Brexit has torpedoed TTIP and TPP has limited value- the largest
economy in the partnership, Japan, has been largely integrated in to the US for the past 70 years.
IMO the biggest failure of the US has been hating Russia too much. The Russians have just as
much reason to be afraid of China as the US do and have a pretty capable army. If the US patched
things up with the Russians, firstly it could redeploy forces and military effort away from the
Middle East towards Asia Pac and secondly it would give the US effective leverage over China-
with the majority of the oil producing nations aligned with the US, China would have difficulty
in conducted a sustained conflict. It's old Cold War thinking that has seen America lose its hegemony-
similar to how the British were so focused on stopping German ascendancy they didn't see the Americans
coming with the knife.
America is reaping the fruits of what they sowed during the time of Reagan. It was never a good
idea to outsource your entire manufacturing industry to a country that is a dictatorship and does
not embrace western liberal democratic values. Now the Americans are hopelessly dependent on China
- a country that does not play by the rules in any sphere - it censors free speech, it blatantly
violates intellectual property, it displays hostile intent towards nearly all South East Asian
countries, its friends include state sponsors of terror like Pakistan and North Korea, it is carefully
cultivating the enemies of America and the west in general.
In no way, shape or form does China fulfill the criteria for being a trustworthy partner of
the west. And yet today, China holds all the cards in its relationship with the west, with the
western consumerist economies completely dependent on China. Moral of the story - Trade and economics
cannot be conducted in isolation, separate from geopolitical realities. Doing so is a recipe for
disaster.
Mr Tisdall should declare his affiliation, if any, with the military-industrial complex.
It is surprising coming from a Briton which tried to contain Germany and fought two
wars destroying itself and the empire. War may be profitable for military-industrial complex
but disastrous for everyone else. In world war 2, USA benefited enormously by ramping
up war material production and creating millions of job which led to tremendous
prosperity turning the country around from a basket case in 1930s to a big prosperous power
which dominated the world till 2003.
US insistence on being top cat in a changing world will end up by dragging us all into a WW III.
Why can't the US leave the rest of the world alone? Americans do not need a military presence
to do business with the rest of the world and earn a lot of money with such trade. And they are
too ignorant, too unsophisticate and too weak to be able to impose their will on the rest of us.
The (very) ugly Americans are back and all we want is for them to go back home and forever remain
there... The sooner the better...
The world is going to look fantastically different in a hundred years time.
Points of world power will go back to where they was traditionally; Europe and Asia. America
is a falling power, it doesn't get the skilled European immigrants it use to after German revolution
and 2 world wars. And it's projected white population will be a minority by 2050. America's future
lies with south America.
Australia with such a massive country but with a tiny population of 20million will look very
attractive to China. It's future lies with a much stronger commonwealth, maybe a united military
and economic commonwealth between the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Even without the EU, Europe is going to have to work together, including Russia to beat the
Chinese militarily and economically. America will not be the same power in another 30-50 years
and would struggle to beat them now.
China are expansionists, always have been. War is coming with them and North Korea sometime
in the future.
From the article above, it is clear who is the more dangerous power. While China is aiming to
be the hegemon through economic means like the neo silk road projects, the US is aiming to maintain
its hegemon status through military power. The US think thank even suggest to preemptive strike
against China to achieve that. This is also the problem with US pivot to Asia, it may fail to
contain China, but it didn't fail to poison the atmosphere in Asia. Asia has never been this dangerous
since the end of cold war, all thanks to the pivot.
Obama is trying to maintain the status quo. China and N. Korea are the ones pushing military intimidation.
The key to the US plan is to form an alliance between countries in the region that historically
distrust each other. The Chinese are helping that by threatening everybody at the same time. Tisdall
sees this conflict strictly as between the US and China. Obama's plan is to form a group of countries
to counter China. Japan will have a major role in this alliance but the problem is whether the
other victims of WW2 Japanese aggression will agree to it.
The US's disastrous foreign policy since 9/11 which has unleashed so much chaos in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc etc... is not exactly a commendation for credibility these days.
A useful summary of the state of play in the Pacific and SCS. It is somewhat hawkish in analysis,
military fantasists will always be legion, they should be listened to with extra large doses of
salt, or discussion of arguments which favour peaceful cooperation and development, such as trade,
cultural relations, and natural stalemates. American anxiety at its own perception of decline,
is at least as dangerous for the world as the immature expression of rising Chinese confidence.
But the biggest problem it seems we face, is finding a way to accommodate and translate the aspirations
of rising global powers with the existing order established post-45, in incarnated in the UN and
other international bodies, in international maritime law as in our western notions of universal
human rights. Finding a way for China to express origination of these ideas compatible with its
own history, to be able to proclaim them as a satisfactory settlement for human relations, is
an ideal, but apparently unpromising task.
Perhaps Samuel P Huntingdon was broadly correct when he wrote "The Clash of Civilizations" in
the late 90's. He was criticized for his work by neo-liberals who believed that after the Cold
War the rest of the world would follow the west and US in particular.
The problem with the neo-liberal view is that only their opinions on issues are correct, and
all others therefore should be ridiculed. What has happened in Ukraine is a prime example. Huntingdon
called the Ukraine a "cleft" country split between Russia and Europe. The EU and the US decided
to stir up trouble in the Ukraine to get even with Putin over Syria. It was never about EU or
NATO membership for the Ukraine which is now further away than ever.
A Trump presidency is regarded with fear. The Obama presidency has been a failure with regard
to foreign policy and a major reason was because Clinton was Secretary of State in the 1st four
years. In many ways a Clinton presidency is every bit as dangerous as a Trump presidency.
Certainly relations with Russia will be worse under Clinton than under Trump, and for the rest
of the world that is not a good thing. To those that believe liek Clinton that Putin is the new
Hitler, then start cleaning out the nuclear bunkers. If he is then WW3 is coming like it or not
and Britain better start spending more on defence.
What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah.
ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals
like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football.
Never mind that a general, high-intensity war in Northern Asia would be disastrous for all involved,
whatever the outcome.
Never mind that much of the discussion about containing China is by warmongers urging such
a conflict.
Never mind that very little depth in fact lies behind the shell of American and Japanese military
strength, or that a competently-run Chinese government is well able to grossly outproduce "us"
all in war materiel.
Never mind that those same warmongers and neocons drove and drive a succession of Imperial
disasters; they remain much-praised centres of attention, just as the banksters and rentiers that
are sucking the life from Americans have never had it so good.
Never mind that abbott encouraged violence as the automatic reaction to problems, while his
Misgovernment was (while Turnbull to a lesser extent still is) working hard to destroy the economic
and social strengths we need to have any chance of surmounting those problems.
Yes, it is a proper precaution to have a military strength that can deny our approaches to
China. Unfortunately that rather disregards that "we" have long pursued a policy of globalisation
involving the destruction of our both own manufacturing and our own merchant navy. Taken together
with non-existent fuel reserves, "our" military preparations are pointless, because we would have
to surrender within a fortnight were China to mount even a partial maritime blockade of Australia.
What I don't quite understand is how all this comes as any surprise to those in the know. China
has been on target to be the #1 economic power in the world in this decade for at least 30 years.
And who made it so? Western capitalists. China is now not only the world's industrial heartbeat,
it also owns a large proportion of Western debt - despite the fact that its differences with the
West (not least being a one-party Communist state) couldn't be more obvious - and while I doubt
it's in its interests to destabilise its benefactorrs at the moment, that may not always be the
case.
It also has another problem: In fifty or sixty years time it is due to be overtaken by India,
which gives it very little time to develop ASEAN in its own image; but I suspect that it's current
"silk glove" policy is far smarter and more cost-effective than any American "iron fist".
The US is just worried about losing out on markets and further exploitation. They should have
no authority over China's interest in the South China Sea. If China do rise to the point were
they can affect foreign governments, they will unlikely be as brutal as the United States. [Indonesia
1964, Congo 1960s, Brazil 1964, Chile 1973, Central America 1980s, Egyptian military aid, Saudi
support, Iraq 2003, the Structural Adjustments of the IMF]
Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire
similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially
in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and
also become global military power.
While many Europeans and others including our current GOP party
thinks we are the global empire and we should stick our nose everywhere, our people doesn't we
are an empire or we should stick our nose in every trouble spot in the world spending our blood
and treasure to fight others battles and get blame when everything goes wrong. President Obama
doesn't think of himself as Julius Ceaser and America is not Rome.
He will be remembered as one
of our greatest president ever setting a course for this country's foreign policy towards trying
to solve the world's problems through alliances and cooperation with like minded countries as
the opposite of the war mongering brainless, trigger happy GOP presidents. However when lesser
powers who preach xenophobia and destabilize their neighborhood through annexation as the Hitler
like Putin has, he comes down with a hammer using tools other than military to punish the aggressor.
All you need to do is watch what is happening to the Russian economy since he imposed sanctions
to the Mafiso Putin.
This article is completely misleading and the author is constricting himself in his statement
that Obama's pivot to Asia is a failure. Since China tried to annex the Islands near the Philippines,
countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, India, etc. has ask the US for more cooperation
both military and economically these countries were moving away from US under Bush and others
so I think this is a win for Obama not a loss. Unlike the idiotic Russians, China is a clever
country and is playing global chess in advancing her foreign policy goals. While the US cannot
do anything with China's annexation of these disputed Islands has costs her greatly because the
Asian countries effected by China's moves are running towards the US, this is a win for the US.
China's popularity around her neighborhood has taken a nose dive similar to Russian's popularity
around her neighborhood. These are long term strategic wins for the US, especially if Hillary
wins the white house and carry's on Obama's mantel of speaking softly but carry a big stick. Obama
will go down as our greatest foreign policy president by building alliances in Europe to try stop
Mafioso Putin and alliances in Asia to curtail China's foreign policy ambitions. This author's
thesis is pure bogus, because he doesn't indicate what Obama should have done to make him happy?
Threaten Chine military confertation?
All you have to do is go back 8 years ago and compare our last two presidents and you can see
where Obama is going.
For the allusion to Rome, I think they act like the old empire when they had to send their army
to keep the peace....and it is an empire of the 21 first century, not like the old ones (Assange).
China needs western consumerism to maintain its manufacturing base. If China's growth impacts
the ability of the West to maintain its standard of consumerism, then China will need a new source
of affluent purchaser. If China's own citizens become affluent, they will expect a standard of
living commensurate with that status, accordingly China will not be able to maintain its manufacturing
base.
So the options for China are:
a) Prop up western economies until developing nations in Africa and South America (themselves
heavily dependent on the West) reach a high standard of consumerism.
b) Divide China into a ruling class, and a worker class, in which the former is a parasite
on the latter.
The current tactic seems to be to follow option b, until option a becomes viable.
However, the longer option a takes to develop, and therefore the longer option b is in effect,
the greater the chances of counter-revolution (which at this stage is probably just revolution).
The long and the short of it, is that China is boned.
Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments'
priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to
leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US.
It's got it's hands full
at home. As long as the West doesn't try to get involved in what China sees as its historical
territory (i.e. The big rooster shaped landmass plus Hainan and Hong Kong and various little islands)
there's absolutely nothing to worry about.
Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage
the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any
pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. There is absolutely nothing
exceptional about a power not admitting publicly what is known to many,see the outpourings of
the British elites during the end of its empire.
As usual the Guardian is on its anti-China horse. Look through this article and every move China
has made is "aggressive" or when it tries to expand trade (and produce win win economic conditions)
it is "hegemonic" while the US is just trying to protect us all and is dealing with the "Chinese
threat" -- a threat to their economic interests and global imperial hegemony is what they mean.
The US still maintains a "one China" policy and the status quo is exactly that "one China"
It would be great for someone in the west to review the historical record instead of arming Taiwan
to the teeth. Additionally, before China ever started its island construction the US had already
begun the "pivot to Asia" which now is huge with nuclear submarines patrolling all around China,
nuclear weapons on the - two aircraft carrier fleets now threatening China - very rare for the
US to have two aircraft carrier fleets in the same waters - the B-1 long range nuclear bombers
now in Australia, and even more belligerent the US intends to deploy THAAD missals in South Korea
- using North Korea as an excuse to further seriously threaten China.
China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with
whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony.
Just look around the world - where are the conflicts - the middle east and Africa - who is
there with military and arms sales and bombing seven countries -- is it China?
The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the
nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries
for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China.
The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total
global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions
of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin
they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial
US.
"... Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't that the Neoliberal end game? ..."
"... The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner of Europe and the US. ..."
"... And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong with this picture? ..."
"... "Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy" says the heading. So Obama's "Asian pivot" was meant to thwart China's development. ..."
"... And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force, e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits. ..."
"... They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional. ..."
"... "These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help. ..."
"... Now we are waking up to the realisation that we are the big loosers of globalisation. ..."
"... "The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid. ..."
"... I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil. ..."
"... The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys totalled almost 3bn. ..."
"... By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight. ..."
"... a collapse of the chinese economy would collapse the American economy as well ..."
"... Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government. ..."
"... America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch, a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced ..."
"... The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other nations including the UK is as well. ..."
"... "China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia." These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle Sam's "yes man". ..."
"... The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using force is beyond stupidity. ..."
"... It also destabilises the entire region. Something the Americans are masters of. ..."
"... Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia. ..."
"... Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war, banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations". ..."
"... Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy. ..."
"... Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines ..."
"... China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth. In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's $60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum. ..."
"... TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does. As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations. ..."
"... Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes. ..."
"... Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip .... ..."
"... They tell their employers what they want to hear. ..."
"... Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is madness. I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering? ..."
"... The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course. ..."
"... What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah. ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football. ..."
"... Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and also become global military power. ..."
"... Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments' priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US. ..."
"... Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. ..."
"... China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony. ..."
"... The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China. ..."
"... The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial US. ..."
Before the pivot could even get underway the Saudis threw their rattle out of the pram and drew
US focus back to the Middle East and proxy war two steps removed with Russia. Empires don't get
to focus, they react to each event and seek to gain from the outcome so the whole pivot idea was
flawed.
Obama's foreign policy has been clumsy and amoral. It remains to be seen whether it will become
more so in an effort to double down. Under Clinton it definitely will, under Trump who knows but
random isn't a recommendation.
Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different
game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't
that the Neoliberal end game?
So the Rand Think Tank would sooner have war now than later. Who wouldda guessed that.
The Chinese want to improve trade and business with the rest of the world. The US answer? destroy
China militarily. so who best to lead the world. I think the article answers that question unintentionally.
The rest of the world has had it up to the ears with American military invasions, regeime changes,
occupations and bombing of the world. They are ready for China´s approach to international relations.
it is about time the adults took over the leadership of the world. Europe and the USA and their
offspring have clearly failed.
China has been handed everything it needs to fly solo: money, factories, IP, etc. Fast forwarding
into the western civic model limits (traffic, pollution, etc.), its best bet is to offload US
"interests" and steer clear.
No clear sign India's learned/recovered from British occupation, as they let tech create more
future Kanpurs.
The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner
of Europe and the US.
Was it really worth expanding NATO to Russia's borders instead of offering neutrality to former
Soviet States and thus retain Russia's confidence in global matters that far out weigh the interests
of the neo-cons?
neutrality? Russia invaded non-NATO members Georgie, Ukraine, and Moldavia, and created puppet-states
on their soil.
The Jremlin-rules are simple: the former Sovjet states should be ruled by a pro-Russian dictator
(Bella-Russia, Kazachstan, etc. etc...). Democracies face boycots, diplomatic and military support
of rebels, and in the end simply a military invasion.
The only reason why the baltic states are now thriving democracies, is that they are NATO members.
And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently
bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with
their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong
with this picture?
When Obama took office his first major speech was in Cairo - where he said
"I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around
the world," US President Barack Obama said to the sounds of loud applause which rocked not
only the hall, but the world. "One based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based
upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead,
they overlap, and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and
the dignity of all human beings."
He displayed a dangerous mix of innocence, foolishness, disregard for the truth and misunderstanding
of the nature of Islamic regimes - does the West have common values with Lebanon which practices
apartheid for Palestinians, Saudi, where women cannot drive a car, Syria, where over 17,000 have
died in Assad's torture chambers, we can go on and on.
And on China - Trump has it right - China has been manipulating its currency exchange rate
for years, costing western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits and something
needs to be done about it.
" America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap,
and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of
all human beings. "
He spoke about the whole of Islam, not specific " Islamic regimes ". And he is correct
on it. All religions share a great deal of values with the USAmerican constition and even each
other .
The overwhelming majority of USAmerican muslims have accepted the melting pot with their whole
heart, second generation children have JOINED its fighting forces to protect the interest of the
USA all over the world. Normally this full an integration is reached with the third generation.
The west has won against those religious fanatics. How else to explain that exactly the people
those claim to speak turn up with us?
And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones
who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force,
e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They
are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits.
They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American
corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have
to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional.
"These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing
US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help.
Interesting in particular to see RAND is still in its Cold War mindset. There's famous footage
of RAND analysts in the 60s (I think) discussing putative nuclear war with the USSR and concluding
that the US was certain of 'victory' following a missile exchange because its surviving population
(after hundreds of millions of deaths and the destruction of almost all urban centres) would be
somewhat larger.
China's island claims are all about a broader strategic aim- getting unencumbered access to
the Pacific for its growing blue water navy. It's not aimed at Taiwan or Japan in any sort of
specific sense and, save for the small possibility of escalation following an accident (ships
colliding or something), there's very little risk of conflict in at least the medium term.
It's crucial to remember just how much China and the US depend upon each other economically.
The US is by far China's largest single export market, powering its manufacturing economy. In
return, China uses the surplus to buy up US debt, which allows the Americans to borrow cheaply
and keep the lights on. Crash China and you crash the US- and vice versa.
For now, China is basically accepting an upgraded number 2 spot (along with the US acknowledging
them as part of a 'G2'), but supporting alternative governance structures when it doesn't like
the ones controlled by the US/Japan (so the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the BRICS etc.).
This doesn't mean that the two don't see each other as long term strategic and economic rivals.
But the risks to both of rocking the boat are gigantic and not in the interest of either party
in the foreseeable future. Things that could change that:
a. a succession of Trump-like US presidents (checks and balances are probably sufficient to
withstand one, were it to come to that);
b. a revolution in China (possible if the economy goes South- and what comes next is probably
not liberal democracy but anti-Japanese or anti-US authoritarian nationalism);
c. an unpredictable chain of events arising from N Korean collapse or a regional nuclear race
(Japan-China is a more likely source of conflict than US-China).
"The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would
be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries
mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to
the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US
is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid.
The writing is on the wall: the future is with China. All the US can do is make nice or reap the
dire consequences. If China can clean up its human rights record, I would be happy to see them
supplant or rival the US as a global hegemon. After all, looked at historically, haven't they
earned it? - An American, born and bred, but no nationalist
Well, that is naďve. Look at China and how the Chinese people are governed. Look at the US. And
please don't tell me you don't see a difference. I'll take a world with the US as the global hegemon
any day.
A regional counter balance is needed. Cooperation is hindered by Japan. They should be the center
point of a regional alliance strong enough to contain China with US help, but it doesn't work:
whilst everybody fears China, everybody hates Japan.
The reason is they failed miserably to rebuild trust after WWII, rather than going cap in hand,
acknowledging respondibility for atrocities and other crimes and injustice, and compensate victims,
they kept their pride and isolation. They are now paying the price - possibly together with the
rest of us.
Maybe a full scale change after 7 decades of to-little-to-late diplomacy can still achieve
sth.
The ass the US should kick sits in Tokyo - something they failed to do properly after WWII,
when they managed it well in West Germany (ok - they had help from the Brits there, who for all
their failings understand foreign nations far better), where it facilitated proper integration
into European cooperation.
I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil.
Countries that do well don't need to crack down on dissidents to the point of kidnappings
or spend millions of stupid man made islands that pisses everyone off but have all the military
value of a threatening facial tattoo. The South China Sea tactics is partially Chinese "push until
something pushes back" diplomacy but also stems from the harsh realisation that their resources
can be easily choked of and even the CPC knows it can't hold down a billion plus Chinese people
once the hunger sets it.
China is facing the dilemna that as it brings people out of poverty it reduces the supply of
the very cheap labor that makes it rich. You can talk about Lenovo all you want, no one is buying
a Chinese car anytime soon. Nor is any airline outside of China going to buy one of their planes.
Copyright fraud is one thing the West can retaliate easily upon and will if they feel China has
gone too far. Any product found in a western court to be a blatant copy can effectively be banned.
The next step is to refuse to recognize Chinese copyright on the few genuine innovations that
come out of it.
Plus the deal Deng Xiaoping made with the urban classes is fraying. It was wealth in exchange
for subservience. The people in the cities stay out of direct politics but quality of life issues,
safety, petty corruption and pollution are angering them and scaring them hence the vast amount
of private Chinese money being sunk into global real estate.
The military growth and dubious technobabble is just typical Chinese mianzi gaining. If you
do have a brand new jet stealth jet fighter, you don't release pictures of it to the world press.
They got really rattled when Shinzo Abe decided the JSDF can go and deliver slappings abroad to
help their friends if needed. Because an army that spends a lot of time rigging up Michael Bayesque
set maneuvers for the telly is not what you want to pit against top notch technology handled by
obsessive perfectionists.
No one plays hardball with China because we all like cheap shit. But once that is over then
China is a very vulnerable country with not one neighbour they can call a friend. They know it.
Obama hasn't failed.. It's the histrionics that prove it not the other way round.
The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing
up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China
and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly
the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys
totalled almost 3bn.
No-one is buying a Chinese car? Check the sales for Wuling. They produce the small vans that
are the lifeblood of the small entrepreneur. BYD are already exporting electric buses to London.
The likes of VW, BMW, Land Rover, are all in partnership with Chinese auto-makers and China is
the largest car market in the world.
Corruption has been actively attacked and over a quarter of a million officials have been brought
to book in Xi's time in office. The pollution causing steel and coal industries are being rapidly
contracted and billions spent on re-training.
Plus the fact that while the Chinese are mianzi gazing, the last thing they think about is
politics. They simply don't want to know.
By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has
just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight.
The conclusion is that bi-lateral talks, not US led pissing contests are the way forward.
"What has happened is the ICA has ruled against China in the SCS..." Nothing new. The UN Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf had also ruled against the
UK and the International Court of Justice had ruled against the US.
Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling
of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for
all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government.
Just look at how gobsmacked the US Military & President were over such a stupidly undertaken
sale by the LNP. This diplomatically lunatic sell off by the LNP of such a vital national asset
has effectively taken-out any influence or impact Australia may have, or exert, over critical
issues happening on our northern doorstep.
If there was ever a case for buying back a strategic national asset, this is definitely the
one. Oh, if folks are worried about the $Billions in penalties incurred, simple solution - just
stop the $Billions of Diesel Fuel Rebates gifted to Miners for, say, 10 years..... Done!
America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch,
a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent
and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a
far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli
occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria,
Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced.
Europe
is under siege by endless tides of refugees that are the direct consequence of America's neo-Conservative
and militant foreign policy. Meanwhile, America's neo-liberal economic and trade policies have
not only decimated her own manufacturing base and led to gross inequality but also massive dislocations
in South America, Middle East, Europe, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Tired, irritated, frustrated,
exhausted, cynical, violent, moral-less, deeply corrupt, and rudderless, America is effectively
bankrupt and on the verge of becoming another Greece, if not for the saving grace of the petro-Dollar.
Europe would be well-advised to keep the Yanks at arm's length so as to escape as much as possible
the fallout from her complete collapse. As for Britain, soon to be divorced from the EU, time
draws nigh to end the humiliating, one-sided servitude that is the 'Special Relationship' and
forge an independent foreign policy. The tectonic plates of history is again shifting, and there
nothing America can do to stop it.
I don't know America probably occupies the most prime geographical spot on the planet, and buffered
by two oceans. It doesn't have to worry about refugees and the other problems and ultimately they
can produce enough food and meet all of its energy needs domestically. And it's the third most
populous nation on earth and could easily grow its population with immigration.
The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations
except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other
nations including the UK is as well.
Given the facts it would be daft a write off America. Every European nation have lost their
number one spot in history and they seem to be doing just fine. Is there some reason why this
can't be America's destiny as well? Does it really have to end in flames?
"China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia."
These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle
Sam's "yes man".
The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with
their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using
force is beyond stupidity.
Pivot to Asia is about one thing only, sending more war ships to encircle China. But for what
purpose exactly? It does one thing though, it united china by posing as a threat.
Those blaming Obama most stridently for not keeping China in its box are those most responsible
for China's rise. American and Western companies shafted their own people to make themselves more
profit. They didn't care what the consequences might be, as long as the lmighty "Shareholder Value"
continued to rise. Now they demand that the taxes from all those people whose jobs they let go
be used to contain the new superpower that they created. As usual, Coroporate America messes
things up then demands to know what someone else is going to do about it
Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world
would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia.
Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior
would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war,
banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations".
Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not
surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy.
fuck his pivot.....this ain't syria.....having destroyed the middle east it was our turn.....this
is americas exceptionalism........stay #1 by desabilising/destroying everyone else.....p.s. shove
the TPP also..........
The real question is why should not China be more dominant in Asia... i understands the USA tendency
especially since the fall of the soviet union at seing themselves as the only world superpower.
And i understand why China would like to balance tbat especially in her own neighborhood.
Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico
or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely
across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines,... and considering that the
chinese have a long memory of werstern gunboat diplomacy and naval for e projection, if i was
them i would feel a little uncomfortable at how vulnerable my newfound trade is... especially
when some western politician so clearly think that china needs to be contained...
China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth.
In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's
$60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum.
Much of this money has been funnelled into 'investments' that will never yield a return. The most almighty crash is coming. Which will be interesting to say the least.
Now that is interesting but odd. They are buying phuqing HUGE swathes of land in Africa, investing
everywhere they can on rest of the planet. All seemingly on domestic debt then.
Yes. The Japanese went on a spending spree abroad in the 1980s, while accumulating debt at home,
and when that popped the economy entered 20 years of stagnation, as bad debts hampered the financial
system.
The Chinese bubble is far larger, and made worse by the fact that much of the debt has been
taken on by inefficient state owned enterprises and local government, spending not because the
figures make sense but to meet centrally-dictated growth targets. Much of the rest has been funnelled
into real estate, which now makes up more than twice the share of the Chinese economy than is
the case in the UK. Property prices in some major Chinese cities have reached up to 30 times local
incomes, making London look cheap in comparison.
TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit
every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations
and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests
of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly
opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There
is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even
consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the
issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does.
As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations.
Don't believe for a second Hillary won't ram through a version of the TPP/IP if she wins. What
she's actually said is that she's against it in its current form
Remember she is part of an owned by the 0.1% that stand to benefit from the agreement, she
will do their bidding and be well rewarded. A few cosmetic changes will be applied to the agreement
so she can claim that she wasn't lying pre-election and we'll have to live with the consequences.
Well done all you globalists for failing to spot the bleedin obvious...that millions of homes
worldwide full of 'Made In China' was ultimately going to pay for the People's Liberation
Army. Still think globalisation is wonderful ?
Quite. How can you believe in a liberal, global free market and then do business with the Socialist
Republic of China, that is the antithesis of free markets. The name is above the door, so there's
no use acting all surprised when it doesn't pan out the way you planned it.
Anything good can be made evil, including globalization. Imagine fair trade completely globalized
so very nation relies on every other nation for goods. That type of shared destiny is the only
way to maintain peace because humans are tribalist to a fault. We evolved in small groups, our
social dynamics are not well suited to large diverse groups. If nation has food but nation B does
not, nation B will go to war with nation A, so hopefully both nations trade and alleviate that
situation. Nations with high economic isolation are beset by famines and poverty. Germany usually
beats China in total exports and Germany is a wonderful place to live. It's not globalization
that is the problem, it's exploitation and failure of our leaders to follow and enforce the Golden
Rule.
Roll out the barrel.....
Well said and you are so right.
15 years ago, I had a conversation in an airport with an American. I remarked that, by outsourcing
manufacturing to China the US had sold its future to an entity that would prove to be their enemy
before too long. I was derided and ridiculed. I wonder where that man is and whether he remembers
our conversation.
Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one
police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won
freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a
moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes.
I despair of "normalcy bias" and the insulting term "conspiracy theorist". People have lost
the ability to work things out for themselves and the majority knows nothing about Agenda 21 aka
Sustainable Development Goals 2030, until the land grabs start and private ownership is outlawed.
... the study also suggests that, if war cannot be avoided, the US might be best advised to
strike first, before China gets any stronger and the current US military advantage declines further
..
Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip ....
Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is
madness.
I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts
to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering?
1. With respect, Mr Tidsall is badly off track in painting China as the one evil facing an innocent
world.
2. The fact is that US' belief in and repeated resort to force has created a huge mess in the
Middle East, brought true misery to millions, and truly thrown Europe in turmoil in the bargain.
3. Besides this Middle East mess, the US neoliberal economic policies have wreaked havoc, culminating
in an unprecedented financial and economic crisis that has left millions all over the world without
any hope for the future
4. Hence Mr Tidsall's pronouncement:
This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive China without compromising
or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.
Ought to read:
This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive United States
without compromising or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.
5. US would be better advised to focus on its growing social problems, evident in the growing
random killings, police picking on blacks, etc, and on its fast decaying infrastructure. We now
read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just kills and
kills all over the world.
6. Mr Tidsall, may I request that you kindly focus on realities rather than come up with opinion
that approaches science fiction
I agree that Mr Tisdall's treatment of the US is somewhat naive and ignorant. However couldn't
it be that both countries are capable of aggression and assertiveness? The US's malign influence
is mainly focussed on the Middle East and North Africa region, while China's is on its neighbours.
China's attitude to Taiwan is pure imperialism, as is its treatment of dissenting voices on the
mainland and in Hong Kong. China's contempt for international law and the binding ruling by the
UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal is also deeply harmful to peace and justice in the region and worldwide.
We now read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just
kills and kills all over the world.
Very superficial indeed - compare, just as one example, the number of Nobel prizes won by American
scientists recently with those by Chinese. The US is still, in general, far ahead of China in
terms of scientific research (though China is making rapid progress). (That is not intended to
excuse US killing of course.)
The US follows the USSR path of increasingly ignoring the needs of its own population in order
to retain global dominance. It will end the same as the USSR. That which cannot continue will
not continue.
Xi is not looking for a fight. His first-choice agent of change is money, not munitions.
According to Xi's "One Belt, One Road" plan, his preferred path to 21st-century Chinese hegemony
is through expanded trade, business and economic partnerships extending from Asia to the Middle
East and Africa. China's massive Silk Road investments in central and west Asian oil and gas
pipelines, high-speed rail and ports, backed by new institutions such as the Asia Infrastructure
Investment Bank, are part of this strategy, which simultaneously encourages political and economic
dependencies. Deng Xiaoping once said to get rich is glorious. Xi might add it is also empowering.
The most realistic assessment on Xi and China.
The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to
have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two
spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course.
A Grim and over-paranoid predicament: US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition";
China is well aware it remains a poor nation compared to developed world and is decades behind
of US in military, GDP per capital and science, that is not including civil liberty, citizen participation,
Gov't transparency and so on. China is busy building a nation confident of its culture and history,
military hegemony plays no part of its dream.
US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition"
Oh come on, $20 Trillion in debt and with Social Security running out of money, there will
be no more to lend the government.
China has forged an agreement with Russia for all its needs in oil ( Russia has more oil than
Saudi Arabia) and payment will not be in US dollars. Russia will not take US$ for trade and the
BRICS nations will squeeze the US$ out of its current situation as reserve currency. When the
dollars all find their way back to the USA hyperinflation will cause misery.
Before the Chinese or anyone else gets any ideas, they should reflect on the size of the US defence
budget, 600 billion dollars in 2015, and consider what that might imply in the event of conflict.
a third of that budget goes in profit for the private companies they employ to make duds like
the F35 - so you can immediately reduce that to 400 billion. The US have been fighting third world
countries for 50 years, and losing, their military is bloated, out of date and full of retrograde
gear that simply wont cut it against the Russians. Privately you would find that most top line
military agree with that statement. They also have around 800 bases scattered world wide, spread
way too thin. Its why theyve stalled in Ukraine and can't handle the middle east. The Russians
spend less than $50 billion but have small, highly mobile forces, cutting edge missile defence
systems (which will have full airspace coverage by 2017). The Chinese policy of A2D/AD or access
denial has got the US surface fleet marooned out in the oceans as any attempt to get close enough
to be effective would be met with a hail of multiple rocket shedding war heads. The only place
where it is probable (but my no means certain) that the US still has the edge is in submarine
warfare, although again if the Russians and Chinese have full coverage of their airspace nothing
(or little) would get through.
Two theorys are in current operation about the election and the waring factions in the NSA and
the CIA 1) HRC wins but is too much of a warmonger and would push america into more wars they
simply cannot win 2) there is a preference for Trump to win amongst the MIC because he would (temporarily)
seek 'peace' with the Russians thus giving the military the chance to catch up - say in 3 or 4
years - plus all the billions and billions of dollars that would mean for them.
Overwhelming fire power no longer wins wars, the US have proved that year in year out since
the end of the second world war, theyve lost every war theyve started/caused/joined in. Unless
you count that limited skirmish on British soil in Grenada - and I guess we could call Korea a
score draw. The yanks are bust and they know it, the neocons are all bluster and idiots like Breedlove,
Power and Nuland are impotent because they don't have right on their side or the might to back
it up. The US is mired in the middle east, locked out of asia and would grind to halt in Europe
against the Russians. (every NATO wargame simulation in the last 4 years has conclusively shown
this) Add to that the fact that the overwhelming majority of US citizens dont have the appetite
for a conventional war and in the event of a nuclear war the US would suffer at least as much
as Europe and youve got a better picture of where we are at.
Well it is just ABOUT money.Also during Vietnam and Iraq war US was biggest spender.
Nobody in US still thinks that Vietnam war was a good idea and the same applies to Iraq.Iraq war
will be even in history books for biggest amount spend to achieve NOTHING.
Chinese military spending is at least on a par with American. A huge part of American military
money goes to personnel salary while China does NOT pay to Chinese soldiers for their service
as China holds a compulsory military service system.
This article assumes China is evil and the US is the righteous protector of all nations in the
SE Asian region against the evil China which is obviously out to destroy the hapless SE Asian
nations. This assumption is obviously nonsense. The US itself is rife with racial problems. Everybody
has seen what it had done to Vietnam. Nobody believes that a racist US that cares nothing for
the welfare of its own black, Latino and Asian population will actually care for the welfare of
the same peoples outside of the US and especially in SE Asia.
The truth is China is not the evil destroyer of nations. The truth is the US is the evil destroyer
of nations. The US has brought nothing but bloodshed and destruction to the SE Asian regions for
the last 200 years. The US had killed millions of Filipinos during it colonial era. The US had
killed millions of Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. The US had incited pogroms against the ethnic
Chinese unceasingly. The May 13 massacre in Malaysia, the anti-Chinese massacres in the 1960's
and the 1990's in Indonesia, and many other discrimination and marginalization of ethnic Chinese
throughout the entire SE Asia are all the works of the US. It is the US that is the killer and
destroyer.
Therefore, it is a good thing that the evil intents of the US had failed. With the all but
inevitable rise of China, the influence of the Japanese and the americans will inevitably wane.
The only danger to China is the excessive xenocentrism of the Dengist faction who is selling out
China to these dangerous enemies. If the CPC government sold out China's domestic economy, then
China will become a colony of the Japanese and americans without firing a single shot. And the
Chinese economy will slide into depression as it had done in the Qing Dynasty and Chinese influence
in the SE Asian region will collapse.
Therefore, the task before the CPC government is to ban all foreign businesses out of China's
domestic economy, upgrade and expand China's education and R&D, urbanize the rural residents and
expand the Chinese military, etc. With such an independent economic, political and military policies,
China will at once make itself the richest and the most powerful nation in the world dwarfing
the Japanese and American economies and militaries. China can then bring economic prosperity and
stability to the SE Asian region by squeezing the evil Japanese and americans out of the region.
Lets be honest what has Obama achieved,he got the Nobel peace prize for simply not being George
Bush Jr he has diplayed a woeful lack of leadership with Russia over Syria Libya and the Chinese
Simply being the first African American president will not be a legacy
Do you know of one Leninist state that ever built a prosperous modern industrial nation? Therein
lies the advantage and the problem with China. China is totally export dependant and therefore
its customers can adversely affect its economy - put enough chinese out of work and surely political
instability will follow. A threatened dictatorship with a large army, however, is a danger to
its neighbors and the world.
China are now net consumers. You need to read up on whats happening, not from just the western
press. They are well on their way to becoming the most powerful nation on earth, they have access
(much like Russia) to over two thirds of the population of the worlds consumers and growing (this
is partially why sanctions against Russia have been in large part meaningless) China will never
want for buyers of their products (the iphone couldnt be made without the Chinese) with the vast
swaithes of unplumbed Russian resources becoming available to them its hard to see how the west
can combat the Eurasians. The wealth is passing from west to east, its a natural cycle the 'permanant
growth' monkies in the west have been blind to by their own greed and egotism. Above all the Chinese
are a trading nation, always seeking win/win trading links. The west would be better employed
trading and linking culturally with the Chinese rather than trying to dictate with military threats.
The west comprises only 18% of the global population and our growth and wealth is either exhausted
or locked away in vaults where it is doing no one any good. Tinme to wise up or get left behind.
Tisdall...absolute war-monger and neo-con "dog of war". Is this serious journalism? The rise of
China was as inevitable as the rise of the US in the last century..."no man can put a stop to
the march of a nation". It's Asias century and it's not the first time for China to be the No
1 economy in the world. They have been here before and have much more wisdom than the west...for
too long the tail has wagged the dog...suck it up Tisdall!
The US grand strategy post-Bush was to reposition itself at the heart of a liberal economic system
excluding China through TTIP with the EU and TPP with Asia-Pac ex. China and Russia. The idea
was that this would enable the US to sustain its hegemony.
It has been an absolute failure. Brexit has torpedoed TTIP and TPP has limited value- the largest
economy in the partnership, Japan, has been largely integrated in to the US for the past 70 years.
IMO the biggest failure of the US has been hating Russia too much. The Russians have just as
much reason to be afraid of China as the US do and have a pretty capable army. If the US patched
things up with the Russians, firstly it could redeploy forces and military effort away from the
Middle East towards Asia Pac and secondly it would give the US effective leverage over China-
with the majority of the oil producing nations aligned with the US, China would have difficulty
in conducted a sustained conflict. It's old Cold War thinking that has seen America lose its hegemony-
similar to how the British were so focused on stopping German ascendancy they didn't see the Americans
coming with the knife.
America is reaping the fruits of what they sowed during the time of Reagan. It was never a good
idea to outsource your entire manufacturing industry to a country that is a dictatorship and does
not embrace western liberal democratic values. Now the Americans are hopelessly dependent on China
- a country that does not play by the rules in any sphere - it censors free speech, it blatantly
violates intellectual property, it displays hostile intent towards nearly all South East Asian
countries, its friends include state sponsors of terror like Pakistan and North Korea, it is carefully
cultivating the enemies of America and the west in general.
In no way, shape or form does China fulfill the criteria for being a trustworthy partner of
the west. And yet today, China holds all the cards in its relationship with the west, with the
western consumerist economies completely dependent on China. Moral of the story - Trade and economics
cannot be conducted in isolation, separate from geopolitical realities. Doing so is a recipe for
disaster.
Mr Tisdall should declare his affiliation, if any, with the military-industrial complex.
It is surprising coming from a Briton which tried to contain Germany and fought two
wars destroying itself and the empire. War may be profitable for military-industrial complex
but disastrous for everyone else. In world war 2, USA benefited enormously by ramping
up war material production and creating millions of job which led to tremendous
prosperity turning the country around from a basket case in 1930s to a big prosperous power
which dominated the world till 2003.
US insistence on being top cat in a changing world will end up by dragging us all into a WW III.
Why can't the US leave the rest of the world alone? Americans do not need a military presence
to do business with the rest of the world and earn a lot of money with such trade. And they are
too ignorant, too unsophisticate and too weak to be able to impose their will on the rest of us.
The (very) ugly Americans are back and all we want is for them to go back home and forever remain
there... The sooner the better...
The world is going to look fantastically different in a hundred years time.
Points of world power will go back to where they was traditionally; Europe and Asia. America
is a falling power, it doesn't get the skilled European immigrants it use to after German revolution
and 2 world wars. And it's projected white population will be a minority by 2050. America's future
lies with south America.
Australia with such a massive country but with a tiny population of 20million will look very
attractive to China. It's future lies with a much stronger commonwealth, maybe a united military
and economic commonwealth between the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Even without the EU, Europe is going to have to work together, including Russia to beat the
Chinese militarily and economically. America will not be the same power in another 30-50 years
and would struggle to beat them now.
China are expansionists, always have been. War is coming with them and North Korea sometime
in the future.
From the article above, it is clear who is the more dangerous power. While China is aiming to
be the hegemon through economic means like the neo silk road projects, the US is aiming to maintain
its hegemon status through military power. The US think thank even suggest to preemptive strike
against China to achieve that. This is also the problem with US pivot to Asia, it may fail to
contain China, but it didn't fail to poison the atmosphere in Asia. Asia has never been this dangerous
since the end of cold war, all thanks to the pivot.
Obama is trying to maintain the status quo. China and N. Korea are the ones pushing military intimidation.
The key to the US plan is to form an alliance between countries in the region that historically
distrust each other. The Chinese are helping that by threatening everybody at the same time. Tisdall
sees this conflict strictly as between the US and China. Obama's plan is to form a group of countries
to counter China. Japan will have a major role in this alliance but the problem is whether the
other victims of WW2 Japanese aggression will agree to it.
The US's disastrous foreign policy since 9/11 which has unleashed so much chaos in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc etc... is not exactly a commendation for credibility these days.
A useful summary of the state of play in the Pacific and SCS. It is somewhat hawkish in analysis,
military fantasists will always be legion, they should be listened to with extra large doses of
salt, or discussion of arguments which favour peaceful cooperation and development, such as trade,
cultural relations, and natural stalemates. American anxiety at its own perception of decline,
is at least as dangerous for the world as the immature expression of rising Chinese confidence.
But the biggest problem it seems we face, is finding a way to accommodate and translate the aspirations
of rising global powers with the existing order established post-45, in incarnated in the UN and
other international bodies, in international maritime law as in our western notions of universal
human rights. Finding a way for China to express origination of these ideas compatible with its
own history, to be able to proclaim them as a satisfactory settlement for human relations, is
an ideal, but apparently unpromising task.
Perhaps Samuel P Huntingdon was broadly correct when he wrote "The Clash of Civilizations" in
the late 90's. He was criticized for his work by neo-liberals who believed that after the Cold
War the rest of the world would follow the west and US in particular.
The problem with the neo-liberal view is that only their opinions on issues are correct, and
all others therefore should be ridiculed. What has happened in Ukraine is a prime example. Huntingdon
called the Ukraine a "cleft" country split between Russia and Europe. The EU and the US decided
to stir up trouble in the Ukraine to get even with Putin over Syria. It was never about EU or
NATO membership for the Ukraine which is now further away than ever.
A Trump presidency is regarded with fear. The Obama presidency has been a failure with regard
to foreign policy and a major reason was because Clinton was Secretary of State in the 1st four
years. In many ways a Clinton presidency is every bit as dangerous as a Trump presidency.
Certainly relations with Russia will be worse under Clinton than under Trump, and for the rest
of the world that is not a good thing. To those that believe liek Clinton that Putin is the new
Hitler, then start cleaning out the nuclear bunkers. If he is then WW3 is coming like it or not
and Britain better start spending more on defence.
What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah.
ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals
like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football.
Never mind that a general, high-intensity war in Northern Asia would be disastrous for all involved,
whatever the outcome.
Never mind that much of the discussion about containing China is by warmongers urging such
a conflict.
Never mind that very little depth in fact lies behind the shell of American and Japanese military
strength, or that a competently-run Chinese government is well able to grossly outproduce "us"
all in war materiel.
Never mind that those same warmongers and neocons drove and drive a succession of Imperial
disasters; they remain much-praised centres of attention, just as the banksters and rentiers that
are sucking the life from Americans have never had it so good.
Never mind that abbott encouraged violence as the automatic reaction to problems, while his
Misgovernment was (while Turnbull to a lesser extent still is) working hard to destroy the economic
and social strengths we need to have any chance of surmounting those problems.
Yes, it is a proper precaution to have a military strength that can deny our approaches to
China. Unfortunately that rather disregards that "we" have long pursued a policy of globalisation
involving the destruction of our both own manufacturing and our own merchant navy. Taken together
with non-existent fuel reserves, "our" military preparations are pointless, because we would have
to surrender within a fortnight were China to mount even a partial maritime blockade of Australia.
What I don't quite understand is how all this comes as any surprise to those in the know. China
has been on target to be the #1 economic power in the world in this decade for at least 30 years.
And who made it so? Western capitalists. China is now not only the world's industrial heartbeat,
it also owns a large proportion of Western debt - despite the fact that its differences with the
West (not least being a one-party Communist state) couldn't be more obvious - and while I doubt
it's in its interests to destabilise its benefactorrs at the moment, that may not always be the
case.
It also has another problem: In fifty or sixty years time it is due to be overtaken by India,
which gives it very little time to develop ASEAN in its own image; but I suspect that it's current
"silk glove" policy is far smarter and more cost-effective than any American "iron fist".
The US is just worried about losing out on markets and further exploitation. They should have
no authority over China's interest in the South China Sea. If China do rise to the point were
they can affect foreign governments, they will unlikely be as brutal as the United States. [Indonesia
1964, Congo 1960s, Brazil 1964, Chile 1973, Central America 1980s, Egyptian military aid, Saudi
support, Iraq 2003, the Structural Adjustments of the IMF]
Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire
similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially
in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and
also become global military power.
While many Europeans and others including our current GOP party
thinks we are the global empire and we should stick our nose everywhere, our people doesn't we
are an empire or we should stick our nose in every trouble spot in the world spending our blood
and treasure to fight others battles and get blame when everything goes wrong. President Obama
doesn't think of himself as Julius Ceaser and America is not Rome.
He will be remembered as one
of our greatest president ever setting a course for this country's foreign policy towards trying
to solve the world's problems through alliances and cooperation with like minded countries as
the opposite of the war mongering brainless, trigger happy GOP presidents. However when lesser
powers who preach xenophobia and destabilize their neighborhood through annexation as the Hitler
like Putin has, he comes down with a hammer using tools other than military to punish the aggressor.
All you need to do is watch what is happening to the Russian economy since he imposed sanctions
to the Mafiso Putin.
This article is completely misleading and the author is constricting himself in his statement
that Obama's pivot to Asia is a failure. Since China tried to annex the Islands near the Philippines,
countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, India, etc. has ask the US for more cooperation
both military and economically these countries were moving away from US under Bush and others
so I think this is a win for Obama not a loss. Unlike the idiotic Russians, China is a clever
country and is playing global chess in advancing her foreign policy goals. While the US cannot
do anything with China's annexation of these disputed Islands has costs her greatly because the
Asian countries effected by China's moves are running towards the US, this is a win for the US.
China's popularity around her neighborhood has taken a nose dive similar to Russian's popularity
around her neighborhood. These are long term strategic wins for the US, especially if Hillary
wins the white house and carry's on Obama's mantel of speaking softly but carry a big stick. Obama
will go down as our greatest foreign policy president by building alliances in Europe to try stop
Mafioso Putin and alliances in Asia to curtail China's foreign policy ambitions. This author's
thesis is pure bogus, because he doesn't indicate what Obama should have done to make him happy?
Threaten Chine military confertation?
All you have to do is go back 8 years ago and compare our last two presidents and you can see
where Obama is going.
For the allusion to Rome, I think they act like the old empire when they had to send their army
to keep the peace....and it is an empire of the 21 first century, not like the old ones (Assange).
China needs western consumerism to maintain its manufacturing base. If China's growth impacts
the ability of the West to maintain its standard of consumerism, then China will need a new source
of affluent purchaser. If China's own citizens become affluent, they will expect a standard of
living commensurate with that status, accordingly China will not be able to maintain its manufacturing
base.
So the options for China are:
a) Prop up western economies until developing nations in Africa and South America (themselves
heavily dependent on the West) reach a high standard of consumerism.
b) Divide China into a ruling class, and a worker class, in which the former is a parasite
on the latter.
The current tactic seems to be to follow option b, until option a becomes viable.
However, the longer option a takes to develop, and therefore the longer option b is in effect,
the greater the chances of counter-revolution (which at this stage is probably just revolution).
The long and the short of it, is that China is boned.
Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments'
priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to
leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US.
It's got it's hands full
at home. As long as the West doesn't try to get involved in what China sees as its historical
territory (i.e. The big rooster shaped landmass plus Hainan and Hong Kong and various little islands)
there's absolutely nothing to worry about.
Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage
the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any
pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. There is absolutely nothing
exceptional about a power not admitting publicly what is known to many,see the outpourings of
the British elites during the end of its empire.
As usual the Guardian is on its anti-China horse. Look through this article and every move China
has made is "aggressive" or when it tries to expand trade (and produce win win economic conditions)
it is "hegemonic" while the US is just trying to protect us all and is dealing with the "Chinese
threat" -- a threat to their economic interests and global imperial hegemony is what they mean.
The US still maintains a "one China" policy and the status quo is exactly that "one China"
It would be great for someone in the west to review the historical record instead of arming Taiwan
to the teeth. Additionally, before China ever started its island construction the US had already
begun the "pivot to Asia" which now is huge with nuclear submarines patrolling all around China,
nuclear weapons on the - two aircraft carrier fleets now threatening China - very rare for the
US to have two aircraft carrier fleets in the same waters - the B-1 long range nuclear bombers
now in Australia, and even more belligerent the US intends to deploy THAAD missals in South Korea
- using North Korea as an excuse to further seriously threaten China.
China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with
whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony.
Just look around the world - where are the conflicts - the middle east and Africa - who is
there with military and arms sales and bombing seven countries -- is it China?
The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the
nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries
for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China.
The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total
global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions
of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin
they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial
US.
Perusing
Palgrave's Dictionary of Political Economy from 1894 alerted me to the odd interaction
of a pair of distinctions. The first distinction was between the study of "what is" and "what ought
to be." The second distinction was between "economic science" (or "economics") and "political economy."
Economic science presumably distinguished itself from political economy by its strict focus on describing
"what is" rather than on prescribing "what ought to be."
Palgrave's explains the latter distinction to have been at least partly motivated by the confusion
that arose over just what kind of laws -- legal or natural -- so-called "laws of political economy"
were. Even after the attempt at rebranding, however:
"...even well-educated persons still occasionally speak of "laws of political economy" as being
"violated" by the practice of statesmen, trades-unions and other individuals and bodies.
You can't "break" scientific laws. They are simply generalized descriptions of fact. A flying airplane
doesn't break the law of gravity. It conforms to a more comprehensive complex of physical laws. The
law of gravity isn't the only law.
Palgrave's Dictionary further noted that the "great complexity and variety of circumstance
which surround every economic problem are such as to render the enunciation of general laws, on a
large scale, barely possible and if possible barely useful."
So the whole "positive" economics rigamarole wasn't just about methodological rigor. It was a
purification ritual to rid the political economist of the stigma of dogma. Economists
who invoke the violation of so-called laws aren't only forfeiting any legitimate claim to
economic science. They are contaminating their profession with atavistic hokum.
Speaking of atavistic hokum, I have been trying to track down ANY accessible published
record of a trade unionist or advocate of the reduction of the hours of labor EVER overtly
expressing the belief that there is a fixed amount of work to be done or a certain quantity of labor
to be performed or whatever synonymous equivalent. There is none.
There is a reasonable explanation for this absence of evidence. The alleged false belief is expressed
in abstract language that was not vernacular to the people accused of harbouring it. It's the wrong
answer to a question workers never asked themselves.
False belief requires two conditions to be fulfilled: 1. the idea is false and 2. it is believed
by someone to be true. The matrix below shows the possible states of belief and falsehood. An idea
does not have to be true to be "not false" and it doesn't have to be believed to be false to be "not
believed to be true." The fallacy claim asserts a simplistic (and false!) polarization in which the
beliefs of the "unenlightened" are "the opposite" of economic orthodoxy.
In an 1861 letter to the Times of London "A Master Builder" alleged that George Potter,
secretary of the carpenters' union, and his associates had "absurdly argued that there was only a
certain amount of work to be done" during a 1859 strike and lock-out of the London building trades.
There is a detailed report on the 1859 strike in an 1860 report on
Trades' Societies and Strikes published by the National Association for the Promotion of
Social Science. The 23-page account presents several items of correspondence from Potter outlining
the union's position with not a hint of a lump in the load. The "certain amount of work to be done"
was what Mr. Master Builder thought he heard when he mentally translated Potter's argument
into his own capitalistic patois .
There was something else interesting in the 685-page document -- an overarching controversy about
whether or not labor was a commodity just like any other and therefore whether or not unions violated the laws of political economy by trying to regulate wages and hours
of work. The employers who maintained this were pretty dogmatic about it. "Rates of wages cannot
be settled by mediation, but must be left to the free operation of supply and demand." It's the law!
This was not simply political economy It was vulgar political economy of the most self-serving
and disingenuous kind. One has no difficulty whatsoever finding multiple evocations by employers
of the so-called laws of political economy but the elusive lump remains "one of the most tenaciously
held and generally least articulated of trade union beliefs."
Least articulated? Least articulated is an understatement. Try NEVER articulated. There
is no there there. The alleged false belief is a pure projection by the laws-of-political-economy
crowd onto the unbeliever. The
eighth annual report of the New York Bureau of Labor Statistics for the year 1890 contains the
responses of over 600 labor union locals to the question of whether and why they support an eight-hour
day. Not one claims there is only a certain quantity of work to be done.
Below is an example of what an overt statement of the theory of the lump of labor looks like.
It is not from a trade union manifesto or a pamphlet of the eight-hour day movement. It is from a
propaganda tract put out by Nassau Senior's crew of Whig-Benthamites in defense of their New Poor
Laws, which abolished outdoor relief and established the workhouse test:
The fact is, there is a certain quantity of work to be done, and the question is who ought to
do it -- those who live by their labour, and their labour only, or those who have thrown themselves
on public charity.
Can anyone find such an unequivocal articulation of the false belief by a trade unionist? Of course
not. It's not the way that workers talk about their work. Work is not an abstract, disembodied
quantity to those who do it. It is part of a lived experience. "A certain quantity of work to
be done" is political economy speak, plain and simple. It's ceteris paribus and "all else
being equal."
Paradoxically, for old school vulgarians there both is and is not a certain quantity
of work to be done. There is a certain quantity of work to be done when it comes to disparaging
the idea that workers might increase wages their through collective action:
There is a certain quantity of work to be done, and a certain number of hands to do it; if there
be much work and comparatively few hands, wages will rise; if little work and an excess of hands,
wages will fall. It is self-evident that combinations and strikes cannot alter this law. They
can neither increase capital, nor diminish population; and, therefore, it is utterly impossible,
in the very nature of things, that they ever can procure a permanent rise of wages.
But there isn't a certain amount of work when it comes to explaining why such foolish action
isn't even necessary:
There is, say they, a certain quantity of labour to be performed. This used to be performed by
hands, without machines, or with very little help from them... The principle itself is false.
There is not a precise limited quantity of labour, beyond which there is no demand. Trade is not
hemmed in by great walls, beyond which it cannot go. By bringing our goods cheaper and better
to market, we open new markets, we get new customers, we encrease the quantity of labour necessary
to supply these, and thus we are encouraged to push on, in hope of still new advantages. A cheap
market will always be full of customers.
Five years ago I compiled a database of over 500 instances of the claim in books and journal articles
between 1890 and 2010 (
Excel file ). That's 500 claims without a single overt statement of the false belief from an
alleged believer. Six claimants (about one percent) named culprits whose argument "arguably depends
upon..." "makes an error equivalent to..." "indicates a belief..." "seems hopelessly involved in..."
"is an example of the strange conclusions to which one may be carried by clinging clinging firmly
to..." and "are driven by implicit assumptions." Each of those turns out to be a false alarm -- an
uncharitable, speculative inference. Five hundred boys crying "wolf" and not a single wolf to be
seen?
This is an astonishing performance. This compulsion to repeat is not "careless" or "dogmatic."
It's neurotic.
The patient cannot remember the whole of what is repressed in him, and what he cannot remember
may be precisely the essential part of it.. He is obliged to repeat the repressed material as
a contemporary experience instead of remembering it as something in the past.
The atavistic return of the repressed "laws of political economy" conforms faithfully to a description
toward the end of chapter 3 of Beyond the Pleasure Principle where Freud talks about the experiences
of "people with whom every human relationship ends in the same way" and gives as a "singularly affecting"
final example the events in a romantic epic, in which the hero, Tancred, repeatedly slays his beloved,
Clorinda, each time she reappears in a different guise. In this example, as Gavriel Reisner notes,
Freud reverses the compulsion to repeat, showing how we will sometimes injure others in order
to avoid injuring ourselves. Freud concludes that we often project the internal, masochistic drive
as the external, sadistic drive, victimizing others to redirect an intent toward self-victimization.
The utilitarian political economists styled themselves advocates for "the greatest good for the greatest
number" and viewed opponents as apologists for narrow special interests. The supposed laws they discovered,
which operated through isolated exchanges between individuals in the market, vindicated a system
of natural liberty and consequently freedom entailed obedience to those laws. Collective action and
collective bargaining violated the laws of individual exchange, resulting in sub-optimal outcomes.
Such perversity could only be motivated by false beliefs. The false beliefs of the adversary were
presumably the opposite of the true beliefs of the faithful: trade unions operated through tyranny
and their bizzaro-world political economy assumed that less output meant more income.
Reality discredited that polemic of political economy and calmer heads sought to rebrand the enterprise
as economics. The ersatz laws were scaled back to tendencies, which operated within the admittedly
abstract ceteris paribus pound of the economist's static model. Real life and the evolution
of economic relations operated outside the ceteris paribus pound but maybe the static model
could shed light on dynamic economic activity.
It was no longer fashionable to denounce "The Evils of Collective Bargaining in Trades' Unions"
(Thomas Cree, 1898) because it was increasingly understood that the so-called laws of supply and
demand operated quite differently with regard to the peculiar commodity of labor power (Richard Ely,
1886):
While those who sell other commodities are able to influence the price by a suitable regulation
of production, so as to bring about a satisfactory relation between supply and demand, the purchaser
of labor has it in his own power to determine the price of this commodity and the other conditions
of sale.
But even as old-guard political economy was being gradually displaced by rebranded economics in the
universities, employers' associations and business journalism emerged to propound and propagate the
old-time religion. The break with quasi-scientific, quasi-legalistic, quasi-religious pseudo-laws
was ambivalent, the reconciliation surreptitious. Employers' associations told the college teachers
what to teach. Textbooks served up a smorgasbord of the obsolescent and the innovative.
In this twilight of science and superstition, the fallacy claim offered uncertain economists a
distinctive advantage. It enabled them to continue to denounce violations of the laws of political
economy without actually having to specify which laws were being violated. That left them
exempt from any obligation to justify the validity of defunct laws. The burden of proof deftly shifted
and the providence of economic science affirmed, albeit by default.
Economic science thus gets to have its "what is" humility... and eat its "what ought to be" hubris
too! Evidence be damned.
That there was one particular offense singled out for condemnation by the self-appointed economic
police is suggested by the example given in Palgrave's Dictionary for the common confusion
between the legislative and scientific senses of law: "Thus it is often said that to regulate the
hours of labour, or to introduce differential import duties, is to break economic law." The anachronism
of such a view should require no explanation. The hours of labor are regulated.
Any proposal to repeal the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 on the grounds that it "breaks economic
law" would no doubt be laughed at by Paul Krugman, David Autor, Jonathan Portes or Alan Manning.
But, inadvertently, that is precisely the historical grammar of their lump-of-labor fallacy taunt.
Although there is no logical imperative that links the law-breaking claim to the fallacy claim, they
have been inseparably paired in usage from their inception. To invoke the latter is either to imply
the former or it is a non sequitur.
At long last, economists, have you no scientific self-respect ? On this labor day, 2016,
would you still insist that regulating of the hours of work breaks the laws of economics? Posted
by
Sandwichman at
12:00 AM
"Everybody except Joan Robinson agrees about capital theory." -- Robert Solow (as paraphrased
by Robinson)
An essential text in my researches on mercantilism, usury and bills of exchange is Raymond de Roover's
Gresham on Foreign Exchange, which just happens to be stored in part of SFU's library that
is under construction and thus inaccessible. The immediate unavailability of that book, however,
led to a fortuitous discovery.
I browsed in the call number section of the library's general collection where de Roover's book
would have been and Robert Leeson's Ideology and the International Economy caught my eye.
I flipped through the book and noticed on page 19 the delicious quote from Joan Robinson that, "the
free-trade doctrine is just a more subtle form of mercantilism."
The quote is from a 1966 lecture, "The New Mercantilism" that is included in a collection of essays,
Contributions to Modern Economics, which also contains "Capital Theory Up-to-Date," a 1970
review of C. E. Ferguson's The Neoclassical Theory of Production and Distribution, in which
Robinson reprises her parody of neo-Walrasian, neo-neoclassical capital "
leets. " Leets is steel spelled backward and
makes its debut in "Equilibrium Growth Models," Robinson's 1961 review of James Meade's Neo-Classical
Theory of Economic Growth. This allegedly ectoplasmic representation of capital is, in a nutshell, the crux of the "Cambridge
capital controversy," which Robinson launched with her 1952 challenge, "I leave it to those who draw
production functions to say what marginal productivity and the elasticity of substitution mean when
labour and capital are the factors of production." Looking back, in 1978, on her 1952 essays and
the "long struggle to escape... habitual modes of thought and expression," Robinson stressed that
"it was precisely from the concept of equilibrium that Keynes was struggling to escape..." Contrarily,
though:
"...textbook teaching in the department of so-called macro theory was an attempt to push Keynes
into short-term equilibrium. ... The grand neoclassical synthesis (now known as bastard Keynesianism)
was a more ambitious attempt to reduce the General Theory to a system of equilibrium."
In responding to Robinson's leets critique, Robert Solow began by acknowledging "much truth" to the
objection that "the usual production functions, allowing for more or less substitutability between
capital and labor, attribute to 'capital' a degree of malleability which contradicts common observation."
He then distinguished between the "econometrically-minded person" who would view the overly malleable
capital as a "specification error" and others -- presumably including Robinson -- who judge it to
be "a doctrinal error; and its consequence is a kind of Fall from Grace." Seven years later, Robinson
had this to say about "doctrinal disputes":
Many economists, nowadays, who are interested in practical questions are impatient of doctrinal
disputes. What does it matter, they are inclined to say, let him have his leets, what harm does
it do? But the harm that the neo-neoclassicals have done is, precisely, to block off economic
theory from any discussion of practical questions.
If one is concerned about actual unemployment in an actual economy, Robinson later
explained, one "has to discuss it in terms of processes taking place in actual history. The concept
of equilibrium is incompatible with history. It is a metaphor based on movements in space applied
to processes taking place in time." In other words, it is not just some kind of ethereal affectation
to object to the concept of equilibrium -- it is an argument with irrevocable real-world consequences.
The failure of what Robinson dismissed as "bastard Keynesianism" also had real-world doctrinal
consequences. "In the era of stagflation, this notion [that equilibrium growth can be achieved through
fiscal and monetary 'fine tuning'] has been discredited and the quantity theory of money is blossoming
afresh amongst its ruins." This 'blossoming,' incidentally, was not something Robinson welcomed.
Well, my interlibrary loan of de Roover's Gresham on Foreign Exchange has arrived, so I'm
off up the hill to pick it up.
To be continued...
"... After a series of shock defeats to the anti-mass migration AfD party, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has promised to "stop illegal immigration" and send failed asylum seekers back to their home nations. ..."
"... "We want to stop illegal immigration while living up to our humanitarian responsibilities," Mrs. Merkel said after talks in Vienna with counterparts from along the Balkan migrant route. ..."
"... Hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern migrants began to flood countries along the Balkan route last year, soon after Mrs. Merkel unexpectedly suspended European Union (EU) border rules and "invited" "no upper limit" of migrants to Germany. ..."
After a series of shock defeats to the anti-mass migration AfD party, German Chancellor Angela
Merkel has promised to "stop illegal immigration" and send failed asylum seekers back to their home
nations.
"We want to stop illegal immigration while living up to our humanitarian responsibilities,"
Mrs. Merkel said after talks in Vienna with counterparts from along the Balkan migrant route.
In February, Germany
accused Pakistan, as well as North and West African countries, of refusing to take back failed
asylum applicants.
"It is necessary to get agreements with third countries, especially in Africa but also Pakistan
and Afghanistan… so that it becomes clear that those with no right to stay in Europe can go back
to their home countries," Mrs. Merkel told reporters this weekend, DW
reports .
Hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern migrants began to flood countries along the Balkan
route last year, soon after Mrs. Merkel unexpectedly suspended European Union (EU) border rules and
"invited" "no upper limit" of migrants to Germany.
The anti-mass migration Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) party has recently
surged in the polls, even
overtaking the Chancellor's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in the state election in her hometown.
The CDU also had their worst election
result ever in Berlin just over a week ago.
"... Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East. ..."
"... Yes. As many have said, critical thinking in DC went out the door with 9/11. Those in DC who shouldn't be in jail, probably should at most be mopping floors at McDonalds. ..."
"... Let's note that pre-9/11 the foreign policy wasn't exactly just/moral/sane. ..."
"... Who cares? Since when did we live in a democracy? How many people wanted the Syrian and Lybian conflicts? ..."
"... Do we all have to die in poverty because our leaders (in the case of these wars, Zionist) pushed war clandestinely? ..."
"... Funny how that logic is never applied to others who are attacked (victims of our foreign policy). They should act like saints and we should bomb more (or, rather, commit genocide). Maybe might makes right, but then say it and stop masquerading as some burdened savior. ..."
"... At this year's celebration a couple of people were badly injured by Ukrainian rightists who reportedly fled back to the Ukraine, escaping justice. And, as I recall, there was a recent report of a French rightist who had received bomb materials from Ukrainians. ..."
"... I recently read accounts of the rise of neo-nazi and right-wing extremist groups in the former DDR after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Apparently they were substantially infiltrated by US and German intelligence services and, as a result, enjoyed a certain level of impunity and de facto ..."
"... On the other hand, the link between US 'intelligence' and Ukrainian neo-nazis is reasonably well established and is unlikely to have sprung into existence moments before their Maidan mobilization. That they would now use their safe harbor in Ukraine as a base for operations across Europe should not be particularly shocking. ..."
"... Okay, I have some serious problems with this. One, Israel is not just Jewish in its composition. Two, not all Jewish people live in Israel. Three, Jewish people lived along side Muslims and Christians for hundreds of years in that region before Britain, the USA and some useful idiot Zionists decided to make a geopolitical springboard in 1948. You may be right that every nation pursues its own agenda, but I'm not concerned about that, I'm concerned about the nation or nations pursuing their agenda(s) that have the most wealth and the biggest bombs. I'm concerned about the ones running the empire, and Israel is a useful servant to that empire. ..."
"... Israel is a nation state. Identifying as Jewish is another matter altogether. Israel is a colony that was formed at the wrong place and the wrong time. They could have pulled it off in the 18th or 19th century (see USA, Canada, Australia, the entire Western Hemisphere), but doing so immediately after a global war that was largely the end result of nation's colonial ambitions was a big no-no. The window of opportunity for such shenanigans had passed and the British, US, and Zionist progenitors of Israel knew better. ..."
"... If AfD opponents simplistically think that the AfD are a rabble of angry closet Neo-Nazis…..boy their moral/intellectual smugness is going to be shattered at the ballot box in the upcoming years. The core of AfD are the German equivalent of ol' time bottom 90% FDR Democrats. ..."
"... FDR was probably the only American president who was not entirely the servant of the capitalist ruling class. His reforms were for the benefit of American workers and he dragged the Democratic party along with him in creating the American social welfare system. He truly favored cooperative competition with the Soviet Union. Believing his vision of liberalism to be superior to Soviet socialism he had none of the knee jerk fear and hatred of them that has always characterized the American ruling class' relationship with Russia – even now 20 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He was entirely confident the working class would choose his vision. ..."
"... "Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East." ..."
"... I've always assumed the costs of the Syria intervention - geopolitical insecurity, refugees, etc. were seen as a useful collateral dampener on the rise of a Germany-dominated Europe. Perhaps not sought after, but when those costs were put in the calculus and were seen to affect the European states the most, the cost-shifting became a net enabler. ..."
"... The definitive proof of the Empire of Chaos's real agenda in Syria may be found in a 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document declassified in May last year. ..."
"... "THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN)". ..."
"... It establishes that over four years ago US intel was already hedging its bets between established al-Qaeda in Syria, aka Jabhat al-Nusra, and the emergence of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, aka the Islamic State. ..."
"... It's already in the public domain that by a willful decision, leaked by current Donald Trump adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Washington allowed the emergence of the Islamic State – remember that gleaming white Toyota convoy crossing the open desert? – as a most convenient US strategic asset, and not as the enemy in the remixed, never-ending GWOT (Global War on Terra). ..."
Yves: It's amazing how infrequently this point is made in any political debate or news coverage.
(Jeremy Corbyn being one rare example of someone who brings it up.):
Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe
is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East.
If there were any justice, the refugees would be swamping the UK, US, and France in huge numbers,
as those are the countries that cooked up the Libya failed state and also most active in Syria.
Crazy or stupid (your choice) Hollande vowed to increase the French warfare in Syria after the
recent terror attacks in Paris and elsewhere. As though MORE BOMBS ever managed to decrease terrorism,
right?
Though Merkel made her own bed with her "let them all come to Germany!" invitation, and now
she is sleeping in it. Good riddance when and if she goes.
Yes. As many have said, critical thinking in DC went out the door with 9/11. Those in DC
who shouldn't be in jail, probably should at most be mopping floors at McDonalds.
Hey now. I mop floors. I know people who mop floors. Those perps, sir, are not fit to mop floors.
Unless it's in prison. And even then I'm sure they'd suck. Takes integrity to do a humble job
well.
Who cares? Since when did we live in a democracy? How many people wanted the Syrian and
Lybian conflicts? If I recall, war was averted in parliament and congress.
Do we all have to die in poverty because our leaders (in the case of these wars, Zionist)
pushed war clandestinely?
Funny how that logic is never applied to others who are attacked (victims of our foreign
policy). They should act like saints and we should bomb more (or, rather, commit genocide). Maybe
might makes right, but then say it and stop masquerading as some burdened savior.
as James Baldwin said: "aching, nobly, to wade through the blood of savages."
Thanks for posting this Grossman interview. One facet of the development of the far right that
Grossman hints at, and maybe can only do so because there isn't much data, is its transnational
quality. This summer we visited some lefty friends in Lund, Sweden where each year they hold a
large May Day rally.
At this year's celebration a couple of people were badly injured by Ukrainian rightists
who reportedly fled back to the Ukraine, escaping justice. And, as I recall, there was a recent
report of a French rightist who had received bomb materials from Ukrainians.
As I think about, there's an ugly resonance with Yves' noting the refugees are substantially
a result of US policies. The development of a rightist terrorist potential in the Ukraine has
the same general source.
I recently read accounts of the rise of neo-nazi and right-wing extremist groups in the
former DDR after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Apparently they were substantially infiltrated
by US and German intelligence services and, as a result, enjoyed a certain level of impunity and
de facto financial support from these governments. They were also linked to members
of the 'stay behind' organizations (see
Operation Gladio
), and were 'useful' in violently opposing left-wing groups as well as punk rockers. The modern
AfD is strongest in the states of the former DDR, and are the ideological if not logistical heirs
of these right-wing groups. But to conflate 15% of the electorate with semi-pro neo-nazis and
racists is a bit of a stretch. While they are surely motivated by a strong nativist impulse and
anti-immigrant fervor, their voters also represent the kind of disaffected and disenfranchised
populations that carried the Brexit vote to victory.
On the other hand, the link between US 'intelligence' and Ukrainian neo-nazis is reasonably
well established and is unlikely to have sprung into existence moments before their Maidan mobilization.
That they would now use their safe harbor in Ukraine as a base for operations across Europe should
not be particularly shocking.
No, the AfD is not linked to the CIA It is a pro-social welfare, anti-TPP group that also
wants fair migrant exchanges, that is not just to Europe. It is pestered and censored in Germany.
Just expressing support in ways a security agent deems 'offensive' gets you fined and ostracized.
The fight over private property rights continues. Liberal Democracy has failed around the world
due to the unholy alliance with corporate power. Unchecked corporate power has been unmasked as
the destructive force that it truly is.
The left needs to evolve into a political force that can shape the consciousness of the masses
away from individual greed toward the undeniable benefit of cooperative action. The right will
use fear to drive people into some sort of trembling mass and only by combating this fear can
movement be made.
The compromise the left needs to make is to use any means possible, not to seize the means
of production form existing owners, but to start building alternative ones. It is all too easy
for the right to bring out their tried and true methods to hold power. It is time to starve the
beast, and one way is to not participate and build in another direction.
Corporate power is what needs to be broken. From my limited view, the left has always been
a reactionary force. It needs to evolve into a proactive one, literally building something in
the real world. Another major mistake by the left is to reject and confuse the power of religion.
Neoliberalism is a new religion and gains much power by the use of unquestioning faith. The left
has failed to counteract this religious faith because they have not even tried to counter it with
their own. Just as finance has evolved into a military weapon, it can be argued that religion,
in essence, is a military force.
The political landscape is being reshuffled into defining what we are willing to fight and
die for. Until the left starts offering coherent answers to these questions, the status quo will
continue to pick from the low hanging fruit.
Okay, I have some serious problems with this. One, Israel is not just Jewish in its composition.
Two, not all Jewish people live in Israel. Three, Jewish people lived along side Muslims and Christians
for hundreds of years in that region before Britain, the USA and some useful idiot Zionists decided
to make a geopolitical springboard in 1948. You may be right that every nation pursues its own
agenda, but I'm not concerned about that, I'm concerned about the nation or nations pursuing their
agenda(s) that have the most wealth and the biggest bombs. I'm concerned about the ones running
the empire, and Israel is a useful servant to that empire.
Israel is a nation state. Identifying as Jewish is another matter altogether. Israel is
a colony that was formed at the wrong place and the wrong time. They could have pulled it off
in the 18th or 19th century (see USA, Canada, Australia, the entire Western Hemisphere), but doing
so immediately after a global war that was largely the end result of nation's colonial ambitions
was a big no-no. The window of opportunity for such shenanigans had passed and the British, US,
and Zionist progenitors of Israel knew better.
In addition, it is nonsense that we have normalized the formation of a nation state around
a single ethnic or religious identity. Particularly after the Holocaust (the irony of this never
ceases to amaze me). Would we have the same sympathies for the the countless indigenous ethnic
groups in the Americas who, per capita, had even worse genocides inflicted on them, all documented,
all accepted as inevitable or necessary in most histories of the Americas? Israel is a contorted
hypocrisy that has to either embrace heterogeneity of disappear. Ideally as an inclusive country
that is no longer a colony as it has been for hundreds of years. The fetish that is Israel has
been an unfair burden to all people living in the Middle East and Jewish people the world over
that are forced to (through the sheer force of political dogma) shackle their identities to a
racist, rogue state.
" AfD stands for Alternative for Germany. It's a young party, about 2 years old. It's
built basically on racism."
Got more important things to do than rant about the above statement….
Just will quote basic Sun Tzu via Star Trek-know your opponent, know yourself and victory will
be yours.
If AfD opponents simplistically think that the AfD are a rabble of angry closet Neo-Nazis…..boy
their moral/intellectual smugness is going to be shattered at the ballot box in the upcoming years.
The core of AfD are the German equivalent of ol' time bottom 90% FDR Democrats.
And on the other side Sarah Wagenknecht, a leader in the left, hit a lot of flak from many
in her party when she said there needs to be an "Obergrenze" or limit on the number of refugees.
It would hard to call her racist since she is half Persian. It really is a conflict between those
who cannot think realistically….those who are supported or secure enough not to have to take responsibility
for anyone, and those who will need to make the world function. As a Socialist she apparently
is aware that you cannot have a strong social net and combine that with open immigration from
places that have astronomical birthrates that are outgrowing their resources without destroying
that net. I recall Hillary and the open border people attacked Bernie on that as well. I thought
it was unfair and it is this pandering, among other issues, that will keep me from voting for
her. There is a lot of commonality between AfD and the Linke. Don`t forget that the notion of
German population replacement had some currency during and after WW2 in order to permanently solve
the German problem and we may just be actualizing it now.
In fairness, US immigration policy has slowly been getting tougher over the last 16 years.
Immigration policy in the US goes beyond dialect. I doubt Clinton would be overly "easy".
It's easier. Apart from the new Obama rule to issue visas to H1b holders, effectively tripling
the numbers issued but still under the cap, to a myriad of other programs, it's much easier.
Of the several foreign students I've dated, it gets easier every year. Back in 03, one had
to have an accountant degree with CPA certs, and even then, you often were slave labor in Chi-Town
until you hooked up with an American company. Now the black market foreign industry is so large,
that a mere B.A. is enough. The gov doesn't care. Everyone is approved, save the cap.
spooky quatsch comment from oho – hard to tell what oho means with "90% bottom- line fdr dems".
The very diverse FDR / Dem majority coalesced during and in response to economic crisis. The AfD
has emerged during a German boom. It is successful in East Germany, which in the wake of economic
collapse immediately following reunification has been the beneficiary of massive inner-German
transfers. And it is successful in West Germany much of which is effectively at full-employment.
Its core supporters are the 10% of any populazion that is racist, nationalist, and ignorant. You
might try to argue that there is a uniquely irrational fear in Germany, something associated with
its position on the left edge of Eurasia maybe, a heterogenous cultural unit without convincing
access to the sea, trapped if you will and vulnerable to human flows. Sounds silly but it's hard
to account for German fear.
The AfD is using this irrational fear for political gain. FDR was supported largely by voters
with very real fears.
FDR was probably the only American president who was not entirely the servant of the capitalist
ruling class. His reforms were for the benefit of American workers and he dragged the Democratic
party along with him in creating the American social welfare system. He truly favored cooperative
competition with the Soviet Union. Believing his vision of liberalism to be superior to Soviet
socialism he had none of the knee jerk fear and hatred of them that has always characterized the
American ruling class' relationship with Russia – even now 20 years after the collapse of the
Soviet Union. He was entirely confident the working class would choose his vision.
His reactionary political enemies, concentrated in finance capital, had no reason to be
so confident. Their fear and loathing of the working class was/is legitimately earned.
"Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe
is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East."
That's typical of all MSM (not saying TRNN is mainstream) coverage of refugees. There's lots
of discussion and hand-wringing about accepting refugees, but exactly zero about why they're refugees
in the first place.
Yes the US has had a lot to do with destabilizing Asia and Africa but a lot of it has simply
been a continuation of British policy after WW2. As Britain shrank its foreign involvement the
US expanded. But the real cause is the inability of our politicians and leaders to face up to
the reality that population growth is hitting the limits of resource availability in Asia and
Africa and to institute realistic ways to control population. Absent the population explosion
in these regions in the last decades we would not be seeing the poverty and anger and constant
confllict because there would be enough for all. As much bad press as China has gotten for its
population policy it is one of the few bright spots in world economic development. Interestingly
China does not seem very interested in accepting millions of third world refugees.
I've always assumed the costs of the Syria intervention - geopolitical insecurity, refugees,
etc. were seen as a useful collateral dampener on the rise of a Germany-dominated Europe. Perhaps
not sought after, but when those costs were put in the calculus and were seen to affect the European
states the most, the cost-shifting became a net enabler.
In my naďve point of view it hit me last year that it was a brilliant stroke of Angela Merkel
to grab as many refugees as she could before any other country.
They are a tremendous natural resource. One that many modern countries are beginning to see a
coming shortage of. Many countries, like Germany, France, etc are looking at population shortages
in the working age groups. Merkel's grab of this mass of human resource was maybe an accidentally
brilliant idea.
can't tell if the above comment is satire or astroturfing or naivety?
Merkel's migrants have zero higher-level first-world skills. AfD is strong in ex-East Germany
because there is popular resentment as ex-East Germans get austerity shoved down their throats
while Merkel unfurls the red carpet for migrants.
in der Frage nach festen Arbeitsplätzen für Flüchtlinge ruhen die Hoffnungen zunehmend auf
mittelständischen Unternehmen und Handwerksbetrieben. Denn wie eine Umfrage dieser Zeitung ergab,
hat die große Mehrzahl der im deutschen Aktienindex (Dax) notierten Konzerne noch keine Flüchtlinge
eingestellt. Einzig die Deutsche Post gab an, bis Anfang Juni 50 Flüchtlinge und damit eine nennenswerte
Größe fest angestellt zu haben.
Not true. Syrians are very highly educated. Very good public education and high average attainment.
But Merkel was an idiot if she actually did recognize that Syrians were high potential workers
yet did nothing re how to integrate them, most important, acquisition of German and jobs matching.
The fact capitalism is a ponzi scheme is a key here. When the Aristocracy bowed to the Sephardic
bankers, they created this mess. They were the same idiots that bowed to the Christians 1500+
years before.
Maybe it is time for a new aristocracy. If you want to build internally, you have to abolish
capitalism and its market based scam. That is why "right wingers" won't last without the Sephardic
banks via market expansion. They run the scheme and always have. From their immigration into the
Iberian trails during the 15th century, to their financing and eventual leadership into the protestant
reformation, to the first capitalists scheme at Amsterdam to bribing William the Orange into taking
it into old England.
1. Most of the refugees arriving in Europe are Syrian. The US did not act to topple the Syrian
dictator and did not create a new Syrian government. The United States is responsible for these
refugees.
2. A portion of the refugees are Libyan. At the urging of its European allies (not just the
UK), the US helped topple the Libyan government, but has not created a new government. The US
is responsible for these refugees.
3. A portion of the refugees are from Iraq or Afghanistan. The US toppled the old governments
and installed new ones. The US is responsible for these refugees.
4. A significant portion of the refugees are from African countries including Nigeria and Eritrea.
I assume that these aren't included in the statement above as they are not Middle Eastern.
So, in other words – the US is responsible whether or not we intervene and whether or not we
then attempt to set up a government? I wonder under what circumstances you would not view the
US as responsible?
I would suggest, that given the situation in the Middle East and the fact that the results
are similar regardless of US actions something more basic is at work. Most of the nations of the
Middle East and Africa were artificial creations of primarily Britain and France; they are nations
derived neither from ethnic homogeneity nor the consent or shared history of the governed. Whatever,
the United States did or does, they would ultimately have shattered in one way or another and
refugees would have headed for Europe.
Nope, you don't. The US and its Gulf state "allies" are indeed trying to oust Assad and, if
not set up, at least allow the creation of a Salafist regime.
The US Road Map To Balkanize Syria
By Pepe Escobar
September 22, 2016 "Information Clearing House" – "RT" – Forget about those endless meetings
between Sergei Lavrov and John Kerry; forget about Russia's drive to prevent chaos from reigning
in Syria; forget about the possibility of a real ceasefire being implemented and respected
by US jihad proxies.
Forget about the Pentagon investigating what really happened around its bombing 'mistake'
in Deir Ezzor.
The definitive proof of the Empire of Chaos's real agenda in Syria may be found in a
2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document declassified in May last year.
As you scroll down the document, you will find page 291, section C, which reads (in caps,
originally):
"THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE
IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN
SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION
WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF
THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN)".
The DIA report is a formerly classified SECRET/NOFORN document, which made the rounds
of virtually the whole alphabet soup of US intel, from CENTCOM to CIA, FBI, DHS, NGA and the
State Department.
It establishes that over four years ago US intel was already hedging its bets between
established al-Qaeda in Syria, aka Jabhat al-Nusra, and the emergence of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, aka
the Islamic State.
It's already in the public domain that by a willful decision, leaked by current Donald
Trump adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Washington allowed the emergence of the Islamic State
– remember that gleaming white Toyota convoy crossing the open desert? – as a most convenient
US strategic asset, and not as the enemy in the remixed, never-ending GWOT (Global War on Terra).
It's as clear as it gets; a "Salafist principality" is to be encouraged as a means
to Divide and Rule over a fragmented Syria in perpetual chaos. Whether it's established
by Jabhat al-Nusra – aka "moderate rebels" in Beltway jargon – or al-Baghdadi's "Califake"
is just a pesky detail.
It gets curioser and curioser as Hasaka and Deir Ezzor are named in the DIA report – and
directly targeted by the 'mistaken' Pentagon bombing. No wonder Pentagon chief Ash 'Empire
of Whining' Carter took no prisoners to directly sabotage what Kerry had agreed on with Lavrov.
No one will ever see these connections established by US corporate media – as in, for instance,
the neocon cabal ruling the Washington Post's editorial pages. But the best of the blogosphere
does not disappoint.
The rest is just blame-shifting that conveniently let's the US off the hook.
Have you not read any press in the last 5 years, or do you just make a habit of making shit
up? The US has been trying to topple Assad for God only knows how long. What, for instance, do
you think the desperate fig leaf of trying to claim that we are supporting non-existant "moderate
Syrian rebels" is about?
"the danger of this right wing group mostly in the form of parties which is by the way it gets
its votes by being anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner, and especially anti-Muslimism. That�'s their
big call."
Dunno if this has been posted here but this is part 3: "The following is adapted from the new
book Superpredator: Bill Clinton's Use and Abuse of Black America .
The Evictor-in-Chief
Bill Clinton's crime policies left many poor people with only two options: prison, or homelessness.
by Nathan J. Robinson
"... Informative to follow the link and get more of what Trump said and what Clinton waffles upon.
League of Conservation Voters is a DNC front. ..."
"... Clean coal, like her clean tar sands' pipeline costs more in HGH than just burning low sulfur
stuff. So much needs to stay in the ground, not a Clinton theme. Nor one for LCV! ..."
"... She doesn't pander to the left or to the peacenicks. I bet the debate will all about diversity
and little about economic populism. The center-left dislikes the left, just like in the UK. ..."
Clean coal, like her clean tar sands' pipeline costs more in HGH than just burning low sulfur
stuff. So much needs to stay in the ground, not a Clinton theme. Nor one for LCV!
She doesn't pander to the left or to the peacenicks. I bet the debate will all about diversity
and little about economic populism. The center-left dislikes the left, just like in the UK.
"... While Dems throw younger voters under the bus, they are cozying up to "W"–quite literally. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3806509/Photo-Michelle-Obama-George-W-Bush-hugging-edited.html ..."
"... A whole generation of school kids in their formative years got the message from their parents that Bills behavior was a national embarrassment. So why would they be excited about or vote for Mrs. Clinton? ..."
"... I'm pretty jaded and cynical but that photo of Michelle Obama hugging GWB shocked even me. It's getting scathing comments on Twitter as well (cf @DavidSirota for one). ..."
"... You should probably read the book: Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas. It looks like Michelle was a dangerous, power hungry player from the very beginning. ..."
One thing I never see discussed in the media is the effect of the sorry Clinton/Lewinsky/Impeachment
episode on millennials. As a parent of school kids in the suburbs at that time I can tell you
that I and other parents were none too pleased to see the presidents sexual infidelities on the
evening news and headlined in the paper for all youngsters to see (and emulate?).
A whole generation
of school kids in their formative years got the message from their parents that Bills behavior
was a national embarrassment. So why would they be excited about or vote for Mrs. Clinton?
Jomo–We don't see anything about Billy's former indiscretions in the news anymore.
They'd rather the millennials forget about it.
That's all been carefully swept back into a little box gathering dust in the corner.
How convenient.
'Look over there! It's a Trump!'.
Distractions, distractions…
I lost all respect for Hellary (not that I had much, to begin with) when she 'stood by her
man' following the Monica incident.
She would have impressed me had she planted her foot up his a** all the way up to her cankles,
instead.
I've no doubt part of the 'bargain' of her staying by his side was to get her into the WH.
I've thought that since it happened. Call me Nostradamus.
I'm pretty jaded and cynical but that photo of Michelle Obama hugging GWB shocked even me.
It's getting scathing comments on Twitter as well (cf @DavidSirota for one).
Michelle was the only one I had any respect for… now… POOF like Keyser Soze that respect is
gone.
You should probably read the book: Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas. It looks like Michelle was a dangerous, power hungry player from the very beginning.
"... The trouble is that the candidate they are meant to support does not appear to find that show particularly horrifying ..."
"... People under 40 or 35 grew up under title IX. Electing the wife of a lousy President isnt relevant ..."
"... Then of course, 9/11 would also explain the voting problems. Fear mongering doesn't work when fear mongering has been omnipresent in the lives of millennials for 15 years. ..."
"... Basically, a bunch of Democrats are voting against their interests because they are shallow as they seem. ..."
"... Why the young don't like Hillary? Our friends got blown apart in a war, came home w/ ptsd-missing limbs, getting little care & she wants even more war. Her husband's trade deals destroyed the economy & we know she is pro TPP. ..."
"... She is clearly a liar & has track record of a sell out. She & DNC cheated Bernie & we can't forgive even if he has. ..."
"... The Clintons have been terrible for a long time. The question is why are (did) so many Democrats especially older ones voting against their own interests. ..."
"... I've tried multiple times to explain this to my parents, but they just can't get how much has changed since the 90s, especially for the young. It's key, of course, that they still rely on the New York Times and PBS to get their news. They view "blogs" with reflexive disdain. ..."
"... When I go from hospital room to room at work there are many more older folks (40+) watching fox news, expressing interest in Trump & their hatred of the Clintons. Except in CT where everyone loves their Dems, corrupt or not. This was over last yr working in CT, NY, ME & AZ. I don't see how Clinton can win unless she cheats. ..."
"... So yes, lie, cheat, and steal, those are three things she and her crew excel at. ..."
"... Or, in short form, why the young (and a lot of other people) don't like HIllary: Why would they? The strange media delusion that the dislike needs to be explained, and is moreover terribly puzzling and hard to explain, is itself in greater need of explanation. ..."
"... That Newsweek article you posted on Hillary's millennial "problem" is an amazing read. So satisfying to finally see something in MSM that states obvious truths. Nice little video clip too. ..."
"... Many younger American voters, perhaps a sufficient number of them to seriously imperil Clinton's chances, have significant ideological differences with the candidate. ..."
"... Millennials might vote for Dad or Mom. They are being asked to vote for Granny, who is wobbly, eccentric and does not even live in the same Century as them. ..."
"Here is my own wild take on why millennials don't support Clinton "enough": Many younger American
voters, perhaps a sufficient number of them to seriously imperil Clinton's chances, have significant
ideological differences with the candidate. That's my theory. Many liberal pundits seem unimpressed
by this idea perhaps because it suggests that votes must be earned in a democracy, but it does
have the benefit of the evidence."
And
"The Clinton campaign might be forgiven for imagining these voters would "come home" had it
not spent the weeks since the Democratic Convention fundraising and playing Bush administration
endorsement bingo. The trouble is not that young people are insufficiently familiar with the neoconservative
horror show of their own childhoods. The trouble is that the candidate they are meant to support
does not appear to find that show particularly horrifying ."
And
"There are only so many times one can insist that young voters capitulate to a political party's
sole demand-vote for us!-in exchange for nothing."
I would suggest the ideological differences extend past the 38 age barrier, but
1. People under 40 or 35 grew up under title IX. Electing the wife of a lousy President isnt
relevant
2. No one under 38 voted for Bill Clinton. The youth haven't twisted themselves into voting for
that ass in the first place. Even then Bill's 1996 campaign when he failed to crack 50% against
Mumbly Joe was marked by record low minority turnout, just what is being worried about now. Gee.
3. Then of course, 9/11 would also explain the voting problems. Fear mongering doesn't work when
fear mongering has been omnipresent in the lives of millennials for 15 years.
Basically, a bunch of Democrats are voting against their interests because they are shallow
as they seem.
Why the young don't like Hillary?
Our friends got blown apart in a war, came home w/ ptsd-missing limbs, getting little care & she
wants even more war. Her husband's trade deals destroyed the economy & we know she is pro TPP.
She is pro fracking, pushing it overseas & once in office will promote it here. She is a corporatist bankster & won't release Goldman speeches. We have no jobs, no prospects, large amount of school
debt & must come of age during the second great depression. She is clearly a liar & has track
record of a sell out. She & DNC cheated Bernie & we can't forgive even if he has.
The Clintons have been terrible for a long time. The question is why are (did) so many Democrats
especially older ones voting against their own interests.
Obama enjoys a relative popularity with young people despite being a disaster.
My guess is, that after twelve years of Reagan and Bush, any Democrat was a relief. Unfortunately,
so many in the Democratic Party and in the commentariat came of age during that time, so they
just assume that this is the way that it has to be.
Actually, no, Clinton did not look like a good option in 1992, and certainly wasn't my choice
in the primary. Even then there were a lot of people who only got talked into voting for him in
November on the lesser evil principle, regretted it, and did not vote for him again in 1996.
Plus they turned Ross Perot into a crazy loon because he kept attacking nafta, which was a
big deal at the time, effectively making it a more "manageable" two person race.
Hmmm…….Now that I think about it, that sounds kind of familiar.
Katniss–Looking back, I think when I voted for Ross Perot that was the last time I voted for
someone I actually wanted, rather than just voting the LOTE.
Bernie was the only candidate since I've actually wanted to win. I'm heartsick and mad as hell
he's not in the running.
BTW, I'm still trying to figure out how DWS beat Tim Canova in FL after all the dirty dealings
about DWS came out? More manipulation at the polls?
This is definitely true of my parents (both barely pre-boomers). After watching McGovern flop,
then Carter flail, they both assumed the Clintons were the best a liberal could hope for in this
country. Also my mother admired Hillary for being an unapologetic career woman when, especially
in the South, this was still controversial.
Indeed, having grown up in the age of Reagan and George HW, I basically agreed with them in
the 90s, even though I hoped more would be possible at some point. It wasn't until the financial
crisis (and, importantly, beginning to read NC!) that I began to realize how toxic the Clinton
legacy really was. Also, as a grad student, I was teaching lots of millennials and began to realize
how genuinely screwed they were by what we now all call the neoliberal (and neocon) era.
I've tried multiple times to explain this to my parents, but they just can't get how much has
changed since the 90s, especially for the young. It's key, of course, that they still rely on
the New York Times and PBS to get their news. They view "blogs" with reflexive disdain.
When I told "older" people I would vote for Bernie, now Trump to shake things up-all I got
was a lecture. Clinton's will protect wall street & 401ks. And I think there is a lot of fear
about moving away from the token/chosen candidates.
When I go from hospital room to room at work there are many more older folks (40+) watching fox
news, expressing interest in Trump & their hatred of the Clintons. Except in CT where everyone
loves their Dems, corrupt or not. This was over last yr working in CT, NY, ME & AZ. I don't see
how Clinton can win unless she cheats.
In Philly last time around they had 53 precincts that were without a single non-Obama vote.
Not one. The Black Panthers at the door shooed out the Republican observers and the magic happened,
this time around it will be much easier. And then we might end up with hanging chads on steroids,
with an 8-person Supreme Court that should be a fun-fest.
So yes, lie, cheat, and steal, those are three things she and her crew excel at.
Or, in short form, why the young (and a lot of other people) don't like HIllary: Why would they? The strange media delusion that the dislike needs to be explained, and is moreover terribly
puzzling and hard to explain, is itself in greater need of explanation.
That Newsweek article you posted on Hillary's millennial "problem" is an amazing read. So satisfying to finally see something in MSM that states obvious truths. Nice little video
clip too.
Many younger American voters, perhaps a sufficient number of them to seriously imperil Clinton's
chances, have significant ideological differences with the candidate.
Millennials might vote for Dad or Mom. They are being asked to vote for Granny, who is wobbly,
eccentric and does not even live in the same Century as them.
That Newsweek article you posted on Hillary's millennial "problem" is an amazing read. So satisfying to finally see something in MSM that states obvious truths. Nice little video
clip too.
"... Originally published at Tax Justice Network ..."
"... Corporations used to contribute $1 out of every $3 in federal revenue. Today, despite very high corporate profitability, it is $1 out of every $9. ..."
"... As of 2015, U.S. corporations had $2.4 trillion in untaxed profits offshore. Another study, looking at S&P 500 companies, found they held $2.1 trillion as of 2014. This roughly five-fold increase from $434 billion in 2005 stems largely from anticipation of a tax holiday. ..."
Yves here. This short post extracts key findings from a new study by Americans for Tax Fairness and
the Economic Policy Institute. We liked the summary and include it immediately below. One thing to
keep in mind: taxes are a big element of economic policy by default, as in that they provide incentives
and disincentives. The fact that Big Pharma and tech companies lower their tax rates through the
use of clever structuring and tax havens and report higher profits is an economic privilege relative
to other industries.
While the statutory tax rate on corporate income is 35 percent, estimates of the rate corporations
actually pay put the effective rate at about half the statutory rate. Driving this divergence
between what corporations are supposed to pay and what they actually pay is a combination of offshore
profit shifting and tax avoidance. Multinational corporations pay taxes on between just 3.0 and
6.6 percent of the profits they book in tax havens.
And corporations have become increasingly adept at making their profits appear to be earned
in these tax havens; the share of offshore profits booked in tax havens rose to 55 percent in
2013. Almost half of offshore profits are held by health care companies (mostly pharmaceutical
companies) and information technology firms. Because of the inherent difficulty in assigning a
precise price to intellectual property rights, it is relatively easy for these companies to manipulate
the rules so that U.S. profits show up in tax havens.
The use of offshore profit-shifting hinges on a single corporate tax loophole: deferral. Multinational
companies are allowed to defer paying taxes on profits from an offshore subsidiary until they
pay them back to the U.S. parent as a dividend. Proponents of cutting the corporate tax rate refer
to profits held offshore as "trapped." This characterization is patently false. Nothing prevents
corporations from returning these profits to the United States except a desire to pay lower taxes.
In fact, corporations overall return about two-thirds of the profits they make offshore, and pay
the taxes they owe on them.
Further, there are numerous U.S. investments that these companies can undertake without triggering
the tax. In short, deferral provides a mammoth incentive for multinational corporations to disguise
their U.S. profits as profits earned in tax havens. And they have responded to this incentive:
82 percent of the U.S. tax revenue loss from income shifting is due to profit shifting to just
seven tax-haven countries.
Firms have also become increasingly adept at manipulating the rules here in the United States
to avoid taxation. Lower tax rates on "pass-through" business entities and poor regulatory responses
have given firms the chance to reorganize as "S-corporations" or opaque partnerships in order
to avoid paying any corporate income tax at all.
This intentional erosion of the U.S. corporate income tax base has real consequences. Rich
multinational corporations avoiding their fair share of U.S. taxes means that domestic firms and
American workers have to foot the bill. It also means that corporations are not paying their fair
share for our infrastructure, schools, public safety, and legal systems, despite depending on
all of these services for their profitability.
Corporate profits are way up, and corporate taxes are way down. In 1952, corporate
profits were 5.5 percent of the economy, and corporate taxes were 5.9 percent. Today, corporate
profits are 8.5 percent of the economy, and corporate taxes are just 1.9 percent of GDP.
And there are plenty more striking facts. Just for example:
Corporations used to contribute $1 out of every $3 in federal revenue. Today, despite very
high corporate profitability, it is $1 out of every $9.
As of 2015, U.S. corporations had $2.4 trillion in untaxed profits offshore. Another study,
looking at S&P 500 companies, found they held $2.1 trillion as of 2014. This roughly five-fold
increase from $434 billion in 2005 stems largely from anticipation of a tax holiday.
Just two industries-high-tech and pharmaceutical/health care-hold half the untaxed offshore profits.
And here's a picture pointing to the "big six" corporate tax havens, which we've noted before:
What about mergers. Do they not only facilitate monopolies but tax evasion?
The IP stuff, the inverted balance sheets of those companies and their opaque allocation of
revenues is the "dark matter" economists talk about euphemistically?
I presume these offshore profits are not held in cash but are moved into U.S. Treasury bonds
and other investments. What happens to the profits and losses from those? Are they eventually
returned to the U.S. and taxed?
Yves: Thanks for this. Still another area of bipartisan connivance and neglect. And there is
a real irony about the Netherlands, which has been doing a lot of virtual signaling with regard
to Greece (especially) and Italy, being a major tax haven. I guess that it is easy to balance
the budget with all of that funny money floating around.
Luxembourg? My solution is just to give it to France as a new département.
Robert Hahl: Don't count on profits not being held in cash. There are some indications, and
Yves has published posts about them, that companies indeed are hoarding cash.
You do not have to leave your backyard to find the same tax avoidance built into the capitalist
system. Here in Philadelphia, during a 2nd wave of large scale real estate investment in the 10s
of $Billions$, property is sold off for development parcels or after the development is completed,
fully rented and a juicy source of rental for years and years to come. You would think the city
government would reap some kind of windfall, that the school district funded by annual real estate
taxes based on market value, but of course, the crony capitalism assures that tax avoidance strategies,
all perfectly legal due to the laws written by the 1%, the self dealing loopholes will prevail.
Now, a very successful real estate developer got himself elected to city council, along with
a long suffering republican chamber of commerce guy. And THEY want to close some of the long standing
loopholes that may have cost the city as much as $24Mil last year alone. Plus the ongoing depressed
valuation used for the annual real estate tax bill.
Immanuel Wallerstein in his lectures has pointed the 3 main obstacles to profits that the Global
Capitalist System must control in order to sustain growth.
1. The cost of inputs
2. The costs of wages and ancillary benefits such as social insurances for health, unemployment,
and eventual retirement.
3. Taxes
This article speaks directly to #3, as does my local example. The ongoing war on tax avoidance
as a necessary standing policy by capitalists is on the local, national and international levels.
The universal rule of law begs the questions, who writes these laws, who interprets these laws,
who benefits from these laws and why do they never change in a way that gives meaning to the authority
of government as having authority to rule. The pretense that tax loopholes are perfectly legal
is critical to maintain the social order and belief in the rule of law. When tax laws are rendered
useless by legal mumbo jumbo, the authority of the state to govern must be called into question
as well!
When people out in the street riot, loot and vandalize to show political dissatisfaction, that
is criminal behavior, not legal, and has no loophole to excuse them. There is no question that
the state must step in with its full power and authority and enforce the law, which is crystal
clear in the case of rioting. There is no question that even local government must seek reinforcement
from the military. Imagine a lawyer saying: "Well, the rioters are adopting a perfectly legal
strategy of prosecution and jail avoidance by massing in numbers so large that they all can not
be arrested, tried and convicted.
This constitutes not a crime against society, but the legitimate right to self determination
in the face of a corrupt and meaningless system of democracy where the majority of the people
are permanently relegated into menial economic toil to sustain the oversized wealth and power
of the 1%. Clearly, this must considered protected political activity and freedom of speech, NOT
violence in the pedestrian sense of a lone gun man holding up a liquor store. The socially redeeming
value of large scale social change due to mob activity protects this crowd as political activists,
not mere petty criminals. They are making the world a better place, not just stealing to benefit
themselves as individuals. Just as people vote with their dollars, vote with their feet by moving
to where jobs are, people are voting by rioting to correct the abuse of power not regulated by
the meaningless ballot box which has been rendered useless and beyond reach."
On the one hand, Tax Justice Network is often fuzzy (as in wrong) on technical tax details.
Tax is fiendishly complex. But on the other hand, the general idea that there may be ways to structure
around this isn't crazy. As I recall, for instance, if I recall correctly, the publicly-traded
PE firms are legal entities that own (or own the cash flows) of general partnerships.
So the government is subsidizing corporate profits through tax breaks, loopholes, and non-enforcement.
This has the overall effect of re-distributing the wealth towards the upper end of the income
spectrum and sponsors the creation of millionaires and billionaires. Who would have a problem
with that?
That's not class warfare at all says this temporarily embarrassed trillionaire.
i bet if you had a "birds-eye" view of all the money in all the accounts, both her and overseas,
and ownership of shell companies stock, and on and on, you would find that that person exists
already.
Don't the mega-corporations write the thousands of pages of our corporate tax code? Congress
just rubber stamps it, right?
Can't remember where I read it, but it has been suggested that the supposedly high corporate
tax rate is there by design. The biggest players write in all the loopholes they need and more,
burdening the small fry with the nominal rate and thus squelching any competition that the big
guys might face from lesser competitors.
"... It's good to see articles criticizing financialization now and then. It would be great if our politicians would take this issue up, but alas, it would be suicide (certainly politically, and possibly literally). ..."
"... On the surface, the reasons behind Bridgeport's poverty and Greenwich's wealth do not seem related. Bridgeport is struggling because it is a one-time manufacturing hub whose jobs went overseas as factories moved away in the late 20th century. Greenwich became a home for New York City financiers who wanted to live somewhere a little more bucolic than New York, and later hedge-fund managers decided they could work closer to home and set up their companies there, too. ..."
"... Michael Parenti gets it: "The reason we have poor people is rich people." ..."
"... And because we have poor people who are told they should not envy the rich their advantages because they just might be one of them someday. So we lionize this era's robber barons from Bezos to Cook to Brin instead of roasting them over a slow fire until they agree to pay taxes in this country. Too bad we don't have a trust-busting politician of any stripe around, Teddy Roosevelt where are you when we need you. ..."
The Atlantic article (
Finance Is Ruining America Atlantic (Phil U)) would have been more effective if it had described
a typical hedge fund deal, like, say, Guitar Center, or one of Mitt Romney's "successes" (you
know, debt fueled special dividends). It's good to see articles criticizing financialization now
and then. It would be great if our politicians would take this issue up, but alas, it would be
suicide (certainly politically, and possibly literally).
On the surface, the reasons behind Bridgeport's poverty and Greenwich's wealth do not seem
related. Bridgeport is struggling because it is a one-time manufacturing hub whose jobs went overseas
as factories moved away in the late 20th century. Greenwich became a home for New York City financiers
who wanted to live somewhere a little more bucolic than New York, and later hedge-fund managers
decided they could work closer to home and set up their companies there, too.
These two towns have different fates in part because of two distinct dynamics in the American
economy. Yet there are economists who believe that there is a link between the improving prosperity
of the wealthy and the eroding bank accounts of everyone else. The reason? It's two-fold: First,
there is the rise of the financial industry, which has fueled extraordinary wealth for a very
few without creating good jobs down the line, and, second, a tax policy that not only fails to
mitigate these effects, but actually incentivizes them in the first place. It's probably not surprising,
then, that the 10 states with the biggest jumps in the top 1 percent share from 1979 to 2007 were
the states with the largest financial service sectors, according to the Economic Policy Institute
analysis.
=============================================
It is astounding that people still believe low interest rates mean some industrialist can get
a loan and start a factory and hire employees….where it seems pretty apparent that it means a
financier can move a company overseas….
As well as the fact it seems harder and harder to be able to say that the 1%'s getting richer
is NOT due to everybody else getting poorer.
It's the neoliberal Rube Goldberg machine. Why just give money where needed when you can give
it to someone on the assumption they'll give a portion to someone else, who will give it to someone
else, so that they can maybe pass some of it along to whoever needs it?
'Greenwich became a home for New York City financiers who wanted to live somewhere a little
more bucolic than New York'
Until 1991, Connecticut had no income tax. New Jersey had walked that plank in 1976, leaving
CT as the only quasi-tax haven within commuting distance of NYC.
But then former Gov. Lowell Weicker (who had run on a "no income tax" platform - he lied
) introduced one. Result : a stagnant, moribund Connecticut economy, with flat population.
General Electric saw the light and bailed for Boston with its HQ.
Jaren Dilliian, who grew up there, wrote of throwing a party in CT with a deejay. The DJ had
to be licensed, plus they needed a permit, plus union electricians had to set up and take down
the equipment. Hassle, cost, bureaucracy.
What value added does contemporary CT provide for its tax take, vs pre-1991 CT? Zero.
Maybe less than zero.
"But then former Gov. Lowell Weicker (who had run on a "no income tax" platform - he lied)
introduced one. Result: a stagnant, moribund Connecticut economy, with flat population."
Sequel, perhaps. Result, not proved, and I suspect questionable. The data here appear to undermine
your claim:
They show corporate income tax at <1% and personal income tax <5% for all but the top 5% of
incomes. I find it very hard to believe those rates are responsible for Connecticut's allegedly
moribund economy.
As for not providing value, consider another point of view:
And because we have poor people who are told they should not envy the rich their advantages
because they just might be one of them someday. So we lionize this era's robber barons from Bezos
to Cook to Brin instead of roasting them over a slow fire until they agree to pay taxes in this
country. Too bad we don't have a trust-busting politician of any stripe around, Teddy Roosevelt
where are you when we need you.
Get Rich or Die Tryin is the last gasp in the American Hunger Games. It's the same story as ever,
told down through the ages, the rich squeeze the poor, then they can't help but squeeze juuust
that little bit more, and we get Charlotte
It is astounding that people still believe low interest rates mean some industrialist can
get a loan and start a factory and hire employees….where it seems pretty apparent that it means
a financier can move a company overseas….
fresno dan [bold added]
Or automate jobs away with what is, in essence, the public's credit due to extensive government
privileges for depository institutions.
The implicit social contract whereby capitalists shall provide good jobs in exchange for the
public's credit is broken – if it ever existed – without hope of fixing due to automation alone.
good point and I agree.
And there are probably all sorts of examples. For instance, how long did low interest rates help
by stimulating home building, home buying, until shadow banking was able to super charge profits
by taking a rather straight forward, dull, simple to understand thing like home loans and turning
it into a giant scam? How was it that something that worked so well for so long got so totally
f*cked up?
Doesn't it feel nowadays that in every protection, advancement, or progress is advocated by a
Hillary talking clone, and that the only point of it is to weasel more money out of you???
and that the word "protection" defacto means "screw"
How was it that something that worked so well for so long got so totally f*cked up?
fresno dan
Well, point of fact, it did not work so well if one was red-lined. And philosophically, how
does one justify government privileges for depository institutions in the first place? Because
they work? Work for who? Not those who were redlined, for sure.
America is like an aging, punch drunk prize fighter, so much blood streaming into his eyes
he can't even see what he's doing any more. So we flail around with Iraq-style nation-building
wars despite being smashed squarely in the face with all our previous ones. Just put your hands
behind your back and stick your jaw way out. The Fed sprays free money around like its Skittles
despite the fact that the only takers for new debt are CEOs buying back their stocks and heading
for the islands. And precisely one candidate has the stones to mention it, and no I don't mean
the falling down, sickly grandmother who sold the business of our government for immense personal
gain through her Foundation.
Swapping standing in line at the check-out for the line at the exit. And when there is an issue
then the greeter calls in the check-out police thereby pissing off the customer. Brilliant.
While Apple fanboys are willing to work for their iPhone's company for free by doing their
own check-out I doubt that is likely for people going to Sam's Club. As well many customers, even
if they have a smartphone, will not enjoy using up their data plan as they try to check and process
the details online.
All these smartphone apps have one major goal, besides collecting credit fees. Reduce store
overhead by getting customers to do more of the work while eliminating employees. The winners
are not the customers or people looking for a way to make ends meet.
Another goal of course is to track even further every single purchase - what, and where, and
when. And then sell the consumption data to the insurers perhaps… a packet of cigs per day? Or
too many bottles of booze?
Of course they are already doing that with the store "fidelity cards", but the mobile apps
will be more precise and less optional.
Re the Oilprice link, here's an article that contradicts the notion that US policy in Syria
was about the Qatari pipeline as that claim–put forth in a Politico article by Robert Kennedy
Jr–was little more than a poorly sourced rumor.
That claim has no credibility for a very simple reason: there was no Qatari proposal for
Syria to reject in 2009. It was not until October 2009 that Qatar and Turkey even agreed to
form a working group to develop such a gas pipeline project.
Gareth Porter says that instead
The US decision to support Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia in their ill-conceived plan to
overthrow the Assad regime was primarily a function of the primordial interest of the US permanent
war state in its regional alliances. The three Sunni allies control US access to the key US
military bases in the region, and the Pentagon, the CIA, the State Department and the Obama
White House were all concerned, above all, with protecting the existing arrangements for the
US military posture in the region[….]
The massive, direct and immediate power interests of the US war state – not the determination
to ensure that a pipeline would carry Qatar's natural gas to Europe – drove the US policy of
participation in the war against the Syrian regime. Only if activists focus on that reality
will they be able to unite effectively to oppose not only the Syrian adventure but the war
system itself.
In other words the MIC strikes again and seems to be directly challenging Obama policies with
"accidents" like the recent bombing of the Syrian army. Time for movie fans to dust off old copies
of Seven Days in May?
Porter may well be right about the pipeline. However, a piece that purports to account for
our Syria operations and the obsession with the removal of Assad that does not mention Israel
and the Israel Lobby cannot be the complete story. Breaking the 'Shia Crescent' is a major strategic
aim of the friends of Israel.
Without a doubt the Lobby keeps the liberals–the "progressives except for Palestine"–supporting
the fever dreams of the generals, but arguably it's this internal, and traditionally rather Waspy
pressure group that is the real menace. As the following quite accurately points out, we have
a WW2 military with nothing to do with itself unless they can invent a suitable enemy.
We live in a military world fundamentally different from that of the last century. All-out
wars between major powers, which is to say nuclear powers, are unlikely since they would last
about an hour after they became all-out, and everyone knows it. In WWII Germany could convince
itself, reasonably and almost correctly, that Russia would fall in a summer, or the Japanese
that a Depression-ridden, unarmed America might decide not to fight. Now, no. Threaten something
that a nuclear power regards as vital and you risk frying. So nobody does.
Or, to sum up
What is the relevance of the Pentagon? How do you bomb a trade agreement?
The generals and admirals need a Russian foe to justify their absurd budgets and their very
existence. It's ironic that our great victory in WW2–triumph of industrial America–may end up
doing us more long term harm than those European and Asian nations that were bombed into ashes.
You can rebuild cities but dismantling imperial hubris turns out to be harder.
Occam would probably just say that the Cold War never ended for our geniuses-in-chief, despite
dissolving away in 1989 our enemy is and always was and will be Russia uber alles. The simple
fact that they back Assad is all it took, yes add in a sprinkle of Tehran and Tel Aviv and goose
with a little juice from Riyadh but the overnight disappearance of our existential enemy was something
up with which we could not put.
Just watched Samantha Powers speak at the emergency UN security counsel meeting on Syria, how
she managed to keep a straight face is completely beyond me.
Basically Russia needs to take responsibility for its actions in Syria and the war would be
over if those damn Russians would GTFO and quit disrupting the US and GCC regime change operations.
It appears everything would be going swimmingly if Russia would just leave the "rebels" alone
and let the US turn Syria into Libya, I mean is that so much to ask for? /S
The people Obama has chosen to represent him are almost all fanatics. Samantha Power and Ash
Carter stand out as true psychopaths. Carter actually openly defied Obama on the Syria ceasefire.
Robert Parry has an excellent piece out today on the
rush to judgment about the attack on the humanitarian convoy.
It has been particularly infuriating to see the Chanel-suited Berkeley types be the ones to
embrace imperial fascist war-making with such glee.
I happened to recognize Susan Rice travelling sans bodyguard with her girlfriend at the airport
in Chiang Mai Thailand and had a delicious time giving her a full piece of my mind. Unedited truth
to power with nowhere to hide, she reacted with a glaze that said "you are just an idiot peon"
but I could see she was shaken.
Peter K. :
September 25, 2016 at 07:01 AM
This is a large problem for the left. (and I see the prospect
of enacting "maximum wage laws" as pretty slim. Maybe I'm
wrong.)
You read progressive commenters like David and
EMichael here pondering the returns on their investments. Not
that there's anything fundamentally wrong with it. It's just
a problem needed to be solved by public policy so everyone is
facing the same rules.
You Voted to Pay Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf $19.5 Million
by Dean Baker
Published: 24 September 2016
You don't remember casting that vote? Well, you didn't
actually cast it, but if you have a 401(k) someone like
Blackrock CEO Larry Fink cast the vote for you.
Most middle income people have 401(k)s for their
retirement and most of this money is in mutual funds. These
mutual funds have control over the proxy votes for the shares
they hold. This means that funds like Blackrock, which has
more than $5 trillion in assets, have enormous say over the
distribution of income in this country. And, as Gretchen
Morgenson points out in her NYT column this morning, these
folks almost always endorse outlandish pay packages for CEOs.
As they say in Wall Street circles, what's a few million
dollars between friends.
Folks need to keep their $$$$ out of mutual funds, keep their
$$$$ out of 401(k). Plus you will avoid the load. When stocks
fall your t-bonds will rise by virtue of their negative beta.
Is that why investment bankers are contributing more to
Clinton Dynasty Foundation? To Clinton election slush fund?
Than to Trump University? Because the strongly suspect that
stocks will collapse when the Donald moves into White House?
Do you know where your assets are? When was the last
I hate to remark on so obvious a matter. A TBTF bank CEO
bonus of $19.5million is a low bonus by industry standards.
Back in the 90s and oughties a $2million bonus for a managing
director was an insult or an indication that you were on your
way out. $10million was a good bonus, $5 million was OK. A
$20 million bonus was really good for an MD. CEOs and leaders
of successful business units could see 9 figure bonuses, like
Mr Blankfein's $130million 2010 bonus, and he was not the
highest paid GS exec that year. A bonus below $20million for
a current day CEO could be read as bad news and is probably
read as such by his friends. He is probably on his way out.
Bonuses today are not as sumptuous as they were in 2010
when the Obama bailout money was considered income and
bonuses were paid out in proportion to the income of the
business unit.
It seems Wells Fargo may have avoided the disasterous decline
in stock valuations that BofA and Citigroup experienced but
this is not exactly a large increase either:
Sad part, is that now pgl will tell us about the woes of one
or two of his favorite banks and try to project that to the
industry...or he'll put in a link showing declines in net
interest margins...because he's a dissembling sleazebag.
This dude is so confused that he doesn't even know the
difference between net INCOME margin (profit) and net
INTEREST margin!
"... After several years of deliberate fiscal austerity, designed to bring down budget deficits and stabilise public debt ratios, the fiscal stance in the developed economies became broadly neutral in 2015. There are now signs that it is turning slightly expansionary , with several major governments apparently heeding the calls from Keynesian economists to boost infrastructure expenditure. ..."
"... [1] Fiscal easing remains very conntentious in political circles throughout the western economies. At a recent meeting behind closed doors in Washington DC, I was surprised to hear a very senior, and generally intelligent, Republican politician declare that "Keynesian demand management has been shown to be useless by a bunch of Austrian academics". I am not sure what he had in mind, but he did make a more defensible point when he added that supply side policies might be more important for growth in the long run. ..."
Notice: Author Alerts
This service is moving to our
new website
. You will still be able to follow your
favourite authors via
myFT
. Following authors will create Instant Alerts, which
can also be created for any other topic.
Try it now
.
|
Sep 25 14:33
|
15 comments
|
Share
Fiscal policy activism is firmly back on the agenda.
After several years
of deliberate fiscal austerity, designed to bring down budget deficits and
stabilise public debt ratios, the fiscal stance in the developed economies
became broadly neutral in 2015. There are now signs that it is turning
slightly expansionary
, with several major governments apparently heeding
the calls from Keynesian economists to boost infrastructure expenditure.
This seems an obvious path at a time when governments can finance public
investment programmes at less than zero real rates of interest. Even those
who believe that government programmes tend to be inefficient and wasteful
would have a hard time arguing that the real returns on public transport,
housing, health and education are actually negative [1].
With monetary policy apparently reaching its limits in some countries,
and deflationary threats still not defeated in Japan and the Eurozone, we
are beginning to see the emergence of packages of fiscal stimulus with
supply side characteristics, notably in Japan and China.
Investors are asking whether this pivot towards fiscal activism is a
reason to become more bullish about equities and more bearish about bonds,
on the grounds that the new policy mix will be better for global GDP growth.
This is directionally right, but it is important not to exaggerate the
extent of the pivot.
The phase of fiscal austerity peaked in 2013, and ended last year, but
firm announcements of more stimulative budgetary policy have been fairly
minor up to now. In 2016, budgetary policy in the developed economies will
be slightly expansionary and the latest plans suggest that the same will be
true next year.
In Japan, there has been an overt decision to ease budgetary policy
by about 1.3 per cent of GDP in the next 12 months.
In China, fiscal policy has probably been eased by at least 1 per
cent of GDP this year, though much of this has been outside the official
government budget.
In the UK, Chancellor Hammond has suggested that he is rethinking his
predecessor's plan to balance the budget by 2020, though this change may
not be taken as far as a major easing in the policy stance.
In the US, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have outlined
spending packages, amounting to 1.5 and 2.5 per cent of GDP respectively,
but it is far from clear how much of his would be offset by extra
taxation after negotiations with Congress.
In the Eurozone, budget deficit targets have been allowed to rise to
finance help for migrants and the Juncker infrastructure programme, and
even Germany is seriously thinking of tax reductions in 2017, but the
overall change in the fiscal thrust still seems rather minor.
J.P. Morgan has recently estimated that budgetary policy in the major
developed economies, measured by the structural budget balance, will be
eased by 0.2 per cent of GDP both this year and next. With feasible further
policy changes, it could turn out to be a little more than this, but only a
little:
What effect would that have on GDP growth? In part, that depends on the
monetary policy reaction.
In the US, the Federal Reserve could raise short rates slightly more
rapidly if fiscal policy is eased, curtailing the GDP benefits somewhat.
Elsewhere, monetary policy would not react at all, and central banks would
probably prevent any crowding out of private investment by keeping long bond
yields stable.
It is now well established that the fiscal multiplier is probably fairly
large when interest rates are at the zero lower bound. A recent
lecture by Paul Krugman
suggests, as a rule of thumb, that the
multiplier might be around 1.5, compared to standard estimates of 0.5 or
less in previous eras. That seems to be as good an estimate as any other,
and it would suggest that the fiscal easing in 2017 might raise GDP growth
by more than a quarter percentage point, compared to a GDP growth drag of
over 1.8 per cent in 2013.
That is useful, but scarcely ground breaking. Yet Keynesians seem
optimistic that the beneficial effects of a fiscal pivot might be much more
significant than this. How might this happen?
There are two possibilities. The first is that a fiscal stimulus might
shock the economies into a new equilibrium in which private sector
confidence is restored and the level of output settles permanently at a new,
higher level. Economists can show that almost anything is possible by using
multiple equilibrium models (and Keynes certainly had such mechanisms in
mind in the 1930s) but it surely strains credulity to suggest that the
modest fiscal changes currently planned would have a dramatic effect on
corporate or consumer confidence.
A second possibility is that easier fiscal policy would simultaneously
make the existing stance of monetary policy more stimulative.
Recent work
on R*, the equilibrium real rate of interest, suggests that
fiscal policy can shock R* upwards, by raising investment relative to
savings. This would have an effect opposite to the global savings glut,
which is sometimes held to have reduced R* in the past decade.
If that occurred, then the gap between current interest rates and R*
would be increased, making the monetary stance (in theory) more stimulative
without the central bank taking any action at all. But would a moderate and
temporary increase in the budget deficit have a large and permanent effect
on R*? It seems rather doubtful.
It is true that eventually there could be changes in fiscal strategy that
could be powerful enough to shock the global economy into a different path
for growth and inflation. Chris Sims' work on
fiscal dominance
suggests that a major regime change in which fiscal
policy is aimed at achieving a rise in inflation towards the 2 per cent
target could be very powerful.
But, in the real world, politicians (except possibly in Japan) are
nowhere near accepting the need to throw overboard everything they have
believed for decades. It would probably take another global recession to
change that.
----------------------------
Footnote
[1] Fiscal easing remains very conntentious in political circles
throughout the western economies. At a recent meeting behind closed doors in
Washington DC, I was surprised to hear a very senior, and generally
intelligent, Republican politician declare that "Keynesian demand management
has been shown to be useless by a bunch of Austrian academics". I am not
sure what he had in mind, but he did make a more defensible point when he
added that supply side policies might be more important for growth in the
long run.
Tags:
central banks
,
Fiscal policy
,
Monetary policy
Posted in
Central Banks
,
Macroeconomics
|
Permalink
Share
Share this on
This idea is not new nor has it ever worked. See Japan and China for recent examples, NZ
tried it in the 80's and almost went bust.
It maybe possible to get some short term uptick in
economic measurements following a big government spend
up, but it is well proven that when the fiscal spend up
slows so does the economy. There are many reason for this,
least not, that most often Government projects are wrecked
by politics, unions see them as an opportunity to leverage
political capital for the benefit of their members and
inevitably push up costs of the project. The private
sector see it for what it is, a temporary spend up on the
public purse and milk it for all they can get, much of the
spending goes off shore via profits and expenditure on raw
materials. Unless resources are sitting around idle
inflation will reduce the expected returns and ultimately
these types of projects reflect the under lying issue in
economies that try them, these are usually related to
declining productivity driven by regulation and monetary
driven asset inflation. If economic wealth creation was as
simple as spending more then we would not be talking about
it.
The economic philosophy/theory of Keynes and monetarism
as land us where we are today. Unfortunately it seems like
populist political outcomes will raise there ugly head
with who knows what outcome. The establishment will
blindly blame the populist politician and not reflect on
how we got here. The FT seems to be leading the charge in
that regard.
Brian Reading
5pts
Featured
1 hour ago
It is great to read sop-histicated articles not afraid to
mention the equilibrium real rate of interest and
structural budget balances. Perhaps the message is that
the combination of conventional fiscal policy with
unconventional monetary polcy is doing more harm than good
and has the makings of the next crisis. It is possibly now
time to try unconventional fiscal with conventional money.
Ye
olde sweetie shoppe
5pts
Featured
4 hours ago
Did you know that "Camels Fart Augments Menu" is an
anagram of Fulcrum Asset Management?
tobacco flat
5pts
Featured
6 hours ago
Even the simplest corporate treasurer would be issuing as
much paper as possible at negative interest rates but the
ECB geniuses are buying!
Down
under
5pts
Featured
10 hours ago
@duvinroude
I think that's been tried before, don't you?
seafoid
5pts
Featured
14 hours ago
Taxing the 1% is the only solution
slimfairview
5pts
Featured
14 hours ago
After almost 6 years of inveighing against Merkelism, an economic system based on the fear
that someone, somewhere is earning a living, and after
youngsters majoring in Economics tried running Ken
Rogoff's numbers through a computer and failed to
duplicate the results, the EuroCrats have--with their last
gasp--embraced austerity.
Nonetheless, that the EuroUnion may be unraveling is
indicated in part by Dr. Rogoff back-pedaling on austerity
in a recent interview, the hysterical rants by EuroCrats
against the impending Brexit Vote, the petulant and bitter
invective after the Brexit Vote, the "open and public and
effusive" support for the Chancellor by, among others,
Madame Lagarde; Draghi's rebuke to Merkel on her attempted
interference in the activities of the ECB.....
Perhaps the EuroCrats from the "EXIT" Nations:
Britain, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and now Ireland,
will consider the proposal in Brexit? Now What?
The SidestreetJournal is an unsupported, unfunded,
non-profit web log by the Blogger Slim Fairview.
Nicki
5pts
Featured
12 hours ago
@
slimfairview
Has
that rant got anything to do with the subject?
Neil
at home
5pts
Featured
15 hours ago
So the nice easy solution of lowering interest rates
hasn't stimulated growth and throwing a few trillion on
infrastructure wont help much either.
Ye olde sweetie shoppe
5pts
Featured
5 hours ago
@
Neil at home
I
respectfully disagree. Infrastructure spending
should at the very least stimulate wage growth,
increase employment and ultimately stoke inflation.
Zero interest rates have done none of this because
in a balance sheet recession corporations tend
rather perversely to pay down debt rather than issue
more of it. I recommend you watch one of Ricard
Koo's presentations on Youtube.
genauer
5pts
Featured
15 hours ago
Inflation targeting to less than 2% has been Bundesbank policy for a long time, and with
them most of mainland Europe.
Krugman claiming that "And my team won three out of
three. Goooaaal!" is his typical brand of strawmen
dishonesty.
Krugman trying to diparage "Academics like Niall
Ferguson and
John Cochrane
", that has
really something to it.
Still showing the discgraced garbage "analysis" solely
depending on one false data point Greece (Fig. 2) shows
that the disgraced Krugman and his Krugtron "team" are
intellectual and character garbage, specifically including
formerly IMF Olivier Blanchard.
Alex Barker in Brussels and Shawn Donnan in Washington
which had to wait 18 hours in pending .... : - )
Ralph Musgrave
5pts
Featured
16 hours ago
So after several years during which monetary policy has
proved less than brilliantly effective at giving us
stimulus, the "experts" are now going to try fiscal
policy. Have the "experts" yet caught up with the fact
that the Earth revolves round the Sun?
Andrew Baldwin
5pts
Featured
17 hours ago
I haven't read the paper by Chris Sims but there is no
reason that fiscal policy should set itself the task of
raising the inflation rate to two percent. The two percent
inflation target is a relic of the original inflation
control agreement of the Governor of the Bank of Canada
and the Minister of Finance in February 1991. The upward
bias in the Canadian CPI at that time was probably greater
by 25 basis points than it is today, and probably in
excess of 50 basis points as compared to the US target
inflation indicator, the PCEPI. In any case, two percent
was never intended to define price stability, which the
1991 agreement clearly stated would be some inflation rate
lower than two percent. The developed world should forget
about a two percent target. It is long past time to move
the target rate down.
duvinrouge
5pts
Featured
17 hours ago
Expansionary fiscal policy solution for those who think the problem is capitalists hoarding
money.
Expansionary fiscal policy, just like expansionary
monetary policy, will only further diverge aggregate
prices from aggregate values - a crisis of
'overproduction'. But, of course, economists today have no
comprehension of the difference between price & value,
even if some recognise an 'asset-price bubble'.
There is no way of avoiding a recession that destroys
fictitious capital, along with productive capital & with
all the mass unemployment & human suffering. Not because
boom-bust is an act of nature, rather it is part & parcel
of the capitalist system. Only a post-capitalist system
where the means of production are commonly
owned/controlled can we liberate humanity.
Hollow Man
5pts
Featured
7 hours ago
@
duvinrouge
Interesting! But you've teased us before with
comments that would suggest you have more up your
sleeve. Why not lay out a fuller explanation
--presumably it's some kind of modern variant of
Marxian theory -- so that we can judge for ourselves
what sort of alternative it really is to to Gavyn
Davies' stale, jargon-ridden analysis?
I will never miss George Dubya Bush. It was truly scary to realise that the institutions of the
US were so broken that a complete moron like that could become President because his daddy was.
Then, just as Obama's election seemed to put things back on an even keel, here in Britain we elected
Dave Cameron, an aristocratic ignoramus probably more out of touch with reality than Dubya ever
was - and not a whole lot smarter.
Pretty straightforward unless you were an Iraqi with god knows how many tons of depleted uranium
dropping on your children's heads. Or an innocent Afghan being tortured in one of the CIA's black
sites.
Bush is a war criminal who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent
people.
He represents the worst of humanity and although Trump appears worse - we will have to wait
to see what his legacy will be if he wins. As it stands Bush is the one who already has a disastrous
and murderous legacy.
Considering he inherited the war Bubba Bush and Darth Bugsey Cheney started, you are correct.
The fact they disbanded the Iraqi military, they provided skilled military leaders and troops
to ISIL.
That excuse is a bit hard to swallow 8 years later. Even Guantanamo Bay remains in use, as it
ever was. As it turns out it was easier for Obama to provide weapons to rebel\terrorist groups
in Libya and Syria than it was to give prisoners a fair trial under the American justice system
and end torture. He's also cracked down on whistleblowers like Manning and Snowden in a way that
Bush never did.
Bush signed agreement for a deadline to withdraw troops from Iraq. Obama tried to bully Iraq into
disregarding that agreement. They refused. He then simply rechristened the troops 'advisors.'
Obama never ended the war there, or anywhere. He's extended Bush's wars into several more countries
throughout MENA.
Please stop lying about Obama's record. He has pushed for never-ending, ever-expanding wars,
and that's just what he's delivered.
The nightmare Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld & company left due to their manipulating lies and misinformation
to ensure the USA bomb
Iraq (thus destabilizing the ME) will
at minimum bring a generation of leaders great misery.
Each US leader will experiment with the
possibilities to decrease terrorism, many more mistakes will be endured. No one seems to knows
how to stop the hatred which underlies the destruction pledged
by these sociopathic murderers.
Obama promoted the same aggressive American policy as Bush, despite the early promise. Perhaps
it makes little difference who is in power. To ignore the last 8 years of more bloodshed is a
thing many round the world do not have the luxury you do.
We call Obama a war monger because he has brought the American war effort to seven nations just
this year. Brought war to Ukraine. Libya. Syria. Yemen. Honduras.
Obama's Military is in over 150 nations on this planet.
Obama continue expanded the Bush/Cheney doctrine. He campaigned for office pledging to reverse
it. He's now been president for nearly eight years; it's reasonable to hold him accountable for
what he's done and stop pretending he bears no responsibility for what's happened under his watch
as commander-in-chief.
Every leader including Obama carries the responsibility for their choices. Bush/Cheney
violated and abused the trust of leaders and
the public in many nations by misinforming,
lying, and manipulative means to bomb
a nation who had no dealings with the terrorism of 9/11. The USA is now in a war tangle in which
every leader hence will be targeted negatively until the ME conflicts
have no more US armed forces involved in the killings. Terrorism will plague many nations for
the next generation at minimum.
'Mission Accomplished' should be the name of the jail cells for Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld convicted
as war criminals.
This picture kind of sums up why a whole load of people are voting Trump. Two apparently opposing
politicians who ultimately led the US in the same self destructing direction. The illusion of
democracy could never be clearer.
Afraid I would find it impossible to hug the president who with Blair has destabilised the Middle
East for years to come...mind you the UK's history ain't so hot. Maybe I should stop going around
hugging my fellow countrymen and women.
Far more so than many think with superficial consideration.
Both men did nothing for their people while spending unbelievable amounts of money on obscene
mass killing abroad.
They also share behaviors in the economic sphere. The 2008 Financial collapse happened under
George Bush owing to a lack of adequate oversight of financial institutions and practices, a titanic
financial equivalent to Bush's lackadaisical performance in New Orleans' Hurricane Katrina.
The Obama response during eight years in office has been to avoid making any changes to correct
the situation and prevent future occurrences, and he has done nothing but have vast quantities
of money printed to keep the economy afloat.
Actually, while Obama is more intelligent than Bush, he too is a weak and ineffective figure.
He has marched without pause to the drumbeat of the Pentagon and CIA
He understood at least his own lack of ability after a lifetime spent as an asinine frat-boy
who never did anything on his own.
He had Cheney and Rumsfeld along deliberately because he knew they were ready to run things
for him.
His lack of effective intelligence and lack of drive to do anything should have meant that
Bush never be president.
But he had money, tons of it, and heavy-duty political connections, and the real power men
like the ruthless Cheney had him lined up from the start as their front man.
The one thing Bush proved was that America doesn't even need a President. Any pathetic figure
can sign the documents placed before him and read the speeches written for him.
The establishment, with immense resources at its disposal, is quite capable of keeping the
public believing that the face on the television is actually in charge.
Actually, while Obama is more intelligent than Bush, he too is a weak and ineffective figure.
He has marched without pause to the drumbeat of the Pentagon and CIA
"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party...and it has two right wings:
Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their
laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt-until
recently... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the
black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between
the two parties." (Gore Vidal - "The State of the Union", 1975)
"W" had one of the BEST track records of placing PoC in truly significant positions. Condoleeza
Rice. Colin Powell, Alberto Gonzalez, etc. Bush was in no way, shape or form a racist - so long
as you were an Uncle Tom willing to sell out your fellow citizens, bomb the crap out of foreigners,
and kiss the asses of the 1%.
Like making Bush's tax cuts permanent. Obama has many great qualities, but a strong principled
belief in equality is not one of them. He's a neo-liberal corporatist through and through -hence
frantically trying to push TTP through before the election, now that Hillary was forced to say
she's against it. I'm sure there was a private conversation there - 'That f-ing Bernie is making
me say I'm against TTP -can you get it through before the election, we can't trust Trump on it'
Michelle Obama embrases the criminal whose administration is responsible ( although we know that
the foreign policy in the US is not decided by the president but by the NSA, CIA and occult lobbies
) for the death of over 1.500.000 million people in Iraq and Syria. Meanwhile the Guardian embraces
the anti Russian propaganda by giving voice to the unpeakable lies about Russia's war crimes.
Fortunately most media in the Continent (in France and Italy especially), are not follwing this
dictats.
If the UN and the International Criminal Court were not mere tools of the US to punish anyone
they don't like how on earth is this criminal not in jail? The only person that did worse than
him is Hitler. He purposely lied to go into a war that destroyed thousands of innocent lives.
I see, Bush (death toll 500,000+) and Obama (death toll 300,000+) are now closing ranks to avert
Trump. Phew!!! This Trump guy must be really dangerous. I hope, our banks help finance an effective
campaign against Trump!
I think this is a good thing, Ronald Reagan used to have dinner with Tip O'Neill. As did many
Republicans and Democrat presidents and senior members of Congress/Senate, that's stopped under
Tom DeLay and Gingrich during the 90s when partisanship really took hold. It's been ugly ever
since.
Socializing with the opposition is good for a working relationship.
Obama wasn't corrupted by office - operation Obama was planned well in advance. I would argue
he was corrupted a long time ago. I see war criminal Bush Snr endorsed Clinton just last week
- go figure. Not that I am a fan of Trump - far from it.
Obama appeared out of nowhere and managed to scrape together the mega bucks to fund his campaign?
Doesn't work like that - You don't currently get to be POTUS otherwise.
It seems like only 16 years ago that a bunch of Wall Street traders flew to Florida to stage a
riot to stop the recount....and here's Obama and Bush looking forward to the election of the first
President with her/his own hedge fund.....it brings tears to my eyes...
GW Bush refers to Hillary Clinton as his sister-in-law, now receives a hug from Michelle Obama.
Further confirmation that the supposed political rivalry between the Reps and Wall St / TPP Dems
is just noise.
The Obamas have become part of the firm. Anyone who has read vincent bugliosi book,The prosecution
of George W BUsh for murder knows the last thing this guy needs is a hug. How can any of them
be truly trusted
Politics is theater. They're all acting pretty much all the time, as politics is the art of managing
perceptions.
Everyone knows everyone. There is a front of house posturing and invective demanded by the job,
and then the back of house, deals and horse-trading.
Bill Clinton is a massive friend of both George Bushes and Donald Trump used be a good friend
of the Clintons. But both the Clintons loathe Barack and Michelle Obama.
So for me, the very worst picture was the one of Hillary being hugged by Barack during her stolen
coronation.
Looks like the establishment is closing ranks. When was the last time the US had a real two party
system and politicians were not controlled by Wall Street?
"Elizabeth Warren Tells Hillary Clinton Not To Hire Wall Street Donors" [
International
Business Times
]. At the Center for American Progress:
"I know that personnel is policy," she told the group. "But let me be
clear - when we talk about personnel, we don't mean advisors who just pay
lip service to Hillary's bold agenda [irony, surely?], coupled with a
sigh, a knowing glance, and a twiddling of thumbs until it's time for the
next swing through the revolving door, serving government then going back
to the very same industries they regulate. We don't mean Citigroup or
Morgan Stanley or BlackRock getting to choose who runs the economy in
this country so they can capture our government."
This,
before
November 8! They must be gritting their teeth in
Brooklyn, as Warren underlines her status as a party baron once more.
"The Clinton Global Initiative wraps up its 12th and final annual meeting
Wednesday amid intense scrutiny about the access its donors received while
Hillary Clinton was the nation's top diplomat" [
McClatchy
].
So I guess they're closing out the fund? And the payouts will come over the
course of a future Clinton administration….
Our endorsement is rooted in respect
for her intellect, experience and courage. ...
In any normal election year, we'd compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the
issues. But this is not a normal election year. A comparison like that would be an empty exercise
in a race where one candidate - our choice, Hillary Clinton - has a record of service and a raft
of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Trump, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his
plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway. (We will explain in a subsequent
editorial why we believe Mr. Trump to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern
American history.)
But this endorsement would also be an empty exercise if it merely affirmed the choice of Clinton
supporters. We're aiming instead to persuade those of you who are hesitating to vote for Mrs.
Clinton - because you are reluctant to vote for a Democrat, or for another Clinton, or for a candidate
who might appear, on the surface, not to offer change from an establishment that seems indifferent
and a political system that seems broken. ...
2008 Crisis Deepened the Ties Between Clintons and Goldman Sachs
http://nyti.ms/2cLHnuY
NYT - NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and SUSANNE CRAIG - Sep 24
A blue-ribbon commission had just excoriated Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banks for
fueling the financial crisis. Prosecutors were investigating whether Goldman had misled investors.
The company was a whipping boy for politicians looking to lay blame for the crash.
But in spring of 2011, Lloyd C. Blankfein, leading one of the nation's most reviled companies,
found himself onstage with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, one of the nation's most admired
public figures at the time. And Mrs. Clinton had come to praise Goldman Sachs.
The State Department, Mrs. Clinton announced that day in an auditorium in its Foggy Bottom
headquarters, would throw its weight behind a Goldman philanthropic initiative aimed at encouraging
female entrepreneurs around the world - a program Goldman viewed as central to rehabilitating
its reputation.
Mrs. Clinton's blessing - an important public seal of approval for Goldman at a time when it
had few defenders in Washington - underscored a long-running relationship between one of the country's
most powerful financial firms and one of its most famous political families. Over 20-plus years,
Goldman provided the Clintons with some of their most influential advisers, millions of dollars
in campaign contributions and speaking fees, and financial support for the family foundation's
charitable programs.
And in the wake of the worst crash since the Great Depression, as the firm fended off investigations
and criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike, the Clintons drew Goldman only closer. Bill
Clinton publicly defended the company and leased office space from Goldman for his foundation.
Mrs. Clinton, after leaving the State Department, earned $675,000 to deliver three speeches at
Goldman events, where she reassured executives that they had an important role to play in the
nation's recovery.
The four years between the end of the financial crisis and the start of Mrs. Clinton's second
White House bid revealed a family that viewed Wall Street's elite as friends and collaborators
even as the public viewed them with suspicion and scorn. ...
So these people think it is a big deal for the Sec of State to appear at a dinner with GS where
the bank starts a program to help women in business throughout the world.
10,000 Women is a program organized by Goldman Sachs with the goal of helping to grow local
economies by providing business education, mentoring and networking, and access to capital to
underserved women entrepreneurs globally. ...
I know about the program. A local charity group I do a little work for has partnered with it.
My question was doe the writers in that Times article mention the program?
If not, it is just another in a long series of attacks on the Clintons with little basis in
fact. I am not a big fan of either of them, but this treatment is beyond the pale.
ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
The NYT board like Mrs. Clinton has no idea about providing for the common defense.
Experience that could not remember nor take responsibility for safeguarding information that
could damage US well being...........
Nor remember the most basic requirements for filing public records.
"... By Matthew Weinzierl, Assistant Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School. Originally published at VoxEU ..."
"... The trick or con being played by the elite is to convince enough of us that the game of life is being played fair. And when that fails, the con or lie becomes that its the fault of (insert target minority group). ..."
"... From two complementary sociological points of view -- conflict theory and symbolic interactionism -- this article is naive -or a red herring- in the ways you suggest. ..."
"... Indeed, the issue is about people accepting a "definition of the situation" that is in fact detrimental to their material interests (Pierre Bourdieu terms this "misrecognition"). Erving Goffman, who was trained as an interactionist, studied con artists to describe how they successfully created a definition of situation -- which means a version of social reality -- that their marks would internalize as reality itself. A sociologist would not begin a discussion of socioeconomic inequality with tax policy. ..."
"... Control over arguments regarding political economy in the public sphere have to be wrested from economists, so that we can start to talk about what actually matters. Sanders' popularity, despite his numerous problems, lay in how he took control of the argument and laid bare the absurdities of those who benefit from the status quo. ..."
"... I say we boycott economists. Sure some of them are not terrible, but in the main the discipline needs to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up. ..."
"... Many economists function as members of the courtier class, justifying what the rich and powerful want to occur. Most citizens already boycott economists in that they don't use their services except when required to attend an Econ class at school. ..."
"... But economists do influence average citizens lives via their justification of tax policy, land use policy, labor policy, trade policy and law implementation. ..."
"... Economic education has been a failure of the left. Everyone needs to know how money and finance works. Only then can that power be put to various uses. It is not that you don't need economists, you need economists working in your interest. ..."
"... I could get behind this. And I would have to agree that harping against the evils of capitalism, which are very real, often comes from those who don't really understand how it works. ..."
"... The post indicates this guy is Assistant Professor of Business Administration - at Harvard Business School - so I'm not sure I would give him even so much regard as I might give an economist. I wonder how he and his will regard the fairness of luck while they wait in line to be serviced at the guillotine they're building - much as Scrooge crafted his chain and weights for his afterlife. ..."
"... Interesting reference to Scrooge -- the power of art to enlighten the human condition cannot be underestimated. As I get older, it seems to me that the capitalism system debases everything it touches. Anything of real value will be found outside this system. It has become the box that confines us all. ..."
"... It's also worth noting how his examples are still a function of the neoliberal canard that privilege is simply a boost on the ladder of meritocracy. The game is still implicitly understood to be fair. ..."
"... Yet, it's not clear to me what Alice Walton, for instance, has done to justify being a multi-billionaire. People who are born not just with spoons but entire silver foundries in their mouths could redistribute 90% of the wealth they acquired by virtue of being someone's baby and still be absurdly rich. ..."
"... Learning must be for its own sake. Like you, I spent many hours in the library. BUT it was to scratch an itch I have not been able to quell - even in these many years since I was in that library. ..."
"... "The putative "father of the Euro", economist Robert Mundell is reported to have explained to one of his university of Chicago students, Greg Palast: "the Euro is the easy way in which Congresses and Parliaments can be stripped of all power over monetary and fiscal policy. Bothersome democracy is removed from the economic system" Michael Hudson "Killing the Host" ..."
"... The neoclassical economists didn't have a clue as the Minsky Moment was approaching. ..."
Yves here. This article argues that people don't mind inequality due to "brute luck"…but is one man's
brute luck another man's rigged system?
By Matthew Weinzierl, Assistant Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business
School. Originally published at
VoxEU
Tax policy to correct inequality assumes that nobody is entitled to advantages due to luck alone.
But the public largely rejects complete equalisation of 'brute luck' inequality. This column argues
that there is near universal public support for an alternative, benefit-based theory of taxation.
Treating optimal tax policy as an empirical matter may help us to close the gap between theory and
reality.
... .... ...
In this case, the optimal tax policy aggressively offsets inequality. Only the need to retain
incentives to work and the desire to reward extra effort justify allowing inequality to persist.
... ... ...
Brute Luck and Economic Inequality
What explains the gap between scholarly and popular views of the moral status of pre-tax income?
A clue might be our attitude to luck.
The view that individuals have no moral claim to their pre-tax incomes relies on the ethical assumption
that nobody is entitled to advantages due to factors outside his or her control. Philosophers such
as Cohen (2011) call this 'brute luck'. Given the importance of brute luck (for example, natural
ability, childhood home environment, and early schooling) to a person's economic status, this assumption
directly leads to a rejection of moral claims to pre-tax income.
... ... ...
The 2016 US presidential campaign's attention to inequality fits these findings. Some candidates
complain of a 'rigged system' and rich individuals and corporations who do not pay their 'fair' share.
Critically, gains due to a rigged system or tax avoidance are due to unjust actions, not brute luck.
They are due to the toss of a loaded coin, not a fair one.
... ... ...
These are early steps in developing a new approach to tax theory that I have called 'positive
optimal taxation'. This approach modifies the standard optimal tax analysis by treating the
objective for taxation as an empirical matter. It uses a variety of sources – including opinion
surveys, political rhetoric, and analysis of robust policy features – to highlight gaps between
the standard theory and prevailing reality of tax policy. It also identifies and incorporates
into the theory alternative goals – and the philosophical principles behind them – that better
describe the public's views on policy.
One piece of logic missing from the research analysis is accounting for the game itself. If
I agree to play a game of chance that is fairly played I am by default also agreeing that I accept
the possibility that the outcomes will not be equal, otherwise why would I play. It shouldn't
be a surprise that in the end people are willing to maintain that inequality because they originally
agreed to it by the fact that they agreed to play.
As Yves points out, if you change the scenario where one of the players was allowed to collude
with the person executing the game and the other player was informed of this you might get a very
different answer. You might even get a punishing answer.
The trick or con being played by the elite is to convince enough of us that the game of life
is being played fair. And when that fails, the con or lie becomes that its the fault of (insert
target minority group).
From two complementary sociological points of view -- conflict theory and symbolic interactionism
--
this article is naive -or a red herring- in the ways you suggest.
Indeed, the issue is about people
accepting a "definition of the situation" that is in fact detrimental to their material interests
(Pierre Bourdieu terms this "misrecognition"). Erving Goffman, who was trained as an interactionist,
studied con artists to describe how they successfully created a definition of situation -- which
means a version of social reality -- that their marks would internalize as reality itself. A sociologist
would not begin a discussion of socioeconomic inequality with tax policy.
A sociologist would not begin a discussion of socioeconomic inequality with tax policy.
But an economist would, and therein lies the problem. Control over arguments regarding political economy in the public sphere have to be wrested
from economists, so that we can start to talk about what actually matters. Sanders' popularity,
despite his numerous problems, lay in how he took control of the argument and laid bare the absurdities
of those who benefit from the status quo.
I say we boycott economists. Sure some of them are not terrible, but in the main the discipline
needs to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up.
Many economists function as members of the courtier class, justifying what the rich and powerful
want to occur. Most citizens already boycott economists in that they don't use their services except when
required to attend an Econ class at school.
But economists do influence average citizens lives via their justification of tax policy, land
use policy, labor policy, trade policy and law implementation.
Even if we tore down the profession, it could likely regrow to provide the same functionality.
The profession provides a valuable service, as it is valued by the class with power and money
throughout the world.
Economic education has been a failure of the left. Everyone needs to know how money and finance
works. Only then can that power be put to various uses. It is not that you don't need economists,
you need economists working in your interest.
All knowledge and technology works this way. It is the purposeful use of information that matters,
not the information itself. The left wastes time, effort, and resources trying to convince people
to change their minds. Instead, they need to focus on building things in the real world, using
all the economic tools at their disposal.
I could get behind this. And I would have to agree that harping against the evils of capitalism,
which are very real, often comes from those who don't really understand how it works.
Maybe the solution is more co-ops and less rhetoric.
Using the power of the boycott is another. The powerless need to rediscover what power they
truly wield in this system. That was the other failure of the left. Yes, they were actively crushed
by corporate power, but the ideas live on. They can only be exterminated through lack of use.
A new ideology needs to be born of the ashes. If the predictions of climate disruption are
anywhere near accurate, a proactive, and positive direction can be undertaken. My experience is
that caring, healthy people are driven to help others in times of adversity. Well, those times
are coming. We are once again going to have to face the choice between choosing abject fear or
rolling up our sleeves and getting back to work making everyones lives better.
You don't need corporate sponsorship to do that. They need us more than we need them. In the
end, I have a feeling that the current system will come down very quickly. Being prepared for
that outcome is what should be driving the actions of those not vested in keeping the status quo
going.
The post indicates this guy is Assistant Professor of Business Administration - at Harvard
Business School - so I'm not sure I would give him even so much regard as I might give an economist.
I wonder how he and his will regard the fairness of luck while they wait in line to be serviced
at the guillotine they're building - much as Scrooge crafted his chain and weights for his afterlife.
For a historian, making connections between past and present situations is the root of their
insight. As in all walks of life, your efforts can gain value to your fellow citizens or they
can be used as a tool for your own self interest- whatever that might be. How interesting are
these repeating cycles in the human drama.
Interesting reference to Scrooge -- the power of art to enlighten the human condition cannot
be underestimated. As I get older, it seems to me that the capitalism system debases everything
it touches. Anything of real value will be found outside this system. It has become the box that
confines us all.
When your viewpoint of the world and your relationship to it shrink to only seeking profits,
the depravity of that situation is hidden from view unless shocked back to awareness.
As Peter Gabriel would say- Shock the Monkey
Shock the monkey to life
Shock the monkey to life
Cover me when I run
Cover me through the fire
Something knocked me out' the trees
Now I'm on my knees
Cover me darling please
Monkey, monkey, monkey
Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey
Fox the fox
Rat on the rat
You can ape the ape
I know about that
There is one thing you must be sure of
I can't take any more
Darling, don't you monkey with the monkey
Monkey, monkey, monkey
Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey
Wheels keep turning
Something's burning
Don't like it but I guess I'm learning
Shock! – watch the monkey get hurt, monkey
Cover me, when I sleep
Cover me, when I breathe
You throw your pearls before the swine
Make the monkey blind
Cover me, darling please
Monkey, monkey, monkey
Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey
Too much at stake
Ground beneath me shake
And the news is breaking
Shock! – watch the monkey get hurt, monkey
Shock the monkey
Shock the monkey
Shock the monkey to life
This is tangential to topic of this thread:
I was particularly struck by your comment about art: "the power of art to enlighten the human
condition cannot be underestimated." I recall a similar assertion made in one of Howard Zinn's
speeches - sorry I can't recall the exact phrasing of his statement or its context.
I'm retired and found a strange calling to make art - a calling I never listened to when I
had to worry about supporting a household. I find it difficult to make art that isn't political,
satirical or in some way didactic. Whether anyone else would regard my works as art I don't know
and in a way I don't care. Art has become a way in which I must express something inside me I
don't understand but whose direction I must follow. I suppose similar feeling drive many expressions
of art. Perhaps that explains something of the power of art you refer to.
For the erosion in income inequality to be fixed, economic policies need fixed. The disparity
between income quintiles will continue to widen. Social unrest will continue to proliferate. This
situation will simply never get corrected until the commercial banks are driven out of the savings
business (however bizarre one might think that solution is).
Vladimir Lenin, leader of the 1917 Russian Revolution said: "The best way to destroy the capitalist
system is to debauch the currency." Not so. The best way to destroy capitalists is the deregulation
of deposit caps for saver-holders' accounts in the commercial banking system. This policy error
simply increased the bank's costs with no increase in their income. Bottling up savings, is first
observed by the decline in money velocity, then by a decline in AD (secular stagnation), and when
the Fed attempts to offset this decline, by an increase in stagflation.
Vi is contrived. Vt is money actually exchanging counterparties. But since Ed Fry discontinued
the G.6 debit and demand deposit turnover release in Sept. 1996, the Fed has no rudder or anchor.
Required reserves are a surrogate, though the underweight Vt. But RRs are based on payments
(money turning over). And 95 percent of all demand drafts clear thru transaction based accounts.
The "code" you speak of relates to the volume of financial transactions consummated. Financial
transactions are not random. Financial speculation is a function of money flows. The volume of
bank debits during the housing crisis would have stood out like a sore thumb (as it captured both
new and existing real-estate transactions).
Only price increases generated by demand, irrespective of changes in supply, provide evidence
of inflation. There must be an increase in aggregate demand which can come about only as a consequence
of an increase in the volume and/or transactions velocity of money. The volume of domestic money
flows must expand sufficiently to push prices up, irrespective of the volume of financial transactions,
the exchange value of the U.S. dollar, and the flow of goods and services into the market economy.
The "administered" prices would not be the "asked" prices, were they not "validated" by (M*Vt),
i.e., "validated" by the world's Central Banks.
I'm not sure that what you just spewed even makes sense to you, or that you even bothered to
read the link provided…but the "code" is about concurrent monetary AND fiscal policy to serve
a purpose other than making the rich richer and the poor poorer…
If someone gets the waterfront property just because he/she was born first so got there first,
he better do something positive for the next generation… The next generation will understand the luck factor as not everyone can be standing in the
same spot at the same time, but it will not accept the scrooge.
If people are entitled, even in part, to their pre-tax incomes, the optimal tax policy would
no longer offset inequality as aggressively. Taxes would, instead, be focused on raising funds
for government activities in a way that tries to respect those entitlements.
which seems fair-ish, but also
Given the importance of brute luck (for example, natural ability, childhood home environment,
and early schooling)
Oh my! Childhood home environment and (gasp!) early schooling are matters of luck? Oh those
Haaahvaahd guys! No, professor, winning the lottery is a matter of luck, and can happen to anyone
at any point in their life. Being born in poverty, into a class 15% of whose male population is
incarcerated or having to go to a crappy school are *systemic* results of deliberate social structures,
the elites just prefer to call it "bad luck". Thus we see how the Ivies serve the elites.
Yes, HotFlash. And these 'deliberate social structures,' the 'red-lining' policies, the wildly
unequal sentences for crack versus cocaine, the casual brutality of the prison system (over 200,000
male rapes per year), the laws preventing people who have served their sentence for a felony from
voting, public housing, scholarship aid, welfare .. in other words, from living and improving
their lives .. are structural violence. And then we are 'surprised' when people who have lived
their lives under a regime of these subtle but unrelenting acts of economic, social and spiritual
violence, finally hit back.
It's also worth noting how his examples are still a function of the neoliberal canard that
privilege is simply a boost on the ladder of meritocracy. The game is still implicitly understood
to be fair.
Yet, it's not clear to me what Alice Walton, for instance, has done to justify being a multi-billionaire.
People who are born not just with spoons but entire silver foundries in their mouths could redistribute
90% of the wealth they acquired by virtue of being someone's baby and still be absurdly rich.
The paper seems totally oblivious to the fact that in the scenario presented, all the gains
enjoyed by both players are due to luck. Player B is getting a windfall either way, so
there's no sense of real unfairness. The perception would be quite different if it was only the
difference between A and B that was assigned randomly, while each had to earn some baseline.
And I think the "popular acceptance" part is given a huge boost when the young, black, nominally-Democrat
president keeps insisting everything is awesome and anyone who says otherwise is "peddling fiction".
I think this paper goes to great lengths to build a question around the ideas of the fairness
behind progressive taxation. This post hardly seems to pose a question worthy of study. Our tax
systems so much favor Corporations and the wealthy that considerations of "fairness" are at best
comical - and I'm not laughing.
Yes, the outcome of self awareness will always be Anarchism. I came be an advocate, not through
economics or politics, but thought Buddhism and Daoism. It is a story older than humanity that
we are just starting to remember.
So here I am sitting, watching, waiting for the rest of the world to catch up.
What kind of self-knowledge did Hitler find in his imprisonment? It didn't lead to anything
I would call peaceable. Was there some inner Hitler he didn't reach in his prison contemplations?
If I had only known it was luck, I would not have spent so many late nights in the library
during undergrad and grad schools. However, I enjoyed those nights and was enriched by them. Is
that taxable?
Learning must be for its own sake. Like you, I spent many hours in the library. BUT it was
to scratch an itch I have not been able to quell - even in these many years since I was in that
library.
Will future generations, if there are any, be able to look back and reflect," what were these
people thinking?"
There is no justification for the levels of inequality and environmental destruction we are
experiencing. Period. We can all consider ourselves fools, even for entertaining debating these
issues much longer. We need to be discussing concrete actions, not theoretical justifications.
Everyone must face the randomness of the universe every day. The only certainty know is the
one WE create as human beings- one and together. Why is it do you think that the elite never break
ranks. They are creating their own certainty in an uncertain world. Heads I win, tails you loose.
TBTF. Race to the bottom. The new normal. Political capture using the revolving door techniques.
Human evolution is racing toward a crisis point. Ending inequality and world conflict are at
the focal point of this outcome. Leaders that continue to use the outdated modes of social control
will either drive us over the cliff to destruction, or will loose the ability to control outcomes
as their numbers dwindle. The day the revelation is made that the elite are full of crap, is the
day change becomes possible.
It seems large social structures will always come crashing down. The weakness in human nature
and flaws in our social structures lead to eventual failure. Greed and selfish action is seldom
tolerated is smaller structures.
I think there will always be inequality between people on many many dimensions. I am constantly
humbled by how much I don't know that other people know, people less well educated and I suspect
less intelligent - whatever that means - than I am. I celebrate this inequality and sincerely
hope this larger knowledge shared with mine and the knowledge of many others will suffice to address
the great challenges we face in the all too near future.
HOWEVER - inequality as a matter of power relations - that is different matter. If I were my
great great grandson I could never forgive what I have allowed through my cowardice and intent
to have a surviving great great grandson - or granddaughter.
I am not sure I really understand the intention of this paper. The example used, that 20% of
$90,000 income must be paid in taxes, and then taking surveys of how that distribution should
work seems to ignore whether or not the respondents actually understand basic math.
Why do I say this?
The "easy" answer is that Person A pays $15,000 and person B pays $3,000 which is the equivalent
of a flat tax. And yet, that's not how most responded. Only 5% selected the easy answer. Which
makes me wonder if the targets of the survey even understand basic math.
Actually the easiest answer is for person A to pay the whole $18,000. He's the one who is getting
more money before taxes, and if he pays the $18,000, he's still getting $12,000 more than person
B. The "flat tax" is probably the second easiest answer. However, since neither person is doing
any tangible work to receive the money, the fairest result is for both to get the same after "taxes".
If person A pays $24,000, $18,000 will go to the "state", and $6,000 will go to person B, and
both A and B will each get $36,000. Person B can force person A to agree to this, because if they
don't agree, then person A only gets $600 and person B gets $300.
If we want to get complicated, then the result should be such that the difference between person
A's portion and person B's portion is $300, whether they agree or not. So if they agree, person
A would pay $23,850 ($18,000 to the "state" and $5,850 to person B), and person A would get $36,150.
In that case, person B would get $35,850. The difference between person A's income and person
B's income is $300, just as it would have been if they had not agreed.
In terms of the money and wealth of the people who run our government and economy, and control
and direct our lives and the lives of millions of others - $90K barely registers.
I have little faith in studies like these. My first question is always, "What's a respondent?"
Define Person, please.
Notice how they're treated as entirely substitutable standardized parts. That is, as if people
were molecules or atoms. But try as it might, social science ain't physics. You can't just grab
the nearest few people, sit them down at a keyboard to play your game (for credit? for fun? on
assignment?) and then substitute their behavior for the behavior of all people everywhere.
Which people, where, under what conditions, and how many? Was the sample representative? Did
the author go to prisons, ghettos, farm fields, etc. and ask them? Or was it proximity and ease
of access that defined it?
It's the old "college sophomores in the lab" problem. As an undergrad psych student, I saw
time and time again how people gamed the system, yet PhD candidates and professors took the data
as gospel. It's only too often more a demonstration of ability to work the method, to play the
academic game, than testing hypotheses.
Also you might ask what meaning to attribute to a questionable measure of human opinions about
a concept like "what is fair" in an environment completely dominated by promotion of ideas of
fairness which to my mind are quite unfair.
So I agree with you and wonder why you don't pres further.
This post frames inequality in terms of "fairness" and luck/pluck and treats money as some
form of prize in an economic "game". I suppose this way of looking at things works up to a point
as long as we look to those below us and congratulate our merit while accepting some greater luck
of those above us which help rationalize our merit. But any concepts of fairness or the justice
things rapidly fractures if we look past those in our own neighborhood. Riding a bubble through
the slums here and elsewhere in the world it becomes very difficult to rationalize justice and
merit. Looking in the other direction toward the high rises and gated estates and manifestations
of wealth I can't even imagine and the fragments of the fairness or justice of things evaporates
completely. The "findings" of this post do not scale - at all.
Aside from the living standard which money/wealth affords the notions of "fairness" "merit"
and "luck" this post contemplates there is no discussion of other aspects of money/wealth conveniently
passed over and ignored.
In our society our money-culture money/wealth is equated with merit. It packages demand for
automatic respect and deference. This pecuniary one-size-fits all measure for character, intellect,
excellence, creativity, leadership, even physical attractiveness undermines all these values reducing
them to commodities of the marketplace.
But the ability of money/wealth to control and command the lives of others and the collective
resources of society is far more pernicious. What concept of "fairness" or "justice" can justify
this aspect of inequality?
JG – Rogge covers this in his book: "World Poverty and Human Rights: Cosmopolitan Responsibilities
and Reforms" (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Poverty_and_Human_Rights
) using the perfect example of the acquisition and management of natural resources.
Your comment to mine leaves me quizzical. Though I value any comments to mine given my wondering
how far I am from what is reasonable - global poverty is far beyond the complexity of anything
I might address in my comments. I grant global poverty is not a problem beyond solution - but
first we need to address the problems of economic philosophy used to justify and enable the gross
inequalities of our world.
I have not read Rogge's book. There are far too many books I have not read and of the books
i have read there are far too many I have not really understood. I am also concerned by how little
this post seems to have stimulated our commentariat - an entity I have come to greatly respect.
Please elaborate on what you mean. I am concerned by this post's lack of consideration of the
political power money/wealth confers - something beyond and to some degree outside considerations
of poverty and the suffering inequality fosters - even celebrates.
My poor non-economist head reels at this article. OK, it's a mind exercise to determine attitudes
toward taxation. But it's completely made up – Fig. 1 Tossing a fair coin, doesn't scan for me,
it's like a crap game. At the random flip of a coin, A gets twice as much as B, but where did
the $18k penalty come from? Is it arbitrary? Why "could" one have to pay more, and who decides?
And where did the $24k figure come from? Seems obvious to me A got twice as much, and so should
pay 2 out of 3 parts of the penalty. So, re brute luck and tax policy, if inherited wealth or
investment income (i.e. rent) vs. wage income is really what's meant here, please say so.
I view this post - at least in part - as questioning the basis for a progressive tax rate based
on attitudes toward what is "fair" in turn based on a - sorry - hokey experiment to test attitudes
about what is fair. To me the problem is a problem of scale. If we're talking about my place opposed
to that of the fellow in the house on the hill or the house down the street - I might - on a good
day - buy-in to this post's notions about "fairness". Those notions do NOT scale and they don't
give any consideration to the powers of control and command which great wealth confers.
What I can accept in the way of inequality between myself and the guy on the hill does NOT
scale when the guy on the hill doesn't live on the hill and only owns the house on the hill as
a reminder of his lowly beginnings. He lives in a multi-million dollar 10,000 sq. ft. condominium
high in New York City and a similar flat in London, and in Tai Pei and Shanghai and Paris and
… and lives in none of them really. And I cannot accept the poverty and oppression found in Camden,
New Jersey, Southside Chicago, … in Brazilian favelas or the slums of Seoul.
Perhaps the failure to scale arises from the compounded flaws that, first, this post is all
about "I" and speaks not at all to "we"; and, second, as your comments point out, uses money in
typical fashion as the lowest common denominator determining utility and fairness when, 'we' demands
a focus on the highest not lowest common denominator (and that's not mathematically or logically
convenient).
Further, 'we' must be something more meaningful than a mere agglomeration of "I's". Those are
at best 'thin we's' easily seduced into theoretical constructs that, in fact, have nothing to
do with the actual experience of 'we' in any meaningful way.
Real, 'thick' we's comprised of actual people who persistently interact and truly know they
share some to a lot of their shared fates respond to questions of brute luck, fairness and inequality
together (whether democratically or otherwise or blends of ways). They don't determine their shared
fates with an eye on abstract individualism grounded in lowest common denominators of 'utility'.
They actually care about 'what makes most sense for us together' and balk at devices, questions
- indeed swindles - aimed at tearing apart the fabric of 'we'.
Milton Freidman, the man that wrecked the world with bad economics.
Milton Freidman's charm, energy and charisma seduced his students and global elites alike into
believing he had come up with an economics that could transform the world. His students loved the idea of transforming the world through economics as it made them feel
so important. Global elites loved his economics as it worked so well for them and gave a scientific backing
for a world that was one that they had always wanted.
Unfortunately, there were a lot of problems with his economics that are making themselves felt
today.
His economics was missing:
1) The work of the Classical Economists
2) The true nature of money and debt
3) The work of Irving Fischer in the 1930s
The Classical Economists were the first economists to look at and analyse the world
around them, a world of small state, raw capitalism.
They noted how the moneyed classes were always rent seeking and looking to maintain themselves
in luxury and leisure, through rent and interest. This sucked money out of the productive side
of the economy, reducing the purchasing power within the nation.
They noted how the cost of living must be kept low, to keep the basic minimum wage low, so
nations could be competitive in the international arena.
This knowledge is missing today.
The UK dream is to live like the idle, rich rentier, with a BTL portfolio extracting "unearned"
rental income from the "earned" income of generation rent.
In the US they removed all the things that kept the cost of living down, not realising these
costs would have to be covered by wages. The US now has a very high minimum wage due to soaring
costs of housing, healthcare and student loans and US businesses are squealing.
The true nature of money and debt were understood in the 1930s when the Chicago Plan
was put forward after a thorough investigation into the 1929 bust.
Money and debt are opposite sides of the same coin.
If there is no debt there is no money.
Money is created by loans and destroyed by repayments of those loans.
This knowledge is missing today.
Today's ubiquitous housing boom is like a printing press creating more and more money as the
new mortgage debt comes into existence.
The money supply expands and pours into the real economy making everything look really good.
The only thing that is really happening is the inflation of the price of things that exist
already, houses. All the debt being created is not productive investment.
The cost of living goes up and more and more money gets sucked into mortgage and rent payments
sucking purchasing power out of the economy. The increasing cost of living, raises the basic minimum
wage pricing labour out of international labour markets.
Irving Fisher also looked into the 1929 bust and developed a theory of economic crises
called debt-deflation, which attributed the crises to the bursting of a credit bubble.
Irving Fisher looked into debt inflated asset bubbles and realised the huge danger they pose
to the whole economy. This knowledge is missing today. The ubiquitous housing boom is a debt inflated asset bubble, with huge amounts of debt spread
through the whole economy, when it bursts there is hell to pay.
This was first seen in Japan in 1989, its economy has never recovered.
It was repeated in the US and leveraged up with derivatives leading to 2008.
Ireland and Spain have also wrecked their economies with housing bubbles.
There are housing bubbles around the world, ready to burst and pull that nation into debt deflation.
Milton Freidman, the man that wrecked the world with bad economics.
Milton Freidman worked at the Chicago School of Economics and was the global ambassador for
his dire economics. This dire economics and the University of Chicago were also behind the design of the Euro,
no wonder it doesn't work.
"The putative "father of the Euro", economist Robert Mundell is reported to have explained
to one of his university of Chicago students, Greg Palast: "the Euro is the easy way in which
Congresses and Parliaments can be stripped of all power over monetary and fiscal policy. Bothersome
democracy is removed from the economic system" Michael Hudson "Killing the Host"
Their dire economics predicts the Euro-zone economies will converge into a stable equilibrium.
The reality – the economies are diverging and the poorer nations are going under. It's bad. 2008 – How did that happen?
The neoclassical economists didn't have a clue as the Minsky Moment was approaching.
Two people who did see 2008 coming (there aren't many).
Steve Keen – A whole book "Debunking Economics" on this dire neoclassical economics and the
problems of not using realistic assumptions on money and debt.
Michael Hudson – Calls it "junk" economics and has written a whole book on the problems of
forgetting the world of Classical Economics – Killing the Host.
Naomi Klein "Shock Doctrine" goes into the brutality of the Chicago Boys and Berkeley Mafia
in implementing their economic vision. A right wing "Khmer Rouge" that descended on developing
nations to wipe away left wing thinking.
Marginalist economics tends to be characterised primarily by a couple of distinct axioms that
operate 'under the surface' to produce its key results. these are simplistically characterise
as: the axiom of methodological individualism; the axiom of methodological instrumentalism; and
the axiom of methodological equilibration, where models derived from them have ex-ante predictive
power.
This is historically Epicurean philosophy, example, Epicurus wrote,
"The magnitude of pleasure reaches its limit in the removal of all pain. When such pleasure
is present, so long as it is uninterrupted, there is no pain either of body or of mind or of both
together."
Which is a reflection of its materialistic atomism which is basically identical with the marginalist
focus on atomistic individuals and makes it an atomistic doctrine. Thorstein Veblen where he wrote
in his Why is Economics Not an Evolutionary Science?:
"The hedonistic conception of man is that of a lightning calculator of pleasure and pains,
who oscillates like a homogeneous globule of desire of happiness under the impulse of stimuli
that shift him about the area, but leave him intact. He has neither antecedent nor consequent.
He is an isolated definitive human datum."
Which in turn is just Epicurean ontology where everything becomes objects and not subjects
where Epicurean ethics involves individuals maximising pleasure and minimising pain - or, as the
marginalists would put it, maximising utility and minimising disutility - it simply follows from
the basic ontological position that is put forward.
Just to put a more modern perspective on it – see: Note that the patient suffering from schizophrenia
tends not to answer the questions directed at him but rather responds with complete non-sequiturs.
"In his book, King lays out how economists have tried to establish supposedly disaggregated
"microfoundations" with which to rest their macroeconomics upon. The idea here is that Keynesian
macroeconomics generally deals with large aggregates of individuals – usually entire national
economies – and draws conclusions from these while largely ignoring the actions of individual
agents. As King shows in the book, however, the idea that a macro-level analysis requires such
microfoundations is itself entirely without foundation. Unfortunately though, since mainstream
economists are committed to methodological individualism – that is, they try to explain the world
with reference to what they think to be the rules of individual behaviour – they tend to pursue
this quest across the board and those who proclaim scepticism about the need for microfoundations
can rarely articulate this scepticism as they too are generally wedded to the notion that aggregative
behaviour can only be explained with reference to supposedly disaggregated behaviour."
You might also like – Le Bon, Gustave. The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, you can get
it free online.
Additionally – The Myth of the Rational Market: Wall Street's Impossible Quest for Predictable
Markets – by Justin Fox
Chronicling the rise and fall of the efficient market theory and the century-long making of
the modern financial industry, Justin Fox's "The Myth of the Rational Market" is as much an intellectual
whodunit as a cultural history of the perils and possibilities of risk. The book brings to life
the people and ideas that forged modern finance and investing, from the formative days of Wall
Street through the Great Depression and into the financial calamity of today. It's a tale that
features professors who made and lost fortunes, battled fiercely over ideas, beat the house in
blackjack, wrote bestselling books, and played major roles on the world stage. It's also a tale
of Wall Street's evolution, the power of the market to generate wealth and wreak havoc, and free
market capitalism's war with itself.
The efficient market hypothesis -- long part of academic folklore but codified in the 1960s at
the University of Chicago -- has evolved into a powerful myth. It has been the maker and loser of
fortunes, the driver of trillions of dollars, the inspiration for index funds and vast new derivatives
markets, and the guidepost for thousands of careers. The theory holds that the market is always
right, and that the decisions of millions of rational investors, all acting on information to
outsmart one another, always provide the best judge of a stock's value. That myth is crumbling.
Disheveled Marsupial…. Main stream econnomics is an extenuation of much deeper metaphysical
and resultant ideological beliefs….
"... Thanks for writing this article; it corroborates everything I've been saying about Obama's lust for war and destabilization. You could have mentioned the Pentagon currently has JSOC kill teams in 147 countries, per Noam Chomsky. You also could have mentioned the US is the most feared force on the global stage, feared, that is, by actual citizens, not so much by their leaders. ..."
"... Years ago Glen Ford of "Black Agenda Report" correctly referred to this shameless sellout as "the more effective evil". The implication was that the perception created by his propagandists that Obama is a committed Democrat who is just trying to do his best against a obstructionist Congress and right-wing media is false. ..."
"... Barry the Liar is an enthusiastic member of the MIC, Wall Street, and the oligarchs. He has actually expanded the powers of the President and the National Security State that we live in and even claims the right to kill an American citizen without trial! When George Carlin said - "I don't believe anything my government tells me" he could have been talking about this shill for the TPB. ..."
"... Yes, why isn't anyone in the mass media picking up on this obvious hypocrisy? For the same reasons it never picks up on anything else of importance - it's controlled. ..."
"... Obama has been one of the most hypocritical presidents ever elected. ..."
"... Obama got his start in politics with money from the family that owns Grumman, and he's been dancing to their tune ever since. ..."
"... Obama sold out on the left. In reality, he was paid from day one to do exactly that. He was literally the ultimate snake oil salesman. Campaign on a platform of change and govern like Bush won 2 more terms. ..."
"... If Obama is the best the Democrats can come up with, then it is high time the left en masse left the Democratic Party. It's one big reason why I cannot support Clinton, who will be even more pro-war. It's a vote for more of the same. ..."
"... And, Hillary Clump was the biggest war monger in his misadministration. As for the nukes, I recently drove by a minuteman nuclear missile silo in Wyoming, you can see the damn thing right there by the road. ..."
Recently, sorting through a pile of old children's books, I came across a volume, That Makes
Me Mad!, which brought back memories. Written by Steve Kroll, a long-dead friend, it focused
on the eternally frustrating everyday adventures of Nina, a little girl whose life regularly meets
commonplace roadblocks, at which point she always says... well, you can guess from the title! Vivid
parental memories of another age instantly flooded back-of my daughter (now reading such books to
her own son) sitting beside me at age five and hitting that repeated line with such mind-blowing,
ear-crushing gusto that you knew it spoke to the everyday frustrations of her life, to what made
her mad.
Three decades later, in an almost unimaginably different America, on picking up that book I suddenly
realized that, whenever I follow the news online, on TV, or-and forgive me for this but I'm 72 and
still trapped in another era-on paper, I have a similarly Nina-esque urge. Only the line I've come
up with for it is (with a tip of the hat to Steve Kroll) " You must be kidding! "
Here are a few recent examples from the world of American-style war and peace. Consider these
as random illustrations, given that, in the age of Trump, just about everything that happens is out-of-this-world
absurd and would serve perfectly well. If you're in the mood, feel free to shout out that line with
me as we go.
Nuking the Planet: I'm sure you remember Barack Obama, the guy who entered the
Oval Office pledging to
work toward
"a nuclear-free world." You know, the president who traveled to Prague in 2009 to say
stirringly : "So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the
peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons... To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will
reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same."
That same year, he was awarded the Nobel Prize largely for what he might still do, particularly in
the nuclear realm. Of course, that was all so 2009!
Almost two terms in the Oval Office later, our peace president, the only one who has ever called
for nuclear "abolition"-and whose administration has retired
fewer weapons
in our nuclear arsenal than any other in the post-Cold War era-is now
presiding over the early stages of a
trillion-dollar modernization of that very arsenal. (And that trillion-dollar price tag comes,
of course, before the
inevitable cost overruns even begin.) It includes
full-scale work
on the creation of a "precision-guided" nuclear weapon with a "dial-back" lower yield option.
Such a weapon would potentially bring nukes to the battlefield in a first-use way, something the
U.S. is proudly
pioneering .
And that brings me to the September 6th front-page story in the New York Times that caught
my eye. Think of it as the icing on the Obama era nuclear cake. Its
headline : "Obama Unlikely to Vow No First Use of Nuclear Weapons." Admittedly, if made, such
a vow could be reversed by any future president. Still, reportedly for fear that a pledge not to
initiate a nuclear war would "undermine allies and embolden Russia and China... while Russia is running
practice bombing runs over Europe and China is expanding its reach in the South China Sea," the president
has backed down on issuing such a vow. In translation: the only country that has ever used such weaponry
will remain on the record as ready and willing to do so again without nuclear provocation, an act
that, it is now believed in Washington, would create a calmer planet.
You must be kidding!
Plain Old Bombing: Recall that in October 2001, when the Bush administration
launched its invasion of Afghanistan, the U.S. was bombing no other largely Islamic country. In fact,
it was bombing no other country at all. Afghanistan was quickly "liberated," the Taliban crushed,
al-Qaeda put to flight, and that
was that , or so it then seemed.
On September 8th, almost 15 years later, the Washington Post
reported that, over a single weekend and in a "flurry" of activity, the U.S. had dropped bombs
on, or fired missiles at, six largely Islamic countries: Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen,
and Somalia. (And it might have been seven if the CIA hadn't grown a little rusty when it comes to
the
drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal borderlands that it's launched repeatedly throughout these
years.) In the same spirit, the president who swore he would end the U.S. war in Iraq and, by the
time he left office, do the same in Afghanistan, is now overseeing American bombing campaigns in
Iraq and Syria which are
loosing close to
25,000 weapons a year on those countries. Only recently, in order to facilitate the further prosecution
of the longest war in our history, the president who
announced that his country had ended its "combat mission" in Afghanistan in 2014, has once again
deployed the U.S. military in a combat role and has done the same with the
U.S. Air Force . For that,
B-52s (of Vietnam infamy) were returned to action there, as well as in
Iraq and Syria , after a decade of retirement. In the Pentagon, military figures are now talking
about "
generational " war in Afghanistan-well into the 2020s.
Meanwhile, President Obama has personally helped pioneer a new form of warfare that will not long
remain a largely American possession. It involves missile-armed drones, high-tech weapons that promise
a world of no-casualty-conflict (for the American military and the CIA), and adds up to a permanent
global killing machine for taking out terror leaders, "lieutenants," and "militants." Well beyond
official American war zones, U.S. drones regularly cross borders, infringing on national sovereignty
throughout the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa, to assassinate anyone the president and his
colleagues decide needs to die,
American citizen or otherwise (plus, of course, anyone who happens to be
in the vicinity ). With its
White House "kill list" and its "terror Tuesday" meetings, the drone program, promising "surgical"
hunting-and-killing action, has blurred the line between war and peace, while being normalized
in these years. A president is now not just commander-in-chief but
assassin-in-chief , a role that no imaginable future president is likely to reject. Assassination,
previously an illegal act, has become the heart and soul of Washington's way of life and of a way
of war that only seems to spread conflict further.
You must be kidding!
The Well-Oiled Machinery of Privatized War: And speaking of drones, as the
New York Times
reported on September 5th, the U.S. drone program does have one problem: a lack of pilots. It
has ramped up quickly in these years and, in the process, the pressures on its pilots and other personnel
have only grown, including post-traumatic
stress over killing civilians thousands of miles away via computer screen. As a result, the Air
Force has been losing those pilots fast. Fortunately, a solution is on the horizon. That service
has begun filling its pilot gap by going the route of the rest of the military in these years-turning
to private contractors for help. Such pilots and other personnel are, however, paid higher salaries
and cost more money. The contractors, in turn, have been hiring the only available personnel around,
the ones trained by... yep, you guessed it, the Air Force. The result may be an even greater drain
on Air Force drone pilots eager for increased pay for grim work and... well, I think you can see
just how the well-oiled machinery of privatized war is likely to work here and who's going to pay
for it.
You must be kidding!
Selling Arms As If There Were No Tomorrow: In a recent report for the Center
for International Policy, arms expert William Hartung offered a
stunning
figure on U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia. "Since taking office in January 2009," he
wrote , "the Obama administration has offered over $115 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia
in 42 separate deals, more than any U.S. administration in the history of the U.S.-Saudi relationship.
The majority of this equipment is still in the pipeline, and could tie the United States to the Saudi
military for years to come." Think about that for a moment: $115 billion for everything from small
arms to tanks, combat aircraft,
cluster bombs , and air-to-ground missiles (weaponry now being used to
slaughter civilians in neighboring Yemen).
Of course, how else can the U.S. keep its
near monopoly on the
global arms trade and ensure that two sets of products-Hollywood movies and U.S. weaponry-will
dominate the world's business in things that go boom in the night? It's a record to be proud of,
especially since putting every advanced weapon imaginable in the hands of the Saudis will obviously
help bring peace to a roiled region of the planet. (And if you arm the Saudis, you better do no less
for the Israelis, hence the mind-boggling
$38 billion in military aid the Obama administration recently signed on to for the next decade,
the most Washington has ever offered any country, ensuring that arms will be flying into the Middle
East, literally and figuratively, for years to come.)
Blessed indeed are the peacemakers-and of course you know that by "peacemaker" I mean the
classic revolver
that "won the West."
I've spelled his name "Obomba" after his second year in office. Bush had "Shock and Awe"... Obomba
has "Stealth and Wealth"... The American economy has been a WAR ECONOMY for a long time. But hey,
we're freeeeeeeeee… freedom isn't free, and all that other bullshit.
Aw shucks, Tom, you been reading my posts? Thanks for writing this article; it corroborates
everything I've been saying about Obama's lust for war and destabilization. You could have mentioned
the Pentagon currently has JSOC kill teams in 147 countries, per Noam Chomsky. You also could
have mentioned the US is the most feared force on the global stage, feared, that is, by actual
citizens, not so much by their leaders.
President Obama's 58% approval tells me the American public are largely bloodthirsty savages
led by a psychopath in pursuit of global tyranny. Either that, or 58% of Americans would rather
play Goldilocks and the Three Bears with their political attention than accept responsibility
for their part in destroying human civilization.
"Thanks. I'll take the tall, smiling psychopath, second from the right. He looks presidential."
The end of our democracy coincides with the end of our being an informed public. Who could
have ever anticipated such a coincidence, but everyone with a passing awareness of history.
Nah, the American people have really no idea what's going on as we try to survive this BS. Most
still think we actually have a Constitution. Remember, we wanted an "outsider" in '08 too a new
face and he turned out to be silly putty in they're hands. Oh, I just heard Jennifer Flowers is
coming to the debates to support Trump. Wonder how much they paid that POS liar
No one who has the common sense to say he'll work for a nuclear weapons-free world changes his
mind. He either never meant what he said, or he's been compromised by those who control all things
political and otherwise in this country. I'm betting on the latter.
I'll take that bet, even if there's no way to verify who wins. I think Obama's been a duplicitous
scumbag from the get go. He's demonstrated a consistently strong dedication to fucking the public
while protecting the professional class of mobsters in suits.
And I voted for this asshole, twice. Options, options. Are there any options?
These types of articles are why I used to value AlterNet as a source of information. Thank you
- it was informative and had a human touch. Your overt trying to manipulate and sway an election
with bias overload is tiresome. The HRC/3rd party candidate blackout and 24/7 turbo train of anti-Trump
is insulting our intelligence and not effective. You're preaching to the choir, we get it, Trump
is psycho, but so is Clinton in her own awful & well established way - just like Obama was, and
Bush before that, and Clinton before him, and Bush before... If you want to be 'Alter'native,
tell the truth about ALL the candidates and report on the machinations behind the Plutocracy +
how we can create an alternative is helpful, enough with the Huffpo-Salon DNC propaganda headquarters.
America pushes war on the world through its materialism hegemon.
It's a long-running, vicious war. Tens of millions alone forced from their traditional cultures
in Asia, Africa, and Latin America -- simply by a heavily-subsidized U.S. Industrial Ag which
underprices commodity crops and kills those local cultures.
Then the big finance boys with their shopping malls, nukes, franchise fast food, and millions
upon millions of cars choking the land, poisoning the skies.
U.S. corporate academe could provide alternatives to the mindless materialism. Could keep the
humanities central enough in all departments to keep some wider consciences among Americans who
for years have been blissfully blind and narcissistic about its war on the world.
The tenured classes will have none of it. They abhor the humanities. They want no perspectives
on their specializations.
And so liberals, ever blind to their corporate academe, pop up occasionally "shocked, shocked"
at what the U.S. pushes on the world. But the complicity goes on. The blindness goes on.
Don't you think there's something funny about this, as Kate asked her boy Cal in "East of Eden"
-- funny how our dear, smug, tenured, dehumanized purists live so totally in their "purity"?
Years ago Glen Ford of "Black Agenda Report" correctly referred to this shameless sellout
as "the more effective evil". The implication was that the perception created by his propagandists
that Obama is a committed Democrat who is just trying to do his best against a obstructionist
Congress and right-wing media is false.
We have seen repeatedly that the truth is quite different. Barry the Liar is an enthusiastic
member of the MIC, Wall Street, and the oligarchs. He has actually expanded the powers of the
President and the National Security State that we live in and even claims the right to kill an
American citizen without trial! When George Carlin said - "I don't believe anything my government
tells me" he could have been talking about this shill for the TPB.
When Mr. Nobel Peace Prize creates even more war and also tells you that President Hillary
Clinton would be "continuity you can believe in" I am having none of it. For at least 30 years
this Republican Lite party have devolved into the sorry state they are now. I will not assist
them to go even further and wreck what is left of the American Dream.
Stein 2016!
Yes, why isn't anyone in the mass media picking up on this obvious hypocrisy? For the same
reasons it never picks up on anything else of importance - it's controlled.
Now explain why anyone should pay attention to any more articles about what Trump or Clinton
just came out with. It just doesn't matter any more.
The so-called "peace President" should return his Nobel Prize award immediately, so as not to
slander the good intentions of Alfred Nobel.
Promoting wars, supporting war hawks, deploying drones to kill people in sovereign states, selling
weapons to tyrannical governments are destructive ideas that Alfred Nobel had sought to counteract.
Oh no, this isn't true. Obama has been playing 11th dimensional chess as policy for the last eight
years and let me tell you, folks inhabiting the11th dimension are pretty dam happy with their
universal health care, peaceful foreign policy and prosperous for all economy.
I've personally drifted between "Seriously?" and knowing that there's really not much left to
say. Deep into the longest, most expensive war in US history, we don't exactly see massive anti-war
protests, people filling the mall in DC to call for peace, churches organizing prayer rallies
in the name of the Prince of Peace. Walter Cronkite is gone, and the horrors of war doesn't come
into our living rooms each evening. The war is distant, sterile, tidy.
Which decisions are made by Congress, which are made by the president, and in the end, does
it matter? America does war. We can no longer afford to do much else, and more importantly, there
appears to be little will to change course. Americans can look at the federal budget, see that
the lion's share goes into maintaining war, then demand that Congress cut food stamps. (Indeed,
in 2015, Congress cut food stamps to the elderly poor and the disabled from $115 per month to
$10.)
Budgets stand as a statement about American priorities. There is an endless strream of money
for war, but none for the survival of our poor. The progressive discussion of the last eight years
can be summed up as an ongoing pep rally for the middle class, with an occasional "BLM!" thrown
in for good measure. A revolution to stay the course.
Obama got his start in politics with money from the family that owns Grumman, and he's been
dancing to their tune ever since.
Clump, OTOH, takes money from every single MIC source, neocon source, billionaire nutty Israeli
warmonger, Saudi warmonger, Central American dictator, even down to lowly death squad commendates,
etc etc -and she's extremely well connected to all of them by now I imagine.
This is a person who wants both direct involvement in killing, has already done so from her
phone, and enjoys the power of being a merchant of death, I predict she will be the among the
most war like and worst presidents ever selected- if not the worst one ever.
If you think Obama was war happy, you do not want to see war hawk Hillary in action as President.
The debate should be about issues-Hillary would apparently rather talk about sexism that her
war hawk record. Trump wants to emphasis tending to America's needs and says we should stop empire
building.
"Lies (in which Clinton was deeply complicit) led to the U.S.-led destruction of Iraq and Libya.
Lies underlie U.S. policy on Syria. Some of the biggest liars in past efforts to hoodwink the
people into supporting more war (Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz) are backing Hillary,
whose Washington Post Pinocchio count is "sky-high," for president.
The US Election: an Exercise in Mendacity (untruthfulness)
http://www.counterpunch.org/20...
*****************
The Clintons do not want anyone to even mention their corrupt involvement in Haiti:
"The Clinton exploitation of Haiti will eventually go up in flames, and when the smoke settles
an emotional and fiscal disaster of enormous proportions will finally be visible to the world.
It will be difficult to sift through the ashes to find truth, but the truth is there. Follow the
money, follow the pandering, follow the emails, and follow the favors traded for gold.
"The story ends in more pain, suffering, and abuse for the Haitian people as women are sexually
harassed and verbally abused by Korean managers in the sweatshops of Caracol, while a former Gap
Inc. executive is at the helm of USAID garment industry agreements with Haiti. If the Clinton
connections to Wall Street leave Americans yawning, the systematic exploitation of Haitian workers
with a wink and a nod from the Clinton Foundation should at the very least create outrage. But
then again, this is Haiti, and Haitian lives do not seem to matter.
Obama sold out on the left. In reality, he was paid from day one to do exactly that.
He was literally the ultimate snake oil salesman. Campaign on a platform of change and govern
like Bush won 2 more terms.
The wars went on, the bankers got bailed out and didn't go jail, inequality rose, along with
a total failure to address any of the real problems facing society.
If Obama is the best the Democrats can come up with, then it is high time the left en masse
left the Democratic Party. It's one big reason why I cannot support Clinton, who will be even
more pro-war. It's a vote for more of the same.
What left? Seriously. We've only heard from liberals who Stand in Solidarity to preserve the advantages
of the middle class. They so strongly believe in the success of our corporate state that they
think everyone is able to work, and there are jobs for all. If we had a left, they would have
been shining a spotlight on our poverty crisis as the proof that our deregulated capitalism is
a dismal failure.
The "inequality" discussion has been particularly interesting. Pay attention to what is said.
Today's liberal media have narrowed the inequality discussion to the gap between workers and the
rich, disappearing all those who are far worse off.
And, Hillary Clump was the biggest war monger in his misadministration. As for the nukes,
I recently drove by a minuteman nuclear missile silo in Wyoming, you can see the damn thing right
there by the road.
Very sad that instead of reducing these as he promised to, this idiot modernized them and added
more.
And the media marketed to liberals began going all out in 2015, before she launched her campaign,
to try to sell Clinton as a "bold progressive." This, with her decades-long record of support
for the right wing agenda.
Oh well, don't worry about it. As Big Bill so carefully explained, all that any American needs
to keep in mind is, "Get up every morning, work hard, and play by all the rules." Don't look around,
don't ask questions, don't think.
She lacked the courage to filibuster the Iraq Resolution and tell the truth to the American people
that they were being lied into a needless war that would waste trillions of their money. And now
she's being rewarded. SMH.
Many say that Obama's hands are tied in all these matters, and that he cannot get anything past
the Congress. I am not sure about that. I would like to see more of a public fighter in him to
show us all that he is consistently trying to get us out of the Mideast and not modernize nuclear
weapons and not be willing to use them first, and stop this insane, immoral, illegal CIA drone
assassination program. Show me strong consistent public statements to this effect for the last
7 years and I may believe it. Otherwise he is like president Johnson who while doing good civil
rights things at home was trying to get me killed in Vietnam.
"... the true rate of pay is often around the minimum wage. ..."
"... i was an adjunct professor of urban studies at new york university for 12 years. the entire academic department was staffed by adjuncts and part-time instructors except for the chairman, who was ironically a tenured professor of labor history. ..."
"... Having come up through the academic process and seeing the handwriting on the wall deciding to opt out of trying for an academic career, I think I can comment a bit. ..."
"... First, no one is forcing these folks to be adjuncts. It's their choice. ..."
"... The real issue is one of information and honesty or at least reality over hopeful expectations. When I was an undergrad my professors encouraged me to go to grad school and were pleased when I decided to pursue a Ph.D. They all implied, if not said, that I would be able to then get an academic job. I think they really believed this, but the reality was far different even at that time. By the time I graduated, unemployment in my field was at an all time high. The reality was that only 20-25% of graduates would get "potentially permanent" positions in either academia or research. So, when I finally graduated I posted a letter for the undergraduates informing them of the future in the field. Needless to say the faculty were taken aback, but when they checked they found that my data was correct. ..."
"... Yes, their choice. They can abandon the academic pursuit and choose another career. Most people with advanced degrees do just that. ..."
"... I agree that their are way too many grad students and they become the adjuncts that are desperate for full time jobs. But grad students serve an important purpose as cheap labor, particularly in research universities. ..."
"... What if the point of a review process was to improve teaching methods and get feedback from students about what works and what doesn't? ..."
"... We are looking at the decades long pursuit of making higher education "more like business". The mantra of privatization and that attitude that segments of our society which served the public: schools, universities, hospitals, departments of governments at all levels, etc., would all be better if they were run as businesses has been proven false a million times over. ..."
"... University Boards have, for decades, been stacked with advocates of market based systems which have been imposed on institutions which formerly served their students and the public. Students are no longer viewed as students but as revenue streams. Public funding for higher education has similarly declined as the cult of the marketplace including that institutions serving a public purpose needed to be more self funding. Because forcing them to have more skin in the game would force them to trim the fat and innovate. You know, like Walmart. ..."
"... This is a false hope–especially in higher education. The University, the large corporation, the particular governmental agency, are now beyond internal reform and we all know this in our bones. ..."
"... Somehow we must individually and collectively find the courage and creativity to move, maneuver and survive outside of these institutions–trading in the fear and anxiety of trying to succeed in dying institutions for the fear and anxiety which comes with creating new institutions. ..."
"The work is there," Wangerin tells me, "they just don't want to pay."
A one-time adjunct and contract lecturer myself, I decide to look into the
matter more deeply. Are Wangerin's contentions particular to her own experience
or are they more widely shared across the United States? And if they are, what
does this mean for higher education?
Information, as it turns out, isn't hard to come by. I write one message
to a long-time Twitter contact who also happens to be a contingent faculty member
and my inbox explodes. As I sort through my e-mails a picture of higher education
begins to emerge and, far removed from the conventional image of pipe-smoking
professors in book-lined studies, it is largely one of exploitation and control.
"I am currently teaching one class, and in all honesty, unemployment benefits
pay double that," a community college lecturer who wished to remain anonymous
told me, "I would be better off not teaching at all."
An art professor from Ohio writes in to tell me that she's just thrown in
the towel after more than a decade of work: "My class was canceled two weeks
before classes start and I decided to get my Alternative Educator License and
teach at the high school level."
I hear of a lecturer whose courses were allocated to someone else after he
spoke out about a contract clause that demanded access to his DNA; about an
adjunct who could not afford to pay property taxes on the family home after
20 years of teaching; and of someone who was fired after a student complaint
that he was a "black racist." "Whatever that means," the adjunct reporting the
incident grumbles.
... ... ...
"Education claims to ameliorate class stratification, but it actually reinforces
it," says Alex Kudera, who has taught college writing and literature off the
tenure track for over twenty years.
It's not hard to see what he means. The average adjunct lecturer receives
only
$2700 per course taught. While that amount is sometimes portrayed as easy
money, in addition to time spent in class lecturers must also prepare course
content, create exams and assignments, grade, advise students, and, of course,
travel from campus to campus. When academics are employed on a casual basis,
such activity is not compensated, meaning that the true rate of pay is often
around the minimum wage.
'Academics may enjoy more intellectual freedom than many workers,
but they also have a duty that does not generally fall on others: to research
and to publish the results of that research regardless of how unpopular
it may be.'
Proposal for a joint Econ/Law paper
Thesis : US academia is a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization
Synopsis : using de facto antitrust immunity garnered by its politically
connected administrators, academia relentlessly hikes tuitions as well as
its intake of governmental funding.
Via false and deceptive marketing, students are promised nonexistent
benefits from earning a degree, then subjected to a loan sharking racket
which indebts them for life, at inflated cartelized prices, without informing
them of the non-dischargeability of those debts.
Systemic marketing fraud is further enabled by glossy alumni magazines
touting the achievements of tenured faculty, without divulging that a majority
of classes are taught by adjuncts.
Recommendations : RICO the entire industry; consolidate it; convict
the managers; reopen it under new leadership (former politicians banned
for life), under new legislation prohibiting marketing fraud and loan sharking.
Seems like the logical solution and the only way to avoid actual collapse
of the institutions. This higher education scam can only continue until
parental funds are tapped out, which is this current generation of collage
age families. New entrants into the workforce, on whole, will not be able
to save enough, or have job security to even consider college for their
children.
The social contract that the elite are forging ahead with is the bond
and willingness to be scammed. It is amazing to see their disbelieving expressions
when any form of resistance is encountered. The rational response would
be to ease up on the exploitation, but doesn't seem to be happening. Other
forces will have to be brought to bear.
"non-tenure track teaching staff – commonly referred to as adjuncts and
contingent faculty – now make up approximately 70% of all teaching staff
in American higher education. This means that roughly three out of every
four courses a student takes are taught by someone without job security
who is working on minimal pay."
Is this actually true? If say some adjuncts are full-time other job &
teach only 1 course, some adjuncts are perma-temp FT & teach ~4 courses,
& tenure-track teach ~4 courses; then you could have a situation where say
1 portion of teachers that are adjuncts. The article mentioned 70% of ANY
teachers teaching at least 1 course in a given semester at Universities
are adjuncts
2 portion of courses taught that are taught by adjuncts: A lower number,
say 40% of the courses taught at Univs are taught by adjuncts, due to having
tenure-track Profs teaching ~4 courses & adjuncts teaching ~1 course each.
The author seems to make a logic error assuming that metric #2 is the
same as #1. It may happen to be, but doesn't necessarily need to be.
What actually is the metric #2 number?
I have empathy for the perma-temp FT adjuncts, IMHO it is no different
than perma-temp FT workers in other occupations, despite the prestige of
Unviersities perhaps somewhat masking its practice.
You're right that we don't have enough info to know #2 from the article,
but I also don't know that you've got it quite right.
If full time instructors are half-and-half tenure/tenure-track and adjunct
(for instance), that would mean that 30% of profs are tenure and 30% are
full time adjuncts. That would leave another 40% of the total that are less-than-full
time adjuncts. So you'd have a majority of classes being taught by adjuncts.
But, of course, we need more info to figure it out for sure, but it seems
more likely to me, based on my experience (~ half my classes were taught
by adjuncts during my college days, which were in the late nineties-early
aughties) that adjuncts represent a firm majority of both personnel and
classroom hours.
I'm not an adjunct but I'm a non-tenure track faculty member in the Electrical
and Computer Engineering department at a very large university. I teach
8 technical courses a year (3/3/2) while the tenured faculty teach 3 or
4 (2/1/0). We also have adjuncts who typically teach one course a semester.
I bring this up because it could be that, from the author's perspective,
I still fall into the adjunct category because my contract must be renewed
yearly and the administration can choose not to renew without cause. I would
say that non-tenure track faculty are responsible for about 50% of the courses
in this department but, being in engineering, our department is small relative
to something in the College of Liberal Arts.
This fits in, sort of, to this posting the dean of the B-school, with
a $500K salary, a supposed expert on "risk management" at Syracuse University,
busted in a prostitution sting:
More of a question here, as I see the author teaches in Ireland. If Dr.
Fuller comes below the line I'd be interested to hear her thoughts on whether
the same process is infecting Irish and other European universities. I know
if at least one college administrator in Itelamd who loudly proclaims the
superiority if the US system. One can only wonder why
Superior in what way? Science? Technical research? Economic research?
For the US undergad, adjunct instructors is the norm. (My local community
college has 70% adjunct instructors.). My local University has slightly
less, but uses more experienced gad students to guide less experienced grad
students. In any event, the product/experience has been cheapened.
Nearly half of the nation's undergraduates show almost no gains in
learning in their first two years of college, in large part because
colleges don't make academics a priority, a new report shows.
Morris Berman has pointed out that US college has become a social rather
than a learning experience. I suspect this cultural shift has made academics
themselves replaceable. Does it really matter who babysits these four-year
party retreats?
i was an adjunct professor of urban studies at new york university for
12 years. the entire academic department was staffed by adjuncts and part-time
instructors except for the chairman, who was ironically a tenured professor
of labor history.
my classes were always bursting to seams, we studied contemporary
issues and were focusing on the sub-prime crisis back in 1995. one class
toward the end of my lecture, i wrote the math for my salary on the blackboard.
it came down to twenty-five cents per student per class, a tiny fraction
of their per semester tuition. a student from the business school remarked
that i could probably make more panhandling the same hours outside in washington
square park. everyone laughed. by the time i got back to the department
less than 20 minutes later, the chair invited me into his office. "don't
talk about salary issues with your students. GOT IT!" someone had ratted
me out. guess i spoiled their day. easier to discuss poor people in the
outer boroughs than someone on your doorstep. in the following years i spent
my spare time organizing the first adjunct faculty union. door-to-door,
button-holing adjuncts on the sidewalk or in the hallways. the less experience
they had, the more reluctant they were to get involved for fear of ruining
their chances for a F/T tenure track position. they wouldn't listen, when
i explained, once an adjunct, always an adjunct. after five more years,
they began to see the light and wanted union. then the uaw swooped in, demanding
my lists and fealty. they knew nothing about activism on an urban campus
and didn't want to listen. when i tried to participate in meetings, i was
accused of disrespecting the regional organizer who commuted to the union
hqtrs. from her home in litchfield, ct. at one meeting they told us who
our "friends" were on campus. yep, heading the list was my dept chair, the
good-old red-diaper baby himself. finally, there was a vote, the union won
a shitty package that deliberately excluded any new hires. end of the semester
the dept chair sends me an email, you're fired! meet the new boss, same
as the old boss.
I do this with my students as well, noting that about 10% of their tuition
goes to me, while the rest goes to the University.
I also like to point out that they pay six six times the tuition compared
to what the people running the university did, and that's before you take
into consideration that they didn't have to pay an extra 1K in "fees."
If they simply cut me a check for the percentage of their tuition that
goes to the class, I'd make upwards of 300K a year.
Thanks for sharing your story. I am sorry to hear that you were fired,
apparently for exercising you human & Constitutional right to labor-organize.
The fact that your boss was "a labor history Prof" is worst-tier hypocrisy
& irony. Reminds me of Constitutional Law Prof 0bama, who continually defecates
on the Constitution with his assasination of US citizens overseas program,
NSA bulk spying, etc.
I hope you found an alternative job that had better working conditions
& a fairer boss.
"Tin soldiers and Nixon coming, We're finally on our own. This summer
I hear the drumming, Four dead in Ohio." CSNY
It seems the "social unrest" stemmed from the collective consciousness
permitted by
unrestrained objectivity. The master-client relationship was overwhelmed
by repeated
gestures that breached the ordained demeandor of prostrate obedience.
The balance between confusion and illumination (consciousness) must be
modified!
After all, successful marketing/propaganda begins where consciousness ends
I was fortunate enough (a long time ago) to attend an Ivy League university,
with my brother attending the same two class years ahead of me. I became
frustrated at one point, finding my courses to always be a number of degrees
more abstract in what they were teaching than I had anticipated, and sought
my brother's advice. "Brown," he said, "doesn't make engineers; they make
graduate students." As I would later come to say, we were not taught to
be mathematicians or chemists or historian; we were taught to think like
them. I can't tell you how valuable that approach to education has turn
out to be for me, both professionally and personally, as I've made my way
through life. These are things you don't unlearn.
I think about this whenever I read articles (like this one) about the
direction of education today, especially but not limited to the college
level. These experiences are being lost as we turn our schools into trade
schools and our students into mere mechanics; OK at any situation for which
they have been specifically trained, but kind of useless for those when
that has not been the case. Our elites tell us that this is what the market
wants, but I never see any of them actually asking the students, and when
I check back at the Ivy, I find that the elites still teach their own the
way I was taught. The answer is clear. we are deliberately being divided
by education into a world where the children of the elites, whether they
have earned it or not, will find no intellectual competition from the classes
below them. The Poors really will be stupid, but it will be intentional,
and built in to the Nature and Nurture the elites have allowed them to have.
Excellent comment, Benedict. The art of teaching people how to think
instead of what to think – the educator who can do this is invaluable, now
more than ever.
1. The shift needed to understand the modern University is to think of
it not as an institution of higher learning, but as a processing plant –
it produces "students" and "graduates, and adjuncts are the staff assigned
the role of processors. The model is industrial. Elite institutions of all
sorts have conspired with the University to require professional credentials
for more and more of the occupations they staff, in order to assure large
flows of people pass through. This also means that larger populations are
drawn into the debt system and thereby depoliticized.
2. The most important role an adjunct can play is to bring the issues
associated with the industrializing of the university into the classroom.
Make students aware of the labor situation, and what they're buying.
Explain to them that adjuncts, like nurses in hospitals, are expected to
overperform, and that their overperformance is what props up a diseased,
corrupt institution. It's very, very important for adjuncts not to get caught
up in the official institutional morality that guilts them into overperformance
(hospitals are probably the leader in this respect). How much overperformance
you indulge in is a personal decision, in my view, but it should never be
taken on uncritically.
My own individualized response to this system has been to take on as
many classes as I humanly can, so that a) my wages actually compare to those
of my tenured colleagues, and b) to demonstrate to students by so doing
that the University does not give a shit about their education. No one pays
attention to how many courses I teach or how prepared I am to teach them.
I've taught hundreds of courses (no exaggeration) and no one ever supervises
me or even checks in (It's happened twice in 25 years) .Fact is, I happen
to be prepared, but I stress that that is not at all a concern of the University.
I've been asked to teach courses in subjects where I have absolutely no
expertise, but since I'm teaching undergrads, know how to read, construct
a syllabus, and make compelling arguments, I get by, sometimes even comfortably.
Many get by this way. But it shouldn't be confused with providing student
a good education. And I'm getting too old to maintain the pace, as we all
do.
According to the evaluation numbers I'm somehow still providing students
with an above-average experience in their courses, but I do so full in the
knowledge that I WILL NOT overperform without making the students aware
that that is what unfairly is expected of me, even though I'm given none
of the resources tenured faculty are given. I cancel classes sometimes,
for the express purpose of the fact I need a break (I don;t get sabbaticals).
They almost invariably understand. They also are sometimes infuriated that
this state of affairs persists, though like adjuncts they fear making waves.
3. Tenured faculty are the enemy (unfortunately) or PT faculty. Eevn
the labor activists among them have different class interests than PT faculty
at most large universities. Full-time faculty are dominated by the administration
and feel themselves to be under siege, but one response to this is that
they dominate PT faculty as a means of freeing themselves as much as possible
from the industrial-style teaching of large University life. As a rule,
they are not willing to equitably share the burdens PT faculty face, and
there's no getting around that.
Having come up through the academic process and seeing the handwriting
on the wall deciding to opt out of trying for an academic career, I think
I can comment a bit.
First, no one is forcing these folks to be adjuncts. It's their choice.
The real issue is one of information and honesty or at least reality
over hopeful expectations. When I was an undergrad my professors encouraged
me to go to grad school and were pleased when I decided to pursue a Ph.D.
They all implied, if not said, that I would be able to then get an academic
job. I think they really believed this, but the reality was far different
even at that time. By the time I graduated, unemployment in my field was
at an all time high. The reality was that only 20-25% of graduates would
get "potentially permanent" positions in either academia or research. So,
when I finally graduated I posted a letter for the undergraduates informing
them of the future in the field. Needless to say the faculty were taken
aback, but when they checked they found that my data was correct.
Do these adjuncts believe that a "potentially permanent" position awaits
them if they keep going on their present path? Are they being told that
by the universities? If so, then they are being deceived. Or, is this just
a case of blind optimism and not wanting to give up their dream? In this
case, it goes back to being their choice. Or do they want a career as a
serial adjunct, and just want the job to be better? The this is just typical
employer/employee bargaining and back to their choice.
So, they can agitate for more money, security, authority, etc. which
is what they appear to be doing, or they can leave the field for one that
is more lucrative, which is what the vast majority of us have done.
It's their "choice" to be an adjunct. Really? If there was a true choice
wouldn't the vast majority "choose" to be full-time faculty with benefits
and equivalent pay? Free marketeers keep using the word "choice", but the
choice they offer is usually one where you get to "choose" between homelessness
and and marginal survival at $11 an hour. A mighty impressive choice!
Do they "believe" they're going to get a full-time position, because
realistic career expectations wouldn't help universities get cheap grad
student labor?
Or maybe they end up in grad school like a lot of people I know - because
the job market was so terrible that the idea of staying in school for another
couple of years was their best "choice" at that point in time? Since the
media constantly tells us education is always good, and those who don't
have it will fall behind, the idea that more education isn't always better
comes as a foreign idea to a lot of 22 year olds. An assembly line of cheap
grad student labor then gets funneled into adjunct teaching.
Yes, their choice. They can abandon the academic pursuit and choose another
career. Most people with advanced degrees do just that.
I agree that their are way too many grad students and they become the
adjuncts that are desperate for full time jobs. But grad students serve
an important purpose as cheap labor, particularly in research universities.
Why would they want to give that up? Again, this is an issue of information,
which is why I posted my letter. If undergrads knew the actual prospects
for grad students after they graduate perhaps they would choose a different
path. But, grad school and academia are extremely attractive pursuits for
many people so they readily put up with all the impediments in the hope
of making it as a professor. The reality is that academia has become an
avocation, a hobby, rather than a vocation for most people.
Here's a thought: maybe if our education system weren't built around
fear, we'd be able to present a more united front.
Consider: instructors are tasked with judging students and, if they grade
on the curve, punishing some of them regardless of their skill or effort and
often enough this sorting is accomplished through BS methods like high-stakes,
time-limited testing. So yeah, sometimes students get resentful of the instructors
who get seen as the enemy. And so, they take it out be leaving a bad review.
The reviews, just like the tests and grading systems, are being used
to sort and punish profs. Bad reviews from students can be devastating financially
and career-wise, as detailed in the article. So profs get scared and therefore
fail to ask much of the students, so as to come off as a "nice guy/gal."
The students live in fear and don't learn, and the teachers live in fear
and don't teach. But what if we did things differently?
What if the point of a review process was to improve teaching methods
and get feedback from students about what works and what doesn't? What if
reviews were done in a way aimed at supporting instructors, rather than
censuring them? And what if students were treated the same way. What if,
instead of a reprimand and a shaming, students were given support and encouragement
(more like Evergreen and Sarah Lawrence)?
Maybe then we'd stop being afraid of each other and be able to support
eachother as we demand an answer to the question of how it is that tuitions
keep going up while faculty pay keeps going down. Demand in no uncertain
terms that the top Admins take major pay cuts or step down so their secretary
can take over for them (with a hefty pay raise, of course, but something
reasonable ).
We are looking at the decades long pursuit of making higher education
"more like business". The mantra of privatization and that attitude that
segments of our society which served the public: schools, universities,
hospitals, departments of governments at all levels, etc., would all be
better if they were run as businesses has been proven false a million times
over.
University Boards have, for decades, been stacked with advocates of market
based systems which have been imposed on institutions which formerly served
their students and the public. Students are no longer viewed as students
but as revenue streams. Public funding for higher education has similarly
declined as the cult of the marketplace including that institutions serving
a public purpose needed to be more self funding. Because forcing them to
have more skin in the game would force them to trim the fat and innovate.
You know, like Walmart.
For decades, political contributions bought politicians who in turn mandated
that federal student loans had to be administered by banks, thereby siphoning
off billions, if not tens of billions, of dollars that could have otherwise
gone to students and universities. The politicians also permit these banks
to gouge students on interest rates, to pass laws making it harder or impossible
to discharge loan debt through bankruptcy, or to refinance their loans.
None of these abuses of students served a public interest. All of these
abuses exemplify our current model for how to apply business practices to
higher education.
In the business sense, the only concern a University has for its product
is its relationship to the revenue stream. A little like the charter school
model. Universities have a need for instructors, and in applying the methods
of successful business as it is defined today they will seek to fill that
labor need at the absolute lowest cost achievable. Those who long for the
past are out of luck; universities are never going back. Faculty pay will
keep going down as long there are new warm bodies to take the place of those
who don't like it, and adjuncts will be squeezed for all that can be wrung
from them.
Adjuncts are nameless, faceless, and entirely forgettable as far the
University administration is concerned. The administration will blow as
much smoke up adjunct's asses as needed to keep their slots filled. Adjuncts
are in an abusive relationship, whether they understand it or not. The abuse
is never going to end, as the obstacles are not just the administration
and the university Board, but the politicians, the big donors, and the attitudes
of our society at large.
What you have so precisely described is yet another Ponzi scheme. Of
course it is because that is what post capitalist Capitalism is .
Think
of it like this : there is approximately 7 billion of us living on planet
Earth and between us we can and do produce enough food, clothing and could
produce enough housing ( that's another matter ) for all 7 billion.
So the
problem for the capitalist is how do I create the illusion of scarcity upon
which Capitalism works. Answer : grab by any and every means possible –
legal and illegal , it's all the same thing – the lions share of what already
exists ; in other words steal it . That's the 1 % .
And then con the 99%
into believing resources are scarce etc, etc and bending to the will of
the 1 %.
Most of us continue to hope that we will eventually find a secure/meaningful
position somewhere in one of the major institutions that make-up our society.
This is a false hope–especially in higher education. The University, the large corporation, the particular governmental agency,
are now beyond internal reform and we all know this in our bones.
Somehow we must individually and collectively find the courage and creativity
to move, maneuver and survive outside of these institutions–trading in the
fear and anxiety of trying to succeed in dying institutions for the fear
and anxiety which comes with creating new institutions.
The intelligentsia (Latin: intellegentia, Polish: inteligencja, Russian: интеллигенция; IPA: [ɪntʲɪlʲɪˈɡʲentsɨjə])
is a social class of people engaged in complex mental labor aimed at guiding or critiquing, or
otherwise playing a leadership role in shaping a society's culture and politics.[1] This therefore
might include everyone from artists to school teachers, as well as academics, writers, journalists,
and other hommes de lettres (men of letters) more usually thought of as being the main constituents
of the intelligentsia.
Intelligentsia is the subject of active polemics concerning its own role in the development of
modern society not always positive historically, often contributing to higher degree of progress,
but also to its backward movement.[2]... In pre-revolutionary Russia the term was first used to
describe people possessing cultural and political initiative.[3] It was commonly used by
those individuals themselves to create an apparent distance from the masses, and generally retained
that narrow self-definition. [citation needed]
If intellectuals replace the current professional politicians as the leaders
of society the situation would become much worse. Because they have neither
the sense of reality, nor common sense. For them, the words and speeches are
more important than the actual social laws and the dominant trends, the dominant
social dynamics of the society. The psychological principle of the intellectuals
is that we could organize everything much better, but we are not allowed to
do it.
But the actual situation is as following: they could organize the life of
society as they wish and plan, in the way they view is the best only if under
conditions that are not present now are not feasible in the future. Therefore
they are not able to act even at the level of current leaders of the society,
which they despise. The actual leaders are influenced by social pressures, by
the current social situation, but at least they doing something. Intellectuals
are unhappy that the real stream of life they are living in. They consider it
wrong. that makes them very dangerous, because they look really smart, while
in reality being sophisticated professional idiots.
"... Moscow did indeed support secessionist pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine. But did not the U.S. launch a 78-day bombing campaign on tiny Serbia to effect a secession of its cradle province of Kosovo? ..."
"... Russia is reportedly hacking into our political institutions. If so, it ought to stop. But have not our own CIA, National Endowment for Democracy, and NGOs meddled in Russia's internal affairs for years? ..."
"... Scores of the world's 190-odd nations are today ruled by autocrats. How does it advance our interests or diplomacy to have congressional leaders yapping "thug" at the ruler of a nation with hundreds of nuclear warheads? ..."
"... Very good article indeed. Knee-jerk reaction of american politicians and journalists looks extremely strange. As a matter of fact they look like idiots or puppets. ..."
"... Rubio and Graham are reflexively ready to push US influence everywhere, all the time, with military force always on the agenda, and McCain seems to be in a state of constant agitation ..."
"... Very sensible article. And as the EU falls further into disarray and possible disintegration, due to migration and other catastrophically mishandled problems, a working partnership with Russia will become even more important. Right now, we treat Russia as an enemy and Saudi Arabia as a friend. That makes no sense at all. ..."
"... As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room". ..."
"... I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context. ..."
"... The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing. ..."
"... P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage. ..."
"... Anyway, what Buchanan is saying is, "We have to deal with him," not "favor him." The two terms should not be confused. ..."
"... There are a lot of "allies" of questionable usefulness that the US should stop "favoring," and a lot of competitors (and potential allies in the true sense) out there the US should begin "dealing" with. ..."
"... Everything the Western elite does is about dollar hegemony and control of energy. ..."
"... As long as Russia is not a puppet of the globalist banking cartel they will be presented as an "enemy". Standing in the way of energy imperialism was the last straw for the all out hybrid war being launched on Russia now. ..."
"... If the Western public wasn't so lazy and stupid we would remove the globalists controlling us. Instead people, especially liberals, get in bed with the globalists plans against Russia bc they can't stand Russia is Christian and supports the family. ..."
"... Every word about Russia allowed in the Western establishment are lies funded and molded by people like Soros and warmongers. This is the reality. Nobody who will speak honestly or positively about Russia is allowed any voice. And scumbag neoliberal globalists like Kasperov are presented as "Russians" while real Russian people are given zero voice. ..."
"... What the Western elite is doing right now in Ukraine and Syria is reprehensible and its all our fault for letting these people control us. ..."
...Arriving on Capitol Hill to repair ties between Trump and party elites,
Gov. Mike Pence was taken straight to the woodshed.
John McCain told Pence that Putin was a "thug and a butcher," and Trump's
embrace of him intolerable.
Said Lindsey Graham: "Vladimir Putin is a thug, a dictator … who has
his opposition killed in the streets," and Trump's views bring to mind Munich.
Putin is an "authoritarian thug," added "Little Marco" Rubio.
What causes the Republican Party to lose it whenever the name of Vladimir
Putin is raised?
Putin is no Stalin, whom FDR and Harry Truman called "Good old Joe" and "Uncle
Joe." Unlike Nikita Khrushchev, he never drowned a Hungarian Revolution in blood.
He did crush the Chechen secession. But what did he do there that General Sherman
did not do to Atlanta when Georgia seceded from Mr. Lincoln's Union?
Putin supported the U.S. in Afghanistan, backed our nuclear deal with Iran,
and signed on to John Kerry's plan have us ensure a cease fire in Syria and
go hunting together for ISIS and al-Qaida terrorists.
Still, Putin committed "aggression" in Ukraine, we are told. But was that
really aggression, or reflexive strategic reaction? We helped dump over a pro-Putin
democratically elected regime in Kiev, and Putin acted to secure his Black Sea
naval base by re-annexing Crimea, a peninsula that has belonged to Russia from
Catherine the Great to Khrushchev. Great powers do such things.
When the Castros pulled Cuba out of America's orbit, we decided to keep Guantanamo,
and dismiss Havana's protests?
Moscow did indeed support secessionist pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine.
But did not the U.S. launch a 78-day bombing campaign on tiny Serbia to effect
a secession of its cradle province of Kosovo?
... ... ...
Russia is reportedly hacking into our political institutions. If so,
it ought to stop. But have not our own CIA, National Endowment for Democracy,
and NGOs meddled in Russia's internal affairs for years?
... ... ...
Is Putin's Russia more repressive than Xi Jinping's China? Yet, Republicans
rarely use "thug" when speaking about Xi. During the Cold War, we partnered
with such autocrats as the Shah of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand
Marcos in Manila, and Park Chung-Hee of South Korea. Cold War necessity required
it.
Scores of the world's 190-odd nations are today ruled by autocrats. How
does it advance our interests or diplomacy to have congressional leaders yapping
"thug" at the ruler of a nation with hundreds of nuclear warheads?
>>During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah
of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park
Chung-Hee of South Korea
buttressed could be even more pertinent)
Very good article indeed. Knee-jerk reaction of american politicians
and journalists looks extremely strange. As a matter of fact they look like
idiots or puppets.
Rubio
and Graham are reflexively ready to push US influence everywhere, all the
time, with military force always on the agenda, and McCain seems to be in
a state of constant agitation whenever US forces are not actively engaged
in combat somewhere. They are loud voices, yes, but irrational voices, too.
Very sensible article. And as the EU falls further into disarray
and possible disintegration, due to migration and other catastrophically
mishandled problems, a working partnership with Russia will become even
more important. Right now, we treat Russia as an enemy and Saudi Arabia
as a friend. That makes no sense at all.
"Just" states the starvation of the Ukraine is a western lie. The Harvest
of Sorrow by Robert Conquest refutes this dangerous falsehood. Perhaps "Just"
believes The Great Leap Forward did not lead to starvation of tens of millions
in China. After all, this could be another "western lie". So to could be
the Armenian genocide in Turkey or slaughter of Communists in Indonesia.
As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because
Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to
interact with the "smartest person in the room".
I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has
visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may
reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat
in that context.
The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin
to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic
narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage
his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia
fear-monger bashing.
And so the U.S. – Russia relationship is wrecked by the "smartest person
in the room".
P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that
portends more Global Cop wreckage.
John asks, "We also have to deal with our current allies. Whom would
Mr. Buchanan like to favor?"
Well, we could redouble our commitment to our democracy and peace loving
friends in Saudi Arabia, we could deepen our ties to those gentle folk in
Egypt, and maybe for a change give some meaningful support to Israel. Oh,
and our defensive alliances will be becoming so much stronger with Montenegro
as a member, we will need to pour more resources into that country.
Anyway, what Buchanan is saying is, "We have to deal with him," not
"favor him." The two terms should not be confused.
There are a lot of "allies" of questionable usefulness that the US
should stop "favoring," and a lot of competitors (and potential allies in
the true sense) out there the US should begin "dealing" with.
"During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah of
Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park
Chung-Hee of South Korea. Cold War necessity required it (funny, you failed
to mention Laos, South Vietnam, Nicaragua, Noriega/Panama, and everyone's
favorite 9/11 co-conspirator and WMD developer, Saddam Hussein). either
way how did these "alliances" work out for the US? really doesn't matter,
does it? it is early 21st century, not mid 20th century. there is a school
of thought in the worlds of counter-terrorism/intelligence operations, which
suggests if you want to be successful, you have to partner with some pretty
nasty folks. Trump is being "handled" by an experienced, ruthless (that's
a compliment), and focused "operator". unless, of course, Trump is actually
the superior operator, in which case, this would be the greatest black op
of all time.
"From Russia With Money - Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset and Cronyism,"
"Of the 28 US, European and Russian companies that participated in Skolkovo,
17 of them were Clinton Foundation donors" or sponsored speeches by former
President Bill Clinton, Schweizer told The Post.
Everything the Western elite does is about dollar hegemony and control
of energy. Once you understand that then the (evil)actions of the Western
elite make sense. Anyone who stands in the way of those things is an "enemy".
This is how they determine an "enemy".
As long as Russia is not a puppet of the globalist banking cartel
they will be presented as an "enemy". Standing in the way of energy imperialism
was the last straw for the all out hybrid war being launched on Russia now.
If the Western public wasn't so lazy and stupid we would remove the
globalists controlling us. Instead people, especially liberals, get in bed
with the globalists plans against Russia bc they can't stand Russia is Christian
and supports the family.
Every word about Russia allowed in the Western establishment are
lies funded and molded by people like Soros and warmongers. This is the
reality. Nobody who will speak honestly or positively about Russia is allowed
any voice. And scumbag neoliberal globalists like Kasperov are presented
as "Russians" while real Russian people are given zero voice.
What the Western elite is doing right now in Ukraine and Syria is
reprehensible and its all our fault for letting these people control us.
"... As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room". ..."
"... I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context. ..."
"... The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing. ..."
"... P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage. ..."
As I've stated many times, Obama the
narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping
about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room".
I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral
contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the
mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context.
The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to
hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic
supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted
ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing.
And so the U.S. – Russia relationship is wrecked by the "smartest person
in the room".
P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends
more Global Cop wreckage.
"... Reality always has this power to surprise. It surprises you with an answer that it gives to questions never asked - and which are most tempting. A great stimulus to life is there, in the capacity to divine possible unasked questions. ..."
"... - Eduardo Galeano ..."
"... Fred Jameson has argued that "that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism." ..."
"... One way of understanding Jameson's comment is that within the ideological and affective spaces in which the neoliberal subject is produced and market-driven ideologies are normalized, there are new waves of resistance, especially among young people, who are insisting that casino capitalism is driven by a kind of mad violence and form of self-sabotage, and that if it does not come to an end, what we will experience, in all probability, is the destruction of human life and the planet itself. ..."
"... As the latest stage of predatory capitalism, neoliberalism is part of a broader economic and political project of restoring class power and consolidating the rapid concentration of capital, particularly financial capital ..."
"... As an ideology, it casts all dimensions of life in terms of market rationality, construes profit-making as the arbiter and essence of democracy ..."
"... Neoliberalism has put an enormous effort into creating a commanding cultural apparatus and public pedagogy in which individuals can only view themselves as consumers, embrace freedom as the right to participate in the market, and supplant issues of social responsibility for an unchecked embrace of individualism and the belief that all social relation be judged according to how they further one's individual needs and self-interests. ..."
"... The unemployment rate for young people in many countries such as Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece hovers between 40 and 50 per cent. To make matters worse, those with college degrees either cannot find work or are working at low-skill jobs that pay paltry wages. In the United States, young adjunct faculty constitute one of the fastest growing populations on food stamps. Suffering under huge debts, a jobs crisis, state violence, a growing surveillance state, and the prospect that they would inherit a standard of living far below that enjoyed by their parents, many young people have exhibited a rage that seems to deepen their resignation, despair, and withdrawal from the political arena. ..."
"... They now inhabit a neoliberal notion of temporality marked by a loss of faith in progress along with the emergence of apocalyptic narratives in which the future appears indeterminate, bleak, and insecure. Heightened expectations and progressive visions pale and are smashed next to the normalization of market-driven government policies that wipe out pensions, eliminate quality health care, raise college tuition, and produce a harsh world of joblessness, while giving millions to banks and the military. ..."
"... dispossessed youth continued to lose their dignity, bodies, and material goods to the machineries of disposability. ..."
"... Against the ravaging policies of austerity and disposability, "zones of abandonment appeared in which the domestic machinery of violence, suffering, cruelty, and punishment replaced the values of compassion, social responsibility, and civic courage" (Biehl 2005:2). ..."
"... In opposition to such conditions, a belief in the power of collective resistance and politics emerged once again in 2010, as global youth protests embraced the possibility of deepening and expanding democracy, rather than rejecting it. ..."
"... What is lacking here is any critical sense regarding the historical conditions and dismal lack of political and moral responsibility of an adult generation who shamefully bought into and reproduced, at least since the 1970s, governments and social orders wedded to war, greed, political corruption, xenophobia, and willing acceptance of the dictates of a ruthless form of neoliberal globalization. ..."
"... London Review of Books ..."
"... This is not a diary ..."
"... Vita: Life in a Zone of Social Abandonment ..."
"... Against the terror of neoliberalism ..."
"... Against the violence of organized forgetting: beyond America's disimagination machine ..."
"... Debt: The First 5,000 Years ..."
"... The democracy project: a history, a crisis, a movement ..."
"... 5th assessment report by the intergovernmental panel on climate change ..."
"... Unlearning With Hannah Arendt ..."
"... Agnonistics: thinking the world politically ..."
Reality always has this power to surprise. It surprises you with
an answer that it gives to questions never asked - and which are most tempting.
A great stimulus to life is there, in the capacity to divine possible unasked
questions.
- Eduardo Galeano
Neoliberalism's Assault on Democracy
Fred Jameson has argued that "that it is easier to imagine the end of
the world than to imagine the end of capitalism." He goes on to say that
"We can now revise that and witness the attempt to imagine capitalism by way
of imagining the end of the world" (Jameson 2003). One way of understanding
Jameson's comment is that within the ideological and affective spaces in which
the neoliberal subject is produced and market-driven ideologies are normalized,
there are new waves of resistance, especially among young people, who are insisting
that casino capitalism is driven by a kind of mad violence and form of self-sabotage,
and that if it does not come to an end, what we will experience, in all probability,
is the destruction of human life and the planet itself. Certainly, more
recent scientific reports on the threat of ecological disaster from researchers
at the University of Washington, NASA, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change reinforce this dystopian possibility. [1]
To read more articles by Henry A. Giroux and other authors in the
Public Intellectual Project, click
here.
As the latest stage of predatory capitalism, neoliberalism is part of
a broader economic and political project of restoring class power and consolidating
the rapid concentration of capital, particularly financial capital (Giroux
2008; 2014). As a political project, it includes "the deregulation of finance,
privatization of public services, elimination and curtailment of social welfare
programs, open attacks on unions, and routine violations of labor laws" (Yates
2013). As an ideology, it casts all dimensions of life in terms of market
rationality, construes profit-making as the arbiter and essence of democracy,
consuming as the only operable form of citizenship, and upholds the irrational
belief that the market can both solve all problems and serve as a model for
structuring all social relations. As a mode of governance, it produces identities,
subjects, and ways of life driven by a survival-of-the fittest ethic, grounded
in the idea of the free, possessive individual, and committed to the right of
ruling groups and institutions to exercise power removed from matters of ethics
and social costs. As a policy and political project, it is wedded to the privatization
of public services, the dismantling of the connection of private issues and
public problems, the selling off of state functions, liberalization of trade
in goods and capital investment, the eradication of government regulation of
financial institutions and corporations, the destruction of the welfare state
and unions, and the endless marketization and commodification of society.
Neoliberalism has put an enormous effort into creating a commanding cultural
apparatus and public pedagogy in which individuals can only view themselves
as consumers, embrace freedom as the right to participate in the market, and
supplant issues of social responsibility for an unchecked embrace of individualism
and the belief that all social relation be judged according to how they further
one's individual needs and self-interests. Matters of mutual caring, respect,
and compassion for the other have given way to the limiting orbits of privatization
and unrestrained self-interest, just as it has become increasingly difficult
to translate private troubles into larger social, economic, and political considerations.
As the democratic public spheres of civil society have atrophied under the onslaught
of neoliberal regimes of austerity, the social contract has been either greatly
weakened or replaced by savage forms of casino capitalism, a culture of fear,
and the increasing use of state violence. One consequence is that it has become
more difficult for people to debate and question neoliberal hegemony and the
widespread misery it produces for young people, the poor, middle class, workers,
and other segments of society - now considered disposable under neoliberal regimes
which are governed by a survival-of-the fittest ethos, largely imposed by the
ruling economic and political elite.
That they are unable to make their voices
heard and lack any viable representation in the process makes clear the degree
to which young people and others are suffering under a democratic deficit, producing
what Chantal Mouffe calls "a profound dissatisfaction with a number of existing
societies" under the reign of neoliberal capitalism (Mouffe 2013:119). This
is one reason why so many youth, along with workers, the unemployed, and students,
have been taking to the streets in Greece, Mexico, Egypt, the United States,
and England.
The Rise of Disposable Youth
What is particularly distinctive about the current historical conjuncture
is the way in which young people, particularly low-income and poor minority
youth across the globe, have been increasingly denied any place in an already
weakened social order and the degree to which they are no longer seen as central
to how a number of countries across the globe define their future. The plight
of youth as disposable populations is evident in the fact that millions of them
in countries such as England, Greece, and the United States have been unemployed
and denied long term benefits. The unemployment rate for young people in many
countries such as Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece hovers between 40 and 50
per cent. To make matters worse, those with college degrees either cannot find
work or are working at low-skill jobs that pay paltry wages. In the United States,
young adjunct faculty constitute one of the fastest growing populations on food
stamps. Suffering under huge debts, a jobs crisis, state violence, a growing
surveillance state, and the prospect that they would inherit a standard of living
far below that enjoyed by their parents, many young people have exhibited a
rage that seems to deepen their resignation, despair, and withdrawal from the
political arena.
This is the first generation, as sociologist Zygmunt Bauman argues, in which
the "plight of the outcast may stretch to embrace a whole generation." (Bauman
2012a; 2012b; 2012c) He rightly insists that today's youth have been "cast in
a condition of liminal drift, with no way of knowing whether it is transitory
or permanent" (Bauman 2004:76). Youth no longer occupy the hope of a privileged
place that was offered to previous generations. They now inhabit a neoliberal
notion of temporality marked by a loss of faith in progress along with the emergence
of apocalyptic narratives in which the future appears indeterminate, bleak,
and insecure. Heightened expectations and progressive visions pale and are smashed
next to the normalization of market-driven government policies that wipe out
pensions, eliminate quality health care, raise college tuition, and produce
a harsh world of joblessness, while giving millions to banks and the military.
Students, in particular, found themselves in a world in which unrealized aspirations
have been replaced by dashed hopes and a world of onerous debt (Fraser 2013;
On the history of debt, see Graeber 2012).
The Revival of the Radical Imagination
Within the various regimes of neoliberalism that have emerged particularly
in North since the late 1970s, the ethical grammars that drew attention to the
violence and suffering withered or, as in the United States, seemed to disappear
altogether, while dispossessed youth continued to lose their dignity, bodies,
and material goods to the machineries of disposability. The fear of losing everything,
the horror of an engulfing and crippling precarity, the quest to merely survive,
the rise of the punishing state and police violence, along with the impending
reality of social and civil death, became a way of life for the 99 percent in
the United States and other countries. Under such circumstances, youth were
no longer the place where society reveals its dreams, but increasingly hid its
nightmares. Against the ravaging policies of austerity and disposability, "zones
of abandonment appeared in which the domestic machinery of violence, suffering,
cruelty, and punishment replaced the values of compassion, social responsibility,
and civic courage" (Biehl 2005:2).
In opposition to such conditions, a belief in the power of collective resistance
and politics emerged once again in 2010, as global youth protests embraced the
possibility of deepening and expanding democracy, rather than rejecting it.
Such movements produced a new understanding of politics based on horizontal
forms of collaboration and political participation. In doing so, they resurrected
revitalized and much needed questions about class power, inequality, financial
corruption, and the shredding of the democratic process. They also explored
as well as what it meant to create new communities of mutual support, democratic
modes of exchange and governance, and public spheres in which critical dialogue
and exchanges could take place (For an excellent analysis on neoliberal-induced
financial corruption, see Anderson 2004).
A wave of youth protests starting in 2010 in Tunisia, and spreading across
the globe to the United States and Europe, eventually posed a direct challenge
to neoliberal modes of domination and the corruption of politics, if not democracy
itself (Hardt & Negri 2012). The legitimating, debilitating, and depoliticizing
notion that politics could only be challenged within established methods of
reform and existing relations of power was rejected outright by students and
other young people across the globe. For a couple of years, young people transformed
basic assumptions about what politics is and how the radical imagination could
be mobilized to challenge the basic beliefs of neoliberalism and other modes
of authoritarianism. They also challenged dominant discourses ranging from deficit
reduction and taxing the poor to important issues that included poverty, joblessness,
the growing unmanageable levels of student debt, and the massive spread of corporate
corruption. As Jonathan Schell argued, youth across the globe were enormously
successfully in unleashing "a new spirit of action", an expression of outrage
fueled less by policy demands than by a cry of collective moral and political
indignation whose message was
'Enough!' to a corrupt political, economic and media establishment that
hijacked the world's wealth for itself… sabotaging the rule of law, waging
interminable savage and futile wars, plundering the world's finite resources,
and lying about all this to the public [while] threatening Earth's life
forms into the bargain. (Schell 2011)
Yet, some theorists have recently argued that little has changed since 2011,
in spite of this expression of collective rage and accompanying demonstrations
by youth groups across the globe.
The Collapse or Reconfiguration of Youthful Protests?
Costas Lapavitsas and Alex Politaki,
writing in The Guardian, argue that as the "economic and social
disaster unfolded in 2012 and 2013", youth in Greece, France, Portugal, and
Spain have largely been absent from "politics, social movements and even from
the spontaneous social networks that have dealt with the worst of the catastrophe"
(Lapavitsas & Politaki 2014). Yet, at the same time, they insist that more and
more young people have been "attracted to nihilistic ends of the political spectrum,
including varieties of anarchism and fascism" (Lapavitsas & Politaki 2014).
This indicates that young people have hardly been absent from politics. On the
contrary, those youth moving to the right are being mobilized around needs that
simply promise the swindle of fulfillment. This does not suggest youth are becoming
invisible. On the contrary, the move on the part of students and others to the
right implies that the economic crisis has not been matched by a crisis of ideas,
one that would propel young people towards left political parties or social
formations that effectively articulate a critical understanding of the present
economic and political crisis. Missing here is also a strategy to create
and sustain a radical democratic political movement that avoids cooptation of
the prevailing economic and political systems of oppression now dominating the
United States, Greece, Turkey, Portugal, France, and England, among other countries.
This critique of youthful protesters as a suspect generation is repeated
in greater detail by Andrew R. Myers in Student Pulse (Myers 2012).
He argues that deteriorating economic and educational conditions for youth all
over Europe have created not only a profound sense of political pessimism among
young people, but also a dangerous, if not cynical, distrust towards established
politics. Regrettably, Myers seems less concerned about the conditions that
have written young people out of jobs, a decent education, imposed a massive
debt on them, and offers up a future of despair and dashed hopes than the alleged
unfortunate willingness of young people to turn their back on traditional parties.
Myers argues rightly that globalization is the enemy of young people and is
undermining democracy, but he wrongly insists that traditional social democratic
parties are the only vehicles and hope left for real reform. As such, Myers
argues that youth who exhibit distrust towards established governments and call
for the construction of another world symbolize political defeat, if not cynicism
itself. Unfortunately, with his lament about how little youth are protesting
today and about their lack of engagement in the traditional forms of politics,
he endorses, in the end, a defense of those left/liberal parties that embrace
social democracy and the new labor policies of centrist-left coalitions. His
rebuke borders on bad faith, given his criticism of young people for not engaging
in electoral politics and joining with unions, both of which, for many youth,
rightfully represent elements of a reformist politics they reject.
It is ironic that both of these critiques of the alleged passivity of youth
and the failure of their politics have nothing to say about the generations
of adults that failed these young people - that is, what disappears in these
narratives is the fact that an older generation accepted the "realization that
one generation no longer holds out a hand to the next" (Knott 2011:ix). What
is lacking here is any critical sense regarding the historical conditions and
dismal lack of political and moral responsibility of an adult generation who
shamefully bought into and reproduced, at least since the 1970s, governments
and social orders wedded to war, greed, political corruption, xenophobia, and
willing acceptance of the dictates of a ruthless form of neoliberal globalization.
In fact, what was distinctive about the protesting youth across the globe
was their rejection to the injustices of neoliberalism and their attempts to
redefine the meaning of politics and democracy, while fashioning new forms of
revolt (Hardt & Negri 2012; Graeber 2013). Among their many criticisms, youthful
protesters argued vehemently that traditional social democratic, left, and liberal
parties suffered from an "extremism of the center" that made them complicitous
with the corporate and ruling political elites, resulting in their embrace of
the inequities of a form of casino capitalism which assumed that the market
should govern the entirety of social life, not just the economic realm (Hardt
& Negri 2012:88).
Henry A.
Giroux currently holds the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship
in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and a
Distinguished Visiting Professorship at Ryerson University. His most recent
books include: Youth in Revolt: Reclaiming a Democratic Future (Paradigm 2013),
America's Educational Deficit and the War on Youth (Monthly Review Press, 2013)
Neoliberalism's War on Higher Education (Haymarket Press, 2014), and The Violence
of Organized Forgetting: Thinking Beyond America's Disimagination Machine (City
Lights, 2014). The Toronto Star named Henry Giroux one of the twelve Canadians
changing the way we think! Giroux is also a member of Truthout's Board of Directors.
His web site is www.henryagiroux.com.
"... The "Benedict Option" refers to Christians in the contemporary West who cease to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with the maintenance of American empire, ..."
"... Benedict wrote his famous Rule , which became the guiding constitution of most monasteries in western Europe in the Middle Ages. The monasteries were incubators of Christian and classical culture, and outposts of evangelization in the barbarian kingdoms ..."
The "Benedict Option" refers to Christians in the contemporary West who
cease to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with the
maintenance of American empire,and who therefore are keen to construct
local forms of community as loci of Christian resistance against what the empire
represents.
Put less grandly, the Benedict Option - or "Ben Op" - is an umbrella term
for Christians who accept MacIntyre's critique of modernity, and who also recognize
that forming Christians who live out Christianity according to Great Tradition
requires embedding within communities and institutions dedicated to that formation.
... ... ...
For one, the it awakened many small-o orthodox Christians to something that
ought to have been clear to them a long, long time ago: the West is truly a
post-Christian civilization, and we had better come up with new ways of living
if we are going to hold on to the faith in this new dark age. The reason gay
rights were so quickly embraced by the American public is because the same public
had already jettisoned traditional Christian teaching on the meaning of sex,
of marriage, and even a Christian anthropology. Same-sex marriage is only the
fulfillment of a radical change that had already taken place in Western culture.
... ... ...
Benedict of Nursia (ca. 480-537) was an educated young Christian who left
Rome, the city of the recently fallen Empire, out of disgust with its decadence.
He went south, into the forest near Subiaco, to live as a hermit and to pray.
Eventually, he gathered around him some like-minded men, and formed monasteries.
Benedict wrote his famous
Rule , which
became the guiding constitution of most monasteries in western Europe in the
Middle Ages. The monasteries were incubators of Christian and classical culture,
and outposts of evangelization in the barbarian kingdoms. As Cardinal
Newman wrote:
St Benedict found the world, physical and social, in ruins, and his mission
was to restore it in the way not of science, but of nature, not as if setting
about to do it [the caveat], not professing to do it by any set time, or
by any rare specific, or by any series of strokes, but so quietly, patiently,
gradually, that often till the work was done, it was not known to be doing.
It was a restoration rather than a visitation, correction or conversion.
The new work which he helped to create was a growth rather than a
structure . Silent men were observed about the country, or discovered
in the forest, digging, clearing and building; and other silent men, not
seen, were sitting in the cold cloister, tiring their eyes and keeping their
attention on the stretch, while they painfully copied and recopied the manuscripts
which they had saved.
There was no one who contended or cried out, or drew attention to what
was going on, but by degrees the woody swamp became a hermitage, a religious
house, a farm, an abbey, a village, a seminary, a school of learning and
a city.
... ... ...
Here are some basic Benedictine principles that we might think of as tools
for living the Christian life:
1. Order. Benedict described the monastery as
a "school for the service of the Lord." The entire way of life of the monastic
community was ordered by this telos , or end. The primary purpose
of Christian community life is to form Christians. The Benedict Option must
teach us to make every other goal in our lives secondary to serving God.
Christianity is not simply a "worldview" or an add-on to our lives, as it
is in modernity; it must be our lives, or it is something less than
Christianity.
2. Prayer and work. Life as a Christian requires
both contemplation and action. Both depend on the other. There is a reason
Jesus retired to the desert after teaching the crowds. Work is as sacred
as prayer. Ordinary life can and should be hallowed.
3. Stability. The Rule ordinarily requires monks
to stay put in the monastery where they professed their vows. The idea is
that moving around constantly, following our own desires, prevents us from
becoming faithful to our calling. True, we must be prepared to follow God's
calling, even if He leads us away from home. But the far greater challenge
for us in the 21st century is learning how to stay put - literally and metaphorically
- and to bind ourselves to a place, a tradition, a people. Only within the
limits of stability can we find true freedom.
4. Community. It really does take a village to
raise a child. That is, we learn who we are and who we are called to be
in large part through our communities and their institutions. We Americans
have to unlearn some of the ways of individualism that we absorb uncritically,
and must relearn the craft of community living.
Not every community is equally capable of forming Christians. Communities
must have boundaries, and must build these metaphorical walls because, as
the New Monastic pioneer Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove writes, "we cannot become
the gift to others we are called to be until we embrace the limits that
are necessary to our vocation." In other words, we must withdraw behind
some communal boundaries not for the sake of our own purity, but so we can
first become who God wants us to be, precisely for the sake of the
world. Beliefs and practices that are antithetical to achieving the community's
telos must be excluded.
5. Hospitality. That said, we must be open to
outsiders, and receive them "as Christ," according to the Rule. For Benedictine
monks, this had a specific meaning, with regard to welcoming visitors to
the monastery. For modern laypersons, this will likely have to do with their
relationship to people outside the community. The Benedictines are instructed
to welcome outsiders so long as they don't interrupt communal life. It should
be that way with us, too. We should always be open to others, in charity,
to share what we have with them, including our faith.
6. Balance. The Rule of St. Benedict is marked
by a sense of balance, of common sense. As Ben Oppers experiment with building
and/or reforming communities and institutions in a more intentional way,
we must be vigilant against the temptations to fall intorigid legalism,
cults of personality, and other distortions that have been the ruin of intentional
communities. There must be workable forms of accountability for leadership,
and the cultivation of an anti-utopian sensibility among the faithful. A
community that is too lax will dissolve, or at least be ineffective, but
one that is too strict will also produce disorder. A Benedict Option community
must be joyful and confident, not dour and fearful.
Can you point to any contemporary examples of Ben Op communities?
Yes. There is a Catholic agrarian community around
Our Lady of Clear
Creek Abbey in eastern Oklahoma. The lay community gathered around
St. John Orthodox cathedral
in Eagle River, Alaska, is another.
Trinity Presbyterian
Church in Charlottesville, Virginia , is working towards incorporating a
version of the Rule of St. Benedict within its congregational life. Rutba House,
a New Monastic community in Durham, North Carolina, and its
School for Conversion
, is still another. I recently met a couple in Waco, Texas - Baylor philosophy
professor
Scott Moore and his wife Andrea - who bought a property near Crawford, Texas,
and who are rehabilitating it into a family home and a Christian retreat called
Benedict Farm. There is the
Bruderhof.
I am certain that there is no such thing as a perfect Ben Op community, and
that each and every one of them will have struggled with similar problems. In
working on the Benedict Option book, I intend to visit as many of these communities
as I can, to find out what they are doing right, what they wish they did better,
and what we can all learn from them. The Benedict Option has to be something
that ordinary people can do in their own circumstances.
Do you really think you can just run away from the world and live off
in a compound somewhere? Get real!
No, I don't think that at all. While I wouldn't necessarily fault people
who sought geographical isolation, that will be neither possible nor desirable
for most of us. The early Church lived in cities, and formed its distinct life
there. Most of the Ben Op communities that come to mind today are not radically
isolated, in geography or otherwise, from the broader community. It's simply
nonsense to say that Ben Oppers want to hide from the world and live in some
sort of fundamentalist enclave. Some do, and it's not hard to find examples
of how this sort of thing has gone bad. But that is not what we should aim for.
In fact, I think it's all too easy for people to paint the Benedict Option as
utopian escapism so they can safely wall it off and not have to think about
it.
Isn't this a violation of the Great Commission? How can we preach the
Gospel to the nations when we're living in these neo-monastic communities?
Well, what is evangelizing? Is it merely dispersing information? Or is there
something more to it. The Benedict Option is about discipleship , which
is itself an indirect form of evangelism. Pagans converted to the early Church
not simply because of the words the first Christians spoke, but because of the
witness of the kinds of lives they lived. It has to be that way with us too.
Pope Benedict XVI said something important in this respect. He said that
the best apologetic arguments for the truth of the Christian faith are the art
that the Church has produced as a form of witness, and the lives of its saints:
Yet, the beauty of Christian life is even more effective than art and
imagery in the communication of the Gospel message. In the end, love alone
is worthy of faith, and proves credible. The lives of the saints and martyrs
demonstrate a singular beauty which fascinates and attracts, because a Christian
life lived in fullness speaks without words. We need men and women whose
lives are eloquent, and who know how to proclaim the Gospel with clarity
and courage, with transparency of action, and with the joyful passion of
charity.
The Benedict Option is about forming communities that teach us and help us
to live in such a way that our entire lives are witnesses to the transforming
power of the Gospel.
It sounds like you are simply asking for the Church to be the Church.
Why do you need to brand it "the Benedict Option"?
That's a great point, actually. If all the churches did what they were supposed
to do, we wouldn't need the Ben Op. Thing is, they don't. The term "Benedict
Option" symbolizes a historically conscious, antimodernist return to roots,
an undertaking that occurs with the awareness that Christians have to cultivate
a sense of separation, of living as what Stanley Hauerwas and Will Willimon
call "resident aliens" in a "Christian colony," in order to be faithful to our
calling. And, "Benedict Option" calls to mind monastic disciplines that we can
appropriate in our own time.
It also draws attention to the centrality of practices in
shaping our Christian lives. The Reformed theologian James K.A. Smith, in his
great books
Imagining the Kingdom and
Desiring the Kingdom , speaks of these things. A recent secular book
by Matthew B. Crawford,
The World Beyond Your Head , talks about the critical importance of
practice as a way of knowledge. Here is Crawford writing about tradition and
organ making:
When the sovereignty of the self requires that the inheritance of the
past be disqualified as a guide to action and meaning, we confine ourselves
in an eternal present. If subjectivism works against the coalescing of communities
and traditions in which genuine individuals can arise, does the opposite
follow? Do communities that look to established forms for the meanings of
things somehow cultivate individuality?
… [C]onsider that when you go deep into some particular skill or art,
it trains your powers of concentration and perception. You become more discerning
about the objects you are dealing with and, if all goes well, begin to care
viscerally about quality, because you have been initiated into an ethic
of caring about what you are doing. Usually this happens by the example
of some particular person, a mentor, who exemplifies that spirit of craftsmanship.
You hear disgust in his voice, or see pleasure on his face, in response
to some detail that would be literally invisible to someone not initiated.
In this way, judgment develops alongside emotional involvement, unified
in what Polanyi calls personal knowledge. Technical training in such a setting,
though narrow in its immediate application, may be understood as part of
education in the broadest sense: intellectual and moral formation.
… What emerged in my conversations at Taylor and Boody [a traditional
organ-making shop] is that the historical inheritance of a long tradition
of organ making seems not to burden these craftspeople, but rather to energize
their efforts in innovation. They intend for their organs still be be in
use four hundred years from now, and this orientation toward the future
requires a critical engagement with the designs and building methods of
the past. They learn from past masters, interrogate their wisdom, and push
the conversation further in an ongoing dialectic of reverence and rebellion.
Their own progress in skill and understanding is thus a contribution to
something larger; their earned independence of judgment represents a deepening
of the craft itself. This is a story about the progressive possibilities
of tradition, then.
The Benedict Option is about how to rightly order the practices in our Christian
lives, in light of tradition, for the sake of intellectual and moral formation
in the way of Christ. You might even say that it's a story about the progressive
possibilities of tradition, and a return to roots in defiance of a rootless
age.
"... What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?… Does it encompass the slave trade, trading in narcotics, deforestation and export of a nation's tropical hardwood forests, environmentally damaging transnational oil pipelines or coal ports, fisheries depletion, laying off millions of workers and replacing them and the products they make with workers and products made in a foreign country, trading with an enemy, investing capital in a foreign country through a subsidiary or supplier that abuses its workers to the point that some commit suicide, no limits on or regulation of financial derivatives and transnational financial intermediaries?… the list is endless. ..."
"... As always, the questions are "Cui bono?"… "Who benefits"?… How and Why they benefit?… Who selects the short-term "Winners" and "Losers"? And WRT those questions, the final sentence of this post hints at its purpose. ..."
"... Yeah, how is European colonialism - starting in, what, like the 15th century, or something - not "globalisation"? What about the Roman and Persian and Selucid empires? Wasn't that globalisation? I think we've pretty much always lived in a globalised world, one way or another (if "globalised world" even makes sense). ..."
"... Bring back the broader, and more meaningful conception of Political Economy and some actual understanding can be gained. The study of economics cannot be separated from the political dimension of society. Politics being defined as who gets what in social interactions. ..."
"... The neoliberal experiment has run its course. Milton Friedman and his tribe had their alternative plan ready to go and implemented it when they could- to their great success. The best looting system developed-ever. This system only works with the availability of abundant resources and the mental justifications to support that gross exploitation. Both of which are reaching limits. ..."
"... If only the Milton Friedman tribe had interested itself in sports instead of economics. They could have argued that referees and umpires should be removed from the game for greater efficiency of play, and that sports teams would follow game rules by self-regulation. ..."
"... Wouldn't the whole thing just work out more efficiently if you leave traffic lights and rules out of it? Just let everyone figure it out at each light, survival of the fittest. ..."
"... With increasingly free movement of people as tourists whose spending impacts nations GDP, where does it fit in to discussions on globalization and trade? ..."
What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?… Does it encompass
the slave trade, trading in narcotics, deforestation and export of a nation's
tropical hardwood forests, environmentally damaging transnational oil pipelines
or coal ports, fisheries depletion, laying off millions of workers and replacing
them and the products they make with workers and products made in a foreign
country, trading with an enemy, investing capital in a foreign country through
a subsidiary or supplier that abuses its workers to the point that some
commit suicide, no limits on or regulation of financial derivatives and
transnational financial intermediaries?… the list is endless.
As always, the questions are "Cui bono?"… "Who benefits"?… How and
Why they benefit?… Who selects the short-term "Winners" and "Losers"? And
WRT those questions, the final sentence of this post hints at its purpose.
diptherio
Yeah, how is European colonialism - starting in, what, like the 15th
century, or something - not "globalisation"? What about the Roman and Persian
and Selucid empires? Wasn't that globalisation? I think we've pretty much
always lived in a globalised world, one way or another (if "globalised world"
even makes sense).
Norb
Bring back the broader, and more meaningful conception of Political
Economy and some actual understanding can be gained. The study of economics
cannot be separated from the political dimension of society. Politics being
defined as who gets what in social interactions.
What folly. All this complexity and strident study of minutia to bring
about what end? Human history on this planet has been about how societies
form, develop, then recede form prominence. This flow being determined by
how well the society provided for its members or could support their worldview.
Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.
The neoliberal experiment has run its course. Milton Friedman and
his tribe had their alternative plan ready to go and implemented it when
they could- to their great success. The best looting system developed-ever.
This system only works with the availability of abundant resources and the
mental justifications to support that gross exploitation. Both of which
are reaching limits.
Only by thinking, and communicating in the broader terms of political
economy can we hope to understand our current conditions. Until then, change
will be difficult to enact. Hard landings for all indeed.
flora
If only the Milton Friedman tribe had interested itself in sports
instead of economics. They could have argued that referees and umpires should
be removed from the game for greater efficiency of play, and that sports
teams would follow game rules by self-regulation.
LA Mike September 17, 2016 at 8:15 pm
While in traffic, I was thinking about that today. For some time now,
I've viewed the traffic intersection as being a good example of the social
contract. We all agree on its benefits. But today, I thought about it in
terms of the Friedman Neoliberals.
Why should they have to stop at red lights. Wouldn't the whole thing
just work out more efficiently if you leave traffic lights and rules out
of it? Just let everyone figure it out at each light, survival of the fittest.
sd
Something I have wondered for some time, how does tourism fit into trade?
With increasingly free movement of people as tourists whose spending
impacts nations GDP, where does it fit in to discussions on globalization
and trade?
I Have Strange Dreams
Other things to consider:
– negative effects of immigration (skilled workers leave developing countries
where they are most needed)
– environmental pollution
– destruction of cultures/habitats
– importation of western diet leading to decreased health
– spread of disease (black death, hiv, ebola, bird flu)
– resource wars
– drugs
– happiness
How are these "externalities" calculated?
Kirby declined to answer
whether Israel should face the
same treatment
as Iran and North Korea – both
of which have been sanctioned
for alleged
or actual violations of the
nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty.
"... Something along the lines of Sweden, or maybe Germany: the means of production is left in private hands and the owning class is welcome to get rich (there are the equivalent of billionaires in both countries) but there are strict limits as to how much they can screw their workers, cheat their customers or damage the environment. ..."
"... Also, basic social welfare matters (healthcare, child care etc.) are publicly provided, or at least publicly backstopped. The model may not be perfect but it appears to work quite well all in all. ..."
"... Sweden has no taxes on inheritance or residential property, and its 22 percent corporate income tax rate is far lower than America's 35 percent." ..."
"... I do not think that drag queens reading stories, Lionel Shriver's speech and backlash, or the latest Clinton scandal mean civilizational death. They are outliers, but serve to remind the vast majority of the country that there is plenty of room in America for eccentrics of every description to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. ..."
"... HRC is not really unthinkable. She is just not preferable. A vote for HRC is an acquiescence to the status quo of corrupt, big money politics. Voting for the status quo is unthinkable only if you think the apocalypse is around the next bend. Let's be serious. ..."
"... "we are at the mercy of systematic forces, difficult to name, which can be manipulated by the powerful but not governed by them, and that our problems are unsolvable" ..."
"... I would argue that the "system" is capitalism grown decadent and corrupt. It is a secular religion that we've given ourselves over to and is exactly as he describes: a massive systemic force that some can manipulate for their own gain, but as a society we've lost the will or ability to control it's macro forces which have the power grind up whole demographics, communities, or crash the whole economy. ..."
"... The reaction and fall out from the financial crisis amounted to everyone shrugging and declaring innocence and ignorance. They seemed to say, how could anyone see such a thing coming or do anything about it? How could anyone control such a huge system? ..."
"... I'm always struck by these posts detailing how everything is coming apart in America. I look around and frankly, life looks pretty good. Maybe it's because I'm a minority female, who grew up poor and now has a solidly middle class life. My mother, God rest her soul, was smarter and worked harder than I ever will but did not have one-quarter of the opportunities (education, housing) I've had. My sons have travelled the globe, and have decent jobs and good friends. I am grateful. ..."
"... I wouldn't say that [neo] Liberalism is "spent" as a force, rather that its credibility is. As a cultural force (covering both politics and the economy, among other things), its strength is and remains vast. It is Leviathan. For all intents and purposes, it defines the culture, and thus dictates the imperatives and methods, of our governing and economic elites. ..."
"... Bush proved that electing an imbecile to the Presidency has real consequences for our standing in the world. ..."
"... Trump starts speaking without knowing how his sentence will end, and then he will go to down fighting to defend whatever it was he said even though he never really meant it in the first place. That mix of arrogance and stupidity is more dangerous than Bush. ..."
"... Totally unconvincing. It couldn't be more obvious that Hillary stands for rule by globalists whereas Trump intends to return control of the federal government to We the People. ..."
"... Which candidate is traveling to Louisiana? Flint? Detroit? Mexico (on behalf of America)? Which candidate calls tens of millions of Americans irredeemable and thus it would be justified in exterminating them? ..."
"... What makes Mr. Cosimano so sure that what America is passing into is anything like a "civilization" at all? We could simple pass into barbarism. Can anyone name the leaders who hope to build any kind of civilization at all? ..."
"... For 70+ years, other than while working on a university degree in history, I never gave a thought to civilizational collapse, so I would have been a poor choice to ask for a definition of the term. But after a few years of reading TAC I think I have a handle on it. It's a situation in which someone or some group sees broad social change they don't like. So probably civilizational collapse is constant and ongoing. ..."
"... I would only point out that there is no clear path to economic safety for working Americans, whether they are white are black. Training and hard work will only take you so far in our demand-constrained economy. Whether black optimism or white pessimism turns out to be empirically justified is far from certain. We are constructing the future as we speak, and our actions will determine the answer to this question. ..."
"... As the WikiLeaks dox show, it wasn't "barrel bombs" or "chemical warfare against his own people" that made the elites hungry to overthrow the government there, it was the 2009 decision by Syria not to allow an oil pipeline through from Qatar to Turkey, whereupon the CIA was directed to start funding jihadists and regime change. ..."
"... I'd note that Popes going back to Leo XIII have written on the destructive effects of capitalism or rather the unmitigated pursuit of wealth. Both Benedict and Francis have eloquently expressed the need for a spiritual conversion to solve the world's problems. A conversion which recognizes our solidarity with one another as well as our obligation to the health of Creation. I rather doubt we will find the impetus for this conversion among our politicians. ..."
"... The problem is not civilization-level, Mr. Dreher. The problem is species -level. Humanity as a whole is discovering that it cannot handle too high a level of technology without losing its ability to get feedback from its environment. Without that feedback, its elite classes drift off into literal insanity. The rest of the society soon follows. ..."
"... James Parker in The Atlantic comes to a similar conclusion from a very different starting place ..."
"... "For Trump to be revealed as a salvational figure, the conditions around him must be dire. Trump_vs_deep_state-like fascism, like a certain kind of smash-it-up punk rock-begins in apprehensions of apocalypse." ..."
"... Classical [neo]liberalism presents itself not as a tentative theory of how society might be organized but as a theory of nature. It claims to lay out the forces of nature and to make these a model for social order. Thus free-market fundamentalism, letting the market function "as nature intended". It's an absurd position when applied dogmatically, and no more "natural" than other economic arrangements humans might come up with. ..."
"... Further, as I suggest, our two camps "left" and "right" are no longer distinctly left and right in any traditional sense. The market forces and self-marketing that lead to the fetishization of identity by the left are the same market forces championed by the capitalist right. In America today, both left and right are merely different bourgeois cults of Self. ..."
"... "Pope Francis (and to a slighly lesser degree, his two predecessors) has spoken frequently about unbridled capitalism as a source of the world ills. But his message hasn't been that well received among American conservatives." ..."
Re: we have yet to hear a cogent description of what "bridled" capitalism
is/looks like
Something along the lines of Sweden, or maybe Germany: the means
of production is left in private hands and the owning class is welcome
to get rich (there are the equivalent of billionaires in both countries)
but there are strict limits as to how much they can screw their workers,
cheat their customers or damage the environment.
Also, basic social welfare matters (healthcare, child care etc.)
are publicly provided, or at least publicly backstopped. The model may
not be perfect but it appears to work quite well all in all.
I think a lot of American capitalists would welcome those bridles.
As for Hanby's critique of the liberal order that (thankfully) prevails
in the West, it is only because of that liberal order that we are freely
discussing these matters here, that we can talk about a Benedict Option
in which we can create an economy within the economy, because in the
non-liberal orders that prevailed through most of history, and that
still prevail in a lot of places, we'd be under threat from the state
for free discussion, and we would have little or no choice of education
or jobs, because we'd be serfs or slaves or forced by government to
go into a certain line of work (like my husband's Mandarin teacher,
a scientist who was forced into the countryside during the Cultural
Revolution and then told that she had to become a language teacher.)
I'd be interested to know what kind of system Hanby would like to
see replace our liberal order. Presumably one where he would be in charge.
[neo]Liberalism is exhausted? What does that even mean, except as a
high-brow insult?
If there is one statistic that disproves this claim, it's that religious
attendance is plummeting and the number of people who are "nones" are
rising rapidly.
What's exhausted is religion as a necessary component of social life.
Since that is indisputably true, I guess the only thing that is left
is for the remaining stalwarts resisting the tide to project this idea
of exhaustion onto the other side.
[NFR: You don't understand his point. He's not talking about liberalism
as the philosophy of the Democratic Party. He's talking about liberalism
as the political culture and system of the West. - RD]
"There is nothing like a good shock of pain for dissolving certain
kinds of magic."
Could be that Trump is God's Hot Foot Angel With The Dirty Face waking
Americans up to the increasingly Godless Agenda of The Washington Establishment
and The Corporate Media.
Talk about cynical. There's a lot to take exception to here, but let's
start with this:
"In other words, the fact that we are in civilizational crisis is
becoming unavoidably apparent, though there is obviously little agreement
as to what this crisis consists in or what its causes are and little
interest from the omnipresent media beyond how perceptions of crisis
affect voter behavior."
Possibly because he's one of the relatively few people who think
we're in such a crisis. A lot of us – Republican and Democrat – still
believe ideas and ideals are important and we support them (and their
torchbearers, however flawed) with all the vigor we can muster.
I do not think that drag queens reading stories, Lionel Shriver's
speech and backlash, or the latest Clinton scandal mean civilizational
death. They are outliers, but serve to remind the vast majority of the
country that there is plenty of room in America for eccentrics of every
description to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I
will admit to thinking this kind of thing much more important on college
campuses, where it can affect the quality of an education.
"We would not see it as a crisis of soul, but a crisis of management…"
Probably true: I'm not so sure that our founding principles really
envision our civilization as having a soul rather than virtues. And
the idea of a national government mucking around with the souls of the
people gives me the heebie-jeebies much as Putin's alliance with the
Orthodox church does you. And if there's anything we can take from the
current election, I think it's that Americans have had enough sociologists,
economists, lawyers, and other "experts" tell them what to do to last
a lifetime. It's part and parcel of the distrust you just posted about.
And I'm not at all sure that Americans are generally despairing,
though it's pretty clear they think our country is on the wrong track.
Hillary ought to be running away with this thing – why isn't she? Because
she's seen as more of the same. Sanders offered the hope of something
new, something transformative: the same thing people see in Trump. Their
hope MAY be misplaced but time will tell. This election cycle ought
to make people a little less confident in their predictions.
"Hope is hard, I admit. But my response is that it is not the pessimist
about liberalism who lacks hope, but the optimist who cannot see beyond
its horizons."
Hope is hard if you're investing in our institutions to carry us
through. They aren't designed to. Our hope is in Christ, Our Redeemer,
and that His will "be done on earth as it is in Heaven." And I will
gladly admit to not being able to see beyond liberalism's horizons –
again, the predictions of experts and philosophers haven't held up too
well over time.
I can say that blithely because my hope is not in liberalism, ultimately.
Do I think some semblance of liberalism can and will survive? Yes, but
the cultural struggles we are going through are part and parcel of the
system. Do I like that? No.
And as much as we need to reinforce communities (through the BenOp)
we also need to recognize that our job isn't always to understand and
prepare. As Christians, it is to obey. It means we repent, fast, and
pray. It means we take the Great Commission seriously even when it's
uncomfortable.
I'm sorry to rip your friend here, I just don't find his piece compelling
at all.
HRC is not really unthinkable. She is just not preferable. A vote for
HRC is an acquiescence to the status quo of corrupt, big money politics.
Voting for the status quo is unthinkable only if you think the apocalypse
is around the next bend. Let's be serious.
Voting for Trump is unthinkable because he is totally clueless about
seemingly he talks about. His arrogance is only surpassed by his ignorance.
Gary Johnson was excoriated because he did not know what Aleppo is.
I bet a paycheck Trump couldn't point to Syria on a map. Trump get's
no serious criticism for insistence that we steal Iraq's oil, his confusion
about why Iran wasn't buying our airplanes, his assertion that Iran
is North Koreas largest trading partner, that South Korea and Japan
ought to have nukes, his threats to extort our NATO allies. There are
dozens of gems like these, but you get the picture. One only needs to
read transcripts from his interviews to understand the limits of his
intellect. Voting for such a profound ignoramus is truly unthinkable.
Teenagers born after 2000 – the so-called 'Generation Z' – are
the most socially conservative generation since the Second World War,
a new study has found.
The youngsters surveyed had more conservative views on gay marriage,
transgender rights and drugs than Baby Boomers, Generation X or Millennials.
The questioned were more prudent than Millennials, Generation X and
Baby Boomers but not quite as cash-savvy as those born in 1945 or before.
…
Only 14 and 15-year-olds were surveyed, by brand consultancy The Gild,
as they were classed as being able to form credible opinions by that
age.
When asked to comment on same-sex marriage, transgender rights and
cannabis legislation, 59 per cent of Generation X teenagers said they
had conservative views.
Around 85 per cent of Millennials and those in Generation X had a
'quite' or 'very liberal' stance overall.
When asked for their specific view on each topic only the Silent
Generation was more conservative that Generation Z.
One in seven – 14% – of the 14 and 15-year-olds took a 'quite conservative'
approach, while only two per cent of Millennials and one per cent of
Generation X.
The Silent Generation had a 'quite conservative' rating of 34
per cent.
I think this was done in Britain but as we know, social trends in
the rest of the West tend to spill over into the States.
Are we looking at another Alex P. Keaton generation? Kids likely
to rebel against the liberalism of their parents?
I can never quite understand the tension between these two concepts:
enlightenment liberalism as a spent force, enervated, listless, barely
able to stir itself even in its own defense, and simultaneously weaponized
SJWism, modern day Jacobins, an army of clenched-jawed fanatics who
will stop at nothing to destroy its enemies.
It seems that one of these perspectives must be less true than the
other.
[NFR: SJWs are a betrayal of classical liberalism. - RD]
I realize that I only comment here when something sets me off, and not
when I agree with you (which is after all why I keep reading you).
So here I am agreeing with this post.
"we are at the mercy of systematic forces, difficult to name, which
can be manipulated by the powerful but not governed by them, and that
our problems are unsolvable"
I would argue that the "system" is capitalism grown decadent and
corrupt. It is a secular religion that we've given ourselves over to
and is exactly as he describes: a massive systemic force that some can
manipulate for their own gain, but as a society we've lost the will
or ability to control it's macro forces which have the power grind up
whole demographics, communities, or crash the whole economy.
The reaction and fall out from the financial crisis amounted to everyone
shrugging and declaring innocence and ignorance. They seemed to say,
how could anyone see such a thing coming or do anything about it? How
could anyone control such a huge system?
As your friend says, even if we want to exert more control over this
system (which we can with the will), this would end up being a technocratic
project, not a spiritual one. Sad because a spiritual argument against
the excesses of capitalism might actually gain more traction at this
point, than tired liberal arguments.
I'm always struck by these posts detailing how everything is coming
apart in America. I look around and frankly, life looks pretty good.
Maybe it's because I'm a minority female, who grew up poor and now has
a solidly middle class life. My mother, God rest her soul, was smarter
and worked harder than I ever will but did not have one-quarter of the
opportunities (education, housing) I've had. My sons have travelled
the globe, and have decent jobs and good friends. I am grateful.
My friends and I went out the other night in Austin, and there were
families, very diverse, walking in the outdoor mall, standing in line
to buy $5 scoops of ice cream for their children. Not hipsters, or God
forbid the elite, just regular middle class folk enjoying an evening
out. The truth is, life has improved immeasurably for many Americans.
Do we have serious problems? Of course, but can we have just a wee bit
of perspective?
You may be right about the problem, but not its nature. Capitalism
is not an impersonal force that can't be controlled, it's what people
do economically if they are left alone to do it. The problem comes when
people are not, simply put, virtuous. When people seek a return on investment
that is not simply reasonable, but rather the most they can possibly
get. We have had a capitalist system for long enough that some people
who are both good at manipulating it and, often, unethical enough to
not care what impact their choices have on others, have accumulated
vast amounts of wealth while others, over generations, have made choices
that have not been profitable, have lost wealth.
There used to be mechanisms for preventing these trends to continue
to their logical conclusion, as they are here. Judea had Jubilee. The
Byzantine Empire had an Emperor whose interests were served by a prosperous
landed middle class to populate the Thematic armies and who would occasionally
step in and return the land his part time soldiers had lost through
bad loans from aristocrats. We have no such mechanism for a farmer to
regain land lost due to foreclosure.
We should not redistribute wealth in such a way that a person has no
incentive to work, but we should never allow a person's means of earning
a livelihood to be taken from them.
I wouldn't say that [neo] Liberalism is "spent" as a force, rather that its
credibility is. As a cultural force (covering both politics and the
economy, among other things), its strength is and remains vast. It is
Leviathan. For all intents and purposes, it defines the culture, and
thus dictates the imperatives and methods, of our governing and economic
elites. The crisis of Western political legitimacy that is manifest
in the nomination of Trump, Brexit and numerous other movements and
incidents is a sign that the legitimacy of this order has been undermined
and is dissolving within the societies it effectively governs; in some
unspoken sense, the unwashed masses of the West (those not part of the
so-called "New Class") have come to understand that they have been betrayed
by the Liberal order, that it has not lived up to its promises, even
that it is becoming or has become a force destructive of their communities
and their ability to thrive as human beings.
The ever-increasing autonomy promised by the Liberal order has turned
out to be a poisoned chalice for many. As it has dissolved the bonds
of families and communities, it has atomized people into individuals
without traditional social supports in an increasingly cutthroat and
uncaring world. People cannot help but understand that they have lost
something or are missing something, even if they are not able to articulate
or identify that loss. It is a sickness of the soul, in the sense that
the ailment is somewhere close to the heart of what it means to be human.
We are what we are, and the Liberal order is pushing us into opposition
to our own natures, as if we can choose to be something other than what
we are.
This idea that Democrats hate Hillary in the same way Republicans despise
Trump is way off base in my opinion. This attempt at equivalency, like
so many others, is false. I voted for Sanders because I liked him better,
but I am not holding my nose to vote for Hillary Clinton. There are
several things I actually admire about her, including her attention
to detail and tenacity. I'll always remember how she sat before Congress
as First Lady, no paper or crib sheet in sight, and presented her detailed
and compelling case for national health care . I thought that was awesome
then, and still do.
Still, as I've noted many times, I never liked the Clintons that
much, mainly because I hated a lot of what Bill Clinton stood for and
what he did. Aside from his embarrassing sexual escapades, most of that
pertained to positions that seemed more Republican than Democratic (on
welfare mothers, mental patients, deregulation of the broadcast industry,
etc.) I also didn't like their position on abortion nor the way their
people treated Gov. Casey at the party convention, nor the dialing back
on Jimmy Carter's uncompromising stand for human rights in the third
world. Some of Hillary's hawkish positions are still a concern, but
what she stands for in general is far and away more humane and within
my understanding of what's good for the country and the world at large
than anything Republicans represent. Their ideas hurt people on too
many fronts to justify voting for them just because I may agree with
them on principle when it comes to matters such abortion. Trump just
adds insult to injury in every regard.
Very well said. What accounts for the relative optimism of minorities
vs. whites?
State of the economy, personal situation, optimism that your kids future
will be better than yours, etc. In all of these surveys, it is the pessimism
of whites, untethered from empirical reality, that stands out as the
outlier.
"Sad because a spiritual argument against the excesses of capitalism
might actually gain more traction at this point, than tired liberal
arguments."
It would gain more traction, and it would be better focused at what
is much larger cause of the current social, economic, and family problems
of the working classes.
But the argument won't be made, because the majority of those that
believe in a societal crisis have pinned the origin of this crisis on
feminism, the sexual revolution, and SJW, and have bought in full the
bootstraps language of the radical capitalism. Even the majority crunchy
cons, that would be sympathetic to the arguments against capitalism,
would rather try to solve the ills of the world via cultural instead
of economic ways.
Pope Francis (and to a slighly lesser degree, his two predecessors)
has spoken frequently about unbridled capitalism as a source of the
world ills. But his message hasn't been that well received among American
conservatives
[NFR: Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict said the same thing.
- RD]
Bush proved that electing an imbecile to the Presidency has real
consequences for our standing in the world. Trump is just as stupid,
but he is far more dangerous. At least Bush wasn't a egomaniac.
Trump starts speaking without knowing how his sentence will end, and
then he will go to down fighting to defend whatever it was he said even
though he never really meant it in the first place. That mix of arrogance
and stupidity is more dangerous than Bush.
"In fact, I doubt we any longer possess enough of a 'civilization' to
understand what a 'civilizational crisis' would really mean."
I think someone has no idea what "civilization" means. None of his
definitions apply.
What we are seeing is the radical change in Western Civilization
from the old Graeco-Roman/Christian model to a yet undefined American
model. (Which is why Islam in Europe is not very important. Europe is
no longer very important.) No one guards the "glory that was Greece"
any more. We've moved out of that. The debate will be when did the transition
occur. Did it begin in the 19th Century with the Age of Invention? Did
it occur in the flash of gunpowder that was WW1? Was it the blasting
to rubble of Monte Cassino when the weapons of the new blew the symbol
of the old to ruin? Was it the moment men stood upon the Moon and nothing
the bronze age pilers of rocks had to say was of any value any more?
The key to understanding the change is that the old values are dead
and we are in the process of creating new ones. No one knows where that
is going to go. It is all too new.
Hanby is wrong. We have a civilization, but it is leaving his in
the dust.
Totally unconvincing. It couldn't be more obvious that Hillary stands
for rule by globalists whereas Trump intends to return control of the
federal government to We the People.
Which candidate is traveling to Louisiana? Flint? Detroit? Mexico
(on behalf of America)? Which candidate calls tens of millions of Americans
irredeemable and thus it would be justified in exterminating them?
Seriously, only one of these two appears interested in leading the
nation.
"What's exhausted is religion as a necessary component of social
life."
This is so hilariously untrue, but also very sad that the secular
Left cannot see its own idols or even read its own headlines.
What does he think is happening in the United States besides the
rise of a revolutionary moral order, ruled by fickle tastemakers who
believe that their own emotions and thoughts have creative power? How
else would history have a "side"? How else could "gender" be entirely
unmoored from sex and any other scientific fact? Progressivism even
has "climate change" as its chosen apocalypse which will visit destruction
if not enough fealty is granted to an ever-more-omnipotent and omniscient
central government? Does he not see how over and over again, this week's
progressive leaders attacks last week's? Amy Schumer, anyone?
Once a culture abolishes the One True God, as ours has, then that
culture begins to find other sources for the attributes of God and for
the definitions of virtues and vices.
What makes Mr. Cosimano so sure that what America is passing into
is anything like a "civilization" at all? We could simple pass into
barbarism. Can anyone name the leaders who hope to build any kind of
civilization at all?
Never forget that there is a real and clear choice before us.
Clinton will deliver amnesty to 40 million illegals. Continue the
1 million legal immigrants per yer all from the Third World. She will
radically upsize the Muslim refugee influx to hundreds of thousands
per year. All terrible things.
Trump will do the opposite. This will make a massive difference to
the future of the country - Trump, good…Clinton, bad - and is what this
election is about.
For 70+ years, other than while working on a university degree in history,
I never gave a thought to civilizational collapse, so I would have been
a poor choice to ask for a definition of the term. But after a few years
of reading TAC I think I have a handle on it. It's a situation in which
someone or some group sees broad social change they don't like. So probably
civilizational collapse is constant and ongoing.
As for me, I'm outside somewhere every day and so far not even a
tiny piece of the sky has fallen on me.
@xrdsmom
Empirical reality depends on where you stand. Younote that your prospects
have improved relative to your mom's. For the working class whites working
at low paying jobs, they have declined. Is their anger simply a response
to loss of white privilege? In the sense that this privilege consisted
of access to well-paying jobs out of high school, the answer is yes.
I would only point out that there is no clear path to economic safety
for working Americans, whether they are white are black. Training and
hard work will only take you so far in our demand-constrained economy.
Whether black optimism or white pessimism turns out to be empirically
justified is far from certain. We are constructing the future as we
speak, and our actions will determine the answer to this question.
It's true a lot of people couldn't point to Syria; because that's how
important it is to most people. So why are we now involved in a full
scale war there, when the American people clearly stated they didn't
want another war?
As the WikiLeaks dox show, it wasn't "barrel bombs" or "chemical
warfare against his own people" that made the elites hungry to overthrow
the government there, it was the 2009 decision by Syria not to allow
an oil pipeline through from Qatar to Turkey, whereupon the CIA was
directed to start funding jihadists and regime change.
Hillary is not as corrupt as some think nor is Trump likely to be able
to enact much of his agenda(most of which he has no commitment to –
it is all a performance). So I do not see either as end times candidates.
However – a civilization must assure certain things – order, cohesion,
safety from invasion and occupation. It also must assure that the resources
we secure from the earth are available – good soil, clean water, sustainable
management of energy sources etc. This is where our civilization is
failing – if you doubt this – spend a moment looking up soil erosion
on Google. Or dead zones Mississippi and Nile deltas. Depletion of fish
stocks. Loss of arable land and potable water all over the planet. Is
this calamitous failure a function of liberalism or capitalism run amok?
Perhaps the two go hand in hand?
I'd note that Popes going back to
Leo XIII have written on the destructive effects of capitalism or rather
the unmitigated pursuit of wealth. Both Benedict and Francis have eloquently
expressed the need for a spiritual conversion to solve the world's problems.
A conversion which recognizes our solidarity with one another as well
as our obligation to the health of Creation. I rather doubt we will
find the impetus for this conversion among our politicians.
But there are certainly all over the earth groups of people who have
experienced this conversion and are seeking to build civilizations which
are just and sustainable. Rod has written about some – his friends in
Italy as an example.
The problem is not civilization-level, Mr. Dreher. The problem is
species -level. Humanity as a whole is discovering that it cannot handle
too high a level of technology without losing its ability to get feedback
from its environment. Without that feedback, its elite classes drift
off into literal insanity. The rest of the society soon follows.
The trick is going to be recovering our connection with the Realities
of existence without bringing technological civilization down or re-engineering
Humanity into something we would not recognize.
Color me less than optimistic about our prospects.
"I really think there is a pervasive, but unarticulated sense that
liberalism is exhausted, that we are at the mercy of systematic forces,
difficult to name, which can be manipulated by the powerful but not
governed by them, and that our problems are unsolvable. The reasons
for this anxiety are manifold and cannot be reduced to politics or economics…"
"For Trump to be revealed as a salvational figure, the conditions
around him must be dire. Trump_vs_deep_state-like fascism, like a certain kind
of smash-it-up punk rock-begins in apprehensions of apocalypse."
Hanky's diagnosis is brilliant. Yes, thanks for posting, Rod.
One of our fundamental problems, along with the conceptual horizons
imposed by liberalism, is the obsolete language of "left" and "right"
that we continue to apply when weighing our options. This too is part
of why we can't construct a politics of hope, and in my reading it explains
the decline of the left into identity politics (our Democratic Party
is not any more "the left" in any meaningful way) and of the right into
"movement conservatism" or Trumpian nationalism.
Classical [neo]liberalism presents itself not as a tentative theory of
how society might be organized but as a theory of nature. It claims
to lay out the forces of nature and to make these a model for social
order. Thus free-market fundamentalism, letting the market function
"as nature intended". It's an absurd position when applied dogmatically,
and no more "natural" than other economic arrangements humans might
come up with.
The only truly rock solid aspect of classical liberalism in my mind
is its theory of individual dignity, the permanent and nonnegotiable
value of each individual in essence and before the law. The left has
taken this and run with it and turned it into a divination of individual
desire and self-definition, which is something different. The capitalist
right has taken it and turned it into a theory of individual responsibility
for one's economic fate, which is helpful in ways, but not decisive
or even fully explanatory as to why people end up where they are. And
a lot of people are not in a good place thanks to the free trade enthusiasts
who believe what they're up to somehow reflects the eternal forces of
nature.
Further, as I suggest, our two camps "left" and "right" are no
longer distinctly left and right in any traditional sense. The market
forces and self-marketing that lead to the fetishization of identity
by the left are the same market forces championed by the capitalist
right. In America today, both left and right are merely different bourgeois
cults of Self.
It should be no surprise that the inalienable dignity of the individual,
that rock solid core of liberal thinking, grew directly from the Christian
soil of Paul's assertion of the equality of all–men, women, Greek, Jew,
freed, slave–in Christ. (Galatians 3:28) The world's current thinking
on "human rights" is merely a universalized version of Paul's thought,
hatched in a Christian Europe by philosophes who didn't recognize
just how Christian they were.
After all the utopian dusts settle, whether the dust of Adam Smith
or the dust of PC Non-Discrimination, we must see that the one thing
holding us together is this recognition that the political order must
respect human rights. The core issue at present is thus that we legislate
in ways that reflect a realistic understanding of these rights. As for
"movement conservatism" or PC progressivism, they each represent pipe
dreams that don't address the economic or legal challenges in coherent
ways, and they each sacrifice true rights at one altar or another.
The obsolete language of "left" and "right" keeps us unwilling to
grapple with the real economic and legal challenges, if only because
we're too busy cheerleading either one version of the capitalist cult
or the other.
I'm looking forward to The Benedict Option mainly as providing
some answers as to how the remnant of faithful Christians in this mayhem
might both hold their faith intact while perhaps simultaneously developing
less utopian modes of thinking about community. The neoliberal order
may very well be shaping up to be for us something like the pagan Roman
Empire was to the early church. We finally have to face that, politically
speaking, we are in the world but not of it.
Re: Clinton will deliver amnesty to 40 million illegals.
Will she be inviting them in from parallel universes? Because we
do not have 40 million illegals. The number is closer to eleven million.
Also the president can't do this on his/her own. Congress has to
act. The House will remain GOP. The Senate may too, or will flip back
to GOP after 2018. As I mentioned Clinton's hands will be tied as much
as Obama's have been since 2010. That includes Supreme Court appointments.
Only the most boring of moderates will get through– sure, they won't
overturn Roe or Oberfell, but they won't rubber stamp much new either.
"Pope Francis (and to a slighly lesser degree, his two predecessors)
has spoken frequently about unbridled capitalism as a source of the world
ills. But his message hasn't been that well received among American conservatives."
[NFR: Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict said the same thing. -
RD]"
It doesn't sit well for two reasons: (a) we have yet to hear a cogent
description of what "bridled" capitalism is/looks like and (b) capitalism
has its faults, but it has raised far more boats than it has swamped.
Until we hear an admission of (b) and an explanation of (a), their statements
will continue to fall on deaf ears. Particularly from Pope Francis, whose
grip on economic ideas seems tenuous at best.
"... Seems a dangerous practice to rely on one's size to shield them from consequences of ineffectual decisions. I think we are already stretched thin, but our size buffers the stumbles. ..."
"... Like the runner on pain killers, who keeps running despite a shattered knee caps. Sometimes we press through our pain. Sometimes we need to slow down. Sometimes we need to stop. But unless we experience the pain – we simply don't know. ..."
"... It all starts with that ridiculous belief in "American Exceptionalism". The belief that we are the one country, the only country, who is going to save the world, again and again. ..."
"... Once you've adopted this frame of reference, what happens anywhere in the world for any Reason is America's fault and responsibility. And once you put on those exceptionally colored glasses it's not possible to have a rational view of other countries and their actions; because they can never be seen as anything other than an affirmation or rejection of our exceptionalism. Another effect of this is, being exceptional, whatever America does is just and pure and right. ..."
"... It blinds us to our own stupidity and errors, it gets us sucked into other peoples troubles and it makes it easy for other countries to manipulate us to their ends. ..."
Ben Denison
criticizes a familiar flaw in foreign policy commentary:
When a surprising event occurs that threatens U.S. interests, many are
quick to blame Washington's lack of leadership and deride the administration
for failing to anticipate and prevent the crisis. Recent examples from the
continuing conflict in Syria, Russia's intervention in Ukraine, Iran's pursuit
of a nuclear weapon, and even the attempted coup in Turkey, all illustrate
how this is a regular impulse for the foreign policy punditry class. This
impulse, while comforting to some, fails to consider the interests and agency
of the other countries involved in the crisis. Instead of turning to detailed
analysis and tracing the international context of a crisis, often we are
bombarded with an abundance of concerns about a lack of American leadership.
The inability or unwillingness to acknowledge and take into account the agency
and interests of other political actors around the world is one of the more
serious flaws in the way many Americans think and talk about these issues. This
not only fails to consider how other actors are likely to respond to a proposed
U.S. action, but it credits the U.S. with far more control over other parts
of the world and much more competence in handling any given issue than any government
has ever possessed or ever will. Because the U.S. is the preeminent major power
in the world, there is a tendency to treat any undesirable event as something
that our government has "allowed" to happen through carelessness, misplaced
priorities, or some other mistake. Many foreign policy pundits recoil from the
idea that there are events beyond our government's ability to "shape" or that
there are actors that cannot be compelled to behave as we wish (provided we
simply have enough "resolve"), because it means that there are many problems
around the world that the U.S. cannot and shouldn't attempt to fix.
When a protest movement takes to the streets in another country and is then
brutally suppressed, many people, especially hawkish pundits, decry our government's
"failure" to "support" the movement, as if it were the lack of U.S. support
and not internal political factors that produced the outcome. When the overthrow
of a foreign government by a protest movement leads to an intervention by a
neighboring major power, the U.S. is again faulted for "failing" to stop the
intervention, as if it could have done so short of risking great power conflict.
Even more absurdly, the same intervention is sometimes blamed on a U.S. decision
not to attack a third country in another part of the world unrelated to the
crisis in question. In order to claim all these things, one not only has to
fail to take account of the interests and agency of other states, but one also
has to believe that the rest of the world revolves around us and every action
others take can ultimately be traced back to what our government does (or doesn't
do). That's not just shoddy analysis, but a serious delusion about how people
all around the world behave. At the same time, there is a remarkable eagerness
on the part of many of the same people to overlook the consequences of things
that the U.S. has actually done, so that many of our pundits ignore our own
government's agency when it suits them.
"At the same time, there is a remarkable eagerness on the part of many
of the same people to overlook the consequences of things that the U.S.
has actually done, so that many of our pundits ignore our own government's
agency when it suits them."
It is the failure of the after party assessment. Regardless of success
or failure (however defined) the tend not to have an after action report
by the political class is why there's little movement in this area.
Seems a dangerous practice to rely on one's size to shield them from
consequences of ineffectual decisions. I think we are already stretched
thin, but our size buffers the stumbles.
Like the runner on pain killers, who keeps running despite a shattered
knee caps. Sometimes we press through our pain. Sometimes we need to slow
down. Sometimes we need to stop. But unless we experience the pain – we
simply don't know.
It all starts with that ridiculous belief in "American Exceptionalism".
The belief that we are the one country, the only country, who is going to
save the world, again and again.
Once you've adopted this frame of reference, what happens anywhere
in the world for any Reason is America's fault and responsibility. And once
you put on those exceptionally colored glasses it's not possible to have
a rational view of other countries and their actions; because they can never
be seen as anything other than an affirmation or rejection of our exceptionalism.
Another effect of this is, being exceptional, whatever America does is just
and pure and right.
It blinds us to our own stupidity and errors, it gets us sucked into
other peoples troubles and it makes it easy for other countries to manipulate
us to their ends.
"one also has to believe that the rest of the world revolves around us
and every action others take can ultimately be traced back to what our government
does (or doesn't do). That's not just shoddy analysis, but a serious delusion
about how people all around the world behave."
It also overlooks the quality of those we send to do the meddling and
intervening.
We don't have enough intelligent, educated, competent people.
The imperial Brits had their own problems, Lord knows, But the general
level of British competence, intelligence, and education in the Raj and
other colonies was far higher than that of our own congeries of corrupt,
half-educated hacks and incompetents.
(gizmodo.com)
419
Posted
by manishs
on Tuesday September 06, 2016 @12:40PM
from the
goodbye
dept.
Reader
Joe_Dragon
shares a Gizmodo report:
ITT
Technical Institute is officially closing all of its
campuses following federal sanctions imposed against
the company. The for-profit college announced the
changes in a statement: "It is with profound regret
that we must report that ITT Educational Services,
Inc. will discontinue academic operations at all of
its ITT Technical Institutes
permanently after approximately 50 years of
continuous service
. With what we believe is a
complete disregard by the U.S. Department of
Education for due process to the company, hundreds
of thousands of current students and alumni and more
than 8,000 employees will be negatively affected."
ITT Tech announced it was closing all of its
campuses just one week after it stopped enrolling
students following a federal crackdown on for-profit
colleges. ITT Tech and other higher education
companies like it have been widely criticized for
accepting billions of dollars in government grants
and loans while failing to provide adequate job
training for its students. Last year, ITT Tech
received an estimated $580 million in federal money
(aka taxpayer dollars), according to the Department
of Education.
Superficially, Hemingway was correct. But on a deeper level, he missed
the reality of the heightened sense of entitlement that the very rich possess,
as well as the deference that so many people automatically show to them.
The rich shouldn't be different in this way, but they are. In some other
societies, such entitlement and deference would accrue to senior party members,
senior clergymen, or hereditary nobility (who might not have much money
at all).
Without a doubt Hemingway had a rather catty attitude toward his literary
rival, but in this instance I think the debunking is merited. It's quite
possible that rich people act the way we would act if we were rich, and
that Fitzgerald's tiresome obsession with rich people didn't cut very deep.
Hemingway is saying: take away all that money and the behavior would change
as well. It's the money (or the power in your example) that makes the difference.
In my opinion, the fact that if they had less money would change the
way they think, does not change the fact that, while they have more money,
they think differently, and different rules apply to them.
Addendum: The fact that an Alpha Chimp would act differently if someone
else was the Alpha Chimp does not change the fact that an Alpha Chimp has
fundamentally different behavior than the rest of the group.
"Hemingway is responsible for a famous misquotation of Fitzgerald's.
According to Hemingway, a conversation between him and Fitzgerald went:
Fitzgerald: The rich are different than you and me.
Hemingway: Yes, they have more money.
This never actually happened; it is a retelling of an actual encounter between
Hemingway and Mary Colum, which went as follows:
Hemingway: I am getting to know the rich.
Colum: I think you'll find the only difference between the rich and other
people is that the rich have more money."
Just want to point out that that quote of Hemingways wasnt about Fitzgerald
and wasnt even by Hemingway. Anyway I was more attacking the "rich have
more money" thing than I was trying to defend Fitzgerald, but I feel Fitzgerald
got the basic idea right
Apparently Fitzgerald was referring specifically to the attitudes of
those who are born rich, attitudes that Fitzgerald thought remained unaltered
by events, including the loss of economic status.
"They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we
are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life
for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below
us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different."
Hemingway suggested that Fitzgerald had once been especially enamored
of the rich, seeing them as a "special glamorous race" but ultimately became
disillusioned.
"He thought they were a special glamorous race and when he found
they weren't it wrecked him as much as any other thing that wrecked
him."
(computerworld.com)
338
Posted
by manishs
on Friday September 09, 2016 @01:14PM
from the
big-questions
dept.
Earlier this week, University of California
hired India-based IT company HCL to outsource some
of its work offshore
. As part of the
announcement, it announced that it was laying off 17
percent of UCSF's total IT staff. The U.S. lawmaker,
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif) and the IEEE-USA
find the outsourcing job "wrong."
dcblogs
writes:
A decision by the University of
California to lay off IT employees and send their
jobs overseas is under fire from U.S. Rep. Zoe
Lofgren (D-Calif) and the IEEE-USA. "How are they
[the university] going to tell students to go into
STEM fields when they are doing as much as they can
to do a number on the engineers in their
employment?" said U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif).
Peter Eckstein, the president of the IEEE-USA, said
what the university is doing "is just one more sad
example of corporations, a major university system
in this case, importing non-Americans to eliminate
American IT jobs." The university recently informed
about 80 IT workers at its San Francisco campus,
including contract employees and vendor contractors,
that it hired India-based HCL, under a $50 million
contract, to manage infrastructure and
networking-related services. The affected employees
will leave their jobs in February, after they train
their contractor replacements.
Posted
by
BeauHD
on Wednesday September 07, 2016 @11:30PM
from the
outsourced
dept.
dcblogs
writes from a report via Computerworld:
The
University of California is
laying off a group of IT workers at its San
Francisco campus
as part of a plan to move work
offshore. Laying off IT workers as part of a shift
to offshore is somewhere between rare and unheard-of
in the public sector. The layoffs will happen at the
end of February, but before the final day arrives
the IT employees expect to train foreign
replacements from India-based IT services firm HCL.
The firm is working under a university contract
valued at $50 million over five years. This layoff
affects 17% of UCSF's total IT staff, broken down
this way: 49 IT permanent employees will lose their
jobs, along with 12 contract employees and 18 vendor
contractors. This number also includes 18 vacant IT
positions that won't be filled, according to the
university. Governments and publicly supported
institutions, such as UC, have contracted with
offshore outsourcers, but usually it's for new IT
work or to supplement an existing project. The HCL
contract with UCSF can be used by other UC campuses,
which means the layoffs may expand across its 10
campuses. HCL is a top user of H-1B visa workers.
(gizmodo.com)
419
Posted
by manishs
on Tuesday September 06, 2016 @12:40PM
from the
goodbye
dept.
Reader
Joe_Dragon
shares a Gizmodo report:
ITT
Technical Institute is officially closing all of its
campuses following federal sanctions imposed against
the company. The for-profit college announced the
changes in a statement: "It is with profound regret
that we must report that ITT Educational Services,
Inc. will discontinue academic operations at all of
its ITT Technical Institutes
permanently after approximately 50 years of
continuous service
. With what we believe is a
complete disregard by the U.S. Department of
Education for due process to the company, hundreds
of thousands of current students and alumni and more
than 8,000 employees will be negatively affected."
ITT Tech announced it was closing all of its
campuses just one week after it stopped enrolling
students following a federal crackdown on for-profit
colleges. ITT Tech and other higher education
companies like it have been widely criticized for
accepting billions of dollars in government grants
and loans while failing to provide adequate job
training for its students. Last year, ITT Tech
received an estimated $580 million in federal money
(aka taxpayer dollars), according to the Department
of Education.
"... [Dave Elder-Vass accepted my invitation to write a response to my discussion of his recent
book, ..."
"... Profit and Gift in the Digital Economy ..."
"... ). Elder-Vass is Reader in sociology at Loughborough University and author as well of ..."
"... The Causal Power of Social Structures: Emergence, Structure and Agency ..."
"... The Reality of Social Construction ..."
"... , discussed ..."
"... . Dave has emerged as a leading voice in the philosophy of social science, especially in the
context of continuing developments in the theory of critical realism. Thanks, Dave!] ..."
"... Profit and Gift in the Digital Economy ..."
"... Financial Times ..."
"... the argument for Pareto optimality of real market systems is patently false, but it continues
to be trotted out constantly. ..."
We need to move on from existing theories of the economy
Let me begin by thanking Dan Little for his very perceptive review of my book
Profit and Gift in the Digital Economy . As he rightly says, it's more ambitious than
the title might suggest, proposing that we should see our economy not simply as a capitalist market
system but as a collection of "many distinct but interconnected practices". Neither the traditional
economist's focus on firms in markets nor the Marxist political economist's focus on exploitation
of wage labour by capital is a viable way of understanding the real economy, and the book takes
some steps towards an alternative view.
Both of those perspectives have come to narrow our view of the economy in multiple dimensions.
Our very concept of the economy has been derived from the tradition that began as political economy
with Ricardo and Smith then divided into the Marxist and neoclassical traditions (of course there
are also others, but they are less influential). Although these conflict radically in some respects
they also share some problematic assumptions, and in particular the assumption that the contemporary
economy is essentially a capitalist market economy, characterised by the production of commodities
for sale by businesses employing labour and capital. As Gibson-Graham argued brilliantly in their
book
The End Of Capitalism (As We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy , ideas seep
into the ways in which we frame the world, and when the dominant ideas and the main challengers
agree on a particular framing of the world it is particularly difficult for us to think outside
of the resulting box. In this case, the consequence is that even critics find it difficult to
avoid thinking of the economy in market-saturated terms.
The most striking problem that results from this (and one that Gibson-Graham also identified)
is that we come to think that only this form of economy is really viable in our present circumstances.
Alternatives are pie in the sky, utopian fantasies, which could never work, and so we must be
content with some version of capitalism – until we become so disillusioned that we call for its
complete overthrow, and assume that some vague label for a better system can be made real and
worthwhile by whoever leads the charge on the Bastille. But we need not go down either of these
paths once we recognise that the dominant discourses are wrong about the economy we already have.
To see that, we need to start defining the economy in functional terms: economic practices
are those that produce and transfer things that people need, whether or not they are bought and
sold. As soon as we do that, it becomes apparent that we are surrounded by non-market economic
practices already. The book highlights digital gifts – all those web pages that we load without
payment, Wikipedia's free encyclopaedia pages, and open source software, for example. But in some
respects these pale into insignificance next to the household and family economy, in which we
constantly produce things for each other and transfer them without payment. Charities, volunteering
and in many jurisdictions the donation of blood and organs are other examples.
If we are already surrounded by such practices, and if they are proliferating in the most dynamic
new areas of our economy, the idea that they are unworkably utopian becomes rather ridiculous.
We can then start to ask questions about what forms of organising are more desirable ethically.
Here the dominant traditions are equally warped. Each has a standard argument that is trotted
out at every opportunity to answer ethical questions, but in reality both standard arguments operate
as means of suppressing ethical discussions about economic questions. And both are derived from
an extraordinarily narrow theory of how the economy works.
For the mainstream tradition, there is one central mechanism in the economy: price equilibration
in the markets, a process in which prices rise and fall to bring demand and supply into balance.
If we add on an enormous list of tenuous assumptions (which economists generally admit are unjustified,
and then continue to use anyway), this leads to the theory of Pareto optimality of market outcomes:
the argument that if we used some other system for allocating economic benefits some people would
necessarily be worse off. This in turn becomes the central justification for leaving allocation
to the market (and eliminating 'interference' with the market).
There are many reasons why this argument is flawed. Let me mention just one. If even one market
is not perfectly competitive, but instead is dominated by a monopolist or partial monopolist,
then even by the standards of economists a market system does not deliver Pareto optimality, and
an alternative system might be more efficient. And in practice capitalists constantly strive to
create monopolies, and frequently succeed! Even the Financial Times recognises this:
in today's issue (Sep 15 2016) Philip Stevens argues, "Once in a while capitalism has to be rescued
from the depredations of, well, capitalists. Unconstrained, enterprise curdles into monopoly,
innovation into rent-seeking. Today's swashbuckling "disrupters" set up tomorrow's cosy cartels.
Capitalism works when someone enforces competition; and successful capitalists do not much like
competition".
So the argument for Pareto optimality of real market systems is patently false, but it
continues to be trotted out constantly. It is presented as if it provides an ethical justification
for the market economy, but its real function is to suppress discussion of economic ethics: if
the market is inherently good for everyone then, it seems, we don't need to worry about the ethics
of who gets what any more.
The Marxist tradition likewise sees one central mechanism in the economy: the extraction of
surplus from wage labour by capitalists. Their analysis of this mechanism depends on the labour
theory of value, which is no more tenable that mainstream theories of Pareto optimality (for reasons
I discuss in the book). Marxists consistently argue as if any such extraction is ethically reprehensible.
Marx himself never provides an ethical justification for such a view. On the contrary, he claims
that this is a scientific argument and disowns any ethical intent. Yet it functions in just the
same way as the argument for Pareto optimality: instead of encouraging ethical debate about who
should get what in the economy, Marxists reduce economic ethics to the single question of the
need to prevent exploitation (narrowly conceived) of productive workers.
We need to sweep away both of these apologetics, and recognise that questions of who gets what
are ethical issues that are fundamental to justice, legitimacy, and political progress in contemporary
societies. And that they are questions that don't have easy 'one argument fits all' answers. To
make progress on them we will have to make arguments about what people need and deserve that recognise
the complexity of their social situations. But it doesn't take a great deal of ethical sophistication
to recognise that the 1% have too much when many in the lower deciles are seriously impoverished,
and that the forms of impoverishment extend well beyond underpaying for productive labour.
I'm afraid that I have written much more than I intended to, and still said very little about
the steps I've taken in the book towards a more open and plausible way of theorising how the economy
works. I hope that I've at least added some more depth to the reasons Dan picked out for attempting
that task.
"This in turn becomes the central justification for leaving allocation to the market (and eliminating
'interference' with the market)."
Krugman is a neoliberal, although a softer, kinder neoliberal much better than Mankiw, Cowen
or the Republicans.
"pgl -> Peter K....
Please find me a Krugman discussion where he says nothing can be done about income inequality.
This is so straw man that the winds have blown this stupid lie away.
Wisdom, Courage and the Economy
by Paul Krugman
AUG. 15, 2016
It's fantasy football time in political punditry, as commentators try to dismiss Hillary Clinton's
dominance in the polls - yes, Clinton Derangement Syndrome is alive and well - by insisting that
she would be losing badly if only the G.O.P. had nominated someone else. We will, of course, never
know. But one thing we do know is that none of Donald Trump's actual rivals for the nomination
bore any resemblance to their imaginary candidate, a sensible, moderate conservative with good
ideas.
Let's not forget, for example, what Marco Rubio was doing in the memorized sentence he famously
couldn't stop repeating: namely, insinuating that President Obama is deliberately undermining
America. It wasn't all that different from Donald Trump's claim that Mr. Obama founded ISIS. And
let's also not forget that Jeb Bush, the ultimate establishment candidate, began his campaign
with the ludicrous assertion that his policies would double the American economy's growth rate.
Which brings me to my main subject: Mrs. Clinton's economic vision, which she summarized last
week. It's very much a center-left vision: incremental but fairly large increases in high-income
tax rates, further tightening of financial regulation, further strengthening of the social safety
net.
It's also a vision notable for its lack of outlandish assumptions. Unlike just about everyone
on the Republican side, she isn't justifying her proposals with claims that they would cause a
radical quickening of the U.S. economy. As the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center put it, she's "a
politician who would pay for what she promises."
So here's my question: Is the modesty of the Clinton economic agenda too much of a good thing?
Should accelerating U.S. economic growth be a bigger priority?
For while the U.S. has done reasonably well at recovering from the 2007-2009 financial crisis,
longer-term economic growth is looking very disappointing. Some of this is just demography, as
baby boomers retire and growth in the working-age population slows down. But there has also been
a somewhat mysterious decline in labor force participation among prime-age adults and a sharp
drop in productivity growth.
The result, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is that the growth rate of potential
G.D.P. - what the economy could produce at full employment - has declined from around 3.5 percent
per year in the late 1990s to around 1.5 percent now. And some people I respect believe that trying
to get that rate back up should be a big goal of policy.
But as I was trying to think this through, I realized that I had Reinhold Niebuhr's famous
Serenity Prayer running through my head: "Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot
change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference." I know, it's somewhat
sacrilegious applied to economic policy, but still.
After all, what do we actually know how to do when it comes to economic policy? We do, in fact,
know how to provide essential health care to everyone; most advanced countries do it. We know
how to provide basic security in retirement. We know quite a lot about how to raise the incomes
of low-paid workers.
I'd also argue that we know how to fight financial crises and recessions, although political
gridlock and deficit obsession has gotten in the way of using that knowledge.
On the other hand, what do we know about accelerating long-run growth? According to the budget
office, potential growth was pretty stable from 1970 to 2000, with nothing either Ronald Reagan
or Bill Clinton did making much obvious difference. The subsequent slide began under George W.
Bush and continued under Mr. Obama. This history suggests no easy way to change the trend.
Now, I'm not saying that we shouldn't try. I'd argue, in particular, for substantially more
infrastructure spending than Mrs. Clinton is currently proposing, and more borrowing to pay for
it. This might significantly boost growth. But it would be unwise to count on it.
Meanwhile, I don't think enough people appreciate the courage involved in focusing on things
we actually know how to do, as opposed to happy talk about wondrous growth.
When conservatives promise fantastic growth if we give them another chance at Bushonomics,
one main reason is that they don't want to admit how much they would have to cut popular programs
to pay for their tax cuts. When centrists urge us to look away from questions of distribution
and fairness and focus on growth instead, all too often they're basically running away from the
real issues that divide us politically.
So it's actually quite brave to say: "Here are the things I want to do, and here is how I'll
pay for them. Sorry, some of you will have to pay higher taxes." Wouldn't it be great if that
kind of policy honesty became the norm?
"For while the U.S. has done reasonably well at recovering from the 2007-2009 financial crisis,"
Reasonably well?
"Now, I'm not saying that we shouldn't try. I'd argue, in particular, for substantially more
infrastructure spending than Mrs. Clinton is currently proposing, and more borrowing to pay for
it. "
Then why was he for Hillary over Bernie Sanders who did campaign on substantially more infrastructure
spending?
Instead Krugman argues that we need to lower our hopes and expectations.
"According to the budget office, potential growth was pretty stable from 1970 to 2000, with
nothing either Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton did making much obvious difference. "
So the market price mechanism rules and we government can't do much?
"So here's my question: Is the modesty of the Clinton economic agenda too much of a good thing?
Should accelerating U.S. economic growth be a bigger priority?"
Her agenda is unambitious. It is "center-left" as Krugman puts it which is partly why her poll
numbers are in the dumps.
" It's very much a center-left vision: incremental but fairly large increases in high-income
tax rates, further tightening of financial regulation, further strengthening of the social safety
net."
Point me to a blog post where Krugman spells out exactly where he explains how Clinton proposes
to do things.
President Trump has proposed a $25000 standard deduction for each of us, but $50,000 for married
couples who prove that they have consummated. Hey! IRS Agents like to watch.
Can you see how this minimum federal standard-deduction is de-fang-ed by lower state-standard-deduction?
Tell me something!
When state minimum wage is $5 / hour but federal minimum wage is $9 / hour, does employer hiring
in same state have to pay $5 or $9? Do you see how that works?
State's rights are dissolved by the federal statute.
This dissolution of state's rights means that Congress could as easily pass a law to establish
minimum standard-deduction for all state's income tax collection. Tell me something else!
Would such a minimum standard deduction on all state income tax collection cause any unemployment?
Would it bankrupt any small businesses?
Of course not! By contrast, the federal minimum wage regulation does cause unemployment, does
close down some employers of entry level workers, a danger to employment and poverty.
Economics is all about opportunity costs. The opportunity cost of federal minimum wage is the
possibility of federal minimum standard deduction, a more harmless subsidy.
State's rights are dissolved by the federal statute.
This dissolution of state's rights means that Congress could as easily pass a law to establish
minimum standard-deduction for all state's income tax collection. Tell me something else!
Would such a minimum standard deduction on all state income tax collection cause any unemployment?
Would it bankrupt any small businesses?
Of course not! By contrast, the federal minimum wage regulation does cause unemployment, does
close down some employers of entry level workers, a danger to employment and poverty.
[ Ah, understood. A clever and important argument that I am thinking through. Like the rational
for the federal Earned Income Tax Credit. ]
The United States federal earned income tax credit or earned income credit (EITC) is a refundable
tax credit for low- to moderate-income working individuals and couples, particularly those with
children. The amount of EITC benefit depends on a recipient's income and number of children. For
a person or couple to claim one or more persons as their qualifying child, requirements such as
relationship, age, and shared residency must be met. In the 2013 tax year, working families, if
they have children, with annual incomes below $37,870 to $51,567 (depending on the number of dependent
children) may be eligible for the federal EITC. Childless workers who have incomes below about
$14,340 ($19,680 for a married couple) can receive a very small EITC benefit.
Growth is a fixed investment. The investments have been made. Especially older societies, consumption
and leisure become more important the nature of purchases change.
I see Space Exploration as the only thing that will change that narrative. That would probably
create another computer revolution, industrial revolution kind of change. People just aren't into
it thought. People are happy with the dopamine economy and just want to get high.
"Second, less relevant to Sims but very relevant to other helicopter people, a deficit ultimately
financed by inflation is just as much of a burden on households as one ultimately financed by
ordinary taxes, because inflation is a kind of tax on money holders. From a Ricardian point of
view, there's no difference.
So I'm trying to figure out exactly what Sims is saying. What, ahem, is his model?"
Inflation hits people with savings who don't have debt.
Inflation helps people with debt by eating away at the principle. Inflation signals tight job
markets with growing incomes as well. That's why you have price pressures. That's why low inflation
and loose job markets can be just as bad as deflation.
Who taxes hit depends on how the government has set up its tax system. Some people and corporations
like Apple, Mitt Romney and presumably Trump pay little in taxes.
Capitalism was invented by Sephardic Jews who immigrated to Iberia in the 15th and 16th century.
They eventually invented market based economy.
By 1600's they had a swirling business sector located in Amsterdam and William the Orange spread
it into England during the latter 17th century, creating the Bank of England in 1694 and became
the worlds central bank via commodity money.
There is nothing to see here people. It is ponzi scheme and nothing more. Capitalism has only
made it because of liberalism. You have to be open to market expansion and have the resources
to make it work. It is why "konservatism" is a farce. One, the konservatives were the ones that
pushed the decaying "feudal" aristocracy to merge with the merchant caste in the first place and
create the bourgeois, despite the aristocracy being the birth place of most of the technology
we have now. This morphed into what we call capitalism. Basically the Jews are the Parasites(Finance),
"Whites"(the capitalists, which has a abnormal % of homosexuals) the Host and the non-whites the
cattle(mass famines and genocide during the 19th and 20th century are what really powered the
manpower behind anti-capitalism. Aka the British Empire led to 150 million deaths globally. All
global fraternities and organizations like the Skull in Bones to the Council of Foreign relations
are a conservative institutions. Yet, those cons won't admit it. As Butler said about his Pacific
"campaigns" is is all about spreading capitalism. It is indeed a racket.
These same forces are what created "Protestantism" and "Mormanism", which were a global financed
movement. First led by Catholic turncoat Martin Luther, who was financed by the Jews, then run
by Jewish John Cohen(Calvin) who spread the judeo-christian revolution globally. This also led
to the farce of "sovereignty" nonsense Mormons have tried to use in the last 40 years to push
a plutocracy. Then the other bible thumpers caught on. Destroy the nation, bring on the market
totalitarianism. Dumb sheep.
This is what we have long been used to from Mr. Groves. Ramblings in this style pretty much comment
on their own merit and don't need to be graced with rebuttals, as that implies an acknowledgement
that at some level a sort of identifiable argument was made.
"America's economic performance peaked in the late 1990s, and erosion in crucial economic indicators
such as the rate of economic growth, productivity growth, job growth, and investment began well
before the Great Recession.
Workforce participation, the proportion of Americans in the productive workforce, peaked in
1997. With fewer working-age men and women in the workforce, per-capita income for the U.S. is
reduced.
Median real household income has declined since 1999, with incomes stagnating across virtually
all income levels. Despite a welcome jump in 2015, median household income remains below the peak
attained in 1999, 17 years ago. Moreover, stagnating income and limited job prospects have disproportionately
affected lower-income and lower-skilled Americans, leading inequality to rise."
and something I have been going hoarse saying:
"The U.S. lacks an economic strategy, especially at the federal level. The implicit strategy
has been to trust the Federal Reserve to solve our problems through monetary policy."
the charts alone are worth the effort to check out this excellent study.
" Neither the traditional economist's focus on firms in markets nor the Marxist political economist's
focus on exploitation of wage labour by capital is a viable way of understanding the real economy,
and the book takes some steps towards an alternative view. "
Why did East Asia become Star Trek instead of the US? Why didn't the hopeful visions of mid-1960's
America become reality for the Americans? Read Ha Joon Chang if you want to know why East Asia
is on track to be as rich as the US/USSR portrayed in 2001 Space Odyssey. Western provincialism,
or perhaps the corruption of economists by looting banks (as documented by Charles Ferguson) has
led Western economists to offer really, really terrible advice to their own governments: free
trade forever, don't worry about massive deindustrialization, there will be new jobs, there's
no chance the US ends up like Mali.
One of the big problems of economics is how little of our society it explains. Exactly how many
people of either sex actually sit down and decide to have children based on a return on investment
calculation? How many people spend time with their friends and families based on some kind of
maximization function? When you visit a dying friend or family member at the hospital is this
the result of some gift exchange calculus? What about the time one spends listening to music,
watching a baseball game or browsing Facebook?
It might help to start with anthropology and think about human societies and their organization.
Start with something like the Lynds' Middletown books to get away from the implicit exoticism
that the term anthropology invokes. Societies have certain basic functions: raising children,
caring for those who cannot care for themselves, earning a living, spending free time, recognizing
one's place in the universe, participating in civil society and so on. Economics only looks at
a tiny piece of this, just part of the earning a living section. It's as if chemists never studied
anything except hydrogen molecules.
Economics really does need some new thinking. Starting with Pareto optimality is simply the
argument that we live in the best of all possible worlds. It is so transparently bogus that it
is hard to believe that anyone ever took it seriously. Oil lamps were hard on torch makers and
the automobile destroyed the buggy whip business. We need an economic system to regulate the production
and allocation of goods and services, but we also need child custody laws and burial customs.
I'm a capitalist at heart, but I view capitalism as I view fire. There is nothing quite like
fire for cooking food, lighting the dark, scaring wild animals, firing pottery and so on, but
fire also needs to be carefully controlled, constantly monitored and subject to societal sanction.
Economics fashions itself (or is being fashioned) as a science, and as such has to restrict itself
to measurable, identifiable, and (in principle) predictable phenomena.
What you are describing is more in the realm of philosophy, psychology, and moral judgement.
The problem starts when the economics profession and related occupations (business media, etc.)
pretend to have identified "market mechanisms" as the unifying theory of society and world, including
"explaining" social dynamics in terms of "objective/rational" market transactions and motivations.
But the desire for grand unified theories and "whole truths" is ever strong, lending credence
and support to such efforts.
Now is the time to push for my leisure theory of value. All goods and services traded in the economy
are intermediate goods, and value is actually created during leisure time!
"... If those who have not lost to trade think Hillary might help them..... I just wasted* 2+ hours with a bunch of Hilbots.... all I heard is Trump is so evil and his supports are so dumb or racist or anti Planned Parenthood. Not a word to defend Killary except she could not be evil she is watched so much. And Obama called off the DoJ. ..."
"... It is not only disregard, but active mockery and defamation - accusing the "losers" of hedonism, entitlement thinking, irresposibility, lack of virtue, merit, striving, intelligence, etc. ..."
"... I.e. reverse puritanism of sorts - lack of success is always to be explained in terms of lack in virtue and striving. ..."
"... Yes. This include the bulk of the liberal merit class winners too Their support for the tax and transfer system Humanist noblesse " oblige". ..."
"... . "This include the bulk of the liberal merit class winners too" ..."
"... This is where the "limousine liberal" meme comes from (or more precisely gets it support and success from). ..."
"... Of course all the claimed demerits exist plenty among the people so accused (as well as among the winners) - though they always did, but I'm under the impression that before Globalization_blowback/technology supported loss of leverage and thus prestige, it wasn't a *public* narrative (in private circles there has always been "if you don't make an effort in school you will end up sweeping the streets", and looking down on the "unskilled", etc. - with the hindsight irony that even street sweeping has been automated). ..."
The disregard of the winners towards the losers helps to bring about the
popularity of people like Trump. I am not at all surprised at the level
of his popularity, even though I personally despise him.
If those who have not lost to trade think Hillary might help them.....
I just wasted* 2+ hours with a bunch of Hilbots.... all I heard is Trump
is so evil and his supports are so dumb or racist or anti Planned Parenthood.
Not a word to defend Killary except she could not be evil she is watched
so much. And Obama called off the DoJ.
A room full of cognitive dissonance and brainwashed.
It is not only disregard, but active mockery and defamation - accusing
the "losers" of hedonism, entitlement thinking, irresposibility, lack of
virtue, merit, striving, intelligence, etc.
Yes. This include the bulk of the liberal merit class winners too
Their support for the tax and transfer system Humanist noblesse " oblige".
In their opinion the system of merit rewards is largely firm but fair
cm said in reply to Paine...
"This include the bulk of the liberal merit class winners too"
This is where the "limousine liberal" meme comes from (or more precisely
gets it support and success from).
Of course all the claimed demerits exist plenty among the people
so accused (as well as among the winners) - though they always did, but
I'm under the impression that before Globalization_blowback/technology supported
loss of leverage and thus prestige, it wasn't a *public* narrative (in private
circles there has always been "if you don't make an effort in school you
will end up sweeping the streets", and looking down on the "unskilled",
etc. - with the hindsight irony that even street sweeping has been automated).
"... I think the key difference between successful politicians and business people is patience. When you look at the careers of successful politicians, you can often see many years of pure relentless grind going into a few years of glory in a senior position. Endless committee meetings, rubber chicken dinners, being nice to people you loath, the inevitable humiliation of losing elections. Most business leaders simply lose patience after a few years after they go into politics. ..."
"... "The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it." ..."
"... Neoclassical economics hid the work of the Classical Economists and the difference between "earned" and "unearned" income. ..."
"... Once you hide this it is easy to make it look as though the interests of business and the wealthy are the same. ..."
"... There should not really be any tax on "earned" income, all tax should fall on "unearned" income to subside the productive side of the economy with low cost housing and services. ..."
"... "The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money. But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords, no usurers and no tax gatherers." ..."
"... Adam Smith saw landlords, usurers (bankers) and Government taxes as equally parasitic, all raising the cost of doing business. ..."
"... "…who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it." Adam Smith just described the modern Republican Party and movement Conservatives. ..."
"... The children of the US elite were the storm troopers of this ideology and they headed out from their elite US universities to bring this new ideology to developing nations. ..."
"... "The Chicago Boys" headed out from the University of Chicago to bring the new way to South American nations and "The Berkley Mafia" headed out from the University of Berkeley, California to bring the new way to Indonesia ..."
"... Any means were deemed acceptable to implement the one true solution and the new ideology, e.g. torture, terror, death squads, snatching people off the streets and making them disappear permanently. Any left wing resistance had to be quashed by whatever means necessary ..."
"... Their revolutions always massively increased inequality, a few at the top became fabulously wealthy and extreme and widespread poverty became prevalent at the bottom. Mixing with the people at the top, the elite US storm troopers deemed their revolutions a huge success. This ideology was ready to roll out across the world. ..."
"... Under this new ideology, the UK dream is to emulate the idle, rich rentier with a BTL portfolio, living off "unearned" income extracted from the "earned" income of generation rent, whilst doing as little as possible and enjoying a life of luxury and leisure. ..."
"... Obfuscating the relationship between free markets and the role of government is coming to an end. So much failure and misdirection cannot hide forever. The cognitive dissonance set up in society is unsustainable- people don't like to feel or experience crazy. ..."
"... Markets are stronger and healthier when backed by functioning government. Defining what good government is and demanding it is required today. That is the revolutionary force, finally turning back the negative campaign against government and demanding good government- fighting for it. ..."
"... "Enoch Powell…once remarked that all political lives end in failure. It is also true of most business leaders." But that is also what they say about love. No good end can come of it. ..."
"... This bit of convenient fiction caught my eye: "Political leaders must also manage for the entire population rather than the narrow interest of investors." ..."
"... Perhaps political leaders should do this but, as has been recently shown, there is no basis in reality that this is any kind of requirement (as in "must"). ..."
"... Perhaps his use of "must" in this case is talking about the intrinsic requirement. In other words, even if they are managing negatively for some and positively for others, they are managing for all. ..."
Electorates believe that business leaders are qualified for and likely to
be effective in politics. Yet, with some notable exceptions, business people
have rarely had successful political careers.
The assumption is that corporate vision, leadership skills, administrative
skills and a proven record of wealth creation will translate into political
success. It presupposes personal qualities such drive, ambition and ruthlessness.
The allure is also grounded in the romantic belief that outsiders can fix all
that is wrong with the political process. The faith is misplaced.
First, the required skills are different.
Successful business leaders generally serve a technical apprenticeship in
the business, industry or a related profession giving them familiarity with
the firm's activities. Political success requires party fealty, calculating
partisanship, managing coalitions and networking. It requires a capacity to
engage in the retail electoral process, such as inspirational public speaking
and an easy familiarity with voters in a wide variety of settings. It requires
formidable powers of fund raising to finance campaigns. Where individuals shift
from business to politics in mid or later life, he or she is at a significant
disadvantage to career political operatives who have had years to build the
necessary relationships and organisation to support political aspirations.
Second, the scope of the task is different. A nation is typically larger
than a business. The range of issues is broader, encompassing economics, finance,
welfare, health, social policy as well as defence and international relations.
Few chief executives will, during a single day, have to consider budgetary or
economic issues, health policy, gender matters, privacy concerns, manage involvement
in a foreign conflict in between meeting and greeting a range of visitors varying
from schoolchildren to foreign dignitaries as well as attending to party political
matters.
Political leaders must also manage for the entire population rather than
the narrow interest of investors. They must take into account the effect of
decisions on a wide range of constituencies including many implacably opposed
to their positions.
Third, business objectives, such as profit maximisation, are narrow, well
defined and constant. Political objectives are amorphous and ideological. The
emphasis is on living standards, security and social justice. Priorities between
conflicting objectives shift constantly. The benefits of decisions by governments
in infrastructure, education and welfare are frequently difficult to measure
and frequently will not emerge for a long time.
Business decisions rarely focus on the societal impact. Firms can reduce
workforce, shift production overseas, seek subsidies or legally minimise taxes.
Politicians must deal with the side effects of individual profit maximisation
decisions such as closed factories, reduced employment, welfare and retraining
costs, security implications as well as social breakdown and inequality or exclusion.
Fourth, the operating environment is different. Businesses usually operate
within relatively defined product-market structures. In contrast, governments
operate in a complex environment shaped by domestic and foreign factors, many
of which they do not control or influence. Government actions require co-operation
across different layers of government or countries. Businesses can withdraw
from certain activities, while government do not have the same option.
Fifth, within boundaries set by laws and regulations, business leaders enjoy
great freedom and power to implement their policies. Boards of directors and
shareholders exercise limited control, usually setting broad financial parameters.
They do not intervene in individual decisions. Most important government actions
require legislative or parliamentary support. Unlike commercial operations,
government face restrictions, such as separation of powers, restraints on executive
or governmental action and international obligations.
Business leaders have unrivalled authority over their organisation based
on threats (termination) or rewards (remuneration or promotion). Political leaders
cannot fire legislators. They face significant barriers in rewarding or replacing
public servants. Policy implementation requires negotiations and consensus.
It requires overcoming opposition from opposing politicians, factions within
one's own party, supporters, funders and the bureaucracy. It requires overcoming
passively resistance from legislators and public servants who can simply outlast
the current incumbent, whose tenure is likely to be shorter than their own.
The lack of clear goals, unrivalled authority and multiple and shifting power
centres means that political power is more limited than assumed Many Presidents
of the United States, regarded as the most powerful position on earth, have
found that they had little ability to implement their agendas.
Sixth, unless they choose to be, business leaders are rarely public figures
outside business circles. Politicians cannot avoid constant public attention.
Modern political debate and discourse has become increasingly tabloid in tone,
with unprecedented levels of invective and ridicule. There is no separation
of the public and the personal. Business leaders frequently find the focus on
personal matters as well as the tone of criticism discomforting.
There are commonalities. Both fields attract a particular type of individual.
In addition, paraphrasing John Ruskin, successful political and business leaders
not only know what must be done but actually do what must be done and do it
when it must be done. A further commonality is the ultimate fate of leaders
generally. Enoch Powell, himself a long-serving Member of the British Parliament,
once remarked that all political lives end in failure. It is also true of most
business leaders.
I think the key difference between successful politicians and business
people is patience. When you look at the careers of successful politicians,
you can often see many years of pure relentless grind going into a few years
of glory in a senior position. Endless committee meetings, rubber chicken
dinners, being nice to people you loath, the inevitable humiliation of losing
elections. Most business leaders simply lose patience after a few years
after they go into politics.
Much the same seems to apply to military leaders, although off the top
of my head I can think of more successful examples of the latter than of
business people (Eisenhower and De Gaulle come to mind). Berlusconi comes
to mind as a 'successful' politician and businessman, but then Italy does
seem to be an outlier in some respects.
One key difference I think between 'good' politicians and 'good' businesspeople
is in making decisions. Good businesspeople are decisive. Good politicians
never make a decision until they absolutely have to.
This is clearly a consequence of 'The government is like a household'
misinformation campaign, which I think is really conceptualized as 'government
is like a small business.' So why not get a businessman to run the thing?
Interesting point. It also comes out of 30+ years of demonization of
government as being less well run than business, when IMHO the problems
of government are 1. the result of scale (think of how well run GM and Citigroup
were in the mid 200s…and both are better now that they have downsized and
shaped up) and 2. inevitable given that you do not want government employees
making stuff as they go, i.e., overruling the legislature and courts. The
latter point is that some rigidity is part of how government works, and
it's necessary to protect citizens.
Adam Smith on the businessmen you shouldn't trust:
"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes
from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and
ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined,
not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention.
It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with
that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to
oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both
deceived and oppressed it."
What they knew in the 18th century, we have forgotten today, but nothing
has changed.
Neoclassical economics hid the work of the Classical Economists and the
difference between "earned" and "unearned" income.
Once you hide this it is easy to make it look as though the interests
of business and the wealthy are the same.
We lowered taxes on the wealthy to remove free and subsidised services
for those at the bottom. These costs now have to be covered by business through wages. All known and thoroughly studied in the 18th and 19th Centuries, they
even came up with solutions.
There should not really be any tax on "earned" income, all tax should
fall on "unearned" income to subside the productive side of the economy
with low cost housing and services.
This allows lower wages and an internationally competitive economy.
Adam Smith:
"The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed
to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained
in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is
supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy
who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money.
But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords,
no usurers and no tax gatherers."
Adam Smith saw landlords, usurers (bankers) and Government taxes as equally
parasitic, all raising the cost of doing business.
He sees the lazy people at the top living off "unearned" income from
their land and capital.
He sees the trickle up of Capitalism:
1) Those with excess capital collect rent and interest.
2) Those with insufficient capital pay rent and interest.
He differentiates between "earned" and "unearned" income.
The UK dream is to emulate the idle, rich rentier with a BTL portfolio,
living off "unearned" income extracted from the "earned" income of generation
rent, whilst doing as little as possible and enjoying a life of luxury and
leisure.
"…who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public,
and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed
it." Adam Smith just described the modern Republican Party and movement Conservatives.
We have seen left wing revolutions before; we are now dealing with a
right wing revolution.
Left wing revolutions usually involve much violence and eventually lead
to tyranny, as any means are deemed acceptable to implement the one true
solution and the new ideology. Pol Pot was the most extreme example where
he decided to return to year zero by wiping out the bourgeoisie in Cambodia.
When the dust has settled the revolution just leads to a new elite who maintain
their ideology with force and brutality.
When Francis Fukuyama talked of the end of history, a new year zero was
envisaged, this one based on a right wing ideology. A right wing revolution
that could take place globally and was not confined to individual nations
like left wing revolutions.
Its theories had already been tested in South America and Indonesia where
extreme brutality was employed to implement their one true solution and
the new ideology. The children of the US elite were the storm troopers of
this ideology and they headed out from their elite US universities to bring
this new ideology to developing nations.
"The Chicago Boys" headed out from
the University of Chicago to bring the new way to South American nations
and "The Berkley Mafia" headed out from the University of Berkeley, California
to bring the new way to Indonesia.
Any means were deemed acceptable to implement the one true solution and
the new ideology, e.g. torture, terror, death squads, snatching people off
the streets and making them disappear permanently. Any left wing resistance
had to be quashed by whatever means necessary.
Their revolutions always massively increased inequality, a few at the
top became fabulously wealthy and extreme and widespread poverty became
prevalent at the bottom. Mixing with the people at the top, the elite US
storm troopers deemed their revolutions a huge success. This ideology was
ready to roll out across the world.
Under this new ideology, the UK dream is to emulate the idle, rich rentier
with a BTL portfolio, living off "unearned" income extracted from the "earned"
income of generation rent, whilst doing as little as possible and enjoying
a life of luxury and leisure.
Obfuscating the relationship between free markets and the role of government
is coming to an end. So much failure and misdirection cannot hide forever.
The cognitive dissonance set up in society is unsustainable- people don't
like to feel or experience crazy.
Markets are stronger and healthier when backed by functioning government.
Defining what good government is and demanding it is required today. That
is the revolutionary force, finally turning back the negative campaign against
government and demanding good government- fighting for it.
Fighting fraud and corruption follows these same lines. Reading about
the various forms of fraud and corruption here at NC daily provides the
framework to address the problem. The real work begins convincing fellow
citizens to not accept the criminality- the new normal. It is sometimes
distressing seeing the reaction of fellow citizens to these crimes not as
outrage, but more along the lines of begrudging admiration for the criminals.
The subtile conditioning of the population to accept criminality needs a
countervailing force.
Modern mass media projects a false picture of the world. The meme they
push is that violence and corruption are so pervasive in the world, vast
resources must be expended addressing the problem, and when these efforts
fail, settle for apathy and avoidance. The creation of the Businessman/Politician
is the perfect vehicle to move this agenda forward.
Politics controlling and driving business decisions must be reestablished,
not the other way around- business driving politics and society. That truly
is the distinction between authoritarianism and democracy. Small authoritarians
are tolerable in society- large ones not so much.
Bang on. Especially being a political leader in a democracy is too tough
and I am surprised that people want the job given the landmine they have
to navigate and the compromises you have to make on a daily basis. Similarity
is closest when you compare a benevolent dictator and a successful businessman,
something like how Lee Kuan Yew ran Singapore.
"Enoch Powell…once remarked that all political lives end in failure.
It is also true of most business leaders." But that is also what they say
about love. No good end can come of it.
There is a mistaken assumption here that business people are responsible
for their own or their organization's success. Or even that they're qualified
as business people. The higher up the business ladder you go, the more it
is other people making the important decisions, even deciding what you think,
do and say.
In this way it's similar to politics. It's likely that neither the successful
business person nor the politician is qualified for their roles, that nobody
can be. Also their roles are essentially to be authorities, and likewise
nobody is truly qualified nor has the justification or legitimacy for authority.
This bit of convenient fiction caught my eye: "Political leaders must also manage for the entire population rather
than the narrow interest of investors."
Perhaps political leaders should do this but, as has been recently shown,
there is no basis in reality that this is any kind of requirement (as in
"must").
Perhaps his use of "must" in this case is talking about the intrinsic
requirement. In other words, even if they are managing negatively for some
and positively for others, they are managing for all.
"...a full 95% of the cash that went to Greece ran a trip through Greece
and went straight back to creditors which in plain English is banks. So,
public taxpayers money was pushed through Greece to basically bail out banks...So
austerity becomes a side effect of a general policy of bank bailouts that
nobody wants to own. That's really what happened, ok?
Why are we peddling nonsense? Nobody wants to own up to a gigantic bailout
of the entire European banking system that took six years. Austerity was
a cover.
If the EU at the end of the day and the Euro is not actually improving
the lives of the majority of the people, what is it for? That's the question
that they've brought no answer to.
...the Hamptons is not a defensible position. The Hamptons is a very
rich area on Long Island that lies on low lying beaches. Very hard to defend
a low lying beach. Eventually people are going to come for you.
What's clear is that every social democratic party in Europe needs to
find a new reason to exist. Because as I said earlier over the past 20 years
they have sold their core constituency down the line for a bunch of floaters
in the middle who don't protect them or really don't particularly care for
them. Because the only offers on the agenda are basically austerity and
tax cuts for those who already have, versus austerity, apologies, and a
minimum wage."
Mark Blyth
Although I may not agree with every particular that Mark Blyth may say, directionally
he is exactly correct in diagnosing the problems in Europe.
And yes, I am aware that the subtitles are at times in error, and sometimes
outrageously so. Many of the errors were picked up and corrected in the comments.
No stimulus, no plans, no official actions, no monetary theories can be sustainably
effective in revitalizing an economy that is as bent as these have become without
serious reform at the first.
This was the lesson that was given by Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. There
will be no lasting recovery without it; it is a sine qua non . One cannot
turn their economy around when the political and business structures are systemically
corrupt, and the elites are preoccupied with looting it, and hiding their spoils
offshore.
"... Like Greece is finding out now, if you have to import virtually all your energy and can't export high energy finished products like Germany and Japan, then you are in trouble. ..."
"... Except the problem we have today is NOT Capitalism. Far from it in fact! We are in Neo-Corporatism and have left Capitalism in the past! ..."
"... Conventional oil peaked in 2005. Well, okay, effectively plateaued. We'll probably see the ultimate peak this year. We haven't reached peak debt…yet. What happens when we reach peak energy and peak debt? What happens when we reach Peak Everything? ..."
"... 40 years ago the Limits to Growth study was published, based on a systems dynamics model of the world's population, economic production, resources and pollution, and how they would interact. It forecast the sort of trouble we are now seeing, and its "business-as-usual" scenario predicted system collapse in the mid-21st Century. Governments and society leaders should have taken note back then, but they didn't, and their behaviour shows how poorly "capitalism" does rise to the challenge of global problems - it obfuscates, it denies, it defers, and it goes on doing its own thing regardless in the face of all evidence that it is on a path to destruction. Now we are left with a world that is consuming the equivalent of one and a half planets a year, and still, many are in denial. ..."
"... It sounds hopeful that economists are questioning the assumptions of neoliberalism, but if, as I suggested, the real change is less ideological and more to do with elites preferring to be elite even if in poorly functioning economies and dysfunctional societies, these criticisms may be ignored. Anyway, if we get Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders, perhaps then we'll see! But it's up to everyone to keep making and refining the arguments, and to get them across. I think even the most indoctrinated people can change their views very quickly when they encounter good sense. ..."
Spectacularly woolly waffle, much like the Gladwell, but its information
value -- if I were pressed to put a price on it -- is that it provides a
certain kind of gentleman with late-night bar talk who would otherwise have
nothing at all to say for himself, or go on about chaos theory. That's got
to be a few quid.
Eduardo Martinez -> JezJez 20 Jul 2015 05:55
You are correct, Capitalism is more efficient than all the other 'isms'
in maximising resource and energy extraction. Unfortunately fossil energy
is a finite, as we are going to find out shortly. Castles made in sand ......
Eduardo Martinez -> denise2933 20 Jul 2015 05:36
You got it in one, even though your comment was intended to be sarcastic.
The UK will not support a population of 64 million without fossil energy.
North Sea oil extraction peaked in 2000, World conventional oil extraction
plateaued in 2006. These are facts not opinion.
Like Greece is finding out now, if you have to import virtually all your
energy and can't export high energy finished products like Germany and Japan,
then you are in trouble. You can no longer afford a first world standard
of living.
REALITY is such a bitch.
schauffler -> NadiaJohanisova 20 Jul 2015 05:32
This is an excellent response to what looks like, unfortunately, another
boosterish celebration of the "liberating" qualities of a technological
regime which is produced by, and dependent upon, the most aggressive, concentrated
and uncontrollable form of capitalism pure and simple. The endless iteration
of the word "information", as if this denoted something uniform, powerful,
desirable or even identifiable, suggests that the author has only a sketchy
idea even of his own theory, nor does he deign to discuss -- in the excerpt
printed above -- the mechanics of the concentration of capital and the dynamics
of perpetual accumulation. As Ms. Johanisova rightly points out, there is
no mention made of the gigantic forces manifest in the production and distribution
of our information networks and the (ever-increasing) amounts of energy
they require to be sustained. Nor are we given any clear idea how "information"
will liberate us from dependence on these forces. Does the author think
that Samsung, Exxonmobil, Unilever, Maersk Sealand and Koch Industries will
somehow be replaced by global co-ops that eschew profit?
malachimalagrowther -> Urgelt 20 Jul 2015 04:52
This was a sane, well-informed and percipient comment. "I have seen the
future, and it is bleak." If the past is any guide, the current accumulation
of everything in the hands of a very few will be solved neither by information
nor wishing it. The inequalities of, for example, the Belle Epoque, were
reduced only by war. That is hardly to be wished for, hardly to be avoided
anyway. We cannot count on a peaceful extrapolation of trends.
NadiaJohanisova 20 Jul 2015 04:44
I would agree with the main thrust of the argument: that one way out
of the current system (or part of it) is via localised and democratically
governed systems of mutual support, services and production. I like some
of the insights (eg austerity as the first step of the race to the bottom)and
feel close to the general values espoused b the author. But I am worried
about the authors´s linear Eurocentric evolutionary model of the world,
his over-emphasis on technology as driving this change,his naive view of
information technology as costless and without power-imbalances and most
of all his ignorance of environmental aspects and dimensions of what he
discusses.
"Postcapitalism" - Paul Mason should perhaps acknowledge that he has
not coined this term (see eg the book JK Gibson-Graham: A post capitalist
politics.).
"The red flags and marching songs of Syriza during the Greek crisis, plus
the expectation that the banks would be nationalised, revived briefly a
20th-century dream: the forced destruction of the market from above." The
article is Northern-Europe-centered. As far as I know the revolutionary
ideals are still very much alive in may parts of the world incl. Southern
Europe. Also, it is I think counter-productive to delete government policies
from the equation of whatever needs to be done to reach sustainable and
equitable societies. The capitalist machine, the growth imperative, the
race to the bottom will not go away if we stick our hands in the sand. Nb.
Nationalising banks does not = destruction of market.
"Postcapitalism is possible because of three major changes information
technology has brought about in the past 25 years. First, it has reduced
the need for work, blurred the edges between work and free time and loosened
the relationship between work and wages. The coming wave of automation,
currently stalled because our social infrastructure cannot bear the consequences,
will hugely diminish the amount of work needed – not just to subsist but
to provide a decent life for all". I am not sure of this. It has changed
the character of work, contributed to the race to the bottom and while many
are unemployed, many are working harder than ever du to the growing power
of capital to relocate and thus weaken any legislation . The relationship
between work and wages has always been loose (as eg Petr Jehlička has been
pointing out in his papers). The idea that we will need no more work is
based on not integrating environmental issues into the picture. Like André
Gorz in the 1970s, the author does not realise that automation is built
on fossil fuels, with all the accompanying problems (global warming, oil
peak, imbalance between losers and winners of the race for the last fossil
fuels remaining (Alaska, Amazonia...fracking...). Even information technology
rests on high energy consumption and large electronic servers made from
"stuff".
"The biggest information product in the world – Wikipedia – is made by
volunteers for free." But it does not operate for free, it is supported
by volunteer donations. The problem also is that these volunteers are still
dependent on jobs in presumably capitalist enterprises. This is why it is
so important for the new "commons" and "peer production" to link up with
the old "cooperative movement" to create real livelihoods for these people.
I have an interesting report on this from a conference in 2014 where they
actually did try to link up.
"Yet information is abundant. Information goods are freely replicable.
Once a thing is made, it can be copied/pasted infinitely. A music track
or the giant database you use to build an airliner has a production cost;
but its cost of reproduction falls towards zero. Therefore, if the normal
price mechanism of capitalism prevails over time, its price will fall towards
zero, too....We are surrounded by machines that cost nothing and could,
if we wanted them to, last forever." I am worried that this is the old Western
economic sin of discounting the "material" again: old wine in new bottles.
Information can reproduce indefinitely, true. But all clicking on the internet,
all playing of tunes via computer etc. has a material/energy cost: production
costs of producing the computers, i-pads, mobiles etc. plus the giant servers,
energy costs of operating them, cost to the earth of the waste. Tin, tungstam,
tantalum for mobiles are mined forcibly by near-slaves in Easten Congo in
militia-held territory, illustrating a wider and deeper issue of North-South
imbalance.
"There are, of course, the parallel and urgent tasks of decarbonising
the world and dealing with demographic and fiscal timebombs." This cannot
be done - and thought - "in parallell": Unfortunately (because it is so
difficult), the task is to synthesise our insights from all these spheres
of we want to build a credible utopia. Environmental issues and "trashing
the earth" cannot be relegated to a footnote.
Arthur Robey -> Harry Callahan 20 Jul 2015 01:55
Thank you for your reply Harry, your position is becoming clearer to
me.
I am of the opinion that there can never be enough per capita wealth.
If we drive this argument to extremes then everyone born will have everything
they want and never have to lift a finger. What then the wonders of Calvinistic
industry?
I see that you expound the virtues of the lessons of history. But that
is precisely what is being argued against. Our predicament has no precedent.
History can teach us nothing about the way forward from here. Life sets
the exam and then produces the lesson.
An infinitely expanding economy on a finite planet is a mathematical
impossibly. Therefore the problem becomes "How many doublings of the economy
are enough? " Because any constantly growing function will have a doubling
time. If this is not clear to you, may I recommend Professor Bartlett's
excellent youtube video on exponential growth and it's inevitable consequences.
The only satisfactory solution to a problem of infinities are other infinities.
I won't insult your intelligence by spelling out the obvious conclusion.
The results are so clear and so improbable that the only way to convince
you will be to allow you to find them for yourself.
And it requires no redistribution of whatever passes for wealth on this
poor benighted planet at this moment in time.
Deanna St oriflamme 20 Jul 2015 01:39
"To produce people's control over information, you have to have extremely
well-informed and well-educated people, motivated by something more than
their own isolated or tribal immediate gratification."
Like Julian Assange you mean?
I agree, most of the comments above state clearly that lots of people
read the article so superficially and instantly felt compelled to rewrite-it
in their comments almost as long as Mason's without even reflecting at it
one moment longer
You don't sound "uneducated, mindless, self-gratifying, isolated narcissists,
overwhelmed by corporate-managed information who, when not simply pressing
buttons for gratification, take out the failure of videogames and the like
to gratify them on others by committing random acts of self-immortalizing
violence" so are you sure this is what is happening...? :)
Because during the Crusades the people you describe existed already (minus
the buttons and the videogames)
John Muthukat 20 Jul 2015 01:32
WE ARE ENTERING THE POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY
What we are witnessing is not just the beginning of the end of capitalism,
but the beginning of the end of Industrial Civilization itself. From many
unmistakable omens, it can surely be concluded that industrial civilisation
is headed for irreversible collapse; the latest Greek crisis is only just
an overflowing syndrome.
Today there is a deep groundswell towards a strong and cynic awareness
that the world is fast heading towards a no-win-situation from which it
simply has no escape. Many see it as having already started the end without
even knowing it. It is on account of a number of symptoms, not just one.
They seem to convey the message that the world is un-savable, and that the
worst is yet to come. The top votaries on these lines of thinking constitute
the top corporate technocrats among others. It is only that they consider
it as an open secret and an opportunity to plunder the 'sinking ship', as
is evident from the desperate bailout operations by an already bankrupt
global economy.
Recently a new study has concluded that industrial civilisation is headed
for irreversible collapse? According to a report in The Guardian dated 14
March, 2014, a new study partly sponsored by NASA-funded Goddard Space Flight
Center has highlighted the prospect that global industrial civilisation
could collapse in coming decades due to unsustainable resource exploitation
and increasingly unequal wealth distribution. The study finds that according
to the historical record even advanced, complex civilizations are susceptible
to collapse, raising questions about the sustainability of modern civilisation.
For more on this, please read the essay: The Birth Of Machine And The
Death Of Man: http://www.humanfirst.in/
Urgelt 20 Jul 2015 00:24
A comment cannot be an article, so with that restriction understood,
I'll try to keep my remarks relatively brief.
The author misses a few very important points.
1. Information can be fenced, and it is being fenced. While this fencing
runs counter to a human impulse to share ideas freely, it can be enforced.
With guns. And it is being enforced. With guns. In other words, we see not
only wealth concentration, but rising information concentration and control,
as with increasingly draconian intellectual property regimes and enforcement,
national security apparatuses, and criminalizing the possession of information
which 'authorities' may possess, but not citizens. Did I mention that the
defenders of the status quo have guns? Big ones.
2. Endlessly rising productivity due to advancing technology is driving
wealth concentration on a scale never before seen. Jobs, the primary mechanism
under capitalism for distributing wealth downward, are increasingly impotent
to perform that task - because every year it takes fewer people to do the
work required to keep civilization going. The number of people who are 'excess
to capitalism's requirements' is rising, and they are being shoved out onto
the margins. No-one has proposed a path towards replacing jobs as a mechanism
for downward wealth distribution. The world's economists are notoriously
silent on this subject, which is perhaps understandable when you realize
that most of them are serving the 1%'s ongoing wealth concentration; that's
their day job. Speaking vaguely of Wikipedia and cooperative kindergartens
and cryptocurrencies does not identify a replacement mechanism for downward
wealth distribution.
3. The world population is being radicalized, both in response to overpopulation
and in response to wealth concentration (and the increasingly vigorous defense
of wealth concentration). The result is growing instability. The trend is
uneven, but it is proceeding nearly everywhere. Refugee populations are
surging, with no end in sight. Both the defenders of the status quo and
radicals are becoming more brutal.
4. The richest among us are consolidating their grips on governments
wherever they can to serve their interests. It's really quite pointless
to speak of governments acting to encourage the free exchange of information;
they are coming down hard on the side of curbing information availability,
restricting it to the wealthy and their global security servants.
5. The author thinks the sharing economy will quietly supercede capitalism.
That isn't how I see this playing out. Instead, capitalism will shrink as
demand is concentrated where the wealth is. We already have enclaves for
the wealthy. Soon they will be 'retreats.' 'Fortresses.' The have-nots will
be treated with increasing brutality by those protecting their fenced preserves
of information and wealth.
6. The worst mistake the author makes is in failing to see how these
trends will lead us to inconceivable violence. Endlessly rising productivity,
concentration of wealth and increasing radicalization and brutality will
shake the stability of our entire civilization. It's not obvious that it
will not fall.
7. The last mistake the author makes is in defining a too-rigid equation
between information and resources. Factually, resources do have limits,
no matter what you know. For example, marine biologists are predicting that
by 2050, give or take a few years, there will no longer be any commercially
significant populations of edible fish in the world's oceans. A few decades
further on, we'll have harvested all edible biomass; all that will be left
are inedible species like jellyfish. Species extinctions on land are rising,
too, also posing problems for ecosystem productivity and human food production.
No information-sharing scheme can put a halt to this advancing resource
crunch. Combined with rising population, rising wealth concentration, rising
radicalization and brutality, we're in big, big trouble, and I haven't even
mentioned what climate change will do to us. Starting up a free kindergarten
makes not even a tiny dent in that problem.
Conclusion: at this juncture in human history, it's ridiculous to be
talking about utopian visions. We should instead be talking about preventing
a Malthusian die-back.
WeeWally wiz99doz 19 Jul 2015 23:29
Capitalism finished a long time ago; if it ever existed. The use of capitalism
as a synonym for greedy business is a sad commentary on the lack of language
of our day. Capitalism is about capital formation and nothing to do with
the ripping off of the masses. That's the role of religions and politicians
who encourage everyone to work harder and accept their lot.
Capitalism is an idea born out of Protestantism. If I forgo pleasure
today I will have more resources and therefore I can have more pleasure
tomorrow.
Business is a simple matter. Find something you love to do and help as many
people as possible. They will then throw money at you. Today's businesses,
particularly financially based businesses and miners, do not seem to understand
this principle and are hell-bent on destroying society and the planet so
that they can be the richest survivors. They become rich, briefly in most
cases, but never wealthy. Wealthy people do not spend their lives accumulating
the riches of the world at the expense of others and there is never enough
for the rich but non-wealthy. e.g. How much money does a man need to have
before he shows his mother or father, "What a good boy am I?" Wealthy people
share their wealth uplifting others and making themselves happy through
their good hearts.
No country that has raised itself from under-developed to developed country
status, has done so without the exploitatuion of others. We are seeing this
process copied once again in Russia, India and China. India is the most
disappointing because their peoples claim to understand norality. Accumulation
of capital in developing countries is chiefly through corruption which is
why The Party turned a blind eye to it for so long. Now that most of the
Princeling families are rich they will prevent others following their methods.
It's also a great way to get rid of rivals.
Britains think that the Industrial Revolution made them rich but the
capital was obtained through slave trading and narcotic sales. The Yanks
are so stupid they believe that their revolution was about taxes and not
ripping off Native Lands. Capital was further acumulated by the Robber Barons.
Australians similarly stole the land and the Chinese have stolen from their
own people and now everyone else who is naive enough to trust them. Russia
developed at the expense of desperate and innocent workers who gave up their
share certificates to devouring oligarchs.
Britain refinanced the world by buying supplies from the Carpetbaggers
and ending the Depression in the US. At the end of the war the US had the
only factories still standing so used its financial power to enslave much
of the world and create two empires: Their own and Stalin's. Britain has
only recently escaped its clutches which makes one wonder how it got conned
into Middle Eastern adventures. The US has more standing armies than Rome
ever dreamed of but has sold its soul to the Chinese for a few pieces of
silver. Coincidently the UK also sold out to the Chinese for silver in exchange
for opium. The recovery of Hong Kong by the Party had nothing to do with
land and was all about silver and face.
Long live capitalism; the real kind.
Steve Craton 19 Jul 2015 23:26
I just graduated with my BA ARCH and B ARCH from architecture school
which (mine was, anyway) a hotbed of progressiveness in the name of sustainability
and the fact that somebody is going to have to figure out where and how
all these humans who won't stop having babies are going to live in a future
Earth that may make the movie Mad Max look like a bedtime story. I'm also
a card-carrying Democrat with the occasional Libertarian tendencies - for
example, I think banning legal firearms will be as effective as the current
ban on recreational crack and heroin use, so I disagree with my gun-control
pals on the issue.
All that being said; there's never been true capitalism - or true communism
or socialism, for that matter. What's bandied about as the "free market"
by so-called pundits (usually on a global corporation's payroll) is more
the machinations of a bunch of international Zaibatsu. I'm formerly military
who went to school after service and did a stint in the private sector,
viz, I'm not a starry-eyed kid anymore - but I decided that not only will
I use my education and skills to do the kind of small economy things the
author discusses, I will also pull a reverse John Gault and let the sociopathic
corporations do their thing without me.
Raytrek Raytrek 19 Jul 2015 23:01
Communism has a Capitalist economy, the difference is in how it is regulated
as to where wealth and advantage is distributed, that is a matter of enforced
law and standards on Leadership, Capitalism existed long before Adam Smith,
he just observed the nature of an economy, he even made recommendations
that were not entirely adopted by the Aristocratic authority of his time,
to our current detriment.
Jim Ballard 19 Jul 2015 22:06
Header :
"The end of capitalism has begun"
Long overdue. But technology lending equal access to prosperity for all
on the horizon ? Think again.
This article is loaded with wishful thinking and non sequiturs.
"...capitalism's replacement by postcapitalism will be accelerated
by external shocks and shaped by the emergence of a new kind of human
being"
Not quite human, I'm afraid.
"First, it has reduced the need for work, blurred the edges between
work and free time and loosened the relationship between work and wages."
Yes it has. I for one preached the mantra of "Less work, more money !"
back in the late 80s. But there will be a price to pay by someone else.
Always.
"Second, information is corroding the market's ability to form prices
correctly. That is because markets are based on scarcity while information
is abundant..."
Yes. Products that really are scarce are being cheapened further by a
transient collective of shallow speculators who really do not understand
the product. That will change when "quick sale" solutions are made foolish.
This is really nothing new. Just more prevalent.
"Third, we're seeing the spontaneous rise of collaborative production:...The
biggest information product in the world – Wikipedia – is made by volunteers
for free, abolishing the encyclopedia business and depriving the advertising
industry of an estimated $3bn a year in revenue."
...But "information" does not equal "knowledge", and any attempt to assign
the same power strategies to both is premature and silly. "Wiki" still has
a very long path to "knowledge".
"New forms of ownership, new forms of lending, new legal contracts:
a whole business subculture has emerged over the past 10 years, which
the media has dubbed the "sharing economy". Buzzwords such as the "commons"
and "peer-production" are thrown around, but few have bothered to ask
what this development means for capitalism itself."
I'm concerned less what it means to "capitalism" that I am concerned
with the eager constraints on both the human imagination and the displacement
of the individual.
"(2008 crash) produced, in the west, a depression phase longer than
in 1929-33, and even now, amid a pallid recovery, has left mainstream
economists terrified about the prospect of long-term stagnation. The
aftershocks in Europe are tearing the continent apart."
No. The '29 Depression lasted much longer...Up until the war, in fact.
A "coincidence" not unnoticed by all.
"...the retirement age is being hiked to 70...Services are being
dismantled and infrastructure projects put on hold."
There is only one reason "retirement" is being hiked to "70". Trillions
of tax dollars are being dumped into the war machine. The government is
slowing weaning itself off its obligations to both SS and infrastructure
for that one fact alone. Period.
"Information is a machine for grinding the price of things lower
and slashing the work time needed to support life on the planet."
A little hyperbole can go a long way I suppose, but doesn't address all
the reasons for price deflation while the dollar remains severely inflated.
"Something is broken in the logic we use to value the most important
thing in the modern world."
Yes. We are broken.
"The great technological advance of the early 21st century consists
not only of new objects and processes, but of old ones made intelligent.
The knowledge content of products is becoming more valuable than the
physical things that are used to produce them"
This article would be more coherent if there was less word salad :
"Intellectual"..."knowledge"..."data"..."information"..."imagination"...all
mixed, conjoined, exchanged...trumping any reference to real definition.
Typical econo-speak.
"This will be more than just an economic transition. There are, of
course, the parallel and urgent tasks of decarbonising the world and
dealing with demographic and fiscal timebombs"
How far do we take "decarbonizing ? Effects of climate change notwithstanding,
silicon based intelligence(s) will soon recognize that carbon-based humans
are toxic in themselves, and the utilization of such "wasted" matter and
energy can serve a better end by furthering the survival of silicon-based
new species.
[ continued ]...
Jock Campbell -> Says Aye 19 Jul 2015 20:26
Except the problem we have today is NOT Capitalism. Far from it in
fact! We are in Neo-Corporatism and have left Capitalism in the past!
We need to get BACK to Capitalism, as it was a mechanism for spreading
CAPITAL throughout the system, a method of facilitation from grass roots
up! Today, the capital is held among too few corporate institutions, organisations
and individuals and the net effect is the strangling of the free market
economy... as there's no
Angelo GG 19 Jul 2015 19:39
Post-capitalism, State Capitalism, Kleptocracy, Corporotocracy....
All different words describing the same thing: a bastardization of the
concept of 'capitalism' whereby dictators/tyrants take-over a system of
government in order to transfer power from the many to the few.
It doesn't matter how many fancy economic models and theories are put
forward. There is only one reality in which the powers at be ARE NOT interested
in creating world prosperity, improving standards of living and finding
peace etc etc....
All of that is smokescreen - the real goal is chaos, disease, injustice
and servitude for the masses.
Postcapitalism, or The Rise of the People of Middle Earth.
You can't see them, but you can ear them digging the network of tunnels
under the citadel of power (of value creation) that eventually will collapse
the city walls and come to life in the day light. Well, except that I'm
not convinced that the elements Paul Mason is putting on the table are sufficient
to push society over the threshold of class formation, of a new hegemonic
class based on an alternative way of production, of value creation. The
intuition is there, and I'm prepared to suspend judgment till I read the
all book. In the meantime:
1) It seems to me that in history, the 'dominated' classes never managed
to acquire a sustainable level of control to implement a radical change
of the system. The serfs did not overcome the aristocracy; what toppled
it was the ascent of a radically new class, the merchant/capitalist, brought
about by linear cumulative changes that reached at a certain point a critical
level or threshold. The Russian Revolution did not bring about the hegemony
of the working class, but merely an alternative state capitalistic class
of bureaucrats. So, no system change there, I'm afraid; which is the deep
reason behind that failed revolution.
2) In order to start up and curry on real radical social and economic
change, it seems that the political struggle between the dominant and the
dominated classes is almost irrelevant. What changes history, economic
systems and social order is something more profound, cumulative, and very
much 'out of control', unplannable: class formation, that is, the formation
of a new 'third excluded' social class, brought about usually by demographic,
technological and other changes in the ways of production, that gradually
transforms the economic system, the modes of production, the creation of
value, engendering a completely new (previously not existent) class with
the hegemonic clout and power to substitute the previous dominant class
and reshaping the relations with the dominated classes.
3) The Gramscian 'classi subalterne' do not do radical change nor
lasting revolutions. They cannot topple the dominant class, nor can
create a new way of production from scratch. I think Marx went against his
own analysis and, by introducing platonistic elements, hoped that social
and political struggle would have eventually created a new way of production
and social relations; even according to his analysis, in this fundamental
aspect of his tought, he got this story upside down: it is the economy,
stupid!
4) So, yes, Paul Mason is, according to my watch, on something interesting,
but the mix, the cocktail elements he has presented so far are not original
and are not promising. Lets see...
SuperfluousMan 19 Jul 2015 15:51
The capitalist system is not fighting with the sharing economy - no free
market economist wants to shut down Wikipedia because it doesn't generate
profit. I am very much pro capitalism and I'm very much pro Wikipedia -
I am also pro being able to watch thousands of hours of lectures from the
likes of Harvard University on Youtube. The fact that Google make a tiny
profit from the data I produce whilst educating myself for free does not
bother me at all. It seems to elude some people though that the primary
driver for the social good that is free educational videos on Youtube is
profit (Youtube was created for profit, it was sold to Google for a huge
profit) - and there's nothing wrong with making profit.
I think the author is right about a few things, like how our economy
will move towards smaller and smaller margins as competition and technology
drives ever more efficient production lines, leading to more and more abundance
of everyday goods - but it is capitalism that is driving these efficiency
gains, not some form of neo-Marxism...
SuperfluousMan durable13 19 Jul 2015 15:40
I run a smallish website which gets about 20,000 visitors per day. I
save various analytics from the site in my own database and externally.
I use the information to generate a small amount of profit from advertising.
I own that information - the actual benefits of it are transferred to my
bank account every month - I'm really not delusional.
alturium 19 Jul 2015 15:23
It's hard to see the walls of the bubble when you are inside the bubble…
We talk as if we have a society that reduces work by the increase of
information technology. That the direction of progress points to a heavily
automated society where no one works and the biggest social issue is the
fair distribution of the fruits of mechanical labor.
The virtual reality has become far removed the physical reality. The
physical reality is the limitation of the resources that can grow, sustain,
or maintain our lifestyle. There are limits to growth and we live in a world
of diminishing returns.
We are living in one of the greatest bubbles of all times, the Great
Industrial Bubble economy based on cheap fossil energy and cheap debt. Actually,
there are many little bubbles such as the Finanicialization bubble since
1980, but the Great Industrial Bubble is the big one. I rank the bubbles
by size: Industrial, Cheap Debt (since WWII), and Financialization.
Two hundred years ago about 95% of us would have been farmers. Today
that is less than 5%. Is that because of our liberal democracies? No. Is
that because of capitalism? Not really. The real basis for our complex societies
is cheap fossil fuels.
Our society builds complexity based on the leftover energy surplus of
cheap fossil fuels. We have jobs that are far less menial and far less physical
thanks to this one-time gift. Our economy fits within the natural world,
not the other way around.
When Mason says,
"Once you understand that information is physical, and that software is
a machine, and that storage, bandwidth and processing power are collapsing
in price at exponential rates, the value of Marx's thinking becomes clear.
We are surrounded by machines that cost nothing and could, if we wanted
them to, last forever."
He is deluded. It is a delusion that increasing automation (read: complexity)
can be supported without an increase of energy. He doesn't understand entropy
or the 2nd of Thermodynamics. The illusion of automation is concealing the
fact that our economy is based on cheap energy.
It appears that you can copy music track and play it for "free". But
the reality is that a lot of energy went into building your iPhone. Cheap
coal and cheap labor in China built that iPhone so that you could listen
to that music track. It is not free.
Conventional oil peaked in 2005. Well, okay, effectively plateaued.
We'll probably see the ultimate peak this year. We haven't reached peak
debt…yet. What happens when we reach peak energy and peak debt? What happens
when we reach Peak Everything?
I really don't know. But the past growth and collapse of so many civilizations
that overshot their ecological foundations is not comforting. We are headed
for big trouble.
GeoffroydeCharny 19 Jul 2015 13:42
Welcome to the new Feudalism. The new ages wealth gap and its continued
acceleration will ensure the cementing of the new serf class. The next big
step is their elimination through malnutrition and disease. This will leave
our little blue planet in the hands of a few million well to do and their
robot servants. The environment will recover and the future will be secured.
Bruce Joseph 19 Jul 2015 12:58
Ambrose Bierce Devil's dictionary sald, "Liberty, n, One of imaginations
most precious possessions The rising people hot and outof breath, roared
round the palace " liberty or death", If death will do the King said, let
me reign, you'll have I'm sure no reason to complain "
Richard Alan nolovehere 19 Jul 2015 12:35
Some system has to provide or allocate the basic resources e.g Electricity,
raw materials, foods, land. In addition, law enforcement will be necessary
to stop free riders destroying the system. The people running the system
will always have power over those who don't.
Whether or not people can share information freely, or there is a circular
renewable economy is moot. On this planet; land is finite. Raw materials
are finite. Arable space is finite.
My point relating to Saudi Arabia or the Gulf economies is simple. Labour
is the great bargaining chip of the masses. If you can't provide that or
it isn't necessary, but you take up land, material and food; you will be
viewed by the power-holders at best like the average Venezuelan, UAE or
Saudi Arabian citizen. At worst you will be viewed like Native Americans
or Aborigines 'wasting' space.
And I strongly recommend Michael Manning's 'Spider Garden'.
Rex Newborn 19 Jul 2015 11:50
Every living organism on earth, including humans, competes with others
of its kind, and against forces in its environment for survival. Humans
have the ability to modify nature to some extent, but can they ever really
control it, especially their own nature? Capitalism has been in existence
since the first IOU was created, and will continue in some form unless there
is a quantum leap in the evolution of human nature. Capitalism is the essence
of human competition, as territoriality is among mammals.
Equality does not exist in nature. The only way that humans could ever
possibly be anything approaching equal would be for all humans to be alike
and to think alike. Mass cooperation among humans only happens in dire emergencies,
such as wars, riots, epidemics, natural disasters, etc.; or, by force from
some form of heavy-handed leadership, mass political indoctrination, forced
religious adherence, marshal law, etc.
Overpopulation threatens a dire emergency on a global scale. If we are
to have a redistribution of wealth and an environment where umpteen billion
of us can survive, we will probably have to have a socialist government.
A dictatorial, tyrannical, socialist, world government that ruthlessly forces
everyone to share equally, at least as long as there is anything to share.
Those that rank higher in this government, possibly the top 1%, can expect
to be a lot more equal than the plebeians, of course. Those in the top 5%
of government can expect to be somewhat more equal, and so on.
ID8598806 luizribeiro 19 Jul 2015 11:45
Brilliant, seductive ...but devoid of realism ... Neither the plutocrats,
nor the digital monopolies nor the meritocratic dictatorships (let alone
the kleptocracies) will fade away. The logic of collective action decisively
proves that the well endowed, well organized few invariably control the
many. Local initiatives facilitated by the new information technologies
will be tolerated in order to let off steam...but only up to a point. The
powers that be will remain ruthless in controlling access to these technologies
and in suppressing any challenge to their control of the commanding heights.
Thus rather than post capitalism we are at the threshold of Capitalism 3.0
Bob
Lawrie Griffith 19 Jul 2015 10:41
It seems to me there is one important factor that has been overlooked
in this article. The link between economic growth and population growth.
Current economics appears to be sustained by growth. Growth in consumption,
growth in money, growth in debt, growth in productivity by lowering wages
and living standards, growth through speculation, growth in asset inflation.
It's a long list.
This is all underpinned by growth in population.
But in many regions of the world this is slowing, or has even stopped.
For now migration from poorer countries to these regions is maintaining
growth and demand, along with cheap labour.
However, advances in education and local access to knowledge through
modern communication is working in tandem with increased health to empower
women. This reduces birth rates, as having fewer children becomes a better
form of security and opportunity than having large families, because more
women are able to regulate their own fertility.
Continued growth through post-capitalist information wealth, which expands
in cyberspace, is a pathway forward as the author suggests. However, neoliberal
capitalism requires steady growth in consumer spending to maintain stability.
As population growth slows old style capitalism will come under strain.
The knee-jerk response is to impose Austerity on the main population
to maintain the growth in wealth flows to those at the top. Everything we
see in the world today suggests that the big institutions of the finance
sector will will do everything in their power to maintain capital and liquidity
churn and flows in the money markets.
As population growth slows and environmental change undermines economies
and wages fall, the bottom, as they say, will drop out of the neoliberal
consumer market.
So I ask: is the author suggesting that the rapid expansion of non-comodified,
free, networked information can replace the coming stagnation in consumer
demand, which is transacted in money? I like the idea, but if so: how?
Elinor Hurst ABCgdn 19 Jul 2015 10:26
No, the freedom to own stuff if you happen to have enough money to have
that freedom, does not mean that those with that money and hence power will
have the intelligence, understanding and foresight to take steps to address
environmental problems. This is partly for the reasons StefB1 has mentioned,
that very few people seem to see the joined-up picture in this highly complex
world of myriad specialisations that we live in. It's also because there
are so many interactions in the global socioeconomic-ecological system that
it's not necessarily intuitive and easy to predict what will happen, even
if your eyes are open about environmental risks. And then, why would someone
invest money in solving an environmental problem that isn't costing them
money in the here and now? The impact of production is so often geographically
distant, diffuse, and not immediately obvious - sometimes it takes many
years of science to prove a connection - and by then the original investors
are long gone or pass the buck to someone else, often leaving governments
to regulate and invest in scientific research to fix it.
40 years ago the Limits to Growth study was published, based on a
systems dynamics model of the world's population, economic production, resources
and pollution, and how they would interact. It forecast the sort of trouble
we are now seeing, and its "business-as-usual" scenario predicted system
collapse in the mid-21st Century. Governments and society leaders should
have taken note back then, but they didn't, and their behaviour shows how
poorly "capitalism" does rise to the challenge of global problems - it obfuscates,
it denies, it defers, and it goes on doing its own thing regardless in the
face of all evidence that it is on a path to destruction. Now we are left
with a world that is consuming the equivalent of one and a half planets
a year, and still, many are in denial.
Those of you who have infinite faith in technology and capitalism's ingenuity
to save us don't get it - the scale of the problem is just getting too big,
and the amount of time, effort and resources needed to be thrown at it in
the time needed to prevent runaway climate change and ecosystem collapse
is too short to let entrepreneurial tinkerings meander their way along to
bit by bit solutions.
Cafael Spoonface 19 Jul 2015 07:15
But taking the long view, I think there may be no neo-liberalism or even
free-market capitalism; these are narratives to sweeten the reality of elites
re-establishing dominance after a long period of change and of the physical
expansion of industrialised society - power consolidation, after limits
or barriers to that quasi-colonial expansion is reached, leading to reduced
opportunity and re-emerging aristocracies.
Progress can no longer be seen as inevitable; an active political choice
must be made to establish consistently humane principles. So far, attempts
such as the American Constitution, the unwritten ethos of the post-war settlement
and the E.U. have been successful but gradually undermined, in part because
they were not sufficiently internationalist or understood by the people
in terms of relevance to daily life.
Political participation and broad political education is essential; I
am amazed, for example, that schools don't teach the form and history of
our political system as a foundational aspect of citizenship.
It sounds hopeful that economists are questioning the assumptions
of neoliberalism, but if, as I suggested, the real change is less ideological
and more to do with elites preferring to be elite even if in poorly functioning
economies and dysfunctional societies, these criticisms may be ignored.
Anyway, if we get Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders, perhaps then we'll
see! But it's up to everyone to keep making and refining the arguments,
and to get them across. I think even the most indoctrinated people can change
their views very quickly when they encounter good sense.
Cafael Spoonface 19 Jul 2015 06:46
But what they fail to notice is that neoliberalism is itself an imposed
vision.
Yes, that has always been a difficulty in politics and indeed thought:
those who were born in the sea don't know that there is such a thing as
dry land, or even such as thing as the sea.
They are just as reductionist as communists were in defining humanity,
as you say, 'economic man', and ordering society to fit that definition
rather than allowing that definition to be fluid and continuously empirical,
revising and transcending expectations.
Yes, the slave trade and colonialism in general killed more, and destroyed
entire ethnic groups. Capitalism often boasts that it kills fewer of its
own, for all that is worth.
Spoonface Cafael 19 Jul 2015 06:00
In fact, if we consider the arguments of neoliberal thinkers,
they consistently speak and act against any kind of imposed vision,
partly due to their belief in the nature of the market and partly because
of the violence and upheaval that fabricated and imposed ideologies
have caused
But what they fail to notice is that neoliberalism is itself an imposed
vision. As an economic stance it ultimately rests on neoclassical economic
ideas, and through those a set of philosophical assumptions; and neoliberal
economists, being poor philosophers, are loath to investigate these assumptions.
There is now a growing raft of critique - some actually from pro-market
economists - criticising the assumption of 'economic man' as a being with
perfect information, perfect rationality and perfect freedom. This construct
is the concept of human personhood which underlies neoliberalism. From a
philosophical standpoint it seems bizarre that these assumptions need questioning;
they're so far from the truth it beggars belief that anyone with a functioning
mind would entertain them.
Neoliberals also tend to ignore the violence of capitalism; the slave
trade killed more people than any planned economy.
Althnaharra 19 Jul 2015 02:09
Scrolling through this thread, Steinbeck's quip comes to mind; that "America
is a nation of millionaires who are temporarily down on their luck". This
is why libertarianism has such an appeal to the under fifty crowd and why
so often the commentary surrounding these issues must be glib. It has become
gosch to be concerned about assembly line workers and others who don't or
can't live beyond their means, buying labels they can't afford, throwing
huge wads of cash at repairing their older BMW, or going for the pricey
bike and skis. Social media has accelerated what has become a miasma of
pretense, that reinforces illusions and protects from harsh realities, a
uniquely insular social gathering place, incubated in academia and now expanded
into mega jerk with 401K.
entropy_is_a_hoax 19 Jul 2015 00:26
A point not made is that a lot of the information is worthless or worse.
Exabytes of cat and dog videos. People oblivious to the real world, wandering
around looking at and listening to their iWhatevers, exchanging inconsequential
trivia with their eFriends, with no interest in what is happening to our
society. Unlike the current war on us by the Neo-liberal elite, social media
was not a conspiracy but has arrived at a perfect time for the elite. A
distracted and apathetic population who will do the elite's bidding as long
as they can afford the latest iWhatever and designer clothing. It will be
interesting to see what happens in the Anglophone world when KR Murdoch
dies, his control of information has greatly facilitated the Neo-liberal
elite's ascent.
permaguy alturium 18 Jul 2015 23:03
Dissipative systems are also far from equilibrium. Neo-classical economics
was theorized that the economy was in equilibrium, whereby the system would
lead eventually to equality. Of course, exactly the opposite has happened;
the system has lead to inequality, because the economy isn't based on physics,
it's based on a story we've been telling ourselves, Alan Greenspan's post-bailout
testimony to the U.S. Congress is telling. Humans are also not so rational,
we think in metaphors and frames all the time. By seeing everything through
a machine metaphor, we have created a machine over nature, which is not
sustainable.
lturium NadNavillus 18 Jul 2015 22:58
Lol, sorry for sounding so "doomish" :-)
Your right about leaving out climate change (or AGW), I subscribe to
the view that most of the reminder of the fossil fuels will remain in the
ground as un-economical to retrieve...post collapse.
Our response to climate change is pretty frightening. Gail Tverberg just
had an excellent article showing the vast increase in coal by China after
the Kyoto Protocol 1997 (and inclusion to WTO in 2001). 70% of China's energy
comes from coal. Isn't that ironic that a treaty to reduce CO2 actually
increased it? We have effectively offloaded pollution for producing our
iPhones and Solar PVs to China...
Okay, now is a good time for a Matrix quote:
The Architect: You are here because Zion is about to be destroyed. Its
every living inhabitant terminated, its entire existence eradicated.
Neo: Bullshit.
[the monitors respond the same]
The Architect: Denial is the most predictable of all human responses.
But, rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have destroyed it, and
we have become exceedingly efficient at it.
No, government did not "get in the way". Rather the opposite, it got
OUT of the way and let wealth became the dominant power. Then wealth self-regulated
by buying our politics and politicians and rigged the game for the elite.
Neo-Liberalism and Libertarian thinking took control of the US and then
invaded Britain and the EU. Even Finland is starting to sound like US Republicans.
Tornike ID7751075 18 Jul 2015 21:19
On the contrary, my points are what the Left are learning today and what
is a working alternative (see Mondragon for instance) unlike playing political
games with the neoliberals with horrible results we see year after year,
the most recent just concluding a week ago in Europe.
alturium 18 Jul 2015 20:24
Ironically, your ideas presented here are dangerous to our future, even
if your intent is sincere.
Instead of creating a new human society of work, leisure, and wealth,
you are laying down the intellectual foundations for neo-feudalism. I can
imagine the future and the difficult transformation ahead for all peoples,
but I would like to avoid a return to the feudalistic or slave-based societies
of the past.
Those repressive societies existed because of the lack of cheap energy.
Athens may be the birthplace of democracy, but 90% of its peoples were slaves.
On the contrary, it is the largesse of cheap fossil energy that has enabled
our modern society with all of its external frailties. Add on exponential
cheap debt (money/energy from the future), exponential population growth,
diminishing returns, pollution, etc. and we have quite the cocktail for
tomorrow's total and final global collapse.
Your article is a carefully crafted statement of more control by the
government by establishing a religion of ideas, very similar to the communism.
Communism subsisted on convincing the people of high order ideals that were
carefully cultivated by elite. By controlling the perception of morality,
they were able to take advantage of people's natural herding instincts.
All human societies are based on a social hierarchical system.
We must, instead, come to understand why we are violent and why we form
societies that exploit and why we subjugate the weak. To understand those
answers will require a deep introspective examination of our genetic and
biological foundations. Such an examination is not possible today, not in
a life where each of us is supported by 100 to 300 energy slaves. It would
be like a Roman Caesar sitting down to contemplate the life of a plebeian.
In grand irony, the traits that make societies successful are the same ones
that bring about final and total collapse.
It will be the task of future generations to ponder such deep questions
amid the ruins of a post-industrial society. Most likely, there will not
be another grand and complex industrial society because we will have exhausted
the most wonderful energy source, fossil fuels, within a short time period.
That is, in the timespan of approximately 300 years we have economically
exhausted what took 300 million years of sunshine to create.
Tornike 18 Jul 2015 15:35
If I am right, the logical focus for supporters of postcapitalism is
to build alternatives within the system
Exactly the point I was making in conversation with two of my friends
last night during a techno event in a club (yes, I know). The new Left idea
needs to involve beginning with creating alternatives (worker owned co-ops,
etc) that will inspire people to continue the chain of the transformation
in their workplaces, families, etc. Political campaigning and competition
in a system that is built for and benefits conservative/neoliberal structure
of discussion, media and lawmaking is just not fit for the purpose.
Iwasjustgoingtosay 18 Jul 2015 15:19
Capitalism as we've known it is surely going down the pan. That's not
news. But what will replace it? It seems like we're already entering what
will turn out to be a rather long, painful period of something akin to neofeudalism.
It's gonna be a long way down before capitalism finally hits the skids,
and the oligarchs aren't going to throw in the towel just like that. And
once we get there, it's going to look more like 'Riddley Walker' than Bartering
Bliss.
Kyllein MacKellerann 18 Jul 2015 13:45
Where Post Capitalism seems to consider that we are entering a Utopian
age, the sad fact is that NO Utopian system has ever worked without systematic
oppression. Communism is an example most people are familiar with: yes,
it works provided that a secret police is available to deal with those who
won't play the game.
What we have here is an Economic system that, like Communism, is trying
to be either a Social system or a Political system. Never mind that there
has never been a successful conversion of any Economic Systems into Political
Systems, not one.
Socialism is at heart a Political system, hence it works to a degree,
but only to a degree. For that matter, Capitalism only works to a degree
(actually about as well as Socialism).
One of the prices of political freedom is inequality, you can't get away
from it. Some people will by chance or by nature do better than others.
We see this in the wildings, animals who are generally indifferent to political
systems: some do better than others. Enforced equality necessitates the
demise of freedom, since freedom will engender inequality. Reference to
North Korea: a state with enforced equality (that fails miserably).
Politics is an outgrowth of human nature. Understand this (and the author
plainly doesn't), and you have a chance of developing a political system
that will work for a while. Ignore the fact it looks a very great deal like
Capitalism, please.
Michael Katsak -> MarsPLuto23 18 Jul 2015 11:19
While it might be true that people rarely ever give up power, you should
consider that people very frequently LOSE it. The article mentions that
the only model we have for transitioning between world systems is the death
of the Feudal system. Absolute monarchs, religious oligarchs, and merchant
guilds all LOST power every bit as real and substantial as the ruling class
of neoliberal capitalism. Whatever future we are able to realize, make no
mistake that we ARE in the midst of a profound change.
The goals of India,china,russia or other Asian countries is motivated
by Nationalistic agenda,with rapid deglobalization & self reliance.
They consider Brain drain as evil....as the productive populace which
they lost should have paid taxes in their home country & built their capability
& contributed to more social cohesion.So if you read a little bit of History
you know they discouraged intercourse with others.
All those communism,capitalism,socialism,leftism,rightism are not things
which they understand .They understand only one thing what is right for
my Nation & my Nation's friend that alone should guide our intercourse in
our dealings. Overtime they know their Nations are 6000 years old & their
greatness was only briefly interrupted by circumstances. Self sacrifice
is the most important quality they demand from their citizens & not economic
glory but glory of their Nation.
RobertLlDavies snootyelites 18 Jul 2015 11:02
So the selfless efforts of millions of communists around the world in
defence of workers, women, students, national liberation, democratic rights
- from Iraq, Iran, Chile and South Africa to France, Swaziland, Egypt and
India - is "mass murder"? There has been much more to the communist movement
across the world than the the major crimes of the Stalin period in the Soviet
Union. According to this childish level of argument, I could argue that
the goal of capitalism is slavery and the slave trade, colonialism, fascism
and death squads. Grow up if you want to take part in adult discussion and
debate.
demandflow MarsPLuto23 18 Jul 2015 10:48
MarsPluto23, what happened to that great British concept "the presumption
of innocence?" This Golden Thread of Jurisprudence was carried across the
Pond to America. I learned this phrase from the television series "Rumpole
of the Bailey".
A "despicable way of life" is an interesting phrase. Who decides what
is despicable and how or if it should be punished. Will the term change
with the weather?
As far as the bankers and leaders are concerned, it is OUR fault that they
are able to do what they do. What politicians and bankers do you prefer?
ramous ID5955768 18 Jul 2015 10:04
The point I have been making is that religious fundamentalists like neo-liberals
can't see anything but their own dogma. You are an being an example that
dogma.
Vijay Raghavan 18 Jul 2015 10:03
It means driving the wages, social wages and living standards in the
west down for decades until they meet those of the middle class in China
and India on the way up.
To answer question of wages what caused western wages to grow up more
than China/India.When did the western wages go up & what caused that rise
in their wages.This also has to be answered when the Ambassador of west
went first to India in 16th century he was dismissed saying you come from
a small pond what are you going to offer to my kingdom those words of Jahangir
was repeated even by the chinese emeperor to them in 17th century.
The rise of wages in a economy is dependent on Gross value ADD in manufacturing.At
the moment east asian economies have 32%,India 17%,West,Japan between 12%-22%.In
18th to middle of 19th century the gross value ADD of western economy was
about 40%++.
What drives gross value ADD is Process industries,technology,brand,scale
of market,etc etc.Process industries which makes up 40% capacity like steel,aluminium,coal,mining,petro,refining,fertilizer
they all need capital,operational efficiency which east Asia built it up,India
also is building it slowly.That is where european edge went off in Manufacturing.They
have to rely on exceptional technology,design,brand,perception to lever
up their Nation to get share.The european cos play there is getting shrunk
since US,Japan,Korea,China have all ramped up.
One nation can't drive down the wages of another Nation,only when you
lever up ability of a Nation to give a product to entire world will the
wages of Nation goes up.Like UK has banking industry since the entire world
wants to route their banking transaction,commodity buying,investments etc
etc through that route.So the wages in Banking will be 5x than India/China.If
china builds scale in Banking the world routes their trade in Hongkong,Singapore,Beijing
there will drop in volumes in London with corresponding wages loss.So overtime
china will acquire the capability in product,brand,reputation,legal,all
other skills.
The west if it wants to drive up its wages it has to model a perfect
mathamatics of determining what is %age of population to be deployed for
each of the industries in Manufacturing,Services,Agriculture to get the
right equation of wage growth & living standards.
If they go to do that ....their experience has been bad of being in dark
ages of 1000 years or like how Jahangir/chinese emperor treated them you
are not important for me.
European wages will hinge upon how much market access both china/India/Asean/US/Russia
or other nations keep giving to them.But the accusation of wage depression
because of them will lead to more trade problems for west.
If the political/media equation of west with those countries improve
they will rather than depressing your wages will keep levering more wages
for west.
Francisco Güemes 18 Jul 2015 09:07
Wow what a piece of Marxist, collectivist, new age/New World Order piece
of article!! Bravoooooo!!! As the marxists failed with their Russian experiment
in the XX century, now they want to bring us their "post-capitalist" concept
based on what is going to happen after neoliberalism (which is as collectivist
as marxism-lenninism) fail. Well there are going to be many of us..ready
to fight the new world order!
Kuttappan Vijayachandran 18 Jul 2015 08:59
The article and the ongoing discussion reminds of the great Soviet poet
Mayakovsky, and his classic play, The Bedbug, written for the first anniversary
the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, described as landmark in the history of
Soviet theater, and staged numerous times within and outside of USSR, during
the Stalin era. Mayokovsky created in this play, a prototype of what is
known, today, as social media network, in order to debate and condemn the
Bedbug and the exploitative character of the species. nullhttp://www.wordpress.kvijaya40/
dutchview Fabio Venuti 18 Jul 2015 08:54
But current Capitalism is really about creating artificial scarcity so
that you can then push the price up and rip off the "customer".
The article is interesting, in the early 1980's I was one of the first
in my international company with a PC on my desk, it had 128kbt total memory
and was rubbish and a total waste of time. But today in the western world
workplace we are surrounded by all manner of clever integrated devices with
multi Gbt of memory, plus oodles of extra Tbt up in the cloud. Has my life
got easier? Have I got more free time? Have we made progress? Well the answers
are No, No and not much, or may be we have actually gone backwards.
In the last 30+ years mankind has totally wasted the benefits of the
"digital revolution" and done untold damage to the planet to boot. It is
certainly time to change to a new chapter in the book and more of the same
is not the answer. The 1% can not continue to get richer.
Eric Grey 18 Jul 2015 08:46
Did Ted Kyzinski write this from prison? Did anyone else read this entire
exercise in circular reasoning? Invent a term, "post capitalism," label
some current phenomena as post capitalist and therefore not capitalist (by
definition of course), and then use it as evidence that capitalism is on
the fall.
Information can become as abundant as ever, but resources will be as
scarce as we overuse them. Markets are going to mediate the exchange, whether
that's with money or utility (volunteering is not decidedly anti-capitalist).
Greece's coops and informal market systems prove capitalism exists even
in toxic government environments that choke traditional business off. If
you make it impossible for anyone to keep a market open because they can't
get capital, they're going to create coops. That's proof of capitalism,
not evidence against it.
When people write stuff like this article, they demonstrate they have
next to no idea how ridiculously complicated and heavily invested our modern
economy is. You're not going to get a $14b oil refinery or nuclear plant
or drug manufactory from a coop or peer to peer relationships, and governments
regularly demonstrate they are terrible at this stuff.
And monopolies don't get formed "as a defense mechanism for capitalism".
Capitalism isn't a person. What utter garbage. People form monopolies out
of profit motive, not to defend a system. If anything, capitalism destroys
monopolies because higher prices from them form competition and substitutes.
Locus 18 Jul 2015 08:41
Somewhat disappointed in this analysis, Paul. After the demolition of
organised labour and, currently, the co-opting of most media, the state
is the last bastion of collective bargaining power and regulation that the
non-elite can utilise. The "sharing economy" still consists of fringe activities
built on the foundation of standard economic processes.
As for automation, in my own direct experience this merely means that what
5 people did, one person has to do for the same wage. The hope it has brought
has consistently resulted in any benefit being sucked upwards and safely
tucked away in bank vaults with the vast majority of those with "freed-up"
time and more to offer but not slotted in to corporate structures, being
despised or existing precariously.
Michael Q -> britishinjustice 18 Jul 2015 08:08
As Bevan once said about the NHS, that it will go on as long as there
is someone who cares enough to save it, the same applies to capitalism.
I really can't see all the political powers that support it giving up
just yet, in fact if capitalism is ever killed off, it will not be because
those who support it gave up or surrendered. The other factor in my
conclusion is that there is not yet enough of a revolt against capitalism
from the people.
Some good points made. For a real change to happen it is true it needs
to come from the masses, and there needs to be a desire and hunger for change.
Once this happens it will be reflected in the rise of left-wing and revolutionary
governments to enact changes to legislation / referenda on constitutional
reform / redistribution of wealth etc.
The good news there is massive change currently going on in Latin America,
with the construction of socialism and a post-capitalist society now under
way in Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina and Cuba just to name a few
(although Cuba is at a different stage than the others, due to the economic
embargo against it from the US). Whilst those countries (and many others)
are unique, with different situations and resources, they are united in
the common goal against neoliberalism and capitalism. This is reflected
in new institutions that have been developed including ALBA, CELAC, Petrocaribe,
Unasur and Mercosur.
Best of luck with your new group - and it may help by linking up with
the left wing groups in Greece, Spain, Ireland and in the Latin American
countries I mentioned.
Cheers.
richardmuu 18 Jul 2015 08:00
Motivated by disgust, I studied U.S. mass media for decades so I appreciate
the Utopian motivation that drives writing and talk of free information,
the digital commons and the internet of things. Offered the chance to think
about a better future vs. a dismal present, who of right mind would choose
the latter?
Yet there is more to consider in the present than has been grasped by
the new Utopians. I offer that not as a criticism because I still believe
in the wisdom of the Book of Genesis--we must struggle to know, and whatever
we know will be flawed because we are not gods. There is a flaw in the thinking
of the Utopians but it did not begin with them. It began instead during
industrial capitalism and, so far, continues to operate: Information is
nothing if no one notices it, pays attention to it. When I read this essay
and considered commenting on it, I noticed that it had already accumulated
2456 comments. I likely will not read more than a dozen or so, and it's
likely that many other who read this article will behave in the same way.
Yes, the production of information is evolving in the direction of zero
marginal cost, but human attention is not. We have to take care of the limited
amount of attention we have each day, and even with the best of care we
still need to go to bed each night and fall into a deep enough sleep to
become unconscious. That sleep replenishes the body but it mostly replenishes
our capacity to pay attention to our world the next day.
What's the big deal here? Only that industrial capitalism commodified
attention and during this period of the emerging digital commons, the practice
grows. The gathering and sale of attention drove the culture industry and
has supported not a little of the innovative work we now see by free-floating
professionals in the digital commons. Many of the technologies of information
distribution and storage would not have happened if great wealth was not
promised to the innovators who would find new ways to capture and sell even
more human attention. Today, the internet is dominated by Google, Facebook
and YouTube, platforms that focus the attention of millions on increasingly
common contents.
What this means is Utopia for some and continued dystopia for the rest,
with capital in a position to wait before it acts next, taking comfort in
its ability to mobilized enough of the rest to keep the Utopians boxed into
their intellectual ghettos, there to innovate in ways that will help capitalists
reduce their marginal costs. Should the Utopians threaten to break out,
to realize amplify the commons in ways that threaten capital accumulation,
then other industrial capital cultural forms, particularly fascism, are
still available as tools of social control.
"Millions of people are beginning to realise they have been sold a dream
at odds with what reality can deliver. Their response is anger – and retreat
towards national forms of capitalism that can only tear the world apart."
There is a lot of anger outside the intellectual ghettos. Who will direct
that anger, and what will its target be?
s1syphus 18 Jul 2015 07:46
This is simply a repacking of the "cognitive capitalism" thesis from
Hardt and Negri's Empire, Multitude, and Commonwealth. It is worth noting
that a number of people, including Silvia Federici, George Caffentzis, Alberto
Toscano, and David Camfield (the list goes on) have demonstrated why this
is wrong in various ways.
I read a comment below on how Mason is acting like any entrepreneur in
a capitalist society: building his brand, producing commodities that satisfy
needs, etc. Given my own view that myths like these do play a useful role
in the production of forms of anti-hegemonic resistance, but also that the
quality of these particular tropes - essentially that the end of capitalism
is on its way, all we have to do is wait for it - is incredibly damaging
to the movements that Mason purports to support, because it encourages people
to do restrict their activities to the periphery of the struggle. Read a
few books, click a few links, but still go to work every day, revel in the
communicative possibilities that your job offers you but give no thought
as to how the character of your exploitation actually makes capital more
enduring, albeit less stable.
ramous -> Andrew Howard 18 Jul 2015 07:05
Neoliberal fundamentalism its called, it's a perversion of liberalism
as is ISIL is to Islam. They have been waging financial war across the world
on countries that do not adopt there fundamentalist view. Greece just ran
into the pointy end of that stick they have been beating everyone with.
ramous ID5955768 18 Jul 2015 06:50
You mean communism not socialism. Socialist countries like the northern
European model were doing very well until the neo-liberals started finacial
wars and targeted any country that didn't abide there new fundamentalist
crusade of wage and worker oppression. Most of the gains that have been
attributed to so call capitalism was in the middle of last century. I think
there are plenty of graphs to show once the thatcherite neo-liberal fundamentalists
took over we have been push into more and more debt and wages have been
decimated.
barrybethel 18 Jul 2015 06:21
Nicolas Nassim Taleb in his last book, Antifragile, talks of neomania
- the fetishising of the new - and offers by counterpoint the rule-of-thumb
that that which is not living is likely to persist for at least as long
as it has already been around - the game of chess, for example.
Add capitalism to that, which even a quick glance at Wikipedia reveals
has been around for some centuries. So is this the end of capitalism? Unlikely,
on that basis.
RoscoBoyle 18 Jul 2015 05:32
Somewhere in my reading, back in the day, I dimly recall the word 'intelligentsia'.
Dim as the recollection is I think the intelligentsia constituted a class.
Jumping forward to this excerpt from Mr Mason's book I wonder why I am reminded
of the word 'intelligentsia'?
Could it be that only those persons who can discount the cost of access
to information consider that information is 'free', or becoming free? When
I read that Mr Mason's paradigm/book is being published by Allen Lane on
July 30 should I presume that I can wander into any bookshop and walk out
without paying for it? And that only because I put fuel in a vehicle I have
bought, taxed and insured to get me to the bookshop - the equivalent of
buying the equipment and paying my ISP in order to purchase the 'book' dematerialised
into data that my pc/tablet/e-reader/mobile phone can reconstitute.
Mr Mason's error, it seems to me, is to confuse the proliferation and
ubiquity of vectors for information with freedom of access to that information.
His historical analysis of capitalism presumes a progress beyond neoliberalism.
What we are living through is, rather, a regression to neofeudalism with
the state regulating and enforcing citizens' obligations to the seigneurial
class.
It has ended. And just a few are noticing it and doing what is needed
to deal with the aftermath of the mess created by the neo-liberal thinking...You
will remember the writer and his prediction. One example of this was when
the USSR stopped giving support to Cuba, which was under incredible economic
stress after the fall of the USSR.
I followed the process and I can tell you it survived. Greece will survive
too and so will all of us once we learn that sharing, cooperation and being
part of the community by contributing to it in a positive manner, is all
what it takes to make the community better.
This is what John F. Nash proved. They talk about game theory lol...it is
cooperation theory. He debunked capitalism individualism big time.
naurdiagreader 18 Jul 2015 03:54
It's true that the information-based system is starting to make money irrelevant
and therefore redundant. It still has a long way to go however and those
of us who don't have much money are acutely aware of the need for it to
buy the essentials of life.
We have seen a huge fightback since 2008 in particular from the wealthy
elite to claw back wealth from those at the bottom in particular, and austerity
has been a tool to do just that. Some countries such as the USA have had
Keynesian injections of investment to counter the downswing but on the other
hand we have had catastrophic failure in the financial system at the same
time. The motivation behind the bailout is clear, but that of the Lehmans
failure is less so. Lehmans was a choice, let us remember, it failed because
of a decision not because of some force of nature. A 'cui bono' exercise
on that decision indicates that the losers in macro economic terms from
that bank folding would be the general public of America and beyond as the
economy faltered, but also that the winners could be corporations benefitting
from the low wages generated by the crash as workers became more desperate
for work in a depressed economy. So why should the financial elite have
paid out their good money on a failed bank when it presented them with a
nice opportunity to reap more on their investments elsewhere?
Hopefully we are now far away from feudalism, but the oppressive economics
of Neo-Liberalism which oddly politicians of all mainstream parties now
seem fixated on (why is that, by the way?) is having a darned good try at
pulling us back to that position which is far from optimal either in wealth
creation or wealth distribution. My hope is that this struggle will ultimately
prove illusory for those wishing to hoard wealth, although there will probably
always be a rich elite even in the most equal of circumstances. Meanwhile,
we have pointless austerity in the UK, and outright oppression very sadly
in Greece. Concentration of money in one place will make trade fail. This
was recognised after WW2, and was a major driver of establishing the IMF
to counter the fact that no-one other than the USA had any money. We obviously
aren't at that pass, global trade isn't dependent on just one country, but
it is being generally suppressed by the economics which tends to suppress
both wages and economic activity. If the people who decided on Lehmans are
still in charge, I don't see a change of heart coming any time soon to revive
the global economy. Life is indeed better with information technology, but
many are still feeling the need of scarce money for everyday living.
PhilPharLap pogomutt 18 Jul 2015 03:24
I think you need to see how the present spoilt privileged group have
been dealing with the problem
They have used the methods of the slave era - accommodation has become
increasingly unavailable everywhere and the demands of a landlord class
have ensured that so much of a man's wage is taken up merely providing housing
and food there is little left to realise his potential as a human being
- That is why so many clubs and restaurants are empty. People cannot even
afford moderate leisure - they are slaves of a low paid work ethic
People are saddled with debt - one sees in Greece a whole nation raped
through the use of loans, which are stolen by the rich and left to ordinary
people to repay.
During Feudal Times many were idle because the Lords simply did not care
if they worked or not - lived or starved to death. Just so long as they
were hung or decapitated if they rebelled or even protested
Most work is totally pointless and is there to keep people off the streets.
Sure there is big problems coming but war and genocide will fix it. It starts
with neo Fascism
And it has started already
davebut 18 Jul 2015 03:13
For over 40 years there has been a gradual transition from the dominant
neo-liberal economic paradigm where economics is king and the environment
is managed for the benefit of today's humans to a more holistic sustainable
development paradigm in which humans are part of a complex interdependent
Earth system.
Annette Schneider 18 Jul 2015 03:01
Project Zero is definitely more plausible than the continuation of capitalism
and perhaps it wil emerge from the shock which is coming to us all, but
I fear that if it emerges it will only be from the ruins of a post-capitalist
neo-feudalism. Like renewable technology and climate change mitigation,
it really should be here already. There are too many of us and we have done
such great damage to the biosphere that we will be hard pressed to even
survive.
"on the ground in places such as Greece, resistance to austerity and
the creation of "networks you can't default on" – as one activist put it
to me – go hand in hand. Above all, postcapitalism as a concept is about
new forms of human behaviour that conventional economics would hardly recognise
as relevant."
I have seen a taste of our possible future at Camp Wando, ( http://frontlineaction.org/
) with the disparate groups involved in the Leard Alliance. I agree with
Paul Mason that,
"It is the elites – cut off in their dark-limo world – whose project
looks as forlorn as that of the millennial sects of the 19th century. The
democracy of riot squads, corrupt politicians, magnate-controlled newspapers
and the surveillance state looks as phoney and fragile as East Germany did
30 years ago."
but still I despair of such Mason's rosy prediction given what I can
see is the utter resistance to reason and the lack of effort required for
change.
I fear that the words of Alice Friedeman, 2006 http://energyskeptic.com/preservation-of-knowledge/
are a truer guide to the future,
"Preservation of knowledge needs to start immediately, while nations
are still stable and wealthy. Now is the time to consider how to preserve
knowledge with a material that won't decay, rust, mold, or shatter easily.
We should leave our descendents knowledge they can use and be amazed by,
information to fuel the next Renaissance."
I believe that the next Renaissance will only be after a period of time
to rival the dark ages rather than through the smooth transition envisaged
by Mason. The quicker we can give up fossil fuel, particularly coal, tar
sands and fracking the less time it will take for peace and stability to
emerge, because despite our wonderful technology, there are no shortcuts
in dealing with climate catastrophe and we are in for a very rough ride.
bemusedbyitall Sammykins 18 Jul 2015 02:57
By the Australian Liberals I take it you mean the ALP and the Liberals
- after all they are all devout neo-liberal fantasists
AtraHasis Dani123 18 Jul 2015 00:45
Who is this 'nutty left', and why do you think they 'dream of economical
(sic) collapse'?
Are you getting your information from wot some bloke in der pub finks?
As for 'success', ever notice that continual bailout of large corporate
entities leads to inevitable recession and depression? And that the military-industrial
complex requires tension and war to keep it relevant? And that R&D, financed
by the public, but profit being retained in a corporate sense somehow creates
permanent and rising deficit?
Sorry to burst your neoliberal feudalistic little bubble there, but some
of us are thinking beyond slogans like 'dose lefteez iz stoopid'.
"Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren on Thursday requested a formal
investigation into why the Obama administration did not bring criminal
charges individuals and corporation involved in the 2007-2008 financial
crisis" [International Business Times]. Why now? Liz edging her hat
toward the ring if Clinton comes up lame?
I can see two possible interpretations for this.
First, as much as I hate to draw the analogy, she could be positioning
herself to take the reigns after a loss in the way that Richard Nixon, Paul
Ryan, and later Bill Clinton did. Richard Nixon sat back and concentrated
on building up credibility as Barry Goldwater melted down and then quietly
stepped in to take over the party after the loss to set up his eventual
run. Paul Ryan quietly permitted or perhaps aided the coup against Boehner.
And Bill Clinton, through the DLC teed up his control of the party after
Dukakis lost.
Second, with Wells-Fargo and bank fraud once again in the news she could
be working to keep prior decisions current both to force better action this
time or to nudge the Clinton and Trump into making promises of stronger
action in the future.
It seems to me that both those objectives would be served by continuing
to hammer on Wells Fargo, so the question "Why now?" isn't really answered
in your comment.
But if you wanted to take out an option on running a full-throated populist
campaign - and throwing bankers in jail would be wildly popular across the
entire political spectrum (except Clinton's 10%-ers on up) - in the unhappy
event that the party's candidate came up lame, then calling for an account
of regulatory decision making in 2009 would be one way to signal that. Note
also that would call Obama's "legacy" into question, too; the whole "stand
between you and the pitchforks" thing. This is a big deal.
Commissioner Ohlhausen had some pretty strong words. ... Specifically, she implies a very strong
presumption against public interference in private markets, as indicated by her argument that
there is not yet sufficient evidence that we have a monopoly problem. The argument seems to be
that we must wait until we are very, very sure, beyond any reasonable econometric doubt, apparently,
that there's something wrong before we step in. ...
She is mistaken, and she ignores roughly a library-full of well-known..., sophisticated empirical
work. ...
In the end, the irony of these remarks is captured in this point: Commissioner Ohlhausen is
pretty witheringly dismissive of a certain kind of evidence of market power, and implies that
it would not support increased enforcement unless it can overcome a high methodological bar. But
for her own countervailing evidence that in fact American markets are "fierce[ly] competiti[ve],"
she says this: "Consider the new economy, which is a hotbed of technological innovation. That
environment does not strike me as one lacking competition."
In other words, the presumption against antitrust is so strong that evidence of harm must meet
the most exacting standards of social science. To prove that markets are in fact competitive,
however, needs nothing more than seat-of-the-pants anecdotes. Again, I mean no disrespect, and
I think we have an honest difference of opinion. But this stance is not social science, and it
is not good, empirically founded public policy. It is just ideology. ...
It's definitely true that the agencies have brought a bunch of challenges to a bunch of nasty
mergers, and perhaps total enforcement numbers have gone up a bit. But that is because we are
in the midst of a merger wave in which parties have been proposing breathtakingly massive, overwhelmingly
consolidating horizontal deals. While there is a track record to be proud of in the administration's
enforcement, especially, as the commissioner observes, in the Commission's campaign against hospital
mergers, reverse-payment deals, SEP problems, and patent trolls, and who knows how many other
matters, the fact remains that by and large the administration has mostly not taken action that
any administration would not have taken, including the Reagan and both Bush administrations. ...
If we were actually serious about antitrust, which we very much should be, we would not only block
most of these mergers, but break up many of existing behemoths (like the big banks, the media
giants, Comcast, and many others).
I'm all for breaking up the behemoths when they are indeed stifling competition. The Reagan Revolution
to anti-trust was based on a contention that some mergers were about efficiency effects. I think
this argument is sometimes overblown but it is not per se false. I do object (see below) to the
weak evidence that goes like this. Collective shareholder value rose so ergo the merger is about
efficiency effects. Anyone who argues that (see Don Luskin and the premium ice cream proposed
merger) is not very bright.
Exactly. Corporations being able to suck more profit out of the costumers (and as a result share
prices rising) is the proof that anti-trust has failed. In a fully functional competitive market
companies do not make much profit.
Accounting profits? Maybe you should read that paper by the commissioner as she makes a very clear
statement about what accounting profit would look like in a competitive market. And it is not
zero. Return to capital? Hello?
No if it was zero the whole thing breaks down. However, a small return on capital is an indication
that companies are forced to cut prices because of competition- and that is a healthy market.
So yes there is (some but) not much profit in a fully functional competitive market.
Let's define "small return". Standard financial economics puts this at the risk-free rate plus
a premium for bearing systematic risk. OK - the risk-free return now is quite small. Say 2%. But
if the risk premium is say 4%, then we are talking about a 6% expected return to assets. If that
is what you mean by small - cool.
Of course I have seen a lot of "professionals" argue for much higher returns. Of course these
professionals would flunk a Finance 101 class.
I don't think the risk premium needs to be more than about 2% unless/until the economy enter a
phase where demand outstrips supply (and more investment money needs to be attracted). If there
is a glut of investment money then the price of it (=risk free returns) should go down.
This is the kind of thinking that got Hassett and Glassman to tell us about DOW 36000. Some people
overestimate the risk premium but 2% is what a regulated utility or a leasing company gets. And
neither bears commercial risk. Dude - you can make up whatever number your heart desires but there
is market evidence on these things.
Ability to better suck profit out of a captive base of customers is an efficiency of a sort. Instead
of investing in risky new business processes or technologies one merely has to buy out your competitors.
This is practically risk free.
"Though she says that "[e]fficiencies are real"-citing no evidence for it in a speech critical
of everyone else for failure to supply evidence-there is in fact no meaningful proof that consolidation
generates social benefits. Especially in the case of mergers, a large and sophisticated empirical
literature has been hunting for decades for evidence that mergers produce "efficiencies" or other
benefits. The evidence has not been found. At least with respect to deals among publicly traded
firms, the evidence tends to suggest that mergers do no good on average for shareholders of either
acquiring or target firms, and if there were some efficiencies or larger social benefits, they
should be measurable as benefits to shareholders. The empirical evidence has therefore confirmed
the popular wisdom shared on Wall Street for years-that all this activity is not serving any good
social purpose, though it might be helping executives and their bankers quite a lot."
The conservative (Reagan) approach to anti-trust did indeed ask DOJ and FTC to consider whether
the merger was about beneficial efficiency effects v. anti-competitive effects. But let's suppose
two firms merged and their collective value did rise benefiting shareholders. That does not prove
the efficiency effects dominate. No – mergers that lead to less competition will often raise shareholder
value even if there are no efficiency effects. Those mergers should be disallowed.
Proof of Monopoly Power - Verizon and ATT's pricing and apparent lack of any interest in maintaining
or even knowing where their physical plant is installed. Also - see directTV's recent price increases.
American markets are "fierce[ly] competiti[ve]," she says this: "Consider the new economy, which
is a hotbed of technological innovation. That environment does not strike me as one lacking competition."
In other words, the presumption against antitrust is so strong
"
You are assumed properly competing until proved monopoly-based. The burden of proof is on the
victims. Tell me something!
Does the government always appear as crystal clear as the mirror of Alice? When we look at
local, county, state, and federal rulers, do we always see ourselves? Our own bias? Our own agenda?
The government apes its voters.
Do you see how today's polity is begging for less competition? Less free trade from our trading
partners? Do you see how we want to make a monopoly out of America? Build a fence around it so
that nobody is allowed to buy anything from anyone other than our monopoly?
" We have identified the enemy, ourselves. " ~~Pogo~
Yes you need at least a dozen independent businesses delivering the same (substitutable) products
to ensure that there is indeed a competitive market that will not be gamed against the consumers.
This is not just needed to ensure that consumers will be offered a fair price, but also to ensure
that companies will be forced to continue to innovate and offer better and better products. The
oversight of mergers has been a scandal and needs to be tightened by new laws. Obviously we have
to make the "dozen rule" a law rather than just common sense guidance.
The dozen rule? Where did that come from? Depends on the market but I would hope we have more
than 12 suppliers of beer. BTW - it would be nice to have 12 health insurance companies but we
could break up this oligopoly with such one more - the government aka the public option.
Yes some products can benefit from more variation, but at least with 12 suppliers you would not
have anybody able to corner the market. The dozen rule is mine, that is how I get my eggs. If
Ohlhausen can just make it up - so can I.
The FTC has ignored a many major health care mergers but has gone litigation guns a blazin' into
small mergers in such less-than-major metro centers as Moscow Idaho and Toledo Ohio.
The sad fact is that the right-wing Law and Economics scholars have literally been trained to
believe that the only correct null hypothesis is "free markets are good". When the null is not
rejected with a 95% confidence interval, they actually think they've won the argument, while you're
sitting there scratching your head saying, but when the null hypothesis is "free markets are bad",
we can't reject that either. I've never seen logic get much traction with this crowd, because
they are literally willing to tell you that economics demonstrates that "free markets are good",
so that's the correct null.
It's very sad, but also very common when talking to lawyers. In fact, I often wonder whether
the right-wing didn't create the "Law and Economics" movement in order to slow the exposure of
the legal profession to the actual tools of modern economic analysis.
It would be a start if we would simply stop seeing hostile takeovers as something positive (you
know ex-ante efficiency improvements) and start seeing them for the interference in natural selection
that they actually are (no 40-40 foresight exists).
"... Despite the neoliberal obsession with wage suppression, history suggests that such a policy is self-destructive. Periods of high wages are associated with rapid technological change. ..."
"... On the ideological front, the South adopted a shallow, but rigid libertarian perspective which resembled modern neoliberalism. Samuel Johnson may have been the first person to see through the hypocrisy of the hollowness of southern libertarianism. ..."
"... the famous Powell Memo helped to spark a well-financed movement of well-finance right-wing political activism which morphed into right-wing political extremism both in economics and politics. ..."
"... In short, neoliberalism was surging ahead and the economy of high wages was now beyond the pale. These new conditions gave new force to the southern "yelps of liberty." The social safety net was taken down and reconstructed as the flag of neoliberalism. The one difference between the rhetoric of the slaveholders and that of the modern neoliberals was that entrepreneurial superiority replaced racial superiority as their battle cry. ..."
Despite the neoliberal obsession with wage suppression, history suggests
that such a policy is self-destructive. Periods of high wages are associated
with rapid technological change.
... ... ...
On the ideological front, the South adopted a shallow, but rigid libertarian
perspective which resembled modern neoliberalism. Samuel Johnson may have been
the first person to see through the hypocrisy of the hollowness of southern
libertarianism. Responding to the colonists' complaint that taxation by
the British was a form of tyranny, Samuel Johnson published his 1775 tract,
"Taxation No Tyranny: An answer to the Resolutions and Address of the American
Congress," asking the obvious question, "how is it that we hear the loudest
yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?" In The Works of Samuel Johnson,
LL. D.: Political Tracts. Political Essays. Miscellaneous Essays (London: J.
Buckland, 1787): pp. 60-146, p. 142.
... ... ...
By the late 19th century, David A Wells, an industrial technician who later
became the chief economic expert in the federal government, by virtue of his
position of overseeing federal taxes. After a trip to Europe, Wells reconsidered
his strong support for protectionism. Rather than comparing the dynamism of
the northern states with the technological backward of their southern counterparts,
he was responding to the fear that American industry could not compete with
the cheap "pauper" labor of Europe. Instead, he insisted that the United States
had little to fear from, the competition from cheap labor, because the relatively
high cost of American labor would ensure rapid technological change, which,
indeed, was more rapid in the United States than anywhere else in the world,
with the possible exception of Germany. Both countries were about to rapidly
surpass England's industrial prowess.
The now-forgotten Wells was so highly regarded that the prize for the best
economics dissertation at Harvard is still known as the David A Wells prize.
His efforts gave rise to a very powerful idea in economic theory at the time,
known as "the economy of high wages," which insisted that high wages drove economic
prosperity. With his emphasis on technical change, driven by the strong competitive
pressures from high wages, Wells anticipated Schumpeter's idea of creative destruction,
except that for him, high wages rather than entrepreneurial genius drove this
process.
Although the economy of high wages remained highly influential through the
1920s, the extensive growth of government powers during World War I reignited
the antipathy for big government. Laissez-faire economics began come back into
vogue with the election of Calvin Coolidge, while the once-powerful progressive
movement was becoming excluded from the ranks of reputable economics.
... ... ...
With Barry Goldwater's humiliating defeat in his presidential campaign,
the famous Powell Memo helped to spark a well-financed movement of well-finance
right-wing political activism which morphed into right-wing political extremism
both in economics and politics. Symbolic of the narrowness of this new
mindset among economists, Milton Friedman's close associate, George Stigler,
said in 1976 that "one evidence of professional integrity of the economist is
the fact that it is not possible to enlist good economists to defend minimum
wage laws." Stigler, G. J. 1982. The Economist as Preacher and Other Essays
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press): p. 60.
In short, neoliberalism was surging ahead and the economy of high wages
was now beyond the pale. These new conditions gave new force to the southern
"yelps of liberty." The social safety net was taken down and reconstructed as
the flag of neoliberalism. The one difference between the rhetoric of the slaveholders
and that of the modern neoliberals was that entrepreneurial superiority replaced
racial superiority as their battle cry.
One final irony: evangelical Christians were at the forefront of the abolitionist
movement. Today, some of them are providing the firepower for the epidemic of
neoliberalism.
This is part of the introduction to an essay by Mike Konczal on how to "insure
people against the hardships of life..., accident, illness, old age, and loss
of a job." Should we rely mostly upon government social insurance programs such
as Medicare and Social Security, or would a system that relies upon private
charity be better? History provides a very clear answer:
The Voluntarism Fantasy: Ideology is as much about understanding the
past as shaping the future. And conservatives tell themselves a story, a
fairy tale really, about the past, about the way the world was and can be
again under Republican policies. This story is about the way people were
able to insure themselves against the risks inherent in modern life. Back
before the Great Society, before the New Deal, and even before the Progressive
Era, things were better. Before government took on the role of providing
social insurance, individuals and private charity did everything needed
to insure people against the hardships of life; given the chance, they could
do it again.
This vision has always been implicit in the conservative ascendancy. It
existed in the 1980s, when President Reagan announced, "The size of the
federal budget is not an appropriate barometer of social conscience or charitable
concern," and called for voluntarism to fill in the yawning gaps in the
social safety net. It was made explicit in the 1990s, notably through Marvin
Olasky's The Tragedy of American Compassion, a treatise hailed by the likes
of Newt Gingrich and William Bennett, which argued that a purely private
nineteenth-century system of charitable and voluntary organizations did
a better job providing for the common good than the twentieth-century welfare
state. This idea is also the basis of Paul Ryan's budget, which seeks to
devolve and shrink the federal government at a rapid pace, lest the safety
net turn "into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people into lives of dependency
and complacency, that drains them of their will and their incentive to make
the most of their lives." It's what Utah Senator Mike Lee references when
he says that the "alternative to big government is not small government"
but instead "a voluntary civil society." As conservatives face the possibility
of a permanent Democratic majority fueled by changing demographics, they
understand that time is running out on their cherished project to dismantle
the federal welfare state.
But this conservative vision of social insurance is wrong. It's incorrect
as a matter of history; it ignores the complex interaction between public
and private social insurance that has always existed in the United States.
It completely misses why the old system collapsed and why a new one was
put in its place. It fails to understand how the Great Recession displayed
the welfare state at its most necessary and that a voluntary system would
have failed under the same circumstances. Most importantly, it points us
in the wrong direction. The last 30 years have seen effort after effort
to try and push the policy agenda away from the state's capabilities and
toward private mechanisms for mitigating the risks we face in the world.
This effort is exhausted, and future endeavors will require a greater, not
lesser, role for the public. ...
The state does many things, but this essay will focus specifically on its
role in providing social insurance against the risks we face. Specifically,
we'll look at what the progressive economist and actuary I.M. Rubinow described
in 1934 as the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: "accident, illness, old
age, loss of a job. These are the four horsemen that ride roughshod over
lives and fortunes of millions of wage workers of every modern industrial
community." These were the same evils that Truman singled out in his speech.
And these are the ills that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food assistance,
and our other public systems of social insurance set out to combat in the
New Deal and Great Society.
Over the past 30 years the public role in social insurance has taken a backseat
to the idea that private institutions will expand to cover these risks.
Yet our current system of workplace private insurance is rapidly falling
apart. In its wake, we'll need to make a choice between an expanded role
for the state or a fantasy of voluntary protection instead. We need to understand
why this voluntary system didn't work in the first place to make the case
for the state's role in fighting the Four Horsemen. ...
"... That was the sad tragedy of Marx and Marxism. Instead of focusing on a practical agenda for achieving and sustaining a democratically administered state in an imperfect human world, a state based on a more equal distribution of capital, a workable balance between private and public ownership of capital, and a regulatory framework and rule of law designed to sustain this balance in the face of social and economic forces that will *always* be acting to disrupt it, Marx veered off into the fantasy lands ..."
"... In this utopian future, every single person is intelligent, relaxed, cooperative, and preternaturally enlightened. There are no thieves, psychopaths, predators, raiders or uncooperative deadbeats and spongers. Since there is no law, there is no government; and since there is no government; there are no elections or other ways of forming government. There is also no division of labor, because somehow human beings have passed beyond the "realm of necessity" into the "realm of freedom." ..."
"... Marx himself was one of these underminers, pissing all over the very progressive Gotha program and the very idea of a well-governed state in the name of his dreamy "communist society." ..."
"... In the end, Marx had a very unrealistic view of human nature and history. His analytic and scientific powers were betrayed by an infantile romanticism that both weakened his social theory and crippled much of left progressive politics for a century. The problem is still floating around with the insipid anarcho-libertarian silliness of much of the late 20th and early 21st century left. ..."
"... The key value of Marxism is that it gave a solid platform for analyzing capitalism as politico-economic system. All those utopian ideas about proletariat as a future ruling class of an ideal society that is not based on private property belong to the garbage damp of history, although the very idea of countervailing forces for capitalists is not. ..."
"... In this sense the very existence of the USSR was critical for the health of the US capitalism as it limited self-destructive instincts of the ruling class. Not so good for people of the USSR, it was definitely a blessing for the US population. ..."
"... Now we have neoliberal garbage and TINA as a state religion, which at least in the level in their religious fervor are not that different from Marxism. ..."
"... Republicans (US 'capitalism' salespersons) believe that "liberty", the right of property, is necessary for "freedom". State is necessary for property despite what the Hobbits (libertarians) preach. Communism is as far from Marxism as the US billionaire empire is from capitalism. Marx was a fair labor economist. ..."
"... {Marx stressed that ... the labour market is an arena in which power is unbalanced...} ..."
"... Thus, capitalism is an integral and key part of the market-economy since it provides the means by which the other major input-component is labor. Capital is an investment input to the process, for which there is a Return-on-Investment largely accepted as bonafide criteria of any market-economy. ..."
Chris Dillow on common ground between Marxists and Conservatives:
Fairness, decentralization & capitalism: Marxists and Conservatives have more in common than
either side would like to admit. This thought occurred to me whilst reading a superb
piece by Andrew Lilico.
He describes the Brams-Taylor
procedure for
cutting a cake in a fair way - in the sense of ensuring envy-freeness
- and says that this shows that a central agency such as the state is unnecessary to achieve
fairness:...
The appropriate mechanism here is one in which there is a balance of power, such that no individual
can say: "take it or leave it."
This is where Marxism enters. Marxists claim that, under capitalism, the appropriate mechanism
is absent. Marx stressed that ... the labour market is an arena in which power is unbalanced...
Nor do Marxists expect the state to correct this, because the state is
captured by capitalists - it is "a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole
bourgeoisie."...
Instead, Marx thought that fairness can only be achieved by abolishing both capitalism and
the state - something which is only feasible at a high level of economic development - and replacing
it with some forms of decentralized decision-making. ...
In this sense, Marxists agree with Andrew: people can find fair allocations themselves without
a central agency. ...
How silly. Marxism and its centralization of power will attract the hyper control freak who
are not likely to ever give up power. Disingenuous utopianism.
Dan Kervick:
That was the sad tragedy of Marx and Marxism. Instead of focusing on a practical agenda
for achieving and sustaining a democratically administered state in an imperfect human world,
a state based on a more equal distribution of capital, a workable balance between private and
public ownership of capital, and a regulatory framework and rule of law designed to sustain this
balance in the face of social and economic forces that will *always* be acting to disrupt it,
Marx veered off into the fantasy lands of his hectoring anarchist critics and adversaries,
and came up with a social pseudo-science positing a millennarian heaven on earth where somehow
perfect voluntariness and perfect equality magically come together. The Marxists are still twisted
up in that foolishness, perpetually incapable of formulating practical political plans and agendas
because they have some "crisis theory" telling them that the current messes are the harbingers
of a revolution that are going to actualize that kingdom of heaven.
Peter K. -> pgl...
yes Kervick again provides a fact-free rant. The Communist Manifesto demanded many reforms
that came pass:
"The section ends by outlining a set of short-term demands - among them a progressive income
tax; abolition of inheritances; free public education etc.-the implementation of which would
be a precursor to a stateless and classless society."
"Short-term demands" as you say: Marx and Engels saw such socialist measures as merely a transitional
stage on the way via the dictatorship of the proletariat to a classless and stateless society
in which even the rule of law would not exist, since human beings would somehow manage to coordinate
all of the economic functions of a complex society through 100% non-coercive means.
In this utopian future, every single person is intelligent, relaxed, cooperative, and preternaturally
enlightened. There are no thieves, psychopaths, predators, raiders or uncooperative deadbeats
and spongers. Since there is no law, there is no government; and since there is no government;
there are no elections or other ways of forming government. There is also no division of labor,
because somehow human beings have passed beyond the "realm of necessity" into the "realm of freedom."
Real-world possibilities for democratic socialist alternatives under a practical and egalitarian
rule of law have frequently been thwarted and undermined by Marxian communists drunk on these
infantile millenarian fantasies, and the Marxian pseudo-sciences of underlying dialectical laws
of social evolution directing history toward this fantastical telos.
Marx himself was one of these underminers, pissing all over the very progressive Gotha
program and the very idea of a well-governed state in the name of his dreamy "communist society."
Guess what guys. Maybe I have actually read some of this stuff.
likbez -> Dan Kervick...
Marxism has two district faces. A very sharp analysis of capitalist society and utopian vision
of the future.
=== quote ===
Marx himself was one of these underminers, pissing all over the very progressive Gotha program
and the very idea of a well-governed state in the name of his dreamy "communist society."
=== end of quote ===
Very true. Authors of Gotha programs were nicknamed "revisionists" by Orthodox Marxists.
mulp:
"He describes the Brams-Taylor procedure for cutting a cake in a fair way - in the sense of
ensuring envy-freeness - and says that this shows that a central agency such as the state is unnecessary
to achieve fairness:..."
That is exactly the description of "authoritarian elite intellectual technocrats dictating
how society works."
Conservatives would never accept that solution because they would immediately argue that not
everyone deserves an equal portion, and that the liberal elites are dictating from on high.
Marx would simply point out that conservatives would never accept that based on their denial
of equality as a principle and would require evolution of man, or too few or too many resources
to care about dividing. But that would never satisfy conservatives....
Obviously actually existing socialist nations ruled by Communist parties have always featured
highly centralized authoritarian non-democratic systems (although China is somewhat of an exception
regarding the matter of centralization, with its provinces having a lot of power, but then, it
is the world's largest nation in population).
As it was, Marx (and Engels) had a practical side. One can see it in the "platform" put forward
at the end of the Communist Manifesto. Several of the items there have been nearly universally
adopted by modern capitalist democracies, such as a progressive income tax and universal state-supported
education. Others are standard items for more or less socialist nations, such as nationalizing
the leading sectors of the economy.
Only one looks at all utopian, their call for ending the division between the city and the
country, although this dream has inspired such things as the New Town movement, not to mention
arguably the suburbs.
It was only in the Critique of the Gotha Program that Marx at one point suggested that eventually
in the "higher stage of socialism" there would be a "withering away of the state." Curiously most
nations ruled by Communist parties never claimed to have achieved true communism because they
were aware of this statement and generally referred to themselves as being "in transition" towards
true communism without having gotten there. Later most would turn around have transitions back
towards market capitalism.
DrDick -> Barkley Rosser...
All existing and former communist countries are Leninist and not Marxist, with a large influence
from whatever the prior local autocratic system was.
Dan Kervick -> Barkley Rosser...
"It was only in the Critique of the Gotha Program that Marx at one point suggested that
eventually in the "higher stage of socialism" there would be a "withering away of the state.""
That's what I meant by the tragedy of Marxism. In the end, Marx had a very unrealistic
view of human nature and history. His analytic and scientific powers were betrayed by an infantile
romanticism that both weakened his social theory and crippled much of left progressive politics
for a century. The problem is still floating around with the insipid anarcho-libertarian silliness
of much of the late 20th and early 21st century left.
likbez:
Actually Marxism was the source of social-democratic parties programs. Which definitely made
capitalism more bearable.
The key value of Marxism is that it gave a solid platform for analyzing capitalism as politico-economic
system. All those utopian ideas about proletariat as a future ruling class of an ideal society
that is not based on private property belong to the garbage damp of history, although the very
idea of countervailing forces for capitalists is not.
In this sense the very existence of the USSR was critical for the health of the US capitalism
as it limited self-destructive instincts of the ruling class. Not so good for people of the USSR,
it was definitely a blessing for the US population.
Now we have neoliberal garbage and TINA as a state religion, which at least in the level in
their religious fervor are not that different from Marxism.
And neocons are actually very close, almost undistinguishable from to Trotskyites, as for their
"permanent revolution" (aka "permanent democratization") drive.
Ben Groves -> likbez...
You obviously think it wasn't that good for the USSR people, yet don't understand the Tsarist
wreck that Russia itself had turned into. With the Soviet, they became strong at the expense of
what they considered colonies.
The true origin of Bolshevism isn't Lenin or Trotsky, but the anti-ashkenazi anti-European
movement. Stalin joined them in 1904 for this very reason and blasted the Menhs as jews. Thus
the program had to cleanse out people who still insisted Russia be European and instead, push
a Asiatic program they believed they really were.
kthomas:
Though I do love seeing this argument being made, I'm not sure we can derive any real benefits
from having it anymore. Ideology is one thing. If we are discussing Power, and how it attracts
the Power Hungry, that is a separate argument, one largely covered by Machiavelli.
As for Marx, I do not ever recall him advising on the abolishment of the State. He was not
an Anarchist.
Ben Groves:
The state can't be abolished. It simply changes by what part of nature controls it.
Only the anarchists thinks the state can be abolished. The state is eternal. Whether it is
the Imperial State (the true conservative organic ideal) City State, the Nation State, the Market
State, the Workers State, the Propertarian State. There will always be rule.
DrDick -> Ben Groves...
The state is far from eternal. It is in fact a very recent development in humanity's 3.5 million
year history, having arisen about 5500 years ago. States can and do collapse and disappear, as
has happened in Somalia.
likbez:
I think the discussion deviated from the key thesis "Marxists and Conservatives Have More in
Common than Either Side Would Like to Admit"
This thesis has the right for existence. Still Marxism remains miles ahead of conservatives
in understanding the capitalism "as is" with all its warts.
Neoliberalism is probably the most obvious branch of conservatism which adopted considerable
part of Marxism doctrine. From this point of view it is a stunning utopia with the level of economic
determinism even more ambitious than that of Marx...
The simplest way to understand the power of neoliberalism as an ideology, is to view it as
Trotskyism refashioned for elite. Instead of "proletarians of all countries unite" we have slogan
"neoliberal elites of all countries unite". Instead of permanent revolution we have permanent
democratization via color revolutions.
Instead of revolt of proletariat which Marxists expected we got the revolt of financial oligarchy.
And this revolt led to forming powerful Transnational Elite International (with Congresses in
Basel) instead of Communist International (with Congresses in Moscow). Marx probably is rolling
in his grave seeing such turn of events and such a wicked mutation of his political theories.
Like Trotskyism neoliberalism has a totalitarian vision for a world-encompassing monolithic
state governed by an ideologically charged "vanguard". One single state (Soviet Russia) in case
of Trotskyism, and the USA in case of neoliberalism is assigned the place of "holy country" and
the leader of this country has special privileges not unlike Rome Pope in Catholicism.
The pseudoscientific 'free-market' theory which replaces Marxist political economy and provides
a pseudo-scientific justification for the greed and poverty endemic to the system, and the main
beneficiaries are the global mega-corporations and major western powers (G7).
Like Marxism in general neoliberalism on the one hand this reduces individuals to statistics
contained within aggregate economic performance, on the other like was in the USSR, it places
the control of the economy in comparatively few hands; and that might be neoliberalism's Achilles
heel which we say in action in 2008.
The role of propaganda machine and journalists, writers, etc as the solders of the party that
should advance its interests. Compete, blatant disregard of truth to the extent that Pravda journalists
can be viewed as paragons of objectivity (Fox news)
== end of quote ==
ilsm:
Republicans (US 'capitalism' salespersons) believe that "liberty", the right of property,
is necessary for "freedom".
State is necessary for property despite what the Hobbits (libertarians) preach.
Communism is as far from Marxism as the US billionaire empire is from capitalism. Marx was a fair labor economist.
Lafayette:
MARKET ECONOMY CRITERIA
{Marx stressed that ... the labour market is an arena in which power is
unbalanced...}
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with "capitalism", which is fundamentally this:
An economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production,
distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals
or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
Which was common up to and including the latter decades of the last century. Wherein, some
countries adopted state-enterprises to have either entire monopolies or substantial presence
in some sectors of the market-economy. The ownership of the means of production were owned by
the state and management/workforce were state employees.
This applies to any entity the object of which is provide to a market goods and services. One
can therefore say the defense of the nation is a service provided by a state-owned entity
called the Dept. of Defense (in the US and similarly elsewhere).
Moreover that practice can be modified to other areas of public need, for instance
health-care and education. Where the "means of production" of the service are owned once again
by the state, but this time the management and workers are independent and work for
themselves. (In which case they may or may not be represented by organizations some of which
are called "unions".)
The above variations are all well known in European "capitalist" countries - which employ
capital as central financial mechanism. Capital is "any form of wealth employed or capable of
being employed in the production of more wealth."
Thus, capitalism is an integral and key part of the market-economy since it provides
the means by which the other major input-component is labor. Capital is an investment input to
the process, for which there is a Return-on-Investment largely accepted as bonafide criteria
of any market-economy.
Likewise, there should therefore be accounted a Return on Labor, and that return should be
paid to all who work in a company - not all equally but all equitably. A Return-on-Labor is
also a bonafide criteria of any market-economy.
There is no real reason why the RoI should be the sole criteria for investment purposes,
except that of common usage historically. RoC should also have its place as a bonafide
criteria for investment purposes - and probably one that determines which "services" are
better performed by government-owned agencies and which not.
How much is the RoC of Defense worth to you and our family? How much is HealthCare? How
much Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Education?
A pretty devious scheme -- creating difficulty for the government neoliberal
wanted to depose by pushing neoliberal reforms via IMF and such. They channeling
the discontent into uprising against the legitimate government. Similar process
happened with Yanukovich in Ukraine.
Notable quotes:
"... the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians ..."
"... it doesn't make President Assad virtuous of himself and neither does it reflect the reality that when push came to shove Assad put his position ahead of the people of Syria and kissed neoliberal butt. ..."
"... President Assad revealed his stupidity when he didn't pay attention to what happens to a leader who has previously been featured as a 'tyrant' in western media if he lets the neoliberals in: They fawn & scrape all the while developing connections to undermine him/her. If the undermining is ineffective there is no backing off. The next option is war. The instances are legion from President Noriega of Panama to President Hussein of Iraq to Colonel Ghaddaffi of Libya - that one really hurts as the Colonel was a genuinely committed and astute man. Assad is just another hack in comparison. ..."
"... Syrian leaders are politicians, they suffer the same flaws of politicians across the world. They are power seekers who inevitably come to regard the welfare of their population as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. ..."
"... No one denies that the opposition have been used and abused by FUKUSi, but that of itself does not invalidate the very real issues that persuaded them to resist an austerity imposed from above by assholes who weren't practicing what they preached. ..."
"... According to the European model of diplomacy imposed upon the globe, countries have interests not friends. ..."
"... A solution which reduces numbers of humans killed is worth attempting. ..."
"... Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist. ..."
"... On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous sadists in his crew. ..."
"... This war is about destroying real history, civilization, culture and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in that region wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it. Most Islamic,Christian, Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed. ..."
"... you make some good points concerning Assad flirting with neoliberalism however, i don't know how you call an opposition 'moderate' when its toting firearms. ..."
"... The protests against Assad were moderate, and to his credit Assad was willing to meet them halfway. However, this situation was exploited by (((foreign powers))) ..."
"... This is not about "good or evil", this is about TOW missiles made in USA against T-55, Saudi money for mercenaries, Israeli regional ambitions and so on. Syria is another country that the US wants to destroy. Six years ago Syria was a peaceful country. ..."
"... Allegedly president Assad is a bad guy but Erdogan, Netanyhu and bin Saud are noble and good men. Who believes in such nonsense? The US has become similar to Israel and this is the reason why "Assad must go". Sick countries do sick things. ..."
"... no, because one side is so simplistically evi l(armed to the fucking teeth and resolved to violent insurrection!!!), if Assad didn't have the backing of the vast majority of his people and of his overreached army it would have ended a long time ago and Syria would be a failed state flailing away in the grip of anarchy. perhaps your Syrian 'friends' should meditate on this naked truth. ..."
"... when that shitty little country called Israel was squeezed onto the map in 1948, Syria welcomed Palestinian refugees with open arms by the hundreds of thousands. no, they didn't grant them citizenship, but prettty much all other rights. ..."
"... This whole nightmare was dreamed up from within the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006. Bashir al Assad was too popular in the country and the region for America's liking, so they plotted to get rid of him. Near all the organ eating, child killing, head chopping "moderate" opposition are from other countries, those that are Syrian, as was the case in Iraq, mostly live outside the country and are not in touch with main stream opinion, but very in touch with US, Saudi etc $$$s. ..."
"... I consider Bashar al-Assad the legitimate Syrian President and attempts to remove him by external interests as grounds for charges of crimes against humanity, crimes of war. ..."
"... As one of the bloggers rightly stated Wesley Clarke spilled the whole beans and revealed their true ilk. 7 countries in 5 years. How coincidental post 9/11. ..."
"... If you say "Assad was flirting with Neo Liberalism" then this is actually a compliment to Assad. Why? Because he wanted to win time. He wanted to prevent the same happening to Syria that has happened to Iraq. At that time there was no other protective power around. Russia was still busy recovering. ..."
"... As demeter said Posted by: Demeter @14, the flirrting with neoliberalism bought them time as neocons were slavering for a new target. It also made the inner circle a ridiculous amount of money. Drought made life terrible for many rural syrians. When the conflict started, if you read this website you'd notice people wondering what was going on and as facts unfolded. realizing that Assad was the lesser of two evils, and as the war has gone on, look like an angel in comparison to the opposition. ..."
"... Salafism is Racism. It de-egitimizes the entire anti Assad revolution. ..."
"... Wesley Clark's "seven countries in five years" transcript for anyone who has forgotten: http://genius.com/General-wesley-clark-seven-countries-in-five-years-annotated ..."
"... the armed conflict originated with scheming by foreign governments to use extremists as a weapon. ..."
"... Furthermore, Debsisdead sets up the same "binary division" that he says he opposes by tarnishing those who oppose using extremists as a weapon of state as Assad loving racists. The plot was described by Sy Hersh in 2007 in "The Redirection" . ..."
"... The fight IS "binary". You support Assad and his fighters, the true rebels, or you don't. Calling Assad a "hack" is a slander of a veritable hero. Watch his interviews. Assad presides over a multi-cultural, multi-confessional, diverse, secular state, PRECISELY what the Reptilians claim they cherish. ..."
"... "the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians." - on that we can agree. ..."
"... It continues to annoy me that the primary trigger for the civil war in Syria has been totally censored from the press. The government deliberately ignited a population explosion, making the sale or possession of condoms or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing that it was every woman's patriotic duty to have six kids. The population doubled every 18 years, from 5 million to 10 million to 20 million and then at 22 the water ran out and things fells apart. Syria is a small country mostly arid plateau, in principle it could be developed to support even more people just not in that amount of time and with the resources that the Syrians actually had. ..."
"... It doesn't mean he's a saint that Assad is leading the very popular 'secular/multi-confessional Syria' resistance against an extremely well-funded army primarily of non-Syrians who are mainly 'headchoppers' who will stop at nothing to impose Saudi-style religious dictatorship on Syria. ..."
"... The 'moderate' opposition to Assad has largely disappeared (back into the loyal opposition that does NOT want a Saudi-style state imposed on Syria), but those who remain in armed rebellion surely must know that they are a powerless, very small portion of what is in fact mercenary army completely subservient to the needs and directives of its primary funders/enablers, the US and Saudi Arabia. So whatever their original noble intentions, they've become part of the Saudi/US imperial problem. ..."
"... All that land, all that resource...and a unifying language. Amazing. If only the Arab world could unite for the collective good of the region we might witness a rogue state in an abrupt and full decline. A sad tactic of colonial powers over the years, setting the native tribes upon each other. We've not evolved here. ..."
"... t in recent history the foreign policy of powerful nations is aimed at sponsoring social disintegration within the borders of targeted countries. ..."
"... Ethnic cleansing means destruction of culture, of historical memory, the forced disappearance of communities that were rooted in a place. ..."
"... Compare President Assad's leadership to that of the western, or Saudi, sponsors of terror; or measure his decisions against those of the hodgepodge of rebels and mercenaries, with their endless internal squabbles and infighting. Assad is so much more of a spokesman for the rights of sovereignty, and his words carry more weight and outshine the banalities that spring from the mouths of those who are paying the bills, and supplying weapons, and giving all kinds of diplomatic comfort to the enemies of the Syrian government. ..."
"... There is no need for sorting things into absolutes of good and evil. But there is a condition under which fewer, a lot fewer, humans would have died in Syria, Without foreign interference--money, weapons, and training--Assad's government would have won this war quite a while ago. ..."
"... And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic fundamentalists call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living according to their rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver to live. ..."
"... Fundamentalism is never satisfied until it can become a tyranny over the mind. Racism and fundamentalism are as American as apple pie. You have to take a close look at who is pouring oil on this fire! ..."
"... I disagree with you in that neoliberalism is seriously not difficult to define. It boils down to belief that public programs are bad/'inefficient' and that society would be better served by privatizing many things(or even everything) and opening services up to 'competition'. It's mainly just cover for parasites to come in and get rich off of the masses misery. The 'neoliberalism is just a snarl word' meme is incredibly stupid, since plenty of books and articles have been written explicitly defining it. ..."
"... American economic hegemony is inherently neoliberal, and has been for decades. The IMF is essentially an international loan shark that gives countries money on the condition that they dismantle their public spending apparatus and let the market run things. ..."
"... The situation is different now. One Syrian lady, who came to see me in April, who lives in California, told me that her father, who was a big pre-war oppositionist, now just wants to return to Syria to die. There's no question. if you want peace in Syria, Asad is the only choice. The jihadis, who dominate the opposition, don't offer an alternative. ..."
"... The lesson of Viet Nam was to keep the dead and wounded off the six o'clock news. ..."
"... The jackals are going in. Another coup. Syria was on the list. Remap the Middle East. Make it like Disney World. Israel as Mad King Ludwig's Neuschwanstein. ..."
"... I don't think anyone who comments here regularly ever assumed that Bashar al Assad was a knight in white shining armour. Most of us are aware of how he came to be President and that his father did rule the country from 1971 to 2000 with an iron fist. Some if not most also know that initially when Bashar al Assad succeeded to the Presidency, he did have a reformist agenda in mind. How well or not he succeeded in putting that across, what compromises he had to make, who or what opposed him, how he negotiated his way between and among various and opposed power structures in Syrian politics we do not know. ..."
"... Yes, I have trouble reconciling the fact that Bashar al Assad's government did allow CIA renditioning with his reformist agenda in my own head. That is something he will have to come to terms with in the future. I don't know if Assad was naive, under pressure or willing, even eager in agreeing to cooperate with the CIA, or trying to buy time to prepare for invasion once Iraq was down. Whether Assad also realises that he was duped by the IMF and World Bank in following their advice on economic "reforms" (such as privatising Syria's water) is another thing as well. ..."
"... I don't see why you call the problem "Islamic fundamentalism" when in fact it is Sunni fundamentalism. ..."
"... Manifest Destiny is fundamentalism. ..."
"... "Full Spectrum Dominance" and other US Military doctrines are fundamentalist in nature. ..."
"... I have no doubt that Assad was little more than a crude Arab strongman/dictator prince back in the 2011 when the uprising started. Since then, he has evolved into a committed, engaged defender of his country against multilateral foreign aggression, willingly leaving his balls in the vice and all. ..."
"... He could have fled the sinking ship many times so far. Instead, he decided to stay and fight the Takfiri river flowing in through the crack, and risk going down with the ship he inherited. The majority of the Syrians know this very well. ..."
"... Bashar of 2016 (not so much the one of 5 1/2 years ago) would not only win the next free elections, but destroy any opposition. The aggressors know that as a fact. ..."
"... if Syria had control over its borders with Turkey, Israel, Jordan and Iraq would the war have ended a long time ago ? Answer honestly. ..."
"... If yes, then the so-called "opposition" of the union of headchoppers does not represent a significant portion of the Syrian people. Were it otherwise Assad wouldnt be able to survive a single year, let alone 5. With or without foreign help. ..."
"... OK here is an interesting article from 2011 on Abdallah Dardari, the fellow who persuaded Bashar al Assad to adopt the disastrous neoliberal economic reforms that not only ruined Syria's economy and the country's agriculture in particular but also created an underclass who resented the reforms and who initially joined the "rebels". http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/2097 ..."
"... And where is Dardari now? He jumped ship in 2011 and went to Beirut to work for the UN's Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA). He seems like someone to keep a watchful eye on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Dardari ..."
"... of COURSE assad flirted with the west. between housing cia rendition houses and the less-than-flattering aspects of the wikileaks "syria files", assad and/or his handlers (family and/or military) have tried a little too hard to "assimilate" to western ideals (or the lack thereof). ..."
"... i seriously doubt they will make that mistake again. they saw what happened to al-qaddafi after he tried to play nice and mistook western politicians for human beings. they've learned their lesson and become more ruthless but they were always machiavellians because they have to be. not an endorsement, just an acceptance of how the region is. ..."
"... also: israel, the saudis (along with qatar and the other GCC psychopaths in supporting capacity) and the US are the main actors and throwing european "powers" into the circle of actual power does them an undue favor by ignoring their status as pathetic vassal states. "FrUkDeUSZiowhatever" isn't necessary. ..."
"... Look I know the MSM is utterly controlled - but the extent of that control still shocks at times. It is simply not possible to be "informed" by any normal definition of the word anymore without the alternative media - and for that reason this site serves a valuable purpose and I once again thank the host and contributors. ..."
"... The irony is, Assad is 10x smarter and bigger person than Debs. Yes, he made some mistakes, but if not "flirting with neoliberalism", war against Syria would have started many years earlier, when Resistance wasnt ready one bit (neither Russia, nor Iran, while on the other hand US was more powerful). ..."
"... Support for rebel groups was misguided at best at the beginning of the war. One could conceivably not appreciate the capacity of the KSA/USA/Quatar/Israel to influence and control and create these groups. Jesus it's hard for me to think of a single local opposition group that isnt drenched in fanaticism besides the Kurds. ..."
"... There's no way to a solution for the Syrian people, the population not imported that is, if these groups win. I hate to be so binary but its so naive in my eyes to think anything good will come from the long arm of the gulf countries and the USA taking control. ..."
"... As I've said repeatedly, the GOAL of the Syria crisis for the Western elites, Israel and the ME dictatorships is to take Syria OUT by any means necessary in order to get to IRAN. Nothing else matters to these people. In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia, etc., etc. ..."
"... So, yes, right NOW the whole story is about US elites, Zionist "evil", corrupt monarchs, and scumbag fanatics, etc., etc. Until THAT is resolved, nothing about how Syria is being run is going to matter. ..."
"... Copeland @60: No, I don't think the problem is fundamentalism. It's the warring crusade method of spreading a belief's 'empire' that is the problem. This is a problem uniquely of the Saudi 'do whatever it takes' crusade to convert the entire 'Arab and Muslim world' to their worst, most misogynist form of Islam. ..."
"... Just want to mention that from the beginning there were people who took up arms against the government. This is why the situation went out of control. People ambushed groups of young soldiers. Snipers of unknown origin fired on police and civilians. ..."
"... I rather like Assad. I won't lie. But, he is not the reason for the insurrection in Syria ~ well, except for his alliances with Russia and Iran and his pipeline decisions and his support for Palestinian and Iraqi refugees. What happened in Syria is happening all over the globe because the nation with the most resources in the world, the self-declared exceptionalist state thinks this is the way to rule the world. . . . because they want to rule and they don't care how much destruction it takes to do so. And lucky for us there is no one big enough and bad enough to do it to us - except for our own government. ..."
"... There were a lot of people posting how Bashar al Assad was doing full neoliberalism. And at was true. ..."
"... So Assad was hit by a Tri-horror: global warming, dwindling cash FF resources, and IMF-type pressure, leaving out the trad. enemies, KSA, pipelines , etc. MSM prefer to cover up serious issues with 'ethnic strife' (sunni, shia, black lives matter, etc.) ..."
It is sad to see so many are so locked into their particular views that they
see any offering of an alternative as 'neoliberal' or laughable or - if it weren't
so serious - Zionist.
1/ I do not see the Syrian civil war as racist or race based, I do believe
however that the rejection of all Islamic fundamentalism as being entirely comprised
of 'headchoppers' is racist down to its core. It is that same old same old whitefella
bullshit which refuses to consider other points of view on their own terms but
considers everything through the lens of 'western' culture which it then declares
wanting and discards.
2/ Noirette comes close to identifying one of the issues that kicked
off the conflict, that the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting
neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians. I realize many have
quite foolishly IMO, adopted President Assad as some sort of model of virtue
- mostly because he is seen to be standing up to American imperialism. That
is a virtuous position but it doesn't make President Assad virtuous of himself
and neither does it reflect the reality that when push came to shove Assad put
his position ahead of the people of Syria and kissed neoliberal butt.
3/ President Assad revealed his stupidity when he didn't pay attention
to what happens to a leader who has previously been featured as a 'tyrant' in
western media if he lets the neoliberals in: They fawn & scrape all the while
developing connections to undermine him/her. If the undermining is ineffective
there is no backing off. The next option is war. The instances are legion from
President Noriega of Panama to President Hussein of Iraq to Colonel Ghaddaffi
of Libya - that one really hurts as the Colonel was a genuinely committed and
astute man. Assad is just another hack in comparison.
4/ These Syrian leaders are politicians, they suffer the same flaws of
politicians across the world. They are power seekers who inevitably come to
regard the welfare of their population as a means to an end rather than an end
in itself.
5/ My Syrians friends are an interesting bunch drawn from a range of people
currently living inside and outside of Syria. Some longer term readers might
recall that I'm not American, don't live in America and nowadays don't visit
much at all. The first of the 'refugee' Syrians I got to know, although refugee
is a misnomer since my friend came here on a migrant's visa because his skills
are in demand, is the grandchild of Palestinian refugees - so maybe he is a
refugee but not in the usual sense. Without going into too many specifics as
this is his story not mine, he was born and lived in a refugee camp which was
essentially just another Damascus suburb. As he puts it, although a Palestinian
at heart, he was born in Syria and when he thinks of home it is/was Damascus.
All sides in the conflict claimed to support Palestinian liberation, yet he
and his family were starved out of their homes by both Syrian government militias
and the FSA.
When he left he was initially a stateless person because even though he was
born in Syria he wasn't entitled to Syrian citizenship. He bears no particular
grudge against the government there but he told me once he does wish they were
a lot smarter.
On the other hand he also understands why the people fighting the government
are doing so. I'm not talking about the leadership of course (see above - pols
are pols) but the Syrians who just couldn't take the fading future and the petty
oppression by assholes any longer.
6/ No one denies that the opposition have been used and abused by FUKUSi,
but that of itself does not invalidate the very real issues that persuaded them
to resist an austerity imposed from above by assholes who weren't practicing
what they preached.
I really despair at the mindset which reduces everything to a binary division
- if group A are the people I support they must all be wonderful humans and
group B those who are fighting Group A are all evil assholes.
If group A claim to support Palestinian self determination (even though they
have done sweet fuck all to actually advance that cause) then everyone in Group
B must be pro-Zionist even though I don't know what they say about it (the leadership
of the various resistance groups are ME politicians and therefore most claim
to also support Palestinian independence). Yes assholes in the opposition have
done sleazy deals with Israel over Golan but the Ba'ath administration has done
similar opportunist sell outs over the 40 years when the situation demanded
it.
I fucking hate that as much as anyone else who despises the ersatz state
of Israel, but the reality is that just about every ME leader has put expedience
ahead of principle with regard to Palestine. Colonel Ghadaffi would be the only
leader I'm aware of who didn't. Why do they? That is what all pols and diplomats
do not just Arab ones. According to the European model of diplomacy imposed
upon the globe, countries have interests not friends.
As yet no alternative to that model has succeeded since any attempt to do
so has been rejected with great violence. The use of hostages offered by each
party to guarantee a treaty was once an honorable solution, the hostages were
well treated and the security they afforded reduced conflict - if Oblamblam
had to put up one of his daughters to guarantee a deal does anyone think he
would break it as easily as he currently does? Yet the very notion of hostages
is considered 'terrorism' in the west. But I digress.
The only points I wanted to make was the same as those I have already made:
A solution which reduces numbers of humans killed is worth attempting.
Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does
not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist.
On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria
but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term
resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous
sadists in his crew. By the same token I don't believe all of those
resisting the Ba'athist administration are headchopping jihadists or foreign
mercenaries. This war is about 5 years old. If either side were so simplistically
good or evil it would have ended a long time ago.
Plus one more - it is humorous and saddening to see people throw senseless
name-calling into the mix. It is the method preferred by those who are too
stupid and ill informed to develop a logical point of view.
If you want to call me a Zionist lackey of the imperialists or whatever it
was go right ahead - it is only yourself who you tarnish, I'm secure in the
knowledge of my own work against imperialism, corporate domination and Zionism
but perhaps you, who have a need to throw aspersions are not?
Posted by b on September 12, 2016 at 03:33 AM |
Permalink
Plus one more - it is humorous and saddening to see people throw senseless
name-calling into the mix. It is the method preferred by those who are
too stupid and ill informed to develop a logical point of view.
why you think your article is different from others senseless name-calling,
i see exactly the same.
This war is about destroying real history, civilization, culture
and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in that region
wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it. Most Islamic,Christian,
Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed.
you make some good points concerning Assad flirting with neoliberalism
however, i don't know how you call an opposition 'moderate' when its toting
firearms.
The protests against Assad were moderate, and to his credit Assad
was willing to meet them halfway. However, this situation was exploited
by (((foreign powers)))
If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have ended
a long time ago.
This is not about "good or evil", this is about TOW missiles made in
USA against T-55, Saudi money for mercenaries, Israeli regional ambitions
and so on. Syria is another country that the US wants to destroy. Six years
ago Syria was a peaceful country.
Allegedly president Assad is a bad guy but Erdogan, Netanyhu and
bin Saud are noble and good men. Who believes in such nonsense? The US has
become similar to Israel and this is the reason why "Assad must go". Sick
countries do sick things.
If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have
ended a long time ago
no, because one side is so simplistically evi l(armed to the fucking
teeth and resolved to violent insurrection!!!), if Assad didn't have the
backing of the vast majority of his people and of his overreached army it
would have ended a long time ago and Syria would be a failed state flailing
away in the grip of anarchy. perhaps your Syrian 'friends' should meditate
on this naked truth.
If group A claim to support Palestinian self determination (even
though they have done sweet fuck all to actually advance that cause)...
when that shitty little country called Israel was squeezed onto the
map in 1948, Syria welcomed Palestinian refugees with open arms by the hundreds
of thousands. no, they didn't grant them citizenship, but prettty much all
other rights.
so thanks, b, for headlining this obfuscatory drivel. thus, for posterity.
This whole nightmare was dreamed up from within the US Embassy in Damascus
in 2006. Bashir al Assad was too popular in the country and the region for
America's liking, so they plotted to get rid of him. Near all the organ
eating, child killing, head chopping "moderate" opposition are from other
countries, those that are Syrian, as was the case in Iraq, mostly live outside
the country and are not in touch with main stream opinion, but very in touch
with US, Saudi etc $$$s.
Here again is the reality of where this all started, article from 2012
(below.). And never forget Wesley Clark's Pentagon informant after 9/11
of attacking "seven countries in five years." Those in chaos through US
attacks or attempted "liberation" were on the list, a few more to go and
they are a bit behind schedule. All responsible for this Armageddon should
be answering for their actions in shackles and yellow jump suits in The
Hague.
|~b~ Thank you for putting Debsisdead's comment @ 135 prior post into readable
form. Failing eyesight made the original in its extended format difficult
to read.
Reference Debsisdead comment:
Your definition of neoliberal would be nice to have. Usually it is used
as ephemerally as a mirage, to appear in uncountable numbers of meaning.
Having determined your definition of neoliberal, are you sure it WAS
neoliberal rather than a hegemonic entity? Neoliberal seems best used as
the reactionary faux historic liberalism as applied to economic agendas
(neocon is the political twin for neoliberal, libertarian had been previously
been co-opted).
Instead of F•UK•US•i, maybe a F•UK•UZoP would suffice (France•United
Kingdom•United Zionist occupied Palestine) given the spheres of influence
involved.
Agree with your observations about the limited mentality of dualism;
manichaeism is a crutch for disabled minds unaware and blind to subtle distinctions
that comprise spectrums.
Though not paying close attention to Syrian history, it was Hafez al-Assad
who became master of the Syrian Ba'athist coup d'état and politically stabilised
Syria under Ba'athist hegemony. In the midst of the 'Arab-spring' zeitgeist,
an incident involving a child with security forces led to a genuine public
outcry being suppressed by state security forces. This incident, quickly
settled became cause célčbre for a subsequent revolt, initially by SAA dissidents
but soon thereafter by external interests having the motive of regime overthrow
of Syrian Ba'athists and their leadership. Other narratives generally make
little sense though may contain some factors involved; the waters have been
sufficiently muddied as to obscure many original factors - possibly Bashar
al-Assad's awareness of his security forces involvement in US rendition
and torture as to compromise his immediately assuming command of his security
forces in the original public protest over the child. Those things are now
well concealed under the fogs of conflict and are future historians to sort.
I consider Bashar al-Assad the legitimate Syrian President and attempts
to remove him by external interests as grounds for charges of crimes against
humanity, crimes of war.
Classic western sheeple disconnect. As one of the bloggers rightly stated
Wesley Clarke spilled the whole beans and revealed their true ilk. 7 countries
in 5 years. How coincidental post 9/11. This total disconnect with global
realities is a massive problem in the west cause the 86000 elite /oligarchs
r pushing for a war with both the bears/ Russian and Chinese along with
Iran. These countries have blatantly stated they will not be extorted by
fascism. All western countries r all living a Corporate state. Just look
all around every facet of our society is financialised. Health ,education
, public services.
Wake up cause if we dont we will be extinct Nuclear winter
I am of syrian origin, born in Beirut Lebanon.
My family lived a happy life there, but shortly after I was born, Israel
invaded Lebanon, and my family fled and emigrated to Europe, I was 1 year
old.
I call major bullshit on your piece.
If you say "Assad was flirting with Neo Liberalism" then this is actually
a compliment to Assad.
Why? Because he wanted to win time. He wanted to prevent the same happening
to Syria that has happened to Iraq. At that time there was no other protective
power around. Russia was still busy recovering.
What do you think would
have happened had Assad not pretended he would go along? Syria would have
been bombed to pieces right then. Why did Assad change his mind later and
refused to cooperate with Qatar, Saudi and US? Because the balance of power
was about to change. Iran and Russia were rising powers (mainly in the military
field).
I could say so much more. I stopped reading your post when you mentioned
that your Palestinian friend ( I know the neighbourhood in Damascus, it
is called Yarmouk and it is indeed a very nice suburb) does not have Syrian
citizenship. Do you know why Palaestinians don't get Syrian citizenship?
Because they are supposed to return to their homeland Palestine.
And they can only do that as Palestinians and not as Syrians. That is
why.
And that so many (not all!) Palestinians chose to backstab the country
that has hosted them and fed them and gave them a life for so many years,
and fought side by side with islamist terrorists and so called Free Syrian
Army traitors is a human error, is based on false promises, is lack of character
and honour and understanding of the broader context and interests. How will
some of these fools and misguided young men feel when they realise that
they have played right into the hand of their biggest enemy, the Zionists.
I would like to remind some of you who might have forgotten that famous
incident described by Robert Fisk years ago, when a Syrian Officer told
him upon the capture of some of these "freedom fighters' on Syrian soil,
one of them said: "I did not know that Palestine was so beautiful", not
realising that he was not fighting in Palestine but in Syria.
And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam
that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic fundamentalists
call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living according to their
rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver to live.
Though reluctant to get involved in what seems to be for some a personal
spat, I would like to point out one fundemental point that renders the above
published and counter arguments difficult to comprehend which is that they
lack a time frame.
The 'Syrian opposition' or what ever you wish to call it is not now what
it was 6 years ago. Thus, for me, at least, it is not possible to discuss
the make up of the opposition unless there are some time frames applied.
An example is a Syrian who was an officer in the FSA but fled to Canada
last year. He fled the Syrian conflict over 3 years ago to Turkey -which
is how I know him - where he did not continue ties with any group. He simply
put his head down and worked slavishly living at his place of work most
of the time to escape to Canada - he feared remaining in Istanbul. He claimed
that he and others had all been taken in by promises and that the conflict
had been usurped by extremists. He was not a headchopper, he was not the
beheader of 12 year old children. He was and is a devout Muslim. He was
a citizen of Aleppo city. I know him and of him through other local Syrians
in Istanbul and believe his testimony. I mention him only to highlight that
the conflict is not what it was, not what some intended it to be ... Nor
is it what some paint it to be. There are many who fight whomever attacks
their community be they pro / anti Government. - Arabs especially have extended
village communities/ tribes and pragmatically they 'agree' to be occupied
as long as they are allowed to continue their lives in peace. If conflict
breaks out they fight whomever is necessary.
DebIsDead makes some very excellent points in his/her comments. They
deserve appraisal and respectful response. It is also clear thar he/she
is writing defensively in some parts and those detract from what is actually
being said.
The piece suffers from several errors. As demeter said Posted by: Demeter
@14, the flirrting with neoliberalism bought them time as neocons were slavering
for a new target. It also made the inner circle a ridiculous amount of money.
Drought made life terrible for many rural syrians. When the conflict started,
if you read this website you'd notice people wondering what was going on
and as facts unfolded. realizing that Assad was the lesser of two evils,
and as the war has gone on, look like an angel in comparison to the opposition.
You can't change the fact that it took less than 2 years for the opposition
to be dominated by both foreign and domestic takfiris who wanted to impose
saudi style culture on an open relatively prosperous cosmopolitan country.
They've succeeded in smashing it to pieces. Snuff your balanced account
and your bold anti racism
Debsisdead sets up a strawman - racism against Islamic fundamentalists
and validity of opposition against Assad - and uses this to sidestep
that the armed conflict originated with scheming by foreign governments
to use extremists as a weapon.
"If you want to call me a Zionist lackey of the imperialists or whatever
it was go right ahead - it is only yourself who you tarnish, I'm secure
in the knowledge of my own work against imperialism, corporate domination
and Zionism but perhaps you, who have a need to throw aspersions are not?"
Passive-aggressive much?
The fight IS "binary". You support Assad and his fighters, the true rebels,
or you don't. Calling Assad a "hack" is a slander of a veritable hero. Watch
his interviews. Assad presides over a multi-cultural, multi-confessional,
diverse, secular state, PRECISELY what the Reptilians claim they cherish.
"the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures
ahead of the welfare of Syrians." - on that we can agree.
It continues to annoy me that the primary trigger for the civil war in
Syria has been totally censored from the press. The government deliberately
ignited a population explosion, making the sale or possession of condoms
or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing that it was every woman's
patriotic duty to have six kids. The population doubled every 18 years,
from 5 million to 10 million to 20 million and then at 22 the water ran
out and things fells apart. Syria is a small country mostly arid plateau,
in principle it could be developed to support even more people just not
in that amount of time and with the resources that the Syrians actually
had.
No the issue was not 'climate change'. The aquifers in Syria had been
falling for years, even when rainfall was above normal. Don't blame the
weather.
"The more the merrier" - tell me exactly how people having more children
than they can support creates wealth? It doesn't and it never has.
Whenever governments treat their people as if they were cattle, demanding
that they breed the 'correct' number of children rather than making the
decision based on their own desires and judgement of how many they can support,
the result is always bad.
Assad treated the people of Syria as if they were cattle. Surely this
deserves mention?
Cultural "left" bullshit at its best. Cultural "leftists" don't need to
know any hostory or have any understanding of a political issue: it's sufficient
to pull out a few details from the NATO press and apply their grad school
"oppression" analysis.
Thanks to b for posting the comment of Debs is Dead. The point I would take
issue with is where he states "I realize many have quite foolishly IMO,
adopted President Assad as some sort of model of virtue. . ."
I don't believe this is a correct realization. I think the many to whom
he refers know very well that any person in leadership of a country can
be found to have flaws, major and minor, and even to have more of such than
the average mortal. The crucial counterpoint, however, which used to be
raised fairly often, is that it is the acceptance of the majority of the
people governed by such leaders that ought to be the international norm
for diplomatic relations.
I respect the knowledge DiD has gained from his Syrian friends and contacts.
But I also remember a man called Chilabi and am very leery of destabilization
attempts this country has been engaged in lo these many generations, using
such displaced persons as surrogates. And rather than properly mourn the
9/11 victims and brave firemen and rescuers of that terrible day, I find
myself mourning the larger tragedy of unnecessary wars launched as a consequence
of our collective horror at that critical moment in our history.
After making sound point about black-and-white worldview being unrealistic,
the guy goes full retard. Position towards Palestinians as the one and only
criteria to judge ME developments... C'mon, it's not even funny.
And while started from a "My Syrian friends" then he goes on reasoning on
behalf of one single ex-Palestinian ex-Syrian guy...
Looks like self-revelation of a kind. Some guy, sitting in Israel, or whatever,
waging informational warfare for the Mossad/CIA/NGO who pays his rent.
"The government deliberately ignited a population explosion, making the
sale or possession of condoms or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing
that it was every woman's patriotic duty to have six kids."
DiD: "I realize many have quite foolishly IMO, adopted President Assad as
some sort of model of virtue. . ." The big reveal is that DiD can't name
a single contributor here who has written that Assad is "some sort of model
of virtue."
It doesn't mean he's a saint that Assad is leading the very popular 'secular/multi-confessional
Syria' resistance against an extremely well-funded army primarily of non-Syrians
who are mainly 'headchoppers' who will stop at nothing to impose Saudi-style
religious dictatorship on Syria.
The 'moderate' opposition to Assad has
largely disappeared (back into the loyal opposition that does NOT want a
Saudi-style state imposed on Syria), but those who remain in armed rebellion
surely must know that they are a powerless, very small portion of what is
in fact mercenary army completely subservient to the needs and directives
of its primary funders/enablers, the US and Saudi Arabia. So whatever their
original noble intentions, they've become part of the Saudi/US imperial
problem.
Thanks for addressing the problem of angry comments by some posters who
just want to throw verbal grenades is unacceptable. I hope this site continues
to be a great source for sharing information and ideas.
Why in God's name was this pointless comment by Debs is Dead promoted this
way?!!! The only point being made, that I can see, is that the war in Syria
does have some legitimate issues at its root. WELL OF COURSE IT DOES. The
Hegemon rarely to never makes up civil unrest in countries it wants to overthrow
out of whole cloth. They take some dispute that is already there and ramp
it up; this process escalates until it turns into some form of a proxy war
or coup. In other words, the domestic political process is DISTORTED until
it is no longer remotely recognizable as a domestic process.
So sure, if the US and its allies had not stoked political factionism
in Syria into a global proxy war, we could discuss the fine details of the
Syrian domestic process very usefully. At this point, though, IT IS IRRELEVANT.
I do agree on one point: Assad joins the horrendous list of overlords
who thought they could make a deal with the Hegemon on their own terms.
Assad will pay for that mistake with his life very soon I would guess and
I think that Putin will too, though that might take a little longer. If
they had chosen to stand on principle as Chavez did, maybe they would be
dead as Chavez is (possibly done in, who knows), but they'd be remembered
with honor as Chavez is.
It is a shame no one stood up for Libya, for a surviving Gaddafi would have
emerged considerably stronger - as Assad eventually will.
Whatever genuine opposition there was has long been hijacked by opportunistic
takfiris, wahabbists and there various paymasters. And so as ruralito says
@25: "The fight IS "binary...". The fight is indeed binary, the enemy is
plural. Assad versus the many appearances of both the first and fourth kind.
Appearances to the mind are of four kinds.
Things either are what they appear to be;
or they neither are, nor appear to be;
or they are, and do not appear to be;
or they are not, and yet appear to be.
Rightly to aim in all these cases is the wise man's task. ~Epictetus
Where there is obfuscation lay the enemy, hence Russia's long game of
identification.
Does anyone remember the essay posted on this site a while back titled "The
Feckless Left?" I don't believe B posted it, but if memory serves it's posted
front and centre on the navigation bar beside this piece?
It really hammers those people like Tariq Ali, who while surely having
legitimate grievances against the Assad govt, opened the door for legitimation
of foreign sponsored war. They thought that funneling millions of dollars
worth of training, weapons and mercs would open the door for another secular
govt, but this time much 'better.' Surely.
No one thinks Assad is great. I really have trouble understanding where
that notion comes from. It's just that the alternative is surely much worse.
Lots of people didn't like Ghaddafi but jesus, I'm sure most Libyans would
wish they could turn back the clock (at the risk of putting words in their
mouths). It's not binary, no one sees this as good vs evil, its just that
its become so painfully obvious at this point that if the opposition wins
Syria will be so fucked in every which way. Those with real, tangible grievances
are never going to have their voices heard. It will become the next Libya,
except the US and it's clients will actually have a say in what's left of
the political body in the country if you could even label it that at that
point (which is quite frightenening in my eyes. Libya is already a shit
show and they don't have much of a foothold there besides airstrikes and
that little coastal base for the GNA to have their photo ops).
I find it ironic that when criticisms are levelled at Assad from the
left they usually point out things that had he done more of, and worse of,
he probably would be free of this situation and still firmly in power. If
he had bowed down to Qatar and the KSA/USA I wonder if the 'armed opposition'
would still have their problems with him? That's the ultimate irony to me.
If he had accepted the pipelines, the privatization regimes, etc. would
they still be hollering his name? It's very sad that even with the balancing
act he did his country has been destroyed. Even if the SAA is able to come
out on top at this point, the country is wholly destroyed. What's even the
point of a having a 'legitimate' or 'illegitimate' opposition when they're
essentially fighting over scraps now. I'd be surprised if they could rebuild
the country in 120 years. Libya in my eyes will never be what it once was.
It'll never have the same standards of living after being hit with a sledgehammer.
I don't mean to be ironic or pessimistic, its just a sad state of affairs
all around and everyday it seems more and more unlikely that any halfway
decent solution for the POPULATION OF SYRIA, not Assad, will come out of
this.. It's like, I'm no nationalist, but in many countries I kind of would
rather that than the alternative. Ghaddafi wasn't great but his people could've
been a lot worse of - and ARE a lot worse of now. I'm no Assad fan, but
my god look what the alternative is here. If it wasnt 95% foreign sponsored
maybe id see your point.
Read the essay posted on the left there. "Syria, the Feckless Left" IIRC.
I thought that summed up my thoughts well enough.
And guys, even if you agree with me please refrain from the name calling.
It makes those of you with a legitimate rebuttal seem silly and wrong. I've
always thought MoA was so refreshing because it was (somewhat) free of that.
At least B is generating discussion. I kind of appreciate that. It's nice
to hear ither views, even if they are a little unrealistic and pro violent
and anti democratic.
An example of an armed opposition with legitimate grievances that is
far from perfect but still very sympathetic (in my eyes) is hizbollah. They
have real problems to deal with. While they recieve foreign sponsorship
they aren't a foreign group the way the Syrian opposition is. And they will
be all but destroyed when their supply lines from Syria are cut off. I wonder
how that fits in with OPs post.
What makes Debs is Dead's turgid comment so irrational is that it endorses
Regime Change in Syria as an ongoing, but necessary and inevitable, "good".
But in doing so it tip-toes around the fact that it doesn't matter how Evil
an elected President is, or is not, it's up to the the people who elected
him to decide when they've had enough. It most certainly is NOT Neoconned
AmeriKKKa's concern.
Debs also 'forgot' to justify totally wrecking yet another of many ME
countries because of perceived and imaginary character flaws in a single
individual.
It does not compute; but then neither does "Israel's" 70 year (and counting)
hate crime, The Perpetual Palestinian Holohoax.
Whatever happened to the age old expression that one has to walk in someone
else's shoes to understand their walk in life?
In an all too obvious fashion, another arm chair expert is blessing the
world with his/her drivel.
To make it as concise as possible:
What would you have done in Assad's position? The U.S. is trying to annex
Syria since 1948 and never gave up on the plan to convert it to what the
neo-fascists turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia and the Republic of
Yugoslavia - whereas Yemen is still in the making, together with Ukraine,
Turkey and Africa as a whole.
In the light of U.S. 'foreign policy', the piece reeks of the stench
of obfuscation.
Debs also 'forgot' to justify totally wrecking yet another of many ME
countries because of perceived and imaginary character flaws in a single
individual.
We shouldn't be surprised. Even a basic pragmatic approach to this conflict
has been lost by many in the one sided, over the top shower of faeces that
is the western MSM.
It does not compute; but then neither does "Israel's" 70 year (and
counting) hate crime, The Perpetual Palestinian Holohoax.
All that land, all that resource...and a unifying language. Amazing.
If only the Arab world could unite for the collective good of the region
we might witness a rogue state in an abrupt and full decline. A sad tactic of colonial powers over the years, setting the native tribes
upon each other. We've not evolved here.
It is impossible for any one of us to possess the whole picture, which is
why we pool our experience, and benefit from these discussions. The thing
I see at the root of the Syrian war is the process of ethnic cleansing.
In many cases that involve murderous prejudice, it erupts as civil war;
but in recent history the foreign policy of powerful nations is aimed at
sponsoring social disintegration within the borders of targeted countries.
Ethnic cleansing means destruction of culture, of historical memory,
the forced disappearance of communities that were rooted in a place.
The objectives of the perpetrators have nothing to do with the convictions
of the fundamentalists who do the dirty work; and the sectarian and mercenary
troops are merely the tools of those who are creating hell on earth.
I agree with what papa wrote at the top of this thread:
why you think your article is different from others senseless name-calling,[?]
i see exactly the same. This war is about destroying real history, civilization,
culture and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in
that region wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it.
Most Islamic,Christian, Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed.
Compare President Assad's leadership to that of the western, or Saudi, sponsors
of terror; or measure his decisions against those of the hodgepodge of rebels
and mercenaries, with their endless internal squabbles and infighting. Assad
is so much more of a spokesman for the rights of sovereignty, and his words
carry more weight and outshine the banalities that spring from the mouths
of those who are paying the bills, and supplying weapons, and giving all
kinds of diplomatic comfort to the enemies of the Syrian government.
Debsisdead has always brought much food for thought to this watering
hole. I have always respected him, and I think he has a fine mind. Nonetheless,
despite the valuable contribution of this piece as a beginning place, in
which we might reevaluate some of our presumptions, I maintain there are
a few errors which stand out, and ought to be discussed.
I call into question these two points:
(1) Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does
not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist.
Up thread @14, we were reminded of Robert Fisk's report about misdirected,
misinformed "freedom fighters" naively wandering around in Syria, while
thinking that they were fighting in Palestine. In this ruin of Syria, where
the well-intentioned are captured, or co-opted into evil acts against the
civilian population, --is it really incumbent upon us, --from where we sit,
to agonize over the motives of those who are committing the actual atrocities
against the defenseless? What is the point?
(2) On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria
but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term
resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous
sadists in his crew. By the same token I don't believe all of those
resisting the Ba'athist administration are headchopping jihadists or
foreign mercenaries. This war is about 5 years old. If either side were
so simplistically good or evil it would have ended a long time ago.
There is no need for sorting things into absolutes of good and evil.
But there is a condition under which fewer, a lot fewer, humans would have
died in Syria, Without foreign interference--money, weapons, and training--Assad's
government would have won this war quite a while ago.
And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam
that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic
fundamentalists call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living
according to their rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver
to live.
Fundamentalism is never satisfied until it can become a tyranny over the
mind. Racism and fundamentalism are as American as apple pie. You have to
take a close look at who is pouring oil on this fire!
@9 I disagree with you in that neoliberalism is seriously not difficult to
define. It boils down to belief that public programs are bad/'inefficient'
and that society would be better served by privatizing many things(or even
everything) and opening services up to 'competition'. It's mainly just cover
for parasites to come in and get rich off of the masses misery. The 'neoliberalism
is just a snarl word' meme is incredibly stupid, since plenty of books and
articles have been written explicitly defining it.
"Having determined your definition of neoliberal, are you sure it WAS
neoliberal rather than a hegemonic entity?"
American economic hegemony is inherently neoliberal, and has been for
decades. The IMF is essentially an international loan shark that gives countries
money on the condition that they dismantle their public spending apparatus
and let the market run things.
I usually enjoy DiD's rants (rant in the nice sense), but in this case he
is wrong. His remarks are out of date.
No doubt he has Syrian friends in NZ, including the Syro-Palestinian
he mentions. They will have been living their past vision of Syria for some
time. Yes, back in 2011, there was a big vision of a future democratic Syria
among the intellectuals. However those who fight for the rebellion are not
middle class (who left) but rural Islamist Sunnis, who have a primitive
al-Qa'ida style view.
The Syrian civil war is quite like the Spanish civil war. It started
with noble republicans, including foreigners like Orwell, fighting against
nasty Franco, but finished with Stalin's communists fighting against Nazi-supported
fascists.
The situation is different now. One Syrian lady, who came to see me in
April, who lives in California, told me that her father, who was a big pre-war
oppositionist, now just wants to return to Syria to die. There's no question. if you want peace in Syria, Asad is the only choice.
The jihadis, who dominate the opposition, don't offer an alternative.
Noirette comes close to identifying one of the issues that kicked off
the conflict, that the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting
neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians.
The Ba'thist regime is a mafia of the family, not a dictatorship of Bashshar.
Evidently their own interest plays a premier role, but otherwise why not
in favour of the Syrian people? There's lot of evidence in favour of Syrian
peace.
The lesson of Viet Nam was to keep the dead and wounded off the six o'clock
news.
The jackals are going in. Another coup. Syria was on the list. Remap
the Middle East. Make it like Disney World. Israel as Mad King Ludwig's
Neuschwanstein.
Islam and its backward dictates, and Christianity with its backward dictates
and Manifest Destiny are problematic.
I may be white and I may be a fella but don't believe I'm in the fold as
described. Fundamentalists of any sort are free to believe as they will
but when they force it on others via gun, govt, societal pressures, violence
there's trouble. I've seen comparisons to the extremes from Christianity's
past with the excuse of Islam as being in its early years. No excuses. Fundies
out. But we don't see that in places like Saudi Arabia or Iran. Facts on
the ground rule. Iran had a bit more moderation but only under the tyrant
Shah. A majority may have voted for the Islamic Republic and all that entails
but what of the minority?
BTW, where are the stories (links) that show Bashar has embraced neoliberalism?
In the end, DiD reduced to pointing to two evils (with multi-facets) and
it looks like Assad is the lesser. But who can come up with a solution for
a country so divided and so infiltrated by outsiders? And here in the US,
look at the choice of future leaders that so many do not want. Where is
the one who will lead the US out of its BS? And who will vote for him/her?
Thanks to B for republishing the comment from Debsisdead. The comment raises
some issues about how people generally see the war in Syria, if they know
of it, as some sort of real-life video game substitute for bashing one side
or another.
I am not sure though that Debsisdead realises the full import of what
s/he has said and that much criticism s/he makes about comments in MoA comments
forums could apply equally to what s/he says and has said in the past.
I don't think anyone who comments here regularly ever assumed that Bashar
al Assad was a knight in white shining armour. Most of us are aware of how
he came to be President and that his father did rule the country from 1971
to 2000 with an iron fist. Some if not most also know that initially when
Bashar al Assad succeeded to the Presidency, he did have a reformist agenda
in mind. How well or not he succeeded in putting that across, what compromises
he had to make, who or what opposed him, how he negotiated his way between
and among various and opposed power structures in Syrian politics we do
not know.
Yes, I have trouble reconciling the fact that Bashar al Assad's government
did allow CIA renditioning with his reformist agenda in my own head. That
is something he will have to come to terms with in the future. I don't know
if Assad was naive, under pressure or willing, even eager in agreeing to
cooperate with the CIA, or trying to buy time to prepare for invasion once
Iraq was down. Whether Assad also realises that he was duped by the IMF
and World Bank in following their advice on economic "reforms" (such as
privatising Syria's water) is another thing as well.
But one thing that Debsisdead has overlooked is the fact that Bashar
al Assad is popular among the Syrian public, who returned him as President
in multi-candidate direct elections held in June 2014 with at least 88%
of the vote (with a turnout of 73%, better than some Western countries)
and who confirmed his popularity in parliamentary elections held in April
2016 with his Ba'ath Party-led coalition winning roughly two-thirds of seats.
The fact that Syrians themselves hold Assad in such high regard must
say something about his leadership that has endeared him to them. If as
Debsisdead suggests, Assad practises self-interested "realpolitik" like
so many other Middle Eastern politicians, even to the extent of offering
reconciliation to jihadis who lay down their weapons and surrender, how
has he managed to survive and how did Syria manage to hold off the jihadis
and US-Turkish intervention and supply before requesting Russian help?
Copeland @58: I don't see why you call the problem "Islamic fundamentalism"
when in fact it is Sunni fundamentalism. Admittedly it's tough to 'name'
the problem. I'm sure I speak for most here that the problem isn't fundamentalism
but 'warring imperialist fundamentalist and misogynist Sunni Islam' that
is the problem.
It'd be nice to have a brief and accurate way of saying
what this is: 'Saudi Arabia violently exporting its worst form of Islam'.
When people refer to Christian fundamentalism they use the broad term
as well. Nothing is otherwise wrong with denominational belief, if past
a certain point it is not fundamentalist. You say the problem is not fundamentalism,
but something else. Indeed, the problem is fundamentalism.
Manifest
Destiny is fundamentalism. There are even atheist fundamentalists. "Full
Spectrum Dominance" and other US Military doctrines are fundamentalist in
nature. We are awash in fundamentalism, consumerist fundamentalism, capitalist
fundamentalism. If we are unlucky and don't succeed in changing the path
we are on; then we will understand too late the inscription that appeared
in the Temple of Apollo: "Nothing too much".
They say that the first casualty of war is truth and from what I read in
comments such a mental state prevails among readers, they see Assad, quite
reasonably, as the only one who can end this horrible war and the only one
who is really interested in doing so while US and even seemingly Russia
seems to treat this conflict as a instrument of global geopolitical struggle
instigated by US imperial delusions.
But of course one cannot escape conclusion that although provoked by
the CIA operation Bashir Assad failed years befor 2011 exactly because,
living in London, did not see neoliberalism as an existential threat ad
his father did but a system that has its benefits and can be dealt with,
so for a short while Saddam, Gaddafi and Mubarak thought while they were
pampered by western elites.
Now Assad is the only choice I'd Syrians want to keep what would resemble
unified Syrian state since nobody else seems to care.
I have no doubt that Assad was little more than a crude Arab strongman/dictator
prince back in the 2011 when the uprising started.
Since then, he has evolved into a committed, engaged defender of his
country against multilateral foreign aggression, willingly leaving his balls
in the vice and all.
He could have fled the sinking ship many times so far. Instead, he decided
to stay and fight the Takfiri river flowing in through the crack, and risk
going down with the ship he inherited. The majority of the Syrians know
this very well.
Bashar of 2016 (not so much the one of 5 1/2 years ago) would not only
win the next free elections, but destroy any opposition. The aggressors
know that as a fact.
Which is precisely why he "must go" prior to any such elections. He would
be invincible.
"This war is about 5 years old. If either side were so simplistically
good or evil it would have ended a long time ago."
Question to you:
if Syria had control over its borders with Turkey, Israel, Jordan and
Iraq would the war have ended a long time ago ? Answer honestly.
If yes, then the so-called "opposition" of the union of headchoppers
does not represent a significant portion of the Syrian people. Were it otherwise
Assad wouldnt be able to survive a single year, let alone 5. With or without
foreign help.
And that, my friend, may be the biggest oft ignored cui bono of the entire
Syrian war.
If Assad goes:
Syria falls apart. Western Golan has no more debtor nation to be returned
to as far as the UN go. It immediately becomes fee simple property of the
occupying entity, for as long as the occupier shall exist (and, with Western
Golan included, that might be a bit longer perchance...).
Hizbullah loses both its best supply line and all the strategic depth
it might have as well as the only ally anywhere close enough to help. It
becomes a military non-entity. Who benefits?
I think this cui bono (and a double one at that!) is a $100 difficulty
level question, although it feels like a $64k one.
Best opinion post I've yet read on this site. "Binary division," also very
much affects the U.S. election. If you hate Hillary, you must just LOVE
Trump, even though many of the best reasons to hate her--her arrogance,
her incompetence, her phoniness, her lies, her and Bill's relentless acquisition
of great wealth, etc.--are also reasons to hate Trump. Assad is a bastard,
Putin is a bastard, Saddam was a bastard--but so are Obama, Netanyahu, Hollande,
etc. Is it REALLY that hard to figure out?
@ 62 john... we'll have to wait for debs to explain how all that (in your
link) adds up, so long as no one calls him any name/s.... i'd like to say
'the anticipation of debs commenting again is killing me', but regardless,
killing innocent people in faraway lands thanks usa foreign policy is ongoing..
OK here is an interesting article from 2011 on Abdallah Dardari, the fellow
who persuaded Bashar al Assad to adopt the disastrous neoliberal economic
reforms that not only ruined Syria's economy and the country's agriculture
in particular but also created an underclass who resented the reforms and
who initially joined the "rebels". http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/2097
And where is Dardari now? He jumped ship in 2011 and went to Beirut to
work for the UN's Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA).
He seems like someone to keep a watchful eye on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Dardari
not even sure where to begin...this article is barely worthy of a random
facebook post and contains a roughly even mix of straw men and stuff most
people already know and don't need dictated to them by random internet folks.
of COURSE assad flirted with the west. between housing cia rendition
houses and the less-than-flattering aspects of the wikileaks "syria files",
assad and/or his handlers (family and/or military) have tried a little too
hard to "assimilate" to western ideals (or the lack thereof).
i seriously
doubt they will make that mistake again. they saw what happened to al-qaddafi
after he tried to play nice and mistook western politicians for human beings.
they've learned their lesson and become more ruthless but they were always
machiavellians because they have to be. not an endorsement, just an acceptance
of how the region is.
and then there's "just about every ME leader has put expedience ahead
of principle with regard to Palestine. Colonel Ghadaffi would be the only
leader I'm aware of who didn't". that might be a surprise to nasrallah and
a fair share of iran's power base. i'd also say "expedience" is an odd way
to describe the simple choice of avoiding israeli/saudi/US aggression in
the short term since the alternative would be what we're seeing in syria
and libya as we speak. again, not an endorsment of their relative cowardice.
just saying i understand the urge to avoid salfist proxy wars.
[also: israel, the saudis (along with qatar and the other GCC psychopaths
in supporting capacity) and the US are the main actors and throwing european
"powers" into the circle of actual power does them an undue favor by ignoring
their status as pathetic vassal states. "FrUkDeUSZiowhatever" isn't necessary.]
as for "calling all islamic fundamentalism" "headchopping" being "racist",
be sure not to smoke around all those straw men. never mind the inanity
of pretending that all islamic "fundamentalism" is the same. never mind
conflating religion with ethnicity. outside of typical western sites that
lean to the right and are open about it few people would say anything like
that. maybe you meant to post this on glenn beck's site?
whatever. hopefully there won't be more guest posts in the future.
I read this site regularly and give thanks to the numerous intelligent posters
who share their knowledge of the middle east and Syria in particular. Still,
I do try to read alternative views to understand opposition perspectives
no matter how biased or damaging these might they appear to the readers
of this blog. So in the wake of recent agreements, I try find out what the
mainstream media is saying about the Ahrar al-Sham refusal to recognize
the US/Russia sponsored peace plan....and type that into google.......and
crickets. All that comes up is a single Al-Masdar report.
Look I know the
MSM is utterly controlled - but the extent of that control still shocks
at times. It is simply not possible to be "informed" by any normal definition
of the word anymore without the alternative media - and for that reason
this site serves a valuable purpose and I once again thank the host and
contributors.
The irony is, Assad is 10x smarter and bigger person than Debs. Yes, he
made some mistakes, but if not "flirting with neoliberalism", war against
Syria would have started many years earlier, when Resistance wasnt ready
one bit (neither Russia, nor Iran, while on the other hand US was more powerful).
The other ironic point, Debs is guilty of many things he blames other
for, hence comments about his hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness.
The essay I refered to earlier at 45/46 from this site I'll post below.
I think it has a lot of bearing on what DiD is implying here. It's DEFINITELY
worth a read and is probably the reason why I started appreciating this
site in the first place.
Support for rebel groups was misguided at best at the beginning of the
war. One could conceivably not appreciate the capacity of the KSA/USA/Quatar/Israel
to influence and control and create these groups. Jesus it's hard for me
to think of a single local opposition group that isnt drenched in fanaticism
besides the Kurds. But now that we understand the makeup and texture of
these groups much more and to continue support, even just in the most minor
of ways, is really disheartening.
There's no way to a solution for the Syrian
people, the population not imported that is, if these groups win. I hate
to be so binary but its so naive in my eyes to think anything good will
come from the long arm of the gulf countries and the USA taking control.
WORTH A READ. ONE OF THE BEST THINGS EVER POSTED ON MoA.
Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM |
79
The problem with this post is simple: all this might have been true back
when the insurgency STARTED. TODAY it is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT.
As I've said repeatedly, the GOAL of the Syria crisis for the Western
elites, Israel and the ME dictatorships is to take Syria OUT by any means
necessary in order to get to IRAN. Nothing else matters to these people.
In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT
insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia,
etc., etc.
So, yes, right NOW the whole story is about US elites, Zionist "evil",
corrupt monarchs, and scumbag fanatics, etc., etc. Until THAT is resolved,
nothing about how Syria is being run is going to matter.
I don't know and have never read ANYONE who is a serious commenter on
this issue - and by that I mean NOT the trolls that infest every comment
thread on every blog - who seriously thinks Assad is a "decent ruler". At
this point it does not matter. He personally does not matter. What matters
is that Syria is not destroyed, so that Hizballah is not destroyed, so that
Iran is not destroyed, so that Israel rules a fragmented Middle East and
eventually destroys the Palestinians and that the US gets all the oil for
free. This is what Russia is trying to defend, not Assad.
And if this leaves a certain percentage of Syrian citizens screwed over
by Assad, well, they should have figured that out as much as Assad should
have figured out that he never should have tried to get along with the US.
Frankly, this is a pointless post which is WAY out of date.
Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM | 79
In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT
insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia,
etc., etc.
"We had to be fighters," he said, "because we didn't find any other
job. If you want to stay inside you need to be a part of the FSA [Free
Syrian Army, the group that has closest relations with the West]. Everything
is very expensive. They pay us $100 a month but it is not enough.
"All this war is a lie. We had good lives before the revolution.
Anyway this is not a revolution. They lied to us in the name of religion.
"I don't want to go on fighting but I need to find a job, a house.
Everything I have is here in Muadhamiya."
...
.. who seriously thinks Assad is a "decent ruler". At this point it does
not matter. He personally does not matter.
...
Frankly, this is a pointless post which is WAY out of date.
Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM | 79
Well, according to RSH, who specialises in being wrong...
Assad does matter because he is the ELECTED leader chosen by the People
of Syria in MORE THAN ONE election.
Did you forget?
Did you not know?
Or doesn't any of that "democracy" stuff matter either?
Israel said its aircraft attacked a Syrian army position on Tuesday after
a stray mortar bomb struck the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights, and it
denied a Syrian statement that a warplane and drone were shot down.
The air strike was a now-routine Israeli response to the occasional spillover
from fighting in a five-year-old civil war, and across Syria a ceasefire
was holding at the start of its second day.
Syria's army command said in a statement that Israeli warplanes had attacked
an army position at 1 a.m. on Tuesday (2200 GMT, Monday) in the countryside
of Quneitra province.
The Israeli military said its aircraft attacked targets in Syria hours
after the mortar bomb from fighting among factions in Syria struck the Golan
Heights. Israel captured the plateau from Syria in a 1967 war.
The Syrian army said it had shot down an Israeli warplane and a drone
after the Israeli attack.
Denying any of its aircraft had been lost, the Israeli military said
in a statement: "Overnight two surface-to-air missiles were launched from
Syria after the mission to target Syrian artillery positions. At no point
was the safety of (Israeli) aircraft compromised."
The seven-day truce in Syria, brokered by Russia and the United States,
is their second attempt this year by to halt the bloodshed.
Copeland @60: No, I don't think the problem is fundamentalism. It's the
warring crusade method of spreading a belief's 'empire' that is the problem.
This is a problem uniquely of the Saudi 'do whatever it takes' crusade to
convert the entire 'Arab and Muslim world' to their worst, most misogynist
form of Islam. T
here are of course many fundamentalists (the Amish and some
Mennonites are examples from Christianity) that are not evangelical, or
put severe (no violence, no manipulation, no kidnapping, stop pushing if
the person says 'no') limits on their evangelism.
Only the Saudis, or pushers
of their version of Islam, seem to put no limits at all on their sect's
crusade.
Just want to mention that from the beginning there were people who took
up arms against the government. This is why the situation went out of control.
People ambushed groups of young soldiers. Snipers of unknown origin fired
on police and civilians.
There are plenty of people in the United States right now who are just
as oppressed - I would wager more so - than anyone in Syria. Immigrants
from the south are treated horribly here. There are still black enclaves
in large cities where young men are shot by the police on a daily basis
for suspicious behavior and minor driving infractions. And then there are
the disenfranchised white folks in the Teaparty who belong to the NRA and
insist on 'open carry' of their weapons on the street and train in the back
woods for a coming war. Tell me what would happen if there were a guarantor
these people found believable who promised them that if they took up arms
against the government (and anyone else in the country they felt threatened
by) they would be guaranteed to win and become the government of a 'New
America'. What if that foreign guarantor were to pay them and improve their
armaments while providing political cover.
I rather like Assad. I won't lie. But, he is not the reason for the insurrection
in Syria ~ well, except for his alliances with Russia and Iran and his pipeline
decisions and his support for Palestinian and Iraqi refugees. What happened
in Syria is happening all over the globe because the nation with the most
resources in the world, the self-declared exceptionalist state thinks this
is the way to rule the world. . . . because they want to rule and they don't
care how much destruction it takes to do so. And lucky for us there is no
one big enough and bad enough to do it to us - except for our own government.
"All of the petrodollars Saudi Arabia spends to advance this claim of
leadership and the monopolistic use of Islam's greatest holy sites to manufacture
a claim of entitlement to Muslim leadership were shattered by this collective
revolt from leading Sunni Muslim scholars and institutions who refused to
allow extremism, takfir, and terror ideology to be legitimized in their
name by a fringe they decided that it is even not part of their community.
This is the beginning of a new era of Muslim awakening the Wahhabis spared
no efforts and no precious resources to ensure it will never arrive."
Assad (=> group in power), whose stated aim was to pass from a 'socialist'
to a 'market' economy. Notes.
*decreased public sector employment.* -- was about 30%, went far
lower (1) - was a staple: one 'smart' graduate in the family guaranteed
a good Gvmt job, could support many.
*cut subsidies* (energy, water, housing, food, etc.) drought (2005>)
plus these moves threw millions into cities with no jobs.. pre-drought
about 20% agri empl. cuts to agri subsidies created the most disruption.
…imho was spurred by the sharply declining oil revenues (peak oil..)
which accounted for ?, 15% GDP in 2002 for ex to a few slim points edging
to nil in 2012, consequences:
> a. unemployment rose 'n rose (to 35-40% youth? xyz overall?), and social
stability was affected by family/extended f/ district etc. organisation
being smashed. education health care in poor regions suffered (2)
> b. small biz of various types went under becos loss of subs, competition
from outsiders (free market policy), lack of bank loans it is said by some
but idk, and loss of clients as these became impoverished. Syria does not
have a national (afaik) unemployment scheme. Assad to his credit
set up a cash-transfer thingie to poor families, but that is not a subsitute
for 'growing employment..'
*opened up the country's banking system* (can't treat the details..)
So Assad was hit by a Tri-horror: global warming, dwindling cash
FF resources, and IMF-type pressure, leaving out the trad. enemies, KSA,
pipelines , etc. MSM prefer to cover up serious issues with 'ethnic strife'
(sunni, shia, black lives matter, etc.)
1. all nos off the top of my head.
2. Acceptance of a massive refugee pop. (Pals in the past, Kurds, but
numerically important now, Iraqis) plus the high birth rate
2011> 10 year plan syria in arabic (which i can't read) but look at images
and 'supporters' etc.
This
article outlines the main elements of
rupture and continuity in the global political economy since the global
economic crisis of
2008-2009. While the current calamity poses a more systemic challenge to
neoliberal
globalization than genetically similar turbulences in the
semi-periphery during the 1990s, we find that evidence for its
transformative significance remains mixed. Efforts to reform the distressed
capitalist models in the North encounter severe resistance, and the
broadened multilateralism of the G-20 is yet
to provide effective global economic governance. Overall,
neoliberal
globalization looks set to survive, but in more heterodox and
multipolar fashion. Without tighter coordination between old and emerging
powers, this new synthesis is unlikely to inspire lasting solutions to
pressing global problems such as an unsustainable international financial
architecture and the pending environmental catastrophe, and may even fail to
preserve some modest democratic and developmental gains
of the recent past.
Looks like this neocon Robert Lieber is completely detached from the reality.
Cheap oil is coming to an end in this decade and with it the crisis hit neoliberal
globalization and the US role as the capital of the global neoliberal empire. With
far reaching consequences.
Notable quotes:
"... Unfortunately, primacy has largely failed to deliver what must be the first, second, and third priorities for any grand strategy: the satisfaction of national interests, foremost among them America's safety. Rather than peace and security, primacy has brought about questionable military interventions and wars of choice in Somalia, Haiti, the Balkans (twice), Iraq (three times, depending on how you count), Libya, and Syria. Our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to the deaths of almost 7,000 American troops, the wounding of tens of thousands more, and the filing of disability claims by nearly a million veterans. Rather than protecting the conditions of our prosperity, primacy has cost Americans dearly, with the annual defense budget now set to rise to around $600 billion and the Iraq War alone wasting trillions of dollars. As for our values, the U.S. approach has placed our nation in the uncomfortable position of defending illiberal regimes abroad, stained our reputation for the rule of law with Guantanamo and drone campaigns, and sacrificed the Constitutional authority of Congress. ..."
"... The United States still enjoys the world's strongest military force, costing taxpayers around $600 billion a year. This sum represents nearly a third of all global spending and is equal to that of at least the next 10 countries combined. Its nearest competitor, China, spends far less, about $150 billion. ..."
"... And during the Obama years, the United States surged forces in Afghanistan, fought a war against Libya that led to regime change, re-entered Iraq and engaged (even if tepidly) in Syria, supported Saudi Arabia's dubious fight in Yemen, continued to conduct drone strikes abroad, became unprofitably enmeshed diplomatically in Ukraine's troubles, and continued to exert its power and influence in Asia. And just recently the U.S. again bombed targets in Libya. Retreat, you say? ..."
"... The degree of disarray in Libya and the consequences of it have flowed directly from the U.S.'s decision to go to war against Gaddafi and to pursue regime change. There is little need to note how disastrous the Iraq War was for the region and American interests-and how Iraq continues to be a source of trouble that the U.S. is ill-suited to resolve. ..."
"... President Obama's grand strategy has remained firmly planted within the confines of the Washington consensus and does not represent a retreat. One could only imagine what Lieber would think of a policy that truly hewed more closely to the advice of our Founders. ..."
The United States has been pursuing a grand strategy of primacy since at
least the end of the Cold War. This hegemonic approach has sought, through active,
deep engagement in the world, to preserve and extend the U.S.'s global dominance
that followed the Soviet Union's collapse. In other words, it has aimed to turn
the unipolar moment into a unipolar era. Maintaining this dominance has meant
aggressive diplomacy and the frequent display, threat, and use of military power
everywhere from the Balkans to the Baltics, from Libya to Pakistan, and from
the Taiwan Straits to the Korean peninsula.
Unfortunately, primacy has largely failed to deliver what must be the
first, second, and third priorities for any grand strategy: the satisfaction
of national interests, foremost among them America's safety. Rather than peace
and security, primacy has brought about questionable military interventions
and wars of choice in Somalia, Haiti, the Balkans (twice), Iraq (three times,
depending on how you count), Libya, and Syria. Our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
have led to the deaths of almost 7,000 American troops, the wounding of tens
of thousands more, and the filing of disability claims by nearly a million veterans.
Rather than protecting the conditions of our prosperity, primacy has cost Americans
dearly, with the annual defense budget now set to rise to around $600 billion
and the Iraq War alone wasting trillions of dollars. As for our values, the
U.S. approach has placed our nation in the uncomfortable position of defending
illiberal regimes abroad, stained our reputation for the rule of law with Guantanamo
and drone campaigns, and sacrificed the Constitutional authority of Congress.
Is it any wonder that more and more Americans question whether our foreign
policy is working? Or that more and more Washington elites, though still a minority,
are becoming dissatisfied with the status quo? Such challengers seek to reform
the military budget and force structure to make them consistent with our real
security needs. They also want to reduce ally free-riding and make sure that
the full range of possible costs and consequences of our actions abroad get
a more serious hearing so that we, in the immortal words of President Obama,
"Don't do stupid shit."
And yet Robert Lieber, in his slender new book Retreat and Its Consequences
, thinks those who seek an alternative approach are dangerously misled.
He sees any sign of realism and restraint-real, anticipated, or imagined-as
a retreat with far-reaching negative implications. Lieber, a professor of government
and international affairs at Georgetown University, instead makes the case for
doubling down on primacy and against the U.S. playing a "reduced" role in the
world. He does so mainly by attempting to show the negative consequences of
the Obama administration's supposed retrenchment while arguing for the importance
of aggressive American global leadership.
Unfortunately for the primacist cause, Retreat and Its Consequences
is not a satisfactory rejoinder to its challengers. Lieber is unconvincing
in both his indictment of opposing views and his case for deep engagement. The
book frequently reads like a rehashing of attacks we've heard high and low since
Bush departed office, from scholars like Peter Feaver of Duke University to
the Beltway neoconservatives to the fear-mongering talking heads on cable news.
More importantly, it trots out a deeply flawed argument that the United States
under Obama is actually in retreat and shedding its global leadership.
♦♦♦
Retreat and Its Consequences is the last book of Lieber's
informal trilogy on recent U.S. foreign policy. In the first book in the series,
The American Era (2005), Lieber argued in favor of the United States
continuing in the post-9/11 era to lead the world through a grand strategy of
"preponderance" and "active engagement." He claimed that such an approach would
dovetail with the realities of that changed world, to the benefit of U.S. security
and the international order alike. The next book, Power and Willpower in the American Future (2012), challenged the declinist perspective and
made the case for why the U.S. could still exert global leadership despite facing
a number of different challenges.
Lieber begins this third book, Retreat and Its Consequences , by claiming
that America's long-standing active engagement in global affairs has been increasingly
questioned at home and that the U.S. has recently been retrenching and pulling
back from its traditional leadership role. He describes this retrenchment in
theory and practice, then briefly (and in more detail later in the book) paints
a picture of a world gone bad as a consequence of this alleged retreat. He hangs
most of his indictment on President Obama's foreign-policy approach, which Lieber
claims reflects "a clear preference for reducing U.S. power and presence abroad"
as well as "a deep skepticism about the use of force" and "a de-emphasis on
relationships with allies."
The middle section of the book provides chapter-long discussions of U.S.
foreign relations with Europe, the Middle East, and the BRICS countries. In
the Europe chapter, Lieber argues that our critical relationship with our European
allies is suffering. He claims that the "Atlantic partnership has weakened as
the United States has downplayed its European commitments and Europeans themselves
have become less capable and more inclined to hedge their bets." The latter
is due to Europe's own internal woes, including economic problems, military
weakness (as well as growing pacifism), demographic challenges, and problems
with the EU. The other half of the problem he lays, as is typical in this book,
at the Obama administration's doorstep due to its de-emphasis on Europe and
its weak behavior towards Putin's Russia.
As for the Middle East, Lieber claims that the region and U.S. national interests
there are suffering due to Obama's flawed retrenchment and disengagement strategy.
Indeed, Lieber argues that Obama's transformative moves, only lightly described,
have "contributed to the making of a more dangerous and unstable Middle East."
He also discusses U.S. interests and history in the region, the sources of Middle
East instability, and the "unexpected consequences" of the Iraq War-the rise
of ISIS and Iran.
Lieber's main point regarding the BRICS is that these countries have not
helped and will not be able to help sustain the current global order. Indeed,
he thinks these states have their own different priorities and, to the extent
they benefit from the current system, will try to free ride as much as possible.
Lieber uses these cases as still more reasons why the U.S. cannot disengage
from its global leadership role even as economic power continues to diffuse.
In the penultimate chapter, Lieber returns to his allegation that the U.S.
has been retreating from the world and our leadership role-and tries to show
that it has had dangerous consequences. In the process, he discusses U.S. policies
toward Russia, China, Iraq and Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, and Cuba. In
all these cases, Lieber finds evidence of failure and worsening conditions due
to Obama's retrenchment and his aversion to using American power. He also claims
that the Obama administration has cut our military while failing to provide
a focused articulation of what goals it needs to meet.
Lieber ends by returning to the theme of Power and Willpower in the American
Future , namely that the U.S., despite its challenges, still has the capacity
to pursue an active hegemonic grand strategy. He takes issue with the declinists
and argues yet again that the U.S. ought to lead the world; otherwise, it "is
likely to become a more disorderly and dangerous place, with mounting threats
not only to world order and economic prosperity, but to its own national interests
and homeland security."
♦♦♦
Lieber's book isn't without its lucid moments. First, he is on sound footing
when he notes that the BRICS are not fully committed to the current American-led
international order. Furthermore, he is also right about the need for our European
allies to increase their own capabilities-though one wishes he had paused to
consider how this is an unsurprising result of U.S. security guarantees that
incentivize free-riding.
Second, Lieber also helpfully challenges the declinist view prevalent in
some circles. The United States certainly has its challenges, with staggering
debt and deficits, not to mention a stifling regulatory regime. But the U.S.
continues to enjoy many strengths and advantages, especially relative to the
other near-great powers in the system. (And in international politics, it is
relative power that matters most.) Yet while Lieber gets the condition of the
patient right in this instance, the good doctor does not convincingly argue
for the necessity of his preferred prescription. That the U.S. may not be in
relative decline or in as much future trouble as some might claim does not imply
that the U.S. should continue to follow primacy. Rather, one could argue that
it is precisely because of some of our continued advantages that his grand strategy
is not required. When discussing the BRICS, Lieber admits that China suffers
from some grave problems that may prevent it from becoming a serious challenger
to American dominance. This raises the question of why the United States must
do-and risk-so much to ensure our security or that of our allies in Asia.
Despite these positives, Retreat and Its Consequences and the overarching
approach that has guided Lieber's policy views for so long suffer from a number
of critical flaws. Most importantly, the argument of the book is simply based
on a mistaken and endlessly repeated premise that the United States has significantly
retreated from the world and that this has been a key source of so many problems
in it. Basically, Lieber, as we've heard so often from others, is arguing that
the administration has pursued restraint, the world has gone to hell, restraint
is responsible for our woes-and thus we must return to primacy. Admittedly,
Obama, especially in his second term, has exercised greater discretion in how
he has managed our global engagement and leadership. And he may in his heart
of hearts have some sympathy with those who have counseled greater realism.
But neither make for a policy of retreat.
Indeed, the United States under Obama has continued to pursue a variant of
primacy despite what Lieber and others keep saying in their critiques. The United
States is still committed to defending over 60 other countries and commanding
the global commons. It still has a forward-deployed military living on a globe-girdling
network of hundreds of military bases. In fact, it has recently sent more troops
and equipment to Iraq, Eastern Europe, and even Australia. The United States
still enjoys the world's strongest military force, costing taxpayers around
$600 billion a year. This sum represents nearly a third of all global spending
and is equal to that of at least the next 10 countries combined. Its nearest
competitor, China, spends far less, about $150 billion.
And during the Obama
years, the United States surged forces in Afghanistan, fought a war against
Libya that led to regime change, re-entered Iraq and engaged (even if tepidly)
in Syria, supported Saudi Arabia's dubious fight in Yemen, continued to conduct
drone strikes abroad, became unprofitably enmeshed diplomatically in Ukraine's
troubles, and continued to exert its power and influence in Asia. And just recently
the U.S. again bombed targets in Libya. Retreat, you say?
Finally, Lieber's claim that disengagement and retrenchment is to blame for
problems in the greater Middle East is rich given how the primacist approach
he favors was to a great extent responsible for the problems in the first place.
The degree of disarray in Libya and the consequences of it have flowed directly
from the U.S.'s decision to go to war against Gaddafi and to pursue regime change.
There is little need to note how disastrous the Iraq War was for the region
and American interests-and how Iraq continues to be a source of trouble that
the U.S. is ill-suited to resolve. It is especially noteworthy that the relative
increase of Iranian influence Lieber bemoans was an entirely predictable result
of that short-sighted campaign. And we haven't likely seen all of the poisonous
fruit from what is happening in Yemen. In short, Lieber and his fellow primacists
have advocated for policies in the Middle East-including the war in Iraq-that
are a big part of the problem, not the solution.
Our country needs challenges and alternatives to the status quo rather than
boilerplate justifications of the policies that have failed to make us safer
over the past 25 years. Regardless of what Lieber would have us believe, President
Obama's grand strategy has remained firmly planted within the confines of the
Washington consensus and does not represent a retreat. One could only imagine
what Lieber would think of a policy that truly hewed more closely to the advice
of our Founders.
William Ruger is the vice president for research and policy at the Charles
Koch Institute.
"... Obama has showered both Israel and Saudi Arabia with aid and weapons for years, and in practical terms he has been one of the most reliable supporters of both governments, but no matter how much he does for these clients neither they nor their supporters here in the U.S. are satisfied. However much Obama supports both clients, the recipient governments still believe that he is too hard on them, neglects them, and works against their interests. Since they know that Obama responds to each new complaint with another round of "reassurance," they have every incentive to complain and feign outrage about how they are treated in the knowledge that the more they whine the more they will gain. ..."
"... Obama can try as much as he likes to demonstrate just how conventionally "pro-Israel" he is (and always has been), but there will never be any pleasing those detractors that are (absurdly) convinced that he is ideologically hostile to Israel. ..."
The U.S. is preparing to
increase
the amount of aid it provides to yet another wealthy
client:
President Barack Obama will unveil on Wednesday a massive new
military aid package for Israel, one which - at a reported $38
billion over 10 years - would be the largest such deal in U.S.
history.
But is it enough to buy Obama the love of his fiercest
pro-Israel critics?
Not a chance.
Obama has showered both Israel and Saudi Arabia with aid and weapons
for years, and in practical terms he has been one of the most
reliable supporters of both governments, but no matter how much he
does for these clients neither they nor their supporters here in the
U.S. are satisfied. However much Obama supports both clients, the
recipient governments still believe that he is too hard on them,
neglects them, and works against their interests. Since they know
that Obama responds to each new complaint with another round of
"reassurance," they have every incentive to complain and feign
outrage about how they are treated in the knowledge that the more
they whine the more they will gain.
It is also a fact that many of Obama's "pro-Israel" critics have
never accepted and will never accept that he is actually
"pro-Israel" as they are, and so they dismiss anything he does as a
trick, a bribe, or an insult. Obama can try as much as he likes to
demonstrate just how conventionally "pro-Israel" he is (and always
has been), but there will never be any pleasing those detractors
that are (absurdly) convinced that he is ideologically hostile to
Israel. The same goes for hawks that take it for granted that Obama
supposedly neglects and abandons "allies" elsewhere in the region.
There is nothing Obama can to make them believe that he doesn't do
this, but that doesn't seem to stop him from frittering away more
resources to placate governments that do little or nothing for the
U.S.
"... A growing body of research indicates that the financial and psychological damage from a period of joblessness can be significant and long-lasting, especially for people who remain out of work for an extended period. ..."
"... Friedman is just doing his job. The Saddam's WMDs paper endorsed Hillary on Jan 31st, and is part of the campaign of lies, deceptions and cover-ups. ..."
"... As with television, it's healthier not to pollute one's mind with NYT propaganda. Reading the idiotic headlines is enough to realize that the "content" is crap. ..."
"... Predictably, the comments on the NYT op-ed (by the "Suck on this, Iraq!" Friedman) are more thoughtful and reality-based than the author's column. ..."
"... Libya and Syria and Ukraine were NOT just bad judgment calls. However, they were three consecutive bad judgment calls, with no good ones to offset. That still matters. ..."
"... Libya and Syria and Ukraine were also lies, coming from the mouth of Hillary, and harming the country by tossing us into more wars. ..."
"... I really wonder how Friedman and the other NYT Iraq war cheerleaders can look at themselves in the mirror each morning. And excellent point about Snowden, of course. ..."
It's not hard to see the thinking behind BIG from the Silicon Valley,
elite perspective. They understand that putting everybody out of work from
robotics or out-sourcing is a sure-fire way to create massive discontent.
They think this is a clever way of keeping the losers contented (enough
to not revolt) while maintaining their elevated position within the system.
They don't care what the system looks like, really, just so long as they
get to sit on top. They think this is a way to avert the revolution that
they know, from reading Marx and thinking about it a little, their actions
are sure to lead to, ceteris paribus .
However, I think they underestimate the extent to which our continual
trade deficits are predicated on the US dollar being the world's reserve
currency. That status may not be in danger in the short term, but I think
it's doomed to extinction over the medium term, as the BRICS and other countries
maneuver their way out from under the thumb of the petro-dollar.
But the up-side is that they're mainstreaming an MMT understanding of
macroeconomics and, as old John used to say, "ideas have a way of taking
on a life of their own." Also, some poor people might actually end up being
benefited as a side-effect of the elites trying to keep the lower orders
manageable. I mean, that's really what the New Deal was about, no? FDR wasn't
fighting for the working man, he just realized that exploiting them too
much could crash the whole system and be much worse for his class, the elites,
than a little Social Security was. FDR wasn't looking to overturn class
relations, but maintain them. He just had a more nuanced understanding of
self-interest than many of his class peers (that oughta get some people
fuming). Still, whatever the motivation, the programs had the practical
effect of making a lot of people's lives better. Why shouldn't it be the
same in this situation?
Not that I'm foily, but if you combine the abolition of cash, BIG in
the form of a digital deposit, retail tracking everywhere, and the precedent
(from ObamaCare) of a mandate to participate in certain markets, you can
concoct quite a dystopia….
I think we need to have a movement to defend cash. Small business owners
should lead the charge, since card fees hit them the hardest. I see a possible
coalition…anti-surveillance activists and guys like the owner of the pizza
joint I frequent whose register bears a sign that reads "Cards accepted,
Cash preferred."
Also, a BIG would be a great excuse to start-up the Postal Bank. Everybody
will get an account tied to their SSN that their BIG gets deposited in,
accessible (in cash) at any post office. It might just be sell-able…at least
to the public, if not to Wall Street.
Whenever I hear about TPTB doing away with cash I am reminded of Margaret
Atwood's prescient (from the 80s I think!) novel about a patriarchal dystopian
future, The Handmaid's Tale – freezing the bank accounts is how it all started.
"A growing body of research indicates that the financial and psychological
damage from a period of joblessness can be significant and long-lasting,
especially for people who remain out of work for an extended period."
quelle surprise! are poor, working, and middle-class people's well-being
actually closely tied to how many days in their lives they can work? hoocoodanode?
I hear they have really low well being in Europe with their 6 weeks vacations
and way more holidays and stuff. They throw themselves off bridges at the
start of every vacation season. Nah it's tied to having an income or not,
not how many days they work.
i always forget about that because i've always worked as in independent
contractor, staying sane by pretending benefits and paid holidays and vacations
are not all that important in life. and i must say, lately i do see TPTB
cashing in on my idea, bigtime. i should have placed some bets on that happening…
I haven't worked a paying job for about 14 years….the wife works the
day gig, while I maintain the abode, do household repairs, garden, tend
to the bees & chickens…..etc. …… I'm 'working' my way on the downslope of
collapse…'avoiding the rush' as John M Greer is fond of saying…..
i meant, in our current industrialized, work-ethic-based western society.
which not coincidentally has had a lousy mental and physical health outcome
for millions of people over time.
but never mind. a rising water floats all boats.
until it doesn't.
'Hillary's fibs or lack of candor are all about bad judgments she
made on issues that will not impact the future of either my family or
my country. Private email servers? Cattle futures? Goldman Sachs lectures?
All really stupid, but my kids will not be harmed by those poor
calls. Debate where she came out on Iraq and Libya, if you
will, but those were considered judgment calls, and if you disagree
don't vote for her" [The Moustache of Understanding, New York Times].
You tell 'em, Tommy! Who cares about corruption? Corruption had nothing
to do with Iraq!
Of course they won't. You are well-off, well-connected, and work for
a virtual organ of the state that has backed her every move. You
and your framily are on the inside track and will of course be protected.
Friedman is just doing his job. The Saddam's WMDs paper endorsed
Hillary on Jan 31st, and is part of the campaign of lies, deceptions and
cover-ups.
Journo-hos … the only surprise is that you can buy them so cheap.
As with television, it's healthier not to pollute one's mind with
NYT propaganda. Reading the idiotic headlines is enough to realize
that the "content" is crap.
Sounds like everyone should work for an organ (or a virtual organ, either
way) of the state. Just make sure you're well-connected (the importance
of being social – don't just bury yourself in books).
Predictably, the comments on the NYT op-ed (by the "Suck on this,
Iraq!" Friedman) are more thoughtful and reality-based than the author's
column. Here is a sample:
Thomas Friedman on lies that hurt the country? Let's start that with
the Iraq War.
I agree that the emails probably didn't hurt the country, even if
they were illegal and even if she does lie about them. However, Snowden
did not hurt the country either, he told the truth, and Hillary goes
after him with a vengeance for doing that in ways that benefited the
country, that the NYT of Pentagon Papers days should support. She does
that even while she lies about her emails, and that is a relevant character
issue for the power she seeks.
Libya and Syria and Ukraine were NOT just bad judgment calls.
However, they were three consecutive bad judgment calls, with no good
ones to offset. That still matters.
Libya and Syria and Ukraine were also lies, coming from the mouth
of Hillary, and harming the country by tossing us into more wars.
I really wonder how Friedman and the other NYT Iraq war cheerleaders
can look at themselves in the mirror each morning. And excellent point about
Snowden, of course.
The author goes on to write which I find a bit odd " To me, income inequality
is an overrated problem in American life, and has even propelled the American
entrepreneurial spirit. "
He then seems to imply that maybe there is an emergent, de facto bad outcome:
Yet it remains true that, considering all federal government policies, including
tax exemptions, the rich schools have benefited more than the poor ones -- a
regressive social policy that many would argue is inconsistent with using higher
education as a tool in promoting the American Dream.
Anyway, direct funding of third-level education by federal and state subsidies
seems like a great idea and something that I would be very happy for my tax
dollars to be used towards and -- moreover -- I would be happy paying more
taxes if they were put to such purposes.
"... By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Jointly published with New Economic Perspectives ..."
"... he's pursued abroad many also intuitively believe that there's no one who will hit back harder. There's some of that 'he may be a son-of-a-bitch but he's our son-of-a-bitch' quality to the president's support on national security issues. ..."
"... Hence teachers weren't divisive enough and therefore are/were seen as part of the "problem". ..."
Yves here. One has to wonder if the prosecutorial investment in bringing
down a public school test-cheating ring has less to do with concern about the
students and more to do with charter schools.
By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to
Own One and an associate professor of economics and law at the University of
Missouri-Kansas City. Jointly published with
New Economic Perspectives
The New York Times
ran the story on April Fools' Day of a jury convicting educators of gaming
the test numbers and lying about their actions to investigators.
ATLANTA - In a dramatic conclusion to what has been described as the
largest cheating scandal in the nation's history, a jury here on Wednesday
convicted 11 educators for their roles in a standardized test cheating scandal
that tarnished a major school district's reputation and raised broader questions
about the role of high-stakes testing in American schools.
On their eighth day of deliberations, the jurors convicted 11 of the
12 defendants of racketeering, a felony that carries up to 20 years in prison.
Many of the defendants - a mixture of Atlanta public school teachers, testing
coordinators and administrators - were also convicted of other charges,
such as making false statements, that could add years to their sentences.
This was complicated trial that took six months to present and required eight
days of jury deliberations. It was a major commitment of investigative and prosecutorial
resources. But it was not investigated and prosecuted by the FBI and AUSAs,
but by state and local officials. In addition to the trial success, the prosecutors
secured 21 guilty pleas.
Atlanta's public schools, of course, did not engage in "the largest cheating
scandal in the nation's history." The big banks' cheating scandals left the
Atlanta educators in the dust.
The two obvious questions are why the educators cheated and how they got
caught. "High-stakes testing" cannot explain the scandal because we have had
such tests for over 50 years. The article explains the real drivers – compensation,
promotions, fear, and ego (aka "reputation").
"Officials said the cheating allowed employees to collect bonuses and helped
improve the reputations of both Dr. Hall and the perpetually troubled school
district she had led since 1999.
Investigators wrote in the report that Dr. Hall and her aides had 'created
a culture of fear, intimidation and retaliation' that had permitted "cheating
- at all levels - to go unchecked for years."
Any reader familiar with my work should be running over in their mind Citigroup's
vastly larger cheating frauds that senior managers produced by using exactly
the same tactics to produce hundreds of billions of dollars in fraud.
How did people become suspicious and decide to conduct a real investigation?
They realized that the reported results were too good to be true. That too is
directly parallel to Citi, where massive purchases of "liar's" loans known to
be 90% fraudulent supposedly led to massive profits.
The dozen educators who stood trial, including five teachers and a principal,
were indicted in 2013 after years of questions about how Atlanta students
had substantially improved their scores on the
Criterion-Referenced Competency Test, a standardized examination given
throughout Georgia.
In 2009,
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution started publishing a series of articles
that sowed suspicion about the veracity of the test scores, and Gov. Sonny
Perdue ultimately ordered an investigation.
Wow, a newspaper did a series of articles, and documented a scandal built
on deceit. Imagine if the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal were to
do an "unsparing" investigation into banking fraud – and into Attorney General
Eric Holder's refusal to prosecute. What if they actually looked at culpability
in the C-suites?
The inquiry, which was completed in 2011, led to findings that were startling
and unsparing: Investigators concluded that cheating had occurred in at
least 44 schools and that the district had been troubled by "organized and
systemic misconduct." Nearly 180 employees, including 38 principals, were
accused of wrongdoing as part of an effort to inflate test scores and misrepresent
the achievement of Atlanta's students and schools.
The investigators wrote that cheating was particularly ingrained in individual
schools - at one, for instance, a principal wore gloves while she altered
answer sheets - but they also said that the district's top officials, including
Superintendent Beverly L. Hall, bore some responsibility.
Dr. Hall, who died on March 2, insisted that she had done nothing wrong
and that her approach to education, which emphasized data, was not to blame.
"I can't accept that there's a culture of cheating," Dr. Hall
said in an interview in 2011. "What these 178 are accused of is horrific,
but we have over 3,000 teachers."
Of course, Hall's "approach to education" did not "emphasize data" – it emphasized
faux data – like Citi's accounting alchemists under Robert Rubin who
transmuted fraudulent net liabilities (liar's loans) into supposedly wondrously
valuable assets that had zero risk (Super Senior CDO tranches).
A more general point is in order. Atlanta is the culmination of destructive
national trends and failing to mention Houston in the story was unfortunate.
First, the "reinventing government" movement decided the public sector was bad
and the private sector was magnificent and said that the public sector should
adopt private sector approaches including quite specifically "performance pay"
based on quantitative measures. This brought to the public sector the perverse
incentives that were ruining the private sector and about to bring on Enron-era
fraud epidemic and then the most recent three fraud epidemics. Second, we were
assured by proponents of the change that a concern for "reputation" would trump
any perverse incentives. What the proponents failed to see, of course, was that
in both the private and public sectors the way to create a superb reputation
was to report inflated data.
Reputation, instead of the "trump" ensuring good conduct, was a leading motive
to engage in bad conduct. Third, we were told that giving public administrators
far more power to squash teachers was the key to success in education. Lord
Acton warned that absolute power leads to absolute corruption whether in Atlanta
or Citi's C-suite.
Houston should have been mentioned because the modern movement toward educational
fraud began in Houston under Rod Paige – who became Secretary of Education based
on massive fraudulent misrepresentation of data. Paige kicked off the testing
insanity, claiming it would produce objective, fact-based policies based on
what educational measures actually worked. As a famous
takedown of Paige's claims ends – the lesson is that it was too good to
be true. President Bush, however, bought it hook, line, sinker, bobber, rod,
and the boat Paige rowed out in.
In any event, if Fulton County, Georgia can jail educators who lie and gimmick
the data, Holder can send the elite bankers to prison on the same grounds.
lakewoebegoner, April 2, 2015 at 10:41 am
*** One has to wonder if the prosecutorial investment in bringing
down a public school test-cheating ring has less to do with concern
about the students and more to do with charter schools. ***
I believe it's even simpler than that…..prosecuting teachers is perfect
fodder for the local 11 o'clock news-you're prosecuting publiclly paid low-hanging
fruit, the crime is understandable (versus explaining accounting fraud or
intentional misvaluation of assets) and of course-my gosh, think of the
children!
NotTimothyGeithner, April 2, 2015 at 11:07 am
Local DAs have incentive to prosecute large cases, and Holder made sure
to make token plea deals with the banks. A successful state AG who brought
down a major financial player would destroy the Obama Administration just
by existing two years into the first term because there would be no excuse.
Plenty of loyal Team Blue voters if pressed will explain the lack of prosecution
as a GOP plot, but with a counter example in the papers they would be more
demoralized than they are.
RUKidding, April 2, 2015 at 12:11 pm
Neither Team Blue or Team Red voters want to confront reality and truly
see and acknowledge what's going on. The crooks in the District of Criminals
have perfected their Kabuki Show of "hiding" behind each other's skirts
and blaming the other side for all kinds of ills and perfidy. Tribalistic
authoritarians can be lazy and not have to think for themselves and really
DO something; just pass the clicker; lets all watch some "reality" tv show
instead. Talk about the matrix….
An example is my rightwing family members just recently celebrating quite
a bit that Harry Reid has announced his retirement – as IF that'll be this
amazingly good thing. Like: what will happen then? HOW, exactly, will "things
get better" just bc they can't kick Harry Reid around anymore.
Disclaimer: no love lost on my part vis Harry Reid. He's as much of a
crook and worthless waste of space as all of the others, no matter which
Team Jacket they wear. My take? What possible difference will it make if
Reid retires or stays in the Senate indefinitely?
RUKidding, April 2, 2015 at 10:59 am
Teachers have no money. Bankers have a TON of money. Sucks to be in the
99s.
Good comments. Right now, too, teachers have been deliberately painted
to be the evilest of the vile because unions! get paid too much! can't be
fired! blah de blah…. it's something easy for the masses to grasp – all
those dreadful overpaid teachers who can't be fired "robbing" us of our
taxes, while allegedly doing a totally shitty job. Yeah right. Of course
privatized school teachers would most definitely do a "better" jawb.
It's all "look over there!!!!!" while the bankers are the ones robbing
us blind deaf dumb stupid etc.
And yes, Charter Schools! Another way for the crooks at the top to rip
off the 99s! woot!
And the beat down goes on…..
djrichard, April 2, 2015 at 12:09 pm
I remember back when the Supreme Court was debating W vs Gore, I put
it to my neighbors that W would be under the influence of big oil and other
powers that be. One of my neighbors countered that Gore would be under the
influence of teachers. I was the minority opinion in that conversation.
RUKidding, April 2, 2015 at 12:14 pm
No love lost on my part vis Gore, but seriously??? LIke Gore is "under
the influence" of teachers??? Yeah, unions, but really? Like it's just so
ridiculous. Teachers v Big Oil. Uh, er, that's pretty much like David v
Goliath, but in this case Goliath/BigOil has totally crushed David/the 99s.
djrichard, April 2, 2015 at 12:37 pm
I'm surprised I found
this, but I think
this captures it.
Bush's bully-boy campaign tactics play to his strengths, albeit unstated
and unlovely ones. Many of the polls of the president have shown that
while people don't necessarily agree with the specific policies
he's pursued abroad many also intuitively believe that there's no one
who will hit back harder. There's some of that 'he may be a son-of-a-bitch
but he's our son-of-a-bitch' quality to the president's support on national
security issues.
This was from W v Kerry days. But I think the same principle was operating
during W v Gore. During 2004, the idea was to continue to inflict W on the
middle east. During 2000, I think the idea was to inflict W on the "deserving
elements" inside the US (whatever those deserving elements are/were at the
time).
Teachers if anything represent a "big tent" mind-set, one in which there
are no losers, or vice-versa one in which everyone is deserving of winning.
Hence teachers weren't divisive enough and therefore are/were seen as
part of the "problem".
Now the idea that Hillary can beat Trump looks pretty questionable. Probably
corrupt honchos at DNC now realized that by sinking Sanders they sunk the Party.
Notable quotes:
"... "The people don't want a phony Democrat." – President Harry Truman, Address at the National Convention Banquet of the Americans for Democratic Action, 1952 ..."
"... Totally 'liberating' these Truman quotes for FB electioneering. Corporate 'crapification' of both Republican and Democratic parties is complete, since the most authentic – like it or not – candidates in this election are not party members per usual (Trump and Sanders). Think we may already have our third party… the Up Yours party! ..."
"... Trump's support sure looks like a big middle finger salute to the party establishment more than anything else. ..."
"... You have forgotten the rules: when it is close to fifty fifty but Clinton has the advantage it is a clear victory for Clinton, when Sanders has the advantage it must be a tie! Especially for the Bezos Gazette and the Grey Lady's fish wrap. ..."
"... - Poll: Clinton would easily beat Trump How shameless is that? ..."
"... I mainly only listen to local NPR programs, the NPR classical/jazz station (local), and some of the weekend non-news shows. I avoid NPR Faux Nooz Lite like the plague. ..."
"... It's now owned by the corporations anyway. ..."
"... Post owner Jeff Bezos was rated "Worst boss in the world" by the ITUC (International Trade Union Confederation), ..."
"... Amazon was awarded a $16.5 million contract with the State Department the last year Clinton ran it. ..."
"... The lower and middle classes do all the work and the upper, leisure Class, live in the lap of luxury. The lower class does the manual work; the middle class does the administrative and managerial work and the upper, leisure, class live a life of luxury and leisure. ..."
"... Number one among the Nuremberg principles and charter of the United Nations: no aggressive war. So yes perhaps the MSM should be painting that little mustache on Hillary rather than Trump. Trump seems eager to build walls to keep the rest of the world out. By contrast the 20th century fascists were all militarists and big believers that "war is the health of the state." When the media go on and on about Trump as fascist it could be a case of what the psychologists call projection. ..."
"... That said, there has always been an authoritarian bully boy quality to the modern Republican party and Trump seems quite willing to appeal to it. But it was always there–the unfortunate result of our transition from republic to empire. Perhaps our bloated and far too powerful military establishment is to blame. Politicians are always in danger of temptation by this "ring of power." ..."
"... murdering people a central tenet of one's life? ..."
"... Reading through some of the specific polls that fivethirtyeight uses, it's interesting that some of them don't try to catch it. They outsource the demographic projection to some other group, for example, or they do things like saying landlines are close enough to a good approximation that they don't need to include cell phones. And something else about the polls, nearly all of them were conducted before the Democratic debate in Michigan, which seems kind of odd then to base any predictions off of them unless one assumes debates held in the very location of the election are irrelevant (which itself is interesting). ..."
"... Yeah, I think Clinton's general election pitch is pretty straightforward. She's the pragmatic Republican protecting us from Trumpomania. No Good Democrat would prefer Hitler over a Republican, after all! ..."
"... Banner ad from the HC campaign on my email site today "Stand with Hillary to fight Trump." ..."
Yesterday was one of those days when there was a settlement.
"It is a pity that Wall Street, with its ability to control all the wealth
of the nation and to hire the best law brains in the country, has not produced
some statesmen, some men who could see the dangers of bigness and of the
concentration of the control of wealth. Instead of working to meet the situation,
they are still employing the best law brains to serve greed and self-interest.
People can only stand so much and one of these days there will be a settlement."
– Senator Harry S. Truman, Congressional Record, 1937
"The people don't want a phony Democrat." – President Harry Truman,
Address at the National Convention Banquet of the Americans for Democratic
Action, 1952
Totally 'liberating' these Truman quotes for FB electioneering. Corporate
'crapification' of both Republican and Democratic parties is complete, since
the most authentic – like it or not – candidates in this election are not
party members per usual (Trump and Sanders). Think we may already have our
third party… the Up Yours party!
You have forgotten the rules: when it is close to fifty fifty but
Clinton has the advantage it is a clear victory for Clinton, when Sanders
has the advantage it must be a tie! Especially for the Bezos Gazette and
the Grey Lady's fish wrap.
Here is similar grossly biased "reporting": On The Hill's home page today
there is an article link:
Poll: Clinton would easily beat Trump
Sanders also tops Trump in a hypothetical general election matchup.
From the article itself:
Democrat Hillary Clinton would defeat Republican presidential rival
Donald Trump by double digits in a hypothetical general election matchup,
according to a poll released Wednesday.
Clinton would edge out Trump by 13 points in a one-on-one
vote, 51 percent to 38 percent , in the latest NBC News/Wall
Street Journal survey.
Trump, the controversial GOP front-runner, would lose even more soundly
to Bernie Sanders should the Independent Vermont senator secure the
Democratic nomination.
Sanders bests Trump by 18 points, 55 to 37 percent.
Sanders picked up a surprise win over Clinton in Michigan on
Tuesday, though Clinton expanded her overall delegate lead.
I mainly only listen to local NPR programs, the NPR classical/jazz
station (local), and some of the weekend non-news shows. I avoid NPR Faux
Nooz Lite like the plague. A lot of their stenographers also work for
Fox (really). It's a pointless exercise in futility to waste my valuable
time and brain cells listen to Faux Nooz National Propaganda Radio.
NPR here in san diego said it was a win for hill because she got more delegates
when missippi and michigan are added together…
...Comments re sanders
not having congressional support are actually even more true with trump,
he will face considerable obstruction, while clinton will take the reins
from obama on the fly and drive the buggy full tilt down the road to neo
libbercon utopia
...Capitalism is essentially the same as every other social system since
the dawn of civilisation.
The lower and middle classes do all the work and the upper, leisure
Class, live in the lap of luxury. The lower class does the manual work;
the middle class does the administrative and managerial work and the upper,
leisure, class live a life of luxury and leisure.
The nature of the Leisure Class, to which the benefits of every system
accrue, was studied over 100 years ago.
"The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions",
by Thorstein Veblen.
(The Wikipedia entry gives a good insight. It was written a long time
ago but much of it is as true today as it was then. This is the source of
the term conspicuous consumption.)
We still have our leisure class in the UK, the Aristocracy, and they
have been doing very little for centuries.
The UK's aristocracy has seen social systems come and go, but they all
provide a life of luxury and leisure and with someone else doing all the
work.
Feudalism – exploit the masses through land ownership
Capitalism – exploit the masses through wealth (Capital)
Today this is done through the parasitic, rentier trickle up of Capitalism:
a) Those with excess capital invest it and collect interest, dividends
and rent.
b) Those with insufficient capital borrow money and pay interest and rent.
All this was much easier to see in Capitalism's earlier days.
Malthus and Ricardo never saw those at the bottom rising out of a bare
subsistence living. This was the way it had always been and always would
be, the benefits of the system only accrue to those at the top.
It was very obvious to Adam Smith:
"The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed
to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained
in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is
supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy
who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money.
But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords,
no usurers and no tax gatherers."
Like most classical economists he differentiated between "earned" and
"unearned" wealth and noted how the wealthy maintained themselves in idleness
and luxury via "unearned", rentier income from their land and capital.
We can no longer see the difference between the productive side of the
economy and the unproductive, parasitic, rentier side. This is probably
why inequality is rising so fast, the mechanisms by which the system looks
after those at the top are now hidden from us.
In the 19th Century things were still very obvious.
1) Those at the top were very wealthy
2) Those lower down lived in grinding poverty, paid just enough to keep
them alive to work with as little time off as possible.
3) Slavery
4) Child Labour
Immense wealth at the top with nothing trickling down, just like today.
This is what Capitalism maximized for profit looks like.
Labour costs are reduced to the absolute minimum to maximise profit.
The beginnings of regulation to deal with the wealthy UK businessman
seeking to maximise profit, the abolition of slavery and child labour.
The function of the system is still laid bare.
The lower class does the manual work; the middle class does the administrative
and managerial work and the upper, leisure, class live a life of luxury
and leisure.
The majority only got a larger slice of the pie through organised Labour
movements.
By the 1920s, mass production techniques had improved to such an extent
that relatively wealthy consumers were required to purchase all the output
the system could produce and extensive advertising was required to manufacture
demand for the chronic over-supply the Capitalist system could produce.
They knew that if wealth concentrated too much there would not be enough
demand.
Of course the Capitalists could never find it in themselves to raise
wages and it took the New Deal and Keynesian thinking to usher in the consumer
society.
In the 1950s, when Capitalism had healthy competition, it was essential
that the Capitalist system could demonstrate that it was better than the
competition.
The US was able to demonstrate the superior lifestyle it offered to its
average citizens.
Now the competition has gone, the US middle class is being wiped out.
The US is going third world, with just rich and poor and no middle class.
Raw Capitalism can only return Capitalism to its true state where there
is little demand and those at the bottom live a life of bare subsistence.
Capitalism is a very old system designed to maintain an upper, Leisure,
class. The mechanisms by which parasitic, rentier, "unearned", income are
obtained need to kept to an absolute minimum by whatever means necessary
(legislation, taxation, etc ..)
Michael Hudson's book "Killing the Host" illustrates these problems very
well.
When you realise the true nature of Capitalism, you know why some kind
of redistribution is necessary and strong progressive taxation is the only
way a consumer society can ever be kept functioning. The Capitalists never
seem to recognise that employees are the consumers that buy their products
and services and are very reluctant to raise wages to keep the whole system
going.
A good quote from John Kenneth Galbraith's book "The Affluent Society",
which in turn comes from Marx.
"The Marxian capitalist has infinite shrewdness and cunning on everything
except matters pertaining to his own ultimate survival. On these, he is
not subject to education. He continues wilfully and reliably down the path
to his own destruction"
Marx made some mistakes but he got quite a lot right.
Jeez, no one told me that global employees are the global consumers.
So as we all increase profits by cutting labour costs we are effectively
cutting our own throats.
You got it.
Number one among the Nuremberg principles and charter of the United
Nations: no aggressive war. So yes perhaps the MSM should be painting that
little mustache on Hillary rather than Trump. Trump seems eager to build
walls to keep the rest of the world out. By contrast the 20th century fascists
were all militarists and big believers that "war is the health of the state."
When the media go on and on about Trump as fascist it could be a case of
what the psychologists call projection.
That said, there has always been an authoritarian bully boy quality
to the modern Republican party and Trump seems quite willing to appeal to
it. But it was always there–the unfortunate result of our transition from
republic to empire. Perhaps our bloated and far too powerful military establishment
is to blame. Politicians are always in danger of temptation by this "ring
of power."
Really, this is one of Earth's oldest taboos, and yet it has become cool
to flaunt your not-caring-about it like that is some badge of honor, and
better qualifies you for office. How about if say kindness, and honesty,
and "first, do no harm," were exalted into the same high positions? Everything
would be flipped on its head, and in my opinion, we'd be a lot better for
it. It's not silly.
I was in the bag for Bernie from day one, but I like to look ahead and
see what I'm getting myself into. My own expectations of B. Obama were quite
low in 2008 but he managed to underperform them (while the Republicans came
through in grand style).
So what does a thoughtful person see ahead with a President Bernie? Can
we cast a clear eye? How does this play out?
I'm thinking of looking to possible comparisons to previous (J. Carter,
'76) and current (J. Corbyn across the pond, in progress) cases of, well,
political outsider from the left end up at the head of the table (and maybe
some similar qualities of temperament), and what happened then.
If memory serves (and please set me straight if it doesn't) Carter, always
something of a loner, had a hard time getting traction with Congress, as
well as considerably confusion and derision from the (nascent, burgeoning)
neo-con right that came after, and from within his own party, and the press.
I believe I see a similar overall pattern (again, correct me) for Corbyn,
only more so: press is skeptical to derisive, and Labor is still procession
what it all really means for them (how much of this is sheer denial of inevitable
transformation and how much is stubborn inertial durability is not clear
to me). Lessons here might serve not only to anticipate some obvious pitfalls,
but perhaps to sidestep (or even strategically use) some of them.
A Bernie presidency would represent a huge challenge for the Dem establishment,
not completely different from what the Republican party is going through
but with different specifics (and also a later start). Without a continuing
and active grassroots network (writing, marching, contributing, putting
up candidates, etc), I think Bernie would be dead in the water come 2017.
And accepting a largely negative reaction from business, how much will be
a unified front, and what kind of internecine squabbling could take place?
Can a post-presidential grassroots activist network flip Congress in
two years (it took the Tea Party 4-6)? I don't think Sanders has a second
term without significant success in his first? The stakes are even higher;
2020 is a census year, as in: redistricting time.
Also, the disenfranchised usually get hit the hardest when systems shift
gears (for example, loss of some good policies in the ACA rollout, not to
mention the website). Given a hostile business front that will try to punish
the vulnerable, what is the blowback on a $15 minimum wage.
Thoughts? Links? Take your time, no rush (yet). Lambert?
Reading through some of the specific polls that fivethirtyeight uses,
it's interesting that some of them don't try to catch it. They outsource
the demographic projection to some other group, for example, or they do
things like saying landlines are close enough to a good approximation that
they don't need to include cell phones. And something else about the polls,
nearly all of them were conducted before the Democratic debate in Michigan,
which seems kind of odd then to base any predictions off of them unless
one assumes debates held in the very location of the election are irrelevant
(which itself is interesting).
For example, to pick on the YouGov poll that underestimated younger voter
support for Sanders. It was conducted a week ago, and the poll found that
1/3 of Dem primary voters had not firmly decided on their candidate at that
time. YouGov also included a sample that was 30% for those under 45, whereas
exit polling from CNN suggests actual turnout for those under 45 was more
like 45%. And it gave a 32 point advantage to Sanders in the under 30 crowd,
whereas CNN's exit poll suggested an actual spread of more like 62 points.
When things go as expected, the various assumptions and simplifications
hold. But that very bias makes it virtually impossible to predict discontinuous
change, since by definition, that is assumed away by the modeling.
But isn't the takeaway there that she lost the independents in large
numbers? How does she win a general election without young voters and independents?
My guess is she would pivot in her usual clumsy manner away from the more
left-leaning positions she's been pushed to take, and go back to her comfort
zone as a center-right Rockefeller-style Republican with a (D) after her
name.
I am less concerned that she is screwed than that the Dem establishment
would rather screw us all over in order to protect their comfortable positions
in the power structure.
Yeah, I think Clinton's general election pitch is pretty straightforward.
She's the pragmatic Republican protecting us from Trumpomania. No Good Democrat
would prefer Hitler over a Republican, after all!
Independents have been breaking hard for Sanders (not just in Michigan).
In CNN's exit polling, for example, in SC – a state Clinton won by a huge
margin – Sanders still actually won voters under 30 (by 8 points) and Independents
(by 7 points). Go to a state that was competitive, like Massachusetts, and
it's a 30 point spread for voters under 30 and a 33 point spread on Independents.
CNN didn't even do exit polling in places like Minnesota and Kansas. In
Oklahoma, Sanders won under 30 voters by 65 points and Independents by 48.
"... She was a horrible secretary of state. Explain to me why the US had to ruin a harmless country like Libya. ..."
"... "Among the principal concerns in Washington, London and Paris were the increasing Chinese and Russian economic interests in Libya and more generally Africa as a whole. China had developed $6.6 billion in bilateral trade, mainly in oil, while some 30,000 Chinese workers were employed in a wide range of infrastructure projects. Russia, meanwhile, had developed extensive oil deals, billions of dollars in arms sales and a $3 billion project to link Sirte and Benghazi by rail. There were also discussions on providing the Russian navy with a Mediterranean port near Benghazi. ..."
"... Gaddafi had provoked the ire of the government of Nicolas Sarkozy in France with his hostility to its scheme for creating a Mediterranean Union, aimed at refurbishing French influence in the country's former colonies and beyond. ..."
"... Moreover, major US and Western European energy conglomerates increasingly chafed at what they saw as tough contract terms demanded by the Gaddafi government, as well as the threat that the Russian oil company Gazprom would be given a big stake in the exploitation of the country's reserves" ..."
"... History shows that what flows in Hillary's political veins is new Democrat, Rubinite, Peterson, Wall Street dominated blood. ..."
"... Clinton, then Bush, and now Obama have increasingly shielded their official actions from the public. And what should be obvious to anyone paying attention is that they are doing so to hide their actions from a public that would object, because at a minimum, they are unethical, or because they are illegal. ..."
"... Nothing, absolutely nothing, in Hillary's past offers any a glimmer of anything different. Democracy requires transparency so that the public is properly informed and has oversight with which to hold people accountable. Obama promised to have the most transparent administration in history. He lied. Nothing she says today suggests Hillary would change this, and her past points to her making it worse. ..."
"... I do not know how old you are but younger Bernie supporters will not vote for Killary Clinton. I do not know any people under 30 that will vote for Clinton. ..."
"... Clinton's only path to victory in the General is to carry southern states that the Democrats always lose. She is going to get killed in the Rust Belt. Trump knows how to talk to disgruntled white voters. The only one who will stop him is Bernie since they are going after the same voter. ..."
Secretary Hillary Clinton is asking Democratic voters to believe that she
has experienced a "Road to Damascus" conversion from her roots as a leader of
the "New Democrats" – the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party.
... ... ...
Hillary and Obama made sure that they did not even have to risk their "lap
dog" developing a spine. No IG was their ideal world.
...The idea that the State Department IG, appointed by President Obama, is
"partisan" in the sense of being "anti-Clinton" is facially bizarre in that
Obama is a strong supporter of Hillary.
HRC is, and always has been, bad news. She shouldn't have even run for
prez the first time. She was a horrible secretary of state. Explain
to me why the US had to ruin a harmless country like Libya. I hope
the indictment comes down very soon, so Bernie can just be presumed the
Democratic nominee.
"Among the principal concerns in Washington, London and Paris were
the increasing Chinese and Russian economic interests in Libya and more
generally Africa as a whole. China had developed $6.6 billion in bilateral
trade, mainly in oil, while some 30,000 Chinese workers were employed in
a wide range of infrastructure projects. Russia, meanwhile, had developed
extensive oil deals, billions of dollars in arms sales and a $3 billion
project to link Sirte and Benghazi by rail. There were also discussions
on providing the Russian navy with a Mediterranean port near Benghazi.
Gaddafi had provoked the ire of the government of Nicolas Sarkozy
in France with his hostility to its scheme for creating a Mediterranean
Union, aimed at refurbishing French influence in the country's former colonies
and beyond.
Moreover, major US and Western European energy conglomerates increasingly
chafed at what they saw as tough contract terms demanded by the Gaddafi
government, as well as the threat that the Russian oil company Gazprom would
be given a big stake in the exploitation of the country's reserves"
The past is prologue. History shows that what flows in Hillary's
political veins is new Democrat, Rubinite, Peterson, Wall Street dominated
blood. I agreed with her when she spoke of a vast right wing conspiracy,
as it was obvious to anyone paying attention, and I could understand the
Clinton's defensive secrecy given the relentlessly personal assaults they
were under. But I object to the epidemic of secrecy that has infested what
should be the public sphere of our government.
Clinton, then Bush, and now Obama have increasingly shielded their
official actions from the public. And what should be obvious to anyone paying
attention is that they are doing so to hide their actions from a public
that would object, because at a minimum, they are unethical, or because
they are illegal.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, in Hillary's past offers any a glimmer
of anything different. Democracy requires transparency so that the public
is properly informed and has oversight with which to hold people accountable.
Obama promised to have the most transparent administration in history. He
lied. Nothing she says today suggests Hillary would change this, and her
past points to her making it worse.
The "unlikeability" factor of Hillary Clinton, and her husband Bill,
grows ever deeper in the American public. She drips with a uncouth and meglomaniacal
drive to be president. I am not sure she can win an election, even with
many voters pulling the lever for her in fear of the greater evil. I am
not sure she is the lesser evil, and I think others may feel the same way
election time.
Mmmmmf it's hard not to think she's the lesser of two evils when she's
running against a candidate who's openly deranged–and I can guarantee she
will be running against such a one, even before the Republicans pick one
to nominate. All of theirs are deranged. They had a "deep bench," and they
were all deranged. If Hillary inspires a large number of voters–and I'm
a Sanders fan, but apparently she does–maybe they'll all come out and vote
a straight D ticket, which might help us in that Home for
the Deranged which is our Congress. And I doubt that Hillary would nominate
another Scalia, Alito or Thomas. She probably wouldn't know where to look,
for one thing. Did I mention that I'm a Sanders fan?
care to list all of Trumps left wing positions? single payer – nope he's
not for that anymore, read his actual healthcare proposals. a few social
issues like abortion? oh maybe but he keeps changing positions there as
well (truthfully I don't' see these issues as really being right or left
at all, but in the American political system they usually are seen that
way) opposition to trade deals? … ok maybe that.
I'm not sure Kasich is deranged, but he is a warmonger for sure, then
so is Hillary. Rubio might not be deranged but he's a neocon and a neophyte.
I do not know how old you are but younger Bernie supporters will
not vote for Killary Clinton. I do not know any people under 30 that will
vote for Clinton. I attend a local community college (prepping for
grad school) outside of Philadelphia in an area that Killary will easily
carry thanks to a lot of older feminists that still use the feminist card
to justify their vote.
Clinton's only path to victory in the General is to carry southern
states that the Democrats always lose. She is going to get killed in the
Rust Belt. Trump knows how to talk to disgruntled white voters. The only
one who will stop him is Bernie since they are going after the same voter.
The Libertarians have their convention in July, and they might put up
an interesting nominee. Could be Jesse Ventura or McAffee of net security
and Belize escape fame. Ventura would be a good prez, in my opinion.
That's where Bernie can really do some good. He can't snap his fingers
and have medicare for all, but he can put in SEC heads, SecTreasury, and
economic advisers that make sense, like Bill Black, yes, who put some bankers
in jail after the S&L debacle under Reagan. Iceland put 13 bankers in jail
recently. Here in the cowardly US they just pay a fine amounting to a small
percentage of what they stole. No problem for them at all. Just a cost of
doing business.
"... Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. ..."
"... Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen. ..."
"... After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare, and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's legacy! ..."
"... I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. ..."
"... amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience. ..."
"... Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution. Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons. ..."
"... The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies US enemies. ..."
"... The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny.. ..."
"... There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. ..."
"... With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the so-called US military-industrial complex. ..."
"... Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ... all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light. ..."
"... The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy. ..."
"... What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money we don't have. ..."
"... Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian airstrikes? ..."
"... That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international law all the time. ..."
"... Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation? ..."
"... The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S. was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel, while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria. The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes. ..."
"... Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions. ..."
"... I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated. ..."
"... Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR? ..."
"... Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military, throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy, and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion. ..."
"... You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain this to the public, sadly. ..."
"... Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything he says anymore. ..."
"... There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war, UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene. ..."
"... You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically, WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both? ..."
"... ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against our own mercenaries make sense??? ..."
"... Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts! ..."
"... ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to suffer. ..."
"... The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America lost any claim to 'leadership' by now. ..."
"... Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. ..."
"... Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc. ..."
"... The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's a War Crime by every standard ..."
"... See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR. ..."
"... But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve up Syria a sovereign country. ..."
"... Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is a sovereign country. ..."
"... Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering neo-Nazi's. ..."
"... Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the opposite fronts on the Syrian soil? ..."
"... Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law. ..."
"... Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law ..."
"... As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change. ..."
"... You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting demonstrators who demonstrated against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively. ..."
"... However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional) human beings. ..."
"... What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international law? ..."
NATO and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria .... they make a desert and call
it peace.
ID7582903 1 Nov 2015 06:19
"Credibility"? Beware and be aware folks. This isn't a monopoly game being played here; it's
for real.
2015 Valdai conference is Societies Between War and Peace: Overcoming the Logic of Conflict
in Tomorrow's World. In the period between October 19 and 22, experts from 30 countries have been
considering various aspects of the perception of war and peace both in the public consciousness
and in international relations, religion and economic interaction between states. Videos w live
translations and english transcripts (a keeper imho)
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50548
30 Oct, 2015 - The day US announces Ground troops into Syria, and the day before the downing/crash
of the Russian Airbus 321 in the Sinai, this happened:
Russia has conducted a major test of its strategic missile forces, firing numerous ballistic and
cruise missiles from various training areas across the country, videos
uploaded by the Ministry of Defense have shown.
A routine exercise, possibly the largest of its kind this year, was intended to test the command
system of transmitting orders among departments and involved launches
from military ranges on the ground, at sea and in the air, the ministry said Friday.
30.10.2015
Since the beginning of its operation in Syria on September 30, Russian Aerospace Forces have carried
out 1,391 sorties in Syria, destroying a total of 1,623 terrorist targets, the Russian General
Staff said Friday.
In particular, Russian warplanes destroyed 249 Islamic State command posts, 51 training camps,
and 131 depots, Andrey Kartapolov, head of the Russian General Staff Main Operations Directorate
said.
"In Hanshih, a suburb of Damascus, 17 militants of the Al-Ghuraba group were executed in public
after they tried to leave the combat area and flee to Jordan," he specified. "The whole scene
was filmed in order to disseminate the footage among the other groups operating in the vicinity
of Damascus and other areas", the General Staff spokesman said. In the central regions of the
country, the Syrian Army managed to liberate 12 cities in the Hama province, Kartapolov said.
"The Syrian armed forces continue their advance to the north," the general added.
Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried
to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow
statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. What an insult to our intelligence! We
are well aware that the US provides the logistical and technical support, and refuelling of warplanes
to the Saudi coalition illegal war in Yemen. Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and
other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and
destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human
Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen.
After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to
diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish
alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare,
and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened
ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's
legacy!
Barmaidfromhell -> WSCrips 1 Nov 2015 03:52
Well said.
I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the
anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. Obviously carefully selected
to follow any line given them and amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience.
Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution.
Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as
the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear
day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons.
Michael Imanual Christos -> Pete Piper 1 Nov 2015 00:28
Pete Piper
In brief;
The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies
US enemies.
... ... ...
midnightschild10 31 Oct 2015 21:35
When Obama denounced Russia's actions in Syria, and blamed them for massive loss of civilian
lives, Russia responded by asking them to show their proof. The Administration spokesperson said
they got their information from social media. No one in the Administration seems to realize how
utterly stupid that sounds. Marie Harf is happily developing the Administration's foreign policy
via Twitter. As the CIA and NSA read Facebook for their daily planning, Obama reads the comments
section of newspapers to prepare for his speech to the American public in regard to putting boots
on the ground in Syria, and adding to the boots in Iraq. If it didn't result in putting soldiers
lives in jeopardy, it would be considered silly. Putin makes his move and watches as the Obama
Administration makes the only move they know, after minimal success in bombing, Obama does send
in the troops. Putin is the one running the game. Obama's response is so predictable. No wonder
the Russians are laughing. In his quest to outdo Cheyney, Obama has added to the number of wars
the US is currently involved in. His original claim to fame was to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
which then resulted in starting Iraq and Afghanistan Wars 2.0. Since helping to depose the existing
governments in the Middle East, leading not only to the resurgence of AlQuaeda, and giving birth
to ISIS, and leaving chaos and destruction in his wake, he decided to take down the last standing
ruler, hoping that if he does the same thing over and over, he will get a different result. Obama's
foreign policy legacy had been considered impotent at best, now its considered ridiculous.
SomersetApples 31 Oct 2015 20:03
We bombed them, we sent armies of terrorist in to kill them, we destroyed their hospitals and
power plants and cities, we put sanctions on them and we did everything in our power to cut off
their trading with the outside world, and yet they are still standing.
The only thing left to do, lets send in some special military operatives.
This is so out of character, or our perceived character of Obama. It must be that deranged
idiot John McCain pulling the strings.
Rafiqac01 31 Oct 2015 16:58
The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny....having
just watched CNNs Long Road to Hell in Iraq....and the idiots advising Bush and Blair you have
to wonder the extent to which these are almighty balls ups or very sophisticated planning followed
up by post disaster rationalisation....
whatever the conclusion it proves that the intervention or non interventions prove their is
little the USA has done that has added any good value to the situation...indeed it is an unmitigated
disaster strewn around the world! Trump is the next generation frothing at the mouth ready to
show what a big John Wayne he is!!
DavidFCanada 31 Oct 2015 13:56
There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling
countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. That US legacy
will forever remain, burnt into skins and bodies of the living and dead, together with a virtually
unanimous recognition in the ME of the laughable US pretexts of supporting democracy, the rule
of law, religious freedom and, best of all, peace. Obama is merely the chief functionary of a
nation of lies.
Informed17 -> WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:47
Are you saying that there was no illegal invasion of Iraq? No vial of laundry detergent was
presented at the UN as "proof" that Iraq has WMDs? No hue and cry from "independent" media supported
that deception campaign? Were you in a deep coma at the time?
Informed17 -> somethingbrite 31 Oct 2015 13:36
No. But the US trampled on the international law for quite a while now, starting with totally
illegal interference in Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:18
Hey Guardian Editors.....and all those who worshipped Obama....In America, there were folks
from the older generation that warned us that this Community Organizer was not ready for the Job
of President of the United States....it had nothing to do with his color, he just was not ready.....he
was a young, inexperienced Senator, who never, ever had a real job, never had a street fight growing
up pampered in Hawaii, was given a pass to great universities because his parents had money, and
was the dream Affirmative Action poster boy for the liberal left. Obama has not disappointed anyone
who tried to warn us......and now we will reap what he has sowed:
1. 8 Trillion to our debt
2. Nightmare in the Middleast (how is that Arab Spring)
3. Polarized America....Dems and Republicans hate each other....hate each other like the Irish
and English...10 x over.
4. War on Cops
5. War with China
6. Invasion from Central America
I see a great depression and World War IV on the horizon....and I am being positive!
SaveRMiddle 31 Oct 2015 12:47
Nothing Obama says has any value. We've watched the man lie with a grin and a chuckle.
Forever Gone is all trust.
His continued abuse of Red Line threats spoke volumes about the lawyer who Reactively micromanages
that which required and deserved an expert Proactive plan.
Let History reflect the horrific death CIA meddling Regime Change/Divide and Conquer creates.
HeadInSand2013 31 Oct 2015 12:45
Liberal activists were in little doubt that Obama has failed to live up to his commitment
to avoid getting dragged directly into the war.
With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President
is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the
so-called US military-industrial complex.
Liberal activists are stupid enough to think that M. Obama is actually in charge of the US
military or the US foreign policy. Just go back and count how many times during the last 6 years
M. Obama has made a declaration and then - sometimes the next day - US military has over-ruled
him.
Mediaking 31 Oct 2015 10:00
Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the
Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration
camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their
respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ...
all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone
has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light.
USA forces coming to the aid of their 5 individuals... yes 1,2,3,4,5 ( stated by US command-
there are only that amount of FSA fighters left - the rest have gone over to ISIL with their equipment -- ) the local population all speak of ISIL/Daesh being American/Israeli ,they say if this is a
civil war how come all the opposition are foreigners -- I think perhaps it's like the Ukraine affair...
a bunch of CIA paid Nazi thugs instigating a coup ... or like Venezuela agents on roof tops shooting
at both sides in demonstrations to get things going. The usual business of CIA/Mossad stuff in
tune with the mass media with their engineered narratives -- Followed by the trolls on cyber space...
no doubt we shall see them here too.
All note that an Intervention in Syria would be "ILLEGAL" by Int. law and sooner than later
will be sued in billions for it...on top of the billions spent on having a 5 person strong force
of FSA...spent from the American tax payers money . Syria has a government and is considered a
state at the UN . Iran and Russia are there at the request and permission of Syria .
Russia and Iran have been methodically wiping out Washington's mercenaries on the ground while
recapturing large swathes of land that had been lost to the terrorists. Now that the terrorists
are getting wiped out the west and the Saudis are are screaming blue murder !
I for one would have Assad stay , as he himself suggests , till his country is completely free
of terrorists, then have free elections . I would add , to have the Saudis and the ones in the
west/Turkey/Jordan charged for crimes against humanity for supplying and creating Daesh/ISIS .
This element cannot be ignored . Also Kurdistan can form their new country in the regions they
occupy as of this moment and Mosul to come. Iran,Russia,Iraq, Syria and the new Kurdistan will
sign up to this deal . Millions of Syrian refugees can then come back home and rebuild their broken
lives with Iranian help and cash damages from the mentioned instigators $400 billion . The cash
must be paid into the Syrian central bank before any elections take place ... Solved...
My consultancy fee - 200ml pounds sterling... I know ... you wish I ruled the world (who knows
!) - no scams please or else -- ( the else would be an Apocalypse upon the western equity markets
via the Illuminati i.e a 49% crash )... a week to pay , no worries since better to pay for a just
solution than to have million descend upon EU as refugees . It is either this or God's revenge
with no mercy .
amacd2 31 Oct 2015 09:52
Obama, being more honest but also more dangerous than Flip Wilson says, "The Empire made me
do it",
Bernie, having "reservations" about what Obama has done, says nothing against Empire, but continues
to pretend, against all evidence, that this is a democracy.
Hillary, delighting in more war, says "We came, we bombed, they all died, but the Empire won."
Talk about 'The Issue' to debate for the candidates in 2016?
"What's your position on the Empire?"
"Oh, what Empire, you ask?"
"The friggin Empire that you are auditioning to pose as the president of --- you lying tools
of both the neocon 'R' Vichy party and you smoother lying neoliberal-cons of the 'D' Vichy party!"
lightstroke -> Pete Piper 31 Oct 2015 09:41
Nukes are not on the table. Mutually Assured Destruction.
The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to
have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy.
It's not necessary to win wars to exercise that power. All they have to do is start them and
keep them going until the arms industry makes as much dough from them as possible. That's the
only win they care about.
What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money
we don't have.
Taku2 31 Oct 2015 09:26
Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are
fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will
he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian
airstrikes?
How stupid can a President get?
Obama does need to pull back on this one, even though it will make his stupid and erroneous
policy towards the Syrian tragedy seem completely headless. If this stupid and brainless policy
is meant to be symbolic, its potential for future catastrophic consequences is immeasurable.
phillharmonic -> nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:56
That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign
troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international
law all the time.
nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:35
Syrian rebels fighting the Islamic State
And who are those then? Do they exist, do we have any reliable source confirming they are really
simultaneously fighting IS and Syrian Army or is it yet another US fairy tale?
Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government
or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why
is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation?
phillharmonic 31 Oct 2015 08:33
The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S.
was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel,
while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were
arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't
going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria.
The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused
a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to
oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes.
amacd2 -> Woody Treasure 31 Oct 2015 08:31
Woody, did you mean "Obama is a foil (for the Disguised Global Crony-Capitalist Empire--- which
he certainly is), or did you mean to say "fool" (which he certainly is not, both because he is
a well paid puppet/poodle for this Global Empire merely HQed in, and 'posing' as, America ---
as Blair and Camron are for the same singular Global Empire --- and because Obama didn't end his
role as Faux/Emperor-president like JFK), eh?
Nena Cassol -> TonyBlunt 31 Oct 2015 06:48
Assad's father seized power with a military coup and ruled the country for 30 years, before
dying he appointed his son, who immediately established marshal law, prompting discontent even
among his father's die-hard loyalists ...this is plain history, is this what you call a legitimate
leader?
Cycles 31 Oct 2015 06:41
Forced to go in otherwise the Russians and Iranians get full control. Welcome to the divided
Syria a la Germany after WW2.
TonyBlunt -> Nena Cassol 31 Oct 2015 06:36
"It does not take much research to find out that Assad is not legitimate at all"
Please share your source with us Nena. But remember Langley Publications don't count.
TonyBlunt -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 06:29
The Americans do not recognise international law. They do not sign up to any of it and proclaim
the right to break it with their "exceptionalism".
Katrin3 -> herrmaya 31 Oct 2015 05:27
The Russians, US, Iran etc are all meeting right now in Vienna. The Russians and the US military
do communicate with each other, to avoid attacking each other by mistake.
The Russians are in the West and N.West of Syria. The US is going into the N. East, near IS
headquarters in Raqqa, to support the Kurdish YPG, who are only a few kilometers from the city.
Katrin3 -> ID6693806 31 Oct 2015 05:15
Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are
also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following
the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions.
I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend
their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated.
centerline ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:48
The Kurds are the fabled moderate opposition who are willing to negotiate, and who have also
fought with the Syrian government against US backed ISIS and al Nusra so called moderate opposition.
Pete Piper -> Verbum 31 Oct 2015 04:47
@Verbum Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became
insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR?
Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds
corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being
invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military,
throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total
surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy,
and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have
laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion.
gabriel90 -> confettifoot 31 Oct 2015 04:46
ISiS is destroying Syria thanks to the US and Saudi Arabia; its an instrument to spread chaos
in the Middle East and attack Iran and Russia...
ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:21
So, on the day peace talks open, the US unilaterally announces advice boots on the ground to
support one of the many sides in the Syrian War, who will undoubtedly want self determination,
right on Turkey's border, as they always have, and as has always been opposed by the majority
of the Syrian population. What part of that isn't completely mad?
Great sympathy for the situation of the Kurds in Syria under Assad, but their nationalism issue
and inability to work together with the Sunni rebels, was a major factor in the non formation
of a functioning opposition in Syria, and will be a block to peace, not its cause. It's also part
of a larger plan to have parts of Turkey and Iraq under Kurdish control to create a contingent
kingdom. Whatever the merits of that, the US deciding to support them at this stage is completely
irrational, and with Russia and Iran supporting Assad will lengthen the war, not shorten it.
MissSarajevo 31 Oct 2015 04:21
Just a couple of things here. How does the US know who the moderates are?!? Is this another
occasion that the US is going to use International law as toilet paper? The US will enter (as
if they weren't already there, illegally. They were not invited in by the legitimate leader of
Syria.
gabriel90 31 Oct 2015 04:19
Warbama is just trying to save his saudi/qatari/turk/emirati dogs of war... they will be wiped
out by Russia and the axis of resistance...
Pete Piper -> Michael Imanual Christos 31 Oct 2015 04:08
Does anyone see anything rational in US foreign policy? When I hear attempts to explain, they
vary around .. "it's about oil". But no one ever shows evidence continuous wars produced more
oil for anyone. So, are we deliberately creating chaos and misery? Why? To make new enemies we
can use to justify more war? We've now classified the number of countries we are bombing. Why?
The countries being bombed surely know.
Pete Piper -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 03:50
You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade
Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized
by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain
this to the public, sadly.
Only the US routinely violates other nations' sovergnity. Since Korea, the only nation that
has ever used military force against a nation not on its border is the US.
Can anyone find rationality in US foreign policy? We are supposed to be fighting ISIL, but
Saudi Arabia and Israel appear to be helping ISIL to force Syrian regime change. And the US is
supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia that are routed to ISIL. Supposedly because eliminating President
Asad is more important than fighting ISIL? The US public is being misled into thinking we are
NOW fighting ISIL. After Asad is killed, then we will genuinely fight ISIL? Russia, Iran, and
more(?) will fight to keep Asad in power and then fight ISIL? THIS IS OBVIOUS BS, AND ALSO FUBAR.
By all means, get everyone together for some diplomacy.
oldholbornian -> lesmandalasdeniki 31 Oct 2015 03:36
Well lets look at Germany the centre of christian culture and the EU
reminds me of emporer franz josef in europe about 100 years ago .. meant well but led to ruination
..i dont think that there has been an american president involved in more wars than obama
obama by his cairo speech kicked of the arab spring ..shows that words can kill
however.. the experience he now has gained may lead to an avoidance of a greater sunni shia
war in syria if the present vienna talks can offer something tangible and preserve honour to the
sunnis .. in the mid east honour and macho are key elements in negotiations
iran however is a shia caliphate based regime and unless it has learnt the lesson from yemen
on the limitations of force may push for further success via army and diplomacy and control in
syria and iraq
oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 02:42
But Obama's latest broken promise to avoid an "open-ended action" in Syria could lead to a
full-blown war with Russia considering that Russian military has been operating in Syria for weeks.
" For the first time ever, the American strategists have developed an illusion that they
may defeat a nuclear power in a non-nuclear war," Russian deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin
told AP. "It's nonsense, and it will never happen."
Any US / terrorist engagement with the Syrian security forces will include engaging with its
allies Russia
Once the firing starts Russia will include the US as terrorists with no rights to be in Syrian
and under the UN RULES have the right to defend themselves against the US
HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:32
Hmm Foreign snipers on rooftops ( not in the control of the government) how many times is this
scenario going to be played out before the 'press' twigs it than something is not making sense.
HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:29
Though in one demonstration there was snipers on rooftops shooting both deconstratirs and the
police - far more police were killed than demonstrators - what does this reming you of? Was these
actions seemingly out of the control of the government a preliminary to what happened in Kiev
during the maidan - practices get the technics right I suppose. - outside forces were obviously
at work ' stirring the pot.
Anna Eriksson 31 Oct 2015 02:24
Let's hope that the US will help out with taking in some refugees as well! In Germany, and
Sweden locals are becoming so frustrated and angry that they set refugee shelters on fire. This
is a trend in both Sweden and Germany, as shown in the maps in the links. There have almost been
90 arsons in Germany so far this year, almost 30 in Sweden.
Nobody tells the American people and nobody else really cares, but these 40-something guys
being sent to Syria are possibly there as:
cannon fodder: to deter the Russians from bombing and Iranians from attacking on the ground
the American friendly anti-Assad militant groups;
to collect and report more accurate intel from the front line (again about the Russian/Iranian
troops deployment/movement).
The Russian and Iranian troops on the ground will soon engage and sweep anti-Assad forces in
key regions in Western Syria. This will be slightly impeded if Americans are among them. But accidents
do happen, hence the term "cannon fodder".
The Russians and Iranians will likely take a step back militarily though for the duration of
talks, so the American plan to protect Saudi backed fighters is likely to work.
I never involved or mentioned ISIS because this is NOT about fighting ISIS. It's about counteracting
the Russian/Irania sweep in the area, and ultimately keeping the Americans in the game (sorry,
war).
petervietnam 31 Oct 2015 01:13
The world's policeman or the world's trouble maker?
Austin Young -> Will D 31 Oct 2015 00:34
But he's the "change we can believe in" guy! Oh right... Dem or republican, they spew anything
and everything their voters want to hear but when it comes time to walk the walk the only voice
in their head is Cash Money.
lesmandalasdeniki -> Bardhyl Cenolli 30 Oct 2015 23:34
It frustrates me, anyone who will be the problem-solver will be labeled as dangerous by the
Western political and business leaders if the said person or group of people can not be totally
controlled for their agenda.
This will be the first time I will be speaking about the Indonesian forest fires that started
from June this year until now. During the period I was not on-line, I watched the local news and
all channels were featuring the same problem every day during the last two-weeks.
US is also silent about it during Obama - Jokowi meeting, even praising Jokowi being on the
right track. After Jokowi came back, his PR spin is in the force again, he went directly to Palembang,
he held office and trying to put up an image of a President that cared for his people. He couldn't
solve the Indonesian forest fires from June - October, is it probably because Jusuf Kalla has
investment in it?
My point is, US and the Feds, World Bank and IMF are appointing their puppets on each country
they have put up an investment on terms of sovereign debt and corporate debt/bonds.
And Obama is their puppet.
Will D 30 Oct 2015 23:30
Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises
and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything
he says anymore.
He has turned out to be a massive disappointment to all those who had such high hopes that
he really would make the world a better place. His failure and his abysmal track record will cause
him to be remembered as the Nobel Peace prize wining president who did exactly the opposite of
what he promised, and failed to further the cause of peace.
Greg_Samsa -> Greenacres2002 30 Oct 2015 23:07
Consistency is at the heart of logic, all mathematics, and hard sciences.
Even the legal systems strive to be free of contradictions.
I'd rather live in world with consistency of thought and action as represented by the Russian
Federation, then be mired in shit created by the US who have shed all the hobgoblins pestering
the consistency of their thoughts and actions.
Never truly understood the value of this stupid quote really...
Phil Atkinson -> PaulF77 30 Oct 2015 22:28
There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic
and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something
critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit
and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war,
UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene.
You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically,
WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both?
MainstreamMedia Propaganda 30 Oct 2015 22:03
ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against
our own mercenaries make sense???
I think blatant policy changes like this show just how ineffectual the US president actually
is. The hand over between Bush and Obama has been seamless. Gitmo still going, patriot act renewed,
Libya a smoldering ruin (4 years down the line), no progress on gun control, troops in Afganistan
and Iraq... it goes on...
HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:58
"It's really hard to see how this tiny number of troops embedded on the ground is going
to turn the tide in any way."
Or the U.S. could carry out air strikes against Hezbollah which has been fighting ISIS for
a while now. They could also supply weapons to ISIS (who are dubbed 'moderates') to counter Russian
airstrikes and Iranian man power.
Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its
foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This
is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those
countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements
with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different
groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking
about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts!
Phil Atkinson -> Harry Bhai 30 Oct 2015 21:57
Fuck the al-Sauds and their oil. If the US wants their oil (and there's plenty of other oil
sellers in the world) then just take it. Why not be consistent?
templeforjerusalem 30 Oct 2015 21:51
IS has shown itself to be deeply hateful of anything that conflicts with their narrow religious
interpretations. Destroying Palmyra, murdering indiscriminately, without any clear international
agenda other than the formation of a new Sunni Sharia State, makes them essentially enemies of
everybody. Although I do agree that belligerent secular Netanyahu's Israel sets a bad example
in the area, Israel does not tend to murder over the same primitive values that IS uses, although
there's not much difference in reality.
IS uses extermination tactics, Israel used forced land clearance and concentration camp bombing
(Gaza et al), while the US in Iraq used brutal force. None of this is good but nothing justifies
the shear barbarism of IS. Is there hope in any of this? No. Is Russian and US involvement a major
escalation? Yes.
Ultimately, this is about religious identities refusing to share and demand peace. Sunni vs
Shia, Judeo/Catholic/Protestant West vs Russian Orthodox, secular vs orthodox Israel. No wonder
people are saying Armageddon.
HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:50
ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have
an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to
suffer. The only countries and groups that have been successfully fighting ISIS - Assad's
forces, Iranians, Hezbollah, Russians, and Kurds are in fact enemies of either the U.S., Saudis,
Israelis, or Turks. Isn't that strange? The countries and peoples that have suffered the most
and that have actually fought against ISIS effectively are seen as the enemy. Do the powers that
be really want to wipe out ISIS at all costs? No, especially if it involves the Iranians and Russians.
How are Russian boots on the ground - of which there have been many for some time - ok
and American boots bad?
The difference is that of a poison and the antidotum. The American/NATO meddling in Iraq, Libya
and Syria created a truly sick situation which needs to be fixed. That's what the Russians are
doing. Obviously, they have their own objectives and motives for that and are protecting their
own interests, but nevertheless this is the surest way to re-establish semblance of stability
in the Middle East, rebuilt Syria and Iraq, stop the exodus of the refugees, and mend relations
in the region.
The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing
short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America
lost any claim to 'leadership' by now.
I feel sorry for Mr Obama, and indeed America, because he is a decent person, yet most of us
are unaware what forces he has to reckon with behind the scenes. It is clear by now that interests
of corporations and rich individuals, as well as a couple of seemingly insignificant foreign states,
beat the national interest of America all time, anytime. It is astonishing how a powerful, hard
working and talented nation can become beholden to such forces, to its own detriment.
In the end, I do not think the situation is uniquely American. Russia or China given a chance
of total hegemony would behave the same. That's why we need a field of powers/superpowers to keep
one another in check and negotiate rather than enforce solutions.
ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:02
Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. Yes,
the me has its own problems, including rival versions of Islam and fundamentalism as well as truly
megalomaniac leaders. But in instances (Libya for example) they did truly contribute to the country's
destruction (and I am not excusing Gaddafi, but for the people there sometimes having these leaders
and waiting for generational transformations may be a better solution than instant democracy pills.)
ID7582903 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:00
Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according
to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc.
The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops
into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's
a War Crime by every standard
Obama and the "regime" that rules the United Snakes of America have all gone over the edge
into insanity writ large.
ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 20:55
To clarify, I meant that all these groups are funded by these Arabic sheikhdoms and it increasingly
appears that th us of a is not as serious in eradicating all of them in the illusion that the
so called softer ones will over through Assad and then it will be democracy, the much misused
and fetishised term. Meanwhile we can carve up the country, Turkey gets a bite and our naughty
bloated allies in Arabia will be happy with their influence. Only if it happened that way...
There is much more than this short and simplified scenario, and yes Russia played its hand
rather well taking the west off guard. And I am not trying to portray Putin as some liberation
prophet either. So perhaps you could say that yes, maybe I have looked into it deep...
BlooperMario -> RedEyedOverlord 30 Oct 2015 20:52
China and Russia are only responding to NY World Bank and IMF cheats and also standing up to
an evil empire that has ruined the middle east.
Time you had a rethink old chap and stopped worshipping Blair; Bush; Rumsfeld etc as your heros.
See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR.
Silly Sailors provoking Chinese Lighthouse keepers.
RoyRoger 30 Oct 2015 19:30
Their Plan B is fucked !!
But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate
corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve
up Syria a sovereign country.
Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian
rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is
a sovereign country.
The real battle/plan for the Corporate corrupt White House is to try and get a foothold in
Syria and establish a military dictator after a coup d'etat'. As we know it's what they, the West,
do best.
Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering
neo-Nazi's.
In the interest of right is right; Good Luck Mr Putin !! I'm with you all the way.
weematt 30 Oct 2015 19:25
War (and poverty too) a consequence, concomitant, of competing for markets, raw materials and
trade routes or areas of geo-political dominance, come to be seen as 'natural' outcomes of society,
but are merely concomitants of a changeable social system.
... ... ...
Greg_Samsa 30 Oct 2015 19:21
Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the
opposite fronts on the Syrian soil?
This gives a whole new dimension to the term 'blue-on-blue'.
Kevin Donegan 30 Oct 2015 18:59
Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law.
"Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty
over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle
of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how
large or small) is equal in international law. The doctrine is named after the Peace of Westphalia,
signed in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years' War, in which the major continental European states
– the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, France, Sweden and the Dutch Republic – agreed to respect one
another's territorial integrity. As European influence spread across the globe, the Westphalian
principles, especially the concept of sovereign states, became central to international law and
to the prevailing world order.[1]"
foolisholdman 30 Oct 2015 18:41
As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such
as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance
of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change.
If ever there was a government hat had lost its legitimacy the present US government is it.
foolisholdman -> Johnny Kent 30 Oct 2015 18:31
Johnny Kent
The slight question of legality in placing troops in a sovereign country without permission
or UN approval is obviously of no importance to the US...and yet they criticise Russia for
'annexing Crimea...
Yes, but you see: the two cases are not comparable because the USA is exceptional.
You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting
demonstrators who demonstrated
against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime
had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot
up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but
on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their
weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively.
However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional)
human beings.
WalterCronkiteBot 30 Oct 2015 17:11
What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international
law?
Noone seems to even raise it as an issue, its all about congressional approval. Just like the
UK drone strikes.
"... The deficit obsession that governments have shown since 2010 has helped produce a recovery that has been far too slow, even in the US. ..."
"... The Zero Lower Bound (ZLB) raises an acute problem for what I call the consensus assignment (leaving macroeconomic stabilisation to an independent, inflation targeting central bank), but add in austerity and you get major macroeconomic costs. ICBs appear to rule out the one policy (money financed fiscal expansion) that could combat both the ZLB and deficit obsession. ..."
Simon Wren-Lewis has a follow-up to his recent post on central bank independence:
The 'strong case' critically examined : Perhaps it was too unconventional
setting out an argument (against independent central banks, ICBs) that
I did not agree with, even though I made it abundantly clear that was what
I was doing. It was too much for one blogger, who reacted by deciding that
I did agree with the argument, and sent a series of tweets that are best
forgotten. But my reason for doing it was also clear enough from the final
paragraph. The problem it addresses is real enough, and the problem appears
to be linked to the creation of ICBs.
The deficit obsession that governments have shown since 2010 has
helped produce a recovery that has been far too slow, even in the US.
It would be nice if we could treat that obsession as some kind of aberration,
never to be repeated, but unfortunately that looks way too optimistic.
The Zero Lower Bound (ZLB) raises an acute problem for what I call
the consensus assignment (leaving macroeconomic stabilisation to an independent,
inflation targeting central bank), but add in austerity and you get major
macroeconomic costs. ICBs appear to rule out the one policy (money financed
fiscal expansion) that could combat both the ZLB and deficit obsession.
I wanted to put that point as strongly as I could. Miles Kimball does
something similar
here , although without the fiscal policy perspective ...
Skipping ahead (and omitting quite a bit of the argument):
... The basic flaw with my strong argument against ICBs is that the ultimate
problem (in terms of not ending recessions quickly) lies with governments.
There would be no problem if governments could only wait until the recession
was over (and interest rates were safely above the ZLB) before tackling
their deficit, but the recession was not over in 2010. Given this failure
by governments, it seems odd to then suggest that the solution to this problem
is to give governments back some of the power they have lost. Or to put
the same point another way, imagine the Republican Congress in charge of
US monetary policy.
But if abolishing ICBs is not the answer to the very real problem I set
out, does that mean we have to be satisfied with the workarounds? One possibility
that a few economists
like Miles Kimball have argued for is to effectively abolish paper money
as we know it, so central banks can set negative interest rates. Another
possibility is that the government (in its saner moments) gives ICBs
the power to undertake helicopter money.
Both are complete solutions to
the ZLB problem rather than workarounds. Both can be accused of endangering
the value of money. But note also that both proposals gain strength from
the existence of ICBs: governments are highly unlikely to ever have the
courage to set negative rates, and ICBs stop the flight times of helicopters
being linked to elections.
These are big (important and complex) issues. There should be no taboos
that mean certain issues cannot be raised in polite company. I still think
blog posts are the best medium we have to discuss these issues, hopefully
free from distractions like partisan politics.
"... We don't get to do many controlled experiments in economics, so history is mainly what we have to go on. ..."
"... What did orthodox salt-water macroeconomists believe about disinflation on the eve of the Paul Volcker contraction? As it happens, we have an excellent source document: James Tobin's "Stabilization Policy Ten Years After," * presented at Brookings in early 1980. ..."
"... Unemployment shot up faster than in Tobin's simulation, then came down faster, because the Fed didn't follow the simple rule he assumed. But the basic shape - a clockwise spiral, with inflation coming down thanks to a period of very high unemployment - was very much in line with what standard Keynesian macro said would happen. ..."
"... trade between any two regional economies is roughly proportional to the product of their GDPs and inversely related to distance. Neat. ..."
We don't get to do many controlled experiments in economics, so history
is mainly what we have to go on. Unfortunately, many people who imagine
that they know how the economy works go with what they think they heard
about history, not with what actually happened. And I'm not just talking
about the great unwashed; quite a few well-known economists seem not to
have heard about FRED, or at least haven't picked up the habit of doing
a quick scan of the actual data before making assertions about facts.
And there's one decade in particular where people are weirdly unaware
of the realities: the 1980s. A lot of this has to do with Reaganolatry:
the usual suspects have repeated so often that it was a time of extraordinary,
incredible success that I often encounter liberals who believe that something
special must have happened, that somehow the events were at odds with what
the prevailing macroeconomic models of the time said would happen.
But nothing special happened, aside from the unexpected willingness of
the Federal Reserve to impose incredibly high unemployment in order to bring
inflation down.
What did orthodox salt-water macroeconomists believe about disinflation
on the eve of the Paul Volcker contraction? As it happens, we have an excellent
source document: James Tobin's "Stabilization Policy Ten Years After," *
presented at Brookings in early 1980. Among other things, Tobin laid out
a hypothetical disinflation scenario based on the kind of Keynesian model
people like him were using at the time (which was also the model laid out
in the Dornbusch-Fischer and Robert Gordon textbooks).
These models included
an expectations-augmented Phillips curve, ** with no long-run tradeoff between
inflation and unemployment - but expectations were assumed to adjust gradually
based on experience, rather than changing rapidly via forward-looking assessments
of Fed policy.
This was, of course, the kind of model the Chicago School dismissed scathingly
as worthy of nothing but ridicule, and which was more or less driven out
of the academic literature, even as it continued to be the basis of a lot
of policy analysis.
So here was Tobin's picture:
[Picture]
Here's what actually happened:
[Graph]
Unemployment shot up faster than in Tobin's simulation, then came down
faster, because the Fed didn't follow the simple rule he assumed. But the
basic shape - a clockwise spiral, with inflation coming down thanks to a
period of very high unemployment - was very much in line with what standard
Keynesian macro said would happen. On the other hand, there was no sign
whatsoever of the kind of painless disinflation rational-expectations models
suggested would happen if the Fed credibly announced its disinflation plans.
Now that's fun: Adam Davidson tells us * about trade in the ancient Near
East, as documented by archives found in Kanesh - and reports that the volume
of trade between Kanesh and various trading partners seems to fit a gravity
equation: trade between any two regional economies is roughly proportional
to the product of their GDPs and inversely related to distance. Neat.
But what does the seemingly universal applicability of the gravity equation
tell us? Davidson suggests that it's an indication that policy can't do
much to shape trade. That's not where I would have gone, and it's not where
those who have studied the issue closely ** have gone.
Here's my take: Think about two cities with the same per capita GDP -
we can relax that assumption in a minute. They will trade if residents of
city A find things being sold by residents of city B that they want, and
vice versa.
So what's the probability that an A resident will find a B resident with
something he or she wants? Applying what one of my old teachers used to
call the principle of insignificant reason, a good first guess would be
that this probability is proportional to the number of potential sellers
- B's population.
And how many such desirous buyers will there be? Again applying insignificant
reason, a good guess is that it's proportional to the number of potential
buyers - A's population.
So other things equal we would expect exports from B to A to be proportional
to the product of their populations.
What if GDP per capita isn't the same? You can think of this as increasing
the "effective" population, both in terms of producers and in terms of consumers.
So the attraction is now the product of the GDPs.
Is there anything surprising about the fact that this relationship works
pretty well? A bit. Standard pre-1980 trade theory envisaged countries specializing
in accord with their comparative advantage - England does cloth, Portugal
wine. And these models suggest that how much countries trade should have
a lot to do with whether they are similar or not. Cloth exporters shouldn't
be selling much to each other, but should instead do their trading with
wine exporters. In reality, however, there's basically no sign of any such
effect: even seemingly similar countries trade about as much as a gravity
equation says they should.
Calibrated models of trade have long dealt with this reality, somewhat
awkwardly, with the so-called Armington assumption, *** which simply assumes
that even the apparently same good from different countries is treated by
consumers as a differentiated product - a banana isn't just a banana, it's
an Ecuador banana or a Saint Lucia banana, which are imperfect substitutes.
The new trade theory some of us introduced circa 1980 - or as some now call
it, the "old new trade theory" - does a bit more, and possibly better, by
introducing monopolistic competition and increasing returns to explain why
even similar countries produce differentiated products.
And there's also a puzzle about both the effect of distance and the effect
of borders, both of which seem larger than concrete costs can explain. Work
continues.
Does any of this suggest the irrelevance of trade policy? Not really.
Changes in trade policy do have obvious effects on how much countries trade.
Look at what happened when Mexico opened up starting in the late 1980s,
as compared with Canada, which was fairly open all along - and which, like
Mexico, mainly trades with the US:
[Graph]
So what does gravity tell us? Simple Ricardian comparative advantage
is clearly incomplete; the process of international trade is subtler, with
invisible as well as visible costs. Not trivial, but not too unsettling.
And gravity models are very useful as a benchmark for assessing other effects.
One morning, just before dawn, an old man named Assur-idi loaded up two
black donkeys. Their burden was 147 pounds of tin, along with 30 textiles,
known as kutanum, that were of such rare value that a single garment cost
as much as a slave. Assur-idi had spent his life's savings on the items,
because he knew that if he could convey them over the Taurus Mountains to
Kanesh, 600 miles away, he could sell them for twice what he paid.
At the city gate, Assur-idi ran into a younger acquaintance, Sharrum-Adad,
who said he was heading on the same journey. He offered to take the older
man's donkeys with him and ship the profits back. The two struck a hurried
agreement and wrote it up, though they forgot to record some details. Later,
Sharrum-Adad claimed he never knew how many textiles he had been given.
Assur-idi spent the subsequent weeks sending increasingly panicked letters
to his sons in Kanesh, demanding they track down Sharrum-Adad and claim
his profits.
These letters survive as part of a stunning, nearly miraculous window
into ancient economics. In general, we know few details about economic life
before roughly 1000 A.D. But during one 30-year period - between 1890 and
1860 B.C. - for one community in the town of Kanesh, we know a great deal.
Through a series of incredibly unlikely events, archaeologists have uncovered
the comprehensive written archive of a few hundred traders who left their
hometown Assur, in what is now Iraq, to set up importing businesses in Kanesh,
which sat roughly at the center of present-day Turkey and functioned as
the hub of a massive global trading system that stretched from Central Asia
to Europe. Kanesh's traders sent letters back and forth with their business
partners, carefully written on clay tablets and stored at home in special
vaults. Tens of thousands of these records remain. One economist recently
told me that he would love to have as much candid information about businesses
today as we have about the dealings - and in particular, about the trading
practices - of this 4,000-year-old community.
Trade is central to every key economic issue we face. Whether the subject
is inequality, financial instability or the future of work, it all comes
down to a discussion of trade: trade of manufactured goods with China, trade
of bonds with Europe, trade over the Internet or enabled by mobile apps.
For decades, economists have sought to understand how trade works. Can we
shape trade to achieve different outcomes, like a resurgence of manufacturing
or a lessening of inequality? Or does trade operate according to fairly
fixed rules, making it resistant to conscious planning?
Economists, creating models of trade, have faced a challenge, because
their data have derived exclusively from the modern world. Are their models
universal or merely reflections of our time? It's a crucial question, because
many in our country would like to change our trading system to protect American
jobs and to improve working conditions here and abroad. The archives of
Kanesh have proved to be the greatest single source of information about
trade from an entirely premodern milieu.
In a beautifully detailed new book - ''Ancient Kanesh,'' written by a
scholar of the archive, Mogens Trolle Larsen, to be published by Cambridge
University Press later this year - we meet dozens of the traders of Kanesh
and their relatives back home in Assur. Larsen has been able to construct
family trees, detailing how siblings and cousins, parents and spouses, traded
with one another and often worked against one another. We meet struggling
businessmen, like Assur-idi, and brilliant entrepreneurs, like Shalim-Assur,
who built a wealthy dynasty that lasted generations. In 2003, while covering
the war in Iraq, I traveled to many ancient archaeological sites; the huge
burial mounds, the carvings celebrating kings as relatives to the gods,
all gave the impression of a despotic land in which a tiny handful of aristocrats
and priests enjoyed dictatorial control. But the Kanesh documents show that
at least some citizens had enormous power over their own livelihoods, achieving
wealth and power through their own entrepreneurial endeavors.
The details of daily life are amazing, but another scholar, Gojko Barjamovic,
of Harvard, realized that the archive also offered insight into something
potentially more compelling. Many of the texts enumerate specific business
details: the price of goods purchased and sold, the interest ate on debt,
the costs of transporting goods and the various taxes in the many city-states
that the donkey caravans passed on the long journey from Assur to Kanesh.
Like most people who have studied Kanesh, Barjamovic is an Assyriologist,
an expert in ancient languages and culture. Earlier this year, he joined
some economists, as well as some other Assyriologists and archaeologists,
on a team that analyzed Kanesh's financial statistics. The picture that
emerged of economic life is staggeringly advanced. The traders of Kanesh
used financial tools that were remarkably similar to checks, bonds and joint-stock
companies. They had something like venture-capital firms that created diversified
portfolios of risky trades. And they even had structured financial products:
People would buy outstanding debt, sell it to others and use it as collateral
to finance new businesses. The 30 years for which we have records appear
to have been a time of remarkable financial innovation....
Multipliers: What We Should Have Known
By Paul Krugman
There's a very nice interview * with Olivier Blanchard, who is leaving
the International Monetary Fund, in which among other things Olivier says
the right thing about changing one's mind:
"With respect to outside, the issue I have been struck by is how to indicate
a change of views without triggering headlines of 'mistakes,' 'Fund incompetence,'
and so on. Here, I am thinking of fiscal multipliers. The underestimation
of the drag on output from fiscal consolidation was not a 'mistake' in the
way people think of mistakes, e.g. mixing up two cells in an excel sheet.
It was based on a substantial amount of prior evidence, but evidence which
turned out to be misleading in an environment where interest rates are close
to zero and monetary policy cannot offset the negative effects of budget
cuts. We got a lot of flak for admitting the underestimation, and I suspect
we shall continue to get more flak in the future. But, at the same time,
I believe that we, the Fund, substantially increased our credibility, and
used better assumptions later on. It was painful, but it was useful."
Indeed. There are a lot of people out there whose idea of a substantive
argument is "you used to say X, now you say Y" - never mind the reasons
why you changed your view, and whether it was right to do so.It's important
not to fall into the trap of being afraid to let new evidence or analysis
speak.
One thing I would say, however, is that on this particular issue the
Fund should have known better. Olivier says that the evidence "turned out
to be misleading in an environment where interest rates are close to zero
and monetary policy cannot offset the negative effects of budget cuts",
but didn't we know that? I certainly did. **
And let me also beat one of my favorite drums: the prediction that multipliers
would be much larger in a liquidity trap came out of IS-LMish macro (or,
to be fair, New Keynesian models) and has been overwhelmingly confirmed
by experience. So this was yet another victory for Keynesian analysis, the
success story nobody will believe.
Barry Eichengreen and Kevin O'Rourke have lately been scoring a series
of research coups, based on the combination of historical perspective and
a global view. Most famously, they showed that on a global basis the first
year of the current crisis was every bit as severe * as the first year of
the Great Depression.
Now they and collaborators have a new piece on policy effects, ** especially
fiscal multipliers.
The background here is that there are two problems with estimating multipliers
relevant to our current situation. First, you need to look at what happens
under liquidity-trap conditions - and except in Japan,these haven't prevailed
anywhere since the 1930s. The second is that in the United States, fiscal
policy was never forceful enough to provide a useful natural experiment.
We didn't have a really big fiscal expansion until World War II; and WWII
isn't a good experiment because the surge in defense spending was accompanied
by government policies that suppressed private demand, such as rationing
and restrictions on investment. (I really, really don't understand why this
point has been so hard to get across.)
What E&R do here is use a broad international cross-section to overcome
this problem. This works because a number of countries had major military
buildups during the 1930s - fiscal expansions that can be regarded as exogenous
to the economic situation, since they were
"driven above all by Hitler's rearmament programmes and other nations'
efforts to match the Nazis in this sphere, and by one-off events like Italy's
war in Abyssinia."
What do E&R find? Initial fiscal multipliers of 2 or more, although they
shrink over time. Yes, fiscal expansion is expansionary.
So how does the decade of the 1980s end up being perceived as a defeat
for Keynesians? To see it that way you have to systematically misrepresent
both what happened to the economy and what people like Tobin were saying
at the time. In reality, Tobinesque economics looks very good in the light
of events.
In economics, the Phillips curve is a historical inverse relationship
between rates of unemployment and corresponding rates of inflation that
result in an economy. Stated simply, decreased unemployment, (i.e. increased
levels of employment) in an economy will correlate with higher rates of
inflation.
This short article contains several very deep observations. Highly
recommended...
Notable quotes:
"... There is no way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil or Raytheon. We've lost our privacy. We've seen, under Obama, an assault against civil liberties that has outstripped what George W. Bush carried out. ..."
"... This has been a bipartisan effort, because they've both been captured by corporate power. We have undergone what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a corporate coup d'état in slow motion, and it's over. ..."
"... First, it dislocated the working class, deindustrialized the country. Then, in the name of austerity, it destroyed public institutions, education, public broadcasting. And then it poisoned the political system. And we are now watching, in Poland, they created a 30,000 to 40,000 armed militia. You know, they have an army. The Parliament, nothing works. And I think that this political system in the United States has seized up in exactly the same form. ..."
"... So, is Trump a repugnant personality? Yes. Although I would argue that in terms of megalomania and narcissism, Hillary Clinton is not far behind. But the point is, we've got to break away from-which is exactly the narrative they want us to focus on. ..."
"... I mean, this whole debate over the WikiLeaks is insane. Did Russia? I've printed classified material that was given to me by the Mossad. But I never exposed that Mossad gave it to me. Is what was published true or untrue? And the fact is, you know, in those long emails -- you should read them. They're appalling, including calling Dr. Cornel West "trash." It is-the whole-it exposes the way the system was rigged, within-I'm talking about the Democratic Party -- the denial of independents, the superdelegates, the stealing of the caucus in Nevada, the huge amounts of corporate money and super PACs that flowed into the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... Clinton has a track record, and it's one that has abandoned children. I mean, she and her husband destroyed welfare as we know it, and 70 percent of the original recipients were children. ..."
"... Trump is not the phenomenon. Trump is responding to a phenomenon created by neoliberalism. And we may get rid of Trump, but we will get something even more vile ..."
CHRIS HEDGES : Well, reducing the election to personalities
is kind of infantile at this point. The fact is, we live in a system that Sheldon
Wolin calls inverted totalitarianism. It's a system where corporate power has
seized all of the levers of control. There is no way to vote against the interests
of Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil or Raytheon. We've lost our privacy. We've seen,
under Obama, an assault against civil liberties that has outstripped what George
W. Bush carried out. We've seen the executive branch misinterpret the 2001 Authorization
to Use Military Force Act as giving itself the right to assassinate American
citizens, including children. I speak of Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son.
We have bailed out the banks, pushed through programs of austerity. This
has been a bipartisan effort, because they've both been captured by corporate
power. We have undergone what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a corporate
coup d'état in slow motion, and it's over.
I just came back from Poland, which is a kind of case study of how
neoliberal poison destroys a society and creates figures like Trump. Poland
has gone, I think we can argue, into a neofascism.
First, it dislocated the working class, deindustrialized the country.
Then, in the name of austerity, it destroyed public institutions, education,
public broadcasting. And then it poisoned the political system. And we are now
watching, in Poland, they created a 30,000 to 40,000 armed militia. You know,
they have an army. The Parliament, nothing works. And I think that this political
system in the United States has seized up in exactly the same form.
So, is Trump a repugnant personality? Yes. Although I would argue that
in terms of megalomania and narcissism, Hillary Clinton is not far behind. But
the point is, we've got to break away from-which is exactly the narrative they
want us to focus on. We've got to break away from political personalities
and understand and examine and critique the structures of power. And, in fact,
the Democratic Party, especially beginning under Bill Clinton, has carried water
for corporate entities as assiduously as the Republican Party. This is something
that Ralph Nader understood long before the rest of us, and stepped out very
courageously in 2000. And I think we will look back on that period and find
Ralph to be an amazingly prophetic figure. Nobody understands corporate power
better than Ralph. And I think now people have caught up with Ralph.
And this is, of course, why I support Dr. Stein and the Green Party. We have
to remember that 10 years ago, Syriza, which controls the Greek government,
was polling at exactly the same spot that the Green Party is polling now-about
4 percent. We've got to break out of this idea that we can create systematic
change within a particular election cycle. We've got to be willing to step out
into the political wilderness, perhaps, for a decade. But on the issues of climate
change, on the issue of the destruction of civil liberties, including our right
to privacy-and I speak as a former investigative journalist, which doesn't exist
anymore because of wholesale government surveillance-we have no ability, except
for hackers.
I mean, this whole debate over the WikiLeaks is insane. Did Russia? I've
printed classified material that was given to me by the Mossad. But I never
exposed that Mossad gave it to me. Is what was published true or untrue? And
the fact is, you know, in those long emails -- you should read them. They're
appalling, including calling Dr. Cornel West "trash." It is-the whole-it exposes
the way the system was rigged, within-I'm talking about the Democratic Party
-- the denial of independents, the superdelegates, the stealing of the caucus
in Nevada, the huge amounts of corporate money and super PACs that flowed into
the Clinton campaign.
The fact is, Clinton has a track record, and it's one that has abandoned
children. I mean, she and her husband destroyed welfare as we know it, and 70
percent of the original recipients were children.
This debate over -- I don't like Trump, but Trump is not the phenomenon.
Trump is responding to a phenomenon created by neoliberalism. And we may get
rid of Trump, but we will get something even more vile, maybe Ted Cruz.
Future Economists Will Probably Call
This Decade the 'Longest Depression'
:
... Back before 2008, I used to teach my
students that during a disturbance in
the business cycle, we'd be 40 percent
of the way back to normal in a year. The
long-run trend of economic growth, I
would say, was barely affected by
short-run business cycle disturbances.
There would always be short-run bubbles
and panics and inflations and
recessions. They would press production
and employment away from its long-run
trend -- perhaps by as much as 5
percent. But they would be transitory.
After the shock hit, the economy would
rapidly head back to normal. The
equilibrium-restoring logic and magic of
supply and demand would push the economy
to close two-fifths of the gap to normal
each year. After four years, only a
seventh of the peak disturbance would
remain.
In the aftermath of 2008, Stiglitz was
indeed one of those warning that I and
economists like me were wrong. Without
extraordinary, sustained and aggressive
policies to rebalance the economy, he
said, we would never get back to what
before 2008 we had thought was normal.
"... I think Trump is afraid the imperial global order presided by the US is about to crash and thinks he will be able to steer the country into a soft landing by accepting that other world powers have interests, by disengaging from costly and humiliating military interventions, by re-negotiating trade deals, and by stopping the mass immigration of poor people. Plus a few well-placed bombs ..."
"... Much has been written about the internet revolution, about the impact of people having access to much more information than before. The elite does not recognize this and is still organizing political and media campaigns as if it were 1990, relying on elder statesmen like Blair, Bush, Mitterrand, Clinton, and Obama to influence public opinion. They are failing miserably, to the point of being counterproductive. ..."
"... I don't think something as parochial as racism is sustaining Trump, but rather the fear of the loss of empire by a population with several orders of magnitude more information and communication than in 2008, even 2012. ..."
"... No one has literally argued that people should be glad to lose employment: that part was hyperbole. But the basic argument is often made quite seriously. See e.g. outsource Brad DeLong . ..."
"... The same thing has happened in Mexico with neoliberal government after neoliberal government being elected. There are many democratically elected neoliberal governments around the world. ..."
"... In the case of Mexico, because Peńa Nieto's wife is a telenovela star. How cool is that? It places Mexico in the same league as 1st world countries, such as France, with Carla Bruni. ..."
"... To the guy who asked- poor white people keep voting Republican even though it screws them because they genuinely believe that the country is best off when it encourages a culture of "by the bootstraps" self improvement, hard work, and personal responsibility. They view taxing people in order to give the money to the supposedly less fortunate as the anti thesis of this, because it gives people an easy out that let's them avoid having to engage in the hard work needed to live independently. ..."
"... The extent to which "poor white people" vote against their alleged economic interests is overblown. To a large extent, they do not vote at all nor is anyone or anything on the ballot to represent their interests. And, yes, they are misinformed systematically by elites out to screw them and they know this, but cannot do much to either clear up their own confusion or fight back. ..."
"... The mirror image problem - of elites manipulating the system to screw the poor and merely middle-class - is daily in the news. Both Presidential candidates have been implicated. So, who do you recommend they vote for? ..."
"... I think you're missing Patrick's point. These voters are switching from one Republican to another. They've jettisoned Bush et. al. for Trump. These guys despise Bush. ..."
"... They've figured out that the mainstream party is basically 30 years of affinity fraud. ..."
"... My understanding is trumps support disproportionately comes from the small business owning classes, Ie a demographic similar to the petite bourgeoisie who have often been heavily involved in reactionary movements. This gets oversold as "working class" when class is defined by education level rather than income. ..."
"... Layman - Why are these voters switching from Bush et al to Trump? Once again, Corey's whole point is that there is very little difference between the racism of Trump and the mainstream party since Nixon. Is Trump just more racist? Or are the policies of Trump resonating differently than Bush for reasons other than race? ..."
"... Eric Berne, in The Structures and Dynamics of Organizations and Groups, proposed that among the defining characteristics of a coherent group is an explicit boundary which determines whether an individual is a member of the group or not. (If there is no boundary, nothing binds the assemblage together; it is a crowd.) The boundary helps provide social cohesion and is so important that groups will create one if necessary. Clearly, boundaries exclude as well as include, and someone must play the role of outsider. ..."
"... For a time, the balkanization of American political communities by race, religion and ethnicity was an effective means to the dominance of an tiny elite with ties to an hegemonic community, but it backfired. Dismantling that balkanization has left the country with a very low level of social affiliation and thus a low capacity to organize resistance to elite depredations. ..."
I think Trump is afraid the imperial global order presided by the US is about to crash
and thinks he will be able to steer the country into a soft landing by accepting that other world
powers have interests, by disengaging from costly and humiliating military interventions, by re-negotiating
trade deals, and by stopping the mass immigration of poor people. Plus a few well-placed bombs
.
Much has been written about the internet revolution, about the impact of people having
access to much more information than before. The elite does not recognize this and is still organizing
political and media campaigns as if it were 1990, relying on elder statesmen like Blair, Bush,
Mitterrand, Clinton, and Obama to influence public opinion. They are failing miserably, to the
point of being counterproductive.
I don't think something as parochial as racism is sustaining Trump, but rather the fear
of the loss of empire by a population with several orders of magnitude more information and communication
than in 2008, even 2012.
Layman 08.04.16 at 11:59 am
Rich P: "Neoliberals often argue that people should be glad to lose employment at 50 so
that people from other countries can have higher incomes "
I doubt this most sincerely. While this may be the effect of some neoliberal policies, I can't
recall any particular instance where someone made this argument.
Rich Puchalsky 08.04.16 at 12:03 pm
"I can't recall any particular instance where someone made this argument."
No one has literally argued that people should be glad to lose employment: that part was
hyperbole. But the basic argument is often made quite seriously. See e.g.
outsource
Brad DeLong .
engels 08.04.16 at 12:25 pm
While this may be the effect of some neoliberal policies, I can't recall any particular instance
where someone made this argument
Maybe this kind of thing rom Henry Farrell? (There may well be better examples.)
Is some dilution of the traditional European welfare state acceptable, if it substantially
increases the wellbeing of current outsiders (i.e. for example, by bringing Turkey into the club).
My answer is yes, if European leftwingers are to stick to their core principles on justice, fairness,
egalitarianism etc
Large numbers of low-income white southern Americans consistently vote against their
own economic interests. They vote to award tax breaks to wealthy people and corporations, to
cut unemployment benefits, to bust unions, to reward companies for outsourcing jobs, to resist
wage increases, to cut funding for health care for the poor, to cut Social Security and Medicare,
etc.
The same thing has happened in Mexico with neoliberal government after neoliberal government
being elected. There are many democratically elected neoliberal governments around the world.
Why might this be?
In the case of Mexico, because Peńa Nieto's wife is a telenovela star. How cool is that?
It places Mexico in the same league as 1st world countries, such as France, with Carla Bruni.
Patrick 08.04.16 at 4:32 pm
To the guy who asked- poor white people keep voting Republican even though it screws them
because they genuinely believe that the country is best off when it encourages a culture of "by
the bootstraps" self improvement, hard work, and personal responsibility. They view taxing people
in order to give the money to the supposedly less fortunate as the anti thesis of this, because
it gives people an easy out that let's them avoid having to engage in the hard work needed to
live independently.
They see it as little different from letting your kid move back on after college and smoke
weed in your basement. They don't generally mind people being on unemployment transitionally,
but they're supposed to be a little embarrassed about it and get it over with as soon as possible.
They not only worry that increased government social spending will incentivize bad behavior, they
worry it will destroy the cultural values they see as vital to Americas past prosperity. They
tend to view claims about historic or systemic injustice necessitating collective remedy because
they view the world as one in which the vagaries of fate decree that some are born rich or poor,
and that success is in improving ones station relative to where one starts. Attempts at repairing
historical racial inequity read as cheating in that paradigm, and even as hostile since they can
easily observe white people who are just as poor or poorer than those who racial politics focuses
upon. Left wing insistence on borrowing the nastiest rhetoric of libertarians ("this guy is poor
because his ancestors couldn't get ahead because of historical racial injustice so we must help
him; your family couldn't get ahead either but that must have been your fault so you deserve it")
comes across as both antithetical to their values and as downright hostile within the values they
see around them.
All of this can be easily learned by just talking to them.
It's not a great world view. It fails to explain quite a lot. For example, they have literally
no way of explaining increased unemployment without positing either that everyone is getting too
lazy to work, or that the government screwed up the system somehow, possibly by making it too
expensive to do business in the US relative to other countries. and given their faith in the power
of hard work, they don't even blame sweatshops- they blame taxes and foreign subsidies.
I don't know exactly how to reach out to them, except that I can point to some things people
do that repulse them and say "stop doing that."
bruce wilder 08.04.16 at 5:50 pm
The extent to which "poor white people" vote against their alleged economic interests is
overblown. To a large extent, they do not vote at all nor is anyone or anything on the ballot
to represent their interests. And, yes, they are misinformed systematically by elites out to screw
them and they know this, but cannot do much to either clear up their own confusion or fight back.
The mirror image problem - of elites manipulating the system to screw the poor and merely
middle-class - is daily in the news. Both Presidential candidates have been implicated. So, who
do you recommend they vote for?
There is serious deficit of both trust and information among the poor. Poor whites hardly have
a monopoly; black misleadership is epidemic in our era of Cory Booker socialism.
bruce wilder 08.04.16 at 7:05 pm
Politics is founded on the complex social psychology of humans as social animals. We elevate
it from its irrational base in emotion to rationalized calculation or philosophy at our peril.
T 08.04.16 at 9:17 pm
@Layman
I think you're missing Patrick's point. These voters are switching from one Republican
to another. They've jettisoned Bush et. al. for Trump. These guys despise Bush.
They've figured out that the mainstream party is basically 30 years of affinity fraud.
So, is your argument is that Trump even more racist? That kind of goes against the whole point
of the OP. Not saying that race doesn't matter. Of course it does. But Trump has a 34% advantage
in non-college educated white men. It just isn't the South. Why does it have to be just race or
just class?
Ronan(rf) 08.04.16 at 10:35 pm
"I generally don't give a shit about polls so I have no "data" to evidence this claim, but
my guess is the majority of Trump's support comes from this broad middle"
My understanding is trumps support disproportionately comes from the small business owning
classes, Ie a demographic similar to the petite bourgeoisie who have often been heavily involved
in reactionary movements. This gets oversold as "working class" when class is defined by education
level rather than income.
This would make some sense as they are generally in economically unstable jobs, they tend to
be hostile to both big govt (regulations, freeloaders) and big business (unfair competition),
and while they (rhetorically at least) tend to value personal autonomy and self sufficiency ,
they generally sell into smaller, local markets, and so are particularly affected by local demographic
and cultural change , and decline. That's my speculation anyway.
T 08.05.16 at 3:12 pm
@patrick @layman
Patrick, you're right about the Trump demographic. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/
Layman - Why are these voters switching from Bush et al to Trump? Once again, Corey's whole
point is that there is very little difference between the racism of Trump and the mainstream party
since Nixon. Is Trump just more racist? Or are the policies of Trump resonating differently than
Bush for reasons other than race?
Are the folks that voted for the other candidates in the primary less racist so Trump supporters
are just the most racist among Republicans? Cruz less racist? You have to explain the shift within
the Republican party because that's what happened.
Anarcissie 08.06.16 at 3:00 pm
Faustusnotes 08.06.16 at 1:50 pm @ 270 -
Eric Berne, in The Structures and Dynamics of Organizations and Groups, proposed that among
the defining characteristics of a coherent group is an explicit boundary which determines whether
an individual is a member of the group or not. (If there is no boundary, nothing binds the assemblage
together; it is a crowd.) The boundary helps provide social cohesion and is so important that
groups will create one if necessary. Clearly, boundaries exclude as well as include, and someone
must play the role of outsider. While Berne's theories are a bit too nifty for me to love
them, I have observed a lot of the behaviors he predicts. If one wanted to be sociobiological,
it is not hard to hypothesize evolutionary pressures which could lead to this sort of behavior
being genetically programmed. If a group of humans, a notably combative primate, does not have
strong social cohesion, the war of all against all ensues and everybody dies. Common affections
alone do not seem to provide enough cohesion.
In an earlier but related theory, in the United States, immigrants from diverse European communities
which fought each other for centuries in Europe arrived and managed to now get along because they
had a major Other, the Negro, against whom to define themselves (as the White Race) and thus to
cohere sufficiently to get on with business. The Negro had the additional advantage of being at
first a powerless slave and later, although theoretically freed, was legally, politically, and
economically disabled - an outsider who could not fight back very effectively, nor run away. Even
so, the US almost split apart and there continue to be important class, ethnic, religious, and
regional conflicts. You can see how these two theories resonate.
It may be that we can't have communities without this dark side, although we might be able
to mitigate some of its destructive effects.
bruce wilde r 08.06.16 at 4:28 pm
I am somewhat suspicious of leaving dominating elites out of these stories of racism as an
organizing principle for political economy or (cultural) community.
Racism served the purposes of a slaveholding elite that organized political communities to
serve their own interests. (Or, vis a vis the Indians a land-grab or genocide.)
Racism serves as an organizing principle. Politically, in an oppressive and stultifying hierarchy
like the plantation South, racism not incidentally buys the loyalty of subalterns with ersatz
status. The ugly prejudices and resentful arrogance of working class whites is thus a component
of how racism works to organize a political community to serve a hegemonic master class. The business
end of racism, though, is the autarkic poverty imposed on the working communities: slaves, sharecroppers,
poor blacks, poor whites - bad schools, bad roads, politically disabled communities, predatory
institutions and authoritarian governments.
For a time, the balkanization of American political communities by race, religion and ethnicity
was an effective means to the dominance of an tiny elite with ties to an hegemonic community,
but it backfired. Dismantling that balkanization has left the country with a very low level of
social affiliation and thus a low capacity to organize resistance to elite depredations.
engels 08.07.16 at 1:02 am
But how did that slavery happen
Possible short answer: the level of technological development made slavery an efficient way
of exploiting labour. At a certain point those conditions changed and slavery became a drag on
further development and it was abolished, along with much of the racist ideology that legitimated
it.
Lupita 08.07.16 at 3:40 am
But how did that slavery happen
In Mesoamerica, all the natives were enslaved because they were conquered by the Spaniards.
Then, Fray Bartolomé de las Casas successfully argued before the Crown that the natives had souls
and, therefore, should be Christianized rather than enslaved. As Bruce Wilder states, this did
not serve the interests of the slaveholding elite, so the African slave trade began and there
was no Fray Bartolomé to argue their case.
It is interesting that while natives were enslaved, the Aztec aristocracy was shipped to Spain
to be presented in court and study Latin. This would not have happened if the Mesoamericans were
considered inferior (soulless) as a race. Furthermore, the Spaniards needed the local elite to
help them out with their empire and the Aztecs were used to slavery and worse. This whole story
can be understood without recurring to racism. The logic of empire suffices.
The current
turmoil within Republican Party is connected with shirking of middle class by neoliberalism.
So peons are now less inclined to support top 0.1%.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump is a billionaire, but his base of support rests among the people once identified by the sociologist Donald Warren as "middle American radicals." Nearly 40 years ago, Warren's idea was adapted by the hard-right political thinker Sam Francis as the basis for paleoconservatism-a conservatism very unlike that of the postwar conservative movement, one that would champion the class interests and cultural attitudes of middle- and lower-income whites. ..."
"... the Democratic Leadership Council, the policy group that paved the way for Bill Clinton's nomination, was founded in 1985 precisely to move the Democratic Party toward "market-based solutions. ..."
"... That economic populism should find a foothold in both parties after the Great Recession and eight years of lagging prosperity under Barack Obama is not entirely surprising. What is more remarkable is the weakness of the bipartisan establishment, whose conventional wisdom is no longer meekly accepted by the rank and file of either party. Every Republican except Trump has tried, to one degree or another, to present himself as a champion of conservative orthodoxy. But that orthodoxy no longer commands the loyalty of a sufficient number of voters to preclude a phenomenon like Trump. Nor does DLC-style neoliberalism appear to be the consensus among Democrats any longer. ..."
"... A void is opening in American politics, and Trump and Sanders are only the first to try to fill it. Neither of them may succeed. Yet it is hard to see any source of renewal for the crumbling establishment they are fighting to replace. ..."
"... "At times like these, it is important to know what to conserve, which is not a label or ideology, but a healthy and humane republic. " ..."
"... There are several holes in the 2016 is ending the Neoliberal changes: ..."
"... Sanders road to the nomination is limited and HRC is taking 65 – 70% next week. Sanders had a good run but the Democratics winnowed down to two candidates in October. ..."
"... Finally, isn't the neoliberalism built on the changes made in the Reagan Revolution? ..."
"... I don't see as strong of a break from orthodoxy in the Democrat party. Hillary will win the nomination and will validate within the Democrat party the ideology of spreading the democracy gospel around the world through force, and the domestic policy of open borders for future Democrat voters. Its less certain that she will win the general election. ..."
"... To save the republic and constitutional government, these wars in the Middle East and elsewhere must be ended, we must get out of that region, and the government must be made to perform the basic duty of securing our own borders and finding and expelling those here illegally. ..."
"... A government perpetually at war is a danger to the republic. It has squandered our money and blood in foreign adventures half way around the world and undermined our liberties and dignity here at home while shirking its own basic duty. ..."
"... The source of all of this republic's woes is an absence of competent, responsible leadership. Neither of the 2 government parties has come close to providing this at the national level. ..."
"... One difference between Trump an Sanders is that The Democrat Washington Establishment is beginning to show Sanders and his supporters the door, where The GOP Washington Establishment is beginning to be shown the door by Trump and his supporters. ..."
"... The Cubano Twins, Tweedledum and Tweedledee appear to be a pair of Neoconservative Big Money Donor Financed Bookends. ..."
"... Occupy is dead, Sanders is dying, and the Democrats will soon be a wholly owned subsidiary of Clinton Inc. ..."
"... I'm sorry folks. Reaganomics is the era we may see coming to an end – perhaps. And what did Bush Senior call it?: 'Voodoo Economics.' ..."
"... But Reagan succeeded in creating massive deficits and building up a military that was then primed for war. He was absolutely counter to Dwight Eisenhower in almost every respect (who was arguably the last Great Republican President). ..."
"... The rise of Wall Street and unregulated finance also took place under Reagan's watch. Declining investment in infrastructure. The power of lobbyists became massive in the 80s after being relatively tame prior. This all set the stage. ..."
"... That economic populism should find a foothold in both parties after the Great Recession and eight years of lagging prosperity under Barack Obama is not entirely surprising. ..."
"... "Every Republican except Trump has tried, to one degree or another, to present himself as a champion of conservative orthodoxy." ..."
"... I am not inclined to give the "Tea Party much credit. They have been part of the very problem. ..."
"... Sadly, I think it is accurate that blacks have come to the rescue of Sec. Clinton. It is sad, but it is understandable. ..."
"... Pres. Reagan has been saddled with the term "Reaganonmics". When in fact, it never existed as designed and as result was never fully implemented. Reality got in the way and as such subverted a good deal of the intent. It is incorrect to posit the model as top down. The model is as old as the country – keep money in people's hands and it will flow and redistribute throughout the country. There's just no incentives created for those with the most to reinvest in their community the US. ..."
"... I think the observations concerning how the financial industry have been totally unaccountable to the law, best practices and basic math are spot on. I embrace WS, but they cannot become so unmoored from the country that has bestowed luxurious benefits (loopholes) as to operate outside that frame without consequence. I am unsure of the monetary efficacy that investing in investing. If one is going bandy about "law and order" then to have any genuine legs – it's an across the board application. ..."
This year is shaping up to be the most unconventional moment in American politics
in a generation.
A race that mere months ago seemed to promise yet another Bush vs. another
Clinton has so far given us instead the populist insurgencies of Bernie Sanders
and Donald Trump. Whether or not either of them gets his party's nomination,
the neoliberal consensus of the past two decades seems about to shatter. Free
trade, immigration, waging war for democracy, and even the relative merits of
capitalism and "democratic socialism" have all come into question. Perhaps more
fundamentally, so has the right of Clintons and Bushes-and those like them-to
rule.
Trump is a billionaire, but his base of support rests among the people
once identified by the sociologist Donald Warren as "middle American radicals."
Nearly 40 years ago, Warren's idea was adapted by the hard-right political thinker
Sam Francis as the basis for paleoconservatism-a conservatism very unlike that
of the postwar conservative movement, one that would champion the class interests
and cultural attitudes of middle- and lower-income whites. The Pat Buchanan
presidential campaigns of 1992 and 1996 put Francis's ideas to the test. They
fell short of propelling Buchanan to the GOP nomination, and by the end of the
1990s there was nary a trace of paleo ideology to be found among conservatives
or Republicans. The return of the Bush family to power in 2000 seemed to confirm
that nothing had changed after a decade of skirmishes.
Now suddenly there's Trump. And on the left, there's Sanders, a throwback
to a time when progressives embraced the socialist label. That had fallen out
of fashion even before the end of the Cold War-indeed, the Democratic Leadership
Council, the policy group that paved the way for Bill Clinton's nomination,
was founded in 1985 precisely to move the Democratic Party toward "market-based
solutions."
That economic populism should find a foothold in both parties after the
Great Recession and eight years of lagging prosperity under Barack Obama is
not entirely surprising. What is more remarkable is the weakness of the bipartisan
establishment, whose conventional wisdom is no longer meekly accepted by the
rank and file of either party. Every Republican except Trump has tried, to one
degree or another, to present himself as a champion of conservative orthodoxy.
But that orthodoxy no longer commands the loyalty of a sufficient number of
voters to preclude a phenomenon like Trump. Nor does DLC-style neoliberalism
appear to be the consensus among Democrats any longer.
A void is opening in American politics, and Trump and Sanders are only
the first to try to fill it. Neither of them may succeed. Yet it is hard to
see any source of renewal for the crumbling establishment they are fighting
to replace. Just as the end of the Cold War marked the passing of an era,
and partially or wholly transformed the left and right alike, so another era
is drawing to a close now, with further political mutations to come. Trump and
Sanders need not be the future, but what Bush and Clinton represent is already
past-no matter who wins in November.
Conservatives of Burkean temperament view all of this warily. There is an
opportunity here to replace stale ideologies with a prudence that is ultimately
more principled than any mere formula can be. But there is also the risk that
the devil we know is only making way for another we don't. At times like these,
it is important to know what to conserve, which is not a label or ideology,
but a healthy and humane republic.
"At times like these, it is important to know what to conserve,
which is not a label or ideology, but a healthy and humane republic.
"
Amen.
My people have been here for hundreds of years, and I love my country
with a depth of feeling that is difficult to convey. Our hard-pressed republic
is our most precious possession, and it must be defended and shepherded
through the coming peril. That will require wisdom, strength, and courage,
and all the little platoons.
will require wisdom, strength, and courage, and all the little platoons.
"At times like these, it is important to know what to conserve …."
I think a lot of thoughtful Americans know what to conserve: the constitution.
With the possible exception of the Second Amendment, the constitution has
been virtually torched in its entirety. I just have to shake my head when
I listen to the debate over whether or not Apple should be required by law
to write a program to destroy the feature on its multi-million dollar product,
the iPhone, for which consumers buy it - security in their private information
and communication. And the Fourth Amendment, be damned.
How comes it that America - of all countries - is having that debate?
Were all those American security agencies always that amoral and I just
didn't notice?
The American constitution is not an instruction manual, it's a statement
of principles - fundamental principles upon which the massive superstructure
of law rests. Torch the constitution and it suddenly becomes easy not to
call to account those leaders who authorize and order torture, those bankers
who bring the world economy to its knees through fraud, those presidents
who commit war crimes through the practice of drone-murdering people because
they are merely suspected of terrorism. And it's just as easy to disenfranchise
voters with impunity by arguing on the basis of a rash of voter fraud that
everyone knows does not exist.
If the country no longer recognizes a constitution upon which laws prohibiting
on pain of punishment these and other crimes against democracy, then what
you've got is a nation of men - barbarians living in a state of nature -
not a nation of laws.
I agree with this editorial, but, as delia ruhe points out, this republic
has not been "healthy and humane" for quite some time. It's time for a national
renewal. I never thought Trump would be the agent of this renewal. There's
plenty to dislike about him, but if he's what it takes to right the ship
and either restore a "healthy and humane" republic or create the conditions
for someone else to do so afterwards, then so be it.
There are several holes in the 2016 is ending the Neoliberal changes:
1) Sanders road to the nomination is limited and HRC is taking 65
– 70% next week. Sanders had a good run but the Democratics winnowed down
to two candidates in October.
2) Why is Trump that much different that Perot? The Perot movement was
minimized by a strong economy and the unemployment rate is getting low in
2016.
3) What if there isn't another Trump? To whip the radical middle took
Trump to pull additional voters, there might not be another in 2020.
4) Is the number of radical middle voters slightly decreasing every election
cycle?
5) Finally, isn't the neoliberalism built on the changes made in
the Reagan Revolution?
I don't see as strong of a break from orthodoxy in the Democrat party.
Hillary will win the nomination and will validate within the Democrat party
the ideology of spreading the democracy gospel around the world through
force, and the domestic policy of open borders for future Democrat voters.
Its less certain that she will win the general election.
Want to solve the political-economy differences between citizens of collectivist
and individualist temperament? Eliminate all tax exemptions secretly written
into the tax code for individuals and organizations (they are identified
by language that applies only to that individual or organization), then
invest the proceeds for five years into a sovereign wealth trust fund that
pays $25,000 per year, adjusted for inflation, to all legal citizens beginning
at age 21 (or pass legislation directing the Federal Reserve to deposit
$10 Trillion dollars directly into the fund-quantitative easing for the
people, if you will).
This money would be used by citizens to cover life-cycle risk to income
from any source: job loss, divorce, illness, transportation and home repairs,
macroeconomic chaos, or anything else life throws as a person. The funds
would be retrievable as a person chooses: yearly, monthly, weekly, or in
a $50,000 lump sum once every three years. In addition, replace all income-based
taxes for individuals and organizations with a .005% tax on all transactions
cleared through the banking system, similar to the automated payments transaction
tax advocated by Wisconsin professor Edgar Feige. This would allow the supply
of products and services to roughly match the increased demand generated
by the basic income guarantee, thereby avoiding or mitigating the business
cycle and inflationary source of current economic problems.
The precise mechanism for this proposal is based on the Alaska Permanent
Fund dividend program, which takes monies from state-owned oil fields and
invests prudently in a diverse portfolio world-wide. In turn, this concept
is based on the "topsy-turvy nationalization" idea proposed by English economist
James E. Meade, who suggested governments purchase a 50% share of all publicly-traded
stocks, then pay a "social dividend" (Social Security for All) out of the
earnings from these investments to all citizens. Professor James A. Yunker
proposed a similar idea in his book Pragmatic Market Socialism, finding
under a general equilibrium analysis that output and equity, as measured
by a utilitarian social welfare function, both increased when income smoothing
was financed by pre-distributed social dividends rather than by increased
taxes.
Under this proposal, both conservatives and liberals would achieve what
they say they desire: non-paternalistic held for people's income fluctuations
for liberals, and real incentives to invest and work for conservatives.
Some might say this mechanism for socializing both risk and reward cannot
be implemented, as human nature suggests that people might not accept a
policy that also benefits rivals. Nonetheless, if we want a political-economic
modus vivendi, here is a solution.
Of course, there would still be problems faced by out society, and "solving"
the economic aspect of our malaise will not by itself generate nirvana.
But give people and organizations real security that does not also support
apathy (i.e., both equity and efficiency, as the economist call it), and
you would go a long way towards making the culture war less harsh (it is
mostly based on economic fears projected onto the "other"). In the socio-political
complex, one must honor humanity as it is , not as we wish, or are comfortable
with in our own lives. Replace neoliberalism with a respect for both tradition
and change.
@delia ruhe & may it be so – I fervently agree with you and the editors.
To save the republic and constitutional government, these wars in
the Middle East and elsewhere must be ended, we must get out of that region,
and the government must be made to perform the basic duty of securing our
own borders and finding and expelling those here illegally.
A government perpetually at war is a danger to the republic. It has
squandered our money and blood in foreign adventures half way around the
world and undermined our liberties and dignity here at home while shirking
its own basic duty.
The source of all of this republic's woes is an absence of competent,
responsible leadership. Neither of the 2 government parties has come close
to providing this at the national level. Everyone knows this, but now
– for the first time in at least 5 decades – people are starting to discuss
it openly. It really is a breath of fresh air.
One difference between Trump an Sanders is that The Democrat Washington
Establishment is beginning to show Sanders and his supporters the door,
where The GOP Washington Establishment is beginning to be shown the door
by Trump and his supporters.
The Cubano Twins, Tweedledum and Tweedledee appear to be a pair of
Neoconservative Big Money Donor Financed Bookends.
"The Democrat Washington Establishment is beginning to show Sanders
and his supporters the door, where The GOP Washington Establishment
is beginning to be shown the door by Trump and his supporters."
That's a problem with which the Democrat base must must come to grips.
Across the great political and cultural gulf that separates us, I salute
those honorable and decent Democrats and liberals who make the attempt.
But it is instructive to consider the very different trajectories of
Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party. Occupy Wall Street, having ebbed from
front pages and headlines long since, has now virtually disappeared into
Sanders' wickering campaign.
But the Tea Party kept at it. It has been stirring the pot for over six
years now, menacing the establishment, chronically kicking out incumbents
(including disappointing or coopted Tea Party incumbents), and continuing
to drive broad political developments.
Occupy is dead, Sanders is dying, and the Democrats will soon be
a wholly owned subsidiary of Clinton Inc. Rather, it is the widely
ridiculed and derided Tea Party tendency (not to be confused with the various
attempts at cooptation by groups using the name) that proved to be adults
with staying power, real agents of change. The pacts born of deep concern
for the republic made years ago in hearts, homes, conversations among friends
and coworkers, over the Web on sites like this one, is alive and well.
I'm sorry folks. Reaganomics is the era we may see coming to an end
– perhaps. And what did Bush Senior call it?: 'Voodoo Economics.'
The Soviets were not defeated by our military build-up – the fact that
their factories were turning out unusable junk and exploding TVs was what
defeated them. China saw the writing on the wall earlier in 1979.
But Reagan succeeded in creating massive deficits and building up
a military that was then primed for war. He was absolutely counter to Dwight
Eisenhower in almost every respect (who was arguably the last Great Republican
President).
The rise of Wall Street and unregulated finance also took place under
Reagan's watch. Declining investment in infrastructure. The power of lobbyists
became massive in the 80s after being relatively tame prior. This all set
the stage.
We all have confirmation biases (fueled by a personal history) in how
we choose to interpret history and how we bookend things.
The concluding paragraph is excellent. I pray we are not entering even
darker times and that there can be renewal for the American Republic.
"Occupy is dead, Sanders is dying, and the Democrats will soon
be a wholly owned subsidiary of Clinton Inc."
Only because older voters, particularly older black voters keep propping
it up. Not exactly a firm foundation. Sanders margins among young voters
along with the successful political work done by actual political groups
(rather than disruptive groups) like the Working Families Party show who
is going to inherit the Democratic Party.
That economic populism should find a foothold in both parties
after the Great Recession and eight years of lagging prosperity under
Barack Obama is not entirely surprising.
I've long wanted to read the Donald Warren book but it has been out of
print and unavailable at Amazon. If anyone knows of any online bookseller
that has used copies, please tell.
Thanks to @Blas another first on the pages of TAC: the words "Trump"
and "Humane" used in relation to one another.
And thanks to the Tea Party, a Congress that won't pass any sort of populist
reform simply because it might mean shaking hands across the aisle.
@AndyG "And thanks to the Tea Party, a Congress that won't pass any
sort of populist reform simply because it might mean shaking hands across
the aisle."
What a laugh.
"Across the aisle" from the Tea Party congressmen are Democrats who say
"What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable. You must not only tolerate
what is repugnant to you, you must accept it or I'll have you arrested.
The Federal judiciary is the engine of democracy. I only enforce laws I
like. Only a fanatic would try to balance or reduce the federal budget.
It's as impossible and absurd as controlling immigration. Wall Street is
just fine as long as it hires lots of Diversity Officers, and the only people
who oppose globalism and the corporations who fill my campaign coffers are
racists and bigots."
As to populist reforms that TP Republicans and Democrat dissidents might
have cooperated on, like reimposition of Glass-Steagel, or laws requiring
vigorous prosecution of Wall Street criminals and Wall Street-owned government
officials, or reining in the NSA, or ending the Middle East wars, the establishments
of both parties have collaborated to crush their efforts. Just ask Rand
Paul (R) and Ron Wyden (D).
Of course the Tea Party base is still fighting back hard. It's engaged
in mortal combat with the GOP establishment. God willing and with perseverence
it may prevail.
And what are those "across the aisle", the congressional Democrats, doing?
Other than politely watching Sanders sputter into oblivion as they prepare
for HRC's coronation? And what is the Democrat base doing other than making
that possible? Most of them aren't even going to the polls …
"Occupy is dead, Sanders is dying, and the Democrats will soon
be a wholly owned subsidiary of Clinton Inc. Rather, it is the widely
ridiculed and derided Tea Party tendency (not to be confused with the
various attempts at cooptation by groups using the name) that proved
to be adults with staying power, real agents of change."
I was heavily involved with the original Zucotti Park Occupy encampment,
doing outreach to unions and the working class. There was quite a bit of
hope for this in the early heady days of Occupy; but in the end, the priorities
of a movement run by and for impoverished and entitled graduate students
won out. Around this time I started to understand that the center of gravity
of real radicalism in this country was on the "right".
"Every Republican except Trump has tried, to one degree or another,
to present himself as a champion of conservative orthodoxy."
If you are having to measure it in degrees of this or ht, then there's
a good chance you don't represent what it is that you partially represent.
In my view conservative is not hodge podge, it's a mechanism or an a priori
vie point by which one approaches most or all of their life.
My guess is that people are not responding o a conservative orthodoxy
because they just don't see one. In my view Sen Cruz and Dr. Caron and even
(CEO) Mrs. Fiorina have the closest ties to a conservative view. Where i
seems to come undone is on the issue of (needlessly) aggressive foreign
policy. Mr. Trump is a conservative now, but his life has not fully reflected
as much.
The traditional conservative
very pro the "common man" Does not oppose wealth, but that is not
a goal in of itself.
does not pretend that that there is not objective realities - there
are facts that matter – Truth is not relative even if opinions, ideas
and tastes are.
prudence to change, why and what it's consequences.
fairness, fair play and undying desire or justice
economic efficiency (not just frugality)
a definitive sense of country and kinsmen – even if he or she thinks
they are less their cup of tea and morality –
a belief in a divine being with whom one is dynamically involved
with – while Christianity is my own preference it need not be the sole
belief that a conservative adhere's to.
I have to comprehend the community benefit for killing children
in the womb, much it's complete undermining of what innocents means.
It makes little practical sense for a community that pushes the choice
of homosexual expression a some kind norm when it adds nothing of community
value beyond individual satisfaction. That a dynamic which is retrograde
to community flourishing should be a national agenda is also incomprehensible
___________________
I am not inclined to give the "Tea Party much credit. They have been
part of the very problem. Though I guess, the shift to another direction
is a positive sign. As I recall the Tea Party was the last to give up the
ghost that the invasion of Iraq was worthwhile and certainly a leap from
conservative thought and practice, in almost every respect.
It dawned them rather belated that the PA and HMS was going to come back
to haunt them. And yet for those who are Christian , what they should have
known is that in the end, it is just such programs that will be used to
round them and send them packing - yet, they have been all for extreme forms
of government when it suited them. Now that democrats are using those against
their interests, they are suddenly awake - suddenly they are about the Constitution.
Yet they have been all to happy to abandon the same when it comes those
who come into contact with police. When Republicans should have embraced
civil protections, they shunned it as though such concerns were unconstitutional
the powers that began turned their sights on them. Hard to claim some populist
mandate unless the so called populism benefits your interests alone. I am
dubious that this is some kind middle and lower class uprising in the Republican
party - the support for Mr. Trump appears to be much broader.
_________________
Sadly, I think it is accurate that blacks have come to the rescue
of Sec. Clinton. It is sad, but it is understandable. I was walking
on campus yesterday. And having lived in these community for some time,
it struck me as deeply depressing that there were large groups of Asians
and Hispanics groups and it was starkly distressing to realize that that
for all of this country's embrace of diversity, blacks remain non existent
on campus. Considering that education is the now the bastion of democratic
and liberal life, blacks seem very ill served by the people they support.
I doubt the Rose Law firm is going to abandon overseeing contracts to support
cheap labor which will most impact negatively the lives of no few blacks.
But if you don't have th gumption to fight, the democratic broad rode is
a sensible choice. Fear of losing what you don't have is a liberal/democratic
tote bag.
I remain hopeful that one day, blacks will wake up and reject the liberal
bait and switch spoon fed them.
_________________________
Unfortunately,
Pres. Reagan has been saddled with the term "Reaganonmics". When
in fact, it never existed as designed and as result was never fully implemented.
Reality got in the way and as such subverted a good deal of the intent.
It is incorrect to posit the model as top down. The model is as old as the
country – keep money in people's hands and it will flow and redistribute
throughout the country. There's just no incentives created for those with
the most to reinvest in their community the US.
_____________
I think the observations concerning how the financial industry have
been totally unaccountable to the law, best practices and basic math are
spot on. I embrace WS, but they cannot become so unmoored from the country
that has bestowed luxurious benefits (loopholes) as to operate outside that
frame without consequence. I am unsure of the monetary efficacy that investing
in investing. If one is going bandy about "law and order" then to have any
genuine legs – it's an across the board application.
"... The film, directed by Meera Menon and written by Amy Fox , is as ruthless and hypnotic a study of a cutthroat species as the documentary I saw about the carnivorous fish. Maybe it is even more so, as it is a story of alpha females, as well as males. ..."
"... a movie implicitly critical of Wall Street and explicitly damning of hedge funds. ..."
Not long ago, I saw a documentary about sharks in the wild. The male bites the frisky female
on her flank, both to show his interest and to subdue her as he attempts penetration. Initially
the female resists; one was filmed wriggling free of a series of circling males until she becomes
exhausted and an alpha male has his way with her.
According to the narrator, shark reproduction favors the most powerful males and strongest
females. Over time, the female evolves tougher skin to endure, or perhaps elude, the male love
bite.
If that's what happens in the open sea, what must it be like in tighter quarters?
"Equity," an intelligent and enthralling thriller set in a shark tank of New York investment
bankers, hedge-fund executives and tech entrepreneurs, imagines just that.
The film, directed by
Meera Menon and written by Amy Fox, is
as ruthless and hypnotic a study of a cutthroat species as the documentary I saw about the
carnivorous fish. Maybe it is even more so, as it is a story of alpha females, as well as males.
This female-driven production about driven females stars Anna Gunn ("Breaking Bad") as banker
Naomi Bishop, the firm rainmaker lately experiencing a drought. Sarah Megan Thomas is Erin
Manning, her assistant, and Alysia Reiner ("Orange is the New Black") plays Samantha, an
assistant U.S. attorney investigating Gunn's firm. That storyline provides one of the plot's
conflicts. Another is that banker and assistant each want promotions and are denied.
At the outset, it's hard to like Naomi. She announces herself as the female Gordon Gekko (the
character Michael Douglas played in "Wall Street"). While he exhorted that "greed is good," she
forthrightly admits that she "likes money." She likes the numbers, likes the adrenaline rush of
risking it on a new venture and, most of all, she likes the power it represents.
She makes few concessions to femininity and none to glamor. Her body is womanly, rather than
girlish, her clothes purely functional. Naomi lets off steam by slipping into boxing gloves and
taking the stuffing out of the punching bag. She is in control of her emotions.
At the outset, it's easy to like Erin and Samantha, both model-slim and flirty (even though
both are married). From Erin's perspective, Naomi is the boss from hell. From Samantha's, the
banker is insufficiently idealistic. "Equity" asks us at first to align with the younger women
because, well, they look like the sexy creatures of most Hollywood films. But as it continues,
the movie asks us to question our first impressions. It's a film about not making snap judgments,
in business, in love or in life.
Is there a difference when women are behind both the camera and the story? In this case, yes
and no. It's no surprise that this movie features a trio of three-dimensional women at its
center. For the most part, though, its male characters are generic and cardboard-flat. There's
entitled hedge-fund guy Michael (James Purefoy), Naomi's mentor and boyfriend, all about the
money and the game. There's the entitled tech entrepreneur Ed (Samuel Roukin), who is all about
the money and the sex. The one good guy is a warm and supportive U.S. attorney who steers
Samantha toward remaining in her ethical lane. Here is a movie implicitly critical of Wall Street
and explicitly damning of hedge funds.
Despite the one-dimensional men, I was surprised by the film's deceptions and detours. The
greatest asset of "Equity" is Gunn, whose face is a Kabuki mask and whose skin is impenetrable as
that of a female shark. While watching her I thought once or twice that hers was a one-note
performance. But by movie's end, I realized it was a symphony of invincibility and vulnerability.
"... On the morning following the Austrian presidential election, when it became certain that the neo-nationalist candidate had not won the Austrian presidency (thanks to a few thousand overseas votes, mostly belonging to the middle class), there was a great sigh of relief from the Transnational Elite, (TE), i.e. the network of economic and political elites running the New World Order of Neoliberal Globalization (NWO), mainly based in the G7 countries. ..."
"... The elites are not used to "no" votes, and whenever the European peoples did not vote the 'correct' way in their plebiscites they were forced to vote again until they did so, or they were simply smashed – as was the case with the Greek plebiscite a year ago. ..."
"... In other words, the peoples' need for self-determination, in the NWO, had no other outlet but the nation-state, as, up to a few years ago, the world was dominated by nation–states, within which communities with a common culture, language, customs etc. could express themselves. ..."
"... The nation-state became again a means of self-determination, as it used to be in the 20th century for peoples under colonial rule struggling for their national liberation. The national culture is of course in clear contradiction with a globalist culture like the one imposed now 'from above' by the Transnational and national elites. ..."
"... In fact, the Transnational Elite launched several criminal wars in the last thirty years or so to "protect" human rights (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and indirectly Syria) leading to millions of deaths and dislocations of populations. ..."
"... Nationalism's emphasis was on the nation-state (or the aspiration for one), whereas neo-nationalism's emphasis is not so much on the nation but rather on sovereignty at the economic but also at the political and cultural levels, which has been phased out in the globalization process; ..."
"... Unlike old nationalism, neo-nationalism raises also demands that in the past were an essential part of the Left agenda, such as the demand for greater equality (within the nation-state and between nation-states), the demand to minimize the power of the elites, even anti-war demands. ..."
"... The neo-nationalist movement had already created strong roots all over the EU, from its Western part (France, UK) up to its Eastern part (Hungary, Poland) and now Austria. Even in the USA itself Donald Trump, who has called on Americans to resist "the false song of globalism", expresses to a significant extent neo-nationalist trends and may be tomorrow the next President of the "Free World". ..."
"... by the strong informal patriotic movement in Russia, which encompasses all those opposing the integration of the country into the NWO ––from neo-nationalists to communists and from orthodox Christians to secularists, while the leadership under Putin is trying to accommodate the very powerful globalist part of the elite (oligarchs, mass media, social media etc.) with this patriotic movement. ..."
"... it is mainly Le Pen's National Front party, more than any other neo-nationalist party in the West, that realized that globalization and membership in the NWΟ's institutions are incompatible with national sovereignty. ..."
"... "Globalization is a barbarity, it is the country which should limit its abuses and regulate it [globalization]." Today the world is in the hands of multinational corporations and large international finance" Immigration "weighs down on wages," while the minimum wage is now becoming the maximum wage" ..."
"... It is therefore obvious that the globalization process has already had devastating economic and social consequences on the majority of the world population. At the same time, the same process has also resulted in tremendous changes at the political and the cultural levels, in the past three decades or so. Last, but not least, it has led to a series of major wars by the Transnational Elite in its attempt to integrate any country resisting integration into the New World Order (NWO) defined by neoliberal globalization (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria) ..."
"... The neo-nationalist movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left ..."
"... the only kind of 'fascism' still possible today is the one directly or indirectly supported by the TE (what we may call 'Euro-fascism'), which is therefore a kind of pseudo-fascism––although in terms of the bestial practices it uses, it may be even more genuine than the 'real thing' of the inter-war period. This is, for instance, the case of the Ukrainian Euro-fascists who are the closest thing to historical Nazism available today, not only in terms of their practices but also in terms of their history. ..."
"... The neo-nationalist parties are embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class which used to support the Left,[xxvii] whilst the latter has effectively embraced all aspects of globalization (economic, political, ideological and cultural) and has been fully integrated into the NWO––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy. ..."
On the morning following the Austrian presidential election, when it became certain that the
neo-nationalist candidate had not won the Austrian presidency (thanks to a few thousand overseas
votes, mostly belonging to the middle class), there was a great sigh of relief from the Transnational
Elite, (TE), i.e. the network of economic and political elites running the New World Order of Neoliberal
Globalization (NWO), mainly based in the G7 countries.
The huge expansion of the anti-globalization movement over the past few years was under control,
for the time being, and the EU elites would not have to resort to sanctions against a country at
the core of the Union – such as those which may soon be imposed against Poland.
In fact, the only reason they have not as yet been imposed is, presumably, the fear of Brexit,
but as soon as the British people finally submit to the huge campaign of intimidation ("Project Fear")
launched against them by the entire transnational elite, Poland's – and later Hungary's – turn will
come in earnest.
The elites are not used to "no" votes, and whenever the European peoples did not vote the
'correct' way in their plebiscites they were forced to vote again until they did so, or they were
simply smashed – as was the case with the Greek plebiscite a year ago. The interesting thing,
however, is that in the Greek case it was the so-called "NewLeft" represented by SYRIZA, which not
only accepted the worst package of measures imposed on Greece (and perhaps any other country) ever,[ii]
but which is also currently busy conducting a huge propaganda campaign (using the state media, which
it absolutely controls, as its main propaganda tool) to deceive the exhausted Greek people that the
government has even achieved some sort of victory in the negotiations! At the same time, the working
class – the traditional supporters of the Left – are deserting the Left en masse and heading towards
the neo-nationalist parties: from Britain and France to Austria. So how can we explain these seemingly
inexplicable phenomena?
Nationalism vs. neo-nationalism
As I tried to show in the past,[iii] the emergence of the modern nation-state in the 17th-18th
centuries played an important role in the development of the system of the market economy and vice
versa. However, whereas the 'nationalization' of the market was necessary for the development of
the 'market system' out of the markets of the past, once capital was internationalized and therefore
the market system itself was internationalized, the nation state became an impediment to further
'progress' of the market system. This is how the NWO emerged, which involved a radical restructuring
not only of the economy, with the rise of Transnational Corporations, but also of polity, with the
present phasing out of nation-states and national sovereignty.
Inevitably, the phasing out of the nation-state and national sovereignty led to the flourishing
of neo-nationalism, as a movement for self-determination. Yet, this development became inevitable
only because the alternative form of social organization, confederalism, which was alive even up
to the time of the Paris Commune had in the meantime disappeared.
In other words, the peoples' need for self-determination, in the NWO, had no other outlet
but the nation-state, as, up to a few years ago, the world was dominated by nation–states, within
which communities with a common culture, language, customs etc. could express themselves.
The nation-state became again a means of self-determination, as it used to be in the 20th
century for peoples under colonial rule struggling for their national liberation. The national culture
is of course in clear contradiction with a globalist culture like the one imposed now 'from above'
by the Transnational and national elites.
This globalist culture is based on the globalization ideology of multiculturalism, protection
of human rights etc., which in fact is an extension of the classical liberal ideology to the NWO.
In fact, the Transnational Elite launched several criminal wars in the last thirty years or so
to "protect" human rights (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and indirectly Syria) leading to
millions of deaths and dislocations of populations. It is not therefore accidental that globalist
ideologists characterize the present flourishing of what I called neo-nationalism, as the rise of
'illiberalism'.'[iv] It is therefore clear that we have to distinguish between old (or classical)
nationalism and the new phenomenon of neo-nationalism. To my mind, the main differences between them
are as follows:
a) Nationalism developed in the era of nation-states as a movement for uniting
communities with a common history, culture and usually language under the common roof of nation-states
that were emerging at the time but also even in the 20th century when national liberation movements
against colonialist empires were fighting for their own nation states. On the other hand, neo-nationalism
developed in the era of globalization with the aim of protecting the national sovereignty of nations
which was under extinction because of the integration of their states into the NWO;
b) Nationalism's emphasis was on the nation-state (or the aspiration for
one), whereas neo-nationalism's emphasis is not so much on the nation but rather on sovereignty at
the economic but also at the political and cultural levels, which has been phased out in the globalization
process;
c) Unlike old nationalism, neo-nationalism raises also demands that in the
past were an essential part of the Left agenda, such as the demand for greater equality (within the
nation-state and between nation-states), the demand to minimize the power of the elites, even anti-war
demands.
Naturally, given the origin of many neo-nationalist parties and their supporters, elements of
the old nationalist ideology may penetrate them, such as the Islamophobic and anti-immigration trends,
which provide the excuse to the elites to dismiss all these movements as 'far right'. However, such
demands are by no means the main reasons why such movements expand. Particularly so, as it can easily
be shown that the refugee problem is also part and parcel of globalization and the '4 freedoms' (capital,
labor, goods and services) its ideology preaches.
The rise of the neo-nationalist movement
Therefore, neo-nationalism is basically a movement that arose out of the effects of globalization,
particularly as far as the continuous squeezing of employees' real incomes is concerned––as a result
of liberalizing labor markets, so that labor could become more competitive. The present 'job miracle',
for instance, in Britain, (which is characterized as "the job creation capital of the western economies"),
hides the fact that, as an analyst pointed out, "unemployment is low, largely because British workers
have been willing to stomach the biggest real-terms pay cut since the Victorian era".[v]
The neo-nationalist movement had already created strong roots all over the EU, from its Western
part (France, UK) up to its Eastern part (Hungary, Poland) and now Austria. Even in the USA itself
Donald Trump, who has called on Americans to resist "the false song of globalism", expresses to a
significant extent neo-nationalist trends and may be tomorrow the next President of the "Free World".Of course, given the political and economic power that the elites have concentrated against these
neo-nationalist movements, it is possible that neither Brexit nor any of these movements may take
over, but this will not stop of course social dissent against the phasing out of national sovereignty.
The same process is repeated almost everywhere in Europe today, inevitably leading many people
(and particularly working class people) to turn to the rising neo-nationalist Right. This is not
of course because they suddenly became "nationalists" let alone "fascists", as the globalist "NewLeft"
(that is the kind of Left which is fully integrated into the NWO and does not question its institutions,
e.g. the EU) accuses them in order to ostracize them. It is simply because the present globalist
"NewLeft" does not wish to lead the struggle against globalization, while, at the same time, the
popular strata have realized that national and economic sovereignty is incompatible with globalization.
This is a fact fully realized, for example, by the strong informal patriotic movement in Russia,
which encompasses all those opposing the integration of the country into the NWO ––from neo-nationalists
to communists and from orthodox Christians to secularists, while the leadership under Putin is trying
to accommodate the very powerful globalist part of the elite (oligarchs, mass media, social media
etc.) with this patriotic movement.
But, it is mainly Le Pen's National Front party, more than any other neo-nationalist party
in the West, that realized that globalization and membership in the NWΟ's institutions are incompatible
with national sovereignty. As Le Pen stressed, (in a way that the "NewLeft" has abandoned long
ago!):
"Globalization is a barbarity, it is the country which should limit its abuses and regulate
it [globalization]." Today the world is in the hands of multinational corporations and large international
finance" Immigration "weighs down on wages," while the minimum wage is now becoming the maximum
wage".[vi]
In fact, the French National Front is the most important neo-nationalist party in Europe and may
well be in power following the next Presidential elections in 2017, unless of course a united front
of all globalist parties (including the "NewLeft" and the Greens), supported by the entire TE and
particularly the Euro-elites and the mass media controlled by them, prevents it from doing so (exactly
as it happens at present in Britain with respect to Brexit). This is how Florian Philippot the FN's
vice-president and chief strategist aptly put its case in a FT interview:
"The people who always voted for the left, who believed in the left and who thought that it
represented an improvement in salaries and pensions, social and economic progress, industrial
policies . these people have realized that they were misled."[vii]
As the same FT report points out, to some observers of French politics, the FN's economic policies,
which include exiting the euro and throwing up trade barriers to protect industry, read like something
copied from a 1930s political manifesto, while Christian Saint-Étienne, an economist for Le Figaro
newspaper, recently described this vision as "Peronist Marxism".[viii] In fact, in a more recent
FT interview, Marine Le Pen, the FN president went a step further in the same direction and she called,
apart from exiting from the Euro––that she expects to lead to the collapse of the Euro, if not of
the EU itself, (which she-rightly–welcomes)––for the nationalization of banks. At the same time she
championed public services and presented herself as the protector of workers and farmers in the face
of "wild and anarchic globalization which has brought more pain than happiness ".[ix]
For comparison, it never even occurred to SYRIZA (and Varoufakis who now wears his "radical" hat)
to use such slogans before the elections (let alone after them!) Needless to add that her foreign
policy is also very different from that of the French establishment, as she wants a radical overhaul
of French foreign policy in which relations with the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad would
be restored and those with the likes of Qatar and Turkey, which she alleges support terrorism, reviewed.
At the same time, Le Pen sees the US as a purveyor of dangerous policies and Russia as a more suitable
friend.
Furthermore, as it was also stressed in the same FT report, "the FN is not the only supposedly
rightwing European populist party seeking to draw support from disaffected voters on the left. Nigel
Farage, the leader of the UK Independence party has adopted a similar approach and has been discussing
plans "to ring-fence the National Health Service budget and lower taxes for low earners, among a
host of measures geared to economically vulnerable voters who would typically support Labor".[x]
Similar trends are noticed in other European countries like Finland, where the anti-NATO and pro-independence
from the EU parties had effectively won the last elections,[xi] as well as in Hungary, where neo-nationalist
forces are continuously rising,[xii] and Orban's government has done more than any other EU leader
in protecting his country's sovereignty, being as a result, in constant conflict with the Euro-elites.
Finally, the rise of a neo-nationalist party in Poland enraged Martin Schulz, the loudmouthed gatekeeper
of the TE in the European Parliament, who accused the new government as attempting a "dangerous 'Putinization'
of European politics."[xiii]
However, what Eurocrats like Martin Schulz "forget" is that since Poland joined the EU
in 2004, at least two million Poles have emigrated, many of them to the UK. The victory of the Law
and Justice Party (Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc, PiS) in October 2015 was due not just to a backlash by
traditional Polish voters to the bulldozing of their values by the ideology of globalization but
also to the fact, as Cédric Gouverneur pointed out, that "the nationalist, pro-religion, protectionist,
xenophobic PiS has attracted these disappointed people with an ambitious welfare programme: a family
allowance of 500 zloty ($130) a month per child, funded through a tax on banks and big business;
a minimum wage; and a return to a retirement age of 60 for women and 65 for men (PO had planned to
raise it to 67 for both).[xiv] In fact, PiS used to be a conservative pro-EU party when they were
in power between 2005 and 2007, following faithfully the neoliberal program, and since then they
have become increasingly populist and Eurosceptic. As a result, in the last elections they won the
parliamentary elections in both the lower house (Sejm) and the Senate, with 37.6% of the vote, against
24.1% for the neoliberals and 8.8% for the populist Kukiz while the "progressive" camp failed to
clear the threshold (5% for parties, 8% for coalitions) and have no parliamentary representation
at all!
The bankruptcy of the Left
It is therefore obvious that the globalization process has already had devastating economic
and social consequences on the majority of the world population. At the same time, the same process
has also resulted in tremendous changes at the political and the cultural levels, in the past three
decades or so. Last, but not least, it has led to a series of major wars by the Transnational Elite
in its attempt to integrate any country resisting integration into the New World Order (NWO) defined
by neoliberal globalization (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria).
Furthermore, there is little doubt anymore that it was the intellectual failure of the Left to
grasp the real significance of a new systemic phenomenon, (i.e. the rise of the Transnational Corporation
that has led to the emergence of the globalization era) and its consequent political bankruptcy,
which were the ultimate causes of the rise of a neo-nationalist movement in Europe. This movement
is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class
that used to support the Left, whilst the latter has effectively embraced not just economic globalization
but also political, ideological and cultural globalization and has therefore been fully integrated
into the New World Order. In fact, today, following the successful emasculation of the antisystemic
movement against globalization, thanks mainly to the activities of the globalist Left, it was left
to the neo-nationalist movement to fight against globalization in general and against the EU in particular.
Almost inevitably, in view of the campaigns of the TE against Muslim countries (Iraq, Afghanistan,
Libya, Syria), worrying Islamophobic trends have developed within several of these neo-nationalist
movements, some of them turning their old anti-Semitism to Islamophobia, supported on this by Zionists
themselves![xv] Even Marine Le Pen did not avoid the temptation to lie about Islamophobia and anti-Semitism,
stressing that "there is no Islamophobia in France but there is a rise in anti-Semitism".
Yet, she is well aware of the fact that Islamophobia was growing in France well before Charlie
Hebdo,[xvi] with racial attacks against Islamic immigrants, (most of whom live under squalid conditions
in virtual ghettos) being very frequent. At the same time, it is well known that the Jewish community
is mostly well off and shares a very disproportionate part of political and economic power in the
country to its actual size, as it happens of course also––and to an even larger extent–– in UK and
USA. This is one more reason why Popular Fronts for National and Social Liberation have to be built
in every country of the world to fight not only Eurofascism and the NWO-which is of course the main
enemy––but also any racist trends developing within these new anti-globalization movements, which
today take the form of neo-nationalism. This would also prevent the elites from using the historically
well-tested 'divide and rule' practice to divide the victims of globalization.
Similarly, the point implicitly raised by the stand of the British "NewLeft" in general on the
issue of Brexit cannot just be discussed in terms of the free trade vs. protectionism debate, as
the liberal (or globalist) "NewLeft" does (see for instance Jean Bricmont[xvii] and Larry Elliott[xviii]
of the Guardian). Yet, the point is whether it is globalization itself, which has led to the present
mass economic violence against the vast majority of the world population and the accompanying it
military violence. In other words, what all these "NewLeft" trends hide is that globalization is
a class issue. But, this is the essence of the bankruptcy of the "NewLeft" , which is reflected in
the fact that, today, it is the neo-nationalist Right which has replaced the Left in its role of
representing the victims of the system in its globalized form , while the Left mainly
represents those in the middle class or the petty bourgeoisie who benefit from globalization. Needless
to add that today's bankrupt "NewLeft" promptly characterized the rising neo-nationalist parties
as racist, if not fascist and neo-Nazis, fully siding with the EU's black propaganda campaign against
the rising movement for national sovereignty.
This is obviously another nail in the coffin of this kind of "NewLeft" , as the millions of European
voters who turn their back towards this degraded "NewLeft" are far from racists or fascists but simply
want to control their way of life rather than letting it to be determined by the free movement of
capital, labor and commodities, as the various Soroses of this world demand!
The neo-nationalist movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over
Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left,[xix] whilst the latter
has effectively embraced not just economic globalization but also political, ideological and cultural
globalization and has therefore been fully integrated into the New World Order––a defining moment
in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy. In the Austrian elections, it became once more
clear that the Left expresses now the middle class, while the neo-nationalists the working class.
As the super-globalist BBC presented the results:
Support for Mr Hofer was exceptionally strong among manual workers – nearly 90%. The vote for
Mr Van der Bellen was much stronger among people with a university degree or other higher education
qualifications. In nine out of Austria's 10 main cities Mr Van der Bellen came top, whereas Mr Hofer
dominated the rural areas, the Austrian broadcaster ORF reported (in German).[xx]
The process of the NewLeft's bankruptcy has been further enhanced by the fact that, faced with
political collapse in the May 2014 Euro-parliamentary elections, it allied itself with the elites
in condemning the neo-nationalist parties as fascist and neo-Nazi. However, today, following the
successful emasculation of the antisystemic movement against globalization (mainly through the World
Social Forum, thanks to the activities of the globalist "NewLeft" ),[xxi] it is up to the neo-nationalist
movement to fight globalization in general and the EU in particular. It is therefore clear that the
neo-nationalist parties which are, in fact, all under attack by the TE, constitute cases of movements
that have simply filled the huge gap created by the globalist "NewLeft" . Thus, this "NewLeft" ,
Instead of placing itself in the front line among all those peoples fighting globalization and the
phasing out of their economic and national sovereignty, it has indirectly promoted globalization,
using arguments based on an anachronistic internationalism, supposedly founded on Marxism.
On the other side, as one might expect, most members of the Globalist "NewLeft" have joined the
new 'movement' by Varoufakis to democratize Europe, "forgetting" in the process that 'Democracy'
was also the West's propaganda excuse for destroying Iraq, Libya and now Syria. Today, it seems that
the Soros circus is aiming to use exactly the same excuse to destroy Europe, in the sense of securing
the perpetuation of the EU elites' domination of the European peoples and therefore the continuation
of the consequent economic violence involved. The most prominent members of the globalist "NewLeft"
who have already joined this new DIEM 'movement' range from Noam Chomsky and Julian Assange to Suzan
George and Toni Negri, and from Hillary Wainwright of Red Pepper to CounterPunch and
other globalist "NewLeft" newspapers and journals all over the world. In this context, it is particularly
interesting to refer to Slavoj Žižek's commentary on the 'Manifesto' that was presented at the inaugural
meeting of Varoufakis's new movement in Berlin on February 2016.[xxii]
Neo-nationalism and immigration
So, the unifying element of neo-nationalists is their struggle for national sovereignty, which
they (rightly), see as disappearing in the era of globalization. Even when their main immediate motive
is the fight against immigration, indirectly their fight is against globalization, as they realize
that it is the opening of all markets, including the labor markets, particularly within economic
unions like the EU, which is the direct cause of their own unemployment or low-wage employment, as
well as of the deterioration of the welfare state, given that the elites are not prepared to expand
social expenditure to accommodate the influx of immigrants. Yet, this is not a racist movement but
a purely economic movement, although the TE and the Zionist elites, with the help of the globalist
"NewLeft" , try hard to convert it into an Islamophobic movement––as the Charlie Hebdo case
clearly showed[xxiii]–––so that they could use it in any way they see fit in the support of the NWO.
But, what is the relationship of both neo-nationalists and Euro-fascists to historical fascism
and Nazism? As I tried to show elsewhere,[xxiv] fascism, as well as National Socialism, presuppose
a nation-state, therefore this kind of phenomenon is impossible to develop in any country fully integrated
into the NWO, which, by definition, cannot have any significant degree of national sovereignty. The
only kind of sovereignty available in the NWO of neoliberal globalization is transnational sovereignty,
which, in fact, is exclusively shared by members of the TE. In other words, fascism and Nazism were
historical phenomena of the era of nation-state before the ascent of the NWO of neoliberal globalization,
when states still had a significant degree of national and economic sovereignty.
However, in the globalization era, it is exactly this sovereignty that is being phased out for
any country fully integrated into the NWO. Therefore, the only kind of 'fascism' still possible
today is the one directly or indirectly supported by the TE (what we may call 'Euro-fascism'), which
is therefore a kind of pseudo-fascism––although in terms of the bestial practices it uses, it may
be even more genuine than the 'real thing' of the inter-war period. This is, for instance, the case
of the Ukrainian Euro-fascists who are the closest thing to historical Nazism available today, not
only in terms of their practices but also in terms of their history. However, as there is overwhelming
evidence of the full support they have enjoyed by the Transnational Elite and (paradoxically?) even
by the Zionist elite,[xxv] they should more accurately be called Euro-fascists.
It is therefore clear that the neo-nationalist parties, which are all under attack by the TE,
constitute cases of movements that simply filled the huge gap left by the globalist Left, which,
instead of placing itself in the front line of all those peoples fighting globalization and the phasing
out of their economic and national sovereignty,[xxvi] indirectly promoted globalization, using arguments
based on an anachronistic internationalism, developed a hundred years ago or so. The neo-nationalist
parties are embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working
class which used to support the Left,[xxvii] whilst the latter has effectively embraced all aspects
of globalization (economic, political, ideological and cultural) and has been fully integrated into
the NWO––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy.
National and Social Liberation Fronts everywhere!
So, at this crucial historical juncture that will determine whether we shall all become subservient
to neoliberal globalization and the transnational elite (as the DIEM25 Manifesto implies through
our subordination to the EU) or not, it is imperative that we create a Popular Front in each country
which will include all the victims of globalization among the popular strata, regardless of their
current political affiliations.
In Europe, in particular, where the popular strata are facing economic disaster, what is urgently
needed is not an "antifascist" Front within the EU, as proposed by the 'parliamentary juntas' in
power and the Euro-elites, also supported by the globalist "NewLeft" (such as Diem25, Plan B in Europe,
Die Linke, the Socialist Workers' Party in the UK, SYRIZA in Greece and so on), which would, in fact,
unite aggressors and victims. An 'antifascist' front would simply disorient the masses and make them
incapable of facing the real fascism being imposed on them[xxviii] by the political and economic
elites, which constitute the transnational and local elites. Instead, what is needed is a Popular
Front for National and Social Liberation, which that could attract the vast majority of the people
who would fight for immediate unilateral withdrawal from the EU – which is managed by the European
part of the transnational elite – as well as for economic self- reliance, thus breaking with globalization.
To my mind, it is only the creation of broad Popular Fronts that could effect each country's exit
from the EU, NAFTA and similar economic unions, with the aim of achieving economic self-reliance.
Re-development based on self-reliance is the only way in which peoples breaking away from globalization
and its institutions (like the EU) could rebuild their productive structures, which have been dismantled
by globalization. This could also, objectively, lay the ground for future systemic change, decided
upon democratically by the peoples themselves. Therefore, the fundamental aim of the social struggle
today should be a complete break with the present NWO and the building of a new global democratic
community, in which economic and national sovereignty have been restored, so that peoples could then
fight for the ideal society, as they see it.
Takis Fotopoulos is a political philosopher, editor of Society & Nature/
Democracy and Nature/The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. He has also been a columnist
for the Athens Daily Eleftherotypia since 1990. Between 1969 and 1989 he was Senior Lecturer in Economics
at the University of North London (formerly Polytechnic of North London). He is the author of over
25 books and over 1,500 articles, many of which have been translated into various languages.
This article is based on Ch. 4 of the book to be published next month by Progressive Press,
The New World Order in Action, vol. 1: The NWO, the Left and Neo-Nationalism. This is a major three-volume
project aiming to cover all aspects of the New World Order (NWO) of neoliberal globalization
http://www.progressivepress.com/book-listing/new-world-order-action
Notes:
Bruno Waterfield, "Juncker vows to use new powers to block the far-right", [i]The Times,
24/5/2016
[xviii] see for instance Larry Elliott, "How free trade became the hot topic vexing voters
and politicians in Europe and the US" , The Guardian , 28/3/2016
[xix] Francis Elliott et al. 'Working class prefers Ukip to Labour", The Times , 25/11/2014
"... Not only are "[v]ulnerable Senate Republicans are starting to side with Donald Trump (and Democrats) by opposing President Obama's signature trade deal," as the Washington Post ..."
As the White House prepares for its final "
all-out push " to pass the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) during the upcoming
lame-duck session of Congress, lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle
are being made vulnerable due to growing opposition to the controversial, corporate-friendly
trade deal.
"[I]n 2016," the Guardian
reported on Saturday, "America's faltering faith in free trade has become
the most sensitive controversy in D.C."
Yet President Barack Obama "has refused to give up," wrote Guardian
journalists Dan Roberts and Ryan Felton, despite the fact that the 12-nation
TPP "suddenly faces a wall of political opposition among lawmakers who had,
not long ago, nearly set the giant deal in stone."
... ... ...
Not only are "[v]ulnerable Senate Republicans are starting to side with
Donald Trump (and Democrats) by opposing President Obama's signature trade deal,"
as the Washington Post
reported Thursday, but once-supportive Dems are also poised to jump ship.
To that end, in a column this week, Campaign for America's Future blogger
Dave Johnson
listed for readers "28 House Democrat targets...who-in spite of opposition
from most Democrats and hundreds of labor, consumer, LGBT, health, human rights,
faith, democracy and other civil organizations-voted for the 'fast-track' trade
promotion authority (TPA) bill that 'greased the skids' for the TPP by setting
up rigged rules that will help TPP pass."
Of the list that includes Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), Jared Polis
(Colo.), and Ron Kind (Wis.), Johnson wrote: "Let's get them on the record before
the election about whether they will vote for TPP after the election."
"... In June, 38 community colleges announced plans to make free online materials standard in every course in some degree programs as part of a new effort coordinated by Achieving the Dream. Just a few weeks later, Gov. Jerry Brown of California, a Democrat, signed a 2016-17 budget that includes $5 million for community colleges in the state to create their own ZTC degrees ..."
"... Hal Plotkin, a longtime advocate of open education resources, or OER, says the moves could eventually save students billions of dollars. As he argued in a recent commentary, California's new ZTC program is "easily the most ambitious state-level effort to promote the use of OER in public higher education to date." ..."
The Chronicle of Higher Education By Goldie Blumenstyk July 12, 2016
It's been a big few weeks for the movement to replace commercial textbooks
with free online materials, thanks to the sudden rise of something called the
Zero Textbook Cost degree.
In June, 38 community colleges announced plans to make free online materials
standard in every course in some degree programs as part of a new effort coordinated
by Achieving the Dream. Just a few weeks later, Gov. Jerry Brown of California,
a Democrat, signed a 2016-17 budget that includes $5 million for community colleges
in the state to create their own ZTC degrees.
Hal Plotkin, a longtime advocate of open education resources, or OER,
says the moves could eventually save students billions of dollars. As he argued
in a recent commentary, California's new ZTC program is "easily the most ambitious
state-level effort to promote the use of OER in public higher education to date."
Yet while cheering both the California and Achieving the Dream initiatives,
Mr. Plotkin, a senior open-policy fellow at Creative Commons USA, argues that
college leaders could and should be doing far more to promote the use of free,
openly licensed materials, to prevent publishers from treating students "like
walking cash registers."
Imagine if the people of the Soviet Union had never heard of communism. The
ideology that dominates our lives has, for most of us, no name. Mention it in
conversation and you'll be rewarded with a shrug. Even if your listeners have
heard the term before, they will struggle to define it. Neoliberalism: do you
know what it is?
Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has played a major
role in a remarkable variety of crises: the
financial meltdown of 2007‑8, the offshoring of wealth and power, of which
the
Panama Papers offer us merely a glimpse, the slow collapse of public health
and education, resurgent child poverty,
the epidemic of loneliness, the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of
Donald
Trump. But we respond to these crises as if they emerge in isolation, apparently
unaware that they have all been either catalysed or exacerbated by the same
coherent philosophy; a philosophy that has – or had – a name. What greater power
can there be than to operate namelessly?
Inequality is recast as virtuous. The market ensures that everyone gets
what they deserve.
So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even recognise it as
an ideology. We appear to accept the proposition that this utopian, millenarian
faith describes a neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin's theory
of evolution. But the philosophy arose as a conscious attempt to reshape human
life and shift the locus of power.
Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations.
It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised
by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency.
It maintains that "the market" delivers benefits that could never be achieved
by planning.
Bookmarks is our new weekly email from the books team with our pick of the
latest news, views and reviews, delivered to your inbox every Thursday
Read more
Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and
regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation
of labour and collective bargaining by
trade
unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of
a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous:
a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich
everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive
and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.
We internalise and reproduce its creeds.
The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit,
ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may
have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures,
even when they can do little to change their circumstances.
Never mind structural unemployment: if you don't have a job it's because
you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your
credit card is maxed out, you're feckless and improvident. Never mind that your
children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it's your fault.
In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and
self-defined as losers.
Paul Verhaeghe: An economic system that rewards psychopathic
personality traits has changed our ethics and our personalities
Read more
Among the results, as Paul Verhaeghe documents in his book What About
Me? are epidemics of self-harm, eating disorders, depression, loneliness,
performance anxiety and social phobia. Perhaps it's unsurprising that Britain,
in which neoliberal ideology has been most rigorously applied, is
the loneliness capital of Europe. We are all neoliberals now.
***
The term neoliberalism was coined at a meeting in Paris in 1938. Among the
delegates were two men who came to define the ideology, Ludwig von Mises and
Friedrich Hayek. Both exiles from Austria, they saw social democracy, exemplified
by Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and the gradual development of Britain's welfare
state, as manifestations of a collectivism that occupied the same spectrum as
nazism and communism.
In The Road to Serfdom, published in 1944, Hayek argued that government
planning, by crushing individualism, would lead inexorably to totalitarian control.
Like Mises's book Bureaucracy, The Road to Serfdom was widely
read. It came to the attention of some very wealthy people, who saw in the philosophy
an opportunity to free themselves from regulation and tax. When, in 1947, Hayek
founded the first organisation that would spread the doctrine of neoliberalism
– the Mont Pelerin Society
– it was supported financially by millionaires and their foundations.
As it evolved, neoliberalism became more strident. Hayek's view that governments
should regulate competition to prevent monopolies from forming gave way – among
American apostles such as
Milton Friedman – to the belief that monopoly power could be seen as a reward
for efficiency.
Something else happened during this transition: the movement lost its name.
In 1951, Friedman was happy to
describe himself as a neoliberal. But soon after that, the term began to
disappear. Stranger still, even as the ideology became crisper and the movement
more coherent, the lost name was not replaced by any common alternative.
At first, despite its lavish funding, neoliberalism remained at the margins.
The postwar consensus was almost universal:
John Maynard Keynes's economic prescriptions were widely applied, full employment
and the relief of poverty were common goals in the US and much of western Europe,
top rates of tax were high and governments sought social outcomes without embarrassment,
developing new public services and safety nets.
But in the 1970s, when Keynesian policies began to fall apart and economic
crises struck on both sides of the Atlantic, neoliberal ideas began to enter
the mainstream. As Friedman remarked, "when the time came that you had to change
... there was an alternative ready there to be picked up". With the help of
sympathetic journalists and political advisers, elements of neoliberalism, especially
its prescriptions for monetary policy, were adopted by Jimmy Carter's administration
in the US and Jim Callaghan's government in Britain.
It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice should have been
promoted with the slogan 'there is no alternative'
After Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan took power, the rest of the package
soon followed: massive tax cuts for the rich, the crushing of trade unions,
deregulation, privatisation, outsourcing and competition in public services.
Through the IMF, the World Bank, the Maastricht treaty and the World Trade Organisation,
neoliberal policies were imposed – often without democratic consent – on much
of the world. Most remarkable was its adoption among parties that once belonged
to the left: Labour and the Democrats, for example. As Stedman Jones notes,
"it is hard to think of another utopia to have been as fully realised."
***
It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice and freedom should have
been promoted with the slogan "there is no alternative". But,
as Hayek remarked on a visit to Pinochet's Chile – one of the first nations
in which the programme was comprehensively applied – "my personal preference
leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government
devoid of liberalism". The freedom that neoliberalism offers, which sounds so
beguiling when expressed in general terms, turns out to mean freedom for the
pike, not for the minnows.
Freedom from trade unions and collective bargaining means the freedom to
suppress wages. Freedom from regulation means the
freedom to poison rivers, endanger workers, charge iniquitous rates of interest
and design exotic financial instruments. Freedom from tax means freedom from
the distribution of wealth that lifts people out of poverty.
As Naomi Klein documents in
The Shock Doctrine, neoliberal theorists advocated the use of crises
to impose unpopular policies while people were distracted: for example, in the
aftermath of Pinochet's coup, the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina, which Friedman
described as "an opportunity to radically reform the educational system" in
New Orleans.
Where neoliberal policies cannot be imposed domestically, they are imposed
internationally, through trade treaties incorporating "investor-state
dispute settlement": offshore tribunals in which corporations can press
for the removal of social and environmental protections. When parliaments have
voted to restrict sales of
cigarettes, protect water supplies from mining companies, freeze energy
bills or prevent pharmaceutical firms from ripping off the state, corporations
have sued, often successfully. Democracy is reduced to theatre.
Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it rapidly
became one
Another paradox of neoliberalism is that universal competition relies upon
universal quantification and comparison. The result is that workers, job-seekers
and public services of every kind are subject to a pettifogging, stifling regime
of assessment and monitoring, designed to identify the winners and punish the
losers. The doctrine that Von Mises proposed would free us from the bureaucratic
nightmare of central planning has instead created one.
Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it rapidly
became one. Economic growth has been markedly slower in the neoliberal era (since
1980 in Britain and the US) than it was in the preceding decades; but not for
the very rich. Inequality in the distribution of both income and wealth, after
60 years of decline, rose rapidly in this era, due to the smashing of trade
unions, tax reductions, rising rents, privatisation and deregulation.
The privatisation or marketisation of public services such as energy, water,
trains, health, education, roads and prisons has enabled corporations to set
up tollbooths in front of essential assets and charge rent, either to citizens
or to government, for their use. Rent is another term for unearned income. When
you pay an inflated price for a train ticket, only part of the fare compensates
the operators for the money they spend on fuel, wages, rolling stock and other
outlays. The rest reflects the fact that
they have you over a barrel.
Those who own and run the UK's privatised or semi-privatised services make
stupendous fortunes by investing little and charging much. In Russia and India,
oligarchs acquired state assets through firesales. In Mexico,
Carlos Slim was granted control of almost all landline and mobile phone
services and soon became the world's richest man.
Financialisation, as Andrew Sayer notes in
Why We Can't Afford the Rich, has had a similar impact. "Like rent,"
he argues, "interest is ... unearned income that accrues without any effort".
As the poor become poorer and the rich become richer, the rich acquire increasing
control over another crucial asset: money. Interest payments, overwhelmingly,
are a transfer of money from the poor to the rich. As property prices and the
withdrawal of state funding load people with debt (think of the switch from
student grants to student loans), the banks and their executives clean up.
Sayer argues that the past four decades have been characterised by a transfer
of wealth not only from the poor to the rich, but within the ranks of the wealthy:
from those who make their money by producing new goods or services to those
who make their money by controlling existing assets and harvesting rent, interest
or capital gains. Earned income has been supplanted by unearned income.
Neoliberal policies are everywhere beset by market failures. Not only are
the banks too big to fail, but so are the corporations now charged with delivering
public services. As Tony Judt pointed out in
Ill Fares the Land, Hayek forgot that vital national services cannot
be allowed to collapse, which means that competition cannot run its course.
Business takes the profits, the state keeps the risk.
The greater the failure, the more extreme the ideology becomes. Governments
use neoliberal crises as both excuse and opportunity to cut taxes, privatise
remaining public services, rip holes in the social safety net, deregulate corporations
and re-regulate citizens. The self-hating state now sinks its teeth into every
organ of the public sector.
Perhaps the most dangerous impact of neoliberalism is not the economic crises
it has caused, but the political crisis. As the domain of the state is reduced,
our ability to change the course of our lives through voting also contracts.
Instead, neoliberal theory asserts, people can exercise choice through spending.
But some have more to spend than others: in the great consumer or shareholder
democracy, votes are not equally distributed. The result is a disempowerment
of the poor and middle. As parties of the right and
former left adopt similar neoliberal policies, disempowerment turns to disenfranchisement.
Large numbers of people have been shed from politics.
Chris Hedges
remarks that "fascist movements build their base not from the politically
active but the politically inactive, the 'losers' who feel, often correctly,
they have no voice or role to play in the political establishment". When political
debate no longer speaks to us, people become responsive
instead to slogans, symbols and sensation. To the admirers of Trump, for
example, facts and arguments appear irrelevant.
Judt explained that when the thick mesh of interactions between people and
the state has been reduced to nothing but authority and obedience, the only
remaining force that binds us is state power. The totalitarianism Hayek feared
is more likely to emerge when governments, having lost the moral authority that
arises from the delivery of public services, are reduced to "cajoling, threatening
and ultimately coercing people to obey them".
***
Like communism, neoliberalism is the God that failed. But the zombie doctrine
staggers on, and one of the reasons is its anonymity. Or rather, a cluster of
anonymities.
The invisible doctrine of the invisible hand is promoted by invisible backers.
Slowly, very slowly, we have begun to discover the names of a few of them. We
find that the Institute of Economic Affairs, which has argued forcefully in
the media against the further regulation of the tobacco industry,
has been secretly funded by British American Tobacco since 1963. We discover
that
Charles and David Koch, two of the richest men in the world, founded the
institute that set up the
Tea Party movement. We find that Charles Koch, in establishing one of his
thinktanks,
noted that "in order to avoid undesirable criticism, how the organisation
is controlled and directed should not be widely advertised".
The nouveau riche were once disparaged by those who had inherited their
money. Today, the relationship has been reversed
The words used by neoliberalism often conceal more than they elucidate. "The
market" sounds like a natural system that might bear upon us equally, like gravity
or atmospheric pressure. But it is fraught with power relations. What "the market
wants" tends to mean what corporations and their bosses want. "Investment",
as Sayer notes, means two quite different things. One is the funding of productive
and socially useful activities, the other is the purchase of existing assets
to milk them for rent, interest, dividends and capital gains. Using the same
word for different activities "camouflages the sources of wealth", leading us
to confuse wealth extraction with wealth creation.
A century ago, the nouveau riche were disparaged by those who had inherited
their money. Entrepreneurs sought social acceptance by passing themselves off
as rentiers. Today, the relationship has been reversed: the rentiers and inheritors
style themselves entre preneurs. They claim to have earned their unearned income.
These anonymities and confusions mesh with the namelessness and placelessness
of modern capitalism: the franchise model which ensures that workers
do not know for whom they toil; the companies registered through a network
of offshore secrecy regimes so complex that
even the
police cannot discover the beneficial owners; the tax arrangements that
bamboozle governments; the financial products no one understands.
The anonymity of neoliberalism is fiercely guarded. Those who are influenced
by Hayek, Mises and Friedman tend to reject the term, maintaining – with some
justice – that it is used today
only pejoratively. But they offer us no substitute. Some describe themselves
as classical liberals or libertarians, but these descriptions are both misleading
and curiously self-effacing, as they suggest that there is nothing novel about
The Road to Serfdom, Bureaucracy or Friedman's classic work,
Capitalism and Freedom.
***
For all that, there is something admirable about the neoliberal project,
at least in its early stages. It was a distinctive, innovative philosophy promoted
by a coherent network of thinkers and activists with a clear plan of action.
It was patient and persistent. The Road to Serfdom became the path to
power.
Letters: For neoliberals to claim that their view supports
the current distribution of property and power is almost as bonkers as the Lockean
theory of property itself
Read more
Neoliberalism's triumph also reflects the failure of the left. When laissez-faire
economics led to catastrophe in 1929, Keynes devised a comprehensive economic
theory to replace it. When Keynesian demand management hit the buffers in the
70s, there was an alternative ready. But when neoliberalism fell apart in 2008
there was ... nothing. This is why the zombie walks. The left and centre have
produced no new general framework of economic thought for 80 years.
Every invocation of Lord Keynes is an admission of failure. To propose Keynesian
solutions to the crises of the 21st century is to ignore three obvious problems.
It is hard to mobilise people around old ideas; the flaws exposed in the 70s
have not gone away; and, most importantly, they have nothing to say about our
gravest predicament: the environmental crisis. Keynesianism works by stimulating
consumer demand to promote economic growth. Consumer demand and economic growth
are the motors of environmental destruction.
What the history of both Keynesianism and neoliberalism show is that it's
not enough to oppose a broken system. A coherent alternative has to be proposed.
For Labour, the Democrats and the wider left, the central task should be to
develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system,
tailored to the demands of the 21st century.
George Monbiot's How Did We Get into This Mess? is published this month
by Verso. To order a copy for Ł12.99 (RRP Ł16.99) ) go to
bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over Ł10, online
orders only. Phone orders min p&p of Ł1.99.
"... The euro would really do its work when crises hit, Mundell explained. Removing a government's control over currency would prevent nasty little elected officials from using Keynesian monetary and fiscal juice to pull a nation out of recession. ..."
"... He cited labor laws, environmental regulations and, of course, taxes. All would be flushed away by the euro. Democracy would not be allowed to interfere with the marketplace ..."
"... Mundell was also the driving force for Reagan's supply side economics. ..."
The euro would really do its work when crises hit, Mundell explained.
Removing a government's control over currency would prevent nasty little
elected officials from using Keynesian monetary and fiscal juice to
pull a nation out of recession.
"It puts monetary policy out of the reach of politicians," he said.
"[And] without fiscal policy, the only way nations can keep jobs is
by the competitive reduction of rules on business."
He cited labor laws, environmental regulations and, of course,
taxes. All would be flushed away by the euro. Democracy would not be
allowed to interfere with the marketplace
Mundell was also the driving force for Reagan's supply side economics.
All this discussion missed the most important point: Obama is neocon and neoliberal
and he did what he was supposed to do. "Change we can believe is" was a masterful
"bait and switch" operation to full the gullible electorate. he was just a useful
puppet for globalist. They used him and they will threw him to the dust bin of history
sweetened with $200k speeches.
Notable quotes:
"... The article is a waste of time! The real winners are the neoconservative corporate world with a one party corporate state! It is time for a third party in the United States that represents ordinary American people! ..."
"... So the best of Obama is ground troops in Iraq and Syria ? More drone strikes? ..."
"... Trump is more of an isolationist, he would do less against foreign countries than the Obama/Clinton government. Syria and Libya would never had happened under a Trump presidency. ..."
"... Clinton helped the distabilize Syria arming rebels who some joined IS: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328 ..."
"... 'The best of Barack Obama'? You mean he can commit mass murder by drone in even greater numbers and in more than the seven countries the US is not at war with???? ..."
"... Murder by Presidential decree - what a guy! ..."
"... Wow, that should really scare Trump! After 8 years, most of us -- even those who twice voted for him -- know there is no best in Barack. He has fumbled and bumbled all the way; Putin has run circles around him. He has destabilized the entire Mideast. He could not even close Guantanamo. He was elected on the promise of hope and leaves a legacy of despair and a horde of innocent drone victims. He calls it collateral damage; I call it murder. ..."
"... Obama's presidency: 1. Added 10T to national debt that future generations will be taxed to pay it up. 2. Record # of people living on food stamps. 3. Steady drop of labor participation rate (so he had to rig Job stats to hide it) 4. Stagnant income for average family 5. Driving living cost (such health insurance bills / student loans) up despite stagnant income. 6. Promised public an "affordable" health care plan only to drive insurance cost up. 7. Letting ISIS grow under his watch and calling it just "JV team" until its threat is too big to ignore. ... ... Incompetence and dishonesty are what people will remember Obama as. He is now shaping up to be worse than GWBush, which was unthinkable right after Bush's term was over. ..."
"... Wake up, we are the United States of America and our business is; has been and will be war and weapons. Eisenhower knew it in the 50's and nothing has changed. ..."
"... Well, Trump was against the Iraq war, the war in Libya and against intervention with the resulting war in Syria. That honours him. Compared that with Hillarys approach regarding these conflicts. ..."
"... Pity Obama wasn't so ruthless in preventing the massive theft of taxpayers money to bail out Wall Street. In fact didn't he appoint all those Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup executives to run his economic policy? He has always known where his bread was best buttered just like Bill and Hillary? Anyone out there willing to take on a few 30 minute speaking engagements for $100-200,000 a pop? Nice retirement. ..."
"... "This hyper-competitive president..."??? Surely you jest. This is the guy who tucked tail and ran every time the GOP threatened a filibuster as opposed to making them actually do it...who put zero banksters in prison for crashing the economy with fraudulent scams...who didn't close Gitmo...who gave us a healthcare reform that was a gift to the insurance and pharma industries. ..."
"... "Obama is a statesman"...then why he is the man who stutters endlessly when taken off a teleprompter? ..."
"... Attacked seven different countries with drones, killing around 2,600 innocent civilians. ..."
"... Prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined. ..."
"... Continued the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. ..."
"... Expanded our National Security State (Look up his new Patriot Act.) ..."
"... Appointed more corporate lobbyists to high government positions than Bush ever did. ..."
"... Destroyed Libya as a functioning state, with dozens of competing terrorist militias (many of whom we armed). ..."
"... Recognized the new Honduran right-wing government, which made it the most violent country in the world. And now he's decided to deport thousands of children who came here to escape the violence. ..."
"... Signed two more trade (corporate investment) agreements and pushed the TPP - granting corporations more legal rights than states. ..."
"... Gave trillions to the Banks and Wall Street. ..."
"... Carried out economic policies that actually increased inequality here, especially in communities of color, ..."
"... Replenished Israel's weapons - while they were bombing Gaza - and now plans to add a billion dollars a year in military aid to the right-wingers in control of that state. ..."
"... Arranged a $32 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and sent them cluster bombs for their attack on Yemen ..."
"... Added a trillion dollars to "upgrade" our nuclear weapons. ..."
"... Which of these things make you "so proud?" ..."
"... You left out Obama's caving in on single-payer universal health care (Medicare could easily have provided a point of departure) instead of fighting for it. ..."
"... To him getting rid of Asad who poses no terrorism threat to US is more important than fighting ISIS, which is basically the same ol' GWBush neocon regime change strategy and absurd. ..."
"... This commentator nor the paper for which he writes will never in a million years ever even suggest the disdain Obama and the US government has for the rule of law - his lieutenants have been caught out lying to congress - no charges for the key apparatchiks of evil - hope that phrase catches on. ..."
"... Does Obama go after Mexican drug cartels, every bit as destructive as Isil but with a direct impact on the US? No. Does he go after other militant groups across the globe? No. He feeds the 'terrible Muslim' narrative by continuing to singularly pursue them as if they were the only problem in the world. ..."
"... Obama's predecessor was arguably the most manipulated, most moronic, completely un-qualified and utterly reckless war mongering shill ever put into the white house. Barack inherited a friggin mess of biblical proportions, created by treasonous ne-cons intent on fomenting war and destruction for no better reason than to forward the agenda of the military-industrial complex. ..."
"... I'm confident that Hillary Clinton will continue his work, because she recognizes the critical role played by diplomacy :-). She's not the hawk that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders would have you believe ;-). ..."
"... TPP is all you need to know. Obama is just a puppet of this oligarchy. ..."
The article is a waste of time! The real winners are the neoconservative
corporate world with a one party corporate state! It is time for a third
party in the United States that represents ordinary American people!
kittehpavolvski
So, if we're about to see the best of Obama, what have we been seeing
hitherto?
waitforme
So the best of Obama is ground troops in Iraq and Syria ? More drone
strikes?
ForestTrees
Trump is more of an isolationist, he would do less against foreign
countries than the Obama/Clinton government. Syria and Libya would never
had happened under a Trump presidency.
'The best of Barack Obama'? You mean he can commit mass murder by
drone in even greater numbers and in more than the seven countries the US
is not at war with????
What a fatuous article about the world's leading terrorist.
And of course we shouldn't forget that he had prosecuted more whistleblowers
than all other presidents combined.
Let's not forget that he claims and has exercised his 'right' to murder
his own citizens on the basis of secret evidence - one being a 16 year old
boy. And when the White House spokesman was asked why the boy was murdered
by drone, he said 'He should have had a more responsible father'.
He sings off on his 'Kill List' of domestic and foreign nationals every
Tuesday, dubbed 'Terror Tuesday' by his staff.
Murder by Presidential decree - what a guy!
ID7715785
Wow, that should really scare Trump! After 8 years, most of us --
even those who twice voted for him -- know there is no best in Barack. He
has fumbled and bumbled all the way; Putin has run circles around him. He
has destabilized the entire Mideast. He could not even close Guantanamo.
He was elected on the promise of hope and leaves a legacy of despair and
a horde of innocent drone victims. He calls it collateral damage; I call
it murder.
ninjamia
Oh, I know. He'll repeat the snide and nasty remarks about Trump that
he gave at the Press Club dinner. Such style and grace - not.
Casting Donald Trump as the Big Bad Wolf doesn't bring about real change.
And sadly, in his almost 8 years in office (2 years with absolute control
over the Congress) Barack Obama has brought about little real change. For
him it is a slogan.
Larry Robinson
Obama's presidency:
1. Added 10T to national debt that future generations will be taxed to pay
it up.
2. Record # of people living on food stamps.
3. Steady drop of labor participation rate (so he had to rig Job stats to
hide it)
4. Stagnant income for average family
5. Driving living cost (such health insurance bills / student loans) up
despite stagnant income.
6. Promised public an "affordable" health care plan only to drive insurance
cost up.
7. Letting ISIS grow under his watch and calling it just "JV team" until
its threat is too big to ignore.
... ...
Incompetence and dishonesty are what people will remember Obama as. He
is now shaping up to be worse than GWBush, which was unthinkable right after
Bush's term was over.
shinNeMIN -> Larry Robinson
$500 million worth of arm supply?
hadeze242 -> Major MajorMajor
while Obama's messy military interventions become more and more confused,
chaotic and tragic his personal appearance gets ever more Hollywood: perfect
attire, smile and just the right words. I would prefer the inverse, less
tailoring and neat haircuts, but more honesty and transparency. e.g., Obama
lied about the NSA for how long in this first term. Answer: all four years
long and beyond into the 2nd term.
BostonCeltics
Six more months until he goes into the dustbin of history. Small minded
people in positions of power who take things personally are the epitome
of incompetence.
Mats Almgren
Obama became a worse president than Bush. Endless moneyprinting, bombing
nine countries, created a operation Condor 2.0 with interventions in Venezuela,
Brazil and Argentina, didn't withdraw any troops from Afghanistan, lifted
the weapon embargo on Vietnam to sell US weapons and at the same time forcing
Vietnam to not do trade deals with China, intimidating the Phillipines from
doing trade with China, restarted the cold war which had led to biggest
military ramp up in Eastern Europe since 1941, drone bombed weddings and
hospitals and what not, supported islam militants in Libya, Syria and Iraq
which has led to total devastation in these countries. And there has been
an increase in the constant US interventionism regarding European elections
and referendums. And has continuously protected the dollar hegemony causing
death and destruction thoughout the world.
With that track record it's easy to say that Obama might be worst US
president ever. And there has been hardly any critism and critical thinking
in the more and more propagandistic and agenda driven western media.
It's like living in the twilight zone reading the media in Sweden and
Britain.
Jose Sanchez -> Mats Almgren
Blame a president for trying to sell what we still manufacture are you?
Wake up, we are the United States of America and our business is;
has been and will be war and weapons. Eisenhower knew it in the 50's and
nothing has changed.
NewWorldWatcher
The new leader of the Republican party thinks that that it was stupid
to go into Iraq and Afghanistan but it would be good to carpet bomb ISIS.
He IS a great Republican. No wonder this party is on the fringe of extinction.
Mats Almgren -> NewWorldWatcher
Well, Trump was against the Iraq war, the war in Libya and against
intervention with the resulting war in Syria. That honours him. Compared
that with Hillarys approach regarding these conflicts.
trundlesome1
Pity Obama wasn't so ruthless in preventing the massive theft of
taxpayers money to bail out Wall Street. In fact didn't he appoint all those
Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup executives to run his economic
policy? He has always known where his bread was best buttered just like
Bill and Hillary?
Anyone out there willing to take on a few 30 minute speaking engagements
for $100-200,000 a pop? Nice retirement.
zootsuitbeatnick
"This hyper-competitive president..."??? Surely you jest. This is
the guy who tucked tail and ran every time the GOP threatened a filibuster
as opposed to making them actually do it...who put zero banksters in prison
for crashing the economy with fraudulent scams...who didn't close Gitmo...who
gave us a healthcare reform that was a gift to the insurance and pharma
industries.
That's as hyper-competitive as Trump is selfless.
Try to be at least a little reality-based.
hadeze242
the best of Pres. Obama? Perhaps only someone living a life in the UK
could dream this strange dream? Great, compared to whom, to what? Never
since WW2 has the US & world seen such a weak, openly-prejudiced, non-performing
Pres. Remember O's plan to save Afghanistan? Lybia? Then, working (bombing)
with Putin's Russia to collaterally bomb the beautiful, developed, cultural
nation of Syria. To what end I ask? To create refugees? Obama has never
been at his best, always only at his worst. Ah, yes, his smooth-lawyered
sentences come with commas & periods and all that, but there is no feeling
inside the man. This man is a great, oratory actor. His promises are well-written
& endless, but delivery is never coming. Yes, we can .. was his electoral
phrase. No, we can't ... after 8 long, wasted yrs was his result.
NewWorldWatcher
In Las Vegas they are gaming on how many votes will Trump lose by not
who will win. A Trump loss will be in excess of 10 Million votes.......5to2
odds. The worse loss in recent history!
Janet Re Johnson -> NewWorldWatcher
From your mouth to God's ears. But I'm a big baseball fan, so I know
it ain't over till it's over.
Larry Robinson
Also it's when Obama talks out of outburst rather than from a teleprompter
that you can tell his true capability as a leader or lack thereof.
Notice that Obama said ... not once has an advisor tells him to use the
term "radical Islam" ... . Well Mr Obama, it's your own call to decide what
term to use on this issue so why are you bringing your advisors out for
credence. Right or wrong that's your own decision so you should stand behind
it. When you bring advisors in to defend what should be your own call it
shows WEAKNESS.
Obama basically tells everyone that he needs his advisors to tell him
what do b/c he does NOT know how to handle it by himself. So who's the leader
here, Obama or his advisors? Is Obama just a puppet that needs his advisors
to pull the string constantly? Ouch.
It's the prompter-free moment like this that the truth about Obama comes
out. I wonder why Trump has not picked this clear hole up yet.
raffine
The POTUS will crush Mr Trump like a 200 year old peanut.
Carolyn Walas Libbey -> raffine
The POTUS is about as useful as an old condom.
PortalooMassacre
Exposed to the toxic smugness of Richard Wolffe, I'm beginning to see
what people find attractive about Donald Trump's refreshing barbarism.
guy ventner -> synechdoche
"Obama is a statesman"...then why he is the man who stutters endlessly
when taken off a teleprompter?
Ron Shuffler
"Greatest President since Lincoln" "I am proud - so proud! - to say that
this man is MY President! Personally, I am ashamed that this man is my President.
But anyway, here's what Richard Wolffe and y'all are so proud of:
Here's what your favorite President actually did:
Attacked seven different countries with drones, killing around
2,600 innocent civilians.
Prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined.
Continued the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Deported at least 2.8 million "illegal" immigrants
Expanded our National Security State (Look up his new Patriot
Act.)
Appointed more corporate lobbyists to high government positions
than Bush ever did.
Destroyed Libya as a functioning state, with dozens of competing
terrorist militias (many of whom we armed).
Recognized the new Honduran right-wing government, which made
it the most violent country in the world. And now he's decided to deport
thousands of children who came here to escape the violence.
Signed two more trade (corporate investment) agreements and
pushed the TPP - granting corporations more legal rights than states.
Gave trillions to the Banks and Wall Street.
Carried out economic policies that actually increased inequality
here, especially in communities of color,
Left Guantanamo open (though as Commander-in-Chief he could have
closed it down with a phone call).
Replenished Israel's weapons - while they were bombing Gaza
- and now plans to add a billion dollars a year in military aid to the
right-wingers in control of that state.
Arranged a $32 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and sent them
cluster bombs for their attack on Yemen
Sent billions of dollars to the new military rulers of Egypt
Added a trillion dollars to "upgrade" our nuclear weapons.
Which of these things make you "so proud?"
BG Davis -> Ron Shuffler
You left out Obama's caving in on single-payer universal health care
(Medicare could easily have provided a point of departure) instead of fighting
for it.
At the same time, you overestimate the simplicity of just closing Guantanamo
prison with "a phone call." So he makes the phone call; then what happens
to the prisoners? They aren't all innocent non-entities who just happened
to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Larry Robinson
It's only in the mind of die hard liberals that Obama has been strong
against terrorists. Just look at how he handles Syria situation. Asad -
a Shiite govt - is a sworn enemy to ISIS - a Sunni organization so if you
are serious about ISIS you should utilize Asad, right? Well no, Obama is
so hell-bent on unseating Asad that he supports those rebels that are also
Sunni-based and cozy with ISIS. To him getting rid of Asad who poses
no terrorism threat to US is more important than fighting ISIS, which is
basically the same ol' GWBush neocon regime change strategy and absurd.
Lafcadio1944
What part of Obama's criminal acts in office do think are the best? For
me the very best of Obama is how he can project power so suavely while standing
before the world as a prima facia criminal. TORTURE IS ILLEGAL!! Under the
law those who order and/or carry out torture MUST be prosecuted. THAT IS
INTERNATIONAL, TREATY AND DOMESTIC US LAW.
The oh so great and powerful Obama he of such dignity in office has SHOWN
UTTER CONTEMPT FOR THE RULE OF LAW!!!
But that's OK he will say bad things about Trump.
This commentator nor the paper for which he writes will never in
a million years ever even suggest the disdain Obama and the US government
has for the rule of law - his lieutenants have been caught out lying to
congress - no charges for the key apparatchiks of evil - hope that phrase
catches on.
I want to vomit when the press acts so hypocritically ready to jump all
over Putin or China in a heart beat - but challenge US officials who openly
violate the law - not a chance.
babymamaboy
Does Obama go after Mexican drug cartels, every bit as destructive
as Isil but with a direct impact on the US? No. Does he go after other militant
groups across the globe? No. He feeds the 'terrible Muslim' narrative by
continuing to singularly pursue them as if they were the only problem in
the world.
It would be really easy for him to call it like it is -- we don't care
who you worship, just don't mess with our oil. But he actively feeds the
narrative while chiding Trump for being too enthusiastic about it. I guess
that's what passes for US leadership these days.
urgonnatrip
Obama's predecessor was arguably the most manipulated, most moronic,
completely un-qualified and utterly reckless war mongering shill ever put
into the white house. Barack inherited a friggin mess of biblical proportions,
created by treasonous ne-cons intent on fomenting war and destruction for
no better reason than to forward the agenda of the military-industrial complex.
How has Barack done? He's held them in check and avoided an escalation
to WW3. I wish I could say the next president was going to continue the
trend but somehow I doubt it.
KerryB -> urgonnatrip
You had me right up until the last line. I'm confident that Hillary
Clinton will continue his work, because she recognizes the critical role
played by diplomacy :-). She's not the hawk that Donald Trump and Bernie
Sanders would have you believe ;-).
zolotoy -> KerryB
Yeah, just ignore Hillary Clinton's actual record, right?
AgnosticKen
TPP is all you need to know. Obama is just a puppet of this oligarchy.
This is an article from 2008 campaign. Still relevant.
Notable quotes:
"... Dr. Robert Hare, a pioneer in forensic psychology, tells us that many sociopaths are successful, even celebrated. I don't propose to diagnose Hillary Clinton by diary, but more modestly, to examine one characteristic Dr. Hare finds sociopaths have in common. From CEO to small-time swindler, the sociopath lies. Hillary lies, repeatedly and recklessly. ..."
"... In her run against Obama, Hillary has lied to show she's got the right stuff to be Commander-in-Chief. Before the Bosnian Bruhaha, she lied to pump up her senatorial role and to finesse positions she once held that could lose her the nomination. In turn, her lies substantiate two sides of the beautifully constructed Election 08 Hillary: courageous but caring. No one is as tough. No one cares as much. In Hillary's lies, Clara Barton meets Audie Murphy. ..."
"... Hillary does have more experience manipulating the interface of MSM and the American public. She knows that both are rapid cyclers. She knows that what's headlines one day is yesterday's onions the next. ..."
"... Surely, when she cast her vote to authorize Bush to skirt global consensus and wage a unilateral war against Iraq, she knew she'd have some 'splaining to do. But like Scarlett O'hara, she'd think about it tomorrow. I'm talking about her vote on the war in Iraq. ..."
"... In 2002, Hillary voted for war with her eye on the prize. Within a few days of the 9/11 attack on WTC, she knew if she was ever to have a shot at the U.S. presidency, she'd have to beat the drums for war. As Manhattan lay still burning, Hillary, the former war protester, formed a strategic political stance that would kill two birds with one stone. ..."
Dr. Robert Hare, a pioneer in forensic psychology, tells us that many sociopaths
are successful, even celebrated. I don't propose to diagnose Hillary Clinton
by diary, but more modestly, to examine one characteristic Dr. Hare finds sociopaths
have in common. From CEO to small-time swindler, the sociopath lies. Hillary
lies, repeatedly and recklessly.
She lies when she doesn't need to. And she lies as much for self-aggrandizement
as for political gain.
Sociopaths, driven by an unnatural appetite to get what they want NOW–a t.v.
set or the presidency– can't suffer the patience it takes to craft a lie
carefully. And their narcissism, coupled with a complete lack of morality,
enables them to advance the most outrageous lies. Lies that make you shake your
head in disbelief. Lies that end up on "Meet the Press."
What me worry Hillary. By the time she's busted, the lie has done its work.
Confronted, she's cool as a sociopath:"So, I made a mistake." Or I'm a victim
of someone else who lies. I voted for the Iraq war because Bush bamboozled
me.
In her run against Obama, Hillary has lied to show she's got the right
stuff to be Commander-in-Chief. Before the Bosnian Bruhaha, she lied to pump
up her senatorial role and to finesse positions she once held that could lose
her the nomination. In turn, her lies substantiate two sides of the beautifully
constructed Election 08 Hillary: courageous but caring. No one is as tough.
No one cares as much. In Hillary's lies, Clara Barton meets Audie Murphy.
Lies to show she's got CIC and foreign policy credentials claim she
"landed under sniper fire" in Bosnia.
"helped bring peace to Ireland"
"negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into Kosovo"
The historical record, various eye-witnesses, and contemporaneous sources
prove all three claims false "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Further, Hillary has taken the lion's share of credit for SCHIP. Orrin Hatch,
with the disclaimer that he likes her, felt honor-bound to answer this claim
honestly: "…does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No – Teddy does, but she doesn't."
It is clear from HRC's First Lady records, recently released by The National
Archives and President Clinton's Library, as well as numerous eye-witness and
Press reports that whatever her private thoughts, HRC was head cheerleader on
Bill's NAFTA team. Ironically, just days before the Ohio and Texas primaries,
Hillary exploited a timely but inaccurate AP report to raise doubts about Obama's
NAFTA stance. She succeeded in shifting the contest's outcome.
Days after AP was contradicted by its own sources within the Canadian government
and Press, she continued to hector her rival with yesterday's news until the
clock ran out. Though no longer news, latest developments point to Clinton as
the NAFTA waffler.
Hillary does have more experience manipulating the interface of MSM and
the American public. She knows that both are rapid cyclers. She knows that what's
headlines one day is yesterday's onions the next.
Surely, when she cast her vote to authorize Bush to skirt global consensus
and wage a unilateral war against Iraq, she knew she'd have some 'splaining
to do. But like Scarlett O'hara, she'd think about it tomorrow. I'm talking
about her vote on the war in Iraq.
Let's not mince words. I'm talking about her vote FOR the war in Iraq.
In 2002, Hillary voted for war with her eye on the prize. Within a few
days of the 9/11 attack on WTC, she knew if she was ever to have a shot at the
U.S. presidency, she'd have to beat the drums for war. As Manhattan lay still
burning, Hillary, the former war protester, formed a strategic political stance
that would kill two birds with one stone.
More next diary: From the ashes of 9/11, a new Hillary rises
"... At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country-the 99.99 percent-is lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent; the bottom 50 percent, just 12 percent. ..."
"... The model for us rich guys here should be Henry Ford, who realized that all his autoworkers in Michigan weren't only cheap labor to be exploited; they were consumers, too. Ford figured that if he raised their wages, to a then-exorbitant $5 a day, they'd be able to afford his Model Ts. ..."
Memo: From Nick Hanauer To: My Fellow Zillionaires
You probably don't know me, but like you I am one of those .01%ers, a proud
and unapologetic capitalist. I have founded, co-founded and funded more than
30 companies across a range of industries-from itsy-bitsy ones like the night
club I started in my 20s to giant ones like Amazon.com, for which I was the
first nonfamily investor. Then I founded aQuantive, an Internet advertising
company that was
sold to Microsoft in 2007 for $6.4 billion. In cash. My friends and I own
a bank. I tell you all this to demonstrate that in many ways I'm no different
from you. Like you, I have a broad perspective on business and capitalism. And
also like you, I have been rewarded obscenely for my success, with a life that
the other 99.99 percent of Americans can't even imagine. Multiple homes, my
own plane, etc., etc. You know what I'm talking about. In 1992, I was selling
pillows made by my family's business, Pacific Coast Feather Co., to retail stores
across the country, and the Internet was a clunky novelty to which one hooked
up with a loud squawk at 300 baud. But I saw pretty quickly, even back then,
that many of my customers, the big department store chains, were already doomed.
I knew that as soon as the Internet became fast and trustworthy enough-and that
time wasn't far off-people were going to shop online like crazy. Goodbye, Caldor.
And Filene's. And Borders. And on and on.
Realizing that, seeing over the horizon a little faster than the next guy,
was the strategic part of my success. The lucky part was that I had two friends,
both immensely talented, who also saw a lot of potential in the web. One was
a guy you've probably never heard of named Jeff Tauber, and the other was a
fellow named Jeff Bezos. I was so excited by the potential of the web that I
told both Jeffs that I wanted to invest in whatever they launched, big time.
It just happened that the second Jeff-Bezos-called me back first to take up
my investment offer. So I helped underwrite his tiny start-up bookseller. The
other Jeff started a web department store called Cybershop, but at a time when
trust in Internet sales was still low, it was too early for his high-end online
idea; people just weren't yet ready to buy expensive goods without personally
checking them out (unlike a basic commodity like books, which don't vary in
quality-Bezos' great insight). Cybershop didn't make it, just another dot-com
bust. Amazon did somewhat better. Now I own a very large yacht.
But let's speak frankly to each other. I'm not the smartest guy you've ever
met, or the hardest-working. I was a mediocre student. I'm not technical at
all-I can't write a word of code. What sets me apart, I think, is a tolerance
for risk and an intuition about what will happen in the future. Seeing where
things are headed is the essence of entrepreneurship. And what do I see in our
future now?
I see pitchforks.
At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the
dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country-the 99.99 percent-is
lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse
really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent
controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent
shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent;
the bottom 50 percent,
just 12 percent.
But the problem isn't that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic
to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is
at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly
becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies
change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to
late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.
Memo: From Nick Hanauer To: My Fellow Zillionaires
You probably don't know me, but like you I am one of those .01%ers, a proud
and unapologetic capitalist. I have founded, co-founded and funded more than
30 companies across a range of industries-from itsy-bitsy ones like the night
club I started in my 20s to giant ones like Amazon.com, for which I was the
first nonfamily investor. Then I founded aQuantive, an Internet advertising
company that was
sold to Microsoft in 2007 for $6.4 billion. In cash. My friends and I own
a bank. I tell you all this to demonstrate that in many ways I'm no different
from you. Like you, I have a broad perspective on business and capitalism. And
also like you, I have been rewarded obscenely for my success, with a life that
the other 99.99 percent of Americans can't even imagine. Multiple homes, my
own plane, etc., etc. You know what I'm talking about. In 1992, I was selling
pillows made by my family's business, Pacific Coast Feather Co., to retail stores
across the country, and the Internet was a clunky novelty to which one hooked
up with a loud squawk at 300 baud. But I saw pretty quickly, even back then,
that many of my customers, the big department store chains, were already doomed.
I knew that as soon as the Internet became fast and trustworthy enough-and that
time wasn't far off-people were going to shop online like crazy. Goodbye, Caldor.
And Filene's. And Borders. And on and on.
Realizing that, seeing over the horizon a little faster than the next guy,
was the strategic part of my success. The lucky part was that I had two friends,
both immensely talented, who also saw a lot of potential in the web. One was
a guy you've probably never heard of named Jeff Tauber, and the other was a
fellow named Jeff Bezos. I was so excited by the potential of the web that I
told both Jeffs that I wanted to invest in whatever they launched, big time.
It just happened that the second Jeff-Bezos-called me back first to take up
my investment offer. So I helped underwrite his tiny start-up bookseller. The
other Jeff started a web department store called Cybershop, but at a time when
trust in Internet sales was still low, it was too early for his high-end online
idea; people just weren't yet ready to buy expensive goods without personally
checking them out (unlike a basic commodity like books, which don't vary in
quality-Bezos' great insight). Cybershop didn't make it, just another dot-com
bust. Amazon did somewhat better. Now I own a very large yacht.
But let's speak frankly to each other. I'm not the smartest guy you've ever
met, or the hardest-working. I was a mediocre student. I'm not technical at
all-I can't write a word of code. What sets me apart, I think, is a tolerance
for risk and an intuition about what will happen in the future. Seeing where
things are headed is the essence of entrepreneurship. And what do I see in our
future now?
I see pitchforks.
At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams
of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country-the 99.99 percent-is lagging
far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really,
really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent
controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent
shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent;
the bottom 50 percent,
just 12 percent.
But the problem isn't that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic
to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is
at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly
becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies
change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to
late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.
And so I have a message for my fellow filthy rich, for all of us who live
in our gated bubble worlds: Wake up, people. It won't last.
If we don't do something to fix the glaring inequities in this economy, the
pitchforks are going to come for us. No society can sustain this kind of rising
inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated
like this and the pitchforks didn't eventually come out. You show me a highly
unequal society, and I will show you a police state. Or an uprising. There are
no counterexamples. None. It's not if, it's when.
Many of us think we're special because "this is America." We think we're
immune to the same forces that started the Arab Spring-or the French and Russian
revolutions, for that matter. I know you fellow .01%ers tend to dismiss this
kind of argument; I've had many of you tell me to my face I'm completely bonkers.
And yes, I know there are many of you who are convinced that because you saw
a poor kid with an iPhone that one time, inequality is a fiction.
Here's what I say to you: You're living in a dream world. What everyone wants
to believe is that when things reach a tipping point and go from being merely
crappy for the masses to dangerous and socially destabilizing, that we're somehow
going to know about that shift ahead of time. Any student of history knows that's
not the way it happens. Revolutions, like bankruptcies, come gradually, and
then suddenly. One day, somebody sets himself on fire, then thousands of people
are in the streets, and before you know it, the country is burning. And then
there's no time for us to get to the airport and jump on our Gulfstream Vs and
fly to New Zealand. That's the way it always happens. If inequality keeps rising
as it has been, eventually it will happen. We will not be able to predict when,
and it will be terrible-for everybody. But especially for us.
***
The most ironic thing about rising inequality is how completely unnecessary
and self-defeating it is. If we do something about it, if we adjust our policies
in the way that, say, Franklin D. Roosevelt did during the Great Depression-so
that we help the 99 percent and preempt the revolutionaries and crazies, the
ones with the pitchforks-that will be the best thing possible for us rich folks,
too. It's not just that we'll escape with our lives; it's that we'll most certainly
get even richer.
The model for us rich guys here should be Henry Ford, who realized that
all his autoworkers in Michigan weren't only cheap labor to be exploited; they
were consumers, too. Ford figured that if he
raised their wages, to a then-exorbitant $5 a day, they'd be able to afford
his Model Ts.
What a great idea. My suggestion to you is: Let's do it all over again. We've
got to try something. These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my
customer base. And yours too.
It's when I realized this that I decided I had to leave my insulated world
of the super-rich and get involved in politics. Not directly, by running for
office or becoming one of the big-money billionaires who back candidates in
an election. Instead, I wanted to try to change the conversation with ideas-by
advancing what my co-author, Eric Liu, and I call "middle-out" economics. It's
the long-overdue rebuttal to the trickle-down economics worldview that has become
economic orthodoxy across party lines-and has so screwed the American middle
class and our economy generally. Middle-out economics rejects the old misconception
that an economy is a perfectly efficient, mechanistic system and embraces the
much more accurate idea of an economy as a complex ecosystem made up of real
people who are dependent on one another.
Which is why the fundamental law of capitalism must be: If workers have more
money, businesses have more customers. Which makes middle-class consumers, not
rich businesspeople like us, the true job creators. Which means a thriving middle
class is the source of American prosperity, not a consequence of it. The middle
class creates us rich people, not the other way around.
On June 19, 2013, Bloomberg published an
article I wrote called "The Capitalist's Case for a $15 Minimum Wage."
Forbes
labeled it "Nick Hanauer's near insane" proposal. And yet, just weeks after
it was published, my friend David Rolf, a Service Employees International Union
organizer, roused fast-food workers to go on strike around the country for a
$15 living wage. Nearly a year later, the city of Seattle
passed a $15 minimum wage. And just 350 days after my article was published,
Seattle Mayor Ed Murray signed that ordinance into law. How could this happen,
you ask?
It happened because we reminded the masses that they are the source of growth
and prosperity, not us rich guys. We reminded them that when workers have more
money, businesses have more customers-and need more employees. We reminded them
that if businesses paid workers a living wage rather than poverty wages, taxpayers
wouldn't have to make up the difference. And when we got done, 74 percent of
likely Seattle voters in a
recent poll agreed that a $15 minimum wage was a swell idea.
The standard response in the minimum-wage debate, made by Republicans and
their business backers and plenty of Democrats as well, is that raising the
minimum wage costs jobs. Businesses will have to lay off workers. This argument
reflects the orthodox economics that most people had in college. If you took
Econ 101, then you literally were taught that if wages go up, employment must
go down. The law of supply and demand and all that. That's why you've got John
Boehner and other Republicans in Congress insisting that if you price employment
higher, you get less of it. Really?
The thing about us businesspeople is that we love our customers rich
and our employees poor.
Because here's an odd thing. During the past three decades, compensation
for CEOs grew 127 times faster than it did for workers. Since 1950, the CEO-to-worker
pay ratio has increased 1,000 percent, and that is not a typo. CEOs
used to earn 30 times the median wage; now they rake in 500 times. Yet no
company I know of has eliminated its senior managers, or outsourced them to
China or automated their jobs. Instead, we now have more CEOs and senior executives
than ever before. So, too, for financial services workers and technology workers.
These folks earn multiples of the median wage, yet we somehow have more and
more of them.
The thing about us businesspeople is that we love our customers rich and
our employees poor. So for as long as there has been capitalism, capitalists
have said the same thing about any effort to raise wages. We've had 75 years
of complaints from big business-when the minimum wage was instituted, when women
had to be paid equitable amounts, when child labor laws were created. Every
time the capitalists said exactly the same thing in the same way: We're all
going to go bankrupt. I'll have to close. I'll have to lay everyone off. It
hasn't happened. In fact, the data show that when workers are better treated,
business gets better. The naysayers are just wrong.
Most of you probably think that the $15 minimum wage in Seattle is an insane
departure from rational policy that puts our economy at great risk. But in Seattle,
our current minimum wage of $9.32 is already nearly 30 percent higher than the
federal minimum wage. And has it ruined our economy yet? Well, trickle-downers,
look at the data here: The two cities in the nation with the highest rate of
job growth by small businesses
are
San Francisco and Seattle. Guess which cities have the highest minimum wage?
San Francisco and Seattle. The
fastest-growing big city in America? Seattle. Fifteen dollars isn't a risky
untried policy for us. It's doubling down on the strategy that's already allowing
our city to kick your city's ass.
It makes perfect sense if you think about it: If a worker earns $7.25 an
hour, which is
now
the national minimum wage, what proportion of that person's income do you
think ends up in the cash registers of local small businesses? Hardly any. That
person is paying rent, ideally going out to get subsistence groceries at Safeway,
and, if really lucky, has a bus pass. But she's not going out to eat at restaurants.
Not browsing for new clothes. Not buying flowers on Mother's Day.
Is this issue more complicated than I'm making out? Of course. Are there
many factors at play determining the dynamics of employment? Yup. But please,
please stop insisting that if we pay low-wage workers more, unemployment will
skyrocket and it will destroy the economy. It's utter nonsense. The most insidious
thing about trickle-down economics isn't believing that if the rich get richer,
it's good for the economy. It's believing that if the poor get richer, it's
bad for the economy.
I know that virtually all of you feel that compelling our businesses to pay
workers more is somehow unfair, or is too much government interference. Most
of you think that we should just let good examples like Costco or Gap lead the
way. Or let the market set the price. But here's the thing. When those who set
bad examples, like the owners of Wal-Mart or McDonald's, pay their workers close
to the minimum wage, what they're really saying is that they'd pay even less
if it weren't illegal. (Thankfully both companies have recently said they would
not oppose a hike in the minimum wage.) In any large group, some people absolutely
will not do the right thing. That's why our economy can only be safe and effective
if it is governed by the same kinds of rules as, say, the transportation system,
with its speed limits and stop signs.
Wal-Mart is our nation's largest employer with some 1.4 million employees
in the United States and more than
$25 billion in pre-tax profit. So why are Wal-Mart employees the largest
group of Medicaid recipients in many states? Wal-Mart could, say, pay each of
its 1 million lowest-paid workers an extra $10,000 per year, raise them all
out of poverty and enable them to, of all things, afford to shop at Wal-Mart.
Not only would this also save us all the expense of the food stamps, Medicaid
and rent assistance that they currently require, but Wal-Mart would still earn
more than $15 billion pre-tax per year. Wal-Mart won't (and shouldn't) volunteer
to pay its workers more than their competitors. In order for us to have an economy
that works for everyone, we should compel all retailers to pay living wages-not
just ask politely.
We rich people have been falsely persuaded by our schooling and the affirmation
of society, and have convinced ourselves, that we are the main job creators.
It's simply not true. There can never be enough super-rich Americans to power
a great economy. I earn about 1,000 times the median American annually, but
I don't buy thousands of times more stuff. My family purchased three cars over
the past few years, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a
year, just like most American men. I bought two pairs of the fancy wool pants
I am wearing as I write, what my partner Mike calls my "manager pants." I guess
I could have bought 1,000 pairs. But why would I? Instead, I sock my extra money
away in savings, where it doesn't do the country much good.
So forget all that rhetoric about how America is great because of people
like you and me and Steve Jobs. You know the truth even if you won't admit it:
If any of us had been born in Somalia or the Congo, all we'd be is some guy
standing barefoot next to a dirt road selling fruit. It's not that Somalia and
Congo don't have good entrepreneurs. It's just that the best ones are selling
their wares off crates by the side of the road because that's all their customers
can afford.
So why not talk about a different kind of New Deal for the American people,
one that could appeal to the right as well as left-to libertarians as well as
liberals? First, I'd ask my Republican friends to get real about reducing the
size of government. Yes, yes and yes, you guys are all correct: The federal
government is too big in some ways. But no way can you cut government substantially,
not the way things are now. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush each had eight
years to do it, and they failed miserably.
Republicans and Democrats in Congress can't shrink government with wishful
thinking. The only way to slash government for real is to go back to basic economic
principles: You have to reduce the demand for government. If people are getting
$15 an hour or more, they don't need food stamps. They don't need rent assistance.
They don't need you and me to pay for their medical care. If the consumer middle
class is back, buying and shopping, then it stands to reason you won't need
as large a welfare state. And at the same time, revenues from payroll and sales
taxes would rise, reducing the deficit.
This is, in other words, an economic approach that can unite left and right.
Perhaps that's one reason the right is beginning, inexorably, to wake up to
this reality as well. Even Republicans as diverse as Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum
recently came out in favor of raising the minimum wage, in defiance of the Republicans
in Congress.
***
One thing we can agree on-I'm sure of this-is that the change isn't
going to start in Washington. Thinking is stale, arguments even more so. On
both sides.
But the way I see it, that's all right. Most major social movements have
seen their earliest victories at the state and municipal levels. The fight over
the eight-hour workday, which ended in Washington, D.C., in 1938, began in places
like Illinois and Massachusetts in the late 1800s. The movement for social security
began in California in the 1930s. Even the Affordable Health Care Act-Obamacare-would
have been hard to imagine without Mitt Romney's model in Massachusetts to lead
the way.
Sadly, no Republicans and few Democrats get this. President Obama doesn't
seem to either, though his heart is in the right place. In his State of the
Union speech this year, he mentioned the need for a higher minimum wage but
failed to make the case that less inequality and a renewed middle class would
promote faster economic growth. Instead, the arguments we hear from most Democrats
are the same old social-justice claims. The only reason to help workers is because
we feel sorry for them. These fairness arguments feed right into every stereotype
of Obama and the Democrats as bleeding hearts. Republicans say growth. Democrats
say fairness-and lose every time.
But just because the two parties in Washington haven't figured it out yet
doesn't mean we rich folks can just keep going. The conversation is already
changing, even if the billionaires aren't onto it. I know what you think: You
think that Occupy Wall Street and all the other capitalism-is-the-problem protesters
disappeared without a trace. But that's not true. Of course, it's hard to get
people to sleep in a park in the cause of social justice. But the protests we
had in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis really did help to change the debate
in this country from death panels and debt ceilings to inequality.
It's just that so many of you plutocrats didn't get the message.
Dear 1%ers, many of our fellow citizens are starting to believe that capitalism
itself is the problem. I disagree, and I'm sure you do too. Capitalism, when
well managed, is the greatest social technology ever invented to create prosperity
in human societies. But capitalism left unchecked tends toward concentration
and collapse. It can be managed either to benefit the few in the near term or
the many in the long term. The work of democracies is to bend it to the latter.
That is why investments in the middle class work. And tax breaks for rich people
like us don't. Balancing the power of workers and billionaires by raising the
minimum wage isn't bad for capitalism. It's an indispensable tool smart capitalists
use to make capitalism stable and sustainable. And no one has a bigger stake
in that than zillionaires like us.
The oldest and most important conflict in human societies is the battle over
the concentration of wealth and power. The folks like us at the top have always
told those at the bottom that our respective positions are righteous and good
for all. Historically, we called that divine right. Today we have trickle-down
economics.
What nonsense this is. Am I really such a superior person? Do I belong at
the center of the moral as well as economic universe? Do you?
My family, the Hanauers, started in Germany selling feathers and pillows.
They got chased out of Germany by Hitler and ended up in Seattle owning another
pillow company. Three generations later, I benefited from that. Then I got as
lucky as a person could possibly get in the Internet age by having a buddy in
Seattle named Bezos. I look at the average Joe on the street, and I say, "There
but for the grace of Jeff go I." Even the best of us, in the worst of circumstances,
are barefoot, standing by a dirt road, selling fruit. We should never forget
that, or forget that the United States of America and its middle class made
us, rather than the other way around.
Or we could sit back, do nothing, enjoy our yachts. And wait for the pitchforks.
"... The two lead families of the Democratic Party hate each other. ..."
"... Barack Obama comes off as narcissistic, lazy, and shielded from reality by advisor Valerie Jarrett, effectively the shadow president since 2009. ..."
"... I get the feeling the Clintons shrewdly used this book to get their version of events into play. ..."
"... The new news is the medical stuff. Hillary's health problems have been more serious than generally noted. And Bill's heart condition is serious; Klein quotes his doctor, by name, telling him the disease is progressive, i.e. it will continue to get steadily worse. Bill's obsession with sealing his own legacy by putting Hillary in the White House has become single-minded. It's suggested this is the primary thing he wants to get done before he dies. ..."
"... You see Obama good at campaigning and manipulating, but not much else. ..."
"... There's lots of dirt about both couples. Bill still womanizes intensively; you wonder if he'll die `in the saddle' like Nelson Rockefeller did. A guy with a bad heart condition? ..."
"... He and Hillary lead separate lives, talking daily on the phone but rarely in each other's presence, and Hillary tells friends he'll have little presence in her White House should she be elected. ..."
"... some presidential couples become closer in the White House, where they finally have physical proximity after years of separation on the campaign trail, but this didn't happen with the Obamas, who are effectively estranged. ..."
"... The same day, the Wall Street Journal had a front page story about Hillary distancing herself from the Obama administration. This is exactly what the book says she would do - it's half revenge, and half good politics, as seen by Bill Clinton, with the Obama administration in a tailspin on any number of fronts. ..."
The two lead families of the Democratic Party hate each other.
Edward Klein documents why and how in this entertaining and fast moving
book. It's a good political beach read.
It's mostly about three elections: that of 2008, where Barack Obama came
from behind to knock off front-runner Hillary Clinton for the nomination,
with charges and countercharges of race-card-playing in the South Carolina
primary; 2012, where Bill Clinton made a whizbang nominating speech for
someone he can't stand and Hillary drank the Kool-Aid in agreeing to lie
about Benghazi - `it was a spontaneous riot caused by a video' - to seal
Obama's reelection; and the 2016 election, where Obama promised Clinton
he'd support Hillary in exchange for their carrying his water, then reneged
on it.
There are tons of details and fly-on-the-wall accounts of conversations.
The Clintons come off much better than the Obamas do. We know most of the
Clintons' dirt already and, as a nation, don't seem to care too much, but
meanwhile they seem to have a clue about how to run the country, while the
Obamas don't. Barack Obama comes off as narcissistic, lazy, and shielded
from reality by advisor Valerie Jarrett, effectively the shadow president
since 2009.
I get the feeling the Clintons shrewdly used this book to get their
version of events into play. Klein found leakers near the Obamas who
are unhappy with them, but many Clinton sources appear to be lifelong friends
seemingly given the green light to talk for this book - people who wouldn't
jeopardize their relationship to do so. And for many of the quotations,
there would be no question in the Clintons' minds who had given them - people
party to conversations where only one or two others were present. So it
stands to reason the anonymous sources don't mind the Clintons knowing.
The Clintons, heavily covered for over 20 years, may realize there isn't
much that can hurt them that hasn't already been printed. We all know about
Monica, Clinton's womanizing, the financial scandals dating back to Arkansas
days, Hillary's temper and so on. And a lot of the inside poop here is either
flattering - Bill Clinton as political mastermind, say - or humanizing.
It's remarkable that the Clintons stay together after all they've been through,
but they seem politically fascinated with each other. And it's remarkable
how many times Hillary initially tells Bill off about something, only to
agree later that he's right and go ahead with it. Quite cute, say, is the
anecdote about how Bill convinced Hillary to "have some work done" on her
face after leaving the State Department, by first doing it himself.
The new news is the medical stuff. Hillary's health problems have
been more serious than generally noted. And Bill's heart condition is serious;
Klein quotes his doctor, by name, telling him the disease is progressive,
i.e. it will continue to get steadily worse. Bill's obsession with sealing
his own legacy by putting Hillary in the White House has become single-minded.
It's suggested this is the primary thing he wants to get done before he
dies.
The Obamas seem more on the defensive and more paranoid. You don't get
any sense of Klein's sources spinning the narrative back in their direction.
Barack comes across as a narcissist stemming from a deepset insecurity about
his lack of experience pre-presidency. He's someone who doesn't read much
beyond popular novels but thinks he's brilliant. He's visibly bored with
the dull business of running the country. He doesn't prepare in advance
for big international conferences, who he'll meet and what they'll talk
about; he figures he'll just wing it. Detractors (like Hillary) call his
administration "rudderless".
He's threatened by Bill Clinton, who not only isn't intimidated by him
but tries to lecture him. (There's a priceless account of a dinner between
the two couples - the strained conversations, Obama ignoring Clinton by
reading his Blackberry under the table, Obama sneaking out and coming back
a while later smelling of cigarettes.) He's shielded from much by Valerie
Jarrett, who surrounds him with sycophants and upon whom he relies too much.
She has her own room in the presidential quarters and is the only outsider
who eats with the family. He thinks he can move the world with his speeches.
You see Obama good at campaigning and manipulating, but not much
else. Michelle more or less invites herself and friends to Oprah Winfrey's
Hawaii estate for a joint birthday party, in part to draw her back into
the Obamas' camp and keep her out of Hillary's. The weeklong stay goes fine,
but Oprah resists any political rapprochement, and even starts promoting
Hillary not long afterwards.
Obama picks Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg (a third Democratic family as
powerful as the Obamas or Clintons) as ambassador to Japan, a way-too-late
thanks for Kennedy family support in 2008 - and, apparently, just to get
her halfway around the world from Hillary's candidacy.
It amazes me that the Obamas would work this hard to undermine their
own party's frontrunner for the 2016 nomination. The Clintons will have
raised a billion dollars for the run.
There's lots of dirt about both couples. Bill still womanizes intensively;
you wonder if he'll die `in the saddle' like Nelson Rockefeller did. A guy
with a bad heart condition?
His penthouse over the Clinton Library in Little Rock is his bachelor
pad - Hillary avoids Little Rock - and effectively the Playboy Mansion South,
the scene of many swinging parties. Klein suggests that the town not only
shields its favorite son from scrutiny, but that its women, married and
single alike, line up to sleep with him. Klein quotes one person saying
Clinton will hit on married women even in front of their own husbands. (You'd
think in Arkansas this would get a man shot, but then most other men there
don't enjoy lifelong Secret Service protection.) He and Hillary lead
separate lives, talking daily on the phone but rarely in each other's presence,
and Hillary tells friends he'll have little presence in her White House
should she be elected.
Klein notes some presidential couples become closer in the White
House, where they finally have physical proximity after years of separation
on the campaign trail, but this didn't happen with the Obamas, who are effectively
estranged. Michelle Obama, of whom White House staffers are terrified,
will burst in suddenly on her husband if he's in a room with other women;
she's suspicious of him, believing he'd like to emulate Clinton's ways.
Her post-White House plans, according to this book, don't include him. She
and Valerie Jarrett, who plans to follow her, envision a high life of globetrotting
funded by wealthy donors where they sit on corporate boards and don't have
to do much work.
Barack Obama wants to retain control of the party, but Bill Clinton already
sees him losing his clout and political capital.
The real question mark goes back to Bill Clinton's health. If he dies
- a guy with this bad a heart condition? Waitresses and Little Rock matrons,
think about it - some think Hillary, relying upon his advice forever, may
not go ahead with a presidential run. It often sounds like more his obsession
than hers, other than the first-woman-president thing. The family foundation's
reins have been handed to Chelsea, in part to take pressure off Bill, and
she is being positioned as his replacement as Mom's closest advisor and
confidante. Others think Chelsea would encourage her mother to run if Bill
dies because it's what he would have wanted. You get the feeling that Hillary,
for all her ambition, doesn't have all that much fire in the belly - that
it's Bill who's given her the vision, encouraged her, pushed her, made her
see a path through obstacles, and been willing to fight battles large and
small where she would have been more inclined to go along, get along and
acquiesce.
Truly surreal is the ending. Bill tells an appalled Hillary, in front
of friends, exactly how to stage his funeral if he dies before the election:
what to wear (widow's weeds), where to do it (Arlington, he's a former commander
in chief.) If properly done, he said, the video footage will be worth a
couple of million votes." Not for nothing do they call him the smartest
political mind of his time.
PS The day before I filed this, I saw a story online at Business Insider
quoting an unnamed Clinton confidante attacking this book as lies, all lies,
nothing but lies. The story didn't specifically rebut anything or cite any
specific error in the book; it reprised a finding of an error in one of
Klein's previous books. It suggests to me, though, this book is right, if
the attack against it is as unspecific as "lies, lies, nothing but lies."
Perhaps the Clinton camp is doing some preventive public fulminating so
that they can deny the unflattering or unfavorable parts of it. I still
think they planted a lot of this.
The same day, the Wall Street Journal had a front page story about
Hillary distancing herself from the Obama administration. This is exactly
what the book says she would do - it's half revenge, and half good politics,
as seen by Bill Clinton, with the Obama administration in a tailspin on
any number of fronts.
"... Valerie Jarrett is the third partner in the Obama marriage. She is the mother figure Obama turns to for solace while she is Michelle';s closet confidant. This tiger lady calls the shots influencing the POTUS and his power spouse. ..."
"... Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have serious health problems they seek to disguise. Hillary and Bill have both had extensive cosmetic surgery. ..."
Blood Feud is a political hardball slammed into the guts of the two most powerful
couples in the Democratic Party. Ed Klein who won fame for his earlier ":The
Amateur": book about the Obama dysfunctional White House has returned with another
blockbuster rich with gossip and political junkie insider poop.
Among the
revelations of Mr Klein":
The Clintons and Obamas loathe one another.
The Clintons worked hard for Obama to be re-elected in 2008. They anticipated
that this support would result in Obama';s support for Hillary in her anticipated
2016 quest for the POTUS. This deal has not seen fruition. The Clintons
accuse Obama of lying and a lack of loyalty to the Clintons.
Michelle Obama wears the pants in the family as Barack is an uxorious
husband. Michelle has considered a run for the Illinois Senate seat but
is wary of this political race due to the hard work it would entail.
Valerie Jarrett is the third partner in the Obama marriage. She
is the mother figure Obama turns to for solace while she is Michelle';s
closet confidant. This tiger lady calls the shots influencing the POTUS
and his power spouse.
Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have serious health problems they
seek to disguise. Hillary and Bill have both had extensive cosmetic surgery.
Bill Clinton continues his adulterous ways.
Look for a Hillary run for president in 2016 in a campaign masterminded
by Bill. Both Clintons are eager to return to the White House.
Oprah Winfrey feels betrayed by the Obamas and has little to do with
them. She will probably support Hillary in 2016 as will Caroline and the
Kennedy family.
Hillary and the State Department screwed up the Benghazi terrorist attack
and covered up to protect their butts.
Obama has proven to be a weak chief executive who is unable to work
well with congressional leaders. Obama is not well respected in the Democratic
Party.
Edward Klein has done yeoman-like work in presenting this short but very
revealing look into the lives of the Clintons and Obamas.
All readers who want to learn more about the kind of people leading our nation
should read this book and have their eyes opened.
Recommended and controversial. Read it and decide what you think!
"... Fink has also promoted the privatization of Social Security, while mocking the idea of retiring at 65, which is easy for a business executive who sits at a desk all day to say, rather than working on an assembly line or as a waiter. ..."
"... Well it's dog eat dog and I gotta think about my own needs at this stage. Ergo, here I stay. And someone younger will have to wait. Not great. If I felt more secure about SS & Medicare, I would be more willing to retire sooner, rather than later. But not the way things look now. ..."
"... He was more than mildly successful in his own landscaping business after being forced out, but the way he was treated will forever remind me of what advantage some corporations will try to get away with, and has always persuaded me not to invest in my own company's, less protected 401(k) selections ..."
"... Never heard of this parasite, so thanks for the heads up. I'm sure HRC will find some very useful role for him in her admin. ..."
"... BlackRock is a blight. Ugh. Just gets worse by the day. ..."
"... Don't count out Jamie, nor Victoria Nuland as Secretary of State. ..."
"... Some role too for Samantha Powers. Ugh. ..."
"... The reason I will never ever vote for HRC is that every single thing that comes out of her mouth is horse manure. It's so easy for her to say, "I will raise taxes on the rich", for example, knowing full well that later she can just say "we tried, but it was not politically possible" due to any of a hundred reasons. ..."
"... Her campaign promises now are totally meaningless. I'm interested in possible third party candidates McAffee and Jesse Ventura, who could actually win the election, but if I have a choice between the Donald and the Hildabeast, I will choose Trump. ..."
Fink has also promoted the privatization of Social Security,
while mocking the idea of retiring at 65, which is easy for a business
executive who sits at a desk all day to say, rather than working on
an assembly line or as a waiter.
Yes, I know this is Dayen's quote and not Yves'.
But I'm disturbed every time I see this argument about "desk work" vs
"manual labor" WRT working longer. Its true of course but fails to recognize
that many who sit behind desks are also being forced out of their jobs (and
yes, this includes "business executives" too) well before 65, have little
chance of being hired for anything else and thus don't really have a choice
to work longer. Unless you're part of the super elite you're not much better
off than the manual laborer when it comes to staying employed past your
mid to late fifties, let alone your mid to late sixties.
I'm extremely lucky (and know it and am grateful) to have what is viewed
as a "desk job" as I approach my golden years. I am able to and plan to
keep working possibly into my early '70s. Why? Well for one thing: because
I can. For another, to save as much as possible just in case. Child of Depression
Era parents, yadda yadda. And if I can pass on something to my nieces and
nephews… well good.
The problem as I see it is not so much that I am able to continue working
into my 70s but that my ability to do so, combined with that sinking feeling
that I really should and need to due to current circumstances, is that I
am preventing someone younger from ascending the ladder. And at this time,
someone would definitely be hired or promoted to take my place.
Well it's dog eat dog and I gotta think about my own needs at this
stage. Ergo, here I stay. And someone younger will have to wait. Not great.
If I felt more secure about SS & Medicare, I would be more willing to retire
sooner, rather than later. But not the way things look now.
Can't find the details but I think I recall some startling tid bits about
W.T. Grant advising Reagan's commission on overhauling military retirement
pay (part of which was greatly increasing allowances for food clothing and
housing that were not included in retirement pay calculations). We had the
odd situations of retirees that retired early enough (grandfathered, I think),
that got higher retirement pay (based on 50% of base pay which, for them,
was a far higher percentage of their total pay) than those of us who retired
later, at higher total pay, but a lower percentage of base pay, such that
the earlier retirees cost of living raises outpaced our keeping up with
inflation).
After the deed was done, I thought I heard that only four or five W.T.
Grant employees that had built up substantial seniority that would have
provided healthy retirement pay were able to remain employed until they
reached 65 years of age (and that they were essentially senior executives
at or near the top).
The more common case seemed to be like my friend's father, a master of
many trades, seemingly a most effective employee in any position assigned,
as well as being a well regarded President of the Lions Club and active
in other civic minded organizations, promoted into a management position
at Uniroyal, seemingly to exempt him from union protection. They found his
capabilities "inadequate" at 17.5 years, just when he would have started
accumulating substantial retirement benefits.
He was more than mildly successful in his own landscaping business
after being forced out, but the way he was treated will forever remind me
of what advantage some corporations will try to get away with, and has always
persuaded me not to invest in my own company's, less protected 401(k) selections
(in my case, the once great Kodak).
The reason I will never ever vote for HRC is that every single thing
that comes out of her mouth is horse manure. It's so easy for her to say,
"I will raise taxes on the rich", for example, knowing full well that later
she can just say "we tried, but it was not politically possible" due to
any of a hundred reasons.
Her campaign promises now are totally meaningless. I'm interested
in possible third party candidates McAffee and Jesse Ventura, who could
actually win the election, but if I have a choice between the Donald and
the Hildabeast, I will choose Trump.
"... The fact that interventionists "want to believe" what they're told by opposition figures in other countries reflects their general naivete about the politics of the countries where they want to intervene and their absurd overconfidence in the efficacy of U.S. action in general. ..."
"... Interventionists usually can't imagine any "far-reaching" consequences that aren't good, and they are predisposed to ignore all the many ways that a country and an entire region can be harmed by destabilizing military action. That failure of imagination repeatedly produces poor decisions that result in ghastly policies that wreck the lives of millions of people. ..."
"... This captures exactly what's wrong with Clinton on foreign policy, and why she so often ends up on the wrong, hawkish side of foreign policy debates. First, she is biased in favor of action and meddling, and second she often identifies action with military intervention or some other aggressive, militarized measures. Clinton doesn't need to be argued into an interventionist policy, because she already "wants to believe" that is the proper course of action. That guarantees that she frequently backs reckless and unnecessary U.S. actions that cause far more misery and suffering than they remedy. ..."
"... This is revealing in a few ways. First, it shows how resistant the administration initially was and how important Clinton's support for the war was in getting the U.S. involved. ..."
"... It was already well-known that Clinton owns the Libyan intervention more than any U.S. official besides the president, and this week we're being reminded once more just how crucial her support for the war was in making it happen. ..."
The New York Times
reports on
Hillary Clinton's role in the Libyan war. This passage sums up much of what's wrong with how
Clinton and her supporters think about how the U.S. should respond to foreign conflicts:
Mrs. Clinton was won over. Opposition leaders "said all the right things about supporting democracy
and inclusivity and building Libyan institutions, providing some hope that we might be able to
pull this off," said Philip H. Gordon, one of her assistant secretaries. "They gave us
what we wanted to hear. And you do want to believe." [bold mine-DL]
It's not surprising that rebels seeking outside support against their government tell representatives
of that government things they want to hear, but it is deeply disturbing that our officials are frequently
so eager to believe that what they are being told was true. Our officials shouldn't "want to believe"
the self-serving propaganda of spokesmen for a foreign insurgency, especially when that leads to
U.S. military intervention on their behalf. They should be more cautious than normal when they are
hearing "all the right things." Not only should our officials know from previous episodes that the
people saying "all the right things" are typically conning Washington in the hopes of receiving support,
but they should assume that anyone saying "all the right things" either doesn't represent the forces
on the ground that the U.S. will be called on to support or is deliberately misrepresenting the conditions
on the ground to make U.S. involvement more attractive.
"Wanting to believe" in dubious or obviously bad causes in other countries is one of the biggest
problems with ideologically-driven interventionists from both parties. They aren't just willing to
take sides in foreign conflicts, but they are looking for an excuse to join them. As long as they
can get representatives of the opposition to repeat the required phrases and pay lip service to the
"right things," they will do their best to drag the U.S. into a conflict in which it has nothing
at stake. If that means pretending that terrorist groups are democrats and liberals, that is what
they'll do. If it means whitewashing the records of fanatics, that is what they'll do. Even if it
means inventing a "moderate" opposition out of thin air, they'll do it. This satisfies their desire
to meddle in other countries' affairs, it provides intervention with a superficial justification
that credulous pundits and talking heads will be only too happy to repeat, and it frees them from
having to come up with plans for what comes after the intervention on the grounds that the locals
will take care of it for them later on.
The fact that interventionists "want to believe" what they're told by opposition figures in
other countries reflects their general naivete about the politics of the countries where they want
to intervene and their absurd overconfidence in the efficacy of U.S. action in general. If one
takes for granted that there must be sympathetic liberals-in-waiting in another country that will
take over once a regime is toppled, one isn't going to worry about the negative and unintended consequences
of regime change. Because interventionists have difficulty imagining how U.S. intervention can go
awry or make things worse, they are also unlikely to be suspicious of the motives or goals of the
"good guys" they want the U.S. to support. They tend to assume the best about their would-be proxies
and allies, and they assume that the country will be in good hands once they are empowered. The fact
that this frequently backfires doesn't trouble these interventionists, who will have already moved
on to the next country in "need" of their special attentions.
The article continues:
The consequences would be more far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving
Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven, a place where the direst answers to Mrs. Clinton's
questions have come to pass.
If the article is referring to anyone in the administration, this might be true, but as a general
statement it couldn't be more wrong. Many skeptics and opponents of the intervention in Libya warned
about many of the things that the Libyan war and regime change have produced, and they issued these
warnings before and during the beginning of U.S. and allied bombing. Interventionists usually
can't imagine any "far-reaching" consequences that aren't good, and they are predisposed to ignore
all the many ways that a country and an entire region can be harmed by destabilizing military action.
That failure of imagination repeatedly produces poor decisions that result in ghastly policies that
wreck the lives of millions of people.
The report goes on to quote Anne-Marie Slaughter referring to Clinton's foreign policy inclinations:
"But when the choice is between action and inaction, and you've got risks in either direction,
which you often do, she'd rather be caught trying."
This captures exactly what's wrong with Clinton on foreign policy, and why she so often ends
up on the wrong, hawkish side of foreign policy debates. First, she is biased in favor of action
and meddling, and second she often identifies action with military intervention or some other aggressive,
militarized measures. Clinton doesn't need to be argued into an interventionist policy, because she
already "wants to believe" that is the proper course of action. That guarantees that she frequently
backs reckless and unnecessary U.S. actions that cause far more misery and suffering than they remedy.
Maybe the most striking section of the report was the description of the administration's initial
reluctance to intervene, which Clinton then successfully overcame:
France and Britain were pushing hard for a Security Council vote on a resolution supporting
a no-fly zone in Libya to prevent Colonel Qaddafi from slaughtering his opponents. Ms. Rice was
calling to push back, in characteristically salty language.
"She says, and I quote, 'You are not going to drag us into your shitty war,'" said Mr. Araud,
now France's ambassador in Washington. "She said, 'We'll be obliged to follow and support you,
and we don't want to.'
This is revealing in a few ways. First, it shows how resistant the administration initially
was and how important Clinton's support for the war was in getting the U.S. involved. It also
shows how confused everyone in the administration was about the obligations the U.S. owed to its
allies. The U.S. isn't obliged to indulge its allies' wars of choice, and it certainly doesn't have
to join them, but the administration was already conceding that the U.S. would "follow and support"
France and Britain in what they chose to do. As we know, in the end France and Britain definitely
could and did drag the U.S. into their "shitty war," and in that effort they received a huge assist
from Clinton.
It was already well-known that Clinton owns the Libyan intervention more than any U.S. official
besides the president, and this week we're being reminded once more just how crucial her support
for the war was in making it happen.
Financial oligarchy rule is now indisputable and subservience of politicians in congress and
administration is close to absolute. Financial oligarchy is the dominant power under neoliberalism.
No question about it. As Andrew Mellon (US Treasury Secretary, 1921 to 1932) used to say "Strong men
have sound ideas, and the force to make these ideas effective." Making Al Capone famous quote
more modern, "You can get more with a kind word and money than you can with a kind word alone."
Notable quotes:
"... I think that as Greenberger points out, once we were able to see Obama's early financial appointments, we knew that we had been had, once again. Despite his soaring rhetoric for change, he was a loyal member of the Wall Street wing. ..."
"... Obama and the Wall Street wing of the Democratic party, founded by the Clintons, is a brand , cobbled together and groomed for office by the moneyed interests, designed to misdirect and diffuse the angry reaction for reform by the people in the aftermath of the financial crisis. And it was a job well done. ..."
"... I strongly believe that Hillary has been and still remains a product of Wall Street money, and will continue to follow the money once in office no matter what rhetoric she may wear during any political campaign. ..."
Michael Greenberger has long been one of my favorite commenters on regulation, and in particular
on
futures price manipulation.
Within the context of the uphill battle against the status quo, Gary Gensler and Bart Chilton may
have looked 'good' as regulators, but all in all they looked better only by comparison with some very
horrible alternatives. Chilton, as you may recall, did not waste much time going through the
revolving door to put on the feedbag from the HFT crowd.
I think that as Greenberger points out, once we were able to see Obama's early financial appointments,
we knew that we had been had, once again. Despite his soaring rhetoric for change, he was a loyal
member of the Wall Street wing.
Obama and the Wall Street wing of the Democratic party, founded by the Clintons, is a
brand, cobbled together and groomed for office by the moneyed interests, designed
to misdirect and diffuse the angry reaction for reform by the people in the aftermath of the financial
crisis. And it was a job well done.
No matter what she says, no matter what promises she may make, no matter what identity branding
they may choose to spin for her, I strongly believe that Hillary has been and still remains a product
of Wall Street money, and will continue to follow the money once in office no matter what rhetoric
she may wear during any political campaign.
Further, the only major difference between the parties now is that the Republicans have sold out
wholesale to the moneyed interests, whereas the Dems have been doing it one despicable betrayal at
a time. They merely wear different masks. Money conquers all with this venal brood of vipers.
Financial reform comes with political campaign money reform. The two are inseparable.
"... A lot of commenters here do not understand the danger of yet another neocon warmonger as POTUS. A person who never has a war she did not like. They never experienced the horrors of wars in their lives. Only highly sanitized coverage from MSM. ..."
"... Demonizing of Trump went way too far in this forum. And a lot of commenters like most Web hamsters enjoy denigrating him, forgetting the fact that a vote for Hillary is the vote for a war criminal. ..."
"... Moreover, lesser evilism considerations are not working for war criminals. They are like absolute zero in Kelvin scale. You just can't go lower. ..."
"... But again those are secondary considerations. "War vs peace" question in the one that matters most. Another reckless warmongers and all bets might be off for the country (with an unexpected solution for global warming problem) ..."
Obama and Hill Clinton are Saudi tools same as W. Keeping AUMF going the
past 8 years lets W off a lot of the Iraq/WMD and Afghanistan hooks!
Bill's adventures included firing a general for commenting on the craziness
of losing people over Serbia.
Bill's evolutionary adventures in the Balkans are anti Russian neocon
trials. Their exceptionalism pushed Russia around and moved NATO eastward
reneging on deals Bush Sr. had with the Russians.
Hillary, extending Bill's neocon meme* over Ukraine and Libya are nearing
W level insanity.
Nuland (married to the neocon Kagan family) came with Strobe Talbot in
1993.
We really facing a vote for a person who would probably be convicted
by Nuremberg tribunal.
All those factors that are often discussed like Supreme court nominations,
estate tax, etc, are of secondary importance to the cardinal question --
"war vs peace" question.
A lot of commenters here do not understand the danger of yet another
neocon warmonger as POTUS. A person who never has a war she did not like.
They never experienced the horrors of wars in their lives. Only highly sanitized
coverage from MSM.
Demonizing of Trump went way too far in this forum. And a lot of commenters
like most Web hamsters enjoy denigrating him, forgetting the fact that a
vote for Hillary is the vote for a war criminal.
"Trump this and Trump that" blabbing can't hide this important consideration.
Moreover, lesser evilism considerations are not working for war criminals.
They are like absolute zero in Kelvin scale. You just can't go lower.
Moreover, after Bush II there is a consensus that are very few people
in the USA who are unqualified to the run the country. From this point of
view Trump is extremely qualified (and actually managed to master English
language unlike Bush II with his famous Bushisms ).
But again those are secondary considerations. "War vs peace" question
in the one that matters most. Another reckless warmongers and all bets might
be off for the country (with an unexpected solution for global warming problem)
"You're living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58% of your youth is unemployed.
What the hell do you have to lose" by voting for Trump? the candidate asked. "At the end of four
years, I guarantee I will get over 95% of the African American vote."
The statement – highly unlikely given how poorly Republicans fare among black voters – continues
a theme the GOP presidential nominee has pounded this week as he courted African American voters.
He said Democrats take black voters for granted and have ignored their needs while governing cities
with large African American populations.
"America must reject the bigotry of Hillary Clinton, who sees communities of color only as votes,
not as human beings worthy of a better future," he said of his Democratic opponent.
... ... ...
Trump argued that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's policies on issues such as
immigration and refugee resettlement harm African Americans.
=== quote ===
It has recently become commonplace to argue that globalization can leave people behind, and that
this can have severe political consequences. Since 23 June, this has even become conventional
wisdom. While I welcome this belated acceptance of the blindingly obvious, I can't but help feeling
a little frustrated, since this has been self-evident for many years now. What we are seeing,
in part, is what happens to conventional wisdom when, all of a sudden, it finds that it can no
longer dismiss as irrelevant something that had been staring it in the face for a long time.
=== end of quote ==
This is not about "conventional wisdom". This is about the power of neoliberal propaganda,
the power of brainwashing and indoctrination of population via MSM, schools and universities.
And "all of a sudden, it finds that it can no longer dismiss as irrelevant something that had
been staring it in the face for a long time." also has nothing to do with conventional wisdom.
This is about the crisis of neoliberal ideology and especially Trotskyism part of it (neoliberalism
can be viewed as Trotskyism for the rich). The following integral elements of this ideology no
longer work well and are starting to cause the backlash:
1. High level of inequality as the explicit, desirable goal (which raises the productivity).
"Greed is good" or "Trickle down economics" -- redistribution of wealth up will create (via higher
productivity) enough scrapes for the lower classes, lifting all boats.
2. "Neoliberal rationality" when everything is a commodity that should be traded at specific
market. Human beings also are viewed as market actors with every field of activity seen as a specialized
market. Every entity (public or private, person, business, state) should be governed as a firm.
"Neoliberalism construes even non-wealth generating spheres-such as learning, dating, or exercising-in
market terms, submits them to market metrics, and governs them with market techniques and practices."
People are just " human capital" who must constantly tend to their own present and future market
value.
3. Extreme financialization or converting the economy into "casino capitalism" (under neoliberalism
everything is a marketable good, that is traded on explicit or implicit exchanges.
4. The idea of the global, USA dominated neoliberal empire and related "Permanent war for permanent
peace" -- wars for enlarging global neoliberal empire via crushing non-compliant regimes either
via color revolutions or via open military intervention.
5. Downgrading ordinary people to the role of commodity and creating three classes of citizens
(moochers, or Untermensch, "creative class" and top 0.1%), with the upper class (0.1% or "Masters
of the Universe") being above the law like the top level of "nomenklatura" was in the USSR.
6. "Downsizing" sovereignty of nations via international treaties like TPP, and making transnational
corporations the key political players, "the deciders" as W aptly said. Who decide about level
of immigration flows, minimal wages, tariffs, and other matters that previously were prerogative
of the state.
So after 36 (or more) years of dominance (which started with triumphal march of neoliberalism
in early 90th) the ideology entered "zombie state". That does not make it less dangerous but its
power over minds of the population started to evaporate. Far right ideologies now are filling
the vacuum, as with the discreditation of socialist ideology and decimation of "enlightened corporatism"
of the New Deal in the USA there is no other viable alternatives.
The same happened in late 1960th with the Communist ideology. It took 20 years for the USSR
to crash after that with the resulting splash of nationalism (which was the force that blow up
the USSR) and far right ideologies.
It remains to be seen whether the neoliberal US elite will fare better then Soviet nomenklatura
as challenges facing the USA are now far greater then challenges which the USSR faced at the time.
Among them is oil depletion which might be the final nail into the coffin of neoliberalism and,
specifically, the neoliberal globalization.
"... As the de facto test subjects for the inexorable media-fueled march of this ubiquitous global model, disparate groups worldwide have become the unwitting faces of revolt against inevitability. Anonymized behind the august facades of global financial institutions, neoliberal capitalism under TINA has produced political rage, confusion, panic and a worldwide search for scapegoats and alternatives across the political spectrum. ..."
"... McWorld cuts its destructive path under a self-promoting presumption of historic inevitability, because after more than four decades of the TINA narrative, the underlying rationale of market predestination is no longer economic. It is theological. ..."
"... Descriptions such as "free-market fundamentalism" and "market orthodoxy" are not mere figures of speech. They point to a deeper, technologically powered religious metamorphosis of capitalism that needs to be understood before a meaningful political response can be mounted. One does not have to be Christian, nor Catholic, to appreciate Pope Francis' warnings against the danger to Christian values from "a deified market" with its "globalization of indifference." The pope is explicitly acknowledging a new theology of capital whose core ethos runs counter to the values of both classical and religious humanism. ..."
"... Under the radically altered metaphysics of theologized capitalism, market outcomes are sacred and inevitable. Conversely, humanity and the natural world have been desacralized and defined as malleable forms of expendable and theoretically inexhaustible capital. Even life-sustaining ecosystems and individual human subjectivity are subsumed under a market rubric touted as historically preordained. ..."
"... Economic historian Karl Polanyi warned in 1944 that a false utopian belief in the ability of unfettered markets to produce naturally balanced outcomes would produce instead a dystopian "stark utopia." Today's political chaos represents a spontaneous and uncoordinated eruption of resistance against this encroaching sense of inevitable dystopianism. As Barber noted, what he refers to as "Jihad" is not a strictly Islamic phenomenon. It is localism, tribalism, particularism or sometimes classical republicanism taking a stand, often violently, acting as de facto social and political antibodies against the viral contagions of McWorld. ..."
"... The historically ordained march of theologized neoliberal capitalism depends for its continuation on a belief by individuals that they are powerless against putatively inevitable forces of market-driven globalization. ..."
"... One lesson nonetheless seems clear. The "power of the powerless" has been awakened globally. Whether this awakening will spark a movement towards equitable, ecologically sustainable democratic self-governance is an open question. ..."
In the wake of the June 23 Brexit vote, global media have bristled with headlines
declaring the Leave victory to be the latest sign of a historic
rejection of "globalization" by working-class voters on both sides of the
Atlantic. While there is an element of truth in this analysis, it misses the
deeper historical currents coursing beneath the dramatic headlines. If our politics
seem disordered at the moment, the blame lies not with globalization alone but
with the "There Is No Alternative" (TINA) philosophy of neoliberal market inevitability
that has driven it for nearly four decades.
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher introduced the TINA acronym to the
world in a 1980 policy speech that proclaimed
"There Is No Alternative" to a global neoliberal capitalist order. Thatcher's
vision for this new order was predicated on the market-as-god economic philosophy
she had distilled from the work of
Austrian School economists such as Friedrich Hayek and her own fundamentalist
Christian worldview. Western political life today has devolved into a series
of increasingly desperate and inchoate reactions against a sense of fatal historical
entrapment originally encoded in Thatcher's TINA credo of capitalist inevitability.
If this historical undercurrent is ignored, populist revolt will not produce
much-needed democratic reform. It will instead be exploited by fascistic nationalist
demagogues and turned into a dangerous search for political scapegoats.
The Rebellion Against Inevitability
Thatcher's formulation of neoliberal inevitability manifested itself in a
de facto policy cocktail of public sector budget cuts, privatization, financial
deregulation, tax cuts for the rich, globalization of capital flows and militarization
that were the hallmarks of her administration and a
template for the future of the world's developed economies. After the 1991
collapse of the Soviet Union, whose coercive state socialism represented capitalism's
last great power alternative, the underlying philosophy of economic inevitability
that informed TINA seemed like a prescient divination of cosmic design, with
giddy neoconservatives declaring the "end of history" and the triumph of
putatively democratic capitalism over all other historical alternatives.
Nearly four decades later, with neoliberalism having swept the globe in triumph
through a mix of technological innovation, exploitative financial engineering
and brute force, eclipsing its tenuous democratic underpinnings in the process,
disgraced British Prime Minister David Cameron maintained his devotion to TINA
right up to the moment of Brexit. In a 2013 speech delivered as his government
was preparing a
budget that proposed 40 percent cuts in social welfare spending , sweeping
privatization, wider war in Central Asia and continued austerity, he lamented
that "If there was another way, I would take it.
But there
is no alternative." Although they may want a change of makeup or clothes,
every G7 head of state heeds TINA's siren song of market inevitability.
As the de facto test subjects for the inexorable media-fueled march of
this ubiquitous global model, disparate groups worldwide have become the unwitting
faces of revolt against inevitability. Anonymized behind the august facades
of global financial institutions, neoliberal capitalism under TINA has produced
political rage, confusion, panic and a worldwide search for scapegoats and alternatives
across the political spectrum.
The members of ISIS have rejected the highest ideals of Islam in their search
for an alternative. Environmental activists attempt to counter the end-of-history
narrative at the heart of TINA with the scientific inevitability of global climate-induced
ecological catastrophe. Donald Trump offers a racial or foreign scapegoat for
every social and economic malady created by TINA, much like the far-right nationalist
parties emerging across Europe, while Bernie Sanders focuses on billionaires
and Wall Street. Leftist movements such as Podemos in Spain or Syriza in Greece
also embody attempted declarations of revolt against the narrative of inevitability,
as do the angry votes for Brexit in England and Wales.
Without judging or implying equality in the value of these varied expressions
of resistance, except to denounce the murderous ethos of ISIS and any other
call to violence or racism, it is clear that each offers seeming alternatives
to TINA's suffocating inevitability, and each attracts its own angry audience.
"Jihad" vs. "McWorld" and the New Theology of Capital
Benjamin Barber's 1992 essay and subsequent book, Jihad vs. McWorld
, is a better guide to the current politics of rage than the daily news
media. Barber describes a historic post-Soviet clash between the identity politics
of tribalism ("Jihad") and the forced financial and cultural integration of
corporate globalism ("McWorld").
McWorld is the financially integrated and omnipresent transnational order
of wired capitalism that has anointed itself the historic guardian of Western
civilization. It is viciously undemocratic in its pursuit of unrestricted profits
and violently punitive in response to any hint of economic apostasy. (See
Greece .) This new economic order offers the illusion of modernity with
its globally wired infrastructure and endless stream of consumerist spectacles,
but beneath the high-tech sheen, it is
spiritually empty , predicated on
permanent war ,
global poverty and is
destroying the biosphere .
McWorld cuts its destructive path under a self-promoting presumption
of historic inevitability, because after more than four decades of the TINA
narrative, the underlying rationale of market predestination is no longer economic.
It is theological. A historic transformation of market-based economic ideology
into theology underpins modern capitalism's instrumentalized view of human nature
and nature itself.
Descriptions such as
"free-market fundamentalism" and "market orthodoxy" are not mere figures
of speech. They point to a deeper, technologically powered religious metamorphosis
of capitalism that needs to be understood before a meaningful political response
can be mounted. One does not have to be Christian, nor Catholic, to appreciate
Pope Francis' warnings against the danger to Christian values from "a deified
market" with its "globalization of indifference." The pope is explicitly acknowledging
a new theology of capital whose core ethos runs counter to the values of both
classical and religious humanism.
Under the radically altered metaphysics of theologized capitalism, market
outcomes are sacred and inevitable. Conversely, humanity and the natural world
have been desacralized and defined as malleable forms of expendable and theoretically
inexhaustible capital. Even life-sustaining ecosystems and individual human
subjectivity are subsumed under a market rubric touted as historically preordained.
This is a crucial difference between capitalism today and capitalism even
50 years ago that is not only theological but apocalyptic in its refusal to
acknowledge limits. It has produced a global, social and economic order that
is increasingly feudal, while also connected via digital technologies.
Economic historian
Karl Polanyi warned in 1944 that a false utopian belief in the ability of
unfettered markets to produce naturally balanced outcomes would produce instead
a dystopian "stark utopia." Today's political chaos represents a spontaneous
and uncoordinated eruption of resistance against this encroaching sense of inevitable
dystopianism. As Barber noted, what he refers to as "Jihad" is not a strictly
Islamic phenomenon. It is localism, tribalism, particularism or sometimes classical
republicanism taking a stand, often violently, acting as de facto social and
political antibodies against the viral contagions of McWorld.
Pessimistic Optimism
The historically ordained march of theologized neoliberal capitalism
depends for its continuation on a belief by individuals that they are powerless
against putatively inevitable forces of market-driven globalization. It
is too early to know where the widely divergent outbreaks of resistance on display
in 2016 will lead, not least because they are uncoordinated, often self-contradictory
or profoundly undemocratic, and are arising in a maelstrom of confusion about
core causation.
One lesson nonetheless seems clear. The
"power of the powerless" has been awakened globally. Whether this awakening
will spark a movement towards equitable, ecologically sustainable democratic
self-governance is an open question. Many of today's leading political
theorists caution against an
outdated Enlightenment belief in progress and extol the
virtues of philosophic pessimism as a hedge against historically groundless
optimism. Amid today's fevered populist excitements triggered by a failure of
utopian faith in market inevitability, such cautionary thinking seems like sound
political advice. Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without
permission .
Michael Meurer is the founder of Meurer Education, a project offering classes
on the US political system in Latin American universities while partnering with
local education micro-projects to assist them with publicity and funding. Michael
is also president of Meurer Group & Associates, a strategic consultancy with
offices in Los Angeles and Denver.
"... Near the start of the speech, Clinton said, "We are an exceptional nation because we are an
indispensable nation. In fact, we are the indispensable nation." That isn't true, but Clinton's acceptance
of this claim confirms that she understands "American exceptionalism" in a particularly warped way that
justifies interfering all over the globe. That is what Albright's "indispensable nation" rhetoric meant
twenty years ago, and it's what Clinton's rhetoric means today. ..."
"... Cozying up to authoritarian rulers has been and continues to be a significant part of U.S.
"leadership," and if you are in favor of the latter you are going to be stuck with the former. This
rhetoric is especially absurd coming from someone who has repeatedly stressed the importance of supporting
U.S. clients in the Gulf. ..."
"... Overall, Clinton's speech could have been given by a conventional Republican hawk, and some
of the lines could have been lifted from the speeches of some of this year's Republican presidential
contenders. ..."
"... That's exactly what Clinton believes, unfortunately. When she unveiled her "stronger together"
slogan, one of the points she made was that we should have "a bipartisan, even non-partisan foreign
policy." She is basically a Scoop Jackson Democrat. ..."
"... Bill Kristol used to call himself a Scoop Jackson Democrat, too. Maybe he will again. Hillary
must be the only person left who actually thinks embracing the neocons is a way to win votes. But if
that were true, Rubio would be the GOP nominee, rather than the guy who, for all his many faults, didn't
pander to them. ..."
"... Cozying up to dictators is bad, unless they donate large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation.
In that case, you're not "cozying up" to the dictators - you're "reassuring allies" and "protecting
America's credibility." ..."
"... Would the mushroom cloud campaign ad that obliterated the Goldwater candidacy have the same
effect today upon a neocon candidate? Is the ad even copyrighted or otherwise available? ..."
"... Has the American Legion given any Democrat running for president a warm response? Muted sounds
about right to me. Clinton was speaking to many more people than the audience in front of her. She won't
get very many votes from those in the military. No Democrat ever does. Undecided voters (all 2 or 3%
of them), especially Republicans are her real target audience. She looks to sound suitably strong more
important, calm and measured. A safe if not perfect choice for President. Old World Order , August 31,
2016 at 4:32 pm She has learned nothing. Nothing at all. Indeed, she just doubled down on permanent
war. Not surprising, but deeply depressing all the same. ..."
"... If our foreign policy wasn't so obviously failed, I wouldn't mind bipartisan consensus but
since it is FUBAR, I want something new. I just wish I had the ear of any of my fellow Republicans who
consider themselves Religious Conservatives. I just can't get over their blind faith in U.S. hegemony,
especially when they screech at the thought of U.S. politicians doing something as benign as running
a Transportation Fund. Yet they have no problem inflicting these imbeciles with life and death decisions
on the rest of the world. ..."
"... When I see Ted Cruz or a Rubio gaze into the camera about how vital it is for the U.S. to suppress
Russia and China and run the M.E. (they use different words), it astounds me since it contradicts the
Protestant tradition so much where one should be suspicious of human nature. ..."
"... Indispensable to what? Wholesale destabilization of the Middle East? ..."
"... I don't want Trump to win, but neither do I want Clinton to think she has a mandate for this
kind of militarism. Sadly, when it comes foreign policy, it appears not to matter which party has the
presidency anymore. ..."
"... Meanwhile, over at the WaPo, neocon cheerleader Jennifer Rubin loves the same speech: Hillary
Clinton is a responsible centrist .. . ..."
"... If she gets elected I see a high probability of a hot war with Russia. She wouldn't start it
intentionally, it would be the pinnacle of our foreign policy establishment living in their own reality.
I actually have a scenario in mind, when I read Russian sourced sites it strengthens my convictions.
To bad our 'Russian experts' use Ouija boards and entrails instead of actually studying the Russians.
..."
"... Don't be surprised if Clinton pushes Russia to the edge or the US gets mired in a proxy war
with Russia. Everything is a Russian hack/conspiracy these days. They will find a reason to start something.
Smells like yellow cake to me. ..."
"... Hilary should figure out that she is losing votes to Johnson and Stein and perhaps tone back
the rhetoric. Granted she was probably trying to look all Commander in Chiefy but she is so tone deaf
on this stuff. ..."
"... The problem is that the cult that passes for Conservatives in this country values strength
over all. Clinton cannot afford to come across as weak to these people. She is aiming exactly for the
Jennifer Rubins of the world. In America, we do the strong thing, even if it is the wrong thing, because
we will go to hell if we appear to be weak. ..."
Hillary Clinton's
speech to the American Legion in Cincinnati didn't contain anything new or surprising. It was
billed as an endorsement of "American exceptionalism" defined as support for activist foreign policy
and global "leadership," and that is what Clinton delivered. One thing that struck me while listening
to it was the muted response from the audience. Despite Clinton's fairly heavy-handed efforts to
present herself as a friend of veterans and champion of the military, the crowd didn't seem very
impressed. The delivery of the speech was typically wooden, but then no one expects stirring oratory
from Clinton. Either the audience wasn't interested in what they were hearing, or they found Clinton
to be a poor messenger, or both.
The substance was mostly boilerplate cheerleading for the status quo in foreign policy, but a
few particularly jarring lines stood out. Near the start of the speech, Clinton said, "We are
an exceptional nation because we are an indispensable nation. In fact, we are the indispensable
nation." That isn't true, but Clinton's acceptance of this claim confirms that she understands "American
exceptionalism" in a particularly warped way that justifies interfering all over the globe. That
is what Albright's "indispensable nation" rhetoric meant twenty years ago, and it's what Clinton's
rhetoric means today.
Clinton thought that she was dinging Trump when she said, "We can't cozy up to dictators." That
would be all right if it were true, but it is hard to take seriously from a committed supporter of
U.S. "leadership." Cozying up to authoritarian rulers has been and continues to be a significant
part of U.S. "leadership," and if you are in favor of the latter you are going to be stuck with the
former. This rhetoric is especially absurd coming from someone who has repeatedly stressed the importance
of supporting U.S. clients in the Gulf. Clinton has made a point of promising that the U.S.
will stay quite cozy with our despotic clients when she is president, and it is likely that the U.S.
will probably get even cozier still if she has anything to say about it.
Overall, Clinton's speech could have been given by a conventional Republican hawk, and some
of the lines could have been lifted from the speeches of some of this year's Republican presidential
contenders. There were brief nods to the nuclear deal with Iran and New START that a Republican
wouldn't have made, but they were only mentioned in passing. Clinton insisted that "America must
lead" and conjured up a vision of the vacuums that would be created if the U.S. did not do this.
This is a standard hawkish line that implies that the U.S. always has to be involved in conflict
and crises no matter how little the U.S. has at stake in them.
At one point, Clinton asserted, "Defending American exceptionalism should always be above politics."
That amounts to saying that our foreign policy debates should always be narrowly circumscribed and
most of our current policies should always remain beyond challenge or major revision. That's not
healthy for the quality of our foreign policy debates or our foreign policy as a whole, and it shows
the degree to which Clinton is out of touch with much of the country that she thinks this is a credible
thing to say.
"At one point, Clinton asserted, 'Defending American exceptionalism should always be above politics.'
That amounts to saying that our foreign policy debates should always be narrowly circumscribed
and most of our current policies should always remain beyond challenge or major revision."
That's exactly what Clinton believes, unfortunately. When she unveiled her "stronger together"
slogan, one of the points she made was that we should have "a bipartisan, even non-partisan foreign
policy." She is basically a Scoop Jackson Democrat.
Broad consensus is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I'd argue that some degree of consensus
is necessary in order for a democratic system to function. But any such consensus should emerge
from vigorous debate, which does not exist in Washington or in the mainstream media. It should
not be simply imposed on the country by an unchallenged, ossified elite that is either stuck in
the Cold War past or has a vested interest in renewing the Cold War.
Bill Kristol used to call himself a Scoop Jackson Democrat, too. Maybe he will again. Hillary
must be the only person left who actually thinks embracing the neocons is a way to win votes.
But if that were true, Rubio would be the GOP nominee, rather than the guy who, for all his many
faults, didn't pander to them.
Cozying up to dictators is bad, unless they donate large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation.
In that case, you're not "cozying up" to the dictators - you're "reassuring allies" and "protecting
America's credibility."
Would the mushroom cloud campaign ad that obliterated the Goldwater candidacy have the same
effect today upon a neocon candidate? Is the ad even copyrighted or otherwise available?
Has the American Legion given any Democrat running for president a warm response? Muted sounds
about right to me. Clinton was speaking to many more people than the audience in front of her.
She won't get very many votes from those in the military. No Democrat ever does.
Undecided voters (all 2 or 3% of them), especially Republicans are her real target audience.
She looks to sound suitably strong more important, calm and measured. A safe if not perfect choice
for President.
She has learned nothing. Nothing at all. Indeed, she just doubled down on permanent war. Not
surprising, but deeply depressing all the same.
Here's hoping that someone – anyone, really – keeps this loathsome throwback to the worst aspects
of US foreign policy of the past 20 years out of the White House.
If our foreign policy wasn't so obviously failed, I wouldn't mind bipartisan consensus but
since it is FUBAR, I want something new. I just wish I had the ear of any of my fellow Republicans
who consider themselves Religious Conservatives. I just can't get over their blind faith in U.S.
hegemony, especially when they screech at the thought of U.S. politicians doing something as benign
as running a Transportation Fund. Yet they have no problem inflicting these imbeciles with life
and death decisions on the rest of the world.
When I see Ted Cruz or a Rubio gaze into the camera about how vital it is for the U.S.
to suppress Russia and China and run the M.E. (they use different words), it astounds me since
it contradicts the Protestant tradition so much where one should be suspicious of human nature.
Do these people believe that corrupt politicians in the U.S. are suddenly anointed by God and
transformed into world leaders in a sudden act of Grace? Sorry for the rant but I would seriously
love to ask someone this question. This is not a troll at all. I have pondered this many times.
How would Huckabee respond to this? He wrote a lucid essay on Iran about 10yrs ago before he went
full Neocon.
What a choice we face in November – give full executive authority to either:
1. The volatile vulgarian who is smart enough to reject the tired nation-building, Democracy
Evangelization, Responsibility-to-Protect, and other dangerous establishment policies. But who
doesn't think much at all about foreign policy and could even blunder into a big war out of personal
pique.
OR
2. The champion of mindless and discredited bellicosity. Who is - probably - smart enough to
avoid a new large ground war or nuclear despite her dangerous anti-Russian rhetoric, but who will
CERTAINLY initiate one or more new unnecessary, unjust and futile military interventions.
I wish she would stop putting out this nonsense. I really don't want to skip my vote for president,
but this sort of nonsense leaves me cold. I don't want Trump to win, but neither do I want
Clinton to think she has a mandate for this kind of militarism. Sadly, when it comes foreign policy,
it appears not to matter which party has the presidency anymore.
We are an Exceptional nation because we are an Indispensable nation
This is a tautology. You can swap the words exceptional and indispensable and have the exact
same sentence.
Commenter Man, yet another example of how people will create their own reality. I am certain
I will read the same tripe tomorrow when I peruse the links on 'realclearpolitics.com'. It is
the only Neocon portal that I bother with.
If she gets elected I see a high probability of a hot war with Russia. She wouldn't start
it intentionally, it would be the pinnacle of our foreign policy establishment living in their
own reality. I actually have a scenario in mind, when I read Russian sourced sites it strengthens
my convictions. To bad our 'Russian experts' use Ouija boards and entrails instead of actually
studying the Russians.
Don't be surprised if Clinton pushes Russia to the edge or the US gets mired in a proxy war
with Russia. Everything is a Russian hack/conspiracy these days. They will find a reason to start
something. Smells like yellow cake to me.
Hilary should figure out that she is losing votes to Johnson and Stein and perhaps tone back
the rhetoric. Granted she was probably trying to look all Commander in Chiefy but she is so tone
deaf on this stuff.
The problem is that the cult that passes for Conservatives in this country values strength
over all. Clinton cannot afford to come across as weak to these people. She is aiming exactly
for the Jennifer Rubins of the world. In America, we do the strong thing, even if it is the wrong
thing, because we will go to hell if we appear to be weak.
"... It is fascinating that younger US neoliberals (e.g. Matthew Yglesias) are totally sold on the the positives of 'metrics', statistics, testing, etc, to the point where they ignore all the negatives of those approaches, but absolutely and utterly loathe being tracked, having the performance of their preferred policies and predictions analyzed, and called out on the failures thereof. Is sure seems to me that the campaign to quash the use of the US, Charles Peters version of neoliberal is part of the effort to avoid accountability for their actions. ..."
"... If "conservative" is to be a third way to the opposition of "reactionary" and "revolutionary", the "liberals" are a species of conservative - like all conservatives, seeking to preserve the existing order as far as this is possible, but appealing to reason, reason's high principles, and a practical politics of incremental reform and "inevitable" progress. The liberals disguise their affection for social and political hierarchy as a preference for "meritocracy" and place their faith in the powers of Reason and Science to discover Truth. ..."
"... Liberalism adopts nationalism as a vehicle for popular mobilization which conservatives can share and as an ideal of governance, the self-governing democratic nation-state with a liberal constitution. ..."
"... It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject failures of Liberalism that created fascism. ..."
"... he Liberal projects to create liberal democratic nation-states ran aground in Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia between 1870 and 1910 and instead of gradual reform of the old order, Europe experienced catastrophic collapse, and Liberalism was ill-prepared to devise working governments and politics in the crisis that followed. ..."
"... What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were arguably results of the earlier program's success. ..."
= = = I am actually honestly suggesting an intellectual exercise which, I think, might
be worth your (extremely valuable) time. I propose you rewrite this post without using the
word "neoliberalism" (or a synonym). = = =
It is fascinating that younger US neoliberals (e.g. Matthew Yglesias) are totally sold
on the the positives of 'metrics', statistics, testing, etc, to the point where they ignore all
the negatives of those approaches, but absolutely and utterly loathe being tracked, having the
performance of their preferred policies and predictions analyzed, and called out on the failures
thereof. Is sure seems to me that the campaign to quash the use of the US, Charles Peters version
of neoliberal is part of the effort to avoid accountability for their actions.
bruce wilder 09.03.16 at 7:47 pm
In the politics of antonyms, I suppose we are always going get ourselves confused.
Perhaps because of American usage of the root, liberal, to mean the mildly social democratic
New Deal liberal Democrat, with its traces of American Populism and American Progressivism, we
seem to want "liberal" to designate an ideology of the left, or at least, the centre-left. Maybe,
it is the tendency of historical liberals to embrace idealistic high principles in their contest
with reactionary claims for hereditary aristocracy and arbitrary authority.
If "conservative" is to be a third way to the opposition of "reactionary" and "revolutionary",
the "liberals" are a species of conservative - like all conservatives, seeking to preserve the
existing order as far as this is possible, but appealing to reason, reason's high principles,
and a practical politics of incremental reform and "inevitable" progress. The liberals disguise
their affection for social and political hierarchy as a preference for "meritocracy" and place
their faith in the powers of Reason and Science to discover Truth.
All of that is by way of preface to a thumbnail history of modern political ideology different
from the one presented by Will G-R.
Modern political ideology is a by-product of the Enlightenment and the resulting imperative
to find a basis and purpose for political Authority in Reason, and apply Reason to the design
of political and social institutions.
Liberalism doesn't so much defeat conservatism as invent conservatism as an alternative to
purely reactionary politics. The notion of an "inevitable progress" allows liberals to reconcile
both themselves and their reactionary opponents to practical reality with incremental reform.
Political paranoia and rhetoric are turned toward thinking about constitutional design.
Mobilizing mass support and channeling popular discontents is a source of deep ambivalence
and risk for liberals and liberalism. Popular democracy can quickly become noisy and vulgar, the
proliferation of ideas and conflicting interests paralyzing. Inventing a conservatism that competes
with the liberals, but also mobilizes mass support and channels popular discontent, puts bounds
on "normal" politics.
Liberalism adopts nationalism as a vehicle for popular mobilization which conservatives
can share and as an ideal of governance, the self-governing democratic nation-state with a liberal
constitution.
I would put the challenges to liberalism from the left and right well behind in precedence
the critical failures and near-failures of liberalism in actual governance.
Liberalism failed abjectly to bring about a constitutional monarchy in France during the first
decade of the French Revolution, or a functioning deliberative assembly or religious toleration
or even to resolve the problems of state finance and legal administration that destroyed the ancient
regime. In the end, the solution was found in Napoleon Bonaparte, a precedent that would arguably
inspire the fascism of dictators and vulgar nationalism, beginning with Napoleon's nephew fifty
years later.
It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject
failures of Liberalism that created fascism. And, this was especially true in the wake of
World War I, which many have argued persuasively was Liberalism's greatest and most catastrophic
failure. T he Liberal projects to create liberal democratic nation-states ran aground in Germany,
Austria-Hungary and Russia between 1870 and 1910 and instead of gradual reform of the old order,
Europe experienced catastrophic collapse, and Liberalism was ill-prepared to devise working governments
and politics in the crisis that followed.
If liberals invented conservatism, it seems to me that would-be socialists were at pains to
re-invent liberalism, and they did it several times going in radically different directions, but
always from a base in the basic liberal idea of rationalizing authority. A significant thread
in socialism adopted incremental progress and socialist ideas became liberal and conservative
means for taming popular discontent in an increasingly urban society.
Where and when liberalism actually was triumphant, both the range of liberal views and the
range of interests presenting a liberal front became too broad for a stable politics. Think about
the Liberal Party landslide of 1906, which eventually gave rise to the Labour Party in its role
of Left Party in the British two-party system. Or FDR's landslide in 1936, which played a pivotal
role in the march of the Southern Democrats to the Right. Or the emergence of the Liberal Consensus
in American politics in the late 1950s.
What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism
running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial
in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were
arguably results of the earlier program's success.
It is almost a rote reaction to talk about the Republican's Southern Strategy, but they didn't
invent the crime wave that enveloped the country in the late 1960s or the riots that followed
the enactment of Civil Rights legislation.
Will G-R's "As soon [as] liberalism feels it can plausibly claim to have . . .overcome the
socialist and fascist challenges [liberals] are empowered to act as if liberalism's adaptive response
to the socialist and fascist challenges was never necessary in the first place - bye bye welfare
state, hello neoliberalism" doesn't seem to me to concede enough to Clinton and Blair entrepreneurially
inventing a popular politics in response to Reagan and Thatcher, after the actual failures
of an older model of social democratic programs and populist politics on its behalf.
I write more about this
over at
my blog (in a somewhat different context).
John Quiggin 09.04.16 at 6:57 am
RW @113 I wrote a whole book using "market liberalism" instead of "neoliberalism", since I wanted
a term more neutral and less pejorative. So, going back to "neoliberalism" was something I did
advisedly. You say
The word is abstract and has completely different meanings west and east of the Atlantic. In
the USA it refers to weak tea center leftisms. In Europe to hard core liberalism.
Well, yes. That's precisely why I've used the term, introduced the hard/soft distinction and explained
the history. The core point is that, despite their differences soft (US meaning) and hard (European
meaning) neoliberalism share crucial aspects of their history, theoretical foundations and policy
implications.
=== quote ===
Neoliberalism is an ideology of market fundamentalism based on deception that promotes "markets"
as a universal solution for all human problems in order to hide establishment of neo-fascist regime
(pioneered by Pinochet in Chile), where militarized government functions are limited to external
aggression and suppression of population within the country (often via establishing National Security
State using "terrorists" threat) and corporations are the only "first class" political players.
Like in classic corporatism, corporations are above the law and can rule the country as they see
fit, using political parties for the legitimatization of the regime.
The key difference with classic fascism is that instead of political dominance of the corporations
of particular nation, those corporations are now transnational and states, including the USA are
just enforcers of the will of transnational corporations on the population. Economic or "soft"
methods of enforcement such as debt slavery and control of employment are preferred to brute force
enforcement. At the same time police is militarized and due to technological achievements the
level of surveillance surpasses the level achieved in Eastern Germany.
Like with bolshevism in the USSR before, high, almost always hysterical, level of neoliberal
propaganda and scapegoating of "enemies" as well as the concept of "permanent war for permanent
peace" are used to suppress the protest against the wealth redistribution up (which is the key
principle of neoliberalism) and to decimate organized labor.
Multiple definitions of neoliberalism were proposed. Three major attempts to define this social
system were made:
Definitions stemming from the concept of "casino capitalism"
Definitions stemming from the concept of Washington consensus
Definitions stemming from the idea that Neoliberalism is Trotskyism for the rich. This
idea has two major variations:
Definitions stemming from Professor Wendy Brown's concept of Neoliberal rationality
which developed the concept of Inverted Totalitarism of Sheldon Wolin
Definitions stemming Professor Sheldon Wolin's older concept of Inverted Totalitarism
- "the heavy statism forging the novel fusions of economic with political power that he
took to be poisoning democracy at its root." (Sheldon Wolin and Inverted Totalitarianism
Common Dreams )
The first two are the most popular.
likbez 09.04.16 at 5:03 pm
bruce,
@117
Thanks for your post. It contains several important ideas:
"It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject failures
of Liberalism that created fascism."
"What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism
running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial
in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were
arguably results of the earlier program's success."
Moreover as Will G-R noted:
"neoliberalism will be every bit the wellspring of fascism that old-school liberalism was."
Failure of neoliberalism revives neofascist, far right movements. That's what the rise of far
right movements in Europe now demonstrates pretty vividly.
"... The article cheekily flags the infamous case of the Chicago Boys, Milton Friedman's followers in Pinochet's Chile, as having been falsely touted as a success. If anything, the authors are too polite in describing what a train wreck resulted. A plutocratic land grab and speculation-fueled bubble led quickly to a depression, forcing Pinochet to implement Keynesian policies, as well as rolling back labor "reforms," to get the economy back on its feet. ..."
"... Overly mobile capital , meaning unrestricted cross-border money flows. The IMF paper points out that while the neoliberals claim that freely mobile money helps growth, there's not much concrete evidence to support that. By contrast, higher levels of capital flows lead to more instability and more frequent and severe financial and economic crisis. Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart determined that high levels of international capital flows were strongly correlated with bigger and nastier financial crises. The BIS also made a persuasive, well-documented case that excessive "financial elasticity" which means lots of cross-border funds mobility that can quickly collapse, was the cause of the 2008 crisis. ..."
"... It's also hard to see how highly mobile money can be a plus, particularly for smaller and even not so small economies. Look at the how much the yen has moved over the past decade. How can investors in things that would actually make an economy more productive (foreign direct investment, such as factories and other operations) make any kind of accurate assessment of returns to cross border investment with so much foreign exchange volatility? And that uncertainty will lead a foreign investor to require a higher rate of return. Similarly, even if there were measurable benefits from highly mobile money movements, the costs of the busts need to be offset against that. It's pretty hard to see how you "offset" the cost of the blowup just past, whose total cost is estimated at one times global GDP. ..."
"... The publication of this IMF paper is a sign that the zeitgeist is, years after the crisis, finally shifting. It is becoming too hard to maintain the pretense that the policies that produced the global financial crisis, which are almost entirely still intact, are working. And the elites and their economic alchemists may also recognize that if they don't change course pretty soon, they risk the loss of not just legitimacy but control. With Trump and Le Pen at the barricades, the IMF wake-up call may be too late. ..."
"... Call me a cynic, but something tells me this won't change anything for the people currently suffering under the IMF yoke. IMF has put out plenty of papers that actually take a realistic look at the world, but it hasn't stopped them from pursuing policies essentially guaranteed to immiserate the majority of the population. ..."
"... you finally figured out that neo-liberalism isn't all it's cracked up to be? Well what a bunch of frickin' geniuses! ..."
"... The point of the shifting rhetoric is not to introduce policies that will better serve the poor, or the citizenry generally, it is a defensive action on the part of the elites to maintain their legitimacy and control. ..."
"... even worse, it just proves that they are able to learn to speak the right language about the economy. while we peons wait on for the inevitable co-optation and corruption of it towards elite ends once again. ..."
"... All power flows from the barrel of a gun. ..."
"... Jefferson – Nice treason going eh? Boy some overconfident are in for a shock. The French army thought they were the shit until longbowmen showed up. Enough said. As to this article. No, there is no free lunch. There could be a free snack if the money was directed at productive endeavors. But they did not and now trust and the social contract is totally broken. Even Larry Summers by 2010 was calling for a new one. That all said, the last 40 years elite did get some good advancements in science and medicine done. I'll give credit where it is due but the empire building shit isn't a plus, that is for sure. ..."
"... Something that always bears repeating is that a split in elite factions is essential to implementing real change. Access to power, money, and influence is what is needed to move society in any direction. Thru my own experience in life, I find most people are not sociopaths, they generally will direct their actions in benevolent manner if the overall social convention is to do so. This is why leadership is so important, and points to the true crisis of our time. We have a crisis of leadership. ..."
"... The split in elite thinking is showing itself because we have reached a crisis point and the elite are finally feeling the heat. While it is easy to paint these class divisions with a broad brush, there is an underlying dynamic of the classes that has been lost in recent years. The sense of duty to ones people and nation. What we have now, at least in America, is a confused mess. You cannot serve the nation by impoverishing its people. ..."
"... Like Lord Ashby's observations that it typically takes 200 years before new knowledge makes its way into policies and institutions. Reduce that time somewhat due to internet, but even so his point is well made. He argues that policies and institutions only incorporate the new knowledge once a significant percentage of the general public has already accepted it. This says to me that new thinking has to happen from the ground up, and we should not expect it to happen from the top down. ..."
"... What's the old saying – "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." ..."
"... "Unrestricted cross-border money flows" absolutely shouts dynamic instability from the get go and how could it be otherwise? Foreign direct investment also smells of absentee cross-border slum lord -ism; out of sight out of mind irresponsibility. Common currency (the Euro) wipes out fault tolerance and resiliency in the system and hard wires contagion. Nobody even discusses trade imbalance instability from so-called "free trade". ..."
"... Neoliberal policy is to replace men, with whatever combined circuit is most efficient. It's not rocket science. ..."
"... Yves may wish to weigh in with a more detailed explanation (here is a recent treatment of the "neoliberal thought collective" ) but "Neoliberalism Expressed as Simple Rules" for rules of thumb that will enable you to detect neoliberals in your ordinary dealings in comment sections and on the twitter. If your interlocutor, for example, has a dogmatic faith in the workings of markets, you're dealing with a neoliberal. ..."
"... I would say neoliberalism has been the dominant ideology, across the board, since the mid-70s (in other words, pre-Reagan). I'd have a hard time finding any policy that fits within the Overton Window of permitted discourse of DC, from left to right, that is not neoliberal, scholastics-level fine-grained faction-driven distinctions aside. The current stasis of the Overton Window is being challenged a bit by the Sanders campaign (from the left) and the Trump campaign (from the right), granting for a moment that politics are bipolar. Too long an answer, I know! ..."
"... Please see Recent Items. We have a post on the Mirowski's paper on the Neoliberal Though Collective prominently displayed. ..."
"... How about this; hyper aggressive top down global economic integration no matter what the fallout. ..."
"... Keep the masses ignorant, wanting and distracted. Under the current social system, you are offered a choice: Be "SMART" and join in on the looting, or be exploited as one to the sheep. It seems humanity must evolve to a third position- one of collective benefit and sustainability or end in extinction. ..."
"... Neither a swindler nor a sucker be. Neither a looter nor a victim be. ..."
"... The Central Banks produced low inflation figures in the US, while massive inflation was occurring in the costs of housing, education and healthcare causing the cost of living to sky rocket. This fictitious inflation figure targeting seems to be a rather pointless exercise. There is no point in producing low inflation figures while the cost of living is sky rocketing. A global youth now sit at home with their parents unable to afford to move out due to high mortgage payments and rent. They are not starting families and the demographic problems are going to get a whole lot worse. Why is global aggregate demand so low? Suppressed wages with sky rocketing costs of living. Neo-Liberalism really is just silly. ..."
"... A look at the UK. We have followed the US idea of paid further education. One of the first things the US banks did in 2008 was to get the Government to back student loans as they were beginning to default on a large scale. In the UK we have linked repayments to RPI and not the CPI figure the Central Bank targets. The usual silliness for masking the rising costs of living and an opportunity to rip off young people. Another idea, unregulated, trickle down capitalism, which we had in the UK in the 19th Century. In the 19th Century those at the top were very wealthy those at the bottom lived in abject poverty, no trickledown. The first regulations to deal with wealthy UK businessman seeking profit, the abolition of slavery and child labour. ..."
"... If we abolish Free Trade and restore Protectionism, the American minimum wage won't HAVE to compete with China. Free Trade is the new Slavery. Protectionism is the new Abolition. ..."
"... The IMF is trying to wash its own face now. Too late. Both the IMF and the WB must stand Trial for Crimes Against Humanity. ..."
While the IMF's research team has for many years chipped away at mainstream economic thinking,
a short, accessible paper makes an even more frontal challenge. It's caused such a stir that the
Financial Times
featured
it on its front page . We've embedded it at the end of this post and encourage you to read it
and circulate it.
The article cheekily flags the infamous case of the Chicago Boys, Milton Friedman's followers
in Pinochet's Chile, as having been falsely touted as a success. If anything, the authors are too
polite in describing what a train wreck resulted. A plutocratic land grab and speculation-fueled
bubble led quickly to a depression, forcing Pinochet to implement Keynesian policies, as well as
rolling back labor "reforms," to get the economy back on its feet.
The papers describes three ways in which neoliberal reforms do more harm than good.
Overly mobile capital , meaning unrestricted cross-border money flows. The
IMF paper points out that while the neoliberals claim that freely mobile money helps growth, there's
not much concrete evidence to support that. By contrast, higher levels of capital flows lead to more
instability and more frequent and severe financial and economic crisis. Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart
determined that high levels of international capital flows were strongly correlated with bigger and
nastier financial crises. The BIS also made a persuasive, well-documented case that excessive "financial
elasticity" which means lots of cross-border funds mobility that can quickly collapse, was the cause
of the 2008 crisis.
It's also hard to see how highly mobile money can be a plus, particularly for smaller and
even not so small economies. Look at the how much the yen has moved over the past decade. How can
investors in things that would actually make an economy more productive (foreign direct investment,
such as factories and other operations) make any kind of accurate assessment of returns to cross
border investment with so much foreign exchange volatility? And that uncertainty will lead a foreign
investor to require a higher rate of return. Similarly, even if there were measurable benefits from
highly mobile money movements, the costs of the busts need to be offset against that. It's pretty
hard to see how you "offset" the cost of the blowup just past, whose total cost is estimated at one
times global GDP.
Thus the paper argues that the heretical idea of capital controls can make sense as a way to choke
off a credit bubble stoked by foreign investment.
Austerity . The IMF article argues that while small countries may have no choice
other than to curtail their overall level of indebtedness, this is not a one-size-fits-all prescription.
For larger countries, running larger deficits, particularly after a financial crisis, is a better
option than belt-tighening.
This section of the article is frustrating, since it utterly fails to distinguish fiat currency
issuers from states that are not monetary sovereigns. It also blandly accepts the idea that high
levels of indebtedness are bad, when government debt increases typically make up for shortfalls in
private sector investment and demand. Recall that in the supposedly virtuous Clinton budget surplus
years, households, which are normally net savers in aggregate, managed to make up for the Federal
government fiscal drag by going on a big debt party. But it does have some zingers, at least by the
standards of policy wonkery:
Austerity policies not only generate substantial welfare costs due to supply-side channels,
they also hurt demand-and thus worsen employment and unemployment. The notion that fiscal consolidations
can be expansionary (that is, raise output and employment), in part by raising private sector
confidence and investment, has been championed by, among others, Harvard economist Alberto Alesina
in the academic world and by former European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet in the
policy arena. However, in practice, episodes of fiscal consolidation have been followed, on average,
by drops rather than by expansions in output. On average, a consolidation of 1 percent of GDP
increases the long-term unemployment rate by 0.6 percentage point and raises by 1.5 percent within
five years the Gini measure of income inequality (Ball and others, 2013)
Depicting "fiscal consolidation" as snake oil is radical, at least among Serious Economists.
Increasing inequality . The paper gratifyingly says that both austerity and highly
mobile capital increase inequality, and inequality is a negative for growth. And it firmly says Something
Must Be Done:
The evidence of the economic damage from inequality suggests that policymakers should be more
open to redistribution than they are.Of course, apart from redistribution, policies could be designed
to mitigate some of the impacts in advance-for instance, through increased spending on education
and training, which expands equality of opportunity (so-called predistribution policies). And
fiscal consolidation strategies-when they are needed-could be designed to minimize the adverse
impact on low-income groups. But in some cases, the untoward distributional consequences will
have to be remedied after they occur by using taxes and government spending to redistribute income.
Fortunately, the fear that such policies will themselves necessarily hurt growth is unfounded.
Mind you, this article is far from ideal. For instance, careful readers will see that it treats
the debunked loanable funds theory as valid.
In some ways, the fact that this article was written at all, and that it is apparently fomenting
debate in policy circles is more important than the details of its argument, since it does not break
new ground. Instead, it takes some of the findings and analysis of heterodox and forward-thinking
development economists and distills them nicely.
The publication of this IMF paper is a sign that the zeitgeist is, years after the crisis,
finally shifting. It is becoming too hard to maintain the pretense that the policies that produced
the global financial crisis, which are almost entirely still intact, are working. And the elites
and their economic alchemists may also recognize that if they don't change course pretty soon, they
risk the loss of not just legitimacy but control. With Trump and Le Pen at the barricades, the IMF
wake-up call may be too late.
Call me a cynic, but something tells me this won't change anything for the people currently
suffering under the IMF yoke. IMF has put out plenty of papers that actually take a realistic
look at the world, but it hasn't stopped them from pursuing policies essentially guaranteed to
immiserate the majority of the population. Talk is cheap, in other words. The IMF has caused
so much suffering and been responsible for propagandizing so much BS over the years that reports
like this just don't move me at all. Oh really , I think, you finally figured out
that neo-liberalism isn't all it's cracked up to be? Well what a bunch of frickin' geniuses!
The publication of this IMF paper is a sign that the zeitgeist is, years after the crisis,
finally shifting. It is becoming too hard to maintain the pretense that the policies that produced
the global financial crisis, which are almost entirely still intact, are working. And the elites
and their economic alchemists may also recognize that if they don't change course pretty soon,
they risk the loss of not just legitimacy but control.
The point of the shifting rhetoric is not to introduce policies that will better serve
the poor, or the citizenry generally, it is a defensive action on the part of the elites to maintain
their legitimacy and control.
i concur wholeheartedly with both of your above statements.
even worse, it just proves that they are able to learn to speak the right language about
the economy. while we peons wait on for the inevitable co-optation and corruption of it towards
elite ends once again.
The point of the shifting rhetoric is not to introduce policies that will better serve the
poor, or the citizenry generally, it is a defensive action on the part of the elites to maintain
their legitimacy and control.
Jefferson – Nice treason going eh? Boy some overconfident are in for a shock. The French
army thought they were the shit until longbowmen showed up. Enough said. As to this article. No,
there is no free lunch. There could be a free snack if the money was directed at productive endeavors.
But they did not and now trust and the social contract is totally broken. Even Larry Summers by
2010 was calling for a new one. That all said, the last 40 years elite did get some good advancements
in science and medicine done. I'll give credit where it is due but the empire building shit isn't
a plus, that is for sure.
That Tampa exercise is really something. Maybe it was a practice run to take out Maduro, since
they "messed it up" with Chavez. Or a warning to Others who don't play nice with the USA.
The IMF research side and the IMF program side operate separately from each other. However,
IMF research does influence other economists and media coverage. You are not going to see changes
in policy anywhere until you see changes in orthodox thinking.
And splits within the elites are a necessary but not sufficient condition for change. We are
seeing the start of a real split in the elites.
Something that always bears repeating is that a split in elite factions is essential to
implementing real change. Access to power, money, and influence is what is needed to move society
in any direction. Thru my own experience in life, I find most people are not sociopaths, they
generally will direct their actions in benevolent manner if the overall social convention is to
do so. This is why leadership is so important, and points to the true crisis of our time. We have
a crisis of leadership.
Two points that need to be driven home again and again. Government policy implemented in the
service of the people and the notion that the middle class was created thru public policy, not
some natural occurrence. It was a choice.
The split in elite thinking is showing itself because we have reached a crisis point and
the elite are finally feeling the heat. While it is easy to paint these class divisions with a
broad brush, there is an underlying dynamic of the classes that has been lost in recent years.
The sense of duty to ones people and nation. What we have now, at least in America, is a confused
mess. You cannot serve the nation by impoverishing its people.
True wealth, happiness, and stability can only be achieved through bonds of respect forged
between the ruling class and citizens. Without this functioning ideal, you will have strife and
hardship. The elite must make a choice. Keep doubling down on their oppression of the working
class, or decide they have a duty to humanity.
In the end, responsibility for ones actions in life cannot be avoided forever. As the destruction
of inequality grows ever more apparent, the elite must face their conscience or the mob, it would
seem to me, any sane person would rather choose the former than the later.
"IMF has put out plenty of papers that actually take a realistic look at the world, but it
hasn't stopped them from pursuing policies essentially guaranteed to immiserate the majority of
the population."
Not directly related to this subject, but this reminds me of book reviews. I have any number
of books that challenge orthodoxy of one kind or other (like, say, David Graeber's Debt: The First
5,000 Years) that feature quotes from reviews on the covers and first few pages that praise the
book as 'groundbreaking', 'important' etc. But then as far as I can see the publications that
issued those reviews absorb none of the new wisdom and continue parroting the status quo. Hell,
sometimes these books get awards or selected as best books of the year before whatever information
they contain is completely ignored.
Like Lord Ashby's observations that it typically takes 200 years before new knowledge makes
its way into policies and institutions. Reduce that time somewhat due to internet, but even so
his point is well made. He argues that policies and institutions only incorporate the new knowledge
once a significant percentage of the general public has already accepted it. This says to me that
new thinking has to happen from the ground up, and we should not expect it to happen from the
top down.
What's the old saying – "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents
and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation
grows up that is familiar with it."
And I'd say with something like economics, something much more similar to a religion than a
science, its more like "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you
know for sure that just ain't so"
1. Ignore it until it goes away.
2. Publish a counter example.
3. Claim that disaster will entail, and We Are Doing The Best We Can in an uncertain world, and
debt is bad because It Must Be Repaid.
4. Have an election, and Nothing Can Be Done until after the election (which is never in the US
because there is always an election looming)
5. Sex scandal. (The authorities have an ample supply, due to their pervasive surveillance)
6. If all else fails, then terrorism, because existential enemies, carefully built on a continuing
basis, and must have war, like Syria.
7. Refer it to a committee for further study.
"Unrestricted cross-border money flows" absolutely shouts dynamic instability from the
get go and how could it be otherwise? Foreign direct investment also smells of absentee cross-border
slum lord -ism; out of sight out of mind irresponsibility. Common currency (the Euro) wipes out
fault tolerance and resiliency in the system and hard wires contagion. Nobody even discusses trade
imbalance instability from so-called "free trade".
preterite: A person not elected to salvation by God? Not what my search says:
noun
1. a tense of verbs used to relate past action, formed in English by inflection of the verb, as
jumped, swam
2.a verb in this tense
adjective
3. denoting this tense
Word Origin
C14: from Late Latin praeteritum (tempus) past (time, tense), from Latin praeterīre to go by,
from preter- + īre to go
Add Pynchon to your search, or Calvinism.
One
blog post says:
Expat asks, what is Pynchon talking about when he refers to the "preterite?" Let me take
a hasty stab at an answer.
As I recall, the Calvinists thought that there were three kinds of people: the elect, the
preterite, and the damned. The elect are going to heaven. The damned very clearly are not.
The preterite can't be sure, so they do their very best to act like elect, since if they act
like the damned they won't be happy in the end.
3. Theol. A person not elected to salvation by God. Cf. preterition n. 3. rare.
1864 Fraser's Mag. May 533/2 The reprobates who are damned because they were always meant to be
damned, and the preterites who are damned because they were never meant to be saved.
2006 http://www.adequacy.org 5 Dec. (O.E.D.
Archive) Weren't the Elect who interbred with Preterites committing bestiality? Are they not therefore
condemned to Hell?
Admittedly rare, but as with Tom Allen nested in the comments, I came upon this meaning through
reading Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow, and taking in his ruminations upon the Calvinist classes
of humans, the elect, the damned, and the preterite. Fit in very nicely with the story line. Fits
in all too well with the way of the world, in my opinion.
I'd conclude the Calvinists misused a word. The Latin root seems to Indictate this.
If we are not chosen, then I'd also assery we are the dammed.
The Calvinists indeed there is some hope for salvation for their definition of preterite.
However, the Calvinists have a harsh, unforgiving creed, and consequently do not appear to
me to meet our Lord's definitions, especially the "let him who is without sin cast the first stone"
and certainly miss "judge not."
I'd conclude the Calvinists misused a word. The Latin root seems to Indictate this.
If we are not chosen, then I'd also assert we are the dammed.
The Calvinists indeed there is some hope for salvation for their definition of preterite.
However, the Calvinists have a harsh, unforgiving creed, and consequently do not appear to
me to meet our Lord's definitions, especially the "let him who is without sin cast the first stone"
and certainly miss "judge not."
Neoliberal policy is to replace men, with whatever combined circuit is most efficient.
It's not rocket science. Last time we approached -Johnson & Johnson, your bait and swap inversion
specializing in the baby slave trade, Yves was talking about credit unions and I was talking about
Proctor & Gamble.
I have no use for peer friends, and recognize no enemy among a herd. Labor is a tribe, with
as many different spirits / passion as possible, NOT a pyramid of rotated peer pressure groups,
under the all seeing eye of debt as money.
Theories are like people, NOT R&D is r&d. I have been teaching young women AI programming right
in front of your eyes, essentially what I would teach my daughters, funny, just as if they were
at my armchair, before dinner, after she played with mommy all day. Serious time.
Just because you are surrounded physically, doesn't mean that you are the prisoner.
You are moving awfully fast. I think if you print out several pieces, and recombine the sentences,
you will find/ the answer.
Essentially, farming people is a tuning problem, through DNA filters. The bananas up a ladder
experiment (look it up).
Feminism and chauvinism have their trade offs, more now and less later. Well it's later, and
young women like my daughters, thrown in that black hole, are NOTS, who will be far better programmers
than anything currently on the planet. But. Proof is in the pudding.
i just realized that i dont know what neo-liberalism is, other than a pejorative i've heard
used dozens of times…i couldnt even tell you who is one, and who isnt..
Yves may wish to weigh in with a more detailed explanation (here is a recent treatment
of the
"neoliberal thought collective" ) but
"Neoliberalism Expressed as Simple Rules" for rules of thumb that will enable you to detect
neoliberals in your ordinary dealings in comment sections and on the twitter. If your interlocutor,
for example, has a dogmatic faith in the workings of markets, you're dealing with a neoliberal.
I would say neoliberalism has been the dominant ideology, across the board, since the mid-70s
(in other words, pre-Reagan). I'd have a hard time finding any policy that fits within the Overton
Window of permitted discourse of DC, from left to right, that is not neoliberal, scholastics-level
fine-grained faction-driven distinctions aside. The current stasis of the Overton Window is being
challenged a bit by the Sanders campaign (from the left) and the Trump campaign (from the right),
granting for a moment that politics are bipolar. Too long an answer, I know!
I understand your nuanced depth UASI but I think that commentator was asking in laymens term.
Liberalism is spending other peoples money. It can be used by government for good or evil. Neo
liberalism implies such term on steroids. An always fair question as a taxpayer is this.:
Does what I am being taxed for increase my security, freedom and potential upward mobility?
The last 40 years tells me no. Mixed bag sometimes, not all evil but certainly the wrong direction
and alarming. Not only does the looting damage opportunity but those that got the money by stealing
have the worst attitudes in the world. Anybody with one penny or position over you has a shitty
attitude. By the way, I am my own boss so my observations are neutral.
Having a business model and political system that hoovers it all into the top guarantees a
global slum. The 'isms' (capitalism vs socialism, fascism, communsm) and democrate vs. republican
wind up being a flimsy excuse but serious distraction from looting.
This current cycle of it is double standards and law, looting. Call it whatever you want. Robbery
is part of many species, but so is wising up to it and defending oneself.
The IMF knows this cycle of looting is near over so there is not cost abandoning an 'ism'.
But they do want you to think free lunch can always be had. The snack can be, leave math asidethe
reason why is some perception can become a reality. Debt issued for productive purpose can have
a multiplyer effect. But when issued to hand out in to crony buddies or consumption of some things,
the economy grinds down to near halt.
Had to explain the term while simply explaining the context. The why is as important as a term
or nothing can be learned or improved.
But, because we have an unlimited supply of money then government would be spending money that
belongs to no individual. There can be no deficit spending, only spending. The new economics system
would be one that distributes rather than redistributes, Society would decide the rules for such
distribution and individuals can still be denied their "fair share." Rules of exchange and possession
of money would guide our interactions But the most important aspect of an unlimited supply of
money is that as individuals small children would learn that they will have enough money to go
as far as their talents and efforts can take them; they will learn that they will have equal access
to resources, opportunities, rights, and protections that will enable them to build long lives
worth living.
So we really don't have to worry about the supply of money, we just have to worry about a society
that really does give young humans equal access to resources, opportunities, rights, and protections.
The only government that has come close to reaching that goal was the democracy of ancient Athens.
Athens did not have an unlimited supply of money, but they spent their money for the common
good which included giving some money to people who needed it as well as spending great sums for
the common good rather than giving equal shares of those sums to its citizens.
Under our current systems of government and economics an unlimited supply of money would make
the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Under a democracy that has an unlimited amount of money the GDP would become the ADI, average
domestic income, and our success would be measured by the level and the growth of the ADI.
I have no idea why this paper is even here on NC. Because decades later the IMF is saying,
well, maybe we were a little wrong? They had to butcher people to put this crap in power and butcher
people to keep this crap in power. That's not a little wrong. The economy exists for the people;
not the other way around.
For rjs: For a good start on what neoliberalism means, a base definition to start with is the
exact opposite of Benedict@Large's statement above, "The economy exists for the people".
Most sane people feel that economic "science" is inherently a social, soft, science and that
economics as a field of study and policy determination exists to serve the people The neoliberal
contingent feels the economy is "the invisible hand", equivalent to God. We exist to serve the
economy.
Didn't anyone read John Gray? He laid bare all the neo-liberal fallacies in his 1998 book:
"False Dawn, The Delusions of Global Capitalism". So now the IMF comes along 18 years later and
states what was explained nearly two decades ago. Gray is an intellectual giant in a land of fools
so nobody paid any attention to him.
Keep the masses ignorant, wanting and distracted. Under the current social system, you
are offered a choice: Be "SMART" and join in on the looting, or be exploited as one to the sheep.
It seems humanity must evolve to a third position- one of collective benefit and sustainability
or end in extinction.
About time, the IMF and World Bank have been using these ideas for decades even before they
were adopted globally under the "Neo-Liberal" ideology.
They have a track record of nearly 50 years of unmitigated disaster.
When South American and African nations were in trouble the World Bank stepped in and offered
loans as long as they reformed their economies with less public spending, austerity and privatising
previously public companies.
It was a disaster.
In the Asian Crisis in 1998 the IMF stepped in and offered loans as long as they reformed their
economies with less public spending, austerity and privatising previously public companies.
It was a disaster.
When Greece got into trouble recently the IMF stepped in and offered loans as long as they
reformed their economy with less public spending, austerity and privatising previously public
companies.
The US and the UK were the first to adopt these ideas with Reagan and Thatcher.
One idea was to make countries competitive in a global economy.
Let's have a look at the US.
The minimum wage must cover the cost of living in that nation, what must the minimum wage cover
in the US?
1) The cost of sky high mortgage payments or rent
2) The repayments on student loans
3) The cost of all services that were once free or subsidised
4) The cost of healthcare
The minimum wage necessary to cover the cost of living in the US ensures it can never compete
with China.
Central Banks were supposed to keep inflation low to ensure the cost of living does not rise
too quickly ensuring wage inflation can be kept low.
The Central Banks produced low inflation figures in the US, while massive inflation was
occurring in the costs of housing, education and healthcare causing the cost of living to sky
rocket. This fictitious inflation figure targeting seems to be a rather pointless exercise. There
is no point in producing low inflation figures while the cost of living is sky rocketing. A global
youth now sit at home with their parents unable to afford to move out due to high mortgage payments
and rent. They are not starting families and the demographic problems are going to get a whole
lot worse. Why is global aggregate demand so low? Suppressed wages with sky rocketing costs of
living. Neo-Liberalism really is just silly.
A look at the UK. We have followed the US idea of paid further education. One of the first
things the US banks did in 2008 was to get the Government to back student loans as they were beginning
to default on a large scale. In the UK we have linked repayments to RPI and not the CPI figure
the Central Bank targets. The usual silliness for masking the rising costs of living and an opportunity
to rip off young people. Another idea, unregulated, trickle down capitalism, which we had in the
UK in the 19th Century. In the 19th Century those at the top were very wealthy those at the bottom
lived in abject poverty, no trickledown. The first regulations to deal with wealthy UK businessman
seeking profit, the abolition of slavery and child labour.
Where regulation is lax today? Factories in China with suicide nets. No wonder the French are
rioting and the populists are getting angry. Neo-Liberalism really is rather nasty.
Michael Hudson in "Killing the Host" goes into the rather more sensible thinking of Classical
Economists on how to make nations competitive. You lower the cost of living to the minimum, to
ensure the basic minimum wage is low enough to compete with other countries.
Pretty much the opposite of the US today:
1) Low housing costs
2) Free or subsidised education
3) Free or subsidised services
4) Free or subsidised healthcare
You need to get the cost of living down, so the minimum wage necessary is the same as that
in China.
If we abolish Free Trade and restore Protectionism, the American minimum wage won't HAVE
to compete with China. Free Trade is the new Slavery. Protectionism is the new Abolition.
"... Yet still we cannot bring ourselves to look the thing in the eyes. We cannot admit that we liberals bear some of the blame for its emergence, for the frustration of the working-class millions, for their blighted cities and their downward spiraling lives. So much easier to scold them for their twisted racist souls, to close our eyes to the obvious reality of which Trump_vs_deep_state is just a crude and ugly expression: that neoliberalism has well and truly failed. ..."
"... The only thing more ludicrous than voting for Donald Trump would be to vote for Hilary Clinton. Whilst Trump is evidently crude, vulgar, bombastic, xenophobic, racist and misogynistic, his manifest personality flaws pale into insignificance when compared to the the meglomaniacal, prevaricating, misandristic, puff adder, who is likely to oppose him! ..."
"... Clinton is the archetypal political parasite, who has spent a lifetime with her arrogant snout wedged firmly in the public trough. Like Obama, Bush, et al, Clinton is just another elitist Bilderberger sock puppet, a conniving conspirator in the venal kleptocracy, located in Washington D.C, otherwise known as the U.S. federal government. ..."
"... Trump at least is not in thrall to the system and thus, by default, can be perceived by the average blue-collar American as being an outsider to the systemic corruption that pervades the whole American political process. A horrible choice, but the lesser of two evils. ..."
"... Trump was always a Democrat, before now and so were a lot of other Americans. America is watching how the Democrat Party is destroying America. The race card is a low blow to Trump supporters. Illegal immigration is a legitimate issue in the US. It has nothing to do with racism. ..."
"... British capitalism grew because of two things cheap coal that made using the new steam engine and the protected monopoly markets offered by the empire which also provided monopoly access to the resources of those countries. American capitalism grew up behind high tariff walls, ditto Chinese capitalism now. ..."
"... TTIP will be used by big capital both here in Europe and in the US to drive down the wages and working conditions of workers in Europe and the US, and that is why the EU is solely a bosses agenda and workers here in Britain have more to gain by leaving the EU, an EU that has crucified workers in Greece just so German bankers don't lose. ..."
"... Politicians in the U.S. are inherently corrupt, both figuratively and literally (they just hide it better as perks and campaign contributions). Politicians in the U.S. make promises, but ultimately it is just rhetoric and nothing ever gets delivered on. Once elected, they revert to the Status Quo of doing nothing – or they vote for the bills of the interest groups that supported them during the election. ..."
"... It seems noone wants to talk about anything other than vilifying Trump supporters because their vested interests are all about grind working people into the dust so the high end of town can make every more money. No wonder Trump is cutting through. The whole world has been watching our leaders sell us down the river in these deals. ..."
"... The working class tens of millions have the votes and if need be, the guns. Thank you, second amendment. Essentially they're presented with the prospect of their kids spending their working lives slaving at $10-$20 an hour, or to die trying to alter the future of that elite-orchestrated course of events. What would an American choose? ..."
"... All Clinton has to offer is more of the same lying and "free trade" deals, and subterfuge and killing. Trump says he's gonna step up, bring the jobs back to America, get the mass of people moving forward again, so Trumps is gonna win this thing. ..."
"... Free trade isn't free. It has cost millions of Americans their jobs, even their homes and hopes for the future. Both parties have taken American workers for granted even worse than the Democrats have taken Blacks for granted lately. ..."
"... What we need is a Labor party to represent those of US who have to work to earn a living, as opposed to those who were born wealthy, or gained their wealth through stock manipulation/dividends and fraud. It is the working people who actually create new wealth. Trump's bigotry does not bother white blue collar workers because they mostly agree and hate and fear Blacks. The Venn diagram of bigots, white laborers and the south overlap almost 100%. ..."
"... Taibbi in the latest Rolling Stone says the same thing. Taibbi went to listen to Trump's speeches. Trump pillories Big Pharma, unemployment and trade deals and Wall Street. He's less warlike than Clinton. ..."
"... So it is very possible Clinton will be hit from the LEFT by Trump. That is how bad the Democratis really are. ..."
"... And 'change' – I.e more globalism, means less and less job security: economic security slipping away at a unprecedented rate. Transnational interests basically rule America, not to mention the mainstream media, whose job it is to attack Trump. Many millions have seen through this facade. Democrat or Republican, the incestuous political establishment is being exposed like never before. ..."
"... Trump is revealing what other candidates refuse to admit: that they are owned before they even step foot into Washington. I mean - Clinton is Goldman and Sachs, TTIP, Monsanto approved! And this is who the Guardian are siding with? Go figure... ..."
"... I think his denouncing trade deals is what made the Republicans, (aka, Corporatist Party of which Hillary should clearly be a part of-but save for another day) go bonkers. They cannot control this guy and he's making sense in the trade department. It's not as if suddenly the Republican party has grown a set of morals. ..."
"... Because Sanders will support Hillary as he promised to do -- does that sound like a revolutionary? Bill Clinton invented NAFTA. Get it? ..."
"... They abandoned the working classes in favour of grabbing middle class votes and relied on working class voters continuing to support them, because they had "nowhere else to go". ..."
"... This reminded me of something I heard on NPR this weekend: Charles Evers, Medgar Evers' brother and a prominent civil rights activist since the 50's, is endorsing Trump. ..."
"... Interestingly you have raised issues that are all very complex -- and that is just the problem. We have become a society that promotes complexity and then does not want to discuss and analyze those complex issues, but wants to oversimplify and fight and make the "other side" be a devil. Are we all getting dumbed down to slogans and cliches? ..."
"... The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured, had nowhere else to go, in the famous Clinton-era expression. The party just didn't need to listen to them any longer. ..."
"... Frank offers insights that Clintonites can ignore at their peril. As the widow of a hardworking man who was twice the victim of "outsourcing" to Malaysia and India, and whose prolonged illness brought with it savings-decimating drug costs, I can well see how Trump's appeal goes beyond xenophobia and racism. ..."
"... Trump is saying that NAFTA and neo-liberalism have failed the American people. ..."
"... You could be describing Hillary and Bill the fraudulent guy who "feels your pain". Liars and in the pockets of bankers, that couple is not your friend. ..."
"... I don't see a true value to trade if it involves loss of jobs and lowered pay. I do see value in fair trade where we receive somewhat equal return ..."
"... The Guardian's incessant Trump bashing disguises, unfortunately, how similarly repugnant Cruz(particularly) and Rubio are. Clinton is better, not by far, and Sanders though wonderfully idealist and full of integrity, will be able to accomplish nothing with the Republicans controlling Congress. ..."
"... I'm living in Japan, where in the past decade they have taken in 11 refugees. That's not 11 million or even 11 thousand. I mean 11. ..."
"... And guess what, they are not racist. They have borders and they are not racist. I know this is a hard concept for progressives to get their heads around, but believe it or not it is possible. ..."
"... The Guardian's incessant Trump bashing disguises, unfortunately, how similarly repugnant Cruz(particularly) and Rubio are. Clinton is better, not by far, and Sanders though wonderfully idealist and full of integrity, will be able to accomplish nothing with the Republicans controlling Congress. ..."
...the Republican frontrunner is hammering home a powerful message about free trade and its victims
....because the working-class white people who make up the bulk of Trump's fan base show up in
amazing numbers for the candidate, filling stadiums and airport hangars, but their views, by and
large, do not appear in our prestige newspapers. On their opinion pages, these publications take
care to represent demographic categories of nearly every kind, but "blue-collar" is one they persistently
overlook. The views of working-class people are so foreign to that universe that when New York Times
columnist Nick Kristof wanted to "engage" a Trump supporter last week, he made one up, along with
this imaginary person's responses to his questions.
When members of the professional class wish to understand the working-class Other, they traditionally
consult experts on the subject. And when these authorities are asked to explain the Trump movement,
they always seem to zero in on one main accusation: bigotry. Only racism, they tell us, is capable
of powering a movement like Trump's, which is blowing through the inherited structure of the Republican
party like a tornado through a cluster of McMansions.
... ... ...
Yes, Donald Trump talked about trade. In fact, to judge by how much time he spent talking about
it, trade may be his single biggest concern – not white supremacy. Not even his plan to build a wall
along the Mexican border, the issue that first won him political fame. He did it again during the
debate on 3 March: asked about his
political excommunication by Mitt Romney, he chose to pivot and talk about ... trade.
It seems to obsess him: the destructive free-trade deals our leaders have made, the many companies
that have moved their production facilities to other lands, the phone calls he will make to those
companies' CEOs in order to threaten them with steep tariffs unless they move back to the US.
Trump embellished this vision with another favorite left-wing idea: under his leadership, the
government would "start competitive bidding in the drug industry." ("We don't competitively bid!"
he marveled – another true fact, a
legendary boondoggle brought to you by the George W Bush administration.) Trump extended the
critique to the military-industrial complex, describing how the government is forced to buy
lousy but expensive airplanes thanks to the power of industry lobbyists.
... ... ...
Trade is an issue that polarizes Americans by socio-economic status. To the professional class,
which encompasses the vast majority of our media figures, economists, Washington officials and Democratic
power brokers, what they call "free trade" is something so obviously good and noble it doesn't require
explanation or inquiry or even thought. Republican and Democratic leaders alike agree on this, and
no amount of facts can move them from their Econ 101 dream.
To the remaining 80 or 90% of America, trade means something very different. There's a video going
around on the internet these days that shows a room full of workers at a Carrier air conditioning
plant in Indiana being told by an officer of the company that the factory is being moved to Monterrey,
Mexico and that they're all going to lose their jobs.
As I watched it, I thought of all the arguments over trade that we've had in this country since
the early 1990s, all the sweet words from our economists about the scientifically proven benevolence
of free trade, all the ways in which our newspapers mock people who say that treaties like the North
Atlantic Free Trade Agreement allow companies to move jobs to Mexico.
Well, here is a video of a company moving its jobs to Mexico, courtesy of Nafta. This is what
it looks like. The Carrier executive talks in that familiar and highly professional HR language about
the need to "stay competitive" and "the extremely price-sensitive marketplace." A worker shouts "Fuck
you!" at the executive. The executive asks people to please be quiet so he can "share" his "information".
His information about all of them losing their jobs.
But there is another way to interpret the Trump phenomenon. A map of his support may coordinate
with racist Google searches, but it coordinates even better with deindustrialization and despair,
with the zones of economic misery that 30 years of Washington's free-market consensus have brought
the rest of America.
Advertisement
It is worth noting that Trump is making a point of assailing that Indiana air conditioning company
from the video in his speeches. What this suggests is that he's telling a tale as much about economic
outrage as it is tale of racism on the march. Many of Trump's followers are bigots, no doubt, but
many more are probably excited by the prospect of a president who seems to mean it when he denounces
our trade agreements and promises to bring the hammer down on the CEO that fired you and wrecked
your town, unlike Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Here is the most salient supporting fact: when people talk to white, working-class Trump supporters,
instead of simply imagining what they might say, they find that what most concerns these people is
the economy and their place in it. I am referring to a study just published by Working America, a
political-action auxiliary of the AFL-CIO, which interviewed some 1,600 white working-class voters
in the suburbs of Cleveland and Pittsburgh in December and January.
Support for Donald Trump, the group found, ran strong among these people, even among self-identified
Democrats, but not because they are all pining for a racist in the White House. Their favorite aspect
of Trump was his "attitude," the blunt and forthright way he talks. As far as issues are concerned,
"immigration" placed third among the matters such voters care about, far behind their number one
concern: "good jobs / the economy."
"People are much more frightened than they are bigoted," is how the findings were described to
me by Karen Nussbaum, the executive director of Working America. The survey "confirmed what we heard
all the time: people are fed up, people are hurting, they are very distressed about the fact that
their kids don't have a future" and that "there still hasn't been a recovery from the recession,
that every family still suffers from it in one way or another."
Tom Lewandowski, the president of the Northeast Indiana Central Labor Council in Fort Wayne, puts
it even more bluntly when I asked him about working-class Trump fans. "These people aren't racist,
not any more than anybody else is," he says of Trump supporters he knows. "When Trump talks about
trade, we think about the Clinton administration, first with Nafta and then with [Permanent Normal
Trade Relations] China, and here in Northeast Indiana, we hemorrhaged jobs."
"They look at that, and here's Trump talking about trade, in a ham-handed way, but at least he's
representing emotionally. We've had all the political establishment standing behind every trade deal,
and we endorsed some of these people, and then we've had to fight them to get them to represent us."
Now, let us stop and smell the perversity. Left parties the world over were founded to advance
the fortunes of working people. But our left party in America – one of our two monopoly parties –
chose long ago to turn its back on these people's concerns, making itself instead into the tribune
of the enlightened professional class, a "creative class" that makes innovative things like derivative
securities and smartphone apps. The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured,
had nowhere else to go, in the famous Clinton-era expression. The party just didn't need to listen
to them any longer.
What Lewandowski and Nussbaum are saying, then, should be obvious to anyone who's dipped a toe
outside the prosperous enclaves on the two coasts. Ill-considered trade deals and generous bank bailouts
and guaranteed profits for insurance companies but no recovery for average people, ever – these policies
have taken their toll. As Trump says, "we have rebuilt China and yet our country is falling apart.
Our infrastructure is falling apart. . . . Our airports are, like, Third World."
Trump's words articulate the populist backlash against [neo]liberalism that has been building
slowly for decades and may very well occupy the White House itself, whereupon the entire world will
be required to take seriously its demented ideas.
Yet still we cannot bring ourselves to look the thing in the eyes. We cannot admit that we
liberals bear some of the blame for its emergence, for the frustration of the working-class millions,
for their blighted cities and their downward spiraling lives. So much easier to scold them for their
twisted racist souls, to close our eyes to the obvious reality of which Trump_vs_deep_state is just a crude
and ugly expression: that neoliberalism has well and truly failed.
Below is a letter that General Jonathan Wainwright sent to Soldiers discharged from the military,
following their service in World War II. As our military downsizes and many choose to leave the
service, I think this letter reminds us of the charge to continue to reflect the values of our
individual services and be examples within our communities.
To: All Personnel being Discharged from the Army of the United States.
You are being discharged from the Army today- from your Army. It is your Army because your
skill, patriotism, labor, courage and devotion have been some of the factors which make it
great. You have been a member of the finest military team in history. You have accomplished
miracles in battle and supply. Your country is proud of you and you have every right to be
proud of yourselves.
You have seen, in the lands where you worked and fought and where many of your comrades
died, what happens when the people of a nation lose interest in their government. You have
seen what happens when they follow false leaders. You have seen what happens when a nation
accepts hate and intolerance.
We are all determined that what happened in Europe and in Asia must not happen to our country.
Back in civilian life you will find that your generation will be called upon to guide our country's
destiny. Opportunity for leadership is yours. The responsibility is yours. The nation which
depended on your courage and stamina to protect it from its enemies now expects you as individuals
to claim your right to leadership, a right you earned honorably and which is well deserved.
Start being a leader as soon as you put on your civilian clothes. If you see intolerance
and hate, speak out against them. Make your individual voices heard, not for selfish things,
but for honor and decency among men, for the rights of all people.
Remember too, that No American can afford to be disinterested in any part of his government,
whether it is county, city, state or nation.
Choose your leaders wisely- that is the way to keep ours the country for which you fought.
Make sure that those leaders are determined to maintain peace throughout the world. You know
what war is. You know that we must not have another. As individuals you can prevent it if you
give to the task which lies ahead the same spirit which you displayed in uniform.
Accept and trust the challenge which it carries. I know that the people of American are
counting on you. I know that you will not let them down.
Goodbye to each an every one of you and to each and every one of you, good luck!
J.M. WAINWRIGHT
General, U.S. Army
Commanding
Albert Matchett
Why Americans are supporting him begins to make sense. A lot like here in the UK, our politicians
have reduced amount of money that people have available to spent And can not understand why sales
turnovers keeps going down.
No money, No sale. Companies say made abroad equals higher profits but Not if the goods made
can not be sold, Because we have to many unemployed or minimum hours contracts or low income people.
matt88008
The only thing more ludicrous than voting for Donald Trump would be to vote for Hilary
Clinton. Whilst Trump is evidently crude, vulgar, bombastic, xenophobic, racist and misogynistic,
his manifest personality flaws pale into insignificance when compared to the the meglomaniacal,
prevaricating, misandristic, puff adder, who is likely to oppose him!
Clinton is the archetypal political parasite, who has spent a lifetime with her arrogant
snout wedged firmly in the public trough. Like Obama, Bush, et al, Clinton is just another elitist
Bilderberger sock puppet, a conniving conspirator in the venal kleptocracy, located in Washington
D.C, otherwise known as the U.S. federal government.
Trump at least is not in thrall to the system and thus, by default, can be perceived by
the average blue-collar American as being an outsider to the systemic corruption that pervades
the whole American political process. A horrible choice, but the lesser of two evils.
Trump was always a Democrat, before now and so were a lot of other Americans. America is watching
how the Democrat Party is destroying America. The race card is a low blow to Trump supporters.
Illegal immigration is a legitimate issue in the US. It has nothing to do with racism.
Protecting America from potential terrorists entering the county is a real issue. We can look
what happened in Paris and Cologne. These are concerns of the people of America and they want
protection and solutions. It has nothing to do with racism.
The biggest reason people support Trump is because they trust his financial aptitude. They
honestly feel he can bring America back to greatness.
I personally don't care for his personality and don't completely trust him but I may have to
vote for him, considering my other choices. As soon as Rubio and Kasich drop out, Cruz will take
off. Rubio, if he truly hates Trump, as he acts, may want to drop out sooner than later.
British capitalism grew because of two things cheap coal that made using the new steam engine
and the protected monopoly markets offered by the empire which also provided monopoly access to
the resources of those countries. American capitalism grew up behind high tariff walls, ditto
Chinese capitalism now.
British capitalism went into relative decline from the mid nineteenth century because of the
opening up those monopoly markets to overseas competition.
TTIP will be used by big capital both here in Europe and in the US to drive down the wages
and working conditions of workers in Europe and the US, and that is why the EU is solely a bosses
agenda and workers here in Britain have more to gain by leaving the EU, an EU that has crucified
workers in Greece just so German bankers don't lose.
If the soft left and that includes much of what passes for the left in the PLP continues to
pander to the interests of big capital then the working classes will continue to be alienated
from the Labour party.
To the middle class soft left choose a side, there are only two, labour or capital
. If you choose capital you personally maybe ok for a while, but capitalist expansion is now
threatening the environment and with it food and water security. Capitalism rests on continuous
expansion but is now pushing against natural limits and when capitalist states come under too
many restrictions to their expansion you have the perfect recipe for war and in 2016 a war between
the largest capitalist states has the risk of going nuclear.
I'll just bet that if you were to look a little closer, you might find that there are a lot of
different races voting for Trump, so stop trying to brand him as racist. That is just another
trick the opposition wants you to fall for. The corporations are fearful that they might have
to actually give a high paying job to an American, tsk, tsk.
It's ironic that a billionaire is leading the inter-class revolution.
I don't completely buy into the premise (last paragraph) that most liberals are well educated
and well off and that it's liberals -- speaking of the electorate -- that have turned their backs
on blue collar workers. There are many working-class Democrats -- that's part of Bernie Sanders'
base, the youth of America is very liberal and very under-employed, non-Evangelical Black people
tend to vote liberal/Democrat -- at least according to the GOP, the Clinton campaign & the polls
-- so to state that it's liberals who've turned their backs on the blue collar class is folly.
Now, the statement that liberal politicians have turned their backs on their working-class
base, as well as the working-class Republicans, is very true, and that's a result of too much
money in politics. Pandering to lobbyists while ignoring the electorate.
What I don't understand about the liberal electorate is why so freakin' many low-income voters
choose Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. Why so many, supposed, educated people (at least smarter
than the rank-&-file Republican voter, goes the legend) would vote against their best interests
and support a lying, flip-flopping, war-mongering, say-anything-get-elected, establishment crony
is beyond comprehension.
If it comes down to it, at least with Trump you know where his money came from. How, exactly,
is it that the Clintons went from being broke as hell after leaving the White House to having
a net worth of over $111M in just 16 years? Since Slick Willy left office, except for the past
four years, hasn't Hillary always been a government employee? Except, you know, when she's campaigning.
She's worth $35M, herself, is there that much money in selling books? If not, then she got paid
-- bribed -- quite handsomely to speak at private functions.
Both Clintons exemplify Democratic politicians who've utterly ignored the working class while
pander to and serving only the executive class of America. Ronald Reagan would be proud of both
Bill and Hillary Clinton's devotion to the 'trickle down' theory of economics.
One thing that's important to consider, too, is how voting for politicians who claim to have
your back on wedge issues is really shooting yourself in the foot economically. Wedge issues are
the crumbs the Establishment allows the electorate to feast on while they (the Establishment)
rob the Treasury blind, have their crimes decriminalized, start wars to profiteer from, write
policy, off-shore jobs, suppress wedges, evade taxes, degrade the environment, monopolize markets,
bankrupt emerging markets, and generally hoard all the economic growth for themselves.
Friends don't let friends vote for neo-liberalists!
Politicians in the U.S. are inherently corrupt, both figuratively and literally (they just
hide it better as perks and campaign contributions). Politicians in the U.S. make promises, but
ultimately it is just rhetoric and nothing ever gets delivered on. Once elected, they revert to
the Status Quo of doing nothing – or they vote for the bills of the interest groups that supported
them during the election.
As far as racism is concerned, why is it racist to want to send undocumented people out of
a country that they entered illegally in the first place?
This seems to be the general accusation levied against Europeans and Americans (i.e. whites).
We seem to have the obligation to take in refugees from all over the world otherwise we are seen
as racists. Yet, I see no effort by the Gulf States, Saudi or any other Muslim country taking
some of the Syrians. This would make a lot more sense since they have the commonality of language,
religion and culture. But nobody deems them to be racists.
What a brilliant article. It seems noone wants to talk about anything other than vilifying
Trump supporters because their vested interests are all about grind working people into the dust
so the high end of town can make every more money. No wonder Trump is cutting through. The whole
world has been watching our leaders sell us down the river in these deals.
This is probably the first article I've read that gives a clear-eyed account of exactly why Trump
is gaining so much support. More of this and less of the sneery pieces would be much more enlightening
to those of us who have been baffled by his continuing success.
People had the opportunity to elect Ross Perot who focused on Trade without using racism, back
in 92. Perot, also a billionaire predicted all the catastrophic impact due to free trade and kept
warning everybody. The majority decided otherwise...
Correct! Even Obama won't use the words "working class"...they are now ' dirty words'.. The working
class are fed up being ignored, patronized, lied to, and manipulated with words by politicians
in both the US and Australia.
Politicians think that all they have to do is 'look good' and say the right thing. Then wait
a bit, change the words and continue to manipulate things from backrooms.
Trump doesn't do that-and that is why people are voting for him...
However, if he got into power he would have to do exactly the same as the others to survive
The working class tens of millions have the votes and if need be, the guns. Thank you, second
amendment. Essentially they're presented with the prospect of their kids spending their working
lives slaving at $10-$20 an hour, or to die trying to alter the future of that elite-orchestrated
course of events. What would an American choose?
The Guardian openly abuses blue collar workers on a daily basis and is at a loss to understand
why they can't connect with them. This is another non-story.
All Clinton has to offer is more of the same lying and "free trade" deals, and subterfuge
and killing. Trump says he's gonna step up, bring the jobs back to America, get the mass of people
moving forward again, so Trumps is gonna win this thing.
Almost all of Trump's proposals, as well as those of other candidates, cannot be implemented without
the concurrence of Congress. Tariffs must pass both houses, while ratification of treaties requires
a 2/3 supermajority in the Senate. A question for each of the so-called debates ought to concern
how each candidate intends to convince congress to pass his/her most contentious proposal.
Trump is awful but he taps into passion, fear and real concerns. If these corrupt phony political
parties can't help real people then this is what we get -- Trump, Hillary Clinton and fake revolutionary
Bernie Sanders who promised to support the evil Clinton when she wins the rigged nomination. Trump
is no worse than the other fake chumps pretending to be our friends.
"We liberals..." You disgust me. While you defend Trumps supporters as not entirely consumed with
racism as much as fear, as people who actually may have interests in the economy and in trade,
as workers who, just maybe, SHOULD have the right to work in an airconditioning factory that ISN'T
in Mexico, or China, or Indonesia.... while you defend these not-really-not-totally-racist working
class people you excoriate them and continue on your merry little way trashing Trump. Staying
safe, staying disgusted with the man, and walking the Party Line like a good little establishment
"liberal." The true liberal doesn't exist anymore. Your article sucks. If anyone other than Crass
Mr. Trump gets elected to the presidency of this country we will continue down the same road of
useless wars for the MIC and Banking Scum, the 1%, whatever you wish to call them and it will
be more painful than it is now. Because what's really important is the correct opinion on everything.
Not that things change radically and that the working classes of all colors and creeds begin to
see some fair shakes, which would happen under Trump.
I happen to know someone who worked in his company, who didn't even know the man but was on his
payroll. It got around to him that this employee had exhausted his health benefits with the company
he chose (he had leukemia) and he was hitting up other employees for money to pay his cancer care
bills so he could continue treatment. Trump got word of this and didn't even know this person
only that he worked for his company - and sent word to the hospital that he guaranteed payment
and that the hospital should take care of him as well as possible and he would be responsible.
He told the family to keep it a secret, but of course a few people got wind of it. THAT is exactly
the opposite of what Mr. Clean Romney did letting an employee drop dead for lack of health insurance,
but he'd be SUCH a better president, sooooo caring. Trump is the only one who isn't bought and
paid for on the Hill of Vipers and that's what attracts us racist, white, gun-toting, immigrant-hating,
blah blah blah fill-in-the-blanks-you-liberal-twit people towards Trump. And those pulling out
all the stops to "Stop Trump" are just making it more clear than ever that the presidency is and
has been hand picked and cleared as willing to dance on the puppeteer's strings and do the insiders
and oligarchy's bidding.
Thomas Frank is often right, but not this time. If working class white Americans of a certain
type wanted to support a candidate who is against all this neo-liberal free-trade nonsense, they
could easily support Bernie Sanders. He's an outsider like Trump as far as the American political
class goes, but has actually done good things as a Senator and stands up for workers. It's interesting
that it's not just NAFTA and job losses that these Trump supporters are interested in, it's the
xenophobia as well, the anti-Muslim hysteria, and the thuggish behavior of beating down protesters
at the Trump rallies. Frank just can't blame the media class for all that...it exists and happens
and Trump fans the flames. Trump could care LESS about working class Americans, he cares ONLY
about himself - the classic demagogue.
Free trade has undoubted winners and losers, but historically attempts to 'protect' or 'control'
a nation's economy have ended badly in stagnation and political authoritarianism. Obvious case
in point, the Soviet Union in the latter half of the twentieth century. Conversely opening up
the economy to competition seems to do exactly the opposite, eg the Chinese 'economic miracle'.
A controlled economy might count as 'left-wing' but its the kind of example of Socialism gone
bad that socialists feel embarrassed about.
As for racism, its not hard to pick up the racist signals from Trump, genuine or not, so anyone
supporting him has a nose-holding ability which those with moral sensibilities will find difficult.
Perhaps 'he/she's a racist but ...' is not such an uncommon stance, yet when it comes to the head
of state, its that much harder to turn a blind eye. Of course lots of Germans did it very successfully
in the 1930s and 40s.
Bullshit. Europe is doing better than both America and China. Free trade plus corruption does
not equal prosperity. A little less "free trade" and a little less corrupt elites goes a long
way towards prosperity.
Free trade isn't free. It has cost millions of Americans their jobs, even their homes and
hopes for the future. Both parties have taken American workers for granted even worse than the
Democrats have taken Blacks for granted lately.
The Republicans have kept most blue collar laborers in their party because they appeal to their
bigotry and their religious snobbery. Republicans have made few offers to even attempts to help
US because they don't have to and they don't want to.
Current Democrats are almost as bad, but at least they have a past track record of helping
create a vibrant middle class.
What we need is a Labor party to represent those of US who have to work to earn a living,
as opposed to those who were born wealthy, or gained their wealth through stock manipulation/dividends
and fraud. It is the working people who actually create new wealth. Trump's bigotry does not bother
white blue collar workers because they mostly agree and hate and fear Blacks. The Venn diagram
of bigots, white laborers and the south overlap almost 100%.
I believe the KISS principle is popular in America, is that why things go so well for Trump?
Have I applied the KISS principle Keep It Simple, Stupid. Don't be afraid to ask questions,
relax yourself and all else by calling yourself a simple, stupid, snail; I'll try to get there,
but you'll have to be pedagogic and it will take enough time, preferably I want to sleep a night
on the matter (sound judgement depends (but not only necessary but not sufficient) on considering
and weighing the significantly complete set of related aspects, and this complete set may take
considerable time to bring to the table another tip; in strong or new intellectual or emotional
states keep calm and imagine filter words with your palms covering your ears). Prestige and vanity
of own relative worth can be very expensive. If you do a wrong, more or less, try to neutralize
the wrong, rather than have the prestigious attitude that direct or implied admittance of wrong
is hurting your vain surface, since with accountability and a degree of transparency will ultimately
have consequences of the wrong, and by not swiftly correcting them you are accountable for this
reluctance too.
Part of the KISS principle is to remind you of assumptions, explicit and emotional, as well
as remind you of what's hidden. To be aware of what you do not know is a way of making emotional
assumptions explicit which help in explicit risk assessment. An emotional assumption such as "everything
feels fine" can turn into "I assume there is no hidden nearby hostile crocodiles in the Zambezi
river we're about to pass into."
So Trump's success is all about trade imbalance and its negative impact on the American working
class, which the author perceives as predominantly white. This is far from the truth: many if
not most workers in agricultural, custodial, fast food, landscaping, road maintenance...are Africa-American,
Hispanics, or undocumented workers.
Does Trump also speak for those people who work in jobs that have been turned down by the white
working class? Would he stand up for them by, for example, calling to raise the minimum wage to
$14 an hour?
Taibbi in the latest Rolling Stone says the same thing. Taibbi went to listen to Trump's speeches.
Trump pillories Big Pharma, unemployment and trade deals and Wall Street. He's less warlike than
Clinton.
So it is very possible Clinton will be hit from the LEFT by Trump. That is how bad the
Democratis really are.
And blah blah blah... Actually, Trump's is a very optimistic picture of the USA.
And 'change' – I.e more globalism, means less and less job security: economic security
slipping away at a unprecedented rate. Transnational interests basically rule America, not to
mention the mainstream media, whose job it is to attack Trump. Many millions have seen through
this facade. Democrat or Republican, the incestuous political establishment is being exposed like
never before.
Trump is revealing what other candidates refuse to admit: that they are owned before they
even step foot into Washington. I mean - Clinton is Goldman and Sachs, TTIP, Monsanto approved!
And this is who the Guardian are siding with? Go figure...
I think his denouncing trade deals is what made the Republicans, (aka, Corporatist Party of
which Hillary should clearly be a part of-but save for another day) go bonkers. They cannot control
this guy and he's making sense in the trade department. It's not as if suddenly the Republican
party has grown a set of morals.
The question of course is how serious is he? Is he true or co-opting Bernie's message? One
thing's for certain, he's against increasing the minimum wage.
"But, taxes too high, wages too high, we're not going to be able to compete against the
world. I hate to say it, but we have to leave it the way it is," he told debate moderator Neil
Cavuto when asked if he would raise wages. "People have to go out, they have to work really
hard and have to get into that upper stratum. But we cannot do this if we are going to compete
with the rest of the world. We just can't do it." Politico, 11/12/15
Brilliant, brilliant column! I will add, because no one else calls him on these things, that Obama
is still pushing TPP, has increased the number of H1B Visa holders in the US, and is now giving
the spouses of H1B Visa holders the right to work, meaning they, too can take a job that might
have gone to a US citizen, and Obama has essentially cut the retirement benefits working class
seniors have paid for all their lives. Yet no one calls him on these things, except Trump.
Where did this general theme of insulting voters come from? Calling Trump supporters racists idiots
is no way to win their votes. You can not win an election by being an insulting troller.
The same people who attack Trump engage in even worse behavior. No wonder Trump will win the
election.
What is your take on free trade? What is your take on protectionism? Well the real question
is "What is best for our country?" Work, services and manufacturing of goods, is a dynamic thing.
At some times there is lots of work for most people, at some times hardly any work is available.
The amount of work available is a factor of 3 things, 1. Initiatives to work. 2. Financing
of these initiatives. 3 Law and order. Either individuals start their own business through an
initiative and if people with money believe in that individual and initiative they get financed
as long as there is law and order so that the financing gives a return of investment. Or existing
business start their own initiatives with their own money, investors' money or loans.
When people sit on their money out of fear, lack of quality initiatives or qualified abilities,
the economy hurts and people are going to be out of work. It works like a downward spiral, when
people have no income, they cannot buy services and goods, and the business can therefore not
sell, more people lose their jobs, less people buy and so on.
On the other hand, if people are hired, more people get money and purchase things from businesses,
demand increases, businesses hire more people to meet demand, more people get money, and purchase
more things from the businesses. The economy goes in a thriving upward spiral.
What about trade between nations? Well as you have understood, there is a dynamic component
of the economy of a nation. There is an infrastructure, not only roads, electric grids, water
and sewage piping, but a business infrastructure. Institutions such as schools, universities,
private companies providing education to train the workforce. A network of companies that provide
tools, knowledge, material, so that a boss simply can purchase a turn-key solution from the market,
after minimal organising, after the financing has been made. These turn-key solutions to provide
goods and services to the market and thus make money for the initiative makers and provide both
jobs and functions as an equalising of resources. Equalising if the initiative makers take patents,
keep business secrets and have abilities that are more competitive than the rich AND do not sell
their money-making opportunity to the rich but fight in the market.
In other words, if you sit on a good initiative and notice you are expanding in the market
(and thus other players are declining in their market share, including the rich), don't be stupid.
Now a hostile nation to your nation, knows about this infrastructure. This infrastructure takes
time to build up. One way to fight nations is to destroy their infrastructure by outcompeting
them with low prices. All businesses in a sector is out-sourced. But the thing is, if a nation
tries to do this, and if you have floating currencies (and thus you have your own currency, which
is very important to a nation), your own currency will fall in relative value. (e.g. businesses
in China gets dollars for sold goods to USA, sell them (the dollars they got) and buy yuan (the
currency in China), this increased sell pressure will cause the dollar to drop in value) If you
import more than you export. Therefore your nation's business will have an easier time to sell
and export. Thus there is a natural balance.
But, if your nation borrows money from the hostile nation, then this correction of currency
value will not occur. The difference in export and import will be balanced by borrowing money
and the currency value will stay the same.
Thus all your manufacturing businesses and thus the infrastructure can be destroyed within
a nation because of imports are more than exports and the nation borrows money.
Then when the nation is weak and dependent on the industry of the hostile nation a decisive
stab in can occur and your nation will be destroyed and taken over by the hostile nation.
Free trade naturally includes the purchasing of land and property. Thus while we exchange perishable
goods for hard land and property, there is a slow over taking of the nation's long term resources,
all masked off under the parole of free trade. Like a drug addict we crave for the easy way out
buying cheap perishable goods while the land is taken over by foreign owners protected by our
own ownership laws. The only way out of this is replacing free trade with regulated trade. In
our nation's own interest.
Thus free trade can be very destructive. It really is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Trump is a disruptor -- and this moribund political economic system deserves disruption. The feeble
Democrats could only come up with Sanders (who cringingly promised to support Hillary once she
overwhelms him in the rigged system) is not in the same class. Bigoted clown in some ways he expresses
the anger millions feel. Get used to it.
Im sorry. No matter how smart you like to appear when you commenting on the Guardian after saying
things like "Trump is far and away the smartest, brainiest, most intelligent candidate running
on either side" how can anyone take your views serious?
Yeah maybe not all voters are racists. Sure. But most of them still are. Most Trump voters
are also extremely uneducated, ignorant and filled with right wing media false fact anger. "To
make America great again" I have never laughed so hard in my life before. America isn't in bad
shape right now. There are always problems but building a wall (which is hysterical) to save us
from immigrants for example is just plain crazy.
Trump of course inserts real issues like Veterans. Trade. Ok. Its easy to say one thing but
when you look at his past, he's ruined various businesses and is currently under investigation
for fraud.
To say that that DT is smart is crazy. The guy cannot articulate anything to save his life
and when you look at how protesters get (mis)handled at his rallies how can you even come on here
and say the things you do. YOu should be ashamed of yourself. But sure have a President that's
ignoring Climate change and you will see where Florida will be in a few years. Ironically they
vote for Trump so the joke in the end will be on them.
This article may have some good points but still, Donald Trump is nothing more but
an opportunist. He doesn't really give a shit about you, the little white class. He's not intelligent
or even capable to LEAD a country like ours. Europe is laughing at us already. The circus was
fun for a while but I think its time to get realistic and stop this monkey show for good.
Trump/Cruz are monsters who have plans for the take-over of the US. Trump will be like his friend
Carl Icahn. He will take all he can in profit. Sell off parts cheap off-shore. Ignore the ex-workers
living under a bridge. Cruz the Domionionist Evangelical will say Armageddon is in the Bible as
he creates it in the Middle East. Neither man should be running for President, but the system
has been captured by the likes of Rupert Murdoch who is drilling for oil in Syria with his friends
Cheney and the Rothschilds. The Koch Brothers Father set up the John Birch Society. Jeb Bush from
a family of many generations who supported Hitler too. We are seeing the bad karma of the West
in bright lights including the poor whites who thought being a white male meant something. They
flock to any help they think they can get from the master-con-man Trump or the Bible man Cruz.
Yes. The US was systematically gutted by people like Romney and friends who made fortunes for
themselves. One of Trump's best friends, Carl Icahn, the hostile take-over artist, knows exactly
how the game is run. It begins by doing and saying anything to get control. Americans are now
chum for the sharks and they know it. Following a cheap imitation of Hitler is not the answer.
Nor is the Evangelical Armageddon Cruz promised his Father.
What this article fails to understand is that racism was always an essential feature of Reaganomics.
Reagan told the mostly poorer white voters of the south and midwest to vote tax cuts for the 1%
on the theory this would increase general prosperity. When that prosperity failed to materialize,
the Republicans always blamed minorities: welfare queens, mexican rapists, etc. Racism was essentially
a feature of their economic model.
Now look at Trump's economic model. It's a neoliberal's dream. He doesn't have a meaningful
critique of the system - that's Bernie Sanders. Instead, Trump picks fights with the Chinese and
Mexicans, to further stoke the racism of his base under the guise of an economic critique. That's
just more of the same. It's what Republicans have been doing for three decades.
The only way in which any of this is new is that Trump fronts the racism instead of hiding
it. That has less to do with Trump than with the slightly deranged mindset of white Republicans
after 7 years of a black President. You think it's a coincidence these people are lining up for
King Birther?
Sorry, Thomas Frank - this is all about race. There are many flavors of neoliberal critique;
Trump has chosen the most flagrantly racist one. His entire appeal begins and largely ends with
race. It's the RACISM, stupid. That and little else.
You don't know what you are talking about. You are the one who is stupid. Obama is pushing bills
that destroy US jobs. Maybe you don't depend on a paycheck to live, but millions of people do.
Too bad you are so removed from reality that you can't empathize.
'Neoliberalism' is a tired cliche , a revanchist term designed to help pseudo-intellectual millenials
sound and feel quasi-intelligent about themselves as they grope, blindly towards a worldview they
feel safe about endorsing.
One must also look at the anti-Trump brigade to find many of his audience. Below in no particular
order are major reasons why he has millions of supporters.
The Anti-Trump Brigade
GOP
Tea Party
Politicians, elected officials in DC all parties.
DC media from TV to internet
Romney, Gingrich, Scarborough, Beck and other assorted losers.
One thing in common they all have very high negatives, particularly the politicians and media
outlets.
Yes! I got on the Trump train after seeing Fox News CEO Ailes' horrible press release insulting
Trump the day before Fox News was to moderate a GOP debate.
The lack of journalistic ethics was so egregious... and then when not one other media outlet
called Fox on their bullshit, not even NPR... I said hey, it is essential to democracy to treat
candidates fairly. they are not treating him fairly! The media hates democracy!?
Good article focusing in on what should really concern us - trade. In particular our inability
to make goods rather than provide services. This is one of the reasons for the slide in lower
middle class lifestyles which is fueling support for Trump
Protectionism can be very destructive. Japan forced Detroit to improve the quality of its cars.
Before Toyota and Honda did it, why would GM and Ford want to make a car that lasted 200,000 miles?
Cheap foreign labor was only one of the reasons for the decline of US manufacturing.
Redonfire,
When I tell one of my sons that globalisation has shafted the european working an d middle class,
he says" yes, but what about its creation of a Chinese and Indian middle class"
I reply that I care as much about them as they care about me.
And "service industry" jobs are also being offshored to call centers and the like. When was the
last time you heard a US accent when you called tech support or any other call center?
because ultimately, I feel based upon listening to my family members who are working class white
folks, they feel that Bernie is a communist, not a socialist, and they don't trust that (or likely
really know the difference). So unfortunately for Da Bern, he will never be able to attract most
of these votes, even though he and The great Hair have (in general) some of the same policies.
The real question is why will the left not turn to the Hair, and get 70% of what they want, having
to listen to bragado and Trump_vs_deep_states as the trade off?
He wants to deport millions upon millions of undocumented immigrants.
I have to say this doesn't seem wildly outrageous - many of them will be working in the black
economy, and helping to further undercut wages in the US. Actually seems quite reasonable. Trump
is still a buffoon, but why throw this at him, when there is soo much else to go at?
The weakness of Labour under Blair has caused the same problems. They abandoned the working
classes in favour of grabbing middle class votes and relied on working class voters continuing
to support them, because they had "nowhere else to go". It worked for "New Labour" for a
while, then us peasants got fed up with the Hampstead Set running the show for their own class
and we started voting UKIP or, as in my case, despairing and not voting at all.
Thank God Jeremy Corbyn has put Labour back on track & pushed the snobbish elements of the
people's party back to the margins!
This reminded me of something I heard on NPR this weekend: Charles Evers, Medgar Evers' brother
and a prominent civil rights activist since the 50's, is endorsing Trump.
The reason is because the media and most of the people are involved in character debates about
him and that's just a game. You support "your guy" and try to denigrate "their guy". It's a game
of insults and no-one ever won an argument by insulting their opponent.
Trump policies show that he wants a trade war, that he wants to build a wall, which will do
little or nothing, at great cost, and he wants to exclude Muslims, when Americans have experienced
more attacks from Christian Terrorists, and American civilians are still 25 times more likely
to die falling out of bed than in a terrorist attack.
He wants to abolish corporate tax entirely, without saying where the money will come from
instead (that means you).
He wants to cut spending on education. But hasn't said if that's because he wants someone
else to do the job, or because he wants a stupid electorate. The Federal Government spends
1.3% of it's budget on education - how much can actually be saved and doesn't the 4.3% spent
on national debt interest indicate somewhere where more can be saved ?
He opposes democracy in the Middle East & prefers the stability of dictators (despite the
chaos that existed in the US, right after independence).
He wants more sanctions on Iran - proving his detachment from reality. The Iran nuclear
deal was pragmatic. It was agreed when we knew Russia, China and India were preparing to lift
their own sanctions, leaving the world with no real leverage to get a better deal.
He supports gun rights, saying they save lives, even though more people die from accidental
shootings, than are saved when used defensively. I am a gun owner in favor of more gun control,
because I want to see the balance shifted to give law-abiding citizens a greater advantage
over criminals. (at this point, the gun nuts jump in saying "criminals don't obey the law".
Yes they do when in jail. If we abolished any law that was ever broken....we would have NO
LAWS).
He wants fewer vaccinations for children, to avoid the (discredited) problems with autism.
He wants a more isolationist diplomatic approach & more military.
He focuses on the criminal activity of illegal aliens, even though crime rates are lower
in their communities than in the general population.
He doesn't want the minimum wage raised, he wants more minimum wage jobs - even though
people on minimum wage often require state and federal financial assistance, just to live.
Interestingly you have raised issues that are all very complex -- and that is just the problem.
We have become a society that promotes complexity and then does not want to discuss and analyze
those complex issues, but wants to oversimplify and fight and make the "other side" be a devil.
Are we all getting dumbed down to slogans and cliches?
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards
. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see
our FAQs .
and who signed the job-crushing NAFTA legislation that allowed companies to move jobs offshore?
Bill Clinton........ the Republican in Democrat clothing.
The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured, had nowhere
else to go, in the famous Clinton-era expression. The party just didn't need to listen to them
any longer.
"Neo-Liberalism" was given an impetus push with the waning days of the Carter administration when
de-regulation became a policy.....escalated tremendously during Reagan and the rest is history......participated
in by both major US political parties.
They never looked back and never looked deep into the consequences for the average folk. Famously
said, "You can't put the toothpaste back into the tube", applies to global trade also. The toothpaste
is out of the tube. Any real change will be regressive, brutal and probably bring about more wars
around the globe.
What has to change and can is the political attitude of the upcoming political leaders and
the publics willingness to focus more on what a, "progressive" society should be.
To totally eliminate the abject greed inherent in the "free economies" (an oxymoron if ever) that
is crushing most of the working classes around the world under "global free trade (agreements)"
will be impossible.
A re-focus on what is meant by the "commons" would help enormously. And an explanation that
would appeal to the common folk by pointing out the natural opportunities to all of us (with the
exception of the true elites) by developed intellectuals and common folk leaders would also benefit
all.
By the "commons" I mean:
General benefit to most common working class people which would include the "class" definition
of "middle classes"....which are in too many cases floundering in the current economic climate.
Universal health care.
An expansion of production "co-ops".
Universal education through at least 2-4 years of "college".
A general overhaul of our Military/Industrial/Intelligence etc./Complex.
A re-allocation of our collected tax priorities (applies to the above).
A "commons" focus on a total rebuilding of our rusted, commercially destroyed environments
all across this country (and across the world).
Capitalism is a game.
There needs to be a firewall between the free flows of rabid global capital and the true needs
of a progressive society.
The game of capitalism needs rules and referees to back up those rules.
There has to be political/public will to back up those rules and referees with force of law.
We need a total new vision for the globe.
Without it we will succumb to total social/economic chaos.
We here in the US have no true progressive vision exhibited by any candidate.
Bernie Sanders comes close but no cigar.
Hillary C. is trying to exert the vision of seeking the presidency as a kind of, "family business."
Trump is appealing to many who have been trashed by globalization.......
Continuous warfare is not a foreign policy. Greed and narcissism is not a national one. We
continue to fail in history lessons.
As I would expect, Thomas (The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule; What's the Matter With Kansas?)
Frank offers insights that Clintonites can ignore at their peril. As the widow of a hardworking
man who was twice the victim of "outsourcing" to Malaysia and India, and whose prolonged illness
brought with it savings-decimating drug costs, I can well see how Trump's appeal goes beyond xenophobia
and racism.
Everybody knows that Trump sends jobs overseas and employs illegals, even his devotees. This destroys
Frank's argument that people adore Trump because he sympathizes with their pain and actively wants
to help them.
Frank did not write that "people adore Trump because he sympathizes with their pain and actively
wants to help them." As Tom Lewandowski, the president of the Northeast Indiana Central Labor
Council in Fort Wayne, said, "We've had all the political establishment standing behind every
trade deal, and we endorsed some of these people, and then we've had to fight them to get them
to represent us."
Ill-considered trade deals (NAFTA ended a million jobs) and generous bank
bailouts and guaranteed profits for insurance companies but no recovery for average people, ever
– these policies have taken their toll.
Trump is saying that NAFTA and neo-liberalism have failed the American people.
You could be describing Hillary and Bill the fraudulent guy who "feels your pain". Liars and
in the pockets of bankers, that couple is not your friend.
Frank's argument is on what his followers believe to be true. Frank admits that their beliefs
may be naive. He is writing on the reasons for Trump's popularity.
Beyond who or what i vote for, It is nice to see a news article focusing on issues and platforms
instead of one of the many attacks or other issues seperating politics from legislation. I want
news on candidates positions, ideas, plans. This circus of he said she said and the other junk
used to sway votes or up ratings is beyond dumb.
Free trade is like all other good ideas, it only works if it is kept in balance.
Understanding the internal structure of the Atom is a good idea. Proliferating Hydrogen bombs,
the same idea taken way too far..
And as for bad human ideas, well just the worst thing on the planet.
People support Trump and the very different Corbyn because they can see that that our current
version of Free trade is hopelessly inefficient and screws everybody except the very rich.
They care about power. Progressives don't give a sod about the minorities or supposedly oppressed
groups they bang on about. They want power and they are getting lots of it. When the West burns,
those progressives who acquired enough power will be safe inside their walled fortresses with
their bodyguards.
Its' a sad truth that corporations have used trade deals to increase profits by shipping jobs
to areas where pay is sometimes 1/10 of pay in US. Sanders is the only other politician voicing
concern. In fact Sanders is responsible for the stall on the next trade deal with China and Japan.
Japan and China uses devaluation s a trade barrier and World Trade does nothing. we are constrained
in our ability to devalue our currency because of the effect on the stock market. many Americans
rely on money invested into stocks and bonds.
I don't see a true value to trade if it involves loss of jobs and lowered pay. I do see
value in fair trade where we receive somewhat equal return , like 60/40, like in China and
Japan where the return is more like 80 for them 20 for us.
Yes, Trump does talk about jobs/economy but let us not forget that the Third Reich also promised
to end runaway inflation and unemployment. To a large extent, they did low unemployment levels.
However, racism was an important galvanizing factor.
In the Middle Ages, racism was a galvanizing factor in the Crusades. Muslims dominated Mediterranean
trade and stop it, European monarchy used racism against Moors/Saracens/Turks to garner support
against the Muslims at that time.
So, for history,s sake, let,s just call a spade a spade..........Trump is racist and so are
his supporters (among other things).
While I'm no fan of big corporations or NAFTA (which was negotiated by Bush #1 and Brian Mulroney,
both conservatives), no one seems to be talking about the other side of the equation - demand.
Perhaps jobs are going to Mexico, China etc. in part because consumers won't pay the cost of a
product manufactured in rich nations. Small example - a big outdoors co-op here in Canada used
to sell paniers and other bike bags made by a company in Canada. Consumers would not buy them
because they cost more, so the firm closed down and that co-op's bike equipment now comes from
Viet Nam.
If Trump forces Apple or Ford to return jobs to the US, will the products they make
be too expensive for the consumers? If a tariff wall goes up around the US, will the notoriously
frugal American shoppers start to get annoyed because, while they have t-shirt factories in wherever
state, the products they want cost more than what they want (or can) pay for?
I don't have any special insight into the effects on consumer prices of tariffs, but I do think
it's at least prudent to include that in the discussion before starting a trade war.
Hilarious.. talk about "I love the uneducated!" Yeah because everything he rants about with free
trade he has benefited from.. let us not forget MADE IN CHINA Trump suits.
The Guardian's incessant Trump bashing disguises, unfortunately, how similarly repugnant Cruz(particularly)
and Rubio are. Clinton is better, not by far, and Sanders though wonderfully idealist and full
of integrity, will be able to accomplish nothing with the Republicans controlling Congress.
I'm living in Japan, where in the past decade they have taken in 11 refugees. That's not 11
million or even 11 thousand. I mean 11.
Progressives may be surprised to hear that Japan is a wonderful country, not only free from
imported terrorism but also mind-boggling safe. I mean "leave your laptop on the street all day
and it won't get stolen" safe. They also have cool anime and Pokemon and toilets which are like
the Space Shuttle.
And guess what, they are not racist. They have borders and they are not racist. I know
this is a hard concept for progressives to get their heads around, but believe it or not it is
possible.
By the way, they think Europeans are absolute INSANE to let in these touchy-feely economic
migrants. They're right, and Europe is going to pay one hell of a pric
Neil24
The Guardian's incessant Trump bashing disguises, unfortunately, how similarly repugnant
Cruz(particularly) and Rubio are. Clinton is better, not by far, and Sanders though wonderfully
idealist and full of integrity, will be able to accomplish nothing with the Republicans controlling
Congress.
"... As soon liberalism feels it can plausibly claim to have moved overcome the socialist and fascist challenges (the Fukuyamaist "end of history" and/or "end of ideology") these ideologues are empowered to act as if liberalism's adaptive response to the socialist and fascist challenges was never necessary in the first place - bye bye welfare state, hello neoliberalism ..."
"... I'm thinking more of local governments like the ones stereotypically predominant in the Southeast, or even the legendarily corrupt history of "machine" politics in cities like Chicago. ..."
"... So in order to uphold the legitimacy of the system as such we acknowledge that sure, someone in rural Louisiana might not always be able to get rid of their corrupt local mayors/sheriffs/judges/etc. through the ballot box directly, but at least they can vote in federal elections for the people and institutions that will ..."
"... Accordingly, to treat the federal system as itself no more inherently legitimate than the local ones - to treat the government in Washington as fundamentally the same kind of racket as the government in Ferguson - is to argue that it needs fundamentally the same kind of external oversight, and barring a foreign invasion or a world government, the only potentially equivalent overseer for the US federal government is a mass revolt. ..."
"... The elite project of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed ..."
"... the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens. ..."
"... Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. ..."
"... That's why you have all of these Trump voters or Brexit voters or other tribalists who no longer believe what the center-right is selling them about lower taxes and less regulation delivering prosperity. About immigration and internationalism being a good thing. ..."
"... The elite project of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed ..."
"... the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed. ..."
"... I do think it is helpful to see the deregulation of finance beginning in the Carter and Reagan Administrations leading eventually to the GFC of 2008 as an historical project and a political whole, in which there have been deviations between the stated intentions of advocates, the reasonable anticipation of consequences by experts and the self-interested pursuit of short-term advantage in regulatory evasion and reform. ..."
As far as a definition, at least on the level of ideology I'd go with the following simplified-to-the-utmost
historical overview…
1. Liberalism (the 18th- and 19th-century bourgeois ideology of capitalism) defeats conservatism
(the 18th- and 19th-century aristocratic ideology of anti-capitalism)
2. Triumphant liberalism faces insurgent ideological challenges from its left and right (i.e.
Quiggin's "three-party system" model, except the three parties are clearly understood to be socialism,
liberalism, and fascism)
3. Liberalism is forced to respond to these challenges, in particular responding to the socialist
critique with the ideology of Keynesian interventionist "welfare liberalism" - ideologues of older
liberalism consider this response itself a taint of corruption
4. As soon liberalism feels it can plausibly claim to have moved overcome the socialist
and fascist challenges (the Fukuyamaist "end of history" and/or "end of ideology") these ideologues
are empowered to act as if liberalism's adaptive response to the socialist and fascist challenges
was never necessary in the first place - bye bye welfare state, hello neoliberalism
In any case, it's utterly bizarre to see people object so stridently to "neoliberalism" who
simultaneously don't seem to have a problem with the imperialist, anti-intellectual, and quite
frankly racist connotations of the term "tribalism".
Will G-R 09.02.16 at 4:19 pm
Bruce @ 104, I'm not clued into the SoCal-specific issues (so I don't know exactly how much a
Chinatown -esque narrative should be raised in contrast to your description of LA water
infrastructure as "the best of civic boosterism") but I'm thinking more of local governments
like the ones stereotypically predominant in the Southeast, or even the legendarily corrupt history
of "machine" politics in cities like Chicago.
he fact that these sorts of governments exist and have existed in the US is why every American,
even those of us who are well aware of McCarthyism and COINTELPRO and so on, can breathe a sigh
of relief when we see the words "the Justice Department today announced a probe aimed at local
government officials in…" because it means that the legitimate parts of our system are
asserting their predominance over the potentially illegitimate parts.
So in order to uphold the legitimacy of the system as such we acknowledge that sure, someone
in rural Louisiana might not always be able to get rid of their corrupt local mayors/sheriffs/judges/etc.
through the ballot box directly, but at least they can vote in federal elections for the people
and institutions that will get rid of these officials if they overstep the bounds of
what we as a nation consider acceptable. (This also extends to more informal institutions
like the media: the local paper might not be shining the light on local corruption, but the media
as such can fulfill its function and redeem its institutional legitimacy if something too egregious
falls into the national spotlight.)
Accordingly, to treat the federal system as itself no more inherently legitimate than the
local ones - to treat the government in Washington as fundamentally the same kind of racket as
the government in Ferguson - is to argue that it needs fundamentally the same kind of external
oversight, and barring a foreign invasion or a world government, the only potentially equivalent
overseer for the US federal government is a mass revolt.
The center-right hasn't really delivered and neither has the center-left. The elite project
of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed . This
is an opportunity for the left but also a time fraught with danger should the tribalists somehow
get the upperhand. I feel the U.S. is too diverse for this to happen but it might in other nations.
I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit
wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows
in part how neoliberalism has failed.
" American liberalism has always been internationalist and mildly pro-free-trade. It's also
been pro-union…"
Then why are unions in such bad shape? Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free
flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens.
Think about the TPP where corporate arbitration courts can be used by corporations to sue
governments without regard to those nations' legislation. I'd be more in favor of international
courts if they weren't used merely to further corporate interests and profits. Neoliberals argue
that what benefits these multinational corporations benefits their home country.
I pretty much agree with what Quiggin is saying here. Neoliberalism has failed both in
practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting
neoliberalism into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasn't
delivered.
That's why you have all of these Trump voters or Brexit voters or other tribalists who
no longer believe what the center-right is selling them about lower taxes and less regulation
delivering prosperity. About immigration and internationalism being a good thing.
The center-right hasn't really delivered and neither has the center-left. The elite project
of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed. This is
an opportunity for the left but also a time fraught with danger should the tribalists somehow
get the upperhand. I feel the U.S. is too diverse for this to happen but it might in other nations.
I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit
wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows
in part how neoliberalism has failed.
... I do think it is helpful to see the deregulation of finance beginning in the Carter and
Reagan Administrations leading eventually to the GFC of 2008 as an historical project and a political
whole, in which there have been deviations between the stated intentions of advocates, the reasonable
anticipation of consequences by experts and the self-interested pursuit of short-term advantage
in regulatory evasion and reform.
"... neoliberalism is the ideology of the global managerial class. It encompasses leading political neoliberals such as Clinton(s), Blair, and Obama, Eurocrats, the upper management of multinationals, the management of large NGOs, higher-up Chinese Communist Party members, and everyone else who comes together to make the current world system work via characteristic international agreements and arrangements ..."
"... it has no mass base as such. ..."
"... Neoliberalism in policy becomes free trade agreements, austerity, the inability to address income inequality, free rides for banks, and general politics under the rubric of "there is no alternative" as elites loot whatever they can loot. ..."
"... Neoliberalism obeys the dictates of the elite without, itself, being composed of a classical wealth-owning elite: neoliberals are often very wealthy, but they are managers of other people's wealth rather than capitalists as such. But there is no base anywhere that demands austerity or the TPP, so neoliberalism always pretends to be a vaguely left centrism, and adopts left ideas on racism, sexism, homophobia and so on in the sense that it ideally treats people as meritocratically chosen. ..."
"... As a result of not being able to call neoliberals neoliberals, Thomas Frank has no real way to describe what happened other than by going through a lot of detail, most of which will be long familiar to any left reader in the U.S. ..."
"... Frank seems to believe that the Democratic Party can return to something like a New Deal coalition, something that I think is impossible. The system has moved on and can't be glued back together. The state fundamentally doesn't need most people and is looking for ways to shed them -- ways which neoliberalism makes possible -- and labor doesn't have the power that it once did, not because of the machinations of the elites (although those certainly are happening) but because we don't need as much labor or the same kind of labor as we once did. ..."
Thomas Frank's book _Listen, Liberal_ has a central problem: it describes U.S. political neoliberalism
in detail but never makes the jump to calling it something other than liberalism. As a result, it's
never quite sure what it's recommending. Something about going back to how liberalism was during
the New Deal era -- but what was it then, and can we really go back to that now, and how would we
get there?
Before writing more about his book I'll give a short description of what I think neoliberalism
is: neoliberalism is the ideology of the global managerial class. It encompasses leading political
neoliberals such as Clinton(s), Blair, and Obama, Eurocrats, the upper management of multinationals,
the management of large NGOs, higher-up Chinese Communist Party members, and everyone else who comes
together to make the current world system work via characteristic international agreements and arrangements.
It may more or less be held as an ideology by middle management, and by most professional economists
and international functionaries, but it has no mass base as such.
Neoliberalism in policy becomes free trade agreements, austerity, the inability to address
income inequality, free rides for banks, and general politics under the rubric of "there is no alternative"
as elites loot whatever they can loot. Neoliberalism is a liberalism, and depends on conservatism
being more objectionable than it is (and the left being generally absent), but it is not left-liberalism,
and it is not classical liberalism since it exists within a system that has contemporary political
actors in it.
Neoliberalism obeys the dictates of the elite without, itself, being composed of a classical
wealth-owning elite: neoliberals are often very wealthy, but they are managers of other people's
wealth rather than capitalists as such. But there is no base anywhere that demands austerity or the
TPP, so neoliberalism always pretends to be a vaguely left centrism, and adopts left ideas on racism,
sexism, homophobia and so on in the sense that it ideally treats people as meritocratically chosen.
Distinguishing neoliberalism from the remnant New Deal or left-liberal base of the Democratic
Party might have been a good thing for Frank's book to do, but it doesn't. Looking up "neoliberalism"
in the index, first the book mentions the U.S. Neoliberals of the early 1980s, then it refers to
NAFTA in 1993 as a landmark of neoliberalism, but there's nothing about how we got from one meaning
of the word to the other. This is a common confusion: there are still people who insist that neoliberalism
is a word that describes a U.S. movement of the early 1980s that then disappeared, or Britain under
Thatcher. But the rest of the world outside the U.S. has long since settled on the word "neoliberalism"
to describe a worldwide politics and a worldwide system. Using it only in its anglosphere-historical
sense is parochial.
As a result of not being able to call neoliberals neoliberals, Thomas Frank has no real way
to describe what happened other than by going through a lot of detail, most of which will be long
familiar to any left reader in the U.S. There's a lot about Clinton, Obama, and the prospective
HRC Presidency. I really didn't learn much from the bulk of the book, other than that microlending
has failed and indeed is rather like a predatory payday loan scheme for people outside of the U.S.
(something which I should have suspected, in retrospect). It would be a good book to read for someone
who still thinks that Obama is a left-liberal and who expects that from HRC.
But Frank's analysis
is a bit off when he identifies professionals as "the 10%" who support contemporary-Democratic-Party
politics. Professionals broadly may be sympathetic to neoliberalism and certainly to meritocracy,
but they don't broadly have the power to maintain a neoliberal system or the numbers to be a voting
base for it.
Frank seems to believe that the Democratic Party can return to something like a New Deal coalition,
something that I think is impossible. The system has moved on and can't be glued back together. The
state fundamentally doesn't need most people and is looking for ways to shed them -- ways which neoliberalism
makes possible -- and labor doesn't have the power that it once did, not because of the machinations
of the elites (although those certainly are happening) but because we don't need as much labor or
the same kind of labor as we once did.
A new party of the non-elites is going to have to be based on something other than labor power,
something that Frank's analysis isn't far enough from the mainstream to guess at. That said, this
will still a useful book for some people.
> Neoliberalism in policy becomes ...the inability to address income inequality, free rides
for banks, and general politics under the rubric of "there is no alternative" as elites loot whatever
they can loot.
So essentially you are *defining* neoliberalism as a bad thing. I guess you're entitled to,
if you don't like it, but it will then be dull if you draw the conclusion from that, that its
a bad thing.
Free trade is a good thing (sez I) but I agree with you it has no broad base of support, other
than amongst economists, who are the people that understand it.
I'm not really defining it as a bad thing: I'm saying that it has certain characteristics.
Systems are bad in comparison to other systems, so neoliberalism is worse than some systems and
better than others. For instance, the Paris Agreements are characteristic of neoliberalism, but
that doesn't mean that they are intrinsically bad: they are better than the non-agreement or active
denialism that would be all that some other systems could produce.
Strange how elites get committed to failed policies which end
up biting them back as they become quagmires...America's
military adventurism, trickle down monetary policy, etc.
He and others have been saying these things for a while. I
was pleased he pointed out Junckers threat to do Britain in
so that no one else would want to leave. Not a little of that
still going on. Will lose them some exports for sure.
"... No markets are free and efficient. All markets have rules. Governments make and enforce the rules. Market efficiency is a product of the quality of the rules ..."
"... Those who cry "interference" are those who have gamed the system for advantage and want to protect that advantage ..."
Those comments are about his article
Want a Free Market? Abolish Cash - Narayana Kocherlakota
.
The rules are enforced by the state.
The state is an umpire of the markets,
However, as we saw under
neoliberalism, the state can be captured by wealthy special interests who then make, modify and
enforce the rules to their own benefit.
Narayana's article is
interesting, but I hate hate this trying to appease the right
with, "Like any government interference, this causes
inefficiencies." Such dangerous misleading. He knows very
well that often government "interference" incredibly
increases efficiency, like with externalities, asymmetric
information, high monopoly power,...
Just terrible to spread this dangerous misinformation that
government interference is always inefficient -- And you'll
never appease the right.
Amen
No markets are free and efficient.
All markets have rules.
Governments make and enforce the rules.
Market efficiency is a product of the quality of the rules
In this context the notion of interference is absurd.
Markets themselves are not natural, they are a product of
interference.
Those who cry "interference" are those who have gamed the
system for advantage and want to protect that advantage
"The rules are often however not
made and or enforced by the state"
No the rules are made and enforced
by the state.
However, the state can be captured
by wealthy special interests who
then make, modify and enforce the
rules to their own benefit.
The wealthy special interests
claim to be supporting "Free
markets"
They are actuality supporting more
corrupt markets.
Greater corruption of markets
leads to greater inefficiency.
We need to lose the term "free" as
applied to markets
I have no argument with your
characterization of state capture
Indeed state design has the
authorship of last centuries
New deal era corporate compromise
with the domestic job class
Since the counter reformation
CR began back in1976 or so
The social contract drawn up 30
years earlier has seen serious
erosions
Let us hope the 2008 crisis has
halted the CR
Now we must struggle on towards a
new social charter
social design
Ie mechanism design
And where appropriate
Aggressively
Imposed by the state
"
Controlling interest in the
"state" has been bought out by
*anti social design*. With the
freedom of speech that remains, We
the Lower Caste of folks worth
less than $1,000,000.00 can still
spread the word, the word of how
to cope, how to muddle through.
"Government interference" is in
fact the only thing that allows
markets to function and exist. The
real inefficiencies are created by
greed and dishonesty on the part
of buyers and sellers.
I should add (for the historical
record, as my genius will not be
recognized until long after my
time) that Narayana was also,
sadly, trying to increase his
appeal by trying to look more
"centrist" (as the truth has a
well known liberal bias), and less
liberal, so he lied; he horribly
mislead in a harmful way saying,
"Like any government interference,
this causes inefficiencies."
I like Narayana, and I
understand that he might have
thought that supporting this
profoundly harmful fallacy might
have been worth it to get a better
reception for his main message on
monetary policy. But it's up to
the rest of us to speak up against
horrible anti-government
simple-minded fallacies.
"... So "Carthago delenda est" is the official policy. With heavy brainwashing from MSM to justify such a course as well as the demonization of Putin. ..."
"... The USA actions in Ukraine speak for themselves. Any reasonable researcher after this "color revolution" should print his/her anti-Russian comments, shred them and eat with borsch. Because the fingerprints of the USA neoliberal imperial policy were everywhere and can't be ignored. And Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton appointee. Not that Russia in this case was flawless, but just the fact that opposition decided not to wait till the elections was the direct result of the orders from Washington. ..."
All this anti-Russian warmongering from esteemed commenters here is suspect. And should be
taken with a grain of salt.
The USA neoliberal elite considers Russia to be an obstacle in the creation of the USA led
global neoliberal empire (with EU and Japan as major vassals),
So "Carthago delenda est" is the official policy. With heavy brainwashing from MSM to justify
such a course as well as the demonization of Putin.
The USA actions in Ukraine speak for themselves. Any reasonable researcher after this "color
revolution" should print his/her anti-Russian comments, shred them and eat with borsch. Because
the fingerprints of the USA neoliberal imperial policy were everywhere and can't be ignored. And
Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton appointee. Not that Russia in this case was flawless, but
just the fact that opposition decided not to wait till the elections was the direct result of
the orders from Washington.
That means that as bad as Trump is, he is a safer bet than Hillary, because the latter is a
neocon warmonger, which can get us in the hot war with Russia. And this is the most principal,
cardinal issue of the November elections.
All other issues like climate change record (although nuclear winter will definitely reverse
global warming), Supreme Court appointments, etc. are of secondary importance.
As John Kenneth Galbraith said, "Politics is the art of choosing between the disastrous and
the unpalatable."
"... The article on the difficulty of taking over the Democratic Party hits the nail on the head, but it misses the Michels-ian problem: organizations have a tendency (but not this is a tendency, not a rule or fate) towards increasing oligarchy over time, and organizational members are socialized to trust and obey party leadership. ..."
"... if you and a faction entered and created a "Destroy the Dems" faction you'd be ignored or hunted out of the party, especially if you pointedly attacked the Dems oligarchy and were openly hostile to their officials, platform and the president – though I would argue you'd need exactly a "Destroy the Dems" faction to succeed in smashing the party oligarchy and changing the culture. ..."
"... Lack of democracy is a persistent theme in studies of parties for the last century. ..."
The article on the difficulty of taking over the Democratic Party hits the nail on the head,
but it misses the Michels-ian problem: organizations have a tendency (but not this is a tendency,
not a rule or fate) towards increasing oligarchy over time, and organizational members are socialized
to trust and obey party leadership. Factional dissidents within the Dems have to contend not
only with the party oligarchy and its formidable resources, the decentralized and sprawling nature
of the organization, but with a membership that barely participates but, when it does, turns out
when and how the leadership wants.
The Militant Labour tendency example isn't perfect – entryism into a Parliamentary party is easier
than our party system – but it speaks volumes. To get a hearing from the party membership you can
only criticize so much of the organization itself; if you and a faction entered and created a
"Destroy the Dems" faction you'd be ignored or hunted out of the party, especially if you pointedly
attacked the Dems oligarchy and were openly hostile to their officials, platform and the president
– though I would argue you'd need exactly a "Destroy the Dems" faction to succeed in smashing the
party oligarchy and changing the culture.
Keep in mind I do say this as a Green and a person who did his PhD on inner-party democracy (or
lack thereof). Lack of democracy is a persistent theme in studies of parties for the last century.
It would make more sense to really unite the left around electoral reform in the long run and
push for proportional representation at the state/local level for legislatures and city councils.
While it would probably be preferable for democracy's sake to have one big district elected with
an open-list vote, in the US context we'd probably go the German route of mixed-member proportional
that combines geographical single-member districts with proportional voting.
"... The only way Russia can be acceptable to the West is to accept vassal status. ..."
"... Russia can end the Ukraine crisis by simply accepting the requests of the former Russian territories to reunite with Russia. Once the breakaway republics are again part of Russia, the crisis is over. Ukraine is not going to attack Russia. ..."
"... Russia doesn't end the crisis, because Russia thinks it would be provocative and upset Europe. Actually, that is what Russia needs to do-upset Europe. Russia needs to make Europe aware that being Washington's tool against Russia is risky and has costs for Europe. ..."
"... Instead, Russia shields Europe from the costs that Washington imposes on Europe and imposes little cost on Europe for acting against Russia in Washington's interest. Russia still supplies its declared enemies, whose air forces fly provocative flights along Russia's borders, with the energy to put their war planes into the air. ..."
"... Washington and only Washington determines "international norms." America is the "exceptional, indispensable" country. No other country has this rank ..."
"... A country with an independent foreign policy is a threat to Washington. The neoconservative Wolfowitz Doctrine makes this completely clear. The Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign and military policy, defines as a threat any country with sufficient power to act as a constraint on Washington's unilateral action. The Wolfowitz Doctrine states unambiguously that any country with sufficient power to block Washington's purposes in the world is a threat and that "our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of" any such country. ..."
"... If the Russian government thinks that Washington's word means anything, the Russian government is out to lunch. ..."
"... Iran is well led, and Vladimir Putin has rescued Russia from US and Israeli control, but both governments continue to act as if they are taking some drug that makes them think that Washington can be a partner. ..."
"... These delusions are dangerous, not only to Russia and Iran, but to the entire world. If Russia and Iran let their guard down, they will be nuked, and so will China. Washington stands for one thing and one thing only: World Hegemony. ..."
"... Just ask the Neoconservatives or read their documents. The neoconservatives control Washington. No one else in the government has a voice. For the neoconservatives, Armageddon is a tolerable risk to achieve the goal of American World Hegemony ..."
Russia so desperately desires to be part of the disreputable and collapsing West that Russia is
losing its grip on reality.
Despite hard lesson piled upon hard lesson, Russia cannot give up its hope of being acceptable
to the West. The only way Russia can be acceptable to the West is to accept vassal status.
Russia miscalculated that diplomacy could solve the crisis that Washington created in Ukraine and
placed its hopes on the Minsk Agreement, which has no Western support whatsoever, neither in Kiev
nor in Washington, London, and NATO.
Russia can end the Ukraine crisis by simply accepting the requests of the former Russian territories
to reunite with Russia. Once the breakaway republics are again part of Russia, the crisis is over.
Ukraine is not going to attack Russia.
Russia doesn't end the crisis, because Russia thinks it would be provocative and upset Europe.
Actually, that is what Russia needs to do-upset Europe. Russia needs to make Europe aware that being
Washington's tool against Russia is risky and has costs for Europe.
Instead, Russia shields Europe from the costs that Washington imposes on Europe and imposes little
cost on Europe for acting against Russia in Washington's interest. Russia still supplies its declared
enemies, whose air forces fly provocative flights along Russia's borders, with the energy to put
their war planes into the air.
This is the failure of diplomacy, not its success. Diplomacy cannot succeed when only one side
believes in diplomacy and the other side believes in force.
Russia needs to understand that diplomacy cannot work with Washington and its NATO vassals who
do not believe in diplomacy, but rely instead on force. Russia needs to understand that when Washington
declares that Russia is an outlaw state that "does not act in accordance with international norms,"
Washington means that Russia is not following Washington's orders. By "international norms," Washington
means Washington's will. Countries that are not in compliance with Washington's will are not acting
in accordance with "international norms."
Washington and only Washington determines "international norms." America is the "exceptional,
indispensable" country. No other country has this rank.
A country with an independent foreign policy is a threat to Washington. The neoconservative Wolfowitz
Doctrine makes this completely clear. The Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign and military
policy, defines as a threat any country with sufficient power to act as a constraint on Washington's
unilateral action. The Wolfowitz Doctrine states unambiguously that any country with sufficient power
to block Washington's purposes in the world is a threat and that "our first objective is to prevent
the re-emergence of" any such country.
Russia, China, and Iran are in Washington's crosshairs. Treaties and "cooperation" mean nothing.
Cooperation only causes Washington's targets to lose focus and to forget that they are targets. Russia's
foreign minister Lavrov seems to believe that now with the failure of Washington's policy of war
and destruction in the Middle East, Washington and Russia can work together to contain the ISIS jihadists
in Iraq and Syria. This is a pipe dream. Russia and Washington cannot work together in Syria and
Iraq, because the two governments have conflicting goals. Russia wants peace, respect for international
law, and the containment of radical jihadists elements. Washington wants war, no legal constraints,
and is funding radical jihadist elements in the interest of Middle East instability and overthrow
of Assad in Syria. Even if Washington desired the same goals as Russia, for Washington to work with
Russia would undermine the picture of Russia as a threat and enemy.
Russia, China, and Iran are the three countries that can constrain Washington's unilateral action.
Consequently, the three countries are in danger of a pre-emptive nuclear strike. If these countries
are so naive as to believe that they can now work with Washington, given the failure of Washington's
14-year old policy of coercion and violence in the Middle East, by rescuing Washington from the quagmire
it created that gave rise to the Islamic State, they are deluded sitting ducks for a pre-emptive
nuclear strike.
Washington created the Islamic State. Washington used these jihadists to overthrow Gaddafi in
Libya and then sent them to overthrow Assad in Syria. The American neoconservatives, everyone of
whom is allied with Zionist Israel, do not want any cohesive state in the Middle East capable of
interfering with a "Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates."
The ISIS jihadists learned that Washington's policy of murdering and displacing millions of Muslims
in seven countries had created an anti-Western constituency for them among the peoples of the Middle
East and have begun acting independently of their Washington creators.
The consequence is more chaos in the Middle East and Washington's loss of control.
Instead of leaving Washington to suffer at the hands of its own works, Russia and Iran, the two
most hated and demonized countries in the West, have rushed to rescue Washington from its Middle
East follies. This is the failure of Russian and Iranian strategic thinking. Countries that cannot
think strategically do not survive.
The Iranians need to understand that their treaty with Washington means nothing. Washington has
never honored any treaty. Just ask the Plains Indians or the last Soviet President Gorbachev.
If the Russian government thinks that Washington's word means anything, the Russian government
is out to lunch.
Iran is well led, and Vladimir Putin has rescued Russia from US and Israeli control, but both
governments continue to act as if they are taking some drug that makes them think that Washington
can be a partner.
These delusions are dangerous, not only to Russia and Iran, but to the entire world. If Russia and Iran let their guard down, they will be nuked, and so will China. Washington stands for one thing and one thing only: World Hegemony.
Just ask the Neoconservatives or read their documents. The neoconservatives control Washington. No one else in the government has a voice. For the neoconservatives, Armageddon is a tolerable risk to achieve the goal of American World
Hegemony.
Only Russia and China can save the world from Armageddon, but are they too deluded and worshipful
of the West to save Planet Earth?
If you are implying that Hillary Clinton supports the center left, you have
clearly not been paying attention her entire career, or to the careers of those
with whom she has surrounded herself. Even with today's ridiculously shifted
Overton window, there is nothing "left" about being an oligarch or a war criminal.
Can't speak for NC as a whole, but in my opinion, NC writers are criticizing
the person likely to win the election. These issues of corruption need to be
hashed out and handled well before inauguration.
Perhaps NC is providing a bit of balance, given the rest of the MSM has about
11 anti-Trump pieces for every 2 anti-HRC ones?
And having browsed through the FBI interview notes with Clinton, her defence against serious wrongdoing
is that she is a mixture of forgetful and incompetent. Is this really the best the Dems can do?
Good question, this NC reader is just pretty fed up with the status quo (maybe
others want to chime in):
– Unlimited immunity from prosecution for banking executive criminals
– More shiny new undeclared "nation-building" and "RTP" wars
– Globalist trade deals that enshrine unaccountable corporate tribunals over
national sovereignty, environmental and worker protection, and self-determination
– America's national business conducted in secrecy at the behest of corporate
donors to tax-exempt foundations
– Paid-for quid-pro-quo media manipulation of candidate and election coverage
– Health care system reform designed to benefit entrenched insurance providers
over providing access to reasonable-cost basic care.
Based on the above I'd say the 11:2 ratio looks about right.
"... The era of unchallenged neoliberal dominance is clearly over. Hopefully, it will prove to have been a relatively brief interruption in a long term trend towards a more humane and egalitarian society. Whether that is true depends on the success of the left in putting forward a positive alternative. ..."
"... Third, the "individualist" thingies work as long as people believe that they are on the winning side; but there is evidence enough today that most people are on the losing side of increasing inequality, so most people have reason to be pro leftish policies both in "moralistic" terms and in "crude self interest" terms. In the past this wasn't obvious, but today it is, and this drum should be banged more. ..."
"... Bob Zanelli @ 10, your comment perfectly embodies an ideological trap to be avoided at all costs. What Quiggin calls tribalism is precisely not ..."
"... I can't speak for other industrialized democracies, but in the US, there is essentially no ability for the left to engage in structural change. Every avenue has been either blocked by the 18th century political structures of the US (sometimes exploited in extraordinary ways by the monied powers that those structures enable) or subsumed by the neoliberal individualist marketification of everything. ..."
"... To just discount the reality of our evolutionary baggage by calling it sociobiology is an example of classic Marxist ideology which seems to require the perfectibility of human nature. ..."
"... I just think we should call what he calls "tribalism" by its proper name - fascism - instead of deliberately tainting our theories with overtones of an "enlightened civilized wisdom versus backwards tribal savages" narrative that itself is central to fascist/"tribalist" ideology and therefore belongs in the dustbin of history. Surely flouting Godwin's Law is a lesser sin than knowingly perpetuating the discourses of racism. ..."
"... Marxism isn't evil and Nazism is evil. So political ideology can be evil or just wrong and accomplish evil. We are indebted to Marx for describing the nature of class warfare and the natural trends of accumulation based economics , but we now know his solution is a failure. So either we learn from this or we cling on to outmoded ideas and remain irrelevant. ..."
"... It seems pretty hardwired, at least enough that not planning around it would be foolish. ..."
"... It turns out that you can't say things like "globalism is great for the UK GDP" and expect citizens of the 'UK' to be excited about it if they feel too alienated from the people who are making all of the money. ..."
"... Punching "globalism" into Google returns the following definition from Merriam-Webster: "a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence - compare imperialism, internationalism." ..."
"... I agree with bob mcm that Trump_vs_deep_state isn't fascism. It's not a serious analysis to say that it is. ..."
"... I take note of the Florida primary results, just in: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz did just fine, as did her hand-picked Democratic Senate candidate, the horrible Patrick Murphy. ..."
"... Oh, and Rubio is back. Notice of the death of neoliberalism might be premature. ..."
"... I mean Judas Iscariot, I mean Bill Clinton, you can make a case that he did his best to salvage something from the wreckage. To repeat what I've said here before, when he was elected the Democrats had lost five of the last six elections, most by landslides. The one exception was the most conservative of the Democratic candidates, who was despised by the left. The American people had decisively rejected what the Democrats were selling. False consciousness, no doubt. ..."
"... The obscurity and complexity of, say, Obamacare or the Greek bailout is a cover story for the looting. ..."
"... The problem is not that the experts do not understand consequences. The problem is that a broken system pays the top better, so the system has to be broken, but not so broken that the top falls off in collapse. ..."
"... Very well said. Resource limits shadow the falling apart of the global order that the American Interest link Peter T points to. If the billionaires are looting from the top and the response is a criminal scramble at the bottom, the unnecessariat will be spit out uncomprehending into the void between. ..."
"... So much concern about the term tribalism. Well what is fascism? The use of tribalism to grasp political power and establish a totalitarian political order. Sound reasonable? Pick any fascism you like, the Nazis ( master race) the theocratic fascists in the US ( Christian rule ) Catholic Fascism ( Franco's Spain) , you name it. It walks and talks like tribalism. Trump-ism is the not so new face of American fascism. It's race based, it xenophobic, it's embraces violence, has a disdain for civil liberties and human rights, and it features the great leader. Doesn't seem to difficult to make the connection. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is the politics of controlled dismantling of the institutions of a society that formerly worked for a larger portion of its participants. Like a landlord realizing increased cash flow from a decision to forego maintenance and hire gangsters to handle rent collection, neoliberalism seeks to divert the dividends from disinvestment to the top ..."
"... The cadre managing this technically and politically difficult task - it is not easy to take things apart without critical failures exemplified by system collapse prompting insurrection or revolution - are rewarded as are society's owners, the 1/10th of 1%. Everybody else is screwed - either directly, or by the consequences of the social disintegration used to feed a parasitic elite. ..."
"... "Lesser evil" is a story told to herd the masses. If there are two neoliberal politicians, both are corrupt. Neither intends to deliver anything to you on net; they are competing to deliver you. ..."
"... I am not enthusiastic about this proposed distinction between "hard" and "soft" neoliberalism. Ideologically, conservative libertarians have been locked in a dialectic with the Clintonite / Blairite neoliberals - that's an old story, maybe an obsolete story, but apparently not one those insist on seeing neoliberalism as a monolithic lump fixed in time can quite grasp, but never mind. ..."
"... Good cop, bad cop. Only, the electorate is carefully divided so that one side's good cop is the other side's bad cop, and vice versa. ..."
"... In fact, there was a powerful fascist movement in many Allied states as well. Vichy France had deep, strong domestic roots in particular, but the South African Broederbond and Jim Crow USA with its lynchings show how fascism and democracy (as understood by anti-Communists) are not separate things, but conjunctural developments of the capitalist states, which are not organized as business firms. ..."
"... "an obligation to vote in a democracy" ..."
"... orders you to consent ..."
"... if the US government was ever thrown it would be by the far right ..."
"... Not voting is routinely interpreted as tacit consent. ..."
The failure of neoliberalism poses both challenges and opportunities for the
left. The greatest challenge is the need to confront rightwing tribalism as
a powerful political force in itself, rather than as a source of political support
for hard neoliberalism. Given the dangers posed by tribalism this is an urgent
task. One part of this task is that of articulating an explanation of the failure
of neoliberalism and explaining why the simplistic policy responses of tribalist
politicians will do nothing to resolve the problems. The other is to appeal
to the positive elements of the appeal of tribalism, such as solidarity and
affection for long-standing institutions and to counterpose them to the
self-seeking individualism central to neoliberalism, particularly in the hard
version with which political tribalism has long been aligned.
The great opportunity is to present a progressive alternative to the accommodations
of soft neoliberalism. The core of such an alternative must be a revival of
the egalitarian and activist politics of the postwar social democratic moment,
updated to take account of the radically different technological and social
structures of the 21st century. In technological terms, the most important development
is undoubtedly the rise of the Internet. Thinking about the relationship between
the Internet economy and public policy remains embryonic at best. But as a massive
public good created, in very large measure, by the public sector, the Internet
ought to present opportunities for a radically remodeled progressive policy
agenda.
In political terms, the breakdown of neoliberalism implies the need for a
political realignment. This is now taking place on the right, as tribalists
assert their dominance over hard neoliberals. The most promising strategy for
the left is to achieve a similar shift in power within the centre-left coalition
of leftists and soft neoliberals.
This might seem a hopeless task, but there are positive signs, notably in
the United States. Although Hillary Clinton, an archetypal soft neoliberal,
has won the Democratic nomination for the Presidency and seems likely to win,
her policy proposals have been driven, in large measure by the need to compete
with the progressive left. There is reason to hope that, whereas the first Clinton
presidency symbolised the capture of the Democratic Party by soft neoliberalism,
the second will symbolise the resurgence of social liberalism.
The era of unchallenged neoliberal dominance is clearly over. Hopefully,
it will prove to have been a relatively brief interruption in a long term trend
towards a more humane and egalitarian society. Whether that is true depends
on the success of the left in putting forward a positive alternative.
Brett 08.30.16 at 5:49 am
I don't know. I think for a true triumph over the existing order, we'd need
true international institutions designed to enhance other kinds of protections,
like environmental and labor standards world-wide. That doesn't seem to
be in the wings right now, versus a light version of protectionism coupled
with perhaps some restoration of the welfare state (outside of the US –
inside the US we're going to get deadlock mildly alleviated by the Supreme
Court and whatever types of executive orders Clinton comes up with for the
next eight years).
Andrew Bartlett 08.30.16 at 6:15 am
"The other is to appeal to the positive elements of the appeal of
tribalism, such as solidarity and affection for long-standing institutions"
My only worry with that is the strong overlap between tribalism and racism,
at least in it's political forms. Harking to the myth of a monocultural
past could be seen by some as 'affection for long-standing institutions'.
(I know that's not what the author is thinking, but left has had it's racism
and pro-discrimination elements, and I am wary of giving too much opportunity
for those to align with that of the right)
bruce wilder 08.30.16 at 7:29 am
I wonder, how do you envision this failure of neoliberalism?
It seems like an effective response would depend somewhat on how you
think this anticipated political failure of neoliberalism plays out over
the next few years. And, it is an anticipated failure, yes? or do you see
an actual political failure as an accomplished fact?
And, if it is still an anticipated failure, do you see it as a political
failure - the inability to marshall electoral support or a legislative coalition?
Or, an ideological style that's worn out its credibility?
Or, do you anticipate manifest policy failure to play a role in the dynamics?
MisterMr 08.30.16 at 9:31 am
"The other is to appeal to the positive elements of the appeal of tribalism,
such as solidarity and affection for long-standing institutions and to counterpose
them to the self-seeking individualism central to neoliberalism"
I don't agree with this. First, appealing to tribalism without actually
believing in it is a dick move. Second, actually existing tribalists are
arseholes, or rather everyone when is taken by the tribalist demon becomes
an arsehole.
Third, the "individualist" thingie work as long as people believe that
they are on the winning side; but there is evidence enough today that most
people are on the losing side of increasing inequality, so most people have
reason to be pro lftish policies both in "moralistic" terms and in "crude
self interest" terms. In the past this wasn't obvious, but today it is,
and this drum should be banged more.
PS: about increasing inequality, there are two different trends that
usually are mixed up:
1) When we look at inequality at an international level, the main determinant
is differential "productivity" among nations. The productivity of developing
nations (mostly China) went up a lot, and this causes a fall in international
inequality.
2) When we look at inequalityinside a nation, it depends mostly on how
exploitative the economic system is, and I think that the main indicator
of this is the wage share of total income; as the wage share fell, income
inequality increased. This happened both in developed and developing countries.
These two determinants of inequality are mixed up and this creates the
impression that, say, the fall in wages of American workers is caused by
the ascent of Chinese workers, whereas instead both American and Chinese
workes lost in proportion, but the increase in productivity more than compensated
the fall in relative wages.
Mixing up these two determinants causes the rise in nationalism, as workers
in developed nations believe that they have been sacrificed to help workers
in developing nations (which isn't true). This is my argument against nationalism
and the reason I'm skeptic of stuff like brexit, and this makes me sort
of allergic to tribalism.
Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 11:43 am
This analysis by Quiggin is spot on. Clearly the way forward holds both
promise and great peril, especially in the nuclear age. The notion that
Trump is just more of the same from the GOP is deluded. He represents a
dangerous insurgency of radical rightists , who can be quite fairly be called
racist and religious extremist based fascists. A Trump win could well close
the curtain on democracy in America. Neo liberalism is being repudiated
, will the elite now turn to the fascists to hold their ground, as happened
in Germany? It's a troubling question.
casmilus 08.30.16 at 11:46 am
"The great opportunity is to present a progressive alternative to the
accommodations of soft neoliberalism. The core of such an alternative
must be a revival of the egalitarian and activist politics of the postwar
social democratic moment, updated to take account of the radically different
technological and social structures of the 21st century. In technological
terms, the most important development is undoubtedly the rise of the
Internet."
Why is that any more important than the invention of digital computers,
starting from the 1940s? Just a further evolution. The real challenge is
from robotics, 3D printing and AI drivers for such processes. That really
will liquidate a lot of skilled labour; computing created a new industry
of jobs and manufacturing.
bob mcmanus 08.30.16 at 11:59 am
4: From my point of view, neoliberalism…long supply chains and logistics;
downward pressure on wages and the social wage; the growth of finance to
supply consumer credit to prop up effective demand; the culture of self-improvement
and self-management to reduce overhead and reproduction costs…no longer
supports accumulation of capital or reproduction of political legitimacy.
IOW, an economic failure.
(Anwar Shaikh's new book is definitive)
Martin 08.30.16 at 1:21 pm
Is there any knowledge of who supports tribalism? The analysis so far seems
to be in terms of tribalist policies, emotions etc, but not of who the tribalists
are, and why they support tribalist 'solutions' rather than say socialism.
Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 1:36 pm
Is there any knowledge of who supports tribalism? The analysis so far seems
to be in terms of tribalist policies, emotions etc, but not of who the tribalists
are, and why they support tribalist 'solutions' rather than say socialism.
Tribalism is hard wired in our genes. It can be over come with education
but too few voters ever get beyond an emotional response to what they perceive.
It's no accident that conservatives do anything they can to undermine education
and promote religious based ignorance. That's how they win elections. But
this is a dangerous game, sometimes a Hitler or a Trump shows up and steals
the show.
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 2:00 pm
MisterMr @ 5: Third, the "individualist" thingies work as long as
people believe that they are on the winning side; but there is evidence
enough today that most people are on the losing side of increasing inequality,
so most people have reason to be pro leftish policies both in "moralistic"
terms and in "crude self interest" terms. In the past this wasn't obvious,
but today it is, and this drum should be banged more.
This is where it becomes problematic that so much of this conversation
happens within individual First-World nation-states, because the inequalities
"tribalists" are interested in maintaining are precisely the inequalities
between nations on a global scale. If the "most people" you're
talking about includes the masses of recently-proletarianized working people
in the Third World, then sure "most people" have reason to be pro-left.
But when we have this conversation in a setting like this, we all implicitly
know that "most people" refers at best to the working classes of countries
like Australia and the US, and these people still perceive a decided
interest in maintaining the global economic hierarchies for which "tribalism"
serves this conversation as a signifier.
For the working classes of the First World wrapped up in their "tribalist"
defense of a global aristocracy of nations, to truly believe they're on
the losing side would mean to accept that the defense of national sovereignty
from neoliberal globalization is an inherently lost cause. If they're to
defect from the cause of "tribalism" and join the Left, this would mean
accepting a critique of the "long-standing institutions" of First-World
social democracy that appears to go much farther left even than John Quiggin
appears willing to go. (As in, the implementation of social-democratic institutions
in First-World capitalist societies is inherently a tool for enabling the
economic domination of the First World over the Third World, by empowering
a racialized labor aristocracy to serve as foot soldiers of global imperialism,
and so on and so on ŕ la Lenin.)
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 2:09 pm
Bob Zanelli @ 10, your comment perfectly embodies an ideological trap
to be avoided at all costs. What Quiggin calls tribalism is precisely
not "hard-wired in our genes", it's an inherently modern creation
of the inherently modern political and economic forces that first created
the "imagined community" of the modern nation-state and continue to put
incredible amounts of energy into indoctrinating various populations in
its various national mythologies.
Far from being an inherent solution to this problem, education - within
the context of a national education system, educating its pupils as Americans/Australians/etc.
- is an utterly indispensable mechanism by which this process is accomplished.
Interestingly, I share all the premises, and yet none of the optimistic
conclusions. Because soft neoliberalism (and in fact even hard neoliberalism)
is much closer sociologically, politically and ideologically to the left
than tribalism is, I see the end of the hegemonic neoliberal ideology and
the correlative rise of tribalism as (somewhat paradoxically) the guarantee
for perpetual neoliberal power in the short and middle term, at least for
two reasons.
First of all, left-inclined citizens will most likely always vote for
neoliberal candidates if the alternative is a tribalist candidate (case
in point: in 9 months or so, I will in all likelihood be offered a choice
between a hard neoliberal and Marine Le Pen; what then?).
Moreover, even if/when tribalist parties gain power, their relative sociological
estrangement from the elite sand correlative relative lack of political
power all but guarantees in my mind that they will govern along the path
of least resistance for them; that is to say hard neoliberalism (with a
sprinkle of tribalist cultural moves). This is how the FPO ruled Carinthia,
for instance, and how I would expect Trump to govern in the (unlikely) eventuality
he reached power.
Finally, mass migration are bound to intensify because of climate change
(if for no other reason) and the trend internationally in advanced democratic
countries seems to be towards national divergence and hence national reversion.
I don't see how an ideologically coherent left-oriented force can emerge
in this context, but of course I would love to be proved wrong on all counts.
Lupita 08.30.16 at 2:22 pm
Bravo, Will G-R!
Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 2:37 pm
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 2:09 pm
Bob Zanelli @ 10, your comment perfectly embodies an ideological trap to
be avoided at all costs. What Quiggin calls tribalism is precisely not "hard-wired
in our genes", it's an inherently modern creation of the inherently modern
political and economic forces that first created the "imagined community"
of the modern nation-state and continue to put incredible amounts of energy
into indoctrinating various populations in its various national mythologies.
Far from being an inherent solution to this problem, education - within
the context of a national education system, educating its pupils as Americans/Australians/etc.
- is an utterly indispensable mechanism by which this process is accomplished.
)))))))))))))))
I don't agree. It's true that tribalism has morphed into what you call
national mythologies , but the basis for this is our evolutionary heritage
which divides the world into them and us. This no doubt had survival benefits
for hunter gatherer social units but it's dangerous baggage in today's world.
I find your comments about education curious. Are you advocating ignorance?
I think you confuse education with indoctrination , they are not the same
thing.
The question of what ideology an ideologically coherent left-oriented force
would come together around is indeed an important question, but I'll try
not to dwell on my hobbyhorses too much.
For now I'll add a slightly different area to consider this through:
current First World "left" populations (especially in the U.S.) want to
turn everything into individual moral questions through which a false solidarity
can be expressed and through which opposing people can be shamed. For instance,
I've thought a good deal about how environmental problems are the most important
problems in general at the moment, and how it's clear that they require
a redesign of our infrastructure. This is not an individual problem - no
amount of volunteer action will work. Yet people on the left continually
exert pressure to turn this into a conflict of morally good renouncers vs
wasters, something that the right is quite ready to enhance with their own
ridiculous tribal boundary markers (google "rolling coal").
You see this with appeals to racism. Racism is a real problem and destroys
real people's lives. But treating it as an individual moral problem rather
than a social, structural one is a way of setting boundaries around an elite.
The challenge for the left is going to be developing a left that, no matter
what it's based around, doesn't fall back into this individualist new-class
status preservation.
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 3:15 pm
@ Bob Zannelli, you're continuing to draw on the language of sociobiology
and evolutionary psychology without the social-scientific rigor to justify
it. (Of course, to many if not most social scientists, the very fields of
sociobiology and evopsych are largely premised on a lack of such rigor to
begin with, but that's another story.) In particular, the term doing the
heavy lifting to provide your get-out-of-rigor-free card is "morphed". What
has been the historical trajectory of this "morphing"? What social and political
institutions have been involved? With what political interests, and what
economic ones? If you think about those kinds of questions, you might make
some headway toward understanding why social scientists generally interpret
the sociocultural aspects of racism and fascism as essential, and the biological
aspects as essentially arbitrary.
To be fair, a large part of the fault here is John Quiggin's for using
a word with as much fraught ideological baggage as "tribalism" to do so
much of his own heavy lifting. The ironic thing is, the polemical power
that probably motivated Quiggin to use that word in the first place comes
from the very same set of ideological associations (e.g. "barbaric", "savage",
"uncivilized", etc.) whose application to modern political issues of race
and nationality he would probably characterize as "tribalist" in the first
place!
Holden Pattern 08.30.16 at 3:20 pm
@ comment 16:
I can't speak for other industrialized democracies, but in the US,
there is essentially no ability for the left to engage in structural change.
Every avenue has been either blocked by the 18th century political structures
of the US (sometimes exploited in extraordinary ways by the monied powers
that those structures enable) or subsumed by the neoliberal individualist
marketification of everything.
So what remains, especially given the latter, is marketing and individual
action - persuasion, shame, public expressions of virtue. That's all that
is available to the left in the United States, especially on issues like
racism and environmental problems.
So while it's good fun to bash the lefty elites in their tony coastal
enclaves and recount their clueless dinner party conversations, it's shooting
fish in a barrel. Easy for you and probably satisfying in a cheap way, but
the fish probably didn't put themselves in the barrel, and blaming them
for swimming in circles is… problematic.
Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 3:26 pm
@ Bob Zannelli, you're continuing to draw on the language of sociobiology
and evolutionary psychology without the social-scientific rigor to justify
it. (Of course, to many if not most social scientists, the very fields of
sociobiology and evopsych are largely premised on a lack of such rigor to
begin with, but that's another story.) In particular, the term doing the
heavy lifting to provide your get-out-of-rigor-free card is "morphed". What
has been the historical trajectory of this "morphing"? What social and political
institutions have been involved? With what political interests, and what
economic ones? If you think about those kinds of questions, you might make
some headway toward understanding why social scientists generally interpret
the sociocultural aspects of racism and fascism as essential, and the biological
aspects as essentially arbitrary.
)))))))))))
I hope it's clear that I do not discount the assertion that nationalism
and racism are part of social constructs that favor class interest. My point
is that political agendas have to work with the clay they start with. To
just discount the reality of our evolutionary baggage by calling it sociobiology
is an example of classic Marxist ideology which seems to require the perfectibility
of human nature. This is a dangerous illusion, it leads right to the gulags.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
To be fair, a large part of the fault here is John Quiggin's for using
a word with as much fraught ideological baggage as "tribalism" to do so
much of his own heavy lifting. The ironic thing is, the polemical power
that probably motivated Quiggin to use that word in the first place comes
from the very same set of ideological associations (e.g. "barbaric", "savage",
"uncivilized", etc.) whose application to modern political issues of race
and nationality he would probably characterize as "tribalist" in the first
place!
"Easy for you and probably satisfying in a cheap way, but the fish probably
didn't put themselves in the barrel, and blaming them for swimming in
circles is… problematic."
I come out of the same milieu, so I don't see why it's problematic to
call attention to this. I
helped to change JQ's opinion on part of it (as he wrote later, the
facts were the largest influence on his change of opinion, but apparently
what I wrote helped) and he's an actual public intellectual in Australia.
As intellectuals our personal actions don't matter but sometimes our ideas
might.
Activism and social movements can help, even in the U.S. (I think that
350.org has had a measurable effect) so I wouldn't say that a structural
approach means that nothing is possible.
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 4:06 pm
@ Bob Zannelli: To just discount the reality of our evolutionary
baggage by calling it sociobiology is an example of classic Marxist
ideology which seems to require the perfectibility of human nature.
As hesitant as I am to play the
"Fallacy
Man" game, this is a common strawman about Marxism. In the words of
Mao Tse-Tung, as quoted by the eminent evolutionary biologist and Marxist
Richard Lewontin: "In a suitable temperature an egg changes into a chicken,
but no temperature can change a stone into a chicken, because each has a
different basis." As far as human biological capacities, it's perfectly
clear from any number of everyday examples that we're able to ignore all
sorts of outward phenotypic differences in determining which sorts of people
to consider more and less worthy of our ethical consideration, as long as
the ideological structure of our culture and society permits it - so the
problem is how to build the sort of culture and society we want to see,
and telling wildly speculative "Just-So stories" about how the hairless
ape got its concentration camps doesn't necessarily help in solving this
problem.
On the contrary, the desire to root social phenomena like what Quiggin
calls "tribalism" in our genes is itself an ideological fetish object of
our own particular culture, utilizing our modern reverence for science to
characterize social phenomena allegedly dictated by "biology" as therefore
natural, inevitable, or even desirable. Here, have a
reading /
listening recommendation.
RobinM 08.30.16 at 4:20 pm
Like Will G-R at 17 and Bob Zannelli at 19, I, too, found the use of the
term "tribalism" in the original post a bit disturbing. It's almost always
used as a pejorative. And it suggests that the "tribalists" require no deeper
analysis. I'm sure it's been around for much longer, but I think I first
took note of it when the Scottish National Party was shallowly dismissed
as a mere expression of tribalism. That the SNP (which, by the way, I do
not support) was raising questions about the deep failures of the British
system of politics and government long before these failures became widely
acknowledged was thus disregarded. Currently, an aspect of that deep failure,
the British Labour Party seems to be in the process of destroying itself,
again in part, in my estimation, because one side, among whom the 'experts'
must be numbered, seem to think that those who are challenging them can
be dismissed as "tribalists." There are surely a lot more examples.
More generally, the resort to "tribalism" as an explanation of what is
now transpiring is also, perhaps, neoliberalism's misunderstanding of its
own present predicaments even while it is part of the arsenal of weapons
neoliberals direct against their critics?
But in short, the evocation of "tribalism" is not only disturbing, it's
dangerously misleading. Those seeking to understand what may now be unfolding
should avoid using it, not least because there are also almost certainly
a whole lot of different "tribes."
awy 08.30.16 at 5:06 pm
so what's the neoliberal strategy for preserving good governance in the
face of insurgencies on the left and right?
Yankee 08.30.16 at 5:08 pm
This just in , about good tribalism (locality-based) vs bad tribalism
("race"-based, ie perceived or assumed common ancestry). It's about cultural
recognition; nationalism, based on shared allegiance to a power structure,
is different, although related (sadly)
"But as a massive public good created, in very large measure, by the public
sector .." With a large assist from non-profit-making community movements,
as with Wikipedia and Linux. (IIRC the majority of Internet servers run
on variants of the noncommercial Linux operating system, as do almost all
smartphones and tablets.) CT, with unpaid bloggers and commenters, is part
of a much bigger trend. Maybe one lesson for the state-oriented left is
to take communitarianism more seriously.
The Internet, with minimal state regulation after the vital initial pump-priming,
technical self-government by a meritocratic cooptative technocracy, an oligopolistic
commercial physical substructure, and large volumes of non-commercial as
well as commercial content, is an interesting paradigm of coexistence for
the future. Of course there are three-way tensions and ongoing battles,
but it's still working.
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 5:42 pm
RobinM, to clarify, I do think that what Quiggin calls tribalism is worth
opposing in pretty absolute terms, and I even largely agree with the meat
of his broader "three-party system" analysis. I just think we should
call what he calls "tribalism" by its proper name - fascism - instead of
deliberately tainting our theories with overtones of an "enlightened civilized
wisdom versus backwards tribal savages" narrative that itself is central
to fascist/"tribalist" ideology and therefore belongs in the dustbin of
history. Surely flouting Godwin's Law is a lesser sin than knowingly perpetuating
the discourses of racism.
Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 6:18 pm
In the words of Mao Tse-Tung, as quoted by the eminent evolutionary biologist
and Marxist Richard Lewontin:
Now Mao Tse-Tung, there's role model to be quoted. The thing about science
is that's it true whether you believe it not, the thing about Marxism is
that it's pseudo science and
it gave us Stalin , the failed Soviet Union, Pol Pot,, Mao Tse Tung and
the dear leader in North Korea to name the most obvious. I know, I know
, maybe someone will get it right some day.
A realist politics doesn't ignore science , this doesn't mean that socialism
is somehow precluded, in fact the exact opposite. We have to extend democracy
into the economic sphere, until we do this, we don't have a democratically
based society. It's because of human nature we need to democratize every
center of power, no elite or vanguard if you prefer can be ever be trusted.
But democracy isn't easy, you have to defeat ignorance , a useful trait
to game the system , by the elite, and create a political structure that
takes account of human nature , not try to perfect it. One would hope leftists
would learn something from history, but dogmas die hard.
Igor Belanov 08.30.16 at 6:50 pm
Bob Zannelli @27
"about Marxism is that it's pseudo science and it gave us Stalin
, the failed Soviet Union, Pol Pot,, Mao Tse Tung and the dear leader
in North Korea to name the most obvious."
To claim that Marxism 'gave us' all those wicked people must be one of
the least Marxist statements ever written! No doubt if Stalin and Pol Pot
hadn't come across the works of a 19th century German émigré then they would
have had jobs working in a florists and spending all the rest of their time
helping old ladies over the road.
Good to see Bob being consistent though. A few comments back he was suggesting
that humans are biologically 'tribalist', but now he's blaming all evil
on political ideology.
"I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment
will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment;
though this need not exclude all manner of compromises and of devices by
which public authority will co-operate with private initiative."
Sebastian_H 08.30.16 at 7:26 pm
'Tribalism' is giving members of what you perceive as your tribe more leeway
than you give others. (Or negatively being much more critical of others
than you would be of your tribe). It seems pretty hardwired, at least enough
that not planning around it would be foolish. Lots of 'civilization' is
about lubricating the rough spots created by tribalism while trying to leverage
the good sides.
One of the failures of neo-liberalism is in assuming that it can count
on the good side of tribalism while ignoring the perceived responsibilities
to one's own tribe. It turns out that you can't say things like "globalism
is great for the UK GDP" and expect citizens of the 'UK' to be excited about
it if they feel too alienated from the people who are making all of the
money. So then when it comes time to say "for the good of the UK we need
you to do X" lots of people won't listen to you. John asks a good question
in exploring what comes next, but it isn't clear.
Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 7:30 pm
about Marxism is that it's pseudo science and
it gave us Stalin , the failed Soviet Union, Pol Pot,, Mao Tse Tung and
the dear leader in North Korea to name the most obvious."
To claim that Marxism 'gave us' all those wicked people must be one of
the least Marxist statements ever written! No doubt if Stalin and Pol Pot
hadn't come across the works of a 19th century German émigré then they would
have had jobs working in a florists and spending all the rest of their time
helping old ladies over the road.
Good to see Bob being consistent though. A few comments back he was suggesting
that humans are biologically 'tribalist', but now he's blaming all evil
on political ideology.
)))))))))))))
Marxism isn't evil and Nazism is evil. So political ideology can
be evil or just wrong and accomplish evil. We are indebted to Marx for describing
the nature of class warfare and the natural trends of accumulation based
economics , but we now know his solution is a failure. So either we learn
from this or we cling on to outmoded ideas and remain irrelevant.
In the Soviet Union , science, art and literature were under assault,
with scientists, artist and writers sent to the gulag or murdered for not
conforming to strict Marxist Leninist ideology. Evolution, quantum mechanics,
and relativity were all attacked as bourgeois science. ( The need for nuclear
weapons forced Stalin later to allow this science to be sanctioned) These
days, like the Catholic Church which can no longer burn people at the stake
, old Marxists can just castigate opinions that don't meet Marxist orthodoxy.
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 8:53 pm
@ Sebastian_H: It seems pretty hardwired, at least enough that not
planning around it would be foolish.
But again, when we're talking about "tribalism" not in terms of some
vague quasi-sociobiological force of eternal undying human nature, but in
terms of the very modern historical phenomena of racism and nationalism,
we have to consider the way any well-functioning modern nation-state has
a whole host of institutions devoted to indoctrinating citizens in whatever
ideological mythology is supposed to underpin a shared sense of national
and/or racial identity. It should go without saying that whatever we think
about general ingroup/outgroup tendencies innately hardwired into human
nature or whatever, this way of relating our identities to historically
contingent social institutions and their symbols is only as innate or hardwired
as the institutions themselves.
It turns out that you can't say things like "globalism is great for
the UK GDP" and expect citizens of the 'UK' to be excited about it if they
feel too alienated from the people who are making all of the money.
At least in my view, economists are usually slipperier than that. The
arguments I've seen for neoliberal free trade (I'm not quite sure what to
make of the term "globalism") generally involve it being good for "the economy"
in a much more abstract sense, carefully worded to avoid specifying whether
the growth and prosperity takes place in Manchester or Mumbai. And there's
even something worth preserving in this tendency, in the sense that ideally
the workers of the world would have no less international/interracial solidarity
than global capital already seems to achieved.
To me the possibility that neoliberal free trade and its degradation
of national sovereignty might ultimately undermine the effectiveness of
all nationalist myths, forging a sense of global solidarity among the collective
masses of humanity ground under capital's boot, is the greatest hope or
maybe even the only real hope we have in the face of the neoliberal onslaught.
Certainly if there's any lesson from the fact that the hardest-neoliberal
political leaders are often simultaneously the greatest supporters or enablers
of chauvinistic ethnonationalism, it's that this kind of solidarity is also
one of global capital's greatest nightmares.
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 9:05 pm
Punching "globalism" into Google returns the following definition from
Merriam-Webster: "a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper
sphere for political influence - compare imperialism, internationalism."
I find it fascinating, and indicative of the ideological tension immanent
in fascist reactionaries' use of the term, that the two terms listed as
comparable to it are traditionally understood in modern political theory
as diametrically opposed to each other.
bob mcmanus 08.30.16 at 9:17 pm
Recommending Joshua Clover's new book. Riot -Strike – Riot Prime
The strike, the organized disruption at the point of production, is no
longer really available. Late capitalism, neoliberalism is now extracting
surplus from distribution, as it did before industrialism, and is at the
transport and communication streams that disruption will occur. And this
will be riot, and there won't be much organization, centralization, hierarchy
or solidarity. I am ok with "tribalism" although still looking for a better
expression, and recognizing that a tribe is 15-50 people, and absolutely
not scalable. Tribes can network, and people can have multiple and transient
affiliations.
Clover's model is the Paris Commune.
(PS: If you don't like "tribe" come up with a word or expression that
usefully describes the sociality of Black Lives Matter (movement, maybe)
or even better Crooked Timber.)
Almost all people are primarily led by emotions and use reason only secondarily,
to justify the emotions.
There is a rude set of socio-economic "principles" which they call upon
to buttress these arguments. You can hear these principles at any blue-collar
job site, and you can hear them in a college lecture on economics, too:
–nature is selfish
–resources are scarce
–money measures real value
–wants are infinite
–there ain't no such thing as a free lunch (TANSTAAFL)
–you have to work for your daily bread
–incentives matter
–people want to keep up with the Joneses
–labor should be geographically mobile
–government is inefficient
–welfare destroys families
–printing money causes inflation
–the economy is a Darwinian mechanism
These are either false, or else secondary and ephemeral, and/or becoming
inopportune and obsolete. None of them survives inspection by pure reason.
Yet this is an aggregate that buzzes around in almost everyone's head,
is INTERNALIZED as true, for expectations both personal and social. And
which causes most of our problems.
Consider TANSTAAFL: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Yet
obviously there is such a thing as a cheaper lunch, or else there would
be no such thing as the improvement in the standard of living. …Okay, you
say, but "resources are scarce." …Well no, we are quickly proceeding to
the point where technological change and substitution will end real scarcity,
and without ecological degradation. Therefore: can cheaper lunches proceed
to the point where they are effectively free for the purposes of meeting
human need, "your daily bread"? …Well no, you say, because people are greedy,
and beyond their needs, they have wants: "wants are infinite." …But wait,
wants really cannot be infinite, because a "want" takes mental time to have,
and you only have so many hours in every day, and so many days in your life.
In fact your wants are finite, and quite boring, and the Joneses' wants
are finite sand boring too. (Though why you want to keep up with those boneheads
the Joneses is a bit beyond me.) …Okay, you say, but "incentives matter":
if you give people stuff, they will just slack off: "welfare destroys families."
…But wait a minute. If we have insisted that people must work to feel self-worth,
yet capitalism puts people out of work until there are no jobs available,
and there are no business opportunities to provide ever-cheaper lunches,
isn't welfare the least of our problems, isn't welfare a problem that gets
solved when we solve the real problem?
But what is the real problem? Is the real problem that we don't know
how to interact with strangers without the use of money, and so we think
that money is a real thing? Is the real problem your certain feeling that
we need to work for our self-worth? Is the real problem that capitalism
is putting itself out of business, and showing that these so-called principles
are just a bunch of bad excuses? Is the real problem that we are all caught
in a huge emotional loop of bad thinking, now becoming an evident disaster?
bob mcmanus 08.30.16 at 9:26 pm
And also of course, people looking at Trump and his followers (or their
enemies and opponents in the Democratic Party) and seeing "tribalism" are
simply modernists engaging in nostalgia and reactionary analysis.
Trump_vs_deep_state is not fascism, and a Trump Rally is not Nuremberg. Much closer
to Carnival
Wiki: "Interpretations of Carnival present it as a social institution
that degrades or "uncrowns" the higher functions of thought, speech, and
the soul by translating them into the grotesque body, which serves to renew
society and the world,[37] as a release for impulses that threaten the
social order that ultimately reinforces social norms ,[38] as a social
transformation[39] or as a tool for different groups to focus attention
on conflicts and incongruities by embodying them in "senseless" acts."
I agree with bob mcm that Trump_vs_deep_state isn't fascism. It's not a serious
analysis to say that it is.
"Tribalism" was coined as a kind of shorthand for what Michael Berube
used to refer to "I used to consider myself a Democrat, but thanks to 9/11,
I'm outraged by Chappaquiddick." It's the wholesale adoption of what at
first looks like a value or belief system but is actually a social signaling
system that one belongs to a group. People on the left refer to this signaling
package as "tribal" primarily out of envy (I write somewhat jokingly) because
the left no longer has a similarly strong package on its side.
Greg McKenzie 08.30.16 at 11:47 pm
"Tribalism" feeds into the factionalism of parties. The left has a strong
faction both inside the ALP and the Liberal Party. The Right faction, in
the NLP, is currently in ascendancy but this will not last. Just as the
Right faction (in the ALP) was sidelined by clever ALP faction battles,
the current members of the NLP's Right faction are on borrowed time. But
all politicians are "mugs" as Henry Lawson pointed out over a hundred years
ago. Politicians can be talked into anything, if it gives them an illusion
of power. So "tribalism" is more powerful than "factionalism" simply because
it has more staying power. Left faction and Right faction merely obey the
demands of their tribal masters.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 1:47 am
. . . the left no longer has a similarly strong package on its side
honestly, I do not think "tribalism" is a "strong package" on Right or
Left. Part of the point of tribalism in politics is just how superficial
and media driven it is. The "signaling package" is put together and distributed
like cigarette or perfume samples: everybody gets their talking points.
Pretending to care dominates actually caring. On the right - as Rich
points out with the reference to "rolling coal", some people on the Right
who have donned their tribal sweatshirts get their kicks out of supposing
that somebody on the Left actually cares and they can tweak those foolishly
caring Lefties.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 1:57 am
I take note of the Florida primary results, just in: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz
did just fine, as did her hand-picked Democratic Senate candidate, the horrible
Patrick Murphy.
Oh, and Rubio is back. Notice of the death of neoliberalism might
be premature.
Martin 08.31.16 at 2:11 am
@ Bob Zannelli 10: To describe something as "hard wired" is to give up:
what course of action could we take? But, then, why isn't everyone a member
of the tribalist party? Has everyone, always, been of the tribalist party?
(I know someone could argue, 'everyone is racist' or 'all these white liberals
are just as racist really', but even if that is somehow true, most are members
of the socialist party or the neoliberal party).
Rather than deciding it is all too hard, we can at least find out who
supports tribalism, why it makes sense to them, whether it benefits them,
how it benefits them, if it does, and why they support it anyway, if it
does not benefit them.
I suppose (I am guessing here), some tribalists are benefiting from differential
government support, such as immigration policies that keep out rival potential
employees, or tariff policies that keep out competitors; or at least, that
they used to benefit like that. But Crooked Timber should have readers
who can answer this kind of question from their expertise.
I suppose it's too late to try to convince people here that the term "neoliberalism"
is a virus that devastates the analytic functions of the brain, but I'll
try. The term is based on a European use of the word "liberal" that has
never had any currency in the US. It's a wholly pejorative term based on
a misunderstanding of Hayek (who did *not* believe in laissez-faire), but
may be a reasonable approximation of the beliefs of , say, Thatcher. Then
that term was confounded with a totally unconnected term invented by Peters,
who was using the word "liberal" in the American sense. And presto, we have
a seamless worlwide philosophy with "hard" and "soft" variants.
As far as, say, H. Clinton is concerned, I can see no respect in which
it would be wrong to describe her as just a "liberal" in the American sense.
American liberalism has always been internationalist and mildly pro-free-trade.
It's also been pro-union– so we can just say that's *soft* neoliberalism
and preserve our sense that we are part of a world-wide struggle. Or not.
Bernie Sanders was celebrated by the left for supporting a tax on carbon
(without mentioning, of course, what price of gasoline he was contemplating),
but this is an excellent illustration of what Peters would have considered
a neoliberal policy. The term now just seems to mean anything I don't like.
As for Benedict Arnold, I mean Judas Iscariot, I mean Bill Clinton,
you can make a case that he did his best to salvage something from the wreckage.
To repeat what I've said here before, when he was elected the Democrats
had lost five of the last six elections, most by landslides. The one exception
was the most conservative of the Democratic candidates, who was despised
by the left. The American people had decisively rejected what the Democrats
were selling. False consciousness, no doubt.
So rather than spending a lot of time celebrating victory over this hegemonic
ideology, perhaps people should be talking about liberalism and whatever
we're calling the left alternative to it.
Peter T 08.31.16 at 10:54 am
"Tribalism" is unhelpful here, because it obscures the contribution "tribalism"
has made and can make to effective social democracy. It was on the basis
of class and national tribalisms (solidarities is a better word) that social
democracy was built, and its those solidarities that give it what strength
it still has. That others preferred, and still prefer, other forms of solidarity
– built around region or religion or language – should neither come as a
surprise nor be seen as basis for opposition. It's the content, not the
form, that matters.
Self-interest is too vague and shifting, international links too weak,
to make an effective politics. Our single most pressing problem – climate
change – can clearly only be dealt with internationally. Yet the environmental
and social problems that loom almost as large are clearly ones that can
best be dealt with on national or sub-national scales. As this becomes clearer
I expect the pressure to downsize and de-link from the global economy will
intensify (there are already signs in this direction). The social democrat
challenge is then to guide local solidarities towards democracy, not decry
them.
If we're really looking for a general word that works across national boundaries,
it's a well-used one: conservatism. People sometimes object that conservatives
in one country are not the same as conservatives in another country, but
really the differences are not much greater than in liberalism across countries,
socialism, etc. Conservatism includes the characteristics of authoritarianism
and nationalism. U.S. "tribalism" is its local manifestation: the use of
"tribalism" to denote a global style of conservatism denotes a particular,
contemporary type of conservatism, just as neoliberalism is a type of liberalism.
You could divide JQ's three groups into left, liberal, conservative but
since you're using neoliberal as the middle one (e.g. a contemporary mode)
then "tribalism" or something like it seems appropriate for the last.
Note that there is no word for a contemporary mode of leftism, because
there isn't one. The closest is the acephalous or consensus style of many
recent movements and groups, but that mode hasn't won elections or taken
power.
John Quiggin,
What I see as the missing point here, and perhaps we disagree upon it's
significance, is resource limitations. We can't avoid the violent reversion
to zero sum games unless we address the problem (exactly when it has or
will reach crisis point is perhaps a point of disagreement) of expanding
population meets finite resources (or even meets already fully owned resources).
I don't buy the argument that there a technological solution, or the
argument that population will stabilize before it gets too bad (I don't
see what will drive it – because Malthus was partly right).
If people are unable to survive where they are, they will try to move,
and people already living where they are moving to won't like it. Perhaps
we are already seeing some of this, perhaps not. But it will drive tribalism
(joining together to keep the "invaders" out) and won't drive the left.
I have a feeling that the "left" should be replaced by a "green" view of
the world, but for one thing, that will need a new economics – perhaps on
the lines sketched out by Herman Daly. Maybe the term "left" is too associated
with a Marxist view of the world to be useful any more.
Will G-R 08.31.16 at 2:00 pm
Apart from the obvious advantages "fascism" brings to the table - the sense
of describing "Trump_vs_deep_state" in terms of what it seeks to develop into and not
in terms of its current and clearly underdeveloped form, as well as the
sense of tying our current state of poorly grasped ideological confusion
back to WWII as the last clear three-way "battlefield of ideologies" pitting
liberalism against fascism against socialism - the term is broadly symbolically
appropriate for the same reasons it was originally adopted by Mussolini.
The sense of national solidarity and "strength through unity" (i.e. the
socialist element of National Socialism) is exactly what John Quiggin is
characterizing as "the positive elements of the appeal of tribalism", and
the direct invocation of the Roman fasces as a symbol of pure authority
is exactly what Z is getting at with the term "archism". Sure our latter-day
manifestation of fascism hasn't (yet) led to an honest-to-God fascist
regime in any Western country, but to kid ourselves that this isn't
what it seeks or that it couldn't potentially get there would be, well,
a bit too uncomfortably Weimar-ish of us.
Besides which, I get that pooh-poohing about Godwin's Law and "everybody
I don't like is Hitler" and so on is a nearly irresistible tic in today's
liberal discourse, but c'mon people… we're all comfortable using the term
"neoliberalism", which means we're all willing to risk having the same Poli
Sci 101 conversations over and over again in the mainstream ("yes, Virginia,
Hillary Clinton and Paul Ryan are both liberals!") for the sake
of our own theoretical clarity. At the very least "fascism" would have fewer
problematic discursive connotations than "tribalism", which I absolutely
refuse to use in this conversation without putting it in sneer quotes.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 2:17 pm
The problem with neoliberalism is that it isn't really compatible
with a modern free market economy. Simply because that system isn't
well enough understood to allow experts, let alone informed amateurs,
to reach a consensus on what a particular change will actually do. .
. . It is the inability of the neoliberal communication style to credibly
promise control that lost it.
You seem to be dancing around the elite corruption that is motivating
the rationales provided by neoliberalism. We are going to improve efficiency
by privatizing education, health care, pensions, prisons, transport. Innovation
is the goal of deregulating finance, electricity. That is what they say.
The obscurity and complexity of, say, Obamacare or the Greek bailout
is a cover story for the looting.
The problem is not that the experts do not understand consequences.
The problem is that a broken system pays the top better, so the system has
to be broken, but not so broken that the top falls off in collapse.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 2:35 pm
Will G-R @ 55
So you know what Trump_vs_deep_state wants to become, so we should call it that,
rather than describe what it is, because the ideological conflicts of 80
years ago were so much clearer.
We live in the age of inverted totalitarianism. Trump isn't Mussolini,
he's an American version of Berlusconi, a farcical rhyme in echo of a dead
past. We probably are on the verge of an unprecedented authoritarian surveillance
state, but Hillary Clinton doesn't need an army of blackshirts. The historical
fascism demanded everything in the state. Our time wants everything in an
iPhone app.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 2:54 pm
reason @ 54
Very well said. Resource limits shadow the falling apart of the global
order that the American Interest link Peter T points to. If the billionaires
are looting from the top and the response is a criminal scramble at the
bottom, the unnecessariat will be spit out uncomprehending into the void
between.
It is hard to see optimism as a growth stock. But, an effective left
would need something to reintroduce mass action into politics against an
elite that is groping toward a solution that entails replacing the masses
with robots.
Will G-R 08.31.16 at 3:38 pm
"Trump_vs_deep_state" may be the term du jour in the US, but let's try to kick our
stiflingly banal American habit of framing everything around our little
quadrennial electoral freak shows. After all, the US and our rigid two-party
system have always been an outlier in the vigor with which real political
currents have been forced to conform to the narrow partisan vocabulary of
either a left-liberal or a right-liberal major party. If hewing religiously
to a patriotic sense of US institutionalism is supposed to ultimately save
the liberal political sphere from the underlying political-economic forces
that threaten it, we might as well take a page from the Tea Party and start
marching around in powdered wigs and tricorn hats for all the good it'll
do us.
In the rest of the Western world, particularly in Central and Eastern
Europe, the "fascist" parties (Golden Dawn in Greece, Jobbik in Hungary,
Ataka in Bulgaria, etc.) are generally less euphemistic about their role
as fascist parties, and what forced sense of euphemism does exist
seems to provide little more than a rhetorical opportunity for mockingly
transparent coyness . To be fair, the predominant far-right parties
in richer Western European countries (the FN, AfD, UKIP, etc.) are a bit
more earnestly vague about their ambitions, so maybe a good compromise would
be to call them (along with Trump) "soft fascists" in contrast to the "hard
fascists" of Golden Dawn or Ataka. But fascism still makes much more sense
than any other existing "-ism" I've seen, unless we want to just make one
up.
Marc 08.31.16 at 3:48 pm
Analogies can obscure more than they illuminate.
RichardM 08.31.16 at 4:11 pm
> You seem to be dancing around the elite corruption that is motivating
the rationales provided by neoliberalism.
Fair point. On the other hand, if neoliberalism rule, then neoliberals
will be the rulers. And if not, not. Whatever the nature of the rulers,
they rarely starve. Worldwide, average corruption is almost certainly lower
in mostly-neoliberal countries than in less-neoliberal places like China,
Zimbabwe, North Korea, …
The key thing is, take two neoliberal politicians, only one of whom is
(unusually) corrupt. One entirely intends to deliver what you ask for, admittedly
while ensuring they personally have a nice life being well-fed, warm and
listened-to. The other plans to take it all and deliver nothing.
Given that nobody trustworthy knows anything, at least in a form they
can explain, you can't get useful information as to which is which. 300
hours of reading reports of their rhetoric in newspapers, blogs, etc. leaves
you none the wiser. And by the time you have a professional-level of knowledge
of what's going on, you are part of the problem.
Might as well just stick to looking at who has which label next to their
name, or who has good hair.
Will G-R 08.31.16 at 4:16 pm
Marc, the discourse of Godwin's Law has done a wonderful job solidifying
the delusion that what '20s-through-'40s-era fascists once represented is
categorically dead and buried, which is why it seems like the word can't
be used as anything other than an obtuse historical analogy. But it's not
an analogy - it's a direct insinuation that what these people currently
represent is a clear descendant of what those people once represented, however
mystified by its conditioned aversion to the word "fascism" itself. On the
contrary, if we surrender to the Godwin's Law discourse and accept that
fascism can never mean anything in contemporary discourse except
as an all-purpose "everything I don't like is Hitler" analogy or whatever,
it means we've forgotten what it means to actually be anti-fascist.
BTW, the link from the last comment isn't working for whatever reason,
so
here's Take 2 .
Bob Zannelli 08.31.16 at 5:27 pm
So much concern about the term tribalism. Well what is fascism? The
use of tribalism to grasp political power and establish a totalitarian political
order. Sound reasonable? Pick any fascism you like, the Nazis ( master race)
the theocratic fascists in the US ( Christian rule ) Catholic Fascism (
Franco's Spain) , you name it. It walks and talks like tribalism. Trump-ism
is the not so new face of American fascism. It's race based, it xenophobic,
it's embraces violence, has a disdain for civil liberties and human rights,
and it features the great leader. Doesn't seem to difficult to make the
connection.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 6:14 pm
RichardM: Whatever the nature of the rulers, they rarely starve.
Still not getting it. The operative question is whether the rulers feast
because the society works or because the society fails.
Neoliberalism is the politics of controlled dismantling of the institutions
of a society that formerly worked for a larger portion of its participants.
Like a landlord realizing increased cash flow from a decision to forego
maintenance and hire gangsters to handle rent collection, neoliberalism
seeks to divert the dividends from disinvestment to the top
The cadre managing this technically and politically difficult task
- it is not easy to take things apart without critical failures exemplified
by system collapse prompting insurrection or revolution - are rewarded as
are society's owners, the 1/10th of 1%. Everybody else is screwed - either
directly, or by the consequences of the social disintegration used to feed
a parasitic elite.
The key thing is, take two neoliberal politicians, only one of
whom is (unusually) corrupt. One entirely intends to deliver what you
ask for, admittedly while ensuring they personally have a nice life
being well-fed, warm and listened-to. The other plans to take it all
and deliver nothing.
Again, you are not getting it. This isn't about lesser evil. "Lesser
evil" is a story told to herd the masses. If there are two neoliberal politicians,
both are corrupt. Neither intends to deliver anything to you on net;
they are competing to deliver you.
Any apparent choice offered to you is just part of the b.s. The "300
hours of reading" is available if you need a hobby or the equivalent of
a frontal lobotomy.
I am not enthusiastic about this proposed distinction between "hard"
and "soft" neoliberalism. Ideologically, conservative libertarians have
been locked in a dialectic with the Clintonite / Blairite neoliberals -
that's an old story, maybe an obsolete story, but apparently not one those
insist on seeing neoliberalism as a monolithic lump fixed in time can quite
grasp, but never mind.
Good cop, bad cop. Only, the electorate is carefully divided so that
one side's good cop is the other side's bad cop, and vice versa.
Hillary Clinton is running the Democratic Party in such a way that she
wins the Presidency, but the Party continues to be excluded from power in
Congress and in most of the States. This is by design. This is the neoliberal
design. She cannot deliver on her corrupt promises to the Big Donors if
she cannot play the game Obama has played so superbly of being hapless in
the face of Republican intransigence.
In the meantime, those aspiring to be part of the credentialed managerial
classes that conduct this controlled demolition while elaborating the surveillance
state that is expected to hold things together in the neo-feudal future
are instructed in claiming and nurturing their individual political identity
against the day of transformation of consciousness, when feminism will triumph
even in a world where we never got around to regulating banks.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 6:33 pm
Will G-R, Bob Zannelli
Actual, historical fascism required the would-be fascists to get busy,
en masse . Trump (and Clinton) will be streamed on demand so you
can stay home and check Facebook. Hitler giving a two-hour 15000 word speech
and Trump, Master of the Twitterverse, belong to completely different political
categories, if not universes.
There are so many differences and those differences are so deep and pervasive
that the conversation hardly seems worth having.
stevenjohnson 08.31.16 at 7:54 pm
Historical fascism included not just Hitler's Germany, but Mussolini's Italy,
Franco's Spain, Salazar/Caetano's Portugal, Ionescu's Romania, the Ustase
in Croatia, Tiso's Slovakia, Petliura's movement in Ukraine, and, arguably,
Dollfuss' Austria, Horthy's Hungary, Imperial Japan, Peronist Argentina,
the Poland of the post Pilsudski junta (read Beck on the diplomatics of
a Jewish state in Uganda, which is I think symptomatic wishful thinking.)
There is a strong correlation between the nations whose rulers accepted
fascists into the government and losing WWI. The rest were new, insecure
states that could profit their masters by expansion. At the time, the so-called
Allies, except for the USSR, were essentially the official "winners" of
WWI and therefore united against the would be revisionists like Germany.
Therefore it was desirable to propagandize against the Axis as uniquely
fascist.
In fact, there was a powerful fascist movement in many Allied states
as well. Vichy France had deep, strong domestic roots in particular, but
the South African Broederbond and Jim Crow USA with its lynchings show how
fascism and democracy (as understood by anti-Communists) are not separate
things, but conjunctural developments of the capitalist states, which are
not organized as business firms.
Democracy is associated even with genocide, enslavement of peoples and
mass population transfers to colonists. It began with democracy itself,
with the Spartans turning Messenians into Helots and Athenians expropriating
Euboeans and massacring Melians. Russian Cossacks on the Caucasian steppes
or Paxton Boys in the US continued the process. When democracy came to the
Ottoman empire, making Turkey required the horrific expulsion of the Armenians.
(Their Trail of Tears was better publicized than the Cherokee's.) But the
structural need to unify a nation by excluding Others led to the bloody
expulsion of Greeks as well. The confirmation of national identity by a
mix of ethnic, religious and racial markers required mass violence and war,
as seen in the emergence of the international system of mercantilist capitalist
states.
The wide variations in historical fascism conclusively demonstrate every
notion of fascism is somehow something essentially, metaphysically, antithetical
is wrong. Fascism and democracy are not an antinomy. Particular doctrines
that assert this, like the non-concept of "totalitarianism," serve as a
kind of skeleton for political movements and parties. Since the triumph
of what we in the US call McCarthyism all mainstream and all acceptable
alternative politics share this same skeleton. It is unsurprising that such
a beast is somehow not organically equipped to be an effective left. It's
SYRIZA in Greece defining itself by the rejection of the KKE. There is no
such thing as repudiation of revolution that doesn't imply accepting counter-revolution.
Evan Neely 08.31.16 at 8:03 pm
The problem I have with attempts to appeal to the supposedly "positive"
aspects of tribalism, solidarity and the affection for longstanding institutions,
is that it's presuming these aren't just our abstractions of something that's
felt at a much more primal level. Tribalists don't love solidarity for the
sake of the principle of solidarity: they feel solidarity because they love
the specific people like them that they love and hate others.
One set of tribalists doesn't look at another and say "hey, we respect
the same principles." It says "they're not our tribe!!!" Point being, you're
never going to get them on your side with appeals to abstractions. You're
almost certainly never going to get them on your side no matter what you
do.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 9:07 pm
There is no vast neoliberal conspiracy . . .
There obviously is a vast political movement, coordinated in ideology
and the social processes of partisan politics and propaganda. Creating a
strawperson "conspiracy" does not erase actual Clinton fundraising practices
and campaign tactics, which exist independent of whatever narrative I weave
them into.
There are no corrupt promises from Clinton to big donors . . .
Calling our present-day GOP as led by Trump "fascism" is calling it a break
with the past GOP. Corey Robin has been over this quite a bit here, but
in many important respects there is no break. GWB, for instance, sometimes
required attendees at his rallies to take a personal loyalty oath. And GWB
is hailed by some people here as being the good conservative because he
said that not all Muslims were bad, while, of course, killing a million
Muslims. The contemporary GOP is an outgrowth of GOP tradition, and while
some leftists may find calling all conservatism fascism convincing, I think
that it's only convincing for the tiny number of people who adhere to their
ideology.
But conservatism and fascism are both right-wing and people can argue
indefinitely about where the boundary is. So rather than talk about ideal
types, let's look at how the rhetoric of calling it fascism works. Calling
Trump_vs_deep_state fascism is primarily the rhetoric of HRC supporters, because functionally,
what everyone pretty much agrees on is that when fascists appear, people
on the left through moderate right are supposed to drop everything and unite
in a Popular Front to oppose them.
I don't think that people should drop everything. I think that HRC is
going to win and that forming the mental habit of supporting the Democratic
Party is easy to do and hard to break, and I think that the people who become
Democratic Party supporters because of the threat of Trump / "fascism" are
going to spend the next four years working directly against actual left
interests.
Will G-R 08.31.16 at 10:06 pm
Rich, I think it would be a mistake to consider this as a question of "our
present-day GOP as led by Trump". First because Trump isn't "leading" the
GOP in any meaningful sense;
as Jay Rosen's recent Tweet-storm encapsulates nicely , the GOP's institutional
leadership is still liberal through and through, even if its ideological
organs pander in some ideally implicit sense to what might otherwise be
a fascist constituency. And second because Trump isn't really "leading"
his own constituents either; if he were to make a high-profile about-face
on the issues his voters care about, they'd likely be just as eager to dump
him as Bernie Sanders' most passionate leftist supporters were to ignore
his pro-Clinton appeals at the DNC.
What's interesting about Trump isn't really anything to do with Trump
per se, so much as what Trump's constituency would do if the normal functioning
of the liberal institutions constraining it were to be disrupted in a serious
way. Europe in the 1910s through 1940s was full of such disruptions, and
should such an era return, the ideological currents we're now viewing through
a heavily tinted institutional window would become much clearer.
Ragweed 08.31.16 at 10:23 pm
Val etc.
I think that John's use of the word "tribalist" here means a world-view
that explicitly values members of an in-group more than members not of the
in-group. It is different from racism because it may be over other factors
than race – religion, citizenship, nationalism, or even region. And the
key word is explicitly. The big difference between tribalist and both neoliberal
and left positions is that the other two are generally universalist.
Neoliberals profess that everyone will be better off with deregulation,
free markets, and technocratic solutions, and often explicitly reject the
idea of something benefitting one racial, religious, or national group over
another (though not the educated or wealthy, because these are allegedly
meritocratic outcomes of the neoliberal order).
The left likewise generally argues for an increase in equality and equal
distribution of resources for all, whether that be class-based or based
on some sort of gender, race, or sexual equality.
So on an issue like a free trade deal, a neoliberal argument would support
it, because gains of trade and various other reasons why it would make everyone
better off; a leftist argument would oppose it on the grounds that it would
make everyone worse off; and a tribalist argument would oppose it on the
grounds that it took jobs away from American citizens, but wouldn't worry
too much about the other guys.
Of course, the lines are not always clear and distinct, they often overlap,
mix, and borrow arguments from each other, and there are often hypocrisies'
and inconsistencies (and John's point anyway is that the neoliberals tend
to draw on coalitions with the other two factions), but I think it is a
good general description of the distinction.
And it is different from the more sociological use of tribal to mean
any in-group/out-group distinction and social solidarity formation. Everyone
is tribal in the sociological sense, but the tribalist that John is referring
explicitly approves of that tribalism. A left intellectual may look down
on "ignorant, racist, blue-collar Trump supporters", with as much bias as
any tribalist, but would generally want them to have better education and
a guarantee income so they were no longer ignorant and racist, whereas the
tribalist generally thinks the other guy is less deserving.
Sam Bradford 09.01.16 at 9:20 am
What I wonder/worry about is whether tribalism, nationalism, call it what
you will, is a necessity.
It's very difficult for me to imagine an internationalist order that
provides the kind of benefits to citizens that I'd want a state to provide.
It's much easier to imagine nation states operating as enclaves of solidarity
and mutual aid in an amorphous, anarchic and ruthless globalised environment.
Yet the creation of a nation requires the creation of an in-group and an
out-group, citizens and non-citizens.
To put it more concretely: in my own country, New Zealand, the traditional
Maori form of social organisation – a kind of communitarianism – currently
appeals to me as offering more social solidarity and opportunity for human
flourishing than our limp lesser-of-three-evils democracy. It is a society
in which there is genuine solidarity and common purpose. Yet it is, literally,
tribal; it admits no more than a few thousand people to each circle of mutual
aid. I am sometimes tempted to believe that it is the correct way for human
beings to live, despite my general dislike for biological determinism. I
think I would rather abandon my obligations to the greater mass of humanity
(not act against them, of course, just accept an inability to influence
events) and be a member of a small society than be a helpless and hopeless
atom in a sea of similar, utterly disenfranchised atoms.
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 4:32 pm
Bob Zannelli: Gee what a concept, an obligation to vote in a democracy.
As flawed as the US political process is, voting still matters and can affect
change. It's not easy , but then it's never easy to reform anything.
Just to give voice to
the
contrary perspective , voter turnout appears to play at least some role
in the ideological process by which the US electoral system claims legitimacy:
even though in purely procedural terms an election could work just fine
if the total number of ballots was an infinitesimal fraction of the number
of eligible voters ("Bill Clinton casts ballot, Hillary defeats Trump by
2 votes to 1!") low voter turnout is nonetheless depicted as a crisis not
just for any particular candidate or party but for the entire electoral
process. Accordingly, if I decide not to vote and thereby to decrease voter
turnout by a small-but-nonzero amount, I'm adding a small-but-nonzero contribution
to the public argument that the electoral process as presently institutionalized
is illegitimate, so unless we propose to add a "none of the above" option
to every single race and question on the ballot, to argue that citizens
have an obligation to vote is to argue that they are obliged not to "vote"
for the illegitimacy of the system as such. And plenty of ethical and political
stances could be consistent with such a "vote", not the least of which is
a certain historical stance whose proponents argued that "whenever any Form
of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it…"
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 5:05 pm
I mean that just as people who believe the US government is legitimate should
have the right to express their political preference at the ballot box,
people who believe the US government is illegitimate should have the right
to express their political preference at (the abstention from) the ballot
box, and that it's at least possible for this to be a consistent political
and ethical stance. Do you disagree? Is the legitimacy of your government
a first premise for you? If so, Thomas Jefferson would like a word.
(Not to imply that I hold any particular fealty to the US nationalist
mythology of the "Founding Fathers" and so on, but hey, they articulated
a certain liberal political philosophy whose present-day adherents should
at least be consistent about it.)
Bob Zannelli 09.01.16 at 5:14 pm
I mean that just as people who believe the US government is legitimate should
have the right to express their political preference at the ballot box,
people who believe the US government is illegitimate should have the right
to express their political preference at (the abstention from) the ballot
box, and that it's at least possible for this to be a consistent political
and ethical stance. Do you disagree? Is the legitimacy of your government
a first premise for you? If so, Thomas Jefferson would like a word.
(Not to imply that I hold any particular fealty to the US nationalist
mythology of the "Founding Fathers" and so on, but hey, they articulated
a certain liberal political philosophy whose present-day adherents should
at least be consistent about it.) {}
Jefferson has never impressed me very much ( except for his church state
separation advocacy) His ideal of a democratic agrarian slave society I
find not too appealing. He talked about the blood of tyrants but he spent
his time drinking fine wines and being waiting on by his slaves during the
revolutionary war. You're entitled to any views you want, but you're not
entitled to be respected if you're views are nonsensical. Good luck on the
revolution, I hope that works out for you.
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 5:15 pm
Also, not to get personal, but the smarm here is so thick you could cut
it with a knife…
"Did I get you right? Is your response to an argument you find uncomfortable
to simply intone 'holy shit'? Holy shit…"
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 5:20 pm
So wait, did you not recognize the quote from the Declaration of Independence,
or what? Your argument invoked "an obligation to vote in a democracy"
. My counterargument is that if government is supposed to be premised
on the consent of the governed, there can never be "an obligation to vote
in a democracy", because not voting is a way of expressing one's lack of
consent. As Žižek might put it, your ideal appears to be a democratic system
that orders you to consent .
Bob Zannelli 09.01.16 at 5:37 pm
So wait, did you not recognize the quote from the Declaration of Independence,
or what? Your argument invoked "an obligation to vote in a democracy". My
counterargument is that if government is supposed to be premised on the
consent of the governed, there can never be "an obligation to vote in a
democracy", because not voting is a way of expressing one's lack of consent.
As Žižek might put it, your ideal appears to be a democratic system that
orders you to consent.{}
I think anyone who expects to move the country away from Neo Liberalism
to a more progressive direction without voting is a fool. What's the alternative
, over throwing the government? If this is the plan we better not discuss
it on social media. Of course it's all nonsense, if the US government was
ever thrown it would be by the far right as almost happened under FDR during
the hey day of fascism around the world. I think too many here are still
living in a Marxist fantasy world , no one here is going to establish the
dictatorship of the proletarians. Let's get real.
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 6:09 pm
if the US government was ever thrown it would be by the far right
So let's get this straight… the only choice we have is between the center
and the far right, yet it's far leftists' fault for not being centrists
that the politics of centrism itself keeps drifting farther and farther
to the right. Screw eating from the trashcan, it's like you're mainlining
pure grade-A Colombian ideology.
stevenjohnson 09.01.16 at 6:24 pm
Will G-R@86 "… because not voting is a way of expressing one's lack of consent."
Incorrect. Not voting is routinely interpreted as tacit consent. Not voting
is meaningless, and will be interpreted as suited.
Bob Zannelli@87 "Let's get real."
Okay. What's real is, the game is rigged but you insist on making everyone
ante up and play by the rules anyhow. What's real, is you have nothing to
do with the left, except by defining the Democratic Party as the left. What's
real is that the parties could just as well be labeled the "Ins" and the
"Outs," and that would have just as much to do with the left, which is to
repeat, nothing.
bruce wilder 09.01.16 at 6:59 pm
Bob Zannelli: What's the alternative?
There is no alternative.
Bob Zannelli 09.01.16 at 7:01 pm
So let's get this straight… the only choice we have is between the center
and the far right, yet it's far leftists' fault for not being centrists
that the politics of centrism itself keeps drifting farther and farther
to the right. Screw eating from the trashcan, it's like you're mainlining
pure grade-A Colombian ideology{}
Right because the left is too busy plotting the revolution to engage
in politics.
bruce wilder 09.01.16 at 7:09 pm
Hillary Clinton is engaging in politics and she's teh most librul librul
evah! Why isn't that enough? It is not her fault, surely, that the devil
makes her do unlibrul things - you have to be practical and practically,
there is no alternative. We have to clap louder. That's the ticket!
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 7:25 pm
stevenjohnson: Not voting is routinely interpreted as tacit consent.
So why then is low voter turnout interpreted as a problem for democracy?
Why wouldn't it be a cause for celebration if a large majority of the population
was so happy with the system that they'd be happy with whoever won? On the
contrary, a helpless person's tacit refusal to respond to a provocation
can be the exact opposite of consent if whoever has them at their mercy
actually needs a reaction: think of a torture victim who sits in
silence instead of pleading for mercy or giving up the information the torturer
is after. Whether or not it truly does need it, the ideology of liberal
democracy at least acts as if it needs the legitimating idea that its leaders
are freely and actively chosen by those they govern, and refusing to participate
in this choice can be interpreted as an effort to deprive this ideology
of its legitimating idea.
bruce wilder 09.01.16 at 7:45 pm
Will G-R @ 94
Low voter turnout is interpreted as a problem by some people on
some occasions. Why generalize to official "ideology" from their idiosyncratic
and opportunistic pieties?
Why are the concerns of, say, North Carolina's legislature that only
the right people vote not official ideology? Or, the election officials
in my own Los Angeles County, where we regularly have nearly secret elections
with hard-to-find-polling-places - we got down to 8.6% in one election in
2015.
Obama's DHS wants to designate the state election apparatus, critical
infrastructure. Won't that be great? I guess Putin may not be able to vote,
after all!
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 8:12 pm
Bob, my impression is that CT is supposed to be a philosophy-oriented discussion
space (or it wouldn't be named after a line from Kant for chrissake) and
in philosophy one is supposed to subject one's premises to ruthless and
unsparing criticism, or at least be able to fathom the possibility of doing
so - including in this case premises like the legitimacy of the US government
or the desirability of capitalism. Especially in today's neoliberal society
there are precious few spaces where a truly philosophical outlook is supposed
to be the norm, and honestly I'm offended that you seem to want to turn
CT into yet another space where it isn't.
stevenjohnson 09.01.16 at 8:27 pm
Bob Zannelli@95 Don't worry, your left credentials are quite in order. I'm
not a regular, I post here occasionally for the same reason I occasionally
post at BHL, sheer amazement at the insanity of it all. My views are quite
beyond the pale.
Nonetheless your views, even though they pass for left at CT, are nonsense.
Corey Robin's project to amalgamate all conservatism into a single psychopathology
of individual minds (characters? souls?) is not useful for real politics.
His shilling for Jacobinrag.com, etc., acquits SYRIZA for its total failure
in real politics because it accomplished the most important task…making
sure KKE couldn't use a major state crisis. Similarly OWS and the Battle
of Seattle are acceptable because they are pure, untainted by anything save
failure.
As for your dismissal of Marxist fantasies, I take it you do not believe
economic crisis is endemic to the capitalist world economy, nor that imperialism
leads to war to redivide the world. And despite your alleged interest in
the location of proletarian hordes you can't see any in other countries,
unlike this country where everybody is middle class.
Delusions like that are killing us all. This country doesn't need reform,
it needs regime change. That's happening. Nixon failed, Trump might fail,
but the long slow march of the owners through the institutions of power,
gentrifying as they go, continues.
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 8:46 pm
Bruce @ 95, correct me if I'm wrong but I feel that state and (especially)
local governments in the US typically are viewed as highly prone
to borderline-illegitimizing levels of corruption - imagine how we'd characterize
the legitimacy of a City-State of Ferguson, or a Republic of Illinois under
President Blagojevich - and part of what maintains the impression of legitimacy
is the possibility of federal intervention on the people's behalf if things
at the lower levels get out of hand. Where the federal government hasn't
done so, notably in the case of African-American communities before the
mid to late 20th century, is precisely where arguments for the illegitimacy
of the entire system have gained serious traction. So IMO there could actually
be quite a bit of subversive potential if the population at large were to
openly reject the elected officials in Washington, DC as no more inherently
legitimate than those in Raleigh, NC or Los Angeles County. (I briefly tried
to look up the location within LA of its county seat and found that
Wikipedia's article "Politics of Los Angeles County" was entirely about
its citizens' voting record in federal politics, which itself illustrates
the point.)
Delusions like that are killing us all. This country doesn't need reform, it needs regime change.
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. ..."
"... Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting neoliberalism into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasn't delivered. ..."
"... I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed. ..."
"... The fact that these sorts of governments exist and have existed in the US is why every American, even those of us who are well aware of McCarthyism and COINTELPRO and so on, can breathe a sigh of relief when we see the words "the Justice Department today announced a probe aimed at local government officials in…" because it means that the legitimate parts of our system are asserting their predominance over the potentially illegitimate parts. ..."
"... Accordingly, to treat the federal system as itself no more inherently legitimate than the local ones - to treat the government in Washington as fundamentally the same kind of racket as the government in Ferguson - is to argue that it needs fundamentally the same kind of external oversight, and barring a foreign invasion or a world government, the only potentially equivalent overseer for the US federal government is a mass revolt. ..."
"... Corey Robin's project to amalgamate all conservatism into a single psychopathology of individual minds (characters? souls?) is not useful for real politics. His shilling for Jacobinrag.com, etc., acquits SYRIZA for its total failure in real politics because it accomplished the most important task…making sure KKE couldn't use a major state crisis. Similarly OWS and the Battle of Seattle are acceptable because they are pure, untainted by anything save failure. ..."
"... I take it you do not believe economic crisis is endemic to the capitalist world economy, nor that imperialism leads to war to redivide the world. And despite your alleged interest in the location of proletarian hordes you can't see any in other countries, unlike this country where everybody is middle class. ..."
"... Delusions like that are killing us all. This country doesn't need reform, it needs regime change. ..."
" American liberalism has always been internationalist and mildly pro-free-trade. It's also
been pro-union…"
Then why are unions in such bad shape? Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free
flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or
citizens. Think about the TPP where corporate arbitration courts can be used by corporations to
sue governments without regard to those nations' legislation. I'd be more in favor of international
courts if they weren't used merely to further corporate interests and profits. Neoliberals argue
that what benefits these multinational corporations benefits their home country.
I pretty much agree with what Quiggin is saying here. Neoliberalism has failed both in
practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting neoliberalism
into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasn't delivered.
That's why you have all of these Trump voters or Brexit voters or other tribalists who no longer
believe what the center-right is selling them about lower taxes and less regulation delivering
prosperity. About immigration and internationalism being a good thing.
The center-right hasn't really delivered and neither has the center-left.
The elite project of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has
failed. This is an opportunity for the left but also a time fraught with danger should the tribalists
somehow get the upperhand.
I feel the U.S. is too diverse for this to happen but it might in other nations. I am hoping
that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen.
They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism
has failed.
Will G-R 09.02.16 at 4:19 pm
Bruce @ 104, I'm not clued into the SoCal-specific issues (so I don't know exactly how much a
Chinatown-esque narrative should be raised in contrast to your description of LA water
infrastructure as "the best of civic boosterism") but I'm thinking more of local governments like
the ones stereotypically predominant in the Southeast, or even the legendarily corrupt history
of "machine" politics in cities like Chicago.
The fact that these sorts of governments exist and have existed in the US is why every
American, even those of us who are well aware of McCarthyism and COINTELPRO and so on, can breathe
a sigh of relief when we see the words "the Justice Department today announced a probe aimed at
local government officials in…" because it means that the legitimate parts of our system are asserting
their predominance over the potentially illegitimate parts.
So in order to uphold the legitimacy of the system as such we acknowledge that sure, someone
in rural Louisiana might not always be able to get rid of their corrupt local mayors/sheriffs/judges/etc.
through the ballot box directly, but at least they can vote in federal elections for the people
and institutions that will get rid of these officials if they overstep the bounds of
what we as a nation consider acceptable. (This also extends to more informal institutions like
the media: the local paper might not be shining the light on local corruption, but the media as
such can fulfill its function and redeem its institutional legitimacy if something too egregious
falls into the national spotlight.)
Accordingly, to treat the federal system as itself no more inherently legitimate than the
local ones - to treat the government in Washington as fundamentally the same kind of racket as
the government in Ferguson - is to argue that it needs fundamentally the same kind of external
oversight, and barring a foreign invasion or a world government, the only potentially equivalent
overseer for the US federal government is a mass revolt.
stevenjohnson 09.01.16 at 8:27 pm
Bob Zannelli@95 Don't worry, your left credentials are quite in order. I'm not a regular, I post
here occasionally for the same reason I occasionally post at BHL, sheer amazement at the insanity
of it all. My views are quite beyond the pale.
Nonetheless your views, even though they pass for left at CT, are nonsense. Corey Robin's
project to amalgamate all conservatism into a single psychopathology of individual minds (characters?
souls?) is not useful for real politics. His shilling for Jacobinrag.com, etc., acquits SYRIZA
for its total failure in real politics because it accomplished the most important task…making
sure KKE couldn't use a major state crisis. Similarly OWS and the Battle of Seattle are acceptable
because they are pure, untainted by anything save failure.
As for your dismissal of Marxist fantasies, I take it you do not believe economic crisis
is endemic to the capitalist world economy, nor that imperialism leads to war to redivide the
world. And despite your alleged interest in the location of proletarian hordes you can't see any
in other countries, unlike this country where everybody is middle class.
Delusions like that are killing us all. This country doesn't need reform, it needs regime
change. That's happening. Nixon failed, Trump might fail, but the long slow march of the
owners through the institutions of power, gentrifying as they go, continues.
"... Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens. Think about the TPP where corporate arbitration courts can be used by corporations to sue governments without regard to those nations' legislation. I'd be more in favor of international courts if they weren't used merely to further corporate interests and profits. Neoliberals argue that what benefits these multinational corporations benefits their home country. ..."
"... Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. ..."
"... the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed. ..."
" American liberalism has always been internationalist and mildly pro-free-trade. It's also
been pro-union…"
Then why are unions in such bad shape? Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free
flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens.
Think about the TPP where corporate arbitration courts can be used by corporations to sue governments
without regard to those nations' legislation. I'd be more in favor of international courts if
they weren't used merely to further corporate interests and profits. Neoliberals argue that what
benefits these multinational corporations benefits their home country.
I pretty much agree with what Quiggin is saying here. Neoliberalism has failed both in
practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting
neoliberalism into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasn't
delivered.
That's why you have all of these Trump voters or Brexit voters or other tribalists who no longer
believe what the center-right is selling them about lower taxes and less regulation delivering
prosperity. About immigration and internationalism being a good thing. The center-right hasn't
really delivered and neither has the center-left. The elite project of putting neoliberalism into
practice and of selling it to the masses has failed. This is an opportunity for the left but also
a time fraught with danger should the tribalists somehow get the upperhand. I feel the U.S. is
too diverse for this to happen but it might in other nations.
I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us
that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that
he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed.
The same morons that gave us "lean manufacturing" have also given us "lean
logistics".
Redundancy is "money left on the table". Excess capacity in case of Black
Swans and "Plan Bs"are a big waste of money. Any law that forces you to
incorporate some redundancy (in spite of yourself) is "excess regulation"
Of course, costs must be reduced and corners must be cut, when you are
competing against bankster returns of 5-6%, with any losses made good by Uncle
Sugar
Since each modern container ship holds between 3,000 and 14,000 shipping
containers, 98 ships stranded with cargo is a lot of freight. S. Korea should
probably think twice about not bailing them out (unless all the cargo is from
China and they want to do some damage??)
Re the Hanjin bankruptcy, the "2.9% of world shipping trade" figure
understates Hanjin's overall share in the market that matters most to US
retailers and consumers: the transpacific trade, where Hanjin handles 7.8% of
the volume per Forbes.
So at the very least, we're looking at a significant reduction in already
falling (US) intermodal rail traffic, and quite possibly a small reduction in
the trade deficit as imports are reduced. Hanjin's bankruptcy also could not
possibly have come at a worse time, as Sept./ Oct. is traditionally "peak
season" for US imports ahead of the holiday retail season, which will probably
also take a hit.
Personally, I'm shocked that a carrier as large and dominant as Hanjin could
go under.
"Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has run an unusually cheap
campaign in part by not paying at least 10 top staffers, consultants and
advisers, some of whom are no longer with the campaign, according to a
review of federal campaign finance filings" [
Reuters
].
"[N]ot compensating top people in a presidential campaign is a departure
from campaign finance norms." Hirohito Award candidate, there.
"Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign raised an eye-popping $143
million in August for her candidacy and the Democratic Party, the best
showing of her campaign, her team said Thursday" [
Agence
France Presse
]. Ka-ching. And not doubling down. Squaring down.
"... By Leith van Onselen is an economist and has previously worked at the Australian Treasury, Victorian Treasury, and Goldman Sachs. Originally published at MacroBusiness . ..."
Lambert here: It looks like the United States isn't the only country to have credentialism and
corruption problems in its universities; or too few jobs chasing too much student debt.
By Leith van Onselen is an economist and has previously worked at the Australian Treasury,
Victorian Treasury, and Goldman Sachs. Originally published at
MacroBusiness .
I have complained previously that Australia's universities have turned into 'degree factories',
whereby they teach as many students as possible to accumulate Commonwealth government funding through
HELP/HECS debts. At the same time, quality of teaching, and students' ability to secure subsequent
employment, remain distant priorities.
This view is evidenced by the escalation of total outstanding HELP loans, much of which will never
be repaid, putting increasing pressures on the federal Budget:
... ... ...
There is, however, one segment of society that has benefited greatly from the uncapping of university
places in 2009, which led to a
$2.8 billion taxpayer-funded bonanza for universities: vice chancellors. As reported in The
Australian earlier this week (
here and
here ), vice chancellors have seen their salaries balloon since the demand-driven university
system was implemented, with nine now earning more than $1 million per year:
Nine vice-chancellors earned more than $1 million each last year, with University of Sydney
chief Michael Spence topping the list with a salary package of $1,385,000. [Dr Spence's] salary
package has increased by more than 60 per cent since 2010 when he earned $849,000
In a classic university setting, the point of getting an education . . . is to become educated.
Employment prospects are incidental, as it is assumed that someone who has the capability and
perseverance to attain a degree has learned *how* to learn, how to negotiate the tricky choices
of young adulthood, and how to survive the many perils of academia, would be a good employment
prospect.
'degree factories' Hah. In Michigan we have "dropout" factories that accomplish the same objectives
– full employment at high wages for executives and administrators of said universities. As you
say "Nice work if you can get it!" Better have a phd and connections though .
"... For much of the last century the illusion of social progress sold through the New Deal, the Great Society and more recently through capitalist enterprise 'freed' from the bind of social accountability, ..."
"... The Clinton's special gift to the people -- citizens, workers; the human condition as conceived through a filter of manufactured wants to serve the interests of an intellectually, morally and spiritually bankrupt 'leadership' class, lies in the social truths revealed by their actions. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump, poses the greater-evilism of an ossified political class against the facts of its own creation now in dire need of resolution- wars to end wars, environmental crisis to end environmental crises, economic predation to end economic predation and manufactured social misery to end social misery. Hillary Clinton's roster of donors is the neoliberal innovation on Richard Nixon's enemies list- government as a shakedown racket where friend or foe and policies promoted or buried, are determined by 'donation' status rather than personal animus. ..."
"... That is most ways conservative Republican Richard Nixon's actual policies were far Left of those of contemporary Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton, is testament to the ideological mobility of political pragmatism freed from principle. ..."
"... That Hillary Clinton is the candidate of officialdom links her service to Wall Street to America's wars of choice to dedicated environmental irresolution as the candidate who 'gets things done.' ..."
"... As historical analog, the West has seen recurrent episodes of economic imperialism backed by state power; in the parlance, neoliberal globalization, over the last several centuries. ..."
"... Left unstated in the competitive lesser-evilism of Party politics is the incapacity for political resolution in any relevant dimension. Donald Trump is 'dangerous' only by overlooking how dangerous the American political leadership has been for the last one and one-half centuries. So the question becomes: dangerous to whom? Without the most murderous military in the world, public institutions like the IMF dedicated to economic subjugation and predatory corporations that wield the 'free-choices' of mandated consumption, how dangerous would any politicians really be? And with them, how not-dangerous have liberal Democrats actually been? Candidates for political office are but manifestations of class interests put forward as systemic intent. ..."
"... The liberals and progressives in the managerial class who support the status quo and are acting as enforcers to elect Hillary Clinton are but one recession away from being tossed overboard by those they serve within the existing economic order. ..."
into political power. The structure of economic distribution seen through Foundation 'contributors;'
oil and gas magnates, pharmaceutical and technology entrepreneurs of public largesse, the murder-for-hire
industry (military) and various and sundry managers of social decline, makes evident the dissociation
of social production from those that produced it.
For much of the last century the illusion of social progress sold through the New Deal, the
Great Society and more recently through capitalist enterprise 'freed' from the bind of social accountability,
if not exactly from the need for regular and robust public support, served to hold at bay the perpetual
tomorrow of lives lived for the theorized greater good of accumulated self-interest. The Clinton's
special gift to the people -- citizens, workers; the human condition as conceived through a filter
of manufactured wants to serve the interests of an intellectually, morally and spiritually bankrupt
'leadership' class, lies in the social truths revealed by their actions.
Being three or more decades in the making, the current political season was never about the candidates
except inasmuch as they embody the grotesquely disfigured and depraved condition of the body politic.
The 'consumer choice' politics of Democrat versus Republican, Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump,
poses the greater-evilism of an ossified political class against the facts of its own creation now
in dire need of resolution- wars to end wars, environmental crisis to end environmental crises, economic
predation to end economic predation and manufactured social misery to end social misery. Hillary
Clinton's roster of donors is the neoliberal innovation on Richard Nixon's enemies list- government
as a shakedown racket where friend or foe and policies promoted or buried, are determined by 'donation'
status rather than personal animus.
That is most ways conservative Republican Richard Nixon's actual policies were far Left of
those of contemporary Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton, is testament to the ideological mobility
of political pragmatism freed from principle. The absurd misdirection that we, the people, are
driving this migration is belied by the economic power that correlates 1:1 with the policies put
forward and enacted by 'the people's representatives', by the answers that actual human beings give
to pollsters when asked and by the ever more conspicuous hold that economic power has over political
considerations as evidenced by the roster of pleaders and opportunists granted official sees by the
political class in Washington.
To state the obvious, dysfunctional ideology- principles that don't 'work' in the sense of promoting
broadly conceived public wellbeing, should be dispensable. But this very formulation takes at face
value the implausible conceits of unfettered intentions mediated through functional political representation
that are so well disproved by entities like the Clinton Foundation. Political 'pragmatism' as it
is put forward by national Democrats quite closely resembles the principled opposition of Conservative
Republicans through unified service to the economic powers-that-be. That Hillary Clinton is the
candidate of officialdom links her service to Wall Street to America's wars of choice to dedicated
environmental irresolution as the candidate who 'gets things done.'
As historical analog, the West has seen recurrent episodes of economic imperialism backed
by state power; in the parlance, neoliberal globalization, over the last several centuries.
The result, in addition to making connected insiders rich as they wield social power over less existentially
alienated peoples, has been the not-so-great wars, devastations, impositions and crimes-against-humanity
that were the regular occurrences of the twentieth century. The 'innovation' of corporatized militarization
to this proud tradition is as old as Western imperialism in its conception and as new as nuclear
and robotic weapons, mass surveillance and apparently unstoppable environmental devastation in its
facts.
Left unstated in the competitive lesser-evilism of Party politics is the incapacity for political
resolution in any relevant dimension. Donald Trump is 'dangerous' only by overlooking how dangerous
the American political leadership has been for the last one and one-half centuries. So the question
becomes: dangerous to whom? Without the most murderous military in the world, public institutions
like the IMF dedicated to economic subjugation and predatory corporations that wield the 'free-choices'
of mandated consumption, how dangerous would any politicians really be? And with them, how not-dangerous
have liberal Democrats actually been? Candidates for political office are but manifestations of class
interests put forward as systemic intent.
The complaint that the Greens- Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka, don't have an effective political
program approximates the claim that existing political and economic arrangements are open to challenge
through the electoral process when the process exists to assure that effective challenges don't arise.
The Democrats could have precluded the likelihood of a revolutionary movement, Left or Right, for
the next half-century by electing Bernie Sanders and then undermining him to 'prove' that challenges
to prevailing political economy don't work. The lack of imagination in running 'dirty Hillary' is
testament to how large- and fragile, the perceived stakes are. But as how unviable Hillary Clinton
and Donald Trump are as political leaders becomes apparent- think George W. Bush had he run for office
after the economic collapse of 2009 and without the cover of '9/11,' the political possibilities
begin to open up.
The liberals and progressives in the managerial class who support the status quo and are acting
as enforcers to elect Hillary Clinton are but one recession away from being tossed overboard by those
they serve within the existing economic order. The premise that the ruling class will always
need dedicated servants grants coherent logic and aggregated self-interest that history has disproven
time and again. A crude metaphor would be the unintended consequences of capitalist production now
aggregating to environmental crisis.
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both such conspicuously corrupt tools of an intellectually
and spiritually bankrupt social order that granting tactical brilliance to their ascendance, or even
pragmatism given the point in history and available choices, seems wildly generous. For those looking
for a political moment, one is on the way.
"... The scholarly publishing world has become quite a racket. I work at a small
community college and our monograph budget has been eaten away over the years due
to the high & continually increasing costs of subscriptions to academic journals,
trade and general magazines. ..."
"... In 2015, Elsevier reported a profit margin of approximately 37% on revenues
of Ł2.070 billion. ..."
"... I'm sensing a resurgence of the conversation, what with trade pacts and
digital rights and whatnot. How can an abstraction have wants? Information may be
very cheap to reproduce but takes energy to maintain. ..."
As a librarian in Canada, I can tell you that my profession has long
advocated for open access to scholarly research. There are many institutions
with policies that ask or expect their faculty to publish in open access
journal or institutional repositories.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access
The scholarly publishing world has become quite a racket. I work
at a small community college and our monograph budget has been eaten away
over the years due to the high & continually increasing costs of subscriptions
to academic journals, trade and general magazines.
It is crazy that libraries in public institutions are paying so much
money to access research funded wholy or in part by themselves or other
public institutions. Advocating for open access and advising faculty about
their options and advocating that they not give away copyright to big publishers
like Wiley and Elsevier is part of what many academic librarians do these
days.
I'm sensing a resurgence of the conversation, what with trade pacts
and digital rights and whatnot. How can an abstraction have wants? Information
may be very cheap to reproduce but takes energy to maintain.
"I am the spirit that negates.
And rightly so, for all that comes to be
Deserves to perish wretchedly;
'Twere better nothing would begin.
Thus everything that that your terms, sin,
Destruction, evil represent-
That is my proper element."
Reason enough for the Green Party of Switzerland to call for a fundamental change in the
country's economic system. Its initiative gathered about 110,000 signatures within the
required 18 months and was handed in to the authorities in 2012.
It calls for a "circular economy strategy", including measures to adopt new product
regulations, encourage recycling, and promote research and innovation, thereby reducing the
country's ecological footprint by two-thirds.
The proponents want Switzerland to play a pioneering role, promoting a sustainable model
for the economy, including a tax policy tied to the use of natural resources. The government
is asked to define sustainability targets both for a short and medium term and present a
progress report every four years.
A Facebook friend (we're barely acquaintances really) asked this question on Friday:
"What do you think are the most critical things (I'm talking specific processes,
policies, and structures rather than values) that make up non-competitive and more
collaborative and caring workplaces? Spaces where people are encouraged to really praise
and acknowledge someone else's work rather than hide someone else's contribution, where
people want to spend time on the collective good rather than next personal gain, and where
the often invisible and gendered work of caring and 'organisation culture' is prioritised
and publicly valued as critically important? What are some practical things you can
implement, aside from the destruction of capitalism? Ideas, you wise group of souls?"
I've spent the last couple of years working with an incredible bunch of people to build an
organisation that is exactly like that: caring, collaborative, and non-competitive, a space
where we praise and acknowledge each other, where the work of caring is shared equally,
regardless of gender.
Cripes I am a lucky dude, it rules. It is a total privilege, so I'm trying to figure out if
there's something about our organisation that we can share with others.
It's a subtle thing, so I'm not sure if I can totally nail it down with words. Let's try
something…
"... So, what benefit does society get from all this secondary market trading, besides very rich and self-satisfied bankers like Blankfein? The bankers would tell you that we get "liquidity"–the ability for investors to sell their investments relatively quickly. The problem with this line of argument is that Wall Street is providing far more liquidity (at a hefty price-remember that half-trillion-dollar payroll) than investors really need. Most of the money invested in stocks, bonds, and other securities comes from individuals who are saving for retirement, either by investing directly or through pension and mutual funds. These long-term investors don't really need much liquidity, and they certainly don't need a market where 165 percent of shares are bought and sold every year. ..."
"... In 1976, when the transactions costs associated with buying and selling securities were much higher, fewer than 20 percent of equity shares changed hands every year. Yet no one was complaining in 1976 about any supposed lack of liquidity. Today we have nearly 10 times more trading, without any apparent benefit for anyone (other than Wall Street bankers and traders) from all that "liquidity." ..."
So, what benefit does society get from all this secondary market trading, besides very
rich and self-satisfied bankers like Blankfein? The bankers would tell you that we get "liquidity"–the
ability for investors to sell their investments relatively quickly. The problem with this line
of argument is that Wall Street is providing far more liquidity (at a hefty price-remember that
half-trillion-dollar payroll) than investors really need. Most of the money invested in stocks,
bonds, and other securities comes from individuals who are saving for retirement, either by investing
directly or through pension and mutual funds. These long-term investors don't really need much
liquidity, and they certainly don't need a market where 165 percent of shares are bought and sold
every year.
They could get by with much less trading-and in fact, they did get by, quite happily. In
1976, when the transactions costs associated with buying and selling securities were much higher,
fewer than 20 percent of equity shares changed hands every year. Yet no one was complaining in
1976 about any supposed lack of liquidity. Today we have nearly 10 times more trading, without
any apparent benefit for anyone (other than Wall Street bankers and traders) from all that "liquidity."
=====================================
Thing of it is, the most thirsty never get a drink….
As a individual who graduated from Nampa(Idaho) High School before 1980,
I find the "Charter School" as a classic neoliberal and libertarian wet
dream. No collective contract interference, the support of Bill Gates(educated
exclusively in private schools) and another crony capitalism scheme. The
public education system has been fu**ked.
Worth noting: The "reformers" (like Michelle Rhee) promote merit pay
(because teachers are so financially motivated), (union-busting) charter
schools and testing, testing, testing as the means to improve educational
outcomes. No science validates this.
Yet with billionaire funding, "reformers" have even made a propaganda
film: "Waiting for Superman" touting Michelle Rhee's "tough love" approach
to school management (she fired lots of D.C. teachers), and holding up Finnish
schools as the ones to emulate.
Don't get me wrong, the Finns have great schools. But Waiting for Superman
neglects to mention that the Finnish teachers are well-paid, tenured and
unionized. Curious omissions, no?
So while the "reformers'" tactics fail scientific validation when compared
to educational outcomes, one thing does not fail: Educational outcomes correlate
strongly with levels of childhood poverty.
Finland's childhood poverty rate: 2%. Meanwhile, in the U.S., it's 23%
(and headed north).
Could this entire focus on schools out of their social context, without
any reference to what science says, be a gigantic campaign of misdirection,
distracting Joe Public from the plutocracy we live in?
The other cool thing about schools in Finland is the teachers stay with
their students as they move up in grades.
Years ago the gentleman who created the Finnish system was asked why
he didn't come to Amerika and help our system. The answer was Amerika is
head down and no one in power cares. Doomed
Chaster schools are about one thing, and one thing only. Wall street
gets access to (and takes a cut of) the cash flow stream of our tax money
before it gets to where we wanted it spent. All privatization efforts are
about this same thing.
Secure steady cash flows (and tax levies are one of the largest) have
a valur, and that value can be sold to private investors. That's what Wall
Street does with privatization; sell off the value of our taxes as cash
flow.
All of this means less of your tax money gets to where you want it to
go.
"... With polling data being quantized and plugged into sophisticated computer models allowing Clinton
to tailor her message for each region and for each venue. ..."
"... As I said before, this is likely something that is being fed to her by her no doubt well paid
consultants. ..."
"... Still, I have made an interesting observation that I wonder if you noticed. You presented two
charts, one with holding corporations accountable placed at the top, and the other placing decline in
manufacturing jobs at the top in the same position. ..."
"... They are the same network; point by point. I even compared them using paint and found them
to be a perfect match. The only difference is that one is negative and the other is positive. ..."
"... This completely misunderstand Clinton's approach to the Vulgar people of the United States,
which is: Insectionality, not intersectionality, that is the Vulgar People are treated as Insects. ..."
"... The only Intersection understood by Hilarity Clinton is the one between herself, money and
power. All else is irrelevant. ..."
"... Hillary is an intersectional feminist? ..."
"... As another untrained clown in intersectional feminism, I'm skeptical about Clinton, especially
reading Thomas Frank's description of the International Women's Day event at the Clinton Foundation
one year ago: ..."
"... Microlending is a perfect expression of Clintonism, since it brings together wealthy financial
interests with rhetoric that sounds outrageously idealistic. Microlending permits all manner of networking,
posturing, and profit taking among the lenders while doing nothing to change actual power relations-the
ultimate win-win." ..."
"... Wait a minute that tangle of buzz phrases connected helter-skelter by lines is a REAL post
from the Clinton campaign? Until I read the whole piece I thought it was well done satire. I guess The
Onion being bought out doesn't really matter much. In modern American politics satire now seems roughly
as difficult a task as exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum or measuring the position and velocity
of an electron simultaneously. ..."
DFA = Democracy for America. This was Howard Dean's organization and part of his 50 state strategies.
During non-campaign seasons, he sent campaign organizers touring the country giving short classes
on how to organize and manage a political campaign. They came to Wichita and it was something
to see, a lot of local Democratic office holders, some even in the State House had signed up.
One guy had held his house seat for 8 years and much of the information they were bringing was
completely new to him. Yes, a state level Democrat had won 4 election cycles without even knowing
the basics. This was the state of the Democratic Party back then – and is largely that way now.
Now I am going from memory here, but Clinton's "intersectional" was covered in these classes,
with at least the basic idea. The idea was to consider how different elements within your campaign
plank are connected. And where those connections are poor, to build up a rhetorical foundation
on how to address the contradictions. As I said, the idea is not to build connections between
different parts of the planks, but how to present separate planks to the voter as being relevant.
It's a good exercise, a way of organizing your issues and thinking how they all might fit together.
Now Clintion's hairball – good word by the way – likely takes it to the absurd degree.
With polling data being quantized and plugged into sophisticated computer models allowing Clinton
to tailor her message for each region and for each venue.
–KACHING- As I said before, this is likely something that is being fed to her by her no
doubt well paid consultants.
Still, I have made an interesting observation that I wonder if you noticed. You presented
two charts, one with holding corporations accountable placed at the top, and the other placing
decline in manufacturing jobs at the top in the same position.
They are the same network; point by point. I even compared them using paint and found them
to be a perfect match. The only difference is that one is negative and the other is positive.
This completely misunderstand Clinton's approach to the Vulgar people of the United States,
which is: Insectionality, not intersectionality, that is the Vulgar People are treated as Insects.
The only Intersection understood by Hilarity Clinton is the one between herself, money
and power. All else is irrelevant.
As another untrained clown in intersectional feminism, I'm skeptical about Clinton, especially
reading Thomas Frank's description of the International Women's Day event at the Clinton Foundation
one year ago:
"What this lineup suggested is that there is a kind of naturally occurring solidarity between
the millions of women at the bottom of the world's pyramid and the tiny handful of women at its
very top The mystic bond between high-achieving American professionals and the planet's most victimized
people is a recurring theme in [Hillary Clinton's] life and work What the spectacle had to offer
ordinary working American women was another story.
She enshrined a version of feminism in which liberation is, in part, a matter of taking out
loans from banks in order to become an entrepreneur the theology of microfinance Merely by providing
impoverished individuals with a tiny loan of fifty or a hundred dollars, it was thought, you could
put them on the road to entrepreneurial self-sufficiency, you could make entire countries prosper,
you could bring about economic development itself What was most attractive about microlending
was what it was not, what it made unnecessary: any sort of collective action by poor people coming
together in governments or unions The key to development was not doing something to limit the
grasp of Western banks, in other words; it was extending Western banking methods to encompass
every last individual on earth.
Microlending is a perfect expression of Clintonism, since it brings together wealthy financial
interests with rhetoric that sounds outrageously idealistic. Microlending permits all manner of
networking, posturing, and profit taking among the lenders while doing nothing to change actual
power relations-the ultimate win-win."
I'm too confused with all of this, but it sounds to me like a concept called "interlocking
systems of oppression" and your figure two seems to provide useful diagrammatic example.
The diagram offers no understanding of the intersectional dynamics of oppression, carefully
cropping out the oppressors - most of whom are Hillary backers - along with the oppressed, who
are all affected differently in their lived experiences by their particular relationship
to oppressive conditions.
Lumping these focus-tested ill conditions together with a rat's nest of undistinguished connections
misleadingly equates the interests of persons with their set of group memberships (Fascism is
Italian for bundle-ism) and sets the stage for those conditions to be traded off and weighed against
each other on net in the future. I believe this is the essence of what is called "triangulation".
Wait a minute that tangle of buzz phrases connected helter-skelter by lines is a REAL post
from the Clinton campaign? Until I read the whole piece I thought it was well done satire. I guess
The Onion being bought out doesn't really matter much. In modern American politics satire now
seems roughly as difficult a task as exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum or measuring the
position and velocity of an electron simultaneously.
"... As you note, its not clear that we in the US need ANY immigration; it's hard to claim that 300 million people is not enough. If we choose to allow immigration, it should be few and strongly selective, i.e. the cream of the crop and selected to benefit the US. ..."
"... But it benefits the Mandarin class, so opposition or even debate been defined by them as heresy. It appears that the non-Mandarin class, who has to live with the downsides, is staring to reject this orthodoxy. ..."
"... We import, legally, 50,000 people (plus families IIRC) via a random visa lottery. This verges on insanity. ..."
"... H1-B applicants require a BA or equivalent, but are then selected by lottery. Hardly selected specifically for the needs of the country. In 2015, 6 of the top 10 firms by number of applications approved were Indian IT firms (i.e. outsourcing. I'm sure you are aware of the long term and recent complaints concerning direct replacement of US citizens by these workers. ..."
"... I find the system you describe which relies, by design, on perpetually importing new waves of a helot underclass to be both immoral and unsustainable. ..."
It's remarkable how rarely the immigration debate is prefaced with an explicit
prior that we should give absolute priority to what is best for the receiving
county and their citizens.
As you note, its not clear that we in the US need ANY immigration;
it's hard to claim that 300 million people is not enough. If we choose to
allow immigration, it should be few and strongly selective, i.e. the cream
of the crop and selected to benefit the US.
Its not credible to complain about low employment/population ratios,
limited wage pressures, high poverty rates, overburdened social safety nets,
limited prospects for those on the left side of the bell curve, and inequality,
and simultaneously support more immigration of the poor, unskilled, or difficult
to assimilate.
But it benefits the Mandarin class, so opposition or even debate
been defined by them as heresy. It appears that the non-Mandarin class,
who has to live with the downsides, is staring to reject this orthodoxy.
We import, legally, 50,000 people (plus families IIRC) via a random
visa lottery. This verges on insanity.
H1-B applicants require a BA or equivalent, but are then selected
by lottery. Hardly selected specifically for the needs of the country. In
2015, 6 of the top 10 firms by number of applications approved were Indian
IT firms (i.e. outsourcing. I'm sure you are aware of the long term and
recent complaints concerning direct replacement of US citizens by these
workers.
I'm in favor of significant penalties for employing illegal workers.
Yes lets debate who is going to take care of washing and changing adult
diapers on 80 million baby boomers as they deteriorate towards their final
resting place, and who is going to dig the holes if we have deported all
those who know which end of a shovel is the business end.
"... We, as black people, have to reexamine the relationship. We're being pimped like prostitutes
and they're the big pimps pimping us politically… promising us everything and we get nothing in return.
We gotta step back now as black people and we gotta look at all the parties and vote our best interests.
..."
"... Barack Obama, our president, served two terms… the first black president ever… but did our
condition get better? Did financially, politically, academically with education in our community… did
things get better? Are our young people working more? ..."
"... If having the Black working community start totally hammering the Dems becomes "cool" the Dem's
are screwed for a long time. ..."
"... Obama trashed all of America, blacks and whites, while transferring millions of jobs overseas
to Bangladesh, China, Mexico, etc. ..."
... following interview with New Black Panther Quanell X requires no further commentary – he breaks
it down quite succinctly:
Let me say this to the brothers and sisters who listened and watched that speech… We may not
like the vessel [Donald Trump] that said what he said, but I ask us to truly examine what he said.
Because it is a fact that for 54 years we have been voting for the Democratic Party like no
other race in America. And they have not given us the same loyalty and love that we have given
them. We, as black people, have to reexamine the relationship. We're being pimped like prostitutes
and they're the big pimps pimping us politically… promising us everything and we get nothing in
return. We gotta step back now as black people and we gotta look at all the parties and vote our
best interests.
...
I want to say and encourage the brothers and sisters… Barack Obama, our president, served
two terms… the first black president ever… but did our condition get better? Did financially,
politically, academically with education in our community… did things get better? Are our young
people working more?
I've said that repeatedly. The question for hillary isn't what does the survey show, but how many
will actually be motivated enough to go vote. They may not show up and pull the lever for trump
this go round, but they may be curious enough to see what happens to just stay home and let things
work themselves out to see what the result will be
"... As disgusted and determined as we might be, we still have to operate within the 'neoliberal' system. We are all 'us' in this context and we are all a product of our environment to some extent. however crap that environment might be. ..."
"... Combined with offshoring of as many jobs abroad as possible, free movement of unskilled workers and the use of agency labour to undercut pay and conditions, the future looks bleak. ..."
"... There is nothing meritocratic about neoliberlaism. Its about who you know. ..."
"... I understand what you say, and there is definitely an element within society which values Success above all else, but I do not personally know anyone like that. ..."
"... .....By "us" of course, you mean commies. I think you are inadvertently demonstrating another of Hares psychopath test features; a lack of empathy and self awareness. ..."
"... I've worked in a few large private companies over the years, and my experience is they increasingly resemble some sort of cult, with endless brainwashing programmes for the 'members', charismatic leaders who can do no wrong, groupthink, mandatory utilisation of specialist jargon (especially cod-psychological terminology) to differentiate those 'in' and those 'out', increased blurring of the lines between 'private' and 'work' life (your ass belongs to us 24-7) and of course, constant, ever more complex monitoring of the 'members' for 'heretical thoughts or beliefs'. ..."
"... And the most striking idea here: Our characters are partly moulded by society. And neo-liberal society, and it's illusions of freedom, has moulded many of us in ways that bring out the worst in us. ..."
"... Neo-liberalism has however killed off post war social mobility. In fact according to the OECD report into social mobility, the more egalitarian a developed society is, the more social mobility there is, the more productivity and the less poverty and social problems there are. ..."
As disgusted and determined as we might be, we still have to operate within the 'neoliberal'
system. We are all 'us' in this context and we are all a product of our environment to some extent.
however crap that environment might be.
There are constant laments about the so-called loss of norms and values in our culture.
Yet our norms and values make up an integral and essential part of our identity. So they cannot
be lost, only chaned
If you have no mandate for such change, it breeds resentment.
For example, race & immigration was used by NuLabour in a blatant attempt at mass societal
engineering (via approx 8%+ increase in national population over 13 years).
It was the most significant betrayal in modern democratic times, non mandated change extraordinaire,
not only of British Society, but the core traditional voter base for Labour.
To see people still trying to deny it took place and dismiss the fallout of the cultural elephant
rampaging around the United Kingdom is as disingenuous as it is pathetic.
It's a race to the bottom, and has lead to such "success stories" as G4S, Serco, A4E, ATOS, Railtrack,
privatised railways, privatised water and so on.
It's all about to get even worse with TTIP, and if that fails there is always TISA which mandates
privatisation of pretty much everything - breaking state monopolies on public services.
Combined with offshoring of as many jobs abroad as possible, free movement of unskilled
workers and the use of agency labour to undercut pay and conditions, the future looks bleak.
A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort
and talents
There is nothing meritocratic about neoliberlaism. Its about who you know. In the
UK things have gone backwards almost to the 1950s. Changes which were brought about by the expansion
of universities have pretty much been reversed. The establishment - politics, media, business
is dominated by the better=off Oxbridge elite.
It is difficult for me to agree. I have grown up within Neoliberalism being 35, but you describe
no one I know. People I know weigh up the extra work involved in a promotion and decide whether
the sacrifice is worth the extra money/success.
People I know go after their dreams, whether that be farming or finance. I understand what
you say, and there is definitely an element within society which values Success above all else,
but I do not personally know anyone like that.
He's saying people's characters are changed by their environment. That they aren't set in stone,
but are a function of culture. And that the socio-cultural shift in the last few decades is a
bad thing, and is bad for our characters. In your words: The dreams have changed.
It's convincing, except it isn't as clear as it could be.
I understand his principle but as proof, he sites very specific examples...
A highly skilled individual who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism.
A person with a good job who turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is
seen as crazy – unless those other things ensure success. A young woman who wants to become
a primary school teacher is told by her parents that she should start off by getting a master's
degree in economics – a primary school teacher, whatever can she be thinking of?
This is used as an example to show the shifting mindset. But as I stated, this describes no
one I know. We, us, commenting here are society. I agree that there has been a shift in culture
and those reaping the biggest financial rewards are the greedy. But has that not always been the
way, the self interested have always walked away with the biggest slice, perhaps at the moment
that slice has become larger still, but most people still want to have a comfortable life, lived
their way. People haven't changed as much as the OP believes.
The great lie is that financial reward is success and happiness.
This is used as an example to show the shifting mindset. But as I stated, this describes
no one I know
Indeed even in the "sociopathic" world of fund management and investment banking, the vast
majority of people establish a balance for how they wish to manage their work and professional
lives and evaluate decisions in light of them both.
Indeed. How come G4S keep winning contracts despite their behaviour being incompetent and veering
on criminal, and the fact they are despised pretty much universally. Hardly a meritocracy.
You can add A4E to that list and now Capita who have recruited all of 61 part time soldiers
in their contract to replace all the thousands of sacked professionals
.....By "us" of course, you mean commies. I think you are inadvertently demonstrating another
of Hares psychopath test features; a lack of empathy and self awareness.
"Since the living standards of majority in this country are on a downward trend"
The oil's running out. Living standards, on average, will continue to decline until either
it stops running out or fusion power turns out to work after all.
Whether you have capitalism or socialism won't make any difference to the declining energy
input.
I'm sure I read an article in the 80s predicting what the author has written. Economics and cultural
environment is bound to have an effect on behaviour. We now live in a society that worships at
the altar of the cult of the individual. Society and growth of poverty no longer matters, a lone
success story proves all those people falling into poverty are lazy good for nothing parasites.
The political class claims to be impotent when it comes to making a fairer society because the
political class is made up of people who were affluent in the first place or benefited from a
neo-liberal rigged economy. The claim is, anything to do with a fair society is social engineering
and bound to fail. Well, neo-liberal Britain was socially engineered and it is failing the majority
of people in the country.
There is a cognitive dissonance going on in the political narrative of neo-liberalism, not
everyone can make it in a neo-liberal society and since neo-liberalism destroys social mobility.
Ironically, the height of social mobility in the west, from the gradual rise through the 50s and
60s, was the 70s. The 80s started the the downward trend in social mobility despite all the bribes
that went along with introducing the property owning democracy, which was really about chaining
people to capitalism.
I'm sure I read an article in the 80s predicting what the author has written.
Well, a transformation of human character was the open battle-cry of 1980s proponents of neoliberalism.
Helmut Kohl, the German prime minister, called it the "geistig-moralische Wende", the "spiritual
and moral sea-change" - I think people just misunderstood what he meant by that, and laughed at
what they saw as empty sloganeering. Now we're reaping what his generation sowed.
OK, now can you tell us why individual freedom is such a bad thing?
The previous period of liberal economics ended a century ago, destroyed by the war whose outbreak
we are interminably celebrating. That war and the one that followed a generation later brought
in strict government control, even down to what people could eat and wear. Orwell's dystopia of
1984 actually describes Britain's wartime society continuing long after the real wars had ended.
It was the slow pace of lifting wartime controls, even slower in Eastern Europe, and the lingering
mindset that economies and societies could be directed for "the greater good" no matter what individual
costs there were that led to a revival of liberal economics.
Neoliberalism is a mere offshoot of Neofeudalism. Labour and Capital - those elements of both
not irretrievably bought-out - must demand the return of The Commons . We must extend our
analysis back over centuries , not decades - let's strike to the heart of the matter!
Collectivist ideologies including Fascism, Communism and theocracy are all similar to feudalism.
I've worked in a few large private companies over the years, and my experience is they
increasingly resemble some sort of cult, with endless brainwashing programmes for the 'members',
charismatic leaders who can do no wrong, groupthink, mandatory utilisation of specialist jargon
(especially cod-psychological terminology) to differentiate those 'in' and those 'out', increased
blurring of the lines between 'private' and 'work' life (your ass belongs to us 24-7) and of course,
constant, ever more complex monitoring of the 'members' for 'heretical thoughts or beliefs'.
'Collectivism' is not as incompatible with capitalism as you seem to think.
You sound like one of those 'libertarians'. Frankly, I think the ideals of such are only realisable
as a sole trader, or operating in a very small business.
Progress is restricted because the people are made poor by the predations of the state
Neoliberalism is firmly committed to individual liberty, and therefore to peace and mutual
toleration
It is firmly committed to ensuring that the boundaries between private and public entities
become blurred, with all the ensuing corruption that entails. In other words, that the state becomes
(through the taxpayers) a captured one, delivering a never ending, always growing, revenue stream
for favoured players in private enterprise. This is, of course, deliberate. 'Individual liberties
and mutual toleration' are only important insomuch as they improve, or detract, from profit-centre
activity.
You have difficulty in separating propaganda from reality, but you're barely alone in this.
Lastly, you also misunderstand feudalism, which in the European context, flourished before
there was a developed concept of a centralised nation state, indeed, the most classic examples
occurred after the decentralisation of an empire or suchlike. The primary feudal relation
was between the bondsman/peasant and his local magnate, who in turn, was subject to his liege.
In other words a warrior class bound by vassalage to a nobility, with the peasantry bound by
manorialism and to the estates of the Church.
Apart from that though, you're right on everything.
I completely agree with the general sentiment.
The specifics aren't that solid though:
- That we think our characters are independent of context/society: I certainly don't.
- That statement about "bullying is more widespread" - lacks justification.
The general theme of "meritocracy is a fiction" is compelling though.
As is "We are free-er in many ways because those ways no longer have any significance"
.
And the most striking idea here: Our characters are partly moulded by society. And neo-liberal
society, and it's illusions of freedom, has moulded many of us in ways that bring out the worst
in us.
The Rat Race is a joke. Too many people waste their lives away playing the capitalist game. As
long as you've got enough money to keep living you can be happy. Just ignore the pathetic willy-wavers
with their flashy cars and logos on their shirts and all that guff
All we need is "enough" - Posession isn't that interesting. More a doorway to doing interesting
stuff.
I prefer to cut out the posession and go straight to "do interesting stuff" myself. As long as
the rent gets paid and so on, obviously.
Doesn't always work, obviously, but I reckon not wanting stuff is a good start to the good
life (ref. to series with Felicity Kendall (and some others) intended :)
That, and Epicurus who I keep mentioning on CIF.
Rather naive. History is full of brilliant individuals who made it. Neo-liberalism has however
killed off post war social mobility. In fact according to the OECD report into social mobility,
the more egalitarian a developed society is, the more social mobility there is, the more productivity
and the less poverty and social problems there are.
I agree - the central dilemma is that neither individualism nor collectiviism works.
But is this dilemma real? Is there a third system? Yes there is - Henry George.
George's paradigm in nothing funky, it is simply Classical Liberal Economics - society works
best when individuals get to keep the fruits of thier labour, but pay rent for the use of The
Commons.
At present we have the opposite - labour and capital are taxed heavily and The commons are monopolised
by the 1%.
Hence unemployment
Hence the wealth gap
Hence the environmental crisis
Hence poverty
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards
. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see
our FAQs .
So the values and morals that people have are so wafer thin that a variation in the political
system governing them can strip them away? Why do the left consistently have such a low opinion
of humanity?
"Why do the left consistently have such a low opinion of humanity?"
Open your eyes and take a lokk at the world. There is enough wealth in the world for everyone
to live free from poverty. Yet, the powerful look after themselves and allow poverty to not only
exist but spread.
>If you've ever dithered over the question of whether the UK needs a written constitution, dither
no longer. Imagine the clauses required to preserve the status of the Corporation. "The City of
London will remain outside the authority of parliament. Domestic and foreign banks will be permitted
to vote as if they were human beings, and their votes will outnumber those cast by real people.
Its elected officials will be chosen from people deemed acceptable by a group of medieval guilds
…".<
I agree with much of this. Working in the NHS, as a clinical psychologist, over the past 25 years,
I have seen a huge shift in the behaviour of managers who used to be valued for their support
and nurturing of talent, but now are recognised for their brutal and aggressive approach to those
beneath them. Reorganisations of services, which take place with depressing frequency, provide
opportunities to clear out the older, experienced members of the profession who would have acted
as mentors and teachers to the less experienced staff.
I worked in local authority social care, I can certainly see the very close similarities to what
you describe in the NHS, and my experience in the local authority.
I can well imagine there are big similarities. Friends of mine who work in education say the same
- there is a complete mismatch between the aims of the directors/managers and that of the professionals
actually providing the teaching/therapy/advice to the public. When I go to senior meetings it
is very rare that patients are even mentioned.
Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace.
This is an incredibly broad generalisation. I remember my grandfather telling me about what
went on in the mills he worked in in Glasgow before the war, it sounded like a pretty savage environment
if you didn't fit in. It wasn't called bullying, of course.
I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality
traits and penalises others.
Isn't this true of pretty much any system? And human relationships in general? I cannot think
of a system that is completely blind to the differences between people. If you happen to be lazy
or have a problem with authority you will never do as "well" (for want of a better term).
I have always said to people who claim they are Liberals that you must support capitalism,the
free market,free trade, deregulation etc etc when most of them deny that, I always say you are
not a Liberal then you're just cherry-picking the [Liberal] policies you like and the ones you
don't like,which is dishonest.
There is nothing neo about Liberalism,it has been around since the 19th century[?].People have
been brainwashed in this country [and the USA] since the 1960's to say they are liberals for fear
of being accused of being fascists,which is quite another thing.
I have never supported any political ideology,which is what Liberalism is,and believe all of them
should be challenged.By doing so you can evolve policies which are fair and just and appropriate
to the issue at hand.
Neoliberalism has only benefited a minority. Usually those with well connected and wealthy families.
And of course those who have no hesitation to exploit other's.
In my view, it is characterized by corruption, exploitation and a total lack of social justice.
Economically, the whole system is fully dependent on competition not co-operation. One day, the
consequences of this total failure will end in violence.
One day, the consequences of this total failure will end in violence.
And if we keep consuming all our resources on this finite planet in pursuit of profit and more
profit there will be no human race we will all be extinct.,and all that will be left is an exhausted
polluted planet that once harbored a vast variety of life.
Isent neolibral capitalism great.
As Marx so often claimed, values, ethics, morality and behaviours are themselves determined by
the economic and monetary system under which people live. Stealing is permitted if you are a banker
and call it a bonus or interest, murder is permitted if your government sends you to war, surveillance
and data mining is permitted if your state tells you there is a danger from terrorists, crime
is overlooked if it makes money for the perpetrator, benefit claimants are justified if they belong
to an aristocratic caste or political elite.......
There is no universal right or wrong, only that identified as such by the establishment at
that particular instance in history, and at that specific place on the planet. Outside that, they
have as much relevance today as scriptures instructing that slaves can be raped, adulterers can
be stoned or the hands of thieves amputated. Give me the crime and the punishment, and I will
give you the time and the place.
For a tiny elite sitting on the top everything has been going exactly as it was initially planned.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men
living together in Society, they create for themselves in the
course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a
moral code that glorifies it".
F. Bastiat.
Excellent article.
I'm amazed that more isn't made of the relationship between political environment/systems and
their effect on the individual. Oliver James Affluenza makes a compelling case for the unhappiness
outputs of societies who've embraced neo liberalism yet we still blindly pursue it.
The US has long been world leader in both the demand and supply of psychotherapy and the relentless
pursuit of free market economics. these stats are not unconnected.
I once had a colleague with the knack of slipping into his conversation complimentary remarks
that other people had made about him. It wasn't the only reason for his rapid ascent to great
heights, but perhaps it helped.
That's one of my favourite characteristics of David Brent from 'The Office'. "You're all looking
at me, you're going, "Well yeah, you're a success, you've achieved you're goals, you're reaping
the rewards, sure. But, OI, Brent. Is all you care about chasing the Yankee dollar?"
Neoliberalism is another Social Darwinist driven philosophy popularised after leading figures
of our times (or rather former times) decided Malthus was probably correct.
So here we have it, serious growth in population, possibly unsustainable, and a growing 'weak
will perish, strong will survive' mentality. The worst thing is I used to believe in neoliberal
policies, until of course I understood the long term ramifications.
And the reality is that "neoliberalism" has, in the last few decades, freed hundreds of millions
in the developing word from a subsistence living to something resembling a middle class lifestyle.
This has resulted in both plummeting global poverty statistics and in greatly reduced fecundity,
so that we will likely see a leveling off of global population in the next few decades. And this
slowing down of population growth is the most critical thing we could for increasing sustainability.
The problem is a judeo-christian idea of "free choice" when experiments, undertaken by Benjamin
Libet and since, indicate that it is near to unlikely for there to be volitionally controlled
conscious decisions.
If we are not even free to intend and control our decisions, thoughts and ambitions, how can
anyone claim to be morally entitled to ownership of their property and have a 'right' to anything
as a reward for what decisions they made? Happening is pure luck: meaningful [intended] responsibility
and accountability cannot be claimed for decisions and actions and so entitlement cannot be claimed
for what acquisitions are causally obtained from those decisions and actions.There is no 'just
desserts' or decision-derived entitlement justification for wealth and owning property unless
the justifier has a superstitious and scientifically unfounded belief in free choice.
Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace
Compared to say, that experienced by domestic staff in big houses, small children in factories,
perhaps even amongst miners, dockers and steel workers in the halcyon days of the post-war decade
when apparently everything was rosy?
This whole article is a hodge podge of anecdote and flawed observations designed to shoehorn
behaviour into a pattern that supports an economic hypothesis - it is factually groundless.
Compared to say, that experienced by domestic staff in big houses, small children in factories
Yes, but if it was left to people like you, children would still be working in factories. So
please do not take credit for improvements that you would fight tooth and nail against
perhaps even amongst miners, dockers and steel workers in the halcyon days of the post-war
decade when apparently everything was rosy?
They had wages coming to them and didn't need to rely on housing benefit to keep a roof over
their head. Now people like you bitterly complain about poorly paid workers getting benefits to
sustain them.
People who "work hard and play hard" are nearly always kidding themselves about the second bit.
It seems to me that the trend in the world of neoliberalism is to think that "playing hard"
is defined as "playing with expensive, branded toys" during your two week annual holiday.
'Playing hard' in the careerist lexicon = getting blind drunk to mollify the feelings of despair
and emptiness which typify a hollow, debt-soaked life defined by motor cars and houses.
The "Max Factor" life. Selfishness and Greed. The compaction of life. Was it not in a scripture
in text?. The Bible. We as humans and followers of "Faith" in christian beliefs and the culture
of love they fellow man. The culture of words are a root to all "Evil. Depending on "Who's" the
Author and Scrolling the words; and for what reason?. The only way we can save what is left on
this planet and save man kind. Is eradicate the above "Selfishness and Greed" ?
We are indeed freer than before, in the sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage
of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex and support any political movement we like. We can
do all these things because they no longer have any significance – freedom of this kind is
prompted by indifference.
These changes listed (and then casually dismissed) are monumental social achievements. Many
countries in the world do not permit their 'citizens' such freedom of choice and I for one am
very grateful to live in a country where these things are possible.
Of course there is much more to be done. But I would suggest that to be born in Western Europe
today is probably about as safe, comfortable, and free than at any time and any place in human
history. I'm not being complacent about what we still have to achieve. But we won't achieve anything
if we take such a flippant attitude towards all the amazing things that have been bequeathed to
us.
Excellent observation, it's the same way that technology that has quite clearly changed our lives
and given us access to information, opportunity to travel and entertainment that would have been
beyond the comprehension of our grandparents is dismissed as irrelevant because its just a smart
phone and a not a job for life in a British Leyland factory.
It takes a peculairly spoilt and arrogant Westerner to claim that the freedom to criticise religion
isn't significant or that we're only allowed to do so because it's no longer important. Tell that
to a girl seeking to escape an arranged marriage in Bradford...
OK. Now off you go and apply the same methodology to people living in statist societies, or just
have a go at our own civil service or local government workers. Try social workers or the benefits
agency or the police.
The author makes some good points, although I wouldn't necessarily call our system a meritocracy.
I guess the key one is how unaware we are about the influence of economic policy on our values.
This kind of systems hurts everyday people and rewards psychopaths, and is damaging to society
as a whole over the long term.
Targetising everything is really insidious.
That neoliberalism puts tremendous pressure on individuals to conform to materialistic norms is
undeniable, but for a psychotherapist to disallow the choice of those individuals to nevertheless
choose how to live is an admission of failure.
In fact, many people today experience the shallowness and corrupt character of market society
and elect either to be in it, but not of it, or to opt out early having made enough money, often
making a conscious choice to relinquish the 'trappings' in return for a more meaningful existence.
Some do selfless service to their fellow human beings, to the environment or both, and thereby
find a degree of fulfillment that they always wanted.
To surrender to the external demands of a superficial and corrupting life is to ignore the
tremendous opportunity human life offers to all: self realization.
It's not either-or, system or individual, but some combination of the two.
Decision making may be 80% structure and 20% individual choice for the mainstream - or maybe the
other way round for the rebels amongst us that try to reject the system.
The theory of structuration (Giddens) provides one explanation of how social systems develop
through the interactions between the system and actors in it.
I partly agree with you but I think examples of complete self realisation are extremely rare.
That means stepping completely out of the system and out of our own personality. Neither this
nor that.
The point is that the individual has the choice to move in the right direction. When and if they
do make a decision to change their life, it will be fulfilling for them and for the system.
Our presumed freedom is tied to one central condition: we must be successful – that is,
"make" something of ourselves. You don't need to look far for examples. A highly skilled individual
who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism. A person with a good job who
turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is seen as crazy – unless those
other things ensure success.
I have been in the private sector for generations, and know tons of people who have behaved
precisely as described above. I don't know anyone who calls them crazy. In fact, I see the exact
opposite tendency - the growing acceptance that money isn't everything, and that once one has
achieved a certain level of success and financial security that it is fine to put other priorities
first rather than simply trying to acquire ever more.
The ATL article is rather stuffed full of stereotypes.
And speaking personally, I have turned down two offers of promotion to a management position
in the last ten years and neither time did I get the sense people thought I was crazy. They might
have done if I were in my late twenties rather than mid-fifties but that does reinforce the notion
that people - even bosses - can accept that there is more to life than a career.
I agree about the stereotypes. Also, has anyone ever seriously advised a primary school teacher
that they need a masters degree of economics?! I highly doubt that that is the norm!
I hate to break it to you but no matter how you organise society the nasty people get to the
top and the nice people end up doing all the work. "Neo-liberalism" is no different.
Or you could put it another way - 'neoliberalism' is the least worst economic/social system, because
most people are far more powerless and far more worse off under any other system that has ever
been developed by man...
For a start you need a system that is not based on rewarding and encouraging the worst aspects
of our characters. I try to encourage my kids not to be greedy, to be honest and to care about
others but in this day and age it's an uphill struggle.
"A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort and
talents, meaning responsibility lies entirely with the individual and authorities should give
people as much freedom as possible to achieve this goal."
In the UK we have nothing like a meritocracy with a privately educated elite.
Success and failure are just about parental wealth.
"So the values and morals that people have are so wafer thin that a variation in the political
system governing them can strip them away? Why do the left consistently have such a low opinion
of humanity?"
RidleyWalker, I can assue you that it is not the left but the right who consistently have a
low opinion of humanity. Anyway, what has left and right got to do with this? There are millions
of ordinary decent people whose lives are blighted by the obscentity that is neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism
is designed to make the rich richer at the expense of the poor. Neo-liberalism is responsible
for the misery for millions across the globe. The only happy ones are those at the top of the
heap...until even their bloated selfish world inevitably implodes.
Of course these disgusting parasites are primitive thinkers and cannot see that we could have
a better, happier world for everyone if societies become more equal. Studies demonstrate that
more equal societies are more stable and content than those with ever-widening gaps in wealth
between rich and poor.
Neoliberalism...disgusting parasites...primitive thinkers...misery of millions...bloated selfish
world
This reads like a Soviet pamphlet from the 1930's. Granted you've replaced the word 'capitalism'
with 'neoliberalism' - in other words subsstituted one meaningless abstraction for another. It
wasn't true then and it certainly isnt true now...
Not sure why you think all this is new or attributable to neoliberalism. Things were much the
same in the 1960's and 1970's. All that has changed is that instead of working on assembly lines
in factories under the watchful gaze of a foreman we now have university degrees and sit in cubicles
pressing buttons on keyboards. Micromanagement, bureaucracy, rules and regulations are as old
as the hills. Office politics has replaced shop floor politics; the rich are still rich and the
poor are still poor.
Well, except that people have more money, live longer and have more opportunities in life than
before - most people anyway. The ones left behind are the ones we need to worry about
Not sure why you think all this is new or attributable to neoliberalism. Things were much
the same in the 1960's and 1970's.
And you can read far more excoriating critiques of our shallow materialistic capitalism, culture
from those decades, now recast as some sort of prelapsarian Golden Age.
Actually, the 1929 crash was not the first by any means. The boom and bust cycle of modern economics
goes back a lot further. When my grandparents talked about the "Great Depression" they were referring
to the 1890's.
The nineteenth century saw major financial crises in almost every decade, 1825, 1837, 1847, 1857,
1866 before we even get to the Great Depression of 1873-96.
Socialism seems to be happy home of corruption & nepotism. The old saw that Tory MP's are brought
down by sex scandals whilst Labour MP's have issues with money still holds.
Why is that relevant? This is a critique of neo liberalism and it is a very accurate one at that.
It isn't suggesting that Socialism is better or even offers an alternative, just that neo liberalism
has failed society and explores some of how and why.
The main problem is that neoliberalism is a faith dressed up as a science and any evidence that
disproves the hypothesis (e.g. the 2008 financial collapse) only helps to reinforce the faith
of the fundamentalists supporting it.
The reason why "neoliberalism" is so successful is precisely because the evidence shows it does
work. It has not escaped peoples' notice that nations where governments heavily curtail individual
and commercial freedom are often rather wretched places to live.
It would be nice to curtail coprorate freedom without curtailing the freedom of individuals. I
don't see how that might work.
"hubris over free markets" might well be it.
But I might be understanding that in a different way from you. People were making irrational decisions
that didn't seem to take on basic logic of a free market, or even common sense. Such as "where
is all this money coming from" (madoff, house ladder), "of course this will work" (fred goodwin
and his takeovers) and even "will i get my money back" (sub-prime lending).
So why don't we do something about it....genuinely? There appears to be no power left in voting
unless people are given an actual choice....Is it not time then to to provide a well grounded
articulate choice? The research, in many different disciplines, is already out there.
What can we do? It appears we are stuck between the Labour party and the Conservatives. Is it
even possible for another party to come to power with the next couple of elections?
The sociologist Zygmunt Bauman neatly summarised the paradox of our era as: "Never have
we been so free. Never have we felt so powerless." We are indeed freer than before, in the
sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex
and support any political movement we like. We can do all these things because they no longer
have any significance – freedom of this kind is prompted by indifference. Yet, on the other
hand, our daily lives have become a constant battle against a bureaucracy that would make Kafka
weak at the knees. There are regulations about everything, from the salt content of bread to
urban poultry-keeping.
Verhaeghe begins by criticizing free markets and "neo-liberalism", but ends by criticizing
the huge, stifling government bureaucracy that endeavours to micro-manage every aspect of its
citizens lives, and is the opposite of true classic liberalism.
probably not as confusing as it seems to be for you.
this is just the difference between neoliberalism in theory and in practise.
like the "real existierende sozialismus" in eastern germany fell somewhat short of the brilliant
utopia of the theorists.
verhaeghe does not criticise the theoretical model, but the practical outcome. And the worst governmant
and corporate bureaucracy that mankind has ever seen is part of it. The result of 30+ years of
neoliberal policies.
In my experience this buerocracy is gets worse in anglo saxon countries closest to the singularity
at the bottom of the neolib black hole.
I am aware that this is only a correlation, but correlations, while they do not prove causation,
still require explanation.
Some time ago, and perhaps still, it was/is fashionable for Toryish persons to denigrate the 1960s.
I look back to that decade with much nostalgia. Nearly everyone had a job of sorts, not terribly
well paid but at least it was a job. And now? You are compelled to toil your guts out, kiss somebody's
backside, run up unpayable debts - and, in the UK, live in a house that in many other countries
would have been demolished decades ago. Scarcely a day passes when I am not partly disgusted at
what has overtaken my beloved country.
An excellent article! The culture of the 80's has ruled for too long and its damage done.... its
down to our youth to start to shape things now and I think that's beginning to happen.
Neo-Liberalism as operated today. "Greed is Good" and senior bankers and those who sell and buy
money, commodities etc; are diven by this trait of humankind.
But we, the People are just as guilty with our drives for 'More'. More over everything, even
shopping at the supermarket - "Buy one & get ten free", must have.
Designer ;bling;, clothes, shoes, bags, I-Pads etc etc, etc. It is never ending. People seem
to be scared that they haven't got what next has, and next will think that they are 'Not Cool'.
We, the people should be satisfied with what have got, NOT what what we havn't got.
Those who "want" (masses of material goods) usually "Dont get!"
The current system is unsustainable as the World' population rises and rises. Nature (Gaia)
will take care of this through disease, famine, and of course the stupidity of Humankind - wars,
destruction and general stupidity.
What's a meritocracy? Oh, that's right - a fable that people who have a lot of money deserve it
somehow because they're so much better than the people who work for a living.
The world was an even nastier place before the current era. During the 1970s and early 1980s there
was huge inflation which robbed people of their saving, high unemployment, and (shudder) Disco.
People tend to view the past with rose-coloured glasses.
What neoliberalism? We've got a mixed economy, which seemingly upsets both those on the right
who wish to cut back the state and those on the left who'd bolster it.
I work in a law firm specialising in M&A, hardly the cuddliest of environments, but I recognise
almost nothing here as a description of my work place. Sure, some people are wankers but that's
true everywhere.
FDR, the Antichrist of the American Right, famously said that the only thing we have to fear is
fear itself. And here we are with this ideology which in many ways stokes the fear. The one thing
these bastards don't want most of us to feel is secure.
There is no "free market" anywhere. That is a fantasy. It is a term used when corporations want
to complain about regulations. What we have in most industrialized countries is corporate socialism
wherein corporations get to internalize profits and externalize costs and losses. It has killed
of our economies and our middle class.
Socialism or barbarism -- a starker choice today than when the phrase was coined.
So long, at least, as we have an evolved notion of what socialism entails. Which means, please,
not the state capitalism + benign paternalism that it's unfortunately come to mean for
most people, in the course of its parasitical relationship with capitalism proper, and so with
all capitalism's inventions (the 'nation', the modern bureaucracy, ever-more-efficient exploitation
to cumulatively alienating ends......)
It's just as unfortunate, in this light, that the term 'self-management' has been appropriated
by the ideologues of pseudo-meritocracy, in just the way the article describes..
Because it's also a term (from the French autogestion) used to describe what I'd argue is the
most nuanced and sophisticated collectivist alternative to capitalism -- an alternative that is
at one and the same time a rejection of capitalism.... and of the central role of the state
and 'nation' (that phony, illusory community that plays a more central role in empowering the
modern state than does its monopoly on violence)... and of the ideology of growth, and
of the ideal of monolithic, ruthlessly efficient economic totalities organised to this end....
It's a rejection, in other words, of all those things contemplation of which reminds us just
how little fundamental difference there is between capitalism and the system cobbled together
on the fly by the Bolsheviks -- same vertical organisation to the ends of the same exploitation,
same exploitation to the ends of expanding the scope and scale of vertical organisation, all of
it with the same destructive effects on the sociabilities of everyday life....
Self-management in this sense goes beyond 'workers control'; (I'd argue that) it envisions
a society in which most aspects of life have been cut free from the ties that bind people
vertically to sources of influence and control, however they're constituted (private and public
bureaucracies, market pressures, the illusory narratives of nation, mass media and commodity...).
The horizontal ties of workplace and local community would thus be constitutive, by default,
and society as a whole would become very little more than the sum of its parts -- mutating on
a molecular local level as people collectively and democratically decided, in circumstances that
actually granted them the power to do so, how to balance the conflicting needs and desires and
necessities that a complex society and a complex division of labour present. 'Balance' because
there really isn't any prospect of a utopian resolution of these conflicts -- they come with civilisation
-- or with barbarism, for than matter, in any of its modern incarnations.
What about those who disagree with such a radical reordering of society? How would the collective
deal with those who wished to exploit it?
I'm genuinely interested, beats working...
The horizontal ties of workplace and local community would thus be constitutive, by default,
and society as a whole would become very little more than the sum of its parts -- mutating
on a molecular local level as people collectively and democratically decided, in circumstances
that actually granted them the power to do so, how to balance the conflicting needs and desires
and necessities that a complex society and a complex division of labour present.
Why do socialists so often resort to such turgid, impenetrable prose? Could it be an attempt
to mask the vacuity of their position?
I read this article skeptically, but then realised how accurately he described my workplace. Most
people I know on the outside have nice middle class lives, but underneath it suffer from anxiety,
about 1 not putting enough into their careers 2 not spending enough time with their kids. When
I decided to cut my work hours in half when I had a child, 2 of my colleagues were genuinely concerned
for me over things like, I might be let go, how would I cope with the drop in money, I was cutting
my chances of promotion, how would it look in a review. The level of anxiety was frightening.
People on the forum seem to be criticizing what they see as the authors flippant attitude to
sexual freedom and lack of religious hold, but I see the authors point, what good are these freedoms
when we are stuck in the stranglehold of no job security and huge mortgage debt. Yes you can have
a quick shag with whoever you want and don't need to answer to anyone over it on a Sunday, but
come Monday morning its back to the the ever sharpening grindstone.
This reminds me of the world I started to work in in 1955. I accept that by 1985 it was ten times
worse and by the time I retired in 2002, after 47 years, I was very glad to have what I called
"survived". At its worst was the increasing difference between the knowledge base of "the boss"
when technology started to kick in. I was called into the boss's office once to be criticised
for the length of a report. It had a two page summery of the issue and options for resolving the
problem. I very meekly inquired if he had decided on any of the options to resolve the problem.
What options are you talking about? was his response, which told me that either he had not read
the report or did not understand the problem. This was the least of my problems as I later had
to spend two days in his office explaining the analysis we (I) were submitting to the Board.
A highly skilled individual who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism.
A person with a good job who turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is
seen as crazy – unless those other things ensure success. A young woman who wants to become
a primary school teacher is told by her parents that she should start off by getting a master's
degree in economics – a primary school teacher, whatever can she be thinking of?
Speak for yourself.
The current economic situation affects each of us as much as we allow it to. Some may well love
neo-liberalism and the concomitant dog eat dog attitude, but there are some of us who regard it
as little more than a culture of self-enrichment through lies and aggression. I see it as such,
and want nothing to do with it.
If you live by money and power, you'll die by money and power. I prefer to live and work with
consensus and co-operation.
I'll never be rich, but I'll never have many enemies.
Hedge-fund and private-equity managers, investment bankers, corporate lawyers, management consultants,
high-frequency traders, and top lobbyists.They're getting paid vast sums for their labors. Yet
it seems doubtful that society is really that much better off because of what they do. They play
zero-sum games that take money out of one set of pockets and put it into another. They demand
ever more cunning innovations but they create no social value. High-frequency traders who win
by a thousandth of a second can reap a fortune, but society as a whole is no better off. the games
consume the energies of loads of talented people who might otherwise be making real contributions
to society - if not by tending to human needs or enriching our culture then by curing diseases
or devising new technological breakthroughs, or helping solve some of our most intractable social
problems. Robert Reich said this and I am compelled to agree with him!
Brilliant article. It is not going to change anything, of course, because majority of people of
this planet would cooperate with just about any psychopath clever enough not to take away from
them that last bit of stinking warm mud to wallow in.
Proof? Read history books and take a look around you. We are the dumbest animals on Earth.
Rubbish. We are the most intelligent and successful creature that this planet has ever seen. We
have become capable of transforming it, leaving it and destroying it.
Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace.
I started work nearly 40 years ago and there were always some bullies in the workplace. Maybe
there are more now, I don't know but I suspect it is more widely reported now. Workplace bullies
were something of a given when I started work and it was an accepted part of the working environment.
Be careful about re-inventing history to suit your own arguments.
I'm surprised the normalization of debt was not mentioned. If you are debt free you have more
chance of making decisions that don't fit into the model.
So what do we do now, we train nearly 50% of our young that having large amounts of debt is
perfectly normal. When I was a student I lived off the grant and had a much lower standard of
living than I can see students having now, but of course I had no debt when I graduated. I know
student debt is administered differently, I'm talking about the way we are training them to accept
debt of all sorts.
Same applies to consumerism inducing the 'I want it and I want it now', increases personal
debt, therefore forcing people to fit in, same applies to credit cards and lax personal lending.
Although occasionally there are economic questions about large amounts of personal debt, politically
high personal debt is ideal.
Not sure if you're in the sector, in large parts that's kind of how academia works?
This is also what's referred to in the trade as an opinion piece, where an author will be presenting
his views and substantiating them with reference to the researches of others.
There is no mystery to neoliberalism -- it is an economic system designed to benefit the 0.1%
and leave the rest of us neck deep in shit. That's why our children will be paying for the bankers'
bonuses to the day they die. Let's celebrate this new found freedom with all the rest of the Tory
lickspittle apologists. Yippee for moral bankruptcy -- three cheers!
The Simple Summary is the state/ royality used to hold all the power over the merchants and the
public for centuries. Bit by bit the merchants stripped that power away from royality, until eventually
the merchants have now taken over everybody. The merchants hold all the power now and they will
never give that up as there is nobody to take it from them. By owning the state the merchants
now have everything that go with it. The army, police and the laws and the media.
David Harvey puts it all under the microscope and explains in great detail how they've achieved
their end game over the last 40 years.
There are millions of economists and many economic theories in our universities. Unfortunately,
the merchants will only fund and advertise and support economic theories that further their power
and wealth.
As history shows time and time again it will be the public who rip this power from their hands.
If they don't give it up it is only a matter of time. The merchants may now own the army, the
police, the laws and the parliament. They'll need all of that and more if the public decide to
say enough is enough.
Bullying used to be confined to schools? Can't agree with that at all. Bullying is an ingrained
human tendency which manifests in many contexts, from school to work to military to politics to
matters of faith. It is only bad when abused, and can help to form self-confidence.
I am not sure what "neo" means but liberal economics is the basis of the Western economies
since the end of feudalism. Some countries have had periods of pronounced social democracy or
even socialism but most of western Europe has reverted to the capitalist model and much of the
former east bloc is turning to it. As others have noted in the CiF, this does not preclude social
policies designed to alleviate the unfair effects of the liberal economies.
But this ship has sailed in other words, the treaties which founded the EU make it clear the
system is based on Adam Smith-type free market thinking. (Short of leaving the EU I don't see
how that can be changed in its essentials).
Finally, socialist countries require much more conformity of individuals than capitalist ones.
So you have to look at the alternatives, which this article does not from what I could see.
To be honest I don't think Neoliberalism has made much of a difference in the UK where personal
responsibility has always been king. In the Victorian age people were quite happy to have people
staving to death on the streets and before that people's problems were usually seen as either
their own fault or an act of God (which would also be your own fault due to sin). If anything
we are kinder to strangers now, than we have been, but are slipping back into our old habits.
I think the best way to combat extreme liberalism is to be knowing about our culture and realise
that liberalism is something which is embedded in British culture and is not something imposed
on us from else where or by some -ism. It is strengthen not just by politics but also by language
and the way we deal with personal and social issues in our own lives. We also need to acknowledge
that we get both good and bad things out of living in a liberal society but that doesn't mean
we have to put up with the bad stuff. We can put measures in place to prevent the bad stuff and
still enjoy the positives even though some capitalists may throw their toys out of the pram.
Personal responsibility is EXACTLY what neoliberalism avoids, even as it advocates it with every
breath.
What it means is that you get as much responsibility as you can afford to foist onto someone
else, so a very wealthy person gets none at all. It's always someone else's fault.
Neoliberalism has actually undermined personal responsibility at every single step, delegating
it according to wealth or perceived worth.
If Liberalism is the mindset of the British how come we created the NHS, Legal Aid, universal
education and social security? These were massive achievements of a post war generation and about
as far removed from today's evil shyster politics as it is possible to be.
"Our society constantly proclaims that anyone can make it if they just try hard enough, all the
while reinforcing privilege and putting increasing pressure on its overstretched and exhausted
citizens"
What to people mean when they use the word "society" in this context?
When we stopped having jobs and had careers instead, the rot set in. A career is the promotion
of the self and a job the means to realise that goal at the expense of everyone else around you.
The description of psychopathic behaviour perfectly describes a former boss of mine (female).
I liked her but knew how dangerous she was. She went easy on me because she knew that I could
do the job that she would claim credit for.
The pressure and stress of, for example open plan offices and evaluation reports are all part
of the conscious effort on behalf of employers to ensure compliance with this poisonous attitude.
The greatest promoter of this philosophy is the Media, step forward Evan Davies, the slobbering
lap dog of the rich and powerful.
On the positive side I detect a growing realisation among normal people of the folly of this worldview.
Self promoters are generally psychopaths who don't have any empathy for the people around them
who carry them everyday and make them look good. We call these people show bags. Full of shit
and you have to carry them all the time....
"meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality traits and penalises others..."
I put to you the simple premsie that you can substitute "meritocratic neoliberalism" with any
political system (communism, fascism, social democracy even) and it the same truism would emerge.
"Neoliberalism promotes individual freedom, limited government, and deregulation of the economy...whilst
individual freedom is a laudable idea, neoliberalism taken to a dogmatic extreme can be used to
justify exploitation of the less powerful and pillaging of the natural environment." - Don Ambrose.
Contrast with this:
"Neoliberal democracy, with its notion of the market uber alles ...instead of citizens,
it produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The net result is an
atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralised and socially powerless." - Robert
W. McChesney in Profit over People, Noam Chomsky.
It is fairly clear that the neoliberal system is designed to exploit the less powerfull when
it becomes dogmatic, and that is exactly what it has become: beaurocracy, deregulation, privatisation,
and government power .
Neoliberalism is a virus that destroys people's power of reason and replaces it with extra greed
and self entitlement. Until it is kicked back to the insane asylum it came from it will only keep
trying to make us it's indentured labourers. The only creeds more vile were Nazism and Apartheid.
Eventually the neoliberals will kill us all, so they can have the freedom to have everything they
think they're worth.
Yet, on the other hand, our daily lives have become a constant battle against a bureaucracy
that would make Kafka weak at the knees. There are regulations about everything, from the salt
content of bread to urban poultry-keeping.
Isn't a key feature of neo-liberalism that governments de-regulate? It seems you're willing
to blame absolutely everything on neoliberalism, even those things that neoliberalism ostensibly
opposes.
The Professor is correct. We have crafted a nightmare of a society where what is considered good
is often to the detriment of the whole community. It is reflected in our TV shows of choice, Survivor,
Big Brother, voting off the weakest or the greatest rival. A half a million bucks for being the
meanest most sociopathic person in the group, what great entertainment.
Always a treat to read your articles, Mr Verhaeghe; well written and supported with examples and
external good links. I especially like the link to Hare's site which is a rich resource of information
and current discussions and presentations on the subject.
The rise of the psychopath in society has been noted for some time, as have the consequences
of this behaviour in wider society and and a growing indifference and increased tolerance for
this behaviour.
But what are practical solutions? MRI brain scans and early intervention? We know that behaviour
modification does not work, we know that antipsychotic and other psychiatric medication does not
alter this behaviour, we know little of genetic causes or if diet and nutrition play a role.
Maybe it is because successful psychopaths leverage themselves into positions of influence
and power and reduce the voice, choices and influence of their victims that psychopathy has become
such an unsolvable problem, or at least a problem that has been removed from the stage of awareness.
It is so much easier to see the social consequences of psychopathy than it is to see the causal
activity of psychopaths themselves.
Neoliberalism has entered centre stage politics not as a solution, it is just socialism with a
crowd pleasing face. What could the labour party do to get voted in when the leadership consisted
of self professed intellectuals in Donkey Jackets which they wore to patronise the working classes.
Like the animal reflected in the name they became a laughing stock. Nobody understood their language
or cared for it. The people who could understand it claimed that it was full of irrelevant hyperbole
and patronising sentiment.
It still is but with nice sounding buzz words and an endless sound bites, the face of politics
has been transformed into a hollow shell. Neither of the party's faithful are happy with their
leaders. They have become centre stage by understanding process more than substance. As long as
your face fits, a person has every chance of success. Real merit on the other hand is either sadly
lacking or non existant.
Most people's personalities and behaviour are environment driven, they are moulded by the social
context in which they find themselves. The system we currently inhabit is one which is constructed
on behalf of the holders of capital, it is a construct of the need to create wealth through interest
bearing debt.
The values of this civilisation are consumer ones, we validate and actualise ourselves through
ownership of goods, and also the middle-class norms of family life, which are in and of themselves
constructs of a liberal consumer based society.
We pride ourselves on tolerance, which is just veiled indifference to anything which we feel
as no importance to our own desires. People are becoming automatons, directed through media devices
and advertising, and also the implanted desires which the consumer society needs us to act upon
to maintain the current system of economy.
None of this can of course survive indefinitely, hence the constant state of underlying anxiety
within society as it ploughs along on this suicidal route.
Good article, however I would just like to add that the new breed of 'business psychopath' you
allude to are fairly easy to spot these days, and as such more people are aware of them, so they
could be displaced quite soon, hopefully.
Cameron and the Conservatives have long been condemning the lazy and feckless at the bottom of
society, but has Cameron ever looked at his aristocratic in-laws.
His father-in-law, Sir Reginald Sheffield, can be checked out on Wikipedia.
His only work seems to have been eight years as a conservative councillor (lazy).
He is a member of three clubs, so he likes to go pissing it up with his rich friends (feckless).
This seems to be total sum of his life's achievements.
He also gets Government subsidies for wind turbines on his land (on benefits).
His estate has been in the family since the 16th Century and the family have probably done very
little since, yet we worry about the lower classes having two generations without work, in the
upper classes this can go on for centuries.
Wasters don't just exist at the bottom of society.
Mr. Cameron have a closer look at your aristocratic in-laws.
This is the consequence of a system that prevents people from thinking independently and
that fails to treat employees as adults.
Fundamentally the whole concept is saying "real talent is to be hunted down since, if you do
not destroy it, it will destroy you". As a result we have a whole army of useless twats in high
positions with not an independent thought between them. The concept of the old boys network has
really taken over except now the members are any mental age from zero upwards.
And then we wonder why nothing is done prperly these days....
Neoliberalism is fine in some areas of self-development and actualization of potential, but taken
as a kind of religion or as the be-all and end-all it is a manifest failure. For a start it neglects
to acknowledge what people have in common, the idea of shared values, the notion of society, the
effects of synergy and the geo-biological fact that we are one species all inhabiting the same
single planet, a planet that is uniquely adapted to ourselves, and to which we are uniquely adapted.
Generally it works on the micro-scale to free up initiative, but on the macro-scale it is hugely
destructive, since its goals are not the welfare of the entire human race and the planet but something
far more self-interested.
I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality
traits and penalises others.
This is inevitable. All societies have this property. A warrior society rewards brave fighters
and inspiring leaders, while punishing weaklings and cowards. A theocracy rewards those who display
piety and knowledge of religious tradition, and punishes skeptics and taboo-breakers. Tyrannies
reward cunning, ruthless schemers while punishing the squeamish and naive. Bureaucratic societies
reward pernickety types who love rules and regulationsn, and punish those who are careless of
jots and tittles. And so on.
A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort
and talents
It does. In fact, it does in all societies to some extent, even societies that strive to be egalitarian,
and societies that try to restrict social mobility by imposing a rigid caste system. There are
always individuals who fall or rise through society as a result of their abilities or lack thereof.
The freer society is, the more this happens.
For those who believe in the fairytale of unrestricted choice, self-government and self-management
are the pre-eminent political messages, especially if they appear to promise freedom.
Straw man. Even anarchists don't believe in completely unrestricted choice, let alone neoliberals.
Neoliberalism accepts that people are inevitably limited by their abilities and their situation.
Personal responsibility does not depend on complete freedom. It depends on there being some
freedom. If you have enough freedom to make good or bad choices, then you have personal responsibility.
Along with the idea of the perfectible individual, the freedom we perceive ourselves as
having in the west is the greatest untruth of this day and age.
The idea of the perfectible individual has nothing to do with neoliberalism. On the other hand,
it is one of the central pillars of Marxism. In philosophy, Marx is noted as an example of thinker
who follows a perfectionist ethical theory.
A frightening article, detailing now the psychological strenngths of people are recruited, perverted
and rotted by this rat-race ethic.
Ironic that the photo, of Canary Wharf, shows one of the biggest "socialist" gifts of the country
(was paid largely by the British taxpayer, if memory serves me correctly, and more or less gifted
to the merchant bankers by Thatcher).
Meritocratic neoliberalism; superficial articulateness which I used to call 'the gift of the gab'.
In my job, I was told to be 'extrovert' and I bucked against this, as a prejudice against anyone
with a different personality and people wanting CLONES. Not sensible people, or people that could
do a job, but a clone; setting the system up for a specific type of person as stated above. Those
who quickly tell you, you are wrong. Those that make you think perhaps you are, owing to their
confidence. Until your quietness proves them to be totally incorrect, and their naff confidence
demonstrates the falseness of what they state.
Most of the richest people in the world are not bullshitters. There are some, to be sure, but
the majority are either technical or financial engineers of genius, and they've made their fortune
through those skills, rather than through bullshit.
Hague lied to the camera about GCHQ having permission to access anyone's electronic devices. He
did not blush, he merely stated that a warrant was required. Only the night before we were shown
a letter from GCHQ stating that they had access without any warrant.
The ability to LIE has become a VIRTUE that all of us could well LIVE WITHOUT.
That's not new. It has been widely held that rulers have a right (and sometimes a duty) to lie
ever since Machiavelli's Prince was published some 500 years ago.
The sociologist Zygmunt Bauman neatly summarised the paradox of our era as: "Never have
we been so free. Never have we felt so powerless." We are indeed freer than before, in the
sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex
and support any political movement we like. We can do all these things because they no longer
have any significance – freedom of this kind is prompted by indifference.
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left lose.
-Janice Joplin
Actually it was written by Kris Kristofferson and, having a house, a job pension and an Old Age
Pension, frankly, I disagree. The Grateful Dead version is better anyway.
.... economic change is having a profound effect not only on our values but also on our
personalities.
I have long thought that introverts are being marginalised in our society. Being introvert
seems to be seen by some as almost an illness, by others as virtually a crime.
Not keen on attending that "team bonding" weekend? There must be something wrong with you.
Unwilling to set out your life online for all to see? What have you got to hide?
A few very driven and talented introverts have managed to find a niche in the world of IT and
computers, earnig fortunes from their bedrooms. But for most, being unwilling or unable to scream
their demands and desires across a crowded room is interpreted as "not trying" or being not worth
listening to.
It's important to be able to talk up your own capacities as much as you can – you know a
lot of people, you've got plenty of experience under your belt and you recently completed a
major project. Later, people will find out that this was mostly hot air, but the fact that
they were initially fooled is down to another personality trait: you can lie convincingly and
feel little guilt. That's why you never take responsibility for your own behaviour.
Perfectly describes our new ruling-class, doesn't it!
It's important to be able to talk up your own capacities as much as you can – you know a
lot of people, you've got plenty of experience under your belt and you recently completed a
major project. Later, people will find out that this was mostly hot air, but the fact that
they were initially fooled is down to another personality trait: you can lie convincingly and
feel little guilt. That's why you never take responsibility for your own behaviour.
Sounds like a perfect description of newspaper columnists to me.
It's just the general spirit of the place: it's on such a downer and no amount of theorising and
talking will ever solve anything. There isn't a good feeling about this country anymore just a
lot of tying everyone up in in repressive knots with a lot of hooey like talk and put downs. We
need to find freedom again or maybe shove all the pricks into one part of the country and leave
them there to fuck each other over so the rest of us can create a new world free of bullcrap.
I don't know. Place is a superficial mess: 'look at me; look at what I own; I can cook Coq Au
Vin and drink bottles of expensive plonk and keep ten cars on my driveway'
Nah. Fortuneately there are still some decent people left but it's been like Hamlet now for quite
some time - "show me an honest man and I'll show you one man in ten thousand" Sucks.
This article is spot on and reflects Karl Marx's analysis regarding the economic base informing
and determining the superstructure of a given society, that is, its social, cultural aspects.
A neo-liberal, monetarist economy will shape and influence social and work relationships in ways
that are not beneficial for the many but as the commentator states, will benefit those possessed
of certain thrusting,domineering character traits. The common use of the word "loser" in contemporary
society to describe those who haven't "succeeded" financially is in itself telling.
It would be the perfect first chapter (foreword/introduction) in a best seller that goes on,
chapter by chapter, to show that neoliberalism destroys everything it touches:
Personal relationships;
trust;
personal integrity;
trust;
relationships;
trust;
transactions and trade;
trust;
market systems;
trust;
communities;
trust;
political relationships;
trust;
James Meek seems to have nailed it in his recent book, where he pointed out that the socially
conservative Thatcher, who wanted a society based on good old fashioned values, helped to create
the precise opposite with her enthusiasm for the neoliberal model. Now we are sinking into a dog-eat-dog
dystopia.
Many of the good old fashioned conservatives had time honoured values. They believed in taking
care of yourself but they also believed in integrity and honesty. They believed in living modestly
and would save much of their money rather than just spend it, and so would put some aside for
a rainy day. They believed in the community and were often active about local issues. They cared
about the countryside and the wildlife. They often recycled which went along with their thriftiness
and hatred of waste.
This all vanished when Thatcher came in with her selfish 'greed is good' brigade. Loads of
money!
We are indeed freer than before, in the sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage
of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex and support any political movement we like. We can
do all these things because they no longer have any significance –
Capitalist alienation is a daily practise. The daily practise of competing with and using people.
This gives rise to the ideology that society and other people are but a means to an end rather
than an end in themselves that is of course when they are not a frightening a existential competitive
threat. Contempt and fear. That is what we are reduced to by the buying and selling of labour
power and yes, only a psychopath can thrive under such conditions.
According to the left if your only ambition is to watch Jeremy Kyle, pick up a welfare cheque
once a week and vote for which ever party will promise to give you Ł10 a week more in welfare:
you're an almost saint like figure.
If you actually do something to try to create a better and more independent life for yourself,
your family and your community: you're "displaying psychopathic tendencies" .
If you actually do something to try to create a better and more independent life for yourself,
your family and your community: you're "displaying psychopathic tendencies".
So how do you create a better community ?
By paying your taxes on your wealth that so many of you try to avoid. Here lies the crux of
the matter. There would be no deficit if taxes were paid.
Some of the rich are so psychpathic they think jsut because they employ people they shouldn't
pay any tax. They think the employees should pay thier tax for them.
Why has tax become such a dirty word ? Think about it before you answer.
The conclusion is for me is that it is a brilliant economic model. It is the sheer apathy of
the voters and that they are cowards because they don't make it work for them. They allow the
people who own the theory to run it for themselves and thus they get all the benefits from it.
I'll try and explain.
Their business plan.
The truth is neoliberalism has infact made the rich western countries poorer and helped so
many other poorer countries around the world get richer. Let's face facts here giving to charities
would never have achieved this and something needed to be done to even up this world inequality.
The only way you are ever going to achieve world peace is if everybody is equal. It's not by chance
this theory was introduced by America. They are trying to bring that equality to everyone so that
world peace can be achieved. How many more illegal wars and deaths this will take and for how
long nobody knows. They are also very sinister and selfish and greedy because if the Americans
do achieve what they are trying to do. They will own and countrol the world via washington and
the dollar. The way the Americans see it is that the inequality created within each country is
a bribe to each power structure within that country which helps America achieve it's long term
goals. It creates inequality within each country but at the same time creates equality on the
world stage. It might take 100 years to achieve and millions of deaths but eventually every country
will be another state of America and look and act like any American state. Once that is achieved
world peace will follow. America see it as a war and they also see millions of deaths as acceptable
to achieve their end game. I of course disagree there must be a better way. How will history look
at this dark period in history in 300 years time if it does achieve world peace in 150 years time
?
In each country neoliberalism works but at the moment it only works for the few because the
voters allow it. The voters allow them to get away with it through submission. They've allowed
their parliaments to be taken over without a fight and allowed their brains to be brainwashed
by the media controlled by the few. Which means the the whole story of neoliberalism has been
skewed into a very narrow view which always suits and promotes the voices of the few.
Why did the voters allow that to happen ?
Their biggest success the few had over the many was to create an illusion that made tax a toxic
word. They attacked tax with everything they had to form an illusion in the voters minds that
paying tax was a bad thing and it was everybodys enemy. Then they passed laws to enhance that
view and trotted out scare stories around tax and that if they had to pay it then everybody would
leave that country. They created a world set up for them and ulitimately destroyed any chance
at all, for the success of neoliberalism to be shared by the many. This was their biggest success
to make sure the wealth of neoliberalism stayed with them.
As the author of this piece says quite clearly. "An economic system that rewards psychopathic
personality traits has changed our ethics and our personalities"
One of these traits is that they believe they shouldn't pay tax because they are creating jobs
and the tax their employees pay should be the amount of tax these companies pay. Again this makes
sure that the wealth is not shared.
Since they now own and control parliaments they also use the state to pay these wages in the
way of tax credits and subsidies and grants as they refuse to pay their employees a living wage.
It is our taxes they use to do this. Again this is to make sure that the wealth is not shared.
There are too many examples to list of how they make sure that the wealth generated by neoliberalism
is not shared. Then surely it is up to the voters to make sure it does. Neoliberalism works and
it would work for everybody if the voters would just grow a set of balls. Tax avoidance was the
battle that won the war for the few. It is time the voters revisited that battle and re write
it so that the outcome was that the many won not just the few. For example there would be no deficit
if the many had won that battle. Of course they wouldn't have left a market of 60 million people
with money in their pockets, it would have been business suicide.
This is a great example of how they created an illusion, a false culture, a world that does
not exist. The focus is all on the deficit and how to fix it, as they socialise the losses and
privatise the profits. There is no eyes or light shed on why there is a deficit due to tax avoidance.
It's time we changed that and made Neoliberlaism work for us. If we don't then we can't complain
when it only works for the few.
Neoliberlaism works. It's about time we owned it for ourselves. Otherwise we'll always be slaves
to it. It's not the theory that is corrupt it is the people who own it.
There is no eyes or light shed on why there is a deficit due to tax avoidance.
... or because politicians have discovered that you can buy votes by giving handouts even to
those who don't need them, thereby making everyone dependent on the largesse of the state and,
by extension, promoting the interests of the most irresponsible politicians and the bureaucracies
they represent.
You seem to regard what you call neoliberalism as a creator of wealth. You then claim that the
reason for this wealth accruing almost entirely to an elite few is the "the voters" have prevented
neoliberalism from distributing the wealth more equitably.
I can't really follow the logic of your argument.
Neoliberalism seems to be working perfectly for those few who are in a position to exploit
it. It's doing what it's designed to do.
I agree that the ignorance of "the voters" is allowing the elite to get away with it. But the
voters should be voting for those who propose an alternative economic model. Unfortunately, in
the western world at the present time, they have no viable alternative to vote for, because the
neoliberals have captured all of the mainstream political parties and institutions.
However, you missed one of the main points. Our parliament has been taken over by the few.
One man used to and probably still does strike fear into the government. Murdoch. Problem is
there are millions like him that lobby and control policy and the media.
..."There are regulations about everything,"... Yes, but higher up the scale you go, the less
this regulation is enforced, less individual accountability and less transparency. Neoliberalism
has turned society on its head. We see ever growing corporate socialism subsidising the top 1%
and heavily regulated hard nosed market capitalism for the rest of us resulting in massive inequality
in wealth distribution. This inequality by design makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. We've
created a society where people who were once valued as an individual part of that society are
now treated as surplus to requirements and somehow need to be eliminated.
They're mostly tight g*ts who refuse to pay to use the Mail/Telegraph sites. This is just about
the last free forum left now and it's attracting all kinds of undesirables. The level of personal
insult has gone up enormously since they came here. Most of us traditional Ciffers don't bother
with many posts here any more, it's too boring now.
Our presumed freedom is tied to one central condition: we must be successful – that is,
"make" something of ourselves.
That's always been the way, I think. It's life.
We are all of us the descendants of a million generations of successful organisms, human and pre-human.
The ones that didn't succeed fel by the wayside.
We're the ones left to tell the tale.
"... As disgusted and determined as we might be, we still have to operate within the 'neoliberal' system. We are all 'us' in this context and we are all a product of our environment to some extent. however crap that environment might be. ..."
"... Combined with offshoring of as many jobs abroad as possible, free movement of unskilled workers and the use of agency labour to undercut pay and conditions, the future looks bleak. ..."
"... There is nothing meritocratic about neoliberlaism. Its about who you know. ..."
"... I understand what you say, and there is definitely an element within society which values Success above all else, but I do not personally know anyone like that. ..."
"... .....By "us" of course, you mean commies. I think you are inadvertently demonstrating another of Hares psychopath test features; a lack of empathy and self awareness. ..."
"... I've worked in a few large private companies over the years, and my experience is they increasingly resemble some sort of cult, with endless brainwashing programmes for the 'members', charismatic leaders who can do no wrong, groupthink, mandatory utilisation of specialist jargon (especially cod-psychological terminology) to differentiate those 'in' and those 'out', increased blurring of the lines between 'private' and 'work' life (your ass belongs to us 24-7) and of course, constant, ever more complex monitoring of the 'members' for 'heretical thoughts or beliefs'. ..."
"... And the most striking idea here: Our characters are partly moulded by society. And neo-liberal society, and it's illusions of freedom, has moulded many of us in ways that bring out the worst in us. ..."
"... Neo-liberalism has however killed off post war social mobility. In fact according to the OECD report into social mobility, the more egalitarian a developed society is, the more social mobility there is, the more productivity and the less poverty and social problems there are. ..."
As disgusted and determined as we might be, we still have to operate within the 'neoliberal'
system. We are all 'us' in this context and we are all a product of our environment to some extent.
however crap that environment might be.
There are constant laments about the so-called loss of norms and values in our culture.
Yet our norms and values make up an integral and essential part of our identity. So they cannot
be lost, only chaned
If you have no mandate for such change, it breeds resentment.
For example, race & immigration was used by NuLabour in a blatant attempt at mass societal
engineering (via approx 8%+ increase in national population over 13 years).
It was the most significant betrayal in modern democratic times, non mandated change extraordinaire,
not only of British Society, but the core traditional voter base for Labour.
To see people still trying to deny it took place and dismiss the fallout of the cultural elephant
rampaging around the United Kingdom is as disingenuous as it is pathetic.
It's a race to the bottom, and has lead to such "success stories" as G4S, Serco, A4E, ATOS, Railtrack,
privatised railways, privatised water and so on.
It's all about to get even worse with TTIP, and if that fails there is always TISA which mandates
privatisation of pretty much everything - breaking state monopolies on public services.
Combined with offshoring of as many jobs abroad as possible, free movement of unskilled
workers and the use of agency labour to undercut pay and conditions, the future looks bleak.
A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort
and talents
There is nothing meritocratic about neoliberlaism. Its about who you know. In the
UK things have gone backwards almost to the 1950s. Changes which were brought about by the expansion
of universities have pretty much been reversed. The establishment - politics, media, business
is dominated by the better=off Oxbridge elite.
It is difficult for me to agree. I have grown up within Neoliberalism being 35, but you describe
no one I know. People I know weigh up the extra work involved in a promotion and decide whether
the sacrifice is worth the extra money/success.
People I know go after their dreams, whether that be farming or finance. I understand what
you say, and there is definitely an element within society which values Success above all else,
but I do not personally know anyone like that.
He's saying people's characters are changed by their environment. That they aren't set in stone,
but are a function of culture. And that the socio-cultural shift in the last few decades is a
bad thing, and is bad for our characters. In your words: The dreams have changed.
It's convincing, except it isn't as clear as it could be.
I understand his principle but as proof, he sites very specific examples...
A highly skilled individual who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism.
A person with a good job who turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is
seen as crazy – unless those other things ensure success. A young woman who wants to become
a primary school teacher is told by her parents that she should start off by getting a master's
degree in economics – a primary school teacher, whatever can she be thinking of?
This is used as an example to show the shifting mindset. But as I stated, this describes no
one I know. We, us, commenting here are society. I agree that there has been a shift in culture
and those reaping the biggest financial rewards are the greedy. But has that not always been the
way, the self interested have always walked away with the biggest slice, perhaps at the moment
that slice has become larger still, but most people still want to have a comfortable life, lived
their way. People haven't changed as much as the OP believes.
The great lie is that financial reward is success and happiness.
This is used as an example to show the shifting mindset. But as I stated, this describes
no one I know
Indeed even in the "sociopathic" world of fund management and investment banking, the vast
majority of people establish a balance for how they wish to manage their work and professional
lives and evaluate decisions in light of them both.
Indeed. How come G4S keep winning contracts despite their behaviour being incompetent and veering
on criminal, and the fact they are despised pretty much universally. Hardly a meritocracy.
You can add A4E to that list and now Capita who have recruited all of 61 part time soldiers
in their contract to replace all the thousands of sacked professionals
.....By "us" of course, you mean commies. I think you are inadvertently demonstrating another
of Hares psychopath test features; a lack of empathy and self awareness.
"Since the living standards of majority in this country are on a downward trend"
The oil's running out. Living standards, on average, will continue to decline until either
it stops running out or fusion power turns out to work after all.
Whether you have capitalism or socialism won't make any difference to the declining energy
input.
I'm sure I read an article in the 80s predicting what the author has written. Economics and cultural
environment is bound to have an effect on behaviour. We now live in a society that worships at
the altar of the cult of the individual. Society and growth of poverty no longer matters, a lone
success story proves all those people falling into poverty are lazy good for nothing parasites.
The political class claims to be impotent when it comes to making a fairer society because the
political class is made up of people who were affluent in the first place or benefited from a
neo-liberal rigged economy. The claim is, anything to do with a fair society is social engineering
and bound to fail. Well, neo-liberal Britain was socially engineered and it is failing the majority
of people in the country.
There is a cognitive dissonance going on in the political narrative of neo-liberalism, not
everyone can make it in a neo-liberal society and since neo-liberalism destroys social mobility.
Ironically, the height of social mobility in the west, from the gradual rise through the 50s and
60s, was the 70s. The 80s started the the downward trend in social mobility despite all the bribes
that went along with introducing the property owning democracy, which was really about chaining
people to capitalism.
I'm sure I read an article in the 80s predicting what the author has written.
Well, a transformation of human character was the open battle-cry of 1980s proponents of neoliberalism.
Helmut Kohl, the German prime minister, called it the "geistig-moralische Wende", the "spiritual
and moral sea-change" - I think people just misunderstood what he meant by that, and laughed at
what they saw as empty sloganeering. Now we're reaping what his generation sowed.
OK, now can you tell us why individual freedom is such a bad thing?
The previous period of liberal economics ended a century ago, destroyed by the war whose outbreak
we are interminably celebrating. That war and the one that followed a generation later brought
in strict government control, even down to what people could eat and wear. Orwell's dystopia of
1984 actually describes Britain's wartime society continuing long after the real wars had ended.
It was the slow pace of lifting wartime controls, even slower in Eastern Europe, and the lingering
mindset that economies and societies could be directed for "the greater good" no matter what individual
costs there were that led to a revival of liberal economics.
Neoliberalism is a mere offshoot of Neofeudalism. Labour and Capital - those elements of both
not irretrievably bought-out - must demand the return of The Commons . We must extend our
analysis back over centuries , not decades - let's strike to the heart of the matter!
Collectivist ideologies including Fascism, Communism and theocracy are all similar to feudalism.
I've worked in a few large private companies over the years, and my experience is they
increasingly resemble some sort of cult, with endless brainwashing programmes for the 'members',
charismatic leaders who can do no wrong, groupthink, mandatory utilisation of specialist jargon
(especially cod-psychological terminology) to differentiate those 'in' and those 'out', increased
blurring of the lines between 'private' and 'work' life (your ass belongs to us 24-7) and of course,
constant, ever more complex monitoring of the 'members' for 'heretical thoughts or beliefs'.
'Collectivism' is not as incompatible with capitalism as you seem to think.
You sound like one of those 'libertarians'. Frankly, I think the ideals of such are only realisable
as a sole trader, or operating in a very small business.
Progress is restricted because the people are made poor by the predations of the state
Neoliberalism is firmly committed to individual liberty, and therefore to peace and mutual
toleration
It is firmly committed to ensuring that the boundaries between private and public entities
become blurred, with all the ensuing corruption that entails. In other words, that the state becomes
(through the taxpayers) a captured one, delivering a never ending, always growing, revenue stream
for favoured players in private enterprise. This is, of course, deliberate. 'Individual liberties
and mutual toleration' are only important insomuch as they improve, or detract, from profit-centre
activity.
You have difficulty in separating propaganda from reality, but you're barely alone in this.
Lastly, you also misunderstand feudalism, which in the European context, flourished before
there was a developed concept of a centralised nation state, indeed, the most classic examples
occurred after the decentralisation of an empire or suchlike. The primary feudal relation
was between the bondsman/peasant and his local magnate, who in turn, was subject to his liege.
In other words a warrior class bound by vassalage to a nobility, with the peasantry bound by
manorialism and to the estates of the Church.
Apart from that though, you're right on everything.
I completely agree with the general sentiment.
The specifics aren't that solid though:
- That we think our characters are independent of context/society: I certainly don't.
- That statement about "bullying is more widespread" - lacks justification.
The general theme of "meritocracy is a fiction" is compelling though.
As is "We are free-er in many ways because those ways no longer have any significance"
.
And the most striking idea here: Our characters are partly moulded by society. And neo-liberal
society, and it's illusions of freedom, has moulded many of us in ways that bring out the worst
in us.
The Rat Race is a joke. Too many people waste their lives away playing the capitalist game. As
long as you've got enough money to keep living you can be happy. Just ignore the pathetic willy-wavers
with their flashy cars and logos on their shirts and all that guff
All we need is "enough" - Posession isn't that interesting. More a doorway to doing interesting
stuff.
I prefer to cut out the posession and go straight to "do interesting stuff" myself. As long as
the rent gets paid and so on, obviously.
Doesn't always work, obviously, but I reckon not wanting stuff is a good start to the good
life (ref. to series with Felicity Kendall (and some others) intended :)
That, and Epicurus who I keep mentioning on CIF.
Rather naive. History is full of brilliant individuals who made it. Neo-liberalism has however
killed off post war social mobility. In fact according to the OECD report into social mobility,
the more egalitarian a developed society is, the more social mobility there is, the more productivity
and the less poverty and social problems there are.
I agree - the central dilemma is that neither individualism nor collectiviism works.
But is this dilemma real? Is there a third system? Yes there is - Henry George.
George's paradigm in nothing funky, it is simply Classical Liberal Economics - society works
best when individuals get to keep the fruits of thier labour, but pay rent for the use of The
Commons.
At present we have the opposite - labour and capital are taxed heavily and The commons are monopolised
by the 1%.
Hence unemployment
Hence the wealth gap
Hence the environmental crisis
Hence poverty
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards
. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see
our FAQs .
So the values and morals that people have are so wafer thin that a variation in the political
system governing them can strip them away? Why do the left consistently have such a low opinion
of humanity?
"Why do the left consistently have such a low opinion of humanity?"
Open your eyes and take a lokk at the world. There is enough wealth in the world for everyone
to live free from poverty. Yet, the powerful look after themselves and allow poverty to not only
exist but spread.
>If you've ever dithered over the question of whether the UK needs a written constitution, dither
no longer. Imagine the clauses required to preserve the status of the Corporation. "The City of
London will remain outside the authority of parliament. Domestic and foreign banks will be permitted
to vote as if they were human beings, and their votes will outnumber those cast by real people.
Its elected officials will be chosen from people deemed acceptable by a group of medieval guilds
…".<
I agree with much of this. Working in the NHS, as a clinical psychologist, over the past 25 years,
I have seen a huge shift in the behaviour of managers who used to be valued for their support
and nurturing of talent, but now are recognised for their brutal and aggressive approach to those
beneath them. Reorganisations of services, which take place with depressing frequency, provide
opportunities to clear out the older, experienced members of the profession who would have acted
as mentors and teachers to the less experienced staff.
I worked in local authority social care, I can certainly see the very close similarities to what
you describe in the NHS, and my experience in the local authority.
I can well imagine there are big similarities. Friends of mine who work in education say the same
- there is a complete mismatch between the aims of the directors/managers and that of the professionals
actually providing the teaching/therapy/advice to the public. When I go to senior meetings it
is very rare that patients are even mentioned.
Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace.
This is an incredibly broad generalisation. I remember my grandfather telling me about what
went on in the mills he worked in in Glasgow before the war, it sounded like a pretty savage environment
if you didn't fit in. It wasn't called bullying, of course.
I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality
traits and penalises others.
Isn't this true of pretty much any system? And human relationships in general? I cannot think
of a system that is completely blind to the differences between people. If you happen to be lazy
or have a problem with authority you will never do as "well" (for want of a better term).
I have always said to people who claim they are Liberals that you must support capitalism,the
free market,free trade, deregulation etc etc when most of them deny that, I always say you are
not a Liberal then you're just cherry-picking the [Liberal] policies you like and the ones you
don't like,which is dishonest.
There is nothing neo about Liberalism,it has been around since the 19th century[?].People have
been brainwashed in this country [and the USA] since the 1960's to say they are liberals for fear
of being accused of being fascists,which is quite another thing.
I have never supported any political ideology,which is what Liberalism is,and believe all of them
should be challenged.By doing so you can evolve policies which are fair and just and appropriate
to the issue at hand.
Neoliberalism has only benefited a minority. Usually those with well connected and wealthy families.
And of course those who have no hesitation to exploit other's.
In my view, it is characterized by corruption, exploitation and a total lack of social justice.
Economically, the whole system is fully dependent on competition not co-operation. One day, the
consequences of this total failure will end in violence.
One day, the consequences of this total failure will end in violence.
And if we keep consuming all our resources on this finite planet in pursuit of profit and more
profit there will be no human race we will all be extinct.,and all that will be left is an exhausted
polluted planet that once harbored a vast variety of life.
Isent neolibral capitalism great.
As Marx so often claimed, values, ethics, morality and behaviours are themselves determined by
the economic and monetary system under which people live. Stealing is permitted if you are a banker
and call it a bonus or interest, murder is permitted if your government sends you to war, surveillance
and data mining is permitted if your state tells you there is a danger from terrorists, crime
is overlooked if it makes money for the perpetrator, benefit claimants are justified if they belong
to an aristocratic caste or political elite.......
There is no universal right or wrong, only that identified as such by the establishment at
that particular instance in history, and at that specific place on the planet. Outside that, they
have as much relevance today as scriptures instructing that slaves can be raped, adulterers can
be stoned or the hands of thieves amputated. Give me the crime and the punishment, and I will
give you the time and the place.
For a tiny elite sitting on the top everything has been going exactly as it was initially planned.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men
living together in Society, they create for themselves in the
course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a
moral code that glorifies it".
F. Bastiat.
Excellent article.
I'm amazed that more isn't made of the relationship between political environment/systems and
their effect on the individual. Oliver James Affluenza makes a compelling case for the unhappiness
outputs of societies who've embraced neo liberalism yet we still blindly pursue it.
The US has long been world leader in both the demand and supply of psychotherapy and the relentless
pursuit of free market economics. these stats are not unconnected.
I once had a colleague with the knack of slipping into his conversation complimentary remarks
that other people had made about him. It wasn't the only reason for his rapid ascent to great
heights, but perhaps it helped.
That's one of my favourite characteristics of David Brent from 'The Office'. "You're all looking
at me, you're going, "Well yeah, you're a success, you've achieved you're goals, you're reaping
the rewards, sure. But, OI, Brent. Is all you care about chasing the Yankee dollar?"
Neoliberalism is another Social Darwinist driven philosophy popularised after leading figures
of our times (or rather former times) decided Malthus was probably correct.
So here we have it, serious growth in population, possibly unsustainable, and a growing 'weak
will perish, strong will survive' mentality. The worst thing is I used to believe in neoliberal
policies, until of course I understood the long term ramifications.
And the reality is that "neoliberalism" has, in the last few decades, freed hundreds of millions
in the developing word from a subsistence living to something resembling a middle class lifestyle.
This has resulted in both plummeting global poverty statistics and in greatly reduced fecundity,
so that we will likely see a leveling off of global population in the next few decades. And this
slowing down of population growth is the most critical thing we could for increasing sustainability.
The problem is a judeo-christian idea of "free choice" when experiments, undertaken by Benjamin
Libet and since, indicate that it is near to unlikely for there to be volitionally controlled
conscious decisions.
If we are not even free to intend and control our decisions, thoughts and ambitions, how can
anyone claim to be morally entitled to ownership of their property and have a 'right' to anything
as a reward for what decisions they made? Happening is pure luck: meaningful [intended] responsibility
and accountability cannot be claimed for decisions and actions and so entitlement cannot be claimed
for what acquisitions are causally obtained from those decisions and actions.There is no 'just
desserts' or decision-derived entitlement justification for wealth and owning property unless
the justifier has a superstitious and scientifically unfounded belief in free choice.
Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace
Compared to say, that experienced by domestic staff in big houses, small children in factories,
perhaps even amongst miners, dockers and steel workers in the halcyon days of the post-war decade
when apparently everything was rosy?
This whole article is a hodge podge of anecdote and flawed observations designed to shoehorn
behaviour into a pattern that supports an economic hypothesis - it is factually groundless.
Compared to say, that experienced by domestic staff in big houses, small children in factories
Yes, but if it was left to people like you, children would still be working in factories. So
please do not take credit for improvements that you would fight tooth and nail against
perhaps even amongst miners, dockers and steel workers in the halcyon days of the post-war
decade when apparently everything was rosy?
They had wages coming to them and didn't need to rely on housing benefit to keep a roof over
their head. Now people like you bitterly complain about poorly paid workers getting benefits to
sustain them.
People who "work hard and play hard" are nearly always kidding themselves about the second bit.
It seems to me that the trend in the world of neoliberalism is to think that "playing hard"
is defined as "playing with expensive, branded toys" during your two week annual holiday.
'Playing hard' in the careerist lexicon = getting blind drunk to mollify the feelings of despair
and emptiness which typify a hollow, debt-soaked life defined by motor cars and houses.
The "Max Factor" life. Selfishness and Greed. The compaction of life. Was it not in a scripture
in text?. The Bible. We as humans and followers of "Faith" in christian beliefs and the culture
of love they fellow man. The culture of words are a root to all "Evil. Depending on "Who's" the
Author and Scrolling the words; and for what reason?. The only way we can save what is left on
this planet and save man kind. Is eradicate the above "Selfishness and Greed" ?
We are indeed freer than before, in the sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage
of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex and support any political movement we like. We can
do all these things because they no longer have any significance – freedom of this kind is
prompted by indifference.
These changes listed (and then casually dismissed) are monumental social achievements. Many
countries in the world do not permit their 'citizens' such freedom of choice and I for one am
very grateful to live in a country where these things are possible.
Of course there is much more to be done. But I would suggest that to be born in Western Europe
today is probably about as safe, comfortable, and free than at any time and any place in human
history. I'm not being complacent about what we still have to achieve. But we won't achieve anything
if we take such a flippant attitude towards all the amazing things that have been bequeathed to
us.
Excellent observation, it's the same way that technology that has quite clearly changed our lives
and given us access to information, opportunity to travel and entertainment that would have been
beyond the comprehension of our grandparents is dismissed as irrelevant because its just a smart
phone and a not a job for life in a British Leyland factory.
It takes a peculairly spoilt and arrogant Westerner to claim that the freedom to criticise religion
isn't significant or that we're only allowed to do so because it's no longer important. Tell that
to a girl seeking to escape an arranged marriage in Bradford...
OK. Now off you go and apply the same methodology to people living in statist societies, or just
have a go at our own civil service or local government workers. Try social workers or the benefits
agency or the police.
The author makes some good points, although I wouldn't necessarily call our system a meritocracy.
I guess the key one is how unaware we are about the influence of economic policy on our values.
This kind of systems hurts everyday people and rewards psychopaths, and is damaging to society
as a whole over the long term.
Targetising everything is really insidious.
That neoliberalism puts tremendous pressure on individuals to conform to materialistic norms is
undeniable, but for a psychotherapist to disallow the choice of those individuals to nevertheless
choose how to live is an admission of failure.
In fact, many people today experience the shallowness and corrupt character of market society
and elect either to be in it, but not of it, or to opt out early having made enough money, often
making a conscious choice to relinquish the 'trappings' in return for a more meaningful existence.
Some do selfless service to their fellow human beings, to the environment or both, and thereby
find a degree of fulfillment that they always wanted.
To surrender to the external demands of a superficial and corrupting life is to ignore the
tremendous opportunity human life offers to all: self realization.
It's not either-or, system or individual, but some combination of the two.
Decision making may be 80% structure and 20% individual choice for the mainstream - or maybe the
other way round for the rebels amongst us that try to reject the system.
The theory of structuration (Giddens) provides one explanation of how social systems develop
through the interactions between the system and actors in it.
I partly agree with you but I think examples of complete self realisation are extremely rare.
That means stepping completely out of the system and out of our own personality. Neither this
nor that.
The point is that the individual has the choice to move in the right direction. When and if they
do make a decision to change their life, it will be fulfilling for them and for the system.
Our presumed freedom is tied to one central condition: we must be successful – that is,
"make" something of ourselves. You don't need to look far for examples. A highly skilled individual
who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism. A person with a good job who
turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is seen as crazy – unless those
other things ensure success.
I have been in the private sector for generations, and know tons of people who have behaved
precisely as described above. I don't know anyone who calls them crazy. In fact, I see the exact
opposite tendency - the growing acceptance that money isn't everything, and that once one has
achieved a certain level of success and financial security that it is fine to put other priorities
first rather than simply trying to acquire ever more.
The ATL article is rather stuffed full of stereotypes.
And speaking personally, I have turned down two offers of promotion to a management position
in the last ten years and neither time did I get the sense people thought I was crazy. They might
have done if I were in my late twenties rather than mid-fifties but that does reinforce the notion
that people - even bosses - can accept that there is more to life than a career.
I agree about the stereotypes. Also, has anyone ever seriously advised a primary school teacher
that they need a masters degree of economics?! I highly doubt that that is the norm!
I hate to break it to you but no matter how you organise society the nasty people get to the
top and the nice people end up doing all the work. "Neo-liberalism" is no different.
Or you could put it another way - 'neoliberalism' is the least worst economic/social system, because
most people are far more powerless and far more worse off under any other system that has ever
been developed by man...
For a start you need a system that is not based on rewarding and encouraging the worst aspects
of our characters. I try to encourage my kids not to be greedy, to be honest and to care about
others but in this day and age it's an uphill struggle.
"A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort and
talents, meaning responsibility lies entirely with the individual and authorities should give
people as much freedom as possible to achieve this goal."
In the UK we have nothing like a meritocracy with a privately educated elite.
Success and failure are just about parental wealth.
"So the values and morals that people have are so wafer thin that a variation in the political
system governing them can strip them away? Why do the left consistently have such a low opinion
of humanity?"
RidleyWalker, I can assue you that it is not the left but the right who consistently have a
low opinion of humanity. Anyway, what has left and right got to do with this? There are millions
of ordinary decent people whose lives are blighted by the obscentity that is neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism
is designed to make the rich richer at the expense of the poor. Neo-liberalism is responsible
for the misery for millions across the globe. The only happy ones are those at the top of the
heap...until even their bloated selfish world inevitably implodes.
Of course these disgusting parasites are primitive thinkers and cannot see that we could have
a better, happier world for everyone if societies become more equal. Studies demonstrate that
more equal societies are more stable and content than those with ever-widening gaps in wealth
between rich and poor.
Neoliberalism...disgusting parasites...primitive thinkers...misery of millions...bloated selfish
world
This reads like a Soviet pamphlet from the 1930's. Granted you've replaced the word 'capitalism'
with 'neoliberalism' - in other words subsstituted one meaningless abstraction for another. It
wasn't true then and it certainly isnt true now...
Not sure why you think all this is new or attributable to neoliberalism. Things were much the
same in the 1960's and 1970's. All that has changed is that instead of working on assembly lines
in factories under the watchful gaze of a foreman we now have university degrees and sit in cubicles
pressing buttons on keyboards. Micromanagement, bureaucracy, rules and regulations are as old
as the hills. Office politics has replaced shop floor politics; the rich are still rich and the
poor are still poor.
Well, except that people have more money, live longer and have more opportunities in life than
before - most people anyway. The ones left behind are the ones we need to worry about
Not sure why you think all this is new or attributable to neoliberalism. Things were much
the same in the 1960's and 1970's.
And you can read far more excoriating critiques of our shallow materialistic capitalism, culture
from those decades, now recast as some sort of prelapsarian Golden Age.
Actually, the 1929 crash was not the first by any means. The boom and bust cycle of modern economics
goes back a lot further. When my grandparents talked about the "Great Depression" they were referring
to the 1890's.
The nineteenth century saw major financial crises in almost every decade, 1825, 1837, 1847, 1857,
1866 before we even get to the Great Depression of 1873-96.
Socialism seems to be happy home of corruption & nepotism. The old saw that Tory MP's are brought
down by sex scandals whilst Labour MP's have issues with money still holds.
Why is that relevant? This is a critique of neo liberalism and it is a very accurate one at that.
It isn't suggesting that Socialism is better or even offers an alternative, just that neo liberalism
has failed society and explores some of how and why.
The main problem is that neoliberalism is a faith dressed up as a science and any evidence that
disproves the hypothesis (e.g. the 2008 financial collapse) only helps to reinforce the faith
of the fundamentalists supporting it.
The reason why "neoliberalism" is so successful is precisely because the evidence shows it does
work. It has not escaped peoples' notice that nations where governments heavily curtail individual
and commercial freedom are often rather wretched places to live.
It would be nice to curtail coprorate freedom without curtailing the freedom of individuals. I
don't see how that might work.
"hubris over free markets" might well be it.
But I might be understanding that in a different way from you. People were making irrational decisions
that didn't seem to take on basic logic of a free market, or even common sense. Such as "where
is all this money coming from" (madoff, house ladder), "of course this will work" (fred goodwin
and his takeovers) and even "will i get my money back" (sub-prime lending).
So why don't we do something about it....genuinely? There appears to be no power left in voting
unless people are given an actual choice....Is it not time then to to provide a well grounded
articulate choice? The research, in many different disciplines, is already out there.
What can we do? It appears we are stuck between the Labour party and the Conservatives. Is it
even possible for another party to come to power with the next couple of elections?
The sociologist Zygmunt Bauman neatly summarised the paradox of our era as: "Never have
we been so free. Never have we felt so powerless." We are indeed freer than before, in the
sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex
and support any political movement we like. We can do all these things because they no longer
have any significance – freedom of this kind is prompted by indifference. Yet, on the other
hand, our daily lives have become a constant battle against a bureaucracy that would make Kafka
weak at the knees. There are regulations about everything, from the salt content of bread to
urban poultry-keeping.
Verhaeghe begins by criticizing free markets and "neo-liberalism", but ends by criticizing
the huge, stifling government bureaucracy that endeavours to micro-manage every aspect of its
citizens lives, and is the opposite of true classic liberalism.
probably not as confusing as it seems to be for you.
this is just the difference between neoliberalism in theory and in practise.
like the "real existierende sozialismus" in eastern germany fell somewhat short of the brilliant
utopia of the theorists.
verhaeghe does not criticise the theoretical model, but the practical outcome. And the worst governmant
and corporate bureaucracy that mankind has ever seen is part of it. The result of 30+ years of
neoliberal policies.
In my experience this buerocracy is gets worse in anglo saxon countries closest to the singularity
at the bottom of the neolib black hole.
I am aware that this is only a correlation, but correlations, while they do not prove causation,
still require explanation.
Some time ago, and perhaps still, it was/is fashionable for Toryish persons to denigrate the 1960s.
I look back to that decade with much nostalgia. Nearly everyone had a job of sorts, not terribly
well paid but at least it was a job. And now? You are compelled to toil your guts out, kiss somebody's
backside, run up unpayable debts - and, in the UK, live in a house that in many other countries
would have been demolished decades ago. Scarcely a day passes when I am not partly disgusted at
what has overtaken my beloved country.
An excellent article! The culture of the 80's has ruled for too long and its damage done.... its
down to our youth to start to shape things now and I think that's beginning to happen.
Neo-Liberalism as operated today. "Greed is Good" and senior bankers and those who sell and buy
money, commodities etc; are diven by this trait of humankind.
But we, the People are just as guilty with our drives for 'More'. More over everything, even
shopping at the supermarket - "Buy one & get ten free", must have.
Designer ;bling;, clothes, shoes, bags, I-Pads etc etc, etc. It is never ending. People seem
to be scared that they haven't got what next has, and next will think that they are 'Not Cool'.
We, the people should be satisfied with what have got, NOT what what we havn't got.
Those who "want" (masses of material goods) usually "Dont get!"
The current system is unsustainable as the World' population rises and rises. Nature (Gaia)
will take care of this through disease, famine, and of course the stupidity of Humankind - wars,
destruction and general stupidity.
What's a meritocracy? Oh, that's right - a fable that people who have a lot of money deserve it
somehow because they're so much better than the people who work for a living.
The world was an even nastier place before the current era. During the 1970s and early 1980s there
was huge inflation which robbed people of their saving, high unemployment, and (shudder) Disco.
People tend to view the past with rose-coloured glasses.
What neoliberalism? We've got a mixed economy, which seemingly upsets both those on the right
who wish to cut back the state and those on the left who'd bolster it.
I work in a law firm specialising in M&A, hardly the cuddliest of environments, but I recognise
almost nothing here as a description of my work place. Sure, some people are wankers but that's
true everywhere.
FDR, the Antichrist of the American Right, famously said that the only thing we have to fear is
fear itself. And here we are with this ideology which in many ways stokes the fear. The one thing
these bastards don't want most of us to feel is secure.
There is no "free market" anywhere. That is a fantasy. It is a term used when corporations want
to complain about regulations. What we have in most industrialized countries is corporate socialism
wherein corporations get to internalize profits and externalize costs and losses. It has killed
of our economies and our middle class.
Socialism or barbarism -- a starker choice today than when the phrase was coined.
So long, at least, as we have an evolved notion of what socialism entails. Which means, please,
not the state capitalism + benign paternalism that it's unfortunately come to mean for
most people, in the course of its parasitical relationship with capitalism proper, and so with
all capitalism's inventions (the 'nation', the modern bureaucracy, ever-more-efficient exploitation
to cumulatively alienating ends......)
It's just as unfortunate, in this light, that the term 'self-management' has been appropriated
by the ideologues of pseudo-meritocracy, in just the way the article describes..
Because it's also a term (from the French autogestion) used to describe what I'd argue is the
most nuanced and sophisticated collectivist alternative to capitalism -- an alternative that is
at one and the same time a rejection of capitalism.... and of the central role of the state
and 'nation' (that phony, illusory community that plays a more central role in empowering the
modern state than does its monopoly on violence)... and of the ideology of growth, and
of the ideal of monolithic, ruthlessly efficient economic totalities organised to this end....
It's a rejection, in other words, of all those things contemplation of which reminds us just
how little fundamental difference there is between capitalism and the system cobbled together
on the fly by the Bolsheviks -- same vertical organisation to the ends of the same exploitation,
same exploitation to the ends of expanding the scope and scale of vertical organisation, all of
it with the same destructive effects on the sociabilities of everyday life....
Self-management in this sense goes beyond 'workers control'; (I'd argue that) it envisions
a society in which most aspects of life have been cut free from the ties that bind people
vertically to sources of influence and control, however they're constituted (private and public
bureaucracies, market pressures, the illusory narratives of nation, mass media and commodity...).
The horizontal ties of workplace and local community would thus be constitutive, by default,
and society as a whole would become very little more than the sum of its parts -- mutating on
a molecular local level as people collectively and democratically decided, in circumstances that
actually granted them the power to do so, how to balance the conflicting needs and desires and
necessities that a complex society and a complex division of labour present. 'Balance' because
there really isn't any prospect of a utopian resolution of these conflicts -- they come with civilisation
-- or with barbarism, for than matter, in any of its modern incarnations.
What about those who disagree with such a radical reordering of society? How would the collective
deal with those who wished to exploit it?
I'm genuinely interested, beats working...
The horizontal ties of workplace and local community would thus be constitutive, by default,
and society as a whole would become very little more than the sum of its parts -- mutating
on a molecular local level as people collectively and democratically decided, in circumstances
that actually granted them the power to do so, how to balance the conflicting needs and desires
and necessities that a complex society and a complex division of labour present.
Why do socialists so often resort to such turgid, impenetrable prose? Could it be an attempt
to mask the vacuity of their position?
I read this article skeptically, but then realised how accurately he described my workplace. Most
people I know on the outside have nice middle class lives, but underneath it suffer from anxiety,
about 1 not putting enough into their careers 2 not spending enough time with their kids. When
I decided to cut my work hours in half when I had a child, 2 of my colleagues were genuinely concerned
for me over things like, I might be let go, how would I cope with the drop in money, I was cutting
my chances of promotion, how would it look in a review. The level of anxiety was frightening.
People on the forum seem to be criticizing what they see as the authors flippant attitude to
sexual freedom and lack of religious hold, but I see the authors point, what good are these freedoms
when we are stuck in the stranglehold of no job security and huge mortgage debt. Yes you can have
a quick shag with whoever you want and don't need to answer to anyone over it on a Sunday, but
come Monday morning its back to the the ever sharpening grindstone.
This reminds me of the world I started to work in in 1955. I accept that by 1985 it was ten times
worse and by the time I retired in 2002, after 47 years, I was very glad to have what I called
"survived". At its worst was the increasing difference between the knowledge base of "the boss"
when technology started to kick in. I was called into the boss's office once to be criticised
for the length of a report. It had a two page summery of the issue and options for resolving the
problem. I very meekly inquired if he had decided on any of the options to resolve the problem.
What options are you talking about? was his response, which told me that either he had not read
the report or did not understand the problem. This was the least of my problems as I later had
to spend two days in his office explaining the analysis we (I) were submitting to the Board.
A highly skilled individual who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism.
A person with a good job who turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is
seen as crazy – unless those other things ensure success. A young woman who wants to become
a primary school teacher is told by her parents that she should start off by getting a master's
degree in economics – a primary school teacher, whatever can she be thinking of?
Speak for yourself.
The current economic situation affects each of us as much as we allow it to. Some may well love
neo-liberalism and the concomitant dog eat dog attitude, but there are some of us who regard it
as little more than a culture of self-enrichment through lies and aggression. I see it as such,
and want nothing to do with it.
If you live by money and power, you'll die by money and power. I prefer to live and work with
consensus and co-operation.
I'll never be rich, but I'll never have many enemies.
Hedge-fund and private-equity managers, investment bankers, corporate lawyers, management consultants,
high-frequency traders, and top lobbyists.They're getting paid vast sums for their labors. Yet
it seems doubtful that society is really that much better off because of what they do. They play
zero-sum games that take money out of one set of pockets and put it into another. They demand
ever more cunning innovations but they create no social value. High-frequency traders who win
by a thousandth of a second can reap a fortune, but society as a whole is no better off. the games
consume the energies of loads of talented people who might otherwise be making real contributions
to society - if not by tending to human needs or enriching our culture then by curing diseases
or devising new technological breakthroughs, or helping solve some of our most intractable social
problems. Robert Reich said this and I am compelled to agree with him!
Brilliant article. It is not going to change anything, of course, because majority of people of
this planet would cooperate with just about any psychopath clever enough not to take away from
them that last bit of stinking warm mud to wallow in.
Proof? Read history books and take a look around you. We are the dumbest animals on Earth.
Rubbish. We are the most intelligent and successful creature that this planet has ever seen. We
have become capable of transforming it, leaving it and destroying it.
Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace.
I started work nearly 40 years ago and there were always some bullies in the workplace. Maybe
there are more now, I don't know but I suspect it is more widely reported now. Workplace bullies
were something of a given when I started work and it was an accepted part of the working environment.
Be careful about re-inventing history to suit your own arguments.
I'm surprised the normalization of debt was not mentioned. If you are debt free you have more
chance of making decisions that don't fit into the model.
So what do we do now, we train nearly 50% of our young that having large amounts of debt is
perfectly normal. When I was a student I lived off the grant and had a much lower standard of
living than I can see students having now, but of course I had no debt when I graduated. I know
student debt is administered differently, I'm talking about the way we are training them to accept
debt of all sorts.
Same applies to consumerism inducing the 'I want it and I want it now', increases personal
debt, therefore forcing people to fit in, same applies to credit cards and lax personal lending.
Although occasionally there are economic questions about large amounts of personal debt, politically
high personal debt is ideal.
Not sure if you're in the sector, in large parts that's kind of how academia works?
This is also what's referred to in the trade as an opinion piece, where an author will be presenting
his views and substantiating them with reference to the researches of others.
There is no mystery to neoliberalism -- it is an economic system designed to benefit the 0.1%
and leave the rest of us neck deep in shit. That's why our children will be paying for the bankers'
bonuses to the day they die. Let's celebrate this new found freedom with all the rest of the Tory
lickspittle apologists. Yippee for moral bankruptcy -- three cheers!
The Simple Summary is the state/ royality used to hold all the power over the merchants and the
public for centuries. Bit by bit the merchants stripped that power away from royality, until eventually
the merchants have now taken over everybody. The merchants hold all the power now and they will
never give that up as there is nobody to take it from them. By owning the state the merchants
now have everything that go with it. The army, police and the laws and the media.
David Harvey puts it all under the microscope and explains in great detail how they've achieved
their end game over the last 40 years.
There are millions of economists and many economic theories in our universities. Unfortunately,
the merchants will only fund and advertise and support economic theories that further their power
and wealth.
As history shows time and time again it will be the public who rip this power from their hands.
If they don't give it up it is only a matter of time. The merchants may now own the army, the
police, the laws and the parliament. They'll need all of that and more if the public decide to
say enough is enough.
Bullying used to be confined to schools? Can't agree with that at all. Bullying is an ingrained
human tendency which manifests in many contexts, from school to work to military to politics to
matters of faith. It is only bad when abused, and can help to form self-confidence.
I am not sure what "neo" means but liberal economics is the basis of the Western economies
since the end of feudalism. Some countries have had periods of pronounced social democracy or
even socialism but most of western Europe has reverted to the capitalist model and much of the
former east bloc is turning to it. As others have noted in the CiF, this does not preclude social
policies designed to alleviate the unfair effects of the liberal economies.
But this ship has sailed in other words, the treaties which founded the EU make it clear the
system is based on Adam Smith-type free market thinking. (Short of leaving the EU I don't see
how that can be changed in its essentials).
Finally, socialist countries require much more conformity of individuals than capitalist ones.
So you have to look at the alternatives, which this article does not from what I could see.
To be honest I don't think Neoliberalism has made much of a difference in the UK where personal
responsibility has always been king. In the Victorian age people were quite happy to have people
staving to death on the streets and before that people's problems were usually seen as either
their own fault or an act of God (which would also be your own fault due to sin). If anything
we are kinder to strangers now, than we have been, but are slipping back into our old habits.
I think the best way to combat extreme liberalism is to be knowing about our culture and realise
that liberalism is something which is embedded in British culture and is not something imposed
on us from else where or by some -ism. It is strengthen not just by politics but also by language
and the way we deal with personal and social issues in our own lives. We also need to acknowledge
that we get both good and bad things out of living in a liberal society but that doesn't mean
we have to put up with the bad stuff. We can put measures in place to prevent the bad stuff and
still enjoy the positives even though some capitalists may throw their toys out of the pram.
Personal responsibility is EXACTLY what neoliberalism avoids, even as it advocates it with every
breath.
What it means is that you get as much responsibility as you can afford to foist onto someone
else, so a very wealthy person gets none at all. It's always someone else's fault.
Neoliberalism has actually undermined personal responsibility at every single step, delegating
it according to wealth or perceived worth.
If Liberalism is the mindset of the British how come we created the NHS, Legal Aid, universal
education and social security? These were massive achievements of a post war generation and about
as far removed from today's evil shyster politics as it is possible to be.
"Our society constantly proclaims that anyone can make it if they just try hard enough, all the
while reinforcing privilege and putting increasing pressure on its overstretched and exhausted
citizens"
What to people mean when they use the word "society" in this context?
When we stopped having jobs and had careers instead, the rot set in. A career is the promotion
of the self and a job the means to realise that goal at the expense of everyone else around you.
The description of psychopathic behaviour perfectly describes a former boss of mine (female).
I liked her but knew how dangerous she was. She went easy on me because she knew that I could
do the job that she would claim credit for.
The pressure and stress of, for example open plan offices and evaluation reports are all part
of the conscious effort on behalf of employers to ensure compliance with this poisonous attitude.
The greatest promoter of this philosophy is the Media, step forward Evan Davies, the slobbering
lap dog of the rich and powerful.
On the positive side I detect a growing realisation among normal people of the folly of this worldview.
Self promoters are generally psychopaths who don't have any empathy for the people around them
who carry them everyday and make them look good. We call these people show bags. Full of shit
and you have to carry them all the time....
"meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality traits and penalises others..."
I put to you the simple premsie that you can substitute "meritocratic neoliberalism" with any
political system (communism, fascism, social democracy even) and it the same truism would emerge.
"Neoliberalism promotes individual freedom, limited government, and deregulation of the economy...whilst
individual freedom is a laudable idea, neoliberalism taken to a dogmatic extreme can be used to
justify exploitation of the less powerful and pillaging of the natural environment." - Don Ambrose.
Contrast with this:
"Neoliberal democracy, with its notion of the market uber alles ...instead of citizens,
it produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The net result is an
atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralised and socially powerless." - Robert
W. McChesney in Profit over People, Noam Chomsky.
It is fairly clear that the neoliberal system is designed to exploit the less powerfull when
it becomes dogmatic, and that is exactly what it has become: beaurocracy, deregulation, privatisation,
and government power .
Neoliberalism is a virus that destroys people's power of reason and replaces it with extra greed
and self entitlement. Until it is kicked back to the insane asylum it came from it will only keep
trying to make us it's indentured labourers. The only creeds more vile were Nazism and Apartheid.
Eventually the neoliberals will kill us all, so they can have the freedom to have everything they
think they're worth.
Yet, on the other hand, our daily lives have become a constant battle against a bureaucracy
that would make Kafka weak at the knees. There are regulations about everything, from the salt
content of bread to urban poultry-keeping.
Isn't a key feature of neo-liberalism that governments de-regulate? It seems you're willing
to blame absolutely everything on neoliberalism, even those things that neoliberalism ostensibly
opposes.
The Professor is correct. We have crafted a nightmare of a society where what is considered good
is often to the detriment of the whole community. It is reflected in our TV shows of choice, Survivor,
Big Brother, voting off the weakest or the greatest rival. A half a million bucks for being the
meanest most sociopathic person in the group, what great entertainment.
Always a treat to read your articles, Mr Verhaeghe; well written and supported with examples and
external good links. I especially like the link to Hare's site which is a rich resource of information
and current discussions and presentations on the subject.
The rise of the psychopath in society has been noted for some time, as have the consequences
of this behaviour in wider society and and a growing indifference and increased tolerance for
this behaviour.
But what are practical solutions? MRI brain scans and early intervention? We know that behaviour
modification does not work, we know that antipsychotic and other psychiatric medication does not
alter this behaviour, we know little of genetic causes or if diet and nutrition play a role.
Maybe it is because successful psychopaths leverage themselves into positions of influence
and power and reduce the voice, choices and influence of their victims that psychopathy has become
such an unsolvable problem, or at least a problem that has been removed from the stage of awareness.
It is so much easier to see the social consequences of psychopathy than it is to see the causal
activity of psychopaths themselves.
Neoliberalism has entered centre stage politics not as a solution, it is just socialism with a
crowd pleasing face. What could the labour party do to get voted in when the leadership consisted
of self professed intellectuals in Donkey Jackets which they wore to patronise the working classes.
Like the animal reflected in the name they became a laughing stock. Nobody understood their language
or cared for it. The people who could understand it claimed that it was full of irrelevant hyperbole
and patronising sentiment.
It still is but with nice sounding buzz words and an endless sound bites, the face of politics
has been transformed into a hollow shell. Neither of the party's faithful are happy with their
leaders. They have become centre stage by understanding process more than substance. As long as
your face fits, a person has every chance of success. Real merit on the other hand is either sadly
lacking or non existant.
Most people's personalities and behaviour are environment driven, they are moulded by the social
context in which they find themselves. The system we currently inhabit is one which is constructed
on behalf of the holders of capital, it is a construct of the need to create wealth through interest
bearing debt.
The values of this civilisation are consumer ones, we validate and actualise ourselves through
ownership of goods, and also the middle-class norms of family life, which are in and of themselves
constructs of a liberal consumer based society.
We pride ourselves on tolerance, which is just veiled indifference to anything which we feel
as no importance to our own desires. People are becoming automatons, directed through media devices
and advertising, and also the implanted desires which the consumer society needs us to act upon
to maintain the current system of economy.
None of this can of course survive indefinitely, hence the constant state of underlying anxiety
within society as it ploughs along on this suicidal route.
Good article, however I would just like to add that the new breed of 'business psychopath' you
allude to are fairly easy to spot these days, and as such more people are aware of them, so they
could be displaced quite soon, hopefully.
Cameron and the Conservatives have long been condemning the lazy and feckless at the bottom of
society, but has Cameron ever looked at his aristocratic in-laws.
His father-in-law, Sir Reginald Sheffield, can be checked out on Wikipedia.
His only work seems to have been eight years as a conservative councillor (lazy).
He is a member of three clubs, so he likes to go pissing it up with his rich friends (feckless).
This seems to be total sum of his life's achievements.
He also gets Government subsidies for wind turbines on his land (on benefits).
His estate has been in the family since the 16th Century and the family have probably done very
little since, yet we worry about the lower classes having two generations without work, in the
upper classes this can go on for centuries.
Wasters don't just exist at the bottom of society.
Mr. Cameron have a closer look at your aristocratic in-laws.
This is the consequence of a system that prevents people from thinking independently and
that fails to treat employees as adults.
Fundamentally the whole concept is saying "real talent is to be hunted down since, if you do
not destroy it, it will destroy you". As a result we have a whole army of useless twats in high
positions with not an independent thought between them. The concept of the old boys network has
really taken over except now the members are any mental age from zero upwards.
And then we wonder why nothing is done prperly these days....
Neoliberalism is fine in some areas of self-development and actualization of potential, but taken
as a kind of religion or as the be-all and end-all it is a manifest failure. For a start it neglects
to acknowledge what people have in common, the idea of shared values, the notion of society, the
effects of synergy and the geo-biological fact that we are one species all inhabiting the same
single planet, a planet that is uniquely adapted to ourselves, and to which we are uniquely adapted.
Generally it works on the micro-scale to free up initiative, but on the macro-scale it is hugely
destructive, since its goals are not the welfare of the entire human race and the planet but something
far more self-interested.
I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality
traits and penalises others.
This is inevitable. All societies have this property. A warrior society rewards brave fighters
and inspiring leaders, while punishing weaklings and cowards. A theocracy rewards those who display
piety and knowledge of religious tradition, and punishes skeptics and taboo-breakers. Tyrannies
reward cunning, ruthless schemers while punishing the squeamish and naive. Bureaucratic societies
reward pernickety types who love rules and regulationsn, and punish those who are careless of
jots and tittles. And so on.
A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort
and talents
It does. In fact, it does in all societies to some extent, even societies that strive to be egalitarian,
and societies that try to restrict social mobility by imposing a rigid caste system. There are
always individuals who fall or rise through society as a result of their abilities or lack thereof.
The freer society is, the more this happens.
For those who believe in the fairytale of unrestricted choice, self-government and self-management
are the pre-eminent political messages, especially if they appear to promise freedom.
Straw man. Even anarchists don't believe in completely unrestricted choice, let alone neoliberals.
Neoliberalism accepts that people are inevitably limited by their abilities and their situation.
Personal responsibility does not depend on complete freedom. It depends on there being some
freedom. If you have enough freedom to make good or bad choices, then you have personal responsibility.
Along with the idea of the perfectible individual, the freedom we perceive ourselves as
having in the west is the greatest untruth of this day and age.
The idea of the perfectible individual has nothing to do with neoliberalism. On the other hand,
it is one of the central pillars of Marxism. In philosophy, Marx is noted as an example of thinker
who follows a perfectionist ethical theory.
A frightening article, detailing now the psychological strenngths of people are recruited, perverted
and rotted by this rat-race ethic.
Ironic that the photo, of Canary Wharf, shows one of the biggest "socialist" gifts of the country
(was paid largely by the British taxpayer, if memory serves me correctly, and more or less gifted
to the merchant bankers by Thatcher).
Meritocratic neoliberalism; superficial articulateness which I used to call 'the gift of the gab'.
In my job, I was told to be 'extrovert' and I bucked against this, as a prejudice against anyone
with a different personality and people wanting CLONES. Not sensible people, or people that could
do a job, but a clone; setting the system up for a specific type of person as stated above. Those
who quickly tell you, you are wrong. Those that make you think perhaps you are, owing to their
confidence. Until your quietness proves them to be totally incorrect, and their naff confidence
demonstrates the falseness of what they state.
Most of the richest people in the world are not bullshitters. There are some, to be sure, but
the majority are either technical or financial engineers of genius, and they've made their fortune
through those skills, rather than through bullshit.
Hague lied to the camera about GCHQ having permission to access anyone's electronic devices. He
did not blush, he merely stated that a warrant was required. Only the night before we were shown
a letter from GCHQ stating that they had access without any warrant.
The ability to LIE has become a VIRTUE that all of us could well LIVE WITHOUT.
That's not new. It has been widely held that rulers have a right (and sometimes a duty) to lie
ever since Machiavelli's Prince was published some 500 years ago.
The sociologist Zygmunt Bauman neatly summarised the paradox of our era as: "Never have
we been so free. Never have we felt so powerless." We are indeed freer than before, in the
sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex
and support any political movement we like. We can do all these things because they no longer
have any significance – freedom of this kind is prompted by indifference.
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left lose.
-Janice Joplin
Actually it was written by Kris Kristofferson and, having a house, a job pension and an Old Age
Pension, frankly, I disagree. The Grateful Dead version is better anyway.
.... economic change is having a profound effect not only on our values but also on our
personalities.
I have long thought that introverts are being marginalised in our society. Being introvert
seems to be seen by some as almost an illness, by others as virtually a crime.
Not keen on attending that "team bonding" weekend? There must be something wrong with you.
Unwilling to set out your life online for all to see? What have you got to hide?
A few very driven and talented introverts have managed to find a niche in the world of IT and
computers, earnig fortunes from their bedrooms. But for most, being unwilling or unable to scream
their demands and desires across a crowded room is interpreted as "not trying" or being not worth
listening to.
It's important to be able to talk up your own capacities as much as you can – you know a
lot of people, you've got plenty of experience under your belt and you recently completed a
major project. Later, people will find out that this was mostly hot air, but the fact that
they were initially fooled is down to another personality trait: you can lie convincingly and
feel little guilt. That's why you never take responsibility for your own behaviour.
Perfectly describes our new ruling-class, doesn't it!
It's important to be able to talk up your own capacities as much as you can – you know a
lot of people, you've got plenty of experience under your belt and you recently completed a
major project. Later, people will find out that this was mostly hot air, but the fact that
they were initially fooled is down to another personality trait: you can lie convincingly and
feel little guilt. That's why you never take responsibility for your own behaviour.
Sounds like a perfect description of newspaper columnists to me.
It's just the general spirit of the place: it's on such a downer and no amount of theorising and
talking will ever solve anything. There isn't a good feeling about this country anymore just a
lot of tying everyone up in in repressive knots with a lot of hooey like talk and put downs. We
need to find freedom again or maybe shove all the pricks into one part of the country and leave
them there to fuck each other over so the rest of us can create a new world free of bullcrap.
I don't know. Place is a superficial mess: 'look at me; look at what I own; I can cook Coq Au
Vin and drink bottles of expensive plonk and keep ten cars on my driveway'
Nah. Fortuneately there are still some decent people left but it's been like Hamlet now for quite
some time - "show me an honest man and I'll show you one man in ten thousand" Sucks.
This article is spot on and reflects Karl Marx's analysis regarding the economic base informing
and determining the superstructure of a given society, that is, its social, cultural aspects.
A neo-liberal, monetarist economy will shape and influence social and work relationships in ways
that are not beneficial for the many but as the commentator states, will benefit those possessed
of certain thrusting,domineering character traits. The common use of the word "loser" in contemporary
society to describe those who haven't "succeeded" financially is in itself telling.
It would be the perfect first chapter (foreword/introduction) in a best seller that goes on,
chapter by chapter, to show that neoliberalism destroys everything it touches:
Personal relationships;
trust;
personal integrity;
trust;
relationships;
trust;
transactions and trade;
trust;
market systems;
trust;
communities;
trust;
political relationships;
trust;
James Meek seems to have nailed it in his recent book, where he pointed out that the socially
conservative Thatcher, who wanted a society based on good old fashioned values, helped to create
the precise opposite with her enthusiasm for the neoliberal model. Now we are sinking into a dog-eat-dog
dystopia.
Many of the good old fashioned conservatives had time honoured values. They believed in taking
care of yourself but they also believed in integrity and honesty. They believed in living modestly
and would save much of their money rather than just spend it, and so would put some aside for
a rainy day. They believed in the community and were often active about local issues. They cared
about the countryside and the wildlife. They often recycled which went along with their thriftiness
and hatred of waste.
This all vanished when Thatcher came in with her selfish 'greed is good' brigade. Loads of
money!
We are indeed freer than before, in the sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage
of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex and support any political movement we like. We can
do all these things because they no longer have any significance –
Capitalist alienation is a daily practise. The daily practise of competing with and using people.
This gives rise to the ideology that society and other people are but a means to an end rather
than an end in themselves that is of course when they are not a frightening a existential competitive
threat. Contempt and fear. That is what we are reduced to by the buying and selling of labour
power and yes, only a psychopath can thrive under such conditions.
According to the left if your only ambition is to watch Jeremy Kyle, pick up a welfare cheque
once a week and vote for which ever party will promise to give you Ł10 a week more in welfare:
you're an almost saint like figure.
If you actually do something to try to create a better and more independent life for yourself,
your family and your community: you're "displaying psychopathic tendencies" .
If you actually do something to try to create a better and more independent life for yourself,
your family and your community: you're "displaying psychopathic tendencies".
So how do you create a better community ?
By paying your taxes on your wealth that so many of you try to avoid. Here lies the crux of
the matter. There would be no deficit if taxes were paid.
Some of the rich are so psychpathic they think jsut because they employ people they shouldn't
pay any tax. They think the employees should pay thier tax for them.
Why has tax become such a dirty word ? Think about it before you answer.
The conclusion is for me is that it is a brilliant economic model. It is the sheer apathy of
the voters and that they are cowards because they don't make it work for them. They allow the
people who own the theory to run it for themselves and thus they get all the benefits from it.
I'll try and explain.
Their business plan.
The truth is neoliberalism has infact made the rich western countries poorer and helped so
many other poorer countries around the world get richer. Let's face facts here giving to charities
would never have achieved this and something needed to be done to even up this world inequality.
The only way you are ever going to achieve world peace is if everybody is equal. It's not by chance
this theory was introduced by America. They are trying to bring that equality to everyone so that
world peace can be achieved. How many more illegal wars and deaths this will take and for how
long nobody knows. They are also very sinister and selfish and greedy because if the Americans
do achieve what they are trying to do. They will own and countrol the world via washington and
the dollar. The way the Americans see it is that the inequality created within each country is
a bribe to each power structure within that country which helps America achieve it's long term
goals. It creates inequality within each country but at the same time creates equality on the
world stage. It might take 100 years to achieve and millions of deaths but eventually every country
will be another state of America and look and act like any American state. Once that is achieved
world peace will follow. America see it as a war and they also see millions of deaths as acceptable
to achieve their end game. I of course disagree there must be a better way. How will history look
at this dark period in history in 300 years time if it does achieve world peace in 150 years time
?
In each country neoliberalism works but at the moment it only works for the few because the
voters allow it. The voters allow them to get away with it through submission. They've allowed
their parliaments to be taken over without a fight and allowed their brains to be brainwashed
by the media controlled by the few. Which means the the whole story of neoliberalism has been
skewed into a very narrow view which always suits and promotes the voices of the few.
Why did the voters allow that to happen ?
Their biggest success the few had over the many was to create an illusion that made tax a toxic
word. They attacked tax with everything they had to form an illusion in the voters minds that
paying tax was a bad thing and it was everybodys enemy. Then they passed laws to enhance that
view and trotted out scare stories around tax and that if they had to pay it then everybody would
leave that country. They created a world set up for them and ulitimately destroyed any chance
at all, for the success of neoliberalism to be shared by the many. This was their biggest success
to make sure the wealth of neoliberalism stayed with them.
As the author of this piece says quite clearly. "An economic system that rewards psychopathic
personality traits has changed our ethics and our personalities"
One of these traits is that they believe they shouldn't pay tax because they are creating jobs
and the tax their employees pay should be the amount of tax these companies pay. Again this makes
sure that the wealth is not shared.
Since they now own and control parliaments they also use the state to pay these wages in the
way of tax credits and subsidies and grants as they refuse to pay their employees a living wage.
It is our taxes they use to do this. Again this is to make sure that the wealth is not shared.
There are too many examples to list of how they make sure that the wealth generated by neoliberalism
is not shared. Then surely it is up to the voters to make sure it does. Neoliberalism works and
it would work for everybody if the voters would just grow a set of balls. Tax avoidance was the
battle that won the war for the few. It is time the voters revisited that battle and re write
it so that the outcome was that the many won not just the few. For example there would be no deficit
if the many had won that battle. Of course they wouldn't have left a market of 60 million people
with money in their pockets, it would have been business suicide.
This is a great example of how they created an illusion, a false culture, a world that does
not exist. The focus is all on the deficit and how to fix it, as they socialise the losses and
privatise the profits. There is no eyes or light shed on why there is a deficit due to tax avoidance.
It's time we changed that and made Neoliberlaism work for us. If we don't then we can't complain
when it only works for the few.
Neoliberlaism works. It's about time we owned it for ourselves. Otherwise we'll always be slaves
to it. It's not the theory that is corrupt it is the people who own it.
There is no eyes or light shed on why there is a deficit due to tax avoidance.
... or because politicians have discovered that you can buy votes by giving handouts even to
those who don't need them, thereby making everyone dependent on the largesse of the state and,
by extension, promoting the interests of the most irresponsible politicians and the bureaucracies
they represent.
You seem to regard what you call neoliberalism as a creator of wealth. You then claim that the
reason for this wealth accruing almost entirely to an elite few is the "the voters" have prevented
neoliberalism from distributing the wealth more equitably.
I can't really follow the logic of your argument.
Neoliberalism seems to be working perfectly for those few who are in a position to exploit
it. It's doing what it's designed to do.
I agree that the ignorance of "the voters" is allowing the elite to get away with it. But the
voters should be voting for those who propose an alternative economic model. Unfortunately, in
the western world at the present time, they have no viable alternative to vote for, because the
neoliberals have captured all of the mainstream political parties and institutions.
However, you missed one of the main points. Our parliament has been taken over by the few.
One man used to and probably still does strike fear into the government. Murdoch. Problem is
there are millions like him that lobby and control policy and the media.
..."There are regulations about everything,"... Yes, but higher up the scale you go, the less
this regulation is enforced, less individual accountability and less transparency. Neoliberalism
has turned society on its head. We see ever growing corporate socialism subsidising the top 1%
and heavily regulated hard nosed market capitalism for the rest of us resulting in massive inequality
in wealth distribution. This inequality by design makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. We've
created a society where people who were once valued as an individual part of that society are
now treated as surplus to requirements and somehow need to be eliminated.
They're mostly tight g*ts who refuse to pay to use the Mail/Telegraph sites. This is just about
the last free forum left now and it's attracting all kinds of undesirables. The level of personal
insult has gone up enormously since they came here. Most of us traditional Ciffers don't bother
with many posts here any more, it's too boring now.
Our presumed freedom is tied to one central condition: we must be successful – that is,
"make" something of ourselves.
That's always been the way, I think. It's life.
We are all of us the descendants of a million generations of successful organisms, human and pre-human.
The ones that didn't succeed fel by the wayside.
We're the ones left to tell the tale.
"... 100% are published by oligarch media and the other half suffer cognitive dissonance. ..."
"... System Authorized experts lie half the time. And fake the rest ..."
"... "Experts lie 50% of the time"...probably a low estimate, since those anointed as experts are those who carry water for the investor class. The investor class promotes its interests by highlighting actual benefits, fabricating others, and marginalizing anyone who disagrees. ..."
"... Some are encouraged by keeping their jobs others are cognitive dissonants. In either case it is necessary for job security. ..."
"Experts lie 50% of the time"...probably a low estimate, since those anointed as experts are
those who carry water for the investor class. The investor class promotes its interests by highlighting
actual benefits, fabricating others, and marginalizing anyone who disagrees.
We see this not only in trade policy, but also in monetary policy and tax policy, where trickle
down is portrayed as the only reasonable path...the backlash is building...
ilsm -> JohnH... , -1
Some are encouraged by keeping their jobs others are cognitive dissonants. In either case
it is necessary for job security.
Humbug factories with the skilled application of unsound and invalid argument.
It is unclear to what extent Trump represents a threat to Washington establishment and how easily
or difficult it would be to co-opt him. In any case "deep state" will stay in place, so the capabilities
of POTUS are limited by the fact of its existence. But comments to the article are great !
Notable quotes:
"... It goes all the way back to the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the elder Bush's historically foolish decision to invade the Persian Gulf in February 1991. The latter stopped dead in its tracks the first genuine opportunity for peace the people of the world had been afforded since August 1914. ..."
"... Instead, it reprieved the fading remnants of the military-industrial-congressional complex, the neocon interventionist camp and Washington's legions of cold war apparatchiks. All of the foregoing would have been otherwise consigned to the dust bin of history. ..."
"... And most certainly, this lamentable turn to the War Party's disastrous reign had nothing to do with oil security or economic prosperity in America. The cure for high oil is always and everywhere high oil prices, not the Fifth Fleet. ..."
"... It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond. ..."
"... Indeed, prior to 1991 Bin Laden and his mujahedeen, who had been trained and armed by the CIA and heralded in the west for their help in defeating purportedly godless communism in Afghanistan, had not declaimed against American liberty, opulence and decadence. They did not come to attack our way of life as the neocon propagandists have so speciously claimed. Misguided and despicable as their attack was, it was motivated by revenge and religious fanaticism that had never previously been directed against the American people. That is, not until the Washington War Party decided to intervene in the Persian Gulf in 1991. ..."
"... Not long thereafter in 1996, these same neocon warmongers produced for newly elected Israeli prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, the infamous document called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing The Realm". ..."
"... There were several crucial moments along the way-–the first being the sacking of Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill by the White House praetorian guard led by Karl Rove. His sin was having the audacity to say that the Afghan and Iraqi wars were going to cost trillions, and that stiff tax increases and painful entitlements cuts were the only way to make ends meet. ..."
"... The great Dwight Eisenhower left office at the height of the cold war in 1961, warning the American public about the insatiable appetites for budgets and war of the military industrial complex. At the same time, however, his final budget attested to his conviction that $450 billion in today's purchasing power (2015 $) was enough to fund the Pentagon, foreign aid and security assistance and the needs of veterans of past wars. ..."
"... Thanks to the GOP War Party and neocons we are spending more than double that amount-upwards of $900 billion-–for those same purposes today. Yet unlike the nuclear threat posed by the Soviet Union at the peak of its industrial vigor, we no longer have any industrial state enemy left on the planet; we have appropriately been fired as the world's policeman and have no need for Washington's far flung imperium of bases and naval and air power projection; and would not even be confronted with the domestic policing challenges posed by highly limited and episodic homeland terrorist tempests had Washington not turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and others into failed states and economic rubble. ..."
"... But here's the thing. While spending a lifetime as a real estate speculator and self-created celebrity, The Donald apparently did not have time to get mis-educated by the Council On Foreign Relations or to hob knob with the GOP inner circle in Washington and the special interest group racketeers they coddle. ..."
"... But a nation tumbling into financial and fiscal crisis will welcome the War Party purge that Trump would surely undertake. He didn't allow the self-serving busy-bodies and fools who inhabit the Council on Foreign Relations to dupe him into believing that Putin is a horrible threat; or that the real estate on the eastern edge of the non-state of the Ukraine, which has always been either a de jure or de facto part of Russia, was any of our business. Likewise, he has gotten it totally right with respect to the sectarian and tribal wars of Syria and Iraq and Hillary's feckless destruction of a stable regime in Libya. ..."
"... Besides, unlike the boy Senator from Florida who wants to be President so he can play with guns, tanks, ships and bombs, The Donald has indicated no intention of tearing up the agreement on day one in office. ..."
"... Most importantly, The Donald has essentially proclaimed the obvious. Namely, that the cold war is over and that the American taxpayers have no business subsidizing obsolete relics like NATO and ground forces in South Korea and Japan. ..."
"... At the end of the day, the reason that the neocons are apoplectic is that Trump would restore the 1991 status quo ante. The nation's self-proclaimed greatest deal-maker might even take a leaf out of Warren G. Harding's playbook and negotiate sweeping disarmament agreements in a world where governments everywhere are on the verge of fiscal bankruptcy. ..."
"... Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.... A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill. H. L. Mencken ..."
"... Great read Mr. Stockman, and I can only hope you are right, that Super Tuesday really triggers the demise of the Military Industrial Complex, although I seriously doubt it can be removed, replaced or dismantled that easily. ..."
"... The roots of the neocons and neolibs go so deep - multi-generational, multi-faceted, and removing their control will require Open Regime Surgery, something I don't see anyone capable of performing quite yet. Surely they are going to want their shot at being the first rulers to control the entire earth - just before the energy runs out and the planet collapses in on itself due to being hollowed out :) ..."
"... David, you are missing some fairly strong evidence that 911 was an inside job. ..."
"... As an engineer, I find it impossible to fathom that building 7, not hit by any planes and only suffering minor fires, would fall straight into its own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED. This is exactly the sort of thing you would expect ONLY from a controlled demolition. ..."
"... I think that the neocons, in their meetings regarding the "Project for a New American Century" (PNAC), needed 911 to foment, foster and facilitate a push of patriotic pathos of the American people to go to war. ..."
"... So so true. Of course this is an abridged version of history. You speak the truth to power. This never makes the news or any of the debate tables with any of the mainstream media. Why...because the media is owned by the corporations that profit from war. ..."
"... There is no more liberal media unless you watch the Young Turks. With regards to Iran. There is more to their history than...CIA's coup of 1953. From my memory the British controlled the Iranian oilfields up until 1951 when they were nationalized. Why...because the British BP oil company was cheating Iran on the profit sharing deal. So the British are out. It is 1953 and the Americans want in. 1953 the Anglo-American Coup happened and the the profit sharing began again with American oil companies with the Shaw (Shell-mobil-Exxon..I can't remember which one) Of course the American oil companies breached the deal and shorted the POS Shah who then shorted his nation. Rulers forget, poor people are pissed off people. So all this "it was the CIA" crap is baloney...They were tools for corporate America. Don't kid yourself, it was about the oil. IMO ..."
"... As Stockman points out, it seems that Washington was set on then neocon automatic pilot. The policy of the Democrats was basically a continuation of a policy started prior to Reagan presidency. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton are involved in regime change plans when we thought that Neo-cons has been shown to be a band of idiots that worked for the military industrial complex. ..."
"... In the seventies, Brzezinski advocated support for the Islamic belt with fundamentalist regimes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey. These Islamo-fascist were supposed to control the perceived enemies of Capitalism. ..."
"... Thank you Mr. Stockman for fearlessly stating the facts. As to the 1st Iraq War, and the lies on which it was based, the only other significant detail I would have mentioned is that Saddam was suckered into invading Kuwait by the bitch, April Gillespie who, at the time, was serving as his special envoy to the middle east. ..."
"... @lloydholiday Billionaire "businessman" Glen Taylor owns the influential Minneapolis newspaper. He and his idiotic neocon editorial board ENDORSED RUBIO just before the Minnesota caucuses. Rubio may have made secret promises to Taylor, whose cannot possibly separate his many business interests from Minnesota and national politics. This explanation is as likely any, how the Little Napoleon won the ONLY state he is going to win, unless Floridians are somehow swayed to raise up a man toward the Presidency who isn't qualified to be dog catcher. ..."
"... As usual concise, accurate. Bush and Shrub were phonies in thrall to the Carlyle Group and their buddies the 'Kingdom' (source and supporter of al-Quaeda) plus the pro-Israeli neocons who wanted US boots on the ground to protect Israel. The Bush duumvirate played along in this duplicitous game, which Trump called them on. Enron also played a role: Shrub let them set policy in the Stans as their consortium sought pipeline rights from the Taliban. Crooks at play in the garden of evil. ..."
"... It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond. ..."
"... Mr Stockman apparently has the bad manners to speak the truth. Washington is going to be PO'd at the blatant disrespect for their BS. ..."
"... @FreeOregon It will shocked me beyond words if he survives the primaries. Far too much is at stake. In fact, 100 years of lying, cheating, and thieving, and the wealth it has produced is at stake. The Rothschild Establishment, centered in London and Tel Aviv, will not sit idly by and watch as their lucrative racket is dismantled by an up-start politician that cannot be purchased and put under their control. ..."
"... All true....finally the politicians that have run our country into the ground are exposed for the puppets of oligarchs they are...it is obvious....both parties, phony conservatives and liberals alike, are waging war on Trump because he truly threatens the status quo......it's going to get real ugly now that the powers that be are threatened.....I wouldn't fly to much if I was Trump from here on in! ..."
Wow. Super Tuesday was an earthquake, and not just because Donald Trump ran the tables. The best
thing was the complete drubbing and humiliation that voters all over America handed to the little
Napoleon from Florida, Marco Rubio.
So doing, the voters began the process of ridding the nation of the GOP War Party and its neocon
claque of rabid interventionists. They have held sway for nearly three decades in the Imperial City
and the consequences have been deplorable.
It goes all the way back to the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the elder Bush's historically
foolish decision to invade the Persian Gulf in February 1991. The latter stopped dead in its tracks
the first genuine opportunity for peace the people of the world had been afforded since August 1914.
Instead, it reprieved the fading remnants of the military-industrial-congressional complex, the
neocon interventionist camp and Washington's legions of cold war apparatchiks. All of the foregoing
would have been otherwise consigned to the dust bin of history.
Yet at that crucial inflection point there was absolutely nothing at stake with respect to the
safety and security of the American people in the petty quarrel between Saddam Hussein and the Emir
of Kuwait.
The spate, in fact, was over directional drilling rights in the Rumaila oilfield which straddled
their respective borders. Yet these disputed borders had no historical legitimacy whatsoever. Kuwait
was a just a bank account with a seat in the UN, which had been created by the British only in 1899
for obscure reasons of imperial maneuver. Likewise, the boundaries of Iraq had been drawn with a
straight ruler in 1916 by British and French diplomats in the process of splitting up the loot from
the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
As it happened, Saddam claimed that the Emir of Kuwait, who could never stop stuffing his unspeakably
opulent royal domain with more petro dollars, had stolen $10 billion worth of oil from Iraq's side
of the field while Saddam was savaging the Iranians during his unprovoked but Washington supported
1980s invasion. At the same time, Hussein had borrowed upwards of $50 billion from Kuwait, the Saudis
and the UAE to fund his barbaric attacks on the Iranians and now the sheiks wanted it back.
At the end of the day, Washington sent 500,000 US troops to the Gulf in order to function as bad
debt collectors for three regimes that are the very embodiment of tyranny, corruption, greed and
religious fanaticism.
They have been the fount and exporter of Wahhabi fanaticism and have thereby fostered the scourge
of jihadi violence throughout the region. And it was the monumental stupidity of putting American
(crusader) boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia that actually gave rise to Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the
tragedy of 9/11, the invasion and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Patriot Act and domestic
surveillance state and all the rest of the War Party follies which have followed.
Worse still, George H.W. Bush's stupid little war corrupted the very political soul and modus
operandi of Washington. What should have been a political contest over which party and prospective
leader could best lead a revived 1920s style campaign for world disarmament was mutated into a wave
of exceptionalist jingoism about how best to impose American hegemony on any nation or force on the
planet that refused compliance with Washington's designs and dictates.
And most certainly, this lamentable turn to the War Party's disastrous reign had nothing to do
with oil security or economic prosperity in America. The cure for high oil is always and everywhere
high oil prices, not the Fifth Fleet.
Indeed, as the so-called OPEC cartel crumbles into pitiful impotence and cacophony and as the
world oil glut drives prices eventually back into the teens, there can no longer be any dispute.
The blazing oilfields of Kuwait in 1991 had nothing to do with domestic oil security and prosperity,
and everything to do with the rise of a virulent militarism and imperialism that has drastically
undermined national security.
It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the
War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in
the middle east and beyond.
Indeed, prior to 1991 Bin Laden and his mujahedeen, who had been trained and armed by the CIA
and heralded in the west for their help in defeating purportedly godless communism in Afghanistan,
had not declaimed against American liberty, opulence and decadence. They did not come to attack our
way of life as the neocon propagandists have so speciously claimed. Misguided and despicable as their
attack was, it was motivated by revenge and religious fanaticism that had never previously been directed
against the American people. That is, not until the Washington War Party decided to intervene in
the Persian Gulf in 1991.
Yes, the wholly different Shiite branch of Islam centered in Iran had a grievance, too. But that
wasn't about America's liberties and libertine ways of life, either. It was about the left over liability
from Washington's misguided cold war interventions and, specifically, the 1953 CIA coup that installed
the brutal and larcenous Shah on the Peacock Throne.
The whole Persian nation had deep grievances about that colossal injustice--a grievance that was
wantonly amplified in the 1980s by Washington's overt assistance to Saddam Hussein. Via the CIA's
satellite reconnaissance, Washington had actually helped him unleash heinous chemical warfare attacks
on Iranian forces, including essentially unarmed young boys who had been sent to the battle front
as cannon fodder.
Still, with the election of Rafsanjani in 1989 there was every opportunity to repair this historical
transgression and normalize relations with Tehran. In fact, in the early days the Bush state department
was well on the way to exactly that. But once the CNN war games in the gulf put the neocons back
in the saddle the door was slammed shut by Washington, not the Iranians.
Indeed at that very time, the re-ascendant neocons explicitly choose to demonize the Iranian regime
as a surrogate enemy to replace the defunct Kremlin commissars. Two of the most despicable actors
in the post-1991 neocon takeover of the GOP--Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz--actually penned a secret
document outlining the spurious anti-Iranian campaign which soon congealed into a full-blown war
myth.
To wit, that the Iranian's were hell bent on obtaining nuclear weapons and had become an implacable
foe of America and fountain of state sponsored terrorism.
Not long thereafter in 1996, these same neocon warmongers produced for newly elected Israeli prime
minister, Bibi Netanyahu, the infamous document called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing
The Realm".
Whether he immediately signed off an all of its sweeping plans for junking the Oslo Accords and
launching regime change initiatives against the Baathist regimes in Iraq and Syria is a matter of
historical debate. But there can be no doubt that shortly thereafter this manifesto became the operative
policy of the Netanyahu government and especially its virulent campaign to demonize Iran as an existential
threat to Israel. And that when the younger Bush took office and brought the whole posse of neocons
back into power, it became Washington's official policy, as well.
After 9/11 the dual War Party of Washington and Tel Aviv was off to the races and the US government
began its tumble toward $19 trillion of national debt and an eventual fiscal calamity. That's because
the neocon War Party sucked the old time religion of fiscal rectitude and monetary orthodoxy right
out of the GOP in the name of funding what has in truth become a trillion dollar per year Warfare
State.
There were several crucial moments along the way-–the first being the sacking of Treasury Secretary
Paul O'Neill by the White House praetorian guard led by Karl Rove. His sin was having the audacity
to say that the Afghan and Iraqi wars were going to cost trillions, and that stiff tax increases
and painful entitlements cuts were the only way to make ends meet.
Right then and there the GOP was stripped of any fiscal virginity that had survived the Reagan
era of triple digit deficits. Right on cue the contemptible Dick Cheney was quick to claim that Reagan
proved "deficits don't matter", meaning from that point forward whatever it took to fund the war
machine trumped any flickering Republican folk memories of fiscal prudence.
The great Dwight Eisenhower left office at the height of the cold war in 1961, warning the
American public about the insatiable appetites for budgets and war of the military industrial complex.
At the same time, however, his final budget attested to his conviction that $450 billion in today's
purchasing power (2015 $) was enough to fund the Pentagon, foreign aid and security assistance and
the needs of veterans of past wars.
Thanks to the GOP War Party and neocons we are spending more than double that amount-upwards
of $900 billion-–for those same purposes today. Yet unlike the nuclear threat posed by the Soviet
Union at the peak of its industrial vigor, we no longer have any industrial state enemy left on the
planet; we have appropriately been fired as the world's policeman and have no need for Washington's
far flung imperium of bases and naval and air power projection; and would not even be confronted
with the domestic policing challenges posed by highly limited and episodic homeland terrorist tempests
had Washington not turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and others into failed
states and economic rubble.
The Bush era War Party also committed an even more lamentable error in the midst of all of its
foreign policy triumphalism and its utter neglect of the GOP's actual purpose to function as an advocate
for sound money and free markets in the governance process of our two party democracy. Namely, it
appointed Ben Bernanke, an avowed Keynesian and big government statist who had loudly proclaimed
in favor of "helicopter money", to a Federal Reserve system that was already on the verge of an economic
coup d'état led by the unfaithful Alan Greenspan.
That coup was made complete by the loathsome bailout of Wall Street during the 2008 financial
crisis. And the latter had, in turn, been a consequence of the massive speculation and debt build-up
that had been enabled by the Fed's own policies during the prior decade and one-half.
Now after $3.5 trillion of heedless money printing and 86 months of ZIRP, Wall Street has been
transformed into an unstable, dangerous casino. Honest price discovery in the capital and money markets
no longer exists, nor has productive capital been flowing into real investments in efficiency and
growth.
Instead, the C-suites of corporate America have been transformed into stock trading rooms where
business balance sheets have been hocked to the tune of trillions in cheap debt in order to fund
stock buybacks, LBOs and M&A deals designed to goose stock prices and the value of top executive
options.
Indeed, the Fed's unconscionable inflation of the third massive financial bubble of this century
has showered speculators and the 1% with unspeakable financial windfalls that are fast creating not
only an inevitable thundering financial meltdown, but, also, a virulent populist backlash. The Eccles
Building was where the "Bern" that is roiling the electorate was actually midwifed.
And probably even the far greater political tremblor represented by The Donald, as well.
Yes, as a libertarian I shudder at the prospect of a man on a white horse heading for the White
House, as Donald Trump surely is. His rank demoguery and poisonous rhetoric about immigrants, Muslims,
refugees, women, domestic victims of police repression and the spy state and countless more are flat-out
contemptible. And the idea of building a horizontal version of Trump Towers on the Rio Grande is
just plain nuts.
But here's the thing. While spending a lifetime as a real estate speculator and self-created
celebrity, The Donald apparently did not have time to get mis-educated by the Council On Foreign
Relations or to hob knob with the GOP inner circle in Washington and the special interest group racketeers
they coddle.
So even as The Donald's election would bring on a thundering financial crash on Wall Street and
political upheaval in Washington-–the truth is that's going to happen anyway. Look at the hideous
mess that US policy has created in Syria or the incendiary corner into which the Fed has backed itself
or the fiscal projections that show we will be back into trillion dollar annual deficits as the recession
already underway reaches full force. The jig is well and truly up.
But a nation tumbling into financial and fiscal crisis will welcome the War Party purge that
Trump would surely undertake. He didn't allow the self-serving busy-bodies and fools who inhabit
the Council on Foreign Relations to dupe him into believing that Putin is a horrible threat; or that
the real estate on the eastern edge of the non-state of the Ukraine, which has always been either
a de jure or de facto part of Russia, was any of our business. Likewise, he has gotten it totally
right with respect to the sectarian and tribal wars of Syria and Iraq and Hillary's feckless destruction
of a stable regime in Libya.
Even his bombast about Obama's bad deal with Iran doesn't go much beyond Trump's ridiculous claim
that they are getting a $150 billion reward. In fact, it was their money; we stole it, and by the
time of the next election they will have it released anyway.
Besides, unlike the boy Senator from Florida who wants to be President so he can play with
guns, tanks, ships and bombs, The Donald has indicated no intention of tearing up the agreement on
day one in office.
Most importantly, The Donald has essentially proclaimed the obvious. Namely, that the cold
war is over and that the American taxpayers have no business subsidizing obsolete relics like NATO
and ground forces in South Korea and Japan.
At the end of the day, the reason that the neocons are apoplectic is that Trump would restore
the 1991 status quo ante. The nation's self-proclaimed greatest deal-maker might even take a leaf
out of Warren G. Harding's playbook and negotiate sweeping disarmament agreements in a world where
governments everywhere are on the verge of fiscal bankruptcy.
He might also come down with wrathful indignation on the Fed if its dares push toward the criminal
zone of negative interest rates. As far as I know, The Donald was never mis-educated by the Keynesian
swells at Brookings, either. No plain old businessman would ever fall for the sophistry and crank
monetary theories that are now ascendant in the Eccles Building.
When it comes to the nation's current economy wreckers-in-chief, Janet Yellen and Stanley Fischer,
he might even dust off on day one the skills he honed during 10-years on the Apprentice.
Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable....
A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic
thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill. H. L. Mencken
The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect
that religious opinions should be respected. Its evil effects must be plain enough to everyone.
... There is, in fact, nothing about religious opinions that entitles them to any more respect
than other opinions get. On the contrary, they tend to be noticeably silly. ... No, there is nothing
notably dignified about religious ideas. They run, rather, to a peculiarly puerile and tedious
kind of nonsense. At their best, they are borrowed from metaphysicians, which is to say, from
men who devote their lives to proving that twice two is not always or necessarily four. At their
worst, they smell of spiritualism and fortune telling. Nor is there any visible virtue in the
men who merchant them professionally. Few theologians know anything that is worth knowing, even
about theology, and not many of them are honest. ... But the average theologian is a hearty, red-faced,
well-fed fellow with no discernible excuse in pathology. He disseminates his blather, not innocently,
like a philosopher, but maliciously, like a politician. In a well-organized world he would be
on the stone-pile. But in the world as it exists we are asked to listen to him, not only politely,
but even reverently, and with our mouths open. H. L. Mencken
Great read Mr. Stockman, and I can only hope you are right, that Super Tuesday really triggers
the demise of the Military Industrial Complex, although I seriously doubt it can be removed, replaced
or dismantled that easily.
The roots of the neocons and neolibs go so deep - multi-generational, multi-faceted, and
removing their control will require Open Regime Surgery, something I don't see anyone capable
of performing quite yet. Surely they are going to want their shot at being the first rulers to
control the entire earth - just before the energy runs out and the planet collapses in on itself
due to being hollowed out :)
As an engineer, I find it impossible to fathom that building 7, not hit by any planes and
only suffering minor fires, would fall straight into its own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED. This
is exactly the sort of thing you would expect ONLY from a controlled demolition.
I think that the neocons, in their meetings regarding the "Project for a New American Century"
(PNAC), needed 911 to foment, foster and facilitate a push of patriotic pathos of the American
people to go to war.
So so true. Of course this is an abridged version of history. You speak the truth to power.
This never makes the news or any of the debate tables with any of the mainstream media. Why...because
the media is owned by the corporations that profit from war.
There is no more liberal media unless you watch the Young Turks. With regards to Iran.
There is more to their history than...CIA's coup of 1953. From my memory the British controlled
the Iranian oilfields up until 1951 when they were nationalized. Why...because the British BP
oil company was cheating Iran on the profit sharing deal. So the British are out. It is 1953 and
the Americans want in. 1953 the Anglo-American Coup happened and the the profit sharing began
again with American oil companies with the Shaw (Shell-mobil-Exxon..I can't remember which one)
Of course the American oil companies breached the deal and shorted the POS Shah who then shorted
his nation. Rulers forget, poor people are pissed off people. So all this "it was the CIA" crap
is baloney...They were tools for corporate America. Don't kid yourself, it was about the oil.
IMO
BTW the Kuwaiti Royalty were friends of the Bushes.
We also did Israel a favor as Saddam was funding suicide bombers in Palestine ($20,000.00 to
the family for every suicide bomber) Arab mothers were happy to have their kids blown up for that
Saddam "reward." Ever notice how the suicide bombs ended/slowed in Israel after Saddam was deposed.
I did. Also Saddam was amassing his military on the Saudi's border at that time (Saddam wanted
Saudi oil to pay off his war debt) and so as a favor the the Saudi King (Bush's buddy) we ended
that threat. Yipee for us. This is never brought out in serious debate or news coverage. So if
someone says it was not about the oil...It was about the oil and always has been. It is all about
the oil. Oil is short for corporate cash cow money.
SD is right, Osama hated the fact that Bush's infidels were in the land of Mecca, and that
was one of the major instigators for the 9/11 attacks. Efing arrogant, ignorant Bush keeping "Merica"
safe. Clinton could have done a much better job cleaning up those King George the 1st's foreign
policy blunders, so I fault him to a degree too.
There are some good web sites that talk about this..I don't have them handy.
You are absolutely right. As Chas Freeman, who was our ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the
1991 Gulf War, has recounted, the stationing of American troops on Saudi soil in response to Saddam's
invasion of Kuwait presented a serious issue given that "[m]any Saudis interpret their religious
tradition as banning the presence of non-Muslims, especially the armed forces of nonbelievers,
on the Kingdom's soil." Shortly after the invasion, Freeman was present at a meeting between King
Fahd and Vice-President Cheney at which the King, overruling most of the Saudi royal family, agreed
to allow U.S. troops to be stationed in his country. This decision was premised on the clear understanding,
stressed by Cheney, that the American forces would be removed from Saudi Arabia once the immediate
threat from Saddam was over.
When that did not happen, Fahd faced serious domestic problems. Several prominent Muslim clerics
who objected to his policies were sent into exile, further inflaming the religious community.
More significantly for us, Osama Bin Laden began to call for the overthrow of the monarchy and
elevated his jihadist fight against the U.S. His Saudi passport was revoked for his anti-government
rhetoric, and in April 1991, threatened with arrest, he secretly departed Saudi Arabia for the
Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, never to return. The result, ten years later, was 9-11.
As Stockman points out, it seems that Washington was set on then neocon automatic pilot.
The policy of the Democrats was basically a continuation of a policy started prior to Reagan presidency.
Both Obama and Hillary Clinton are involved in regime change plans when we thought that Neo-cons
has been shown to be a band of idiots that worked for the military industrial complex.
In the seventies, Brzezinski advocated support for the Islamic belt with fundamentalist
regimes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey. These Islamo-fascist were supposed to control
the perceived enemies of Capitalism.
Now, we talk 24/7 about the Islamic threat, while the Islamists are being supported by our
closest allies and elements in the deep state in Washington.
We rarely hear about the Shah of Iran and OUR CIA back in 1953. Nor about OBL and his stated reason's
for 9/11. Including the vengeful and childish bombardment of highlands behind Beirut by our terribly
expensive recommissioned Battle Ship -- Imagine the thinking behind taking that 'thing' out of
mothballs to Scare the A - rabs. Invading Grenada was Ollie North's idea to save face.
Thank you Mr. Stockman for fearlessly stating the facts. As to the 1st Iraq War, and the lies
on which it was based, the only other significant detail I would have mentioned is that Saddam
was suckered into invading Kuwait by the bitch, April Gillespie who, at the time, was serving
as his special envoy to the middle east.
@lloydholiday I lived
in MPLS. You would be amazed at how sacrificially 'liberal' they are, much like Merkel and the
deluded Germans. Minn let in thousands of Ethiopians and other Muslims who are now giving natives
a major headache, much like Europe.
The women over 30 are nearly fanatic over Black oppression, voted for Obama in droves, and
appear to be willing to sacrifice the interests of their own children in favor of aliens and minorities
(my own niece raised in Minn is a fanatic in this regard). Rubbero is a loser with a wind up tongue.
They are easily impressed by patter however inarticulate.
@lloydholiday
Billionaire "businessman" Glen Taylor owns the influential Minneapolis newspaper. He and his
idiotic neocon editorial board ENDORSED RUBIO just before the Minnesota caucuses. Rubio may
have made secret promises to Taylor, whose cannot possibly separate his many business interests
from Minnesota and national politics. This explanation is as likely any, how the Little Napoleon
won the ONLY state he is going to win, unless Floridians are somehow swayed to raise up a man
toward the Presidency who isn't qualified to be dog catcher.
As usual concise, accurate. Bush and Shrub were phonies in thrall to the Carlyle Group and
their buddies the 'Kingdom' (source and supporter of al-Quaeda) plus the pro-Israeli neocons who
wanted US boots on the ground to protect Israel. The Bush duumvirate played along in this duplicitous
game, which Trump called them on. Enron also played a role: Shrub let them set policy in the Stans
as their consortium sought pipeline rights from the Taliban. Crooks at play in the garden of evil.
It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed
by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant
today in the middle east and beyond.
Mr Stockman apparently has the bad manners to speak the truth. Washington is going to be
PO'd at the blatant disrespect for their BS.
If the GOP disappears, there's always the brain dead Democrats. What we need is an end to both
parties. The best way to accomplish that is to cancel the entirety of the Fed Gov. Just get rid
of all of it. Let the states become countries and compete on the world stage. Let all those holding
Federal paper (the national debt) use it in their bathroom as toilet paper. Cancel the debt -
ignore it - lets start fresh with no central bank and real money based on something that the politicians
can't conjure into existence. I suggest gold and silver as history has shown that they work well.
@bill5 What I never
hear anyone state is that if we had let the Russians alone in Afghanistan this whole mess would
have never happened. Isn't that what originally allowed the Taliban and Obama bin Laden rise to
power? I though Reagan was a great president but made a catastrophic error in aligning with the
islamic insurgents against Russia . The Russians knew a radical Islamic state on their border
would be a problem and the existing Afghan government, an ally of Russia, asked them to help quell
the islamist civil war. The Russians would have ruthlessly eliminated the islamists without worrying
about causing any greenhouse gas emissions or hurting anyones feelings.
@FreeOregon It will
shocked me beyond words if he survives the primaries. Far too much is at stake. In fact, 100 years
of lying, cheating, and thieving, and the wealth it has produced is at stake. The Rothschild Establishment,
centered in London and Tel Aviv, will not sit idly by and watch as their lucrative racket is dismantled
by an up-start politician that cannot be purchased and put under their control.
All true....finally the politicians that have run our country into the ground are exposed
for the puppets of oligarchs they are...it is obvious....both parties, phony conservatives and
liberals alike, are waging war on Trump because he truly threatens the status quo......it's going
to get real ugly now that the powers that be are threatened.....I wouldn't fly to much if I was
Trump from here on in!
"... The "neocons" believe American greatness is measured by our willingness to be a great power-through vast and virtually unlimited global military involvement. Other nations' problems invariably become our own because history and fate have designated America the world's top authority. ..."
"... neoconservatism has always been sold through the narrative of America's "greatness" or "exceptionalism." This is essentially the Republican Party's version of the old liberal notion promoted by President Woodrow Wilson that it is America's mission to "make the world safe for democracy." (meaning for international corporations). Douthat describes Rubio as the "great neoconservative hope" because the freshman senator is seen by the neocon intelligentsia as one of the few reliable Tea Party-oriented spokesman willing to still promote this ideology to the GOP base. I say "still" because many Republicans have begun to question the old neocon foreign policy consensus that dominated Bush's GOP. Douthat puts the neoconservatives' worries and the Republicans' shift into context... ..."
"... Almost to a man they have done everything possible to avoid serving in the military as have their children. ..."
"... The problem with the neoconservatives isn't that they flog American exceptionalism, it's that they aren't really Americans. ..."
"... Your piece leaves out three important threads in understanding neoconservatives. First, the movement was started by and is largely populated by Jews. The so-called "father of the neoconservative movement" was Irving Kristol, the father of William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard. Another prominent founder was Norman Podhoretz, who succeeded the elder Kristol as editor of Commentary. Many of the most prominent neoconservatives are Jewish: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, etc., etc. ..."
"... " For the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting morality. Religion becomes what Plato called a noble lie. It is a myth which is told to the majority of the society by the philosophical elite in order to ensure social order… In being a kind of secretive elitist approach, Straussianism does resemble Marxism. These ex-Marxists, or in some cases ex-liberal Straussians, could see themselves as a kind of Leninist group, you know, who have this covert vision which they want to use to effect change in history, while concealing parts of it from people incapable of understanding it." ..."
"... Neoconservatives started out as Scoop Jackson Democratic Hawks. The several that I know well enough to know their non-war views are pretty much conventional Democrats in that they are pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-immigration, pro-big government. ..."
"... Their shift to the Republicans was tactical when they, led by Richard Perle, got their foot in the door of the Pentagon under Reagan. Under Bush 2, they completed the process and more-or-less took over the DoD. ..."
"... Neocons are mostly Zionist who put Israel interest above that of their country the USA. The majority are chicken hawks who never served a day in the military and have no problem sending other people kids to fight their wars. ..."
"... What's a neoconservative? An unrepentant Trotskyite, who recognized that Marxism wasn't the viable way to take over the world and so now proudly (and openly) pledges allegiance to America but always keeps Israel first in his heart. ..."
"... Exceptional is something I would hope other countries would say about us without having to remind them or ourselves. It's a form of group narcissism to keep bringing it up to convince ourselves our actions are just. ..."
"... What a fascinating article. The last paragraph was particularly smack on. When I spoke to a conservative friend recently, I was inflamed about our hyper-sized military and our overseas adventures as an example of very big government. ..."
"... The only thing I said in response was that he should take his 18 year old son by the arm and require him to sign up for the military to fight the battles he thinks we should be fighting. His response: "but he would rather go to college". I then reminded him that no American soldier has died for my freedom in my lifetime (I am 49 years old). That seemed to rankle him because the neocon argument concerning national defense requires that you buy into the propaganda that these soldiers are fighting for our freedom as a nation. ..."
"... Wish neoconservatism was a philosophy, but its not, only a bait-and-switch sales pitch for the military industrial complex. Since Scoop Jackson, the senator from Boeing, America's political-police-the-world crowd has been the complex's marketing firm. ..."
"... All work to keep the US government spending billions of dollars on mostly irrelevant military items. None seriously care about national defense: that's why no heads rolled when our billion-dollar air defense was helpless to protect the Pentagon against a small group of Muslem fanatics with box cutters. ..."
"... Re "American exceptionalism:" I am sixty-seven years old. When I was a child, my Dad (A Mustang officer), told me that the United States was exceptional for reason that the privileges of aristocracy in Europe were the ordinary civil rights of common equals here. ..."
"... They stand ready to compromise or to countenance disagreement on almost any strictly parochial American social or economic concern, so long as their foreign policy and other "high political" objectives are met. ..."
"... I had forgotten that I saved a copy of a book review by David Gordon that appeared in TAC this past October, entitled "Neoconservatism Defined." Actually, it is a combined review of two books, and it is a pretty good introduction to neoconservatism. http://www.amconmag.com/blog/anatomy-of-neoconservatism/ ..."
"... "Most, though certainly not all, of the leading neocons are Jewish and the defense of Israel is central to their political concerns." ..."
"... The neocons of the second age did not quit the Democratic Party until, after prolonged struggle, they had failed to take it over. They then discovered in the rising popularity of Ronald Reagan a new strategy to advance their goals; but even when Reagan and his aides received them warmly, many found it distinctly against the grain to vote for a Republican. Once they had overcome this aversion, the neocons proved able markedly to expand their political power and influence. Nevertheless, some neocons found Reagan insufficiently militant. For Norman Podhoretz, a literary critic who imagined himself a foreign policy expert, Reagan became an appeaser reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain. "In 1984-85, however, Podhoretz finally lost hope in his champion; he … lamented the president's desire to do whatever it took to present himself to Europeans and above all to American voters as a 'man of peace,' ready to negotiate with the Soviets." ..."
"... The "national greatness" neocons of our day continue the pattern of their second age predecessors in their constant warnings of peril and calls for a militant response. They do not apply the law of unintended consequences to foreign policy: skepticism about the efficacy of government action ends at the doors to the Pentagon." ..."
"... If military hostilities were actually going on in Libya, it certainly would be easy to distinguish between the offensive opponent (all the foreign countries operating under the NATO umbrella and firing all the missiles into Libya and dropping all the bombs on Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi) and the defensive opponent (the Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi, the nominal leader of Libya). ..."
"... What troubles me is that "Neoconservatism" has become mainstream Republicanism. In fact Ronald Reagan was perhaps the first Neocon president. And it looks as if the Tea Party has been hijacked by Palin, Bachmann and Rubio et al . Trying to change the Republican party from within simply will not work -- for Neocons don't just control the Republican party, they ARE the Republican party. We need a third party that overtly champions fiscal and social conservatism and international isolationism as its three main pillars! ..."
"... Gil, the GOP leadership may be neocon, but the grassroots are more or less non-interventionist. We see the same split on immigration. I think its too early to give up on the party. ..."
"... In 2011, a neoconservative is the person who always answers yes to the question "Are Israel's objectives always more important than the objectives of the USA?" ..."
"... They all believe in projecting US military might in order to foster democracy overseas. They ultimately seem to care more about the welfare of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq and, Afghanistan than the United States. ..."
"... What bothers me is what we consider "mainstream" conservatism today in the form of talk radio, Rush, and others is basically a neconservative movement. ..."
"... It never ceases to amazes me why any true conservative would go any where near a member of the Bush administration and yet Sean has Rove and others on his show routinely when a case can be made that they should stand trial for being responsible for the abuse of those detainees. I have been student of the Holocaust my entire life and to see some of the circumstances of pre war Germany unfold in front of me, the "we have to take these steps in the name of defending the country" the dehumanizing of the muslims which made it easy to justify torturing them, it is all so very scary. ..."
This is a jingoistic political ideology of the Us elite preached by Killary and characterized
by an emphasis on free-market capitalism and an interventionist foreign policy.
The "neocons" believe American greatness is measured by our willingness to be a great power-through
vast and virtually unlimited global military involvement. Other nations' problems invariably become
our own because history and fate have designated America the world's top authority.
Critics say the US cannot afford to be the world's policeman. Neoconservatives not only say that
we can but we must-and that we will cease to be America if we don't. Writes Boston Globe neoconservative
columnist Jeff Jacoby: "Our world needs a policeman. And whether most Americans like it or not, only
their indispensable nation is fit for the job." Neocon intellectual Max Boot says explicitly that
the US should be the world's policeman because we are the best policeman.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) heartily champions the neoconservative view.
...neoconservatism has always been sold through the narrative of America's "greatness" or "exceptionalism."
This is essentially the Republican Party's version of the old liberal notion promoted by President
Woodrow Wilson that it is America's mission to "make the world safe for democracy." (meaning for
international corporations). Douthat describes Rubio as the "great neoconservative hope" because
the freshman senator is seen by the neocon intelligentsia as one of the few reliable Tea Party-oriented
spokesman willing to still promote this ideology to the GOP base. I say "still" because many Republicans
have begun to question the old neocon foreign policy consensus that dominated Bush's GOP. Douthat
puts the neoconservatives' worries and the Republicans' shift into context...
...But this has always been the neocon ruse-if neoconservatives can convince others that fighting
some war, somewhere is for America's actual defense, they will always make this argument and stretch
any logic necessary to do so. Whether or not it is true is less important than its effectiveness.
But their arguments are only a means to an end. Neoconservatives rarely show any reflection-much
less regret-for foreign policy mistakes because for them there are no foreign policy mistakes. America's
wars are valid by their own volition. America's "mission" is its missions. Writes Max Boot: "Why
should America take on the thankless task of policing the globe… As long as evil exists, someone
will have to protect peaceful people from predators."
Neoconservatives are primarily socially liberal hawks. Almost to a man they have done everything
possible to avoid serving in the military as have their children. Next to liberals they are the
greatest danger to our country.
Re "American exceptionalism". I thought America was exceptional until it started acting like any
old cynical, corrupt, doomed empire. It's silly to go about boasting of your exceptionalism even
as you repeat every hackneyed error of your predecessors, and trade your true character for a
handful of dust.
The problem with the neoconservatives isn't that they flog American exceptionalism, it's that
they aren't really Americans.
In 2011, a neoconservative is the person who always answers yes to the question "Are Israel's
objectives always more important than the objectives of the USA?"
Folks will say this is unfair and a gross distortion of reality, if not in fact a bigoted assertion,
but can you name any current neoconservative who is oppossed to US support for Israel? Or even
just wants tosee it reduced a bit. I suspect not.
On domestic issues, there's a greater range of variation across the neocon spectrum, but, unlike
the case back in the middle 70s when we first began to hear of this troubling new breed of political
apostates in the making, it's clear that foreign policy is of much greater importance to the neocons
than is domestic policy.
By the middle eastern sympathiesyou shall know them.
"My father suggested to me recently that it might be helpful to better explain what the term "neoconservative"
means. "A lot of people don't know," he said. As usual, Dad was right."
One of those people who didn't know what a "neoconservative" was is our former President, George
W. Bush. I remember reading somewhere that, when he was running for President in the late 90's,
George W. asked his father what a neoconservative was, and George H. W. replied that he had only
to remember one word to understand what a neoconservative was: Israel.
Your piece leaves out three important threads in understanding neoconservatives. First,
the movement was started by and is largely populated by Jews. The so-called "father of the neoconservative
movement" was Irving Kristol, the father of William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard.
Another prominent founder was Norman Podhoretz, who succeeded the elder Kristol as editor of Commentary.
Many of the most prominent neoconservatives are Jewish: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton,
etc., etc.
Secondly, the roots of neoconservatism traces back to very liberal political leanings, bordering
on socialism and even communism. The elder Kristol was a Trotskyite into his 20's. That would
explain their tendency to favor a strong central government, which, of course, allows them to
exert their influence more effectively despite their small numbers. It is also consistent with
the views of Leo Strauss, one of the great intellectual shapers of neoconservatism. According
to an account by a former neoconservative:
" For the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting morality. Religion becomes
what Plato called a noble lie. It is a myth which is told to the majority of the society by the
philosophical elite in order to ensure social order… In being a kind of secretive elitist approach,
Straussianism does resemble Marxism. These ex-Marxists, or in some cases ex-liberal Straussians,
could see themselves as a kind of Leninist group, you know, who have this covert vision which
they want to use to effect change in history, while concealing parts of it from people incapable
of understanding it."
Thirdly, as evidenced by the George H.W. Bush comment above, a strong underlying belief that
seems to unite the neoconservatives is in the perceived need, above all, to make the world safe
for Israel.
Great piece Jack! Neoconservatives started out as Scoop Jackson Democratic Hawks. The several
that I know well enough to know their non-war views are pretty much conventional Democrats in
that they are pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-immigration, pro-big government.
Their shift to the Republicans
was tactical when they, led by Richard Perle, got their foot in the door of the Pentagon under
Reagan. Under Bush 2, they completed the process and more-or-less took over the DoD.
I expect
they are now triangulating frantically to determine if it in their best interests to remain nominally
Republicans or to slowly drift back to their natural habitat in the Democratic Party.
Neocons are mostly Zionist who put Israel interest above that of their country the USA. The
majority are chicken hawks who never served a day in the military and have no problem sending
other people kids to fight their wars.
let us not forget the distinction of constitutional authority for past interventions and the "now
in violation of the war powers act" Lybian effort. Those who call themselves conservatives, neo-con
or otherwise would do well to refer to their pocket constitution they claim to follow and carry.
Criticism of fellow party members who constitutionally oppose these interventions employ the same
hate-mongering tactics of the left. Silence the opposition at any cost and never stop feeding
the federal leviathan. Thanks to Church and Wilkow for the education.
What's a neoconservative? An unrepentant Trotskyite, who recognized that Marxism wasn't the viable
way to take over the world and so now proudly (and openly) pledges allegiance to America but always
keeps Israel first in his heart.
Exceptional is something I would hope other countries would say about us without having to
remind them or ourselves. It's a form of group narcissism to keep bringing it up to convince ourselves
our actions are just.
How about some American humility? More Gary Cooper and less Richard Simmons.
What a fascinating article. The last paragraph was particularly smack on. When I spoke to
a conservative friend recently, I was inflamed about our hyper-sized military and our overseas
adventures as an example of very big government.
The kind that he, as a conservative, should oppose. His retort, of course, was that national
security is one of the constitutional purposes of our government. There it is. This friend really
thinks that Iraq, Libya, our 1000's of bases all over the world, is what national defense is all
about. With his argument, there is literally no limit to the size of the military or the scope
of its mission. The neocons have defined it that way.
The only thing I said in response was that
he should take his 18 year old son by the arm and require him to sign up for the military to fight
the battles he thinks we should be fighting. His response: "but he would rather go to college".
I then reminded him that no American soldier has died for my freedom in my lifetime (I am 49 years
old). That seemed to rankle him because the neocon argument concerning national defense requires
that you buy into the propaganda that these soldiers are fighting for our freedom as a nation.
Wish neoconservatism was a philosophy, but its not, only a bait-and-switch sales pitch for
the military industrial complex. Since Scoop Jackson, the senator from Boeing, America's political-police-the-world
crowd has been the complex's marketing firm.
All work to keep the US government spending billions of dollars on mostly irrelevant military
items. None seriously care about national defense: that's why no heads rolled when our billion-dollar
air defense was helpless to protect the Pentagon against a small group of Muslem fanatics with
box cutters.
Worse, the military industrial complex will be entrenched until serious elected officials,
in the tradition of Dwight Eisenhower, create a peacetime economy to replace our warfare state.
Until then, too much money, too many jobs in America depend on the complex.
Re "American exceptionalism:" I am sixty-seven years old. When I was a child, my Dad (A
Mustang officer), told me that the United States was exceptional for reason that the privileges
of aristocracy in Europe were the ordinary civil rights of common equals here.
If I believe in "national greatness," by that I mean a nation of great- soul people,
the kind Aristotle calls megalopsychic .
"On domestic issues, there's a greater range of variation across the neocon spectrum,"
True, but then domestic issues cause a dull glaze to form over neoconservative eyes. They stand
ready to compromise or to countenance disagreement on almost any strictly parochial American social
or economic concern, so long as their foreign policy and other "high political" objectives are
met.
Revolutions are internal matters of a country … the revolution in Gypto was successful internally
… people were not killed, cities were not bombed, war was not raged, outside countries didn't
send their forces … whatever was done … it was within the country and by the people … without
outside support … that's a revolution.
Look at the massacre they are carrying out in Tibby … you call that a revolution man … you
call that an operation for the people?
Strictly speaking, a neoconservative, is a member of the traditional FDR coalition (unions, minorities
– including Catholics, Jews and African Americans, even Southern whites) who flipped to the Republican
party and some element of conservative ideology back in the 1970s. As a former FDR Democrat, Ronald
Reagan had elements of neoconservatism in his past.
And social liberalism is far from neocon orthodoxy. People like Gertrude Himmelfarb and John
Neuhaus were at the forefront of neoconservatism. Jeane Kirpatrick, by no means a wobbly or wimpy
neoconservative, had roots in socialist activism together with Irving Kristol and the like. Indeed,
losing its conservative moral sensibilities helped drive the Democratic Party mad.
It is only relatively recently that a few – but hardly all – Boom generation neocons such as
David Frum and David Brooks also contracted the same form of mental illness. Otherwise, this group
has become largely indistinguishable from the Republican mainstream, which draws its roots from
Roosevelt, Lincoln, Henry Clay and Alexander Hamilton.
Of course, with the onset of southern neocons with states rights and libertarian ideology,
the demographic advances of the GOP in the late 20th century imported Civil War divisions into
the party, a theme that Kevin Phillips has – sadistically – played upon. Still, one might well
say that there is nothing wrong with neoconservatism except for its detractors. Down with the
Traitor. Up with the Star.
A "great" power can be and is often less than a "good" power. So, the Neoconservatives manifesto
mandates foreign policy from the top – down! Who then, is there that stands – up for and represents,"We
the People"?
I had forgotten that I saved a copy of a book review by David Gordon that appeared in TAC
this past October, entitled "Neoconservatism Defined." Actually, it is a combined review of two
books, and it is a pretty good introduction to neoconservatism.
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/anatomy-of-neoconservatism/
In the course of the review, Gordon makes the following observation:
"Most, though certainly not all, of the leading neocons are Jewish and the defense of Israel
is central to their political concerns."
One of the books concentrates on the intellectual founder of neoconservatism, Leo Strauss,
and the review makes some consise observations about him.
David Gordon's book review also contains the following observations:
"No one who absorbs Vaďsse's discussion of this second age can harbor any illusions about whether
the neocons count as genuine conservatives. [Senator Henry] Jackson made no secret of his statist
views of domestic policy, but this did not in the least impede his neocons allies from enlisting
in his behalf.
Vaďsse by the way understates Jackson's commitment to socialism, which dated from
his youth. Contrary to what our author suggests, the League for Industrial Democracy, which Jackson
joined while in college, was not "a moderate organization that backed unions and democratic principles."
It was a socialist youth movement that aimed to propagate socialism to the public.
It was not Jackson's domestic policy, though, that principally drew the necons to him. They
had an elective affinity for the pursuit of the Cold War. Vaďsse stresses in particular that they
collaborated with Paul Nitze and other Cold War hawks. In a notorious incident, "Team B," under
the control of the hawks, claimed that CIA estimates of Russian armaments were radically understated.
It transpired that the alarms of Team B were baseless; they nevertheless served their purpose
in promoting a bellicose foreign policy.
The neocons of the second age did not quit the Democratic Party until, after prolonged struggle,
they had failed to take it over. They then discovered in the rising popularity of Ronald Reagan
a new strategy to advance their goals; but even when Reagan and his aides received them warmly,
many found it distinctly against the grain to vote for a Republican. Once they had overcome this
aversion, the neocons proved able markedly to expand their political power and influence. Nevertheless,
some neocons found Reagan insufficiently militant. For Norman Podhoretz, a literary critic who
imagined himself a foreign policy expert, Reagan became an appeaser reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain.
"In 1984-85, however, Podhoretz finally lost hope in his champion; he … lamented the president's
desire to do whatever it took to present himself to Europeans and above all to American voters
as a 'man of peace,' ready to negotiate with the Soviets."
The "national greatness" neocons of our day continue the pattern of their second age predecessors
in their constant warnings of peril and calls for a militant response. They do not apply the law
of unintended consequences to foreign policy: skepticism about the efficacy of government action
ends at the doors to the Pentagon."
"U.S. troops would enforce peace under Army study"
Excerpt:
The exercise was done by 60 officers dubbed "Jedi Knights," as all second-year SAMS students
are nicknamed.
The SAMS paper attempts to predict events in the first year of a peace-enforcement operation,
and sees possible dangers for U.S. troops from both sides.
It calls Israel's armed forces a "500-pound gorilla in Israel. Well armed and trained. Operates
in both Gaza and the West Bank. Known to disregard international law to accomplish mission. Very
unlikely to fire on American forces. Fratricide a concern especially in air space management."
Of the MOSSAD, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers say: "Wildcard. Ruthless
and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act."
This would have had some point 200 years ago. Unfortunately, cannon now shoot more than three miles,
the 3 mile limit on national sovereignty is obsolete. You cannot distinguish between an offensive
and defensive opponent.
"You cannot distinguish between an offensive and defensive opponent."
If military hostilities were actually going on in Libya, it certainly would be easy to distinguish
between the offensive opponent (all the foreign countries operating under the NATO umbrella and
firing all the missiles into Libya and dropping all the bombs on Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi)
and the defensive opponent (the Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi, the nominal leader of Libya).
Nice article! I believe that what constitutes a neoconservative has changed over the years. Sure,
in an academic sense, a "neoconservative" is someone who might have supported Scoop Jackson in
Washington or Strauss at U of Chicago in the 70's- in essence, someone with democratic roots who
became more hawkish on foreign policy.
However, most conservative pundits- Rush, Hannity, Beck,
etc, support projecting US power in order to achieve Democracy overseas. As do Bachmann, Palin,
Romney, Gingrich, Boener, Perry and most other establishment Republicans.
They all supported war
in Afghanistan and Iraq, all support Saudi Arabia, Israel, Kuwait, Bahrain, and big oil, and all
fundamentally decry any attempt to cut the US military budget.
What troubles me is that "Neoconservatism"
has become mainstream Republicanism. In fact Ronald Reagan was perhaps the first Neocon president.
And it looks as if the Tea Party has been hijacked by Palin, Bachmann and Rubio et al . Trying
to change the Republican party from within simply will not work -- for Neocons don't just control
the Republican party, they ARE the Republican party. We need a third party that overtly champions
fiscal and social conservatism and international isolationism as its three main pillars!
Gil, the GOP leadership may be neocon, but the grassroots are more or less non-interventionist.
We see the same split on immigration. I think its too early to give up on the party.
By the way, I don't consider RR a neocon President. Along with Eisenhower, he was the most
non interventionist prez in recent history.
WE HAVE A WINNER!;
'Steve, on June 23rd, 2011 at 11:10 am Said:
Oh, come on guys.
In 2011, a neoconservative is the person who always answers yes to the question "Are Israel's
objectives always more important than the objectives of the USA?"
Sure, much of the grassroots is non-interventionist, although many, many Evangelicals support
the Likud party in Israel for biblical reasons, and those Republicans who listen regularly to
Neocons like Hannity and Limbaugh and Dennis Miller, or watch Krauthammer, Kristol and O'Reilly
are influenced to support an interventionist foreign policy. Here is the problem! How can you
change the Republican party from within when the Tea Party Caucus is headed by an interventionist
Neocon like Michelle Bachmann?
Ronald Reagan was a semi-isolationist. Except, of course, for bombing Libya, stationing troops
in Lebanon, and docking the 6th fleet in Israel. Sorry, I know many people consider him a saint,
and on both fiscal and social issues he was wonderful. But let's face it- Reagan was a former
democratic Union head who became a conservative later on in life and projected US power overseas
when it wasn't necessary. A Neocon? At least 75%
A neoconservative as an actual social phenomenon – free from intellectual definition – is from the
social upheaval of the 'spirit of the 60's'. With all their socialism and revolution against white-western-protestant
civilization.
You are fundamentally correct with respect to the origins of most Neoconservative "intellectuals."
However, definitions morph and change over time until their origins become so cloudy as to be
practically irrelevant. Let's get real - how many young people know that Bill Kristol's dad used
to be a Socialist? How many people even know who Bill Kristol is or Scoop Jackson was?
Ultimately one can only judge people by their actions. And, in my definition, anyone who ACTS
like a Neoconservative- or puts others in harm's way in order to further their expansionist aims-
IS a Neoconservative.
And we will never win our battle against the Neoconservatives unless we
call things as they are, without getting bogged down in biographical details about people and
philosophers who nobody ever hears about. So, while David Frum, Bill Kristol, Sean Hannity, Rush
Limbaugh, Lindsay Graham Michelle Bachmann and just about every modern republican congressman
or senator or conservative think tank member inside the Washington Beltway may never have been
hippies in the 60's, and almost all can claim to have been lifelong conservatives, 99% are Neoconservatives
because their ACTIONS define who they are.
They all believe in projecting US military might in
order to foster democracy overseas. They ultimately seem to care more about the welfare of Israel,
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq and, Afghanistan than the United States.
What bothers me is what we consider "mainstream" conservatism today in the form of talk radio,
Rush, and others is basically a neconservative movement.
What I would consider true conservatism
you find here in TAC and also in the Libertarian publications like Reason and Liberty but the
reach of talk radio and the neocon blogs seems to be far greater than that of real conservatives
and the neocons appear to be setting the agenda these days. It is nothing short of appalling isn't
it to see "conservatives" defending torture and the secret prisons run under the Bush administration,
all in the name of "defending" the country.
It never ceases to amazes me why any true conservative
would go any where near a member of the Bush administration and yet Sean has Rove and others on
his show routinely when a case can be made that they should stand trial for being responsible
for the abuse of those detainees. I have been student of the Holocaust my entire life and to see
some of the circumstances of pre war Germany unfold in front of me, the "we have to take these
steps in the name of defending the country" the dehumanizing of the muslims which made it easy
to justify torturing them, it is all so very scary.
"... Clinton bigotry against working with inconvenient facts. Read applicable US code one for security, one for federal records, Clinton gets away with calling law that protect security as 'spin'. ..."
The burgeoning neolib dog whistle "alt-right" is short for "a$$hole who thinks Clinton should
go to jail for 1000 times the misconduct that would get that a$$hole 10 years hard time".
Neoliberals use the term "alt-right" as shorthand for those who don't drink the Clinton neocon
Kool-Aid.
The bigotry of warmongering neoliberals against anyone who disagrees. There isn't enough fascism
going around?
Clinton bigotry against working with inconvenient facts. Read applicable US code one for security,
one for federal records, Clinton gets away with calling law that protect security as 'spin'.
ilsm -> Paine... , -1
The 'soft bigotry of GLBT and war for fascist allies' types criticizing racists' morals.
ilsm -> anne... , -1
In the same category as Brooks and Friedman. I regard Dowd better!
"... The Elites have successfully revolted against the political and economic constraints on their wealth and power, and now the unprivileged, unprotected non-Elites are rebelling in the only way left open to them: voting for anyone who claims to be outside the privileged Elites that dominate our society and economy. ..."
The Elites have successfully revolted against the political and economic constraints on their
wealth and power.
Ours is an
Age of Fracture (the 2011 book by Daniel Rodgers) in which "earlier notions of history and society
that stressed solidity, collective institutions, and social circumstances gave way to a more individualized
human nature that emphasized choice, agency, performance, and desire."
A society that is fragmenting into cultural groups that are themselves fracturing into smaller
units of temporary and highly contingent solidarity is ideal for Elites bent on maintaining political
and financial control.
A society that has fragmented into a media-fed cultural war of hot-button identity-gender-religious
politics is a society that is incapable of resisting concentrations of power and wealth in the hands
of the few at the expense of the many.
If we set aside the authentic desire of individuals for equal rights and cultural liberation and
examine the political and financial ramifications of social fragmentation, we come face to face with
Christopher Lasch's insightful analysis on
The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy (1996 book).
"The new elites, the professional classes in particular, regard the masses with mingled scorn
and apprehension.... Middle Americans, as they appear to the makers of educated opinion, are hopelessly
shabby, unfashionable, and provincial, ill informed about changes in taste or intellectual trends,
addicted to trashy novels of romance and adventure, and stupefied by prolonged exposure to television.
They are at once absurd and vaguely menacing."
Extreme concentrations of wealth and power are incompatible with democracy, as Elites buy political
influence and promote cultural narratives that distract the citizenry with emotionally charged issues.
A focus on individual liberation from all constraints precludes an awareness of common economic-political
interests beyond the narrow boundaries of fragmenting culturally defined identities.
In a society stripped of broad-based social contracts and narratives that focus on the structural
forces dismantling democracy and social mobility, the Elites have a free hand to consolidate their
own personal wealth and power and use those tools to further fragment any potential political resistance
to their dominance.
The Elites have successfully revolted against the political and economic constraints on their
wealth and power, and now the unprivileged, unprotected non-Elites are rebelling in the only way
left open to them: voting for anyone who claims to be outside the privileged Elites that dominate
our society and economy.
The
Connecting the Dots series has convincingly shown a number of interconnected
reasons why the global system is in crisis, and why there is no way out without
a structural transformation of the dominant neoliberal system. In our contribution,
we want to stress the key importance of what we call a "value regime," or simply
put, the rules that determine what society and the economy consider to be of
value. We must first look at the underlying modes of production - i.e. how value
is created and distributed - and then construct solutions must that help create
these changes in societal values. The emerging answer for a new mode of value
creation is the re-emergence of the Commons.
With the growing awareness of the vulnerability of the planet and its people
in the face of the systemic crises created by late-stage capitalism, we need
to ready the alternatives and begin creating the next system now. To do so,
we need a full understanding of the current context and its characteristics.
In our view, the dominant political economy has three fatal flaws.
Pseudo-Abundance
The first is the characteristic need for the capitalist system to engage
in continuous capital accumulation and growth. We could call this pseudo-abundance,
i.e. the fundamental article of faith, or unconscious assumption, that the natural
world's resources are infinite. Capitalism creates a systemic ecological crisis
marked by the overuse and depletion of natural resources, endangering the balance
of the environment (biodiversity extinction, climate change, etc).
Scarcity Engineering
The second characteristic of capitalism is that it requires scarce commodities
that are subject to a tension between supply and demand. Scarcity engineering
is what we call this continuous attempt to undo natural abundance where it occurs.
Capitalism creates markets by the systemic re-engineering of potentially or
naturally abundant resources into scarce resources. We see this happening with
natural resources in the
development of "terminator seeds" that undo the seeds' natural regeneration
process. Crucially, we also see this in the creation of artificial scarcity
mechanisms for human culture and knowledge. "Intellectual property" is imposed
in more and more areas, privatizing common knowledge in order to create artificial
commodities and rents that create profits for a privileged "creator class."
These first two characteristics are related and reinforce each other, as
the problems created by pseudo-abundance are made quite difficult to solve due
to the privatization of the very knowledge required to solve them. This makes
solving major ecological problems dependent on the ability of this privatized
knowledge to create profits. It has been shown that the patenting of technologies
results in a systemic slowdown of technical and scientific innovation, while
un-patenting technologies accelerates innovation. A good
recent example of this "patent lag" effect is the extraordinary growth of
3D printing, once the technology
lost its patents.
Perpetually Increasing Social Injustice
The third major characteristic is the increased inequality in the distribution
of value, i.e. perpetually increasing social injustice.
As Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century shows us,
the logic of capital is to concentrate more and more wealth into fewer hands
through compound interest, rent seeking, purchasing legislation, etc. Our current
set of rules are hardwired to increase inequality and injustice.
Any society that tolerates this systemic exploitation and corruption as "business as usual"
is not just sick--it's hopeless.
In noting that our society is sick, our economy exploitive and our politics corrupt, I'm not
saying anything you didn't already know. Everyone who isn't being paid to deny the obvious in
public (while fuming helplessly about the phony cheerleading in private) knows that our society is
a layer-cake of pathologies, our economy little more than institutionalized racketeering and our
politics a corrupt auction-house of pay-for-play, influence-peddling, money-grubbing and brazen pandering
for votes.
The fantasy promoted by do-gooders and PR hacks alike is that this corrupt system can be reformed
with a few minor policy tweaks. If you want a brief but thorough explanation of
Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform, please take a look at my book (link above).
If you want an example of how the status quo has failed and is beyond reform, it's instructive
to examine the pharmaceutical industry, which includes biotech corporations, specialty pharmaceutical
firms and the global corporate giants known as Big Pharma.
I hope it won't come as too great a surprise that the pharmaceutical industry isn't about cures
or helping needy people--it's about profits. As a Big Pharma CEO reported in a brief moment of
truthfulness,
We're in Business
of Shareholder Profit, Not Helping the Sick
Here's an excerpt from the article:
"Already this year, Valeant has increased the price of 56 of the drugs in its portfolio
an average of 66 percent, highlighted by their recent acquisition, Zegerid, which they promptly
raised 550 percent. Not only does this have the unfortunate side effect of placing the price of
life-saving drugs out of reach for even moderately-insured people, but it has now begun to call
into question the sustainability of this rapidly-spreading business model.
Since being named CEO in 2008, Valeant has acquired more than 100 drugs and seen their stock
price rise more than 1,000 percent with Pearson at the helm."
"... But the party's latest generation of "New Democrats" - self-described "moderates" who are funded by Wall Street and are aggressively trying to steer the party to the right - have noticed this trend and are now fighting back. Third Way, a "centrist" think tank that serves as the hub for contemporary New Democrats, has recently published a sizable policy paper, " Ready for the New Economy ," urging the Democratic Party to avoid focusing on economic inequality. Former Obama chief of staff Bill Daley, a Third Way trustee, recently argued that Sanders' influence on the primary "is a recipe for disaster" for Democrats. ..."
"... The DLC's goal was to advance "a message that was less tilted toward minorities and welfare, less radical on social issues like abortion and gays, more pro-defense, and more conservative on economic issues," wrote Robert Dreyfuss in a 2001 article in The American Prospect . "The DLC thundered against the 'liberal fundamentalism' of the party's base - unionists, blacks, feminists, Greens, and cause groups generally." ..."
"... Within the DLC, populism was not merely out of favor; it was militantly opposed. The organization had virtually no grassroots supporters; it was funded almost entirely by corporate donors. Its executive council, Dreyfuss reported , was made up of companies that donated at least $25,000 and included Enron and Koch Industries. A list of its known donors includes scores of the United States' most powerful corporations, all of whom benefit from a Democratic Party that embraces big business and is less reliant on labor unions and the grassroots for support. ..."
"... The height of the DLC's triumph may well have been in the 1990s, when it claimed President Bill Clinton as its most prominent advocate, celebrating his disastrous welfare cuts (which were supported by Hillary Clinton as the first lady), his support for the North American Free Trade Agreement and his speech declaring that the "era of big government is over." These initiatives had the DLC's footprint all over them. ..."
"... The DLC's prescribed Third Way also found a home on Downing Street in England. Tony Blair, a major Clinton ally, was a staunch advocate of the DLC, adopted its strategies and lent his name to its website. According to the book Clinton and Blair: The Political Economy of the Third Way , he said in 1998 that it "is a third way because it moves decisively beyond an Old Left preoccupied by state control, high taxation and producer interests." ..."
"... When Bill Clinton left the White House, Hillary Clinton entered the Senate. She quickly became a major player for the DLC, serving as a prominent member of the New Democratic Caucus in the Senate, speaking at conferences on multiple occasions and serving as chair of a key initiative for the 2006 and 2008 elections. ..."
"... She also adopted the DLC's hawkish military stance. The DLC was feverishly in favor of Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. Will Marshall, one of the group's founders, was a signatory of many of the now infamous documents from the Project for the New American Century, which urged the United States to radically increase its use of force in Iraq and beyond. ..."
"... The DLC led efforts to take down Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq as an example of his weakness. Two years later, the organization played a similar role against Ned Lamont's antiwar challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman, which the DLC decried as "The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism." ..."
"... However, the DLC's influence eventually waned . A formal affiliation with the organization became something of a deal breaker for some progressive voters. When Barack Obama first ran for the Senate in 2004, he had no affiliation with the DLC. So, when they wrongly included him in their directory of New Democrats, he asked the DLC to remove his name. In explaining this, he also publicly shunned the organization in an interview with Black Commentator. "You are undoubtedly correct that these positions make me an unlikely candidate for membership in the DLC," he wrote when pressed by the magazine . "That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC." ..."
"... When the DLC closed, it records were acquired by the Clinton Foundation, which DLC founder Al From called an "appropriate and fitting repository." To this day, the Clinton Foundation continues to promote the work of the DLC's founding members. In September 2015, the foundation hosted an event to promote From's book The New Democrats and the Return to Power ..."
"... Citizens United ..."
"... So while the DLC may be a dirty word among many progressives, this didn't stop Obama from appointing New Democrats to key posts in his White House. The same Bill Daley who works for a hedge fund and is on the board of trustees for Third Way was also President Obama's White House chief of staff . And, as was noted above, he is now actively trying to influence the Democratic Party's direction in the 2016 election. ..."
"... The remaining champions of the DLC agenda have been increasingly active in trying to push back against populism. On October 28, 2015, Third Way published an ambitious paper, "Ready for the New Economy," that aims to do just that. The paper falsely argues that "the narrative of fairness and inequality has, to put it mildly, failed to excite voters," and says "these trends should compel the party to rigorously question the electoral value of today's populist agenda." ..."
"... When Clinton announced her tax plan, Dow Jones quoted Jim Kessler, a Third Way staffer, praising the plan. On social media , Third Way staffers are routinely cheering on Clinton and attacking Sanders and O'Malley . ..."
"... and where she will be ..."
"... Consider the case of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor and presidential candidate, who has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president . Dean's reputation as a fiery progressive has always been wildly overstated , but there was a rich irony about Dean's endorsement. His centrist record aside, Dean was once the face of the party's progressive base. During his campaign for the Democratic nomination in 2003 and 2004, Dean used his opposition to the war in Iraq to garner progressive support. He attracted a large group of partisan liberal bloggers, who coined the term "Netroots" in support of his candidacy . For a time, Dean was leading in the polls during the primary. ..."
"... Remember: The Dean campaign was taken down by the DLC, who attacked him for running a campaign from the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the Democratic Party, "defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home." The rift between the DLC and Dean's supporters was so intense that Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas described it as a "civil war" between Democrats. Of course, when Dean announced his support for Clinton, he made no mention of the fact that she was the leader of the same group that ambushed his candidacy precisely because it appealed to the party's left-leaning base. ..."
"... The tendency of some progressives to downplay, ignore or deflect populist critiques of Clinton's record was observed by Doug Henwood in his 2014 Harper's piece "Stop Hillary." ..."
"... In the article, he describes the "widespread liberal fantasy of [Clinton] as a progressive paragon" as misguided. "In fact, a close look at her life and career is perhaps the best antidote to all these great expectations," Henwood writes. "The historical record, such as it is, may also be the only antidote, since most progressives are unwilling to discuss Hillary in anything but the most general, flattering terms." ..."
A discussion about how the Democrats could be compromised by their relationship with the
financial institutions that fund their campaigns was unthinkable in past presidential debates.
Such a discussion falls way outside the narrow parameters of debate that have dominated political
discourse in the mainstream media for decades. But at the
Democratic
debate in Iowa this November, this issue was front and center: Hillary Clinton was forced to
defend her financial relationship with Wall Street
numerous times on network television.
Within the DLC, populism was not merely out of favor; it was militantly opposed.
Clinton's response to populist attacks on her Wall Street connections has largely been to adopt
similar language and policy positions as her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders. In many ways she is
trying to minimize the differences between her and Sanders, rather than emphasize them. "The differences
among us," she said of her opponents at the
Iowa debate , "pale in comparison to what's happening on the Republican [side]."
But the party's latest generation of
"New Democrats" - self-described
"moderates" who
are funded by Wall Street and are aggressively trying to steer the party to the right - have
noticed this trend and are now fighting back. Third Way, a "centrist" think tank that serves as the
hub for contemporary New Democrats, has recently published a sizable policy paper, "
Ready for the
New Economy ," urging the Democratic Party to avoid focusing on economic inequality. Former Obama
chief of staff Bill Daley, a Third Way trustee, recently
argued that Sanders' influence on the primary "is a recipe for disaster" for Democrats.
This "ideological gulf" inside the party, as The Washington Post's
Ruth Marcus describes it , is not a new phenomenon. Before there was Third Way, there was the
Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). And before there was Bill Daley, there was Hillary Clinton -
a key member of the
DLC's leadership team during her entire tenure in the US Senate (2000-2008). As Clinton seeks
progressive support, it is important to consider her role in the influential movement to, as
The American Prospect describes
it , "reinvent the [Democratic] party as one pledged to fiscal restraint, less government, and
a pro-business, pro-free market outlook." This fairly recent history is an important part of Clinton's
record, and she owes it to primary voters to answer for it.
But before all of these events shaped public opinion, the party was largely guided by the ideas
of the Democratic Leadership Council.
Founded by Southern Democrats in 1985 , the group sought to transform the party by pushing it
to embrace more conservative positions and win support from big business.
Clinton adopted the DLC strategy in the way she governed.
The DLC's goal was to advance "a message that was less tilted toward minorities and welfare, less
radical on social issues like abortion and gays, more pro-defense, and more conservative on economic
issues," wrote Robert Dreyfuss in a 2001
article in The American Prospect
. "The DLC thundered against the 'liberal fundamentalism' of the party's base - unionists, blacks,
feminists, Greens, and cause groups generally."
Within the DLC, populism was not merely out of favor; it was militantly opposed. The organization
had virtually no grassroots supporters; it was funded almost entirely by corporate donors. Its executive
council, Dreyfuss reported
, was made up of companies that donated at least $25,000 and included Enron and Koch Industries.
A list of its known donors includes scores of the United States' most powerful corporations, all
of whom benefit from a Democratic Party that embraces big business and is less reliant on labor unions
and the grassroots for support.
The organization's influence was significant, especially in the 1990s. The New York Times
reported
that during that era "the Democratic Leadership Council was a maker of presidents." Its influence
continued into the post-Clinton years. Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt
and countless others all
lent their names in support of the organization. The DLC and its think tank, the
Progressive Policy Institute (PPI),
were well financed and published a seemingly endless barrage of
policy papers , op-eds
and declarations
in their numerous publications.
"It is almost hard to find anyone who wasn't involved with [the DLC]" said Mark Schmitt, a staffer
for the nonpartisan New America Foundation think tank, in an interview with Truthout. "This was before
there were a lot of organizations, and the DLC provided a way for politicians to get involved and
to be in the same room with important people."
The DLC's prescribed Third Way also
found a home on Downing
Street in England. Tony Blair, a major Clinton ally, was a staunch advocate of the DLC,
adopted its strategies and lent
his name to its website. According to the book Clinton and Blair: The Political Economy of the
Third Way ,
he said in 1998 that it "is a third way because it moves decisively beyond an Old Left preoccupied
by state control, high taxation and producer interests."
As recently as 2014, Blair has continued to urge the UK's Labour Party to remain committed to
these ideals. "Former UK prime minister Tony Blair has urged Labour leader Ed Miliband to stick to
the political centre ground, warning that the public has not 'fallen back in love with the state'
despite the global financial crisis,"
according to the Financial Times , which noted that the left-wing base of his party has rejected
his centrist leanings. "His decision as prime minister to join the US in its invasion of Iraq - as
well as his free-market leanings - have made him a
hate figure among the most leftwing Labour activists."
Hillary Clinton as a New Democrat
When Bill Clinton left the White House, Hillary Clinton entered the Senate. She quickly became
a major player for the DLC, serving as a
prominent member of
the New Democratic Caucus in the Senate, speaking at
conferences
on multiple occasions
and serving as
chair of a key initiative for the 2006 and 2008 elections.
New Democrats were never really about popular support; they were about bringing together big
business and the Democrats.
More importantly, Clinton adopted the DLC strategy in the way she governed. She tried to portray
herself as a crusader for family values when she
introduced legislation to ban violent video games and
flag burning in 2005.
She also
adopted the DLC's hawkish military stance. The DLC was feverishly in favor of Bush's "war on
terror" and his invasion of Iraq. Will Marshall, one of the group's founders, was a signatory of
many of the now infamous
documents from the Project for the New American Century, which urged the United States to radically
increase its use of force in Iraq and beyond.
The DLC led efforts to take down Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign, citing his opposition
to the war in Iraq as an example of his weakness. Two years later, the organization played a
similar role against
Ned Lamont's antiwar challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman, which the DLC decried as
"The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism."
However, the DLC's influence eventually
waned
. A formal affiliation with the organization became something of a deal breaker for some progressive
voters. When Barack Obama first ran for the Senate in 2004, he had no affiliation with the DLC. So,
when they wrongly included him in their directory of New Democrats, he asked the DLC to remove his
name. In explaining this, he also publicly shunned the organization in an interview with Black Commentator.
"You are undoubtedly correct that these positions make me an unlikely candidate for membership in
the DLC," he wrote when
pressed by the magazine
. "That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC."
The DLC's decline continued: A growing sense of discontent among progressives, Clinton's loss
in 2008 and the economic crisis that followed turned the DLC into something of a political liability.
And in 2011, the Democratic Leadership Council
shuttered
its doors .
When the DLC closed, it records were
acquired by the Clinton Foundation, which DLC founder Al From called an "appropriate and fitting
repository." To this day, the Clinton Foundation continues to promote the work of the DLC's founding
members. In September 2015, the foundation
hosted an event to promote From's book The New Democrats and the Return to Power . Amazingly,
O'Malley provided a
favorable
blurb for the book, praising it as a "reminder of the core principles that still drive Democratic
success today."
The 2016 Election and New Democrats
The DLC's demise was seen as a victory by many progressives, and the populist tone of the 2016
primary is being celebrated as a sign of rising progressivism as well. But it is probably too soon
to declare that the "battle for the soul of the Democratic Party is coming to an end," as Adam Green,
cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, recently
told the Guardian .
Consider the way Marshall spun the closing of the DLC. "With President Obama consciously reconstructing
a winning coalition by reconnecting with the progressive center, the pragmatic ideas of PPI and other
organizations are more vital than ever," he said in an
interview with Politico .
His reference to "PPI and other organizations" refers to the still-existing Progressive Policy
Institute and Third Way. These institutions have the same
Wall Street support and continue to push the same agenda that their predecessor did.
New Democrats' guns are aimed firmly at Sanders, and they are quick to defend Clinton.
Many of these "centrist" ideas lack popular support these days. But New Democrats were never really
about popular support; they were about bringing together big business and the Democrats. The group's
board of trustees is almost
entirely made up of Wall Street executives. Further, in the aftermath of the 2010 Citizens
United Supreme Court decision, these same moneyed interests
have more influence over the political process than ever before.
"These organizations now are basically just corporate lobbyists today," Schmitt said.
So while the DLC may be a dirty word among many progressives, this didn't stop Obama from appointing
New Democrats to key posts in his White House. The same Bill Daley who
works for a hedge fund and is on the
board of trustees for Third Way
was also President Obama's
White House chief of
staff . And, as was noted above, he is now actively trying to influence the Democratic Party's
direction in the 2016 election.
The remaining champions of the DLC agenda have been increasingly active in trying to push back
against populism. On October 28, 2015, Third Way published an ambitious paper,
"Ready for the
New Economy," that aims to do just that. The paper
falsely
argues that "the narrative of fairness and inequality has, to put it mildly, failed to excite
voters," and says "these trends should compel the party to rigorously question the electoral value
of today's populist agenda."
The report attacks Sanders' proposals for expanding Social Security and implementing a single-payer
health-care system directly, making
faulty
claims about both proposals. It also advises Democrats to avoid the "singular focus on income
inequality" because its "actual impact on the middle class may be small."
"Third Way and its allies are gravely misreading the economic and political moment," said Richard
Eskow, a writer for Campaign for America's Future, in a
rebuttal
to the paper. "If their influence continues to wane, perhaps one day Americans can stop paying
the price for their ill-conceived, corporation- and billionaire-friendly agenda."
Eskow is right to use the word "if" instead of "when." Progressives ignore these efforts at their
own peril. Despite their archaic and flawed ideas, Third Way's reports and speakers still get undue
attention in the mainstream media. For instance, The Washington Post
devoted 913 words to Third Way's new paper, describing it as part of a "big economic fight in
the Democratic Party." The article provided a platform for Third Way's president Jonathan Cowan to
attack Sanders. "We propose that Democrats be Democrats, not socialists," he said. This tone is the
status quo for New Democrats in the media. Their guns are aimed firmly at Sanders, and they are quick
to defend Clinton.
When Clinton was attacked for working with former Wall Street executives, The Wall Street Journal
quoted PPI president Will Marshall, defending her. "The idea that you have to excommunicate anybody
who ever worked in the financial sector is ridiculous,"
he said .
"The Necessities of the Moment": Will Clinton Run Back to the Right?
Of course, the New Democrats' preference for Clinton shouldn't surprise anyone. She has been an
ally for years. And while they have expressed concern over her leftward tilt, they are confident,
as
the Post reported , that "she'll tack back their way in a general election." For instance,
her recent opposition to the
Trans-Pacific Partnership - which Third Way is
supporting aggressively - has centrists "disappointed" but not worried.
"Everyone knew where she was on that and where she will be , but given the necessities
of the moment and a tough Democratic primary, she felt she needed to go there initially," New Democratic
Coalition chairman Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wisconsin)
told the Guardian (emphasis added).
Politics isn't a sporting event. It is important to be critical, even of candidates for whom
you will likely vote.
If New Democrats aren't worried that Clinton's populist rhetoric is sincere, progressives probably
should be worried that it isn't. As DLC founder Al From
told the Guardian : "Hillary will bend a little bit but not so much that she can't get herself
back on course in the general [election] and when she is governing."
Some, however, are confident that if elected, Clinton will have to spend political capital on
the very populist ideas she is now embracing.
"When you make these kind of promises it will be difficult to just go back on them," said the
New America Foundation's Mark Schmitt. "She will have to work on many of these issues if she is elected."
Adam Green, cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, told Truthout that his group's
emphasis is to make any Democratic candidate responsive to the issues important to what he calls
the
"Warren wing" of the party, which espouses the more populist economic beliefs of Sen. Elizabeth
Warren (D-Massachusetts). Like Warren, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee hasn't endorsed
a candidate in the race as of now.
"It is not about one candidate; it is about trying to make all the candidates address the issues
we care about," Green said, citing debt-free education, expanding Social Security benefits and supporting
Black Lives Matter as key issues.
Liberals, Clinton and Partisan Amnesia
It is understandable why some progressives are hesitant to be critical of Clinton: They fully
expect that soon she will be the only thing standing between them and some candidate from the "Republican
clown car," as Green described the GOP field.
But voting pragmatically in a general election is one thing. Ignoring or apologizing for Clinton's
very recent and troubling record is another. Too many progressives are engaged in a sort of willful
partisan amnesia and are accepting the false narrative that Clinton is "a populist fighter who for
decades has been an advocate for families and children," as some unnamed
Clinton advisers told The New York Times.
Consider the case of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor and presidential candidate, who
has
endorsed Hillary Clinton for president . Dean's reputation as a fiery progressive has always
been
wildly overstated , but there was a rich irony about Dean's endorsement. His centrist record
aside, Dean was once the face of the party's progressive base. During his campaign for the Democratic
nomination in 2003 and 2004, Dean used his opposition to the war in Iraq to garner progressive support.
He attracted a large group of partisan liberal bloggers, who coined the term
"Netroots" in
support of his candidacy . For a time, Dean was
leading in the polls during the primary.
Remember: The Dean campaign was taken down by the DLC, who
attacked him
for running a campaign from the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the Democratic Party, "defined principally
by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home." The rift between the DLC and
Dean's supporters was so intense that Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas
described it as a "civil war" between Democrats. Of course, when Dean announced his support for
Clinton, he made no mention of the fact that she was the leader of the same group that ambushed his
candidacy precisely because it appealed to the party's left-leaning base.
Once the primary is over, the chance to force Clinton to respond to left critiques will likely
not come again soon.
Yet Moulitsas recently
endorsed Clinton in a column for The Hill. Moulitsas was one of the key bloggers who supported
Dean in 2004 and helped create the Netroots in its infancy. His goal, he said often, was
"crashing the gate" of the Democratic establishment. But his uncritical support for Clinton,
the quintessential establishment candidate, has turned much of
his own blog into evidence of how some progressives are dismissing recent history for partisan
reasons. In the last contested Democratic primary, Moulitsas was extremely
critical
of Clinton. Now, he is helping her
do to Sanders what the DLC did to Dean.
Why are the likes of Dean and Moulitsas so quick to embrace Clinton after years of battling with
her and her allies in the so-called "vital center?" Only they know for sure. In the case of Dean,
it may well be because he was never a real populist to begin with. In 2003, Bloomberg did a story
asking Vermonters to talk about Dean's ideology. "Howard is not a liberal. He's a pro-business, Rockefeller
Republican,"
said Garrison Nelson, a political science professor at the University of Vermont. This sentiment
is shared by many Vermonters, on both the
left
and
right .
But for other self-identified progressives who have embraced the establishment candidate, such
as Moulitsas, the answers may be simpler: partisan loyalty and ambition. The fact is the odds of
Clinton winning the nomination are very good. And for the likes of Moulitsas - who now writes columns
for an establishment
DC paper and is a
major fundraiser for Democrats - being on the side of the winner will certainly make him more
friends in DC than supporting the self-identified socialist that opposes her.
Moulitsas argues that Clinton has dismissed "her husband's ideological baggage" and is "aiming
for a truly progressive presidency." He is now a true believer, he claims. It is up to readers to
decide if they find his argument to be credible, especially compared to the conflicting statements
he has made for many years. Many on
his own blog are skeptical.
But, lastly, the main reason many progressives are willing to overlook Clinton's record is simply
fear. They are afraid of a Republican president, and it is hard to blame them. The idea of a President
Trump - or Carson or Cruz - is extremely frightening for many people. This is entirely understandable.
But even if one feels obligated to vote for Clinton in the general election, should she win the nomination,
that does not mean her record ought to be ignored. Politics isn't a sporting event. It is important
to be critical, even of candidates for whom you will likely vote.
The Historical Record: "The Only Antidote"
The tendency of some progressives to downplay, ignore or deflect populist critiques of Clinton's
record was observed by Doug Henwood in his 2014 Harper's piece
"Stop Hillary."
In the article, he describes the "widespread liberal fantasy of [Clinton] as a progressive paragon"
as misguided. "In fact, a close look at her life and career is perhaps the best antidote to all these
great expectations," Henwood writes. "The historical record, such as it is, may also be the only
antidote, since most progressives are unwilling to discuss Hillary in anything but the most general,
flattering terms."
Cleary, Clinton's historical record reveals much to be concerned about, including her long career
as a New Democrat. For the first time in recent memory, however, progressives actually have some
leverage to make her answer for this record.
Clinton has a reasonably competitive opponent who has challenged her on her record of Wall Street
support, her
dismissal of the Glass-Steagall Act and her
vote for war in Iraq . She should also be challenged vigorously on her role with the DLC.
Circumstances have created a unique moment where Clinton has to answer these tough questions.
But it may be a fleeting moment. Once the primary is over, the chance to force Clinton - or any major
establishment politician - to respond to left critiques will likely not come again soon. Copyright,
Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission .
Michael Corcoran
is a journalist based in Boston. He has written for The Boston Globe, The Nation,
The Christian Science Monitor, Extra!, NACLA Report on the Americas and other publications. Follow
him on Twitter: @mcorcoran3 .
"... her way of life has marinated for a long time now in the culture of wealth, influence, and power - and a way of thinking engrained deeply in our political ethos, one in which one's own power in democracy is more important than democracy itself. ..."
...She is, after all, a favorite of the giant banks, the CEOs and hedge funds she now was castigating.
Between 2009 and 2014, Clinton's list of top 20 donors starts out with Citigroup and includes JPMorgan
Chase, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, whose chief Lloyd Blankfein has
invested in Clinton's son-in-law's boutique hedge
fund. These donors are, as the website Truthout's
William Rivers Pitt notes, "the ones who gamed the
system by buying politicians like her and then proceeded to burn the economy down to dust and ash
while making a financial killing in the process."
They're also among the deep-pocket outfits that paid
for speeches and appearances by Hillary or Bill Clinton to the tune of more than $125 million
since they left the White House in 2001. It could hardly escape some in that crowd on Roosevelt Island,
catching a glimpse of the towers of power and might across the river: Can we really expect someone
so deeply tethered to the financial and business class – who moves so often and so easily among its
swells – to fight hard to check their predatory appetites, dismantle their control of Congress, and
stand up for the working people who are their prey?
Consider the two Canadian banks with financial
ties to the Keystone XL pipeline that fully or partially paid for eight speeches by Hillary Clinton.
Or her $3.2 million in lecture fees from the tech
sector. Or the
more than $2.5 million in paid speeches for companies and groups lobbying for fast-track trade.
According to TIME magazine and the Center for
Responsive Politics, in 2014, "Almost half of the money from Hillary Clinton's speaking engagements
came from corporations and advocacy groups that were lobbying Congress at the same time… In all,
the corporations and trade groups that Clinton spoke to in 2014 spent $72.5 million lobbying Congress
that same year."
Then look at
David Sirota's recent reporting for the International Business Times, especially the
revelation that while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, her department "approved $165 billion
worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation,
according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data… nearly double
the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department
during the same period of President George W. Bush's second term."
Those nations include Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar,
each of which "gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the
department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil
liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents."
Further, American defense contractors like Boeing and Lockheed who sold those arms and their delivery
systems also shelled out heavily to the $2 billion Clinton
Foundation and the Clinton family. According to Sirota, "In all, governments and corporations
involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton's State Department have delivered between $54 million
and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments
to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records. The Clinton Foundation
publishes only a rough range of individual contributors' donations, making a more precise accounting
impossible."
The Washington Postreports that among the approximately 200,000 contributors there have
also been donations from many other countries and corporations, overseas and domestic business leaders,
the odious Blackwater Training Center, and even Rupert Murdoch of celebrity phone hacking fame.
Meredith McGehee, policy director of the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, told David Sirota:
"The word was out to these groups that one of the best ways to gain access and influence with the
Clintons was to give to this foundation."
We pause here to note: All of these donations were apparently legal, and as others have written,
at least we know who was doling out the cash, in contrast to those anonymous sources secretly channeling
millions in "dark money" to the chosen candidates of the super rich.
... ... ..
We see "exactly Washington's problem" in how, during the 1990s, Bill Clinton became the willing
agent of Wall Street's push to deregulate, a collaboration that enriched the bankers but eventually
cost millions of Americans their homes, jobs, and pensions.
Thanks to documents that came to light last year
(one even has a handwritten note attached that reads: "Please eat this paper after you have read
this."), we understand more clearly how a small coterie of insiders maneuvered to get President Clinton
to support repeal of the New Deal-era Glass-Steagall Act that had long protected depositors from
being victimized by bank speculators gambling with their savings. Repeal led to a wave of Wall Street
mergers.
As you can read in stories by Dan Roberts in
The Guardianand
Pam and Russ Martens online, the ringleader of the effort was Secretary of the Treasury Robert
Rubin, who breathlessly persuaded the president to sign the repeal and soon left office to join Citigroup,
the bank that turned out to be the primary beneficiary of the deal. When it overreached and collapsed,
Citigroup received the largest taxpayer bailout in the history of U.S. finance. Rubin, meanwhile,
earned $126 million from the bank over ten years.
According to
The New York Times, Rubin "remains a crucial kingmaker in Democratic policy circles" and,
as an adviser to the Clintons, "will play an essential role in Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign
for president…"
Hillary Clinton, as a young Methodist growing up in Park Ridge, Illinois, was weaned on the social
ethics of John Wesley, a founder of Methodism and a courageous champion of the poor and needy; we
have her word for it and the witness of others. "Do all the good you can," the Methodist saying goes,
"in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever
you can."
But over time, Hillary Clinton achieved superstar status among Washington's acculturated class
– that swollen colony of permanent denizens of our capital who may have come from the hinterlands
but can hardly resist the seductive ways of a new and different culture in which the prevailing mindset
is: It's important to do good but more important to do well.
Lawrence Lessig believes she is an unlikely reformer – "which is precisely why she might be a
particularly effective one." But her way of life has marinated for a long time now in the culture
of wealth, influence, and power - and a way of thinking engrained deeply in our political ethos,
one in which one's own power in democracy is more important than democracy itself.
... ... ...
Sep_Arch • 9 months ago
The Clinton foundation is basically a money-laundering operation for an influence-peddling scam.
When Hillary is President, just as when she was Senator and Secretary of State, she will base
her decisions mostly on what will put more money into her family's pockets. After all, they are
hobnobbing with billionaires now. She will tell herself she is "pro-business" and being "realistic"
as she guts the middle class and puts all of her power behind the TPP, big corporations, and Wall
Street. And too many liberals will remain deaf, dumb and blind....
Guest Reader • a year ago
I will not be supporting Clinton either because of the financial interests behind her. Also because
of the record of the Democrats on many issues over the years, a group she has been deeply with
... so this is not entirely about Clinton herself, but even Obama, you could say, since the two
were fairly similar policy-wise, and now we've had eight years of this already.
I don't want more of the same. Plus, her campaign is based on this mythology that the country
is doing so much better, economically, and nothing could be further from the truth. This mythology
being pushed, because she running for office following a Democrat's administration, and one in
which she has been part of.
Again, to me, this is about domestic economics. I am deeply disappointed and exhausted by the
health care dispute. We should have an improved expanded Medicare for all, and, with dental and
vision, like any other developed nation.
We should NOT be going into more of these so-called "free" trade agreements. They are destroying
the standard of living for Americans, hitting people at the bottom the hardest.
vallehombre • a year ago
The current system allows a range of only two possibilities in electoral choices - between the
far right and the farther right.
HRC is channeling Goldwater via PNAC and then some while Sanders is Eisenhower light at best,
trying to catch some Huey Long soundbites on the way by. Yet we are supposed to act as if any
of this is news.
The allowed candidates are products of the state of our disappearing Republic and citizens
have been so effectively conditioned to accept our situation that we stumble to our destruction
as meekly compliant as the folks of an earlier generation shuiffled weeping into gas chambers.
There is no perspective presented here or anywhere other than that of our self identified elites
for the simple reason it has become the sole ethos of our existence. To fault a single person,
HRC in this case, for promoting arms sales and profiting personally from them ignores the structure
of the entire system, the anticipated "benefits" almost every citizens has come to expect as a
natural right (if not divinely ordained) and a "good life" that in real terms resembles little
more than a long, drawn out narcissistic display of communal suicide.
If it is true people create the government they deserve, or maybe accept, then the choice between
the far right and the farther right more accurately reflect the state of our nation than we care
or dare to admit.
oneski > vallehombre • a year ago
... and a "good life" that in real terms resembles little more than a long, drawn out narcissistic
display of communal suicide.
Quite the diagnosis! And there's the added bonus of enriching the lives of others whilst attempting
to postpone the inevitable.
The Swiss own one of the world's largest food companies and the world's largest elevator company.
It's a safe bet both their customers are easy to identify.
falken751 • a year ago
This is what is coming in this country politicians, better get ready for it, especially Clinton
and her Republican buddies. We don't need or want and millionaire politicians like her and her
husband.
"A massive and growing anti-austerity movement will take to the streets of London on Saturday,
June 20, with demonstrators demanding "an alternative to austerity and to policies that only benefit
those at the top."
Tens of thousands are expected to march from the Bank of England to Parliament Square on Saturday,
protesting the conservative government's "nasty, destructive cuts to the things ordinary people
care about-the [National Health Service], the welfare state, education and public services."
Organized by The People's Assembly-a politically unaffiliated national campaign against austerity-the
demonstration comes in the wake of UK elections in early May that saw the Conservative (Tory)
Party seizing the majority of Parliamentary seats and Prime Minister David Cameron sweeping back
to power."
Get ready politicians, and watch your backs.
Bassy Kims of Yesteryear • a year ago
The utter sellout of the Democratic Party over these last decades is entirely responsible for
the harrowing slide of the USA to the Right. The Republican flavor of bacon isn't even worth mentioning,
as those meatpuppets sold their souls many decades ago.
The rape of the poor and the middle class, the Neocon wars, the offshoring... all the worst
things in this nation stem directly from our betrayal by the Democratic Party. The upcoming passage
of the TPP, blacked out all across the MSM and across most of the alternative media, is proof
positive of this.
The sellout of the Democratic Party, and how we must respond to that sellout, must be the root
of any article on our oppression, and any article on how to respond to our national rape. Step
One is raising the consciousness of the DNC's rubes. They must understand their betrayal in order
to rise above it, and to consider alternatives such as Jill Stein, alternatives such as work stoppages
and demonstrations. Otherwise, there is no hope for America - none at all.
Fool_me_twice_shame_on_ME • a year ago
All this is blatantly obvious and yet there are still so many Americans who remain clueless and
believe she has their interests at heart because they are gullible enough to believe her incredibly
empty campaign rhetoric. Well, there's the willful ignorance, coupled with the unbelievable shallowness
of basing her single qualification for the Oval Office on the type of genitalia she has, or on
name recognition alone, or the very telling amount of favoritism she gets in the CORPORATE media
and their need to vote for "the winning candidate," regardless of values and priorities. If a
voter wants genuine effort and concern in championing middle class causes, there is Bernie Sanders.
His voting record and history go back 30 years and it didn't just get completely revamped by focus
groups for the up-coming election. Simple logic should alert voters to Hillary, Inc.'s loyalties.
Why is it that in spite of all of Hillary's new-found list of concerns in her "populist" rhetoric
(which seem to only come about after Bernie Sanders speaks to them) her long list of Wall Street
campaign financiers still choose her as their favorite choice in the election? Could it be she
is only saying these things to pander for votes, with no intention of keeping any promises after
the election (just like Obama did)? To the corporate funders of her campaign it's just the cost
of doing business. They spend a few million on her and get billions back when she wins the White
House. It's a great return on investment, but just like Obama, the voters will always come a distant
second to Wall Street demands. This is NOT how you fix things in Washington. This is how you guarantee
"business as usual."
Avatar Ken • a year ago
"Can she really stand above the cesspool that is Washington - filled not with criminals but with
decent people inside a corrupted system trying to do what they think is good"
What a fcuking load of shite! They´re predominantly a load of rapacious, venal sociopaths who
should be in one of the prisions they love to build to house the poor. And Killary´s at the top
of the heap.
Popillius > pgathome1 • a year ago
I have no illusions about HRC - I loathe some of her positions. As for you boyz who fell for BHO
(in spite of his neoliberalism being on full display) - you haven't learned a thing. You are going
to honestly swallow that somebody heard that somebody heard from somebody in their "inner circle"
that Bill Clinton said that about his wife? What evidence do you have that is true? Do you not
see the mountains of ratfucking garbage out there about the Clintons? Their policies aside - which
can absolutely be loathesome - you are going to go online and breathlessly assert that you heard
someone heard that someone close to the Clintons said that? No wonder you fell for BHO so hard.
Sarah Jackson • a year ago
Democrats are in a lying frenzy, just as much so as the other faithful party. Moyers doesn't really
have anything left to say of any value unless it too is a lie of sorts. As an example, he revises
the obliteration of New Deal regulation by implying the President was mislead into doing so. No,
that's not what happened. And we don't have a Democracy. But when we don't live in a Democracy,
it is the news media's role to produce something less than honest. We're supposed to forget Sirota
was a part of AIPAC, and Moyers was part of an administration that served corporations dedicated
to genocide.
"... The genius of the corporate coup that has overtaken US democracy is not that it dominates the GOP - the party that has long favored corporate power anyway - but that it has maneuvered even the opposition party into submission as well. The brightest minds on Wall Street are experts at hedging bets, and they play politics just as they play finance. Such dynamics are key to understanding not only the role of the Clinton candidacy in the eyes of corporate America, but the perceived threat posed by the Sanders campaign with its persistent advocacy for people over corporations. ..."
"... a leading banking executive called Clinton's tough talk about Wall Street "theatrics" made necessary in response to the Sanders campaign, adding that he predicts she'll be known as "Mrs. Wall Street" if elected. ..."
"... These realities show that the "rigged system" concerns of ordinary voters are not overblown. In a stroke of strategic brilliance, corporate power has created a playing field where even its perceived opponents are advancing its agenda. ..."
"... "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient," says noted activist and author Noam Chomsky , "is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." ..."
"... Defined as a liberal, she is in fact a consummate establishment Democrat: a hawkish corporate apologist who happens to be pro-choice. Yes, she is to the left of the GOP candidates - she doesn't deny climate change, wants to preserve Obamacare and won't entertain outlandish ideas like privatizing Social Security - but she's still well within the bounds of acceptability to the US corporate oligarchy that does not want fundamental, systemic change. Rest assured, under her watch the system will stay rigged. ..."
The genius of the corporate coup that has overtaken US democracy is not
that it dominates the GOP - the party that has long favored corporate power
anyway - but that it has maneuvered even the opposition party into submission
as well. The brightest minds on Wall Street are experts at hedging bets, and
they play politics just as they play finance. Such dynamics are key to
understanding not only the role of the Clinton candidacy in the eyes of
corporate America, but the perceived threat posed by the Sanders campaign with
its persistent advocacy for people over corporations.
Clinton, who once
served on the board of Walmart, the gold standard of predatory corporatism,
is so tight with corporate power that she's now making efforts to downplay her
relationships.
CNBC reports that she is postponing fundraisers with Wall Street
executives, no doubt concerned that voters are awakening to the toxic influence
of corporations on politics and government. Already in the awkward position of
explaining
six-figure checks from Wall Street firms for speaking engagements and
large charitable donations from major banks, Clinton realizes that she must
try to distance herself from her corporate benefactors.
And the fat cats fully understand. "Don't expect folks on Wall Street to be
offended that Clinton is distancing herself from them,"
CNBC reports. "In fact, they see it as smart politics and they understand
that Wall Street banks are deeply unpopular."
Indeed, everyone knows the game, and few are worried that Clinton - whose
son-in-law is a former Goldman Sachs executive who now runs a hedge fund -
is any kind of threat to the power structure. This explains why a
leading banking executive called Clinton's tough talk about Wall Street
"theatrics" made necessary in response to the Sanders campaign, adding that he
predicts she'll be known as
"Mrs. Wall Street" if elected.
These realities show that the "rigged system" concerns of ordinary
voters are not overblown. In a stroke of strategic brilliance, corporate power
has created a playing field where even its perceived opponents are advancing
its agenda. And the fiction is propagated with impressive expertise, as
moderate, corporate-friendly Democrats are portrayed in the mainstream media as
"flaming liberals." Even though Barack Obama, for example, filled his
administration with Wall Street veterans and stalwarts after his election in
2008 - including Tim Geithner, Michael Froman, Larry Summers and a host of
others - he is frequently described as a liberal not just by those
on the right, but even in
mainstream media.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient," says noted activist
and author
Noam Chomsky, "is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but
allow very lively debate within that spectrum."...
This is what has happened during the centrist Obama administration, which
bailed out Wall Street without prosecuting even one executive responsible for
bringing about the 2008 economic collapse. It also happened in the centrist
administration of Bill Clinton, who was attacked by conservatives as an
"extreme liberal" while doing little to earn the designation. The Clinton
administration, with vocal support from the first lady, deregulated
telecommunications and the financial sector, pushed hard for passage of the
North American Free Trade Agreement - a tremendous gift to corporate interests
and a major blow to the working class - and passed legislation on
crime and welfare that was anything but liberal.
Such is the role that corporate America wants Hillary Clinton to play today.
Defined as a liberal, she is in fact a consummate establishment Democrat: a
hawkish corporate apologist who happens to be pro-choice. Yes, she is to the
left of the GOP candidates - she doesn't deny climate change, wants to preserve
Obamacare and won't entertain outlandish ideas like privatizing Social Security
- but she's still well within the bounds of acceptability to the US corporate
oligarchy that does not want fundamental, systemic change. Rest assured, under
her watch the system will stay rigged.<
Digging deep into Hillary's connections to Wall Street, Abby Martin reveals how the Clintons' multi-million-dollar
political machine operates.
This episode chronicles the Clintons' rise to power in the '90s on
a right-wing agenda; the Clinton Foundation's revolving door with Gulf state monarchies, corporations
and the world's biggest financial institutions; and the establishment of the hyper-aggressive "Hillary
Doctrine" while secretary of state.
Learn the essential facts about the great danger she poses, and why she's the US Empire's choice
for its next CEO.
"... You're confusing the left with Democrats. One of the clarifying things about this year is how clear it is that's not true. ..."
"... There is ample evidence that a solid majority of those identifying as or tending to generally vote Democratic (not quite the same as party registration, but in less openly corrupt and weird times, that was how polling defined D voters) rejected Hillary Clinton as a candidate, but were prevented from knowing about her opponent, being able to vote in the primary, or having their completed ballot counted as they had marked it. ..."
"... Bernie's endorsement should have been tied to the release of those speeches. After all, he made quite a big deal about those speeches during his campaign appearances. ..."
And again, everyone is just pretending that the monumental election fraud that just occurred
is completely irrelevant. I'm mystified as to why. To me, it's a national catastrophe that a party
can simply suspend democracy completely, flip machine counts, deregister or reregister hundreds
of thousands of Bernie voters (and yes, it was very specifically Bernie voters), subtract votes
during the count and add them to Clinton in real time–and everyone accepts this as entirely legitimate?
Doesn't the complete cancellation of democracy by a dynastic family bother anyone??? Why even
vote?
Today's reminder that the Democratic Party (which, as Lambert points out below, is NOT the
same as "the left") did not nominate an Iraq War supporter through any kind of democratic process.
There is ample evidence that a solid majority of those identifying as or tending to generally
vote Democratic (not quite the same as party registration, but in less openly corrupt and weird
times, that was how polling defined D voters) rejected Hillary Clinton as a candidate, but were
prevented from knowing about her opponent, being able to vote in the primary, or having their
completed ballot counted as they had marked it.
My question is why should a progressive vote for Hillary Clinton?
If a progressive wants to show the strength of her movement and also the number of folks who
represent her values, a progressive would vote for Stein.
Perhaps it could be argued that if a certain progressive lives in a swing state, she should
consider voting for Clinton to prevent Trump from taking office, but that is no most progressive
voters.
But, in general, a progressive voting for a candidate such as Clinton who is so actively courting
big money and establishment Republicans. . .that would dilute and weaken the progressive presence
in my view.
Now that HRC released her taxes can we expect the transcripts, too? Hillary Clinton has been looking into releasing her transcripts for paid speeches to Wall St.
and other special interests for 189 days http://iwilllookintoit.com/
Bernie's endorsement should have been tied to the release of those speeches. After all, he
made quite a big deal about those speeches during his campaign appearances.
They got to Bernie somehow. Cf the scene in Godfather II where the mobster sees his Sicilian relative sitting in the back
of the room and changes his story.
That's very good. We're getting a lot of stories like this, including from our own #SlayTheSmaugs.
At some point, I'd like to aggregate them. Readers, do you know of any other field reports from Philly?
"... Everyone knows the expression "a wolf in sheep's clothing." Now, it seems the United States will invent the macho Republican in feminist, Democratic clothing. ..."
"... Bill Clinton had triangulated his presidency to Republican-hood. He had demolished Aid to Families With Dependent Children and bought into the bash-the-poor rhetoric of the right wing. He had passed a crime bill that targeted people of color; he had destroyed FDR's legacy, notably by abolishing the Glass-Steagall Act. ..."
"... Bill Clinton might not have inhaled marijuana, but he certainly had inhaled the poison of right-wing ideas. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton openly supported many of Bill Clinton's political measures. She used the terrible expression "superpredators," supported the crime bill and made a hash of health insurance reform . Liza Featherstone talks about Hillary Clinton's faux feminism , and she links her critique to class themes, which is as it should be. Feminists cannot be elite feminists or 1% feminists if they want to defend the rights of all women. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton's track record on issues of poverty, racial justice and justice for women is appalling. As a former member of the board of Walmart, she sided with the rich and powerful , which she also does when she gives speeches for Wall Street. ..."
"... On foreign policy issues, Hillary Clinton is not even an Eisenhower Republican, but a war hawk whose philosophy and shortsightedness is evidenced by the flippant way in which she advocated for war in Libya and the way in which she celebrated. "We came, we saw, he died," she said and laughed loudly. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton, like true neoliberals in the GOP, supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), so as Bill had said she supported the bond market and free trade. Now, she claims she did not, but, of course, she is lying. Her lies also have to do with Wall Street (she has not released the text of her speeches), support for people of color and her feminism. ..."
"... Feminism cannot be only about the equality of CEO compensations. Equality in CEO compensations in general should exist at a much-reduced level. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton is a 1% millionaire who now talks the progressive talk, but never really walked the progressive walk. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton is actually to the right of President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- "Ike." He refused to use the atom bomb in Asia, showing more geopolitical prudence than Hillary "we came and he died" Clinton. He also wanted to preserve the FDR advances that the Clintons have done so much to cancel or erase. ..."
"... the Republicans -- starting with Hillary Clinton's youth idol Barry Goldwater -- and the Democrats calling themselves "New Democrats" vied with each other to dismantle the New Deal ..."
"... GOP is not a political party any longer, but a radical insurgency ..."
"... The Democrats have become the Old Republicans and Hillary Clinton is more neocon than traditional conservative of the Eisenhower type. ..."
"... She is a pro-business, Koch-compatible lover of Wall Street who uses feminism like some pinkwashers or greenwashers use progressive agendas to sell regressive policies. Author Diana Johnstone calls her the " Queen of Chaos ." Clinton is the queen of deception, faux feminism and faux progressivism ..."
"... Charles Koch (whose hatred of progressivism is well documented by Jane Meyer in her book, Dark Money ) expressed some admiration for Bill and Hillary Clinton and said he could vote for Hillary this time around. ..."
...Everyone knows the expression "a wolf in sheep's clothing." Now, it seems the United States
will invent the macho Republican in feminist, Democratic clothing.
We're all Eisenhower Republicans here, and we are fighting the Reagan Republicans. We stand
for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market. Isn't that great?
Eisenhower Republicans were, by today's standards, quite moderate. The quote refers to the 1990s,
and already Bill Clinton had triangulated his presidency to Republican-hood. He had demolished
Aid to Families With Dependent Children and bought into the bash-the-poor rhetoric of the right wing.
He had passed a crime bill that targeted people of color; he had destroyed FDR's legacy, notably
by abolishing the Glass-Steagall Act. And he was so "tough on crime" that during the 1992 presidential
campaign season, he had gone back to his home state of Arkansas to witness the execution of Ricky
Ray Rector, who was "mentally deficient." Bill Clinton might not have inhaled marijuana, but
he certainly had inhaled the poison of right-wing ideas.
As we all know, Hillary Clinton openly supported many of Bill Clinton's political measures.
She used the terrible expression
"superpredators," supported
the crime bill and made a
hash of health
insurance reform. Liza Featherstone
talks about Hillary Clinton's faux feminism, and she links her critique to class themes, which
is as it should be. Feminists cannot be elite feminists or 1% feminists if they want to defend the
rights of all women.
Hillary Clinton's track record on issues of poverty, racial justice and justice for women
is appalling. As a former member of the board of Walmart, she
sided with the rich and powerful, which she also does when she gives speeches for Wall Street.
The really important question is how someone who has constantly sided with the rich can campaign
as a progressive, as a friend of people of color and even as a feminist? Michelle Alexander exposed
the hypocrisy of the situation in arguing that "Hillary
Clinton doesn't deserve the black vote."
On foreign policy issues, Hillary Clinton is not even an Eisenhower Republican, but a war
hawk whose philosophy and shortsightedness is evidenced by the flippant way in which she advocated
for war in Libya and the way in which she celebrated. "We came, we saw, he died,"
she said and laughed loudly.
This cruel statement does not take into account the mess and mayhem left behind after the intervention,
something President Obama calls a "shit
show" and his worst mistake. But it is the companion piece to her major fellow elite "feminist"
Madeleine Albright
declaring that killing half a million Iraqis is worth it.
Hillary Clinton, like true neoliberals in the GOP, supported the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), so as Bill had said she supported the bond market and free trade. Now, she claims
she did not, but, of course, she is lying. Her lies also have to do with Wall Street (she has not
released the text of her speeches), support for people of color and her feminism.
... ... ...
Feminism cannot be only about the equality of CEO compensations. Equality in CEO compensations
in general should exist at a much-reduced level. In his book Listen, Liberal,
Thomas Frank tells the story of a Clinton convention meeting he attended and what he witnessed was
Hillary Clinton as "Ms. Walmart," pretending she cares about all women. Frank, who is genuinely worried
about rising inequality in the United States and racial justice, suggests that elite feminism
is worried about the glass ceiling for CEOs, but does not even worry about working-class women who
have "no floors" under them. Hillary Clinton is a 1% millionaire who now talks the progressive
talk, but never really walked the progressive walk.
It would indeed be a symbolic change if the US elected a woman president, but for the symbol
not to be empty, something more is needed. If a woman president does not improve the lot of the majority
of women, then what is the good of a symbol?
Hillary Clinton is actually to the right of President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- "Ike." He refused
to use the atom bomb in Asia, showing more geopolitical prudence than Hillary "we came and he died"
Clinton. He also wanted to preserve the FDR advances that the Clintons have done so much to cancel
or erase.
...the Republicans -- starting with Hillary Clinton's youth
idol Barry Goldwater -- and the Democrats calling themselves "New Democrats" vied with each other
to dismantle the New Deal and the Great Society programs that Democrats had set up.
Noam Chomsky argues that the GOP is not a political party any longer, but a radical insurgency,
for it has gone off the political cliff. The Democrats have become the Old Republicans and Hillary
Clinton is more neocon than traditional conservative of the Eisenhower type.
So Hillary Clinton, the Republican, is poised to win in November, but her Republicanism is
closer to George W. Bush's and even more conservative than Ronald Reagan's -- except on the societal
issues that have now reached a kind of quasi-consensus like same-sex marriage. She is a pro-business,
Koch-compatible lover of Wall Street who uses feminism like some pinkwashers or greenwashers use
progressive agendas to sell regressive policies. Author Diana Johnstone calls her the "Queen
of Chaos." Clinton is the queen of deception, faux feminism and faux progressivism, whose election
will be made easier by her loutish, vulgar, sexist loudmouth of an opponent.
In his book The Deep State, Mike Lofgren
quotes H.L. Mencken,
who gave away what explains the success of the political circus: "The whole aim of practical politics
is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the neoconservatives were past masters at this creation of
hobgoblins, but now Hillary Clinton, the opportunist, can outdo them and out-Republicanize them.
I think Ike would not like her; she might now be even more reactionary than Goldwater. Indeed,
Charles Koch (whose hatred of progressivism is well documented by Jane Meyer in her book,
Dark Money) expressed some admiration for Bill and Hillary Clinton and said he could vote
for Hillary this time around.
... ... ...
Pierre Guerlain is a professor
of American studies at Université Paris Ouest, Nanterre, France.
What happens if the Deep State pursues the usual pathological path of increasing repression?
The system it feeds on decays and collapses.
Catch-22 (from the 1961 novel set in World War II
Catch-22) has several shades of meaning (bureaucratic absurdity, for example), but at heart
it is a self-referential paradox: you must be insane to be excused from flying your mission, but
requesting to be excused by reason of insanity proves you're sane.
The Deep State in virtually every major nation-state is facing a form of Catch-22: the
Deep State needs the nation-state to feed on and support its power, and the nation-state requires
stability above all else to survive the vagaries of history.
The only possible output of extreme wealth inequality is social and economic instability.
The financial elites of the Deep State (and of the nation-state that the Deep State rules) generate
wealth inequality and thus instability by their very existence, i.e. the very concentration of wealth
and power that defines the elite.
So the only way to insure stability is to dissipate the concentrated wealth and power of the
financial Deep State. This is the Deep State's Catch-22.
What happens when extremes of wealth/power inequality have been reached? Depressions, revolutions,
wars and the dissolution of empires. Extremes of wealth/power inequality generate political,
social and economic instability which then destabilize the regime.
Ironically, elites try to solve this dilemma by becoming more autocratic and repressing whatever
factions they see as the source of instability.
The irony is they themselves are the source of instability. The crowds of enraged citizens
are merely manifestations of an unstable, brittle system that is cracking under the strains of extreme
wealth/power inequality.
Can anyone not in Wall Street, the corporate media, Washington D.C., K Street or the Fed look
at this chart and not see profound political disunity on the horizon?
Many people believe that higher education is a de facto scam. Trump University, Donald Trump's
real-estate institution, was a de jure one.
First thing first, Trump University was never a university. When the "school" was established
in 2005, the New York State Education Department warned that it was in violation of state law
for operating without a NYSED license. Trump ignored the warnings. (The institution is now called,
ahem, "Trump Entrepreneur Initiative.") Cue lawsuits.
Trump University is currently the defendant in three lawsuits - two class-action lawsuits filed
in California, and one filed in New York by then-attorney general Eric Schneiderman, who told
CNN's New Day in 2013: "We started looking at Trump University and discovered that it was a classic
bait-and-switch scheme. It was a scam, starting with the fact that it was not a university."
Trump U "students" say the same. In his affidavit, Richard Hewson reported that he and his
wife "concluded that we had paid over $20,000 for nothing, based on our belief in Donald Trump
and the promises made at the [organization's] free seminar and three-day workshop." But "the whole
thing was a scam."
In fact, $20,000 is only a mid-range loss. The lead plaintiff in one of the California suits,
yoga instructor Tarla Makaeff, says she was "scammed" out of $60,000 over the course of her time
in Trump U.
How could that have happened? The New York suit offers a suggestion:
'The free seminars were the first step in a bait and switch to induce prospective students
to enroll in increasingly expensive seminars starting with the three-day $1495 seminar and ultimately
one of respondents' advanced seminars such as the "Gold Elite" program costing $35,000. At the
"free" 90-minute introductory seminars to which Trump University advertisements and solicitations
invited prospective students, Trump University instructors engaged in a methodical, systematic
series of misrepresentations designed to convince students to sign up for the Trump University
three-day seminar at a cost of $1495.'
The Atlantic, which got hold of a 41-page "Private & Confidential" playbook from Trump U, has
attested to the same:
'The playbook says almost nothing about the guest speaker presentations, the ostensible reason
why people showed up to the seminar in the first place. Instead, the playbook focuses on the seminars'
real purpose: to browbeat attendees into purchasing expensive Trump University course packages.'
To do that, instructors touted Trump's own promises: that students would be "mentored" by "handpicked"
real-estate experts, who would use Trump's own real-estate strategies.
But according to the New York complaint, none of the instructors was "handpicked" by Trump,
many of them came from fields having nothing to do with real estate, and Trump "'never' reviewed
any of Trump University's curricula or programming materials." The materials were "in large part
developed by a third-party company that creates and develops materials for an array of motivational
speakers and seminar and timeshare rental companies."
Furthermore, Trump's promises that the three-day seminar ($1,495) would include "access to
'private' or 'hard money' lenders and financing," that it would include a "year-long 'apprenticeship
support' program," and that it would "improve the credit scores" of students were empty.
Those empty promises are the subject of a new series of anti-Trump ads by superPAC American
Future Fund. According to Bob, "I never heard from anybody about giving me a list of hard-money
lenders". Kevin, another Trump U "student," says Trump University "ruined" his credit score. And
according to Sherri, a single mother who participated in Trump U: "It was all supposedly supervised
by Donald Trump, run by Donald Trump. All of it was just a fake."
In fact, Sherri isn't alone. No student ever met the Donald. Despite hints from Trump University
instructors that Trump was "going to be in town," "often drops by," or "might show up," he never
did. As Matt Labash recounted in The Weekly Standard: "At one seminar, attendees were told they'd
get to have their picture taken with Trump. Instead, they ended up getting snapped with his cardboard
cutout." Bob, above, had such an "opportunity".
There could be many more ads to come. The New York lawsuit alone represents some 5,000 victims.
Meanwhile, Trump - who maintains that Trump University was "a terrific school that did a fantastic
job" - has tried to bully his opponents out of the suit. Lawyers for Tarla Makaeff have requested
a protective order from the court "to protect her from further retaliation." According to court
documents, Trump has threatened to sue Makaeff personally, as well as her attorneys. He's already
brought a $100 million counterclaim against the New York attorney general's office.
But it's not working. Trump himself will have to take the witness stand in San Diego federal
court sometime during the election season - and because of the timeline of the cases, a "President
Trump" would be embroiled in these suits long after November.
Meanwhile, if there is any doubt that Trump U was designed to be a scam, The Atlantic puts
that to rest with a few other choice tidbits from that "Private & Confidential" playbook used
by Trump presenters:
'Every university has admission standards and Trump University was no exception. The playbook
spells out the one essential qualification in caps: "ALL PAYMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED IN FULL." Basically,
anyone with a valid credit card was "admitted" to Trump University. . . . If a member of the media
happened to approach the registration table, Trump staffers were instructed not to talk to him
or her under any circumstance. "Reporters are rarely on your side and they are not sympathetic,"
the playbook advises.'
And: At one point, the playbook advises Trump staffers: "If a district attorney arrives on
the scene, contact the appropriate media spokesperson immediately." Sounds legit.
"... The corruption I'm going to describe seems more along the lines of converting a public institution to serve private purposes (assuming higher education to be a public institution, which I do, because education is a public good)[3]. ..."
"... Now, human nature being what it is, a certain amount of empire-building and concern for one's rice bowl has always been inevitable, but when greed for one's self, or one's class, becomes the institutional driver, it's time for a thorough cleansing. ..."
"... New York University students carry some of the highest debt loads in the nation, a fact they are bound to remember through gritted teeth when they read the New York Times report about the school's loans to top faculty for vacation homes in places like Fire Island and the Hamptons. ..."
"... The house, which is owned by John Sexton, the president of New York University, was bought with a $600,000 loan from an N.Y.U. foundation that eventually grew to be $1 million, according to Suffolk County land records. ..."
"... I think this perfectly describes what I've observed with public school superintendents also. They are like 'The Music Man.' Selling dreams that our children will be smarter, better looking, and above average if we just get with the program. While our school district has a local in charge who appears to be here for the long term, a neighboring district had a 'Music Man' or rather, woman, who got the city to float a $10 million bond issue so every fourth grader could have an I-Pad. She then left to do the same (for a higher salary) in another state. Another, much poorer, district nearby wanted to get rid of a super who had allegedly threatened subordinates with bodily harm: they bought out her contract for $300,000. In a county with a population of 20,000 and ten percent unemployment. ..."
"... It is not only at the college level that those in charge are engaging is questionable behavior. It is a society wide problem. ..."
"... To a naive student with no experience in institutional politics, their stories of resentment, gossip, backbiting, and the politics of personal reputational destruction were like a glimpse into an unimagined world. ..."
"... It used to be that there was a saying in academe: the competition is so great because the stakes are so low. But, if there is a path to six or seven figures, now I see that there is serious cash to be banked to justify working in the university racket. ..."
I haven't posted on higher education before, and a series of posts on credentialism really should
focus on the institutions where those credentials are, in the main, granted. But rather than a serious
analytical piece on the state of the university, this will be a light-hearted romp through some spectacular
examples of executive malfeasance at NYU, Baylor, and Penn State.[1] (Tomorrow I'll look at the adjunct
system, and potential effects of
yesterday's NLRB decision . And there will be more posts to come on this topic, as I come to
understand it better.)
Before I begin, though, let's recall Zephyr Teachout's definition of corruption. Not a quid pro
quo - that's the Citizen's United doctrine, now supported by the Clinton campaign - but the use of
public office for private ends. What does corruption look like in a university setting, given that
some universities are private to begin with, and that "ends," in the ancient and tricky academe,
may not always be immediately evident?
Here's a story from the University of Maine, Maine's "flagship" university. Our last President,
Robert Kennedy, gave the contract for sports broadcasting to ClearChannel, thereby moving the profits
out of state, because he took the contract away from Stephen King's radio station (yes, that Stephen
King). Naturally, this ticked King off, and King - up to that point the university's largest donor,
and the funder of many good works round the state, like dental clinics and libraries - decided he
would no longer give to the university. (Kennedy then rotated out to the University of Connecticut,
for a hefty salary increase, where he was shortly
axed by the Regents for a cronyism scandal . Dodged a bullet, there, Maine!)
Dollying back to the larger picture, King came up through the much despised and derided English
Department, in the humanities, which powerful institution forces in the administration and the Board
of Trustees are shifting resources away from, in favor of more pragmatic, "business-friendly," corporate
majors (graduates, that is, that they themselves can hire[2]. Even though King was the university's
largest donor.)
Is there corruption here? I would argue yes, but I'm not sure that Teachout's definition quite
meets the case. The corruption I'm going to describe seems more along the lines of converting
a public institution to serve private purposes (assuming higher education to be a public institution,
which I do, because education is a public good)[3]. This is evident from the King story in two
ways. First, Kennedy is only one of
many university administrators
who stay a couple years at an institution, punch their ticket, and move on to a higher salaried position
elsewhere. Second, optimizing university curricula, grounds, personnel decisions, etc. for corporate
ends is about as corrupt as you can get (as are the concomitant rationalizations and cover-ups that
occur when scandal breaks). Now, human nature being what it is, a certain amount of empire-building
and concern for one's rice bowl has always been inevitable, but when greed for one's self, or one's
class, becomes the institutional driver, it's time for a thorough cleansing.
With that, let's look at the case of John Sexton, once President of NYU. (NYU is an important
nexus for the Democrat nomenklatura , so we'll have more to say about NYU in the future.)
NYU gave president's aspiring actor son apartment on campus
Jed Sexton, whose sole affiliation with NYU was his status as the president's son, for years
enjoyed a spacious faculty apartment while the university experienced a "severe" housing shortage,
The Post has learned.
In spring 2002, NYU ordered that a pair of one-bedroom apartments normally reserved for law
school faculty be combined into a lavish, two-story spread in the heart of Greenwich Village,
property records show.
The Harvard-educated Sexton, who was a 33-year-old aspiring actor at the time, shared the new
duplex with his newlywed wife, Danielle Decrette, for the next five years, according to documents
and people briefed on the situation.
That's despite the fact that NYU officials, just weeks earlier, had warned in a written report
of a "severe housing shortage" for faculty, "especially of larger units."
NYU Offers Top Talent a Path to Beachfront Property
New York University students carry some of the highest debt loads in the nation, a fact
they are bound to remember through gritted teeth when they read the New York Times report about
the school's loans to top faculty for vacation homes in places like Fire Island and the Hamptons.
The loans, which have gone to at least five faculty members in the medical and law schools
as well as university president John Sexton, sometimes get forgiven over time as their recipients
continue to work at the university. Mortgage loans apparently aren't unheard of as compensation
packages for professors and executives in tight real estate markets, but they're usually for homes,
not vacation properties.
From
the New York Times , which broke the story, it seems that Sexton gifted himself a house,
an "an elegant modern beach house that extends across three lots":
The house, which is owned by John Sexton, the president of New York University, was bought
with a $600,000 loan from an N.Y.U. foundation that eventually grew to be $1 million, according
to Suffolk County land records.
Since the late 1990s, at least five medical or law school faculty members at N.Y.U. have received
loans on properties in the Hamptons or Fire Island, in addition to Dr. Sexton.
While that feeling is understandable, it is important to note the economic truth that the markets
for different positions often dictate different levels of compensation, whether that is embodied
in salary payments, loans, or an overarching agreement about terms of employment. And, when we
commit to provide such compensation, we do so only when we are sure
that the benefit to the University far exceeds the cost.
First,
CEO compensation
and shareholder returns are inversely correllated ; even if we grant Dorph's premise, and a corporate
model for the university, it's just not clear that top compensation means top talent. Second, why
doesn't NYU simply pay its talent more? Why complicate matters by bringing in vacation housing?
Why not just write a fatter check? The answer can only be
arbitrage of some sort: NYU giving access to property that otherwise isn't on the market, tax
advantages of some kind, a better rate on the mortgage, or whatever; some way in which NYU uses its
muscle on behalf of the compensated. But that is, precisely, converting a public institution to serve
private purposes. Not to mention Sexton openly using NYU facilities to house his son and for his
own vacation home on Fire Island. Come on. Why is that not self-dealing? And the rest of looks suspiciously
like powerful faculty members feathering their own nests. "Why not? We deserve it."
The 19th and topmost floor of the building will be turned into a master-bedroom suite, where
Dr. Hamilton will have private exits - one from the bedroom and one from the bathroom - onto a
terrace overlooking Washington Square and, to the south, the financial district skyline, according
to documents filed with New York City.
Baylor University, the country's largest Baptist university and a bastion of Christian values,
has just been denounced in
a blistering
report by the
University's Board of Regents for "mishandling" - covering up might be a more apt description
- credible allegations of horrific sexual violence against female students, especially alleged
assaults by members of the football team. The Board of Regents said it was "shocked," "outraged"
and "horrified" by the extent of the acts of sexual violence on the campus, which covered years
2012 through 2015, and the failure of the University to take appropriate action to punish violators
and prevent future violations. The Board issued an "apology to Baylor Nation," fired the football
coach, and "transitioned" (the Regents' term) Baylor's President, Kenneth Starr, to the role of
Chancellor. Starr also was allowed to retain his lucrative Chair and Professorship of constitutional
law at Baylor's law school .
As Baylor's president from 2010 to 2016, the vexing question is the level of Starr's culpability
for the "shocking," "outrageous," and "horrendous" sex scandal. What exactly did Starr know? The
allegations of sexual violence on the campus were rampant and notorious, especially by the football
players. Starr had to know something about the extent of the University's response to the complaints,
and most likely the failure to address these complaints properly. Indeed, there were several Title
IX investigations by the Justice Department at the time that Starr must have known about. Moreover,
there are plenty of egregious examples of sexual violence on the campus that had to have been
reported. In one egregious case, an All-Big 12 football player was accused in 2013 of sexual violence
against a student. Although Waco police contacted university officials, nobody in the university
investigated the case until two years later, after a Title IX investigation was underway, and
media reports highlighted the case. This was after several other Baylor football players were
indicted and convicted of sexual assaults. It was only then that the University hired an outside
investigator. Notably, the headlines also prompted a public outcry, and a candlelight vigil at
Starr's residence.
The Board of Regents Report describes the breadth of the independent investigation into the
university's failure to properly address the University's dereliction. The investigators interviewed
numerous University officials, but there is no mention whether they interviewed Starr, and if
so, what he may have said. Starr may have claimed to be unaware of the repeated failures of
university officials to investigate these complaints, but is that contention credible? Starr presumably
had to know that aggressively investigating these allegations - indeed, as aggressively as he
investigated the sexual misdeeds of President Clinton - might have interfered with his intensive
multi-million dollar fundraising efforts to build a new and lavish football stadium, which opened
in 2014. And Starr may have believed that getting too deep into the mud of the roiling sexual
scandal would undermine the public perception of Baylor's "Christian commitment within a caring
community" - again the Board of Regents' description - as well as compromise the heroic efforts
of the Baylor football team to win a national championship.
So Starr is no longer the university's president. To be sure, it's a demotion of sorts. He
was allowed to keep his Chancellorship, which he just relinquished, but he still gets to keep
his Chair and Professorship at the Law School. One might think this is not a very harsh result,
certainly not if Starr knowingly violated federal law, or by his deliberate indifference allowed
serious criminal conduct to take place at the university he led.
Not to put too fine of a point on it, but Ken Starr is accused of ignoring sexual violence
at Baylor University mostly because doing something about it would have jeopardized a cash cow.
(Note that the disgraced Baylor football coach's salay,
$6 million , was six (6) times college President "Judge Starr." Starr will also retain his position
on the faculty. Priorities!)
The New York Times says what Alternet says , in its own more muffled language:
[Baylor] also fired the football coach, Art Briles, whose ascendant program brought in millions
of dollars in revenue but was dogged by accusations of sexual assault committed by its players
- an increasingly familiar combination in big-time college sports.
Among the firm's findings was that football coaches and athletics administrators at the school
in the central Texas city of Waco had run their own improper investigations into rape claims and
that in some cases they chose not to report such allegations to an administrator outside of athletics.
By running their own "untrained" investigations and meeting directly with a complainant, football
staff "improperly discredited" complainants' claims and "denied them a right to a fair, impartial
and informed investigation."
Starr wanted the revenues. Briles wanted the revenues, the facilities, the salaries, the ticket
to be punched, etc. Again, this is quite directly converting a public institution to serve private
purposes. And like NYU, Baylor appears to have learned nothing. Starr still has a job, and was never
censured. The full report was never released. And
from an ad taken out by Baylor alumni : "Thank You Judge Ken Starr - For your integrity, leadership,
character and humble nature."
ERIC J. BARRON: We actually have launched a whole program, which is titled
" Invent Penn State ," and there are several
different elements of this. One is to do more to incentivize people on campus to get their ideas
out into the marketplace. We have many, many student events that are competitions and have scholarship
funds at the end of it. The second part of it is to add more visibility to our intellectual property.
A third part is to build an ecosystem around our campuses that promote startups and partnerships
with communities.
A general view, in my opinion, is that many universities are focused on this topic as a source
of revenue, not as educational experiences for students and opportunities for them to do startups.
We have a lot of effort on the student side. The minors have expanded. I think we have six or
seven entrepreneurship minors now that are embedded in curriculum for different colleges if you
want. Last year, we started having any student with any major to be able to get all the credits
equivalent to a minor in business. There's a lot on that side plus startup weeks and other activities
with a scholarship side of it.
We have funded but have not yet cut the ribbon on a total of 20 incubators and accelerators
around the state of Pennsylvania associated with our campuses. In March, we cut the ribbon on
what's called Happy Valley Launch Box, which is here in State College, with the idea of having
30 startups in there at any one time. I think we had about 15 before even 30 days. All of these
have gone through some sort of vetting process or competition for which they were winners. It's
growing just left and right. Many of them, we've given them seed money and they've gotten many
times more money from their community and other partners that want to enable the students.
Never mind converting an entire student population into "winners" and "losers."
Never mind that 90% of start-ups
fail . Never mind that when startups succeed, it's as much a matter of luck, and especially the
luck of having been born into the right social network. Thomas Frank has already described Barron's
program, and where it leads. This is
the innovation cult ! Quoting Frank once more:
I just finished Thomas Frank's excellent Listen, Liberal , and he has a great rant about
"innovation," of which I will show a great slab here, from p 186 et seq. Frank even helpfully
quotes the more egregious bullshit tells, so I don't have to highlight them! Do read it in full.
After visiting hollowed out mill town Fall River, Frank goes to Boston:
And:
Let's also leave aside the issue of whether "innovation" culture increases "income inequality."
Suppose Penn State structures its curriculum to optimize for startups (and not for education as such;
critical thinking skills, the construction of narratives, the sciences, research, even (relatively)
humdrum majors like accounting). What happens to the students when 90% of their startups fail,
as history tells us they will? What will they have to fall back on, if everything has been optimized
for startups, and the rest of the university's assets have been stripped?
The future lies ahead on that question. For now, I'm uncertain whether "the innovation" cult is
corrupt as such, or not. Certainly it provides almost limitles opportunities for backscratching,
logrolling, bezzle creation, and so forth. And Barron seems to conceive of it as a big revenue generating
opportunity for Penn State (rather like the football team, if it comes to that). If the program fails,
and is seen to fail, will Penn State learn from the experience? It's hard to know, but
Barron's handling of the fallout from the Sandusky matter does not inspire confidence .
Conclusion
So, what we've got here is an NYU President handing a New York apartment, meant for faculty, to
his son, and what looks rather like powerful faculty members feathering their own nests with cheap
housing; we've got a Baylor President not wanting to cross a powerful and wealthy football team,
even to the extent of failing to handle a rape scandal; and at Penn State we've got a President who's
a member of the "innovation cult," when it's not at all clear this will benefit the student body
as a whole. Have any of these institutions learned from these experiences? No. Are these college
Presidents personally responsible for corruption at their universities - for converting a public
institution to serve private purposes? Sexton and Start, yes. For Barron, the jury is still out.
And these are the institutions of higher education that are granting credentials. Not a good look.
More examples from readers welcome!
NOTES
[1] I should disclose my priors and/or prejudices: I'm a university brat with a humanities
background. Family tradition mandates that I instinctively distrust college administrators, Big
Football, fraternities, and sororities (and, my parents would urge, for very good reasons). Only
the first two will be at issue here.
[2] That is, they're creating hires, as opposed to creating graduates some of whom might be
creative enough to come up with businesses that compete with their own.
[3] If you think that implies that neoliberalism is intrinsically corrupt, since it will put
everything up for sale, including itself, you're not wrong.
'First, Kennedy is only one of many university administrators who stay a couple years at an
institution, punch their ticket, and move on to a higher salaried position elsewhere.'
I think this perfectly describes what I've observed with public school superintendents
also. They are like 'The Music Man.' Selling dreams that our children will be smarter, better
looking, and above average if we just get with the program. While our school district has a local
in charge who appears to be here for the long term, a neighboring district had a 'Music Man' or
rather, woman, who got the city to float a $10 million bond issue so every fourth grader could
have an I-Pad. She then left to do the same (for a higher salary) in another state. Another, much
poorer, district nearby wanted to get rid of a super who had allegedly threatened subordinates
with bodily harm: they bought out her contract for $300,000. In a county with a population of
20,000 and ten percent unemployment.
It is not only at the college level that those in charge are engaging is questionable behavior.
It is a society wide problem.
It is not only at the college level that those in charge are engaging is questionable behavior.
It is a society wide problem.
That is my impression as well-corruption is a society wide problem from top to bottom. The
small town mayors, courts, police, newspapers, insiders, etc may be playing with small potatoes
but corruption is corruption whether it is $1000 or a $1,000,000. I know it can't be everyone
with a little power but way too many. Makes you doubt the whole system.
Greetings from one of those coworking spaces that Mr. Frank took to task in Listen, Liberal
.
Let me tell you a dirty little secret about this place. And, no, I'm not talking about who
left a lunch in the fridge for too long. This is an even dirtier secret. Here it is:
Most of us are not innovators.
That's right. I said it.
The truth is, most of us are working on things that are, well, pretty run of the mill. Guy
behind me is doing digital marketing work for his out-of-state employer, an ad agency. Lady over
there is doing marketing for a resort in Mexico. Oh, and the guy who's my best friend here? We're
both photographers. His other main hustle is graphic design and mine is writing for business.
We have a handful of what could be described as startups, but those businesses are definitely
in the minority.
Well we don't need a sh&t pot full of "innovators" . we need people that can do what they do
well. Does everybody have to create something "new"?? I don't think so.* Edison wasn't the greatest
guy in the world overall, but as he said getting something up is 99% perspiration and only 1%
inspiration – I think he would have spit at the word "innovation", btw.
In fact, he has another lesson for the "innovators" in that a lot of his perspiration was generated
due to his efforts in stealing ideas from other people. Which is going to happen to almost all
of the (if we take their optimistic slices) 10% that do come up with something anybody cares about.
*For a good example, I love the improvement of the American pub scene over the past few decades.
But the best beer and grub isn't the best because it is "innovative" - sometimes it is a bit different,
sometimes not - but because it is very, very well done.
Slim, in your home town town there is one of the perfumed princes that could have fit nicely
into Lambert's post. Us AZ residents are paying neoliberal scumbag a premium price for their "talents"
of enriching themselves.
Oh, brother. Ann Weaver Hart. Don't get me started.
Okay, I am started. So, here goes
A couple of summers ago, I was meeting with a longtime acquaintance and potential client on
the University of Arizona campus. Madame Presidente was about to move her office into Old Main,
which is the UA's oldest building. It's revered as this sacred space. Or something like that.
Any-hoo, I was in a pretty spacious office in a building near Old Main. But my meeting host
told me that Ann Weaver Hart's Old Main *bathroom* was bigger than that office.
Yeesh.
Oh, as for the work space, were you involved in the one that had a pirate theme? Because that
place was - and is - full of pump -n- dump startups.
'King came up through the much despised and derided English Department, in the humanities.'
Although not a product of the English department at my alma mater, Whatsamatta U., I knew some
professors in the department.
To a naive student with no experience in institutional politics, their stories of resentment,
gossip, backbiting, and the politics of personal reputational destruction were like a glimpse
into an unimagined world.
It used to be that there was a saying in academe: the competition is so great because the
stakes are so low. But, if there is a path to six or seven figures, now I see that there is serious
cash to be banked to justify working in the university racket.
Nowadays I bristle when someone describes me as "faculty," even though it's technically correct,
because it papers over the fact that some of the people doing the exact same job as me have full
employment, a full salary, and fringe benefits, where the people in my position get paid per credit
with no benefits. We are "permitted" to buy into university health insurance, at full cost, but
that's the extent of our bennies.
If you're getting to the employment situation in a further post, I'll save my more extensive
comments for that.
Update: one of the articles cited in this essay says Ken Starr resigned from Baylor Law School
and severed all ties with the university this past Friday.
As someone who has a university background, as a grad student in three different universities,
and short stints as a faculty member and an administrator (I was shoved out/left in disgust from
administration)- I attest that this kind of neoliberal thinking, which automatically generates
converting public responsibility to private advantage, is commonplace. As readers here know, the
university is a place where one must strive to present oneself - and simultaneously fool oneself
- as creative and independent-minded within the confines of the matrix. This is most pronounced
in the professional school because they are most beholden to corporate money. A final note: you
will find the best to the worst of humanity in universities.
One more for the honor roll: West Virginia University's former president Michael Garrison,
who ordered the granting of an M.B.A. to moral leper Mylan CEO and Epi-Pen price
optimizer Heather Bresch in 2007,
I have to repeat my favorite historical anecdote here (h/t the late, great Paul Goodman, from
his Compulsory Miseducation, I believe).
It seems that in the summer of 1650, while the faculty was away helping in the fields, Henry
Dunster sold Harvard to a group of Boston businessmen, creating the first Corporation in the New
World, and making himself "President" thereof.
Now Wikipedia claims that Dunster "set up as well as taught Harvard's entire curriculum alone
for many years, graduating the first college class in America, the Class of 1642". So perhaps
Dunster was simply ahead of his time in creating the prototype for Trump University.
Administrators in academia hold themselves to the same high ethical standards as officials
in government. In other words, they do whatever they can get away with, and then sputter about
future "transparency," and "doing better," when their misdeeds come to light.
This blather from Austin, Texas, could just as well have come from Washington, D.C.:
"I've read the report a half-dozen times in totality, and I found no willful misconduct
, no criminal activity on the part of any of the folks at the University of Texas
at Austin, and have told the Board of Regents that I intend to take no disciplinary action,"
he said.
"Can we do things better? You bet," he continued. "Should we have been more transparent?
Absolutely. Are we going to get this fixed? No doubt about it."
Mr. Powers pushed back against the report's suggestion that he had not been forthcoming,
saying he had been "truthful and not evasive" in his dealings with investigators.
My $2c; apologies that they're a bit unpolished: One question you/we might ponder is how (a
desire for) obvious nepotism engenders privatization, versus more "principled" demands
for privatization of public goods/services. To give a very brief summary of the developments since
WWII inspired by my reading of David Harvey's The Enigma of Capital : privatization became
important once western economies 'matured', because of how this meant that there were ever fewer
(obvious) opportunities for growth. And secondly because, once more and more people started getting
degrees, there was an explosion in the number of people who were "trained" (only) for middle/upper
management positions; for who there was fairly little demand in public institutions, probably
because workers had decent unions/voice, so that the people who ran those places couldn't easily
justify managerial metastasis and the taking away of job-related autonomy (to create demand for
"decision-makers") by creating cultures of institutionalized distrust (via yammering about the
importance of "accountability"). (Though the latter was/is still an issue, it gets worse the more
neoliberalized the organizational mode gets, because of neoliberalisms implicit (rational-actor)
misanthropic world view.) Those developments strike me as separate from the more narcissistic
( professional class/meritocratic-reasoning )-related forms of corruption/grift/etc. that
you discuss above, though.
(To clarify, Harvey doesn't talk about professionalization; that's just me combining observations
made by Graeber with those made by Tom Frank in Listen, Liberal .)
Harvey's book is great; as for Frank & Graeber, I was thinking of Graeber's remarks about what
he (in Debt) calls the crisis of inclusion (which he's also talked about elsewhere, e.g. in the
Army of Altruists essay in Revolutions in Reverse ). Graeber there (as I assume you recall)
only talks about the fact that those who don't belong to what Frank calls the professional class
(and those who self-identify with them), only have the army and the church open to them if they
wish to pursue goals other than accumulating money/power; yet the higher-ed explosion must've
also had enormous consequences for the supply of people with managerial and similar training.
But I only started pondering that question recently, after reading Frank woke me up to the obvious.
How about Cooper Union president Jamshed Bharucha - who managed to screw up the school's endowment
that had been in place since 1859. Check out the movie "Ivory Tower".
NYU is a school run by money, and it's so transparent that for a board populated by billionaires,
run by a press-shy guy who helped a lot of them become billionaires, that they prop up the flamboyant
Sexton's supposed fundraising abilities and
"imperial" presidency. Fortunately for Sexton and NYU, he's paid enough money to take the
press's lashings like a good boy.
But surely such a mediocre pedant isn't the mastermind behind the bloated, technocratic, real
estate development company and vanity project (which also offers classes, which are taught by
#publicintellectuals).
Pam Martens has written several posts at Wallstreetonparade talking about NYU's corruption,
connections to Wall St, and Jack Lew. Don't have links handy but easy to Google.
I would like to point out that Chancellors Linda Katehi (UC Davis)and Nicholas Dirks (UC Berkeley)
have both recently resigned under pressure from UC Top Honcho Janet Napolitano. It seems Administrator
transgressions (impunity and self-dealing) are finding its way into the "sunlight".
Some people starting up can get "small loans" of $1,000,000 from the old man and have those
kinds of resources to fall back on if they flop. The other 99.99% of us? Not so much. How is this
innovation dogma supposed to work for those of us who can't buy our way into the Creative Class?
Those who already think Clinton is too sleazy won't be voting for her, but those who
think she is too sick, or that she will be impeached, might
Notable quotes:
"... I would like to vote for Hillary because she's already harmless and looks friendly with her mild seizures, it's like nehi-nehi Indian dance. But I am so afraid of her corporate backers that they will exploit Hillary and Bill's weakness as ageing senior illuminati couple, how can you unite the Fed with CIA, FBI and US military, not too mention Wall Street. ..."
"... Are you talking about Hillary and Bill Clinton? Your are describing Hillary and her politics of corruption, bad judgment; incompetence, job outsourcing and total disregard for American people. if anyone is remotely suitable to become POTUS it is her. Only those who really hate America will be happy with its further decline and will vote for Hillary. However, Trump will become America's next President. ..."
"... After 40 years of EU lies they are more than imbued to being lied to by politicians - no wonder the people are utterly and totally disillusioned with the established parties who show such appalling contempt for the people and democracy. Nothing better explains the growing success of mavericks like Trump and Farage: frankly the people need them as a safety valve for their frustrations. ..."
"... Ok, let's forget that Farage was the only major political party leader to stand up for democracy. We also should forget that, despite all the horrific personal abuse he suffered, he carried on year after year against the almighty power of the establishment and managed to win us our sovereignty back. We definitely must forget that he is a libertarian and his party is the ONLY major political party that bans all previous members of racist parties from applying. ..."
"... Her beliefs change with her lobbyist's wishes, she lies openly on camera and in office, puts donors and enormous backhanders before the electorate that voted for her, uses her Clinton Foundation as a cream skimming perk where all cash is welcome and Gov policy a Clinton Foundation sellable asset and entertains despots, juntas and murderous thugs using State Dept as a gun-for-hire. ..."
"... Neocons seek power through creating social division so can never win more than a small majority and only for a short time. Exhibit A: Tony Useless Abbott, worst PM in Australia's history. ..."
"... Quote: "For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party, unless I am first authorized to participate," -- Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... The ethics pledge Hillary violated at least 85 times, but go ahead and believe that she won't ever do it again... ..."
I would like to vote for Hillary because she's already harmless and looks friendly with her
mild seizures, it's like nehi-nehi Indian dance. But I am so afraid of her corporate backers
that they will exploit Hillary and Bill's weakness as ageing senior illuminati couple, how
can you unite the Fed with CIA, FBI and US military, not too mention Wall Street.
The real problem here is a political vacuum so huge you could fit trump's ego inside it. Just
a guess but from what I've seen this last year about half of trump supporters are wwhat could
be called die-hard racists. The one major failing of the workers movement that Sanders started
in the US was an inability to pull off the 50% of trump supporters who are not fundamentally
racist. T
here was no major appeal to the more rural agricultural communities by Sanders that
I ever heard. They may only represent 20% of the population but they are the backbone of the
US as they are unable to compete with large scale corporate farming they suffer the same ideological
loss that the rest of the working class suffer from. If the progressive movement cannot or
will not appeal to this group through small farming and organic farming subsidies then they
will go with someone like trump even though he promises them nothing. T
hey will, in the absence
of an alternative political path just choose 'f**k you' for their candidate. Probably too late
this time around but in the future the progressive movement needs to include these people or
they will be the 'third rail' the left dies on.
My husband is a liar and a cheat. He has cheated on me from the beginning and when I confront
him, he denies everything. What's worse, everyone knows he cheats on me. It's so humiliating.
Also, since he lost his job 14 years ago, he hasn't even looked for a new one. All he does
all day is smoke cigars, play golf, cruise around and shoot ball with his buddies and has sex
with hookers, while I work so hard to pay our bills.
Since our daughter went away to college and then got married; he doesn't even pretend to like
me, and hints that I may be a lesbian. What should I do?
Signed:
Confused
Answer..
Dear Confused:
Grow up and dump him.
You don't need him anymore!
Good grief woman, you're running for President of the United States!
Are you talking about Hillary and Bill Clinton? Your are describing Hillary and her politics
of corruption, bad judgment; incompetence, job outsourcing and total disregard for American
people. if anyone is remotely suitable to become POTUS it is her. Only those who really hate
America will be happy with its further decline and will vote for Hillary. However, Trump will
become America's next President.
Listen to his peaches - that would be time better spent than to spend time of defending
Hillary, who soon be either behind the bars or forgotten.
After 40 years of EU lies they are more than imbued to being lied to by politicians -
no wonder the people are utterly and totally disillusioned with the established parties who show
such appalling contempt for the people and democracy. Nothing better explains the growing success
of mavericks like Trump and Farage: frankly the people need them as a safety valve for their frustrations.
Nigel is not making any threats to USA as Obama did in UK (you'll be in back of the queue).
It was not Nigel who spoke about obama's ancestry. America has a tough choice Trump/Clinton. My brother
lives in Florida - he says he wouldn't vote for Clinton.
I voted UKIP and for LEAVE and think Nigel
Farage will go down in history as one of the most important men in politics for a very long time.
We supported him because he spoke for us and the other politicians stopped listening to us. These
snidey nasty comments are typical of leftie guardian readers. After all - they're probably going
to vote for Corby who hasn't a cat in hells chance of ever being PM!
Yes, you're right. It's this sentiment that has pushed the proletariat into the arms of Trump and
Farage. Funnily enough, during my time working with the EU there was a very strong push towards less
democracy and more population management. Most of it is being done via education and other soft power
platforms - reforming children's attitudes, self-awareness training, behavioral feedback and gender
confusion. This is being done under the guise of tolerance, diversity and identity politics. It keeps
the masses fighting amongst themselves while those in charge of them steal everything.
Ok, let's forget that Farage was the only major political party leader to stand up for democracy. We also should forget that, despite all the horrific personal abuse he suffered, he carried on year
after year against the almighty power of the establishment and managed to win us our sovereignty
back. We definitely must forget that he is a libertarian and his party is the ONLY major political party
that bans all previous members of racist parties from applying.
Now hand me some of that racism juice and point me to the bandwagon!
Her beliefs change with her lobbyist's wishes, she lies openly on camera and in office, puts donors
and enormous backhanders before the electorate that voted for her, uses her Clinton Foundation as
a cream skimming perk where all cash is welcome and Gov policy a Clinton Foundation sellable asset
and entertains despots, juntas and murderous thugs using State Dept as a gun-for-hire.
I see the Bremain crowd still out for some revenge. And who would Hillary invite from "Brits?"
Let's face it most Americans have no clue about other foreign leaders unless they are being splashed
across their TV screens as some evil incarnates ready to be bombed by American bombs. Thus Guardian
cheap shot at Farage as unknown is just cheap.
Indeed the whole reporting of that meeting between Farage and Trump is distasteful for a newsmedia
like Guardian. Purely designed to belittle Farage and, of course, portray Trump as a non-starter
in the race for White House.
Btw, i was going through list of media giants that have contributed and donated to the Clinton
Foundation. Let me confirm whether Guardian or its associates/affiliates are on the list!
The MSM is trying to make Hillary look popular at the few rallies she conducts when the reality is
her crowds are tiny.
You then have Trump doing multiple rallies a day where he regularly fills large sports stadiums.
It just goes to show how corrupt the MSM is and how they manipulate footage to create false impressions.
Neocons seek power through creating social division so can never win more than a small majority
and only for a short time. Exhibit A: Tony Useless Abbott, worst PM in Australia's history.
Isn't it strange to see so much bile and bitterness being directed towards Mr Farage? We've had
the referendum and Brexit won. Please can the many complainers here show some respect to the millions
who voted and who did so of the own volition (and without the nonsense of being under some spell
cast by imaginary bogeymen!). Can those complaining not accept that after 40 years of effort to
make the EU work people are entitled to say - sorry, its over - but hopefully we can still be
friends.
Farage was a good choice for a support speaker. He is the one person in Europe who has produced
a stunning electoral upset and then quit the scene. All the pollsters got it wrong.
It's distressing that some members of the audience knew nothing about the Brexit, despite efforts
by The Guardian and many others to relieve their ignorance. However, might not the same criticism
be applied to most American voters, of whatever ilk?
Quote: "For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate
personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The
William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party,
unless I am first authorized to participate," -- Hillary Clinton.
The ethics pledge Hillary
violated at least 85 times, but go ahead and believe that she won't ever do it again...
"... If anything, America is too often at the end of those chains, as the global consumer of last resort. It's not investing in domestic, let alone global, infrastructure. It is the world's largest debtor, and its role in the world economy is primarily to borrow and consume… ..."
"... CWA staffer and Sanders advisor Larry Cohen: "It was May of 2015. I'd been criticizing TPP at the time and they said, "He'd like to talk to you." What [Obama] told me was: 'I am too far down the road to change.' He repeated it over and over" [ Mother Jones ]. Terrific interview, well worth reading in full. ..."
"[T]he Obama administration has been careful not to let the Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership fall by the wayside. Instead, an enormous
amount of work - including regular, bi-weekly communication between U.S.
Trade Representative Michael Froman and EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia
Malmström - has been ongoing" [Politico].
"While the administration is optimistic about its own ability to work hard
as a creative negotiating partner, it remains an open question as to whether
the Europeans are ready to go, the official said." Ouch!
"Why the TPP Deal Won't Improve Our Security" [Clyde Prestowitz,
New York Times]. "If anything, America is too often at the end of
those chains, as the global consumer of last resort. It's not investing in
domestic, let alone global, infrastructure. It is the world's largest
debtor, and its role in the world economy is primarily to borrow and
consume…. the administration is absolutely right that America needs
tools to counter China's growing influence in Asia and around the world. But
until America can come close to matching China's dynamism, it has no hope of
countering its economic and geopolitical influence with old-fashioned trade
agreements, no matter how monumental they are said to be."
CWA staffer and Sanders advisor Larry Cohen: "It was May of 2015. I'd
been criticizing TPP at the time and they said, "He'd like to talk to you."
What [Obama] told me was: 'I am too far down the road to change.' He
repeated it over and over" [Mother
Jones]. Terrific interview, well worth reading in full.
"When Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton announced her opposition to
TPP last fall, Mr. Obama was furious. He believed she was making a
political, not substantive, decision that was designed to diminish an
advantage her then-primary opponent Bernie Sanders, who opposed the trade
deal, had with Democratic voters" [Wall
Street Journal]. No. With Obama, it's about nobody ever making him look
bad. Clinton's "political" "decision" was to issue a statement filled with
lawyerly parsing designed to allow her to do the deed if Obama can't.
She can not offer anything as she is "kick the can down the road" neoliberal candidate serving financial
oligarchy, so playing fear card is her the only chance...
UPDATE "'You can get rid of Manafort, but that doesn't end the odd bromance Trump has with Putin,'
Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said in a statement" [Washington
Post]. That's our Democrats; gin up a war scare all to win Eastern Europeans in a swing state
(Ohio). That's what this article, read closely, boils down to, read carefully. (I love Mook's "bromance,"
so reminiscent of the Clinton campaign's vile BernieBro smear.)
UPDATE "Republicans in North Carolina are pulling out all the stops to suppress the state's reliably
Democratic black vote. After the Fourth Circuit court reinstated a week of early voting, GOP-controlled
county elections boards are now trying to cut early-voting hours across the state. By virtue of holding
the governor's office, Republicans control a majority of votes on all county election boards and
yesterday they voted to cut 238 hours of early voting in Charlotte's Mecklenburg County, the largest
in the state. 'I'm not a big fan of early voting,' said GOP board chair Mary Potter Summa, brazenly
disregarding the federal appeals court's opinion. 'The more [early voting] sites we have, the more
opportunities exist for violations'" [The
Nation]. Bad Republicans. On the other hand, if the Democrats treated voter registration like
a 365/24/7 party function, including purchasing IDs in ID states for those who can't afford them,
none of this would be happening.
Anti-Russian hysteria and demonization of Trump is the key strategies for neoliberal media to secure
Hillary victory in November.
Anti-Russian hysteria is also a tool to maintain solidarity and suppress dissent against neoliberal
globalization. Those presstitutes will stop at nothing, even provocations and swiftboating are OK for them (See Khan
Gambit)
Notable quotes:
"... Oh, and I suppose Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton's vitriol is okay, right? Typical [neo]liberal ranting. Point the finger at someone else, but do the same thing and it's okay. ..."
"... When candidates wish to distinguish themselves or appeal to various segments of the electorate, there is nothing like a lot of demagoguery and fear mongering to bring attention to a candidate and his issues. ..."
"... It then becomes all the more necessary to drive hysteria and to rely on fear and the hyped common threat to maintain solidarity. While some may fantasize about a society run by women, what we know from experience is that women in power act and speak just like men, that is, they also act solely in their own parochial personal political interest and say whatever is necessary to win their next election. ..."
"... I think the divisions are easier to exploit in part because the society has become so greatly divided based of income inequality. ..."
"... WWII's impact on media tended to paper over many of the differences and tensions that have been present in American life. Aside from the period during WWII and in the few decades after, vitriol has been the norm in U.S. media going back to the 1790s. ..."
"... The media became more fragmented as well. Broadcast media also used to be seen as a public service. But in the 1970s the major networks started to understand that it could also be a profit center -- and you had another shift in values, where the public function took a back-seat to profit maximization. The market also has become more cut-throat as the media environment has become more fragmented. ..."
"... [Neo]Liberals are largely to blame - they regarded their opponents as "uneducated" "swivel-eyed" etc. They ruthlessly played "identity politics" for all it was worth. They shut down meaningful debate. ..."
"... This is very true. Screaming racist at anyone challenging the liberal orthodoxy of black = victim and white = oppressor . ..."
"... The same is true of ignoring the many black lives that are ended by the type of people the police frequently come into contact with - other young black men. ..."
"... Politics: policies are never discussed in detail in ANY election. The WHAT, HOW, WHERE, WHEN, WHY and COST is never provided in detail by the politicians. ..."
"... That is the disaster that what current politicians totally fail. That needs to change. Will such, I doubt it. The current so called political platforms or manifestos, are basically useless and used only for propaganda. ..."
"... You left out WHO does the dirty work of the politicians. ..."
"... I largely blame the media (sorry Guardian) for what's happening... the endless need for attention and eyeballs creates an ever louder echo chamber of increasingly extreme opinions masquerading as news, which simply creates a similarly extreme public discourse. ..."
"... I have always wondered if "spin" is taught in journalism schools, or if it is taught by newspapers after graduation from journalism school. ..."
"... I largely blame the media (sorry Guardian) for what's happening... the endless need for attention and eyeballs creates an ever louder echo chamber of increasingly extreme opinions masquerading as news, which simply creates a similarly extreme public discourse. ..."
"... Politically, the Reagan/Thatcher period broke the socially-democratic post-WWII consensus in favour of economic neo-liberalism, which became the new consensus... and once the Cold War was over, there was no real 'peace dividend' and the agreements for global free-trade/globalisation were struck. ..."
"... That lead to the banking crisis/collapse in 2008, and to the 'solution' whereby most governments imposed 'austerity' and debt on ordinary people to keep most of the bankers 'functional' and 'solvent' ...and not only were the bankers not adequately regulated to curtail their activities, but they carried on paying themselves mega-currency bonuses for using taxpayer guarantees to rescue their dysfunctional businesses. ..."
"... I agree, its an entirely artificial construct. And the globalists are in a position to punish countries like Britain for its Brexit decision. But they cannot destroy Britain. Rather, it is the globalists who may be destroyed by the nationalism spreading across the globe. Many globalists are actually terrified by all this. General Electric has read the tea leaves and is already reacting: ..."
"... GE's Immelt Signals End to 7 Decades of Globalization http://fortune.com/2016/05/20/ge-immelt-globalization/ ..."
"... Fascinating link. The global corporate overlords only respond to sustained political pressure. Brexit was a wakeup call for them and the November election in the U.S. may be another... ..."
Oh, and I suppose Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton's vitriol is okay, right? Typical
[neo]liberal ranting. Point the finger at someone else, but do the same thing and it's okay.
The only difference today is that Donald Trump doesn't take the finger pointing and Democratic
vitriol laying down, he fires it right back at them and guess what, he keeps winning!
Vitriolic and polemical speech has been a ubiquitous ritual since the earliest democracies.
When candidates wish to distinguish themselves or appeal to various segments of the electorate,
there is nothing like a lot of demagoguery and fear mongering to bring attention to a candidate
and his issues. In the end, self-interest motivates voters, and fear is the biggest self-interest
of all. Using the specter of the opposition to scare small children and those who think like them
is a time honored tradition and well alive today. Further, as groups begin to prosper and start
being assimilated into the broader society, the individual self-interests diverge and it becomes
harder to hold them together as a cohesive group whose votes can be counted on. It then becomes
all the more necessary to drive hysteria and to rely on fear and the hyped common threat to maintain
solidarity. While some may fantasize about a society run by women, what we know from experience
is that women in power act and speak just like men, that is, they also act solely in their own
parochial personal political interest and say whatever is necessary to win their next election.
Noam Chomsky talked about this in "The Corporation." Our division and increased level of emotional
isolation is a direct result of marketing attacks on the human psyche designed to get us to buy
more products and services. I'm not sure how much of it is Machiavellian and how much is just
pure greed reaping it's inevitable harvest.
A smart comment. Greed and fear are indeed the primary drivers of behaviour in many arenas now,
and it's partly driven by corporations. This-or-that, black-and-white thinking is largely a product
of high emotion, which essentially makes us 'stupid' and unable to reason.
The impact of viewing - consciously or unconsciously - dozens of ads a day on the Internet,
or hours of tranced staring at screens, may be shown to be a major factor in the increasingly
mesmerised state of the populace.
That and, as these venerable politicos point out, the demise of political nous generally.
Many excellent points. I think the divisions are easier to exploit in part because the society
has become so greatly divided based of income inequality. People have completely different
frames of reference in terms of their experience, and anxieties, and so it becomes easier to dismiss
the concerns of others out-of-hand as illegitimate. You can also overlay racism as part of the
equation, which has always been present with varying degrees of intensity in the U.S.
WWII's impact on media tended to paper over many of the differences and tensions that have
been present in American life. Aside from the period during WWII and in the few decades after,
vitriol has been the norm in U.S. media going back to the 1790s.
The idea of a media culture that was objective and bipartisan is a newer idea. It was codified
by things like the Fairness Doctrine as well, which tended to moderate, and censor, public discussion
through broadcast media. When the Fairness Doctrine fell apart you had people like Limbaugh go
national with a highly partisan infotainment model.
The media became more fragmented as well. Broadcast media also used to be seen as a public
service. But in the 1970s the major networks started to understand that it could also be a profit
center -- and you had another shift in values, where the public function took a back-seat to profit
maximization. The market also has become more cut-throat as the media environment has become more
fragmented.
[Neo]Liberals are largely to blame - they regarded their opponents as "uneducated" "swivel-eyed"
etc. They ruthlessly played "identity politics" for all it was worth. They shut down meaningful
debate. Now it's come back to bite them in the form of Donald Trump. They don't like it now
they are on the receiving end.
This is the type of over-stating a position that they are prone to. But saying that "liberals"
are largely to blame is no different to them pointing the finger at "the right" for all the issues.
There's plenty of blame to go around, and it's evenly spread.
They ruthlessly played "identity politics" for all it was worth. They shut down meaningful
debate.
This is very true. Screaming racist at anyone challenging the liberal orthodoxy
of black = victim and white = oppressor .
A prime example of one of the issues is BLM. Pushing the view that any black person killed
by the police as dying at the hand of a racist cop.
Using whole population stats to compare the chances of being shot by the police, instead of
comparing socio-economic groups. It's not exactly unbiased to compare the chances of a poor black
man, and a white lawyer, of being stopped or shot by the police.
The same is true of ignoring the many black lives that are ended by the type of people
the police frequently come into contact with - other young black men.
Until both sides are truthful about what's happening, nothing is going to change. Both sides
- police and young black men - currently approach an interaction with each other fearful of the
other. This is made worse on both sides by the rhetoric.
If you listen to BLM and its supporters, then every cop is racist and wamnts to kill them.
Why would you do what the police officer tells you if you think you're just opening yourself up
to a racist cop killing you?
On the other side, the police apparently often assume that every young black man they encounter
both has a gun, and thinks they're racist, and therefore operates on that assumption and goes
for a shoot first and be safe option.
Neither of these will get any better while there is this lying and entrenched positions on
either side. You could also ask why anyone who's white would support an organization which doesn't
appear to care about the white victims of the police (of which AIUI there are an equal number).
Or the black murder victims who aren't killed by the police.
Politics: policies are never discussed in detail in ANY election. The WHAT, HOW, WHERE, WHEN,
WHY and COST is never provided in detail by the politicians. Every thing in the politicians
mind is open ended, and may or may not be adopted, considered, or maybe a totally different thing
than what they were elected for.
That is the disaster that what current politicians totally fail. That needs to change.
Will such, I doubt it. The current so called political platforms or manifestos, are basically
useless and used only for propaganda.
I largely blame the media (sorry Guardian) for what's happening... the endless need for attention
and eyeballs creates an ever louder echo chamber of increasingly extreme opinions masquerading
as news, which simply creates a similarly extreme public discourse.
Even my beloved Guardian is succumbing, publishing more and more pointless newsy opinion pieces
and less and less fact-based, hard news. I don't want to read five takes on a single world event.
I'd rather read the facts about five different world events and feel more informed at the end
of the day.
I have always wondered if "spin" is taught in journalism schools, or if it is taught by newspapers
after graduation from journalism school.
It gets so far out, you wonder what journalists think the readers think. It would be great
to be in on a backroom discussion about headlines and all paraphrasing in articles at the Washington
Post and Guardian.
I'll bet they sit around and chuckle as they try to cook up positive or negative spins. Its
more than facts.
I largely blame the media (sorry Guardian) for what's happening... the endless need for attention
and eyeballs creates an ever louder echo chamber of increasingly extreme opinions masquerading
as news, which simply creates a similarly extreme public discourse.
Even my beloved Guardian is succumbing, publishing more and more pointless newsy opinion pieces
and less and less fact-based, hard news. I don't want to read five takes on a single world event.
I'd rather read the facts about five different world events and feel more informed at the end
of the day.
I suspect we're seeing the consequences of two events... one political, the other financial (heavily
determined by the political, which happened first).
Politically, the Reagan/Thatcher period broke the socially-democratic post-WWII consensus
in favour of economic neo-liberalism, which became the new consensus... and once the Cold War
was over, there was no real 'peace dividend' and the agreements for global free-trade/globalisation
were struck.
That lead to the banking crisis/collapse in 2008, and to the 'solution' whereby most governments
imposed 'austerity' and debt on ordinary people to keep most of the bankers 'functional' and 'solvent'
...and not only were the bankers not adequately regulated to curtail their activities, but they
carried on paying themselves mega-currency bonuses for using taxpayer guarantees to rescue their
dysfunctional businesses.
As the UK-EU Referendum result has proved, populist politicians spouting bullsh*t can succeed
in this environment; especially when 'decent politicians' abdicate their responsibilities.
I agree, its an entirely artificial construct. And the globalists are in a position to punish
countries like Britain for its Brexit decision. But they cannot destroy Britain. Rather, it is
the globalists who may be destroyed by the nationalism spreading across the globe. Many globalists
are actually terrified by all this. General Electric has read the tea leaves and is already reacting:
Fascinating link. The global corporate overlords only respond to sustained political pressure.
Brexit was a wakeup call for them and the November election in the U.S. may be another...
Contrary to Kristol, far from being a non-interventionist, Obama conducted two interventions against
dictators in Egypt and Libya with disastrous consequences. The intervention in Libya, which Kristol
supported, has created two million refugees, hundreds of thousands of corpses, and a terrorist state.
One might suppose that a little re-thinking of interventionism would be in order. Trump's readiness
to rethink interventionism is hardly the same as Obama's strategy of retreat and surrender.
Contrary to Kristol's assertion, Trump is not opposed to all interventions against dictators.
He has promised to do what it takes to destroy ISIS, which includes bombing its oil facilities and
destroying its headquarters, and is obviously only possible with interventions in Syria and Iraq.
Destroying ISIS would also be an action to prevent mass slaughter, despite Kristol groundless claim.
As for Trump
proposing
"another re-set with Putin's Russia," there was no re-set with Russia under Obama. Attempting
a serious re-set - a re-set from strength - would seem reasonable and prudent, and would hardly be
a repeat of Obama's policies. It would be just the opposite.
"Getting out of the nation-building business and instead focusing on creating stability in the
world" is hardly an Obama policy, as Kristol suggests. Obama's intervention in Eygpt, put the Muslim
Brotherhood in power; when the Egyptian military then overthrew the Brotherhood, Obama sided with
the Brotherhood and alienated the most important power in the Middle East. These acts, together with
Obama's withdrawal from Iraq and waffling in Syria, created a power vacuum that spread instability
throughout the region.
"Avoiding nation-building, while focusing on creating stability" is a foreign policy any true
constitutional conservative would support - unless that conservative was driven by an irrational
hatred of Trump. Finally, Trump's promise to put American interests first and restore respect for
America through rebuilding American strength can only be described as a "national retreat" by a very
unprincipled - and careless - individual.
All these dishonesties and flim-flam excuses pale by comparison with the consequences Kristol
and his "Never Trump" cohorts are willing to risk by splitting the Republican vote. Obama has provided
America's mortal enemy, Iran, with a path to nuclear weapons, $150 billion dollars, and the freedom
to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver the lethal payloads. Trump has promised
to abandon the Iran deal, while Hillary Clinton and all but a handful of Democrats have supported
this treachery from start to finish. Kristol is now one of their allies.
I am a Jew who has never been to Israel and has never been a Zionist in the sense of believing
that Jews can rid themselves of Jew hatred by having their own nation state. But half of world Jewry
now lives in Israel, and the enemies whom Obama and Hillary have empowered - Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood,
Hezbollah, ISIS, and Hamas - have openly sworn to exterminate the Jews. I am also an American (and
an American first), whose country is threatened with destruction by the same enemies. To weaken the
only party that stands between the Jews and their annihilation, and between America and the forces
intent on destroying her, is a political miscalculation so great and a betrayal so profound as to
not be easily forgiven.
"... During the 15 months that I worked at Pitt, I felt the brunt of this lady's abuse. She'd call me into the office, launch into a blistering tirade, and I would sit there, stunned. And, to her, that was another cause for anger. Why was I just sitting there and not reacting? ..."
"... The authors fail to get to the real fundamentals of this phenomenon. The two ends of the spectrum that they delineate can be housed under a single umbrella, that of neoliberalism. And it is obvious that neoliberalism can kill. And Durkheim would have agreed readily that ideas can kill, and not just via suicide. ..."
"... Give yourself a break inode_buddha. Thirty years ago, you, and myself as well, made a rational decision as to what direction to take. At the time, construction and the associated trades were honourable and respectable. A decent living could be made, and a future was in sight. Neo-Liberalism has, since then, destroyed most things that benefited anyone other than the criminal management classes. Humanity has had to stand up and fight for decency and equality throughout history. ..."
"... I have to tell you, as a small business owner myself, this "regulations are burdensome" argument is a crock. Lobbyists in DC learned decades ago that the best way to put a sympathetic face on their efforts to get waivers for big businesses is to have small business owners act as their mouthpieces. And there are enough extreme libertarians everywhere that it's not hard to find someone to screech that the regulations he is subject to are horrible irrespective of how much a burden they really are. ..."
"... "Perhaps this world is another planet's hell." – Aldous Huxley. Yes, it is definitely. Perhaps pretty soon they will start strip search employees when they come to work. ..."
"... Increasing numbers of suicides are one outcome of these environments. But as the writers point out, there are a number of other symptoms associated with these toxic workplaces, none good. They range from physical and mental health issues, to various forms of addiction, burnout, and secondary effects on employees' personal lives and those of their family members or partners. ..."
"... I agree that neoliberal ideology, globalization, and the basic structures of our debt-based economy all play a key role in enabling the intentional development of these organizational environments. ..."
"... I believe the roots of the problem lie in a broader and deeper systemic failure. ..."
"... market failure ..."
"... This article highlights suicide, but drug and alcohol abuse are just as much a result of poor employment outcomes as suicide and for the same reasons. ..."
Yves here. It's hardly a secret that employers have become more abusive towards employees because
they can get away with it. The difficulty of finding new employment, particularly for mid and senior
level jobs, combined with the fact that most workers (even comparatively well paid ones) are only
a paycheck or two away from financial desperation, means bosses have tremendous leverage over workers.
And more and more firms embrace coerciveness as a virtue. In the past, it's more often taken the
form of cultishness, which is a very effective business model, as Goldman and Bain attest, but more
recently, outright mistreatment is becoming common. For instance, Amazon has so successfully cultivated
a "culture of fear" that t
he overwhelming majority of employees cry at work .
Note the claim in the article about elevated suicide rates at Apple supplier Foxconn is contested;
some contend that statistically, its rate of suicides is no higher than for other employers. However,
many of the dorms apparently had mesh canopies to prevent suicides, so one wonders if direct comparisons
are apt.
By Sarah Waters, a Senior Lecturer in French Studies, University of Leeds and Jenny Chan,
a Departmental Lecturer in Sociology and China Studies, University of Oxford. Originally published
at The Conversation
A Paris prosecutor
recently called for the former CEO and six senior managers of telecoms provider, France Télécom,
to face criminal charges for workplace harassment. The recommendation followed a lengthy inquiry
into the suicides of a number of employees at the company between 2005 and 2009. The prosecutor accused
management of deliberately "destabilising" employees and creating a "stressful professional climate"
through a company-wide strategy of "harcčlement moral" – psychological bullying.
All deny any wrongdoing and it is now up to a judge to decide whether to follow the prosecutor's
advice or dismiss the case. If it goes ahead, it would be a landmark criminal trial, with implications
far beyond just one company.
Workplace suicides are sharply on the rise internationally, with increasing numbers of employees
choosing to take their own lives in the face of extreme pressures at work.
Recent studies in the United States, Australia, Japan, South Korea, China, India and Taiwan all
point to a steep rise in suicides in the context of a generalised deterioration in working conditions.
Rising suicides are part of the profound transformations in the workplace that have taken place
over the past 30 years. These transformations are arguably rooted in the political and economic shift
to
globalisation that has radically altered the way we work.
In the post-war Fordist era
of industry (pioneered by US car manufacturer Henry Ford), jobs generally provided stability
and a clear career trajectory for many, allowing people to define their collective identity and their
place in the world. Strong trade unions in major industrial sectors meant that employees could negotiate
their working rights and conditions.
Now, it is not enough simply to work hard. In the words of Marxist theorist Franco Berardi,
"the soul is put to work"
and workers must devote their whole selves to the needs of the company.
For the economist Guy Standing, the
precariat is the
new social class of the 21st century, characterised by the lack of job security and even basic stability.
Workers move in and out of jobs which give little meaning to their lives. This shift has had deleterious
effects on many people's experience of work, with rising cases of acute stress, anxiety, sleep disorders,
burnout, hopelessness
and, in some cases, suicide .
Holding Companies to Account
Yet, company bosses are rarely held to account for inflicting such misery on their employees.
The suicides at France Télécom preceded another well-publicised case in a large multinational company
– Foxconn Technology Group in China – where 18 young migrant workers aged between 17 and 25 attempted
suicide at one of Foxconn's main factories in 2010 (14 of whom
died ).
The victims all worked on the assembly line making electronic gadgets for some of the world's
richest corporations, including Samsung, Sony and Dell. But it was Apple that received the most criticism,
as Foxconn was its main supplier at the time.
One of our son's best friends from high school was a funny, bright kid that got a BS/MS in
Computer Science from Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) a few years ago. He did his first
coop at a software firm in Boston that dealt with electricity demand management.
Then he went to work for Apple, first as a coop then as an employee.
By the time his name was announced to the media, everything about him on Facebook, LinkedIn,
etc had disappeared. They scrubbed him off the internet. We don't know if he posted anything before
his death, but our son said his pages were pretty generic for a 25 year old.
Let it suffice to say something went terribly wrong in the libertarian paradise of Silicon
Valley, really just a ritzier version of FoxConn. Having known him through high school and occasional
visits thereafter, one never would have thought such an end would have been possible.
It's happening on the job, at school, and damn near any other social institution where the
stakes can be ratcheted up in intensity. Suicide is one end of the spectrum of dysfunction.
Going postal is another. Our elites don't like wet work much, so they find other ways to get
rid of the undesirables. I doubt they planned it this way, but isn't it sweet that all you have
to do is stop being fake-nice as a boss and the problem takes care of itself?
It's not only corporations, of course, that have problems with endemic abuse and need to be
taking responsibility, nor is the issue restricted to institutions where profits take precedence
über alles. Here is the link for the site "Academia Is Killing My Friends," which is described
in the "About" section like this:
I am a final year PhD student in the Social Sciences. Last year a fellow PhD student committed
suicide after being harassed by a lecturer. I got angry and made this site. This site is a
response to the cultures of violence, fear and silence I have witnessed and experienced in
my academic community. Sexual harassment, mental illness and unpaid labor are the accepted
and expected norms. Abusive academics are well known and yet remain in the community. We are
powerless and afraid of backlash, unemployment and failure. All of this gets worse as public
spending is cut and universities become increasingly neoliberal institutions. This site is
a 'fuck you' to the silence and fear. It is, I hope, a space where we can share our stories
of abuse, exploitation and suffering in academia.
There are now 104 stories and counting. An excerpt from a recent post (#103):
I started out an idealistic and hopeful student. Worked to pay for college, good grades,
got into a good PhD program. Worked hard, had a good mentor, published, moved on to postdoc.
I thought that I could keep working hard, publish and move into some reasonable career trajectory.
Right?
Well, we all know why we're here. I can't even go into the details. It's a familiar story
– sexism, racism. Abuse by an advisor, with nowhere to turn. Rampant discrimination and harassment.
When I looked for help (from the wrong people, apparently), I was told to suck it up, work
harder. Constant financial worries. Every little setback used up my savings. I got sick and
never really recovered… stress and overwork guaranteed that. I was good at living modestly,
but that wasn't enough to sustain me. Now, I'm just trying to pick up the pieces. I feel floored
by the lack of opportunities and support through most of my career. I had no idea how much
a career in academia would rely on having money to begin with. I feel like this work has stolen
my life away. And I'm not the only one – I know plenty of people who have had a similar experience.
The best people leave early.
Worst of all, I don't even feel that I can tell my story. Nobody wants to hear it. Nobody
would lift a finger to protect me from retribution. Nobody wants to address problems like this.
I feel so much grief for the good I might have done in another profession, the life I could
have lived. I don't know what to do with this grief.
Some of the worst abuse I ever experienced was in academia. Here's an example:
During the mid-1980s, I was on the staff of a journal at the University of Pittsburgh. My boss,
the departmental librarian, must have come from the Attila the Hun School of Management, because
that's how she treated people. Shortly after I started my job, I got on her bad side. I
have no idea why this happened. Thirty years late, I still can't figure it out.
It may have had something to do with the introductory meeting we were supposed to have with
the journal's publisher.
Well, being the good little employee that I thought I was, I had my office clock set to the
correct time. I didn't know it at the time, but the library clock was 10 minutes fast. Yep, the
same trick that bars pull on their customers. Getting them out the door before the official closing
time.
So, I got to the library a few minutes before 9 a.m. Plenty of time to for the boss and me
to walk over to the publisher's office. Bossola was SEETHING. I was LATE! Just look at that CLOCK!
It was already after nine!
Over to the publisher's office we walked, and guess what. They weren't even ready for us. So
we sat in the waiting area for a while.
The publisher and his staff couldn't have been nicer. The polar opposite of my boss.
During the 15 months that I worked at Pitt, I felt the brunt of this lady's abuse. She'd
call me into the office, launch into a blistering tirade, and I would sit there, stunned. And,
to her, that was another cause for anger. Why was I just sitting there and not reacting?
During her final tirade, when she told me to start looking for another job, I'd had enough.
I told her that I was going to start looking for another city.
Well, guess who sat there, stunned.
She insisted that I didn't have to do anything THAT drastic. But my mind was made up. I was
done with her, done with Pitt, and done with Pittsburgh.
Three and a half months and several wonderful bicycling miles later, I landed in Tucson, and
I'm still here. Without that nasty boss, I probably wouldn't be in this wonderful city.
As for Ms. Nasty, she left Pitt and went on to become the head librarian at Chatham College,
which was nearby. Small women's college. Known for its caring, friendly, and supportive environment.
Ms. Nasty didn't last very long there.
And she didn't last very long at St. Michael's College in northern Vermont. I think that she
was fired from that institution, but I'm not sure. Let's just say that I hope she was, because
she deserved a taste of her own medicine.
Here is a story that scared shit of Academia's organized crime ring for a little while in the
early 90s.
"The University of Iowa shooting took place at the University of Iowa in Iowa City, Iowa on
November 1, 1991. The gunman was Gang Lu, a 28-year-old former graduate student at the university.
He killed four members of the university faculty and one student, and seriously wounded another
student, before taking his own life."
Damn. Thing is I've heard this from Actuarials and docs. It's everywhere the "well, just work
harder". But some of it is on the employees. None have the frame of mind to kick back, to unionize,
and hard (when was unionizing ever easy?). None. All have the neoliberal view that: work hard
and you'll be fine. And so when that button is pushed, they go for broke until burned out. It's
that or be labeled lazy. Well, being unemployed is also an issue, but there's also the matter
of having the language to fight back, to not feel guilty for working less than 100 hours a week
etc.
I think an important point about Unions which people forget is that they provide an opportunity
for people to vent and let off frustration. I've been a Union rep at various places and many times
I would have people come in to have a rant about a certain manager or policy. At the end I would
say 'do you want to make a formal complaint?' and the answer would be no – the person just wanted
to get it off their chest in a confidential manner.
And to know that if they needed it, there was back up. Non-union places I've worked in, even
good ones, lack that safety valve.
I'm in the process of paying a personal price for this BS as I type this, having walked off
the job a few months ago. I'm not gonna drive 30 miles each way for 1/2 of what I should be making
only to be treated like shit by management brown-nosers. Bad news is, I'm mid-career and not a
spring chicken. Considering leaving the field altogether or doing my own startup. But if I had
known then what I know now, I would have had the voice recorder app on my phone, recording everything….
The authors fail to get to the real fundamentals of this phenomenon. The two ends of the
spectrum that they delineate can be housed under a single umbrella, that of neoliberalism. And
it is obvious that neoliberalism can kill. And Durkheim would have agreed readily that ideas can
kill, and not just via suicide.
Ugh. After twenty years in commercial construction, I thought our industry was an outlier for
abuse, psychotic management, and general HR mayhem. Apparently not. Arizona Slim, I could have
profiled Mrs. Nasty at any number of firms I worked for…she's not unusual.
I stay at smaller companies with good people for less money because I just can't handle the
high pressure and abusive environment of Big Time Construction Firms. I also have zero interest
in big projects anymore – too many psycho Owners who appear to delight in torturing the contractor
as a hobby. The men I work with think I'm nuts to turn down some work. I tell them, there's no
reward for it. No pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, no big promotion – just health problems
and more commuting for the same old, same old.
You too? Abuse, and psycho management is why I'm considering leaving the trade altogether,
too bad I've invested 30 years and a few schools into it…. but of course, nobody *made* me invest
in myself and believe in the american dream /sarc
Give yourself a break inode_buddha. Thirty years ago, you, and myself as well, made a rational
decision as to what direction to take. At the time, construction and the associated trades were
honourable and respectable. A decent living could be made, and a future was in sight. Neo-Liberalism
has, since then, destroyed most things that benefited anyone other than the criminal management
classes. Humanity has had to stand up and fight for decency and equality throughout history.
The decent living in the construction trades, for me anyways, has started and (so far) ended
as a contract employee. I'm at the cusp of 50 and am looking at disaster if I can't find something
permanent. My spouse has her dream job (that unfortunately comes with mediocre pay) so moving
the fam for a job is our of the question. I'm one dropped contract away from my professional expiration
date – too old for entry level, not experienced enough for management, unable to move to a better
job market if such a thing existed.
But at least I paid off my student loans, so that's not hanging over my head like the sword
of Damocles.
Living on the road, out of town, at the jobsite, etc. etc. There's a reason why so many of
the Superintendents and Foremen I've encountered on big jobs drink to excess.
I've had my share of Mz/Mr Nasty bosses. The worst thing one can do to one of these persons,
as I learned one afternoon, is to laugh at them when they "put you in your place." The program
is going south anyway. If the wherewithall is available for a drive home, go ahead and let 'them'
know you're not going to put up with abuse anymore. (Easier said than done, I'll agree, but, as
long as you and yours aren't starving, why not? You'll sleep better at night. Take my word for
it.)
Smaller outfits are, from my experience, easier to get along with because the manager is often
the owner or family and not divorced from the ground floor experience. Reason is used instead
of formula.
I used to hold the same belief about construction being the bilge of the work world. Then I
worked for the USPS for almost three years. Then the dreaded Lowes Home Improvement set its avernal
brand sizzling on my soul.
Ah my, what a picaresque novel all this would make.
Picaresque novel or hilarious TV show. I've written the scripts in my head a thousand times….clueless
architects, raging Owners, ridiculous Inspectors, overfed upper management/sales staff, etc. etc.
I agree that laughter is truly the best medicine in this business. As a friend once told me,
"Sometimes you gotta let the crazy people be crazy."
Some titles: "Faking, Inc.," "Department of Imaginary Tools," "Bargain Employee of the Month,"
and the annual winner, "Going Out of Business Sale: Season Three."
Since I'll need to go back to work for a few years, until my miniscule SS kicks in, I might do
a Home Depot Equal Opportunity for Exploitation Edition.
(When I grow up I want to be a Day Trader! Maybe I'll take a flutter in pork bellies on the
Chicago Exchange.)
In her own strange way, Ms. Nasty had quite a positive effect on my life. As our relationship
deteriorated, I started piling up the savings. I was planning my escape, even before that final
tirade.
My last six weeks at Pitt were amazing. After I tended my resignation (on Friday, February
13, 1987), the whole department was impressed with how relaxed and happy I was. It was as if a
different Slim had moved into my body.
Yes, there was that farewell luncheon where Ms. Nasty refused to raise her glass in a toast,
but you know what? I was going to be out the door in a few hours, so I no longer cared. In fact,
I found her refusal rather amusing.
What came next was even better. That pile of savings was deployed for something I really enjoyed.
Long-distance bike touring! Rode thousands of miles in a little over three months! And then I
settled here in Tucson!
Where I found a job similar to my Pitt job, but with a nice boss. That was my last FT job.
I've been a freelancer since 1994.
So, Ms. Nasty, thanks for the motivation. And I do hope that you learned how to be nice to
people who are, ahem, beneath you.
That's what Labor (or socialist) political parties used to do, and Corbyn's trying to re-institute
in the UK.
One cannot be pro-trade (as currently defined) and pro democratic not pro citizen, not pro-labor.
The US has never permitted socialism, and prefers crony capitalism, which is actually close
to fascism.
The whole defense Military Industry Complex of Government and Industry is a definition of fascism
in the US. I place no regard on Ike's warning about the MIC as he did noting until the end of
his reign, and then made a speech.
At long last I've finally managed to get out of a job I couldn't stand after working there
for nearly a decade. The pay was ridiculously low, even relative to the industry standard. Management
routinely promoted narcissistic, ignorant cronies who never told them the word "no." I couldn't
be happier it's finally over. They've had so much turnover in the past couple of years entire
departments are composed of entirely new people. The CEO cares about nothing except looking good
to the shareholders and owners, and that's pretty much the attitude from the top on down. Look
good to the people with power and to hell with the rest.
I'd be surprised if the company still existed 5-10 years from now.
Soooo glad I'm retired. I was starting to see more and more of this over the last couple of
decades, and it escalated as times worsened. I wish libertarians and free-marketers would contemplate
the situations described here, and consider what kind of a world it would be if financial oligarchs
held even more power. What hope would there be to counter this sort of abuse?
I wouldn't exactly call myself a libertarian (I'm not sure what I am), but I think that the
libertarian response would be that if there were fewer pointless regulations people would be much
more readily able to work for themselves, and not for an abusive boss. It is unbelievably hard
to start a business now, even a solo one, due to regs. And I'm not talking about reasonable regs
(don't dump toxins in waterways). I'm talking about regs that have been invented by big existing
businesses to keep upstarts from starting.
A number of years ago there was an article about someone who tried to start a storage company
in the CT/RI area and how they eventually gave up because the regs made the process insane; there's
not much that's simpler than a storage company. Most small business owners I know tell me they
could not start now because it has all gotten too complicated; they have been able to cobble together
responses to the new regs as they go, but starting at this point would be impossible for them.
Picture what it would be like if you could look at your skill set, and go out and work for
yourself without a huge amount of extremely complex taxes and paperwork. A strange thought, isn't
it?
I'm not saying this would be an option for most people ( not at all
), but it does not now even exist as an escape valve. Now you have to have millions in
start-up funds to start some BS company (e.g. one more stupid company that delivers food to patron's
homes) that isn't actually meant to make money (it just exists to get money from investors), and
you need that much to deal with the paperwork.
And, if someone wants to pop up and say "the paperwork is not so bad and complicated," please
remember that you are a NC poster and are in the top ten percent of the population for ability
to deal with paperwork.
I have to tell you, as a small business owner myself, this "regulations are burdensome"
argument is a crock. Lobbyists in DC learned decades ago that the best way to put a sympathetic
face on their efforts to get waivers for big businesses is to have small business owners act as
their mouthpieces. And there are enough extreme libertarians everywhere that it's not hard to
find someone to screech that the regulations he is subject to are horrible irrespective of how
much a burden they really are.
Specifically, regarding a storage business, I can't fathom your view that storage companies
should not be regulated. If I am putting my valuable stuff in the hands of someone else, I sure
as hell want protection that they won't cut all the locks and run off with everything, or find
more legitimate ways of stealing, like create excuses to jack up my storage costs by 10X and hold
my goods hostage. And what about requiring them to have adequate fire protection and security?
Even if they aren't crooks, cheap and reckless will also result in my property being stolen or
damaged.
In general, entrepreneurship is way oversold in America to legitimate the bad treatment of
workers: "If things are as bad as you say, why put up with it? Go start your own business!" That's
ridiculous since staring your own business requires that you be both a good salesman and a good
general manager, and good salesmen are almost without exception terrible managers, as anyone in
Corporate America will tell you. And it's extremely hard to make partnerships work unless the
principals worked together in the same company for years (ie, they grew up with the same training
and rules, and so will default to the same assumptions as to how things are done). Even in consulting,
I've seldom seen people who come of of different large firms work well together absent a strong
organization around them.
The proof that pretty much no one should go into business for themselves is 9 out of every
10 businesses fail within three years. The percentabe is no doubt higher if you extend the time
frame to five years. I've started two successful businesses in the US and one that didn't work
out in Oz, but an overseas launch is much harder and it seemed too dodgy to go beyond the two
years I'd invested (as in I might have made it a go had I kept on, but I decided it was more prudent
to cut my losses).
And I don't know where you get your information about new business from. It's pretty clear
you aren't in that world. You don't need millions in funds. The overwhelming majority of new ventures
are funded from savings, credit cards, and loans from friends and family.
And if you aren't able to handle regulatory filings (or find a lawyer or accountant who can
help) you aren't competent to be in business for yourself. Running a business means you run into
obstacles all the time and need to find ways around them. Do you not think that private firms
also require paperwork, like vendor approval processes and documenting your invoices? If you can't
handle paperwork, you need to stay on a payroll.
While I agree with Yves that there is too much libertarian bitching about regulations, there
are a lot of really stupid laws on the books that we could easily do without. As an example, I
was recently looking at an RFP from a public agency in the state of MI. One of the requirements
for bidders responding was to provide a notarized affidavit that the company was not controlled
by the Republic of Iran! Apparently this is Michigan Public Act 517 of 2012. BTW, the winning
bidder, a large US corporation, certified they are not secretly controlled by the evil Ayatollahs.
yes but most people won't be able to work until they are dead, because they aren't able to
or because noone is going to hire them (it's why people collect social security at 62, it's not
because this is the smartest financial plan, it's clearly not) and I hope most don't take the
"therefore middle aged or senior aged suicide" route.
If you are able to work until you die a natural death good for you I guess (even better to
be able to choose to retire of course), but it's not going to be an option for many people even
if they want it to be, health or the job market WILL force them out.
"Perhaps this world is another planet's hell." – Aldous Huxley. Yes, it is definitely.
Perhaps pretty soon they will start strip search employees when they come to work.
Excellent and timely article. As the writers observe, the problem is global in nature. If you
work in or have worked in corporate America, you likely have personally experienced or seen the
results of the deliberate creation of a stressful professional climate and workplace environment,
abusive psychological bullying, and intentional destabilization of employees.
Increasing numbers of suicides are one outcome of these environments. But as the writers
point out, there are a number of other symptoms associated with these toxic workplaces, none good.
They range from physical and mental health issues, to various forms of addiction, burnout, and
secondary effects on employees' personal lives and those of their family members or partners.
Although it seems that individuals with psychopathic characteristics often rise in management
in many of these organizations, I believe the roots of the problem lie in a broader and deeper
systemic failure. I agree that neoliberal ideology, globalization, and the basic structures
of our debt-based economy all play a key role in enabling the intentional development of these
organizational environments.
It may be a global problem, but it seems particularly acute in the US.
Ian Welsh's observations
ring true to me:
One of the most striking things about much of American culture is the simple meanness of
it. The cruelty… There is also a culture of punching down… America has a high-violence, high-bullying
society… [Y]ou can have a high-violence society in which it is considered unacceptable to attack
the weak (doing so is viewed as cowardice), but that's not the case in America. In American
culture, the weak are the preferred target. Failure is punishable by homelessness, suffering,
and death… You'd better get down on your knees and do whatever your boss wants, because if
you're fired or let go you may never work again, and if you do hang on at a bottom-wage job,
well, your life will suck… Having learned that the right way to treat anyone who is weaker
than them is with demands for acquiescence and dominance displays, to many Americans, to interpret
any sign of weakness as requiring them, as a moral duty, to dominate and hurt the weak person.
People become what is required of them. They learn from authority figures how to behave… The
entire process makes America a far more unpleasant place to live or visit than is necessary.
The structure of dominance, meanness and cruelty is palpable to the visitor, and distressing;
even as it warps the best inhabitant.
I believe the roots of the problem lie in a broader and deeper systemic failure.
Yes, a systemic failure, but to be more precise, it is ultimately a particular kind of
market failure that gives employers an incentive to abuse their employees.
The best way to understand what I mean is to imagine a labor market where there are always
more jobs available than there are people to fill them. In an economy that is experiencing a chronic
labor shortage, employers would have a market incentive to actually start treating their employees
with respect.
In markets where labor surpluses are carefully maintained (virtually every market you've ever
known), business owners/managers feel free to express anger at any employee shehe feels a 'power
advantage' over. They sense they have this advantage when/if they believe the employee fears losing
hiser job more than the employer fears losing the employee.
It really would force a profound change in employer-employee relations, generally. Employers
would be compelled by the marketplace to not only find ways to motivate their employees to work
hard, but also to find ways to make them feel content , psychologically.
In an economy that is experiencing a sustained labor shortage, the crudest and least sympathetic
methods of motivating employees would be gradually phased out.
'Bottom feeders' in the competition for scarce labor would have a constant incentive to try
to retain employees, and to 'go the extra mile' to work with people who are having problems. Individuals
who are having personal problems would not be simply cast aside, as they are now.
The national government could do something to help those businesses that are struggling within
very [price-] competitive markets, providing counseling services, etc., to help those employees
who are struggling with various problems outside of the job environment.
In our current labor surplus economy, lawsuits may give some employers an incentive
to treat their people with respect, but it won't get anywhere close to providing THE solution
to the problem that we would experience if we were to create and indefinitely maintain a labor
shortage in the economy.
And to think that Pink Floyd recorded the verse; "Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English
way." Back in 1968.
Quiet desperation is a characteristic of a declining society.
As far as I can tell quiet desperation is the life of most people. This article highlights suicide, but drug and alcohol abuse are just as much a result of poor
employment outcomes as suicide and for the same reasons.
When people stop being quietly desperate is when change happens.
I refer to CCR's Effigy although as
a Gen-X -er I Prefer the Uncle Tupelo
version
Guys. You're also forgetting that if the U.S. took in the Nazi Scientists and Death Specialists
and used them and their techniques to crush real democratic, fair, egalitarian societies in Latin
America (Chomsky) and then learned to transmute overt war (+nazi techniques) and colonialism into
Finance (Hudson)–then we are currently dealing with something 'worse than Nazi Germany' (my 90
year old neighbor).
TEHRAN, Feb. 14 (MNA) -- Most of the neoconservatives in the United States advocate globalization
and the neoliberal economic model. What's wrong with this picture?
At first glance, nothing is wrong with the statement because it is basically true. At second glance,
everything is wrong with it.
Liberal and conservative used to be opposites. Now we have neoliberal neoconservatives. If the
neocons are also neoliberals, how do we avoid confusion when using the words liberal and conservative?
It is natural for language to evolve, but when antonyms become synonyms, there is a problem.
The situation is similar to the Newspeak and doublethink of George Orwell's book 1984. Newspeak
was a language meant to control people by decreasing their power of reasoning through oversimplification
of the language and doublethink.
Orwell wrote: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind
simultaneously, and accepting both of them."
There are now countless examples of this in the English language.
In war, civilian casualties are called collateral damage. The use of the expression collateral
damage allows people to avoid the unpleasantry of having to think about innocent civilians being
killed.
Every country used to have a war ministry, but they all later changed the name to the defense
ministry or the defense department. In 1984, it was called the Ministry of Peace, or Minipax in Newspeak.
Try this simple exercise. Imagine you are listening to the radio and the newscaster says: "The
war minister has just issued a statement."
Now suppose the newscaster said: "The defense minister has just issued a statement." Notice how
a change of one word changed your reaction.
Consider the many acronyms that have entered the language such as NATO, NAFTA, and CIA Their
complete names, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, North American Free Trade Agreement, and Central
Intelligence Agency, contain the words treaty, free, free trade, agreement, and intelligence. On
hearing these words, the mind naturally makes many free associations that cannot occur when the acronyms
are used.
The neoliberal neocons themselves use a form of Newspeak.
The most glaring example of this is when neoliberal neocon officials in the United States tell
citizens that they must take away some of their freedom in order to protect their freedom. Shades
of Orwell's "freedom is slavery".
U.S. officials have spoken of the need to cancel elections in order to safeguard democracy if
a serious crisis arises. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that in a national emergency the
U.S. Constitution may have to be temporarily suspended in order to protect the civil liberties enshrined
in that document.
Bizarrely, very few U.S. citizens are protesting. Apparently, they have already learned how to
employ doublethink.
Language is being used to control people. People are actually subconsciously brainwashing themselves
through the language they use.
The word neocon itself is Newspeak since its use in place of the longer form eliminates all the
connotations of the words neoconservative and conservative.
Let's look at a few more quotes from 1984 to get a better understanding of what is happening today.
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed
lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and
believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to
it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to
forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment
when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process
to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and
then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand
the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."
"The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry
of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental,
nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy; they are deliberate exercises in doublethink. For it
is only by reconciling contradictions that power can be retained indefinitely. In no other way could
the ancient cycle be broken. If human equality is to be for ever averted -- if the High, as we have
called them, are to keep their places permanently -- then the prevailing mental condition must be
controlled insanity."
"The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and
mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible.
It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical
thought -- that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc -- should be literally unthinkable,
at least so far as thought is dependent on words."
"Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was
indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum."
"But the special function of certain Newspeak words, of which oldthink was one, was not so much
to express meanings as to destroy them."
"The intention was to make speech, and especially speech on any subject not ideologically neutral,
as nearly as possible independent of consciousness."
"Ultimately it was hoped to make articulate speech issue from the larynx without involving the
higher brain centres at all."
The advocates of globalization often use a form of Newspeak.
When government officials and economists say the economy of a Third World country is booming,
despite the fact that they know the masses live in abject poverty, and the media repeat the lie,
that is doublethink through Newspeak. Of course, the economy of the country in question is only booming
for the globalist and local upper classes, and perhaps also for the middle classes, but somehow almost
nobody questions the lie. And the neoliberal globalists are laughing all the way to the bank.
The acceptance of such a lie by the general public is an even greater real-life catastrophe than
the fictional one described in 1984. Worse still, some people acknowledge that it is a lie but respond
with apathy or slavish resignation in the belief that nothing can be done about the situation.
Do we want to live in dystopia, the worst of all possible worlds, the doubleplusungood of all
possible worlds?
If not, we should watch our language and take care that we are still using our higher brain centers.
"... "Trump is a racist and his followers are racist and that's all you need to know" is a narrative thesis, like the narrative thesis that Trump is Putin's stooge, very convenient to Clinton's candidacy, but ultimately corrosive to American politics and political discourse. ..."
"... The Clinton campaign has whipped up a high dudgeon about racism and Putin and how unsuited Trump is, to be President. I don't disagree about the core conclusion: Trump does not seem to me to be suited to be President. That's hardly a difficult judgment: an impulsive, self-promoting reality teevee star with no experience of public office - hmmm, let me think about that for two seconds. But, the high dudgeon serves other purposes, to which I object strongly. ..."
"... People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine Clinton's bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion or the South China Sea. ..."
"... Everything should not be about electing Clinton. ..."
"... Pundits like Josh Marshall of TPM or Ezra Klein of Vox are betraying their public trust by carrying Clinton's water so slavishly. ..."
"... People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine Clinton's bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion or the South China Sea ..."
"... Or, as Ian Welsh points out, her position on Syria. She seems to have advocated for a no-fly zone in Syria after Russia came in, which would presumably put us in the position of shooting down Russian warplanes or having a good chance of doing so. Maybe if she does take on Kissinger as an advisor he'll tell her that superpower conflicts have to be done through proxies or they're too dangerous. ..."
"... This is what 40 years of two-party neoliberalism gives us: an unhinged demagogue or the point person for Democratic policies that have systematically gutted the middle class, screwed the poor, increase inequality, slowed productivity, caused multiple wars, and made them personally rich. ..."
"... The moral righteousness of identity politics adds in an element that goes way beyond the lazy failure to hold politicians accountable or the tendency to explain away their more Machiavellian maneuvers. There's both an actual blindness to the reactionary conservatism of equal opportunity exploitation and a peremptory challenge to any other claim or analysis. If police practices and procedures are trending in an authoritarian direction, they can only be challenged on grounds of racist effect or intent. The authoritarianism cannot be challenged on its own merit, so the building of the authoritarian state goes on unimpeded, since the principle that is challenged is not authoritarianism, but a particular claim of racism or sexism. ..."
"... As for LFC, he finished up his not a counter with "Assad and Putin are authoritarians (plus in Assad's case especially being a murderous thug), but I don't recall b.w. being too exercised about their authoritarianism." That's perfectly familiar [line] too: I well remember it from the GWB Iraq War days. Do you oppose the Iraq War? Well I never heard of you being very exercised about Saddam Hussein being a murderous thug. You must really support Saddam, or not really care about authoritarianism. The people who liked to say this were called the "Decents", a word like many other political words that was perfect because it meant exactly the opposite of what it sounded like. ..."
"... What's being critiqued is the idea that nothing but racism matters. What's being critiqued is the idea that it's useful or even correct to do mind-reading and to confidently pronounce that people who disagree with you do so because they're stupid and evil – excuse me, because they're racists. What I find illuminating here is the graphic evidence of why this approach is so toxic. People get furious and hostile when you call them bigots. It's an insult, not an invitation to dialog – because it doubles as a character judgment and as a personal attack. ..."
"... I am also saying, worry that the charge of racism may be all we have left that is capable of getting reforms. And, worry that charges of racism, without useful nuance, may not get the political reaction and reform one ought to desire. ..."
"... Police misconduct is not a problem solely and originally about race and racism ..."
I think all you've really shown is that blue-collar, less-educated people tend
to not know much about politics and to have the political attitudes of authoritarian followers
and Trump is willing to be demagogic enough to attract their attention as an alternative to the
status quo candidacy of Hillary Clinton.
"Trump is a racist and his followers are racist and that's all you need to know" is a narrative
thesis, like the narrative thesis that Trump is Putin's stooge, very convenient to Clinton's candidacy,
but ultimately corrosive to American politics and political discourse. It isn't a question
of whether statistics suggest racism is an efficient instrumental variable. It is a question of
whether this politics of invective and distraction is going anywhere good, could go anywhere good.
No one in these comment threads has been defending Trump or the political ignorance and resentments
of his supporters. Some of us have questioned the wisdom of a political tactic of treating them
as pariahs and dismissing their concerns and economic distress as fake or illegitimate.
The Clinton campaign has whipped up a high dudgeon about racism and Putin and how unsuited
Trump is, to be President. I don't disagree about the core conclusion: Trump does not seem to
me to be suited to be President. That's hardly a difficult judgment: an impulsive, self-promoting
reality teevee star with no experience of public office - hmmm, let me think about that for two
seconds. But, the high dudgeon serves other purposes, to which I object strongly.
Even though, and especially because Clinton is very likely to become President, her suitability
ought to be scrutinized. Not just boxed away as, "well, she is obviously better than Trump
so let's not even trouble our beautiful minds", when by the way it is not so obvious as
all that, as several commenters have tried to point out. People, who argue Trump might start
a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine
Clinton's bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion
or the South China Sea.
Everything should not be about electing Clinton. Clinton's election is pretty much
assured, despite her deep flaws as a candidate of the center-left (to wit, her war-mongering and
epic corruption and economic conservatism). Pundits like Josh Marshall of TPM or Ezra Klein
of Vox are betraying their public trust by carrying Clinton's water so slavishly. Ezra may
be gaining all important access to the Clinton White House comparable to what he had in Obama's
White House, but he spent his credibility with his readers to get it. And, he's deprived his readers
of the opportunity to learn about issues of vital importance, like the TPP and corporate business
power, or NATO expansion and the relationship with Russia, or the swirling vortex forming in the
Middle East where American Empire is going down the drain of failed invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan
and ill-conceived "alliances" with fundamentally hostile powers like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
I don't think these comment threads are a good place to campaign or advocate on the behalf
of any candidate. A modicum of advocacy might be welcome for the fodder it provides for reflective
rumination, but mirroring the Clinton campaign's themes seems to require systematic misreadings
of counter-argument and that has become disruptive. (RNB's volume and habitual tendentiousness
puts RNB into a special category in this regard.)
There ought to be room in this discussions to move the conversation to more of a meta-level,
where we consider trends and dynamics without the partisan's hyper-narrow focus.
BW: "People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal pique because he
insults people on teevee might want to examine Clinton's bellicose foreign policy record and
positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion or the South China Sea."
Or, as Ian Welsh points out, her position on Syria. She seems to have advocated for a no-fly
zone in Syria after Russia came in, which would presumably put us in the position of shooting
down Russian warplanes or having a good chance of doing so. Maybe if she does take on Kissinger
as an advisor he'll tell her that superpower conflicts have to be done through proxies or they're
too dangerous.
For the larger question of whether these comment threads are a good place to campaign or advocate,
I sort of come down in a different place than you do. If these comment threads were about good-faith
argument, then sure this kind of advocacy might be bad, but I don't think that most people here
are capable of good-faith argument even if they were attempting it (most of the time they aren't
attempting it). In that case the comment threads serve an alternate purpose of seeing what kinds
of beliefs are out there, at least among the limited group of people likely to comment on CT threads.
Of course people can be kicked out if they habitually make the threads too difficult to moderate
(or really, for whatever other reason an OP decides on), but the well has long since been poisoned
and one more drop isn't really going to do much more damage.
There's a reason the electorate hates both Trump and Clinton. This is what 40 years of
two-party neoliberalism gives us: an unhinged demagogue or the point person for Democratic policies
that have systematically gutted the middle class, screwed the poor, increase inequality, slowed
productivity, caused multiple wars, and made them personally rich.
Let's not forget the Clintons were the Democratic Party point people in causing the vast incarceration
of black men while simultaneously gutting welfare for black mothers and their children. (Yay 3rd
Way!) They were the point people for letting 300 million Chinese workers compete with American
workers. They deregulated the banks. And was there a war she didn't like?
So Layman finds that the 80% of the Evangelicals that support Trump are racist. And so are
the white voters in manufacturing regions. (Excuse me. "Principally" racist.) And Layman's exact
counterpart on some unnamed right-wing site thinks all the blacks voting for HRC are in it for
the welfare and affirmative action. (Yes, your exact counterpart. Oh, and they, like you, would
say blacks are "principally" scammers cause, you know, there are other minor reasons to vote HRC.)
I take a different view. I think most voters are going to have the taste of vomit in the their
mouths when they pull the lever.
If there's a populist politics in our future, it will have to have a
much sharper edge. It can talk about growth, but it has to mean smashing the rich and taking their
stuff. There's very rapidly going to come a point where there's no other option, other than just
accepting cramdown by the authoritarian surveillance state built by the neoliberals. that's a
much taller order than Sanders or Trump have been offering.
Fit for inscription (keeps me smashingly awake after hundreds of comments :-))
The moral righteousness of identity politics adds in an element that goes way beyond
the lazy failure to hold politicians accountable or the tendency to explain away their more
Machiavellian maneuvers. There's both an actual blindness to the reactionary conservatism of
equal opportunity exploitation and a peremptory challenge to any other claim or analysis. If
police practices and procedures are trending in an authoritarian direction, they can only be
challenged on grounds of racist effect or intent. The authoritarianism cannot be challenged
on its own merit, so the building of the authoritarian state goes on unimpeded, since the principle
that is challenged is not authoritarianism, but a particular claim of racism or sexism.
So in the same week that the Justice Department report on the Baltimore police force comes
out, showing systematic police discrimination - e.g. lots of people stopped in black neighborhoods,
esp. two in particular, for petty reasons or no reason, versus very few people stopped in other
neighborhoods - bruce wilder informs us that identity politics somehow prevents us from criticizing
police behavior on grounds of authoritarianism, that it can only be criticized on grounds of racism
(or subconscious racial bias) - of course, that wd appear to be a main problem w police behavior
in Baltimore and some other places.
"Rich where is the evidence people can no longer criticize police for broad authoritarianism?"
The last time I talked about this with faustusnotes, he told me that it was entirely understandable
and indeed good that Obama and the Democratic Party were passing laws to make non-violent protestors
even more likely to be arrested, because Obama was black and there was a scary white protestor
holding an assault rifle at a town meeting somewhere.
As for LFC, he finished up his not a counter with "Assad and Putin are authoritarians (plus
in Assad's case especially being a murderous thug), but I don't recall b.w. being too exercised
about their authoritarianism." That's perfectly familiar [line] too: I well remember it from the
GWB Iraq War days. Do you oppose the Iraq War? Well I never heard of you being very exercised
about Saddam Hussein being a murderous thug. You must really support Saddam, or not really care
about authoritarianism. The people who liked to say this were called the "Decents", a word like
many other political words that was perfect because it meant exactly the opposite of what it sounded
like.
Marc 08.14.16 at 2:09 am
What's being critiqued is the idea that nothing but racism matters. What's being critiqued
is the idea that it's useful or even correct to do mind-reading and to confidently pronounce that
people who disagree with you do so because they're stupid and evil – excuse me, because they're
racists.
What I find illuminating here is the graphic evidence of why this approach is so toxic. People
get furious and hostile when you call them bigots. It's an insult, not an invitation to dialog
– because it doubles as a character judgment and as a personal attack.
Now, when someone actually says something bigoted that's one thing. But that's not what's going
on, and that's why the pushback is so serious.
And – faustnotes – you're minimizing the real suffering of people by claiming that the mortality
rise in lower income US whites isn't real, and it certainly isn't important to you. I'm getting
zero sense of empathy from you towards the plight of these people – the real important thing is
to tell them why they're racist scum.
I think that the left has a moral obligation to try and build a decent society even for people
that don't like the left much. I think that working class voters across the Western world are
susceptible to racial appeals not because they're scum, but because they've been screwed by the
system and the left has nothing to offer them but moral lectures. And that's a failure that we
can address, and it starts with listening to people with respect. You can stand for your principles
without assuming bad faith, without mind-reading, and without the stereotyping.
For me at least, those are the grounds of debate, and they're very different in kind from pretending
that there is no such thing as racism.
I am aware that the claim of racism is potent and where it can be made to effect reform,
I am all in favor. Take what you can get, I say.
I am also saying, worry that the charge of racism may be all we have left that is capable
of getting reforms. And, worry that charges of racism, without useful nuance, may not get the
political reaction and reform one ought to desire.
Police misconduct is not a problem solely and originally about race and racism. I
hope Baltimore gets useful and effective reform.
"... Last week we reported on the DC Leaks hack of what was over 2,500 documents detailing how George Soros and his NGOs influence world leaders, drive foreign policy, and help to create unrest in sovereign nations, that many times leads to chaos and civil war. ..."
Last week we reported on the
DC Leaks hack of what was over 2,500 documents detailing how George Soros and his NGOs influence
world leaders, drive foreign policy, and help to create unrest in sovereign nations, that many times
leads to chaos and civil war.
One country of particular focus for George Soros and his NGOs is Ukraine. It is now
accepted fact that Soros was deeply involved in the Maiden protests in 2014 and the violent coup,
that saw a democratically elected government overthrown in the name of "EU values". What is even
more troubling, as revealed by the DC Leaks hack, is how Soros and his network of "non-profit organisations"
worked to lobby EU member states into not only buying his Ukraine "Maidan" narrative, but to also
disavow any ties and support for Russia.
Leaked documents show that George Soros was active in mapping out the Greek media landscape with
generous grants, so as to further his Ukraine project, while also using his deep pockets to get Greek
media to turn against the Russian Federation…in what can only be described as a well-funded and orchestrated
smear campaign.
In one document entitled: "Open Society Initiative For Europe (OSIFE). Mapping the Ukrainian
debate in Greece" (Ukraine and Europe-greece-tor ukraine debate mapping greece.docx), Soros
offers a consultant a remuneration of $6,500 (gross) for "at least 15 full working
days in carrying out this task" plus all expenses paid.
The aim of this task:
The consultant is expected to chart the main players in the Greek debate on Ukraine, outline
the key arguments and their evolution in the past 18 months. Specifically, the report will take
stock of any existing polling evidence provide a 'who is who?' with information about
at least
– 6 newspapers,
– 10 audiovisual outlets (TV and radio),
– 6 internet sites,
– About 50 opinion leaders and trends in social networks[1].
Categorize the main strains of discussion and eventually identify different sides / camps of
the discussion.
Provide a brief account of how Russia has tried to influence the Greek debate on Ukraine
through domestic actors and outlets
Include a section with recommendations on
– What are the spaces OSF should engage and would most likely to have impact?
– What are the voices (of reason or doubt) that should be amplified?
Open Society Initiative For Europe (OSIFE) selected Iannis Carras for the Greek media mapping
grant. The justification why he was chosen…
All contracts were for the same amount. We needed to find highly specialized researchers to
map the debate on Ukraine in Europe, therefore we identified a shortlist of candidates in consultation
with colleagues in the Think Tank Fund, OSEPI and in consultation with members of the OSIFE board
and chose the most qualified who could produce the report in the time allowed. I n the
case of Greece we agreed that Iannis Carras, an economic and social historian of Balkan and Russian
relations with expert knowledge of Greece's NGOs and social movements, was the best suited to
the task.
What is even more interesting is not the grant from OSIFE, but a letter from grant winner Carras
to a person named Mathew (another Greek speaker???), outlining his plan in detail for pushing Soros'
Ukraine agenda in Greece.
Of significance is how Carras tells Mathew about Greek society's overall suspicion of The Open
Society after the roll in played in seeding unrest in Yugoslavia. Carras even tells Mathew
to not mention The Open Society in Greece.
"Do you want your name to appear alongside mine on the paper? Do make comments on all of the
below.
In general, and at your discretion, do not say you are doing this for Open Society
because it is likely to close down doors. There's a lot of suspicion about Open Society in Greece,
mainly because of its positions vis-ŕ-vis the former Yugoslavia. As I am simultaneously
writing an article for Aspen Review Eastern Europe that can be used as the organisation for which
research like this is taking place."
Carras then goes on to outline his approach in manipulating Greek society, covering topics such
as:
1. Media.
2. Political parties and think tanks
3. Opinion polls.
4. Business relations.
5. Religious and cultural ties.
6. Migration and diaspora.
7. Greece and Ukraine in the context of Greece's economic crisis.
8. Greece, Ukraine and the Cyprus issue.
9. Names and brief description of significant actors: a 'who is who?' with information on at least
50 opinion leaders
Carras notes how Russia has much goodwill in Greece, exercising "significant soft power".
Carras notes that Greece is, at this moment, a weak player in the Ukraine debate and the
Greek Foreign Minister Kotzias realises this.
Summary: I am working on the hypotheses largely born out by the interviews
carried out so far that Russia has significant soft power in Greece though this does not
easily convert into hard power (e.g. vetoing EU sanctions). Greeks are basically
not very interested in Ukraine and the crisis there. They reflect and understand that
conflict through their own economic crisis and their relations with Europe (nowadays primarily
Europe and not US). To the extent that relations with Europe remain the focus and do not go off
the rails, Greece will bark but will not bite. If they improve, Greece might
not even bark (as can be seen with Greece's policy on Israel, Kotzias can be very much a realist).
Carras does warn that should Greece's economic situation deteriorate further, than Greece may
very well look to Russia for support, and this has implications on the Ukraine plan.
If they deteriorate however, Greece will be looking to Russia for increased support
and will alter its Ukraine policies accordingly. Do you agree with these hypotheses?
Can you find confirmation for or against them in the media outlets examined?
Carras places extra emphasis on influencing the media in Greece, citing various large news outlets
that the Soros NGO can target, including approaching left wing and right wing blogs.
This is the bulk of the work (we have to think about how to divide the work up). We have to
provide a 'who is who?' with information about at least 6 newspapers, 10 audio-visual outlets
(TV and radio) and 6 internet sites. Some of these will be obvious, but, even in these cases,
change over time (at least eighteen months) is an important consideration. Here are some suggestions
for newspapers: Kathimerini, Avgi, Ta Nea, Vima, Efymerida Syntakton, Eleutherotypia,
Proto Thema, Rizospastis? etc. What else? Protagon? Athens Review of Books? (info on
Kotzias). As for TV, we'll just do the main ones. What about left wing blogs? What about commercial
radio stations? I think we should cover Aristera sta FM. Sky. What else? Anything from
the nationalist and far right? My choice would be Ardin (already looking at this) which
at least tries to be serious. Patria is even more unsavoury. I'll deal with the religious web
sites in the culture and religion appendix. I think we should interview Kostas Nisenko (
http://www.kathimerini.gr/757296/article/epikairothta/kosmos/viaih-epi8e... ) and Kostas Geropoulos
of New Europe to get into the issues involved… not at all sure though that it's advisable
to talk to the Russia correspondents Thanasis Avgerinos, Dimitris Liatsos, Achileas Patsoukas
etc. (I know all of them). Also if we come across articles with interesting information
on any one of the topics, we should mail them to one another.
Attention is placed on influencing political parties. Carras sees this as a more difficult task,
as parties in Greece would not be warm towards turning their back on Russia.
Who if anyone deals with Russia / Ukraine within each of the political parties? How important
are political parties in formulating policies? (my hunch is totally unimportant). I must
admit I have little idea of how to proceed with this one, but I have written to the academic
Vassilis Petsinis and I hope I'll get to skype with him soon. Think-tanks are easier,
and, I think, more important. I have already interviewed Thanos Dokos (director Greek foreign
policy institute, ELIAMEP) in person.
Carras notes how he has approached various religious leaders, academics and actors, to gauge a
sense of how deep Russia's influence and "soft power" runs in Greek society and culture.
So far I have interviewed by telephone Metropolitan John of Pergamum (one of the top figures
in the inner circle of the Istanbul based Ecumenical Patriarchate). I have read Metropolitan Nektarios
of the Argolid's recent book (2014), "Two bullets for Donetsk". I have tried but so far not succeeded
in contacting Metropolitan Nektarios himself, and have started work on two of the main religious
news websites romfea.gr and amen.gr .
With respect to culture I intend to contact Georgos Livathinos, leading director of Russian
and other plays and Lydia Koniordou, actress. Also the management of the Onassis Centre, particularly
Afroditi Panagiotakou, the executive vice-director who is quite knowledgeable in this field having
travelled to both Ukraine and Russia.
In 2016 Greece and Russia will be hosting each other as the focus of cultural events in the
two respective countries. I will be looking to understand the extent to which Russia's
unparalleled cultural soft-power might translate into Greek policy making.
Greek military is the final point of influence, with Carras interviewing Ambassadors and policy
decision makers.
Foreign policy and the Greek military. So far I have interviewed in person Ambassador Elias
Klis (formerly ambassador of Greece to Moscow, advisor to the current Foreign Minister, advisor
to the Greek Union of Industrialists. He is perhaps the single most important person for understanding
Greek-Russian diplomatic relations at present). Ambassador Alexandros Philon (formerly ambassador
of Greece to Washington, to whom I am related). Captain Panos Stamou (submarines, extensive contacts
in Crimea, also secretary and leading light of the Greek-Russian historical association) who emphasised
the non-political tradition of the Greek armed forces. Tempted to talk to Themos Stoforopoulos
for a nationalist left wing view. I have also read foreign minister Kotzias' latest book. All
of this has provided me with useful insights for appendices 7 and 8, and particularly for the
connection to the Cyprus issue (which at the moment Greece is very keen to downplay).
Carras places an emphasis on Cyprus, perhaps recognising the islands affinity to support Russia
and its large Russian diaspora community.
The recommendations will be for the medium and the short term, cited here based on interviews
carried out so far. Medium term recommendations will include a cultural event (to be specified
later) and a one-day conference on Ukraine and international law, citing precedents for dealing
with the situation in Ukraine (particularly Cyprus). Recommendations may include capacity building
for local Ukrainian migrant spokesperson(s). Short term recommendations will include an action
pack on what Greece has at stake in Ukraine, and ways to narrate parallels in interactions between
nation and empire vis-ŕ-vis Greece / Ukraine. Think about whether these work / what else we might
recommend?
Amazon review of Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew... the word "conservative" was replaced by "neoliberal" as it more correctly
reflect the concept behind this social process.
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberal ideology is championed on behalf of corporate elites who have now secured total control, even ownership, of the federal government. ..."
"... Elites need federal government revenue transferred to their realm via fat government contracts and juicy subsidies. They want government without regulation, and they want taxation imposed on the masses without real representation, but not on them. ..."
"... Neoliberals drew up a long term strategy to sabotage and disrupt the liberal apparatus. There ensued a vast selling-off of government assets (and favors) to those willing to fund the neoliberal movement. The strategy was concocted as a long term plan - the master blueprint for a wholesale transfer of government responsibilities to private-sector contractors unaccountable to Congress or anyone else. An entire industry sprung up to support conservatism - the great god market (corporate globalism) replaced anti-communism as the new inspiration. (page 93) ..."
"... But capitalism is not loyal to people or anything once having lost its usefulness, not even the nation state or the flag ..."
"... According to Frank, what makes a place a free-market paradise is not the absence of governments; it is the capture of government by business interests. ..."
"... Neoliberals don't want efficient government, they want less competition and more profits - especially for defense contractors. Under Reagan, civil servants were out, loyalists were in. ..."
"... Contractors are now a fourth branch of government with more people working under contracts than are directly employed by government - making it difficult to determine where government stops and the contractors start in a system of privatized government where private contractors are shielded from oversight or accountability ..."
"... The first general rule of neoliberal administration: cronies in, experts out. ..."
"... Under Reagan, a philosophy of government blossomed that regarded business as its only constituent. ..."
"... Watergate poisoned attitudes toward government - helping sweep in Ronald Reagan with his anti-government cynicism. Lobbying and influence peddling proliferated in a privatized government. Lobbying is how money casts its vote. It is the signature activity of neoliberal governance - the mechanism that translates market forces into political action. ..."
"... Neoliberalism speaks of not compromise but of removing adversaries from the field altogether. ..."
"... One should never forget that it was Roosevelt's New Deal that saved capitalism from itself. Also, one should not forget that capitalism came out of the classical liberal tradition. Capitalists had to wrest power away from the landowning nobility, the arch neoliberal tradition of its time. ..."
Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew is another classic. This work, along with his more notable What's
The Matter With Kansas?, is another ground breaking examination into a major phenomenon of American
politics by one of America's foremost social analysts and critics. While What's The Matter With
Kansas? looked more at cultural behavior in explaining why Red State Americans have embraced corporate
elitist ideology and ballot casting that militates against their own economic self-interest, even
their very survival, this title deals more with structural changes in the government, economy,
and society that have come about as a result of a Republican right wing agenda. It is a perplexing
and sorry phenomenon that deserves the attention of a first rate pundit like Frank.
Neoliberal ideology is championed on behalf of corporate elites who have now secured total
control, even ownership, of the federal government. The Wrecking Crew is about a Republican
agenda to totally eliminate the last vestiges of the New Deal and Great Society, which have provided
social safety nets for ordinary working class Americans through programs such as Social Security
and Medicare. Corporate elites want to demolish only that part of government that doesn't benefit
the corporation. Thus, a huge military budget and intrusive national security and police apparatus
is revered, while education, health, welfare, infrastructure, etc. are of less utility for the
corporate state. High taxes on the corporations and wealthy are abhorred, while the middle class
is expected to shoulder a huge tax burden. Although Republicans rail against federal deficits,
when in office they balloon the federal deficits in a plan for government-by-sabotage. (Page 261)
Elites need federal government revenue transferred to their realm via fat government contracts
and juicy subsidies. They want government without regulation, and they want taxation imposed on
the masses without real representation, but not on them. The big government they rail at
is the same government they own and benefit from. They certainly do not want the national security
state (the largest part of government) or the national police system to go away, not even the
IRS. How can they fight wars without a revenue collection system? The wellspring of conservatism
in America today -- preserving connections between the present and past -- is a destroyer of tradition,
not a preserver. (Page 267)
Neoliberals drew up a long term strategy to sabotage and disrupt the liberal apparatus.
There ensued a vast selling-off of government assets (and favors) to those willing to fund the
neoliberal movement. The strategy was concocted as a long term plan - the master blueprint for
a wholesale transfer of government responsibilities to private-sector contractors unaccountable
to Congress or anyone else. An entire industry sprung up to support conservatism - the great god
market (corporate globalism) replaced anti-communism as the new inspiration. (page 93)
Market populism arose as business was supposed to empower the noble common people. But
capitalism is not loyal to people or anything once having lost its usefulness, not even the nation
state or the flag. (page 100) While the New Deal replaced rule by wealthy with its brain
trust, conservatism, at war with intellectuals, fills the bureaucracy with cronies, hacks, partisans,
and creationists. The democracy, or what existed of it, was to be gradually made over into a plutocracy
- rule by the wealthy. (Page 252) Starting with Reagan and Thatcher, the program was to hack open
the liberal state in order to reward business with the loot. (Page 258) The ultimate neoliberal
goal is to marketize the nation's politics so that financial markets can be elevated over vague
liberalisms like the common good and the public interest. (Page 260)
According to Frank, what makes a place a free-market paradise is not the absence of governments;
it is the capture of government by business interests. The game of corporatism is to see
how much public resources the private interest can seize for itself before public government can
stop them. A proper slogan for this mentality would be: more business in government, less government
in business. And, there are market based solutions to every problem. Government should be market
based. George W. Bush grabbed more power for the executive branch than anyone since Nixon. The
ultra-rights' fortunes depend on public cynicism toward government. With the U.S. having been
set up as a merchant state, the idea of small government is now a canard - mass privatization
and outsourcing is preferred. Building cynicism toward government is the objective. Neoliberals
don't want efficient government, they want less competition and more profits - especially for
defense contractors. Under Reagan, civil servants were out, loyalists were in.
While the Clinton team spoke of entrepreneurial government - of reinventing government - the
wrecking crew under Republicans has made the state the tool of money as a market-based system
replaced civil service by a government-by-contractor (outsourcing). Page 137 This has been an
enduring trend, many of the great robber barons got their start as crooked contractors during
the Civil War. Contractors are now a fourth branch of government with more people working under
contracts than are directly employed by government - making it difficult to determine where government
stops and the contractors start in a system of privatized government where private contractors
are shielded from oversight or accountability. (Page 138)
The first general rule of neoliberal
administration: cronies in, experts out. The Bush team did away with EPA's office of enforcement
- turning enforcement power over to the states. (Page 159) In an effort to demolish the regulatory
state, Reagan, immediately after taking office, suspended hundreds of regulations that federal
agencies had developed during the Carter Administration. Under Reagan, a philosophy of government
blossomed that regarded business as its only constituent. In recent years, neoliberals have
deliberately piled up debt to force government into crisis.
Watergate poisoned attitudes toward government - helping sweep in Ronald Reagan with his
anti-government cynicism. Lobbying and influence peddling proliferated in a privatized government.
Lobbying is how money casts its vote. It is the signature activity of neoliberal governance -
the mechanism that translates market forces into political action. (Page 175)
It is the goal of the neoliberal agenda to smash the liberal state. Deficits are one means
to accomplish that end.- to persuade voters to part with programs like Social Security and Medicare
so these funds can be transferred to corporate contractors or used to finance wars or deficit
reduction.. Uncle Sam can raise money by selling off public assets.
Since liberalism depends on fair play by its sworn enemies, it is vulnerable to sabotage by
those not playing by liberalism's rules/ (Page 265) The Liberal State, a vast machinery built
for our protection has been reengineered into a device for our exploitation. (Page 8) Liberalism
arose out of a long-ago compromise between left-wing social movements and business interests.
(Page 266) Neoliberalism speaks of not compromise but of removing adversaries from the field altogether.
(Page 266) No one dreams of eliminating the branches of state that protect Neoliberalism's constituents
such as the military, police, or legal privileges granted to corporations, neoliberals openly
scheme to do away with liberal bits of big government. (Page 266)
Liberalism is a philosophy of
compromise, without a force on the Left to neutralize the magneticism exerted by money, liberalism
will be drawn to the right. (Page 274)
Through corporate media and right wing talk show, liberalism has become a dirty word. However,
liberalism may not be dead yet. It will have to be resurrected from the trash bin of history when
the next capitalist crisis hits. One should never forget that it was Roosevelt's New Deal
that saved capitalism from itself. Also, one should not forget that capitalism came out of the
classical liberal tradition. Capitalists had to wrest power away from the landowning nobility,
the arch neoliberal tradition of its time.
"... "Trump is a racist and his followers are racist and that's all you need to know" is a narrative thesis, like the narrative thesis that Trump is Putin's stooge, very convenient to Clinton's candidacy, but ultimately corrosive to American politics and political discourse. ..."
"... Not just boxed away as, "well, she is obviously better than Trump so let's not even trouble our beautiful minds", when by the way it is not so obvious as all that, as several commenters have tried to point out. People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine Clinton's bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion or the South China Sea. ..."
"... Everything should not be about electing Clinton. Clinton's election is pretty much assured, despite her deep flaws as a candidate of the center-left (to wit, her war-mongering and epic corruption and economic conservatism). Pundits like Josh Marshall of TPM or Ezra Klein of Vox are betraying their public trust by carrying Clinton's water so slavishly. ..."
"... People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine Clinton's bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion or the South China Sea ..."
"... Let's not forget the Clintons were the Democratic Party point people in causing the vast incarceration of black men while simultaneously gutting welfare for black mothers and their children. (Yay 3rd Way!) They were the point people for letting 300 million Chinese workers compete with American workers. They deregulated the banks. And was there a war she didn't like? ..."
"... If there's a populist politics in our future, it will have to have a much sharper edge. It can talk about growth, but it has to mean smashing the rich and taking their stuff. There's very rapidly going to come a point where there's no other option, other than just accepting cramdown by the authoritarian surveillance state built by the neoliberals. that's a much taller order than Sanders or Trump have been offering. ..."
I think all you've really shown is that blue-collar, less-educated people tend
to not know much about politics and to have the political attitudes of authoritarian followers
and Trump is willing to be demagogic enough to attract their attention as an alternative to the
status quo candidacy of Hillary Clinton.
"Trump is a racist and his followers are racist and that's all you need to know" is a narrative
thesis, like the narrative thesis that Trump is Putin's stooge, very convenient to Clinton's candidacy,
but ultimately corrosive to American politics and political discourse. It isn't a question
of whether statistics suggest racism is an efficient instrumental variable. It is a question of
whether this politics of invective and distraction is going anywhere good, could go anywhere good.
No one in these comment threads has been defending Trump or the political ignorance and resentments
of his supporters. Some of us have questioned the wisdom of a political tactic of treating them
as pariahs and dismissing their concerns and economic distress as fake or illegitimate.
The Clinton campaign has whipped up a high dudgeon about racism and Putin and how unsuited
Trump is, to be President. I don't disagree about the core conclusion: Trump does not seem to
me to be suited to be President. That's hardly a difficult judgment: an impulsive, self-promoting
reality teevee star with no experience of public office - hmmm, let me think about that for two
seconds. But, the high dudgeon serves other purposes, to which I object strongly.
Even though, and especially because Clinton is very likely to become President, her suitability
ought to be scrutinized. Not just boxed away as, "well, she is obviously better than
Trump so let's not even trouble our beautiful minds", when by the way it is not so obvious
as all that, as several commenters have tried to point out. People, who argue Trump might start
a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine
Clinton's bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion
or the South China Sea.
Everything should not be about electing Clinton. Clinton's election is pretty much assured,
despite her deep flaws as a candidate of the center-left (to wit, her war-mongering and epic corruption
and economic conservatism). Pundits like Josh Marshall of TPM or Ezra Klein of Vox are betraying
their public trust by carrying Clinton's water so slavishly. Ezra may be gaining all important
access to the Clinton White House comparable to what he had in Obama's White House, but he spent
his credibility with his readers to get it. And, he's deprived his readers of the opportunity
to learn about issues of vital importance, like the TPP and corporate business power, or NATO
expansion and the relationship with Russia, or the swirling vortex forming in the Middle East
where American Empire is going down the drain of failed invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and
ill-conceived "alliances" with fundamentally hostile powers like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
I don't think these comment threads are a good place to campaign or advocate on the behalf
of any candidate. A modicum of advocacy might be welcome for the fodder it provides for reflective
rumination, but mirroring the Clinton campaign's themes seems to require systematic misreadings
of counter-argument and that has become disruptive. (RNB's volume and habitual tendentiousness
puts RNB into a special category in this regard.) There ought to be room in this discussions to
move the conversation to more of a meta-level, where we consider trends and dynamics without the
partisan's hyper-narrow focus.
@ 793 Hi Rich, that's a fair question. If memory serves, there were several very close calls under
Nixon more from errors in the 'fail safe' system. Nixon is a complicated amoral actor fairly obviously
guilty of some extremely serious crimes. He was not the only nasty actor at the time, however.
In the specific case you're describing, I don't think any president would have handled things
much differently. Russian missiles 90 miles from US soil during the cold war was unacceptable.
Many of our students have absolutely no idea of what life was like during the 20th century.
It's literally another world. The one we share today seems infinitely safer and more tolerant.
Cheers.
BW: "People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults
people on teevee might want to examine Clinton's bellicose foreign policy record and positions
on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion or the South China Sea."
Or, as Ian Welsh
points out, her position on Syria. She seems to have advocated for a no-fly zone in Syria after
Russia came in, which would presumably put us in the position of shooting down Russian warplanes
or having a good chance of doing so. Maybe if she does take on Kissinger as an advisor he'll tell
her that superpower conflicts have to be done through proxies or they're too dangerous.
For the larger question of whether these comment threads are a good place to campaign or advocate,
I sort of come down in a different place than you do. If these comment threads were about good-faith
argument, then sure this kind of advocacy might be bad, but I don't think that most people here
are capable of good-faith argument even if they were attempting it (most of the time they aren't
attempting it). In that case the comment threads serve an alternate purpose of seeing what kinds
of beliefs are out there, at least among the limited group of people likely to comment on CT threads.
Of course people can be kicked out if they habitually make the threads too difficult to moderate
(or really, for whatever other reason an OP decides on), but the well has long since been poisoned
and one more drop isn't really going to do much more damage.
T 08.13.16 at 9:13 pm
BW@798
Amen.
There's a reason the electorate hates both Trump and Clinton. This is what 40 years of two-party
neoliberism gives us: an unhinged demagogue or the point person for Democratic policies that have
systematically gutted the middle class, screwed the poor, increase inequality, slowed productivity,
caused multiple wars, and made them personally rich.
Let's not forget the Clintons were the Democratic Party point people in causing the vast
incarceration of black men while simultaneously gutting welfare for black mothers and their children.
(Yay 3rd Way!) They were the point people for letting 300 million Chinese workers compete with
American workers. They deregulated the banks. And was there a war she didn't like?
So Layman finds that the 80% of the Evangelicals that support Trump are racist. And so are
the white voters in manufacturing regions. (Excuse me. "Principally" racist.) And Layman's exact
counterpart on some unnamed right-wing site thinks all the blacks voting for HRC are in it for
the welfare and affirmative action. (Yes, your exact counterpart. Oh, and they, like you, would
say blacks are "principally" scammers cause, you know, there are other minor reasons to vote HRC.)
I take a different view. I think most voters are going to have the taste of vomit in the their
mouths when they pull the lever.
If there's a populist politics in our future, it will have to have a much sharper edge.
It can talk about growth, but it has to mean smashing the rich and taking their stuff. There's
very rapidly going to come a point where there's no other option, other than just accepting cramdown
by the authoritarian surveillance state built by the neoliberals. that's a much taller order than
Sanders or Trump have been offering.
Fit for inscription (keeps me smashingly awake after hundreds of comments :-))
The moral righteousness of identity politics adds in an element that goes
way beyond the lazy failure to hold politicians accountable or the tendency to explain away their
more Machiavellian maneuvers. There's both an actual blindness to the reactionary conservatism
of equal opportunity exploitation and a peremptory challenge to any other claim or analysis. If
police practices and procedures are trending in an authoritarian direction, they can only be challenged
on grounds of racist effect or intent. The authoritarianism cannot be challenged on its own merit,
so the building of the authoritarian state goes on unimpeded, since the principle that is challenged
is not authoritarianism, but a particular claim of racism or sexism.
So in the same week that the Justice Department report on the Baltimore police force comes
out, showing systematic police discrimination - e.g. lots of people stopped in black neighborhoods,
esp. two in particular, for petty reasons or no reason, versus very few people stopped in other
neighborhoods - bruce wilder informs us that identity politics somehow prevents us from criticizing
police behavior on grounds of authoritarianism, that it can only be criticized on grounds of racism
(or subconscious racial bias) - of course, that wd appear to be a main problem w police behavior
in Baltimore and some other places.
"... The problem with just sitting back and let you invade any country you like is that we all have to live in the world you make. You're certainly correct to point out that there are many things 'we foreigners' don't understand about America. ..."
"... What we do know is that whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded in modern US led military actions are not Americans. I fully believe that many Americans are intensely patriotic and love their country. I also believe that there are many subcultures within America that 'we foreigners' cannot understand. ..."
"... You believe your nation's commitment to its military is somehow special? Prove it. Instead we get American exceptionalism proudly on display. ..."
84@ The problem with just sitting back and let you invade any country you like is that
we all have to live in the world you make. You're certainly correct to point out that there are
many things 'we foreigners' don't understand about America.
What we do know is that whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are
making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded
in modern US led military actions are not Americans. I fully believe that many Americans are intensely
patriotic and love their country. I also believe that there are many subcultures within America
that 'we foreigners' cannot understand.
What is also clear from your comment is that you, and perhaps some others, believe that this
love of country and rich tapestry of subcultures somehow makes Americans very, very special and
beyond criticism.
We understand this much: Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor – 68 civilian casualties.
The US response: "..on the night of March 9-10, 1945…LeMay sent 334 B-29s low over Tokyo from
the Marianas. Their mission was to reduce the city to rubble, kill its citizens, and instill terror
in the survivors, with jellied gasoline and napalm that would create a sea of flames. Stripped
of their guns to make more room for bombs, and flying at altitudes averaging 7,000 feet to evade
detection, the bombers, which had been designed for high-altitude precision attacks, carried two
kinds of incendiaries: M47s, 100-pound oil gel bombs, 182 per aircraft, each capable of starting
a major fire, followed by M69s, 6-pound gelled-gasoline bombs, 1,520 per aircraft in addition
to a few high explosives to deter firefighters. [25] The attack on an area that the US Strategic
Bombing Survey estimated to be 84.7 percent residential succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of
air force planners…
The Strategic Bombing Survey, whose formation a few months earlier provided an important signal
of Roosevelt's support for strategic bombing, provided a technical description of the firestorm
and its effects on Tokyo: The chief characteristic of the conflagration . . . was the presence
of a fire front, an extended wall of fire moving to leeward, preceded by a mass of pre-heated,
turbid, burning vapors . . . . The 28-mile-per-hour wind, measured a mile from the fire, increased
to an estimated 55 miles at the perimeter, and probably more within. An extended fire swept over
15 square miles in 6 hours . . . . The area of the fire was nearly 100 percent burned; no structure
or its contents escaped damage."
The survey concluded-plausibly, but only for events prior to August 6, 1945-that
"probably more persons lost their lives by fire at Tokyo in a 6-hour period than at any time
in the history of man. People died from extreme heat, from oxygen deficiency, from carbon monoxide
asphyxiation, from being trampled beneath the feet of stampeding crowds, and from drowning. The
largest number of victims were the most vulnerable: women, children and the elderly."
The raids continue for all the 'best' military reasons…
"In July, US planes blanketed the few remaining Japanese cities that had been spared firebombing
with an "Appeal to the People." "As you know," it read, "America which stands for humanity, does
not wish to injure the innocent people, so you had better evacuate these cities." Half the leafleted
cities were firebombed within days of the warning. US planes ruled the skies. Overall, by one
calculation, the US firebombing campaign destroyed 180 square miles of 67 cities, killed more
than 300,000 people and injured an additional 400,000, figures that exclude the atomic bombing
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." (My italics)
http://apjjf.org/-Mark-Selden/2414/article.html
kidneystones 08.03.16 at 12:59 am
@ 86 Both my parents served. My grand-fathers served, and most of my uncles and great-uncles
served – you know, the whole mess from being shot to dying in hospitals years after the war from
gas attacks. And I served, nothing special about any of this.
You believe your nation's commitment to its military is somehow special? Prove it. Instead
we get American exceptionalism proudly on display.
Should all the foreigners in your debt salute, or simply prostrate ourselves in awe?
Clinton betrayal and sell out of Democratic Party to Wall Street was actually a phenomenon affecting
other similar parties, especially in Europe. And not only in Great Britain, where Tony Bliar was a real
copycat.
Notable quotes:
"... Ideology or political philosophy may matter to the skilled politician, but it matters less as a matter of conviction than as the précis of a novel's plot. It is like a key they use to encode rhetorical poses for the occasion, to signal that they understand the concerns of whatever group they are speaking to. ..."
"... It is one of the odd (to me) features of political attitude formation that so many people have amnesia where there should be some basic appreciation for what politics, at base, is about. (Politics is about who gets what, when, how, in Harold Lasswell's immortal title.) ..."
"... Neoliberalism is possibly the most important set of political phenomena -- certainly the most consequential -- in our generation's experience of political ideas and movements, and yet a common impulse is to deny it is exists or labels anything more meaningful than a catch-all "don't like it". ..."
"... I do think think there's something to the contention that a political re-alignment is underway and the iron hold that neoliberalism has on the Media discourse is rusting. Rusting or not, the structures of propaganda and manipulation remain highly centralized, so even if the rhetorical tropes lose their meaning and emotional resonance, it isn't clear that the structures of authority won't continue, their legitimacy torn and tattered but not displaced. Because there's no replacement candidate, yet. ..."
"... I agree, of course, that Marxism is obsolete. But, it does furnish a model of what an ideology can do to explain political economy and its possibilities, providing a rally point and a confession of faith. The contrast to our present common outlook highlights that several things are clearly missing for us now: one is economic class antagonism, the idea that the rich are the enemy, that rich people make themselves rich by preying on the society, and that fundamental, structural remedies are available thru politics. ..."
"... I do think there's a reservoir of inchoate anger about elite betrayal and malfeasance. The irony of being presented the choice of Trump and Clinton as a remedy is apparently not fully appreciated by our commenters, let alone the irony of rummaging the attic and bringing down Sanders, like he was a suit of retro clothes last worn by one's grandfather. ..."
"... Above, Layman reminds us that George W Bush sold himself as a compassionate conservative. Quite a few adults voted for him I understand. Supposedly quite a few did so thinking that dry drunk would be a good fellow to have a beer with. Because . . . I guess some pundits thought to tell them that that is what politics is about, having a guy in the most powerful office in the federal government that you identify with - a guy who cuts brush at his ranch with a chainsaw. ..."
F Foundling @ 605: The 'self' one can rely on is mostly features of temperament and style,
not policy. The 'brand' is also to a large extent about style, not substance, and it is subject
to change, too.
The handful of politicians I have known personally have had fewer and lighter personal commitments
to political policy preferences, than most, say, news junkies. They are trying to get political
power, which rests at the nexus of conflicting forces. They have to put themselves at the crossroads,
so to speak, and - maybe this is one of the paradoxes of power -- if they are to exercise power
from being at a nexus, they have to be available to be used; they have to be open to persuasion,
if they are to persuade.
Ideology or political philosophy may matter to the skilled politician, but it matters less
as a matter of conviction than as the précis of a novel's plot. It is like a key they use to encode
rhetorical poses for the occasion, to signal that they understand the concerns of whatever group
they are speaking to.
T: If inequality remains the same or increases and growth remains low (and I believe they
are very much linked) there will be new challengers from both the right and left and one of them
will win. It did take a good 70 yrs to vanquish the robber barons.
If there's a perennial lodestar for politics, it is this: the distribution of income, wealth
and power. Follow the money is a good way to make sense of any criminal enterprise.
F. Foundling: For decades already, so-called centre-left parties all over the world (can't
vouch for *every* country) have been engaged to varying extents in deregulation, privatisation,
welfare state reduction, TTIP-style neoliberal globalism and now, most recently, austerity (not
to mention a slavish pro-US foreign policy).
Yes.
It is one of the odd (to me) features of political attitude formation that so many people have
amnesia where there should be some basic appreciation for what politics, at base, is about. (Politics
is about who gets what, when, how, in Harold Lasswell's immortal title.)
I suspect that William the Conqueror had scarcely summered twice in England before someone
was explaining to the peasantry that he was building those castles to protect the people.
Neoliberalism is possibly the most important set of political phenomena -- certainly the
most consequential -- in our generation's experience of political ideas and movements, and yet
a common impulse is to deny it is exists or labels anything more meaningful than a catch-all "don't
like it".
RP: A lot of what people seem to be talking about is Overton Window stuff. I'm not convinced.
I do think think there's something to the contention that a political re-alignment is underway
and the iron hold that neoliberalism has on the Media discourse is rusting. Rusting or not, the
structures of propaganda and manipulation remain highly centralized, so even if the rhetorical
tropes lose their meaning and emotional resonance, it isn't clear that the structures of authority
won't continue, their legitimacy torn and tattered but not displaced. Because there's no replacement
candidate, yet.
By replacement candidate, I mean some set of ideas about how society and political economy
can be positively structured and legitimated as functional.
I agree, of course, that Marxism is obsolete. But, it does furnish a model of what an ideology
can do to explain political economy and its possibilities, providing a rally point and a confession
of faith. The contrast to our present common outlook highlights that several things are clearly
missing for us now: one is economic class antagonism, the idea that the rich are the enemy, that
rich people make themselves rich by preying on the society, and that fundamental, structural remedies
are available thru politics.
I do think there's a reservoir of inchoate anger about elite betrayal and malfeasance. The
irony of being presented the choice of Trump and Clinton as a remedy is apparently not fully appreciated
by our commenters, let alone the irony of rummaging the attic and bringing down Sanders, like
he was a suit of retro clothes last worn by one's grandfather.
bruce wilder 08.11.16 at 10:36 pm
Lee A. Arnold: I don't think I've met anyone over the age of consent who doesn't know what
politicians are all about.
Above, Layman reminds us that George W Bush sold himself as a compassionate conservative. Quite
a few adults voted for him I understand. Supposedly quite a few did so thinking that dry drunk
would be a good fellow to have a beer with. Because . . . I guess some pundits thought to tell
them that that is what politics is about, having a guy in the most powerful office in the federal
government that you identify with - a guy who cuts brush at his ranch with a chainsaw. How many
times did Maureen Dowd tell the story of dog strapped to the roof on the Romney family vacation?
In my comment, you may have read "politician" but I actually wrote, "politics". And, I did
not write that there was only inchoate anger. You added "only".
Obama is a neocon and is fully dedicated to expansion and maintenance of the US global neoliberal
empire, at any cost for the US population. Racism card play against Trump, who opposes neoliberal interventionism,
is a variant of the classic " Divide et impera" strategy
Notable quotes:
"... Incidentally, historical amnesia also includes forgetting Barack Obama was the boss when Clinton was secretary and forgetting Barack Obama is still president pursuing insane war-mongering policies long after Clinton is gone ..."
"... Historical amnesia means forgetting the Democratic Party isn't socialist or leftist ..."
"... Historical amnesia means forgetting all foundations are ways for the wealthy to shelter money and exercise influence, Koch's, Rockefeller's, Carnegie's, Ford's, Soros', not just Clintons'. Historical amnesia means forgetting this government has always conducted foreign policy at the behest of special interests. ..."
"... Vilifying millions of people in preference to even asking if Trump hasn't got massive elite support is deeply, profoundly reactionary. Divide et impera has been the rulers' game for centuries. ..."
Incidentally, historical amnesia also includes forgetting Barack Obama was the boss when Clinton
was secretary and forgetting Barack Obama is still president pursuing insane war-mongering policies
long after Clinton is gone and forgetting Barack Obama is still president, and won't even
be a lame duck till November.
Historical amnesia means forgetting the Democratic Party isn't
socialist or leftist, despite Bernie Sanders' long career as a sort of socialist (only informally
a Democrat.)
Historical amnesia means forgetting to even ask what "Watergate" was, and if or how it mattered
(or didn't.)
Historical amnesia means forgetting all foundations are ways for the wealthy to shelter
money and exercise influence, Koch's, Rockefeller's, Carnegie's, Ford's, Soros', not just Clintons'.
Historical amnesia means forgetting this government has always conducted foreign policy at the
behest of special interests.
(Yes, Lupita believes that imperialism actually pays off for the whole country, which
presumably is why when her preferred rich people try to get their own she'll be for that. Nonetheless,
the idea is bullshit. At this point, I can only imagine people don't call her out on that because
they actually agree that "we" are all in it together with our owners.)
Historical amnesia includes forgetting Trump has run for president before, with the same personality
and the same tactics and the same party base. It is unclear how the essentially racist nature
of the vile masses has changed so much in four years.
Vilifying millions of people in preference to even asking if Trump hasn't got massive elite
support is deeply, profoundly reactionary. Divide et impera has been the rulers' game for centuries.
"... People don't yet understand that this is just how neoliberals are. The two fundamental loyalties in a state party system have nothing to do with solidarity: they're loyalty up, and loyalty down. Neoliberals are happy to accept whatever loyalty up they are given by fools and suckers: they have no loyalty down at all and will never do the elementary political operations of repaying their base ..."
"... On solidarity: solidarity isn't about the (hierarchy of) relationships among politicians or political operatives. Solidarity is about membership, not leadership. ..."
"... Solidarity is the means to great common, coordinated efforts, that is to trust in leadership and that great solvent of political stalemate: sacrifice to the common good. ..."
"... Solidarity is a powerful force, sometimes historically an eruptive force, and though not by itself intelligent, not necessarily hostile to intelligent direction, but it calls on the individual's narcissism and anger not rational understanding or calculation. It is present as a flash in riots and a fire in insurrections and a great raging furnace in national wars of total mobilization. Elites can fear it or be enveloped by it or manipulate it cynically or with cruel callousness. Though it is a means to common effort and common sacrifice, it demands wages for its efforts and must be fed prodigious resources if it is long at work. ..."
"... What we've got here is a distorted or atrophied sense of the relationship between solidarity and the consent of the governed, between democracy and legitimacy, or more generally, between the individual and the collective ..."
"... If so, maybe we ought to try being a little more honest about what we're willing to pay as individuals for what we get as members of a group. Otherwise, it's hard to see how we can come to terms with our confusion, or survive the malignancies that being confused has introduced into all our group dynamics, not just the overtly political ones. ..."
CR: "that strategy actually runs the risk of harming down-ballot Democrats
running for office in Congress and state legislatures. It may help Clinton,
but it's not good for the party."
It's Obama redux. Remember how he wanted
to work with his friends across the aisle in a Grand Bargain that would
bring moderation and centrist agreement to all things? He validated budget-balance
mania during austerity and would have bargained away Social Security if
he could have. He predictably lost the Congress in the first mid-term election
and did nothing to build the party back up.
People don't yet understand that this is just how neoliberals are.
The two fundamental loyalties in a state party system have nothing to do
with solidarity: they're loyalty up, and loyalty down. Neoliberals are happy
to accept whatever loyalty up they are given by fools and suckers: they
have no loyalty down at all and will never do the elementary political operations
of repaying their base or creating a party that will work for anyone
else. This goes beyond ordinary political selfishness to the fact that they
don't really want a populist party: that would push them to harm the interests
of their real base.
And people don't react to this, fundamentally, because they don't really
do politics outside of 4-year scareathons. Look at LFC's description above
about how people should march if candidates don't follow through on their
promises. Why aren't they marching now: why haven't they in the Obama years?
I am with you on your main thesis, but I thought
I would offer this sidenote.
On solidarity: solidarity isn't about the (hierarchy of) relationships
among politicians or political operatives. Solidarity is about membership,
not leadership.
Solidarity can feel good. "We are all in this together, united."
Or, it can feel constricting, as it demands conformity and senseless uniformity,
obeisance to unnecessary authority. Resentments are its solvent and
its boundary-keepers. Social affiliation and common rituals are its nurturers
in its fallow times, which can be historically frequent and long. Solidarity
is the means to great common, coordinated efforts, that is to trust in leadership
and that great solvent of political stalemate: sacrifice to the common good.
Solidarity is a powerful force, sometimes historically an eruptive
force, and though not by itself intelligent, not necessarily hostile to
intelligent direction, but it calls on the individual's narcissism and anger
not rational understanding or calculation. It is present as a flash in riots
and a fire in insurrections and a great raging furnace in national wars
of total mobilization. Elites can fear it or be enveloped by it or manipulate
it cynically or with cruel callousness. Though it is a means to common effort
and common sacrifice, it demands wages for its efforts and must be fed prodigious
resources if it is long at work.
As American Party politics have degenerated, solidarity has come to have
a fraught relationship with identity politics. In both Parties.
I don't see anything in the conceptual logic driving things forward.
I see this state of affairs as the playing out of historical processes,
one step after another. But, this year's "scareathon" puts identity politics
squarely against the economic claims of class or even national solidarity.
The identity politics frame of equal opportunity exploitation has Paul Krugman
talking up "horizontal inequality". Memes float about suggesting that free
trade is aiding global equality even if it is at the expense of increasing
domestic inequality. Or, suggesting that labor unions were the implacable
enemy of racial equality back in the day or that FDR's New Deal was only
for white people. Hillary Clinton's stump speech, for a while, had her asking,
"If we broke up the big banks tomorrow, . . . would that end racism? would
that end sexism?"
It is convenient politics in several ways. First, no one can hold Clinton
responsible for not ending racism and sexism any more than GWB could be
held responsible for not winning the war on terrorism. These are perpetual
struggles by definition.
Second, it combines the display of righteous do-good ism with a promise
of social progress that might actually benefit directly the most ambitious,
even if it leaves most people without support. People who have done well
in the system, or who might expect to, can feel good about themselves. And,
ignore the system or rationalize away the system's manifest shortcomings.
The people who are complaining are racists! BernieBros! It is all about
the loss of status being experienced by white men, and they shouldn't be
heard anyway.
The moral righteousness of identity politics adds in an element that
goes way beyond the lazy failure to hold politicians accountable or the
tendency to explain away their more Machiavellian maneuvers. There's both
an actual blindness to the reactionary conservatism of equal opportunity
exploitation and a peremptory challenge to any other claim or analysis.
If police practices and procedures are trending in an authoritarian direction,
they can only be challenged on grounds of racist effect or intent. The authoritarianism
cannot be challenged on its own merit, so the building of the authoritarian
state goes on unimpeded, since the principle that is challenged is not authoritarianism,
but a particular claim of racism or sexism.
What we've got here is a distorted or atrophied sense of the relationship
between solidarity and the consent of the governed, between democracy and
legitimacy, or more generally, between the individual and the collective.
I suppose you could argue that we've evolved beyond what we were when we
first came to understand these relationships in the abstract (in the 18th
century?), and that, accordingly, they can no longer be understood in the
way we once thought we understood them.
If so, maybe we ought to try
being a little more honest about what we're willing to pay as individuals
for what we get as members of a group. Otherwise, it's hard to see how we
can come to terms with our confusion, or survive the malignancies that being
confused has introduced into all our group dynamics, not just the overtly
political ones.
"... These are of course very nice, but what I was hoping to buy was an end to things like rendition, torture, and death by killer robots from the sky. I guess it takes more money to buy nice things like that. ..."
That's a story about contributions of $200 or more. I'm guessing those contributions
buy no influence at all. In fact, I'm not guessing: I, personally, donated a total of $9600 to
Obama's campaigns, which were so influential that I was able to score 7 (so far) White House Christmas
cards, genuinely autopenned by President and Mrs. Obama.
These are of course very nice, but what I was hoping to buy was an end to things like rendition,
torture, and death by killer robots from the sky. I guess it takes more money to buy nice things
like that.
"... Increased border controls, concessions to anti-immigrant feeling, withdrawal by middle-tier Asian nations from the consensus, alternative institutions fostered by the BRICs, Brexit, revivals of western interest in industry policy, increasing questioning of the financial industry – all moves away from the platform. ..."
neo-liberalism has been dying for over a decade. It's just that these transitions
are a slow process (think of how most western countries are still adjusting to the fact that the
30-year growth spurt 1950-80 is well and truly over).
Increased border controls, concessions to
anti-immigrant feeling, withdrawal by middle-tier Asian nations from the consensus, alternative
institutions fostered by the BRICs, Brexit, revivals of western interest in industry policy, increasing
questioning of the financial industry – all moves away from the platform.
It
won't be fast, it won't be all (or mostly) in directions the left wants, it won't be a
consistent or continuous change, but it is happening.
"... In particular, criticizing Clinton by falsely assigning her responsibility for Obama's policies fails because it's so transparently dishonest. The notion that Clinton made Libya policy for the UN ambassador Power is dubious enough. ..."
"... The further implication that she manipulated Obama is silly on the face of it. It was Obama who dealt with Cameron and Sarkozy, who were above her pay grade. The Syrian policies continued after she was gone, nearly coming to open war entirely without her. ..."
"... Also, the insistence on using the years of nonsense dispensed by rabid right wingers spouting all sorts of crazed BS about how crooked Billary is, is endorsing the Mighty Wurlitzer. Jerry Falwell was speaking truth to power when he ranted about Vince Foster? ..."
"... It is of course true that Trump isn't unprecedented. His great precedent is of course Richard Nixon, who also had a plan. ..."
"... Whether Trump or Clinton, the next president is very likely to be impeached and convicted ..."
"... The infunny thing is, either Pence (a Ted Cruz without testicles,) or Kaine (an Obama DNC chair and thoroughly vetted Armed Service committeeman,) are nightmares. ..."
Criticizing Clinton from the right is just as reactionary as criticizing Trump from the right.
Further, assigning an individual such personal responsibility denies the reality of a bipartisan
system that administers an imperialist government with only a formal simulacrum of popular support.
That is, this "criticism" is fundamentally from the right.
In particular, criticizing Clinton by falsely assigning her responsibility for Obama's
policies fails because it's so transparently dishonest. The notion that Clinton made Libya policy
for the UN ambassador Power is dubious enough. The careers of Stevenson and Bolton alone
show that the potential importance of security council veto means the President reserves direct
supervision for himself, no matter what an organizational chart may say.
The further implication that she manipulated Obama is silly on the face of it. It was Obama
who dealt with Cameron and Sarkozy, who were above her pay grade. The Syrian policies continued
after she was gone, nearly coming to open war entirely without her. The implication that
for a Secretary of State to sell weapons to foreign nations isn't constituent service borders
on the silly. Besides, isolationism is not left win, never has been, never was.
And the implication that the any US government would ever favor supporting a leftish president
in Latin America because of its commitment to democracy thoroughly falsifies the nature of the
US government. Disappearing left criticism of Obama is thoroughly reactionary.
Also, the insistence on using the years of nonsense dispensed by rabid right wingers spouting
all sorts of crazed BS about how crooked Billary is, is endorsing the Mighty Wurlitzer. Jerry
Falwell was speaking truth to power when he ranted about Vince Foster? Buying into this is
buying decades of reactionary propaganda. I suppose this is mindlessness enough to satisfy people
who alleged that SYRIZA was going to save Greece (the rock that should by the way have sunk Jacobin
magazines credibility, leaving next to the Titanic,) or Bernie Sanders was starting a revolution.
It is of course true that Trump isn't unprecedented. His great precedent is of course Richard
Nixon, who also had a plan. I suppose F. Foundling eager awaits Trump's great "Nixon goes
to China" moment. I have no idea why.
Whether Trump or Clinton, the next president is very likely to be impeached and convicted.
As to which one it is, there has really never been much doubt that Clinton in the end will gain
enough minority support to carry the big cities. But if the reactionaries depress the turnout
enough, Trump has a shot at an electoral college victory, especially given the precedents on how
votes are counted.
The infunny thing is, either Pence (a Ted Cruz without testicles,) or Kaine
(an Obama DNC chair and thoroughly vetted Armed Service committeeman,) are nightmares.
"... How many ordinary Americans under the age of 40 can look in the mirror and find the stuff of not one, but two autobiographies? That certainly speaks a remarkable level of – what shall we call it? Well, probably not modesty. ..."
"... 'if you don't support O, you're David Duke in a dress' stuff. No need to dredge up the practical politics of Hope and Change at this late date. ..."
@ 668 "Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign,
according to The New Yorker. "I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy
directors."
"But there's more evidence that he's batshit crazy. He declaimed that he knew more
about ISIS than all the generals. He will trust no one's judgment but his own."
So, your argument is that Obama (your Muslim socialist) should never have been trusted to be
in the Oval Office.
And that by these, your standards, Trump is no crazier than the current Democratic president.
Oh, you don't need to. That boat sailed the moment you decided to make Obama level hubris grounds
for ineligibility. Obama's 'accomplishments prior to entering the Senate in 2004 are the stuff
of legend to the clueless, of course.
How many ordinary Americans under the age of 40 can look in the mirror and find the stuff
of not one, but two autobiographies? That certainly speaks a remarkable level of – what shall
we call it? Well, probably not modesty.
My life twice – plenty for everyone like to learn from! The perfect preparation for
a great presidency. That and my love of basketball. That's what makes me so smart! Did anyone
notice I'm young, black and handsome? Ignore that, please.
And we are where we are. I've elided the 'if you don't support O, you're David Duke in
a dress' stuff. No need to dredge up the practical politics of Hope and Change at this late date.
"... If the New York Post is their Pravda , then The Weekly Standard is the neocons' Iskra , where the ideological twists and turns of the Party Line are explicated at some length ..."
"... The cynical might suspect that this last is a form of neoconservative special pleading, designed to spirit the war party intellectuals away from the scene when the Bush policy goes down in flames ..."
"... Robert Kagan and Max Boot are shilling for Hillary, with more of their comrades soon to follow-the former Scoop Jackson Democrats have come full circle, their survival skills fully intact. ..."
"... They "certainly won't disappear in the way that American communism or segregation have," says McConnell , and one big reason is because "Perhaps most importantly neoconservatism still commands more salaries-able people who can pursue ideological politics as fulltime work in think tanks and periodicals-than its rivals." Which means "the reports of the movement's demise"-and I've authored a few of those-"are thus very much exaggerated." ..."
"... McConnell isn't just an observer, with a keen eye for detail: he projects himself into these geopolitical conundrums, imbued with the sort of empathy that connects both himself and the reader to real human suffering, a quality that makes him a trenchant critic of U.S. policy in the Middle East. ..."
"... McConnell likes the Israelis, supports their right to nationhood, and yet insists that we treat them as a normal country, not a pampered child who throws tantrums to get what it wants. He is measured, rational, compassionate, and, most of all, very well informed. We find out many things along the way, such as the real nature of the "good deal" that Yasser Arafat rejected, and rightly so. ..."
McConnell's wit, especially sharp when cutting up his former comrades, had me laughing out loud.
Describing Fred Barnes's Rebel in Chief , a hagiography of George W. Bush,
he writes : "For readers who might wonder what it is like to be a North Korean and required to
read formulaic biographies of great helmsman Kim Il Sung and his son, an afternoon spent with
Rebel in Chief should provide a proximate answer."
If the New York Post is their Pravda , then The Weekly Standard is the neocons'
Iskra , where the ideological twists and turns of the Party Line are explicated at some length,
and not without some elegance, as McConnell notes. The weekly's key role in diverting the Bush administration
into Iraq after the 9/11 attacks is here laid out in all its Machiavellian sinuosity. And the distinctly
Soviet air of the Kristolian style is illustrated quite nicely by McConnell's
description of the magazine's covers, a typical one being "George W. Bush, gesticulating before
an audience of troops, arm extended in a Caesarian pose. 'The Liberator,' the Standard headline
proclaimed. Flatter the leader who will do your bidding."
Yet there is a bit more to the literature of the courtier than appears on the surface. Flatter
the king, get close enough to whisper in his ear-and then, if necessary, bury the knife deep in his
back. Barnes depicts Bush as the bold leader who defied "the crabbed views of experts. And lest we
forget, it is Bush alone who has done this, not his advisors. The cynical might suspect that this
last is a form of neoconservative special pleading, designed to spirit the war party intellectuals
away from the scene when the Bush policy goes down in flames." Which is precisely what happened,
as McConnell chronicles in detail.
The damage this political cult has done to the American polity, and to the Middle East, cannot
even be calculated: how much, after all, is a human life worth? What about hundreds of thousands
of lives? Yet they never seem to be finally defeated:
as
McConnell puts it , "if disrespecting the neoconservatives is emerging as a minor national sport,
it should be enjoyed and tempered with realism." Sure, "the last few years have been difficult for
the faction," but "they have other options." As they stream back into the Democratic Party after
being steamrollered by Donald Trump- Robert Kagan and Max Boot are shilling for Hillary, with
more of their comrades soon to follow-the former Scoop Jackson Democrats have come full circle, their
survival skills fully intact.
They "certainly won't disappear in the way that American communism or segregation have,"
says
McConnell , and one big reason is because "Perhaps most importantly neoconservatism still commands
more salaries-able people who can pursue ideological politics as fulltime work in think tanks and
periodicals-than its rivals." Which means "the reports of the movement's demise"-and I've authored
a few of those-"are thus very much exaggerated."
Well, yes, that's unfortunately true. We've heard of the neocons' demise so many times that the
prospect has now become somewhat hopeless: they just keep reincarnating themselves in another form.
But that shouldn't stop us from hoping against hope.
In spite of this book's title, there is much more to it than the storied history of the neocons
as seen from inside the tent. There are sections on Israel, the run up to the Iraq war, President
Obama, reflections on history, Russia and NATO, racial politics, and more. McConnell is at his best
when he writes in the first person: a trip through Syria and Palestine, detailed in "
Divided
and Conquered ," reveals a perception honed to the finest detail, and a sensitivity and compassion
that invariably breaks through a reserved WASP-y persona. McConnell isn't just an observer, with
a keen eye for detail: he projects himself into these geopolitical conundrums, imbued with the sort
of empathy that connects both himself and the reader to real human suffering, a quality that makes
him a trenchant critic of U.S. policy in the Middle East.
That critique is laid out in a long essay, "
The Special Relationship With Israel: Is It Worth the Cost? " in which the history and consequences
of our protracted and expensive patronage of the Jewish state is analyzed and detailed in ways you
haven't seen or read before. McConnell likes the Israelis, supports their right to nationhood, and
yet insists that we treat them as a normal country, not a pampered child who throws tantrums to get
what it wants. He is measured, rational, compassionate, and, most of all, very well informed. We
find out many things along the way, such as the real nature of the "good deal" that Yasser Arafat
rejected, and rightly so.
At the end of a long "
Open Letter to David Horowitz
on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict ," in which the author takes apart the irascible pro-Israel
fanatic's argument that the Palestinians aren't really a people and should just get lost,
he writes; "David, I hope you know this letter is written in a spirit of friendly, even comradely,
disagreement and that it comes from someone who has plenty of appreciation for everything you have
done since you came out as a 'Lefty for Reagan' seventeen years ago, and who was an avid Ramparts
reader a dozen years before that."
For my part, he gives Horowitz far too much credit, but that's an essential part of the author
of Ex-Neocon : a gentleness that allows him to appreciate the talent and achievements of his
ideological opposite numbers, even as he tears their arguments to shreds. His personality comes through
in a way that is understated and yet strong.
Here he is in Virginia
Beach , canvassing for Obama during the 2012 election, riding around with a bunch of female volunteers,
two black and one white:
It was a curiously moving experience. … I have led most of my life not caring very much whether
the poor voted, and indeed have sometimes been aware my interests aligned with them not voting
at all. But that has changed. And so one knocks on one door after another in tiny houses and apartments
in Chesapeake and Newport News, some of them nicely kept and clearly striving to make the best
of a modest lot, others as close to the developing world as one gets in America. And at moments
one feels a kind of calling-and then laughs at the Alinskian presumption of it all. Yes, we are
all connected.
So what was this ex-neocon, former campaign manager for Pat Buchanan's last presidential run,
and former editor of The American Conservative doing canvassing for Barack Obama? You really
have to read this book to find out.
"... This extreme form of market capitalism, also called neo-liberalism in economics and neo-conservatism in foreign policy, has worked its way into the mindset of the ruling elites of many of the developed nations, and has taken a place in the public consciousness through steady repetition. I has become the modern orthodoxy of the fortunate few, who have been initiated into its rites, and served and been blessed by their god. ..."
"... The adherents become blind by their devotion to their gods. ..."
"... This is not something new. It is a madness that has appeared again and again throughout history in the form of Mammon, the golden idol of the markets. It is a way of looking at people and the world that is as old as Babylon, and as evil as sin. ..."
There is a lack of critical assessment of the past. But you have to understand that the current
ruling elite is actually the old ruling elite. So they are incapable of a self-critical approach
to the past."
Ryszard Kapuscinski
But they maintain a firm grasp on information and power, for their own sake, and sidetrack and stifle
any meaningful reform.
In October 2000 Thomas Frank published a prescient critical social analysis
titled,
One Market Under God: Extreme Capitalism, Market Populism, and the End of Economic Democracy
.
In the video below from 2015, Thomas Frank looks back over the past 15 years to when he wrote
this insightful book, and ends with this observation.
"I want to end with the idea that the market is capable of resolving all of our social conflict,
fairly and justly. That is the great idea of the 1990's. And we all know now what
a
crock
that is. I think what we need in order to restore some kind of sense of fairness
is not the final triumph of markets over the body and soul of humanity, but something that
confronts
markets, and that refuses to think of itself as a
brand
."
The book was not received well at the time in the waning days of the Clinton revolution and the birth
of the era of the neo-cons in foreign policy and neo-liberals in economics.
This religion of the
markets had yet to suffer the serial failures and decimation of the real economy which it would see
over the next sixteen years.
This is an ideology, a mindset, and as Frank calls it a religion, of taking market capitalism
to such an extreme that it dispenses with the notion of restraints by human or policy consideration.
It comes to consider the market as a god, with its orthodoxy crafted in think tanks, its temples
in the exchanges and the banks, and its oracles on their media and the academy.
This extreme form of market capitalism, also called neo-liberalism in economics and neo-conservatism
in foreign policy, has worked its way into the mindset of the ruling elites of many of the
developed nations, and has taken a place in the public consciousness through steady repetition.
I has become the modern orthodoxy of the fortunate few, who have been initiated into its rites, and
served and been blessed by their god.
It is the taking of an idea, of a way of looking at things, that may be substantially practical
when used as a tool to help to achieve certain outcomes, and placing it in such an extreme and inappropriate
place as an end in itself, as the very definition and arbiter of what is good and what is not, that
it becomes a kind of anti-human force that is itself considered beyond all good and evil, like a
natural law.
It is born of and brings with it an extreme tendency that kills thought, and stifles the ability
to make distinctions between things. If not unfettered capitalism then what,
communism
?
The
adherents become blind by their devotion to their gods.
This is not something new. It is a madness that has appeared again and again throughout
history in the form of Mammon, the golden idol of the markets. It is a way of looking at people
and the world that is as old as Babylon, and as evil as sin.
Interesting presentation. Especially the idea why Clinton betrayed previous base of Democratic
Party and sold it to Wall Street. Another interesting idea is that in meritocracy there is no
solidarity.
Thomas Frank, Author, What's the Matter with Kansas? and Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened
to the Party of the People?
James Taylor, Ph.D., Director of African American Studies and Professor of Political Science,
University of San Francisco-Moderator
Come hear the best-selling author of What's the Matter with Kansas? echo that question as it relates
to the Democratic Party. Frank says liberals like to believe that if only Democrats can continue
to dominate national elections, if only those awful Republicans are beaten into submission, then
the country will be on the right course. But he says this view fundamentally misunderstands the modern
Democratic Party. Frank says that the Democrats have in fact done little to advance traditional liberal
goals: expanding opportunity, fighting for social justice, and ensuring that workers get a fair deal.
Indeed, he argues that Democrats have occupied the White House for 16 of the last 24 years, and yet
the decline of the middle class has only accelerated, Wall Street gets its bailouts, wages keep falling,
and the free-trade deals keep coming.
In this critical election year, Frank recalls the Democrats back to their historic goals-what
he says is the only way to reverse the ever-deepening rift between the rich and the poor in America.
A former columnist for The Wall Street Journal and Harper's, Frank is the founding editor of The
Baffler and writes regularly for Salon.
Social mobility was stunted by the onslaught of neoliberalism, which simultaneously celebrates
self-cultivation while pulling the ladder up on millions of people, burdening them with credit
card and student debt, lowering the quality of public education, raising the costs of healthcare
and devising clever Wall St strategies that raid commercial banks and now the SS fund. It's a
theatre of cruelty, as Henry Giroux describes it. More to the point, it is economic fascism.
Well if Trump signals the death of the Republican Party then surely the Clinton dynasty will mark
the death of the Dem party. The working class people of this country, the environment cannot survive
another neoliberal Clinton and their TPP, this is endgame stuff right here. TPP means the inability
to peacefully change the system.
Taylor states that Obama was the most progressive president between 2008 and 2010 and then the
conservatives, Tea Party and others attached him. What utter nonsense. During that period of time
Obama and the Democrats controlled both houses of the Congress and he did almost nothing to advance
a "liberal" agenda. He wouldn't even allow single payer advocates a seat at the negotiating table
and Obamacare was essentially drafted by a healthcare/insurance industry lobbyist. Obama gave
a "free get out of jail card" to all the financial criminals on Wall Street. Obama chose James
Rubin, son of #1 financial crook Robert Rubin, to fill all his administration's financial positions,
Obama chose the very smart but incompetent knucklehead Larry Summers. Obama won "Ad Age Marketer
of the Year" award for his 2008 campaign. That says it all; it was an ad campaign much like selling
a breakfast serial that is just sugar and empty carbohydrates but tastes good. He was groomed
and supported very early on by a couple of very wealthy families (Pritzkers and Crowns) and had
the support of Wall Street. He received more funds from Wall Street than his opponent, John McCain,
much more.
Bill Ayers
Hillary For Prison 2016
Penniless Punk
The word "union" wasn't simply attacked by the right. It was also eroded by the corruption
within its own ranks. Unions lost power when NAFTA was enacted, so they simply kept collecting
dues even though they couldn't do a fucking thing. If they had told their workers to strike, the
company would have moved to another location and union popularity would go down anyway. No one
wants to pay dues to someone who makes their family suffer only to lose the battle. So instead,
unions sucked up to management and just kept collecting dues so the company would stick around
here..where they CAN collect dues. They don't collect dues in Mexico or Canada. THAT's why the
word "union" stinks anymore. It means "sell out who ignores the problems of their team mates to
save their own skin."
After the dissolution of the USSR the US elute went completely off rails and started to devour
not only other countries, but the USA itself. Neoliberals (like Bolsheviks int he past) are
cosmopolitan by definition and consider the USA as just a host to implement their plan. They have
zero affinity with the common people of the USA. For them they are just tools for creation and
maintnace of the global neoliberal empire. So their allegiance is not to the USA but to the global
neoliberal empire. It's the same behaviour that characterized Bolsheviks in Russia.
Notable quotes:
"... Then, once the Obama administration had massively escalated the CIA's drone program as an alternative
to kidnapping and indefinite detention at Guantanamo, it became even harder to acknowledge that this
is a policy of cold-blooded murder that provokes widespread anger and hostility and is counter-productive
to legitimate counterterrorism goals – or to admit that it violates the U.N. Charter's prohibition on
the use of force, as U.N. special rapporteurs on extrajudicial killings have warned . ..."
"... The deviant U.S. foreign policy bureaucracy has branded the formal rules that are supposed
to govern our country's international behavior as "obsolete" and "quaint", as a White House lawyer wrote
in 2004 . And yet these are the very rules that past U.S. leaders deemed so vital that they enshrined
them in constitutionally binding international treaties and U.S. law. ..."
"... In 1945, after two world wars killed 100 million people and left much of the world in ruins,
the world's governments were shocked into a moment of sanity in which they agreed to settle future international
disputes peacefully. The U.N. Charter therefore prohibits the threat or use of force in international
relations. ..."
"... The U.N. Charter's prohibition against the threat or use of force codifies the long-standing
prohibition of aggression in English common law and customary international law, and reinforces the
renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy in the 1928 Kellogg Briand Pact . The judges
at Nuremberg ruled that, even before the U.N. Charter came into effect, aggression was already the "supreme
international crime." ..."
"... No U.S. leader has proposed abolishing or amending the U.N. Charter to permit aggression by
the U.S. or any other country. And yet the U.S. is currently conducting ground operations, air strikes
or drone strikes in at least seven countries: Afghanistan; Pakistan; Iraq; Syria; Yemen; Somalia; and
Libya. U.S. "special operations forces" conduct secret operations in a hundred more . U.S. leaders still
openly threaten Iran, despite a diplomatic breakthrough that was supposed to peacefully settle bilateral
differences. ..."
"... Although torture was authorized from the very top of the chain of command, the most senior
officer charged with a crime was a Major and the harshest sentence handed down was a five-month prison
sentence. ..."
"... –U.S. rules of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan have included: systematic, theater-wide use
of torture ; orders to "dead-check" or kill wounded enemy combatants; orders to "kill all military-age
males" during certain operations; and "weapons-free" zones that mirror Vietnam-era "free-fire" zones.
..."
"... A U.S. Marine corporal told a court martial that "Marines consider all Iraqi men part of the
insurgency", nullifying the critical distinction between combatants and civilians that is the very basis
of the Fourth Geneva Convention. ..."
"... –For the past year, U.S. forces bombing Iraq and Syria have operated under loosened rules of
engagement that allow the in-theater commander General McFarland to approve bomb- and missile-strikes
that are expected to kill up to 10 civilians each. ..."
"... Left In The Dark ..."
"... Nobody was charged over the Ghazi Khan raid in Kunar province on Dec. 26, 2009, in which U.S.
special forces summarily executed at least seven children, including four who were only 11 or 12 years
old. ..."
"... More recently, U.S. forces attacked a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, killing 42
doctors, staff and patients, but this flagrant violation of Article 18 of the Fourth Geneva Convention
did not lead to criminal charges either. ..."
"... Richard Barnet explored the deviant culture of Vietnam-era U.S. war leaders in his 1972 book
Roots Of War ..."
"... The U.S. role in anti-democratic coups in Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, Brazil, Indonesia, Ghana,
Chile and other countries was veiled behind thick layers of secrecy and propaganda. A veneer of legitimacy
was still considered vital to U.S. policy, even as a culture of deviance was being normalized and institutionalized
beneath the surface. ..."
"... When Nicaragua asked the U.N. Security Council to enforce the payment of reparations ordered
by the court, the U.S. abused its position as a Permanent Member of the Security Council to veto the
resolution. Since the 1980s, the U.S. has vetoed twice as many Security Council resolutions as the other
Permanent Members combined, and the U.N. General Assembly passed resolutions condemning the U.S. invasions
of Grenada (by 108 to 9) and Panama (by 75 to 20), calling the latter "a flagrant violation of international
law." ..."
"... President George H.W. Bush and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher obtained U.N. authorization
for the First Gulf War and resisted calls to launch a war of regime change against Iraq in violation
of their U.N. mandate. Their forces massacred Iraqi forces fleeing Kuwait , and a U.N. report described
how the "near apocalyptic" U.S.-led bombardment of Iraq reduced what "had been until January a rather
highly urbanized and mechanized society" to "a pre-industrial age nation." ..."
"... Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq ..."
The U.S. foreign policy establishment and its mainstream media operate with a pervasive set of
hypocritical standards that justify war crimes - or what might be called a "normalization of deviance,"
writes Nicolas J S Davies.
Sociologist Diane Vaughan coined the term
"normalization of deviance" as she was investigating the explosion of the Challenger space
shuttle in 1986. She used it to describe how the social culture at NASA fostered a disregard for
rigorous, physics-based safety standards, effectively creating new, lower de facto standards
that came to govern actual NASA operations and led to catastrophic and deadly failures.
Vaughan published her findings in her
prize-winning
book , The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture and Deviance at NASA
, which, in her words, "shows how mistake, mishap, and disaster are socially organized and systematically
produced by social structures" and "shifts our attention from individual causal explanations to the
structure of power and the power of structure and culture – factors that are difficult to identify
and untangle yet have great impact on decision making in organizations."
President George W. Bush announcing the start of his invasion of Iraq on March
19, 2003.
When the same pattern of organizational culture and behavior at NASA persisted until the loss
of a second shuttle in 2003, Diane Vaughan was appointed to NASA's accident investigation board,
which belatedly embraced her conclusion that the "normalization of deviance" was a critical factor
in these catastrophic failures.
The normalization of deviance has since been cited in a wide range of corporate crimes and institutional
failures, from
Volkswagen's rigging of emissions tests to deadly medical mistakes in hospitals. In fact, the
normalization of deviance is an ever-present danger in most of the complex institutions that govern
the world we live in today, not least in the bureaucracy that formulates and conducts U.S. foreign
policy.
The normalization of deviance from the rules and standards that formally govern U.S. foreign policy
has been quite radical. And yet, as in other cases, this has gradually been accepted as a normal
state of affairs, first within the corridors of power, then by the corporate media and eventually
by much of the public at large.
Once deviance has been culturally normalized, as Vaughan found in the shuttle program at NASA,
there is no longer any effective check on actions that deviate radically from formal or established
standards – in the case of U.S. foreign policy, that would refer to the rules and customs of international
law, the checks and balances of our constitutional political system and the experience and evolving
practice of generations of statesmen and diplomats.
Normalizing the Abnormal
It is in the nature of complex institutions infected by the normalization of deviance that insiders
are incentivized to downplay potential problems and to avoid precipitating a reassessment based on
previously established standards. Once rules have been breached, decision-makers face a cognitive
and ethical conundrum whenever the same issue arises again: they can no longer admit that an action
will violate responsible standards without admitting that they have already violated them in the
past.
This is not just a matter of avoiding public embarrassment and political or criminal accountability,
but a real instance of collective cognitive dissonance among people who have genuinely, although
often self-servingly, embraced a deviant culture. Diane Vaughan has compared the normalization of
deviance to an elastic waistband that keeps on stretching.
At the start of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, President George W. Bush ordered
the U.S. military to conduct a devastating aerial assault on Baghdad, known as "shock and awe."
Within the high priesthood that now manages U.S. foreign policy, advancement and success are based
on conformity with this elastic culture of normalized deviance. Whistle-blowers are punished or even
prosecuted, and people who question the prevailing deviant culture are routinely and efficiently
marginalized, not promoted to decision-making positions.
For example, once U.S. officials had accepted the Orwellian "doublethink" that "targeted killings,"
or "manhunts"
as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called them, do not violate long-standing
prohibitions against
assassination , even a new administration could not walk that decision back without forcing a
deviant culture to confront the wrong-headedness and illegality of its original decision.
Then, once the Obama administration had
massively
escalated the CIA's drone program as an alternative to kidnapping and indefinite detention at
Guantanamo, it became even harder to acknowledge that this is a policy of cold-blooded murder that
provokes widespread anger and hostility and is counter-productive to legitimate counterterrorism
goals – or to admit that it violates the U.N. Charter's prohibition on the use of force,
as U.N. special rapporteurs on extrajudicial killings have warned .
Underlying such decisions is the role of U.S. government lawyers who provide legal cover for them,
but who are themselves shielded from accountability by U.S. non-recognition of international courts
and the extraordinary deference of U.S. courts to the Executive Branch on matters of "national security."
These lawyers enjoy a privilege that is unique in their profession, issuing legal opinions that they
will never have to defend before impartial courts to provide legal fig-leaves for war crimes.
The deviant U.S. foreign policy bureaucracy has branded the formal rules that are supposed
to govern our country's international behavior as "obsolete" and "quaint", as
a White House lawyer wrote in 2004 . And yet these are the very rules that past U.S. leaders
deemed so vital that they enshrined them in
constitutionally binding
international treaties and U.S. law.
Let's take a brief look at how the normalization of deviance undermines two of the most critical
standards that formally define and legitimize U.S. foreign policy: the U.N. Charter and the Geneva
Conventions.
In 1945, after two world wars killed 100 million people and left much of the world in ruins,
the world's governments were shocked into a moment of sanity in which they agreed to settle future
international disputes peacefully. The U.N. Charter therefore prohibits the threat or use of force
in international relations.
As President Franklin Roosevelt
told a joint session of Congress on his return from the Yalta conference, this new "permanent
structure of peace … should spell the end of the system of unilateral action, the exclusive alliances,
the spheres of influence, the balance of power, and all the other expedients that have been tried
for centuries – and have always failed."
The U.N. Charter's prohibition against the threat or use of force codifies the long-standing
prohibition of aggression in English common law and customary international law, and reinforces the
renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy in the
1928 Kellogg Briand
Pact . The judges at Nuremberg ruled that, even before the U.N. Charter came into effect, aggression
was already the "supreme international
crime."
No U.S. leader has proposed abolishing or amending the U.N. Charter to permit aggression by
the U.S. or any other country. And yet the U.S. is currently conducting ground operations, air strikes
or drone strikes in at least seven countries: Afghanistan; Pakistan; Iraq; Syria; Yemen; Somalia;
and Libya. U.S. "special operations forces" conduct secret operations in
a hundred more . U.S. leaders still openly threaten Iran, despite a diplomatic breakthrough that
was supposed to peacefully settle bilateral differences.
President-in-waiting
Hillary Clinton still believes in backing U.S. demands on other countries with illegal threats
of force, even though every threat she has backed in the past has only served to create a pretext
for war, from Yugoslavia to Iraq to Libya. But the U.N. Charter prohibits the threat as well as the
use of force precisely because the one so regularly leads to the other.
The only justifications for the use of force permitted under the U.N. Charter are proportionate
and necessary self-defense or an emergency request by the U.N. Security Council for military action
"to restore peace and security." But no other country has attacked the United States, nor has the
Security Council asked the U.S. to bomb or invade any of the countries where we are now at war.
The wars we have launched since 2001 have
killed
about 2 million people , of whom nearly all were completely innocent of involvement in the crimes
of 9/11. Instead of "restoring peace and security," U.S. wars have only plunged country after country
into unending violence and chaos.
Like the specifications ignored by the engineers at NASA, the U.N. Charter is still in force,
in black and white, for anyone in the world to read. But the normalization of deviance has replaced
its nominally binding rules with looser, vaguer ones that the world's governments and people have
neither debated, negotiated nor agreed to.
In this case, the formal rules being ignored are the ones that were designed to provide a viable
framework for the survival of human civilization in the face of the existential threat of modern
weapons and warfare – surely the last rules on Earth that should have been quietly swept under a
rug in the State Department basement.
Courts martial and investigations by officials and human rights groups have exposed "rules of
engagement" issued to U.S. forces that flagrantly violate the Geneva Conventions and the protections
they provide to wounded combatants, prisoners of war and civilians in war-torn countries:
–The
Command's Responsibility report by Human Rights First examined 98 deaths in U.S. custody
in Iraq and Afghanistan. It revealed a deviant culture in which senior officials abused their authority
to block investigations and guarantee their own impunity for murders and torture deaths that
U.S. law defines as capital
crimes .
Although torture was authorized from the very top of the chain of command, the most senior
officer charged with a crime was a Major and the harshest sentence handed down was a five-month prison
sentence.
A U.S. Marine corporal told a court martial that "Marines consider all Iraqi men part of the
insurgency", nullifying the critical distinction between combatants and civilians that is the very
basis of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
When junior officers or enlisted troops have been charged with war crimes, they have been exonerated
or given light sentences because courts have found that they were acting on orders from more senior
officers. But the senior officers implicated in these crimes have been allowed to testify in secret
or not to appear in court at all, and no senior officer has been convicted of a war crime.
–For the past year, U.S. forces bombing Iraq and Syria have operated under
loosened
rules of engagement that allow the in-theater commander General McFarland to approve bomb-
and missile-strikes that are expected to kill up to 10 civilians each. But Kate Clark of
the Afghanistan Analysts Network has documented that U.S. rules of engagement already permit
routine targeting of civilians based only on cell-phone records or "guilt by proximity" to
other people targeted for assassination. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has determined
that
only 4 percent of thousands of drone victims in Pakistan have been positively identified as
Al Qaeda members, the nominal targets of the CIA's drone campaign.
–Amnesty International's 2014 report
Left In The Dark documented a complete lack of accountability for the killing of civilians
by U.S. forces in Afghanistan since President Obama's escalation of the war in 2009 unleashed
thousands more air strikes and special forces night raids.
Nobody was charged over the
Ghazi Khan raid in Kunar province on Dec. 26, 2009, in which U.S. special forces summarily executed
at least seven children, including four who were only 11 or 12 years old.
More recently,
U.S. forces attacked a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, killing 42 doctors, staff
and patients, but this flagrant violation of Article 18 of the Fourth Geneva Convention did not lead
to criminal charges either.
Although the U.S. government would not dare to formally renounce the Geneva Conventions, the normalization
of deviance has effectively replaced them with elastic standards of behavior and accountability whose
main purpose is to shield senior U.S. military officers and civilian officials from accountability
for war crimes.
The Cold War and Its Aftermath
The normalization of deviance in U.S. foreign policy is a byproduct of the disproportionate economic,
diplomatic and military power of the United States since 1945. No other country could have got away
with such flagrant and systematic violations of international law.
But in the early days of the Cold War, America's World War II leaders rejected calls to exploit
their new-found power and temporary monopoly on nuclear weapons to unleash an aggressive war against
the U.S.S.R.
General Dwight Eisenhower gave
a speech in St. Louis in 1947 in which he warned, "Those who measure security solely in terms
of offensive capacity distort its meaning and mislead those who pay them heed. No modern nation has
ever equaled the crushing offensive power attained by the German war machine in 1939. No modern nation
was broken and smashed as was Germany six years later."
But, as Eisenhower later warned, the Cold War soon gave rise to a
"military-industrial
complex" that may be the case par excellence of a highly complex tangle of institutions
whose social culture is supremely prone to the normalization of deviance. Privately,
Eisenhower lamented,
"God help this country when someone sits in this chair who doesn't know the military as well
as I do."
That describes everyone who has sat in that chair and tried to manage the U.S. military-industrial
complex since 1961, involving critical decisions on war and peace and an
ever-growing military budget . Advising the President on these matters are the Vice President,
the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, several generals and
admirals and the chairs of powerful Congressional committees. Nearly all these officials' careers
represent some version of the "revolving door" between the military and "intelligence" bureaucracy,
the executive and legislative branches of government, and top jobs with military contractors and
lobbying firms.
Each of the close advisers who have the President's ear on these most critical issues is in turn
advised by others who are just as deeply embedded in the military-industrial complex, from
think-tanks funded by weapons manufacturers to Members of Congress with military bases or missile
plants in their districts to journalists and commentators who market fear, war and militarism to
the public.
With the rise of sanctions and financial warfare as a tool of U.S. power, Wall Street and the
Treasury and Commerce Departments are also increasingly entangled in this web of military-industrial
interests.
The incentives driving the creeping, gradual normalization of deviance throughout the ever-growing
U.S. military-industrial complex have been powerful and mutually reinforcing for over 70 years, exactly
as Eisenhower warned.
Richard Barnet explored the deviant culture of Vietnam-era U.S. war leaders in his 1972 book
Roots
Of War . But there are particular reasons why the normalization of deviance in U.S. foreign
policy has become even more dangerous since the end of the Cold War.
In the aftermath of World War II, the U.S. and U.K. installed allied governments in Western and
Southern Europe, restored Western colonies in Asia and
militarily occupied South Korea . The divisions of Korea and
Vietnam
into north and south were justified as temporary, but the governments in the south were U.S.
creations imposed to prevent reunification under governments allied with the U.S.S.R. or China. U.S.
wars in Korea and Vietnam were then justified, legally and politically, as military assistance to
allied governments fighting wars of self-defense.
The U.S. role in anti-democratic coups in Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, Brazil, Indonesia, Ghana,
Chile and other countries was veiled behind thick layers of secrecy and propaganda. A veneer of legitimacy
was still considered vital to U.S. policy, even as a culture of deviance was being normalized and
institutionalized beneath the surface.
The Reagan Years
It was not until the 1980s that the U.S. ran seriously afoul of the post-1945 international legal
framework it had helped to build. When the U.S. set out to destroy the revolutionary
Sandinista government of Nicaragua by mining its harbors and dispatching a mercenary army to
terrorize its people, the
International
Court of Justice (ICJ) convicted the U.S. of aggression and ordered it to pay war reparations.
The U.S. response revealed how far the normalization of deviance had already taken hold of its
foreign policy. Instead of accepting and complying with the court's ruling, the U.S. announced its
withdrawal from the binding jurisdiction of the ICJ.
When Nicaragua asked the U.N. Security Council to enforce the payment of reparations ordered
by the court, the U.S. abused its position as a Permanent Member of the Security Council to veto
the resolution. Since the 1980s, the
U.S.
has vetoed twice as many Security Council resolutions as the other Permanent Members combined,
and the U.N. General Assembly passed resolutions condemning the U.S. invasions of Grenada (by 108
to 9) and Panama (by 75 to 20), calling the latter "a flagrant violation of international law."
President George H.W. Bush and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher obtained U.N. authorization
for the First Gulf War and resisted calls to launch a war of regime change against Iraq in violation
of their U.N. mandate. Their forces massacred
Iraqi forces fleeing Kuwait , and
a U.N. report described how the "near apocalyptic" U.S.-led bombardment of Iraq reduced what
"had been until January a rather highly urbanized and mechanized society" to "a pre-industrial age
nation."
But new voices began to ask why the U.S. should not exploit its unchallenged post-Cold War military
superiority to use force with even less restraint. During the Bush-Clinton transition, Madeleine
Albright confronted General Colin Powell over his "Powell doctrine" of limited war, protesting, "What's
the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?"
Public hopes for a "peace dividend" were ultimately trumped by a
"power dividend" sought
by military-industrial interests. The neoconservatives of the Project for the New American Century
led the push for war on Iraq, while
"humanitarian
interventionists" now use the "soft power" of propaganda to selectively identify and demonize
targets for U.S.-led regime change and then justify war under the "responsibility to protect" or
other pretexts. U.S. allies (NATO, Israel, the Arab monarchies et al) are exempt from such campaigns,
safe within what Amnesty International has labeled an
"accountability-free zone."
Madeleine Albright and her colleagues branded Slobodan Milosevic a "new Hitler" for trying to
hold Yugoslavia together, even as they ratcheted up their own
genocidal
sanctions against Iraq . Ten years after Milosevic died in prison at the Hague,
he was posthumously exonerated by an international court.
In 1999, when U.K. Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told Secretary of State Albright the British government
was having trouble "with its lawyers" over NATO plans to attack Yugoslavia without U.N. authorization,
Albright told him he should
"get new lawyers."
By the time mass murder struck New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, the normalization
of deviance was so firmly rooted in the corridors of power that voices of peace and reason were utterly
marginalized.
Former Nuremberg prosecutor
Ben Ferencz told NPR
eight days later, "It is never a legitimate response to punish people who are not responsible for
the wrong done. … We must make a distinction between punishing the guilty and punishing others. If
you simply retaliate en masse by bombing Afghanistan, let us say, or the Taliban, you will kill many
people who don't approve of what has happened."
But from the day of the crime, the war machine was in motion,
targeting
Iraq as well as Afghanistan.
The normalization of deviance that promoted war and marginalized reason at that moment of national
crisis was not limited to Dick Cheney and his torture-happy acolytes, and so the global war they
unleashed in 2001 is still spinning out of control.
When President Obama was elected in 2008 and awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, few people understood
how many of the people and interests shaping his policies were the same people and interests who
had shaped President George W. Bush's, nor how deeply they were all steeped in the same deviant culture
that had unleashed war, systematic war crimes and intractable violence and chaos upon the world.
A Sociopathic Culture
Until the American public, our political representatives and our neighbors around the world can
come to grips with the normalization of deviance that is corrupting the conduct of U.S. foreign policy,
the existential threats of nuclear war and escalating conventional war will persist and spread.
President George W. Bush pauses for applause during his State of the Union Address
on Jan. 28, 2003, when he made a fraudulent case for invading Iraq. Seated behind him are Vice President
Dick Cheney and House Speaker Dennis Hastert. (White House photo)
This deviant culture is sociopathic in its disregard for the value of human life and for the survival
of human life on Earth. The only thing "normal" about it is that it pervades the powerful, entangled
institutions that control U.S. foreign policy, rendering them impervious to reason, public accountability
or even catastrophic failure.
The normalization of deviance in U.S. foreign policy is driving a self-fulfilling reduction of
our miraculous multicultural world to a "battlefield" or testing-ground for the latest U.S. weapons
and geopolitical strategies. There is not yet any countervailing movement powerful or united enough
to restore reason, humanity or the rule of law, domestically or internationally, although new political
movements in many countries offer viable alternatives to the path we are on.
As the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
warned when it advanced the hands of the Doomsday Clock to 3 minutes to midnight in 2015, we
are living at one of the most dangerous times in human history. The normalization of deviance in
U.S. foreign policy lies at the very heart of our predicament.
Nicolas J S Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and
Destruction of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President:
a Report Card on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader.
"... By Daniela Gabor is associate professor in economics at the University of the West of England, Bristol. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
"... For a detailed account see Gabor, D. (2016) The (impossible) repo trinity : the political economy of repo markets, Review of International Political Economy, doi 10.1080/09692290.2016.1207699 ..."
Since the 1980s, central banks have been increasingly freed from
fiscal dominance , the obligation to monetize government debt. The new regime of monetary dominance
celebrated the (price) stability benefits of insulating scientific monetary policy from poorly theorized,
highly politicized fiscal policy. Yet the growing dominance of the 'monetary science, fiscal
alchemy' view in both academia and
policy circles played a critical role in the rapid rise of shadow banking. The untold story of shadow
banking is the story of (failed) attempts to separate monetary from fiscal policy, and of the bordeland
that connects them, mapped onto the
repo market .
While the state withdrew from economic life, privatizing state-owned enterprises or state banks,
and putting macroeconomic governance in the hands of independent central banks, its role in financial
life grew bigger. Sovereign debt evolved into the cornerstone of modern financial systems, used as
benchmark for pricing private assets, for hedging and
as base asset for credit creation via shadow banking . The state's role as debt issuer, passive
and systemic at once, has been reliant, beyond the arithmetic of budget deficits, on the intricate
workings of the repo trinity.
The repo trinity captures a consensus in central bank circles emerging after the 1998 Russian
crisis, the first systemic crisis of collateral-intensive finance, that financial stability requires
liquid government bond markets and liberalized repo markets (fig. 1).
Figure 1 The repo trinity
The repo-government bond market nexus took shape in the 1980s. In the US, securities dealers
preferred repos to secured lending against collateral because market convention treated repos
as outright sales and repurchases of collateral that allowed dealers to re-use collateral for a wide
range of activities (short-selling, hedging, selling to a third party). When bankruptcy courts decided
that repos would be subjected to automatic stay rules, Paul Volcker, then the Federal Reserve chairperson,
successfully lobbied Congress to exempt repos with US Treasuries (UST) and agency securities collateral.
Then, Salomon Brothers short-squeezed the UST market in 1991 by becoming the only repo supplier of
a two-year note. This allowed Salomon to fund securities through repo transactions at exceptionally
low rates. The ensuing public enquiry into the Salomon scandal showed little appetite for regulating
repos. Rather, the Fed and the Treasury
introduced new practices to fix gaps in repo plumbing, celebrating repos as innovative, liquidity
enhancing instruments that would support the state in the post fiscal-dominance era.
The UST blueprint diffused rapidly to Europe. Pressured to adjust to a world of independent central
banks, market-based financing and global competition for liquidity, European states embarked on a
project of creating modern government bond markets, with
modernity understood to mean the structural features of the US government bond market: regular
auctions, market-making based on primary dealers and a liberalised repo market.
Central banks were at first divided on the benefits of opening up repo markets. While Banque de
France followed the US Fed in assuming a catalyst role for the repo-sovereign bond market nexus,
Bundesbank and Bank of England worried that deregulated repo markets would unleash structural changes
in finance that could undermine the conduct of monetary policy and financial stability. In the architecture
of the US government bond market, the Bundesbank saw the conditions nurturing
short-term , fragile finance.
Seeking to keep banks captive on the uncollateralized segment of interbank markets, Bundesbank imposed
reserve requirements on repo liabilities. In parallel, as government's fiscal agent, Bundesbank followed
a conservative strategy, with irregular auctions, issuance concentrated at long maturities and repo
rules that increased the costs of funding bunds via repos. German banks responded by moving (bund)
repo activities to London and warned that France's open repo strategy would make it into the benchmark
sovereign issuer for the Euroarea. For similar reasons, the Bank of England exercised strict control
over the repo gilt market for 10 years after the 1986 Big Bang liberalisation of financial markets.
Under intense pressure from the financial industry and Ministries of Finance, the two central banks
liberalized repo markets by 1997.
As the fragilities of the new, collateral-intensive world became apparent in the 1998 Russian
crisis, central banks working together in the Committee on the Global Financial System subscribed
to the policy goals of the repo trinity. The
CGFS argued that financial
stability in market-based finance required global safe assets, issued in government bond markets,
in turn 'lubricated' by free repo markets with carefully designed (but not regulated) risk management
regimes.
In pursuing the objectives of the repo trinity, central banks helped consolidate the critical
role that sovereign bonds play in modern financial markets. Throughout the 2000s, the shortage of
US government bonds saw the trinity extended to include securitization markets, while the Euro project
galvanized consensus for a European repo trinity, whereby central banks encouraged the European banks
dominating the repo market to treat all Euro sovereign debt as high-quality
collateral
.
After Lehman, central banks and the Financial Stability Board recognized the impossible nature
of the repo trinity, attributing cyclical leverage, fire sales and elusive liquidity in collateral
markets, including government bond markets, to free repo markets. Central banks, with the
Bank of England leading the way, now accept that financial stability means supporting liquidity
in collateral markets in times of stress rather than supporting banking institutions as in the traditional
lender of last resort (LOLR) model. Paradoxically, LOLR support, implemented through repo loans,
can
destabilize (shadow) banks where central banks' collateral framework follows collateral market
valuations (figure 2).
Figure 2 The impossible repo trinity
The quiet revolution in crisis central banking that involves direct support for core markets may
appear like, but does not entail a return to, fiscal dominance. Rather, it creates
financial dominance , defined
as asymmetric support for falling asset prices. While financial dominance should be addressed by
direct regulatory interventions, the quest for biting repo rules has so far proved illusive. The
precise impact of Basel III liquidity and leverage rules is yet to be determined, whereas the failed
attempts to include repos in the European
Financial
Transactions Tax and the FSB's watered-down repo proposals suggest that (countercyclical) collateral
rules are only possible once states design alternative models of organizing their sovereign debt
markets. Paradoxically, new initiatives in Europe suggest that a return to the repo trinity is rather
more likely: the Capital Market Union plans to create Simple, Transparent and Standardized (
STS ) securitisation again illustrate the catalyst role that central banks choose to play in
market-driven solutions to safe asset shortages.
For a detailed account see Gabor, D. (2016)
The (impossible)
repo trinity : the political economy of repo markets, Review of International Political Economy,
doi 10.1080/09692290.2016.1207699
Uhhh. The article is one of the rare "too short, wish it was longer" breed.
I'll hazard a remark: how can securitization be "transparent" if, as one of the articles yesterday
discussed, central banks intervene to support banks so as to allow them to avoid having the market
deliver a price verdict on asset value?
Any time you let central banks like the Federal Bank of NY create money from debt; bankruptcy
is on the horizon. This has only been proven true for around five thousand years.
For a recent example have a look at the difference in government debt in Canada now verses
when it had a public banking system.
"Throughout the 2000s, the shortage of US government bonds saw the trinity extended to include
securitization markets,"
This started treating asset based securities similar to US Treasuries
Also this:
"fire sales and elusive liquidity in collateral markets, including government bond markets,"
I don't think the European government bond market can be treated as sovereign government bonds
as they don't have that guarantee of backing from a central bank.
----
Quite simply, US Treasuries can be put to much better use than supporting asset prices and
other financial products.
Repos hide risk and makes it possible to increase leverage. Why would anyone but financial
institutions want that?
But since financial institutions rule all then I suppose that repos will continue and as a gesture
of goodwill (dressed up as something else) they'll just become more and more complex – those (high)
fees for the professionals enabling the practice has to be justified somehow…
As the current US President and Nobel Peace Prize winner prepares to leave office with a record of
a Tuesday
morning kill list, unconscionable drone attacks on civilians, initiating bombing campaigns where
there were none prior to his election and, of course, taunting Russian President Vladimir Putin with
unsubstantiated allegations, the US-backed NATO has scheduled
AEGIS anti ballistic missile shields to be constructed in Romania and Poland, challenging the
integrity of
INF Treaty for the first time in almost thirty years.
In what may shed new light on NATO/US
build-up in eastern Europe, Russian Foreign Secretary Sergei Lavrov
denied US charges in June, 2015 that Russia had violated the Treaty and that the US had "failed
to provide evidence of Russian breaches." Commenting on US plans to deploy land-based missiles
in Europe as a possible response to the alleged "Russian aggression" in the Ukraine, Lavrov warned
that ''building up militarist rhetoric is absolutely counterproductive and harmful.' Russian
Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov suggested the United States was leveling accusations against
Russia in order to justify its own military plans.
In early August, the US Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration authorized
the final development phase (prior to actual production in 2020) of the
B61-21 nuclear bomb at a cost of $350 – $450 billion. A
thermonuclear weapon with the capability of reaching Europe and Moscow, the B61-21 is part
of President Obama's
$1 trillion request for modernizing the US aging and outdated nuclear weapon arsenal.
Isn't it about time for the President to do something to earn that Peace Prize?
Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU's Florida State Board of Directors and
president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in
Colorado, an environmental lobbyist and staff member of the US House of Representatives in
Washington DC.
As the current US President and Nobel Peace Prize winner prepares to leave office with a record of
a Tuesday
morning kill list, unconscionable drone attacks on civilians, initiating bombing campaigns where
there were none prior to his election and, of course, taunting Russian President Vladimir Putin with
unsubstantiated allegations, the US-backed NATO has scheduled
AEGIS anti ballistic missile shields to be constructed in Romania and Poland, challenging the
integrity of
INF Treaty for the first time in almost thirty years.
In what may shed new light on NATO/US
build-up in eastern Europe, Russian Foreign Secretary Sergei Lavrov
denied US charges in June, 2015 that Russia had violated the Treaty and that the US had "failed
to provide evidence of Russian breaches." Commenting on US plans to deploy land-based missiles
in Europe as a possible response to the alleged "Russian aggression" in the Ukraine, Lavrov warned
that ''building up militarist rhetoric is absolutely counterproductive and harmful.' Russian
Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov suggested the United States was leveling accusations against
Russia in order to justify its own military plans.
In early August, the US Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration authorized
the final development phase (prior to actual production in 2020) of the
B61-21 nuclear bomb at a cost of $350 – $450 billion. A
thermonuclear weapon with the capability of reaching Europe and Moscow, the B61-21 is part
of President Obama's
$1 trillion request for modernizing the US aging and outdated nuclear weapon arsenal.
Isn't it about time for the President to do something to earn that Peace Prize?
"... It is providing a steady stream of military-age Sunni males to sow ever more creative chaos (terrorism, crime and other forms of "cultural enrichment") in the European and American homelands. Obama and Hillary have been faithful servants of this policy. The architects of this policy will not allow it to be derailed by some big-mouth real-estate developer. ..."
"... Defense Intelligence Agency document declassified last year shows that the Obama administration was warned in August of 2012 that if it continued it's policies, a radical Islamic regime could form in eastern Syria. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State at this time. ..."
"... So in my humble opinion, not only are Obama and Clinton the founders of ISIS, they are the parents that gave birth to his freak of nature known as ISIL/ISIS. ..."
"... Bush had to invade...of all countries....Iraq....while the perpetrators of 911 were in Afghanistan, and in the Saudi Royal family which bankrolled the 911 operation. The invasion and destruction of Iraq, the phony elections of leaders who walked away with pallets of US dollars, only handed Iraq to Iran through the Shii'ia imams ..."
"... Bush started a war in the wrong country, this makes him one of the worst presidents in History... ..."
The US/European/Saudi/Israeli policy in the ME and Central Asia can be summed up by one word:
Destabilization. Or what the neocon globalists call "creative chaos". What did it create? Artificially
high oil prices to line the pockets of the House of Saud and the House of Bush. It created the conditions
for ramping up heroin production from Afghanistan, pipelined through the DIA/CIA with military assets.
(The US government is the largest drug cartel ever). It is providing a steady stream of military-age
Sunni males to sow ever more creative chaos (terrorism, crime and other forms of "cultural enrichment")
in the European and American homelands. Obama and Hillary have been faithful servants of this policy.
The architects of this policy will not allow it to be derailed by some big-mouth real-estate developer.
Bill, 7 hours ago
Defense Intelligence Agency document declassified last year shows that the Obama administration
was warned in August of 2012 that if it continued it's policies, a radical Islamic regime could form
in eastern Syria. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State at this time.
The report said "There is
the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria,
and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition wants, in order to isolate the Syrian
regime". Lt. General Michael Flynn said; "it was a willful decision to do what they're doing. Supporting
Salafist's, Al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood". So in my humble opinion, not only are Obama
and Clinton the founders of ISIS, they are the parents that gave birth to his freak of nature known
as ISIL/ISIS.
Al, 14 hours ago
When America was attacked on 911, the world inhaled waiting for our response. It could have been
anything from a nuke on Afghanistan's mountains where the Taliban and Al Qaeda came together with
Osama, or an invasion of Afghanistan and the rounding up of all these thugs for hangings.
The world
would never have said even a word, including Russia. But, no Bush had to invade...of all countries....Iraq....while
the perpetrators of 911 were in Afghanistan, and in the Saudi Royal family which bankrolled the 911
operation. The invasion and destruction of Iraq, the phony elections of leaders who walked away with
pallets of US dollars, only handed Iraq to Iran through the Shii'ia imams.
Bush started a war in the wrong country, this makes him one of the worst presidents in History...
Arguments of Sanders supporters against Hillary are not perfectly applicable to Hillary vs Trump
contest.
Notable quotes:
"... If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young voters no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere. ..."
"... You'll then cycle back to the lesser of two evils, that Democrats like Obama and Clinton are needed to help the poor blacks and minorities. To me this is a myth. The poor get fucked no matter what party is in office. ..."
"... What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation since Ronald Reagan . ..."
"... Of course not. But when you have an issue you can continually put bandaids on the symptoms or you can perform a root cause analysis and then proceed to fix these root causes. The fact is that politicians are disinclined to put the needs of voters first, they tend to pay lip service to the needs of voters, while spending 60% of their time interacting with rich donors, who are very good are articulating their needs, as they hand over large sums of money. This system creates a log jam to reform. If we can return the immutable link to the voters interests, and congress them reform of economic distortions that support racism become far far easier. Motive of change and motives of votes become transparent. ..."
"... the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr in admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard. ..."
"... I don't believe her core statements. Sorry but as a person I just can't buy into the package. Both republicans and democrats on a vague macro level will try to lower unemployment but neither will talk about falling participation. Clinton had already proved she's probably as likely as Trump to get bullets flying. It's her judgement. She's part of the same old we need to intervene yet never understanding the real issues. I despise her unflinching support of Saudi Arabia. That policy is insane!!! Etc etc etc. ..."
"... I believe both parties represent essentially the same with small regional differences . ..."
"... One wonders what makes them call themselves Democrats? ..."
"... Certainly not economic and political justice, peace, democracy, or integrity in governance. ..."
"... Yes, it's been the single most shocking revelation of the entire election year for me as well. Not just the cynicism of the rank-and-file, but the arrogance and isolation of our corrupt Democratic party elite, many of whom still don't seem to grasp that a revolt by progressive Democrats and Independents is already under way. This is one of the forms it may take. ..."
"... Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath spectrum. Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle of laughter. This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown by US assistance. Are some Democrats so brainwashed that they think a woman president is the answer regardless of what kind of person that woman is? Since when do decent people in politics exult in death like this? Libya's murdered leader was no angel but Hitler he was not and as older people have told me, the deaths of Hitler and Stalin and the like were greeted publicly with muted and dignified relief by western representatives. ..."
"... Wake up Democrats. At least read a book called The Unravelling by an American journalist whose name I forget. This heartbreaking book says it all about the realities for the non privileged and non powerful in todays' America. ..."
"... If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably more dangerous with foreign policy. ..."
"... Both their economic/domestic policies do little or worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable (although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton seems to want to expand it). ..."
"... Uh huh and your supporting a person: That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi, gave tacit approval to a military junta in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth super predators, supports trade agreements that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more money from special interests than her constituency, has made millions in speeches from the bank lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah she's real HONEST. ..."
"... Money buys the influence to be selected as a candidate. Normally. 99% of the time. Sometimes a Huey Long populist breaks through the process and scares the fuck out of the power structures. But you know how candidates are selected. Poor smart people never get to run for president unless they build a populist power base. The existing political parties defer to donors. Donors like the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill Clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive. ..."
Robin is relentless is arguing AGAINST, but he is quite light on arguing for anything. It is an
interesting question as to what he stands for.
His main argument is that zero information from "right wing" press is true. He seems unaware
that at times, actual facts are presented or not presented or suppressed by either media outlet,
depending on their corporate ownership and management slant of what should be reported. Me? I
read everything and decide if something is a fact. It is strange that factual reporting about
the actual many many FOIA lawsuits only gets printed in right wing press. They of course have
an agenda, but does not negate the facts they report. Like Clinton being allowed to be deposed
in a civil FOIA suit. That is a fact, with quotes from the Judge. CNN? I guess they couldn't afford
to report this factual development.
When you only read the press looking for a partisan set of narratives, you end up being partisan
and ill informed. When you read all the flavours of press in an desire to inform yourself, when
your goal is not a narrative but factual accounts of the truth, then you can be better informed.
So we have partisans, who only view Fox and we also have partisans who only view CNN. Both are
as bad as each other. One must be capable of decreeing the motives of each, and discarding the
nonfactual narratives, and then one can be fully informed.
Robin makes the assumption that facts only occur in his selected set of informational partisan
sources. Why? Because he is partisan. This then enables him to argue against a narrative, rather
than support his own narrative. He plays the neat trick of simply discarding any factual reporting
from places like Breibart. One can see interesting lacks of coverage on google search.
"Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any
communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a
person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession."
So surely in America, Clinton with her wealth would take some legal action? I would if I
had her money, and wealth. Interesting that she has not? Perhaps you could write to her and
suggest she defend herself in a real and palpable way?
Yes and a lot of the press are trying to bury the news about another Sanders success. When you
look at how many voting districts he comes out top in, in is a large percentage. Clinton tends
to get closer or take the district if their is a higher population density.
The influence of the super delegates is a scandal in a "democratic process".
First I would be very careful taking what G gives, it is nowadays "fixing" news like Fox. Most
reliable, if speaking about polls the word can be used, is results of metastudies:
If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young voters
no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere.
Clinton won't cut it and she won't beat Trump. Trump will out her on every crooked deal she
has been involved in.
You'll then cycle back to the lesser of two evils, that Democrats like Obama and Clinton are needed
to help the poor blacks and minorities. To me this is a myth. The poor get fucked no matter what
party is in office.
Is this is a Fox News plant article? yeah yeah, let's vote Clinton who promises a continuation
of Obama's policies. Will Trump make this much worse? Maybe. Trump or Clinton will in my opinion
do little to improve these issues quoted below. You have a different opinion. Great.
"Like the rest of America, Black America, in the aggregate, is better off now than it was when
I came into office," said President Obama on December 19, in response to a question by Urban Radio
Networks White House Correspondent April Ryan.
What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that
President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation
since Ronald Reagan . A look at every key stat as President Obama starts his sixth year in
office illustrates that.
Unemployment. The average Black unemployment under President Bush was 10 percent. The average
under President Obama after six years is 14 percent. Black unemployment, "has always been double"
[that of Whites] but it hasn't always been 14 percent. The administration was silent when Black
unemployment hit 16 percent – a 27-year high – in late 2011 .
Poverty. The percentage of Blacks in poverty in 2009 was 25 percent; it is now 27 percent.
The issue of poverty is rarely mentioned by the president or any members of his cabinet. Currently,
more than 45 million people – 1 in 7 Americans – live below the poverty line.
The Black/White Wealth Gap. The wealth gap between Blacks and Whites in America is at a 24-year
high. A December study by PEW Research Center revealed the average White household is worth $141,900,
and the average Black household is worth $11,000. From 2010 to 2013, the median income for Black
households plunged 9 percent.
Income inequality. "Between 2009 and 2012 the top one percent of Americans enjoyed 95 percent
of all income gains, according to research from U.C. Berkeley," reported The Atlantic. It was
the worst since 1928. As income inequality has widened during President Obama's time in office,
the president has endorsed tax policy that has widened inequality, such as the Bush Tax cuts.
Education: The high school dropout rate has improved during the Obama administration. However,
currently 42 percent of Black children attend high poverty schools, compared to only 6 percent
of White students. The Department of Education's change to Parent PLUS loans requirements cost HBCU's more than $150 million and interrupted the educations of 28,000-plus HBCU students.
SBA Loans. In March 2014, the Wall Street Journal reported that only 1.7 percent of $23 billion
in SBA loans went to Black-owned businesses in 2013, the lowest loan of SBA lending to Black businesses
on record. During the Bush presidency, the percentage of SBA loans to Black businesses was 8 percent
– more than four times the Obama rate.
"All the equations showed strikingly uni- form statistical results: racism as we have measured
it was a significantly disequalizing force on the white income distribution, even when other factors
were held constant. A 1 percent increase in the ratio of black to white median incomes (that is,
a 1 percent decrease in racism) was associated with a .2 percent decrease in white inequality,
as measured by the Gini coefficient. The corresponding effect on top 1 percent share of white
income was two and a half times as large, indicating that most of the inequality among whites
generated by racism was associated with increased income for the richest 1 percent of white families.
Further statistical investigation reveals that increases in the racism variable had an insignifi-
cant effect on the. share received by the poorest whites and resulted in a decrease in the income
share of the whites in the middle income brackets."
"What I said, and still maintain, is that the struggle against racism is as important as the struggle
against other forms of oppression, including those with economic and financial causes."
We can agree on this statement. However, do we need to recognise that legislation alone will
not solve racism. A percentage of poor people turn against the "other" and apportion blame for
their issues.
" that campaign finance and banking reform will fix everything"
Of course not. But when you have an issue you can continually put bandaids on the symptoms
or you can perform a root cause analysis and then proceed to fix these root causes. The fact is
that politicians are disinclined to put the needs of voters first, they tend to pay lip service
to the needs of voters, while spending 60% of their time interacting with rich donors, who are
very good are articulating their needs, as they hand over large sums of money. This system creates
a log jam to reform. If we can return the immutable link to the voters interests, and congress
them reform of economic distortions that support racism become far far easier. Motive of change
and motives of votes become transparent.
"The various forms of discrimination are not separable in real life. Employers' hiring and
promotion practices; resource allocation in city schools; the structure of transportation sys-
tems; residential segregation and housing quality; availability of decent health care; be- havior
of policemen and judges; foremen's prejudices; images of blacks presented in the media and the
schools; price gouging in ghetto stores-these and the other forms of social and economic discrimination
interact strongly with each other in determining the occupational status and annual income, and
welfare, of black people. The processes are not simply additive but are mutually reinforcing.
Often, a decrease in one narrow form of discrimination is accompanied by an increase in another
form. Since all aspects of racism interact, an analysis of racism should incorporate all its as-
pects in a unified manner."
My thesis is this: build economic equality and the the pressing toxins of racism diminish.
But yeah dismiss Sanders as a one issue candidate. he is a politician, which I acknowledge. He
has a different approach to clinton who will micro triangulate constantly depending on who she
in front of. I find his approach ore honest. Your mileage may vary.
" money spent on campaigns does not correlate very highly to winning"
No but overall money gets to decide on a narrow set of compliance in the candidates. But it
still correlates to winning. Look at the Greens with no cash. Without the cash, they will never
win. Sanders has proved that 1. We do not need to depend on the rich power brokers to select narrowly
who will be presented as a candidate. 2. He has proved that a voter can donate and compete with
corporate donations. I would rather scads of voter cash financing rather than corporate cash buying
influence. ABSCAM was a brief flash, never repeated to show us what really happens in back rooms
when a wad of cash arrives with a politician. That we cannot PROVE what happens off the grid,
we can and should rely on common sense about the influence of money. 85% of the American people
believe cash buys influence. The only influence on a politician should be the will of the people.
Sure, corporates can speak. Speech is free. Corporate cash as speech is a different matter. It
is a moral corruption.
"most contributions come after electoral success"
Yes part of the implied contract of corporates and people like the Koch Brothers: Look after
us and we will look after you. We will keep you in power, as long as you slant the legislation
to favour us over the voters.
You do realise the Clinton Foundation bought the assets of the DLC, a defunct organisation.
Part of the assets are the documents and records that contain the information about the Koch Brothers
donations and their executives joining the "management" of the DLC. Why would a Charity be interested
in the DLC documents? Ah it is a Clinton Foundation. Yeah yeah, there is no proof of anything
is there. No law was broken. Do I smell something ? Does human nature guide my interpretation
absent a clear statement from the Foundation of this "investment"?? Yes.
We have to start SOMEWHERE. Root causes are the best place to start.
Democrat or Republican, Blacks and Whites at the bottom are thrown in a race for the bottom
and this helps fuel the impoverishment of both. It is fuel to feed racism. My genuine belief.
Why is it wrong for democrats to pick their own party leader? Also Obama beat Hilary last time
so what's Bernies problem now? Also why moan about a system that's been in place for decades now,
surely the onus was on Sanders to attract more middle of the road dem voters? Finally I'm sure
republicans would also love to vote in Sanders, easy to demolish with attack ads before the election
(you'll note they've studiously ignored him so far).
the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr in
admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy
is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and
deserves to get it good and hard.
explain to me why the blacks and Hispanics vote for her because it is a mystery to me. She
stands for everything they have had to fight against. So you have a 1%er-Wall St.-invade
Iraq-subprime-cheat the EU-Goldman Sachs-arms dealing-despot cuddling-fuck the environment
coalition. And blacks and Hispanics too? Are they out of their minds?
BERNIE SANDERS - OR ZIG AGAINST ZAG
.
If the American people don't come to their senses and give Bernie Sanders the Democratic nomination,
we're going to end up with a choice between Zig and Zag. Zig is Donald Trump, and Zag is Hillary
Clinton. To paraphrase Mort Sahl back in the sixties, the only difference between the two is if
Donald 'Zig' Trump sees a Black child lying in the street, he'd simply order his chauffeur to
run over him. If Hillary 'Zag' Clinton saw the kid, she'd also order her chauffeur to run over
him, but she'd weep, and go apologize to the NAACP, after she felt the bump.
.
WAKE UP, BLACK PEOPLE!!!
Giving aid to the Republicans? If you honestly believe that any criticisms I have is worse than
what I discuss, you need to give up politics and get a hobby. Trump will for example use her FOIA/email
issues like a stick to beat her with. This is not Soviet Russia where we all adopt the party line.
I'm not not ever have been a member of the Democratic Party. I COULD have been this year. Now?
Never. The solution to the nations problems will come from outside this party.
I prefer neither. You love fearmongering about how worse it will be under trump. Hmmm. I don't
buy that tale. Take Black family incomes. In the toilet. Under either party it goes south. Abortion?
Like slavery nothing ...... Nothing is going to change. It's too late to change that one. But
it's a useful tool to make us believe ONLY Clinton can protect us. Economically the Democrats
are essentially the same as the Republicans, more of the same corporate welfare. Would Clinton
cut Social Security? Maybe. I don't believe her core statements. Sorry but as a person I just
can't buy into the package. Both republicans and democrats on a vague macro level will try to
lower unemployment but neither will talk about falling participation. Clinton had already proved
she's probably as likely as Trump to get bullets flying. It's her judgement. She's part of the
same old we need to intervene yet never understanding the real issues. I despise her unflinching
support of Saudi Arabia. That policy is insane!!! Etc etc etc.
You believe a black family gays and women will sing Kumbaya under Clinton and all will be well.
I believe both parties represent essentially the same with small regional differences .
It would be perhaps remotely marxist if he said comrades. But even that was used by democrats,
socialists and even fascists and nazists so I would say that no, there is nothing marxist about
it. One of his central messages is that we need to come together and improve our society, that
we are all the same, without race or religion, with the same needs and fears as humans.
I even disagree with people saying that he promotes class struggle, he is talking about
fair share and he is an ardent supporter of following the laws even when they are against his
ideology, which is something that radicals do not tend to do. Radicals do not give a damn
about laws and neither do Marxists or far-right wingers, fascists etc. Those groups believe in
changing the society through struggle into a model that fits their idea of the world whatever
that may be. He simply states his beliefs and suggests laws to adjust the society to human
needs, to eat, to live, to prosper in an equal footing.
It is a rather sad commentary on how the bar of integrity and honesty has been so lowered
that it doesn't even faze them
One wonders what makes them call themselves Democrats? Their stance on gun and abortion issues?
Certainly not economic and political justice, peace, democracy, or integrity in governance.
Yes, it's been the single most shocking revelation of the entire election year for me as well.
Not just the cynicism of the rank-and-file, but the arrogance and isolation of our corrupt Democratic
party elite, many of whom still don't seem to grasp that a revolt by progressive Democrats and
Independents is already under way. This
is one of the forms it may take.
Recharging is always a good idea ... and never more so than in an election year as turbulent,
crazy, uplifting, disillusioning, energizing, maddening and fascinating as this one. I'll also
be away (for weeks) toward the end of this month.
Before you go, here's Carl Bernstein's interview with Don Lemon, in case you missed it:
Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath spectrum.
Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle of laughter.
This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown by US assistance.
Are some Democrats so brainwashed that they think a woman president is the answer regardless of
what kind of person that woman is? Since when do decent people in politics exult in death like
this? Libya's murdered leader was no angel but Hitler he was not and as older people have told
me, the deaths of Hitler and Stalin and the like were greeted publicly with muted and dignified
relief by western representatives.
Add to that the continual lies that are being aired in public and this is why the USA has lost
its way.
Hillary will not see that one criminal in the financial world of the USA will face justice for
their mafia-like actions and destruction of billions of dollars and assets while stealing the
savings of Americans and non Americans. President Obama hasn't done it and he is not the buddy
Hilary is to these people.
And since when does the USA have the ethical superiority to attack countries like Russia for cronyism
etc? This is unbelievable - a presidential nominee candidate is being investigated by the FBI
and she doesn't stand down?
Wake up Democrats. At least read a book called The Unravelling by an American journalist whose
name I forget. This heartbreaking book says it all about the realities for the non privileged
and non powerful in todays' America.
I recall David Bowie's beautiful song This Is Not America. The Bernie supporters understand
that, all power to him, those who think like him, and his supporters.
Please. She lost that race in South Carolina when her husband, along with Geraldine Ferraro,
called Obama being president a fairy tale and an affirmative action candidate, respectively.
You can't win with only minority support, but you can't win without any of it if you are a
Dem. Up until SC, the Clintons had minority support in the bag--most black people had never
heard of Obama. Things changed real fast.
Like its not obvious? There is now no paper trail to enable ensuring computer votes are true.
A man on the moon can now ensure who is going to be President, that was said by a premier computer
security expert.
Along with extensive disenfranchisement, numerous ways its pretty clear these outcomes are
preordained. Guess I am not going to be voting for either of the two appointed runners, its
pointless. I will vote for Bernie when its time in California.
And to branch out a bit, there are so many empty stock phrases to choose from in her 2016 campaign
alone, including "I'm with her" and "Breaking down barriers" courtesy of her 2008 campaign manager,
Mark Penn. Speaking of Penn, there's a hilarious little passage in "Clinton, Inc" (p. 65) which
describes Penn running through possible campaign slogans for 2008. "Penn began to walk through
all the iterations of Hillary slogans: Solutions for America, Ready for a change, Ready to lead,
Big challenges, Real Solutions; Time to pick a President... but then he seem to get a little lost...Working
for change, Working for you. There was silence, then snickers as Penn tried to remember all the
bumper stickers which run together sounded absurd and indistinguishable. The Hillary I know."....
Oy. ^__^
But to pick out my favorite Hillary statement of the week, in honor of her close associate
and fellow gonif, Hillary superdelegate, Sheldon Silver, who recently got 12 years in the slammer:
In 2000, Silver was integral in Clinton's Senate campaign. According to The New York Times,
Silver helped Hillary lobby members of the state assembly for their support
So I guess the former speaker of the NY assembly is just gonna have to vote for Hillary
from behind bars, instead of at the DNC? How "super-inconvenient."
If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably
more dangerous with foreign policy. Both use identity politics as a decisive issue- which only
is a distraction from their lack of policy.
Both their economic/domestic policies do little or
worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable
(although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either
is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton
seems to want to expand it).
If it's between those two I vote Green and take the 'Jesse Ventura' option: vote anyone not
Dem or Rep. Both parties are two corrupt subsidiaries of their corporate masters.
Most effective senator for the last 35 years and as Mayor or Burlington stopped corporate real
estate developers from turning Burlington into Aspen east coast version.
She voted for the Iraq war, being investigated by the FBI for her emails, there was Benghazi,
turning Libya into a ISIS hotbed, allowed a military junta to assassinate a democratically elected
president in Honduras and said nothing,
takes $675k from Goldman for 3 speeches and refuses to disclose the transcripts because she
KNOWS it'll hurt her, voted for trade deals that's gutted manufacturing in the USA....should I
go on?
So please please explain how Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to wave a wand and fix racism? I
already know she will not fix poverty, she will slap a few ersatz bandaids onto bills that won't
pass and like the spoiled child will seek praise every time mommy gets him to shit on the potty.
You might recall a guy called Martin Luther King. he had some words about economic fairness and
poverty.
"" In the treatment of poverty nationally, one fact stands out: there are twice as many
white poor as Negro poor in the United States. Therefore I will not dwell on the experiences
of poverty that derive from racial discrimination, but will discuss the poverty that affects white
and Negro alike . "
nihilism: the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life
is meaningless. The belief that nothing in the world has a real existence.
You love that word but rejection of the dysfunctional state of DNC politics is NOT
nihilism. Moral corruption around campaign finance is real. Moral corruption around money and
lobbyists is real. The desire to fix this, this is real. Seeking real change is not nihilism.
But yes, if it pleases you to continue in every other post with this word, do so. It's misuse
says more about you than Sanders.
Please tell me exactly how much HRC has done for the U.S.? I'm from NYC and when she brought her
carpet bagging ass here and as a 2 term senator she pushed 3 pieces of legislation thru. If you
look at Bernie Sanders voting record:
He's been one of the most effective senators in Congress and has been able to get things done
with cooperation from both sides of the aisle.
So tell me again, what's she done that's so notable?
Uh huh and your supporting a person:
That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi, gave tacit approval to a military junta
in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth super predators, supports trade agreements
that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more money from special interests than her constituency,
has made millions in speeches from the bank lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah
she's real HONEST......riiigggghhhhttttt....
Money buys the influence to be selected as a candidate. Normally. 99% of the time. Sometimes
a Huey Long populist breaks through the process and scares the fuck out of the power structures.
But you know how candidates are selected. Poor smart people never get to run for president unless
they build a populist power base. The existing political parties defer to donors. Donors like
the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill Clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They
didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila
it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive.
Stress kill. Stress combined with mental overload is even more dangerous.
Notable quotes:
"... One in three female students in the UK has a mental health problem, a survey suggests. This compared with about a fifth of male undergraduates, the YouGov survey of 1,061 students found. Overall, some 27% of the students said they had a mental health problem. ..."
"... Of those surveyed, 30% of males and 27% of females said they would not feel comfortable in talking about their mental illness with friends or family. ..."
One in three female students in the UK has a mental health problem,
a survey suggests. This compared with about a fifth of male undergraduates,
the YouGov survey of 1,061 students found. Overall, some 27% of the students said they had a mental health problem. This rose to 45% among
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students.
Universities UK said institutions were working hard to develop good services that linked in with
the NHS.
Of those students who said they had a mental health problem:
In May,
statistics published by the ONS showed student suicides had risen to their highest level since
numbers were first recorded in 2007.
These figures - for 2014 - showed there were 130 suicides in England and Wales among full-time
students aged 18 or above. Of those, 97 deaths were for male students and 33 were females.
There has been concern about the level of mental health support services provided by universities. But the survey showed students were broadly aware of the mental health services offered by their
universities.
Seeking help
Anyone affected by mental health issues can contact a number of organisations, such as:
Some 18% of students had already made contact with university mental health services, and, of
those who had, nearly nine out of 10 had seen a counsellor.
Of those surveyed, 30% of males and 27% of females said they would not feel comfortable in talking
about their mental illness with friends or family.
Challenging stigmas
Chief executive of Universities UK Nicola Dandridge said universities took student mental health
"very seriously". "For some students, an unfamiliar higher education environment can be stressful, particularly
for those who already have an underlying illness. "Some students are reluctant to disclose their difficulties, which can also present a challenge
for universities seeking to support them."
But she added that the development of policies and anti-stigma campaigns was beginning to address
these issues. "The challenge for universities is to build on the support services and external links that exist
already, enabling referral to the NHS where necessary," she said. "It is important to remember that university wellbeing services, however excellent, cannot replace
the specialised care that the NHS provides for students with mental illnesses."
Universities UK also said it had issued guidance to all universities last year with advice on
dealing with students with mental health issues.
"... But the lowest point his critics have gone to is to insinuate, or even claim outright, that Hagel is an anti-Semite. That slanderous
charge is being led by Elliott Abrams. He's now a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, but you might remember him as the man
convicted in 1991 of two counts of withholding information from Congress (he was pardoned by outgoing President George H.W. Bush). He
claims that Hagel "seems to have some kind of problem with Jews," and, in the Weekly Standard ..."
"... Of course, the reason the opposition to Hagel is so desperate and so focused on side-issues or made-up charges is because they
don't want a debate that would shine a spotlight on their spectacular and disastrous failure in Iraq. "This is the neocons' worst nightmare,"
says Richard Armitage, who was Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell, "because you've got a combat soldier, successful businessman
and senator who actually thinks there may be other ways to resolve some questions other than force." ..."
If President Obama's second term includes decision making as bold and intelligent as his nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary
of Defense, his presidency might finally fulfill the promise of audacity and change that rallied so many to his campaign five years
ago. In fact, the more ridiculous the claims being made by Hagel's critics become, the more the real reasons they don't want him
-- and the wisdom of the choice -- come into stark relief.
The latest canard is about Hagel's supposed "temperament." The charge
was made this past Sunday by Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, appearing on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos.
"I think another thing, George, that's going to come up is just his overall temperament," said Corker, "and is he suited to
run a department or a big agency or a big entity like the Pentagon?" Given that this was a new one, Stephanopoulos asked, slightly
incredulously, "Do you have questions about his temperament?" Corker replied, "I think there are numbers of staffers who are coming
forth now just talking about the way he has dealt with them."
Ah yes, his temperament. It's a modern-day male version of the old dig that used to be directed at women, that they might be "PMSing"
and therefore shouldn't be put too close to big boy military equipment. It's also worth pointing out that this line of attack is
coming from a party that thoroughly approved of that shrinking violet of a Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. It's further worth
noting that the opposition to Hagel is being led partly by Senator John McCain, the same guy who thought it prudent to potentially
put Sarah Palin second in line to the presidency -- and whose own "temperament" has often been
called into question.
But if Hagel's temperament is somehow relevant, it puts me in mind of the quote by Lincoln who, when approached by some of Grant's
critics about the general's drinking, is supposed to have
said: "Let me know what brand of whiskey Grant uses. For if it makes fighting generals like Grant, I should like to get some
of it for distribution."
In response to Corker's charge, Politico's Playbook
quoted an email from a senior administration
official: "This line of attack is a new low. By contrast, Sen. Hagel intends to take the high road in the confirmation process as
he defends his strong record." Well, it's certainly a contemptible charge, but whether it's a new low is debatable. There's already
been plenty of competition for that title.
Now, I'm not saying Chuck Hagel is perfect or that I agree with every position he's
ever taken, but leadership isn't about conforming to a checklist. Hagel is being nominated for a particular job, and for that job,
he has a strong record. And this is exactly why his critics are grasping for straws -- because they don't want to discuss that record,
nor what this debate is really about: the Iraq War.
Yes, then-Senator Hagel voted for the resolution to authorize the war. But even before the vote, he expressed more reservations than
most of his colleagues. "You can take the country into a war pretty fast,"
he said in 2002,
"but you can't get us out as quickly, and the public needs to know what the risks are." In his 2008 book America: Our Next Chapterhe writes that he voted
to authorize military force only as a last option, but the Bush administration had not tried to "exhaust all diplomatic efforts,"
and that "it all comes down to the fact that we were asked to vote on a resolution based on half truths, untruths, and wishful thinking."
And after the war began, he became one of the administration's most vocal critics. Among his statements over the course of the war:
That "Iraq is not going to turn out
the way that we were promised it was."
That the Iraqi people "want the United States
out of Iraq."
That the Iraq War
was "ill-conceived" and "poorly prosecuted."
As I wrote
back in 2006, criticisms like these were much stronger than what most Democrats were saying at the time. And Hagel was right. We
often bemoan the fact that those in Washington who get it wrong never seem to be held accountable, and those who get it right (even
if not right away) always seem to be marginalized. Well, this nomination is how the system should -- but seldom does -- work. That's
why this nomination, even though Hagel is a Republican, shouldn't be looked at as another attempt by President Obama to curry favor
with the opposition. It's the best kind of decision -- one made not to placate some interest group, but, rather, in the interest
of the country. As Senator Jack Reed
said
of the nomination on Sunday, "Chuck has the wherewithal and the ability to speak truth to power. He's demonstrated that throughout
his entire career. That is a value that is extraordinarily important to the president." And to the country.
"When I think of issues like Iraq," Hagel
said in 2006, "of how we
went into it -- no planning, no preparation, no sense of consequences, of where we were going, how we were going to get out, went
in without enough men, no exit strategy, those kinds of things -- I'll speak out. I'll go against my party."
And that kind of thinking
is all the more powerful coming from a man with two Purple Hearts -- and who still has shrapnel lodged in his chest as a reminder,
not that he needs one, of what war is really like.
"Chuck knows that war is not an abstraction," the president
said when announcing the nomination. "He understands that sending young Americans to fight and bleed in the dirt and mud, that's
something we only do when it's absolutely necessary. 'My frame of reference,' he has said, is 'geared towards the guy at the bottom
who's doing the fighting and the dying.'" That's why, in the lead up to the Iraq War, Hagel
pointed out the
fact that decisions were being made by those who hadn't "sat in jungles or foxholes and watched their friends get their heads blown
off." And for that he was called an "appeaser."
The president
added that it was in the Senate where he came to admire Hagel's "courage and his judgment, his willingness to speak his mind
-- even if it wasn't popular, even if it defied the conventional wisdom."
And if you doubt whether Hagel's views go against the conventional wisdom, at least in Washington, just witness the hysterical, desperate
pushback to his nomination. This isn't about temperament, or abortion or gay rights (not that those aren't important issues). It's
about the path U.S. foreign policy took at the beginning of the last decade, directed by the neocons. As the New York Times'
Jim Rutenberg
put it,
"The campaign now being waged against Mr. Hagel's nomination as secretary of defense is in some ways a relitigation of that decade-old
dispute."
He's right -- to an extent. Where I think he's off is that this isn't a relitigation -- because the disaster that was,
and is, the Iraq War was never actually litigated in the first place. We've never really had that debate. Those who conceived it
(badly) and executed it (even more badly) were never held accountable. And they are now the ones trying to torpedo the very idea
that someone who is thoughtful and careful about sending our soldiers to die might actually have a role in that decision.
Rutenberg writes that this debate is "a dramatic return to the public stage by the neoconservatives whose worldview remains a powerful
undercurrent in the Republican Party." That is some undercurrent. If it's below the surface, then what is the top current?
It's
not like Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham are back-benchers. The latter
called Hagel's
nomination an "in-your-face nomination" and an "incredibly controversial choice." Sadly, in today's Washington the idea that someone
who is skeptical and cautious about the consequences of U.S. military intervention should lead the Pentagon is indeed "incredibly
controversial." Turning around conventional wisdom in Washington is no small endeavor, which is why this nomination is so important.
A week later, with an almost comical lack of self-awareness, Senator Graham
contrasted
Hagel's decision making with that of Graham's BFF, Senator McCain. "I think [Hagel] was very haunted by Vietnam," Graham said, unlike
McCain who "doesn't look at every conflict through the eyes of his Vietnam experience -- you know, 'We shouldn't have been there,
it went on too long, we didn't have a plan.'" Yes, thank God we left that kind of thinking back in Vietnam -- no instances of it
since then, right?
The relationship between Hagel and McCain goes back a long time. McCain was one of Hagel's earliest supporters
and Hagel was one of the few who jumped on the "Straight Talk Express," back when McCain was taking on what he called "agents of
intolerance" in the Republican Party. Unlike McCain, Hagel managed to stay on the Straight Talk Express. And now McCain is grasping
at straws over Hagel's skepticism about success of the surge strategy in Iraq, something McCain
finds "bizarre." Back when it was being considered, Hagel
said "This is a Ping-Pong game with American lives," and that "we better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before
we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder."
Since then it's become accepted gospel in Washington that the surge was successful. Accepted gospel that is, once again, wrong. Doug
Ollivant was an army planning officer in Iraq who was one of those who actually implemented the surge. "The surge really didn't work,
per se," Ollivant, now with the New America Foundation,
says, adding,
"Fundamentally, it was the Iraqis trying to find a solution, and they did."
A study by U.S. Special Forces officer Maj. Joshua
Thiel came to the same conclusion. Thiel looked at where and when the additional surge troops were deployed and compared that to
subsequent drops in violence. As Foreign Policy's Robert Haddick
put it,
Thiel concluded that there was no significant correlation between the arrival of U.S. reinforcements and subsequent changes in
the level of violence in Iraq's provinces... the connection between surge troops and the change in the level of incidents seems
entirely random.
Another straw being grasped at by McCain is the
question, "Why would [Hagel] oppose calling the Iranian revolutionary guard a terrorist organization?"
He's referring to the
fact that Hagel didn't sign a letter to the European Union designating Hezbollah a terror group. Hagel's
defense was that he "didn't sign on to certain resolutions and letters because they were counter-productive and didn't solve
a problem." In other words, Hagel refused to posture. A cardinal sin in Washington. Just as he
also said that use of reductivist
buzzwords and phrases like "cut and run" cheapen the debate and debase the seriousness of war. How refreshing. And it points to the
fact that not only do we need better military policy, we also need a more intelligent way of talking about that policy as a means
of making it better.
But the lowest point his critics have gone to is to insinuate, or even claim outright, that Hagel is an anti-Semite. That slanderous
charge is being led by Elliott Abrams. He's now a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, but you might remember him as the man
convicted in 1991 of two counts of withholding information from Congress (he was pardoned by outgoing President George H.W. Bush).
He
claims that Hagel "seems to have some kind of problem with Jews," and, in the
Weekly Standard, offers
as evidence "the testimony of the Jewish community that knew him best is most useful: Nebraskans. And the record seems unchallenged:
Nebraskan Jewish activists and officials have said he was hostile, and none -- including Obama supporters and Democratic party activists
-- have come forward to counter that allegation."
Actually, it has been challenged -- by, among others, activist Gary Javitch,
who, according to the
Forward is "considered by locals to be an expert on the local Jewish political scene." Though Javitch is no fan of Hagel,
when asked by the Forward if he though Hagel was biased against Jews, he said "no." He also said that "to make such an accusation
you need to be very careful," and that Hagel "never demonstrated anything like that in all the meetings I had with him."
What's amazing is that the Council on Foreign Relations would allow its credibility to be used to advance an accusation like this.
In response, a CFR official
toldAl-Monitor's Laura Rozen that the views of their experts are "theirs only" and that "the Council on Foreign Relations
takes no institutional position on matters of policy." But this isn't policy, it's character assassination. Does the Council take
no official position on that? As the Daily Beast's Ali Gharib
writes:
Abrams should be challenged by media and by his fellow scholars in the think tank world to find any member in good standing of
the Nebraska Jewish community who will say on the record that they consider their former Senator an anti-Semite. Failing that,
Abrams should issue a public apology to Hagel for making this scurrilous charge.
Of course, the reason the opposition to Hagel is so desperate and so focused on side-issues or made-up charges is because they
don't want a debate that would shine a spotlight on their spectacular and disastrous failure in Iraq. "This is the neocons' worst
nightmare," says
Richard Armitage, who was Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell, "because you've got a combat soldier, successful businessman
and senator who actually thinks there may be other ways to resolve some questions other than force."
In the first installment, Howard Fineman
writes
that "Obama is in an unusually strong position to deliver on the potential of his second term -- but only if he has the will and
wherewithal to turn ballot-box victory into real-life results," and asks whether Obama "will be shrewd, persistent and tough enough
to turn great promise into true greatness."
We'll see. But if the nomination of Chuck Hagel is any indication, the road forward is looking much better than what's behind
us. Though the upcoming hearings on Hagel's nomination are unlikely to feature the real debate on Iraq that the country deserves,
hopefully his tenure will indeed be the departure from the kind of thinking that got us into it that his critics so desperately fear.
There's always a lot of competition for the title of "Lying Neocon War Propagandist." I
would like to nominate for this week's award, one George Will. In the course of a
long-winded hissy fit over Donald Trump's political success to date published in
Jewish World
Review, Will goes berserk over Trump's intransigence over the neocon
agenda of starting a war with Russia. Smoke must have been coming out of his ears
when he quoted Trump as saying that the U.S. government has killed a lot of
people, too, referring to all of the government's endless military interventions
in the Middle East, after being told of the alleged killing of journalists in
Russia.
George Will responded to this by saying: "Putin kills journalists, the U.S.
kills terrorists." Will is not stupid; he cannot possibly believe that all
deaths in the Middle East caused by U.S. military intervention over the past
quarter of a century have been of "terrorists." There are numerous sources of the
civilian death count there, and it is safe to say that Donald Trump is right and
George Will is wrong: The civilian death count is in the
hundreds of
thousands. This includes at least
200 journalists such as Tareq Ayoub, who was killed on April 3, 2003 when a
U.S. warplane bombed the Al Jazeera offices in Baghdad. And of course the U.S.
military also bombs hospitals, as the entire world learned a few months ago.
(Thanks to Chris C. for info on the bombing of the Al Jazeera offices).
And by the way, there is obviously no evidence that Putin ordered the murder of
journalists. ABC News "journalist" (Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!) George Stephanopoulos
repeated this latest neocon talking point in an interview with Trump. When Trump
asked him for proof, he had NONE). This doesn't prove that Putin did not order
the murder of journalists, something the U.S. government has done hundreds of
times, but it does prove what a liar and establishment shill George Stephanopoulos
is.
"... German parliamentarians are preparing to ask for sanctions against the USA, Britain and France also. According to those parliamentarians, by implementing the Chaos Strategy in the Middle East, in order to "promote democracy", as they kept saying, Washington, London and Paris are directly responsible for the refugee crisis, the terror attacks and the whole pattern of instability which has now engulfed Turkey as well. ..."
"... Mr. Erdogan, President of one of the most important NATO countries, did not meet any of his Western counterparts, but he is going to Russia to meet President Putin, and his closest advisors are proposing that he should institute an alliance with Russia, like Kemal, and wage war against "the Crusaders". ..."
"... The perspective of a strategic alliance between Ankara and Moscow is the definition of a nightmare for US and Israeli planners. They certainly did not start all those wars just to see a bloc of Russia, Turkey, Iran and Syria being formed in the Middle East, not to mention, potentially, a huge crisis in NATO. ..."
According to our information this is only the first step. German parliamentarians are preparing
to ask for sanctions against the USA, Britain and France also. According to those parliamentarians,
by implementing the Chaos Strategy in the Middle East, in order to "promote democracy", as they kept
saying, Washington, London and Paris are directly responsible for the refugee crisis, the terror
attacks and the whole pattern of instability which has now engulfed Turkey as well.
According also to our information, top US and Israeli officials are outraged at what is happening.
They now have to cancel all family vacation planning and concentrate on how to handle an unbelievable
new situation. Mr. Erdogan, President of one of the most important NATO countries, did not meet
any of his Western counterparts, but he is going to Russia to meet President Putin, and his closest
advisors are proposing that he should institute an alliance with Russia, like Kemal, and wage war
against "the Crusaders".
The perspective of a strategic alliance between Ankara and Moscow is the definition of a nightmare
for US and Israeli planners. They certainly did not start all those wars just to see a bloc of Russia,
Turkey, Iran and Syria being formed in the Middle East, not to mention, potentially, a huge crisis
in NATO.
We are still not there and nobody knows if we will reach that point. Russia and Turkey, as history
proves, have seriously conflicting interests. As for Erdogan himself, he cannot win over the Kurds
by military means and neither can the Kurds win what they want by war. All that is certain is that
we are heading straight for very serious conflicts.
Fortunately for them, and probably for us also, European politicians do not consider any alteration
of their vacation programs. They are continuing their enjoyment of their holidays, waiting for Washington
to take its decisions.
Isn't it interesting that the communists of China are seeking a long-term partnership with Russia
– a nominally capitalist country? Of course, Russia is seeking the same with China.
July 1, China marked an important date on July 1. It was the 95th anniversary of the founding
of the Chinese Communist Party. Chairman Xi Jinping addressed the solemn meeting devoted to this
event. In addition to the praises of "Long live!" (And deservedly so, since the CCP has much to
be proud of) there was Chairman Xi's speech which was short, but very important.
"The world is on the verge of radical change. We see how the European Union is gradually
collapsing, as is the US economy - it is all over for the new world order. So, it will never again
be as it was before, in 10 years we will have a new world order in which the key will be the union
of China and Russia. "
If the above translation is accurate I wonder what is meant by …key will be the union of
China and Russia . In any event, it appears that ideology is not at the core of the unity;
its something much deeper and more resilient. I offer that it is a shared view that embraces a
realization that the world can no longer accept global hegemony from the West otherwise catastrophe
is virtually certain in the form of (pick one or two): nuclear war, financial or ecological collapse.
Their mission is basically to save the world from Western insanity which handily trumps anything
that may separate them.
And, I think that the Chinese and Russians are far too wise to seek global hegemony for themselves.
The trick for them will be taking down the Western house of cards without triggering a catastrophic
miscalculation by the West. …Whew, now time for an hot fudge sundae.
I think it's mutual disgust with the USA's blatant and shameless rigging of the playing field
in every contest. If America can't win, then it's a loss for all of mankind. And it blabbers constantly
and loudly about its values, and then does things which completely contradict those supposed values,
and never appears to notice anything unusual or untoward about it.
"... "The rise and fall of American resistance to organized wealth and power." Simply stated, that mystery was: Why do people rebel at certain moments and acquiesce in others? ..."
"... A "silent majority" would no longer remain conveniently silent. The Tea Party howled about every kind of political establishment in bed with Wall Street, crony capitalists, cultural and sexual deviants, free-traders who scarcely blinked at the jobs they incinerated ..."
"... In the face-off between right-wing populism and neoliberalism, Tea Party legions and Trumpists now find Fortune 500 CEOs morally obnoxious and an economic threat, ..."
"... I couldn't disagree more with this parasite that is attempting to twist history, so as to continue the elitist programming of youth with more distorted understanding of their heritage! ..."
"... If you doubt me then do a little research it what the foundation of 'May Day' is all about! ..."
"... Then check and see how many modern nations all over the world celebrate it as a national holiday (over 100) and then ask why it is not celebrated in America, where it was founded on the blood and sweat of American workers! ..."
"... Yes, there was a socialist system built into this nation and that system was called a society based upon a 'Commonwealth' that translated into todays terminology could be defined as a 'Democratic Socialism'!! ..."
"... "As Chomsky says, 'neoliberalism isn't new and it isn't liberal.' (the 'liberal' refers to the markets, not the politics of its purveyors - Reagan, Thatcher, Clinton were all NLs)" ..."
"... Soon, very soon, Sanders shall do what he keeps promising to do, and endorse the dangerous Warmonger of Wall Street, with whom he pretends to disagree, on so many issues. He might even be her Vice Presidential choice, in order to better neuter his supporters, and to minimize the political contortions that he'll have to go through, to convince his supporters to vote for her. Gird yourselves. ..."
"... If you keep in mind that Capitalism is a Pyramid Scheme, the whole thing makes better sense. ..."
"... The problem today is that the worship of money has taken on such proportions, that even the least among us has thoughts of riches coming their way, at any moment, even if it's the false hope of winning the "Lottery", the big one!! And as long as they have those dreams, the cognition of what is happening around them is dulled. ..."
"... I have neighbors who play the state lottery every week. Now and then I mention to them that buying lotto tickets is a fools bet. They reply like trained parrots "you can't win if you don't play", and mumble something about lotto proceeds and "education". ..."
"... "But Republicans have more than shared in this; they have, in fact, often taken the lead in implanting a market- and finance-driven economic system that has produced a few "winners" and legions of losers. Both parties heralded a deregulated marketplace, global free trade, the outsourcing of manufacturing and other industries, the privatization of public services, and the shrink-wrapping of the social safety net." ..."
"... Yes. Reagan was a neoliberal. Both Bushes too... wanna hear something really crazy? Hillary is both a neoliberal AND a neoconservative... true story. ..."
A year ago, in my book
The
Age of Acquiescence, I attempted to resolve a mystery hinted at in its subtitle: "The
rise and fall of American resistance to organized wealth and power." Simply stated, that mystery
was: Why do people rebel at certain moments and acquiesce in others?
Resisting all the hurts,
insults, threats to material well-being, exclusions, degradations, systematic inequalities, over-lordship,
indignities, and powerlessness that are the essence of everyday life for millions would seem natural
enough, even inescapable, if not inevitable. Why put up with all that?
... ... ...
A "silent majority" would no longer remain conveniently silent. The Tea Party howled about
every kind of political establishment in bed with Wall Street, crony capitalists, cultural and sexual
deviants, free-traders who scarcely blinked at the jobs they incinerated, anti-taxers who had
never met a tax shelter they didn't love, and decriers of big government who lived off state subsidies.
In a zip code far, far away, a privileged sliver of Americans who had gamed the system, who had indeed
made gaming the system into the system, looked down on the mass of the previously credulous, now
outraged, incredulously.
...it was The Donald who magically rode that
Trump Tower escalator down to the ground floor to pick up the pieces. His irreverence for
established authority worked. ...worked for millions who had grown infatuated with all the
celebrated Wall Street conquistadors of the
second Gilded Age.
... .. ..
In the face-off between right-wing populism and neoliberalism, Tea Party legions and Trumpists
now find Fortune 500 CEOs morally obnoxious and an economic threat, grow irate at Federal Reserve
bail-outs, and are fired up by the multiple crises set off by global free trade and the treaties
that go with it.
... ... ...
The Sanders campaign had made its stand against the [neo]iberalism of the Clinton elite. It has
resonated so deeply because the candidate, with all his grandfatherly charisma and integrity, repeatedly
insists that Americans should look beneath the surface of a liberal capitalism that is economically
and ethically bankrupt and running a political confidence game, even as it condescends to "the forgotten
man."
Steve Fraser's new book, "The Limousine Liberal: How an Incendiary Image United the Right and
Fractured America" is being published on May 10 by Basic Books. His other books include Every Man
a Speculator, Wall Street, and Labor Will Rule, which won the Philip Taft Award for the best book
in labor history. He also is the co-editor of The Rise and Fall of the New Deal Order. His work has
appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, The Nation, The American Prospect, Raritan,
and the London Review of Books. He has written for the online site Tomdispatch.com, and his work
has appeared on the Huffington Post, Salon, Truthout, and Alternet, among others. He lives in New
York City.
R B, Jun 4, 2016
I truly believe that this author, Steve Fraser through his writings has clearly revealed his
role as that of a member of the elite class or even worse one of the blood sucking hounds that
pit the lower classes against each other!!! He defends the capitalists by indicating that for
anyone to think or speak of any form of socialism is a crime against America and that it is counter
to everything this nation has EVER stood for! I couldn't disagree more with this parasite
that is attempting to twist history, so as to continue the elitist programming of youth with more
distorted understanding of their heritage!
Our Fore Fathers wrapped this society in a specific form of government that encouraged free-enterprise,
not capitalism! Guess what Americans, they are different in goals! These Fore Fathers recognized
that a healthy society included a system of economic stimulation, but more importantly that it
has a sense of unity and equality, that left no one to beg in the streets! They achieved this
even in those early and rugged days of colonialism through a system that the capitalists and republicans
have always hated and have done everything in their power to destroy in the past century!
If you doubt me then do a little research it what the foundation of 'May Day' is all about!
Where it began and what it was based upon, who celebrated the day and how it came to be drowned
out of American society. Then check and see how many modern nations all over the world celebrate
it as a national holiday (over 100) and then ask why it is not celebrated in America, where it
was founded on the blood and sweat of American workers!
Yes, there was a socialist system built into this nation and that system was called a society
based upon a 'Commonwealth' that translated into todays terminology could be defined as a 'Democratic
Socialism'!! So Mr. Fraser, I state that you have been writing not to enlighten the general
citizenry of the reality to their world, but to the continued domination of the 'One Percent'!!!
trt3, Jun 3, 2016
@Blueflash The author does not use the term in its proper context ether. I wish people would
stop using the term at all. It does not mean new liberal as in neoconservative, neo-fascist, or
neo-nazi. History of the term can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
Over the last year or so many commenters have attempted to paint HRC's economic platform as neoliberalism
as a smear because she takes donations from Wall Street.. Or, that Bill Clinton, because he had
to work with the congress of Newt Gingrich, worked to deregulate investment bankers.
If you want to see the effects of modern day neoliberalism look at Kansas and the devastation
that the Chicago school of economics brings, (as opposed to California with a more Keynesian economic
approach).
Tristero1, Jun 3, 2016
@trt3 @Blueflash From below:
"As Chomsky says, 'neoliberalism isn't new and it isn't liberal.' (the 'liberal' refers
to the markets, not the politics of its purveyors - Reagan, Thatcher, Clinton were all NLs)"
If there are no more conservatives, "They're all the same" rules the day and the artists formerly
known as conservatives rule the planet.
Jayne Cullen, Jun 3, 2016
Soon, very soon, Sanders shall do what he keeps promising to do, and endorse the dangerous
Warmonger of Wall Street, with whom he pretends to disagree, on so many issues. He might even
be her Vice Presidential choice, in order to better neuter his supporters, and to minimize the
political contortions that he'll have to go through, to convince his supporters to vote for her.
Gird yourselves.
Faulkner, Jun 3, 2016
The IMF and German banks of the neoliberal international aristocracy are forcing Greece to
rescind its social safety net and assets in order to keep making interest payments - a scheme
to keep them debt slaves to the new financial imperialism, similar to what is happening to Puerto
Rico and the US.
This is neoliberalism's endgame - to create a modern day feudalism, which is why it must be
stopped.
If you keep in mind that Capitalism is a Pyramid Scheme, the whole thing makes better sense.
Just the same way your older brother or sister beat the snot outta you playing monopoly as a kid,
so are the richest among us, burying us, in debt, and in isolation. Now back in TR's day there
was a little better sense about fair play, and helping your fellow man. That was not an overwhelming
altruistic thought that swept the country, at that time, but rather it grew out of years of degrading
abuse imposed by rich Industrialists. This caused a backlash, and corrections were made.
The problem today is that the worship of money has taken on such proportions, that even
the least among us has thoughts of riches coming their way, at any moment, even if it's the false
hope of winning the "Lottery", the big one!! And as long as they have those dreams, the cognition
of what is happening around them is dulled. There will be riots, I am sure. If this persistent
process of moving money to the top, and appreciably nowhere else, the backlash will be inevitable,
and harsh. The longer it takes, the harsher it will be. And if you think not, you've been watching
too many Disney Movies.
cactusbill, Jun 3, 2016
I have neighbors who play the state lottery every week. Now and then I mention to them
that buying lotto tickets is a fools bet. They reply like trained parrots "you can't win if you
don't play", and mumble something about lotto proceeds and "education".
So when you notice the glazed eyes and fist pumping at a Drumpf rally, remember how many Americans
spend rent and food money on lotto tickets.
It's the same people.
AJS197, Jun 3, 2016
@Joel Graham As Chomsky says, 'neoliberalism isn't new and it isn't liberal.' (the 'liberal'
refers to the markets, not the politics of its purveyors - Reagan, Thatcher, Clinton were all
NLs). A closer read and you will recognize he implicates both parties in the neoliberal ascent:
"But Republicans have more than shared in this; they have, in fact, often taken the
lead in implanting a market- and finance-driven economic system that has produced a few "winners"
and legions of losers. Both parties heralded a deregulated marketplace, global free trade,
the outsourcing of manufacturing and other industries, the privatization of public services,
and the shrink-wrapping of the social safety net."
AJS1972, Jun 3, 2016
Yes. Reagan was a neoliberal. Both Bushes too... wanna hear something really crazy? Hillary
is both a neoliberal AND a neoconservative... true story.
After the financial crash of 2007-2008 caused an economic
collapse, and after it became clear that the Bush and Obama
administrations were unwilling to actually
investigate,
prosecute and
incarcerate financial and banking executives for the
crimes committed, many politically active people in USA and
other countries began to dig deep into the philosophy of
political economy that had allowed the
financial industry to occupy such an
overwhelming position of
dominance over the rest of the economy.
The
philosophical wreckage they have been excavating has
generally come to be called "neoliberalism." It is a word which
confuses many people, because it serves as a name for a set of
economic beliefs and policies which are more easily recognized
as being associated with political conservatism and
libertarianism: the opening of the Wikipedia entry on
"neoliberalism" is accurate enough on these economic beliefs and
policies, which "include extensive economic liberalization
policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation,
free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to
enhance the role of the private sector in the economy."
Generally, neoliberals believe that markets with
untrammeled pricing mechanisms are a much fairer and more
efficient means of allocating society's resources than any level
of government oversight and intervention.
Neoliberals themselves actively seek to add to the confusion
by denying they have a shared, coherent philosophy. A good,
recent example-and from someone who is a self-professed
"liberal" not a conservative-was this
comment on DailyKos this past week: "Neoliberalism is not
actually a thing." It is exactly what neo-liberals themselves
say. It is a smokescreen, intended to confuse and stymie
inquiry. Philip Mirowski, a historian of economic thought at
Notre Dame, and co-editor of one of the best expositions of
neo-liberalism (The
Road from Mont Pelerin: The Making of the Neoliberal Thought
Collective, Harvard University Press, 2009; now available in
paperback), took on this deception earlier this year in a paper
entitled,
The Political Movement that Dared not Speak its own Name.
I do not recommend anyone go read the above links right now,
unless you are already familiar with the debate over
neoliberalism and are prepared for some hefty intellectual
lifting. For those people unfamiliar with the term
"neoliberalism" and seeking to understand how it differs from
liberalism, I recommend this excellent review of another book,
including many of the comments in the thread, on
These are all excellent discussions and expositions of
neoliberalism. Also excellent is the work of Corey Robin. See,
for example,
When Neoliberalism Was Young: A Lookback on Clintonism before
Clinton, from April 2016, and Robin's
response to critics. Robin puts his finger on a diseased
main artery in our political discourse today, when he writes
neoliberals, even those, such as Barack Obama and the Clintons,
who refuse to call themselves neoliberals,
would recoil in horror at the policies and programs of
mid-century liberals like Walter Reuther or John Kenneth
Galbraith or even Arthur Schlesinger, who claimed that
"class conflict is essential if freedom is to be preserved,
because it is the only barrier against class domination."
My own conclusion thus far is that much confusion will
persist until neoliberalism is understood in the historical
context of USA political economy, along with three other terms
crucial to understanding this history:
Mercantilism
Republicanism
Liberalism.
My firm conviction is that people cannot, and do not,
understand what an insidious, and potent, danger neoliberalism
thought is, until they understand republicanism. And in
political economy, you also need to understand mercantilism, and
how the USA theory and practice of republicanism interacted
with, and changed, mercantilism. As for liberalism, for now
suffice it to note that contemporary neoliberal thought has
more to do with economic liberalism, than it does political
liberalism. In fact, to some extent-and at the risk of my only
adding further to the confusion-it may be useful to assert here
that there is a strain of European political liberalism that
developed in opposition to the USA theory and practice of
republicanism. This strain of European political liberalism
resulted in granting the right to vote to most subjects of
polities which remained monarchies, as an expedient for the
necessity imposed by modern warfare for mass mobilization of a
country's male population. The obvious period is that of World
War One. In USA, at similar type of political liberalism arose
in response to the acquisition and consolidation of monopolistic
economic power by the trusts led by John D. Rockefeller, the
Morgan banking interests, and other misnamed, so called
"captains of industry" of the Gilded Age.
In my Introduction to my annotated abridgement of The Power to Govern: The Constitution -- Then and Now,
by Douglass Adair and Walton H. Hamilton (W.W. Norton &
Co., New York, NY, 1937, available on Amazon as a Kindle ebook,
here), I write that the creation the American republic and
its Constitution must be understood in the
context of the shift from the economic and political
systems of feudalism, to mercantilism and modern nationalism.
The ecclesiastical and warlord authoritarianism of feudal
Europe was being reluctantly and painfully dragged off the
stage of world history, making way for national states. In
the process, these national states developed-without,
Hamilton and Adair note, much theoretical foundation-an
accretion of laws and policies generally called mercantilism, intended to ensure economic activity added
to, rather than detracted from, a nation's wealth and power.
Hamilton and Adair present the evidence that the Framers were
entirely familiar with mercantilist policies, and that the
intent behind the Constitution was most emphatically not laissez faire and unregulated market capitalism, but a
careful and deliberate plan to ensure that all economic
activity was channeled and directed to the promotion of the
general welfare and national development….
The words "mercantilist" and "mercantilism" are generally
used whenever government powers are used to promote a state's
economic powers. By specifying in the Constitution that
government powers are used to promote a state's economic
powers in promotion of the general welfare, the
American republic made a sharp break from European
mercantilism, in which the welfare of a sole monarch or small
group of oligarchs was often conflated with the general
welfare of a state or nation….
As a body of economic thought, liberalism developed as the
economic and political philosophy of a revolt by a rising middle
class against the power and privileges of European ruling
oligarchs and monarchs, who used their connections and influence
at royal courts to gain economic monopolies and other privileges
(in other words, the system of mercantilism.)
The intent of classical economic liberalism was to sweep away,
or at least greatly circumscribe, the power of these
oligarchical and monarchical elites and states to make room for
greater economic freedoms and property rights for the rising
middle class.
In this sense, the culmination of liberalism was the creation
of the American republic, However-let me stress again-it is
crucial to note that under the Constitution of the new American
republic, economic freedoms and property rights were subject to
the Constitutional mandate to promote the general
welfare.
In advanced industrial economies, the way a sovereign
nation-state promotes and protects the general welfare is by
imposing environmental, workplace, and consumer regulations on
economic activity.
This is where we should discuss the concept of republicanism.
Remember, the United States is established as a republic, not as
a democracy. But what does that mean?
In a monumental book that is crucial to understanding the
historical and cultural context we are here examining, The
Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 (Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 1969), Gordon Wood wrote,
"Republicanism meant more for Americans than simply the
elimination of a king and the institution of an elective system.
It added a moral dimension, a utopian depth, to the political
separation from England - a depth that involved the very
character of their society."
Wood continues:
To eighteenth-century American and European radicals
alike, living in a world of monarchies, it seemed only too
obvious that the great deficiency of existing governments was
precisely their sacrificing of the public good to the private
greed of small ruling groups.... The sacrifice of individual
interests to the greater good of the whole formed the essence
of republicanism and comprehended for Americans the
idealistic goal of their Revolution.... "The word republic," said Thomas Paine, "means the
public good,
or the good of the whole, in contradistinction to the
despotic form, which makes the good of the sovereign, or of
one man, the only object of the government."
(The first two thirds of "Republicanism," Chapter II from
Gordon Wood's The Creation of the American Republic,
has been
posted online here. I highly recommend it as a very
productive and uplifting Sunday read. Also, here is the
Wiki-summary of the entire book.)
In the closing decades of the 1700s, there was general
agreement that for republicanism to work as a system of
government, the citizens of the republic needed to be virtuous.
There were two types of virtue: private virtue and public
virtue. Political theorists of the time insisted that the two
were intertwined, but for sake of brevity, we need only look at
public virtue, which simply meant that
an individual citizen was willing to suppress his or her own
self-interest when the greater good of society required it.
What this meant in practice was that individuals must submit
to the authority of the state out of the self-abnegation which
flowed from understanding-and desiring-that the consideration
the general welfare must rule supreme. This required that the
citizens develop an entirely different character than
subjects in a monarchy, in which obedience to the state flowed
from the awe and fear of the immense, regal power of the monarch
and his supporting military apparatus. As Wood explains,
loyalists warned that
by resting the whole structure of government on the
unmitigated willingness of the people to obey, the Americans
were making a truly revolutionary transformation in the
structure of authority. In shrill and despairing pamphlets
[the Tories] insisted that the [Revolutionaries] ideas were
undermining the very principle of order. If respect and
obedience to the established governments were refused and if
republicanism were adopted, then... "the bands of society
would be dissolved, the harmony of the world confounded, and
the order of nature subverted." [The tories insisted that
]The principles of the Revolutionaries were directed
"clearly and literally against authority." They were
destroying "not only all authority over us as it now exists,
but any and all that it is possible to constitute." The Tory
logic was indeed frightening. Not only was the rebellion
rupturing the people's habitual obedience to the constituted
government, but by the establishment of republicanism the
[Revolutionaries] were also founding their new governments
solely on the people's voluntary acquiescence. And, as
Blackstone had pointed out, "obedience is an empty name, if
every individual has a right to decide how far he himself
shall obey." [Which of course, becomes the issue in the
Civil War eight decades later.-AKW]
Wood points out that the Revolutionaries did not actually
desire to do away with governmental and social authority, only
to supplant what motivated obedience to them by changing the
very character of the people, so that the motivating force came
from within each citizen, instead of from outside.
The Revolution was designed to change the flow of
authority-indeed the structure of politics as the colonists
had known it - but it was in no way intended to do away with
the principle of authority itself. "There must be," said John
Adams in 1776, "a Decency, and Respect, and Veneration
introduced for Persons in Authority, of every Rank, or We are
undone."
....In a monarchy each man's desire to do what was right
in his own eyes could be restrained by fear or force. In a
republic, however, each man must somehow be persuaded to
submerge his personal wants into the greater good of the
whole. This willingness of the individual to sacrifice his
private interests for the good of the community - such
patriotism or love of country - the eighteenth century termed
"public virtue." A republic was such a delicate polity
precisely because it demanded an extraordinary moral
character in the people. Every state in which the people
participated needed a degree of virtue; but a republic which
rested solely on the people absolutely required it... The
eighteenth-century mind was thoroughly convinced that a
popularly based government "cannot be supported without
Virtue." Only with a public-spirited, self-sacrificing people
could the authority of a popularly elected ruler be obeyed,
but "more by the virtue of the people, than by the terror of
his power." Because virtue was truly the lifeblood of the
republic, the thoughts and hopes surrounding this concept of
public spirit gave the Revolution its socially radical
character - an expected alteration in the very behavior of
the people, "laying the foundation in a constitution, not
without or over, but within the subjects."
Wood and other historians have written that the adoption of
the Constitution came about because many Americans-most
especially the leaders of the Revolution-were increasingly
horrified at the spectacle of self-interest dominating the work
of all the state legislatures. The republican public virtue
which had called forth the sacrifices of the Revolutionary War,
appeared to be ebbing, and there was a serious debate over
whether Americans remained virtuous enough for self-government
to survive. (See Wood, The Creation of the American
Republic, Chapter Ten, "Vices of the System.") Note that
this perceived diminution of virtue focused not only on the
personal corruption of individual state legislators, but also on
how the various state legislatures consistently and repeatedly
placed state and regional interests ahead of the national
interest.
The most pronounced social effect of the Revolution was
not harmony or stability but the sudden appearance of new men
everywhere in politics and business. "When the pot boils, the
scum will rise:' James Otis had warned in 1776; but few
Revolutionary leaders had realized just how much it would
rise....
Everywhere "Specious, interested designing men:' "men,
respectable neither for their property, their virtue, nor
their abilities:' were taking a lead in public affairs that
they had never quite had before, courting "the suffrages of
the people by tantalizing them with improper indulgences."
Thousands of the most respectable people "who obtained their
possessions by the hard industry, continued sobriety and
economy of themselves or their virtuous ancestors" were now
witnessing, so the writings of nearly all the states
proclaimed over and over, many men "whose fathers they would
have disdained to have sat with the dogs of their flocks,
raised to immense wealth, or at least to carry the appearance
of a haughty, supercilious and luxurious spendthrift."
"Effrontery and arrogance, even in our virtuous and
enlightened days:' said John Jay "are giving rank and
Importance to men whom Wisdom would have left in
obscurity."....
The republican emphasis on talent and merit in place of
connections and favor now seemed perverted, becoming
identified simply with the ability to garner votes....
The self-sacrifice and patriotism of 1774-75 [had] seemed
to give way to greed and profiteering at the expense of the
public good. Perhaps, it was suggested, that
peculiar-expression of virtue in those few years before
Independence had been simply the consequence of a momentary
period of danger. At one time public spirit had been "the
governing principle and distinguishing characteristic of
brave Americans. But where was it now? Directly the reverse.
We daily see the busy multitude.engaged in. accumulating what
thy fondly call riches, by forestalling [buy up goods in
order to profit to achieve a monopoly position and impose an
artificially high price], extortioning and imposing upon each
other... Everywhere "Private Interest seemed to predominate
over every Consideration that regarded the public weal.
The leaders who later became known as Federalists assembled
in the Constitutional Convention, and cobbled together a
framework of government of checks and balances intended to
safeguard the republic against both the machinations of a
tyrant, and the passions of the masses. I think the left is
making a huge, tragic mistake by focusing an the founders' fear
of democracy, and condemning the founders as mere elitists. I
would point to Trump and the Republican Convention as an example
of exactly why the Founders sought to curb the power of both a
tyrant, and the people. I agree with
Ian Welsh that Trump just might get elected, because Hillary
and Democratic establishment behind her refuse to acknowledge
the economic devastation caused by their neoliberalism over the
past four decades. So, if Trump gets elected, it is going to be
the Founders' framework of checks and balances we are going to
desperately seize hold of to try and prevent Trump from going to
the very end that his supporters want him to go to. Will lefties
come to appreciate the Founders' concerns then? A few will, but
I think most will not.
But, back to American history. So, we get the republic, and
it is generally understood that for republican self-government
to work, the people with public virtue must lead the government.
This is why George Washington was elected President unanimously
twice by the electoral college. Note that by the time of
Washington's second election to President, in 1792, the
political fight between the Federalists, led by Hamilton, and
the anti-Federalists (soon to be called Republicans), led by
Jefferson and Madison, had broken into the open, but both
factions supported Washington for President, because only he was
perceived to be virtuous beyond question. (In his second term,
Jefferson and Madison led a campaign of vitriol and lies against
Washington that is truly astonishing, accusing Washington of
being a mere dupe of Hamilton, and surrounding himself in regal
splendor intended to prepare Americans' sentiments for an
abandonment of republicanism and its replacement by a monarchy.
And this, while Jefferson continued to serve as Vice-President.)
So what happens is the very idea of public virtue comes under
attack. As Wood writes:
In these repeated attacks on deference and the capacity of
a conspicuous few to speak for the whole society-which was to
become in time the distinguishing feature of American
democratic politics - the Antifederalists struck at the roots
of the traditional conception of political society. If the
natural elite, whether its distinctions were ascribed or
acquired, was not in any organic way connected to the
"feelings, circumstances, and interests" of the people and
was incapable of feeling "sympathetically the wants of the
people," then it followed that only ordinary men, men not
distinguished by the characteristics of aristocratic wealth
and taste, men "in middling circumstances" untempted by the
attractions of a cosmopolitan world and thus "more temperate,
of better morals, and less ambitious, than the great," could
be trusted to speak for the great body of the people, for
those who were coming more and more to be referred to as "the
middling and lower classes of people." The differentiating
influence of the environment was such that men in various
ranks and classes now seemed to be broken apart from one
another, separated by their peculiar circumstances into
distinct, unconnected, and often incompatible interests. With
their indictment of aristocracy the Antifederalists were
saying, whether they realized it or not, that the people of
America even in their several states were not homogeneous
entities each with a basic similarity of interest for which
an empathic elite could speak. Society was not an organic
hierarchy composed of ranks and degrees indissolubly linked
one to another; rather it was a heterogeneous mixture of
"many different classes or orders of people, Merchants,
Farmers, Planter Mechanics and Gentry or wealthy Men. "In
such a society men from one class or group, however educated
and respectable they may have been, could never be acquainted
with the "Situation and Wants" of those of another class or
group. Lawyers and planters could never be "adequate judges
of tradesmens concerns." If men were truly to represent the
people in government, it was not enough for them to be for
the people; they had to be actually of the people. "Farmers,
traders and mechanics . . . all ought to have a competent
number of their best informed members in the legislature "
The anti-Federalist basically argue that no individual can
ever set aside their own self-interests to achieve the level of
public virtue (disinterest is a key word to look for if
you read accounts of this period) required to govern the
republic. Well, if the leaders of government are just as selfish
and self-interested as you and I, we are therefore just as
capable of governing as they are, and all this talk about the
leaders being virtuous is a deception.
So, in this historical context, neoliberalism is a revolt
against the very heart of the republican philosophy of the
American republic. Neoliberalism is a philosophical insistence
that public virtue is a dangerous encumbrance on the "animal
spirits" of modern capitalism-never mind that nowhere in the USA
Constitution is "capitalism" mentioned, or any particular
economic structure mandated. (Back in 1982, the American
Enterprise Institute had a forum and published a book
How Capitalistic is the Constitution? All the
contributors except one never really addressed the question,
instead regurgitating the usual hosannas to British imperial
apologists Adam Smith and John Locke. The one exception was
historian Forrest McDonald, who wrote an excellent biography of
Alexander Hamilton-excellent because McDonald understands the
important stuff about political economy and not the neoliberal
crap-wrote one of the papers in the book, and his answer, in
short, is "not very." As in, the Constitution does not create a
capitalist economy at all. Now, I suspect McDonald pulled his
punches, because he did not want to too greatly upset his AEI
hosts. McDonald's paper is probably the only completely
truthful thing AEI has ever published.)
In fact, the leading philosophers of neoliberalsim are
explicit in their attack on the Constitutional
mandate to promote the general welfare, arguing it
is "the slippery slope to the tyranny of the nanny state." As
Friedrich von Hayek titled his 1944 paean to neo-liberalism, the
republican insistence of promoting the general welfare is The Road to Serfdom.
Philip Pilkington, in
The Origins of Neoliberalism, Part I – Hayek's Delusion
(January 2013) makes the astute observation
Hayek thought that all totalitarianisms had their origins
in forms of economic planning. Economic planning was the
cause of totalitarianism for Hayek, rather than the being
just a feature of it. Underneath it all this was a rather
crude argument. One may as well make the observation that
totalitarianism was often accompanied by arms build-up,
therefore arms build-ups "cause" totalitarianism.
Von Hayek and his fellow Austrian aristocrats who were
forced to flee from the fruits of their economic programs,
did a complete revision of history and retold that same story
as if the very opposite of reality had happened. Once they
were safely in England and America, sponsored and funded by
oligarch grants, hacks like von Mises and von Hayek started
pushing a revisionist history of the collapse of Weimar
Germany blaming not their austerity measures, but rather
big-spending liberals who were allegedly in charge of
Germany's last government. Somehow, von Hayek looked at
Chancellor Bruning's policies of massive budget cuts combined
with pegging the currency to the gold standard, the policies
that led to Weimar Germany's collapse, policies that became
the cornerstone of Hayek's cult-and decided that Bruning
hadn't existed.
In USA, neoliberals who openly self-identify as political
conservatives or libertarians don't even have sense enough to
try to hide their hideous historical holocausts, like von Hayek
and von Mises try to. I have already discussed the importance
and significance of the mandate to promote the General Welfare
in the USA Constitution. The Confederacy (yes, that
Confederacy, of the mid-1800s, dominated by an oligarchy of rich
slaveholders who decided to tear apart the Union in a
fratricidal war rather than do a single thing that might lead to
eventual elimination of slavery) largely copied the USA
Constitution, but, crucially, eliminated mention of the
General Welfare from its Constitution. The libertarian
von Mises Institute has a
June 1992 article on its website by Randall G. Holcombe
which explicitly states this was an important "improvement":
But the differences in the documents, small as they are,
are extremely important. The people who wrote the Southern
Constitution had lived under the federal one. They knew its
strengths, which they tried to copy, and its weaknesses,
which they tried to eliminate. One grave weakness in the U.S.
Constitution is the "general welfare" clause, which the
Confederate Constitution eliminated….
The Southern drafters thought the general welfare clause
was an open door for any type of government intervention.
They were, of course, right.
Immediately following that clause in the Confederate
Constitution is a clause that has no parallel in the U.S.
Constitution. It affirms strong support for free trade and
opposition to protectionism: "but no bounties shall be
granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on
importation from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster
any branch of industry." ….The Confederate Constitution
prevents Congress from appropriating money "for any internal
improvement intended to facilitate commerce" except for
improvement to facilitate waterway navigation. But "in all
such cases, such duties shall be laid on the navigation
facilitated thereby, as may be necessary to pay for the costs
and expenses thereof..."
According to
Wikipedia, Holcombe "is a Research Fellow at
The Independent Institute, a Senior Fellow and member of the
Research Advisory Council at
The James Madison Institute, and past president of the
Public Choice Society. From 2000 to 2006 he served on
GovernorJeb Bush's Council of Economic Advisors." (Emphasis mine.)
So much for the conservative and libertarian brands of
neoliberals. What about those neoliberals who self-identify on
today's accepted political spectrum as liberals or even
progressives, such as Barack Obama and the Clintons? In
The Origins of Neoliberalism, Part II – The Americanisation of
Hayek's Delusion, Pilkington details how the ideas of
neoliberalism came to completely dominate the economics
profession and academia. (Also see the July 2009 Adbusters-the
people who conceived of Occupy Wall Street-attack
on the leading economics textbook, authored by Harvard
economist and head of George W. Bush Jr.'s Council of Economic
Advisors, H. Gregory Mankiw.) The result is that very, very few
people have been exposed to, let alone learned, any alternative
to the economic nostrums of neoliberalis. It is not that Obama
and the Clintons have a malignant intent to impose
economic ruin on their country and fellow countrymen, it's just
that they are profoundly ignorant in matters of
political economy-and, I would venture to guess, the history of
republicanism. As
William Neal explains, it is this socially pervasive
indoctrination in neoliberalism that prevents "almost the entire
Democratic Party short of Senator Sanders and a few members of
the Progressive Caucus" from pushing for such things as a
government direct jobs program. They simply accept the "common
wisdom"
that "only the private sector can create jobs." In order
to believe this fiction, one does indeed have to bury the
history of the New Deal, which is the still barely breathing
historical legacy which refutes it (along with the domestic
production record during World War II), the Civilian
Conservation Corps and the WPA's public work projects now
nearly erased from citizen memory.
The problem neoliberalism confronts us with is the means by
which a people decide and carry into practice their preferred
vision for their economic destiny as a nation. If the
neoliberals are correct, then there is no room for visionaries
of a better future for everyone, because the purest collective
expression of the wills of all individual are the sum of
transactions in the economic markets. At the time of the
Revolution and the writing of the Constitution, this was known
as
Bernard Mandelville's "private vices lead to public virtue,"
which became Adam Smith's "invisible hand." And every book I've
read about these matters noted that Americans at the time
repeatedly and emphatically rejected Mandelville's idea.
In a sense, the past half-century of theoretical and policy
dominance by neoliberalism has been a colossal social experiment
in replacing the public virtue of republicanism, with the
economic liberalism of a market economy. By any measure I care
about, the experiment has been a disastrous failure. A solid
majority of citizens have repeatedly told pollsters they desire
an end to a dependence on fossil fuels, and a solution to the
problem of climate change, but no effective responses have been
delivered from a political system held in thrall to neoliberal
ideas. The very idea of government intervention into the economy
to achieve such goals is held by the neoliberal ideologues to be
a mis-allocation of resources and an encroachment by government
on the "liberties of the people" But if the citizens cannot use
their government-the government that supposedly derives its
powers from their consent, and which therefore professes its
sovereignty to reside in the people-to impose their will on "the
market," then what instrument do they have to decide their own
destiny?
Neoliberalism is the new justification for the newly arisen
class of corporatist oligarchs and plutocrats who are enraged
that the promotion of the general welfare by modern sovereign
nation-states involves laws and regulations which "stifle" their
"business opportunities" and "economic creativity."
"... It's hard not to notice, during the American Presidential election drama, that despite all the debates and speeches, and multiple candidates, the terms "Neoliberalism" and "austerity" have yet to be employed, much less explained, these being the two necessary words to describe the dominant economic "regime" of the past 35 years. And this despite the fact that most observers recognize that a "populist revolt" driven by economic unhappiness is underway via the campaigns of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. With Trump, of course, we are getting much more, the uglier side of American populism: racism, xenophobia and misogyny, at least; the culture wars at a higher pitch. ..."
"... the underlying driver of his supporters' anger is economic distress, not the ugly cultural prejudices. ..."
It's hard not to notice, during the American Presidential election drama, that despite all the
debates and speeches, and multiple candidates, the terms "Neoliberalism" and "austerity" have yet
to be employed, much less explained, these being the two necessary words to describe the dominant
economic "regime" of the past 35 years. And this despite the fact that most observers recognize that
a "populist revolt" driven by economic unhappiness is underway via the campaigns of Donald Trump
and Bernie Sanders. With Trump, of course, we are getting much more, the uglier side of American
populism: racism, xenophobia and misogyny, at least; the culture wars at a higher pitch.
Yet when Trump commented on the violence which canceled his Chicago rally on the evening of March
11th, he stated that the underlying driver of his supporters' anger is economic distress, not
the ugly cultural prejudices. The diagnoses for the root cause of this anger thus lie at the
heart of the proposed solutions. For students of the Great Depression, this will sound very familiar.
That is because, despite many diversions and sub-currents, we are really arguing about a renewed
New Deal versus an ever more purified laissez-faire, the nineteenth century term for keeping government
out of markets – once those markets had been constructed. "Interventions," however, as we will see,
are still required, because no one, left or right, can live with the brutalities of the workings
of "free markets" except as they exist in the fantasyland of the American Right.
In case your wondering who the US is financing in Ukraine, its these Nazis who have now killed
over 10,000 ethnic Russian civilians while the corrupt US media has intentionally covered it up.
"... On the contrary, the Persian Gulf should be deemed a region of vital interest to the security of the United States. ..."
"... We also reject Iran's attempt to blame others for regional tensions it is aggravating, as well as its public campaign to demonize the government of Saudi Arabia. ..."
Wahhab proclaimed those who did not accept his puritan monotheism as apostates and idolaters who
should be killed immediately. And now, Shiites, Alawites, Zaidis, Druze, Ismailis - and Kurds, who
are mostly Sunni Muslim - are defending themselves and their families from the truly fundamentalist
zealotry of neo-Wahhabism that murders all whom it deems apostate. To reverse the narrative and cast
their efforts to defend themselves as somehow sectarian is bizarre - especially since the bulk of
the Syrian army and Kurds fighting ISIS
are
themselves Sunni Muslims.
To fight ISIS is not anti-Sunni. To fight ISIS is to be against Wahhab's revived doctrines. The
leading Iraqi commentator Hayder al-Khoei highlighted that in a recent
op-ed
:
The tip of the spear in Falluja is not an Iranian-backed paramilitary group but the U.S.-created
Counter Terrorism Service and its elite U.S.-trained Special Forces known locally as the Golden
Division. These forces, besides being a mixed Shia-Sunni unit, are led by a Kurdish commander
... At a time when sectarian dynamics is one of many factors fueling the crises in Iraq and beyond,
it is important for Western journalists and analysts to not be more sectarian than the Iraqis
on the ground actually fighting ISIS.
In short, the ephemeral global narrative does not relate well to the facts on the ground where there
is much less sectarianism than this Western-Gulf narrative purports to exist.
But let that pass.
This narrative,
echoed widely
beyond the
Financial Times
, is Orwellian in
another way. It serves another deeper purpose. It has much to do with finding and articulating, as
Jim Lobe
notes
, the point of intersection between liberal interventionism and neoconservatism. This intersection
is the subject of a May 16
report
from the Center for a New American Security, which was drawn up by a bipartisan task force
of 10 senior members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment and augmented by six dinner discussions
with invited experts.
Their approach is to cast Iran as the source of all 'regional tensions' and
to hold onto America's Gulf bases in order to be a 'force that can flex across several different
mission sets and prevail.'
It is, in a sense, the riposte from the two interventionist wings of American politics to Trump's
iconoclasm in foreign policy. And, Lobe writes, "it's fair to predict that the above-mentioned report
is likely to be the best guide to date of where a Hillary Clinton presidency will want to take the
country's foreign policy."
The report is all about how to maintain America's benevolent hegemony
- or how to maintain and expand today's "rules-based international order," which implies maintaining
and expanding the geo-financial order as much as the political order. As we saw in U.S. Defense Secretary
Ashton Carter's
interview
with Vox, there are clear, though somewhat cushioned,
echoes
of the 1992 U.S. Defense Planning Guidance.
The CNAS report states, "[F]rom a resurgent Russia to a rising China that is challenging the rules-based
international order to chaos, and the struggle for power in the Middle East, the United States needs
a force that can flex across several different mission sets and prevail." The report simply
restates
in more nuanced language many of ideas that underline the concept of the "
American
Century
" and U.S.-led unipolar world order.
What does this have to do with propagating the
meme that the war on ISIS is a disguised sectarian war on Sunni Islam? Well, quite a lot. Consider
this from the report (italics mine):
The United States should adopt a comprehensive strategy, employing an appropriate mix of military,
economic and diplomatic resources, to undermine and defeat Iran's hegemonic ambitions in the Greater
Middle East. Whether in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria or Bahrain, Tehran's advances and longer-term ambitions
should be regarded as a threat to stability that it is in the U.S. interest to counter and deter.
The next administration must make abundantly clear that it has no interest in pursuing an off-shore
balancing strategy, such as the 'new equilibrium' some have suggested, which envisages a significant
U.S. military drawdown from the region.
On the contrary, the Persian
Gulf should be deemed a region of vital interest to the security of the United States.
As
such, U.S. military forces in the region should be sufficient to ensure the security of Gulf allies
and the Strait of Hormuz against potential Iranian aggression. At the same time, Gulf allies should
have access to sufficient defense articles and services to deter Tehran even if U.S. forces are
not present or immediately available to assist.
We also reject Iran's attempt to blame others for regional tensions
it is aggravating, as well as its public campaign to demonize the government of Saudi Arabia.
The last sentence is truly amazing. So the spread of
cultural and militant Wahhabism
has nothing to do with tension in the region? Here we see that
the crux of the joint neocon, liberal-interventionist foreign policy for the Middle East is to cast
Iran as the source of all "regional tensions" and secondly, to hold onto America's Gulf bases - in
order to "flex across several different mission sets and prevail."
Saudi Arabia is mildly rebuked
in the CNAS report for having helped radicalize Sunni Islamist groups in the past, but the Kingdom
receives applause for its law enforcement and intelligence cooperation. It is very clear from the
report's context that a makeover of Saudi Arabia's status as a U.S. ally is underway and that this
rehabilitation is seen as integral to aiding America's "hard-nosed enforcement strategy ... to counter
Iran's destabilizing activities throughout the region, from its support to terrorist groups like
Hezbollah to its efforts to sow instability in the Sunni Arab states."
The old Western standby of using psychologically inflamed Sunni radicalism
as a means to weaken opponents seems like it won't be dismantled completely.
Another gloss in the CNAS report is striking: while ISIS as a threat is made much of, and a call
is issued to "uproot" it, when it comes to Syria, the report simply states that "it is also essential
to assist in the formation of a Sunni alternative to ISIS and the [Syria President Bashar] Assad
regime" and to create "a safe space ... where moderate opposition militias can arm, train, and organize."
Yet there is no mention of Jabhat al-Nusra, al Qaeda's Syria wing. Its role simply is not addressed.
This conscious lacuna suggests that the authors do not want to embarrass Saudi Arabia for all
its fired-up Sunni jihadist tools. The old Western standby of using psychologically inflamed Sunni
radicalism as a means to weaken opponents seems like it won't be dismantled completely. It is fine,
evidently, to make a hoo-ha about ISIS while Nusra is to be slipped quietly into the Syrian calculus
in order to shift the military balance and convince Assad that he cannot remain in power.
This
new/old policy platform is well assisted by broadcasting a narrative that those fighting ISIS on
the ground (Iran and its allies) are the "naked sectarians" who compound their sectarian intent by
provoking Sunnis to rally to ISIS, their defender. Thus, Iran becomes the threat to regional security,
and the CNAS case against Iran is crystalized. This is working quite well, it seems, to judge by
its play in the media.
It may be fairly asked however, why these eminent American foreign policy
hands should be espousing what many might see as such a retrograde stance. Promoting Saudi Arabia
and Gulf states as key U.S. allies would seem to go against the grain of contemporary - even Congressional
- sentiment. Ditto for maintaining America's necklace of (expensive) military bases around the globe
in order to project American military power. Are Americans not tiring of endless war? And has not
the arming and training of a Sunni opposition in Syria been tried several times and failed? Why should
this policy be any more successful next time around?
ISIS is the consensual scapegoat to be lambasted by all and sundry, but its
spirit - neo-Wahabbism - is not to be rooted out.
It is not that the report's authors don't grasp these points, but if the neocons have one constancy,
it has been their unwavering support for Israel. They think that the Gulf states are ready for a
normalization with Israel and wish to do profitable business with it. What stands in the way of this
rapprochement, in the neocon view, is Iran, Syria and Hezbollah's vehement opposition - and their
ability to ignite public opinion across the Muslim world on behalf of the Palestinians.
So what
is the final takeaway from all this? It is that ISIS is the consensual scapegoat to be lambasted
by all and sundry, but its spirit - neo-Wahabbism - is not to be rooted out. It is too useful to
Saudi Arabia and Turkey and to Western interests - to weaken Assad, for example, and to contain Iran
and fight
Hezbollah
.
Whether in the form of Nusra or Ahrar al-Sham,
another al Qaeda-allied rebel group in Syria, this chameleon-like Sunni jihadist force collectively
provides a useful pivot around which neocons and liberal interventionists alike can pursue interventionism
and the continuance of "the American Century." It also provides a valuable intersection between Israel
and Gulf interests. As Lobe wryly
notes
, "the authors' undisguised hostility toward Tehran pours forth with specific policy recommendations
that, frankly, could have been written as a joint paper submitted by Saudi Arabia and Israel."
Will the report, like the neocon Project for the New American Century, to which it is perhaps conceived
as a successor, come to form the basis of American foreign policy if a Democrat won the forthcoming
election? Possibly, yes.
But there is also an intangible feeling of something passé in these policy prescriptions, a sense
that they belong to a former era. The current presidential campaign, with all its iconoclasm and
evidence of widespread popular anger towards the status quo, suggests that such a palpable replay
of the past is not tenable.
"... Nuland would survive the controversy over the October 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission/CIA facility in Benghazi, Libya. Initially, many conservative Republicans criticized Nuland for her role in providing ambassador to the UN Susan Rice with "talking points" explaining away the failure of the U.S. to protect the compound from an attack that killed U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. personnel. All it took was a tap on the shoulder from Nuland's husband Kagan and his influential friends in the neo-con hierarchy for the criticism of his wife to stop. And stop it did as Nuland was confirmed, without Republican opposition, to be the new Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, a portfolio that gave her a clear mandate to interfere in the domestic policies of Ukraine and other countries, including Russia itself. ..."
"... Although McCain was defeated by Obama in 2008, Kagan's influence was preserved when his wife became a top foreign policy adviser to Obama. The root of this control by neo-cons of the two major U.S. political parties is the powerful Israel Lobby and is the reason why in excess of 95 percent of neo-cons are also committed Zionists. ..."
"... Kagan's writings and pronouncements from Brookings have had a common thread: anti-Vladimir Putin rhetoric and a strong desire to see Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, Bashar al Assad falling in Syria and thus eliminating a Russian ally, no further expansion of Shanghai Cooperation Organization membership and the eventual collapse of the counter-NATO organization, and the destabilization of Russia's southern border region by radical Salafists and Wahhabists funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Qatar, not coincidentally, hosts a Brookings Institution office that advises the Qatari government. ..."
Nuland would survive the controversy over the October 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission/CIA
facility in Benghazi, Libya. Initially, many conservative Republicans criticized Nuland for her role
in providing ambassador to the UN Susan Rice with "talking points" explaining away the failure of
the U.S. to protect the compound from an attack that killed U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and
three other U.S. personnel. All it took was a tap on the shoulder from Nuland's husband Kagan and
his influential friends in the neo-con hierarchy for the criticism of his wife to stop. And stop
it did as Nuland was confirmed, without Republican opposition, to be the new Assistant Secretary
of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, a portfolio that gave her a clear mandate to interfere
in the domestic policies of Ukraine and other countries, including Russia itself.
Kagan began laying the groundwork for his wife's continued presence in a Democratic administration
when, in 2007, he switched sides from the Republicans and aligned with the Democrats. This was in
the waning days of the Bush administration and, true to form, neo-cons, who politically and family-wise
hail from Trotskyite chameleons, saw the opportunity to continue their influence over U.S. foreign
policy.
With the election of Obama in 2008, Kagan was able to maintain a PNAC presence, through his wife,
inside the State Department. Kagan, a co-founder of PNAC, monitors his wife's activities from his
perch at the influential Brookings Institution. And it was no surprise that McCain followed Nuland
to Maidan Square. Kagan was one of McCain's top foreign policy advisers in the 2008 campaign, even
though he publicly switched to the Democrats the year before. Kagan ensured that he kept a foot in
both parties. Although McCain was defeated by Obama in 2008, Kagan's influence was preserved
when his wife became a top foreign policy adviser to Obama. The root of this control by neo-cons
of the two major U.S. political parties is the powerful Israel Lobby and is the reason why in excess
of 95 percent of neo-cons are also committed Zionists.
Kagan's writings and pronouncements from Brookings have had a common thread: anti-Vladimir
Putin rhetoric and a strong desire to see Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, Bashar al Assad falling in
Syria and thus eliminating a Russian ally, no further expansion of Shanghai Cooperation Organization
membership and the eventual collapse of the counter-NATO organization, and the destabilization of
Russia's southern border region by radical Salafists and Wahhabists funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Qatar, not coincidentally, hosts a Brookings Institution office that advises the Qatari government.
But dominance of U.S. foreign policy does not end with Nuland and her husband. Kagan's brother,
Fred Kagan, is another neo-con foreign policy launderer. Residing at the American Enterprise Institute,
Fred Kagan was an "anti-corruption" adviser to General David Petraeus. Kagan held this job even as
Petraeus was engaged in an extra-marital affair, which he corruptly covered up. Fred Kagan's wife
is Kimberly Kagan. She has been involved in helping to formulate disastrous U.S. policies for the
military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Fred and Kimberly have also worked on U.S. covert operations
to overthrow the government of Iran. No family in the history of the United States, with the possible
exception of John Foster and Allen Dulles, has had more blood on its hands than have the Kagans.
And it is this family that is today helping to ratchet up the Cold War on the streets of Kyiv.
Victoria Nuland is, indeed, the proper "Doughnut Dolly" for the paid George Soros, U.S. Agency
for International Development, National Endowment for Democracy, and Freedom House provocateurs on
Maidan Square. Political prostitutes representing so many causes, from nationalistic Ukrainian fascists
to pro-EU globalists, require a symbol. There is no better symbol for the foreign-made "Orange Revolution
II" than the biscuit-distributing Victoria Nuland.
Her unleavened biscuits have found the hungry mouths of America's "Three Stooges" of ex-boxer
and political opportunist Vitaly Klitschko, globalist Arseny Yatsenyuk, and neo-Nazi Oleg
Tyagnibok.
Wayne MADSEN Investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. A member of the Society of Professional
Journalists (SPJ) and the National Press Club
US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Vicrotia Nuland was appointed
by Hillary nu the forigh policy is domain of the President, so she executed policy hatched by "Obama
the neocon", who is great admirer of books by Robert Kagan...
Notable quotes:
"... Nuland is a Democrat? Boy they let anybody in. I only ask because she's supposed to be a Bush holdover but maybe worked for the Clintons before that? ..."
"... Nuland started out with Bill Clinton, then moved on to Dick Cheney . She certainly is nimble! ..."
"... Because of her marriage to Kagan, most Europeans believe she's a Republican, but her hawkish approach to Russia isn't entirely unique within the Obama administration. ..."
"... FP professionals don't need no stinkin' party affiliations. They are the other half of the "Double Government" that most voters have never heard of. You know, the half that makes sure foreign policy is consistent from one administration (and party) to the next. Works great! ..."
"... You start out wherever your opportunity lies. Once established you can follow your heart. Where does her heart lead her when Cheney leaves office? Drum roll… Why, it's Hillary! ..."
Following along with his good friend, Republican Robert Kagan (married, in good bipartisan
power couple fashion, to Victoria Nuland, rumored to be inline for Clinton's Secretary of State,
but I don't think so. Not even Clinton could be that crazy).
I can't find a link that makes her party affiliation explicit.
Foreign
Policy :
Because of her marriage to Kagan, most Europeans believe she's a Republican, but her
hawkish approach to Russia isn't entirely unique within the Obama administration.
But FP does not then go on to clarify. I assumed she was a Democrat because of the Clinton
connection. My bad!
FP professionals don't need no stinkin' party affiliations. They are the other half of
the "Double Government" that most voters have never heard of. You know, the half that makes sure
foreign policy is consistent from one administration (and party) to the next. Works great!
You start out wherever your opportunity lies. Once established you can follow your heart.
Where does her heart lead her when Cheney leaves office? Drum roll… Why, it's Hillary!
Hugoodanode?
It's probably bias, but my sense is Republicans love to parade anyone who is Jewish or not
white in front of cameras who can say, "im a Republican" without drooling or dying a little on
the inside. Since Nuland is Jewish, the GOP would have her on their book tour if she was suspected
Republican especially given the GOP obsession with winning Florida Jewish retirees.
"... Interestingly, in a self-promoting recent review of Henry Kissinger's new book World Order, Clinton both defines her own Kissinger-esque foreign policy strategy and also concedes that it is more-or-less the same as Obama's. Clinton wrote that Kissinger's world view "largely fits with the broad strategy behind the Obama administration's effort over the past six years to build a global architecture of security and cooperation for the 21st century." ..."
"... Clinton inevitably confuses leadership with hegemony, clearly believing as one of her predecessors at State put it, that America is the "indispensable nation." Nor can she discern that few outside the beltway actually believe the hype. It would be difficult to make the case that the United States either stands for justice or is willing to tolerate any kind of international order that challenges American interests. ..."
"... Any plan to "destroy" ISIS without serious consideration of what that might entail means that the U.S. will inevitably assume the leadership role. Because air strikes cannot defeat any insurgency, and the moderate Syrian rebels waiting to be armed are a fiction, the Obama plan invites escalation and will make the Islamist group a poster child for those who want to see Washington fail yet again in the Middle East. ..."
"... Yanukovych, an admittedly corrupt autocrat, nevertheless became Prime Minister after a free election. Nuland, who is the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, provided open support to the Maidan demonstrators opposed to Yanukovych's government, to include media friendly appearances passing out cookies on the square to encourage the protesters. ..."
"... The replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp break and escalating conflict with Moscow over Russia's attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea. ..."
"... And make no mistake about Nuland's broader intention to expand the conflict and directly confront Russia. In Senate testimony in May she cited how the administration is "providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia." Frontline? Last week Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel seemed to confirm that the continued expansion of NATO is indeed administration policy, saying that Georgia would be next to join in light of "Russia's blatant aggression in Ukraine." ..."
"... The president also reportedly is an admirer of her husband's articles and books which argue that the U.S. must maintain its military power to accommodate its "global responsibilities." So in response to the question "Why does Victoria Nuland still have her job?" the answer must surely be because the White House approves of what she has been doing, which should give everyone pause. ..."
A new administration only gave interventionism a confused, humanitarian face-lift.
President Barack Obama presents something of a dilemma. I voted for him twice in the belief that
he was basically a cautious operator who would not rush into a new war in Asia, unlike his Republican
opponents who virtually promised to attack Iran upon assuming office. Unfortunately, Obama's second
term has revealed that his instinct nevertheless is to rely on America's ability to project military
power overseas as either a complement to or a substitute for diplomacy that differs only from George
W. Bush in its style and its emphasis on humanitarian objectives.
That the president is indeed cautious has made the actual process of engagement different, witness
the ill-fated involvement in Libya and the impending war-without-calling-it-war in Syria and Iraq,
both of which are framed as having limited objectives and manageable risk for Washington even when
that is not the case. Obama's foreign and security policy is an incremental process mired in contradictions
whereby the United States continues to involve itself in conflicts for which it has little understanding,
seemingly doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past thirteen years but without the shock and awe.
Obama's actual intentions might most clearly be discerned by looking at his inner circle. Three
women are prominent in decision making relating to foreign policy: Samantha Power at the United Nations,
Susan Rice heading the National Security Council, and Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett in the White
House. One might also add Hillary Clinton who, as Secretary of State, operated far more independently
than her successor John Kerry, putting her own stamp on policy much more than he has been able to
do. Where Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel fits into the decision making is unclear, but it is notable
that both he and Kerry frequently appear to be somewhat out of sync with the White House.
What does the Obama team represent? Certain things are obvious. They are hesitant to involve the
United States in long, drawn out military adventures like Iraq and Afghanistan but much more inclined
to intervene than was George W. Bush when there is an apparent humanitarian crisis, operating under
the principle of responsibility to protect or R2P. That R2P is often a pretext for intervention that
actually is driven by other less altruistic motives is certainly a complication but it is nevertheless
the public face of much of American foreign policy, as the nation is currently witnessing regarding
ISIS.
Hillary Clinton has criticized Obama foreign policy because on her view he did not act soon enough
on ISIS and "Great nations need organizing principles, and 'don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing
principle." Her criticism is odd as she was a formulator of much of what the president has been doing
and one should perhaps assume that her distancing from it might have something to do with her presidential
ambitions. Interestingly, in a self-promoting recent review of Henry Kissinger's new book World Order,
Clinton both defines her own Kissinger-esque foreign policy strategy and also concedes that it is
more-or-less the same as Obama's. Clinton wrote that Kissinger's world view "largely fits with the
broad strategy behind the Obama administration's effort over the past six years to build a global
architecture of security and cooperation for the 21st century."
Now if all of that is true, and it might just be putting lipstick on a pig to create an illusion
of coherency where none exists, then the United States might just be engaging in a sensible reset
of its foreign policy, something like the Nixon Doctrine of old. But the actual policy itself suggests
otherwise, with the tendency to "do stupid stuff" prevailing, perhaps attributable to another Clinton
book review assertion of "a belief in the indispensability of continued American leadership in service
of a just and liberal order."
Clinton inevitably confuses leadership with hegemony, clearly believing as one of her
predecessors at State
put it, that America is the "indispensable nation." Nor can she discern that few outside the beltway
actually believe the hype. It would be difficult to make the case that the United States either stands
for justice or is willing to tolerate any kind of international order that challenges American interests.
And the arrogance that comes with power means that the country's leadership is not often able to
explain what it is doing. Currently, the administration has failed to make any compelling case that
the United States is actually threatened by ISIS beyond purely conjectural "what if" scenarios, suggesting
that the policy is evolving in an ad hoc but risk-averse fashion to create the impression
that something is actually being accomplished. Any plan to "destroy" ISIS without serious consideration
of what that might entail means that the U.S. will inevitably assume the leadership role. Because
air strikes cannot defeat any insurgency, and the moderate Syrian rebels waiting to be armed are
a fiction, the Obama plan invites escalation and will make the Islamist group a poster child for
those who want to see Washington fail yet again in the Middle East.
The tendency to act instead of think might be attributable to fear of appearing weak with
midterm elections approaching, but it might also be due to the persistence of neoconservative national
security views within the administration, which brings us to
Victoria Nuland. Nuland,
many will recall, was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the Ukrainian government of
President Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych, an admittedly corrupt autocrat, nevertheless became
Prime Minister after a free election. Nuland, who is the Assistant Secretary of State for European
and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, provided open support to the Maidan demonstrators opposed
to Yanukovych's government, to include media friendly appearances
passing out cookies on the square to encourage the protesters.
A Dick Cheney and Hillary
Clinton protégé who is married to leading neocon Robert Kagan, Nuland openly sought regime change
for Ukraine by brazenly supporting
government opponents in spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev had ostensibly friendly relations.
It is hard to imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt by a foreign
nation to interfere in U.S. domestic politics, particularly if it were backed by a
$5 billion budget,
but Washington has long believed in a global double standard for evaluating its own behavior.
Nuland is most famous for her
foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest that she and
the National Endowment for Democracy had helped create. To be sure, her aggressive guidance of U.S.
policy in Eurasia is a lot more important than whatever plays out in Syria and Iraq over the remainder
of Obama's time in office in terms of palpable threats to actual American interests. The replacement
of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp break and escalating conflict with Moscow
over Russia's attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea.
Victoria Nuland is playing with fire. Russia, as the only nation with the military capability
to destroy the U.S., is not a sideshow like Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Backing Moscow into a corner with
no way out by using threats and sanctions is not good policy. Washington has many excellent reasons
to maintain a stable relationship with Moscow, including counter-terrorism efforts, and little to
gain from moving in the opposite direction. Russia is not about to reconstitute the Warsaw Pact and
there is no compelling reason to return to a Cold War footing by either arming Ukraine or permitting
it to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
And make no mistake about Nuland's broader intention to expand the conflict and directly confront
Russia. In Senate testimony in May
she cited how
the administration is "providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia." Frontline?
Last
week Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel seemed to confirm that the continued expansion of NATO
is indeed administration policy, saying that Georgia would be next to join in light of "Russia's
blatant aggression in Ukraine."
In 2009 President Barack Obama received
the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and
cooperation between peoples." In retrospect it was all hat and no cattle given the ongoing saga in
Afghanistan, the reduction of a relatively stable Libya to chaos, meddling in Ukraine while simultaneously
threatening Russia, failure to restrain Israel and the creation of an Islamic terror state in the
Arab heartland. Not to mention "pivots" and additional developments in Africa and Asia. It is not
a record to brag about and it certainly does not suggest that the administration is as strategically
agile as Hillary Clinton would like to have one believe.
Victoria Nuland is a career civil servant and cannot easily be fired but she could be removed
from her top-level policy position and sent downstairs to head the mailroom at the State Department.
It would send the message that aggressive democracy promotion is not U.S. policy, but President Obama
has kept her on the job. The president also reportedly is an
admirer of her husband's articles and books which argue that the U.S. must maintain its military
power to accommodate its "global responsibilities." So in response to the question "Why does Victoria
Nuland still have her job?" the answer must surely be because the White House approves of what she
has been doing, which should give everyone pause.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National
Interest.
If Hillary wins the White House, expect Victoria Nuland to be at her side.
The other day, a question popped up on a Facebook thread I was commenting on: "Where is Victoria
Nuland?" The short answer, of course, is that she is still holding down her position as assistant
secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.
But a related question begs for a more expansive response: Where will Victoria Nuland be after
January? Nuland is one of Hillary Clinton's protégés at the State Department, and she is also greatly
admired by hardline Republicans. This suggests she would be easily approved by Congress as secretary
of state or maybe even national-security adviser-which in turn suggests that her foreign-policy views
deserve a closer look.
Nuland comes from what might be called the First Family of Military Interventionists. Her husband,
Robert Kagan, is a leading neoconservative who co-founded the Project for the New American Century
in 1998 around a demand for "regime change" in Iraq. He is currently a senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution, an author, and a regular contributor to the op-ed pages of a number of national newspapers.
He has already declared that he will be voting for Hillary Clinton in November, a shift away from
the GOP that many have seen as a clever career-enhancing move for both him and his wife.
Robert's brother, Fred, is with the hawkish American Enterprise Institute, and his sister-in-law,
Kimberly, is the head of the Institute for the Study of War, which is largely funded by defense contractors.
The Kagans work to encourage military action, both through their positions in government and by influencing
the public debate through think-tank reports and op-eds. It is a family enterprise that mirrors the
military-industrial complex as a whole, with think tanks coming up with reasons to increase military
spending and providing "expert" support for the government officials who actually promote and implement
the policies. Defense contractors, meanwhile, benefit from the largesse and kick back some money
to the think tanks, which then develop new reasons to spend still more on military procurement.
The Kagans' underlying belief is that the United States has both the power and the obligation
to replace governments that are considered either uncooperative with Washington (the "Leader of the
Free World") or hostile to American interests. American interests are, of course, mutable, and they
include values like democracy and the rule of law as well as practical considerations such as economic
and political competition. Given the elasticity of the interests, many countries can be and are considered
potential targets for Washington's tender ministrations.
For what it's worth, President Obama is reportedly an
admirer of Robert Kagan's books, which argue that the U.S. must maintain its military power to
accommodate its "global responsibilities." The persistence of neoconservative foreign-policy views
in the Obama administration has often been remarked upon, though Democrats and Republicans embrace
military interventionism for different reasons. The GOP sees it as an international leadership imperative
driven by American "exceptionalism," while the Dems romanticize "liberal intervention" as a sometimes-necessary
evil undertaken most often for humanitarian reasons. But the result is the same, as no administration
wants to be seen as weak when dealing with the outside world. George W. Bush's catastrophic failures
in Afghanistan and Iraq continue to bear fruit under a Democratic administration, while Obama has
added a string of additional "boots on the ground" interventions in Libya, Syria, Yemen, the Philippines,
and Somalia.
And Nuland herself,
many will recall, was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the Ukrainian government of
President Viktor Yanukovych in 2013-14. Yanukovych, admittedly a corrupt autocrat, nevertheless assumed
office after a free election. In spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev ostensibly had friendly
relations, Nuland provided open support for the Maidan Square demonstrators opposed to Yanukovych's
government,
passing out cookies to protesters on the square and holding photo ops with a beaming Sen. John
McCain.
Nuland started her rapid rise as an adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney. Subsequently, she was
serially promoted by secretaries of state Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, attaining her current position
in September 2013. But it was her behavior in Ukraine that made her a media figure. It is hard to
imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt by a foreign nation to interfere
in domestic politics, particularly if it were backed by a
$5 billion budget,
but Washington has long adhered to a double standard when evaluating its own behavior.
Nuland is most famous for using
foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest in Ukraine
that she and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) had helped create. She even discussed with
U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt who the new leader of Ukraine ought to be. "Yats is the guy" she said
(referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk), while pondering how she would "glue this thing" as Pyatt simultaneously
considered how to "midwife" it. Their insecure phone call was
intercepted and leaked,
possibly by the Russian intelligence service, though anyone equipped with a scanner could have done
the job.
The inevitable replacement of the government in Kiev, actually a coup but sold to the media as
a triumph for "democracy," was only the prelude to a sharp break-and escalating conflict-with Moscow
over Russia's attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine. The new regime in Kiev, as corrupt
as its predecessor and supported by neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists, was consistently whitewashed
in the Western media, and the conflict was depicted as "pro-democracy" forces resisting unprovoked
"Russian aggression."
Indeed, the real objective of interfering in Ukraine was, right from the start, to install a regime
hostile to Moscow. Carl Gershman, the head of the taxpayer-funded NED,
called Ukraine "the biggest prize" in the effort to topple Russian President Vladimir Putin,
who "may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself." But
Gershman and Nuland were playing with fire in their assessment, as Russia had vital interests at
stake and is the only nation with the military capability to destroy the U.S.
And make no mistake about Nuland's clear intention to expand the conflict and directly confront
Moscow. In Senate testimony in May of 2014,
she noted how
the Obama administration was "providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia."
Nuland and her neoconservative allies celebrated their "regime change" in Kiev oblivious to the
fact that Putin would recognize the strategic threat to his own country and would react, particularly
to protect the historic Russian naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea. Barack Obama responded predictably,
initiating what soon became something like a new Cold War against Russia, risking escalation into
a possible nuclear confrontation. It was a crisis that would not have existed but for Nuland and
her allies.
Though there was no evidence that Putin had initiated the Ukraine crisis and much evidence to
the contrary, the U.S. government propaganda machine rolled into action, claiming that Russia's measures
in Ukraine would be the first step in an invasion of Eastern Europe. Former Secretary of State Clinton
dutifully
compared Putin to Adolf Hitler. And Robert Kagan provided the argument for more intervention,
producing a lengthy essay in The New Republic entitled "Superpowers
Don't Get to Retire," in which he criticized President Obama for failing to maintain American
dominance in the world. The New York Times
revealed that the essay was apparently part of a joint project in which Nuland regularly edited
her husband's articles, even though this particular piece attacked the administration she worked
for.
As the situation in Ukraine continued to deteriorate in 2014, Nuland exerted herself to scuttle
several European attempts to arrange a ceasefire. When NATO Commander Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove
was cited as being in favor of sending more weapons to the Ukrainian government to "raise the battlefield
cost for Putin," Nuland
commented, "I'd strongly urge you to use the phrase 'defensive systems' that we would deliver
to oppose Putin's 'offensive systems.'"
To return to the initial question of where Victoria Nuland is, the long answer would be that while
she is not much in the news, she is continuing to provide support for policies that the White House
apparently approves of. Late last month, she was again in Kiev. She criticized Russia for its lack
of press freedom and its "puppets" in the Donbas region
while telling
a Ukrainian audience about a "strong U.S. commitment to stand with Ukraine as it stays on the path
of a clean, democratic, European future. … We remain committed to retaining sanctions that apply
to the situation in Crimea until Crimea is returned to Ukraine." Before that, she was in
Cyprus and France discussing
"a range of regional and global issues with senior government officials."
But one has to suspect that, at this point, she is mainly waiting to see what happens in November.
And wondering where she might be going in January.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National
Interest.
"... We are all "banks", but we don't have the capacity to socialise costs and privatise benefits. The problem is thereby, a problem of the power structure and accountability. Of institutional decay and corruption. ..."
"... Capitalism has always favored the few at the expense of the many. Yet there have been places and moments, like in post-WWII U.S., where effort has gone into making the financial system at least appear somewhat transparent and predictable. Today we simply suffer the unrestrained looting of kleptocrats who laugh in our faces if we dare to complain. They violate "rules" that are already tilted in their favor with impunity. Meanwhile, if you are a poor person, unable to pay a traffic ticket in a timely fashion, you may well lose your liberty, or even your life. ..."
"... The problem we have is that the system is rigged. Bad actors in the upper class can destroy their bank for fun and profit. Individuals father down the scale cannot discharge student loans under any circumstances. This is the largest source of discontent and a problem elites refuse to address. ..."
"... And the elites won't address it until they are jailed or guillotined. Why should they? ..."
"... The article starts off well enough, but then loses track of the critical standpoints it initially sets out. For example, within the above idea, the author can't talk about dimensions of life that are not monetizable because they are a capitalist prerogative. For instance, if someone is forced to work mandatory overtime because their employer doesn't want to hire enough workers to cover demand without overtime, you either do the overtime or you exit. You can't buy your time off. Etc. ..."
"... I'm not sure what point this article is attempting to make. The distinction between money and debt becomes moot if money is a debt - which if I understand his arguments correctly is what Michael Hudson argues in "Killing the Host". I do like the reading list at the bottom. I'm behind many of the rest of the commenters in not having read any of these oft cited books. ..."
"... I agree with other comments the formula "we are each of us banks" is lame. I think it matches nicely with the oft repeated analogy between government finance and a family business. ..."
"... Financialization is about middlemen and looters skimming off money as it flows through; whether this is good or bad in a particular case depends upon whether those middlemen add value or simply act as rentiers. ..."
"... money is the mental construct, the idea, by which we value human labor and transport that value across spacetime. ..."
Not sure the bank thing is a good analogy. Seams when a financial system raises the cost of
an asset like land through speculation to the point where a debtor has not enough income to cover
outflow to provide basics of survival….. food, water, shelter, community etc……..then does the
crrditor/speculator thus owe society because, it was through speculation and Mal-investment that
society was damaged.
Thomas Jefferson….I think, said something along the lines…… if banks get a hold of credit creation
then, by inflation and deflation the citizens of this country will be left homeless upon the land
their fathers established.
We are all "banks", but we don't have the capacity to socialise costs and privatise benefits. The problem is thereby, a problem of the power structure and accountability. Of institutional
decay and corruption.
Capitalism has always favored the few at the expense of the many. Yet there have been places
and moments, like in post-WWII U.S., where effort has gone into making the financial system at
least appear somewhat transparent and predictable. Today we simply suffer the unrestrained looting
of kleptocrats who laugh in our faces if we dare to complain. They violate "rules" that are already
tilted in their favor with impunity. Meanwhile, if you are a poor person, unable to pay a traffic
ticket in a timely fashion, you may well lose your liberty, or even your life.
Capitalism has always favored the few at the expense of the many.
I'm curious what makes capitalism unique for you in that regard? I agree that there are problems
with market-based economics, but you seem to be suggesting that other forms of political economy
don't have problems of concentration of wealth and power?
Capitalism without democracy and individual rights absolutely favors the few at the expense
of the many. That's why our intellectual enablers have spent so much energy trying to separate
economics from politics: to camouflage political choices as if they are natural economic outcomes.
I'm not sure what "other forms" you have in mind for comparison. But I would suggest it is
a huge failure of imagination to suggest humans have exhausted all possible forms of economic
organization and are stuck with contemporary global capitalism. Time for some innovation!
And as Mehring points out: "Focusing on what money really is – whether gold or state fiat –
shifts attention away from what credit really is, which is to say away from the center of discontent."
It's the quality of that debt, what it is and why, that needs far more examination. At present,
it is at the root of much discontent: why should I and mine be expected to salvage bank balance
sheets that are essentially fraudulent in terms of crap mortgages?
The institutional decay is really some kind of measure of the quality of crappy debt, which
is making many of us seriously discontent at being expected to cover crap bets.
The problem we have is that the system is rigged. Bad actors in the upper class can destroy
their bank for fun and profit. Individuals father down the scale cannot discharge student loans
under any circumstances. This is the largest source of discontent and a problem elites refuse
to address.
From a money view perspective, the origin of discontent seems to lie in the fact that each
of us, in our interface with the essentially financial system that is modern capitalism, operates
essentially as a bank, meaning a cash inflow, cash outflow entity.
The article starts off well enough, but then loses track of the critical standpoints it initially
sets out. For example, within the above idea, the author can't talk about dimensions of life that
are not monetizable because they are a capitalist prerogative. For instance, if someone is forced
to work mandatory overtime because their employer doesn't want to hire enough workers to cover
demand without overtime, you either do the overtime or you exit. You can't buy your time off.
Etc.
I'm not sure what point this article is attempting to make. The distinction between money and
debt becomes moot if money is a debt - which if I understand his arguments correctly is what Michael
Hudson argues in "Killing the Host". I do like the reading list at the bottom. I'm behind many
of the rest of the commenters in not having read any of these oft cited books.
I agree with other comments the formula "we are each of us banks" is lame. I think it matches
nicely with the oft repeated analogy between government finance and a family business.
The close: "fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the system" leaves me hanging. Where
is the explanation which clarifies things and repairs my misunderstanding? I missed it in the
presentation above and the concluding absurdity - "… we are each of us banks, managing our daily
cash inflow and cash outflow relative to the larger system which is society." - hardly serves
as clarification of anything. It just makes me annoyed that I bothered to read down that far.
Bad analogy: If each of us were our own bank, then we would be able to create money like banks
and loan out with interest and make billions each quarter because sometimes we could speculate
or gamble and make billions more while our fellow citizens become poorer because of our efforts.
Unlike some commenters, I do happen to like the imagery of all of us being banks. That's what
we all do: our labor flows out, other people's labor flows in. Imbalances can (and in fact, almost
by definition have to) occur over arbitrarily short time frames, but over longer timeframes, these
inflows and outflows do have to roughly balance. It also helps lay bare the fallacy of bailing
out individual banks (TBTF) as some kind of means of saving the banking system rather than those
specific banks bailed out. If the USFG gave Wash a trillion buck bailout, Wash Banking Inc would
be very grateful and fix lots of things in Wash Town USA and make lots of jawbs and groaf and
all dat. Does that make it good policy, either for the residents of Wash Town or the residents
of Dry Town across the valley?
Where I don't quite follow the author's point is in distinguishing money/credit/financialization/etc.
The easiest way to understand money at a macro level is that money is labor. Or a bit more complexly,
money is the mental construct, the idea, by which we value human labor and transport that value
across spacetime.
The issue of financialization isn't market vs. non-market or money vs. non-money or something
like that. Financialization is about the subset of money called currency, particularly currency
units issued by a sovereign government, being used to allocate resources in areas where currency
units are poor allocators of resources. Financialization is about middlemen and looters skimming
off money as it flows through; whether this is good or bad in a particular case depends upon whether
those middlemen add value or simply act as rentiers.
The biggest areas of financialization in
contemporary western culture, especially in the heart of the free world in DC, are not markets
at all. They are government sponsored enterprises carrying out that age old quest of the Will
to Power. Remove USFG policy choices to run a global empire abroad and create massive inequality
at home, and our supposedly market-based financial system would shrink to a much smaller size
overnight.
"Financialization is about middlemen and looters skimming off money as it flows through; whether
this is good or bad in a particular case depends upon whether those middlemen add value or simply
act as rentiers."
You hit the nail on the head here. Profits from financial transactions differ from those derived
in trading commodities and services. The former are occult whereas the latter originate in the
value of labor power. The claim that financial profits track interest rates doesn't work because
they remain linked to credit and ultimately commodity exchange. If you listen to the Blankfeins
and Dimons, they will say they are compensated for some special managerial skills that add values
to the financial transaction. This is only nonsense to justify their mega-salaries, themselves
only a fraction of the huge profits in finance. According to Hilferding's Finance Capital, the
source of profit in finance is "sui generis" and derives from what we now call transaction fees.
Whether legitimate or not, we need to understand how those rates are determined relative to the
other variables.
money is the mental construct, the idea, by which we value human labor and transport that
value across spacetime.
But even this has to be qualified by tradition, power relations, etc. as there are many, many
forms of human labor (often those forms traditionally performed by women) that we value but do
not compensate with money. Also, who is "we?" And when did "we" decide that 2 and 20 was appropriate
compensation for the "value" provided by hedge funders?
This "economist" alludes to, but fails to make the connection of the "asymmetrical" AND disproportionate
power between creditors and debtors, that has been legislated, ratified and codified into the
creditor castle (institution) of banking, currently run by banksters and moated with pols, judges,
story-tellers masquerading as "journos"/"economists" etc….e.g.-assuming it were possible to make
a sharp distinction between speculating and investing, by what reasonable definition of creditor
can vultures be classified as creditors?
Also doesn't seem to challenge the presupposition of "self-regulation" in the abstract "logic"(and
language) of "markets", which is innate in thinking of "money" as a commodity. This abstract "logic"(and
language) has "supplied" the fodder for neoliberal zealots to rationalize de-regulation, which
many have concluded has been a major driver of the "defining issue of our time" and the disdainful
polarization between the "haves" and "have-nots".
Also seems to fail to recognize the conflict when thinking about money as a commodity and the
effects of compounding interest…
Thanks for this. I followed the link and have started reading Louis Brandeis' Other People's
Money , which I've never read before. We've learned little in the ensuing 100 years…
"... The EU has been jerking Turkey around forever about joining the EU. They clearly intend not to let a Muslim country join but keep pretending they might as a key NATO ally. ..."
"... Merely assuming an official posture of neutrality, as Nasser famously did, would be a big setback for the US and a big gain for Russia ..."
"... The fact that the heads of NATO and the US government, along with their "brain trusts" get so panicky about a possible warming of relations between Russia and Turkey is ridiculous. These asshats have been behaving all along as if the Soviet Union never fell and that Russia is the same thing it was while the heart of the USSR. ..."
"... NATO gets aggressive and spreads itself all over Eastern Europe with the intention of kicking the Bear and then gets its panties in a twist when the Bear, quite reasonably, reacts to their aggressive actions. ..."
"... I literally cannot think of a single thing that Russia has done since the end of the Soviet Union that in any way, shape, or form alarms me or makes me think, "These guys are planning to invade or start a war!" ..."
"... US aggression in Syria HAD to be responded to by Russia. Russia has LONG time major military bases in Syria. How would the US respond if Russia turned the UAE into a chaotic shithole in order to try and kick the US out of its HUGE military bases there? The initiating of chaos would be the aggressive act, NOT the US response to the chaos. The generating of massive chaos in Syria (by the US and its allies) was the aggressive act, NOT Russia's quite reasonable and understandable reaction. Same goes for Ukraine. ..."
"... The US is bound and determined to FORCE Russia to be a major foe for Cold War 2.0 whether Russia wants to be or not. The US cannot see any other way to drive its shitty economic system than to fire up the defense industries to full throttle again, ala Cold War 1.0. Instead of dumping the military economic basis to the US and Western economies to focus on truly beneficial development, they are going with the boogieman…both for the economic shot it will provide, but also in an attempt to quell unrest due to income inequality and the rape/pillage economic system of the West. Make the people afraid of being invaded or nuked into oblivion and they wont complain about no more retirement, inability to buy a decent home, or send their kids to college. ..."
"... If the first Presidents Bush and Clinton had attempted conversion and used some crumbs to mitigate the Soviet collapse, instead of unleashing the worst pack of intellectual sophists, strategists, and black market dregs, then Russia today would probably be neatly colonized into an international system, but after the violent class conflict of decolonization during the Cold War a new world order that appeared like Gore Vidal's semi-sarcastic paradigm-shattering essay in the Nation would prematurely speed up de-colonization with "white privilege" too uncamouflaged: ..."
"... Thank you. I have been wondering about the relationship between the Gulen movement and the CIA that relationship might shed light about whether the US was involved in or pushed or green lighted the coup. Of course, CIA assets have been known to go rogue as well. ..."
"... While exploring this subject, there's a good article and talk given by a career CIA case officer (undercover) who now works for a think tank of some sort. (So I assume she's still with the CIA, even if supposedly she's not.) Her book describes the extent of the Gulen network, including the criminal investigations underway for Gulen's charter schools network. (Did you know Gulen has the largest network of charter schools in the USA?!) This presentation implicitly acknowledged the dangerous / illegal aspects to the Gulen movement. ..."
"... But at a higher, strategic level, CIA seems to be obviously harboring and supporting Gulen, as Edmonds says. ..."
"... Edmonds has also done some amazing work regarding Hastert's pedophile connections–reported this formally to US law agencies in multiple years, and was interviewed for a triple-fact-checked Vanity Fair article. The FBI agents who were doing the investigating (knowing about Hastert's pedophilia 10-20 years ago) thought they were preparing for a criminal investigation. They became disillusioned when they realized after a couple of years that their FBI higher-ups had no intention of prosecuting. Apparently the issue is so widespread, and everyone knows–Edmonds describes a certain palace in Turkey where US Congress members get taken on VIP trips, where the VIP suites were being monitored / videotapes simultaneously by FBI, DIA, DoJ, criminal gangs, and foreign governments. Yet when most recently Hastert comes to public attention, all the known pedophile activities are not mentioned, just the financial money-laundering aspects. Because so many of our officials & media & prominent people have been compromised by pedophilia that no one is willing to speak out about it. ..."
"... Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has a number of insightful video interviews and papers about Turkey. She predicted the coup about 18 months ago–pointing out that the CIA was preparing to replace Erdogan, and showing the pattern with other regime changes with USA involvement. Both the recent and past interviews give a lot of insight–e.g., into Gulen's CIA-backed financial, cultural and political empire spanning Turkey, Turkik-friendly caucasus countries and deeply embedded within the USA and Congress. ..."
"... For background on Sibel Edmonds, a short 2006 documentary "Kill the Messenger" about her whistleblowing while an FBI translator is a good starting point. ..."
"... Ever wondered why Russia hasn't attempted to internally overthrow any of the Gulf States or Saudi Arabia since the Iraqi invasion? They are definitely fragile, internally vulnerable states and closely aligned with the west. Two can definitely play these color revolution games. I suspect it is due to the vulnerability of their own, Russian, populations and increased Middle east instability could produce blowback in Russia proper. However the US and allies have been playing hard this game of disrupting Middle East stability for the last 13 years. At what point, would the Russians decide, well, Middle East stability is already gone and it is time to strike back at US allies using our own tactics? Personally, I think Putin is too smart for that but what about after Putin? ..."
"... Russia's historical ties were with the Byzantine Empire, with which it shared – after the 9th century A.D. – a crucial common feature, viz. Orthodoxy. The center of Orthodoxy was of course Constantinople, with which the Russian Archbishopric and later, Patriarchate, experienced complicated relations. Upon the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, and the loss of Constantinople to Orthodoxy, Russia envisioned its own capital, Moscow, as taking up the mantle and succeeding Constantinople (the "Second Rome") as Christendom's "Third Rome". The title conflates the relationship between the two countries/empires in the Byzantine period with that during the Ottoman period (i.e., the [Sublime] "Porte"). ..."
"... But for non-U.S. citizens and U.S. citizens who live near the world's hottest geopolitical hotspot, the prospect of Victoria Nuland (of Ukraine regime change fame) as SoS is not at all a happy one. ..."
It's rather improbable to see a Russo-Turkish alliance against US and NATO. The US and the
Russians have probably already agreed on the new Middle East map which includes Kurdish state.
This explains to a great extent why Erdogan is so nervous, making sloppy and dangerous moves.
Um, given reports that the Turks
briefly closed the airbase that the US uses to conduct operations in Syria over the weekend,
Erdogan seems plenty pissed with the US for not turning over Gulen, as he has repeatedly requested.
Europe has agreed to give him only 3 billion euros to halt the refugee flow into Europe, which
is hardly adequate, and a vague promise that maybe the EU will give Turks the freedom of movement
too. The EU has been jerking Turkey around forever about joining the EU. They clearly intend
not to let a Muslim country join but keep pretending they might as a key NATO ally.
Merely assuming an official posture of neutrality, as Nasser famously did, would be a big
setback for the US and a big gain for Russia
Thanks for mentioning the Real News Network fundraiser, Yves. They have a dollar-for-dollar
matching grant going on as well, doubling the impact of every donation.
The fact that the heads of NATO and the US government, along with their "brain trusts"
get so panicky about a possible warming of relations between Russia and Turkey is ridiculous.
These asshats have been behaving all along as if the Soviet Union never fell and that Russia is
the same thing it was while the heart of the USSR.
They take it on faith that the US/West and Russia MUST be at odds, no matter what, to the point
that they create out of whole cloth conflicts where none existed before. NATO gets aggressive
and spreads itself all over Eastern Europe with the intention of kicking the Bear and then gets
its panties in a twist when the Bear, quite reasonably, reacts to their aggressive actions.
Personally, I couldn't care less if Turkey and Russia get kissy-faced with each other. Big
wup. Russia is NOT preparing to invade Western Europe (as much as NATO WISHES it were). Russia
is NOT invading countries and overthrowing their governments to install puppet regimes, that's
the USA and NATO ONLY. The West transgresses, grossly, again and again and when Russia coughs
or clears its throat in opposition, it is "RUSSIAN AGGRESSION! Yaaaa! The Russians are coming!
The Russians are coming!!!!"
I literally cannot think of a single thing that Russia has done since the end of the Soviet
Union that in any way, shape, or form alarms me or makes me think, "These guys are planning to
invade or start a war!" On the other hand, I've seen nothing BUT war starting by the West.
First NATO takes something that wasn't, in all actuality, THAT bad a situation (the breakup of
Yugoslavia) and turns it into a complete hell in Europe.
US aggression in Syria HAD to be responded to by Russia. Russia has LONG time major military
bases in Syria. How would the US respond if Russia turned the UAE into a chaotic shithole in order
to try and kick the US out of its HUGE military bases there? The initiating of chaos would be
the aggressive act, NOT the US response to the chaos. The generating of massive chaos in Syria
(by the US and its allies) was the aggressive act, NOT Russia's quite reasonable and understandable
reaction. Same goes for Ukraine.
The US is bound and determined to FORCE Russia to be a major foe for Cold War 2.0 whether
Russia wants to be or not. The US cannot see any other way to drive its shitty economic system
than to fire up the defense industries to full throttle again, ala Cold War 1.0. Instead of dumping
the military economic basis to the US and Western economies to focus on truly beneficial development,
they are going with the boogieman…both for the economic shot it will provide, but also in an attempt
to quell unrest due to income inequality and the rape/pillage economic system of the West. Make
the people afraid of being invaded or nuked into oblivion and they wont complain about no more
retirement, inability to buy a decent home, or send their kids to college.
If the first Presidents Bush and Clinton had attempted conversion and used some crumbs
to mitigate the Soviet collapse, instead of unleashing the worst pack of intellectual sophists,
strategists, and black market dregs, then Russia today would probably be neatly colonized into
an international system, but after the violent class conflict of decolonization during the Cold
War a new world order that appeared like Gore Vidal's semi-sarcastic paradigm-shattering essay
in the Nation would prematurely speed up de-colonization with "white privilege" too uncamouflaged:
There is now only one way out. The time has come for the United States to make
common cause with the Soviet Union. The bringing together of the Soviet landmass (with all
its natural resources) and our island empire (with all its technological resources) would be
of great benefit to each society, not to mention the world. Also, to recall the wisdom of the
Four Horsemen who gave us our empire, the Soviet Union and our section of North America combined
would be a match, industrially and technologically, for the Sino-Japanese axis that will dominate
the future just as Japan dominates world trade today. But where the horsemen thought of war
as the supreme solvent, we now know that war is worse than useless. Therefore, the alliance
of the two great powers of the Northern Hemisphere will double the strength of each and give
us, working together, an opportunity to survive, economically, in a highly centralized Asiatic
world.
Rereading this it sacrifices coherence to venting. The premise is that historical contiguity
with the racial residues of empire could be confronted or not if they were more simply transparent.
The bigger point I wanted to make is the current demographic disaster may be intentional if
one looks at the recent Russian experience as an experiment. Broken Force? Then social pressure
through thwarting the traditional modes of reproduction of labor leading to a reinvigorated military
economy in 15 years.
Yeah the whole "soviet threat" issue vanished the day Stalin passed. But i fear that the US,
and thus NATO, needed it to maintain compliance within their own nations.
And thus the threat was stoked until the 90s, then it was eased back as they thought they had
the old bear chained down while Yeltsin was in office, only for their antics to cause a blowback
that is still ongoing once Putin took over.
Last week I got curious to have a better understanding of the Turkey situation than what I
was getting from MSM. I decided to see if Sibel Edmonds had spoken up–and discovered that she
predicted this coup 18 months ago.
The "BellingTheCat" website with WhatsApp translated messages of Turkish military during the
coup, which Helmers also mentions,
are here . Helmers says this website is a NATO-sponsored website and that it is not always
trustworthy, but isn't sure in this case. Edmonds doesn't mention this website being linked to
NATO.
For background on Edmonds see "
Kill the Messenger ",
a 2006 documentary about her whistleblowing within the FBI.
Thank you. I have been wondering about the relationship between the Gulen movement and
the CIA that relationship might shed light about whether the US was involved in or pushed or
green lighted the coup. Of course, CIA assets have been known to go rogue as well.
While exploring this subject, there's a good article and talk given by a career CIA case
officer (undercover) who now works for a think tank of some sort. (So I assume she's still with
the CIA, even if supposedly she's not.) Her book describes the extent of the Gulen network, including
the criminal investigations underway for Gulen's charter schools network. (Did you know Gulen
has the largest network of charter schools in the USA?!) This presentation implicitly acknowledged
the dangerous / illegal aspects to the Gulen movement.
But at a higher, strategic level, CIA seems to be obviously harboring and supporting Gulen,
as Edmonds says.
Within the CIA there are therefore different angles / understandings / strategies. The upper
echelon strategy seems to be about supporting Gulen (including helping clandestinely Gulen–or
his puppet-master(s)–to effect regime change). LIHOP is too weak an argument, given the kind of
support Gulen receives from his USA base. Probably he's just a figurehead and the real power is
out of view. (USA? Off-world?)
Edmonds has also done some amazing work regarding Hastert's pedophile connections–reported
this formally to US law agencies in multiple years, and was interviewed for a triple-fact-checked
Vanity Fair article. The FBI agents who were doing the investigating (knowing about Hastert's
pedophilia 10-20 years ago) thought they were preparing for a criminal investigation. They became
disillusioned when they realized after a couple of years that their FBI higher-ups had no intention
of prosecuting. Apparently the issue is so widespread, and everyone knows–Edmonds describes a
certain palace in Turkey where US Congress members get taken on VIP trips, where the VIP suites
were being monitored / videotapes simultaneously by FBI, DIA, DoJ, criminal gangs, and foreign
governments. Yet when most recently Hastert comes to public attention, all the known pedophile
activities are not mentioned, just the financial money-laundering aspects. Because so many of
our officials & media & prominent people have been compromised by pedophilia that no one is willing
to speak out about it.
Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has a number of insightful video interviews and papers about
Turkey. She predicted the coup about 18 months ago–pointing out that the CIA was preparing to
replace Erdogan, and showing the pattern with other regime changes with USA involvement. Both
the recent and past interviews give a lot of insight–e.g., into Gulen's CIA-backed financial,
cultural and political empire spanning Turkey, Turkik-friendly caucasus countries and deeply embedded
within the USA and Congress.
A longer post with a number of links has been sidetracked to moderation. In case it disappears
I'm posting this short comment.
For background on Sibel Edmonds, a short 2006 documentary "Kill the Messenger" about her
whistleblowing while an FBI translator is a good starting point.
How would the US respond if Russia turned the UAE into a chaotic shithole in order to
try and kick the US out of its HUGE military bases there?
Ever wondered why Russia hasn't attempted to internally overthrow any of the Gulf States
or Saudi Arabia since the Iraqi invasion? They are definitely fragile, internally vulnerable states
and closely aligned with the west. Two can definitely play these color revolution games. I suspect
it is due to the vulnerability of their own, Russian, populations and increased Middle east instability
could produce blowback in Russia proper. However the US and allies have been playing hard this
game of disrupting Middle East stability for the last 13 years. At what point, would the Russians
decide, well, Middle East stability is already gone and it is time to strike back at US allies
using our own tactics? Personally, I think Putin is too smart for that but what about after Putin?
This thread seems to have petered out rather early on, not sure how much to add.
For those (if anyone is still out there) interested, Pat Lang's site SST has been posting regularly
on Turkey, and he has commenters from the region and who are knowledgeable about ME/NE military
and political affairs.
I had read the John Helmer piece on his blog when it was first posted, and forwarded it to
a friend who's similar in many respects to Lang (career military officer, now retired; author
of historical studies and books; keen student of the Eastern Mediterranean, Turkey, Cyprus, the
Balkans) except that he's Greek.
In return he sent me a link to his own latest two pieces on a Greek blog. One discusses the
"coup" in considerable detail. Some random factoids I picked up on, in no particular order or
hierarchy:
-Russia is not interested in regime change in Turkey at the moment;
-Russia is very interested in maintaining its buffer zone (called "The Rimland" by the
late Nicholas Spykman, a geopolitics theoretician), of which Turkey forms perhaps the key part
(historically, and now);
-Russia turned the shooting down of that SU 24 into an opportunity to install S400s or
possibly, S500s, in Syria;
-The current situation in Syria is more or less a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia;
-Russia has recently become very active in the so-called "Northern Corridor" (aka, the
Arctic Circle), something most analysts forget;
-By 2020, Russia will be 100% self-sufficient in food production;
-It is likely that Russian surveillance technology picked up the news of the impending
coup and informed Erdogan of it;
-The presence of nuclear weapons at Incirlik is in violation of Article 2 of the 1975 Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
-Russia wants/needs a "southern corridor" to move LNG to the Med. Turkey is in the right
geographic location to serve this purpose.
The historical relationship between Turkey and Russia comes out a bit garbled in Helmer's (original
post) title, i.e. "The New Byzantine Alliance: The Kremlin and the Porte," etc.
Russia's historical ties were with the Byzantine Empire, with which it shared – after the
9th century A.D. – a crucial common feature, viz. Orthodoxy. The center of Orthodoxy was of course
Constantinople, with which the Russian Archbishopric and later, Patriarchate, experienced complicated
relations. Upon the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, and the loss of Constantinople
to Orthodoxy, Russia envisioned its own capital, Moscow, as taking up the mantle and succeeding
Constantinople (the "Second Rome") as Christendom's "Third Rome". The title conflates the relationship
between the two countries/empires in the Byzantine period with that during the Ottoman period
(i.e., the [Sublime] "Porte").
Short version: when you start messing around in somebody else's backyard, trouble ensues.
The 2016 election offers voters two rather stark choices. Another blog I read, LGM, recently
had a comment on a thread about Trump-Clinton (there are so many, one loses count) that laid out
why voters are choosing one or the other candidate very neatly. If one is in the U.S. and is relatively
or very well-off, the Democrats' championing (qualified, I would say) of identity politics looks
pretty good, or at least, not as bad as the Republicans' (I'm still aghast at how black voters
are so staunchly supportive of someone whose husband shoved TANF through in place of AFDC, but
hey). But for non-U.S. citizens and U.S. citizens who live near the world's hottest geopolitical
hotspot, the prospect of Victoria Nuland (of Ukraine regime change fame) as SoS is not at all
a happy one.
@72 Many good USians have been murdered (Phill Marshall, sen. Paul Wellstone, JFK junior - competing
with Hitlary for the Senate seat), silenced, imprisoned, intimidated, disenfranchised for standing
up to the criminal elite.
They deserve our utmost respect.
Do not use collective responsibility, Bolshevik style.
"... In essence, this is a confession that "civilizing" capitalism cannot be done only "externally" by relying on the "harmony of private interests" but that the state has a bigger role that goes beyond ensuring the protection of property rights, taxation and redistribution. ..."
"... The past 35 years have shown that the neo-liberal conception of capitalism, combined with its global reach, has increased inequality to often unsustainable levels, left large segments of the population in the rich world without significant increase in real income and with heightened insecurity, and brought populist policies with a vengeance. ... ..."
"... Importing foreign labor with heavily curtailed rights has been a mainstay in many societies. Initially it was war prisoners and slaves, then with the capitalist mode of production and abolition of slavery, economic refugees from economically depressed regions. ..."
"... "Nothing wrong with Christianity except that no one ever tried it." ~George Bernard Shaw ..."
"... "Once the globalization genie got out of the bottle, there's no putting the genie back in." Oft said, but this may be a full employment statement, one that does not hold in a low equilibrium, especially for a country with a large economy that could do much more internal trade, to the detriment of many other smaller countries not so fortunately endowed. ..."
"... It may be possible to tariff away globalization for such an economy to the great benefit of those who bore its costs. ..."
"... Before abandoning neo-liberalism I'd like to see the "redistribution" part tried. ..."
"... Redistribution is best done by forcing people with money to pay workers. ..."
"... What the "neoliberal" invention is the free lunch. Lend money to the poor so the business can sell stuff without paying workers enough to buy what they want to sell. ..."
"... There has been a resurgence in leftwing movements which have coalesced around figures like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn. There has been a rise of demagogues like Trump who blame immigrants and foreigners. ..."
The forthcoming changes in capitalism?: Sometimes it's useful to put
symbolic dates on when a different era begins. The end of Thatcherism, it
could be argued,
came on July 10 in the then PM-candidate speech by Theresa May. It was
perhaps appropriate that another woman, a Tory Prime Minister, would be
credited with the ending of Thatcherism. The key words, which immediately
attracted attention (see
also Philip Stevens in today's "Financial Times") were not those about
inequality (which has become a common place these days) but about the changes
in the internal structure of capitalism: reintroduction of workers' and
consumers' representatives on management boards, limits on the executive
pay, reduction of job insecurity for the young people and much greater access
to top jobs for those coming from less privileged backgrounds.
For the
first time since the late 1970s (at the top level of policy-making), we
are back to the issues of reforms in the way capitalism functions rather
than discussing the ways in which the external environment would be made
more market friendly. In essence, this is a confession that "civilizing"
capitalism cannot be done only "externally" by relying on the "harmony of
private interests" but that the state has a bigger role that goes beyond
ensuring the protection of property rights, taxation and redistribution.
The past 35 years have shown that the neo-liberal conception of capitalism,
combined with its global reach, has increased inequality to often unsustainable
levels, left large segments of the population in the rich world without
significant increase in real income and with heightened insecurity, and
brought populist policies with a vengeance. ...
He goes on to identify three areas where he can imagine change.
cm -> am...
Importing foreign labor with heavily curtailed rights has been a
mainstay in many societies. Initially it was war prisoners and slaves, then
with the capitalist mode of production and abolition of slavery, economic
refugees from economically depressed regions.
Business overall doesn't want free agents. One major point of work visa
program abuse is that it is (still?) socially unacceptable to curtail the
rights of working citizens to e.g. take the option to "not work", or not
for a specific employer, at their own choosing (provided ability to survive
without a wage or finding another job).
For example, one provision of the H1-B program is that one cannot stay
in the country without being officially employed (and within the skill set
for which one was brought in).
Thi$ World'$ Banker$ -> DeDude...
"revise capitalism than just burning it"
Perhaps we should also revise the holder within which capitalism spins.
The Milieu encapsulating present day capitalism is inflation. This inflationary
holder nearly requires folks to invest, to buy shares in capitalization,
shares with risk. By transplanting capitalism into a deflationary holder,
capitalism could continue to perform its many functions without requiring
nearly everyone to buy shares, to buy risk.
Within deflation, savings are rewarded with a ROI by way of the expanding
buying power of each dollar saved, an automatic ROI that frees savings from
the risk of capitalism. Sure!
The experts would continue to take calculated risks, Bill. The rank and
file would no longer need to buy shares in preparation for their retirement.
And yes, bailouts for fat bankers should be allowed to die a gruesome death.
Hey!
Our bankruptcy lawyers have been cheated out of their fun for far too
long.
Deflation is also healthy for the GTF, global Triffin fiat that we print
for profit. At present we print bonds also, but with deflation there would
be no need to print bonds, just more fiat that would give poor folk the
same ROI that is now enjoyed only by wealthy bond holders.
Deflation is also healthier for nations that operate with religious restrictions
against charging interest for bank loans. During the middle ages Christians
were not allowed to charge interest. Do we still have Christians today?
"Nothing wrong with Christianity except that no one ever tried
it." ~George Bernard Shaw
rayward
Why would the beneficiaries of globalization want to invest in public
goods in America? They wouldn't, and they don't. I suspect that many of
the beneficiaries already know it, but in the emerging phase of globalization,
American firms will be competing with China rather than collaborating with
China.
Once the globalization genie got out of the bottle, there's no putting
the genie back in. American firms shifting alliances to Vietnam from China
won't solve the problems in America and will ratchet up the potential problems
in the far east, including trade wars and real wars that are often triggered
by trade wars.
Turning inward (as the populists would do) won't make goods produced
in America more competitive in global markets; it will make them less competitive.
point -> rayward...
"Once the globalization genie got out of the bottle, there's no putting
the genie back in." Oft said, but this may be a full employment statement,
one that does not hold in a low equilibrium, especially for a country with
a large economy that could do much more internal trade, to the detriment
of many other smaller countries not so fortunately endowed.
It may be possible to tariff away globalization for such an economy
to the great benefit of those who bore its costs.
I won't hold my breath waiting...
ThaomasH
Before abandoning neo-liberalism I'd like to see the "redistribution"
part tried.
mulp -> ThaomasH...
Redistribution is best done by forcing people with money to pay workers.
Option 1: heavily tax people with lots of money they aren't spending
productively and then pay workers to build productive capital assets
that can generate returns on investment by taxes, eg, gas tax, water
fees, income taxes that rise with income return to education.
Option 2: don't tax money paid to workers to build productive capital
assets (but tax the income from those assets).
Few people are totally unable to be productive, but the investment cost
(labor) might be higher than the income. Some people with lots of money
will pay workers to invest in the disabled for a small productive return
instead of paying taxes out of concern or for a sense of duty to charity,
and that should be encouraged by not taxing money paid to labor.
For all labor income, social insurance should be taken by tax so workers
are paying to care for themselves and families collectively at a baseline.
Basically, returning to the "tax and spend" of the 60s, with every faction
getting to find groups of workers to pay. The conservatives likely love
to pay workers to make guns and bombs and pay men to act like an army -
that trained lots of idle young men with no direct, and a lot of airline
pilots. For liberals, pay workers to teach and do research. For the common
man, pay workers to build roads, railroads, schools, water and sewer, anything
to put people to work to make sure everyone gets paid a good income.
mrrunangun
Making top jobs more accessible to those from less privileged backgrounds
will require more affordable higher education and graduate professional
education for those from less privileged backgrounds. Experience has shown
that making large loans available for education does not actually make education
more affordable to those from modest backgrounds.
Progressives have discussed price controls on the health sector and indeed
Medicare has gone a long way in that direction already. Price controls in
the higher ed and especially professional schools should be considered if
we are to make these opportunities realistically available to those of modest
means.
Free Juco has been proposed by Chicago mayor Emmanuel and Tennessee governor
Haslem. That means tax increases for the rest of the citizens to replace
the money tuition provides now. That seems to me to be a reasonable proposal,
provided the tax increase actually replaced the tuition and was not subject
to the usual 50% rake-off for the political system that most taxes in Illinois
are subject to.
Back in the 1955-75 era, well-paid jobs were plentiful enough and university
education inexpensive enough that young men and women from modest backgrounds
could and did supply their own money for their own educations when parents
could not provide it. People could and did work their ways thru law school
tending bar and waiting tables then. It wasn't easy but it was doable for
ambitious bootstrappers. I doubt that could be done today. Education has
become so expensive in the contemporary world that few jobs available to
students can support the tuition + the personal expenses entailed in getting
a university education.
To recreate that kind of opportunity for today's young people, either
jobs that can support tuition and expenses have to be made available to
them or the cost of tuition and expenses need to be brought into line with
what the jobs available will support. Or a little of both. Tough challenges
either way.
John San Vant -> mrrunangun...
55-75 was about the only time in American history "well paid" Jobs were
plentiful. It also created a mess with how capitalism functions.
mulp -> John San Vant...
How so? Profits were low. Share prices tracked the labor cost of the
productive capital assets. The tax structure and demand for goods and services
from government ensured production required paying workers to the degree
that wages were bid up even for the unskilled worker. And you hired the
unskilled and trained them because you had no choice to meet demand for
your production.
Banks were tightly regulated so they couldn't rent seeking. Thus they
would lend only to people with income so lower incomes forced reduced consumption
lower profits leading to widespread support for government spending building
stuff businesses wanted so workers had more money to spend.
What the "neoliberal" invention is the free lunch. Lend money to
the poor so the business can sell stuff without paying workers enough to
buy what they want to sell.
Peter K.
"The past 35 years have shown that the neo-liberal conception of capitalism,
combined with its global reach, has increased inequality to often unsustainable
levels, left large segments of the population in the rich world without
significant increase in real income and with heightened insecurity, and
brought populist policies with a vengeance."
Again the term "populist." I don't like it.
There has been a resurgence in leftwing movements which have coalesced
around figures like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn. There has been a rise
of demagogues like Trump who blame immigrants and foreigners.
What will the center-left do? Will Hillary and May actually put in place
policies that work? Will they try?
Or will they continue to make excuses and engage in diversions?
I liked how Obama nodded to Bernie Sanders in his speech where if you
cared about inequality or money in politics you rallied to Bernie. What
was left unsaid there?
David
He makes three (kind of vague) proposals :
The middle class needs to be encouraged or facilitated to acquire
capital as a means of reducing inequality.
Development NGOs should focus on "hard"' infrastructure development
such as roads and schools.
Europe cannot, due to demographics, become "fortress Europe" and
needs to implement immigrant worker policies that don't necessarily
grant citizenship, just the right to work and then return home (many
countries currently do this - South Korea has thousands of American
and Canadian and Australian English teachers who will never be citizens
of SK).
1. I think this is interesting. First you need a minimum wage that allows
people to save a portion of their income and invest it - 15 bucks an hour
say.
Then, remember those classes like home economics in high school? They
need to try a finance class in which kids learn how to get an online account,
and basic investment strategies like investing in index funds or mutual
funds.
I say this as someone who has a portfolio that is currently 6x my yearly
salary. I got lucky b/c I got in 2010. But long term index funds will kill
treasury bonds if secular stagnation has any truth to it.
I would had another thing: strengthen social security by a lot.
2. Infrastructure investment is vital. NGOs should be held accountable
for their budgets and should in fact be well regulated.
3. Euhhhhh, immigration. A temporary foreign worker policy would be economically
useful. But if there's more terrorist attacks in France...
"... Turning incrementalism into triumphalism is a neat rhetorical trick, and only a con man as smooth as Obama could have achieved it, or even attempted it. But let me draw your attention to one sentence: ..."
"... [OBAMA:] More work to do for … .everyone who has not yet felt the progress of these past seven and a half years. ..."
"... Check the charts above in "The Kitchen Table in Chart Form," and you'll see that Obama's "everyone who has not yet felt the progress" is, like, 90% of the population if you use the kitchen table metric of concrete material benefits given to working class households. ..."
By so many measures [but not the kitchen table charts above] , our country is stronger and
more prosperous than it was when we started. And through every victory and every setback, I've
insisted that change is never easy, and never quick; that we wouldn't meet all of our challenges
in one term, or one presidency, or even in one lifetime.
So, tonight, I'm here to tell you that, yes, we [who?] 've still got more work
to do. More work to do for every American still in need of a good job or a raise, paid leave
or a decent retirement; for every child who needs a sturdier ladder out of poverty or a world-class
education [credentiaism]; for everyone who has not yet felt the progress of these past seven and
a half years. We need to keep making our streets safer and our criminal justice system fairer
- (applause) - our homeland more secure, our world more peaceful and sustainable for the next
generation. (Applause.) We're not done perfecting our union, or living up to our founding creed
that all of us are created equal; all of us are free in the eyes of God. (Applause.)
(I'm sorry, that's the best I can come up with.) Turning incrementalism into triumphalism
is a neat rhetorical trick, and only
a con man as smooth as Obama could have achieved it, or even attempted it. But let me draw your
attention to one sentence:
[OBAMA:] More work to do for … .everyone who has not yet felt the progress of these past
seven and a half years.
Check the charts above in "The Kitchen Table in Chart Form," and you'll see that Obama's "everyone
who has not yet felt the progress" is, like, 90% of the population if you use the kitchen table metric
of concrete material benefits given to working class households.
So where Sanders exposes the power imbalance between labor and capital - might even be said to
enact it in the intellectual and rhetorical concessions in part two of his speech - Obama
carefully erases it. He does so by pushing out the horizon for hopes to be realized ("not yet felt,"
not "even in one lifetime",) and minimizing our expectations for change. Look at his adjectives:
"more work," "sturdier ladder," "safer," "fairer," "more secure," "more peaceful." It's like the
soft inverted totalitarianism of low expectations.
This after a candidate explicitly calling for (dread word) socialism - which, for those who came
in late, is all about the power imbalance between labor and capital - took 45% of the Democrat vote
in
a grotesquely rigged primary --
"... Obama whipped for the TARP. His support as President presumptive at that point, was essential for its passing (and I have that directly from Congressional staffers). Obama appointed Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary, who refused to nationalize any bank, even when, in early 2009, even only mildly left of center economists like Paul Krugman were calling for nationalization of Citi and Bank of America. Shiela Bair's book Taking the Bull by the Horn details how Geithner fought her. ..."
"... Geithner was also the architect of the second, stealth bank bailout, that of letting the banks out of massive liability for violating their own mortgage securitization agreements, which we described long form here for the better part of two years, and shorter form in a New York Times op ed. The National Mortgage Settlement of 2012 was a massive get out of liability almost free card for the banks, and Obama refused to require bank servicers to make principal modifications for viable borrowers, which would have greatly lowered both investor losses and foreclosures. The liability here was hundreds of billions of dollars when the banks had not rebuilt their balance sheets, so this was most assuredly a bailout. ..."
Bizarre post. Obama bailed out the banks? Most of the bank bailout money from TARP was spent
under the Bush administration after TARP was enacted in October 2008, before Obama took office,
and the bulk of the remaining money spent under TARP after Obama took office was for the auto
industry rescue. I'm no Hillary fan, but get your facts straight even if they don't fit your narrative.
I used to love Naked Capitalism, but it has gone off the rails recently with its authors' bizarre
assertions - Krugman a necon, Kaine a Blue Dog Democrat, Hillary soliciting donations from the
Koch Brothers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on the one hand (both big fans of hers, I hear),
and George Soros on the other - and conspiracy theories (Diebold in league with the DNC to fix
elections - evidence, please). And let me know when the remake of the "Siberian Candidate" (sic)
is released to theaters so I can catch it before your seemingly preferred candidate Trump - that
pacifist who thinks nuclear proliferation is a good thing and won't rule out the use of tactical
nuclear weapons against ISIS, and that man of the working class who proposes yuuuge! tax cuts
for the top 1/10th of 1% - bans such subversive material
You suffer from a reading comprehension problem, so you should read another site.
Obama whipped for the TARP. His support as President presumptive at that point, was essential
for its passing (and I have that directly from Congressional staffers). Obama appointed Timothy
Geithner as Treasury Secretary, who refused to nationalize any bank, even when, in early 2009,
even only mildly left of center economists like Paul Krugman were calling for nationalization
of Citi and Bank of America. Shiela Bair's book Taking the Bull by the Horn details how Geithner
fought her.
Geithner was also the architect of the second, stealth bank bailout, that of letting the banks
out of massive liability for violating their own mortgage securitization agreements, which we
described long form here for the better part of two years, and shorter form in a New York Times
op ed. The National Mortgage Settlement of 2012 was a massive get out of liability almost free
card for the banks, and Obama refused to require bank servicers to make principal modifications
for viable borrowers, which would have greatly lowered both investor losses and foreclosures.
The liability here was hundreds of billions of dollars when the banks had not rebuilt their balance
sheets, so this was most assuredly a bailout.
As for your other arguments, you seem to have a fondness for fabrication. We've never posted
on the Kochs and the Clintons, but a highly respected political reporter, Lee Fang of the Intercept,
has on
how the Clinton campaign has deep ties to Koch lobbyists , so you seem unable to remember
where you read things. We've repeatedly called Krugman a neo liberal because
he is one. While technically Kaine cannot be a Blue Dog, because as a Senator while the Blue Dogs
are a House coalition. But Hudson finessed that by calling him a Senate Blue Dog. If you Google
the term, it is used both specifically to refer to the House coalition, but also generically to
describe conservative Southern Democrats.
And while Clinton boosters like The Nation and FiveThirtyEight in recent days have tried denying
that Kaine is a Blue Dog, more detached media outlets like the UK's Sun have used that precise
term to describe his politics. Now that the anti-regulation, pro-business Blue Dogs in the House
have been largely turfed out, they appear to have been redefined as being further right than they
were to Kaine's benefit. They were "pragmatic" and pro-corporate, which hews to Kaine's pro free
trade, pro bank deregulation stance. And did you miss that he is also anti abortion?.
Nor have we said anything re Diebold being in cahoots with the Dems. As for Trump's tax cuts,
with Federal spending at 18% of GDP, he can't cut taxes much, as he's finding out. You seem to
have missed that
he's had to go back to the drawing board on his plan , and is already messaging that the cuts
for the rich would be way lower than he originally contemplated. If he wants to lower taxes for
the rich, he's going to have to raise taxes elsewhere, and he'll rapidly find out that all those
"somewheres" have lots of lobbyists protecting them.
We don't have a position on Trump but we have pointed out at length the way the media is not
merely cheerleading for Hillary but distorting things Trump said and/or taking them badly out
of context, the latest being his joke about Russia turning over Hillary's e-mails. If you look
at what Trump actually said, he said no one knew who did the hack (and computer forensic experts
confirm that is true) and then said if Russia were behind the hack, it would be bad, and next
said something like, "Hey, China, Russia, or whoever in your bed, if you have Hillary's missing
e-mails, it would be great if you turned them over. I'm sure you would be rewarded handsomely
by our media."
More broadly, what seems to offend you is that we and our readers, to borrow Glen Ford's expression,
are willing to consider that Trump may well be the less effective evil. We think both are dreadful
candidates, but Trump, who would be even more of an outsider than Jimmy Carter, is more likely
to get little done. And let us not forget that Carter had Democrats in charge of the House and
Senate, and was not despised by his own party, as Trump is.
You seem to be attributing many remarks made in comments to the Lambert and me. Readers argue
a lot of positions we don't agree with, like pro gunz and the Tory PR that the EU will roll over
in Brexit talks to preserve their exports to the UK. I gather you'd rather have us censor comments
so they reflect only your views.
The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions,
they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a
rather short and simple one.
Q; Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.
Q: What passport did he travel under?
A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S. ... Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport, or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.
Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. .. State Department's
"no travel" list in 1981.
• (((Scott))) @bamasevere 11 h
Has anyone thought to ask THIS about Obama's citizenship?
#NeverHillary #LockHerllp
4ч 28 V 35 •••
I recall SCOTUS Justice R Bader Ginsburg mentioned if Trump is elected, she
might take her husband's advice that if Murica gets too crazy, retire to the civilized
New Zealand.
I thought rich/OECD nations' immigration departments do not want older immigrants, not in the
50s much less the 80ish R Bader Ginsburg.
I assume R Bader Ginsburg has at least $1M in "disposable wealth" & thus is eligible for the 1%er
(or is it 0.1%er) Transnational "Investor" visa? If I understand correctly, if you are rich, you
can "invest" & move to many nations, including Murica. I recall a clip (IIRC on PBS Newshour) where
Chinese rich were emigrating to the US by investing $800K in expensive condos a few blocks from the
Barclay's Center arena in NYC, on some program that was designed "to improve affordable housing".
I would like to better understand this 1%er Transnational "Investor" visa phenomenon, perhaps
an article exists that explains it?
Perhaps its existence is a factor in explaining how US 1% BigBiz & their owned BigPols like HClinton
& P Ryan are so callous about 99% economic issues inclding slashing the already crapified US social
insurance, whether 0bama Grand Ripoff style raising of Social Security age above 67 & Medicare above
65; or the P Ryan approach of worsening 0bama by ACA Exchange-esque SS & MC & giving an inadequate
coupon subsidy, & if you can't pay the remainder – Go Die (c) Lambert's Neoliberalism Rule.
These BigPols with a spare $1M (e.g. most of them) have the option of permanent residency in Toronto/Melbourne/etc,
a Get of of Jail, er Get out of Murica card should they need to use it, in actually Civilized nations
with actual social insurance systems.
That's pretty much every country. The rich, like their money and their
businesses, are transnational, nationalities are a fungible commodity. 10MM,
you can live in any country you like, 100MM and you are above such petty
concerns as borders at all. Those are for the miserable plebes.
"... "In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us." ..."
"... Plus there's the psychological advantage of having some country/countries to blame for the lack of US success, or to distract attention away from US problems that need it. ..."
"... I've always thought the US inherited the hatred of Russia from the Brits and the Brits hated Russia at least back as far as the Crimean War in 1853. Not saying this as fact and am happy to get updated. ..."
"... Official Brit hatred of Russia got started right after the Napoleonic Wars. About 4 centuries of Brit hatred of France got transferred, lock, stock, and barrel, to Russia, since Russia then became the most powerful land power in the world. ..."
"... Russia's primary offense is that it has dared to have its own national interests. ..."
"... Today, all those "freedom-loving" people of former USSR, even including all those scores of West Ukrainians who hate Russian guts and Middle Asian "nationalists" flock to Russia "in pursuit of happiness". ..."
"... I am not saying that all those people are bad, but the question I do ask sometimes is this: you hated us, you evicted (sometimes with bloodshed) us, Russians, from your places. You got what you asked for, why then, do you come to Russia in millions (I am not exaggerating, in fact, most likely underestimating)? What happened? Of course, we all know what happened. ..."
"... I read before that Obama was pushing back against this lunacy. Now the HRC-NEOCON camp are in full attack mode. I honestly think I'll be voting for Trump because I feel he can't do all of the things that I would hate for him to do. I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder. I'm quite serious. ..."
"... "I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder. I'm quite serious." It has already happened on this watch, see the case of MH-17. ..."
"... The American talking point about the Crimea is a laughable piece of High School Debating Team rhetoric. The people in charge know full well the truth about Ukraine's claim to the Crimea. The thing that hurts is that the whole point of the "Nuland Putsch",and the rise of a western aligned govt., was to provide the crown jewel in Nato's (read America) crown: Eliminating Russia's naval base at Sevastopol completing the encirclement of Russia in the west (except for the always vulnerable Kaliningrad). ..."
"... Once the FreeMarketDemocratic Reformers were removed from power, Russia began to recover. The birth rate started to improve immediately, and Russia's death rate started to decline in 2006. By 2009, the gap between Russia's births and deaths closed sufficiently that immigration could fill it, and so the Russian population was growing. By 2012, births in the Russian Federation exceeded deaths, for the first time since 1991. ..."
"... In the mid-2000s, Putin proposed measures to support families having children. Western politicians and demographers poured scorn on the very idea that Russian demographics might improve. In fact, the U.S. Census Bureau's population projections had Russia's population declining by 500,000/year as recently as 2015. Now Western politicians and demographers are reduced to claiming that "Putin had nuthin' to do with it!" ..."
"... Putin inherited a helpless, bankrupt, dying Russia. ..."
"... Russia, for all the Borg media grandstanding, seems to only be concerned with Russian related interests. There is no indication of greater plan for global domination. They are upgrading and preparing for a future war, sure. Any country would be smart to prepare accordingly to defend itself (and their interests). ..."
"... Russia became the enemy of United States in early 2000's after Putin started cracking down on the oligarchs that had taken over Russia's economy during Yeltsin's privatization efforts. It is estimated that seven individuals were controlling as much as 50% of Russia's economy at its peak during the late 90's: ..."
"... The ruling ideology of the West is the free movement of capital and people together with the dismantling of sovereign states and replacing them with global institutions and corporate trade pacts. Donald Trump's "America First" threatens this so he is subject to full throated attacks by the media and the connected. Vladimir Putin stands in the way of the global hegemony and the return of Russia to the 1990s. Thus, the western hybrid war for a Kremlin regime change. ..."
"... If Clinton takes over for Obama it will only mean continued escalation by the US against any country resisting a unipolar world. There are a lot more than Russia and China resisting US hegemony and that attacks, subtle as they are, continue unabated. If Trump dials that back this can only be a good thing for world peace. The neocons apparently are betting the farm on Hillary. Good, I pray they lose and are cleansed permanently from the US political landscape. Personally, I see a win by Clinton as the end of mankind. ..."
"... I remember the end of Cold War extremely well, when the relations warmed up and the danger of nuclear exchange faded. In Russia, at that time, this was precisely the idea what you described but, as Pat Buchanan wrote several days ago "The inability to adapt was seen when our Cold War adversary extended a hand in friendship, and the War Party slapped it away." ..."
"... In the early 1880s the U.S. government decided to become a global seapower. Hostility towards the world's largest landpower followed, as night follows day. ..."
The Democratic Party convention and the media are full of the assumption that Russia is the enemy
of the United States. What is the basis for that assumption?
Russian support for the Russian ethnic minority in eastern Ukraine? How does that threaten
the United States?
Russian annexation of the Crimea? Khrushchev arbitrarily transferred that part of Russia to
Ukraine during his time as head of the USSR. Khrushchev was a Ukrainian. Russia never accepted
the arbitrary transfer of a territory that had been theirs since the 18th Century. How does this
annexation threaten the United States?
Russia does not want to see Syria crushed by the jihadis and acts accordingly? How does that
threaten the United States?
Russia threatens the NATO states in eastern Europe? Tell me how they actually do that. Is
it by stationing their forces on their side of the border with these countries? Have the Russians
made threatening statements about the NATO states?
Russia has made threatening and hostile statements directed at the United States? When and
where was that?
Russia does not accept the principle of state sovereignty? Really? The United States is on
shaky ground citing that principle. Remember Iraq?
Russian intelligence may have intercepted and collected the DNC's communications (hacked)
as well as HC's stash of illegal e-mails? Possibly true but every country on earth that has the
capability does the same kind of thing every single day. That would include the United States.
The Obama Administration is apparently committed to a pre-emptive assertion that Russia is a world
class committed enemy of the United States. The Borgist media fully support that.
We should all sober up. pl
Valissa
"In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate,
so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order
to mobilize us."
-- Thich Nhat Hanh
Not to mention the financial advantages to the Military-Industrial-Thinktank complex (I'm including
NATO in this) and all the politicians that benefit from the lobbying monies from that complex.
Plus there's the psychological advantage of having some country/countries to blame for
the lack of US success, or to distract attention away from US problems that need it.
Grizziz -> Ghostship...
I've always thought the US inherited the hatred of Russia from the Brits and the Brits
hated Russia at least back as far as the Crimean War in 1853. Not saying this as fact and am happy
to get updated.
rkka said in reply to Grizziz...
Official Brit hatred of Russia got started right after the Napoleonic Wars. About 4 centuries
of Brit hatred of France got transferred, lock, stock, and barrel, to Russia, since Russia then
became the most powerful land power in the world.
Maritime empires hate, with undying passion, the most powerful land power in the world.
And its a funny thing, the U.S. hatred of Russia dates from the early 1880s, right when the
U.S. began laying down a new steel navy to replace the rotting wooden navy built for the Civil
War, started with the explicit intention of making the U.S. a global power.
Tel said in reply to Valissa...
Quote: "Plus there's the psychological advantage of having some country/countries to blame
for the lack of US success, or to distract attention away from US problems that need it."
Clinton and Obama are busy campaigning that the USA has been completely successful, nothing
is going wrong, everyone has jobs, etc.
I dunno who would believe this, but that's their story and for the time being they are sticking
to it. You have never had it so good.
Dave Schuler
Russia's primary offense is that it has dared to have its own national interests.
SmoothieX12 -> kooshy ...
Today, all those "freedom-loving" people of former USSR, even including all those scores
of West Ukrainians who hate Russian guts and Middle Asian "nationalists" flock to Russia "in pursuit
of happiness".
I am not saying that all those people are bad, but the question I do ask sometimes is this:
you hated us, you evicted (sometimes with bloodshed) us, Russians, from your places. You got what
you asked for, why then, do you come to Russia in millions (I am not exaggerating, in fact, most
likely underestimating)? What happened? Of course, we all know what happened.
NotTimothyGeithner said...
Moscow is large enough to be a mommy figure for a small country with an interest in dealing
with China which doesn't want to be swamped by Beijing's sheer size. Moscow is a threat to U.S.
financial and military domination without firing a shot, engaging in a trade war, or leading a
diplomatic revolt.
The average American doesn't care about a loss of hegemony. We naturally want cooperation and
hippie peace, love, dope. The Western industries with effective monopolies abroad would see immense
profits under threat because the Chinese and Russian competitors would drive prices down in finance,
defense, pharmaceuticals, tech, and so forth. So they are turning to the Goering play book to
keep the Russians out of the world stage. The professional Risk players in the neoconservatives
would see their plans fall apart if the Erdogan-Putin meeting is a positive one.
Also, Putin embarrassed Obama over Syria in 2013 and then was magnanimous. Obama hasn't forgotten
that perceived slight.
SmoothieX12 -> NotTimothyGeithner...
Moscow is large enough to be
A medium-size European country herself. It is also a very peculiar economic entity. I do, however,
have a question on what do you mean by a "mommy for a small country"? No matter how small the
country is, in my understanding, it still will have a fair degree of freedom when building trade
relations with any entity, even of such mammoth size as China.
Cee:
Col. Lang,
I read before that Obama was pushing back against this lunacy. Now the HRC-NEOCON camp
are in full attack mode. I honestly think I'll be voting for Trump because I feel he can't do
all of the things that I would hate for him to do. I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder.
I'm quite serious.
"I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder. I'm quite serious." It has already happened
on this watch, see the case of MH-17.
Erik
The American talking point about the Crimea is a laughable piece of High School Debating
Team rhetoric. The people in charge know full well the truth about Ukraine's claim to the Crimea.
The thing that hurts is that the whole point of the "Nuland Putsch",and the rise of a western
aligned govt., was to provide the crown jewel in Nato's (read America) crown: Eliminating Russia's
naval base at Sevastopol completing the encirclement of Russia in the west (except for the always
vulnerable Kaliningrad).
All the rest about Russia's alleged expansionism is similar debating team poppycock.
Looking at the history of empire building and aggressive wars, one is well served to think
in terms of the 3 legged stool of criminology (for aggressive wars are simply, as Jackson said
at Nurnberg, the supreme international crime) and consider means, opportunity, and motive.
We have motive, the Russians do not. The motive in this case is theft, plain and simple. Russia
with its small population and vast real estate holdings is already provided with more resources
than she knows what to do with. We, on the other hand are not, and have not been since at least
the seventies. Russia has its work cut out for it to develop what it owns already and why would
they want to conquer populous resource poor neighbor states?
Not only has Putin snatched away the score of the century by re-asserting Russian control over
Crimea, but he had since 2000 or so been forestalling the western feeding frenzy on the carcass
of the Soviet Union that had Americans creaming their jeans. Re assertion of Russian true sovereignty
was his real offense.
What's so poignant is the long standing western ambition to be able to steal what Russia has.
2 centuries of western aggression against Russia, and all dedicated to theft. Same now, and the
drumbeat of warmongering rhetoric now directed at Russia is hilarious in a dangerous way. We really
are using the Goering argument to drag our unwilling population towards war.
James said...
If I might be permitted to express some thoughts about why Russians feel the way they do about
Putin ...
Median income in Russia increased 260% (in inflation adjusted terms) during the first 10 years
that Putin was in power. That is a staggering increase in people's financial well being. The Economist
and its brethren like to dismiss this achievement as being "solely due to the increased price
of oil" - but if you look at Canada, its oil production per capita was and is equal to that of
Russia yet Canada's median income only increased 9% during the same time period.
I think a good way to get a better sense of how the Russian's feel about Putin is to watch
the Russian film "Bimmer" (if you can get access to a copy with English subtitles):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimmer_(film)
I took a trip in Africa where our white South African guides favorite catch phrase was "In
Africa, anything is possible." Dystopias are terribly messed up and most people living in them
suffer greatly - but there is something really sexy about them, about the feeling that anything
is possible.
Russia was dystopic like this before Putin came to power - utter anarchy, crime, poverty, worse
corruption than now despite what you hear from the Borg ... but at the same time, anything was
possible. Bimmer depicts the transition from the anarchy of the Yeltsin years to the greater prosperity
and rule of law that Russia now enjoys - while at the same time communicating the fact that many
Russians can't help but feel some nostalgia for the time when anything was possible.
(I visited Russia before, during, and after this transition. I have friends who live there.)
kao_hsien_chih said in reply to James...
The 260% increase in the Russian median income (an important point--the middle Russian became
financial secure under Putin) under Putin's watch underscores the other point: before Putin, Russia
was a total and complete economic wreck. People who saw economic ruin firsthand don't cavalierly
dismiss hard won economic security.
rkka -> Ulenspiegel...
While Russia was being run by FreeMarketDemocratic Reformers, Russians were dying off at the
rate of nearly a million/year.
Once the FreeMarketDemocratic Reformers were removed from power, Russia began to recover.
The birth rate started to improve immediately, and Russia's death rate started to decline in 2006.
By 2009, the gap between Russia's births and deaths closed sufficiently that immigration could
fill it, and so the Russian population was growing. By 2012, births in the Russian Federation
exceeded deaths, for the first time since 1991.
In the mid-2000s, Putin proposed measures to support families having children. Western
politicians and demographers poured scorn on the very idea that Russian demographics might improve.
In fact, the U.S. Census Bureau's population projections had Russia's population declining by
500,000/year as recently as 2015. Now Western politicians and demographers are reduced to claiming
that "Putin had nuthin' to do with it!"
Putin inherited a helpless, bankrupt, dying Russia.
Russia now has a future. That's what Putin did, and he is rightly popular with Russians, Russians
who pine for the days of the drunken incompetent comprador buffoon Yeltsin excepted.
SmoothieX12 -> Ulenspiegel...
Putin is judged by his ability to transform the Russian economy from an exporter of oil, gas
and academics to something more sustainable.
It seems like you are one of those thinkers who thinks that repeating popular BS will create
new reality. FYI, Russia now is #1 exporter of grain in the world. If you didn't catch real news
from Russia, Rosatom's portfolio of contracts exceeds 100 billion USD. Evidently you also missed
the fact that Russia is #2 exporter of many #1 weapon systems in the world, some of which are
beyond the expertise (industrial and scientific) of Europe (I assume you are from that part of
the world). Do you know what it takes and what host of real hi-tech goes into production of a
top fighter jet or modern SSK? Russia is an active and a dominant player at the commercial space
launch business, in fact whole US Atlas program flies on Russian-made RD-180 rocket engines. I
will repeat again, learn facts on the ground, which is relatively easy to do in the world of global
IT. And finally, Russia will never live as well as US or Canada, for starters--there is a colossal
difference in consumer patterns between Russians and North Americans (albeit there are many similarities
too) but there is very little doubt that standard of living in Russia grew tremendously and a
lot of it has very little to do with gas or oil prices. It has, however, a lot to do with retooling
and re-industrialization of the country, which was ongoing since circa 2008. It is a very significant
year. Last, but not least--Russia is huge own consumer market (and then some due to markets of
former USSR) and that is a key. German MTU followed sanctions, well, guess what--it will never
appear again on Russian markets. Thales loved to sell IR matrices to Russia, well, guess what.....you
may fill in the blanks.
SmoothieX12 said in reply to different clue...
In terms of pork and poultry Russia produces 100% of that and, which did surprise me, even
exports turkey. Beef--about 80% covered. Most of what Russia consumes in food stuff is home grown
or made. Exceptions are some luxury food items and things like well-aged cheeses. Russian food
stores can give any best US or European grocery chain a run for their money. Variety is excellent
and most of it affordable. Per salmon, as far as I know it is both farm-raised and wild. What
are the proportions, I don't know. I can, however, testify to the fact that, say, in Troitsky
supermarket you can buy alive strelyad' (sturgeon). ...
SmoothieX12,
This is good to hear. When the "sanction Russia" crowd began embargoing various food-items
being sold to Russia, they unintentionally began without realizing it an economic experiment in
Protectionism. The food embargo against food going into Russia amounts to a kind of Protectionism
for Russian food production within a protectionized and defended Russian market.
If it ends up allowing more monetizable food-as-wealth to be produced withIN Russia, that will
allow all sorts of sectors and people to buy and sell more monetizable non-food goods and non-food
services FROM withIN Russia TO withIN Russia as well. If that allows Russia to become more all-sectors-in-balance
wealthier, that fact would be hard to hide eventually. And various farm-sector advocates in America
could seize upon it and point to it as evidence that Protectionism WORKS to allow a country to
increase its own net production and enjoyment of overall wealth withIN its own borders. And it
might inspire more people to suggest we try it here within America as well. And through the abolition
of NAFTA, allow Mexico to revive Protectionism for its agricultural sector as well. It might allow
for enough broad-based ground-up revival of economic activity withIN Mexico that some of the millions
of NAFTAstinian exiles in America might decide they have a Mexican economy to go back to again.
And some of them might go back.
IF! NAFTA can be abolished and Mexico set free to re-protectionize its own agricultural economy.
Perhaps if enough Mexican political-economic analysts look at events in Russia and see the ongoing
success there, they too might agitate for the abolition of NAFTA and the re-protectionization
of farm-country Mexico.
SmoothieX12 -> different clue...
Protectionism WORKS to allow a country to increase its own net production and enjoyment of
overall wealth withIN its own borders
Free Trade fundamentalism (which is a first derivative of liberalism) is what killing USA and,
I assume, Mexico. Most "academic" so called economists and bankers (monetarists) are clueless
but it is them who set the framework of discussion on economy. It is a long discussion but let
me put it this way--all their "theories" are crap. As for Russia--she is largely self-sustainable
for years now.
kao_hsien_chih -> Ulenspiegel...
That Russia before Putin provides for better explanation of his support than even the 260%.
Yes, Russia is still a relatively poor country, but only a decade before, it was a total and complete
basketcase and people remember that Putin is responsible for putting things back to a semblance
of normalcy.
Daniel Nicolas
In another thread, it was mentioned that countries have no friends, only interests.
Russia, for all the Borg media grandstanding, seems to only be concerned with Russian related
interests. There is no indication of greater plan for global domination. They are upgrading and
preparing for a future war, sure. Any country would be smart to prepare accordingly to defend
itself (and their interests).
Obama's USA has been far too hostile to Russia without apparent cause. A Clinton administration
would likely swing even further. While Russia has openly declared that it not want a new hot war,
they are preparing accordingly because they have no choice but to prepare for the possible future
USA being even more hostile.
The Germans are obviously still sore about it all.
EricB
Russia became the enemy of United States in early 2000's after Putin started cracking down
on the oligarchs that had taken over Russia's economy during Yeltsin's privatization efforts.
It is estimated that seven individuals were controlling as much as 50% of Russia's economy at
its peak during the late 90's:
The ruling ideology of the West is the free movement of capital and people together with
the dismantling of sovereign states and replacing them with global institutions and corporate
trade pacts. Donald Trump's "America First" threatens this so he is subject to full throated attacks
by the media and the connected. Vladimir Putin stands in the way of the global hegemony and the
return of Russia to the 1990s. Thus, the western hybrid war for a Kremlin regime change.
Hillary Clinton is supremely qualified to maintain the status quo. If Donald Trump wins, it
has to be due to the perfidious Russians hacking the election; not Globalism's Losers voting against
their exploitation by the insanely wealthy and the enabling technocrats. Meanwhile, the "War of
Russian Aggression" heats up, Turkey turns Islamist and the EU splinters due to the war refugees
and austerity.
Old Microbiologist -> Bill Herschel...
Bill,
I am with you all the way. It, of course, goes much further. There are ongoing US-manufactured
destabilization events unfolding all around Russia. Then you have the economic attacks via sanctions
and trade which have arguably crippled Russia. On top of that you have these insipid attacks via
things like SWIFT bank transfers, IMF, World Bank and idiocy such as attempting to ban the entire
Russian Olympic team from the Olympics. Russia senses these attacks on all fronts and was unfortunately
caught early being unprepared. During the Soviet Union Russia was 100% self sufficient but as
mentioned in other comments under Yeltsin's "privatization" programs an awful lot of that industry
was sold or closed. Now Russia has had to start from scratch replacements for things not available
in Russia and yet still has a budget surplus (unlike the US with a near $20 trillion deficit).
They have created alternates to SWIFT, VISA/Mastercard, the IMF and even the G8.
The Crimea debacle was a clear attempt to kick Russia out of their base in Sevastopol which
was brilliantly countered. However, the cost has been enormous. Little commented on is that Ukraine
under US leadership has cut off water, gas, and electricity to the peninsula and blocked all traffic
to the mainland. Russia is nearing the completion of the bridge to Crimea from Russia and water/power
are already being delivered. This is a huge effort which shows the dedication to their control
of Crimea.
Then they have undertaken to directly thwart the anti-Assad US-led coalition in Syria and have
hoisted the US on its own petard. It hasn't been easy nor cheap and all of this has been happening
simultaneously. On top of all of this we have buildups on the Russian borders so Putin also has
to upgrade his military to counter any potential EU/NATO/US invasion of Russia. The aggression
has all been one sided but delusional citizens in the US see our aggression as defensive as bizarre
as that is. Outside the US people see US aggression for what it is and are not fooled into believing
that we are trying to help anyone except the rich plutocrats. The immigrant invasion of Europe
is seen as a US caused problem for these continuous insane wars that never end nor apparently
have any actual purpose.
If Clinton takes over for Obama it will only mean continued escalation by the US against
any country resisting a unipolar world. There are a lot more than Russia and China resisting US
hegemony and that attacks, subtle as they are, continue unabated. If Trump dials that back this
can only be a good thing for world peace. The neocons apparently are betting the farm on Hillary.
Good, I pray they lose and are cleansed permanently from the US political landscape. Personally,
I see a win by Clinton as the end of mankind.
Peter Reichard said...
Have always thought Russians and Americans were more like each other than either of us were
like Europeans. Both a little crude, crazy, traditionally religious and musical with big countries
created from an expanding frontier and thinking big in terms of infrastructure and vehicles. We
ought to be natural allies as we were in the nineteenth century in opposition to the British Empire
and again in World War 2. Russia, a land power in the heart of the world island in balance with
the US, an ocean power on the other side of the planet with mutual respect could create a stable
multi-polar world.
SmoothieX12 -> Peter Reichard...
That is generally true. There are a lot of similarities. And I remember the end of Cold
War extremely well, when the relations warmed up and the danger of nuclear exchange faded. In
Russia, at that time, this was precisely the idea what you described but, as Pat Buchanan wrote
several days ago "The inability to adapt was seen when our Cold War adversary extended a hand
in friendship, and the War Party slapped it away."
kao_hsien_chih -> SmoothieX12...
In mid-19th century, Russia was extremely friendly to United States, where many remained deeply
suspicious of the British Empire. Somehow, by the end of 19th century, United States became peculiarly
fond of the British Empire and inexplicably hostile to Russia--Mahan was both an Anglophile and
Russophobe, as I understand, and his sentiments shows up in his ideas, or so I've heard. (I imagine
SmoothieX12, as an ex Soviet navy man, is far more familiar with this than I ever could). How
did that happen?
rkka -> kao_hsien_chih...
"How did that happen?"
In the early 1880s the U.S. government decided to become a global seapower. Hostility towards
the world's largest landpower followed, as night follows day.
"... "it's been 15 years now since the dawn of the criminal 'New American Century'," You must be young. The New American Century was announced at the UN in November, 1991 by George Herbert Walker Bush. ..."
"... Bush lost the election twelve months later, but the criminal who won was even more effective in establishing this new world order than Bush could have ever been. ..."
jfl @ 2, you note that "it's been 15 years now since the dawn of the criminal 'New American Century',"
You must be young. The New American Century was announced at the UN in November, 1991 by George Herbert
Walker Bush. I watched him on television that evening announcing a "new world order" and my blood
ran cold. I knew that evening where all this was leading to. It was leading to where we are right
now.
Bush lost the election twelve months later, but the criminal who won was even more effective in
establishing this new world order than Bush could have ever been.
The New American Century was announced in November, 1991. Internationally, the policy began
with Bush senior urging Sadaam to invade Kuwait, thereby creating a cassus belli for everything that
has happened since.
Domestically, it began with the wanton siege of the Waco religious sect and the murder of Randy
Weaver's wife and baby.
"... The values and ideology represented in the Economics textbook Bill Black analyzed didn't arise in a vacuum. The points Black lists reflect the ideology, values, ethics and interests of a narrow segment of our society who have accumulated enormous personal wealth through a variety of extra-legal and illegal mechanisms, and who use a small portion of that wealth to fund "Economics Chairs" in our public and private universities; economics "think tanks"; and speeches, books, consulting engagements, and board memberships for "prominent economists". ..."
"... Mankiw is a shill/useful idiot for his oligarchs patrons. #11 explains the idiocy of the previous 10. ..."
"... Did the banks which loaned billions to the gas frackers of North Dakota know that production would exceed demand and cause a crash? Perhaps the loan officer might have such concern, but would more likely be most concerned with his/her own bottom line – a meme Yves explores in Econned. ..."
"... Newly-printed money CAN cause inflation, but WHERE the price rises happen depends greatly on the pockets in which the money lands. ..."
"... stocks, real estate, luxury goods, premium educations, etc. ..."
"... This kind of ignorant cluelessness is pretty prevalent among the oligarchy and its supporters like Mankiw. Just like that guy in Davos who simply couldn't understand why there's so much social unrest in the world today. They live in a completely different world. ..."
"... My first exposure to Mankiw's principles was actually an early version of the talk by Yoram Bauman in this video. It hits several of the points Mr. Black makes and is also pretty funny. It definitely demonstrates how Mankiw attempts to cloak his biases in supposedly neutral terms. ..."
"... I doubt Mankiw will accept 100% estate tax on the justification that the cost of bequests is zero to the recipient. (and thus a 100% estate tax doesn't incur large costs on the recipient) ..."
"... My paper lists four principles claimed to be at the core of modern economics by Mankiw and then shows how all four principles are false: Amir-ud-Din, Rafi and Zaman, Asad, Failures of the 'Invisible Hand' (July 15, 2013). Forum for Social Economics, Vol. 45, Iss. 1, 2016. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2293940 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2293940 ..."
By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate
professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Jointly published with
New Economic Perspectives
This is the second column in a series on the N. Gregory Mankiw's myths and dogmas that he spreads
in his economic textbooks. The first column exposed the two (contradictory) meta-myths that begin
his preface. This column de-mythologizes Mankiw's unprincipled "
principles " of economics – the ten commandments of theoclassical economics' priestly caste.
Some of these principles, correctly hedged, could be unobjectionable, but in each case Mankiw dogmatically
insists on pushing them to such extremes that they become Mankiw myths.
To understand Mankiw's mythical 10 commandments, one must understand "Mankiw morality" – a morality
that remains hidden in each of his textbooks. Few people understand how radically theoclassical economics
has moved in the last thirty years. Milton Friedman famously argued that CEOs should operate exclusively
in the interest of shareholders. Mankiw, however, is a strong supporter of the view that CEOs will
not only defraud customers, but also shareholders and creditors by looting the firm. "[I]t would
be irrational for savings and loans [CEOs] not to loot." "Mankiw morality" decrees that if you have
an incentive as CEO to loot, and fail to do so, you are not moral – you are insane. Mankiw morality
was born in Mankiw's response as discussant to George Akerlof and Paul Romer's famous 1993 article
"Looting: The Economic Underworld of Bankruptcy for Profit."
Mankiw's textbooks preach the wonders of the indefensible a system he has helped design to allow
elite CEOs to loot the shareholders with impunity – the antithesis of Friedman's stated goal. Mankiw
morality helps create the "criminogenic environments" that produce the epidemics of "control fraud"
that drive our recurrent, intensifying financial crises. It is essential to interpret Mankiw's ten
myths in light of his unacknowledged immoral views about how CEOs will and should respond to incentives
to rig the system against the firm's consumers, employees, creditors, and shareholders. His textbooks
religiously avoid any disclosure of Mankiw morality or its implications for perverting his ten commandments
into an unethical and criminogenic dogma that optimizes the design of a criminogenic environment.
Mankiw's myths
People Face Tradeoffs. To get one thing, you have to give up something else.
Making decisions requires trading off one goal against another.
This can be true, but Mankiw pushes his principle to the point that it becomes a myth. Life
is filled with positive synergies and externalities. If you study logic or white-collar criminology
you will make yourself a far better economist. You may trade off hours of study, but not "goals."
If your "goal" is to become a great economist you will not be "trading off one goal against another"
if you become a multidisciplinary scholar – you will strongly advance your goal. If you study
diverse research methods you will be a far better economist than if you study only econometrics.
The Cost of Something is What You Give Up to Get It. Decision-makers have
to consider both the obvious and implicit costs of their actions.
"Opportunity costs" are an important and useful economic concept, but Mankiw's definition sneaks
ideological baggage into both sentences that turns his principle into multiple myths. Mankiw implicitly
assumes fraud and other forms of theft out of existence in the first sentence. "Cost" is often
not measured in economics by "what you give up to get it." If your inherit a home that lacks fire
insurance and immediately burns down there is a cost to you (and society) even though you gave
up nothing to inherit the home. If the CEO loots "his" firm he gave up nothing to get the millions,
but if he loses those millions he will consider it to have a "cost." Theoclassical economists
have a primitive tribal taboo against even using the "f" word (fraud).
Decision-makers frequently ignore the "costs of their actions." There is nothing in economic
theory or experience that supports the claim that the "decision-makers" "have" to consider costs.
It is rare that decision-makers must do – or not do – anything.
It is likely that Mankiw means that optimization requires decision-makers to "consider" all
"costs of their actions," but that too is a myth. Theoclassical optimization requires perfect,
cost-free information, pure "rationality," and no externalities. None of these conditions exist.
Car buyers have no means of knowing the costs of buying a particular car. If they bought a GM
car the ignition mechanism defect could cause the driver to lose the ability to control the car
– turning it into an unguided missile hurtling down (or off) a highway at 70 mph. The car buyer
does not know of the defect, does not know who will be driving when the defect becomes manifest,
does not know who the passengers will be, and does not know who and what else could be injured
or damaged as a result of the defect. The theoclassical view is that the buyer who "considers"
the costs of buying his defective car to others (negative externalities) and pays more money to
buy a car that minimizes those negative externalities is not acting ethically, but irrationally.
It is typically cheaper (for the producer, not society) to produce goods of inferior (but difficult
to observe) quality. The inability of the consumer to "consider" even the true costs to the consumer
and the consumer's loved ones of these hidden defects means that economists began warning 46 years
ago that "market forces" could become criminogenic. George Akerlof's 1970 article on markets for
"lemons" even coined the term "Gresham's" dynamic to describe the process. A Gresham's dynamic
is a leading form of a criminogenic environment.
[D]ishonest dealings tend to drive honest dealings out of the market. The cost of dishonesty,
therefore, lies not only in the amount by which the purchaser is cheated; the cost also must
include the loss incurred from driving legitimate business out of existence.
Akerlof was made a Nobel laureate in economics in 2001 for this body of work. Economics is
the only field in which someone would write a textbook ignoring a Nobel laureate whose work has
proven unusually accurate on such a critical point. There is only one reason to exclude this reality
from Mankiw's myths – Akerlof's work falsifies Mankiw's myths, so Akerlof's work disappears from
Mankiw's principles, as does the entire concept of fraud.
Rational People Think at the Margin . A rational decision-maker takes action
if and only if the marginal benefit of the action exceeds the marginal cost.
The mythical nature of this principle flows from the multiple errors I have described. Mankiw
is being deliberately disingenuous. Theoclassical economics does not claim, for example, that
a firm produces a product "only if the marginal benefit of the action exceeds the marginal cost."
Theoclassical economists claim that a firm sells a product "only if the marginal benefit of the
action to the seller exceeds the marginal cost to the seller." The seller ignores social costs
and benefits.
For the sake of brevity, I will summarize that Mankiw's third principle is a myth for five
reasons known to every economist. First, it implicitly assumes out of existence positive and negative
externalities, which means that supposedly rational, self-interested decision-makers he postulates,
even if they had perfect, cost-free information, would not contract to maximize social welfare.
Second, as Mankiw morality implicitly admits, the actual optimization principle under theoclassical
economics would be determined by the marginal benefits and costs of an action to the decision-maker
– the CEO – not the firm, and certainly not society. Theoclassical economists, however, refuse
to admit that explicitly, so it disappears from Mankiw's 10 commandments.
Third, the information provided by CEOs is often not simply incomplete and costly, but deliberately
deceptive. Where information is merely incomplete, consumers may pay far more for a product than
they will benefit from the purchase. Where the seller provides deceptive information about quality,
the buyer and members of the public may be harmed or even killed. The CEO may also be looting
"his" firm as well as the customers. Mankiw has implicitly assumed perfect, cost-free information
and implicitly assumed that fraud does not exist.
Fourth, conflating rationality with optimization of personal costs and benefits is wrong on
multiple grounds. It defines ethical behavior as "irrational" where the consumer or CEO takes
into account social costs and benefits and protects the interests of others in an altruistic manner.
Everything we know from behavioral economics also makes clear that humans are not "rational" in
the manner predicted by theoclassical economics. Mankiw has implicitly assumed out of existence
thirty years of economic research on how people actually behave and make decisions.
Fifth, firms with monopoly power, according to theoclassical economics, maximize their profits
by deliberately reducing production to a point that the social cost of producing the marginal
unit is less than the marginal benefit to the consumer. Mankiw has implicitly assumed away monopolies.
People Respond to Incentives. Behavior changes when costs or benefits change.
I have responded to this myth in a
prior article . The implications of his fourth principle in conjunction with Mankiw morality
are devastating for theoclassical economics. CEOs create the incentives and understand how "behavior
changes" among their agents, employees, and subordinate officers in response to those incentives.
Under theoclassical principles this will unambiguously lead "rational" CEOs to set incentives
to rig the system in favor of the CEO. Because fraud and abuse creates a "sure thing" that is
certain to enrich the CEO, Mankiw's fourth commandment predicts that control frauds led by CEOs
will be ubiquitous. Fortunately, many CEOs are ethical and remain ethical unless they are subjected
to a severe Gresham's dynamic. As a result, Mankiw's commandments over-predict the incidence of
fraud and abuse by CEOs. Similarly, experiments demonstrate that humans frequently act in altruistic
manners despite financial incentives to act unfairly.
Trade Can Make Everyone Better Off .
Trade allows each person to specialize in the activities he or she does best. By trading with
others, people can buy a greater variety of goods or services.
See my
article on faux "trade deals" that exposes this myth.
Markets Are Usually a Good Way to Organize Economic Activity .
Households and firms that interact in market economies act as if they are guided by an "invisible
hand" that leads the market to allocate resources efficiently. The opposite of this is economic
activity that is organized by a central planner within the government.
Again, the key interaction under theoclassical theory is between CEO and consumers, employees,
creditors, shareholders, and the general public. "Markets" are vague constructs and they work
best when ethical and legal provisions reduce fraud to minor levels. When these ethical and legal
institutions are not extremely effective against fraud, the incentives created by the market can
be so perverse that they create a criminogenic environment that produces epidemic levels of fraud.
Mankiw's myth is to describe only one possible incentive and treat it as the sole possibility
other than what he falsely describes as "the opposite" – a government planner. The opposite incentive
to the so-called "invisible hand" is the Gresham's dynamic. Mankiw mythically presents the government
as the threat to an effective economy rather than an institution that is essential to producing
and enforcing the rule of law that prevents a Gresham's dynamic.
Governments Can Sometimes Improve Market Outcomes .
When a market fails to allocate resources efficiently, the government can change the outcome through
public policy. Examples are regulations against monopolies and pollution.
The myth here is that government only has a desirable role where there is a "market fail[ure]."
Mankiw treats "markets" as the norm and implicitly assumes that the government normally has nothing
to do with making markets succeed. Even conservative classical economists admitted that the rule
of law was essential to an effective economy and required an effective government. Well-functioning
governments always improve "market outcomes." Indeed, they are typically essential to making possible
well-functioning "markets."
Mankiw also fails to explain that "markets" will be fictional and massively distort resource
allocation (that is what a hyper-inflated bubble does) when there is an epidemic of control fraud.
As I have explained, Mankiw's own principles predict (indeed, over-predict) that deregulated "markets"
will frequently prove so criminogenic that they will produce epidemics of control fraud.
A Country's Standard of Living Depends on Its Ability to Produce Goods and Services.
Countries whose workers produce a large quantity of goods and services per unit of time
enjoy a high standard of living. Similarly, as a nation's productivity grows, so does its average
income.
First, the CEOs of sectors such as finance that are immensely unproductive – so unproductive
that they cause enormous losses rather than growth, and receive exceptional income because they
loot. Income is often based not on productivity, but on the CEOs' wealth and economic and political
power that allows them to rig the economy. A nation's standard of living also depends on its employment
levels, which can be crushed by economic policies such as austerity.
The issue is not what happens to "average income," but what happens to median income, wealth,
the income and wealth of the lowest quartile or particular minorities, and to income and wealth
inequality. A nation can have high average productivity, yet have poor performance for decades
in these other critical measures.
Consider what has happened to the folks who tried to do everything right to boost their productivity
according to the theoclassical economic "experts'" advice. This is what has happened to Latino
and black households where a head of the household has at least a college degree. The source is
economists at the extremely conservative
St. Louis Fed .
Hispanic and black families headed by someone with a four-year college degree, on the other
hand, typically fared significantly worse than Hispanic and black families without college
degrees. This was true both during the recent turbulent period (2007-2013) as well as during
a two-decade span ending in 2013 (the most recent data available).
White and Asian college-headed families generally fared much better than their less-educated
counterparts. The typical Hispanic and black college-headed family, on the other hand, lost
much more wealth than its less-educated counterpart. Median wealth declined by about 72 percent
among Hispanic college-grad families versus a decline of only 41 percent among Hispanic families
without a college degree. Among blacks, the declines were 60 percent versus 37 percent.
One of the reasons that college-educated Latino and black families lost so much wealth compared
to their white and Asian-American counterparts is that they were more likely to get their degrees
from the for-profit colleges that theoclassical economists touted – colleges that frequently provided
a very expensive and very poor education, often involving defrauding the students. Another reason
that college-educated Latino and black families lost so much wealth compared to their white and
Asian-American counterparts is that they were far more likely to be the victims of predatory home
lending – an activity for which theoclassical economists served as the primary apologists.
Mankiw also ignores critical factors that determine "a country's standard of living." Yes,
China reports higher growth, but it is also operating in an unsustainable fashion that has destroyed
much of its environment and threatens to be a major contributor to the global suicide strategy
of causing severe climate change.
Prices Rise When the Government Prints Too Much Money . When a government
creates large quantities of the nation's money, the value of the money falls. As a result, prices
increase, requiring more of the same money to buy goods and services.
No, and Mankiw knew this was a myth when he wrote it. First, "prices rise" for many reasons.
Pharmaceutical prices rise because hedge fund managers take over pharma firms or encourage others
to do so in order to increase prices on existing drugs by hundreds, sometimes thousands of percent.
Prices rise because accounting control fraud recipes hyper-inflated the largest bubble in history
in U.S. real estate. Prices rise because of cartels. Prices rise because oil cartels cause oil
shocks. Prices rise due to real bottlenecks, e.g., shortages of a skill or material.
Inflation has not risen, indeed general price levels have often fallen (deflation) despite
record creation of money by central banks and private banks. Theoclassical economists have regularly
predicted hyper-inflation. As Paul Krugman emphasizes, virtually none of them even admits their
serial prediction failures.
Society Faces a Short-Run Tradeoff Between Inflation and Unemployment . Reducing
inflation often causes a temporary rise in unemployment. This tradeoff is crucial for understanding
the short-run effects of changes in taxes, government spending and monetary policy.
Mankiw ends his ten myths with a series of myths. Foolish, counterproductive austerity often
causes inflation to fall to harmfully low – even negative (deflation) – levels that can lead to
prolonged recessions that cause severe damage to people and economies. Stimulus provides a win-win
that improves economic growth and reduces human suffering without causing harmful inflation.
A nation is able to operate at extremely high levels of employment without producing harmful
inflation. Mankiw is a partisan Republican. When Republican presidents in the modern era are faced
with recessions they junk their theoclassical dogmas and adopt stimulus programs, though they
generally do so largely through the economically inefficient and less effective means of slashing
tax rates for the wealthy.
Democrats: Please Renounce Mankiw's Myths
Unlike the Republicans, who always rise above their theoclassical principles when their president
is in office and faces a recession, the "New Democrats" are the ones who seem to have drunk the theoclassical
Kool-Aid and strive endlessly to create the self-inflicted wound of austerity when they are in power.
New Democrats also love to bash Republican presidents for running deficits even when those deficits
produced no harmful inflation and helped produce recovery. It is sensible and honest to point out
that tax cuts for the wealthy are a far less effective form of stimulus and to present and support
superior alternatives such as job guarantee and infrastructure programs. It would be superb if Democrats
were to point out that by far the most effective, prompt means of cutting taxes to stimulate the
economy in response to a recession is to cease collecting the Social Security taxes for several years.
It is not fine to praise Bill Clinton for taking the harmful step of running a budget surplus or
to bash Republicans because they – correctly – increased fiscal stimulus (and therefore the short-term
deficit) in response to a recession.
Democrats also need to stop spreading the myth that Bill Clinton was an economic marvel. He was
the luckiest president in history in terms of timing. His economic "success" was the product of two
of the largest bubbles in history (the dot.com and real estate bubbles). The real estate bubble is
the only thing that prevented his dot.com bubble from causing an economic collapse during his term.
The real estate bubble was so enormous that it made it easy for the fraudulent CEOs to "roll" (refinance)
the fraudulent loans they made, which helped cause the bubble to hyper-inflate. The saying in the
trade is "a rolling loan gathers no loss." This meant that the bubble was Bill Clinton and George
Bush's bubble, but it collapsed on George Bush's watch so Clinton gets the credit for the high employment
produced by the twin bubbles and Bush gets the blame for the massive unemployment that a massive
bubble will create when it collapses (if it is not replaced by an even larger bubble).
The pots are calling the kettles black; standard politics, redundancy easily replaced by automation.
You do know that Bernie isn't going after Hillary because he has his skeletons, especially
in the medical university complex, don't you. Ever live in Vermont. You did notice that Hillary
just threatened him, to the core of his argument.
This… "Energy is information, most of which humans ignore."…and this… "Public Education policies
are disgusting to anyone who really wants to learn…" are the important elements although I would
add that humans don't ignore so much as don't know/are not taught, and I would say Public education
has been purposefully corroded to the point of disgusting.
Pharmaceutical prices rise because hedge fund managers take over pharma firms or encourage
others to do so in order to increase prices on existing drugs by hundreds, sometimes thousands
of percent. Prices rise because accounting control fraud recipes hyper-inflated the largest bubble
in history in U.S. real estate. Prices rise because of cartels. Prices rise because oil cartels
cause oil shocks. Prices rise due to real bottlenecks, e.g., shortages of a skill or material.
- Bill Black
----–
All of these examples treat relative price rises in the affected sector, not the general
inflation which saw the U.S. CPI increase by a factor of ten (10) since 1950. Hedge funds and
cartels couldn't do that, no matter how successful they were in increasing their share of the
pie.
The same logic is used by union busters to claim that "greedy labor unions" cause inflation
- an equally false notion. Labor can increase its share of national income at the expense of corporate
profit, but it cannot cause a general inflation.
This unprecedented secular inflation did, however, coincide with government bonds surpassing
gold as the Federal Reserve's largest holding in 1945, and with the dollar's gold link being severed
in 1971.
Bill Black evidently hews to the scholarly tradition of the eminent Argentine economist and
former central banker Mercedes Marcó del Pont:
"It is totally false to say that the printing more money generates inflation; price increases
are generated by other phenomena like supply and external sector's behaviour," said Marcó del
Pont.
I would argue that the real estate bubble caused genuine inflation because it was a credit
bubble, but I agree on your other points. Intuitively I think of inflation as a rise in prices
without a corresponding rise in (average) affordability. It's why a Big Mac today can cost multiple
times what it did 30 years ago without being any less affordable for the average customer.
Mankiw's definition isn't precisely wrong but it's oversimplified. He doesn't address the role
of banks in money creation, he doesn't define money (what about credit?) he doesn't discuss the
factors that might cause government to print more or less money, and he doesn't say how much is
too much. Without more rigor than he provides, it's only useful as a plausibility argument after
the fact.
Regarding Black's comment:
Inflation has not risen, indeed general price levels have often fallen (deflation) despite
record creation of money by central banks and private banks.
I would say this was because they were doing it during the deflation of a credit bubble on
a large enough scale that money creation by the government was a drop in the bucket by comparison,
and that was what caused deflation. Which again points to the importance of defining terms and
operating constraints (why couldn't the government print money on a massive scale to compensate?
What are the drawbacks and limitations on that approach?)
Economists do love to make doomsday hyperinflation predictions that never seem to pan out.
As far as I can tell, that's because they think that the economy is inherently unstable and will
lapse naturally into massive inflation (see: wage-price spiral) or some other disastrous state
without the wise guiding hand of a central banker to prevent it. There seems to be very little
evidence of this actually happening in reality, and the few genuine examples of hyperinflation
(Weimar, Zimbabwe) have typically resulted from a collapse in production coupled with debts denominated
in other currencies that (a) considerably exceed the country's ability to pay and (b) require
the attempt to be made anyway.
Notice that Mankiw managed to say nothing about "Economic instability or deflation, and eventually
economic depression, is caused when the government prints TOO LITTLE money", which is actually
true and happens quite reliably.
If it is physically impossible for something to occur, it won't, and finance be damned.
Economics is first and foremost a branch of the physical sciences, though most economists have
forgotten this.
Supply and demand.
Unintended consequences.
High productivity does not create high wages. High wages create high productivity. If you
spend a lot of money on water-conservation technology at the base of Niagara Falls, will it
increase the economic value of water there?
The physical utility of a commodity (including labor) is not related to its economic value.
Adam Smith did get something right.
Nothing in this universe can grow exponentially for very long. Societies with sustained
high fertility rates will always be miserably poor, and only societies that have first reduced
their fertility rate can hope to become rich.
A (more-or-less) free market is indeed a powerful and essential optimization mechanism
("the invisible hand") but it is nonlinear. Like all such nonlinear optimization mechanisms,
it can and does get stuck in local minima and require external directed efforts to move to
a more optimal solution. This is basic math.
Inflation occurs when prices go up. That's it.
"Capitalism" guarantees neither poverty nor prosperity. The market is neutral. Even as
the laws of physics are obeyed equally well by a building that stands tall as by one that collapses
into a heap of rubble, the laws of the market are also obeyed in miserably poor Bangladesh
as well as in prosperous Switzerland. With 100 desperate people competing for every job, wages
for the many will be low and profits for the few will be high. And vice versa. Blaming "capitalism"
for poverty is silly, as if I threw someone off a cliff and then blamed the law of gravity
for their death. Trying to deny market forces is equally silly, like trying to legislate gravity
out of existence. It simply must be worked with.
"Free to choose to own or employ slaves", "Free trade includes the ability of big corporations
to restrict trade to maximize their profits", "Free to buy politicians and have them loot the
public treasury in your interest" … Strict libertarianism is logically incoherent and ethically
vile.
I quibble with 6 & 8. "A more or less free market" is a well regulated market. How much "more
free" or "less free" a market needs to be to best distribute its product depends entirely on its
particular conditions and vagaries. The insinuation that a market should be "stuck in a local
minima" before oversight can improve its performance echoes Mankiw's 7th misconstruction, that
(in Bill Black's words) "government only has a desirable role when there is a market failure."
I especially disagree that markets are neutral. Markets exist at the pleasure of the Capitalists
who create and smother them for profit. Capitalists are forever cajoling "market opportunities"
out from under every rock they can turn over. They invent, shape, split, combine, dissect, analyze,
produce, reproduce, abandon, corner and strangle markets in pursuit of lucre. There is no market
for Ford electric cars in California beyond the handful required by statute, despite ample demand,
because individuals at Ford have determined that creating that particular market will eat into
the personal profit they might extract from other markets. "Efficient" markets, that only return
a gazilionth of a point on investment because of optimal competition, cease to be because the
margin is too low to justify the hassle or the capital risk. Switching gears, labor markets in
Bangladesh & Switzerland exist when Capitalists decide to hire workers. Hirees agree to be paid
what Capitalists choose to pay, whether "freely" or under the duress of the State.
There is no market equivalent to gravity or the law of planetary motion. The model of supply
and demand is a hypothetical post rationalization of a shifting negotiation – while it's helpful
to a degree, supply/demand doesn't make "lawfull" (or useful) predictions until demand nears infinity
(see health care: "how much will that be, doc?" – "how much have you got?", or housing: "how much
can you borrow from a fractional reserve player who lends without risk and won't verify your income?")
As the local monopolists of violence, States can engage markets as they see fit. They can supply
(Volkswagon & the post office), demand (food stamps, R&D grants), regulate, open (ACA) or close
them (pharmaceutical imports) to their hearts desire. Good or bad outcomes depend entirely on
the wisdom of the policy.
Whoa. Exhale. To be sure, I inhaled. Too many words when I should just say:
Nice.
Its good we agree that policy should be just and compassionate.
The values and ideology represented in the Economics textbook Bill Black analyzed didn't
arise in a vacuum. The points Black lists reflect the ideology, values, ethics and interests of
a narrow segment of our society who have accumulated enormous personal wealth through a variety
of extra-legal and illegal mechanisms, and who use a small portion of that wealth to fund "Economics
Chairs" in our public and private universities; economics "think tanks"; and speeches, books,
consulting engagements, and board memberships for "prominent economists".
This matter is really about whose values will control government economic policy and law.
Excellent analysis. Thank you, Bill Black, for all you do and have done.
I see much of the underlying theory of classical economics as simplifications that make the
math easier. One of my favorite examples of misallocation of resources was the market for Burbank
Russet potatoes in 2001. Basically, producers wanted $6.50 per hundredweight for spuds. The big
buyer, Simplot offered farmers $4.50 pre-season. Many farmers decided to wait until harvest, hoping
the spot market would give them a better price. I should also mention that in Idaho, farmers not
wishing to plant in a given year, could sell their water to other farmers, or to the federal government
which uses the water to help salmon and to produce hydropower. Thus, producing potatoes carried
the opportunity cost of water leasing. But leasing water leasing to the federal government is
culturally taboo in the ag. community. 2001 was a dry year and most of the ag. water was consumed
growing spuds.
The outcome was a banner year in production, driving the spot market price to $0.50 per hundredweight,
far less than the cost of production. Many acres of potatoes were plowed under – a total loss
– to everyone.
My point is – there is no way to know, in advance, what the price of a commodity will be in
the future unless you know, or can limit, the rate of production and control demand.
Did the banks which loaned billions to the gas frackers of North Dakota know that production
would exceed demand and cause a crash? Perhaps the loan officer might have such concern, but would
more likely be most concerned with his/her own bottom line – a meme Yves explores in Econned.
I suppose I am a bit defensive of classical microeconomics because it is elegant. But I am
also terribly suspicious of its answers because one never has either the information or the control
to be anywhere near as certain as the calculus would suggest.
On point #9: "Prices Rise When the Government Prints Too Much Money". Recent inflation data
suggests it's a myth. But if restated as "When government prints money, prices rise on the goods
and services that the people who receive the money tend to buy", then it's NOT a myth.
That was the whole problem with the Federal Reserve's damned QE efforts. They printed gobs
of money, and it all landed in the pockets of the wealthy. The stuff they buy (stocks, real estate,
luxury goods, premium educations, etc.) has seen prices rise MUCH faster than nominal inflation.
And the people who didn't get any of the newly printed money (i.e., most of us)… Well, these sad
folks couldn't afford to spend any more than before, so anybody who attempted to impose prices
hikes on low-end consumer goods saw a loss of sales volume.
Newly-printed money CAN cause inflation, but WHERE the price rises happen depends greatly
on the pockets in which the money lands.
stocks, real estate, luxury goods, premium educations, etc.
But it's hard to produce more of those, so with an increase in money chasing them their prices
will rise. If the government handed money to poor people, they would buy food, clothes, cars,
televisions, etc. In other words, things that society can produce more of. That's my read, anyway.
Partially. Prices for good where quantities are truly fixed (like acres of land in San Francisco)
can rise sharply when extra money pours in.
But even when there is opportunity to increase production, manufacturers must purchase equipment
(like farm equipment for more food) or hire more workers (thereby tightening the labor market
and pushing wages up). These result in price hikes. More modest price hikes than San Francisco
real estate, but still real hikes. It's the classic supply vs. demand curve from classic microeconomics.
That said, "QE to the people" is certainly less objectionable than the "QE to the bankers and
the 1%" that we've seen over the past five years. Prices would go up, but people would get to
buy more things they want or need, and hiring would likely go up as well. [And at a minimum, there
needs to be at least *some* growth in the money supply to keep up with population growth. Otherwise
we see deflation and the ability to become wealthier by hoarding cash.]
"Here is a fact that you might not have heard from the Occupy Wall Street crowd: The incomes
at the top of the income distribution have fallen substantially over the past few years.
"According to the most recent IRS data, between 2007 and 2009, the 99th percentile income
(AGI, not inflation-adjusted) fell from $410,096 to $343,927. The 99.9th percentile income
fell from $2,155,365 to $1,432,890. During the same period, median income fell from $32,879
to $32,396."
This kind of ignorant cluelessness is pretty prevalent among the oligarchy and its supporters
like Mankiw. Just like that guy in Davos who simply couldn't understand why there's so much social
unrest in the world today. They live in a completely different world.
The big difference being that $70k to the 99th percentile means the difference between a new
Beemer this year or next while $500 for the median family means choosing which child goes hungry
for the second half of December.
And of course, Anonymous's excellent point. You are cherry picking old data based on a stock
market and real estate bubble crash. Median income families don't "own" real estate and certainly
don't own stocks.
Mankiw is either psychotic or was gleefully obfuscating when he presenting that out-dated analysis.
I say Kill the Rich and feed their bodies to the poor. It's not a solution at all (and I am
rich myself) but it would be deeply, deeply satisfying!
My first exposure to Mankiw's principles was actually an early version of the talk by Yoram
Bauman in this video. It hits
several of the points Mr. Black makes and is also pretty funny. It definitely demonstrates how
Mankiw attempts to cloak his biases in supposedly neutral terms.
As for number 6, I couldn't disagree with you more. Organisational power is dependent on it
being enforced BY THE GOVERNMENT. Without that coercion, individuals would find other solutions
for the want provided for by that particular organisation. I would suggest that you look at the
history of Pennsylvania circa 1681-1690 or Moresnet (in what is now Aachen) circa 1816 until the
end of WWI to understand what is possible when the free market really operates.
I am actually a returning undergrad student and starting an econ course next week. I just
looked at the text book… and its Mankiw. Should be a fun semester.
Don't argue with the PR. You need to be strategic. Regurgitate the BS but be sure to read enough
corrective material that the toxins don't infect your brain.
I doubt Mankiw will accept 100% estate tax on the justification that the cost of bequests
is zero to the recipient. (and thus a 100% estate tax doesn't incur large costs on the recipient)
"... Real income stagnation over a far longer period than any since the second world war is a fundamental political fact. But it cannot be the only driver of discontent. For many of those in the middle of the income distribution, cultural changes also appear threatening. So, too, does immigration - globalisation made flesh. Citizenship of their nations is the most valuable asset owned by most people in wealthy countries. They will resent sharing this with outsiders. Britain's vote to leave the EU was a warning. ..."
"... First, understand that we depend on one another for our prosperity. It is essential to balance assertions of sovereignty with the requirements of global co-operation. ..."
"... Second, reform capitalism. The role of finance is excessive. The stability of the financial system has improved. But it remains riddled with perverse incentives. The interests of shareholders are given excessive weight over those of other stakeholders in corporations. ..."
"... Above all, recognise the challenge. Prolonged stagnation, cultural upheavals and policy failures are combining to shake the balance between democratic legitimacy and global order. The candidacy of Mr Trump is a result. ..."
Real income stagnation over a longer period than any since the war is a fundamental political
fact
For every complex problem, there is an answer that is
clear, simple and wrong." HL Mencken could have been thinking of today's politics. The western
world undoubtedly confronts complex problems, notably, the dissatisfaction of so many citizens. Equally,
aspirants to power, such as Donald Trump in the US and Marine Le Pen in France, offer clear, simple
and wrong solutions - notably, nationalism, nativism and protectionism.
The remedies they offer are bogus. But the illnesses are real. If governing elites continue to
fail to offer convincing cures, they might soon be swept away and, with them, the effort to marry
democratic self-government with an open and co-operative world order.
What is the explanation for this backlash? A large part of the answer must be economic. Rising
prosperity is a good in itself.
But it also creates the possibility of positive-sum politics. This underpins democracy because
it is then feasible for everybody to become better off at the same time. Rising prosperity reconciles
people to economic and social disruption. Its absence foments rage.
The
McKinsey Global Institute sheds powerful light on what has been happening in a report entitled,
tellingly, Poorer than their Parents?, which demonstrates how many households have been suffering
from stagnant or falling real incomes. On average between 65 and 70 per cent of households in 25
high-income economies experienced this between 2005 and 2014. In the period between 1993 and 2005,
however, only 2 per cent of households suffered stagnant or declining real incomes. This applies
to market income. Because of fiscal redistribution, the proportion suffering from stagnant real disposable
incomes was between 20 and 25 per cent. (See charts.)
McKinsey has examined personal satisfaction through a survey of 6,000 French, British and Americans.
The consultants found that satisfaction depended more on whether people were advancing relative to
others like them in the past than whether they were improving relative to those better off than themselves
today. Thus people preferred becoming better off, even if they were not catching up with contemporaries
better off still. Stagnant incomes bother people more than rising inequality.
The main explanation for the prolonged stagnation in real incomes is the financial crises and
subsequent weak recovery. These experiences have destroyed popular confidence in the competence and
probity of business, administrative and political elites. But other shifts have also been adverse.
Among these are ageing (particularly important in Italy) and declining shares of wages in national
income (particularly important in the US, UK and Netherlands).
Real income stagnation over a far longer period than any since the second world war is a fundamental
political fact. But it cannot be the only driver of discontent. For many of those in the middle of
the income distribution, cultural changes also appear threatening. So, too, does immigration - globalisation
made flesh. Citizenship of their nations is the most valuable asset owned by most people in wealthy
countries. They will resent sharing this with outsiders. Britain's vote to leave the EU was a warning.
So what is to be done? If Mr Trump were to become president of the US,
it might already be too late. But suppose that this does not happen or, if it does, that the
result is not as dire as I fear. What then might be done?
First, understand that we depend on one another for our prosperity. It is essential to
balance assertions of sovereignty with the requirements of global co-operation. Global governance,
while essential, must be oriented towards doing things countries cannot do for themselves. It
must focus on providing the
essential global public goods. Today this means climate change is a higher priority than further
opening of world trade or capital flows.
Second, reform capitalism. The role of finance is excessive. The stability of the financial
system has improved. But it remains riddled with perverse incentives. The interests of shareholders
are given excessive weight over those of other stakeholders in corporations.
Third, focus international co-operation where it will help governments achieve significant
domestic objectives.
Perhaps the most important is taxation. Wealth owners, who depend on the security created
by legitimate democracies, should not escape taxation.
Fourth, accelerate economic growth and improve opportunities. Part of the answer is stronger
support for aggregate demand, particularly in the eurozone. But it is also essential to promote
investment and innovation.
It may be impossible to transform economic prospects. But higher minimum wages and generous
tax credits for working people are effective tools for raising incomes at the bottom of the distribution.
Fifth, fight the quacks. It is impossible to resist pressure to control flows of unskilled
workers into advanced economies. But this will not transform wages. Equally, protection against
imports is costly and will also fail to raise the share of manufacturing in employment significantly.
True, that share is far higher in Germany than in the US or UK. But Germany runs a huge trade
surplus and has a strong comparative advantage in manufacturing. This is not a generalisable state
of affairs. (See chart.)
Above all, recognise the challenge. Prolonged stagnation, cultural upheavals and policy failures
are combining to shake the balance between democratic legitimacy and global order. The candidacy
of Mr Trump is a result. Those who reject the chauvinist response must come forward with imaginative
and ambitious ideas aimed at re-establishing that balance. It is not going to be easy. But failure
must not be accepted.
Our civilisation itself is at stake.
"... I have with Silicon Valley and with venture capital pull together my interests in science and organization in a way I find really satisfying. ..."
"... I am not aiming to infuriate because the man we elected in 2008 to get tough with high finance and shut the revolving door was now talking about taking his own walk through that door and getting a job in finance. ..."
"... My object here is to describe the confident, complacent mood of the country's ruling class in the middle of last month ..."
"... It's easy to see the problems presented by a cliquish elite when they happen elsewhere. ..."
"... when an "idealistic" American president announces that he wants to seek a career in venture capital, we have trouble saying much of anything. ..."
"... This panic about so called elites is really a reaction to the notion that economics is a science and that those who 'run' the economy are 'technocrats'. The fact that economists differ so radically among themselves about their discipline is clear evidence that their ideas are not scientific in the properly accepted sense of the word. The world's economy is much too large and complex to be modeled by demonstrable theories. So what we have instead is not science, but politics. And a person's political views are are function of personality, background and worldly experience. ..."
"... To all this must be added the effect of the near-universal adoption of neo-liberal economic dogma to the globalized economy, with the consequent severity of inequality and its inevitable discontents. ..."
And so President Barack Obama did an interview with Business Week in which he was congratulated
for his stewardship of the economy and asked "what industries" he might choose to join upon his retirement
from the White House. The president replied as follows:
… what I will say is that – just to bring things full circle about innovation – the conversations
I have with Silicon Valley and with venture capital pull together my interests in science and
organization in a way I find really satisfying.
In relating this anecdote, I am not aiming to infuriate because the man we elected in 2008
to get tough with high finance and shut the revolving door was now talking about taking his own walk
through that door and getting a job in finance. No.
My object here is to describe the confident, complacent mood of the country's ruling class
in the middle of last month
... ... ...
It's easy to see the problems presented by a cliquish elite when they happen elsewhere.
In the countries of Old Europe, maybe, powerful politicians sell out grotesquely to Goldman Sachs;
but when an "idealistic" American president announces that he wants to seek a career in venture
capital, we have trouble saying much of anything.
I suppose that before voting for any candidate these days we would need him/her to be
able to demonstrate complete ignorance in every field.
This panic about so called elites is really a reaction to the notion that economics is
a science and that those who 'run' the economy are 'technocrats'. The fact that economists differ
so radically among themselves about their discipline is clear evidence that their ideas are not
scientific in the properly accepted sense of the word. The world's economy is much too large and
complex to be modeled by demonstrable theories. So what we have instead is not science, but politics.
And a person's political views are are function of personality, background and worldly experience.
The other aspect of this is the effect that developments in technology have had on previously
industrialized societies. In most of the countries of Western Europe industrialization created
a situation in which organized labour had real power and a distinctive voice. De-industrialization
has largely eliminated this from our political landscape with the result that people previously
represented by the unions no longer have either power or a voice. The alienating effect of this
can be seen in both Europe and the USA.
To all this must be added the effect of the near-universal adoption of neo-liberal economic
dogma to the globalized economy, with the consequent severity of inequality and its inevitable
discontents.
The radical, and in many instance, violent responses to various local circumstances in widely
different parts of the world - USA, France, Britain, Turkey, Syria, Hungary, Ukraine, Russia -
one could go on - may seem to be quite distinct, but they surely have a common root; at a time
of rapid and radical change in the very texture of human life, growing inequality within is an
explosive factor.
"... Admitting that the Iraq war was a grievous, horrible error is necessary but not sufficient to reform Republican foreign policy. ..."
"... The trouble with the rest of the 2016 field wasn't just that many of the candidates were Iraq war dead-enders, but that they were so obsessed with the idea of American "leadership" that almost all of them thought that the U.S. needed to be involved in multiple conflicts in different parts of the world in one way or another. ..."
"... Almost none of the declared 2016 candidates opposed the Libyan war at the time, and very few concluded that the problem with intervening in Libya was the intervention itself. The standard hawkish line on Libya for years has been that the U.S. should have committed itself to another open-ended exercise in stabilizing a country we helped to destabilize. ..."
"... Until Republican politicians and their advisers start to understand that reflexive support for "action" (and some kind of military action at that) is normally the wrong response, we can't expect much to change. Most Republican foreign policy professionals seem to hold the same shoddy assumptions that led them to endorse all of the interventions of the last 15 years without exception, and nothing that has happened during that time has caused most of them to reexamine those assumptions. ..."
"... Until they stop fetishizing American "leadership" and invoking "American exceptionalism" as an excuse to meddle in every new crisis, Republicans will end up in the same cul-de-sac of self-defeating belligerence. ..."
"... Opposition to the deal reflects so many of the flaws in current Republican foreign policy views: automatic opposition to any diplomatic compromise that might actually work, grossly exaggerating the potential threat from another state, conflating U.S. interests with those of unreliable client states, continually moving goalposts to judge a negotiated deal by unreasonable standards, insisting on maximalist concessions from the other side while refusing to agree to minimal concessions from ours, and making spurious and unfounded allegations of "appeasement" at every turn to score points against political adversaries at home. ..."
It would be a good start if all future presidential candidates could acknowledge the disastrous
and costly folly of the Iraq war, but it would only be a start. Admitting that the Iraq war was a
grievous, horrible error is necessary but not sufficient to reform Republican foreign policy.
The
trouble with the rest of the 2016 field wasn't just that many of the candidates were Iraq war dead-enders,
but that they were so obsessed with the idea of American "leadership" that almost all of them thought
that the U.S. needed to be involved in multiple conflicts in different parts of the world in one
way or another.
Almost none of the declared 2016 candidates opposed the Libyan war at the time, and
very few concluded that the problem with intervening in Libya was the intervention itself. The standard
hawkish line on Libya for years has been that the U.S. should have committed itself to another open-ended
exercise in stabilizing a country we helped to destabilize. Most Republican politicians are so wedded
to a belief in the efficacy of using hard power that they refuse to admit that there are many problems
that the U.S. can't and shouldn't try to solve with it.
Until Republican politicians and their advisers start to understand that reflexive support
for "action" (and some kind of military action at that) is normally the wrong response, we can't
expect much to change. Most Republican foreign policy professionals seem to hold the same shoddy
assumptions that led them to endorse all of the interventions of the last 15 years without exception,
and nothing that has happened during that time has caused most of them to reexamine those assumptions.
Until they stop fetishizing American "leadership" and invoking "American exceptionalism" as
an excuse to meddle in every new crisis, Republicans will end up in the same cul-de-sac of self-defeating
belligerence. Unless Republicans adopt a much less expansive definition of "vital interests,"
they will routinely end up on the wrong side of most major foreign policy debates.
Finally, unless most Republican politicians and their advisers overcome their aversion to diplomatic
engagement they will end up supporting costlier, less effective, and more destructive policies for
lack of practical alternatives. The virtually unanimous opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran
is a good example of the sort of thing that a reformed Republican Party wouldn't do.
Opposition to
the deal reflects so many of the flaws in current Republican foreign policy views: automatic opposition
to any diplomatic compromise that might actually work, grossly exaggerating the potential threat
from another state, conflating U.S. interests with those of unreliable client states, continually
moving goalposts to judge a negotiated deal by unreasonable standards, insisting on maximalist concessions
from the other side while refusing to agree to minimal concessions from ours, and making spurious
and unfounded allegations of "appeasement" at every turn to score points against political adversaries
at home.
Obviously these are habits cultivated over decades and are not going to be fixed quickly
or easily, but if the next Republican administration (whenever that may be) doesn't want to conduct
foreign policy as disastrously as the last one did they are habits that need to be broken.
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC, where he also keeps a solo blog. He has been
published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, Orthodox Life, Front Porch
Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and is a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in
history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Dallas. Follow him on Twitter.
"... Nonetheless, the Platform Committee's debates last week were interesting to watch and a good barometer of where the Republican Party stands on certain issues. The interactions on foreign policy and national security were especially revealing, and they all led to the same conclusion: neoconservatives are still very much the leaders of the GOP's foreign-policy machinery. ..."
"... If they were driven by public opinion, then, the delegates would have brought the platform's national-security proposals in a less hawkish and more realist direction. But every single amendment from libertarian-esque and anti-interventionist delegate Eric Brakey was defeated by voice vote without much debate. ..."
In the grand scheme of things, a political party's platform is an insignificant document. The
Republican Party's platform this year doesn't change this; despite the media's fascination with
the fact that Donald Trump's border wall made its way into the platform, the document is still a
non-binding, ideological missive, more of a goodie bag for conservative activists than an
operational plan.
Nonetheless, the Platform Committee's debates last week were interesting to watch and a good
barometer of where the Republican Party stands on certain issues. The interactions on foreign
policy and national security were especially revealing, and they all led to the same conclusion:
neoconservatives are still very much the leaders of the GOP's foreign-policy machinery.
According to a May 2016 Pew Research Center survey, a majority of Americans would rather let
other countries deal with their own affairs (57 percent) than plunge manpower and money overseas
to help other countries confront their challenges (37 percent). 62 percent of Republicans
surveyed want the United States to start taking its own domestic problems more seriously, and Pew
reports that "roughly 55 percent of Republicans view global economic engagement negatively." In
addition, the single most consequential foreign-policy decision that neoconservatives have
made-the invasion and occupation of Iraq-has been labeled a failure by a majority of Americans.
If they were driven by public opinion, then, the delegates would have brought the platform's
national-security proposals in a less hawkish and more realist direction. But every single
amendment from libertarian-esque and anti-interventionist delegate Eric Brakey was defeated by
voice vote without much debate. International diplomacy, the life-blood of U.S. foreign
policy and the option of first resort, was largely overshadowed by provisions that resemble the
doomsday scenarios you would find in an apocalyptic Hollywood thriller.
... ... ...
Daniel R. DePetris is an analyst at Wikistrat, Inc., a geostrategic consulting firm, and a
freelance researcher. He has also written for CNN.com, Small Wars Journal, and the Diplomat.
"... Manafort mentioned the return of Glass-Steagall specifically as a counterpoint against Hillary Clinton, arguing it was Democrats that were the ones actually beholden to big banks. "We believe the Obama-Clinton years have passed legislation that has been favorable to the big banks, which is why you see all the Wall Street money going to her," he said. "We are supporting the small banks and Main Street." ..."
"... Good! Screw the Clintons and crony capitalism. ..."
"... Bob Rubin already cashed the checks....Mission Accomplished. ..."
"... Laugh Track Deafening) ..."
"... How different would it be now if everyone in that photo had died simultaneously BEFORE Clinton signed it? ..."
"... Panic attacks and violent pangs on Wall Street tomorrow? Or will they just pour billions more into the Clinton corruption campaign? ..."
"... Hang the Clintons, Bushes, and all the damned banksters with them. Then your reforms might mean something ..."
While we know better than to trust politician promises, we were surprised to read that today the
GOP joined the Democrats in calling for a repeal of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the Financial Services Modernization
Act of 1999 pushed through by none other than Bill Clinton, and will seek a return to Glass-Steagall,
the banking law launched in 1933 in the aftermath of the Great Depression meant to prohibit commercial
banks from engaging in the investment business, and which according to many was one of the catalysts
that led to the Global Financial Crisis.
According to
The Hill, Paul Manafort, Donald Trump's campaign manager, told reporters gathered in Cleveland
Monday that the GOP platform would include language advocating for a return of that law, which was
repealed under President Bill Clinton, husband of, well you know...
"We also call for a reintroduction of Glass-Steagall, which created barriers between what big
banks can do," he said.
Including that language in the GOP platform comes shortly after Democrats agreed to similar language
in their own, calling for an "updated and modernized version" of the law.
However before anyone gets their hopes up, recall that a party platform is not binding but is thought
to reflect the values of the party.... until the values change as a result of Wall Street "incentives"
because if there is one thing US "commercial banks" can not afford it is a separation of their depository
and investment activities.
The GOP platform has not yet been officially released, although the convention is expected to
approve it later Monday. Nonetheless, the embrace of Glass-Steagall by both parties is a telling
indication of how unpopular Wall Street remains with the public, years after the financial crisis.
Manafort mentioned the return of Glass-Steagall specifically as a counterpoint against Hillary Clinton,
arguing it was Democrats that were the ones actually beholden to big banks. "We believe the Obama-Clinton
years have passed legislation that has been favorable to the big banks, which is why you see all
the Wall Street money going to her," he said. "We are supporting the small banks and Main Street."
...As the very sharp Patrick Iber tweeted somewhere, the usual response to economic distress
in democracies with broad franchises is: "Throw the bastards out!" Consider the Great Depression:
Labour collapses in Britain in 1931. The Republicans collapse in the U.S. in 1932. And in
Germany…
shudder
.
Then, I think, Dani firmly grasps the correct thread:
A greater weakness of the left [is] the absence of a clear
program to refashion capitalism and globalization for the
twenty-first century…. The left has failed to come up with
ideas that are economically sound and politically popular,
beyond ameliorative policies such as income transfers.
Economists and technocrats on the left bear a large part of
the blame. Instead of contributing to such a program, they
abdicated too easily to market fundamentalism and bought in
to its central tenets.
In retrospect, who can disagree? We misjudged the proper
balance between state and market, between command-and-control
and market-incentive roads to social democratic ends.
But then I must, again, dissent in part. Dani:
Worse still, [Economists and technocrats on the left] led
the hyper-globalization movement at crucial junctures. The
enthroning of free capital mobility-especially of the
short-term kind-as a policy norm by the European Union, the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and
the IMF was arguably the most fateful decision for the global
economy in recent decades. As Harvard Business School
professor Rawi Abdelal has shown, this effort was spearheaded
in the late 1980s and early 1990s not by free-market
ideologues, but by French technocrats such as Jacques Delors
(at the European Commission) and Henri Chavranski (at the
OECD), who were closely associated with the Socialist Party
in France. Similarly, in the US, it was technocrats
associated with the more Keynesian Democratic Party, such as
Lawrence Summers, who led the charge for financial
deregulation. France's Socialist technocrats appear to have
concluded from the failed Mitterrand experiment with
Keynesianism in the early 1980s that domestic economic
management was no longer possible, and that there was no real
alternative to financial globalization. The best that could
be done was to enact Europe-wide and global rules, instead of
allowing powerful countries like Germany or the US to impose
their own.
Tom aka Rusty said...
Going back to 1997, Rodrik is one of the few
economists who earned his pay.
Much of economics
has not been worth reading and not been worth
believing.
"That empowerment must be both economic and political. Workers deserve
to be compensated fairly for their work, and have generous social support
programs to rely upon when economic changes that are out of their control
throw them out of work or force them to accept lower paying jobs.
We should not hesitate to ask those who have gained so much from
globalization and technological change to give something back to those
who have paid the costs of their success."
All this would have been especially great, say, forty or even thirty
years ago.
"... Neoliberalism is a form of economism in our day that strikes at every moment at every sector of our community. It is a form of extremism. ..."
"... Every totalitarianism starts as distortion of language, as in the novel by George Orwell. Neoliberalism has its Newspeak and strategies of communication that enable it to deform reality. In this spirit, every budgetary cut is represented as an instance of modernization of the sectors concerned. If some of the most deprived are no longer reimbursed for medical expenses and so stop visiting the dentist, this is modernization of social security in action! ..."
"... Social Darwinism predominates, assigning the most stringent performance requirements to everyone and everything: to be weak is to fail. The foundations of our culture are overturned: every humanist premise is disqualified or demonetized because neoliberalism has the monopoly of rationality and realism. Margaret Thatcher said it in 1985: "There is no alternative." Everything else is utopianism, unreason and regression. The virtue of debate and conflicting perspectives are discredited because history is ruled by necessity. ..."
"... In spite of the crisis of 2008 and the hand-wringing that followed, nothing was done to police the financial community and submit them to the requirements of the common good. Who paid? Ordinary people, you and me. ..."
By Manuela Cadelli, President of the Magistrates' Union of Belgium
The time for rhetorical reservations is over. Things have to be called by their name to make it
possible for a co-ordinated democratic reaction to be initiated, above all in the public services.2
Liberalism was a doctrine derived from the philosophy of Enlightenment, at once political and
economic, which aimed at imposing on the state the necessary distance for ensuring respect for liberties
and the coming of democratic emancipation. It was the motor for the arrival, and the continuing progress,
of Western democracies.
Neoliberalism is a form of economism in our day that strikes at every moment at every sector of
our community. It is a form of extremism.
Fascism may be defined as the subordination of every part of the State to a totalitarian and nihilistic
ideology. I argue that neoliberalism is a species of fascism because the economy has brought under subjection
not only the government of democratic countries but also every aspect of our thought.1 The state is now at the disposal of the economy and of finance, which treat it as a subordinate
and lord over it to an extent that puts the common good in jeopardy.
The austerity that is demanded by the financial milieu has become a supreme value, replacing politics.
Saving money precludes pursuing any other public objective. It is reaching the point where claims
are being made that the principle of budgetary orthodoxy should be included in state constitutions.
A mockery is being made of the notion of public service.
The nihilism that results from this makes possible the dismissal of universalism and the most
evident humanistic values: solidarity, fraternity, integration and respect for all and for differences.
There is no place any more even for classical economic theory: work was formerly an element in
demand, and to that extent there was respect for workers; international finance has made of it a
mere adjustment variable.
Every totalitarianism starts as distortion of language, as in the novel by George Orwell. Neoliberalism
has its Newspeak and strategies of communication that enable it to deform reality. In this spirit,
every budgetary cut is represented as an instance of modernization of the sectors concerned. If some
of the most deprived are no longer reimbursed for medical expenses and so stop visiting the dentist,
this is modernization of social security in action!
Abstraction predominates in public discussion so as to occlude the implications for human beings.
Thus, in relation to migrants, it is imperative that the need for hosting them does not lead to
public appeals that our finances could not accommodate. Is it In the same way that other individuals
qualify for assistance out of considerations of national solidarity?
The cult of evaluation
Social Darwinism predominates, assigning the most stringent performance requirements to everyone
and everything: to be weak is to fail. The foundations of our culture are overturned: every humanist
premise is disqualified or demonetized because neoliberalism has the monopoly of rationality and
realism. Margaret Thatcher said it in 1985: "There is no alternative." Everything else is utopianism,
unreason and regression. The virtue of debate and conflicting perspectives are discredited because
history is ruled by necessity.
This subculture harbours an existential threat of its own: shortcomings of performance condemn
one to disappearance while at the same time everyone is charged with inefficiency and obliged to
justify everything. Trust is broken. Evaluation reigns, and with it the bureaucracy which imposes
definition and research of a plethora of targets, and indicators with which one must comply. Creativity
and the critical spirit are stifled by management. And everyone is beating his breast about the wastage
and inertia of which he is guilty.1
The neglect of justice
The neoliberal ideology generates a normativity that competes with the laws of parliament. The
democratic power of law is compromised. Given that they represent a concrete embodiment of liberty
and emancipation, and given the potential to prevent abuse that they impose, laws and procedures
have begun to look like obstacles.
The power of the judiciary, which has the ability to oppose the will of the ruling circles, must
also be checkmated. The Belgian judicial system is in any case underfunded. In 2015 it came last
in a European ranking that included all states located between the Atlantic and the Urals. In two
years the government has managed to take away the independence given to it under the Constitution
so that it can play the counterbalancing role citizens expect of it. The aim of this undertaking
is clearly that there should no longer be justice in Belgium.
A caste above the Many
But the dominant class doesn't prescribe for itself the same medicine it wants to see ordinary
citizens taking: well-ordered austerity begins with others. The economist Thomas Piketty has perfectly
described this in his study of inequality and capitalism in the twenty-first century (French edition,
Seuil, 2013).
In spite of the crisis of 2008 and the hand-wringing that followed, nothing was done to police
the financial community and submit them to the requirements of the common good. Who paid? Ordinary
people, you and me.
And while the Belgian State consented to 7 billion-euro ten-year tax breaks for multinationals,
ordinary litigants have seen surcharges imposed on access to justice (increased court fees, 21% taxation
on legal fees). From now on, to obtain redress the victims of injustice are going to have to be rich.
All this in a state where the number of public representatives breaks all international records.
In this particular area, no evaluation and no costs studies are reporting profit. One example: thirty
years after the introduction of the federal system, the provincial institutions survive. Nobody can
say what purpose they serve. Streamlining and the managerial ideology have conveniently stopped at
the gates of the political world.
The security ideal
Terrorism, this other nihilism that exposes our weakness in affirming our values, is likely to
aggravate the process by soon making it possible for all violations of our liberties, all violations
of our rights, to circumvent the powerless qualified judges, further reducing social protection for
the poor, who will be sacrificed to "the security ideal".
Salvation in commitment
These developments certainly threaten the foundations of our democracy, but do they condemn us
to discouragement and despair?
Certainly not. 500 years ago, at the height of the defeats that brought down most Italian states
with the imposition of foreign occupation for more than three centuries, Niccolo Machiavelli urged
virtuous men to defy fate and stand up against the adversity of the times, to prefer action and daring
to caution. The more tragic the situation, the more it necessitates action and the refusal to "give
up" (The Prince, Chapters XXV and XXVI).
This is a teaching that is clearly required today. The determination of citizens attached to the
radical of democratic values is an invaluable resource which has not yet revealed, at least in Belgium,
its driving potential and power to change what is presented as inevitable. Through social networking
and the power of the written word, everyone can now become involved, particularly when it comes to
public services, universities, the student world, the judiciary and the Bar, in bringing the common
good and social justice into the heart of public debate and the administration of the state and the
community.
Neoliberalism is a species of fascism. It must be fought and humanism fully restored.4
"... As the world reels from the Brexit shock, it is dawning on economists and policymakers that they severely underestimated the political fragility of the current form of globalization. The popular revolt that appears to be underway is taking diverse, overlapping forms: reassertion of local and national identities, demand for greater democratic control and accountability, rejection of centrist political parties, and distrust of elites and experts. ..."
"... As an emerging new establishment consensus grudgingly concedes, globalization accentuates class divisions between those who have the skills and resources to take advantage of global markets and those who don't. Income and class cleavages, in contrast to identity cleavages based on race, ethnicity, or religion, have traditionally strengthened the political left. So why has the left been unable to mount a significant political challenge to globalization? ..."
"... Latin American democracies provide a telling contrast. These countries experienced globalization mostly as a trade and foreign-investment shock, rather than as an immigration shock. Globalization became synonymous with so-called Washington Consensus policies and financial opening. Immigration from the Middle East or Africa remained limited and had little political salience. So the populist backlash in Latin America – in Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, and, most disastrously, Venezuela – took a left-wing form. ..."
"... Economists and technocrats on the left bear a large part of the blame. Instead of contributing to such a program, they abdicated too easily to market fundamentalism and bought in to its central tenets. Worse still, they led the hyper-globalization movement at crucial junctures. ..."
"... The enthroning of free capital mobility – especially of the short-term kind – as a policy norm by the European Union, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the IMF was arguably the most fateful decision for the global economy in recent decades. ..."
"... Similarly, in the US, it was technocrats associated with the more Keynesian Democratic Party, such as Lawrence Summers, who led the charge for financial deregulation. ..."
"... France's Socialist technocrats appear to have concluded from the failed Mitterrand experiment with Keynesianism in the early 1980s that domestic economic management was no longer possible, and that there was no real alternative to financial globalization. The best that could be done was to enact Europe-wide and global rules, instead of allowing powerful countries like Germany or the US to impose their own. ..."
"... The good news is that the intellectual vacuum on the left is being filled, and there is no longer any reason to believe in the tyranny of "no alternatives." Politicians on the left have less and less reason not to draw on "respectable" academic firepower in economics. ..."
"... Consider just a few examples: Anat Admati and Simon Johnson have advocated radical banking reforms; Thomas Piketty and Tony Atkinson have proposed a rich menu of policies to deal with inequality at the national level; Mariana Mazzucato and Ha-Joon Chang have written insightfully on how to deploy the public sector to foster inclusive innovation; Joseph Stiglitz and José Antonio Ocampo have proposed global reforms; Brad DeLong, Jeffrey Sachs, and Lawrence Summers (the very same!) have argued for long-term public investment in infrastructure and the green economy. There are enough elements here for building a programmatic economic response from the left. ..."
"... Economists have finally admitted that offshoring has resulted in the loss of American jobs. They no long mention that only a few years they claimed that offshoring created newer and higher paying American jobs. Isn't science wonderful. Middle and working class women went to work to maintain living standards, eventually the middle and working classes resorted to debt resulting in the Great Recession. ..."
"... In addition to economic instability and decline of the lower orders the federal government has sought to encourage immigration, H1-Bs, refugees and others. These people take jobs from Americans (economist dogma notwithstanding) or reduce American incomes if they are not on public assistance. ..."
"... Even Krugman has characterized America as a plutocracy. ..."
"... Yet the sudden success of Trump shows that many Americans are too angry to listen to plans for distant economic melioration or to tolerate cultural destabilization at the hands of government that no longer represents their interests, economic or cultural. Liberals can castigate them and dismiss their political judgment but it might help to spend some time trying to see the world from their perspective ..."
"... As they don't seem to fit into the equations and theories of the economists, both civic virtue and public trust have been assigned an economic value of zero and factored out of the "it's the ecomomy stupid" world view entirely. Or so it seems to me. ..."
"... "Who's rich?" is an easier question to answer than "who's trustworthy." ..."
"... The Washington consensus was pure Hayek. Summers was the purest of the pure on the Washington consensus. As Summers destroyed Yeltsin's good economic reform in 1993, Stiglitz was his chief adversary in government. Stiglitz wrote about how utterly ideological Summers was. And was under Obama. Now he is for the pittance of infrastructure Clinton wants in the hope she will name him Fed chief. ..."
"... The utter hysteria about Trump on the "left" is very illuminating . One judges a populist like Trump at one's peril. But the evidence strongly suggests that Hank Paulson and George Will--and others like them--understand Trump and Clinton quite well on domestic policy. She is the Republican--and as in 1964, a Goldwater Republican at that. He is on the left. The left does not want a left-wing policy. ..."
"... IS THERE THE MENTION OF THE WORD "LABOR UNION" IN THERE ANYWHERE -- ADMITTEDLY ONLY COMPLETELY MISSING IN THE US? ..."
"... When you have the US congress acting like a Roman senate but without a Ceasar, legislating left and right as if they are the supremos on the world stage and destroying anything and everything in their path and other world leaders following the orders of their masters in the US without questioning or even a say, how can one expect anything to work. ..."
[T]he experience in Latin America and southern Europe reveals perhaps a greater weakness of
the left: the absence of a clear program to refashion capitalism and globalization for the twenty-first
century. From Greece's Syriza to Brazil's Workers' Party, the left has failed to come up with
ideas that are economically sound and politically popular, beyond ameliorative policies such as
income transfers.
Economists and technocrats on the left bear a large part of the blame. Instead of contributing
to such a program, they abdicated too easily to market fundamentalism and bought in to its central
tenets. Worse still, they led the hyper-globalization movement at crucial junctures.
As the world reels from the Brexit shock, it is dawning on economists and policymakers that
they severely underestimated the political fragility of the current form of globalization. The popular
revolt that appears to be underway is taking diverse, overlapping forms: reassertion of local and
national identities, demand for greater democratic control and accountability, rejection of centrist
political parties, and distrust of elites and experts.
This backlash was predictable. Some economists, including me, did warn about the consequences of
pushing economic globalization beyond the boundaries of institutions that regulate, stabilize, and
legitimize markets. Hyper-globalization in trade and finance, intended to create seamlessly integrated
world markets, tore domestic societies apart.
The bigger surprise is the decidedly right-wing tilt the political reaction has taken. In Europe,
it is predominantly nationalists and nativist populists that have risen to prominence, with the left
advancing only in a few places such as Greece and Spain. In the United States, the right-wing demagogue
Donald Trump has managed to displace the Republican establishment, while the leftist Bernie Sanders
was unable to overtake the centrist Hillary Clinton.
As an emerging new establishment consensus grudgingly concedes, globalization accentuates
class divisions between those who have the skills and resources to take advantage of global markets
and those who don't. Income and class cleavages, in contrast to identity cleavages based on race,
ethnicity, or religion, have traditionally strengthened the political left. So why has the left been
unable to mount a significant political challenge to globalization?
One answer is that immigration has overshadowed other globalization "shocks." The perceived threat
of mass inflows of migrants and refugees from poor countries with very different cultural traditions
aggravates identity cleavages that far-right politicians are exceptionally well placed to exploit.
So it is not a surprise that rightist politicians from Trump to Marine Le Pen lace their message
of national reassertion with a rich dose of anti-Muslim symbolism.
Latin American democracies provide a telling contrast. These countries experienced globalization
mostly as a trade and foreign-investment shock, rather than as an immigration shock. Globalization
became synonymous with so-called Washington Consensus policies and financial opening. Immigration
from the Middle East or Africa remained limited and had little political salience. So the populist
backlash in Latin America – in Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, and, most disastrously, Venezuela – took
a left-wing form.
The story is similar in the main two exceptions to right-wing resurgence in Europe – Greece and
Spain. In Greece, the main political fault line has been austerity policies imposed by European institutions
and the International Monetary Fund. In Spain, most immigrants until recently came from culturally
similar Latin American countries. In both countries, the far right lacked the breeding ground it
had elsewhere.
But the experience in Latin America and southern Europe reveals perhaps a greater weakness of
the left: the absence of a clear program to refashion capitalism and globalization for the twenty-first
century. From Greece's Syriza to Brazil's Workers' Party, the left has failed to come up with ideas
that are economically sound and politically popular, beyond ameliorative policies such as income
transfers.
Economists and technocrats on the left bear a large part of the blame. Instead of contributing
to such a program, they abdicated too easily to market fundamentalism and bought in to its central
tenets. Worse still, they led the hyper-globalization movement at crucial junctures.
The enthroning of free capital mobility – especially of the short-term kind – as a policy
norm by the European Union, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the IMF
was arguably the most fateful decision for the global economy in recent decades. As Harvard
Business School professor Rawi Abdelal has shown, this effort was spearheaded in the late 1980s and
early 1990s not by free-market ideologues, but by French technocrats such as Jacques Delors (at the
European Commission) and Henri Chavranski (at the OECD), who were closely associated with the Socialist
Party in France. Similarly, in the US, it was technocrats associated with the more Keynesian
Democratic Party, such as Lawrence Summers, who led the charge for financial deregulation.
France's Socialist technocrats appear to have concluded from the failed Mitterrand experiment
with Keynesianism in the early 1980s that domestic economic management was no longer possible, and
that there was no real alternative to financial globalization. The best that could be done was to
enact Europe-wide and global rules, instead of allowing powerful countries like Germany or the US
to impose their own.
The good news is that the intellectual vacuum on the left is being filled, and there is no
longer any reason to believe in the tyranny of "no alternatives." Politicians on the left have less
and less reason not to draw on "respectable" academic firepower in economics.
Consider just a few examples: Anat Admati and Simon Johnson have advocated radical banking
reforms; Thomas Piketty and Tony Atkinson have proposed a rich menu of policies to deal with inequality
at the national level; Mariana Mazzucato and Ha-Joon Chang have written insightfully on how to deploy
the public sector to foster inclusive innovation; Joseph Stiglitz and José Antonio Ocampo have proposed
global reforms; Brad DeLong, Jeffrey Sachs, and Lawrence Summers (the very same!) have argued for
long-term public investment in infrastructure and the green economy. There are enough elements here
for building a programmatic economic response from the left.
A crucial difference between the right and the left is that the right thrives on deepening divisions
in society – "us" versus "them" – while the left, when successful, overcomes these cleavages through
reforms that bridge them. Hence the paradox that earlier waves of reforms from the left – Keynesianism,
social democracy, the welfare state – both saved capitalism from itself and effectively rendered
themselves superfluous. Absent such a response again, the field will be left wide open for populists
and far-right groups, who will lead the world – as they always have – to deeper division and more
frequent conflict.
Dani Rodrik is Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is the author of The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy and, most recently, Economics Rules: The Rights and Wrongs of the Dismal Science.
Tom Shillock JUL 12, 2016
The distribution of a society's benefits and burdens at any point in time is zero sum. Over
the past four decades financial deregulation, tax laws and numerous federal government
policies transferred the bulk of the gains from GDP to the upper class while causing numerous
financial crises (100+ according to Martin Wolf, The Shifts and The Shocks). Economists
have finally admitted that offshoring has resulted in the loss of American jobs. They no long
mention that only a few years they claimed that offshoring created newer and higher paying
American jobs. Isn't science wonderful. Middle and working class women went to work to
maintain living standards, eventually the middle and working classes resorted to debt
resulting in the Great Recession.
In addition to economic instability and decline of the lower orders the federal government
has sought to encourage immigration, H1-Bs, refugees and others. These people take jobs from
Americans (economist dogma notwithstanding) or reduce American incomes if they are not on
public assistance. The effects are working their way up the 'skill' level. This at a time
when middle and working class Americans lack universal health care, are being priced out of
higher education, lack job security, lack decent unemployment benefits and have one of the
worst social safety net in the OECD.
Self-styled American "liberals" don't seem to distinguish between the legitimate claims of
their fellow citizens and the sympathy or empathy for foreigners. Surely, citizens, especially
the middle and working classes, should have first claim to the country's resources; not the
rich and not foreigners. Citizens of a country also have a right to their culture, to not have
their taxes pay to suddenly impose large numbers of people from foreign cultures on them. Is
it an wonder that many Americans feel abandoned by their government?
America has never been a "melting pot" (Cf. Beyond the Melting Pot by Nathan Glazer and Daniel
Patrick Moynihan). Should it surprise that "liberals" provoke a backlash by trying to impose
their utopian idea of American society on Americans who have seen their economic prospects
decline for four decades with little prospect of improvement? Even Krugman has
characterized America as a plutocracy. Piketty argues that inequality will increase
absent countervailing policies. Yet the sudden success of Trump shows that many Americans
are too angry to listen to plans for distant economic melioration or to tolerate cultural
destabilization at the hands of government that no longer represents their interests, economic
or cultural. Liberals can castigate them and dismiss their political judgment but it might
help to spend some time trying to see the world from their perspective
Denis Drew JUL 12, 2016
" Consider just a few examples: Anat Admati and Simon Johnson have advocated radical
banking reforms; Thomas Piketty and Tony Atkinson have proposed a rich menu of policies to
deal with inequality at the national level; Mariana Mazzucato and Ha-Joon Chang have written
insightfully on how to deploy the public sector to foster inclusive innovation; Joseph
Stiglitz and José Antonio Ocampo have proposed global reforms; Brad DeLong, Jeffrey Sachs, and
Lawrence Summers (the very same!) have argued for long-term public investment in
infrastructure and the green economy. There are enough elements here for building a
programmatic economic response from the left. "
I wonder though if the hegemony of the economic perspective in modern society hasn't played
a vital role in both the abdication of the left AND the corruption of the right?
As they don't seem to fit into the equations and theories of the economists, both civic
virtue and public trust have been assigned an economic value of zero and factored out of the
"it's the ecomomy stupid" world view entirely. Or so it seems to me.
"Who's rich?" is an easier question to answer than "who's trustworthy."
Perhaps it isn't that "economic globalizations" has been pushed too far, but that the
reduction of all human values to economic terms has.
Jerry F. Hough Jun 11, 2016
I have long followed Dani's work and agreed with his general analysis. He has an unusual
knowledge of developing country politics, especially in Turkey and the Middle East
As a person involved for 55 years--really 60 years- in Soviet-American relations and policy
politics or now for the last 15 years research and teaching on American political history and
presidential politics, I would like to add a few points.
First, there are very few left-wingers on the left-wing. Free trade is Hayek applied to the
international sphere where there is no government at all and, except for some bankers and the
like, not even the common norms that Hayek substituted for government.
The Washington consensus was pure Hayek. Summers was the purest of the pure on the
Washington consensus. As Summers destroyed Yeltsin's good economic reform in 1993, Stiglitz
was his chief adversary in government. Stiglitz wrote about how utterly ideological Summers
was. And was under Obama. Now he is for the pittance of infrastructure Clinton wants in the
hope she will name him Fed chief.
Second, as we in Soviet studies understood, the left and right meet at the extremes and are
not that different. Nazi was appropriately named. Hitler was National Socialist -- truly awful
on the Nationalist side, but also quite socialist in domestic economic policy. Mussolini began
as a Communist.
The New Left and Goldwater right of the 1960s had a very different set of views from the
nationalistic socialists, but they were alike in being very, very similar in their libertarian
views. Russell KIrk and Gordon Tullock were right in calling them anarchisti.
The utter hysteria about Trump on the "left" is very illuminating . One judges a
populist like Trump at one's peril. But the evidence strongly suggests that Hank Paulson and
George Will--and others like them--understand Trump and Clinton quite well on domestic policy.
She is the Republican--and as in 1964, a Goldwater Republican at that. He is on the left. The
left does not want a left-wing policy.
In foreign policy the evidence is even stronger that Trump would transform American foreign
policy in the Middle East. Just as Nixon attacked "Communism" to reconcile with the Soviet
Union and, as his chief adviser on the Soviet Union says, Reagan had a military buildup to
prepare the public to accept real peace with the Soviet Union (and Obama had pro-Muslim
rhetoric to hide the giving of all power to Cheney's man Brenner and the killing of Muslims),
Trump's anti Muslim talk is almost surely a set-up for an anti-Netanyahu policy. The utter,
utter, utter hysteria of the Netanyahu lobby shows they understand.
But the American "left-wing" is the New Left of the 1960s. It rejected the Old Left and a
positive role for government. It was as libertarian in economics as in cultural life. Summers,
who was 18 years old in the 1972 of McGovern is the epitome. (Krugman was 19). Bill Clinton,
who conducted the libertarian revolution of 1992 was 26 in 1972.
This generation is passing. Trump, born in 1946, unfortunately, was raised in the
confrontational atmosphere and retains its spirit. but at least he was in business and not
part of the politics of the street. By the 2020s the millennials of the 1980s who came of age
from 2000 to 2015 will be in power for three decades and have a very different set of
assumptions.
Let us just hope the West survives until then. Read less
IS THERE THE MENTION OF THE WORD "LABOR UNION" IN THERE ANYWHERE -- ADMITTEDLY ONLY
COMPLETELY MISSING IN THE US?
As long as nobody else talks about re-unionization (as the beginning and the end of
re-constituting the American dream) - nobody thinks it is possible to talk about …
… or something.
Easy as pie to make union busting a felony in our most progressive states f(WA, OR, CA, NV,
IL, NY, MD) - and then get out of the way as the first 2000 people in the many telephone
directories re-define our future.
Do this or do nothing.
M M Jun 11, 2016
Dani, one should stop blaming migration (which is totally different from the refugees
influx) and the right, centre and left parties. Based on the latest UK and US events, it very
clear to the wise that none of these factors is a cause of the rise in nationalism or the
discontent by the population. When you have the US congress acting like a Roman senate but
without a Ceasar, legislating left and right as if they are the supremos on the world stage
and destroying anything and everything in their path and other world leaders following the
orders of their masters in the US without questioning or even a say, how can one expect
anything to work.
Enough of the passing of the buck and of blaming the abstract. All problems started since
this US administration came to office and due to its weakness or concealed collusion in
resolving the important issues affecting the US and the world economies.
This thread is interesting by presence of complete lunatics like
Brett Dunbar , who claims tha capitalism leads to peace.
Notable quotes:
"... Militarism is the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively [^1] to defend or promote national interests ..."
"... Bringing Bush, Blair, and Aznar to justice would be the greatest deterrent for further war. I like the part about economic crimes. Justice brings peace. ..."
"... War is a tool of competition for resources. Think Iraq. ..."
"... the Nuremberg War Crimes tribunal hanged Nazis for doing exactly what Bush 2 and company did ..."
"... The Labour leader said last year Blair could face trial if the report found he was guilty of launching an illegal war. ..."
"... John Quiggin, I think your definition of militarism is flawed. I think that cultural attitudes and the social status of the military are very important as well. To paraphrase Andrew Bacevich, Militarism is the idea that military solutions to a country's problems are more effective than they really are. Militarism assumes that the military's way of running things is inherently correct. A militaristic society glorifies violence and the people who carry it out in the name of the state. ..."
"... They chose force first and dealt with the consequences later. So militarism can exist and flourish on a tight budget. Its all about mentality. ..."
"... The notion that capitalism is peaceful is preposterous, even if you accept the bizarre notion that only wars between the capitalist Great Powers really count as wars. It's true that it's tacitly presumed by many, perhaps most, learned authorities. But that is an indictment of the authorities, not a justification for the claim. The closely related claim that capitalism is responsible for technological advancement on inspection suggests that the real story is that technological progress enabled the European states to begin empires that funded capitalist development. ..."
"... Russia and China had achieved success in Central Asia, unlike the United States, by pursuing a respectful [sic] foreign policy based on mutual interest. ..."
"... Although the term 'global policeman' (or 'cops of the world') is mostly used ironically (in my experience), 'policeman' does have a straight meaning, denoting a person who operates under the authority of law, whereas the supreme Mafia capo is a law and authority unto himself, at least until someone assassinates him. I think this second metaphor more closely approximates the position and behavior of the present United States. ..."
100 years after the Battle of the Somme, it's hard to see that much has been learned from the
catastrophe of the Great War and the decades of slaughter that followed it. Rather than get bogged
down (yet again) in specifics that invariably decline into arguments about who know more of the historical
detail, I'm going to try a different approach, looking at the militarist ideology that gave us the
War, and trying to articulate an anti-militarist alternative.
Wikipedia offers a definition
of militarism which, with the deletion of a single weasel word, seems to be entirely satisfactory
and also seems to describe the dominant view of the political class, and much of the population in
nearly every country in the world.
Militarism is the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain
a strong military capability and be prepared to use it
aggressively[^1] to defend or promote national
interests
Wikipedia isn't as satisfactory (to me) on
anti-militarism, so I'll
essentially reverse the definition above, and offer the following provisional definition
Anti-militarism is the belief or desire that a military expenditure should held to the minimum
required to protect a country against armed attack and that, with the exception of self-defense,
military power should not be used to promote national interests
I'd want to qualify this a bit, but it seems like a good starting point.
... ... ...
My case for anti-militarism has two main elements.
First, the consequentialist case against the discretionary use of military force is overwhelming.
Wars cause huge damage and destruction and preparation for war is immensely costly. Yet it is
just about impossible to find examples where a discretionary decision to go to war has produced
a clear benefit for the country concerned, or even for its ruling class. Even in cases where war
is initially defensive, attempts to secure war aims beyond the status quo ante have commonly led
to disaster.
Second, war is (almost) inevitably criminal since it involves killing and maiming people who
have done nothing personally to justify this; not only civilians, but soldiers (commonly including
conscripts) obeying the lawful orders of their governments.
Having made the strong case, I'll admit a couple of exceptions. First, although most of the above
has been posed in terms of national military power, there's nothing special in the argument that
requires this. Collective self-defense by a group of nations is justified (or not) on the same grounds
as national self-defense.
... ... ...
[^1]: The deleted word "aggressive" is doing a lot of work here. Almost no government ever admits
to being aggressive. Territorial expansion is invariable represented as the restoration of historically
justified borders while the overthrow of a rival government is the liberation of its oppressed people.
So, no one ever has to admit to being a militarist.
Is it obvious that limiting use of military force to self-defense entails a minimal capability
for force projection?
If the cost of entirely securing a nation's territory (Prof Q, you will
recognise the phrase "Fortress Australia") is very high relative to the cost of being able to
threaten an adversary's territorial interests in a way that is credible and meaningful – would
it not then be unavoidably tempting to appeal to an expanded notion of self-defence and buy a
force-projection capability, even if your intent is genuinely peaceful?
To speculate a little further – I would worry that so many people would need to be committed
to "national defence" on a purely defensive model that it would have the unintended side effect
of promoting a martial culture that normalises the use of armed force.
Of course, none of this applies if everyone abandons their force-projection capability – but
is that a stable equilibrium, even if it could be achieved?
Well, you'll be pleased to know that they're working hard on WWI's perception [1]. Many of us
working against militarism. Not easy. And the linked NYtimes piece is worth reading.
I think it'd make sense to talk about imperialism, rather than militarism. Military is just a
tool. One could, for example, bribe another country's military leaders, or finance a paramilitary
force in the targeted state, or just organize a violence-inciting mass-media campaign to produce
the same result.
We'd need an alternative history of the Cold War to work through the ramifications of a less aggressive
Western military. Russia would have developed nuclear weapons even if there hadn't been an army
at its borders, and the borders of the Eastern bloc were arguably more the result of opportunity
than necessity. The colonial wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan and everywhere else could be similarly
described.
After World War I, the chastened combatants sheepishly disarmed, cognizant of their
insanity. World War II taught a different lesson, perhaps because, in contrast to the previous
kerfuffle, both the Russian and American behemoths became fully engaged and unleashed their full
industrial and demographic might, sweeping their common foes from the field, and found themselves
confronting each other in dubious peace.
Both sides armed for the apocalypse with as many ways to bring about the end of civilization
as they could devise, all the while mindlessly meddling with each other around the globe. Eventually
the Russians gave up; their system really was as bad as we thought, and Moore's law is pitiless:
the gap expands exponentially. They've shrunk, and so has their military.
So why is America such a pre-eminent bully, able to defeat the rest of the world combined in
combat? Habit, pride, domestic politics, sure; but blame our allies as well. Britain and France
asked us to to kick ass in Libya, and Syria is not that different. We've got this huge death-dealing
machine and everyone tells us how to use it.
Ridiculous as it is, it's not nearly as bad as it was a hundred years ago, or seventy, or forty.
We may still be on course to extinguish human civilization, but warfare no longer looks like its
likely cause.
david 07.04.16 at 8:14 am
As you point out in fn1, nobody seems to ever fight "aggressive" wars. By the same token, there's
no agreed status quo ante. For France in 1913, the status quo ante bellum has Lorraine restored
to France. Also, Germany fractures into Prussia and everyone else, and the Germans should go back
to putting out local regionalist fires (as Austria-Hungary is busy doing) rather than challenging
French supremacy in Europe and Africa please.
The position advanced in the essay is one for
an era where ships do not hop from coaling station to coaling station, where the supremacy of
the Most Favoured Nation system means that powerful countries do not find their domestic politics
held hostage for access to raw materials controlled by other countries, where shipping lanes are
neutral as a matter of course, and where the Green Revolution has let rival countries be content
to bid, not kill, for limited resources. We can argue over whether this state of affairs is contingent
on the tiger-repelling rock or actual, angry tigers, but I don't think we disagree that this is
the state of affairs, at least for the countries powerful enough to matter.
But, you know, that's not advice that 1913 would find appealing, which is a little odd given
the conceit that this is about the Somme. The Concert of Europe bounced from war to war to war.
Every flag that permits war in this 'anti-militarist' position is met and then some. It was unending
crisis after crisis that miraculously never escalated to total war, but no country today would
regard crises of those nature as acceptable today – hundreds of thousands of Germans were besieging
Paris in 1870! Hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen were dead! If Napoleon III had the Bomb he would
have used it. But he did not. There was no three score years of postwar consumer economy under
the peaceful shadow of nuclear armageddon.
Anderson 07.04.16 at 9:07 am
3: "After World War I, the chastened combatants sheepishly disarmed, cognizant of their insanity."
One could only wish this were true. Germany was disarmed by force and promptly schemed for the
day it would rearm; Russia's civil war continued for some years; France and Britain disarmed because
they were broke, not because they'd recognized any folly.
… Quiggin, I don't know if you read Daniel Larison at The American Conservative; his domestic
politics would likely horrify us both, but happily
jake the antisoshul sohulist 07.04.16 at 1:32 pm
Other than the reference to "the redempive power of war", the mythification of the military
is not mentioned in the definition of militarism. I don't think a definition of militarism can
focus only on the political/policy aspects and ignore the cultural aspects.
Militarism is as much cultural as it is political, and likely even more so.
Theophylact 07.04.16 at 2:17 pm
Tacitus:
Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt,
pacem appellant (To plunder, butcher, steal, these things they misname empire: they make a
desolation and they call it peace).
LFC 07.04.16 at 4:55 pm
from the OP:
100 years after the Battle of the Somme, it's hard to see that much has been learned from
the catastrophe of the Great War
The counterargument to this statement is that the world's 'great powers' did indeed learn
something from the Great War: namely, they learned that great-power war is a pointless
endeavor. Hitler of course didn't learn that, which is, basically, why WW2 happened. But there
hasn't been a great-power war - i.e., a sustained conflict directly between two or more
'great' or major powers - since WW2 (or some wd say the Korean War qualifies as a great-power
war, in which case 1953 wd be the date of the end of the last great-power war).
The next step is to extend the learned lesson about great-power war to other kinds of war.
That extension has proven difficult, but there's no reason to assume it's forever impossible.
-–
p.s. There are various extant definitions of 'great power', some of which emphasize factors
other than military power. For purposes of this comment, though, one can go with Mearsheimer's
definition: "To qualify as a great power, a state [i.e., country] must have sufficient
military assets to put up a serious fight in an all-out conventional war against the most
[militarily] powerful state in the world" (The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001), p.5).
Using this definition of 'great power', the last war in which two or more great powers
directly fought each other in any kind of sustained fashion (i.e. more than a short conflict
of roughly a week or two [or less]) was, as stated above, either WW2 or Korea (depending on
one's view of whether China qualified as a great power at the time of the Korean War).
Lupita 07.04.16 at 7:06 pm
ZM @ 7 quoting Mary Kaldor:
An emphasis on justice and accountability for war crimes, human rights violations and economic
crimes, is something that is demanded by civil society in all these conflicts. Justice is
probably the most significant policy that makes a human security approach different from
current stabilisation approaches.
Bringing Bush, Blair, and Aznar to justice would be the greatest deterrent for further
war. I like the part about economic crimes. Justice brings peace.
Kevin Cox 07.04.16 at 9:19 pm
The place to start is with the Efficient Market Hypothesis as the mechanism to allocate
resources. This hypothesis says that entities compete for markets. War is a tool of
competition for resources. Think Iraq.
Instead of allocating resources via markets let us allocate resources cooperatively via the
ideas of the Commons. Start with "Think like a Commoner: A short introduction to the Life of
the Commons" by David Bollier.
A country that uses this approach to the allocation of resources will not want to go to war
and will try to persuade other countries to use the same approach.
The place to start is with renewable energy. Find a way to "distribute renewable energy" based
on the commons and anti militarism will likely follow.
Anarcissie 07.05.16 at 12:31 am
Lupita 07.04.16 at 10:22 pm @ 46 -
While the Nuremberg War Crimes tribunal hanged Nazis for doing exactly what Bush 2 and
company did, I doubt if starting a war of aggression is against U.S. law in an
enforceable way. However, since the war was completely unjustified, I suppose Bush could be
charged with murder (and many other crimes). This sort of question is now rising in the UK
with regard to Blair because of the Chilcot inquiry.
Ze K 07.05.16 at 1:29 pm
Not in internal national politics, but in international law. There's something called
'crimes againt peace', for example. Obviously it's not there to prosecute leaders of
boss-countries, but theoretically it could. And, in fact, the fact that it's accepted that the
leaders of powerful countries are not to be procesuted is exactly a case of perversion of
justice you are talking about… no?
Anarcissie 07.05.16 at 1:56 pm
Watson Ladd 07.05.16 at 3:57 am @ 56 -
According to what I read at the time the US, or at least some of its leadership, encouraged
the Georgian leadership to believe that if they tried to knock off a few pieces of Russia, the
US would somehow back them up if the project didn't turn out as well as hoped. Now, I get this
from the same media that called the Georgian invasion of Russia 'Russian aggression' so it may
not be very reliable, but that's what was said, and the invasion of a state the size of Russia
by a state the size of Georgia doesn't make much sense unless the latter thought they were
going to get some kind of help if things turned out badly. I guess the model was supposed to
be the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, but bombing the hell out of Serbia is one thing and
bombing the hell out of Russia quite another.
It is interesting in regard to Georgia 2008 to trace the related career of Mr. Saakashvili,
who was then the president of Georgia, having replaced Mr. Shevardnadze in one of those color
revolutions, and was reported to have said that he wanted Georgia to become America's Israel
in central Asia. The Georgians apparently did not relish this proposed role once they found
out what it entailed and kicked him out. He subsequently popped up in Ukraine, where according
to Wikipedia he is the governor of the Odessa Oblast, whatever that means. Again, I get this
from our media, so it may all be lies; but it does seem to make a kind of sense which I
probably don't need to spell out.
Ze K 07.05.16 at 2:10 pm
No, south Ossetia was a part of Georgia. They were fighting for autonomy (Georgia is a bit
of an empire itself), and Russian peacekeeping troops were placed there to prevent farther
infighting. One day, Georgian military, encouraged by US neocons, started shelling South
Ossetian capital, killing, among other people, some of the Russian peacekeeprs, and this is
how the 2008 war started.
Ze K 07.05.16 at 2:31 pm
…a lot of these ethnic issues in Georgia are really the legacy of stalinism, when in many
places (Abkhazia, for sure) local populations suffered mass-repressions with ethnic Georgians
migrating there and becaming majorities (not to mention, bosses). Fasil Iskander, great Abkhaz
writer, described that. Once the USSR collapsed, it all started to unwind, and Georgia got
screwed. Oh well.
Anarcissie 07.05.16 at 4:34 pm
Ze K 07.05.16 at 2:38 pm @ 80 -
The Russian ruling class experimented with being the US ruling class's buddy in the 1990s,
sort of. It didn't work well for them. The destruction of Yugoslavia, the business in Abkhazia
and Ossetia, the coup in Ukraine, the American intervention in Syria which must seem (heh) as
if aimed at the Russian naval base at Tartus, the extensions of NATO, the ABMs, and so on,
these cannot have been reassuring. Reassurance then had to come from taking up bordering
territory, building weapons, and the like. Let us hope the Russian leadership do not also come
to the conclusion that the best defense is a good offense.
Lupita 07.05.16 at 5:52 pm
We're a nation of killers.
Justice can ameliorate that problem. For example, Pinochet being indicted, charged, and
placed under house arrest until his death (though never convicted) for crimes against
humanity, murder, torture, embezzlement, arms trafficking, drugs trafficking, tax fraud, and
passport forgery and, in Argentina, Videla getting a life sentence plus another 500 being
convicted with many cases still in progress, at the very least may give pause to those who
would kill and torture as a career enhancement move in these countries and, hopefully,
throughout Latin America. Maybe one of these countries can at least indict Kissinger for
Operación Cóndor and give American presidents something extra to plan for when planning their
covert operations.
For heads of state to stop behaving as if they were untouchable and people believing that they
are, we need more convictions, more accountability, more laws, more justice.
Asteele 07.05.16 at 7:42 pm
In a capitalist system if you can make money by impoverishing others you do it. There are
individual capitalists and firms that make money off of war, the fact that the public at large
sees no aggregate benefit in not a problem for them.
Anarcissie 07.05.16 at 8:35 pm
LFC 07.05.16 at 5:28 pm @ 85 -
I think that, on the evidence, one must doubt (to put it mildly) that either the Russian or
the American leadership care whether Mr. Assad is a nice person or not. They have not worried
much about a lot of other not-nice people over recent decades as long as the not-nice people
seemed to serve their purposes. Hence I can only conclude that the business in Syria, which
goes back well before the appearance of the Islamic State, is dependent on some other
variable, like maybe the existence of a Russian naval base in mare nostrum. I'm just guessing,
of course; more advanced conspiratists see Israeli, Iranian, Saudi, and Turkish connections.
Note as well that the business in Ukraine involved a big Russian naval base. And I used to
heard it said that navies were obsolete!
ZM 07.06.16 at 7:06 am
There has been coverage in The Guardian about the Chilcot report into the UK military
interventions in Iraq.
"The former civil servant promised that the report would answer some of the questions raised
by families of the dead British soldiers. "The conversations we've had with the families were
invaluable in shaping some of the report," Chilcot said.
Some of the families will be at the launch of the report at the Queen Elizabeth II Centre, at
Westminster. Others will join anti-war protesters outside who are calling for Blair to be
prosecuted for alleged war crimes at the international criminal court in The Hague.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Wednesday, Karen Thornton, whose son Lee was
killed in Iraq in 2006, said she was convinced that Blair had exaggerated intelligence about
Iraq's capabilities.
"If it is proved that he lied then obviously he should be held accountable for it," she said,
adding that meant a trial for war crimes. "He shouldn't be allowed to just get away with it,"
she said. But she did not express confidence that Chilcot's report would provide the
accountability that she was hoping for. "Nobody's going to be held to account and that's so
wrong," she said. "We just want the truth."
Chilcot insisted that any criticism would be supported by careful examination of the evidence.
"We are not a court – not a judge or jury at work – but we've tried to apply the highest
possible standards of rigorous analysis to the evidence where we make a criticism."
…
Jeremy Corbyn, who will respond to the report in parliament on Wednesday, is understood to
have concluded that international laws are neither strong nor clear enough to make any war
crimes prosecution a reality. The Labour leader said last year Blair could face trial if
the report found he was guilty of launching an illegal war.
Corbyn is expected to fulfil a promise he made during his leadership campaign to apologise on
behalf of Labour for the war. He will speak in the House of Commons after David Cameron, who
is scheduled to make a statement shortly after 12.30pm. "
Only Tony Blair could read the Chilcot report and claim it vindicates his conduct.
LFC 07.06.16 at 5:48 pm
B. Dunbar @123
Interstate wars have declined, and the 'logic' you identify might be one of various reasons
for that.
The wars dominating the headlines today - e.g. Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan,
Ukraine/Donetsk/Russia - are not, however, classic interstate wars. They are either civil wars
or 'internationalized' civil wars or have a civil-war aspect. Thus the 'logic' of
business-wants-peace-and-trade doesn't really apply there. Apple doesn't want war w China but
Apple doesn't care that much whether there is a prolonged civil war in Sri Lanka, Afghanistan,
etc.
So even if one accepted the argument that 'capitalism' leads to peace, we'd be left w a set of
wars to which the argument doesn't apply. I don't have, obvs., the answer to the current
conflicts. I think (as already mentioned) that there are some steps that might prove helpful
in general if not nec. w.r.t. specific conflict x or y.
The Kaldor remark about reversing the predatory economy - by which I take it she means, inter
alia, black-market-driven, underground, in some cases criminal commerce connected to war - is
suggestive. Easier said than done, I'm sure. Plus strengthening peacekeeping. And one cd come
up w other things, no doubt.
Ze K 07.06.16 at 6:35 pm
@120, 121, yes, Georgians living in minority areas did suffer. But ethnic
cleansing/genocides that would've most likely taken place should the Georgian government have
had its way were prevented. Same as Crimea and Eastern Ukraine two years ago. This is not too
difficult to understand – if you try – is it? Similarly (to Georgians in Abkhasia) millions of
ethnic Russians suffered in the new central Asian republics, in Chechnya (all 100% were
cleansed, many killed), and, in a slightly softer manner, in the Baltic republics… But that's
okay with you, right? Well deserved? It's only when Abkhazs attack Georgians, then it's the
outrage, and only because Russia was defending the Abkhazs, correct?
Lupita 07.07.16 at 3:23 pm
My impression since yesterday is that, while Brits are making a very big deal out of the
Chilcot report, with much commentary about how momentous it is and the huge impact it will
have, coverage of this event by the US media is notoriously subdued, particularly compared
with the hysterical coverage Brexit got just some days ago. This leads me to believe that it
is indeed justice that is feared the most by western imperialists such as Bush, Blair, Howard,
Aznar, and Kwaśniewski and the elites that supported them and continue to cover up for them. I
take this cowardly and creepy silence in the US media as an indicator that Pax Americana is so
weakened that it cannot withstand the light of justice being shined upon it and that the end
is near.
Anarcissie 07.07.16 at 3:46 pm
Lupita 07.07.16 at 3:23 pm @ 147 - For the kind of people in the US who pay attention to
such things, the Chilcot Report is not really news. And the majority don't care, as witness
the fortunes of the Clintons.
Anarcissie 07.08.16 at 12:25 am
Brett Dunbar 07.07.16 at 11:47 pm @ 160 -
If capitalist types are so totally against war, it's hard to understand why the grand
poster child of capitalism, the plutocratic United States, is so addicted to war. It is hard
to consider it an aberration when the US has attacked dozens of countries not threatening it
over the last fifty or sixty years, killed or injured or beggared or terrorized millions of
noncombatants, and maintains hundreds of overseas bases and a world-destroying nuclear
stockpile. What could the explanation possibly be?
As human powers of production increase, at least in potential, existing scarcities of basic
goods such as food, medicine, and housing are overcome. If people now become satisfied with
their standard of living - not totally satisfied, but satisfied enough not to sweat and strain
all the time for more - sales, profits, and employment will fall, and capitalists will become
less important. In order to retain their ruling-class role, there needs to be a constant
crisis of production-consumption which only the capitalist masters of industry can solve.
Hence new scarcities must be produced. The major traditional methods of doing this have been
imperialism, war, waste, and consumerism (including advertising). Conceded, major processes of
environmental destruction such as climate change and the vitiating of antibiotics may lead to
powerful new self-reinforcing scarcities which will take their place next to their traditional
relatives, so that producing new scarcities would be less of a problem.
Anarcissie 07.08.16 at 2:30 am
LFC 07.08.16 at 1:30 am @ 163:
'OTOH, I don't think capitalism esp. needs war to create this kind of scarcity….'
But then one must explain why the major capitalist powers have engaged in so much of it, since
it is so dirty and risky. I suppose one possible explanation is that whoever has the power to
do so engages in it, capitalist or not; it is hardly a recent invention. However, I am mindful
of the position of the US at the end of World War 2, with 50% of the worlds total productive
capacity. Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive! So war turned out to be pretty handy for some
people. And now we have lots of them.
Matt_L 07.08.16 at 3:32 am
John Quiggin, I think your definition of militarism is flawed. I think that cultural
attitudes and the social status of the military are very important as well. To paraphrase
Andrew Bacevich, Militarism is the idea that military solutions to a country's problems are
more effective than they really are. Militarism assumes that the military's way of running
things is inherently correct. A militaristic society glorifies violence and the people who
carry it out in the name of the state.
I also think that just reducing military spending or the capacity for military action is
not enough to counter serious militarism. Austria-Hungary was a very militaristic society, but
it spent the less on armaments than the other European Powers in the years leading up to 1914.
The leaders of the Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy caused World War One by invading Serbia for
a crime committed by a Bosnian Serb subject of the Monarchy. They had some good guesses that
the Serbian military intelligence was involved, but not a lot of proof.
Franz Joseph and the other leaders chose to solve a foreign policy problem by placing armed
force before diplomacy and a complete criminal investigation. Their capacity to wage war
relative to the other great powers of Europe did not enter into their calculations. They
chose force first and dealt with the consequences later. So militarism can exist and flourish
on a tight budget. Its all about mentality.
stevenjohnson 07.08.16 at 9:29 pm
"Great Power warfare became a lot less common after 1815, at the same point that the most
advanced of the great powers developed capitalism."
In Europe, locus of the alleged Long Peace, there were the Greek Rebellion; the First and
Second Italian Wars of Independence; the First and Second Schleswig Wars; the Seven Weeks War;
the Crimean War; the Franco-Prussian War; the First and Second Balkan Wars. Wars between a
major capitalist state and another well established modern state included the Opium Wars; the
Mexican War; the French invasion of Mexico; the War of the Triple Alliance; the War of the
Pacific; the Spanish-American War; the Russo-Japanese War. Assaults by the allegedly peaceful
capitalist nations against non-state societies or weak traditional states are too numerous to
remember, but the death toll was enormous, on a scale matching the slaughter of the World
Wars.
Further the tensions between the Great Powers threatened war on numerous occasions, such as
conflict over the Oregon territory; the Aroostook "war;" the Trent Affair; two Moroccan
crises; the Fashoda Incident…again, these are too numerous to remember.
The notion that capitalism is peaceful is preposterous, even if you accept the bizarre
notion that only wars between the capitalist Great Powers really count as wars. It's true that
it's tacitly presumed by many, perhaps most, learned authorities. But that is an indictment of
the authorities, not a justification for the claim. The closely related claim that capitalism
is responsible for technological advancement on inspection suggests that the real story is
that technological progress enabled the European states to begin empires that funded
capitalist development.
Hidari 07.09.16 at 11:13 am
' Capitalist states tend to avoid war with their trading partners.'
This has an element of truth in it, but it can be parsed in a number of ways. For example,
'Rich, powerful countries tend to avoid war with other rich, powerful countries'. After all,
in the 2nd half of the 20th century, the US avoided going to war with Russia, despite having
clear economic interests in doing so (access to natural resources, markets) mainly because
Russia was strong (not least militarily) and the cost-benefit matrix never made sense (i.e.
from the Americans' point of view).
A much stronger case can be made that self-proclaimed Socialist states tend not to go to war
with each other. After all, there were big fallings out between the socialist (or 'socialist',
depending on your point of view) countries in the 20th century but they rarely turned to war,
and when they did (Vietnam-Cambodia, Vietnam-China) they were short term and relatively
limited in scope. The Sino-Soviet split was a split, not a war.
But again this is probably not the best way to look at it. A much stronger case can be made
that the basic reason for the non-appearance of a Chinese-Russian war was simply the size and
population of those countries. The risks outweighed any potential benefits.
Of course, between 1914 and 1945, lots of capitalist states went to war with each other.
Anarcissie 07.09.16 at 3:22 pm
Layman 07.09.16 at 2:59 pm @ 188 -
One explanation, I think already given, is that the capitalist powers were too busy with
imperial seizures in what we now call the Third World to fight one another. In the New World,
the United States and some South American states were busy annihilating the natives, speaking
of ethnic cleansing. If capitalism is a pacific influence, the behavior of the British and
American ruling classes since 1815 seems incomprehensible, right down to the present: the
plutocrat Clinton ought to be the peace candidate, not the scary war freak.
Hidari 07.09.16 at 5:44 pm
Surely (assuming that it's real) the decline in wars in some parts of the world since 1945
is because of the Pax Americana?
Most countries are too frightened to attack (at least directly) the United States. There is a
sense in which the US really is the 'Global Policeman'.
…WaPo continues that Trump is "broadly noninterventionist, questioning the need for the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization and calling for Europe to play a larger role in ensuring its
security." Page, too, "has regularly criticized U.S. intervention":
In one article for Global Policy Journal, he wrote, "From U.S. policies toward Russia to Iran
to China, sanctimonious expressions of moral superiority stand at the root of many problems
seen worldwide today."
Page wrote that the war in eastern Ukraine was "precipitated by U.S. meddling in the Maidan
revolution…
And so, here we are: Trump is the lesser evil in this cycle. Vote Trump, save the world.
LFC 07.10.16 at 2:40 pm
Hidari @192
Surely (assuming that it's real) the decline in wars in some parts of the world since 1945
is because of the Pax Americana?
Started to write a long reply but decided no point. Shorter version: reasons for no
WW2-style-war in Europe from '45 to '90 are multiple; 'pax Americana' only one factor of many.
End of CW was destabilizing in various ways (e.g., wars in ex-Yugoslavia) but so far not
enough to reverse the overall trend in Europe. Decline in destructiveness of conflict in some
(not all) other parts of the world has to do in large part w change in nature/type of conflict
(sustained interstate wars have traditionally been the most destructive and they don't happen
much or at all anymore, for reasons that are somewhat debatable, but, again, pax Americana wd
be only one of multiple reasons, if that).
LFC 07.10.16 at 2:54 pm
Re Carter Page (see Ze K @194)
Page refused [speaking in Moscow] refused to comment specifically on the U.S. presidential
election, his relationship with Trump or U.S. sanctions against Russia, saying he was in
Russia as a "private citizen." He gave a lecture, titled "The Evolution of the World Economy:
Trends and Potential," in which he noted that Russia and China had achieved success in
Central Asia, unlike the United States, by pursuing a respectful [sic] foreign policy based on
mutual interest.
He generally avoided questions on U.S. foreign policy, but when one attendee asked him
whether he really believed the United States was a "liberal, democratic society," Page told
him to "read between the lines."
"If I'm understanding the direction you're coming from, I tend to agree with you that it's
not always as liberal as it may seem," he said. "I'm with you."
In a meeting with The Washington Post editorial board in March, Trump named Page, a former
Merrill Lynch executive in Moscow who later advised the Russian state energy giant Gazprom on
major oil and gas deals, as one of his foreign policy advisers. Page refused to say whether
his Moscow trip included a meeting with Russian officials. He is scheduled to deliver a
graduation address Friday at the New Economic School, a speech that some officials are
expected to attend.
Above quote is from the Stars & Stripes piece, evidently republished from WaPo, linked at the
'Washington's Blog' that Ze K linked to.
If you want to put for. policy in the hands of the likes of Carter Page (former Merrill Lynch
exec., Gazprom adviser), vote Trump all right.
HRC's for. policy advisers may not be great, but I don't think this guy Page is better. He
does have connections to the Russian govt as a past consultant, apparently, which is no doubt
why Ze K is so high on him.
Ze K 07.10.16 at 3:16 pm
You bet this guy Page is better. Anyone is better.
And why would I care at all (let alone "no doubt") if he was a Gazprom consultant? What the
fuck was that supposed to mean? Asshole much?
LFC 07.10.16 at 5:25 pm
And why would I care at all (let alone "no doubt") if he was a Gazprom consultant?
B.c Gazprom is a Russian state-owned company and a fair inference from your many comments on
this blog (not just this thread but others) is that you are, in general, favorably disposed to
the present Russian govt. and its activities. Not Gazprom in particular necessarily, but the
govt in general. You make all these comments and then get upset when they are read to say what
they say.
You consistently attack HRC as a war-monger, as corrupt etc. You consistently say anyone wd
be better. "Vote Trump save the world." You said there was no Poland in existence in '39 when
the USSR invaded it. Your comments and exchanges in this thread are here for anyone to read,
so I don't have to continue.
Ze K 07.10.16 at 5:44 pm
"You make all these comments and then get upset when they are read to say what they
say. "
You're right; come to think of it, you've been into slimeball-style slur for a while now,
and I should've gotten used to it already, and just ignored you. Fine, carry on.
Anarcissie 07.11.16 at 2:19 am
@Hidari 07.10.16 at 2:57 pm @ 197 -
Although the term 'global policeman' (or 'cops of the world') is mostly used ironically
(in my experience), 'policeman' does have a straight meaning, denoting a person who operates
under the authority of law, whereas the supreme Mafia capo is a law and authority unto
himself, at least until someone assassinates him. I think this second metaphor more closely
approximates the position and behavior of the present United States.
"... The case for ambitious trade deals, Dr. Prasad said, is that they allow the United States to set the rules for its dealings with other countries, and to wield greater geopolitical influence. Yet those arguments are easily overshadowed by the simple, if dubious, assertion that the losses to the American economy from these deals are greater than the benefits. ..."
When President Obama travels to North Carolina and Europe this week, he will press an argument
that could define foreign policy in the last six months of his presidency: that Americans and
Europeans must not forsake their open, interconnected societies for the nativism and nationalism
preached by Donald J. Trump or Britain's Brexiteers.
Few presidents have put more faith than Mr. Obama in the power of words to persuade audiences to
accept a complex idea, whether it is the morality of a just war or the imperfect nature of
American society. Yet countering the anti-immigration and anti-free-trade slogans in this
election year will require all of his oratorical skills.
Mr. Obama road-tested his pitch over the last two weeks in two friendly venues: Silicon Valley
and Canada. This week, he will take the case to North Carolina, a swing state that has been hard
hit by the forces of globalization, and to a NATO meeting in Poland, where the alliance members
will grapple with the effects of Britain's vote to leave the European Union, known as Brexit.
In Warsaw, Mr. Obama will sit next to Britain's lame-duck prime minister, David Cameron, whose
political career was ended by his miscalculation over holding the referendum on European Union
membership. But first, in Charlotte, N.C., he will campaign with Hillary Clinton, his former
secretary of state and the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, who reversed her position
on Mr. Obama's Asian trade deal, formally called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, after many in her
party turned sharply against free trade.
"President Obama has made a valiant attempt to build support for freer trade," said Eswar S.
Prasad, a professor of trade policy at Cornell University. "But the arguments in favor of free
trade lack rhetorical and political resonance, especially amidst a heated political campaign."
The case for ambitious trade deals, Dr. Prasad said, is that they allow the United States to
set the rules for its dealings with other countries, and to wield greater geopolitical influence.
Yet those arguments are easily overshadowed by the simple, if dubious, assertion that the losses
to the American economy from these deals are greater than the benefits.
"... So Warren left the GOP because they were becoming too much for banking and wall street. And now she joins with Clinton who takes tens of millions a year from big banks and Wall Street. Go figure. ..."
"... The writer I think is trying to imply Clinton is not a neoliberal. This is dog whistle media politics of implying something else about Clinton who comprehensively not what this person is writing as if. So once she is elected courtesy I must say of Trump she will immediately act behind the scenes to effect neoliberal goals and policies. ..."
"... Warren the converted republican is just another neoliberal pretender to progressive stances. ..."
"... sHillary should fess up to her corruption and crimes, face criminal charges, and acknowledge that we need Bernie. The young people would happy indeed. ..."
"... This is a beautiful metaphor for after brexit: "This is really a battle between the pimps of Wall Street and the whores of Wall Street." Redistribution of wealth again to rich again. ..."
"... This is completely unfair..... Clinton listens to the young. The young bankers, the young hedge funders, the young trust funders, all are welcome as long as they pay. ..."
"... Lots of older people are specifically rejecting the dog-eat-dog globalization game, even as 30-something tech industrialists fight for ever fewer barriers to capital flight, cheaper immigrant workers and disruptive technologies. ..."
"... When nearly half of federal tax money is spent on death destruction and endless war and when the only thing our leaders can agree on is spending for more of the same all to the benefit of Central Banking and the MIC you think the young voting for Killary will put things right? Dream on, good luck and good night. Get off your ass. ..."
"... So, regardless of what the media call it, the question is how long the system will resist the torrent of protests of the people angered due to miserable socio-economic situation in which they find themselves without a big fault of their own. ..."
"... What is more interesting, Bernie Sanders who was unjustly called "a radical" is actually very careful in its demands, addressing at the same time dissatisfied people and the state establishment as well, and trying to find a point of an agreement between the first and the later. ..."
"... So, in my opinion, there are only two options here. The establishment can accept this alleviated form of socialism promoted by Bernie, or by Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, all together with the vocabulary of "socialist euphemisms" that they are using now. ..."
"... Hillary has no interest in "winning" Bernie supporters. She simply expects us to come to heel, and Donald Trump is the rolled-up newspaper we are threatened to be smacked with, unless we obey. ..."
"... Warren-Clinton would be a respectable ticket. Clinton-Warren is significantly less so, and both seem highly unlikely to me ..."
"... The problem Bernie supporters have with Hillary is more about policy than it is about genitalia. If you don't figure that out before November, you'll be quite surprised when a large number of reputedly misogynist "young Bernie men" end up voting for Jill Stein. ..."
"... Wrong answer. Hillary should pay no attention to the young. Hillary listens only to those who pay her, like Wall Street. Hillary pays the Clinton foundation money only to those guaranteed to vote in blocs, and she monitors them. Ethnic and single-issue groups can be counted on to vote as paid. ..."
"... It's her's, Obama's and the rest of the party leadership on both the left and the right that have created a vacuum on issues such as immigration. They refuse to acknowledge real problems associated with large scale and unrestricted immigration. ..."
"... Clinton's campaign/DNC supporters are already going showing their non-progressive stances, they have just voted down progressive amendments, including minimum wage, fracking and TPP. ..."
"... Lawless illegal immigration has nothing to do with diversity. It's basically preferred cheap labor over our own citizens. If only Hillary and the DNC fought that hard for the 46 million Americans living in poverty. They put their party's interests before our country. ..."
"... One more article that only if $hillary can triangulate, with some meaningless platitudes she will win over the Bernie Voters. I am a Boomer and I voted for Bernie in the Primary in my state and donated to his campaign. I still have the Bernie yard sign in my from yard and Bernie Bumper Sticker. I will not be triangulated by $hillary. If Bernie is not on the ballot for President I will vote for Jill Stein. ..."
"... I guess it is a case of $hillary's Oligarchs are better than the Koch Bros. ..."
"... You must be new to Mrs. Clinton. She listens to her handlers who work up carefully scripted and rehearsed sound bites that can trick people into believing that she is authentic and cares about the problems of the 99%. For everything else, the communication is transmit-only. Now curtsy, close your trap, and move along - she doesn't have time for your drivel! ..."
"... Clinton is all talk and Trump is all nonsense. As soon as she gets her tiara, she'll be right back to doing whatever she feels like doing. The two of them are off-the-charts narcissists who simply want power and the ability to use that power. Everything either of their supporters project onto them is just nonsensical wishful thinking. ..."
"... The basic problem is that New Democrats like Bill Clinton threw the traditional Democratic constituencies under the bus. I gather that something similar happened in the UK, and that New Labour under Tony Blair did likewise. ..."
Hillary is not a progressive she is a neoliberal. The business community has done what it does
to cut costs - globalization is not much more than a scheme to cut labor costs. It is the job
of our political leaders to see to it that our trade policies promote prosperity for all Americans.
It is impossible to expect politicians who depend on money from financial interests - including
Hillary - to fulfill that mandate to the American public.
The young should see Hillary for what she is, a corrupt part of the old guard of politicians
serving the business community and should vote for candidates who serve social justice. Which
of course why the young liberals supported Bernie Sanders.
So Warren left the GOP because they were becoming too much for banking and wall street. And
now she joins with Clinton who takes tens of millions a year from big banks and Wall Street. Go
figure.
The writer I think is trying to imply Clinton is not a neoliberal. This is dog whistle media
politics of implying something else about Clinton who comprehensively not what this person is
writing as if. So once she is elected courtesy I must say of Trump she will immediately act behind
the scenes to effect neoliberal goals and policies.
There is not the slightest chance that Clinton will do anything progressive. The current painting
of Elizabeth Warren as the great progressive banner holder is part of this nonsense. Warren
the converted republican is just another neoliberal pretender to progressive stances. Being
for bankruptcy is not a meaningful progressive position to take. Their pretense hides their deep
ties to Wall Street, and the election of Clinton and her promoting neoliberalism will be just
the sort of thing the young need to see that betrays their trust so that change can happen over
these "politically bankrupt" polls.
That's actually a great idea... sHillary should fess up to her corruption and crimes, face
criminal charges, and acknowledge that we need Bernie. The young people would happy indeed.
This is a beautiful metaphor for after brexit: "This is really a battle between the pimps
of Wall Street and the whores of Wall Street." Redistribution of wealth again to rich again.
This is completely unfair..... Clinton listens to the young. The young bankers, the young
hedge funders, the young trust funders, all are welcome as long as they pay.
This is really a battle between the pimps of Wall Street and the whores of Wall Street. No
one else really has any skin in the game.
"Young people are rejecting dog-eat-dog economics and welcoming diversity, while large chunks
of our older and supposedly wiser compatriots do the exact opposite. "
Is that what you think your older compatriots' think? How ageist.
Lots of older people are specifically rejecting the dog-eat-dog globalization game, even
as 30-something tech industrialists fight for ever fewer barriers to capital flight, cheaper immigrant
workers and disruptive technologies.
That Abbott Labs just forced their fired IT staff to train their H1-B visa replacements and
sign contracts to remain silent, doesn't mean they're against immigration or diversity. Just,
against insidious ways corporations seek to replace domestic workers with uncomplaining indentured
servants from India.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-abbott-layoffs-durbin-0302-biz-20160301-story.html
No age group is a monolith. How about older and younger people try to work together for a country
we'd all like to live in.
Spot on: "The great test of whether Clinton understands the generational opportunity will be her
selection of a running mate. If she plays it safe with a conservative white male in the hopes
of not offending furious older voters, she'll risk leaving young Americans disgusted by Trump
but uninspired by her. On the other hand, selecting a vice presidential nominee with a clear track
record of progressive policies, such as an Elizabeth Warren, would send a clear signal that Clinton
hears the voice of a generation demanding more from the future than a slightly kinder neoliberalism."
Actually, the same thing happened with Obama. He chose Biden (and Rahm Emanuel as his chief
of staff) making huge mistakes on both men. They helped kill real change.
Hillary Clinton needs to chose Warren or the Sanders backers will simply not support her. They
will either abstain from voting or vote for Jill Stein.
When nearly half of federal tax money is spent on death destruction and endless war and when
the only thing our leaders can agree on is spending for more of the same all to the benefit of
Central Banking and the MIC you think the young voting for Killary will put things right? Dream
on, good luck and good night. Get off your ass.
Hillary supporters do not frequent the internet and where they do not in places they are likely
to find valuable information. There is a search tool. you can research all of Hillary's history
and it is not pretty. Like this it is not some grand conspiracy. she really was at the gmo Association.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1AkrQaWwMc
At least as it was told to us, socialism as a state project has failed some 25 years ago. Then,
some eight years ago capitalism has also come to a major crisis, the biggest since the Great Depression
of the 30s. And this has led to a revival of socialist ideas exactly where it was least expected,
that is, in the capitalist West. From Greece, through Spain, Great Britain ... and all the way
to the United States, the people cheered again essentially socialist ideas, and the election campaigns
takes the form of popular movements, which are commonly called by the media as a "populism" .
So, regardless of what the media call it, the question is how long the system will resist
the torrent of protests of the people angered due to miserable socio-economic situation in which
they find themselves without a big fault of their own.
What is more interesting, Bernie Sanders who was unjustly called "a radical" is actually
very careful in its demands, addressing at the same time dissatisfied people and the state establishment
as well, and trying to find a point of an agreement between the first and the later.
To make sure that this is true, it is sufficient to note that Sanders' statements are
full of euphemisms. He is a "democratic socialist," and not just "socialist," and his "revolution"
is just a "political revolution". Then, Bernie talks about "rigged economy" that is rigged in
favor of the richest 1%, or even worse, one-tenth of one percent. But if you'd asked, "Since when
the economy is rigged this way?", every true socialists including Bernie would probably replied,"Ever
since the capitalism was created!" :-)))
So, in my opinion, there are only two options here. The establishment can accept this alleviated
form of socialism promoted by Bernie, or by Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, all together with the vocabulary
of "socialist euphemisms" that they are using now.
And the other option is that the establishment will soon be faced with another kind
of Socialists, who will openly propagate the pure socialism without any euphemisms or any excuses.
With this kind of guys it would be difficult to make any compromise, because they are fighting
because "they have nothing to lose". And if the establishment would say to them that their ideas
are disaster for the country, they would then reply: "So what? If we are already perishing, let
perish together!"
Hillary has no interest in "winning" Bernie supporters. She simply expects us to come to heel,
and Donald Trump is the rolled-up newspaper we are threatened to be smacked with, unless we obey.
I've voted blue-no-matter-who too many times in the 35 years since I first registered
Democratic. No more. Never Hillary, Never Trump -- Political Revolution NOW
Warren-Clinton would be a respectable ticket. Clinton-Warren is significantly less so, and
both seem highly unlikely to me. The first because Clinton doesn't seem the type that would
want to play second fiddle in a figurehead role, and the second because Warren as VP would be
a waste of her talents, and she's come as close as she can to refusing it outright without actually
ruling it out. No thinking person should want to waste Warren in the VP role.
The problem Bernie supporters have with Hillary is more about policy than it is about genitalia.
If you don't figure that out before November, you'll be quite surprised when a large number of
reputedly misogynist "young Bernie men" end up voting for Jill Stein.
Wrong answer. Hillary should pay no attention to the young. Hillary listens only to those
who pay her, like Wall Street. Hillary pays the Clinton foundation money only to those guaranteed
to vote in blocs, and she monitors them. Ethnic and single-issue groups can be counted on to vote
as paid.
Youth constitutes no bloc vote. They are all over the place and they are not herdable.
Also far too many youth are hampered by principles and ideals.
That's strange, I'd have suggested the very opposite to Clinton. It's her's, Obama's and the
rest of the party leadership on both the left and the right that have created a vacuum on issues
such as immigration. They refuse to acknowledge real problems associated with large scale and
unrestricted immigration.
Not only have they refused to acknowledge those problems, but they accuse anyone who's views
differ, of racism and bigotry. in doing so, they've allowed Trump to fill that populist void.
Clinton would be wise to not give a populist full control of such topics and moderate her stance.
Not doing so, as Britain has demonstrated, only further divides a citizenry.
Clinton's campaign/DNC supporters are already going showing their non-progressive stances,
they have just voted down progressive amendments, including minimum wage, fracking and TPP.
I'm a Boomer. And I fully support the political revolution led by Bernie Sanders. I will not vote
for Hillary Clinton for any reason. Big Media and the DNC colluded with Hillary from the very
start. If the DNC really cared for the working class, it would have promoted fairness. Look at
the actions; do they match the words? No.
The Chinese economy stopped being Communist long ago. You could make a case that it's fascist
since one definition of fascism is a free market economy in tight cahoots with an autocratic government.
But whatever you call it, Chinese Millenials have a more positive attitude toward their futures
than western ones do.
Lawless illegal immigration has nothing to do with diversity. It's basically preferred cheap
labor over our own citizens. If only Hillary and the DNC fought that hard for the 46 million Americans
living in poverty. They put their party's interests before our country.
One more article that only if $hillary can triangulate, with some meaningless platitudes she
will win over the Bernie Voters. I am a Boomer and I voted for Bernie in the Primary in my state
and donated to his campaign. I still have the Bernie yard sign in my from yard and Bernie Bumper
Sticker. I will not be triangulated by $hillary. If Bernie is not on the ballot for President
I will vote for Jill Stein.
When the party establishments only offer garbage, why does anyone bother to vote? The choices
all lead to no improvement at all, so I find it hard to blame anyone for not coming out. I vote
every time, but I am finding myself writing people in for positions as a protest because too many
candidates don't deserve the office they seek.
Oh Horseshit. Young people know next to Goddamn nothing. All of us older folks know that because
, believe it or not, we were once young people ourselves.
Free college tuition is a give away to the white middle class. College tuition would fall into
a reasonable range tomorrow if we reinstated a Federal student Loan Program with a max amount
allowed a year. Tuituion at public universities would be within a $1,000 bucks of that in short
order.
The current problem had its start when Bush Junior created a private banking program for student
loans. Kids starting borrowing massive amounts and schools started raising tuition like it was
going out of style. Tuition has more than doubled at penn State and Pitt in the last 10 years,
for no reason apparent to anybody.
Free college tuition is a give away to the white middle class.
If everyone is taxed to pay for tuition, how can it possibly be considered a "giveaway" specifically
to the middle class? Why is the middle class the only group that should pay for college (it's
nothing to the rich to afford and the poor get grants)?
You must be new to Mrs. Clinton. She listens to her handlers who work up carefully scripted
and rehearsed sound bites that can trick people into believing that she is authentic and cares
about the problems of the 99%. For everything else, the communication is transmit-only. Now curtsy,
close your trap, and move along - she doesn't have time for your drivel!
Saying Clinton is the better choice over Trump is like saying Mussolini is a better choice over
Stalin.
And just the same, want nothing to do with these scumbags.
Clinton is all talk and Trump is all nonsense. As soon as she gets her tiara, she'll be
right back to doing whatever she feels like doing. The two of them are off-the-charts narcissists
who simply want power and the ability to use that power. Everything either of their supporters
project onto them is just nonsensical wishful thinking.
The best and only answer with such a galling selection is to follow the path that gets
either of them out of office as fast as possible.
Hillary is too busy warmongering to listen. She's too busy threatening Snowden to listen. She
has too much Wall Street money stuffed in her ears to listen.
The basic problem is that New Democrats like Bill Clinton threw the traditional Democratic
constituencies under the bus. I gather that something similar happened in the UK, and that New
Labour under Tony Blair did likewise.
From what I can see here, it's hardly Jeremy Corbyn's fault that those traditional Labour constituencies
refused to do as they were told. Instead, they chose to make a stand against immigration, globalization,
and free trade. Of course, they get called racists for all that. It's the customary rejoinder
these days.
What needs to happen here and there is the re-empowerment of those people. They need the means
to stand up to globalization and free trade. The ideology that holds that these are some kind
of inevitable natural process, rather than the results of political decisions that hurt most people,
needs to go. This means tariffs and trade barriers on foreign manufactured goods, to bring the
factories back and revive organized labor.
"... In the late 1900s, it was Richard Mellon Scaife and later John M. Olin, who directed and slipped "Trojan-horses" of libertarian ideas into academic institutions, think tanks, courts, statehouses, Congress and finally, the presidency, most notably with the election of 2000. Now the Koch brothers engineer, through semi-annual secret meetings and Citizen United tax-free organizations, most of the efforts to topple democracy. ..."
"... As Republicans acted on the plutocratic plan to polarize and conquer, many predicted that GOP partisan demagoguery would reach a radical extreme, but maybe not be represented by the exploits of narcissist, Donald Trump. Perhaps, more shocking, well after the conservative campaign spread globally, was the British vote on Brexit. In fact, it was almost comical that a stooge of conservatives, David Cameron, confidently – even arrogantly - directed a vote he thought he was sure to win. ..."
"... The motivation for Trump supporters and Brexit voters is not too deep to fathom. Both are angry about inequality, unresponsive government, and institutions that don't work for them. Brexit voters, distrusting a pompous government, see their tormentors as immigrants competing for jobs. Trump supporters, confused about their real enemies, are looking for those unlike themselves as scapegoats. ..."
A natural progression has arisen 40 years after billionaires laid plans for a cultural revolution,
in large part by using fake
organizations of philanthropy – replete with tax breaks – to fund it. It was a masterful
- even outrageous - plan, to make American taxpayers help finance a campaign against us. Most of
their political activities were then and still are written off as tax-deductible "philanthropy."
With this bitter irony, I am sure a number of the corporate moguls "laugh their asses off," to put
it crudely.
In the late 1900s, it was Richard Mellon Scaife and later John M. Olin, who directed and slipped
"Trojan-horses" of libertarian ideas into academic institutions, think tanks, courts, statehouses,
Congress and finally, the presidency, most notably with the election of 2000. Now the Koch brothers
engineer, through semi-annual secret meetings and Citizen United tax-free organizations, most
of the efforts to topple democracy.
But the relentless exploitation of Americans did not end there. Add to that the outright fraud
and thievery by Wall Street of billions of dollars, taken from unsuspecting investors, retirement
funds, and consumers. Bogus investments and the effects of the 2008 recession trashed retirement
accounts for many Americans. Then their allies, the Bush administration, gave them taxpayer money
to bail out the dire impacts of their grifting, followed by the bankruptcy-fearing Obama administration.
The events have been predictable, though some, surprising. For example, in the US, if you really
studied financial conditions, you could have predicted the housing crash and the great recession,
results of unbridled greed and a deregulated Wall Street, events practically inviting abuse.
As Republicans acted on the plutocratic plan to polarize and conquer, many predicted that GOP
partisan demagoguery would reach a radical extreme, but maybe not be represented by the exploits
of narcissist, Donald Trump. Perhaps, more shocking, well after the conservative campaign spread
globally, was the British vote on Brexit. In fact, it was almost comical that a stooge of conservatives,
David Cameron, confidently – even arrogantly - directed a vote he thought he was sure to win.
The motivation for Trump supporters and Brexit voters is not too deep to fathom. Both are angry
about inequality, unresponsive government, and institutions that don't work for them. Brexit voters,
distrusting a pompous government, see their tormentors as immigrants competing for jobs. Trump supporters,
confused about their real enemies, are looking for those unlike themselves as scapegoats.
Meanwhile the GOP feeds the division in our country. They are the worst in terms of supporting
corporate moguls, but the Democrats are compromised as well.
Even Democrat Bill Clinton participated in permitting the mogul-managed, financial free-for-all
in 1999. He joined with Republicans in passing the Financial Services Modernization Act which
did away with restrictions on the integration of banking, insurance and stock trading imposed by
the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. This act had barred commercial banks from engaging in speculative
ventures for almost seventy years and had served the country well, that is until Wall State executives
were made free to swindle – through their own casino capitalism.
The following year, the presidential election of 2000 helped cement a plutocratic takeover when
the conservative members of the Supreme Court appointed George W. Bush as president, stopping a recount
in the Florida election.
Governor Jeb Bush, with his secretary of state, Katherine Harris, oversaw the disenfranchisement
of thousands of black electors in Florida and made the vote closer than it otherwise would have been.
The Bush administration spread the fruits of the conservative revolution, one example being Olin-Foundation
educated John Yoo, the author of the Bush administration's "torture
memo."
The Great Recession of 2008 was
a predictable result of mixing the ingredients of deregulation, casino capitalism, corporate and
private entitlements, and unvarnished greed. Wall Street bankers made extraordinary sums of
money through fraud and never were held accountable. Meanwhile local crime in poorer communities
warranted long prison terms and overstuffed prisons.
Access of the rich to government through thousands of lobbyists and Citizens United elections
pushed the vast majority of Americans out of any government access. Impotency for the majority of
voters became the rule rather than the exception.
The declaration of war by billionaire interests, beginning in the 1970s, was a screaming success.
At the time, the people's government actually protected our environment against polluters, banning
DDT and monitoring drinking water.
The rich were beside themselves. This was not to be tolerated. Indeed, requiring the curtailing
of particle pollution in cities and requiring catalytic convertors on cars was a slap in the face
through the newly created Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). And protecting the people against
toxic foodstuffs and harmful drugs through another agency, the FDA, was downright unfriendly to the
"makers."
Their
Powell Manifesto presented a comprehensive plan of attack that would sweep a corporate culture
into all facets of American and - keeping pace with global developments - global life. With their
piles of money and a reach that swept into the media, courts, publishing, education, and all aspects
of the economy, they conquered.
In once what was a democracy, a peaceful revolution took place right under our noses. Installing
a dictatorship was not needed like pre-world-war-II Germany or the post-1912 Soviet Union or like
South American banana republics. It was done quite skillfully, surreptitiously, by billionaire interests
and billionaire money – with the help of taxpayers, don't forget.
It was a gradual evolution that two generations didn't really notice because others like the poor
were harmed first. The middle class got shafted only gradually: being overlooked for raises, losing
company retirements, manufacturing jobs going away, fringe benefits gradually cut, your share of
health care premiums going up or benefits going away, and privatization and subcontracting becoming
the rule.
Meanwhile, billionaires bought elections in several states. Wisconsin set unions against others
prejudiced by untold hours of watching and listening to right-wing talk shows; then gave tax breaks
to the rich and ruined a great education system. The GOP was installed in North Carolina mainly with
Art
Pope money and went wildly radical: lower taxes for the rich, polluting with coal ash, non-white
voter suppression, reverse Robin Hood, judges for sale, gutting public education and state-sponsored
religion.
The rich, who consider underlings children, perhaps, think that is what Christ meant when he said,
"Suffer my children"? His children did suffer under the coup.
Is this your America now? The democrats partially represent us. Labor union membership is stifled
and more jobs are being exported.
Deal with it, or just find someone other than rich corporate interests to blame – maybe non-whites
or immigrants.
James Hoover is a recently retired systems engineer. He has advanced degrees in
Economics and English. Prior to his aerospace career, he taught high school, and he has also taught
college courses. He recently published a science fiction novel called
Extraordinary
Visitors and writes political columns on several websites.
Read other articles by James.
John Quiggin (
previously ) delivers some of the most salient commentary on the Brexit
vote and how it fits in with Syriza, Podemos, Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders
(etc) as well as Trump, French neo-fascists, and other hypernationalist
movements.
The core of this analysis is that while neoliberalism(s) (Quiggin argues
that US and non-US neoliberalism are different things) has failed the majority
of the world, and while things were falling apart after the financial crisis,
the left failed to offer real alternatives. The "tribalist" movements --
Trump, Leave, Golden Dawn, etc -- are anti-neoliberal, but in the absence
of any analysis, have lashed out at immigrants (rather than bankers and
financial elites) as the responsible parties for their suffering.
The US political system gives us a choice between neoliberals who hate
brown people, women, and gay people; and neoliberals who don't. Trump offers
an anti-neoliberal choice (and so did the Leave campaign). Bernie also offered
an anti-neoliberal platform (one that didn't hate brown people, women, and
lgtbq people), but didn't carry the day -- meaning that the upcoming US
election is going to be a choice between neoliberalism (but tolerance) and
anti-neoliberalism (and bigotry). This is a dangerous situation, as the
UK has discovered.
The vote for Britain as a whole was quite close. But a closer look
reveals an even bigger win for tribalism than the aggregate results
suggest. The version of tribalism offered in the Leave campaign was
specifically English. Unsurprisingly, it did not appeal to Scottish
or Irish voters who rejected it out of hand. Looking at England alone,
however, Leave won comfortably with 53 per cent of the vote and was
supported almost everywhere outside London, a city more dependent than
any other in the world on the global financial system.
Given the framing of the campaign, the choice for the left was, even
more than usually, to pick the lesser of very different evils. Voting
for Remain involved acquiescence in austerity and an overgrown and bloated
financial system, both in the UK and Europe. The Leave campaign relied
more and more on coded, and then overt, appeals to racism and bigotry,
symbolised by the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox, stabbed to death by a
neo-Nazi with ties to extreme tribalist organizations in both the UK
and US. The result was a tepid endorsement of Remain, which secured
the support of around 70 per cent of Labour voters, but did little to
shift the sentiment of the broader public.
The big problem for the tribalists is that, although their program
has now been endorsed by the voters, it does not offer a solution to
the economic decline against which most of their supporters were protesting.
Indeed, while the catastrophic scenarios pushed by the Remain campaign
are probably overblown, the process of renegotiating economic relationships
with the rest of the world will almost certainly involve a substantial
period of economic stagnation.
The terms offered by the EU for the maintenance of anything like
existing market access will almost certainly include maintenance of
the status quo on immigration. In the absence of a humiliating capitulation
by the new pro-Brexit government, that will mean that Britain (or England)
will face a long and painful process of adjustment.
Britain has voted to leave the EU. The reason? A large section of the working class, concentrated in towns and cities that have
been quietly devastated by free-market economics, decided they'd had enough.
Enough bleakness, enough ruined high streets, enough minimum wage jobs, and enough lies and fearmongering from the political class.
The issue that catalysed the vote for Brexit was the massive, unplanned migration from Europe that began after the accession of
the A8 countries and then surged again after 2008 once the Eurozone stagnated while Britain enjoyed a limp recovery.
It is no surprise to anybody who's lived their life at the street end of politics and journalism that a minority of the white
working class are racists and xenophobes. But anyone who thinks half the British population fits that description is dead
wrong.
Tens of thousands of black and Asian people will have voted for Brexit, and similar numbers of politically educated, left-leaning
workers too. Birmingham, Nottingham, Sheffield and Coventry - multi-ethnic university cities - they too went for Leave.
Neither the political centre or the pro-remain left was able to explain how to offset the negative economic impact of low-skilled
migration in conditions of (a) guaranteed free movement (b) permanent stagnation in Europe and (c) austerity in Britain.
Told by the government they could never control migration while inside the EU, just over 50% of the population decided controlling
migration was more important than EU membership.
So the problem for Labour is not, yet, large numbers of its own voters "deserting the party". They may still do so if Labour plays
this wrong - but even as late as the May council elections Labour's core vote held up.
Instead Labour's heartland voters simply decided to change the party's policy on migration from below, and forever, by
leaving the EU.
The party's front bench tried, late and in a muddled way, to come up with micro-economic solutions - more funds for areas where
the NHS and schools come under strain; a new directive to prevent employers shipping entire workforces from East Europe on poor terms
and conditions. And a promise to renegotiate the free movement pillar of the Lisbon Treaty in the future.
Because it was made late, and half-heartedly, this offer was barely heard. And clearly to some it did not seem plausible - given
the insistence of the Labour centre and the liberal bourgeoisie that migration is unmitigatedly good and "there's nothing you can
do about it". And also given the insistence of Jean Claude Juncker that there could be no renegotiation at all.
Ultimately, as I've written before, there is
a
strong case for "Lexit" on grounds of democracy and economic justice. But this won't be Lexit. Unless Labour can win an early
election it will be a fast-track process of Thatcherisation and the breakup of the UK.
Unlike me, however, many people who believe in Lexit were prepared to vote alongside right wing Tories to get to first base.
The task for the left in Britain now is to adapt to the new reality, and fast. The Labour right is already trying to pin the blame
on Corbyn; UKIP will make a play for Labour's voters. Most likely there'll be a second independence referendum in Scotland.
Corbyn was right to try and fight on "remain and reform" but his proposed reforms were never radical enough. He was also right
to devote energy to other issues - making the point that in or out of the EU, social justice and public services are under threat.
But the right and centre of Labour then confused voters by parading along with the Tory centrists who Corbyn had promised never to
stand on a platform with.
The Blairite Progress group is deluded if it thinks it can use this moment to launch a coup against Corbyn. The neoliberal wing
of the Labour Party needs to realise - it may take them a few days - that their time is over.
Ultimately it looks like Labour still managed to get 2/3 of its voters to voter Remain [I'll check this but that's what YouGov
said earlier]. So the major failure is Cameron's. It looks like the Tory vote broke 60/40 to Brexit.
It's possible Cameron will resign quickly. But that's not the issue. The issue is the election and what to fight for.
Labour has to start, right now, a big political reorientation. Here is my 10 point suggestion for how we on the left of Labour
go forward.
1. Accept the result. Labour will lead Britain out of EU if it wins the election.
2. Demand an election within 6–9 months: Cameron has no mandate to negotiate Brexit. The parties must be allowed to put their
respective Brexit plans to the electorate and thereafter run the negotiations. In that Labour should:
3. Fight for Britain to stay in the EEA and apply an "emergency brake" to migration under the rules of the EEA. That should be
a Labour goverment's negotiating position.
4. Labour should fight to keep all the EU's progressive laws (employment, environment, consumer protection etc) but scrap restrictions
on state aid, trade union action and nationalisation. If the EU won't allow that, then the fallback is a complete break and a bilateral
trade deal.
5. Adopt a new, progressive long-term migration policy: design a points based system designed to respond annually to demand from
employers and predicted GDP growth; make parliament responsible for setting the immigration target annually on the basis of an independent
expert report; the needs of the economy - plus the absolute duty to accept refugees fleeing war and torture - is what should set
the target, not some arbitrary ceiling. And devote massively more resources than before to meeting the stresses migration places
on local services.
6. Continue to demand Britain honours its duty to refugees to the tune of tens of thousands. Reassure existing migrant communities
in Britain that they are safe, welcome and cannot be expelled as a result of Brexit. Offer all those who've come here from Europe
under free movement rules the inalienable right to stay.
7. Relentlessly prioritise and attack the combined problems of low wages, in-work poverty and dead-beat towns.
8. Offer Scotland a radical Home Rule package, and create a federalised Labour Party structure. If, in a second referendum, Scotland
votes to leave the UK, Labour should offer a no-penalty exit process that facilitates Scotland rejoining the EU if its people wish.
In the meantime Labour should seek a formal coalition with the SNP to block a right wing Tory/UKIP government emerging from the next
election.
9. Offer the Republic of Ireland an immediate enhanced bilateral deal to keep the border open for movement and trade.
10. The strategic problem for Labour remains as before. Across Britain there have crystallised two clear kinds of radicalism:
that of the urban salariat and that of the low-paid manual working class. In Scotland those groups are aligned around left cultural
nationalism. In England and Wales, Labour can only win an election if it can attract both groups: it cannot and should not retreat
to becoming a party of the public sector workforce, the graduate and the university town. The only way Labour can unite these culturally
different groups (and geographic areas) - so clearly dramatised by the local-level results - is economic radicalism. Redistribution,
well-funded public services, a revived private sector and vibrant local democracy is a common interest across both groups.
11. If Labour in England and Wales cannot quickly rekindle its ties to the low-paid manual working class - cultural and visceral,
not just political - the situation is ripe for that group to swing to the right. This can easily be prevented but it means a clean
break with Blairism and an end to the paralysis inside the shadow cabinet.
From my social media feed it's clear a lot of young radical left people and anti-racists are despondent. It seems they equated
the EU with internationalism; they knew about and sympathised with the totally disempowered poor communities but maybe assumed it
was someone else's job to connect with them.
I am glad I voted to Remain, even though I had to grit my teeth. But I underestimated the sheer frustration: I'd heard it clearly
in the Welsh valleys, but not spotted it clearly enough in places like Barking, Kettering, Newport.
I am not despondent though. The Brexit result makes a radical left government in Britain harder to get - because it's likely Scotland
will leave, and the UK will disingegrate, and the Blairites will go off and found some kind of tribute band to neoliberalism with
the Libdems.
But if you trace this event to its root cause, it is clear: neoliberalism is broken.
There's no consent for the stagnation and austerity it has inflicted on people; there's nothing but hostility to the political
class and its fearmongering - whether that be Juncker, Cameron or the Blairites. As with Scotland, given the chance to disrupt the
institutions of neoliberal rule, people will do so and ignore the warnings of experts and the political class.
I predicted in Postcapitalism that the crackup of neoliberalism would take geo-strategic form first, economic second. This is
the first big crack.
It is, geopolitically, a victory for Putin and will weaken the West. For the centre in Europe it poses the question point blank:
will you scrap Lisbon, scrap austerity and boost economic growth or let the whole project collapse amid stagnation? I predict they
will not, and that the entire project will then collapse.
All we can do, as the left, is go on fighting for the interests of the poor, the workforce, the youth, refugees and migrants.
We have to find better institutions and better language to do it with. As in 1932, Britain has become the first country to break
with the institutional form of the global order.
If we do have a rerun of the 1930s now in Europe, we need a better left. The generation that tolerated Blairism and revelled in
meaningless centrist technocracy needs to wake up. That era is over.
"... Class, nationalist, and ethnic elements are all involved in the Brexit vote in a complex integration of protest. ..."
"... Press and media emphasize the nationalist and ethnic (immigrant-anti-immigrant) themes but generally avoid discussing or analyzing
the event from a class perspective. But that perspective is fundamental. What Brexit represents is a proxy vote against the economic
effects of Free Trade, the customs union called the European Union. Free trade deals always benefit corporations and investors. ..."
"... Free trade is not just about goods and services flows between member countries; it is even more about money and capital flows
and what is called direct investment. UK corporations benefit from the opportunity to move capital and invest in cheap labor elsewhere
in Europe, mostly the newly added members to the EU since 2000, in eastern europe. Free trade also means the unrestricted flow of labor.
Once these east european countries were added to the EU treaty, massive inflows of labor to the UK resulted. Just from Poland, more
than a million migrated to the UK alone. ..."
Class, nationalist, and ethnic elements are all involved in the Brexit vote in a complex integration of protest.
Press and media emphasize the nationalist and ethnic (immigrant-anti-immigrant) themes but generally avoid discussing or analyzing
the event from a class perspective. But that perspective is fundamental. What Brexit represents is a proxy vote against the economic
effects of Free Trade, the customs union called the European Union. Free trade deals always benefit corporations and investors.
Free trade is not just about goods and services flows between member countries; it is even more about money and capital flows
and what is called direct investment. UK corporations benefit from the opportunity to move capital and invest in cheap labor elsewhere
in Europe, mostly the newly added members to the EU since 2000, in eastern europe. Free trade also means the unrestricted flow of
labor. Once these east european countries were added to the EU treaty, massive inflows of labor to the UK resulted. Just from Poland,
more than a million migrated to the UK alone.
In the pre-2008, when economic conditions were strong and economic growth and job creation the rule, the immigration's effect
on jobs and wages of native UK workers was not a major concern. But with the crash of 2008, and, more importantly, the UK austerity
measures that followed, cutting benefits and reducing jobs and wages, the immigration effect created the perception (and some reality)
that immigrants were responsible for the reduced jobs, stagnant wages, and declining social services. Immigrant labor, of course,
is supported by business since it means availability of lower wages. But working class UK see it as directly impacting wages, jobs,
and social service benefits. THis is partly true, and partly not.
So Brexit becomes a proxy vote for all the discontent with the UK austerity, benefit cuts, poor quality job creation and wage
stagnation. But that economic condition and discontent is not just a consequence of the austerity policies of the elites. It is also
a consequence of the Free Trade effects that permit the accelerated immigration that contributes to the economic effects, and the
Free Trade that shifts UK investment and better paying manufacturing jobs elsewhere in the EU.
So Free Trade is behind the immigration and job and wage deterioration which is behind the Brexit proxy vote. The anti-immigration
sentiment and the anti-Free Trade sentiment are two sides of the same coin. That is true in the USA with the Trump candidacy, as
well as in the UK with the Brexit vote. Trump is vehemently anti-immigrant and simultaneously says he's against the US free trade
deals. This is a powerful political message that Hillary ignores at her peril. She cannot tip-toe around this issue, but she will,
required by her big corporation campaign contributors.
Another 'lesson' of the UK Brexit vote is that the discontent seething within the populations of Europe, US and Japan today is
not accurately registered by traditional polls. This is true in the US today as it was in the UK yesterday.
The Brexit vote cannot be understood without understanding its origins in three elements: the combined effects of Free Trade (the
EU), the economic crash of 2008-09, which Europe has not really recovered from having fallen into a double dip recession 2011-13
and a nearly stagnant recovery after, and the austerity measures imposed by UK elites (and in Europe) since 2013.
These developments have combined to create the economic discontent for which Brexit is the proxy. Free Trade plus Austerity plus
economic recovery only for investors, bankers, and big corporations is the formula for Brexit.
Where the Brexit vote was strongest was clearly in the midlands and central England-Wales section of the country, its working
class and industrial base. Where the vote preferred staying in the EU, was the non-working class areas of London and south England,
as well as Scotland and Northern Ireland. Scotland is dependent on oil exports to the EU and thus tightly linked to the trade. Northern
Ireland's economy is tied largely to Scotland and to the other EU economy, Ireland. So their vote was not surprising. Also the immigration
effects were far less in these regions than in the English industrial heartland.
Some would argue that the UK has recovered better than most economies since 2013. But a closer look at the elements of that recovery
shows it has been centered largely in southern England and in the London metro area. It has been based on a construction-housing
boom and the inflow of money capital from abroad, including from China investment in UK infrastructure in London and elsewhere. The
UK also struck a major deal with China to have London as the financial center for trading the Yuan currency globally. Money capital
and investment concentrated on housing-construction produced a property asset boom, which was weakening before the Brexit. It will
now collapse, I predict, by at least 20% or more. The UK's tentative recovery is thus now over, and was slipping even before the
vote.
Also frequently reported is that wages had been rising in the UK. This is an 'average' indicator, which is true. But the average
has been pulled up by the rising salaries and wages of the middle class professionals and other elements of the work force in the
London-South who had benefited by the property-construction boom of recent years. Working class areas just east of London voted strongly
for Brexit.
Another theme worth a comment is the Labor Party's leadership vote for remaining in the EU. What this represents is the further
decline of traditional social democratic parties throughout Europe. These parties in recent decades have increasingly aligned themselves
with the Neoliberal corporate offensive. That's true whether the SPD in Germany, the Socialist parties in France, Spain, Italy, Portugal,
and Greece, or elsewhere. As these parties have abdicated their traditional support for working class interests, it has opened opportunities
for other parties–both right and left–to speak to those interests. Thus we find right wing parties growing in Austria, France (which
will likely win next year's national election in France), Italy, Netherlands, and Scandinavia. Hungary and Poland's right turn should
also be viewed from this perspective. So should Podemos in Spain, Five Star movement in Italy, and the pre-August 2015 Syriza in
Greece.
Farther left more marxist-oriented socialist parties are meanwhile in disarray. In general they fail to understand the working
class rebellion against free trade element at the core of the recent Brexit vote. They are led by the capitalist media to view the
vote as an anti-immigrant, xenophobic, nationalist, right wing dominated development. So they in a number of instances recommended
staying in the EU. The justification was to protect the better EU mandated social regulations. Or they argue, incredulously, that
remaining in the free trade regime of the EU would centralize the influence of capitalist elements but that would eventually mean
a stronger working class movement as a consequence as well. It amounts to an argument to support free trade and neoliberalism in
the short run because it theoretically might lead to a stronger working class challenge to neoliberalism in the longer run. That
is intellectual and illogical nonsense, of course. Wherever the resistance to free trade exists it should be supported, since Free
Trade is a core element of Neoliberalism and its policies that have been devastating working class interests for decades now. One
cannot be 'for' Free Trade (i.e. remain in the EU) and not be for Neoliberalism at the same time–which means against working class
interests.
The bottom line is that right wing forces in both the EU and the US have locked onto the connection between free trade discontent,
immigration, and the austerity and lack of economic recovery for all since 2009. They have developed an ideological formulation that
argues immigration is the cause of the economic conditions. Mainstream capitalist parties, like the Republicans and Democrats in
the US are unable to confront this formulation which has great appeal to working class elements. They cannot confront it without
abandoning their capitalist campaign contributors or a center-piece (free trade) of their neoliberal policies. Social-Democratic
parties, aligning with their erstwhile traditional capitalist party opponents, offer no alternative. And too many farther left traditional
Marxist parties support Free Trade by hiding behind the absurd notion that a stronger, more centralized capitalist system will eventually
lead to a stronger, more centralized working class opposition.
Whatever political party formations come out of the growing rebellion against free trade, endless austerity policies, and declining
economic conditions for working class elements, they will have to reformulate the connections between immigration, free trade, and
those conditions.
Free Trade benefits corporations, investors and bankers on both sides of the 'trade' exchange. The benefits of free trade accrue
to them. For working classes, free trade means a 'leveling' of wages, jobs and benefits. It thus means workers from lower paid regions
experience a rise in wages and benefits, but those in the formerly higher paid regions experience a decline. That's what's been happening
in the UK, as well as the US and north America.
Free Trade is the 'holy grail' of mainstream economics. It assumes that free trade raises all boats. Both countries benefit. But
what that economic ideology does not go on to explain is that how does that benefit get distributed within each of the countries
involved in the free trade? Who benefits in terms of class incomes and interests? As the history of the EU and UK since 1992 shows,
bankers and big corporate exporters benefit. Workers from the poor areas get to migrate to the wealthier (US and UK) and thus benefit.
But the indigent workers in the former wealthier areas suffer a decline, a leveling. These effects have been exacerbated by the elite
policies of austerity and the free money for bankers and investors central bank policies since 2009.
So workers see their wages stagnant or decline, their social benefits cut, their jobs or higher paid jobs leave, while they see
immigrants entering and increasing competition for jobs. They hear (and often believe) that the immigrants are responsible for the
reduction of benefits and social services that are in fact caused by the associated austerity policies. They see investors, bankers,
professionals and a few fortunate 10% of their work force doing well, with incomes accelerating, while their incomes decline. In
the UK, the focus and solution is seen as exiting the EU free trade zone. In the US, however, it's not possible for a given 'state'
to leave the USA, as it is for a 'state' like the UK to leave the EU. And there are no national referenda possible constitutionally
in the US.
The solution in the US is not to build a wall to keep immigrants out, but to tear down the Free Trade wall that has been erected
by US neoliberal policies in order to keep US jobs in. Trump_vs_deep_state has come up with a reactionary solution to the free trade-immigration-economic
nexus that has significant political appeal. He proposes stopping labor flows, but proposes nothing concrete about stopping the cross-country
flows of money, capital and investment that are at the heart of free trade.
"... united snake orchestrated the 1965 genocide on Chinese indons, [later Clinton called Suharto the executioner 'our kind of guy' .] then instigated the 1989 pogrom [including mass rapes of Chinese girls]. ..."
united snake orchestrated the 1965 genocide on Chinese indons, [later Clinton called Suharto
the executioner 'our kind of guy' .] then instigated the 1989 pogrom [including mass rapes
of Chinese girls].
"... look on with sadness as some industries in the UK are destroyed by arbitrary rules from the EU, and wayward countries like Greece are trashed, while elites in the EU appear to lose complete touch with everyday people. ..."
"... Money and investment was promised ten times over while nobody could really explain how trade deals really benefit everyday people or how arts science and sport get a lot of support from the EU. Some politicians just wanted extra power for their own agendas like curbing unions while it appeared that every politician was still back in the 1980s trying to re open the issues from back then rather than dealing with today's issues of globalisation, automation and ageing populations ..."
"... Rust cities and towns largely voted to exit. ..."
...I am unhappy that the commissioner system in the EU can over rule all democratic process,
look on with sadness as some industries in the UK are destroyed by arbitrary rules from the
EU, and wayward countries like Greece are trashed, while elites in the EU appear to lose complete
touch with everyday people.
In the run up to the election we saw disgraceful behaviour from both sides of the argument
while others were too afraid to enter the fray. Money and investment was promised ten times
over while nobody could really explain how trade deals really benefit everyday people or how arts
science and sport get a lot of support from the EU. Some politicians just wanted extra power for
their own agendas like curbing unions while it appeared that every politician was still back in
the 1980s trying to re open the issues from back then rather than dealing with today's issues
of globalisation, automation and ageing populations (Perhaps John Hempton at bronte capital
is right and its all about delayed consumption).
Much of the tabloid media cheer leaded anything that would sell rather than informing. Obama
visited and was too subtle in explaining that if you have less negotiating power then things like
your governments right to set drug prices might be negotiated away (bye bye NHS)
Looking at the vote then there are some noticeable trends and implications some of which Yves
has touched upon.
Rust cities and towns largely voted to exit.
Cosmopolitan cities were more favourable to remaining.
Scotland and Northern Ireland see English Politics as completely irrelevant to them.
London is afraid of what Boris Johnson might do if given more power.
The political left does not have a consistent message.
Rural areas who by and large have not seen much immigration want investment rather than
austerity.
A lot of people voted on gut instinct in the end.
The older generation want a return to the 1960s regardless of whether the world has changed
and it is achievable.
The most striking difference in voting was between young people and older people.
"... If the left argues for immigration controls, however, it seems to be making concessions to racial-ethnic-national-or-whatever bigotry. So what is the proper approach to take? Some policy expertise informed by egalitarianism and internationalism in equal measure would be pretty valuable. ..."
We should favor redistributive policies because they are the right thing to
do–they are normatively just and humane, period. But we shouldn't necessarily
believe they will engender cosmopolitan solidarity. White workers have social
democratic alternatives in Scandinavia and they are anxiously moving toward
tribalism there, too. The most hopeful sign is that this is more age-related
than anything else and that the shoots of cosmopolitan leftism among young
people in major cities in North America and Canada will be the harbinger of a
politics that honors both demographic difference and economic and social
egalitarianism.
Omega Centauri
06.27.16 at 12:22 am
Thanks, its pretty clarifying to have the view from orbit, rather than that of
someone stuck in the forest.
T @14. Well Trump is riding the tribalism wave.
He is what some have termed a political entrepreneur, going after the
opportunities he see's. In many ways he and his supporters are motivated by
sticking it to the man, in this case the economic/political elite. That was
probably a big part of Leave as well, sticking it to both the EU, and those
financial manipulators who have gentrified London, and driven the "real" people
out. In a very real sense, these movements seem to be first about getting even.
Thinking about what follows, comes later (when it will be too late).
jake the antisoshul soshulist
06.27.16 at 1:33 am
Anti-globalization may be the primary driving force behind Trump_vs_deep_state, even
moreso than immigration, though for many immigration is part and partial of
globalization.
Often the concerns are directed toward crony-capitalism. There may be some
basis for this claim, but they blame this on the left, even though the swinging
door between government and business is an ecumenical problem.
bad Jim
06.27.16
at 3:12 am
A masterful piece. Thanks.
American politics is strongly flavored by its
history, most notoriously by the original sin of slavery, but crucially by its
distance from the rest of the developed world. Within my lifetime it was the
dominant economic force, the unquestioned giant of manufacturing, simply
because its competitors had been devastated by World War II. This was a
privileged situation as unsustainable and undesirable as slavery had been, but
its loss is still keenly felt, although nowadays we're blaming the Mexicans and
Chinese instead of the Germans and Japanese.
America's inequality is worse than even the U.K. We tolerate far higher
levels of executive compensation than anyone else. Low levels of taxation for
unearned income are more likely its result than its cause. The decimation of
unions is certainly a major factor, but even that appears to be as much culture
as calculation; not many members of my liberal family are pro-union, even
though my father and grandfather were union members.
At least we honor the memory of Roosevelt, and a weak Keynesian stimulus is
our traditional response to economic upheaval
DMC
06.27.16 at
3:26 am
Good over all, especially in presenting a counter narrative to the overwhelming
MSM meme(or is it a trope) of "the hordes of drooling blackshirts and football
hooligans propelling the Leave vote". Hard or soft, the EU was a neo-liberal
cake when it was baked and the ECB was going to serve the bond holders and not
the member states. There are reasons perfectly serious, liberal people
preferred Brexit. Not all arguments about national sovereignty are about
immigration(though they are readily hijacked in that direction). With the
example of Greece fresh before their eyes and the EU South(Spain Italy,
Portugal) teetering on the brink of insolvency, I can well imagine any number
of voters concluding that it was time to jump ship while the jumping was good.
merian
06.27.16
at 3:45 am
Apologies I let myself be dragged into participating in a thread derail by
cassander, who keeps misrepresenting what I'm saying - as usual, while we're
discussing Europe, the debate turns to the US. Sigh.
To return to tribalism and neoliberalism in the light of what's going on, I
still believe that JQ is basically quite right - and that the behaviour of
whoever represents the hard-neoliberal option (US Republicans, Tories…) has set
parts of their own constituency onto the "tribalism" course. For example by
stopping to do their legislative duty, not voting on budgets, not holding
confirmation hearings for supreme court judges in the US; or blatantly serving
the interests of hereditary moneyed families and just implementing policy after
policy that doesn't work in the UK and France; etc. And the soft-neoliberals
have lost part of *their* traditional constituency to the tribalists because
they correctly perceive that these leaders don't work in their interest.
Frederick Arehart
06.27.16 at 4:25 am
It's simply hard to take seriously anyone who claims the Leave people were all
racists and xenophobes. Like the people who voted to Leave, Islam is a spectrum
of believers. The problem is the group that is radical and violent is seen by
the clerics to be a legitimate part of the spectrum and is Wahhabi in it's
source.
The Saudis are of the Wahhabi sect. For years they have funded
Wahhabi schools and the exporting of their graduates.
What seems to be forgotten is that ISIS is Wahhabi in nature. Wahhabis are
the radical conservatives. How many Wahhabi Imam's are in Britain? That's the
scary question.
Again, most Muslims if left alone would assimilate nicely; just like other
groups have.
Unfortunately, they are not left alone and since Wahhabism is viewed as a
legitimate part if not THE greatest part of the Sunnis, they are not condemned.
Sharia is their end game.
Thank you for finally giving CT a reasonably clear statement of the difference
between the American and the metric-system senses of "neoliberalism." However,
the American sense had only a brief vogue in America, and now there is complete
confusion about how to apply the term there.
" It involved an attempt by
former liberals (in the US sense) and social democrats to accommodate to the
demands of financial markets while still softening the edges of capitalism and
maintaining a more active role for the state in filling the gaps left by market
provision of services. This 'soft' neoliberalism was exemplified by the (Bill)
Clinton administration in the United States and the Blair government in the UK
and was prefigured, in important respects, by the Hawke-Keating government in
Australia."
I'm not really sure what this means. It wasn't the demands of financial
markets that Bill Clinton was trying to accommodate. It was the demands of
voters. People on the left who condemn Clinton as a sellout conveniently forget
that before 1992 the Democrats had lost *five of the last six* Presidential
elections (the sixth was won by a conservative Democrat). Those five elections
included two absolutely crushing electoral-college landslides, the first (1976)
involving a candidate from the left wing of the Democratic Party, the second
(1984) involving the epitome of New Deal liberalism. By any reasonable standard
the voters had decisively rejected what the Democratic Party had to offer.
(Something similar before Blair, no?) So Clinton tried something else. Not only
did he preside over what working people remember (I think) as a good time in US
history, he also is the reason that liberal are near a majority on the Supreme
Court instead of an irrelevant minority.
There's this itch on the left to refer to H. Clinton as a "neoliberal"
(though the term has only recently come into use in the US), but this seems to
be nothing more than invective. When you get down to policy positions the
differences between Clinton and Sanders seem to be pretty small; Sanders has
done his best to magnify hem, presumably so he can make the case that she is a
tool of Wall Street or some other oligarchs (though he never quite says that
she is). So Clinton's support for Dodd-Frank, which certainly puts her at odds
with Wall Street, is treated as trivial compared to he failure to endorse
restarting the Glass-Steagal Act. Clinton doesn't just differ with Sanders
about fracking; she differs with him (it is implied) *because* she is in the
pocket of the energy industry. And so on. So I would advise caution about
trying to fit American politics into the Procrustean bed of theory.
This is a great opportunity for the people to free themselves from the toxic
objective of endless economic growth. The alternative of the steady state
economy has been with us for 168 years and the change is long overdue. We can
do it by means of incremental steps but it is important above all to have a
clear idea of the destination. To find out more go to
http://www.steadystate.org
Hidari
06.27.16
at 6:01 am
'The surprising decision by English and Welsh (though not Scottish and Northern
Irish) voters to leave the European Union can only be understood in the broader
context of the breakdown of the ideological consensus that dominated politics
throughout the world until the Global Financial Crisis.'
Just a little note
to back up your point: there was an article in the Independent which I can no
longer find which pointed out that in the Welsh speaking areas of Wales (where
Plaid Cymru is strong), Remain won.
In other words, in Northern Ireland, Scotland and the nationalist parts of
Wales, Remain won. In other words again, where there was a strong, coherent,
counter-narrative to the dominant one of Brexit (which was framed very strongly
in terms of English nationalism), remain won. But in all these cases the
counter-narrative was also framed in nationalist terms.
What we should infer from this is a cliche, but nevertheless true. 'Man does
not live by bread alone'. People need narratives to make sense of their lives.
Throughout most of the capitalist/industrialist era, for working people this
was either religion and/or socialism/communism/marxism/social democracy…call it
what you will. With this gone (and in the United States it was only weakly
there) religion has resurged (in 'immigrant' communities) and, of course,
nationalism has stepped in to fill the void in non-religious (i.e. mainly
white) communities.
In a more extreme form, of course, we can see this in the middle east where
as marxism has declined, religiosity has increased, and in the United States,
with the appearance of Trump ('left wing' concerns over jobs etc, an
isolationist foreign policy, and white nationalism/racism).
Blairism/Clintonism was an attempt to paper over the cracks and create a
sort of non-left wing left wing (i.e. essentially right wing in terms of
economics but with a patina of social liberalism). For a long time it looked
succesful, but ultimately it failed because it lacked the emotional substance
that religion, nationalism and socialism/marxism could provide.
The three-party system is a masterful contribution and it fits perfectly the
Brexit referendum.
Because labels inherited from the former period are bound
to be ill-adjusted for the new one, I personally came up with the following
tripartition in terms of ideology: the first group is roughly characterized by
its giving priority to the mitigation of inequalities on the socio-economic
front, the rise of which it considers of paramount of importance, and the
mitigation of the impact of humanity on the ecosystem on the global front; the
second considers the competitiveness and efficiency of the economy to be the
most important topic while the third gives priority to the enforcement of
reactionary modes of dominations (reactionary rather than traditional because,
in 2016, it is clear that any reference to a traditional past is purely
rhetorical and bares little ressemblance to any actual past).
The addendum I would like to add to the three-party system theory, and one
which goes a long way to explaining why "the process of developing a coherent
alternative has barely begun" on the left, is that these three distinct and
coherent ideologies do not correspond to three stable, coherent social groups.
The core of the third group is formed of uneducated workers occupying
intermediate job positions in peripheral areas. Under the current organization
of the economy and society of western democracies, this is a highly stable
group: in the absence of significantly more financial or intellectual capital
than typically possessed by members of this group, social mobility is far too
low for the statistical significance of someone or her children reaching a
higher social position.
The second group is also pretty stable: its core is formed of dynamic,
educated professionals in economically favored central areas; a tiny group but
with a very high aptitude to reproduce itself (for exactly the same reason that
the third does).
However, the first group-whose core is formed of educated people in dynamic
areas with middle wealth-is not stable: they are educated enough to be able to
reach in significant proportion the second group and share enough of their life
conditions (starting with the geography) to feel a real proximity to them.
Under current situations, a frank political breaking with the second group thus
seems to me unthinkable: young college-graduate enthusiastic Sanders supporters
will vote for Clinton en masse, young educated Scotts will probably vote to
secede from the UK to remain in the EU and perhaps rejoin the eurozone… two
choices which are probably vastly preferable to their most credible alternative
(a Trump presidency and a brexit UK) but which will also probably lead to ever
rising inequalities and ever threatening anthropogenic climate change.
If this somewhat depressing analysis is correct, it is high time that the
core of the first group (i.e us reading CT right now) seriously and forcefully
starts thinking about how to drastically change the material life of the core
of the third group: yes, they vote for absurd and scary policies based on crude
nativist arguments; yes, they are out to smash every institutions dear to the
first group, but that does not change the fact that the current system offers
them no realistic way of improving their lives or that of their children.
Charles Peters of the Washington Monthly wrote "A Neoliberal Manifesto" back in
the 80's. It was the sort of good-government stuff to be expected from that
venerable publication, rather more liberal than the DLC tendency approximated
but not exemplified by the Clinton administration.
It's frustrating to try to
define Democratic presidents, because they only have two years to shove their
communistic tendencies down the throats of the public before the reaction sets
in, which is why we're still on tenterhooks hoping to keep Obama's feeble
advances alive. Bear in mind that many of our sovereign states continue to
refuse to accept free health care for poor people.
JQ
The project of European unification, embodied in the European Union and its
associated institutions was, in its origins, a classic example of soft
neoliberalism. Its central aim was the removal of barriers to the flow of
goods, people and money across national borders within Europe.
Raven
Onthill @ 42
The point of the European Union was to make and keep peace.
I have been around long enough to think that JQ may be right about 'what
actually happened' but Raven Onthill is right about the leftwing,
internationalist ideal of peace. The EU may have strayed far from that – but
that is the ideal that Corbyn could have defended with a passion.
There are children whose grandparents or great grandparents fought on the
opposite sides in the second world war in Europe. There are delicacies even now
in those family relationships – I know from my own experience – but we do the
best we can, with goodwill. That, in human terms, is an example of what the
ideal of the EU means, and why people might feel so hurt at an apparent
betrayal of it.
Seconding Hidari @64, in the original thread on the three-party system, I wrote
The reality of the world today is that whatever converging trend between
advanced societies which might have existed in the 1945-1980 period has now
come to an end and has been reversed, with the norm being increasing divergence
alongside cultural, historical and anthropological lines which coincide roughly
with national borders.
[…]
[T]here are no left policies anymore: there are German left policies
(inspired by German values, social conditions, history…), British left policies
(ditto, and they differ from Scottish left policies), American left policies
(ditto), French left policies (ditto)…
The results of the Brexit referendum, with England alone choosing to secede
from the EU, is as clear an empirical illustration of this thesis as one could
possibly imagine.
It would be a stretch to ascribe all the blame for America's stark inequality
to slavery and genocide, but given the size of the Confederacy, and its history
as the bulk of the Democratic party, reliably opposed to Wall Street, it's not
that hard to understand why, given the challenges and the opportunities of the
Depression and the Roosevelt administration, our social infrastructure wound up
being so limited and mean-spirited.
Why don't we have universal health care?
Every Democrat since Roosevelt has attempted it, but they also did things to
ameliorate racial discrimination, and that was the end of any further progress.
It's no coincidence that only our first black president could finally cobble
together a pathetic collection of health care reforms, barely a first attempt
at the state of affairs taken for granted in most competent countries, and get
it passed. This is a big fucking deal, as Biden said. It's not very good, but
after fifty years of failing, I'm gratified.
If we can win another couple of elections it might become as much a part of
our lives as Social Security and Medicare.
64: "Blairism/Clintonism was an attempt to paper over the cracks and create a
sort of non-left wing left wing (i.e. essentially right wing in terms of
economics but with a patina of social liberalism). For a long time it looked
succesful, but ultimately it failed because it lacked the emotional substance
that religion, nationalism and socialism/marxism could provide."
I agree. The
emotional substance of "meritocratic winners will be handsomely rewarded,
losers will still benefit from the hearty crumbs" is pretty powerful in its own
narrow way, until the cronyism, abject subservience to corporate interests, and
abandonment of the public sphere become apparent. The losers vastly outnumber
the winners. It took a couple of decades of bubbles bursting and a shrinking
middle class for that to sink in. And a little help from OWS and Citizens
United (at least in the US).
I'm encouraged by the many US students who don't blink at the word
"socialism" and seem uninterested in Trump's version of nationalism. There's
some kind of emotional valence in socialism for many of them. Understandably
so, given the debt crisis and brutal job market (unpaid internships, for
starts).
Well done. I read this immediately after I had published a similar post on
ObsidianWings and was stunned by how similar it was to what I was thinking,
only from an economists perspective. Agreeing with you so completely almost has
to make me reconsider. ;)
"By contrast, the tribalists have a clear answer to both questions. The problem
is not (or at least not primarily) to be located at the top of the class
structure, among bankers and CEOs, but at the bottom, among immigrants and
racial minorities who benefit from state protection at the expense of ordinary
'people like us'."
That's a very unfortunate (and arrogant) caricature. David
in another thread already notice the similarity of the current
anti-mass-immigration sentiment and the anti-scab struggles ~90 years ago.
Mass-immigration is exactly the same tactic (same tool) as hiring scabs was
in the 1930s. Breaking workers' solidarity, splitting, preventing resistance,
reducing wages.
Yes, class structure is the problem, and everyone knows it, and restricting
immigration is exactly a strike against the bankers and CEOs.
It seems to me that the program of the left most in need of clarity–or at
least greatly in need of clarity– is immigration, for that is the one the
tribalists (not sure about this term but running with it) gain most traction
on, and therefore helps to explain why the tribalists rather than the left have
been the main beneficiaries of the disenchantment of neoliberalism. If the left
stands for a world without borders, the old internationalist ideal, it can seem
to be oblivious to the threat to wages, living standards, etc., that can pose
for those in countries that attract labor. This is so even if one does an
analysis showing that immigration sparks growth, that the kinds of jobs
immigrants take are not necessarily ones others want, and so forth. If the left
argues for immigration controls, however, it seems to be making concessions to
racial-ethnic-national-or-whatever bigotry. So what is the proper approach to
take? Some policy expertise informed by egalitarianism and internationalism in
equal measure would be pretty valuable. There must be some somewhere.
Recommended readings?
Along the lines of Hidari's comment, I think it helps to distinguish the causes
and flavours of prejudice involved. The O/P uses, I think, "tribalism" to cover
two distinct relationships. One is nationalism or, more broadly, group
solidarity that encompasses class. It's people feeling that, however different
their economic or other circumstances, they are part of the same group. There's
a fair amount of prejudice involved and some hostility to large-scale
in-migration, but the stress is on the ideal of equal sacrifice in the face of
common threats. It's as much a Labour/left-wing tradition as a right-wing one.
The other tribalism is party partisanship. This can be class or other group
solidarity but, in current times, it has more the flavour of rather desperate
patronage-seeking. The Republican base, or the British lowest class, don't have
much time for "elites", but they have less time for each other. And they follow
the basic rules of clientelism – hold tight to the patron you have (because any
patron is better than none), but jump ship if a competing patron makes a better
offer. Trump/Johnson/Farage are making a better offer. To this group,
boorishness signals that the patron shares at least some appreciation for their
folk-ways. And the patrons make much use of crude appeals to race/gender etc.
They could hardly make sophisticated appeals – they lack anything else in
common.
Of course, if the patron fails to deliver too often, you burn the manor down
in a fit of rage, abuse the local immigrants and then shop your neighbours to
the police.
@milx(4): "The Marxist critique made sense in the context of pre-industrialized
Russia…"
Not the Bolshevik approach – a Marxist heresy contradicting Marx's
view of mature capitalism as a prerequisite for the ultimate social revolution.
Russia's orthodox Marxists always maintained that the 1917 revolution should
have ended in March with the overthrow of the monarchy, which had impeded the
development of capitalism. The Menshevikism you mention in your comment as an
example of third-wayism is merely orthodox Marxism as applied to a country
where capitalism had yet to develop to maturity, such as Russia was in 1917.
This is clearly not the case with the first-world West, where capitalism has
evolved in ways Marx did not expect and has worked technological wonders far
beyond those that so delighted the authors of the Manifesto.
Re immigrants as analogous to scab labour: it's maybe worth looking at the Bank
of England Staff Working Paper No. 574, "The impact of immigration on
occupational wages", which concluded that a large number of unskilled
immigrants has, as might have been expected, depressed the wages of unskilled
workers. Also relevant is the comment by Lord Rose, formerly head of Marks &
Spencer, leader of the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign, who said that Leave
would produce a rise in wages for workers. There was a time when the Labour
party would not have regarded that as a bad thing.
Tabasco@67: Re the need
for visas to go from Britain to Europe: before 1973, with Britain outside the
EEC, it was perfectly possible to go to France, Italy, Germany with no visa.
Also, last time I flew from NI to Dublin there was one queue for passport
control, for everybody. Having EU and non-EU queues would make it faster for
everybody.
Re the factors that led people to vote for Leave, one of Ashcroft's polls
enquired about that, and found that the reason most often given was the
principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK. I'm not sure
that's tribalism.
I've said that immigration is not my expertise, but labor history is, and I
find the comparison of immigrants to scabs not only libelous but historically
wrong. Immigrants in US labor, circa 1880-1920, and their sons and daughters
after, are what built the great industrial unions (see, for example,
International Ladies and Garment Workers Union, or the Lawrence strike of 1912,
or any number of other examples). Furthermore they are arguably the dynamo in
what's left of the US labor movement today, immigrants rights movements being
melded completely with workers' rights movements.
Good piece, though the identification of the English (and Welsh) tribalists as
"white Christians" is a bit problematic in a context where the immigrant group
is just as white and far more Christian than they are.
"decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK."
But a decision on whether
a person should be allowed to travel from some other country to the UK, or
vice versa
is not just a decision about the UK, or just about that other
country. It involves both, not to mention the person in question.
@84 You're right – I took this over from the US context
But a decision on whether a person should be allowed to travel from some
other country to the UK, or vice versa is not just a decision about the UK, or
just about that other country. It involves both, not to mention the person in
question.
This point, with which I agree, is the basic premise of Arash Abizadeh's
argument that unilateral state control over borders is incompatible with
democratic legitimacy because it involves the coercive application of the law
to people who have no say in making it. Obviously, however, nativists take the
view "it is our land, we get to decide".
If the left argues for immigration controls, however, it
seems to be making concessions to racial-ethnic-national-or-whatever bigotry.
So what is the proper approach to take? Some policy expertise informed by
egalitarianism and internationalism in equal measure would be pretty valuable.
This, to me, is what makes the 'three parties' analysis suspect, at least
for ethnically mixed polities, because there is also a group of voters for whom
civil rights is more important than income inequality. This group is not large
enough to be a party, but it is large enough to destabilize one, and they do
not want to make common cause with people advocating class solidarity if that
means "concessions to racial-ethnic-national-or-whatever bigotry".
Though Corbyn is being shellacked for his tepid support for Remain, he was
stuck navigating a particularly rocky strait, having to choose between
anti-capitalist-world-order and anti-immigrant stances, hence his statement
that his commitment to Remain was 'no more than seven or seven and a half' out
of ten. (
https://goo.gl/5R76EW
)
Worse, this dilemma was strongest for the youngest voters, Corbyn's base and
the ones most attached to both commitments.
British internationalism has now been damaged as the result of the combined
votes of the 'Vote Leave, to demand that the international system be more
accountable and less neo-liberal' and the 'Vote Leave, then leave' camps.
(Chris Bertram covered some of this back in May, in
http://crookedtimber.org/2016/05/20/lefty-poseurs-and-brexit/
)
It is obvious in hindsight that anything less than the public equivalent of
a three-line whip from Corbyn was inadequate to secure Remain, but the
structural problem is deeper: there was not, in the Leave vote, or in the
larger world of contemporary politics, any way to advocate for 'egalitarianism
and internationalism in equal measure'.
To make the obvious imperfect parallel, In the U.S., there are people who
regard the gutting of Glass-Steagall as a bigger catastrophe then the gutting
of the Voting Rights Act and people who come to the opposite conclusion. (The
existence of that latter group, even just as spoilers, is why I don't
completely buy the 'three party' framework.)
The tension between these groups came to the fore around Sanders' desire to
appeal to the economic interests of the white working class means advocating
for the return of voters who left the Democratic party because they disapprove
of the Democrats commitment to civil rights. (
http://goo.gl/3aL46T
)
This obviously did not work, in part because the Civil Rights wing of the
Democratic party is strong right now.
In the U.K. framework, this group is make up of the people who value freedom
of movement more than they dislike the ECB. Prior to this year, I thought that
the tensions between egalitarianism and internationalism were just the sort of
thing that happens in Big Tent parties. Now I'm not so sure.
T]here are no left policies anymore: there are German left policies
(inspired by German values, social conditions, history…), British left policies
(ditto, and they differ from Scottish left policies), American left policies
(ditto), French left policies (ditto)…
The results of the Brexit
referendum, with England alone choosing to secede from the EU, is as clear an
empirical illustration of this thesis as one could possibly imagine.
"…the term 'neoliberal' is used, outside the US, to refer to the
revival of 19th century free market ideas…"
I would disagree with this characterization, although I'm not sure if you
are making it or simply reporting it, John. The epitome of neoliberalism, in
my view, goes under the euphemism of "labour market flexibility."
Superficially this comes down to the same kind of policy prescription as
19th century
laissez faire
but with an entirely different - and
pseudo-Keynesian ("New Keynesian") - theoretical rationale. Not the Chicago
School and Mont Pelerin Society but Joseph Stiglitz, Richard Layard, Olivier
Blanchard, Lawrence Summers, Paul Krugman et al.
M… I… T… ("tee you off soon") k…e…y…
nes
("why? because
we LOVE you!") L… owe… you… S… E.
Yes, Friedman and Hayek, Thatcher and Reagan may have started the ball
rolling but it was the New Keynesians with their stinking "sticky wages"
claptrap who gave it progressive street cred. I could go on but why bother?
One of the most best stories so far, both from the perspective of the granularity of the reporting and the caliber of the writing,
is the Guardian's
'If you've got money, you vote in … if you haven't got money, you vote out' (hat tip PlutoniumKun). It gives a vivid, painful
picture of the England that has been left behind with the march of Thatcherism and neoliberalism.
From the article :
And now here we are, with that terrifying decision to leave. Most things in the political foreground are finished, aren't
they? Cameron and Osborne. The Labour party as we know it, now revealed once again as a walking ghost, whose writ no longer
reaches its supposed heartlands. Scotland – which at the time of writing had voted to stay in the EU by 62% to 38% – is already
independent in most essential political and cultural terms, and will presumably soon be decisively on its way…
Because, of course, this is about so much more than the European Union. It is about class, and inequality, and a politics
now so professionalised that it has left most people staring at the rituals of Westminster with a mixture of anger and bafflement.
Tangled up in the moment are howling political failures that only compounded that problem: Iraq, the MPs' expenses scandal,
the way that Cameron's flip from big society niceness to hard-faced austerity compounded all the cliches about people you cannot
trust, answerable only to themselves (something that applied equally to the first victims of our new politics, the Liberal
Democrats).
Most of all, Brexit is the consequence of the economic bargain struck in the early 1980s, whereby we waved goodbye to the
security and certainties of the postwar settlement, and were given instead an economic model that has just about served the
most populous parts of the country, while leaving too much of the rest to anxiously decline. Look at the map of those results,
and that huge island of "in" voting in London and the south-east; or those jaw-dropping vote-shares for remain in the centre
of the capital: 69% in Tory Kensington and Chelsea; 75% in Camden; 78% in Hackney, contrasted with comparable shares for leave
in such places as Great Yarmouth (71%), Castle Point in Essex (73%), and Redcar and Cleveland (66%). Here is a country so imbalanced
it has effectively fallen over….
What defines these furies is often clear enough: a terrible shortage of homes, an impossibly precarious job market, a too-often
overlooked sense that men (and men are particularly relevant here) who would once have been certain in their identity as miners,
or steelworkers, now feel demeaned and ignored. The attempts of mainstream politics to still the anger have probably only made
it worse: oily tributes to "hardworking families", or the the fingers-down-a-blackboard trope of "social mobility", with its
suggestion that the only thing Westminster can offer working-class people is a specious chance of not being working class anymore.
This much-watch segment with Mark Blyth (hat tip
Gabriel U) also focuses on the class warfare as a driver of the Brexit vote and how that plays into the broader EU political and
economic context:
Our Richard Smith echoed these themes from his own observations:
In (for instance) North Lincolnshire, manufacturing is most likely to be the biggest EU export. That might get nuked a bit
if the terms of trade with EU countries get stiffer.
But the locals upcountry clearly feel they have been ignored, and now have nothing to lose. M and I bumbled through Wisbech
and Boston a few years ago, expecting cute East Anglian port towns, and found instead murderously tense run-down ghettoes.
You get this kind of story:
Unless, improbably, around 700,000 such stories turn up, which would imply they swung the vote, this is another portrayal
of the "Leave" voters as idiots.
Brexit's lesson for the US - and other democracies - is that fear mongering is not enough. Western elites must build a positive
case for reforming a system that is no longer perceived to be fair. The British may well repent at leisure for a vote they
took in haste. Others can learn from its blunder.
But even this is weak tea. Luce isn't advocating a Sanders-style economic regime change. Indeed, his call for action is making
a case for reform, implying that the more realistic members of the elites need to take on the reactionary forces. As we've said,
the Clintons are modern day Bourbons: they've learned nothing and forgotten nothing. Luce's warning to Hillary Clinton, firmly
ensconced in her bubble of self-regard, deeply loyal to powerful, monied interests and technocrats, is destined to fall on deaf
ears.
"... Its so sad how the western presstitutes try and work this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79jQSYQYcW0 Russia seems to have the war part covered while Syria is bringing the diplomatic punch into focus .... ..."
"... Unadulterated BS. As for Obama (see 6) the committee man (he was elected for that role), he is caught between a rock and a hard place. Ukraine was and is an absolute disaster - nothing worked out as wished. (Some may enjoy Helmer, who sometimes must be taken with a dose of salt, linked below, MH17, etc. This war is being fought on 2 fronts, Ukr. + Syria.) ..."
"... Although the US seems to have gotten tough(er) on ISIS in recent months, there are indications that this is just more smokescreen. The Assad must go! Coalition has merely changed tactics. They still support their extremist proxy army(s) (as demonstrated by recent resupply and pleas for Russia to avoid bombing) . ..."
"... Obama warned Putin that he could face a 'quagmire' and 'costs'. To paraphrase Madeline Albright: What good is a proxy army if you don't use it? ..."
"... Obama is a willing and very capable participant in the 'con'. This has been proven in the realm of domestic affairs as well as foreign affairs. james has it right when he says: "this good cop/bad cop (obama/brennan) routine is a pile of bullshite". ..."
"... The Saudis and its allied are too stupid to realize that they have been taken on a ride. Turkey is on the verge of crumbling as Erdogan keeps attacking the USA and Egypt and has not solve the issue with Israel on Hamas and the defunct Moslem Brotherhood. ..."
"... Yes, I suppose it is entirely possible that this "schism" between Obama and the Pentagon is just theatrics, optics, useful in declaring helplessness when "policies" are undone or contradicted ... Obama as victim of palace infighting. ..."
"... "Turkey on the verge of crumbling ..." ..."
"... Egypt has placed the MB on the terror list and has become allied with Saudi Arabia and UAE. Qatar is isolated for its support of the MB. Erdogan is between a rock and a hard place, its foreign policy has been a disaster. Seeking to restore relations with Russia. The intelligence community of Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia have joined assets in the Levant. Al Nusra on the Golan must be defeated, the UK/US training camps of rebels in Jordan must be neutralized to fight in the southern corridor to Damascus. ..."
"... To remove any ambiguity about the status of the Free Syrian Army, a representative was present at this year's Herzliya Conference. This annual conference is dedicated to issues relating to Israel's Security. Netanyahu and high level Israeli Military Intelligence leaders state they prefer ISIS to Assad. ..."
"... War criminal Obama was the lead advocate for bombing Syrian government a few years ago, thats until the UK Parliament put a temporary stop to it. So any credit given to Obama by b , or anyone else is ludicrous. LUDICROUS. The destruction of Libya still gets Obama mitigation ? ..."
"... In 2016 we have the batsh*t crazy appointed government bureaucrats siding with the sole interests of a foreign country. Circle talking seems to be the normal state of affairs at State, Executive and MSM. PBS has gone full Karl Marx. Congress has an 16% approval rating, 80% disapproval, and 4% no opinion [1]. So I guess Congress doesn't really matter? And as far as our military command goes, when you can use 'sold out' and 'son of a bitch' in the same sentence, we, as a nation might have a major problemo. ..."
"... Actually, Putin has said that their intervention in Syria is in Russia's strategic interests - making much the same argument that Bush did wrt al Queda: we need to fight them there so that we don't have to fight them here . Russia doesn't want to see extremist control of another failed state like Libya. ..."
"... Clearly there is an ongoing battle in the Obama Administration between Mostly the pentagon (at least some part of it) and the CIA (most part of it). Obama is well aware of this. ..."
"... Obama's Strategy has been to isolate Russia Politically and to shift the main focus of United State Towards Asia however the unexpected resistance of Russia and Syria wasn't forecast by his administration and part of the Deep state. Now part of the heads in the pentagon and the Obama administration want out of this proxy war against Russia as the World and mainly the US public becomes more and more aware of the real nature of the war ongoing in Syria. The heart of the matter is that The members of the oligarchy that rule the united states through revolving doors between the government , their law firms, foundations, banks and corporations can't afford to lose Syria for obvious reason. ..."
"... "But Putin invited the evil US Empire into Syria." ..."
"... I haven't watched or listened to that PBS tripe ever . But considering that PBS is 90% corporate funded, I find it hard to accept your assertion ... it is merely a corporate/permanent government psy-op to keep the intellectually and morally challenged sedated. ..."
"... Obama's Syria SNAFU was always destined to boil down to Yankees playing Russian Roulette - with Russia. They're probably beginning to realise that playing cat and mouse loses a lot of its appeal when the cat starts getting ready to eat you. ..."
"... Hillary's so predictably evil, and he's so officially 'unpredictable' that he's the natural focal point of the selection circus. It's too bad only one of them can lose. ..."
"... Confirmation of other reports ... ..."
"... Obama and his Administration is a collection of lawyers, political pseudo-"scientists", journos etc. They are very good at promoting suicidal social policies but do not and cannot operate with actual operational categories--briefings by CIA or Pentagon (granted that they reflect a reality on the "ground", which is a question) are not designed to teach some Ivy League lawyer fundamentals of international relations, strategy, operational art etc. They merely distill a very complex geopolitical reality to a several catch phrases which could be understood by people of such qualities as W. (his military briefings papers contained headers with Bible excerpts, supposedly applicable to current situation) or Obama, who has no clue on how to assess the world around himself. ..."
"... In relation to Russia what Obama has in mind is beaten to death cliche of Afghanistan (obviously without studying that war) with which he wants to impress Russians, who, meanwhile fought two bloody wars against Wahhabi terrorists on own territory and, somehow, do know, unlike Obama or US liberal political class, what does it take to deal with this huge issue. In the end, during last War in Chechnya US media loved to misuse this very term (quagmire) and completely forgot to mention that Chechnya today is, actually, pretty reliable anti-terrorism entity in Russia. Now, add here most of US "elites" and a population being absolutely oblivious to real war and voila'. You have people speaking in platitudes and ignorant cliches. ..."
The U.S. is
unwilling to stop the war on Syria and to settle the case at the negotiation table. It wants
a 100% of its demands fulfilled, the dissolution of the Syrian government and state and the inauguration
of a U.S. proxy administration in Syria.
After the ceasefire in Syria started in late February Obama
broke his pledge to separate the U.S. supported "moderate rebels" from al-Qaeda. In April U.S.
supported rebels, the Taliban like Ahrar al Sham and al-Qaeda joined to attack the Syrian government
in south Aleppo. The U.S.proxies broke the ceasefire.
Two UN resolutions demand that al-Qaeda in Syria be fought no matter what. But the U.S. has at
least twice asked Russia not to bomb al-Qaeda. It insists, falsely, that it can not separate its
"moderates" from al-Qaeda and that al-Qaeda can not be attacked because that would also hit its "moderate"
friends.
The Russian foreign minster Lavrov has talked wit Kerry many times about the issue. But the only
response he received were requests to further withhold bombing. Meanwhile al-Qaeda and the "moderates"
continued to break the ceasefire and to attack the Syrian government forces.
After nearly four month Kerry still insists that the U.S. needs even more time for the requested
separation of its proxy forces from al-Qaeda. Foreign Minister Lavrov recently
expressed the Russian consternation:
The Americans are now saying that they are unable to remove the 'good' opposition members
from the positions held by al-Nusra Front, and that they will need another two-three months.
I am under the impression that there is a game here and they may want to keep al-Nusra
Front in some form and later use it to overthrow the [Assad] regime," Lavrov said at the St. Petersburg
International Economic Forum.
The bucket was full and Kerry's latest request for another three month pause of attacking al-Qaeda
was the drop that let it overflow. Russia now responded by
hitting the U.S. where it did not expect to be hit:
Russian warplanes hit Pentagon-backed Syrian fighters with a barrage of airstrikes earlier
this week , disregarding several warnings from U.S. commanders in what American military
officials called the most provocative act since Moscow's air campaign in Syria began last year.
The strikes hit a base near the Jordanian border, far from areas where the Russians were previously
active, and targeted U.S.-backed forces battling the Islamic State militants.
...
These latest strikes occurred on the other side of the country from the usual Russian operations,
around Tanf, a town near where the borders of Jordan, Iraq, and Syria meet.
...
The Russian strike hit a small rebel base for staging forces and equipment in a desolate, unpopulated
area near the border. About 180 rebels were there as part of the Pentagon's program to train and
equip fighters against Islamic State.
When the first strikes hit, the rebels called a U.S. command center in Qatar, where the Pentagon
orchestrates the daily air war against Islamic State.
U.S. jets came and the Russian jets went away. The U.S. jets left to refuel, the Russian jets
came back and hit again.
Allegedly two U.S. proxy fighters were killed and 18 were wounded.
Earlier today another such attack hit the same target.
This was no accident but a well planned operation and the Russian spokesperson's response makes
the intend clear:
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov appeared to confirm the attack Friday, telling reporters
it was difficult to distinguish different rebel groups from the air.
Translation: "If you can not separate your forces from al-Qaeda and differentiate and designate
exclusively "moderate" zones we can not do so either ."
The forces near Tanf are supported by U.S. artillery from Jordan and air power via Iraq. British
and Jordan special operations forces are part of the ground component (and probably the majority
of the "Syrian" fighters.) There is no al-Qaeda there. The Russians know that well. But they wanted
to make the point that it is either separation everywhere or separation nowhere. From now on until
the U.S. clearly separates them from AQ all U.S. supported forces will be hit indiscriminately anywhere
and anytime. (The Syrian Kurds fighting the Islamic State with U.S. support are for now a different
story.)
The Pentagon does not want any further engagement against the Syrian government or against Russia.
It wants to fight the Islamic State and its hates the CIA for its cooperation with al-Qaeda and other
Jihadi elements. But John Brennan, the Saudi operative and head of the CIA, still seems to have Obama's
ear. But what can Obama do now? Shoot down a Russian jet and thereby endanger any U.S. pilot flying
in Syria or near the Russian border? Risk a war with Russia? Really?
The Russian hit near Tanf was clearly a surprise. The Russians again caught Washington on the
wrong foot. The message to the Obama administration is clear. "No more delays and obfuscations.
You will separate your moderates NOW or all your assets in Syria will be juicy targets for
the Russian air force. "
The Russian hits at Tanf and the U.S. proxies there has an additional benefit. The U.S. had planned
to let those forces move north towards Deir Ezzor and to defeat the Islamic State in that city. Eventually
a "Sunni entity" would be established in south east Syria and west Iraq under U.S. control. Syria
would be split apart.
The Syrian government and its allies will not allow that. There is a large operation planned to
free Deir Ezzor from the Islamic State occupation. Several hundred Syrian government forces have
held an isolated airport in Deir Ezzor against many unsuccessful Islamic State attacks. These troops
get currently reinforced by additional Syrian army contingents and Hizbullah commandos.A big battle
is coming. Deir Ezzor may be freed within the next few month. Any U.S. plans for some eastern Syrian
entity are completely unrealistic if the Syrian government can take and hold its largest eastern
city.
The Obama administration's delaying tactic will now have to end. Russia will no longer stand back
and watch while the U.S. sabotages the ceasefire and supports al-Qaeda.
What then is the next move the U.S. will make?
Posted by b on June 18, 2016 at 11:15 AM |
Permalink
Many pundits have argued that there is no military solution in Syria. I disagree, a military solution
is the only one possible and it must be decisive. How is it possible for Saudi Arabia to supply
and finance thousands of proxy forces to destroy a fellow Arab state, and still claim to be fighting
terrorism. Syria and Iran need to take the gloves off and use their own special forces or better
still encourage proxy forces of their own [unattributed of course]to cripple the Saudi economy
with various 'incidents' at Ras Tamara oil port. "An assault on Ras Tanura, however, would be
vastly more serious. As much as 80% of the near 9m barrels of oil a day pumped out by Saudi is
believed to end up being piped from fields such as Ghawar to Ras Tanura in the Gulf to be loaded
on to supertankers bound for the west".
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jun/03/saudiarabia.oil
This would have the benefit of killing two birds with one stone, the fall of one of the most obnoxious
regimes known to mankind and with it the cessation of funding for schools of terrorism throughout
the world and with it Assads vision of a secular Syrian state as a role model for the rest of
the Middle East.
@Jackrabbit at 2: Of course Obama is not progressive or peace loving. Only an idiot would argue
that he is. But what b is saying is that Obama is weak reed who can be bent depending on which
faction has his attention. He both wants to overthrow Assad and to avoid getting pulled into an
expensive battle, in my opinion, and in any given week may issue contradictory policies. But it
seems he sides more with the CIA than the Pentagon, which is dangerous in this case.
Seems as though the pressure is on ...this vid Skype presentation by Syrian presidential adviser
Dr Bouthaina Shaaban, to GAFTA (Global Alliance for terminating al Qaeda) conference in Washington,
June 2016. is well worth the listen to .
Its so sad how the western presstitutes try and work this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79jQSYQYcW0
Russia seems to have the war part covered while Syria is bringing the diplomatic punch into focus
....
@2 It's always been clear to me that he is not some tremendous beacon of peace for Syria but the
alternative was McCain and he definitely wanted and still wants more w/ ever a burning yearning
for absolute overt total war against Syria.
It's tough to tell who Obama listens to; Ben Rhodes? Saudi's (most def) but is it just simply
as a sorry for the iran deal or closer ties? The u.s. deep state (i think so but they seemed pretty
pissed at him) . . i think he just expected things to go as they did in libya or perhaps as the
2012 dia memo stated, the plan all along was to create a sliver of a sunni state and for the u.s.
in that case the objective is coming along whether a kurdistan (hopefully) or a caliphate (hope
to god not)... is it a fly trap strategy that'll turn in to a caliphate? hell idk it's going to
be insane w/ hillary.
"On Friday, Defense Secretary Ash Carter called out Russia for bombing a Syrian rebel group
that's backed by the U.S.
Since last year, American and Russian warplanes have shared the skies over Syria while supporting
different sides in the civil war. Moscow backs the Assad dictatorship; the U.S. is arming rebels
who've been trying to overthrow it.
The attack by Russian fighter bombers on American-backed opposition forces appeared to be deliberate
and to ignore repeated U.S. warnings."
Once again our so called Department of Defense displays its 'Kindergarten logic' by condemning
Russia for acting within the parameters of International Law.
harrylaw at 5, yes, say. They state 'no military solution is possible' because they want a
political transition right now.In short, they want the opposing parties to just lie down
and die or go off and play WoW or watch Mad Men or sumptin'. Unadulterated BS. As for Obama (see
6) the committee man (he was elected for that role), he is caught between a rock and a hard place.
Ukraine was and is an absolute disaster - nothing worked out as wished. (Some may enjoy Helmer,
who sometimes must be taken with a dose of salt, linked below, MH17, etc. This war is being fought
on 2 fronts, Ukr. + Syria.)
Read in the Swiss Press (no idea if true) that di Mistura is fed up with the lot of them, implied
he will throw in the towel. Not that a return to the negotiating table is realistic, that ship
has now sailed into the stormy night, the US can't try that move again, nor will the Russians
be so compliant next time (imho.) So that is one thing the US won't do (?).. (b's question.) The
rubber is going to hit the road on this one. It will be fought out in the corridors of power in
Washington first. Putin has been in speech very conciliatory recently to show the usual 'good
will'..
I will hazard a guess. But first, we should not think that the U.S. will act alone. Direct confrontation
with Russia is (of course) too risky.
As I wrote in an earlier comment (includes timeline) , the San Bernandino attack occurred
soon after the downing of the Russian airliner on October 31st 2015. This was the first attack
against the US despite the US having (supposedly) bombed ISIS for over a year and engaged
in a $500 million program to train anti-ISIS fighters.
The long delay in responding to USA's anti-ISIS activities sharply contrasts with the quickness
with which ISIS had responded to Russia's intervention. This leads to the question of whether
the San Bernandino attack was (hastily) arranged to blunt any attempt to associate USA with the
proxy army of Sunni extremists.
Although the US seems to have gotten tough(er) on ISIS in recent months, there are indications
that this is just more smokescreen. The Assad must go! Coalition has merely changed tactics.
They still support their extremist proxy army(s) (as demonstrated by recent resupply and pleas
for Russia to avoid bombing) .
The recent Orlando shooting better establishes ISIS's hate for USA and thereby distances USA/CIA
from ISIS. This distancing may simply be misdirection that allows ISIS to carry out spectacular
attack(s) against Russian interests. That it pre-dates attacks on Russian interests merely
shows that they learned from the San Bernandino experience (where a lack of previous attacks
raised suspicions) .
Note:
1) The San Bernandino attackers had visited Saudi Arabia and the wife had lived there. They
were well established in the USA and drew little if any suspicion. They could have attacked
months before or after the time that they actually did attack.
2) The Orlando attacker had also visited Saudi Arabia. The background of the wife is
(as yet) not well understood. She was born in USA but her last name ("Salman") is the same
as the Saudi royal family (I'm not sure how relevant that is) . It is now clear that
she had some knowledge of the plans of her husband.
3) Both the San Bernandino and Orlando (SB&O) attackers had a young child. As a 'young family'
they would be less likely to draw suspicion. Were the SB&O attackers really "radicalized via
the Internet"? "ISIS-inspired"? "Lone wolf"? Or, were they 'deep cover' operatives?
4) The FBI has caught/entrapped many potential attackers that were "radicalized over the
Internet" but they are invariably clueless and incapable.
5) AFAIK, "ISIS-inspired" attackers in Paris and Brussels didn't have young children and
middle-class lifestyle.
Obama warned Putin that he could face a 'quagmire' and 'costs'. To paraphrase Madeline Albright:
What good is a proxy army if you don't use it?
Obama is a willing and very capable participant in the 'con'. This has been proven in the realm
of domestic affairs as well as foreign affairs.
james has it right when he says: "this good cop/bad cop (obama/brennan) routine is a pile
of bullshite".
In public the US criticizes and threatens Russia. In private I think that the Pentagon is more
than happy to see Russia blowing up these "moderates" that have become polluted by Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait, Qatar and also Turkey.
Using Russia, the USA is giving a good lessons to these 'allies' countries that dare stand against
the USA shift on Iran. They are becoming increasingly terrified by their powerlessness.
This has always been the USA double game in the ME: Caress and stab in the back. The Saudis and
its allied are too stupid to realize that they have been taken on a ride. Turkey is on the verge
of crumbling as Erdogan keeps attacking the USA and Egypt and has not solve the issue with Israel
on Hamas and the defunct Moslem Brotherhood.
The tacit agreement between Kerry and Lavrov on crushing the rebels, islamist or not, is very
clear.
Yes, I suppose it is entirely possible that this "schism" between Obama and the Pentagon is just
theatrics, optics, useful in declaring helplessness when "policies" are undone or contradicted
... Obama as victim of palace infighting.
PBS TV is running a piece on the military draft. Giving a historical perspective dating back to
George Washington's request for a draft during the Revolutionary War to the present.
While stationed at Great Lakes Naval station in 1967 I noticed that all of e gate guards were
US Marines. This was during Nam. I asked one Marine how he managed to pull such a plum assignment.
He told me that he had been drafted into the Marines. His tour was for two years. He was told
that being a draftee he would not serve in a combat unit as a draftee and not an enlistee 'he
could not be trusted.'
The Outlaw US Empire's behavior regarding the UNSC resolution that al-Qaeda be attacked no matter
what proves the Empire's support for that terrorist group absolving its citizens from paying taxes
to support terrorism since doing so is against the law. Is my logic sound, or should I rephrase?
Egypt has placed the MB on the terror list and has become allied with Saudi Arabia and UAE.
Qatar is isolated for its support of the MB. Erdogan is between a rock and a hard place, its foreign
policy has been a disaster. Seeking to restore relations with Russia. The intelligence community
of Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia have joined assets in the Levant. Al Nusra on the Golan must
be defeated, the UK/US training camps of rebels in Jordan must be neutralized to fight in the
southern corridor to Damascus.
It must be the
US supported Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) heading towards Deir ez-Zor, a crucial cross-roads
for Islamic State between Raqqa and Anbar province in Iraq. The U.S. will do all to help establish
an enlarged Sunni enclave as a gift for its Arab patrons. A bit of Syria should suffice as punishment
for Assad and allies.
Seems like you missed you missed the big news for today:
On Putin´s order, Sergei Shoigu, the Russian defence minister visited Bashar al Assad and the
Kmeimim base.
That most certainly mean s that something big will be announced next week. Stay tuned...
The Helmer piece on MH17 is interesting. I remember reports that the Australians were prepared
to send troops into the area, but if the Dutch were planning the same thing then it was a NATO
op in all probability. The utter hysteria that had been unleashed in the Western media at the
time would have provided the cover for such bold move. The desired result would not have necessarily
been immediate war with Russia, but certainly the instantaneous creation of cold war standoff
and militarization which has been happening incrementally instead. This could be considered similar
to the sarin attack in Syria, blamed on Assad, with the hasty response of quickly regime-changing
the country, which also was called off (and the policy continued incrementally since). This highlights
the centrality of false-flag events to realize policy, particularly to those favouring rapid game-changing
moves. It is very possible that the next POTUS will be faced with a false-flag atrocity in the
Baltics or mid-east early in the first term, with an attendant bold move offered as response.
"U.S. jets came and the Russian jets went away. The U.S. jets left to refuel, the Russian jets
came back and hit again. Allegedly two U.S. proxy fighters were killed and 18 were wounded.
Earlier today another such attack hit the same target."
Putin seems quite adept at appearing weak (even to his supporters), then BAM!! IMO, this is
not a one-off. No reason to fly clear across Syria to 'make a statement', though it was a helluva
statement!
I expect more of the same, with Russia going back to its original strategy, which worked quite
well. So much for Obama's foreign policy (don't do stupid shit).
Thanks Terry for the Bouthaina Shaaban speech. The most amazing are the questions after the 30 mn
speech. A dozen of female hyenas talking non-sense! At some stage one of them is clearly becoming
hysterical. Hard to believe they are simply ill-informed. Most of these people are on pay-list, for
sure. It is relieving to see a Muslim woman talking naturally, unveiled, in the middle of Ramadan. Shaaban
is really strong to manage to keep her calm.
At the Khmeimim airbase, the General of the army Sergei Shoigu inspected the accommodation
of personnel and issues of providing with all types of support, and also met with Russian pilots
performing combat missions to destroy the terrorist infrastructure in Syria and military units
for the protection and security of the air base. The head of the Russian military tested the
combat duty at the command post of the air defense group, and also the starting positions of
anti-aircraft missile system S-400, which is stationed at the air base," stated the message
of the Defense Ministry.
Speaking at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Putin said that maintaining Syria's
integrity must be the top priority and warned that the disintegration of the Middle Eastern
country would be a "destabilizing factor not only for the region, but for the whole world."
"We must act carefully, step by step, aiming to establish trust between all sides to the
conflict," the Russian president said, adding that a new and effective government could be
formed in Syria once this trust is finally built. A political process is the only way to reach
peace, Putin said, stressing that Syrian President Bashar Assad "also agrees to such a process."
Minister of Defence General of the Army Sergei # Shoigu ordered the Chief of
the Russian Centre for reconciliation of opposing sides Lieutenant General Sergei #Chvarkov
to build up negotiations with heads of administrations and armed formation commanders on joining
national truce process.
To remove any ambiguity about the status of the Free Syrian Army, a representative was present
at this year's Herzliya Conference. This annual conference is dedicated to issues relating to
Israel's Security. Netanyahu and high level Israeli Military Intelligence leaders state they prefer
ISIS to Assad.
b, an excellent piece, if what you alleged were true! It's now or never. The regime in
Washington must be stop. If not now, when? You cannot trust Obomo, Hillary, Trump or Bernie, regardless
who is in the WH.
@7 terry.. ditto mina's comment @26 - thanks for sharing that video... pretty enlightening how
thick the propaganda is inside the usa for them to question Syrian presidential adviser Dr Bouthaina
Shaaban in the manner they do... her comment at 49 minutes in is pretty strong and clear..
War criminal Obama was the lead advocate for bombing Syrian government a few years ago, thats until
the UK Parliament put a temporary stop to it.
So any credit given to Obama by b , or anyone else is ludicrous. LUDICROUS.
The destruction of Libya still gets Obama mitigation ?
But Putin invited the evil US Empire into Syria. What kind of fool would invite humanities
worst enemy, as well as Russia's biggest enemy, into a conflict where they oppose each other.
Grotesque stupidity.
Lets be clear there are meetings behind closed doors among players, we are just speculating. While
Syria might be the main focus point, Kiev continues bombing Separatists in Donbass, Venezuela
in the blinks of anarchy. In joint military exercises off India's east coast, China and Russia's
warships watching war game between US, Japan and India...
Here something you got to watch: TeleSurTV: Media Review: The World According to Seymour Hersh:
Part Two
I loved this story. I am somewhat in awe of how the Russians have handled their Syrian presence,
and the gains they make with every move. Did they have the moral weight 6 months ago to destroy
US assets and perhaps US citizens on the ground in Syria? It seems certain that they do now. They
seem to have tested all the players in the US establishment and discovered none who can stand
up to them.
What will the US do next? On past performance, all it can do is lie, cheat and steal, but all
this within the paradigms set by Russia and the UN. One assumes that Russia's command has every
permutation of treachery war-gamed already, with contingency moves in place. I suggest popcorn.
It is to the benefit of world peace that the Syrian part of the war between Russia and the
US proceed as slowly and deliberately as possible. With every day that passes Russia becomes militarily
stronger and US military force continues to atrophy without renewal, while its policy-making remains
frozen with no intellectual refreshment or inventiveness.
Putin and his team are such astonishingly mature peacemakers that every provocation or twitch
of malice by the US is net with calm. The global effort continues to allow the US to sink to its
knees with as much grace as can be managed. So far, nobody has had to nuke the US, and for this
I'm grateful. There is one good and final slapping that the US has to take in public before its
time is over, and I yearn for the day, but I think it's far off yet, somewhere in a single-digit
range of years.
@39 Russia doesn't want a quagmire, nor does it want Western Sanctions. If Syria wasn't a militarily
weak and spent force, things would probably go a lot smoother. Instead, outsiders are having to
fight outsiders, and Russia and Iran are not tier-1 allies for whatever reason. Russia and China
have never shown much defense against western aggression against 'partner' countries as it is,
so Syria has been quite a stretch.
For Iran, Hezbollah and Syrians, Syria is the battle of a lifetime, but for Russia, it's maybe
a bargaining chip, or a something less, or something more.. we just don't know. All we can do
it wait and see what happens, for we'll never truly know what Russia's intentions in the region
are until after the fact.
I personally want the 'evil' side to be thwarted on all fronts, as it's akin to a cancer that
will destroy the host (Syria and its society) unless it's excised. There are multiple ways of
accomplishing it, but there are multiple ways of failing as well. I guess that's why I'm glad
I'm here making opinions, rather than being in any sort of command position. I just hope that
the next administration in Washington will be sick of this business, but unfortunately seems more
or less to be only one side that probably won't win(Trump)
lebretteurfredonnant | Jun 18, 2016 5:28:16 PM |
44
Hello everyone I heard That France was building a military base near kobane. Is that true ? Can
someone knowledgeable in the matter or b shed some light on this news ?
At the least during Nam we were given the 'Domino Theory' which, if you could consume enough alcohol,
made perfect sense. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident! Where a country without a Navy attacked our Navy.
Where do I enlist!
In 2016 we have the batsh*t crazy appointed government bureaucrats siding with the sole interests
of a foreign country. Circle talking seems to be the normal state of affairs at State, Executive
and MSM. PBS has gone full Karl Marx. Congress has an 16% approval rating, 80% disapproval, and
4% no opinion [1]. So I guess Congress doesn't really matter? And as far as our military command
goes, when you can use 'sold out' and 'son of a bitch' in the same sentence, we, as a nation might
have a major problemo.
I think people should note that this is all Russia black eyeing as collusion with Assad the evil
dictator,and it all is about the upcoming election,where Trump,contrary to certain misinfo agents
here,supports Russias efforts and promises to try and get along with the neolibcons enemies, who
will be ejected from their positions by an American nationalist administration.All these creeps
have been installed by the shrub.The HB and Obomba,all American zeros.
And look at the Olympic blanket judgement on innocent Russian athletes, more propaganda and demonization.
I haven't heard anything from Trump since Hillary's apotheosis, actually a little before. Has
he stopped talking? Or has the corporate media just stopped publishing him? Obama, Kerry, the
50 dancing diplomats ... all that stuff seems made to order for Trump to roll over.
For Iran, Hezbollah and Syrians, Syria is the battle of a lifetime, but for Russia, it's
maybe a bargaining chip ...
Actually, Putin has said that their intervention in Syria is in Russia's strategic interests -
making much the same argument that Bush did wrt al Queda: we need to fight them there so
that we don't have to fight them here .
Russia doesn't want to see extremist control of another failed state like Libya.
lebretteurfredonnant | Jun 18, 2016 7:05:52 PM |
51
Clearly there is an ongoing battle in the Obama Administration between Mostly the pentagon (at
least some part of it) and the CIA (most part of it). Obama is well aware of this.
Obama's Strategy
has been to isolate Russia Politically and to shift the main focus of United State Towards Asia
however the unexpected resistance of Russia and Syria wasn't forecast by his administration and
part of the Deep state. Now part of the heads in the pentagon and the Obama administration want
out of this proxy war against Russia as the World and mainly the US public becomes more and more
aware of the real nature of the war ongoing in Syria. The heart of the matter is that The members
of the oligarchy that rule the united states through revolving doors between the government , their
law firms, foundations, banks and corporations can't afford to lose Syria for obvious reason.
On
the geopolitical scale The control of the silk Road and Pipeline is of primary importance especially
the latter if the us wants to efficiently keep its grip on Europe for the next 30 years.France
and mainly Germany could turn to Russia as noted by the willing of many member of their oligarchy
and this would be a near devastating blow for the US empire.To take an example Europe is more
or less today what India was for Great Britain back before the end of world war two.It might be
difficult accepting or believing that one country in the near east such as Syria could old such
a role in the destiny of an empire but that's exactly it.Syria is in our current present the country
where channel all the opposition to the new world order made in America and if it wasn't for the
inability of The States to wage a war against Russia a world war Three-this time without proxy-would
be in the making.
The Good news is that I have never seen the united States leads a war against adversaries of the
same caliber able to efficiently strike back to them (with the exception of japan) as the main
lead...Remember It is the Russians who defeated Germany not the US..everything else is just propaganda.The
US is more of empire that uses trickery and the weaknesses of its adversaries to forward its agenda
more than anything else;otherwise they always ends up negotiating. I will probably be proven wrong
at some point but not by the Russians as of now.
"But Putin invited the evil US Empire into Syria."
No he didn't .... UN resolution was approved under Medvedev.
lebretteurfredonnant | Jun 18, 2016 8:36:21 PM |
53
@dahoit
I can't believe there is people still believing in politician more so when they have been proven
liars time and time again.I am all for the welcoming of a saviour and providential man but anyone
doing a serious background check (as should any voter) on trump knows the man is a crook .I mean
I understand the desire for hope but it shouldn't blind us.
Trump is just an Obama from the left
and that is about it.The Deep state has gotten stronger since the Kennedy's Assassination and
is unlikely to release its grip on Syria knowing its geostrategic necessity to the empire.
Trump will never be ruling the show on the main strategies of the empire, never, unless he wants
himself dead. The only thing that will defeat the US empire in Syria is Russian will nothing short
of that. Unless The States are able to pull some magic tricks unknown to us at that point. For one
thing certain a war is very unlikely (although many want it)against such a mighty foe as Russia-for
now.
The story printed out by many mainstream newspapers on Bill Clinton advising Trump on phone
to run as a candidate should give anyone pause as to the hidden scheme behind politic and the
trump and Clinton family friendship.Yet Some people still believe trump is an opposition to the
system. That boggles the mind.Really.The only reason I can find explaining this attitude in someone
knowledgeable of the trickery of the States is political correctness (quiet powerful actually)
or blindness and irrational hope....now some say faith is irrational...however I was not expecting
to see it having such large part in modern politics.
ALberto @ 45 You say that "PBS has gone full Karl Marx". I haven't watched or listened to that
PBS tripe ever . But considering that PBS is 90% corporate funded, I find it hard to accept
your assertion ... it is merely a corporate/permanent government psy-op to keep the intellectually
and morally challenged sedated.
A piece in
today's Wall Street Journal indicates that despite the growing pressure, Obama means to stick
by his policy of limited intervention. Of course he's being pig-headed in insisting "Assad must
go," but what he's doing beats full-scale US invasion of Syria, "no-fly" zones and similar madness
favored by Hillary and likely to lead to WW III although, as John Pilger puts it, WW has already
started; on the other hand, it hasn't yet gone thermonuclear, and I see that as a distinct advantage.
Thank you Grieved, in particular for reminding us as follows:
". . .malice by the US is met with calm. The global effort continues to allow the US to sink
to its knees with as much grace as can be managed."
This was well illustrated at the opening of the St. Petersburg economic conference. Pointed
questions about political candidates were countered by Putin in a deft manner that left no doubt
of his assessment of the 'leading' candidates, without calling anyone a hitler or any suggestion
of interference in the US political process. I don't believe Putin is any fonder of Trump than
he is of Ms. Clinton - he stated he'll work with whomever comes out on top (my words) and had
kind words to say for Bill - not for his policies but for his encouragement of Putin early on.
Very diplomatic, and wise.
Where have our wise politicians gone? We did have a few once. Couldn't we please just sink
to our knees gracefully? The world would love us if we did. Here - I'll be first. (Sinks to knees.)
After all, tonight is the night of Pentecost and Sunday we do the magnificent kneeling prayers
for the first time since before Easter.
Obama's Syria SNAFU was always destined to boil down to Yankees playing Russian Roulette - with Russia.
They're probably beginning to realise that playing cat and mouse loses a lot of its appeal when the
cat starts getting ready to eat you.
lebretteurfredonnant@44 - I'm not really knowledgeable in the matter, but I have broadband and
type fast for what it's worth.
Little detail is known about the base, but it may be the former Syrian Army Mishtenur/Mushtannour
Hill Military Base shown on wikimapia
here . The location is just the flat top of Mishtenur Hill (just south of Kobane) with a bulldozed
revetment around the periphery. No idea what the Syrian Army used it for - it may have been a
simple observation post with a few artillery pieces (long gone). There are no structures on the
hilltop other than a commercial radio tower and a few shacks at the northern edge. The hilltop
itself isn't much more than 200m x 600m - not large enough for a fixed-wing airstrip but plenty
of room for helicopters and a small contingent of French Special Forces. The Kurds probably have
a few people there as headchopper lookouts/snipers.
The Mishtenur Hill location should be considered speculative - I only recall a couple of mentions
in english-language Kurdish press. It makes sense to put it there, but who knows.
Months ago when the U.S. was building its 'secret' base at the
Rmelian airstrip , there were rumors of a second 'U.S. base' being constructed somewhere around
Kobane, but nothing was heard after that. Not sure if that rumor was related to the potential
Mishtenur Hill location the French may be using.
The Kurds and Kurdish Press have been very tight-lipped about these bases for obvious reasons,
so I wouldn't expect to ever see much on them. CNN had a crew run out to Rmeilan so we know it
exists and was being worked on, but they were not allowed on the 'base' and couldn't see much
over the protective berms surrounding it. There are no pictures or video of the current state.
I would imagine the French SF base - wherever it ends up - will remain shrouded in mystery as
well.
If you're doing any on-line searches, keep in mind that these locations have proper Turkish/Kurdish/Arabic
names, not 'english' ones. There may be half-a-dozen variations on the derived english name used
in various media sources as was the case for Rmeilan.
This is very, very alarming and I get a strong sense it's about a lot more than separating rebels
from AQ. I also wonder who is really at that base in Tanf.
Have to also keep in mind the daily escalation of hostility around the NATO meetings leading
up to the Warsaw summit.
Putin did a press conf at the end of the St Petersburg econ summit and a Canadian press exec
asked about NATO troops deploying to their border. He gave a long answer about US walking away
from a missile treaty that had kept the world from serious global war for 70yrs, etc. Had a lot
to say about missiles. I wonder.
DANA ROHRABACHER, California. We import 750,000 tons of vital minerals and material every year.
An increasing global demand for supplies of energy and strategic minerals is sparking intense
economic competition that could lead to a counterproductive conflict.
A ''zero sum world'' where no one can obtain the means to progress without taking them from someone
else is inherently a world of conflict.
Additional problems arise when supplies are located in areas where production could be disrupted
by political upheaval, terrorism or war.
Thanks. Actually I'd read that one. I rarely read anything of Justin Raimondo's at aw.com,
but I read that one for some reason. It's the run down for those who haven't been paying attention,
I thought. Let me look again ...yeah, it's not the Republican candidate (yet) talking about it,
but for that one cryptic comment, it's Justin Raimondo talking about it, and he ain't running
for president. Of course he's write-in candidate, as are about 200 million of the rest of us.
But that is just the kind of a pitch that Trump needs to make, has to make really, to keep
from being steamrolled by the DNC machine and all the monied interests to whom its sold-out and
who are consequently supporting it. Trump is pretty well-free of supervision by the Republicrat
party and he needs something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from what the Demoblicans are trying to make
the election about. He could get a lot of attention, and possibly support, from the antiwar right
and left, he could pick up Bernie's betrayed ... if he went after not only the sheer misanthropy
of it all but the tawdriness, the treachery, the self-dealing of the neo-cons ... at least he
could bring all that into the open. Make the neo-cons, their wars and the MIC a topic in the contest.
He made a good start with his remarks on Russian and Putin. I think it's his most promising row
to hoe.
But I haven't heard much at all from Trump himself lately, he seems to be 'thinking' ... lining
up money, more likely, and tailoring his message accordingly. He's not interested in 'investing'
whatever money he actually has in a political campaign. He took money from Adelson, has neo-cons
on his payroll.
Hillary's so predictably evil, and he's so officially 'unpredictable' that he's the natural
focal point of the selection circus. It's too bad only one of them can lose.
I'm going to write-in a candidate, and I hope that millions more of us will as well. If the
write-in/none-of-the-above/spoiled-ballot total exceeded that of either of these two sorry characters
we'd be off and running ourselves.
Due to appeal of the American party, representatives of the Russian an US defence departments
held videoconference on implementing the Memorandum on preventing incidents while performing
military operations in the airspace of Syria dating October 20, 2015.
The American party has informed the Russian one about alleged premeditated strike by the
Russian Aerospace Forcers on detachments of the Syrian opposition in the south of Syria on
June 16, 2016 in despite of appeals of the US.
Representatives of the Russian Defence Ministry explained that the object, which had suffered
bombardment, was located more than 300 km far from borders of territories claimed by the American
party as ones controlled by the opposition joined the ceasefire regime.
The Russian Aerospace Forces operated within the agreed procedures and forewarned member
states of the US-led coalition about the ground targets to strike on. The American party
has not presented coordinates of regions of activity of opposition controlled by the US. This
caused impossibility to correct actions of the Russian aviation.
Therefore, actions by the Russian party have been carried out in strict observance of the
Joint Russian-American statement and the Memorandum.
Moreover, within last few months, the Russian defence department has been suggesting compiling
a joint map with actual information about location of forces active in Syria. However, there
has been no significant progress reached.
The parties exchanged their opinions in a constructive manner. They were aimed at strengthening
cooperation in fighting against terrorist formations in Syria and preventing all incidents
while performing military operations in the territory of Syria
So - either cooperated, or get your "assets" annihilated. Let's see what the U.S. will come up
with ...
@ jfl | 67 Ok. Trump seems consistent in his ideas: Don't mess in other countries, don't provoke Russia, only secure
US-borders. Now I see the article I gave isn't from Tyler Durden, but from Justin Raimondo.
Case and point - when Ukie nazis were shelling Donbass cities, resistance went into offensive
and broke through the nazis and made them run, Putin forced the resistance to stop immediately,
under the gunpoint (literally*). Ukies returned to allowed by Russia front lines right on the
outskirts of Donbass cities, and started using artillery and mortars on them again, then Putin
acted angry about it.
The choices we have:
a) Putin made a cold calculated deal with his "Western partners" and let it happen, and then acted
angry on TV for public perception.
b) Putin couldnt foresee it as he is stupid.
So which is it? I'm pretty sure everyone here will agree Putin is anything but stupid, which
leaves us with option a)
*Idealistic Donbass resistance leaders who wanted to continue offensive and at the very least
push nazis away from the cities, were removed by Russia. Either under blackmail and death threats
(like Strelkov), or literally assassinated them (like Batman and others). Follow the history and
facts, Russia's leadership arent idealist do-gooders as some like to imagine. Just because they
are against even bigger evil like US, doesnt make Russia saintly.
Harry | Jun 19, 2016 6:37:50 AM | 76
Just because they are against even bigger evil like US, doesnt make Russia saintly.
Well, if your comparing the U.S. and Russia for saintly-ness; Russia wins, hands down.
Again; the differences are chess to checkers; I just like and enjoy Pres. Putin's style; a class
act under duress.
I'm glad you recognise the U.S. as the greater evil (by orders of magnitude).
Putin is leaps and bounds ahead of someone like Obama, there is no question. However I respect
other resistance leaders even more, who are greater class acts, dont betray alies and are under
much greater duress than Putin ever experienced, like Nasrallah, Khameinei (before nuke deal)
and especially Assad. There is much to admire about them.
No argument there; but all of the above (including Putin) are facing annihilation from/by the
hegemon.
It's the main reason I fear war is immanent.
The insanity is palpable, no?
I already posted that in #64
and jfl reacted in #67
In the article a remarkable fragment about Gen. Michael Flynn:
The Washington Post, in its mission to debunk every word that comes out of Trump's mouth, ran
an article by Glenn Kessler minimizing the DIA document, claiming that it was really nothing
important and that we should all just move along because there's nothing to see there. He cited
all the usual Washington insiders to back up his thesis, but there was one glaring omission:
Gen. Michael Flynn, who headed up the DIA when the document was produced and who was forced
out by the interventionists in the administration. Here is what Flynn told Al-Jazeera in an
extensive interview:
Al-Jazeera: "You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups
were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn't listening?
Flynn: I think the administration.
Al-Jazeera: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?
Flynn: I don't know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it
was a willful decision.
Al-Jazeera: A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and
the Muslim Brotherhood?
Flynn: It was a willful decision to do what they're doing."
Of course, Glenn Kessler and the Washington Post don't want to talk about that. Neither do
the Republicans in Congress, who supported aid to the Syrian rebels and wanted to give them
much more than they got. They're all complicit in this monstrous policy – and they all bear
moral responsibility for its murderous consequences.
Gen. Flynn, by the way, is an official advisor to Trump, and is often mentioned as a possible
pick for Vice President.
Rumors are growing that Germany is set to deploy special operation forces in Northern Syria
in order to assist the predominantly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces that has laid a siege
on the
strategic ISIS-controlled city of Manbij . Reports look realistic amid a series of deployments
by different Western states.
The US built a base in an abandoned airport in the Syrian Kurdish region Hasakah in 2015
and American troops have been participating in clashes against ISIS near Manbij since May 2016.
France's Defense Ministry admitted the presence of its special forces on the ground in Syria
on June 9. French troops have reportedly built a military base near the city of Kobane and
are participating in clashes with ISIS along with SDF and US units.
"I would personally be more inclined to leave, for a lot of reasons like having a lot less
bureaucracy," he told the Sunday Times. "But I am not a British citizen. This is just my opinion."
The billionaire businessman also told the newspaper that he would seek to have good relationships
internationally if he were elected president in November, including with David Cameron. The
British Prime Minister has in the past called Trump's proposed temporary ban on Muslims entering
the United States "divisive, stupid and wrong".
Trump also said that if he became president he would try to improve the trade deals the
U.S. has with China, and work more closely with Russia and that could include co-operating
with Russia in the fight against Islamic State.
The only thing with quotes is the first, the rest is 'old' news, isn't it? "try to improve the
trade deals the U.S. has with China, ... work more closely with Russia ... co-operating with Russia
in the fight against Islamic State" That's the kind of stuff that draws a line between himself
and Hillary, the harridan horde, and the 50 dancing diplomats. I think that's the vein I would
mine if I were The Donald. But I'm not. As I'm sure you've noticed.
Wayoutwest@84 John McCain has already advocated for man pads to be supplied to the US "good terrorists".
The Russians can handle that situation simply by flying higher. The unknown repercussions are
a different matter. Ben Gurion airport the only International airport in Israel and the hub of
its commerce and tourist industry, some analysts say the closure of Ben Gurion for an extended
period of time could wreck the Israeli economy. All the Israelis need is a few manpads operating
a few miles from Ben Gurion airport or even the threat thereof of bringing down civilian airliners
should concentrate the mind. Remember just one wayward missile fired by Hamas, which landed 1
mile from the airport was enough for the FAA to cancel all flights into and out of Ben Gurion.
Russia Dismantles the Myth of the American Navy's Invincibility
~~~
Russian hypersonic weapons
The main Russian hypersonic weapon are derived from space glider Yu-71 (Project 4202), which
flew during tests at a speed of 6000-11200 km/h over a distance of 5,500 km at a cruising altitude
below 80,000 m, receiving repeated pulses from a rocket engine to climb, execute maneuvers and
cornering trajectory. It is estimated that the glider is armed with warheads that are spatially
independent, with autonomous guidance systems similar to the air-ground missiles Kh-29 L/T and
T Kh-25 (which provides a probable deviation of 2-6 m). Although it may take nuclear warheads,
the space glider will be armed with conventional warheads and will be powered by a rocket launched
normally from nuclear-powered Russian submarines.
~~~
Hypersonic concept for a war
The new Russian military doctrine states that an attack on the American invasion fleet is to
be executed in three waves, three alignments, thus preventing American expeditionary naval groups
from positioning themselves near the Russian coast of the Baltic Sea. The first wave of hypersonic
weapons, consisting of space gliders arranged on Russian nuclear-powered submarines under immersion
in the middle of the Atlantic, starts fighting US naval expeditionary groups as they start crossing
the Atlantic to Europe. The American naval groups need 7-8 days to cross the Atlantic; the plane
Il-76MD-90A has a maximum flight distance of 6300 km and can be powered in the air, reaching the
middle of the Atlantic Ocean in a few hours. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44902.htm
Associated Press 6/19/2016 Russia says US failed to provide Syrian opposition locations
MOSCOW - The Russian military on Sunday rejected the Pentagon's accusations that it had deliberately
targeted U.S.-backed Syrian opposition forces, arguing the U.S. had failed to warn about their
locations.
Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov, said the area targeted in the
strike was more than 300 kilometers (186 miles) away from locations earlier designated by the
U.S. as controlled by legitimate opposition forces.
The Pentagon said it held a video conference Saturday with the Russian military to discuss
Russian air strikes Thursday on the At-Tanf border garrison, which targeted Syrian opposition
forces fighting the Islamic State group.
"Russia's continued strikes at At-Tanf, even after U.S. attempts to inform Russian forces through
proper channels of ongoing coalition air support to the counter-ISIL forces, created safety concerns
for U.S. and coalition forces," it said in a statement.
Konashenkov retorted that the Russian military had warned the U.S. in advance about the planned
strike, but the Pentagon had failed to provide coordinates of legitimate opposition forces,
"making it impossible to take measures to adjust the Russian air force action."
He added that the Russian military had proposed months ago to share information about locations
of various forces involved in military action in Syria to create a comprehensive map, but the
Pentagon hasn't been forthcoming.
Turkish border guards have shot dead at least eight Syrians, including four children, who were
trying to cross into Turkey, activists say.
A further eight people were injured, said the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based
monitoring group.
The shooting took place at a border crossing north of the Syrian town of Jisr al-Shugour, which
is controlled by jihadist groups.
Turkey has repeatedly denied its guards shoot at Syrians crossing the border.
More than 2.5 million Syrians who fled the war have taken refuge in Turkey. Turkey has now
closed its borders to Syrians.
The Associated Press news agency quoted a senior Turkish official as saying: "We are unable
to independently verify the claims" regarding the shooting, but said authorities were investigating.
As well as four children, three women and a man were also killed, the Observatory said.
Other Syrian opposition groups put the death toll at 11.
Since the beginning of 2016, nearly 60 civilians have been shot while trying to flee across
the border from Syria into Turkey, the Observatory says.
IMHO the political solution just doesn't exist, because most of the fighters are likely foreigners
who don't give a sh!t about Syria or Syrians. bbb @ 23.
I have read that there are about 30-40K of them, a large number (?) imho, because one tends
to underestimate the mayhem well-organised small groups can cause in a fractured, now extremely
vulnerable, shattered, society.
One of the problems for the pro-Assad side, I read, is that once some or many opponents are
killed others just show up!
This last argument is faulty, because while the West likes to paint these forces as either:
ideologically/religiously motivated by IS, or even politically-nationally in the sense of a 'New
Caliphate', or, alternatively, as rebels against a corrupt despotic national order (freedom-fighters
against Assad.)
All descriptions miss the mark (there might be some slivers of truth in the sense of 'rationalisations'…)
The bulk of them are mercenaries, imho, lost young men who are paid, regain agency, can send
money to families, participate in a cause, and experience soldered group-think and communal 'being,'
violent life to perpetrate barbaric acts on occasion, particularly against villagers, women, all
would be repressed at home. Their pay is collapsing, at least halved (IS has been fractured and
various income streams have become dodgy, oil for ex., support for losers always plummets) and
so they leave, the hook becomes less glam, etc. Death also more certain. This one jihad is no
longer *that* attractive.
Yes, these fighters don't give a sh*t about Syrians. They are fighting their 'own' war against
the all the West (their enemy indeed), and therefore against Assad as afforded the opportunity.
'Islamist' forces *instrumentalised*, not a new move or flash news..the contradictions are ignored.
The fighters are patsy-cum-proxy forces, expendable. No seat at the High Table for them.
A more informed, better picture of the forces on the ground ? .. ??
Obama warned Putin that he could face a 'quagmire' and 'costs'. To paraphrase Madeline Albright:
What good is a proxy army if you don't use it?
Obama and his Administration is a collection of lawyers, political pseudo-"scientists", journos
etc. They are very good at promoting suicidal social policies but do not and cannot operate with
actual operational categories--briefings by CIA or Pentagon (granted that they reflect a reality
on the "ground", which is a question) are not designed to teach some Ivy League lawyer fundamentals
of international relations, strategy, operational art etc. They merely distill a very complex
geopolitical reality to a several catch phrases which could be understood by people of such qualities
as W. (his military briefings papers contained headers with Bible excerpts, supposedly applicable
to current situation) or Obama, who has no clue on how to assess the world around himself.
In
this case the term "quagmire" is merely a simulacra produced by US media (this part Obama understands)
to represent a huge number of military and political factors which influence achieving objectives
of any campaign (or war) and which require addressing by professionals -- this is NOT Modus Operandi
by US top political "elite".
In relation to Russia what Obama has in mind is beaten to death cliche
of Afghanistan (obviously without studying that war) with which he wants to impress Russians,
who, meanwhile fought two bloody wars against Wahhabi terrorists on own territory and, somehow,
do know, unlike Obama or US liberal political class, what does it take to deal with this huge
issue. In the end, during last War in Chechnya US media loved to misuse this very term (quagmire)
and completely forgot to mention that Chechnya today is, actually, pretty reliable anti-terrorism
entity in Russia. Now, add here most of US "elites" and a population being absolutely oblivious
to real war and voila'. You have people speaking in platitudes and ignorant cliches.
@ Noirette #95 - Thank you for putting into words the diminishing appeal of being mercenaries
for the losing side.
It's an important dynamic that extends throughout the world and across many fields, not just
in local battles by fighters with guns. It's a way in which wars are lost without being obvious
at first. It parallels the way in which the US is losing its war against Russia and China in so
many ways that are not completely obvious.
The US military is losing to Russia. The US dollar is
losing to the Shanghai Gold Exchange. But neither Russia nor China have any reason to overpower
the US in either of these fields, not today at least. Meanwhile, on the sidelines, all the mercenary
instincts of players in all fields and all nations and with all interests are finely attuned to
the quiet calculation of which side is winning or losing.
And out of the blue at times we see moments of disaffection - the UK of all allies, against
the wishes of its sponsor the US,
joins the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, because being on the winning side in some
areas matters more than staying with the loser.
It takes time to create critical mass and tipping points, but we can see the pot coming to
the boil if we want to.
Yes, if only the Yemeni army and Houthi's had ballistic missiles capable of reaching Saudi
oil facilities. Remember, Saudi's Shiite minority live right on top of its vast oil fields.
What's happening is the same what happed with them in the USSR. Only Party (in case of
neoliberalism replace the Party with "financial oligarchy") sanctioned content can be taught
and the stress is on neoclassical economics as this is one of the foundation of neoliberalism (along
with liberalism, Ann Rand, and similar psudo theories).
Notable quotes:
"... Chipping away at the humanities in schools jeopardizes the issues of social justice in education. Arguably, it is safe to say that the humanities and any liberal arts program are undervalued specifically because they involve knowledges, practices and traditions that usually cannot adhere to immediate short-term use ..."
The number of college students majoring in
English, according to some contested reports, has plummeted. In general, the humanities are taking
a back seat to more "pragmatic" majors in college. Students, apparently, are thinking more about
jobs than about general learning. Given this trend, should schools be scaling back on the humanities?
... ... ...
Some might say that since top universities like MIT have decided to focus on management, business
analytics, finance and mathematical economics (or trading), secondary schools should follow suit.
It would be a mistake, however, for secondary schools to cave to this argument and scale back on
the humanities.
The piece goes on to explain how, back in 2010, MSNBC anchor
Tamron Hall said, "Students
wanting to take up majors like art history and literature are now making the jump to more-specialized
fields like business and economics, and it's getting worse." This comment was juxtaposed with a chart
that indicated a spiral. Prominent New York Times journalist
David Brooks also jumped on the bandwagon when he remarked, "The humanities [have] turned from
an inward to an outward focus." The "sky is falling" myth then led to serious underfunding, becoming
a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Bérubé argues that mainstream accounts of the decline of the humanities in undergraduate education
are "factually, stubbornly, determinedly wrong." He says there was a plummet, but it was between
1970 and 1980.
In reality, English isn't dying; it's just that at one time, it was unprecedentedly popular. English
majors rose from
17,000
to 64,000 over a span of 30 years, from 1940 to 1970, and then declined to 34,000 by the 1990s.
This does not mark a death to the humanities.
Are fields like art history and literature really "elite, niche-market affairs that will render
students unemployable," as Bérubé argues? Are students abandoning the humanities because they are
"callow,
market-driven careerists?" No, this is not true. Bérubé states that "undergraduate enrollment
in the humanities have held steady since 1980 (in relation to all degree holders, and in relation
to the larger age cohort), and undergraduate enrollments in the arts and humanities combined are
almost precisely where they were in 1970."
... ... ...
Chipping away at the humanities in schools jeopardizes the issues of social justice in education.
Arguably, it is safe to say that the humanities and any liberal arts program are undervalued specifically
because they involve knowledges, practices and traditions that usually cannot adhere to immediate
short-term use by preservation seeking administrations and teachers.
... .,. ...
Dan Falcone has a master's degree in modern US history from LaSalle University in Philadelphia and
currently teaches secondary education. He has interviewed Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, Richard Falk,
William Blum, Medea Benjamin and Lawrence Davidson. He resides in Washington, DC.
Greenspan phony "Shocked disbelief" reminds classic "...I am shocked - shocked, there is gambling
going on in this establishment...." "...here are your winnings..." exchange between Humphrey Bogart
& Claude Rains in Casablanca. Compare with "... "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest
of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked
disbelief," he said. ..."
Notable quotes:
"... "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief," ..."
"... Greenspan spurned the Republican acolytes trying desperately to defend the faith and blame the crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act and the powerful lobby of poor people who forced powerless banks to do reckless things. ..."
"... Private greed, not public good, caused this catastrophe: "The evidence now suggests, but only in retrospect, that this market evolved in a manner which if there were no securitization, it would have been a much smaller problem and, indeed, very unlikely to have taken on the dimensions that it did. It wasn't until the securitization became a significant factor, which doesn't occur until 2005, that you got this huge increase in demand for subprime loans, because remember that without securitization, there would not have been a single subprime mortgage held outside of the United States, that it's the opening up of this market which created a huge demand from abroad for subprime mortgages as embodied in mortgage-backed securities. ..."
"... But having admitted the failure of his faith, Greenspan could not abandon it. Credit default swaps had to be "restrained," he admitted. Those who create mortgages should be mandated to retain a piece of them to insure responsible lending. Otherwise, the old faith still applied. No new regulations were needed, because the markets "for the indefinite future will be far more restrained than would any currently contemplated new regulatory regime." ..."
"... The only Guantanamo that the United States has any business running is a concentration camp for the hundreds of wall street executives and their cronies in Bushland that conspired to defraud the American people from their hard earned dollar. ..."
"... There are no free markets in America, any more than there is free lunch. ..."
"... So it wasn't the military-industrial complex that did us in after all . . . ..."
"... It's clear from comments on this contribution that few readers of Truthout believe Alan Greenspan's sorry testimony before Congress. What has faith in something to do with enforcing the policies of fiduciary responsibility already on the books? All these so-called "experts" on capitalism are now coming out to say "I'm sorry." Well, I won't be sorry for them until they are held monetarily and criminally responsible for their actions, inept or not. ..."
"... If it looks like class warfare, as David Harvey, author of Neoliberalism, has stated, call it class warfare and act accordingly. ..."
"... it doesn't take a genius to understand that when financial instruments are created based on crap (subprime mortgages), that eventually problems will occur with those instruments. In fact, Greenspan and his cronies knew that, which is why they resisted these instruments being regulated by the SEC or even the CFTC. ..."
"... Sounds like the "maestro" hit a flat note in his orchestra of greed and deregulation. ..."
"... Did anybody even bother to consult the Math PhDs who created these instruments to run possible scenarios -- just in case? why bother when you know you can scare congress, the president and the treasury and ultimately the people into bailing your ass out of worldwide collapse? ..."
"... Shocked Disbelief is a ploy. When they were all riding high, they didn't give a crap. They were going to come out richer than hell anyway. ..."
"... Where's Ayn Rand when you need her? Give me a break Mr Greenspan. Never let history and reality get in the way of the big unregulated celebration of greed like we have had since "Saint Ronald Wilson Reagan", and the other "Free Market" "government is the problem" ideologues ..."
"... What about the 1994 Act of Congress that required the Fed to monitor and regulate derivatives? The Act Greenspan ignored? ..."
"... "...I am shocked - shocked, there is gambling going on in this establishment...." "...here are your winnings..." exchange between Humphrey Bogart & Claude Rains in Casablanca ..."
by: Robert Borosage, The Campaign for America's Future
On October 23, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before a House Oversight
and Government Reform Committee hearing on the role of federal regulators in the current financial
crisis.
It marks the end of an era. Alan Greenspan, the maestro, defender of the market fundamentalist faith,
champion of deregulation, celebrator of exotic banking inventions, admitted Thursday in a hearing
before Rep. Henry Waxman's House Committee and Oversight and Government Reform that he got it wrong.
"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders'
equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief," he said.
As to the fantasy that banks could regulate themselves, that markets self-correct, that modern
risk management enforced prudence: "The whole intellectual edifice, however, collapsed in the summer
of last year."
Greenspan spurned the Republican acolytes trying desperately to defend the faith and blame
the crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act and the powerful lobby of poor people who forced powerless
banks to do reckless things. Greenspan dismissed that goofiness in response to a question from
one of its right-wing purveyors, Rep. Todd Platts, R-Pa., noting that subprime loans grew to a crisis
only as the unregulated shadow financial system securitized mortgages, marketed them across the world,
and pressured brokers to lower standards to generate a larger supply to meet the demand. Private
greed, not public good, caused this catastrophe:
"The evidence now suggests, but only in retrospect, that this market evolved in a manner which
if there were no securitization, it would have been a much smaller problem and, indeed, very unlikely
to have taken on the dimensions that it did. It wasn't until the securitization became a significant
factor, which doesn't occur until 2005, that you got this huge increase in demand for subprime
loans, because remember that without securitization, there would not have been a single subprime
mortgage held outside of the United States, that it's the opening up of this market which created
a huge demand from abroad for subprime mortgages as embodied in mortgage-backed securities.
But having admitted the failure of his faith, Greenspan could not abandon it. Credit default
swaps had to be "restrained," he admitted. Those who create mortgages should be mandated to retain
a piece of them to insure responsible lending. Otherwise, the old faith still applied. No new regulations
were needed, because the markets "for the indefinite future will be far more restrained than would
any currently contemplated new regulatory regime."
Now hung over from their bender, the banks could be depended upon to remain sober "for the indefinite
future." Or until taxpayers' money relieves their headaches, and they are free to party once more.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO
THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND
EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. TRUTHOUT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE
NOR IS TRUTHOUT ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.
"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED
AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING
PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON TO MAY NOT MATCH
THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.
Comments
This is a moderated forum. It may take a little while for comments to go live.
Sun, 10/26/2008 - 23:37 - Captain America (not verified)
The only Guantanamo that the United States has any business running is a concentration camp
for the hundreds of wall street executives and their cronies in Bushland that conspired to defraud
the American people from their hard earned dollar.
What they did dwarfs the damage caused to this country by 911, (no disrespect for the many
innocents who died). However, here, every single citizen is a victim of fraud and corruption on
a scale that was heretofore inconceivable. Greenspan, Bush and now Paulson have done more than
Bin Laden and his hordes could do in a 100 years.
By the way, if you protest YOU wind up locked up for being un-American. What happened America
?
There are no free markets in America, any more than there is free lunch. The game was always
fixed and Greenspan was the ultimate shill for the fixers. The past thirty years have been an orgy
of greed with common sense shoved aside for the sake of uncommon expediency. Americans became infatuated
by arcane formulas and dense incomprehensible mathematics to the point that they forget simple arithmetic.
America wake up it was only a dream, and a bad one at that.
It's clear from comments on this contribution that few readers of Truthout believe Alan Greenspan's
sorry testimony before Congress. What has faith in something to do with enforcing the policies
of fiduciary responsibility already on the books? All these so-called "experts" on capitalism
are now coming out to say "I'm sorry." Well, I won't be sorry for them until they are held monetarily
and criminally responsible for their actions, inept or not. The truth is as plain as the
nose on your face: Greenspan, the Federal Reserve, the investment banks, the Bush administration
and several members of Congress unobtrusively acted to consciously and knowingly to rob the national
treasury for the sake of capitalism's sacred cow: capital accumulation on behalf of the nation's
political and economic elite. If it looks like class warfare, as David Harvey, author of Neoliberalism,
has stated, call it class warfare and act accordingly.
We have heard statements like "the mathematical models used for knowing the behavior of derivatives
based on subprime mortgages were too difficult to understand", etc. But it doesn't take a
genius to understand that when financial instruments are created based on crap (subprime mortgages),
that eventually problems will occur with those instruments. In fact, Greenspan and his cronies
knew that, which is why they resisted these instruments being regulated by the SEC or even the
CFTC. And this is why they turned a blind eye to many of the rating agencies giving many
of these instruments AAA ratings. I am sure that a real investigation will reveal numerous instances
of fraudulent activity in conjunction with this debacle. Those perpetrators must be identified
and brought to justice. While this will not fix our current problem, it hopefully should serve
as a deterrent to those who would in the future attempt to again engage in such activities.
Sun, 10/26/2008 - 08:13 - Robert Iserbyt (not verified)
Well here you have it a confessional lie from the biggest fraud perpetrator in the history of
American finance Why the markets ever listened to this criminal in the first place is evidence
that our entire nation should be required to take a full year of real unfettered economics just
in case they don't understand what is going on now. All the pundits on MSNBC and all the talking
heads should be removed from the airwaves. The Bailout what will that do? the answer lies before
you.
Sounds like the "maestro" hit a flat note in his orchestra of greed and deregulation.
Come on, do you really think we are all so stupid to buy into the story that you couldn't predict
a melt down knowing that those writing the subprimes held no responsibility for their actions?
That's like giving a "get out of jail card" to someone who just created a felony! Did anybody
even bother to consult the Math PhDs who created these instruments to run possible scenarios --
just in case? why bother when you know you can scare congress, the president and the treasury
and ultimately the people into bailing your ass out of worldwide collapse?
I'm a former real estate broker and my son is a mortgage broker. From about 2004 through the beginning
of this "greatest financial crisis since '29", we frequently talked on the phone about the disaster
which would ensue when the real estate value appreciation stopped, and people were no longer fueling
the economy with money borrowed against their equity, and the sub-prime loan fiasco would end.
We knew it would be disastrous, and both of us were astonished that neither the FED nor congress
was willing to say or do anything about it. Anyone who has witnessed over the years the cycle
of boom/bust/boom/bust in the real estate market knew that after eleven years of unprecedented
"boom" -- '96 through '2007 -- the "bust" would be like an earthquake. Paulson and Greenspan and
their ilk now denying that they suspected this is just is just their lying to protect the GOP
which was benefitting from the booming economy. They should both end up in prison, with all of
the GOP members of congress who have had their hands in the cash register.
Dance clown, dance. First you were against the FED until you became head of the FED. Then you
were for trickle down economics and letting the "system" regulate itself until you saw the inevitable
destruction it caused. Dance clown, dance. You should be the first one sent to prison under the
"Un-American activities act". The arrogance of your testimony before the committee was appalling.
You honestly couldn't believe you were wrong !!!
This is like telling the Fox to watch the Hens and then walking away and trusting him to do the
right thing. Government has to return to regulation and see that there is no hanky, Banky going
on anymore. Monopolies have to be busted up, like the Communication industry's, the Drug industries
and any other Corporations that control to much of the way the Country operates. No more Outsourcing
any Government duties.
Where's Ayn Rand when you need her? Give me a break Mr Greenspan. Never let history and reality
get in the way of the big unregulated celebration of greed like we have had since "Saint Ronald
Wilson Reagan", and the other "Free Market" "government is the problem" ideologues. We can
spend trillions on war and corporate bailouts, but we can't have a single payer health system?
We can't rebuild our infrastructure? Say it again- give me a break!
"...I am shocked - shocked, there is gambling going on in this establishment...." "...here
are your winnings..." exchange between Humphrey Bogart & Claude Rains in Casablanca
"... By Vijay Prashad, professor of international studies at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. He is the author of 18 books, including Arab Spring, Libyan Winter (AK Press, 2012), The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South (Verso, 2013) and the forthcoming The Death of a Nation and the Future of the Arab Revolution (University of California Press, 2016). Originally published at Alternet ..."
"... Seymour Hersh has reported that Obama was forced to call off the attack on Syria on 30 August 2013 because General Dempsey informed him that the British defence lab at Porton Down had analysed environmental samples from the Ghouta chemical attack and had established that the sarin was "kitchen sarin" that could not have come from Syrian military stocks. Hersh reports that Dempsey effectively threatened Obama by warning him that he would testify to Congress (and would prime them to ask the question) on what he had told Obama. Hersh names Sir Peter Wall, then the head of the British army, as the officer who had briefed Dempsey on Porton Down's findings. ..."
"... I vividly recall how irate Obama was during that Rose Garden press conference when he backed down from bombing Syria. He was not pleased. Attempting to rewrite the historical record doesn't wash for anyone with a memory of the Kerry statement about chemical weapons and the alacrity with which Lavrov responded. Obama was boxed in, and he didn't like it one bit. ..."
"... If she had any involvement in this it certainly shows her contempt for Obama just a few days after he endorsed her and while the FBI investigation still plods on. Beyond that, I think the cable directly reflects the power of the Israeli lobby and the perceived benefits of a destroyed Syria. ..."
"... We make out that the national security apparatus taken as a system - and singling out the rare exceptions, who help the country by whistleblowing, leaking, and throwing bureaucratic obstacles in the way of the bad craziness - is corrupt to the bone. Also too insane. And that both characteristics are rewarded, and that individuals who display them tend to rise to the top. ..."
"... That the State Dept should be populated by neocons seems a logical consequence of the political leadership assigned to it. ..."
"... The story of the arrest in May 2013 of the Nusra Front sarin procurement team in Turkey, and the prosecutors' report completed in July 2013, was no longer a "bombshell" when reported by Hersh and raised by Turkish opposition MPs. A careful reading of Hersh's articles shows that this report was available to US Defence Intelligence agencies by summer 2013. Two other lines of evidence were available to US and UK intelligence agencies by summer 2013 that pointed to sarin production by the opposition. ..."
"... but given the idiocy shown by repeated US governments, it still shows a scintilla of sentience on Obama's part ..."
"... But in the world of those who wish to keep their jobs as good lap dogs to the Beltway conventional wisdom and not so accurate facts, ..."
"... Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan have a great mom-and-pop business going. From the State Department, she generates wars and from op-ed pages he demands Congress buy more weapons. There's a pay-off, too, as grateful military contractors kick in money to think tanks where other Kagans work, writes Robert Parry. ..."
"... If you'll allow a bit of speculation, I would argue that this push for war was created because it creates opportunities to loot the US treasury. It is of course backed by the ideology of US supremacy and invincibility which allows these people push for war against Russia. ..."
"... Its is pretty horrifying that professional diplomats could sign something so simpleminded, even within the context of neocon policy. ..."
"... Victoria Nuland could not have instigated the neo-nazi coup in Ukraine without her superiors' knowledge and approval. I still wonder who told L. Paul Bremer that disbanding the Iraqi Army before disarming its soldiers was a good idea. When asked about it Bush acted as if he never actually heard about it. ..."
"... Interesting War Nerd podcast#36 featuring American Conservative writer Kelley Vlahos. The basic claim is that the US security state which includes the State Dept., the MIC and the various think tanks and Universities surrounding Washington DC has produced dynastic clans which suck money from the defense budgets to fund lavish lifestyles. These 51 players are merely cheer leading for more war because there is simply not enough money in peace to keep the generational Ponzi going in luxury. ..."
"... Seems Cheny and Rumsfeld were successful stocking the State Dept shelves with career neocon bureaucrats. ..."
"... I've finally put my finger on why I will not vote for HRC. HRC is the embodiment of the notion that "ends justify the means". You cannot believe this and believe in the law … ethics … morality … at the same time. ..."
"... There have been rumblings over the years that many of the coalitions in the current Syria conflict are the result of countries competing for a Natural Gas pipeline between the Middle East and Europe: ..."
"... the old-guard professionals left, a new breed of aggressive neoconservatives was brought in, the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, Robert McFarlane, Robert Kagan and Abrams. After eight years of Reagan and four years of George H.W. Bush, the State Department was reshaped into a home for neocons[…] ..."
"... As the 1990s wore on, the decimation of foreign policy experts in the mold of White and Derian left few on the Democratic side who had the courage or skills to challenge the deeply entrenched neocons. Many Clinton-era Democrats accommodated to the neocon dominance by reinventing themselves as "liberal interventionists," sharing the neocons' love for military force but justifying the killing on "humanitarian" grounds.[…] ..."
By Vijay Prashad, professor of international studies at Trinity College in Hartford,
Connecticut. He is the author of 18 books, including Arab Spring, Libyan Winter (AK Press, 2012),
The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South (Verso, 2013) and the forthcoming The
Death of a Nation and the Future of the Arab Revolution (University of California Press, 2016). Originally
published at
Alternet
Close to half a million people are dead in Syria, as the country falls further and further into
oblivion. Data on the suffering of the Syrians is bewildering, but most startling is that the Syrian
life expectancy has declined by over 15 years since the civil war started. On the one side, ISIS
holds territory, while on the other a fratricidal war pits the Assad government against a motley
crew of rebels that run from small pockets of socialists to large swathes of Al Qaeda-backed extremists.
No easy exit to this situation seems possible. Trust is in short supply. The peace process is weak.
Brutality is the mood.
What should America do? In the eyes of 51 U.S. diplomats who still haven't grasped the negative
outcomes of the disastrous wars launched since 2002, the solution is to bomb the world into America's
image. In an
internal dissent cable addressed to Barack Obama, seasoned diplomats have urged airstrikes on
the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.
... ... ..
Why did the diplomats write their dissent now, and why was it leaked to the press? A former ambassador,
with deep experience in the Middle East, told me it was an error to leak the cable.
"Someone decided to leak it," he said, "for whatever irrational reason, an action as blatantly
incorrect as it is most certainly politically and diplomatically counterproductive."
"Obama did not strike Syria in 2013 because he recognized, correctly, that the Russians, Chinese
and most of the major countries of the Global South (including India) deeply opposed regime change"
This version of events gives undeserved credit to Obama. Seymour Hersh has reported that Obama
was forced to call off the attack on Syria on 30 August 2013 because General Dempsey informed
him that the British defence lab at Porton Down had analysed environmental samples from the Ghouta
chemical attack and had established that the sarin was "kitchen sarin" that could not have come
from Syrian military stocks. Hersh reports that Dempsey effectively threatened Obama by warning
him that he would testify to Congress (and would prime them to ask the question) on what he had
told Obama. Hersh names Sir Peter Wall, then the head of the British army, as the officer who
had briefed Dempsey on Porton Down's findings.
On 29 August 2013 the UK Joint Intelligence Committee had reported to the Prime Minister, in
a summary that was made available before the House of Commons debate on war with Syria, that there
was "no evidence for an opposition CW capability" and "no plausible alternative to a regime attack
scenario". It is clear from Hersh's report (and other sources that corroborate it) that this was
misleading, and that officials in UK Defence Intelligence were aware, as were the Russians, that
the Ghouta attack was a false flag using sarin produced by the opposition. To mislead the House
of Commons is "contempt of Parliament" a crime against the British constitution that the House
has powers to investigate and punish. Unfortunately no MP and no journalist has been prepared
to ask the relevant questions.
Excellent comment. Nevertheless, Obama deserves some credit, as the sad tale of General Shinseki
and the invasion of Iraq shows. Obama had to listen to reason, and actually did. This is an incredibly
low bar for praise, but given the idiocy shown by repeated US governments, it still shows a scintilla
of sentience on Obama's part.
Would such a warning stop Clinton? Would it stop Trump if his ego was tied up in such a venture?
I doubt it.
I vividly recall how irate Obama was during that Rose Garden press conference when he backed
down from bombing Syria. He was not pleased. Attempting to rewrite the historical record doesn't
wash for anyone with a memory of the Kerry statement about chemical weapons and the alacrity with
which Lavrov responded. Obama was boxed in, and he didn't like it one bit.
If she had any involvement in this it certainly shows her contempt for Obama just a few days
after he endorsed her and while the FBI investigation still plods on. Beyond that, I think the cable directly reflects the power of the Israeli lobby and the perceived
benefits of a destroyed Syria.
> What do we as American citizens make out of 51 diplomats proposing war?
We make out that the national security apparatus taken as a system - and singling out the
rare exceptions, who help the country by whistleblowing, leaking, and throwing bureaucratic obstacles
in the way of the bad craziness - is corrupt to the bone. Also too insane. And that both characteristics
are rewarded, and that individuals who display them tend to rise to the top.
Kudos to President Obama, which I very rarely say, for not being deked by these guys.
Wasn't Baal an Assyrian deity? One which drew a bad rap for being opposed to our own preferred God of the Israelites. In which case, not likely one to promote bombing Syria.
The story of the arrest in May 2013 of the Nusra Front sarin procurement team in Turkey,
and the prosecutors' report completed in July 2013, was no longer a "bombshell" when reported
by Hersh and raised by Turkish opposition MPs. A careful reading of Hersh's articles shows that
this report was available to US Defence Intelligence agencies by summer 2013. Two other lines
of evidence were available to US and UK intelligence agencies by summer 2013 that pointed to sarin
production by the opposition.
1. a report to the UNSG from Mokhtar Lamani, the UN Special Representative in Damascus, that
the Nusra Front was bringing nerve agent through the border from Turkey.
2. analyses by Porton Down and its Russian counterpart of environmental samples from two incidents
in March 2013, showing that the agent was "kitchen sarin".
This has been discussed in some detail on Pat Lang's blog. By summer 2013 it was clear to US
and UK defence intelligence staff that a false flag operation using sarin was being planned, and
that their civilian counterparts were at least tacitly colluding with this. The analysis of samples
from Ghouta and the use of the results to threaten Obama appears to have been a last-minute effort
to block the use of this to start a war
but given the idiocy shown by repeated US governments, it still shows a scintilla of sentience
on Obama's part
+1
"We had to destroy the village in order to save it". I marvel that there is anything still
standing in Syraqistan; from the pictures I see, it looks like a gravel quarry. And now blowback
has metastasized into domestic mass-shootings, sufficient to stain the Mississippi red; we wring
our national hands in a Hamlet-like production of anguish and earnestness, and then change precisely
NOTHING about how we conduct our affairs. We are insane.
Nor did hillary fight the nazi's, she has, however, viewed the atrocities for which she is
largely responsible on tv and seemed quite pleased (wondering where the trump thing came from,
I thought the discussion was about A.S.?). Nice of me to mention each of them once, gives a sense
of balance or something. And your final sentence, you could put either name and corresponding
gender identity there, both statements would be true. Googed robert kagan/Alexander Solzhenitsyn,
and found this article that was interesting it's from 2014 so it's funny how events then rhyme
with events currently. Never heard of the publication before but found it interesting, bonus points
for featuring debate footage between richard dawkins and john lennox
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/07/08/the-people-vs-former-trotskysts-neo-bolsheviks-and-intellectual-whores
I'd be interested in your views on this
Friday's PBS NewHour demonstrated in a segment with Judy Woodruff and Margaret Warner that
the program is remarkably good at "catapulting the propaganda", in this case that Assad's government
used chemical weapons to kill a thousand of his own people. Factually, most of the dead were supporters
of the government, which, if Assad ordered such an attack, would have made it even more evil.
And only by knowing the actual facts about the chemicals involved does it belie the initial US
assertions that Assar was responsible.
In due time, it was made known to those who read and retain information that, indeed, it was
not an attack by the Syrian government, that the chemical signatures indicated "kitchen sarin,"
as pmr9's quote about Gen. Dempsey and results from the British defense lab at Porton Down showed.
But in the world of those who wish to keep their jobs as good lap dogs to the Beltway conventional
wisdom and not so accurate facts, Margaret Warner made a special point of saying that Obama had
backed down on enforcing his promise to go after Assad if Syria used chemical weapons.
After a video quote from Obama, Warner immediately repeated the now discounted charge.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: A red line for us is, we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical
weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus.
MARGARET WARNER: But after a regime chemical attack killed more than 1,000 Syrians in August
2013, the president didn't launch military strikes, nor step up arming the Syrian rebels. ….
She's not the only public broadcast reporter to say exactly the same thing. It's now become
one of those zombie lies: Nothing can keep them down.
The segment isn't very long, and the sad and worried expression on Warner's face at the end,
where she talks about how sincere the signers of the letter are, is well worth looking at. And
wondering about how they do it - how do they keep repeating lies?
Probably because no one calls them on it, no one who matters. And everyone they talk to repeats
the same untruths.
Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan have a great mom-and-pop business going. From the State
Department, she generates wars and from op-ed pages he demands Congress buy more weapons. There's
a pay-off, too, as grateful military contractors kick in money to think tanks where other Kagans
work, writes Robert Parry.
A Family Business of Perpetual War
If you'll allow a bit of speculation, I would argue that this push for war was created because
it creates opportunities to loot the US treasury. It is of course backed by the ideology of US supremacy and invincibility which allows these
people push for war against Russia.
Its an interesting article, but (not I assume the authors fault) doesn't actually answer the
question. I'd always assumed that the diplomatic corps was significantly more pragmatic and anti-military
intervention than other arms of the US foreign policy establishment, but this would seem evidence
otherwise. Its is pretty horrifying that professional diplomats could sign something so simpleminded,
even within the context of neocon policy. It doesn't say much for the quality of people involved.
Perhaps its not just the military that has been degraded by a decade and a half of the war on
terror, it may well be degrading the quality of people attracted to, and recruited by, all elements
of the government establishment.
The other explanation – and its not all that encouraging – is that this is simply an attempt
by a certain level of diplomats to say 'hey, its not our fault'. But I would have thought they
would have picked a different target for their complaints than Obama if that was the case. It
does seem more likely that this is a deliberate attempt by the Samantha Power/Hilary wing of the
establishment to stake a claim to the high ground.
A lot of what I've seen over the last few years only makes sense if I believe the State Department
is the last bastion of PNAC (Project for a New American Century). There is no acknowledged strategy
in Syria, no end game, no way to tell when/if we've won, except regime change. The CIA and the
Pentagon seem to be backing different factions who are hostile to each other and both seem to
be providing weapons to ISIS (perhaps, but not certainly, unintentionally). Victoria Nuland could
not have instigated the neo-nazi coup in Ukraine without her superiors' knowledge and approval.
I still wonder who told L. Paul Bremer that disbanding the Iraqi Army before disarming its soldiers
was a good idea. When asked about it Bush acted as if he never actually heard about it.
"A former ambassador told me that many of the diplomats have great fealty to Hillary Clinton.
Could they have leaked this cable to boost Clinton's narrative that she wanted a more robust attack
on Damascus as early as 2012? Is this a campaign advertisement for Clinton, and a preparation
for her likely Middle East policy when she takes power in 2017?"
um, there is your answer right there, plutonium, all the rest is inside-inside baseball bullshit…
besides essentially using their gummint positions in an unusual calculated political manner,
i am sure all these knob-polishers are simply jockeying for positions in Empress Cliton the First's
reign of Empire…
pass the soma, please…
Yes: And the use of the world fealty astounds me. Fealty, as in feudal relations? As in clientelism?
These people shouldn't be allowed near foreign policy at all. Fealty indeed.
But they dedicate themselves and bend all their efforts toward getting themselves into these
positions where they get to use the wealth and credulity of ordinary people to "advance," and
I use that word quite advisedly given where it's taking all of us, their interests and friends
and agendas…
Not man of the rest of us, who might be interested in survival and sustainability and comity
and all that, have the skills, schooling, connections and inclination to take part in the fokking
Great Game, in all its parts and parameters…
It is a pathetic sign of our times that the narrative of the "
Fabulous 51 " has any traction at all, when such perspective is so demonstrably flawed. Pat
Lang (and too few others) has been chronicling this neocon "Borg" delusion for quite some time
– not unlike efforts here with respect to orthodox neo-econs, libertards, etc. It was pretty easy
to assume, as the Kennedy administration must have, the outcome of belligerent threats against
the evil Ruskies when they were way beyond their capacities in Cuba. But to threaten a modern,
very militarily capable state with Neocon Wargasm Regime Change – – is truly insane. They really
do have WMDs – like the ones only we have ever used.
Hey, cmon, we've get the f-35, think of the boost to gdp when the russkis shoot down one or
ten of those overweight video game platforms! We need some more heros like pat tillman (not dissing
tillman, but the people who tried to use his good name for their own bitter ends), you know, to
garner support for our noble casus belli.
Interesting War Nerd podcast#36 featuring American Conservative writer Kelley Vlahos. The basic
claim is that the US security state which includes the State Dept., the MIC and the various think
tanks and Universities surrounding Washington DC has produced dynastic clans which suck money
from the defense budgets to fund lavish lifestyles. These 51 players are merely cheer leading
for more war because there is simply not enough money in peace to keep the generational Ponzi
going in luxury.
An enlisted guy in my unit in Vietnam got drunk, convinced himself he could fly an Army Sioux
helicopter. Started it, got it up out of the revetment, then when setting back down caught the
left skid on the 4 foot high revetment wall and crashed it. He was court-martialed, jailed at
Long Binh, busted to permanent E-1, denied even a discharge, and may still be paying off the $125,000
the Army said that broke-down chopper was worth on that E-1 pay. How many tiers of "justice" in
"the system?"
Regardless of the motivations first of the message itself and secondly of its purpose, my first
thought was that the Clinton camp directly or indirectly was behind it. But it is such a ham fisted
ploy; you would have to be a political idiot, wouldn't you? Then I recalled the other boneheaded
moves and dismissed it.
I've finally put my finger on why I will not vote for HRC. HRC is the embodiment of the notion that "ends justify the means". You cannot believe this and believe in the law … ethics … morality … at the same time.
HRC is no Gandhi.
False flags
Circumventing laws
Slippery slope? HRC has her skis on and her goggles down.
See also
Pat Lang's post on this yesterday. As is the case with Naked Capitalism, the comment threads
there are worth thorough reads as well as the posts. The consensus there seems to be that it demonstrates
the success of the neo-con infiltration of the State Department, the signers' utter lack of experience
in understanding of the military and warfare, and finally the results of the demise of DoS's area
expertise in the Middle East.
"Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the People for a New American Century or any other
neoconservative group? I remind you that you are under oath to testify truthfully to Congress…"
A former ambassador told me that many of the diplomats have great fealty to Hillary Clinton.
Hugo Chavez joked that you would never have a coup in Washington because it has no US embassy.
But it does have the State Department itself and it now appears they are using their partners
in the press to help shape the coming regime change in our own country. How long before Vicky
appears out on the Mall, giving out cookies?
Maybe the notion is that bombing the Assad military would provoke a military confrontation
with Russia in Syria but more importantly in Eastern Europe. This will bolster the case for NATO
which will face increased scrutiny in the upcoming POTUS campaign.
Circulating the cable to get signatures is probably Clinton's attempt to push the Overton Window
on Obama's dime, but leaking the cable was probably a jerk on Obama's chain for
"leaking" their concerns to Carl Bernstein, which was covered on NC earlier this month.
Seems to me like C.I.C. Clinton just can't wait another 6 months to start blowing the world
up. I, too, believe Hillary is behind this gang of 51's insubordinate pronouncement. It's got
her signature, intemperance and incompetence, written all over it. And, where's the current S.O.S.
Cat, Kerry, while the Foggy Bottom mice are stirring this very dangerous Vladimir cauldron? So,
maybe Obama kinda wishes he waited a little longer with his demented endorsement, "I don't think
there's ever been someone so qualified to hold this office.".
yesterday morning, the NYT headlined its site w/this story. then anti-war/anti-neocon comments
and upvotes flooded.
by lunch this story was buried well below the fold.
Automated analytics downgrading an unread story? Or an editorial decision by someone "surprised"
that even the NYT bobbleheads don't buy the Neo-Con lies?
Since they disagree with this president's policies, the honorable course of action by these
51 State Department employees would be to resign. Absent that, I believe the president can require
their resignations.
Bingo. It strikes me as analogous to holding a seance at church for seasoned diplomats to lobby
for war. The stumbling block is that the document itself followed existing protocol for dissent.
Its release to the public is the fire-able offense. I wonder if Obama is investigating.
So Al Qaeda takes over Syria; so what? Al Qaeda would not kill half a million Syrians! !!!
Once Al Qaeda takes over a country it is on its way to becoming a large bureaucratic entity -
more inherently conservative. What are they going to do, declare war on the US; throw their government
behind crashing airliners? The specter of a million US boots on the ground would squash that.
We do have a reputation for that sort of thing going back to Korea.
My view of the world is the Rick Steves, Anthony Bourdain view - not their ideology (if any)
but the Marshall McLuhan/medium-is-the-message view. It's just land and people - people like us.
If Obama cared about the Iraqi people he would have/could have gotten our reverse Saddam, Maliki,
under control and coerced him in the direction of greater inclusion of the Sunni into a new coalition
- instead of terrorizing them and forcing them into the open arms of ISIS. Ditto for arming and
training the vast majority of innocents. We could have identified most people (the vast majority)
that's not hard, and worked with them.
We could have tried to do both. But, as usual, Obama doesn't care.
One real problem is they set up terrorist training camps, similar to the Taliban in Afgan.
These are then organized terrorists they send out elsewhere in the world, even the USofA, if they
can sneak past the TSA in airports.
However, Saddam never did that and neither did Assad. So our State Dept's strategy seems to
be give terrorists a training ground so they can export a trained and organized terrorist network
around the world. And this is after we've had at least 15 years to observe how it works. Note
that the reason we felt we had to go into into Afgan originally was that the Taliban was running
terrorist training camps.
Not to mention arming these "moderate Arabs" to overthrow Assad.
There have been rumblings over the years that many of the coalitions in the current Syria conflict
are the result of countries competing for a Natural Gas pipeline between the Middle East and Europe:
Robert Parry – with sources inside the State Dept. – offers up some insight on this story
But the descent of the U.S. State Department into little more than well-dressed, well-spoken
but thuggish enforcers of U.S. hegemony began with the Reagan administration. President Ronald
Reagan and his team possessed a pathological hatred of Central American social movements seeking
freedom from oppressive oligarchies and their brutal security forces.[…]
As the old-guard professionals left, a new breed of aggressive neoconservatives was
brought in, the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, Robert McFarlane, Robert Kagan and Abrams. After eight years
of Reagan and four years of George H.W. Bush, the State Department was reshaped into a home
for neocons[…]
As the 1990s wore on, the decimation of foreign policy experts in the mold of White and
Derian left few on the Democratic side who had the courage or skills to challenge the deeply
entrenched neocons. Many Clinton-era Democrats accommodated to the neocon dominance by reinventing
themselves as "liberal interventionists," sharing the neocons' love for military force but
justifying the killing on "humanitarian" grounds.[…]
when Obama entered the White House, he faced a difficult challenge. The State Department
needed a thorough purging of the neocons and the liberal hawks, but there were few Democratic
foreign policy experts who hadn't sold out to the neocons. An entire generation of Democratic
policy-makers had been raised in the world of neocon-dominated conferences, meetings, op-eds
and think tanks, where tough talk made you sound good while talk of traditional diplomacy made
you sound soft.
Personally I'd say "blame it on Reagan" is a good all purpose explanation for current ills.
This response also takes in the Dems since they so often knuckled under to the Gipper.
The MIC must be pushing for more gravy to buoy the fake economy. This Empire based on greed,
exploitation and chaos will take the whole of life down with itself.
All this foreign policy discussion is a bit over my head, but couldn't the leaked "dissent"
have come from the White House ?
Isn't it most likely that Obama's concern for his "legacy" is going to make him want to out
HRC and her grossly incompetent sycophants and cronies at State as the Bomb-Baby-Bomb
crowd who goaded him to the brink of war with Russia over Syria based on faulty false-flag intelligence?
What's happening is the same what happed with them in the USSR. Only Party (in case of
neoliberalism replace the Party with "financial oligarchy") sanctioned content can be taught
and the stress is on neoclassical economics as this is one of the foundation of neoliberalism (along
with liberalism, Ann Rand, and similar psudo theories).
Notable quotes:
"... Chipping away at the humanities in schools jeopardizes the issues of social justice in education. Arguably, it is safe to say that the humanities and any liberal arts program are undervalued specifically because they involve knowledges, practices and traditions that usually cannot adhere to immediate short-term use ..."
The number of college students majoring in
English, according to some contested reports, has plummeted. In general, the humanities are taking
a back seat to more "pragmatic" majors in college. Students, apparently, are thinking more about
jobs than about general learning. Given this trend, should schools be scaling back on the humanities?
... ... ...
Some might say that since top universities like MIT have decided to focus on management, business
analytics, finance and mathematical economics (or trading), secondary schools should follow suit.
It would be a mistake, however, for secondary schools to cave to this argument and scale back on
the humanities.
The piece goes on to explain how, back in 2010, MSNBC anchor
Tamron Hall said, "Students
wanting to take up majors like art history and literature are now making the jump to more-specialized
fields like business and economics, and it's getting worse." This comment was juxtaposed with a chart
that indicated a spiral. Prominent New York Times journalist
David Brooks also jumped on the bandwagon when he remarked, "The humanities [have] turned from
an inward to an outward focus." The "sky is falling" myth then led to serious underfunding, becoming
a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Bérubé argues that mainstream accounts of the decline of the humanities in undergraduate education
are "factually, stubbornly, determinedly wrong." He says there was a plummet, but it was between
1970 and 1980.
In reality, English isn't dying; it's just that at one time, it was unprecedentedly popular. English
majors rose from
17,000
to 64,000 over a span of 30 years, from 1940 to 1970, and then declined to 34,000 by the 1990s.
This does not mark a death to the humanities.
Are fields like art history and literature really "elite, niche-market affairs that will render
students unemployable," as Bérubé argues? Are students abandoning the humanities because they are
"callow,
market-driven careerists?" No, this is not true. Bérubé states that "undergraduate enrollment
in the humanities have held steady since 1980 (in relation to all degree holders, and in relation
to the larger age cohort), and undergraduate enrollments in the arts and humanities combined are
almost precisely where they were in 1970."
... ... ...
Chipping away at the humanities in schools jeopardizes the issues of social justice in education.
Arguably, it is safe to say that the humanities and any liberal arts program are undervalued specifically
because they involve knowledges, practices and traditions that usually cannot adhere to immediate
short-term use by preservation seeking administrations and teachers.
... .,. ...
Dan Falcone has a master's degree in modern US history from LaSalle University in Philadelphia and
currently teaches secondary education. He has interviewed Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, Richard Falk,
William Blum, Medea Benjamin and Lawrence Davidson. He resides in Washington, DC.
"... Obama implemented health care "reforms" that were written by a health care industry lobbyist and have further enriched Big Pharma and health insurers. ..."
"... Oh, come on. Lots of people have covered this at length. The country was petrified when Obama took office. He had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and the House. He could has passed anything he wanted. It was his own Robert Rubin holdover, bank friendly neoliberal Larry Summers, who argued for a smaller stimulus and bullied Christine Romer, whose modeling called for more. He could have passed real health care reform and didn't. ..."
"... Obama has governed center right because he has a center right world view. Presidents have enormous bully pulpits. They can move the Overton window if they choose to. He didn't make an effort because that is what he believes. I saw that with his disappointing first inauguration speech. He has even failed to do things that were entirely within his power, like his promised "first action" of his Administration of closing Gitmo. ..."
"... However, come 2009 it was immediately obvious Obama was a complete and total fraud ..."
"... With the help of the IM, by mid-2009 I fully understood that Obama was a continuation of Bush, and Bush was a continuation of Clinton. ..."
"... ike Clinton and Bush, Obama has done nothing but aggressively push this country, and the world, to the FAR right… by embracing a Global Corporate/Mafia/Neoliberal/Neocon 'New World Order' that exclusively privileges the 5% capitalist class over the 95% working class. ..."
"... You admit "Bill Clinton took the Democratic Party in a neoliberal direction"… but don't see that Obama did the exact same thing? How is that possible? ..."
Huh? Obama has not moved the US to the left. He had the opportunity to come down hard on Wall
Street and didn't. He even engineered a second huge bailout for Wall Street, in the form of the
"get out of liability almost free" card of the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement. He is keen to
implement trade deals that would be huge wins for multinationals at the expense of national sovereignity,
including the ability of the US to regulate product safety, financial services, and the environment.
His Presidency has seen profit share of GDP rise to record levels, and a "recovery" where the
1% gained at the expense of everyone else.
Google "Jane Hamsher" and "veal pen". Obama from the very start of his presidency targeted
well funded leftist groups and got them defunded, systematically.
Obama implemented health care "reforms" that were written by a health care industry lobbyist
and have further enriched Big Pharma and health insurers. He made promises to raise the minimum
wage that he failed to act on. His Supreme Court picks were centrist at best. His Department of
Justice has been soft on anti-trust, soft on elite white collar crime. He's routinely used the
Republicans as an excuse to do what he wanted, which was to govern center-right. He'd regularly
concede 75% of what they asked for as his opening gambit. And then he'd move further right to
get bills passed.
Oh, come on. Lots of people have covered this at length. The country was petrified when
Obama took office. He had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and the House. He could has
passed anything he wanted. It was his own Robert Rubin holdover, bank friendly neoliberal Larry
Summers, who argued for a smaller stimulus and bullied Christine Romer, whose modeling called
for more. He could have passed real health care reform and didn't.
He similarly could have passed real financial services industry reform and didn't. Dodd Frank
was weak tea and had many of its provisions kicked over for study and later rulemaking, which
was designed to let the industry have another go at watering it down. Danny Tarullo at the Fed
singlehandedly has been a more effective force for reform than the Obama Administration.
The Obama administration enabled the taking by bank servicer of millions of homes when investors
in those securitizations preferred modifications.
And please tell me what Obama has done in terms of improvements in consumer rights. The only
thing I can think of is the CFPB's proposed rulemaking on mandatory arbitration. The only reason
we got that is basically due to how Elizabeth Warren started up the CFPB, by creating a solid
culture that held up over time. And he gave her that job with the hope she'd screw it up, not
succeed. She had become a huge thorn in Timothy Geithner's side and they wanted to take her down
a peg. But that plan backfired.
We wrote at GREAT length at the time how the FCIC was designed to do a crappy job and it did.
By contrast, Ronald Reagan formed the Brady Commission to investigate the 1987 crash ten days
after it happened, had it staffed with serious people, not lightweights like Phil Angildes (well
meaning but out of his depth) and a subpoena process that guaranteed that no real investigation
could or would be done. Obama reappointed Ben Bernanke, a Bush holderover who represented a continuation
of the Greenspan policies that led to the crisis and bailed out the banks, imposed no executive
or board changes, and did not pump for reform. By contrast, the Bank of England was much tougher
with banks and fought tooth and nail for a Glass-Steagall type breakup of banks (it was stymied
by the UK Treasury and got a partial win).
Gay rights? You mean Obama's weak and late endorsement of gay marriage? That's not legal action.
And the ACA was not "reform" but a program for more rent extraction by pharma and insurers.
Did you manage to miss that the biggest groups funding the Obama campaign were the financial services
industry, tech, and the medical/industrial complex?
It strengthened the position of insurers, and allows for profit levels that were higher than
the industry enjoyed before the bill was passed. Obama never tried to sell single payer (in fact,
his operatives targeted groups that advocated it), and was never serious about a public option.
He took that off the table and got no concession from the other side. You never give a free concession
in bargaining, ever. He just didn't want people talking about it any more.
The ACA has harmed a lot of people. Everyone I know who has to get a policy under the ACA is
worse off. It is a nightmare for self employed people and people with erratic incomes. The only
real benefit has been Medicaid expansion. And the ACA is going into a death spiral anyhow.
You really need to get out and deal with facts, not Democratic party/Administration PR.
More generally, you are selling the line "Obama was constrained." Bollocks. Obama has governed
center right because he has a center right world view. Presidents have enormous bully pulpits.
They can move the Overton window if they choose to. He didn't make an effort because that is what
he believes. I saw that with his disappointing first inauguration speech. He has even failed to
do things that were entirely within his power, like his promised "first action" of his Administration
of closing Gitmo.
The success of the Sanders campaign, despite the MSM efforts to first ignore it and then ridicule
it, shows how strong public support is for true progressive positions. If the Administration had
gone in that direction, it would have had public opinion behind it and the media would have fallen
in line.
Thank you for saying the obvious. And thank you for the Politico article which formulated my
view as well and I am easily in the 1%, white, over educated and travelled, male and in the sixth
decade. And I have mailed in my vote for Bernie. However in the cafeteria today one of the workers
was talking about how he thought Bernie would kill in in CA and I reminded him he needed to vote
since he was for him and his comment scared me…….He said he would vote for Bernie in the general
but that he was registered as an independent because he does not believe in any of the parties
and that he could not vote for Bernie……..but he said it did not matter…..unfortunately our precariate
is not necessarily fully aware of the hoops required to vote…..and I am certain he is not alone…..there
are many that want Bernie but just don't have it together to be able to vote for him.
Print this out and put it on the fridge, if you have a fridge.
(I'd also add that prosecuting banksters for accounting control fraud was under Obama's control
at Justice, and would have been wildly popular across the political spectrum. Instead we got "I
stand between you and the pitchforks."
Waldenpond
Your back on memeorandum….which is pro-Clinton, ignore/excoriate Sanders today (well, most
days)
I did not read any of them, just the highlight that pops up….
LGM… the people you know are 'dumb'
DeLong is sorry he ever linked to you….
Echidne of the Snakes… rotting, stinking something or other and your commenters are not representative
of the D party.
Steve in Dallas
Yikes… "Barack Obama, a transformational figure, has moved the US back to the left –
as much as possible"???
At 45yo in late 2007 I was a "political naif"… still trusting the mainstream media. However,
the Murdoch/FOX takeover of the WSJ pushed me to the internet… to follow the 'big crash'. Independent
media sites like NakedCapitalism were so obviously and infinitely better to anything in the MSM
I quickly was begging family/friends/everybody… "Please turn off the MSM. I learned more in one
month reading the IM than I learned reading the WSJ daily for 20 years! The MSM is total garbage
and totally corrupt"… BOYCOTT the MSM.
Regarding Obama? All through 2008 I followed the IM election coverage, listened to his and
Michael's campaign speeches. The message was clear… Obama was going to stop the out-of-control
criminal banksters and Wall Streeters… AND stop the crazed out-of-control war criminals… MUCH
more than Hillary! However, come 2009 it was immediately obvious Obama was a complete and
total fraud. He immediately surrounded himself with the exact same economic and war criminals
from the Clinton and Bush administrations. With the help of the IM, by mid-2009 I fully understood
that Obama was a continuation of Bush, and Bush was a continuation of Clinton.
Like Clinton and Bush, Obama has done nothing but aggressively push this country, and the
world, to the FAR right… by embracing a Global Corporate/Mafia/Neoliberal/Neocon 'New World Order'
that exclusively privileges the 5% capitalist class over the 95% working class.
1) You admit "Bill Clinton took the Democratic Party in a neoliberal direction"… but don't
see that Obama did the exact same thing? How is that possible?
2) Even more audaciously disingenuous… "Clinton – pushed by progressive supporters – would
continue that transformation". Bill's a neolib and Hillary is not? How is that possible?
3) Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama were all consistent at creating your list of problems… "social
justice issues, living wages, reversal of supply-side economic policy, protecting Social Security
and other government agencies from privatization, and ending the Citizens United campaign finance
regime… Supreme Court justice… Senate to provide its advice and consent"… and Hillary is here
to fix those problems?
4) To me your post sounds like just another TINA (there is no alternative) threat from the
5% telling the working class 95% slobs to back down and just take what they're given.
I'm totally 100% with Yves' description of NC readers… NO WAY, NEVER EVER KILLERY.
"... He is keen to implement trade deals that would be huge wins for multinationals at the expense
of national sovereignty, including the ability of the US to regulate product safety, financial services,
and the environment. ..."
"... His Presidency has seen profit share of GDP rise to record levels, and a "recovery" where the
1% gained at the expense of everyone else. ..."
"... Obama implemented health care "reforms" that were written by a health care industry lobbyist
and have further enriched Big Pharma and health insurers. ..."
"... He made promises to raise the minimum wage that he failed to act on. ..."
"... His Supreme Court picks were centrist at best. ..."
"... His Department of Justice has been soft on anti-trust, soft on elite white collar crime. ..."
"... He's routinely used the Republicans as an excuse to do what he wanted, which was to govern
center-right. ..."
"... He'd regularly concede 75% of what they asked for as his opening gambit. And then he'd move
further right to get bills passed. ..."
Huh? Obama has not moved the US to the left. He had the opportunity to come down hard on Wall
Street and didn't. He even engineered a second huge bailout for Wall Street, in the form of the
"get out of liability almost free" card of the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement.
He is keen to implement trade deals that would be huge wins for multinationals at the expense
of national sovereignty, including the ability of the US to regulate product safety, financial
services, and the environment.
His Presidency has seen profit share of GDP rise to record levels, and a "recovery" where
the 1% gained at the expense of everyone else.
Google "Jane Hamsher" and "veal pen". Obama from the very start of his presidency targeted
well funded leftist groups and got them defunded, systematically.
Obama implemented health care "reforms" that were written by a health care industry
lobbyist and have further enriched Big Pharma and health insurers.
He made promises to raise the minimum wage that he failed to act on.
His Supreme Court picks were centrist at best.
His Department of Justice has been soft on anti-trust, soft on elite white collar crime.
He's routinely used the Republicans as an excuse to do what he wanted, which was to
govern center-right.
He'd regularly concede 75% of what they asked for as his opening gambit. And then he'd
move further right to get bills passed.
"... In the USA, those at the bottom collaborate based on the 'promise' that the American Dream offers them a shot at the top, if they hold the party line. ..."
"... What they do not realize is that the "party" counts on the weight of their mass to hold that line for THEMSELVES ALONE. The people who back it all are thrown under the bus with great regularity. They never see it until the wheel roll over them and by that time they have sucked millions of others into the illusion that they are the "one" special one who will make it from the bottom and be welcomed as a peer into the 1%. ..."
"... It is not so surprising. Hope is a hard thing to kill and an easy thing to exploit. ..."
"... He is being sued for "deceptive business practices" which is to do with the content of his so-called University courses. You can be a snake oil salesman and pressure people into buying more expensive stuff, but you can't sell them lemons. There are consumer protection laws to prevent that, and that's what these lawsuits are doing. ..."
"... 'Just following orders', which is basically what you are trying to justify, in a business context, has been discredited as a modus operandi and is not a legal defence (hence the lawsuit, with which I wish them the very best of luck). ..."
"... Meanwhile, the more one learns about the judge and the more this judge is in conflict of interest (IMO). This judge is for open borders and illegal immigration, is a strong advocate for La Raza (yes, that anti-White and pro-illegal Mexican hate group), has links to the Clintons (Hillary) and appointed two prosecutors to the case who are extremely generous donators towards Hillary, including paying her significant $ for speeches. ..."
"... Though, I think, not everybody who attends boarding school becomes a sociopath. But sociopathy runs in families. And sociopathic parents tend to put kids into boarding school or reformatory for that matter. Just to get rid off them. ..."
"... In such a naked, dog-eat-dog society, there should also be no personal bankruptcy protection or ring-fencing for those who fail in business. All their assets siezed to pay off creditors. Not sure Trump would be so keen on that. ..."
"... Shamelessness is not a crime in the USA, but crime (fraud) is still a crime. ..."
"... Nothing will come out of this, that will effect the election. The practices documented in the papers released is a high pressure sales tactic which are used by many. The focus should be on what Trump stands for and bring the fight to him. Hillary Clinton is the wrong person in the wrong year to be able to take on Trump. She is flawed beyond repair, and is fighting not to lose, so careful with her words that they don't resonate. ..."
"... He's being sued, so it's a civil case. Documents can be made public if it's in the public interest to know about them. And when it looks very much like a con man is on his way to the Whitehouse, I'd call that a big yes for public interest. ..."
"... Killary attacks the MANY women who accuse her husband of rape, lies to the grand jury over White Water, to congress and the people about Benghazi, runs guns to ISIS, takes money from Saudi Arabia the worst women's rights violator, lies about being shot at landing in Bosnia, approves uranium mining deal to Russian concerns while SOS and receives millions to her foundation at the same time, starts an unregistered hedge find in Columbia of all places, takes millions from banks and you fault Trump for greed and making his own way without influence peddling while in public office. ..."
"... A snake oil salesman, a 'boiler room' operator, a phishing scammer, that's all Trump is. Honestly, is there any lie this sociopath could not tell? Is there any con game too crooked and despicable for even him? ..."
"... Sounds like a third world country with no social contract other than the "opportunity" to exploit one another. ..."
"... HRC was paid $385,000 for 3 speeches given to Goldman Sachs, nearly 10 times what the Trump 3 day course costs per person. Based on the speeches we hear from HRC, what could have been in these speeches that made them so valuable? Afterward there may have been the same buyer's remorse felt by Trump-course attendees. The comments that say that the U.S. is full of scams like this are on target, starting with the $1 lottery ticket. It is the dream that brought and brings people to the U.S., and if it turns out to be an expensive nightmare, the answer is "caveat emptor." ..."
More than 400 pages of released Trump University files describe how staff should target
financial weaknesses to sell high-priced real estate courses
A federal judge has given the world an unprecedented glimpse into the ruthless business practices
Donald Trump used to build his business empire.
US district court judge Gonzalo Curiel on Tuesday made public more than 400 pages of Trump University
"playbooks" describing how Trump staff should target prospective students' weaknesses to encourage
them to sign up for a $34,995 Gold Elite three-day package.
Trump University staff were instructed to get people to pile on credit card debt and to target their
financial weaknesses in an attempt to sell them the high-priced real estate courses.
The documents contained an undated "personal message" from Trump to new enrollees at the school:
"Only doers get rich. I know that in these three packed days, you will learn everything to make a
million dollars within the next 12 months."
The courses are now subject to legal proceedings from unhappy clients.
This shows someone who was absolutely shameless in his willingness to lie
to people - Eric Schneiderman
Judge Curiel released the documents, which are central to a class-action lawsuit against Trump
University in California, despite sustaining repeated public attacks from Trump, who had fought to
keep the details secret.
Curiel ruled that the documents were in the public interest now that Trump is "the front-runner in
the Republican nomination in the 2016 presidential race, and has placed the integrity of these court
proceedings at issue".
... ... ...
The playbook contains long sections telling Trump U team members how to identify buyers and push
them to sign up for the most expensive package, and to put the cost on their credit cards.
"If they can afford the gold elite don't allow them to think about doing anything besides the
gold elite," the document states.
If potential students hesitate, teachers are told to read this script.
As one of your mentors for the last three days, it's time for me to push you out of your comfort
zone. It's time for you to be 100% honest with yourself. You've had your entire adult life
to accomplish your financial goals. I'm looking at your profile and you're not even close to
where you need to be, much less where you want to be. It's time you fix your broken plan, bring
in Mr. Trump's top instructors and certified millionaire mentors and allow us to put you and
keep you on the right track. Your plan is BROKEN and WE WILL help you fix it. Remember you
have to be 100% honest with yourself!
Trump University staff are instructed in how to persuade students to put the cost of the course
on their credit cards, even if they have just battled to pay off debts.
Do you like living paycheck to paycheck? ... Do you enjoy seeing everyone else but yourself
in their dream houses and driving their dreams cars with huge checking accounts? Those people
saw an opportunity, and didn't make excuses, like what you're doing now.
Trump staff are told to spend lunch breaks in sign-up seminars "planting seeds" in potential students
minds about how their lives won't improve unless they join the programme. They are also told to ask
students personal questions to discover weaknesses that could be exploited to help seal the deal.
Collect personalized information that you can utilize during closing time. (For example: are
they a single parent of three children that may need money for food? Or are they a middle-aged
commuter that is tired of traveling for 2 hours to work each day?)
New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman, who has also
sued Trump University
, renewed his attacks on Trump on Tuesday. "You are not allowed to protect
the trade secrets of a three-card Monte game," Schneiderman said ahead of the document's release.
"If you look at the facts of this case, this shows someone who was absolutely shameless in his willingness
to lie to people, to say whatever it took to induce them into his phony seminars," Schneiderman said.
Urban2 -> Karlyn Isaak Lotney
1 Jun 2016 09:17
This is no more of a fraud then lotion for baldness or pills for losing weight. Or anything else
being sold for that matter. And it's district attorney that is using terms like shamelessness
and lying. Those are defamatory terms, not legal.
Jonathan Shearer -> Susan Victoria
1 Jun 2016 09:14
Could you please name the prosecutors, giving dates and amounts of these donations? Can I have
verified quote from Curiel where he expresses his STRONG support for La Raza? Exactly what are
these "links" to Hillary?
No judge is in favor of illegal immigration, though he may be in favor of changes to law to
change the status of illegal immigrant and/or to make legal immigration easier. Judges are not
in favor of illegal activity.
Let's make America honest and verifiable (again).
Urban2 -> CaptainRogers
1 Jun 2016 09:13
If it were a civil case, they wouldn't have been in possession of Trump's internal documents.
Besides nothing would stop the plaintiffs from disclosing documents themselves. Public interest
would therefor not even be an issue. Now of course I'm not aware of all the intricacies, but it
does look sinister. At least to me.
Sanibel -> Paul Freeman
1 Jun 2016 09:10
"And I think that they want a president who is not afraid of making tough, ruthless decisions
(in America's interests)." The US already does that with poor defenseless countries. Problem is
if Trump tries that with powerful countries( with nukes like China) it may not end so well...
SakkiSelznick Susan Victoria 1 Jun 2016 09:10
"Collect personalized information that you can utilize during closing time. (For example: are
they a single parent of three children that may need money for food?" The judge didn't write that.
Mr. Trump's university did.
Debra Smith -> J Nagarya
1 Jun 2016 09:10
In the USA, those at the bottom collaborate based on the 'promise' that the American Dream
offers them a shot at the top, if they hold the party line.
What they do not realize is that the "party" counts on the weight of their mass to hold
that line for THEMSELVES ALONE. The people who back it all are thrown under the bus with great
regularity. They never see it until the wheel roll over them and by that time they have sucked
millions of others into the illusion that they are the "one" special one who will make it from
the bottom and be welcomed as a peer into the 1%.
It is not so surprising. Hope is a hard thing to kill and an easy thing to exploit.
SakkiSelznick -> RogerColin
1 Jun 2016 09:07
A sales playbook that teaches seeking out "a single parent with three kids who struggles to buy
food" and targeting them for credit card debt" is not only cruel but illegal. And it's far from
buying low and selling high.
tonichicago -> Wordblind
1 Jun 2016 09:07
He appeals to those who hate "big government". Ironically, they don't seem to realise that his
threats to curtail the "nasty and dishonest" press simply mean that we will end up with unfettered
government. There will be no accounting to anyone.
tonichicago -> Aaron Rosier
1 Jun 2016 09:04
He is being sued for "deceptive business practices" which is to do with the content of his
so-called University courses. You can be a snake oil salesman and pressure people into buying
more expensive stuff, but you can't sell them lemons. There are consumer protection laws to prevent
that, and that's what these lawsuits are doing.
He sold them all a bill of goods.
Debra Smith -> downhillracer117
1 Jun 2016 09:01
You have hit at the crux of the matter.
This is TEAM BASED. Americans are indoctrinated to TEAM from very early in life. Every sport
event, the high school team, the prom and everything in college life is TEAM BASED. You are "in"
or you are "out" (meaning human or not human) by the colour of your jersey. Truth, justice, facts,
are all dismissed based on what team you belong to.
ID446302
1 Jun 2016 09:00
An American success story? Exceptionalism to its core. Hidden in the shadows of our IRS and our
exceptional judicial, until you threaten the political establishment by running for president.
J Nagarya -> bobkolker
1 Jun 2016 09:00
He is being sued NOW, and he is attacking the judge because he KNOWS he is being exposed for the
crook he is.
Stop defending criminality: he is being sued for his tactics because they are NOT legal.
Pay attention to the news reports on his methods, as exposed in the Trump "University" materials
he DIDN'T WANT released, but which now the court has released as result of his baseless slanders
against the judge presiding over the case because HE KNOWS they expose his criminality.
keepsmiling -> Echocell
1 Jun 2016 09:00
Hate to tell you this, but what was written in the playbook is called "sales techniques."
It's used by every company on the planet that has a product to sell. Don't hate the player,
hate the game (capitalism).
'Just following orders', which is basically what you are trying to justify, in a business
context, has been discredited as a modus operandi and is not a legal defence (hence the lawsuit,
with which I wish them the very best of luck).
You have to fight the players - 'capitalism' is too nebulous a concept to 'fight', so you end
up not seeing the wood for the trees. Exposing them one at a time is fine - it's all part of the
big picture and is educational. There's a lot of educating to be done with regard to Trump's followers.
Susan Victoria
1 Jun 2016 08:56
Here we go again... the public will be fed a series of quotes, almost all taken out of context,
designed to bash Trump and spread even more hate.
Meanwhile, the more one learns about the judge and the more this judge is in conflict of
interest (IMO). This judge is for open borders and illegal immigration, is a strong advocate for
La Raza (yes, that anti-White and pro-illegal Mexican hate group), has links to the Clintons (Hillary)
and appointed two prosecutors to the case who are extremely generous donators towards Hillary,
including paying her significant $ for speeches.
Very interesting testimony coming out of Clinton's deposed staff re her email server, including
she didn't have a password... the mysterious fire... and more. But who cares? Trump-bashing is
the order of the day.
youssou -> Ortho
1 Jun 2016 08:53
Lol interesting theory ... ;-)
I had to google it ... and yes: http://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-military-academy-closes-2015-9?IR=T
Though, I think, not everybody who attends boarding school becomes a sociopath. But sociopathy
runs in families. And sociopathic parents tend to put kids into boarding school or reformatory
for that matter. Just to get rid off them.
Guthrum -> MartinMckay
1 Jun 2016 08:49
In such a naked, dog-eat-dog society, there should also be no personal bankruptcy protection
or ring-fencing for those who fail in business. All their assets siezed to pay off creditors.
Not sure Trump would be so keen on that.
To do otherwise would be rewarding failure, using the state to prop up losers.
AntonZ1 -> BiggyZ
1 Jun 2016 08:49
Donald Trump University is not a religion. Drumpf is more cult leader than religious scholar.
Karlyn Isaak Lotney Urban2
1 Jun 2016 08:47
Shamelessness is not a crime in the USA, but crime (fraud) is still a crime.
ClearItUp
1 Jun 2016 08:45
Nothing will come out of this, that will effect the election. The practices documented in
the papers released is a high pressure sales tactic which are used by many. The focus should be
on what Trump stands for and bring the fight to him. Hillary Clinton is the wrong person in the
wrong year to be able to take on Trump. She is flawed beyond repair, and is fighting not to lose,
so careful with her words that they don't resonate.
CaptainRogers -> Urban2
1 Jun 2016 08:44
He's being sued, so it's a civil case. Documents can be made public if it's in the public
interest to know about them. And when it looks very much like a con man is on his way to the Whitehouse,
I'd call that a big yes for public interest.
Tom Voloshen
1 Jun 2016 08:42
Killary attacks the MANY women who accuse her husband of rape, lies to the grand jury over
White Water, to congress and the people about Benghazi, runs guns to ISIS, takes money from Saudi
Arabia the worst women's rights violator, lies about being shot at landing in Bosnia, approves
uranium mining deal to Russian concerns while SOS and receives millions to her foundation at the
same time, starts an unregistered hedge find in Columbia of all places, takes millions from banks
and you fault Trump for greed and making his own way without influence peddling while in public
office.
OpineOpiner
1 Jun 2016 08:40
A snake oil salesman, a 'boiler room' operator, a phishing scammer, that's all Trump is. Honestly,
is there any lie this sociopath could not tell? Is there any con game too crooked and despicable
for even him?
PostTrotskyite -> MartinMckay
1 Jun 2016 08:36
Sounds like a third world country with no social contract other than the "opportunity" to
exploit one another.
Btw, supplanting content with the cheer leading, rhetoric, hate, and cheap one liners is the
creed of the Trumpeteers.
AntonZ1 -> Aaron Rosier
1 Jun 2016 08:34
A 'predatory capitalist' is a thief, no matter how "biased" or "naive" you are.
Aaron Rosier -> ElfenLied2
1 Jun 2016 08:28
Clinton is already tirelessly working to drive voters away with her beams of blind arrogance,
pretentiousness, divisiveness, unwillingness to accept/acknowledge consequence of her glaring
failures of judgement, the naked pandering, the belligerent "campaign theme", and of course all
of the old hits (Slick Billy and the Slimers, NAFTA, welfare reform, KXL, TPP, Fracking, Wall
Street Transcripts, etc).
Donald Trump will feast on Clinton's garbage, while slowly moderating his platform positions,
and steering his rhetoric slowly back to professional (from simpleton).
karmarama -> elemenohpee
1 Jun 2016 08:21
You seem to misunderstand me. Like several other posters on this thread, I am suggesting that
Trump's practices are part of the wider world of business, and not so far from normal (not, in
my view the same as 'acceptable') practices. The use of the name 'University' was certainly fraud,
but why was it not caught right away by whoever is in charge of that in the US? His sales pitch,
while pretty sleazy, is not far away from normal practice in brokerage, real-estate, holiday sales
and many other areas of business, including the bottom of the education industry - indeed, doesn't
every university 'oversell' itself to students, hence the need for independent surveys, and aren't
there a host of 'degree for sale' schools in the US?
As a socialist I consider it all to be 'unacceptable', and I hope you don't take me for a Trump
supporter, which I suspect you do. He is even more unacceptable than the Bush clan was! However
those who are using this to smear Trump are walking a tightrope between 'normal' and 'fraud' when
I think that the distinction is not at all clear.
ID673139 -> Carl123
1 Jun 2016 08:18
Clinton has a pretty shady past as well, like covering up potential rape allegations for Bill.
I'm not saying it is a defence at all, but as soon as Trump becomes a presidential candidate
suddenly its front page news. He not done anything illegal, and if your so upset over these business
practices why not look at the industry as a whole and people who do skin people with these practices.
I said it before with Clinton or Trump either of them is a bad choice for president.
bbqtv -> ConnecticutNutmeg
1 Jun 2016 08:18
Student loans are encouraged even for courses & "degrees" that have no future earning potential.
Colleges & universities increase non teaching & non research "staff" using these funds because
they have money to spend for which there is NO accounting. [Why do you need to hire two assistants?
So I don't have to teach!"
ConnecticutNutmeg
1 Jun 2016 08:10
Trump U. apparently targeted adults-not teenagers.
If only all the millions of students who were coerced by high school guidance counselors and
campus administrators to sign contracts for government student loans, and are now on the hook
for hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt without any good job prospects in this Obama economy,
could sue the government for failing them as these students are suing Trump. Many of these students
had no business going on to college and many drop out without getting the degree-but they still
owe the money.
By having the students sign these loan agreements (not their parents) , government considers
college students adults . But when it comes time to repay these loans, all of a sudden all the
Democrats whine about these poor kids and their debt. Make up your mind. Are they old enough to
take on the responsibility of signing a contract or not? If not, perhaps they should not be given
the ballot either.
Muz Murray -> c0n0r
1 Jun 2016 08:03
Just about everything, if past presidents and their cronies are anything to go by. They are in
it for the business of making money and feathering their own nests, while blithely blabbering
about doing it 'for America.'
Martin Cohen
1 Jun 2016 07:55
I just don't understand how the US has wound up with a Clinton or Trump choice. Can the electorate
be so politically disengaged as to allow one of these two into the most powerful job in the Western
world? If Trump is simply the anti-establishment protest vote, that is all very well but someone
as divisive and offensive as him can never unite a country. There are already protests on the
streets that thankfully haven't turned too violent yet but it won't take much for heavily armed
riot police to trigger something unthinkable. Being President always seemed to be a unifying job
that commanded loyalty and respect even from staunch opponents. I always admired that about the
Presidency. I don't see much evidence of it these days. Has respect for politics and politicians
reached at an all time low in The States too? Trump isn't the answer, nor is a shady Clinton.
We need politics and our politicians to once again embrace the concept of public service, morality
and the precise rule of law. It would have been tremendous if more principled candidates had emerged
victorious and given a much needed shot of public confidence in such a maligned vocation. I fear
for the future. We may have stopped the cycle of European wars but globally it's more dangerous
than ever. A competent steady hand on the tiller is what's needed now, especially in America.
Paul Freeman
1 Jun 2016 07:47
Unfortunately, american's tend to believe that businesses should be ruthless - except, of course,
if it is them who has been the victim of a ruthless scam. And I think that they want a president
who is not afraid of making tough, ruthless decisions (in America's interests). So it would not
surprise me if these revelation actually boost Trump's popularity.
Tommo68 -> HardboiledChicken
1 Jun 2016 07:39
anyone who can stump up 35 grand for a three day course doesn't need the course in the first place...
HiramsMaxim -> garth25
1 Jun 2016 07:11
I'm not going to analyse all 50 States. US elections come down to a very few swing States.
Those three are the most important.
The "Latino" vote in Florida is primarily not Mexican. Assuming legal immigrants will automatically
support illegals from a different country is probably not wise. The real power in Florida is the
retirees, although as Florida's population continues to grow, that is diminishing.
I very much doubt bill Clinton can capture white rural voters from Trump.
Clinton has nowhere near the support that Obama had among black voters. And, it doesn't do any
good to win California with a bigger margin, the electoral votes remain the same.
I have no idea what the outcome will be, but I can say that Mrs. Clinton's huge lead has evaporated
in about a month.
Tom Voloshen -> Maharaja Brovinda Singh
1 Jun 2016 07:09
We came we saw he died...the human Killary.....
Tom Voloshen 1 Jun 2016 07:09
The US keeps the the piece around the world using 720 military bases in foreign countries under
the direction of people like Killary and the result is 15 years of war, death, destruction, millions
dead, countries dissolved, missile batteries ringing Russia, our economy debt/GDP equal to Greece
with NO END INSIGHT.....and you speak about Trump's lack of success? Lets talk of Killary's, Obama's,
Bush's, Billy's....vote for anyone but Killary.
RussZimm
1 Jun 2016 07:07
HRC was paid $385,000 for 3 speeches given to Goldman Sachs, nearly 10 times what the Trump
3 day course costs per person. Based on the speeches we hear from HRC, what could have been in
these speeches that made them so valuable? Afterward there may have been the same buyer's remorse
felt by Trump-course attendees. The comments that say that the U.S. is full of scams like this
are on target, starting with the $1 lottery ticket. It is the dream that brought and brings people
to the U.S., and if it turns out to be an expensive nightmare, the answer is "caveat emptor."
Karen Poyser -> HardboiledChicken
1 Jun 2016 07:06
What a horrible way to see the world! These are vulnerable people being prayed upon, desperation
can make people do stupid things. Considering all the ''american dream'' capitalist propaganda
thrust on people from the minute they are old enough to comprehend, its surprising more don't
fall for this sort of thing.
tempestteacup
1 Jun 2016 07:27
Am I alone in finding the steady drip of tidbits regarding Trump's business practices interminable?
It is not news and it is not even particularly illuminating. This is all known grown that merely
lends him greater exposure and entrenches his supporters in their view that he is the victim of
an establishment conspiracy to smear, discredit and misunderstand.
Meanwhile, we have next to nothing on the devastating IG report on Clinton's e-mail server. We
have almost no analysis on how the Republican Party is quietly, begrudgingly, rallying around
Trump at exactly the moment that the Democrats are doing the opposite and degenerating into a
fractious mess because they meretriciously anointing a terrible candidate 18 months ago.
Trump has received millions of votes. He has decimated a crowded Republican field, most of them
smooth political operators with huge financial backing. This did not happen because there are
millions of racists in America. It is because we are entering a potentially bloody phase in America's
Culture Wars, with an increasingly mindless adherence to identity politics pitted against the
historic grievances of a working class that now feels abandoned by the left (Bernie notwithstanding).
Anything about that, instead of fanning the flames of Trump's Plot Against America-style campaign?
*tumbleweed*
edithamy -> ljonesjr
1 Jun 2016 06:48
Salesman uses corrupt and illegal sales techniques to generate sales would be even more of
a shock headline.
The real problem here is that Obama got elected, who had such a checkered past yet the media
have him a pass. The media is still giving Hillary a pass.
At least with Trump, by the time he gets in office, I have a feeling he will be thoroughly vetted.
What a nice change from having no clue about the man in the White House for the last 8 years!
Was he born in Kenya as a book jacket reported? Was he born in Hawaii as a dubious birth certificate
stated? Who was his mom? Who was is dad? Who were his mentors? Where did he go to school? What
were his grades? Lots of questions that we were told several answers to, but he was NEVER really
vetted by the press, only anointed.
I'd rather know for sure what I'm getting! I think I know how ruthless Trump is...even before
this article....that's why I'm voting for him.
"... we are now feeding the growth of the "underclass" by lifting ever higher and out of reach the upward mobility ladder, once the banner of opportunity now fallen behind the supposedly sclerotic welfare states of Europe. ..."
"... The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of gutting, societies. Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their job security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke. Neoliberals are trying to snip and cut labor protections, healthcare, environmental regulations all for corporate profit. In Europe this is all in addition to a massive refugee crisis itself brought on by neoliberalism (neocon foreign policy is required for neoliberal social policy, they go hand-in-hand). The US and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting their markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls right into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean fascist. ..."
"... Selected Skeptical Comments ..."
"... seanseamour asks "What does that have to do with education?" and answers "Everything if one considers the elitist trend…" This question & answer all but brings tears to my eyes. It is so utterly on point. My own experience of it, if I may say so, comes from inside the belly of the beast. As a child and a product of America's elite universities (I have degrees from Harvard and Yale, and my dad, Richard B. Sewall, was a beloved English prof at Yale for 42 years), I could spend all morning detailing the shameful roles played by America's torchbearing universities – Harvard, Yale, Stanford etc – in utterly abandoning their historic responsibility as educators to maintaining the health of the nation's public school system.* ..."
"... And as I suspect seanseymour would agree, when a nation loses public education, it loses everything. ..."
"... accountable ..."
"... And I hear a few others saying that Americans are too dumbed down, too busy, too polarized or too just plain stupid to make intelligent, constructive use of a non-partisan, problem-solving Civic Media. But I would not underestimate the intelligence of Americans when they can give their considered input – by vote, by comment or by active participation – in public forums that are as exciting and well managed as an NFL game or a Word Series final. ..."
Posted on
June 2, 2016 by Yves
Smith Yves here. The first comment came in on a post that had gone cold, and I thought it was
so revealing that it needed to be seen widely. The second is a synchronistic complement.
As much as I carry on about the isolation of the Acela-riding classes from the acute distress
in much of the US, I only have a very distant feel for it. For instance, I grew up moving through
many small towns where a paper mill was a major, and in some cases, the biggest local employer. Those
mill jobs were well paid and the workers could buy houses, cars, and had pensions. One of my brothers
works for a paper mill that should have been world competitive through his retirement, but it's been
wrecked by a series of private equity owners, starting with Cerberus, and in now in bankruptcy. The
town in which he lives, Escanaba, Michigan, has lost over 20% of its population since the mid 1980s.
Similarly, my uncle lived below the poverty line in Maine, lobstering until his knees gave out. But
he had a fully paid for house he had inherited, and access to VA hospitals and doctors, so it could
have been a lot worse. But Maine is a poor state, so even visiting there as a tourist in the summers,
it's not hard to see the signs of struggle even in those who are getting by.
The first comment gives a window into the hidden desperation in America that is showing up in
statistics like increasing opioid addiction and suicides, rather than in accounts of how and why
so many people are suffering. I hope readers will add their own observations in comments.
We recently took three months to travel the southern US from coast to coast. As an expat
for the past twenty years, beyond the eye opening experience it left us in a state of shock.
From a homeless man convulsing in the last throes of hypothermia (been there) behind a fuel
station in Houston (the couldn't care less attendant's only preoccupation getting our RV off
his premises), to the general squalor of near-homelessness such as the emergence of "American
favelas" a block away from gated communities or affluent ran areas, to transformation of RV
parks into permanent residencies for the foreclosed who have but their trailer or RV left,
to social study one can engage while queuing at the cash registers of a Walmart before beneficiaries
of SNAP.
Stopping to take the time to talk and attempt to understand their predicament and their
beliefs as to the cause of their plight is a dizzying experience in and of itself. For a moment
I felt transposed to the times of the Cold War, when the Iron Curtain dialectics fuzzed the
perception of that other world to the west with a structured set of beliefs designed to blacken
that horizon as well as establish a righteous belief in their own existential paradigm.
What does that have to do with education? Everything if one considers the elitist trend
that is slowly setting the framework of tomorrow's society. For years I have felt there is
a silent "un-avowed conspiracy", why the seeming redundancy, because it is empirically driven
as a by-product of capitalism's surge and like a self-redeeming discount on a store shelf crystalizes
a group identity of think-alike know-little or nothing frustrated citizens easily corralled
by a Fox or Trump piper. We have re-rcreated the conditions or rather the reality of "Poverty
In America" barely half a century after its first diagnostic with one major difference :
we are now feeding the growth of the "underclass" by lifting ever higher and out of reach
the upward mobility ladder, once the banner of opportunity now fallen behind the supposedly
sclerotic welfare states of Europe.
So Richard Cohen now fears American voters because of Trump. Well, on Diane Reem today (NPR)
was a discussion on why fascist parties are growing in Europe. Both Cohen and the clowns on
NPR missed the forest for the trees. The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the
US while fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or
is in the process of gutting, societies. Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers
are seeing their job security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke. Neoliberals
are trying to snip and cut labor protections, healthcare, environmental regulations all for
corporate profit. In Europe this is all in addition to a massive refugee crisis itself brought
on by neoliberalism (neocon foreign policy is required for neoliberal social policy, they go
hand-in-hand). The US and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources
and protecting their markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in
Europe (which falls right into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course
the people will lean fascist.
In the US we don't have the refugees, but the neoliberalism is further along and more damaging.
There's no mystery here or in Europe, just the natural effects of governments failing to represent
real people in favor of useless eater rich.
Make the people into commodities, endanger their washes and job security, impose austerity,
and tale in floods of refugees. Of COURSE Europeans stay leaning fascist.
What a comment from seanseamour. And the "hoisting" of it to high visibility at the site is
a testament to the worth of Naked Capitalism.
seanseamour asks "What does that have to do with education?" and answers "Everything if
one considers the elitist trend…" This question & answer all but brings tears to my eyes. It is
so utterly on point. My own experience of it, if I may say so, comes from inside the belly of
the beast. As a child and a product of America's elite universities (I have degrees from Harvard
and Yale, and my dad, Richard B. Sewall, was a beloved English prof at Yale for 42 years), I could
spend all morning detailing the shameful roles played by America's torchbearing universities –
Harvard, Yale, Stanford etc – in utterly abandoning their historic responsibility as educators
to maintaining the health of the nation's public school system.*
And as I suspect seanseymour would agree, when a nation loses public education, it loses
everything.
But I don't want to spend all morning doing that because I'm convinced that it's not too late
for America to rescue itself from maelstrom in which it finds itself today. (Poe's "Maelstrom"
story, cherished by Marshall McLuhan, is supremely relevant today.)
To turn America around, I don't look to education – that system is too far gone to save itself,
let alone the rest of the country – but rather to the nation's media: to the all-powerful public
communication system that certainly has the interactive technical capabilities to put citizens
and governments in touch with each other on the government decisions that shape the futures of
communities large and small.
For this to happen, however, people like the us – readers of Naked Capitalism – need to stop
moaning and groaning about the damage done by the neoliberals and start building an issue-centered,
citizen-participatory, non-partisan, prime-time Civic Media strong enough to
give all Americans an informed voice in the government decisions that affect their lives. This
Civic media would exist to make citizens and governments responsive and accountable
to each other in shaping futures of all three communities – local, state and national – of
which every one of us is a member.
Pie in the sky? Not when you think hard about it. A huge majority of Americans would welcome
this Civic Media. Many yearn for it. This means that a market exists for it: a Market of the Whole
of all members of any community, local, state and national. This audience is large enough to rival
those generated by media coverage of pro sports teams, and believe it or not much of the growth
of this Civic media could be productively modeled on the growth of media coverage of pro sports
teams. This Civic Media would attract the interest of major advertisers, especially those who
see value in non-partisan programming dedicated to getting America moving forward again. Dynamic,
issue-centered, problem-solving public forums, some modeled on voter-driven reality TV contests
like The Voice or Dancing with the Stars, could be underwritten by a "rainbow" spectrum of funders,
commercial, public, personal and even government sources.
So people take hope! Be positive! Love is all we need, etc. The need for for a saving alternative
to the money-driven personality contests into which our politics has descended this election year
is literally staring us all in the face from our TV, cellphone and computer screens. This is no
time to sit back and complain, it's a time to start working to build a new way of connecting ourselves
so we can reverse America's rapid decline.
OK, so I hear some of you saying, corporate America will never let this Civic Media get off
the ground. My short answer to this is that corporations do what makes money for them, and in
today's despairing political climate there's money to be made in sponsoring something truly positive,
patriotic and constructive. And I hear a few others saying that Americans are too dumbed down,
too busy, too polarized or too just plain stupid to make intelligent, constructive use of a non-partisan,
problem-solving Civic Media. But I would not underestimate the intelligence of Americans when
they can give their considered input – by vote, by comment or by active participation – in public
forums that are as exciting and well managed as an NFL game or a Word Series final.
seanseymour, thanks for your insights and thanks, Yves, for putting them where we can see them.
"... we are now feeding the growth of the "underclass" by lifting ever higher and out of reach the upward mobility ladder, once the banner of opportunity now fallen behind the supposedly sclerotic welfare states of Europe. ..."
"... The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of gutting, societies. Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their job security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke. Neoliberals are trying to snip and cut labor protections, healthcare, environmental regulations all for corporate profit. In Europe this is all in addition to a massive refugee crisis itself brought on by neoliberalism (neocon foreign policy is required for neoliberal social policy, they go hand-in-hand). The US and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting their markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls right into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean fascist. ..."
"... Selected Skeptical Comments ..."
"... All problems caused by the same cause … American predatory behavior. And our great political choice … iron fist without velvet glove. ..."
"... Germany, Belgium, France, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Turkey, Israel, Australia come to mind (if one is allowed to participate in a European song contest, one is supposed to be part of Europe :) They all have more or less fascist governments. ..."
"... Once you realize that the ECB creates something like 60 billion euros a month, and gives nothing to its citizens nor its nation-states, that means the money goes to corporations, which means that the ECB, and by extension the whole EU, is a fascist construct (fascism being defined as a government running on behalf of the corporations). ..."
"... That's a fallacy. Corporatism is a feature of fascism, not the other way around. None of the governments you mention, with the possible exception of Israel and Turkey, can be called fascist in any meaningful sense. ..."
"... Even the anti-immigration parties in the Western European countries you mention – AfD, Front National, Vlaams Belang – only share their nationalism with fascist movements. And they are decidedly anti-corporatist. ..."
"... Another key feature of fascism is territorial expansionism. As far as I am aware, none of the nationalist parties advocate invading other countries or retaking former colonies. Once again, contemporary neoliberalism is far closer to fascism. But you are correct about both Israel and Turkey – our allies. They are much closer to the genuine article. But you won't hear those complaining about the rise of fascism in Europe complaining too much about them. ..."
"... Sheldon Wolin introduced us to inverted totalitarism. While it is no longer the government that decides what must be done, the private 'owners' just buy the government, the judiciary, the press, or whatever is needed to achieve their means. ..."
"... Inverted totalitarianism is the mirror image of fascism, which is why so many are confused. Fascism is just a easier term to use and more understandable by all. There is not a strict adherence to fascism going on, but it's still totalitarian just the same. ..."
"... "…the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism" ..."
"... an authentically popular fascism in the United States would be pious and anti-Black; in Western Europe, secular and antisemitic, or more probably, these days anti-Islamic; in Russia and Eastern Europe, religious, antisemitic, and slavophile. ..."
"... that eternal enemy: the conservative manipulators of privilege who damn as 'dangerous agitators' any man who menaces their fortunes" (maybe 'power and celebrity' should be added to fortunes ..."
"... Globalization helps the rich here way more than the poor there. The elites get more money for nothing (see QE before you respond, if you do, that's where the money for globalization came from) the workers get the husk. ..."
"... Also the elite gets to say "you made your choices" and other moralistic crap. The funny(?) thing is they generally claim to be atheists, which I translate into "I am God, there doesn't need to be any other" ..."
"... Wait, you mean we don't all enjoy living in Pottersville? For anyone missing the reference, you clearly haven't been subjected to It's a Wonderful Life enough times. ..."
"... seanseamour asks "What does that have to do with education?" and answers "Everything if one considers the elitist trend…" This question & answer all but brings tears to my eyes. It is so utterly on point. My own experience of it, if I may say so, comes from inside the belly of the beast. As a child and a product of America's elite universities (I have degrees from Harvard and Yale, and my dad, Richard B. Sewall, was a beloved English prof at Yale for 42 years), I could spend all morning detailing the shameful roles played by America's torchbearing universities – Harvard, Yale, Stanford etc – in utterly abandoning their historic responsibility as educators ..."
"... And as I suspect seanseymour would agree, when a nation loses public education, it loses everything. ..."
"... accountable ..."
"... And I hear a few others saying that Americans are too dumbed down, too busy, too polarized or too just plain stupid to make intelligent, constructive use of a non-partisan, problem-solving Civic Media. But I would not underestimate the intelligence of Americans when they can give their considered input – by vote, by comment or by active participation – in public forums that are as exciting and well managed as an NFL game or a Word Series final. ..."
Posted on
June 2, 2016 by Yves
Smith Yves here. The first comment came in on a post that had gone cold, and I thought it was
so revealing that it needed to be seen widely. The second is a synchronistic complement.
As much as I carry on about the isolation of the Acela-riding classes from the acute distress
in much of the US, I only have a very distant feel for it. For instance, I grew up moving through
many small towns where a paper mill was a major, and in some cases, the biggest local employer. Those
mill jobs were well paid and the workers could buy houses, cars, and had pensions. One of my brothers
works for a paper mill that should have been world competitive through his retirement, but it's been
wrecked by a series of private equity owners, starting with Cerberus, and in now in bankruptcy. The
town in which he lives, Escanaba, Michigan, has lost over 20% of its population since the mid 1980s.
Similarly, my uncle lived below the poverty line in Maine, lobstering until his knees gave out. But
he had a fully paid for house he had inherited, and access to VA hospitals and doctors, so it could
have been a lot worse. But Maine is a poor state, so even visiting there as a tourist in the summers,
it's not hard to see the signs of struggle even in those who are getting by.
The first comment gives a window into the hidden desperation in America that is showing up in
statistics like increasing opioid addiction and suicides, rather than in accounts of how and why
so many people are suffering. I hope readers will add their own observations in comments.
We recently took three months to travel the southern US from coast to coast. As an expat for
the past twenty years, beyond the eye opening experience it left us in a state of shock. From
a homeless man convulsing in the last throes of hypothermia (been there) behind a fuel station
in Houston (the couldn't care less attendant's only preoccupation getting our RV off his premises),
to the general squalor of near-homelessness such as the emergence of "American favelas" a block
away from gated communities or affluent ran areas, to transformation of RV parks into permanent
residencies for the foreclosed who have but their trailer or RV left, to social study one can
engage while queuing at the cash registers of a Walmart before beneficiaries of SNAP.
Stopping to take the time to talk and attempt to understand their predicament and their beliefs
as to the cause of their plight is a dizzying experience in and of itself. For a moment I felt
transposed to the times of the Cold War, when the Iron Curtain dialectics fuzzed the perception
of that other world to the west with a structured set of beliefs designed to blacken that horizon
as well as establish a righteous belief in their own existential paradigm.
What does that have to do with education? Everything if one considers the elitist trend that
is slowly setting the framework of tomorrow's society. For years I have felt there is a silent
"un-avowed conspiracy", why the seeming redundancy, because it is empirically driven as a by-product
of capitalism's surge and like a self-redeeming discount on a store shelf crystalizes a group
identity of think-alike know-little or nothing frustrated citizens easily corralled by a Fox or
Trump piper. We have re-rcreated the conditions or rather the reality of "Poverty In America"
barely half a century after its first diagnostic with one major difference : we are now feeding
the growth of the "underclass" by lifting ever higher and out of reach the upward mobility ladder,
once the banner of opportunity now fallen behind the supposedly sclerotic welfare states of Europe.
So Richard Cohen now fears American voters because of Trump. Well, on Diane Reem today (NPR)
was a discussion on why fascist parties are growing in Europe. Both Cohen and the clowns on NPR
missed the forest for the trees. The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists
are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of
gutting, societies. Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their job
security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke. Neoliberals are trying to snip
and cut labor protections, healthcare, environmental regulations all for corporate profit. In
Europe this is all in addition to a massive refugee crisis itself brought on by neoliberalism
(neocon foreign policy is required for neoliberal social policy, they go hand-in-hand). The US
and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting their
markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls right
into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean fascist.
In the US we don't have the refugees, but the neoliberalism is further along and more damaging.
There's no mystery here or in Europe, just the natural effects of governments failing to represent
real people in favor of useless eater rich.
Make the people into commodities, endanger their washes and job security, impose austerity,
and tale in floods of refugees. Of COURSE Europeans stay leaning fascist.
America has plenty of refugees, from Latin America …
Neo-liberal goes back to the Monroe Doctrine. We used to tame our native workers with immigrants,
and we still do, but we also tame them by globalism in trade. So many rationalizations for this,
based on political and economic propaganda. All problems caused by the same cause … American predatory
behavior. And our great political choice … iron fist without velvet glove.
Germany, Belgium, France, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Turkey, Israel, Australia come to mind
(if one is allowed to participate in a European song contest, one is supposed to be part of Europe
:) They all have more or less fascist governments.
Once you realize that the ECB creates something like 60 billion euros a month, and gives nothing
to its citizens nor its nation-states, that means the money goes to corporations, which means
that the ECB, and by extension the whole EU, is a fascist construct (fascism being defined as
a government running on behalf of the corporations).
That's a fallacy. Corporatism is a feature of fascism, not the other way around. None of the governments you mention, with the possible exception of Israel and Turkey, can
be called fascist in any meaningful sense.
Even the anti-immigration parties in the Western European countries you mention – AfD, Front
National, Vlaams Belang – only share their nationalism with fascist movements. And they are decidedly
anti-corporatist.
True, I posted a few minutes ago saying roughly the same thing – but it seems to have gone
to moderation.
Another key feature of fascism is territorial expansionism. As far as I am aware, none of the
nationalist parties advocate invading other countries or retaking former colonies. Once again,
contemporary neoliberalism is far closer to fascism. But you are correct about both Israel and
Turkey – our allies. They are much closer to the genuine article. But you won't hear those complaining
about the rise of fascism in Europe complaining too much about them.
who owned the means of production (public or private entities)
who decided what those means were used for.
If it is a 'public entity' (aka government or regime) that decides what is built, we have a
totalitarian state, which can be 'communist' (if the means also belong the public entities like
the government or regional fractions of it) or 'fascist' (if the factories are still in private
hands).
If it is the private owner of the production capacity who decides what is built, you get capitalism.
I don't recall any examples of private entities deciding what to do with public means of production
(mafia perhaps).
Sheldon Wolin
introduced
us to inverted totalitarism. While it is no longer the government that decides what must be
done, the private 'owners' just buy the government, the judiciary, the press, or whatever is needed
to achieve their means.
When I cite Germany, it is not so much AfD, but the 2€/hour jobs I am worried about. When I
cite Belgium, it is not the fools of Vlaams Belang, but rather the un-taxing of corporations and
the tear-down of social justice that worries me.
Inverted totalitarianism is the mirror image of fascism, which is why so many are confused.
Fascism is just a easier term to use and more understandable by all. There is not a strict adherence
to fascism going on, but it's still totalitarian just the same.
Hi
I live in Europe as well, and what to think of Germany's AfD, Greece's Golden Dawn, the Wilder's
party in the Netherlands etc. Most of them subscribe to the freeloading, sorry free trading economic
policies of neoliberalism.
Searched 'current fascist movements europe' and got these active groups from wiki.
National Bolshevik Party-Belarus
Parti Communautaire National-Européen Belgium
Bulgarian National Alliance Bulgaria
Nova Hrvatska Desnica Croatia
Ustaše Croatia
National Socialist Movement of Denmark
La Cagoule France
National Democratic Party of Germany
Fascism and Freedom Movement – Italy
Fiamma Tricolore Italy
Forza Nuova Italy
Fronte Sociale Nazionale Italy
Movimento Fascismo e Libertŕ Italy
Pērkonkrusts Latvia
Norges Nasjonalsosialistiske Bevegelse Norway
National Radical Camp (ONR) Poland
National Revival of Poland (NOP)
Polish National Community-Polish National Party (PWN-PSN)
Noua Dreaptă Romania
Russian National Socialist Party(formerly Russian National Union)
Barkashov's Guards Russia
National Socialist Society Russia
Nacionalni stroj Serbia
Otačastveni pokret Obraz Serbia
Slovenska Pospolitost Slovakia
Espańa 2000 Spain
Falange Espańola Spain
Nordic Realm Party Sweden
National Alliance Sweden
Swedish Resistance Movement Sweden
National Youth Sweden
Legion Wasa Sweden
SPAS Ukraine
Blood and Honour UK
British National Front UK
Combat 18 UK
League of St. George UK
National Socialist Movement UK
Nationalist Alliance UK
November 9th Society UK
Racial Volunteer Force UK
As one of the commenters noted, it's not an "expose" or sensational "Breaking Bad," but rather
a discouraging portrait of the conditions that prompt and sustain meth use. Apparently it's being
made into a movie. I believe Clint Eastwood is involved, so that should give it some traction.
I moved to a small city/town in Iowa almost 20 years ago. Then, it still had something of a
Norman Rockwell quality to it, particularly in a sense of egalitarianism, and also some small
factory jobs which still paid something beyond a bare existence.
Since 2000, many of those jobs have left, and the population of the county has declined by
about 10%. Kmart, Penney's, and Sears have left as payday/title loan outfits, pawnshops, smoke
shops, and used car dealers have all proliferated.
Parts of the town now resemble a combination of Appalachia and Detroit. Sanders easily won
the caucuses here and, no, his supporters were hardly the latte sippers of someone's imagination,
but blue collar folks of all ages.
My tale is similar to yours. About 2 years ago, I accepted a transfer from Chicagoland to north
central Wisconsin. JC Penney left a year and a half ago, and Sears is leaving in about 3-4 months.
Kmart is long gone.
I was back at the old homestead over Memorial Day, and it's as if time has stood still. Home
prices still going up; people out for dinner like crazy; new & expensive automobiles everywhere.
But driving out of Chicagoland, and back through rural Wisconsin it is unmistakeable.
2 things that are new: The roads here are deteriorating FAST. In Price County, the road commissioner
said last night that their budget allows for resurfacing all the roads on a 200 year basis. (Yes,
that means there is only enough money to resurface all the county roads if spread out over 200
years.) 2nd, there are dead deer everywhere on the side of the road. In years past, they were
promptly cleaned up by the highway department. Not any more. Gross, but somebody has to do the
dead animal clean up. (Or not. Don't tell Snotty Walker though.)
Anyway, not everything is gloom and doom. People seem outwardly happy. But if you're paying
attention, signs of stress and deterioration are certainly out there.
Depends where you are in Chicago – in some parts the potholes, boarded up structures, homeless
and addicted folks begging on every corner tell the same story. It is a tale of two cities.
Fascism is a system of political and social order intended to reinforce the unity, energy and
purity of communities in which liberal democracy stand(s) accused of producing division and decline.
. . . George Orwell reminded us, clad in the mainstream patriotic dress of their own place and
time, . . . an authentically popular fascism in the United States would be pious and anti-Black;
in Western Europe, secular and antisemitic, or more probably, these days anti-Islamic; in Russia
and Eastern Europe, religious, antisemitic, and slavophile.
Robert O. Paxton,
In The Five Stages of Faschism
"… that eternal enemy: the conservative manipulators of privilege who damn as 'dangerous agitators'
any man who menaces their fortunes" (maybe 'power and celebrity' should be added to fortunes)
From the comment, I agree with the problems, not the cause. We've increased the size and scope
of the safety net over the last decade. We've increased government spending versus GDP. I'm not
blaming government but its not neoliberal/capitalist policy either.
1. Globalization clearly helps the poor in other countries at the expense of workers in the
U.S. But at the same time it brings down the cost of goods domestically. So jobs are not great
but Walmart/Amazon can sell cheap needs.
2. Inequality started rising the day after Bretton Woods – the rich got richer everyday after
"Nixon Shock"
Hi rfam : To point 1 : Why is there a need to bring down the cost of goods? Is it because of
past outsourcing and trade agreements and FR policies? I think there's a chicken and egg thing
going on, ie.. which came first. Globalization is a way to bring down wages while supplying Americans
with less and less quality goods supplied at the hand of global corporations like Walmart that
need welfare in the form of food stamps and the ACA for their workers for them to stay viable
(?).
Viable in this case means ridiculously wealthy CEO's and the conglomerate growing bigger
constantly. Now they have to get rid of COOL's because the WTO says it violates trade agreements
so we can't trace where our food comes from in case of an epidemic. It's all downhill. Wages should
have risen with costs so we could afford high quality American goods, but haven't for a long,
long time.
Globalization helps the rich here way more than the poor there. The elites get more money for
nothing (see QE before you respond, if you do, that's where the money for globalization came from)
the workers get the husk.
Also the elite gets to say "you made your choices" and other moralistic
crap. The funny(?) thing is they generally claim to be atheists, which I translate into "I am
God, there doesn't need to be any other"
Amazon sells cheap stuff by cheating on taxes, and barely
makes money, mostly just driving people out of business. WalMart has cheap stuff because they
subsidise their workers with food stamps and medicaid. Bringing up bretton woods means you don't
know much about money creation, so google "randy wray/bananas/naked capitalism" and you'll find
a quick primer.
Wait, you mean we don't all enjoy living in Pottersville? For anyone missing the reference, you clearly haven't been subjected to It's a Wonderful
Life enough times.
What a comment from seanseamour. And the "hoisting" of it to high visibility at the site is
a testament to the worth of Naked Capitalism.
seanseamour asks "What does that have to do with education?" and answers "Everything if one
considers the elitist trend…" This question & answer all but brings tears to my eyes. It is so
utterly on point. My own experience of it, if I may say so, comes from inside the belly of the
beast. As a child and a product of America's elite universities (I have degrees from Harvard and
Yale, and my dad, Richard B. Sewall, was a beloved English prof at Yale for 42 years), I could
spend all morning detailing the shameful roles played by America's torchbearing universities –
Harvard, Yale, Stanford etc – in utterly abandoning their historic responsibility as educators
to maintaining the health of the nation's public school system.*
And as I suspect seanseymour would agree, when a nation loses public education, it loses everything.
But I don't want to spend all morning doing that because I'm convinced that it's not too late
for America to rescue itself from maelstrom in which it finds itself today. (Poe's "Maelstrom"
story, cherished by Marshall McLuhan, is supremely relevant today.)
To turn America around, I don't look to education – that system is too far gone to save itself,
let alone the rest of the country – but rather to the nation's media: to the all-powerful public
communication system that certainly has the interactive technical capabilities to put citizens
and governments in touch with each other on the government decisions that shape the futures of
communities large and small.
For this to happen, however, people like the us – readers of Naked Capitalism – need to stop
moaning and groaning about the damage done by the neoliberals and start building an issue-centered,
citizen-participatory, non-partisan, prime-time Civic Media strong enough to
give all Americans an informed voice in the government decisions that affect their lives. This
Civic media would exist to make citizens and governments responsive and accountable
to each other in shaping futures of all three communities – local, state and national – of
which every one of us is a member.
Pie in the sky? Not when you think hard about it. A huge majority of Americans would welcome
this Civic Media. Many yearn for it. This means that a market exists for it: a Market of the Whole
of all members of any community, local, state and national. This audience is large enough to rival
those generated by media coverage of pro sports teams, and believe it or not much of the growth
of this Civic media could be productively modeled on the growth of media coverage of pro sports
teams. This Civic Media would attract the interest of major advertisers, especially those who
see value in non-partisan programming dedicated to getting America moving forward again. Dynamic,
issue-centered, problem-solving public forums, some modeled on voter-driven reality TV contests
like The Voice or Dancing with the Stars, could be underwritten by a "rainbow" spectrum of funders,
commercial, public, personal and even government sources.
So people take hope! Be positive! Love is all we need, etc. The need for for a saving alternative
to the money-driven personality contests into which our politics has descended this election year
is literally staring us all in the face from our TV, cellphone and computer screens. This is no
time to sit back and complain, it's a time to start working to build a new way of connecting ourselves
so we can reverse America's rapid decline.
OK, so I hear some of you saying, corporate America will never let this Civic Media get off
the ground. My short answer to this is that corporations do what makes money for them, and in
today's despairing political climate there's money to be made in sponsoring something truly positive,
patriotic and constructive. And I hear a few others saying that Americans are too dumbed down,
too busy, too polarized or too just plain stupid to make intelligent, constructive use of a non-partisan,
problem-solving Civic Media. But I would not underestimate the intelligence of Americans when
they can give their considered input – by vote, by comment or by active participation – in public
forums that are as exciting and well managed as an NFL game or a Word Series final.
seanseymour, thanks for your insights and thanks, Yves, for putting them where we can see them.
"... This neoliberal ideology died already in 2008 and is kept alive artificially, it's Frankenstein ideology. ..."
"... Certainly something very wrong with a system that sees a larger and larger share of our national wealth going to fewer and fewer people. ..."
"... We're not quite there yet, but with the dawn of the information age, and the flow of information about how so called perfect "free"!markets are so recklessly constructed, controlled - not to mention generally to the benefit of those already with more than enough - it can't be long before we move on from this ridiculous charade to something altogether more intelligent. ..."
"... the word "mature" was hiding complete irresponsibility of driven sociopaths. The usual confidence trick...: " don't you trust me, me the caring man !" ..."
"... So do you think neoliberalism could adapt away from just focusing on growth, in its almost certain attempts at clinging to power? ..."
"... Neo-liberalism is just another failed attempt but has perhaps been the most successful so far out of the different ideologies. ..."
"... the lack of factual evidence demonstrating the utility of privatization remains one of the most telling aspects of its failure. ..."
"... The economists at the IMF - like most of their colleagues elsewhere in this dismal profession - have an unsullied track record of getting everything wrong. Why would they be right about this? ..."
"... Neo-liberalism is bankrupt and austerity is the economic equivalent of a severely self-destructive bipolar personality disorder ..."
"... Even when the British Empire was at its high point, there were still slums and poverty. Now the world population has gone up hugely India and China are huge consumers and so is the rest of the world. People are living much longer and have to be cared for. At the same time the food sources in the seas and land are being used up and their eco systems destroyed. Not to mention climate change and many other things that would take pages to write about. Yet we expect our standards of living to improve or at least be maintained. The outlook is not favorable, under any system of government. ..."
"... I don't think the obsessions of endless growth and financialism are going to disappear within this century, but they're almost certainly going to have to downsize ambitions and take a more sustainable place alongside the state and ever increasing non-market-non-state sectors. Either that or party up with the proponents of soft totalitarianism. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is just Laissez-faire capitalism renamed. In-between the two we had welfare capitalism, or social democracy as some call it, that arose as a response to the crippling societal problems caused by neoliberalism - mass poverty, disease, economic collapse and war. As soon as some welfare reforms were put in place, using public money to provide stability for people, they were under attack by capitalists who have a pathological need to glean personal profits from anything and everything. So we came full circle, back round to Laissez-faire capitalism. ..."
"... The history of capitalism is one of rapacious greed, intermittently tempered with redistribution policies when the either the elites cannot profit further without some form of redistribution taking place or they fear the pitchforks at the door. Capitalism cannot be fixed, it cannot be tempered, it will always end up back like this, as capitalism is the crisis. History shows us that accepting reform of the system only ever provides a fleeting fix, we need a new economic model entirely, capitalism has to end. It's not just a human issue, but for the sake of all life on Earth, we need an entirely different economic model. ..."
"... The failure of an ideology premised on something that doesn't even exist (free-markets) should be of no surprise. Market ideology was built around a crackpot idea of capital flows, concomitant with rational individual 'self interest', behaving like a self-regulating eco-system. Just remove as much government, regulatory framework and hierarchy as possible, and let eco-Gaia set the natural balance. ..."
"... The people promulgating this quixotic nonsense ranged from fugitives from totalitarian regimes like Hayek (whose motives for imagining a utopian fantasy land were at least understandable); to right-wing politicians who at root believed in anything but individual freedom. Thus, state spending increased under Reagan (except on the wealthier section of society), and the global free-market became a centrally-planned oligarchy. Furthermore, so much capital has become securitized that 'trickle-down' can no longer be taken seriously as a concept. ..."
"... "Mass privatization not only does not deliver on its own terms, but is fundamentally anti-democratic." ..."
"... While even Guardian columnists (the Guardian being a leading Neoliberal voice) talk prematurely about the downfall of Neoliberal ideology the fact is that the EU is so thick with Neoliberals hand picked by Merkel, and Germany/Merkel's unchallenged hegemonic power over the EU it could take decades to change the people at the top and decades more to change the bureaucracy of the EU. ..."
"... The world has a very serious problem on its hands. Vast wealth has been accumulated by the oligarchs they have taken this wealth in the same way the Porsche family has taken billions from VW - every penny of which they get to keep in spite of it having been earned from fraud and racketeering. Huge amounts of oligarch wealth has been extracted by such illegal means. ..."
"... Leave those fortunes in place and the same thing will happen that happened after the "reforms" of the New Deal - the oligarchs pay higher taxes for a brief time until they bribe and blackmail themselves back into control and it all starts again. ..."
"... In the 70s, though, there was much more pluralism in economics. Although neoliberalism was hardly mainstream, it did have respected proponents and prestigious econ. departments were teaching it. Today that is not the case- 'economics' is taught as if the word referred to the neoclassical synthesis (from which neoliberalism is derived) alone, with all other traditions relegated to crank or historical curiosity status. There are very few respected universities where you can get an econ PhD and not produce work within the neoclassical framework (Utah being an honorable exception, as well as SOAS and City in the UK). ..."
"... The old orthodoxy wasn't Keynesian by 1970. Keynesian economics had been progressively abandoned after about 1960. If you look at the Lewis Powell Memo of 1971 you can see the fundamentals of Neoliberalism were all in place and the takeover was beginning. ..."
"... Only those who benefit from neoliberal dogma support it. It tends to screw everybody else over. ..."
"... Neoliberalism seems to involve sacrificing anything and everything society has to give on the altar of "growth", which is what keeps derivatives markets profitable for the 0.0001%. ..."
"... What a dreadful mess my generation has made of the world, the irony being that we are beginning to value more highly the intangible values we have lost than the gadgets we have created. It's beginning to appear that revolution is the only cure. ..."
"... As I recall the 60's was the real start of "consumerism" with the ending of postwar austerity and the popularity of Hire Purchase, expansion of home and car ownership, people renting TV's buying washing machines, fridges and starting to take foreign holidays. ..."
"... The world changed in 2008 just as in 1929 and 1973: an economic orthodoxy ran out of steam. We have yet to decide on an alternative, hence the interregnum, but the first thing to change is, as ever, discourse, because, like J.M.Keynes before them, the IMF, World Bank et al see their mission as saving Capitalism. Neoliberalism can be sacrificed as yet another false God, a discredited version of Capitalism, a virulent strain, a form of fundamentalism. ..."
"... Unfortunately the real world does not conform to this free market libertarian fantasy. When China refused to buy its exports, Britain sent in its gunboats to force them to buy ..."
"... If someone admits that they murdered someone, it doesn't mean that they cease to be a killer or that they can be forgiven and can now be trusted, the likelyhood is that they are simply sociopathic in nature. It was just a moment of reflection, or is it that they are trying to regain trust, if anything one should be on a higher level of alertness, the distraction has been made, now we must wait for their next move. ..."
"... Great, thought provoking article. It raises the notion that neoliberalism has failed because it has only benefited an elite few whilst everyone else is worse off. Maybe that isn't a failure though? Maybe that's what it is meant to do? ..."
"... Of course it was meant to do just that. Neo-liberalism is class warfare..... the rich and privileged won so decisively that I doubt we can emerge from neo-liberalism without violence or at least a period with populist autocratic governance. ..."
"... Thatcher, Reagan - both arch-disciples of Hayek and others of the Austrian & Chicago schools of economic shite, and both massively responsible for it being liberally spread across the world. Would have been nice to see a recognition of their roles in this, along with the second wave of Clinton & Blair, with their "third way" economic take on the same models. ..."
"... And now we have Hilary as a contender for the presidency, as orthodox a neolib bag carrier as they come, and someone who will continue to carry the torch for Bills policies. Failing that, we have the absolute lunacy of Trump to look forwards to, and as a man who so obviously worships at the alter of Mammon, no game changers from him to be expected either. ..."
"... Neoliberal ideology has been an instrument for justifying the growing wealth and power of financiers and global corporations for about 40 years. They are highly unlikely to want to let go their gains, so reports of the impending 'death' of neoliberalism are a bit premature. The fact that this comes from the IMF makes me wonder if it isn't another ploy to divert attention from the ongoing process of wealth consolidation by making us think that a big change in policy is just around the corner. Ostry is an excellent scholar who has written some good papers warning about inequality and I have no doubt that he wants to influence decision-making. But it may be that he is being used as a 'useful idiot' by the powers that be. ..."
"... Neoliberalism has turned out to be similar in many ways to a better connected and more efficient form of feudalism. Great for those with power, greed and wealth and very much at the expense of everyone else. Perhaps newspapers and mass media have replaced swords, so it is an improvement in some ways. ..."
"... It strikes me that rather than "neoliberalism having failed", the most striking movement since the 1960ies is how private capital managed to bend democratic socialism (which means the welfare state in its various incarnations including in the USA) and bend it to its own profit. ..."
"... 'Neo-liberalism' or free market capitalism will die when a better alternative system is seen to be superior. As the article says there was a time when sensible people could believe that this better alternative was Marxian socialism. Sixty odd years later it is impossible to believe that. The remaining examples in the world like North Korea and Venezuela are to be avoided like the plague and previously socialist countries like China and Vietnam have longed eased to be so. ..."
"... So this was the reason for the death of the Ancien Regime in France and the death of the Romanovs? I think people were not going to wait for an alternative to come along. ..."
"... The same was thought/proclaimed about slavery, feudalism, colonialism. But new systems are born as the old ones become obsolete and an impediment to progress. Capitalism will go the same way. ..."
"... Free markets without state interference invariably drift towards feudalistic monopolies. They end up exactly where communism also ends up. A small elite controlling the economic fate of the masses. A "market" where supply and demand no longer play any part, because any small competitor can be bought or liquidated at will by the monopolist. ..."
"... Galbraith had seen this. He said that neoliberalism was like feeding the finest oats to the stallion in the hope it would generate some undigested droppings on which the sparrow could feed. ..."
"... The Achilles heel of neo-liberalism was that it over emphasized the supply side. Costs had to be driven down by emasculating Trade Unions, curbs on workers bargaining power were introduced and salaries plummeted, government services had to be cut with direct consequences on jobs and quality of life and, taxes to the rich were simultaneously cut exacerbating income inequality. ..."
"... Soviet state socialism lied, because it pretended to be a necessary step on the way to common ownership of the means of production: but instead fell into the hands of uncompromising thugs. It failed because the neoliberal capitalist system is a far more efficient way for uncompromising thugs to run things. ..."
"... The state has been militarised to such an extent armed revolution is all but impossible. What really terrifies them is that we will simply ignore them and create our own alternatives. Take Argentina in 2001 as an example. It was the only country in history to default on it's debt due to popular revolt. The revolt in question centered on people forming alternative social and economic services in their own communities around the rallying cry of "Que se vayan todos" or they can all go to hell. There are a few books published under that title about it that are free online. Similarly, have a look at this vid from David Graeber. You can start at 2:56 for a direct answer but it's worth watching the whole thing: https://youtu.be/mU1pQIMv8_A ..."
"... The dominant neoliberal, market fundamentalist order must, like any competent cult, enforce its authority by doubling down each time its worldview is threatened. This is accomplished by identifying and monetizing regions of social life that had hitherto been neglected or underutilized. In the latest sting, the student is reduced to the status of a consumer whose actions and decisions are governed purely by the market algorithm. The reduction must be so complete that the student-consumer identity should appear obvious and unquestionable. ..."
"... The captured organs of government managed to again bail out the big speculators and players, privatizing their gains during the expansion of the bubble and socializing their losses during its bust. In other words, a smooth operation of radiating risk from high-stakes gamblers and scammers to the society at large. However, the ripple effects of the latest crash have not been completely damped out and, if anything, the magnitude of the shock waves keeps increasing after each manifestation of discontent and protest against the neoliberal machine. ..."
In the IMF's flagship publication, three of its top economists have written an essay titled "
Neoliberalism: Oversold ?".
The very headline delivers a jolt. For so long mainstream economists and policymakers have denied
the very existence of such a thing as neoliberalism, dismissing it as an insult invented by gap-toothed
malcontents who understand neither economics nor capitalism. Now here comes the IMF,
describing
how a "neoliberal agenda" has spread across the globe in the past 30 years. What they mean is
that more and more states have remade their social and political institutions into pale copies of
the market. Two British examples, suggests Will Davies – author of the
Limits of Neoliberalism – would be the NHS and universities "where classrooms are being transformed
into supermarkets". In this way, the public sector is replaced by private companies, and democracy
is supplanted by mere competition.
The results, the IMF researchers concede, have been terrible. Neoliberalism hasn't delivered economic
growth – it has only made a few people a lot better off. It causes epic crashes that leave behind
human wreckage and cost billions to clean up, a finding with which most residents of food bank Britain
would agree. And while George Osborne might justify austerity as "fixing the roof while the sun is
shining", the fund team defines it as "curbing the size of the state … another aspect of the neoliberal
agenda". And,
they say , its costs "could be large – much larger than the benefit".
Two things need to be borne in mind here. First, this study comes from the IMF's research division
– not from those staffers who fly into bankrupt countries, haggle over loan terms with cash-strapped
governments and administer the fiscal waterboarding. Since 2008, a big gap has opened up between
what the IMF thinks and what it does. Second, while the researchers go much further than fund watchers
might have believed, they leave in some all-important get-out clauses. The authors even defend privatisation
as leading to "more efficient provision of services" and less government spending – to which the
only response must be to offer them a train ride across to
Hinkley Point C .
Even so, this is a remarkable breach of the neoliberal consensus by the IMF. Inequality and the
uselessness of much modern finance: such topics have become regular chew toys for economists and
politicians, who prefer to treat them as aberrations from the norm. At last a major institution is
going after not only the symptoms but the cause – and it is naming that cause as political. No wonder
the study's lead author says that this research wouldn't even have been published by the fund five
years ago.
From the 1980s the policymaking elite has waved away the notion that they were acting ideologically
– merely doing "what works". But you can only get away with that claim if what you're doing is
actually working. Since the crash, central bankers, politicians and TV correspondents have
tried to reassure the public that this wheeze or those billions would do the trick and put the economy
right again. They have riffled through every page in the textbook and beyond – bank bailouts, spending
cuts, wage freezes, pumping billions into financial markets – and still growth remains anaemic.
And the longer the slump goes on, the more the public tumbles to the fact that not only has growth
been feebler, but ordinary workers have enjoyed much less of its benefits. Last year the rich countries'
thinktank, the OECD, made a
remarkable concession . It acknowledged that the share of UK economic growth enjoyed by workers
is now at its lowest since the second world war. Even more remarkably, it said the same or worse
applied to workers across the capitalist west.
Red Plenty ends with Nikita Khrushchev pacing outside his dacha, to where he has been forcibly
retired. "Paradise," he exclaims, "is a place where people want to end up, not a place they run from.
What kind of socialism is that? What kind of shit is that, when you have to keep people in chains?
What kind of social order? What kind of paradise?"
Economists don't talk like novelists, more's the pity, but what you're witnessing amid all the
graphs and technical language is the start of the long death of an ideology.
The introduction of A.I and robotic technology will probably kill off capitalism for good, particularly
if the threat of job losses is realised. those with disposable income will just save, unwilling
to commit to purchases for fear that they too will be soon losing their jobs.
Those who have lost their jobs won't buy anything other the most basic necessities.
The failure to comprehend the most basic requirements of capitalism; that people require jobs
and a disposable income to actually buy things will be the final downfall, and the robots
will sit rusting and covered in dust.
When the capitalist ideologists whooped with joy and declared that socialism was dead back in
1990, I whispered to myself that, well, sure, everything passes, and neo-liberal capitalism would
be next then. I reckoned about 25 years would do it, more or less. We're not quite there yet,
but with the dawn of the information age, and the flow of information about how so called perfect
"free"!markets are so recklessly constructed, controlled - not to mention generally to the benefit
of those already with more than enough - it can't be long before we move on from this ridiculous
charade to something altogether more intelligent.
For those of us that have been highlighting the shortfalls of the Neo-Liberal agenda this does
not come as a surprise, but the question others should ask themselves is, when the impact of what
they were doing was so evident why do they still persist?
The answer is self evident, the people who benefit are not the ones suffering from their policies.
Money and power has migrated upwards just as happened in Dickens time, and the real story behind
the agenda is control of the masses using poverty and ignorance so that the few can continue to
accumulate more and more at our expense.
To say that the great unwashed should wake up and smell the coffee has been said before, but
will always be the case,whilst people earning low wages and jobs are in short supply.
The Bankers make profits from lending, people with savings do not borrow and the banks pay
out interest on their accounts, the banks only like people to be poor as they are forced to borrow
and pay interest, making them profit.
Those same banks though print money out of thin air, every time they make a loan, isn't it
time people woke up and realised that we can use that money more efficiently by creating jobs
and infrastructure spending, rather than trapping people into eternal debt.
This is the 21st century not the 1800s, why do people not see what is going on around them
and why are they trapped like rabbits in the headlights, when the solutions rest in their hands?
Jeremy Corbyn is light years ahead of public opinion, isn't it time to start asking what the
meaning of Peoples QE is?
Lets start asking him instead of believing lying Neo-Liberals that have crashed the world economy.
A good article-If further insight is needed into Neo Liberalism, I would suggest watching, The
Mayfair Set as well The Power of Nightmares.
Two excellent Adam Curtis Films which go toward explaining how and why we arrived at where we
are today.
So do you think neoliberalism could adapt away from just focusing on growth, in its almost
certain attempts at clinging to power? And would they tell us about it? Openly? (*collapses
in first giggles of the day*)
Outside of the political elites and the cosy little Guardian CIF club, most people can't spell
neoliberalism, let alone know what it means. The average person, neither know or cares about growth
etc.
What matters is whether they have a job, taxes, how pay rises compare to inflation and are
the schools, health services and council services functioning? And in that respect, by and large
they are ok, albeit sometimes held together with sticking plaster.
They are more likely to be concerned about immigration than neoliberalism, but that is a taboo
subject in political circles.
You have a point but years with no pay rises and the decomposition of public services does penetrate.
The political sands are moving about but where they will come to rest is anyone's guess.
Because those elites constantly tell the that immigrants are the cause of all their woes whilst
removing any semblance of a safety net from them. People aren't stupid they just don't have the
time or energy to go digging for more complicated answers.
Say what? The ultra-ultra rich have realized that when there are only poor people left, they won't
be able to squeeze any more money out of them? And look at Christina's outfit in that picture
- the cost would support a family of five for a year in the US. I think they're just trying to
figure out how to create more money without losing any for themselves. Business as usual.
I stopped reading when I got to "The results, the IMF researchers concede, have been terrible.
Neoliberalism hasn't delivered economic growth – it has only made a few people a lot better off."
They have riffled through every page in the textbook and beyond – bank bailouts, spending
cuts, wage freezes, pumping billions into financial markets – and still growth remains anaemic.
I have always been skeptical of the idea that we need perpetual growth and have wondered whether
it is desirable or achievable ?
In reality I think most people will be relatively happy if they have the basics of a roof over
their head , enough food to eat a job which is not too time consuming ,monotonous or backbreaking
and some time for themselves to enjoy their own entertainments outside of work.
Why we need to have perpetual growth to achieve this state of affairs and why we need to continually
keep on producing and consuming more and more has always been a bit of a mystery to me ?
Surely things could be organised better and more sustainably and resources shared out more
equably to give a more contented and harmonious society . Of course many people have thought the
same but neither communism or capitalism has really managed to get it right yet. Neo-liberalism
is just another failed attempt but has perhaps been the most successful so far out of the different
ideologies.
I have always been sceptical of the idea that we need perpetual growth and have wondered
whether it is desirable or achievable ?
Desirable depends on what you want to achieve. If you want to be better off there's 2 options
1/ Grab a bigger slice of the same sized pie - this can get you a lot better off quickly but somebody
else loses out
2/ Have the same sized slice of a bigger pie - this will get you gradually better off year by
year but nobody else loses out.
Doing 1/ is what rich people are good at, that's how they get richer. Doing 2/ is how lower/middle
income people get better off.
So yes you would need growth to support middle income people, they usually can't do 1/.
The sooner we can break the neoliberal consensus, the better. I do find it incredible, but also
reassuring, to see the IMF using this language though, even as they defend privatization without
any kind of factual evidence to back it up. Indeed, the lack of factual evidence demonstrating
the utility of privatization remains one of the most telling aspects of its failure.
Perhaps a slightly older set of ideas regarding the role of the state and of capitalism should
be considered? A few years ago there was a rather interesting government report on the topic:
The economists at the IMF - like most of their colleagues elsewhere in this dismal profession
- have an unsullied track record of getting everything wrong. Why would they be right about this?
Neo-liberalism is bankrupt and austerity is the economic equivalent of a severely self-destructive
bipolar personality disorder..... yes, we know that; that's hardly news, but the idiots worshiping
neoliberalism wont go voluntarily nor will they be booted out anytime soon. They will hang on
even after the next major crash; trying one last desperate round of bailing out the financial
gamblers.
People with access to the media, like Chakrabortty here, must start advocating specific alternatives.
We don't see much of that in the Graun....... mostly it's just complaints the traditional approach
doesn't work.
Spot-on! Gives them too much power, as defined in dollars and sterling...while, at the other end,
the consumoron is both constructed and blinded at the same time, by this very power...
Even when the British Empire was at its high point, there were still slums and poverty. Now
the world population has gone up hugely India and China are huge consumers and so is the rest
of the world. People are living much longer and have to be cared for. At the same time the food
sources in the seas and land are being used up and their eco systems destroyed. Not to mention
climate change and many other things that would take pages to write about. Yet we expect our standards
of living to improve or at least be maintained. The outlook is not favorable, under any system
of government.
The sooner we can break the neoliberal consensus, the better. I do find it incredible, but also
reassuring, to see the IMF using this language though, even as they defend privatization without
any kind of factual evidence to back it up. Indeed, the lack of factual evidence demonstrating
the utility of privatization remains one of the most telling aspects of its failure.
in theory the premise behind neoliberalism is a good idea i.e. to create competition and avoid
monopolies, but in practice and as Marx predicted corporations either sink or buyout the competition
and you're left with monopolies.
Neoliberalism is dead, its policy of greed and short-termism has ensured that.
And the trouble with competition in many sectors is that you spend a lot of time and money working
to increase market share and less on actually serving customers/ clients.
I think this is the key point; 'From the 1980s the policymaking elite has waved away the notion
that they were acting ideologically – merely doing "what works". But you can only get away with
that claim if what you're doing is actually working.' Given current predictions, it's hard to
imagine how our neoliberal form of capitalism will manage to adapt without resorting to directly
attacking democracy itself, and doing some hardcore Pinocheting.
I don't think the obsessions of endless growth and financialism are going to disappear
within this century, but they're almost certainly going to have to downsize ambitions and take
a more sustainable place alongside the state and ever increasing non-market-non-state sectors.
Either that or party up with the proponents of soft totalitarianism.
Neoliberalism is just Laissez-faire capitalism renamed. In-between the two we had welfare
capitalism, or social democracy as some call it, that arose as a response to the crippling societal
problems caused by neoliberalism - mass poverty, disease, economic collapse and war. As soon as
some welfare reforms were put in place, using public money to provide stability for people, they
were under attack by capitalists who have a pathological need to glean personal profits from anything
and everything. So we came full circle, back round to Laissez-faire capitalism.
The history of capitalism is one of rapacious greed, intermittently tempered with redistribution
policies when the either the elites cannot profit further without some form of redistribution
taking place or they fear the pitchforks at the door. Capitalism cannot be fixed, it cannot be
tempered, it will always end up back like this, as capitalism is the crisis. History shows us
that accepting reform of the system only ever provides a fleeting fix, we need a new economic
model entirely, capitalism has to end. It's not just a human issue, but for the sake of all life
on Earth, we need an entirely different economic model.
I am puzzled. Just about everyone agrees that there is too much debt around and another financial
crash is inevitable.
But many talk about debt as though it is some form of negative money, of course it is not,
it is just a contractual commitment. Who ultimately are the beneficiaries of all this debt ?
Sounds like a Debt Jubilee all round would be a good idea. Why has it not happened? Without
knowing who would lose out you can't tell.
Because it would utterly destroy financial institutions and investors who have purchased large
swathes of private and national debt. They'd be short cash big time! Of course you and I would
say to hell with them, but these are the guys (and let's face it, they're mostly guys) who hang
out in the gentleman's clubs or tennis clubs or golf clubs or country clubs and who donate political
parties. The old boy network type of thing. They will never allow that to happen, never.
I'm so glad to see articles like this being published. I've been tracking the decline in our American
system for several years with some real alarm. Our current gaggle of morons running for President
is a great example of how our neoliberals have failed to notice their policies are destroying
the base of the economy. They may end up with most of the wealth, but it won't do them any good
if the dollar takes a plunge and/or the oceans swamp cities like New York and Washington D.C.
It's insane that it will take a global sized calamity before the people decide to remove those
in power from power while we still can. Sadly, we are in fact headed for just such a perfect storm
of global calamities.
The failure of an ideology premised on something that doesn't even exist (free-markets)
should be of no surprise. Market ideology was built around a crackpot idea of capital flows, concomitant
with rational individual 'self interest', behaving like a self-regulating eco-system. Just remove
as much government, regulatory framework and hierarchy as possible, and let eco-Gaia set the natural
balance.
The people promulgating this quixotic nonsense ranged from fugitives from totalitarian
regimes like Hayek (whose motives for imagining a utopian fantasy land were at least understandable);
to right-wing politicians who at root believed in anything but individual freedom. Thus, state
spending increased under Reagan (except on the wealthier section of society), and the global free-market
became a centrally-planned oligarchy. Furthermore, so much capital has become securitized that
'trickle-down' can no longer be taken seriously as a concept.
Because, as a moderately intelligent child could tell you, a world without power structures
is impossible. Which is why the supremacy of democratically accountable governments (rather than
antidemocratic multi-national corporations) is imperative. Mass privatization not only does not
deliver on its own terms, but is fundamentally anti-democratic. No one supporting the neoliberal
project, which has eventuated in corporate feudalism, can legitimately call themselves a libertarian.
I haven't seen the evidence that Neoliberals are akin to libertarianism. Although they may have
tried to use it politically to get votes in silicon valley. Frankly, I find it hard to believe
that the extreme concentration wealth at the top was the goal all along and the Neoliberals have
been very successful at it.
While even Guardian columnists (the Guardian being a leading Neoliberal voice) talk prematurely
about the downfall of Neoliberal ideology the fact is that the EU is so thick with Neoliberals
hand picked by Merkel, and Germany/Merkel's unchallenged hegemonic power over the EU it could
take decades to change the people at the top and decades more to change the bureaucracy of the
EU.
The world has a very serious problem on its hands. Vast wealth has been accumulated by
the oligarchs they have taken this wealth in the same way the Porsche family has taken billions
from VW - every penny of which they get to keep in spite of it having been earned from fraud and
racketeering. Huge amounts of oligarch wealth has been extracted by such illegal means.
Leave those fortunes in place and the same thing will happen that happened after the "reforms"
of the New Deal - the oligarchs pay higher taxes for a brief time until they bribe and blackmail
themselves back into control and it all starts again.
There is simply no way to reform economies and allow the rich to remain rich.
I would like to think that we are experiencing a repeat/mirror of what happened to economic ideas
in the 70s. Then it took the whole decade of crisis and stagnation for the old orthodoxy of Keynesianism
to be abandoned in favour of neoliberalism.
In the 70s, though, there was much more pluralism in economics. Although neoliberalism
was hardly mainstream, it did have respected proponents and prestigious econ. departments were
teaching it. Today that is not the case- 'economics' is taught as if the word referred to the
neoclassical synthesis (from which neoliberalism is derived) alone, with all other traditions
relegated to crank or historical curiosity status. There are very few respected universities where
you can get an econ PhD and not produce work within the neoclassical framework (Utah being an
honorable exception, as well as SOAS and City in the UK).
So, a paper like this one from the IMF's research department is hailed as a significant moment,
but its critique of neoliberalism is mild and limited, necessarily so because it works with the
same basic assumptions as neoliberalism itself.
There are interesting figures with some influence around (e.g Ha Joon Chang, Justin Lin). In
general, though, the unwillingness of the economics discipline to even acknowledge the existence
of plausible alternatives to their own favoured models has produced widespread intellectual poverty
and rigidity. Proposals for true alternatives will tend to fall on deaf ears, though few now have
the tools and imagination to produce them in any case.
The old orthodoxy wasn't Keynesian by 1970. Keynesian economics had been progressively abandoned
after about 1960. If you look at the
Lewis
Powell Memo of 1971 you can see the fundamentals of Neoliberalism were all in place and the
takeover was beginning.
But I totally agree on the potential impact of the IMF paper. A generation of economists, politicians
and (crucially) journalists have been taught that economics is neo-classical economic and
that there is no alternative. So there is not yet anything like a successful critique of the Big
Lie.
Neoliberalism seems to involve sacrificing anything and everything society has to give on
the altar of "growth", which is what keeps derivatives markets profitable for the 0.0001%.
That philosophy includes actively encouraging uncontrolled immigration. Blair, Brown, Cameron
and Clegg would all be happy to see a 10% rise in population if it gives a 2% increase in GDP.
They don't care that the real-world effect of that is to make the average Brit poorer. As long
as the markets stay profitable for their chums.
Yes the focus on GDP as a marker of 'success' is deeply problematic. Especially as the average
voter believes that increasing GPD equals better living conditions for householders generally.
The reality of course, is very different.
The next thing is what interests me. One of the effects of neoliberalism has been to create a
stressed out competitive society where most people feel insecure and have a tendency to drink
too much or otherwise distract themselves from the presented reality. This combination of powerlessness
and pressure to perform is, I believe, what lies behind the rise of far right politics. At its
heart far right politics is more a desire to escape individualism by defining an idea of "us"
than it is about being nasty to "them". It is a desire to reclaim political, social and personal
power from a system that offers no hope beyond the prospect of the next i phone.
For many people who are too smart and well educated to become followers of the far right, it
is a matter of picking far right attitudes and putting them through a nice person's moderate filter.
The result is the Labour supporter who has "concerns" about Islam, accepts the UK is "full" and
thinks cuts are needed to discourage scroungers. Just as with the far right, their response to
living in failing neoliberalism is to see hope in rejecting "others".
We all know, from the experience 30's and 40's Europe how easy the rich find it to adjust to
far right politics. So while the far right are, for the moment, the leading contenders to inherit
the political space dominated by neoliberalism, the left must face off the rich, the far right
and sanitized far right thought in order to offer an alternative.
Leftist ideas and ideals are so broad in their scope that left unity is extremely difficult
to achieve and rarely converges into a set of coherent ideas, methods and objectives. It doesn't
matter that the left has the stronger intellectual and moral positions on most issues. Its inability
to apply the same intellect and morality to difficult issues like migration and come to a populist
conclusion obstructs its ability to access mass support. Its inability to address the conflicting
demands of wealth creation, social justice and the environment are not in reality weaknesses,
but are frequently perceived as such by those who focus only on wealth creation.
Just as the end of Soviet communism brought a difficult time for the people of the former Soviet
empire, we have little to look forward to in the fall of neoliberalism. It invites international
conflict and the worst form of politics and threatens to consign to the margins those who would
try to build a world economy that reconciles our shared needs with those of a finite planet.
In other words, Marx's 19th Century critique of capitalism is pretty much spot on. We really do
need some urgent answers but I fear we will not get them while party allegiance is prized over
free thinking. I thank my lucky stars I am middle aged and have at least experienced (in the 60's
and 70's) a world not so in thrall to consumerism and shallow self-interest. What a dreadful
mess my generation has made of the world, the irony being that we are beginning to value more
highly the intangible values we have lost than the gadgets we have created. It's beginning to
appear that revolution is the only cure.
As I recall the 60's was the real start of "consumerism" with the ending of postwar austerity
and the popularity of Hire Purchase, expansion of home and car ownership, people renting TV's
buying washing machines, fridges and starting to take foreign holidays.
Indeed, some of us have been making this argument since 2008 only to be pooh-poohed by columnists
and savants btl.
The world changed in 2008 just as in 1929 and 1973: an economic orthodoxy ran out of steam.
We have yet to decide on an alternative, hence the interregnum, but the first thing to change
is, as ever, discourse, because, like J.M.Keynes before them, the IMF, World Bank et al see their
mission as saving Capitalism. Neoliberalism can be sacrificed as yet another false God, a discredited
version of Capitalism, a virulent strain, a form of fundamentalism.
Capitalism is a consensual transaction. Someone makes something, you are free to buy it or not.
The worst scenario is you decide to purchase from someone else and one or other goes out of business.
Or, horror of horrors, make it yourself. No one is being forced to either buy or sell. Neo-liberals
are the extreme fringe of capitalism. Not representative of anything or anyone but themselves.
I can't think of a single truly socialist sate (if such a thing could ever exist) that ever
overproduced anything except grinding poverty and privation. Then attempt to sell the empty shelves
to the people as the healthy option, usually just before being run out of town. Socialism, is
however good in parts.
Capitalism is a consensual transaction. Someone makes something, you are free to buy
it or not.
Unfortunately the real world does not conform to this free market libertarian fantasy.
When China refused to buy its exports, Britain sent in its gunboats to force them to buy
The failure of neo liberal economics has been evident for some time. In the UK there are clear
market failures in education, transport, housing, energy and health. Yet the die hard neo liberal
ideologues continue to prescribe market mechanisms as the only way forward. It is disappointing,
however, that the voices putting forward an alternative are so quiet.
Those alternative voices are so quiet because the likes of The Guardian silence them or resort
to ridicule. Look at the treatment Corbyn has received at the hands of this 'newspaper'. He is
attempting to put forward alternatives that are really far from radical if you have lived in pre-neoliberal
times, and has been utterly condemned.
This just makes you aware of how poorly read and politically illiterate hacks are.
Everything goes in dogmatic cycles. After the war nationalisation , public ownership and controlled
economies (via wages prices and incomes policies) ruled the roost. All political parties adhered
to this "general consensus". But like all dogma's it ended up falling apart due to the paradoxes
and plain unworkability of it all. Then we've had "privatisation is best" dogma since 1979 ; private
is best, self regulation is best and so on and so on, and all political parties have adhered to
this dogma (Blair the most fanatical) and like all previous dogmas it is falling apart.
Private health etc was only 'better' when it had an excellent public health as the bench mark,
forcing them to improve to justify making people pay. Now there is no or poor public services,
private can-and does- offer any old shite at any price it cares to dream up. This would suggest
that Harold McMillan got it spot on in the 50's with his "Mixed economy-public and private-is
best"
All that is happening-and that politically illiterate hacks fail to spot-is that the latest
dogma has simply run its course. They fail to be saying that a return to -or even creation of-another
dogma will lead to another crash when it implodes in 40 years time. Bering "left wing" or "Eight
wing" they fail to be able to argue for what really serves us best. McMillans old mixed economy
(something he probably didn't fully realise himself at the time)
All we get though is the left or rights blinkered and harmful dogmatic drivels, bound to fail
So true. A little light reading of political theory and less obsession with party politics by
those in the media who seek to influence would serve the populace well. The problem is, it requires
a little application - so much easier to comment on Corbyn's dress sense or Boris Johnson's hair.
The final stages of capitalism, Marx wrote, would be marked by developments that are intimately
familiar to most of us. Unable to expand and generate profits at past levels, the capitalist system
would begin to consume the structures that sustained it. It would prey upon, in the name of austerity,
the working class and the poor, driving them ever deeper into debt and poverty and diminishing
the capacity of the state to serve the needs of ordinary citizens. It would, as it has, increasingly
relocate jobs, including both manufacturing and professional positions, to countries with cheap
pools of laborers. Industries would mechanize their workplaces. This would trigger an economic
assault on not only the working class but the middle class-the bulwark of a capitalist system-that
would be disguised by the imposition of massive personal debt as incomes declined or remained
stagnant. Politics would in the late stages of capitalism become subordinate to economics, leading
to political parties hollowed out of any real political content and abjectly subservient to the
dictates and money of global capitalism.
European Central Bank concur austerity is going to destroy the eurozone and EU economy, the greedy
bastards are only concerned now that it hurts them. Wikileaks transcripts of IMF/Germany discussion
imply that the IMF intended for Greece to collapse.
If someone admits that they murdered someone, it doesn't mean that they cease to be a killer
or that they can be forgiven and can now be trusted, the likelyhood is that they are simply sociopathic
in nature. It was just a moment of reflection, or is it that they are trying to regain trust,
if anything one should be on a higher level of alertness, the distraction has been made, now we
must wait for their next move.
Great, thought provoking article. It raises the notion that neoliberalism has failed because
it has only benefited an elite few whilst everyone else is worse off. Maybe that isn't a failure
though? Maybe that's what it is meant to do? It certainly feels like there's little impetus
or inclination from the those who've done very well out of neoliberalism to pull the plug on it
out of the 'goodness' of their hearts.
I believe the failure is that of a system which is supposedly supportive of society, allowing
flow of goods and services while protecting rights of individuals. The actual in-place system
is not the one the politicos advertise, a typical bait ans switch. Yes, the current system does
what it is designed to do: funnel money from the middle class to the ruling minority. It is not
designed to be sustainable, merely last long enough for one man to end up with 100% of the wealth.
That's the end game of this game. The problem is that governing is not a game and the events on
the horizon require a government of people, by people and for the people because corporations
do not support human life, they merely move money around.
Maybe that isn't a failure though? Maybe that's what it is meant to do?
Of course it was meant to do just that. Neo-liberalism is class warfare..... the rich and
privileged won so decisively that I doubt we can emerge from neo-liberalism without violence or
at least a period with populist autocratic governance.
Neoliberals can't see [Bretton] wood for the trees. Capitalist v Marxist? Boring. So ...pass the
dripping Martha for me stale bread. Can't last you know.
If you look at low growth worldwide. It really is a western disease, aside from failed states.
Could it not be that a majority of people in the West live a reasonably comfortable life and are
simply incapable of driving growth over 3% annually. How much shit do you need? You have a roof
over your head, maybe a car, a job that pays the bills and the basics, the odd holiday, decent
food to eat, reasonable health care provided. What else do you need? I don't think you can base
an economy on "wants" long term an expect anything other than low growth. I've meet a lot of people
in my life that are capable of driving themselves harder or smarter and earn substantially more
money, but they're comfortable or lazy and see no "need".
The essential failure of neoliberal theory lies in the notion that a free market is the second
form democracy: any domain in which people are free to make their own choices. It fails because
it assumes that, unlike the ballot in which all citizens take an equal share, that the market
exists in a context where everybody is equally rich. In that case and that case only, free markets
are a second form of democracy.
Neoliberalism is consequently a form of democracy in which people have a variable form of representation,
such that my vote could be worth 100th of yours or 100 times that of everybody else.
Neoliberalism would work if there was a mechanism to ensure wealth was more evenly distributed.
I think the ballot is generally a more viable proposition.
Wealth doens't only belong to individuals but to states,regions,cities,companies. That makes it
even more difficult to distribute it more evenly. In rich countries many basic needs are fulfilled
by those entities and not only by individuals,as unitedbynature notices. The drive to earn more
may only exist if those entities don't get too important.
In fact,neo-liberalism works pretty well. And a lot of opposition to it is ideological more than
practical.
The mantra of those attempting to prop up neoliberalism is that nothing can ever change and if
we ever attempt to change things then we are heading for disaster. A bit like the EU debate. A
storm whipped up to keep us in line. But there is always another way, another option, and if this
is not offered to the people then they will look for other options themselves that could lead
to disaster, namely the voting in of anti-establishment heroes like Trump.
That's true but its not how he is perceived in the US. Its the same type of thing with the rise
of the Far Right in Europe. Dissatisfaction with the current shower leading to potentially more
dangerous alternatives.
If only the current shower would take note of that and start representing their constituents
instead of taking advantage of them...
In the IMF's flagship publication, three of its top economists have written an essay titled
"Neoliberalism: Oversold?".
The very headline delivers a jolt. For so long mainstream economists and policymakers have
denied the very existence of such a thing as neoliberalism, dismissing it as an insult invented
by gap-toothed malcontents who understand neither economics nor capitalism. Now here comes
the IMF, describing how a "neoliberal agenda" has spread across the globe in the past 30 years.
What they mean is that more and more states have remade their social and political institutions
into pale copies of the market.
The IMF under Lagarde has long since become a political weather vane, tilting in the direction
of whatever theory happens to be fashionable. It should also be noted that academics will tend
to make an argument in order to stimulate a debate; it would be foolish to immediately assume
everything they have written is gospel (as has often been repeated during the referendum campaign,
remember they thought the UK should have joined the Euro).
There's no doubt "neoliberalism" has become a pejorative term, used by opponents of the free market
to decry its excesses. It used to mean a capitalist economy with strong state intervention, essentially
the same thing as a social democracy. It's now used to describe a laissez-faire capitalism associated
with rolling back any and all state provision of services. As with all such terms the definition
is slippery and not useful: it's delivered as an insult rather than a description of any particular
economic reality.
This is why "policymakers have denied the existence" of it. There is no "neoliberal agenda"
being persued by a conspiratorial cadre of western leaders. That's a desperate simplification
by people struggling to comprehend the vast proliferation of approaches to social democracy, with
a range of countries all attempting in good faith to find a useful balance between free market
capitalism and state intervention. Neoliberalism as Chakrabortty understands it exists only in
the minds of its detractors
I've never hear "It used to mean a capitalist economy with strong state intervention" before.
Neoliberalism is "what comes after liberalism" and refers to the Thatcher/Reagan axis following
the interventionist and statist seventies.
So pardon the blunt contradiction but neoliberalism is the opposite of what you say. It is
reducing the state's role in the economy to the absolute minimum, which is, ideally, merely as
the legal and executive power, and no economic role at all in business.
Control of economics to be entirely in public hands. Hence privatising everything, obviously.
"Laissez faire" economics has always been part of neoliberalism.
Why "neo": it means "new" as you know, and the "new" is because up until teh late seventies,
there was a tacit agreement between right and left that some essential industries should be run
by the state for national security and other reasons.
• Libertarianism: No state interference in individual private citizen's lives.
• Neoliberalism: As little state interference in the economy.
The first is a subset and extreme simplified case of the second, and makes one think of trappers,
the wild west, and Donald Trump. The second is a political system.
Thatcher, Reagan - both arch-disciples of Hayek and others of the Austrian & Chicago schools
of economic shite, and both massively responsible for it being liberally spread across the world.
Would have been nice to see a recognition of their roles in this, along with the second wave of
Clinton & Blair, with their "third way" economic take on the same models.
And now we have Hilary as a contender for the presidency, as orthodox a neolib bag carrier
as they come, and someone who will continue to carry the torch for Bills policies. Failing that,
we have the absolute lunacy of Trump to look forwards to, and as a man who so obviously worships
at the alter of Mammon, no game changers from him to be expected either.
So if we are, as this article claims, witnessing the death of neoliberalism, it is going to
be a long, slow, agonising death, with a lot of collateral damage as the body economic writhes
in its death throes. Oh dear, oh dear, oh fucking dear…..
Reagan and Thatcher spawned the neoliberal dystopia, Blair and Clinton carried on where they left
off and so it goes on. Democracy has been sold to the highest bidders, and with no real options
at the ballot box people are turning to extreme politics, those on the fringes, far right loons
like Trump.
In short - I despair.
Britain is a republic, rule of the few over the many.... USA is a not even a republic, but more
like an oligarchy as our election system has been corrupted by the Party and with the Supreme
Republican Court to back them up we steadily lose the rights and protections for the middle class.
The Constitution is the direct result of the 18th century ruling class hating the middle classes,
hating minorities and desiring a nobility class without a king to rule over them. Madison and
Jefferson adamantly despised the very concept of "democracy". This is how we ended up contemplating
a President Trump.
"Paradise," he exclaims, "is a place where people want to end up, not a place they run from.
What kind of socialism is that? What kind of shit is that, when you have to keep people in
chains? What kind of social order? What kind of paradise?"
The statement is thoroughly stupid. Consistent with Chrushov's mental capacity.
History evolves in a discontinuous manner. Any social-economic transformation is performed
by force and through a bloodshed, a civil war. This is simply a law of thermodynamics.
The best example: the huge butchery of religious wars in Europe of the 17th century which gave
rise to the era of Enlightenment and Progress. Because of it, we live immeasurably more comfortable
life than our ancestors. We were thereby kicked in this paradise.
You're mis-using themodynamics in "Any social-economic transformation is performed by force
and through a bloodshed, a civil war. This is simply a law of thermodynamics."
There's no relevance of thermodynamics there, even allowing for making an analogy.
Saying "All socio-economic change is violent" which is what you're saying there is a simply
opinion, and, incidentally, contradicted by historical fact. Propping it up with an arbitrary
reference to science does not help :)
Thermodynamics is about the transfer of heat and says three laws (1) energy is conserved (2)
Entropy always increases (3) Entropy is a constant at absolute zero.
(plus a zeroth law thich I forget).
A bit of a sideline, but I was watching TV yesterday and an ad caught my eye that I found fascinating.
It was for chocolate- cadburys or something like that.
Essentially, an animated lady was giving a talk about 'boring economic stuff' and as she talked
her face actually stretched and became distorted until the whole 'economic/ finance thing' was
abandoned in favour of eating chocolate bars. The narrator's voice was what I presume marketing
people think of as 'working class'.
what I took from the ad (I may be wrong) was a not so subtle message that 'boring' economics isn't
for the likes of us (ii.e. the masses), and we'd be better off stuffing our faces with chocolate
rather than thinking about 'hard stuff.'
I found it quite disgusting. Has anyone else seen this and, if so, what do you think?
Of course its possible that I'm a paranoid loon just a few steps away from hiding out in a bunker
and talking to a balloon with a face drawn on...
That's why they are changing the education system so radically, can't have the plebs thinking
for themselves can we ? They want just drone factories for the majority of the population.
Ironically R4 are doing a pretty good adaptation of Brave New World at the moment.
It appears that Osborne - with zero growth-rate, zero-inflation, zero wage increases - is trying
to give us that very paradise with a stagnant economy.
Yes neoliberalism has been oversold because neoliberalism is a catch-all. means nothing, basket
insult for all policies that liberals hate. Blair was apparently a neoliberal, but the state grew
under Blair and there was huge investment in public services. Take away the investment under Labour,
and the NHS really would be on its knees now.
Secondly, we are still in crisis following the crash, the worst economic reversal since the
Great Depression. nobody ever said it would be easy to climb out of this economic hole and the
doomsayers might like to compare the lot of the working classes in 2016 with the lot of the poor
in the 1930s, Perhaps Aditya would like to read Steinbeck to get a handle on what real poverty
is, or if it is too difficult a read, he might tune in to some episodes of the Waltons.
There are no real shocks in the IMF issuing papers challenging political or economic orthodoxy
- they do it all the time - and I seem to remember that Lagarde has long been a critic of Osborne's
policies; the IMF, on balance, are Keynesian in outlook.
If you want to nail the real custodians of what is termed neoliberalism, then you need to the
nail the EU. These are the technocrats who are running Europe for the benefit of the elites!
History books will one day refer to the "so called neoliberals who were, in truth, free market
capitalists packaged up under a new name." For your "Neoliberal" I offer you "New Labour" or "Snickers
bars" or "Starbursts".
An interesting piece. Though it fits into a recent pattern of the Guardian picking up on stories
that were in the FT a couple of days earlier.
Amusingly, in this case, the link to the IMF "oversold?" piece actually takes you to the FT's
paywall, when the original piece is
freely available
on their site.
What needs exposing is the purported 'pragmatism' promulgated by the likes of Blair and Clinton.
A centrist position of ideological neutrality is a myth. 'What works' has become a synecdoche
for what maintains the neoliberal model - which ironically, as the author explains, no longer
works.
A purely managerial, non-ideological perspective is impossible. Anyone advancing a non-ideological
world-view is a self-effacing ideologue. The best trick the devil ever played was to convince
you he doesn't exist.
I'm proud to call myself a social democrat, which in today's terms means I am far left.
I only care about what works.
David Owen of all people in an interview about the EU actually attacked New Labour for the
marketisation of the NHS. In fact they didn't invent it, but they continued it with gusto. It
doesn't work.
which ironically, as the author explains, no longer works.
It never worked.... not for one minute. It just seemed to work because first the nation states
were indebting themselves; then the private sector indebted itself and everyone. The "success"
of neoliberalims was based on credit expansion all the time.
The model was always to enrich those at the top, while the unemployed lazy bastards
at the bottom were stressed more and more to create a race to the bottom for the desperate and
money less. The insanity of this policy, which took enormous amounts of money out of circulation
was glossed over for decades by the never-ending expansion of credit. The credit expansion kept
the middle class out of harms way thereby securing the political support to simply continue......
but keeping the middle class away from economic harm will end as soon as credit can no longer
be expanded.
I cannot believe Guardian readers spend so much time contemplating their navels. No wonder Labour
party is in such a mess. Believe in Britain....regain control of our money, borders and democracy!!
I'm afraid you're looking in the wrong place if you want us to 'regain control of our money'-
it's actually the commercial banks in the City that have us by the knackers... assisted by action
or inaction their political wing the Tory party. Google 'Positive Money' for starters.
As with many problems we have in the UK, blaming the EU is either a deliberate red herring
or just plain ignorance.
If we do not contemplate it them whom? This incessant need for 'growth' is a myth. How far can
we grow? By it's very definition to continue with this mad strive for a wealthier state is at
the expense of other states. There is PLENTY to go around but the current neoliberal philosophy
has simply moved it to a few. Borders an illusion, there is only one planet and it is dying because
of the neoliberal agenda for 'growth'. Democracy, in it's current form, is also an illusion. How
can we be democratic when the state watches our every move, email, phone call and browsing history.
Surly democracy should include some element freedom. Money is an illusion. The central banks print
money to order, quantitative easing, bank bailouts, offshore tax havens. When the money is printed
it immediately has a cost, a promise to pay bond yeilds as an element of its creation. So all
money is debt. We live in an insane world with systems that will ultimately be our doom.
Yes, an excellent film . The EU in its current form has turned into a tool to circumvent national
parliaments and to achieve legislation which is good for you and me and others. You can pass any
law you want, if you bribe the right people. That said, we need a strong EU parliament and an
informed audience to stop this. If necessary, Brexit could serve a wake up call, but the preferred
way should be to hold these guys accountable.
What disappoints me most about the current political situation is Jeremy Corbyn. It is not that
I disagree with much of his economic policy (not that we know a huge amount about it) it is his
inability to connect with voters.
Is there someone in Labour who is not a Blairite that does not behave like a 1970s left wing
geography teacher?
What paragon of perfection are you looking for. The message is the important thing not the packaging.
Blair surly taught us that. My geography teacher was a old conservative woman.
I must pass that on to my mate who started teaching geography in the late 1970s and who is an
absolute Corbyn fan. He's very disappointed that his sixth form students do not feel remotely
the same way.
The best way of working out which type of society works best and worse is to find out where people
emigrate from and where do they emigrate to. Capitalism, with low levels of corruption, wins hands
down.
I don't have an issue with capitalism per se. It can work very well as part of a balanced economy.
However when almost everything is forced to become part of the market we can clearly see
a problem.
but surely Capitalism is inherently corrupt . It's mantra is "maximise profit " and that's it
. Isn't that what the Left are being unrealisitic about .They want some sort of purified religious
experience of fiscal control . But we humans are of systems that need corruption and renewal ,just
like our bodies ? Talk about the National Health failing -- Nobody wants to do the housework that's
all ?
I'd like to thank Aditya for his article and I hope your right.
In my opinion all ideology creates shackles especially when taken to extremes. It creates distinct
hierarchies that are imposable to circumvent if you just so happen to disagree or dislike it.
As you state neoliberalism is the extreme end of the capitalist system.
- Its divisive ideological hierarchies are based in wealth, this cause's possible social
unrest as it creates haves and have not's, hard work will not help you climb the ladder, survival
of the fittest creates brings out the worst in people.
- It undermines the free market by creating business monopoly. Business monopoly undermines
the democratic model through lobbying and party funding.
- It creates the conditions that allow corruption to flourish through government de-regulation.
- The free market is driven by profit, it lacks a social conscience, yes consumers can
refuse to buy from unethical company's but this becomes difficult in markets that are run by
monopolies, and the service it provides are essential products.
There's one major flaw in all hierarchal systems, if somebody is to climb up, someone must
be pulled down. It can create animosity, greed and infighting so they are all inherently unstable.
I'm not suggesting such systems are wrong, if they are based on cooperation and fairness then
I think balance could be achieved.
A previous poster talked about automation destroying jobs and income which leads to depressed
markets as consumers do not have the income to spend. Surely the current lack of growth is the
result of manufacturing and other jobs exported abroad to save wage costs in developed countries.
This results in the same lack of spare income to fuel growth. So free market policies are destroying
the very markets they depend upon.
One solution is for government to own manufacturing in important areas such as combatting global
warming. If the uk uses the Ł70bn proposed for HS2 and Hinkley we could set up manufacturing of
solar panels, small wind turbines and other small renewable systems. Pay real living wage, use
areas already with high unemployment and boost the economies in these areas. Manufacture under
license and include batteries such as the Elon musk storage batteries.
Either install free or for small charge we could produce and fit renewable systems on 10 million
homes trying to produce 40 gigawatts of electricity which is equal to uk off peak use - 4kwh x
10m. Costs Ł5000 per system + Ł2000 per battery = Ł7k x 10m = Ł70bn.
Result more good jobs, boost to economy, boost to deprived areas, less CO2, no nuclear, free electricity
for many, less cost of imports of oil, gas, coal, less cost of social security. I am sure the
list of benefits can be expanded into feel good factors and less inequality.
Surely common sense will prevail before riots and revolution will end this madness.
What on earth leads you to believe that a UK Government could manufacture solar panels and wind
turbines at a profit? Does the civil service have hitherto hidden talents relating to business
start ups, manufacturing and energy technology?
We are at a world population approaching 10bn people which need to be fed, clothed and served
with clean water and electricity. And your answer - sorry to say, green dreamers - provides no
answer at all. You can talk to as many worms as you want to. It is fantasy of rich people.
There is no doubt that people are waking up to the massive inequality imposed on us all by a greedy,
compassionless, short sighted set of idiologies perpetuated by our neoliberal rulers. And the
philosophy that has driven this is corporate capitalism which has created a stench so profound
that it may literally cost us the earth.
The fact that it has progressed so rapidly and deaply into the human psyche can only be attributed
to two things. Mans inherant greed and the media (who are an intrisic part of corporate capitalism).
I heard a statistic that, in the first world war, only 17% of soldiers in the trenches pointed
their guns at the enemy, not wishing to be party to the massacre of fellow human beings. I also
understand this was little changed in the 2nd WW. To combat this (pardon the pun) recent developments
in media have created computer based games of mass murder so that soldiers in the battle field,
in aircraft and flying drones simply play out the games on their Xbox and annihalate 'the enemy'.
War is very big business, for some. This form of brainwashing is an incidious method to do the
bidding of the rich and powerful and there is, without doubt, a direct correlation between neolibralism
and mass murder. The hawks of administrations, like Bush, Blair and co , have used it citizens
to further their own agenda's for fiscal gain leaving behind millions of dead, service men missing
limbs or dead, sevearly mentally damaged and what for? The road to peace is not through bombs
and bullets but this makes money and lots of it. The media (not all, thank god for the internet)
panders to the basest emotions of humanity to brainwash us into radicalised, subserviant masses
ready to do the bidding of these cororations. It has created a Frankenstien which is now out of
control. IF we start today to try and undo the immense harm it will take many generations to even
begin to put things right, if at all possible. Every journey starts with a single step but we
must RUN if humanity has any chance of survival. Stop the war on terrorism, stop the war on drugs,
both proven and huge failures and start a war for tollerance, equality and, dare I say it, love.
Seems to me that the wealth accrued by neoliberal beneficiaries could be more fairly distributed
but it is not; why is that? On the other hand, "communisim" in the Soviet sense does not seem
to work either when Dimitri has his house windows manufactured free gratis on the factory floor.
Politicians and large corporations are self serving and insular, as are most people. The EU debate
in the UK has descended into completely predicatable mud slinging as the electorate are increasingly
ignored in the debate despite token efforts by the media. Those involved are watching after themselves,
in or out is a sidebar to hang it on.
Neoliberal ideology has been an instrument for justifying the growing wealth and power of
financiers and global corporations for about 40 years. They are highly unlikely to want to let
go their gains, so reports of the impending 'death' of neoliberalism are a bit premature. The
fact that this comes from the IMF makes me wonder if it isn't another ploy to divert attention
from the ongoing process of wealth consolidation by making us think that a big change in policy
is just around the corner. Ostry is an excellent scholar who has written some good papers warning
about inequality and I have no doubt that he wants to influence decision-making. But it may be
that he is being used as a 'useful idiot' by the powers that be.
If only. Social democracy was the popular choice in 1945 - the people knew what it was and voted
for it. But neoliberalism was imposed on us in a flurry of fake claims and false dreams - low
taxes, trickle-down riches, freedom is consumer choice etc. We could have it all, the hucksters
promised, lying in their teeth. And now that the system is showing its true nature, how do we
get rid of it. There isn't an institution, public or private, which isn't run by people who are
professed neoliberals incapable of thinking there is an alternative - if they were, they wouldn't
be where they are: they'd be mocked and undermined and shuffled out of the way, Everything from
the BBC to the Health Service is run by people who believe in the power of the market, and think
it's the same as democracy. We have to get rid of these servants of the market to make a fresh
start, and they're not about to leave.
TTIP is the desperate last stand to get this permanently embedded as a supra-governmental policy
in perpetuity. The crooks behind neoliberalism know that the wheels are about to fall off the
bus and TTIP is their answer.
Whilst it's great that the report (rightly) condemns neoliberalism it appears to me that it is
also contradictory.
On the one hand 'the IMF researchers concede, [the results of neoliberalism] have been terrible.
Neoliberalism hasn't delivered economic growth – it has only made a few people a lot better off'
but then goes on to say 'The authors even defend privatisation as leading to "more efficient provision
of services" and less government spending'.
Privatisation of state assets has proven time and time again to be a false economy. The failed
privatisation of Hinchingbrooke Hospital; The failed privatisation of East Coast Rail which was
then put back into public ownership (under which it became profitable again) and was then re-privatised
for no good reason; The Royal Mail scandal - hedge funds were permitted to buy millions of (undervalued)
shares which they then immediately sold for a massive profit whilst ordinary people were limited
to just Ł749 worth.
Am I missing something here? Isn't privatisation and the selling off of state assets to the
neoliberal elite exacerbating and perpetuating the problem?
I'm still wading through Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century but from what
I've read so far it appears that the message is that extreme wealth inequality is not only morally
unfair but is unsustainable as it is counter-productive and creates economic instability. It's
this very instability and glaring unfairness which has led to the rise in ever more extreme politics
isn't it? The Right cling to this neoliberal model of economics and then bitch and complain when
Trump gets elected. What on earth did they expect? If elected officials continue to act in self-interest
instead of the public interest then the successes of monsters like Trump are an inevitability
which can only bad for everyone including the neoliberal elite.
" I'm still wading through Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century but from what
I've read so far it appears that the message is that extreme wealth inequality is not only morally
unfair but is unsustainable as it is counter-productive and creates economic instability ."
Not sure that you need to read Piketty to understand that. The accumulation and hoarding of
wealth in offshore havens by the elite should be treated as an economic crime, as once this money
is transferred out of the system, it ceases to function, the economy is impoverished, and these
unelected super-wealthy are given powers many elected country leaders can only dream of. How the
perpetrators of this cannot understand absolutely boggles me. But then again, to wish to have
so much wealth indicates serious sociopathic issues, and not much ability to empathise with those
who struggle and are deprived as a result of this accumulation of such wealth in the hands of
a few individuals.
Whilst I simply feel indignation, exasperation and anger regarding social injustice and extreme
wealth inequality Piketty uses well researched data to support his arguments against it. It's
not an easy read and I've been dipping in and out of the book on and off over the last year. I'm
determined to finish it one day though.
I'm inclined to agree with you regarding the regarding your assessment of the super rich as
sociopathic. How much money is enough? Why would they need or want so much economic control over
so many people?
If you haven't seen it already I would certainly recommend watching Mr Robot - very topical
and spot on regarding the psychopathic mindsets of the arrogant super rich the series condemns.
The opening scene begins with a reference to the Bilderberg Group - 'they're the top 1% of the
top 1%. They're the people who play god without permission'.
It beggars belief that Mark carney is now bemoaning the results, as events that we now are witnessing
right across the globe, from his Alma Mater Goldman Sachs's policies that were foisted onto the
world, have spawned. Low and now even negative yields on safe fixed term investments are now making
it very difficult or even impossible for pension providers to deliver decent incomes to their
customers. Tax evasion has been legitimised and rebranded as tax efficiency and corporations are
mega monopolistic structures that no longer need to worry about a bottom line as they have rebranded
profits into interest payments to tax havens.
After 8-9 years argument about austerity, it finally feels like we have reached a tipping point.
Surely now no serious political or economic commentator will defend austerity. There are parallels
with the climate change debate.
The Labour Party (encouraged by many in the media- including many Guardian journalists) for
too many years pursued a policy of austerity appeasement. Many knew it was economic nonsense but
felt that the argument was too difficult to win against the massed ranks of the Tories and the
vested interests of the mainstream media. I recall so many discussions where it was pointed out
that economists such as Krugman had destroyed the austerity case but "sensible" commentators continued
to argue that the Labour Party would be destroyed if it dared to "speak truth unto power". Those
that advocated austerity appeasement should be ashamed and apologise (I won't hold my breath).
Corbyn's greatest achievement in his first 8 months has been his firm stand against austerity.
He and John McDonnell have significantly moved the debate, so much so that I fully expect that
Osborne (if he survives the Referendum fall out) will start to adopt Labour policies (e.g. allow
investment expenditure to be excluded from deficit target and, if recession spreads beyond manufacturing,
some form of Infrastructure QE).
Neoliberalism has turned out to be similar in many ways to a better connected and more efficient
form of feudalism. Great for those with power, greed and wealth and very much at the expense of
everyone else. Perhaps newspapers and mass media have replaced swords, so it is an improvement
in some ways.
But for all those anticipating a return to something better, what will eventually come next?
A return to nice, safe, gentle Western European style mild socialism is not a foregone conclusion.
It will take a lot of effort and maybe 20 years to establish a new settlement and perhaps quite
a lot of strife in the meantime. Now that the last convulsion that gave rise to a continent wide
effort to attain a just society, the Second World War, is fading from memory and educational syllabuses,
will it take another convulsion to teach us how to behave again?
Very well put. I don't think it will take another convulsion, the majority of Europe's population
are fat unfit slobs but when there's no consumer swill in the bins, maybe.
I've had many discussions about what is necessary to make people active enough to change the status
quo, although I do think that WW2 crystallized what was already public opinion, putting people
into a position where camaraderie was sufficient to have reformists like Bevan take a lead and
win. I sincerely hope it won't take another European conflict to increase class consciousness
again.
As long as people have just enough and can be made afraid of losing it, they'll do nothing.
When they have nothing worth losing, then they'll kick off.
Rulers have known this since at least Napoleon, not all have acknowledged it.
As a people the British are a long way from it, recent arrivals might in time feel differently.
long before any public protests, the insiders led the way in murmuring their disquiet. Whisper
by whisper, memo by memo, the regime is steadily undermined from within. Its final toppling
lies decades beyond the novel's close, yet can already be spotted.
When Red Plenty was published in 2010, it was clear the ideology underpinning contemporary
capitalism was failing, but not that it was dying. Yet a similar process as that described
in the novel appears to be happening now, in our crisis-hit capitalism. And it is the very
technocrats in charge of the system who are slowly, reluctantly admitting that it is bust.
The difference between a public document and a secretive memo seems a glaring one, which illuminates
the fundamental difference between the two systems and as such the reason why capitalism will
survive and communism cannot
I agree with the bits about economic consensus and neoliberalism but I can't for a moment agree
that such problems are inherent to capitalism or reveal its flaws. If anything those problems
show - as did the failings of communism - the impossibility of asserting stable state control
over markets so large and complex as to be effectively random
While Julian Assange is incarcerated I don't think you can make the claim that Capitalism has
no secrets. Hilary Cliinton's emails were leaked, and there were some pretty dastardly secrets
in there. And who knows why fracking is being pushed onto people when practically no one, expert
or public supports it. What secret deals are behind that? And of course David Cameron's tax evasion
is a "private matter". In fact capitalism rests on the assumption that property is private. Now
adays music and thought are considered private property. The bright boy who released JSTOR free
on line had the book thrown at him and commited suicide under threats of decades in a private
prison, where by all accounts rape is encouraged.
Very interesting, that's a good read.
It also strikes me that "globalisation" and the frequently assumed "global neoliberal paradigm",
is not correct. That is, the frequent assumption that free markets are the norm, and that this
is how national and global exchanges function.
What we have instead in brief is a global free market capitalism which is financed and subsidised
by the public sector. The often talked about "socialism for the rich".
It strikes me that rather than "neoliberalism having failed", the most striking movement
since the 1960ies is how private capital managed to bend democratic socialism (which means the
welfare state in its various incarnations including in the USA) and bend it to its own profit.
How it did this: "democratic socialism" (this isn't communism: all it means is "market regulation
in the public interest" and includes public services such as education, health, defense) which
flourished after the 1930ies was bit by bit taken over by the private sector. Not in terms of
ownership, but in terms of supply and management.
So neoliberalism as it's commonly understood is a foil, a fiction, camouflaging the underlying
reality of democratic socialist government which is in part at least run by private enterprise.
The practical consequences: Government support and financing of a range of industries, and
private sector involvement in running government services: the neo-liberal "The market knows best"
is an illusion.
Its complicated, and needs some thought, but I reckon there's some subtlety here, and my intention
is not to rant "socialism for the rich" - its more subtle and more interesting than that slogan.
Neo-Liberalism - the more you see of it the less you like it.
Getting to the rotten core of Neo-Liberal globalisation, a UK journey.
1) Tony Blair announces the UK is a meritocracy where anyone can get to the top through hard
work, drive and ambition.
Next elected prime minister – Eton educated and married into the aristocracy.
Eton boys occupy a myriad of positions of power.
Privately educated elite firmly re-established.
2) Everyone must be subject to market discipline and compete in a global market place.
Industries that cannot compete in the global market place must fail.
Heavy industry, manufacturing and mining decimated, severely affects the North of England and
Midlands.
The financial sector fails and is given unconditional bailouts with no effort to punish those
who made the losses, the tax payer will just pick up the bill.
3) The lasting damage to the economy caused by the financial crisis must be passed onto those
at the bottom of society through austerity to balance the budget.
Are you rich or are you poor?
Neo-Liberalism helps the rich and disadvantages the poor.
Nice rich bankers – how much do you want?
Traditional industry – left to the whims of the global market place.
All very true, except that your milestone 1) should begin with Regan and Thatcher (and Deng Xiaoping!)
not Blair, who merely continued it with a more soft-edged approach.
'Neo-liberalism' or free market capitalism will die when a better alternative system is seen to
be superior. As the article says there was a time when sensible people could believe that this
better alternative was Marxian socialism. Sixty odd years later it is impossible to believe that.
The remaining examples in the world like North Korea and Venezuela are to be avoided like the
plague and previously socialist countries like China and Vietnam have longed eased to be so.
It is important to understand the crucial advantage of capitalism over its rival, namely that
it is self-organising. Milton Friedman gave the example of the ordinary 'lead' pencil which requires
wood, paint, graphite, alloy metal for the ferrule and rubber for the eraser. Arranging for all
that to happen by centralised control is an enormous undertaking yet in the capitalist world pencils
sell for 50 cents apiece. Nobody believes in world economic direction by Central Committee and
so it is likely that global capitalism will continue unabated not withstanding a few bumps in
the road along the way.
.....global capitalism will continue unabated not withstanding a few bumps in the road along
the way.....
The same was thought/proclaimed about slavery, feudalism, colonialism. But new systems are
born as the old ones become obsolete and an impediment to progress. Capitalism will go the same
way.
It isn't either / or, black or white as you seem to suggest. A mixed economy is the ideal set-up.
That's an economy where you recognise which sectors function best as services and which run best
left to competition. That is the failure of neoliberalism, which throws almost every single enterprise
into the jaws of the competitive market. The railways should never have been privatised. Our utilities
should never have been privatised. The NHS should not be opened to 'any willing provider'. Strategic
industries should have had more protection. The housing market should not have been globalised
etc etc etc. Most of us know well who is most responsible for these failing policies.
A child could figure out that neo liberalism wouldn't work for most people. I did when I was 11.
But the super elite will always be willing to take a punt only an ideology tailor-made to make
them richer while oppressing us more. Then all they have to do is get the slimey politicians who
work for their interests to sing the anthem and get their little pay off.
Aditya is writing cracking article after cracking article these days. I thought that the one about
Boots was riveting as well as disheartening.
We've had 40 years of relentless propaganda about private = good and public = inefficient or downright
bad.
well it's surely true that private is good if you're making something like an iPhone or a Tesla,
you need entrepreneurs driven by a fanatic obsession with perfection and the profit motive.
It's surely not true if you're trying to provide public housing, electricity, gas, water, rail
or the prison system etc..
We've seen how groups of private individuals have been trusted to do right by society when their
remit was always to do right by themselves and by their shareholders. How could it have been otherwise?
It's no use having a privatised utility and then blaming it for cutting costs and raising prices.
The problem is a political one.
Leave what is best done by private individuals and companies to them, but get them totally out
of our public commons. And regulate the financial industry so that it cannot trade with the certain
knowledge that it will be bailed out by the politicians it has totally bought.
What killed neoliberalism ultimately was hubris. It worked very hard to eliminate every political
obstacle, the left, trade unions, regulation, until it was squarely able to shoot itself not just
in both feet, but in the head too.
'Neo-liberalism' or free market capitalism will die when a better alternative system is seen
to be superior. As the article says there was a time when sensible people could believe that this
better alternative was Marxian socialism. Sixty odd years later it is impossible to believe that.
The remaining examples in the world like North Korea and Venezuela are to be avoided like the
plague and previously socialist countries like China and Vietnam have longed eased to be so.
It is important to understand the crucial advantage of capitalism over its rival, namely that
it is self-organising. Milton Friedman gave the example of the ordinary 'lead' pencil which requires
wood, paint, graphite, alloy metal for the ferrule and rubber for the eraser. Arranging for all
that to happen by centralised control is an enormous undertaking yet in the capitalist world pencils
sell for 50 cents apiece. Nobody believes in world economic direction by Central Committee and
so it is likely that global capitalism will continue unabated not withstanding a few bumps in
the road along the way.
'Neo-liberalism' or free market capitalism will die when a better alternative system is seen
to be superior.
So this was the reason for the death of the Ancien Regime in France and the death of the
Romanovs? I think people were not going to wait for an alternative to come along.
.....global capitalism will continue unabated not withstanding a few bumps in the road along
the way.....
The same was thought/proclaimed about slavery, feudalism, colonialism. But new systems
are born as the old ones become obsolete and an impediment to progress. Capitalism will go the
same way.
It isn't either / or, black or white as you seem to suggest. A mixed economy is the ideal set-up.
That's an economy where you recognise which sectors function best as services and which run best
left to competition. That is the failure of neoliberalism, which throws almost every single enterprise
into the jaws of the competitive market. The railways should never have been privatised. Our utilities
should never have been privatised. The NHS should not be opened to 'any willing provider'. Strategic
industries should have had more protection. The housing market should not have been globalised
etc etc etc. Most of us know well who is most responsible for these failing policies.
A child could figure out that neo liberalism wouldn't work for most people. I did when I was 11.
But the super elite will always be willing to take a punt only an ideology tailor-made to make
them richer while oppressing us more. Then all they have to do is get the slimey politicians who
work for their interests to sing the anthem and get their little pay off.
Aditya is writing cracking article after cracking article these days. I thought that the one about
Boots was riveting as well as disheartening.
We've had 40 years of relentless propaganda about private = good and public = inefficient or downright
bad.
well it's surely true that private is good if you're making something like an iPhone or a Tesla,
you need entrepreneurs driven by a fanatic obsession with perfection and the profit motive.
It's surely not true if you're trying to provide public housing, electricity, gas, water, rail
or the prison system etc..
We've seen how groups of private individuals have been trusted to do right by society when their
remit was always to do right by themselves and by their shareholders. How could it have been otherwise?
It's no use having a privatised utility and then blaming it for cutting costs and raising prices.
The problem is a political one.
Leave what is best done by private individuals and companies to them, but get them totally out
of our public commons. And regulate the financial industry so that it cannot trade with the certain
knowledge that it will be bailed out by the politicians it has totally bought.
What killed neoliberalism ultimately was hubris. It worked very hard to eliminate every political
obstacle, the left, trade unions, regulation, until it was squarely able to shoot itself not just
in both feet, but in the head too.
Got to hand it to the neoliberalists for keeping it going for 40 odd years
"You'll love it, we get filthy rich and we chuck a few quids down to you!"
"Don't say that, say trickle-down effect"
"Ok, you'll love it, the trickle-down effect will make everyone better off!" Over 40 years
"Are you still here? I told you, it's great because of the trickle-down effect"
"Where's the trickle-down effect, it's not happening"
*silent* "Fuck right off, I don't want you snooping around my offshore trust funds, not illegal,
go on piss off"
A neoliberal will seriously argue that despite real median incomes stagnating in the US for forty
years and in the UK for almost a decade and a half that we're all better off because nearly everybody
can afford a smartphone and washing machines are cheaper.
It's not Neoliberalism that is crashing, it's Capitalism! They got too greedy and tunnel visioned
with their 'market knows all' dream in a system that favours and rewards what used to be considered
corruption and now they looting are putting in repressive and restrictive measures to control
the devastation they have caused. They are floundering about trying to work out how to stop the
major crash coming and keep their ill gotten gains and gravy train for the legions of self serving
enablers as I call them!
Prof Richard D Wolff a Marxist economist, here's this weeks talk, 1 hour. Based on US news
topics but in the second half he talks about the Neoliberal god... 'the market' or rather the
use of (or not) markets in economic systems. Krugman and Uber get mentions in the first half.
Markets from 30.00 http://www.democracyatwork.info/eu_listen_prof_krugman
Free markets without state interference invariably drift towards feudalistic monopolies. They
end up exactly where communism also ends up. A small elite controlling the economic fate of the
masses. A "market" where supply and demand no longer play any part, because any small competitor
can be bought or liquidated at will by the monopolist.
For capitalism to work the state needs to be both, strong and accountable to the people, not
the vested interests. In a global marketplace this control needs to come from a global organisation,
like the UN.
A t present the global corporations play the nation states against each other in a race to the
bottom (the end game in this game is to make the UK the Bangladesh of the North, which it was
in the 18th and 19th century). At some point we will turn the corner; the question is just whether
it is done with or without armed conflict.
This might not be the 'in depth' analysis some would like, but I think that Chakrabortty is correct
that there has been a big change in the background. The majority of politicians don't see this,
from Boris Johnson to Jean-Claud Juncker, they are clueless and out of touch, but Chakrabortty
makes an astute observation that:
...policymaking elite [claims it was doing] ... merely doing "what works". But you can only
get away with that claim if what you're doing is actually working.
Today you can read Ben Bernankes PhD thesis and see that it is wrong, you can see that the
IMF/EU Greek 'Bail Out' failed 3 times in a row, you can see that Osbourne has missed every single
economic target he set himself, you can see that 'trickle-down' economics never worked, etc.,
etc.
Meanwhile
Steve
Keens open source economic simulator works rather well, and explains why the the UK, USA,
Europe and Japan are very unlikely to ever recover if they keep on with the current economic policies.
All political systems fall under thier own weight. The infamous bread v guns can still be applied
to nation states but not obviously economic systems. The workers or any other outside group can
never change economic systems (they can only protest through populist politicians who will bend
to the system when in power), only insiders can do that. You have to hope that the change they
come up with is an improvement but it is unlikely given that almost all will want the status quo
maintained.
It was clear in the 80s the Thatcherite experiment wouldn't work and it was widely discussed and
most of the reasons put forward why it wouldn't work, have proved correct.
But we all have the evidence of privatisation. Britain has effectively been asset stripped
by the Tories, aided and abetted by New Labour but where are all the promised tax cuts? As a nation
we pay about the same in taxes as Germany, yet Germany owns the most state assets of any country
in Europe. It is what ideological neoliberal call socialist but it does better than us. Meanwhile,
for all the privatisation in the UK, our taxes are still high and on top of that, the privatised
services and utilities and businesses are more expensive, more inefficient and more unreliable
and we have to pay for much of them, on top of our already high taxes!!!
The biggest joke came when the nationalised East Coast Line came in as the most cost efficient
mainline in the country, which had the Tories desperate to privatise if as quickly as possible
to get rid of a sample of state run trains being more efficient than privatised trains. Well,
we just have to look at many European countries to see most state railways are more efficient
than privatised ones. In Holland when rail was privatised, it more or less collapsed and had to
be effectively renationalised and then partly privatised again but the trains still are useless
compared to what they were when they were completely state run.
Neoliberalism was always a corrupt ideology with corruption conscious;y at its heart. Neoliberalism
has normalised corruption to the point where the establishment and our political masters don't
even try to hide corrupt practices, they are every day work and business practices. The biggest
question is, why we aren't rioting on the streets like the French. Why are we British so damn
passive when we are being ripped off and abused? Our we really like an abused wife or child, who
has grown used to abuse and can't imagine life without it?
Economics has long been practiced at the level of a voodoo cult - light the candle and chant a
mantra.
This was apparent in 2007 when Northern Rock went bankrupt having been handing out mortgages 120%
over the value of over valued property thus accelerating a house price bubble and instantly putting
mortgagees into a position of negative equity.
It was most apparent when China kept announcing, cheered on by a chorus of economists, a 10%
growth rate whilst it tipped 70% of the world's concrete into non viable mega projects, produced
a mountain's supply of cheap steel that far exceeded any demand and pumped out clouds of gaseous
pollution and lakes of poisonous waste to the detriment of the global environment (uncosted)
Since then, well it seems that most of that extra money that was pumped into the unregulated
money markets got invested in London's luxury property market and fracking - both unsustainable,
environmentally damaging and unnecessary.
I am afraid that a mass extinction event will be the only solution.
The quantity of capital needed just to stay in the game nowadays is so gobsmackingly vast that
62 individuals now control more personal wealth than 3.5 billion of the world's poorest. This
is a level of concentration of wealth and power that the absolutist monarchies of yore could not
even have dreamed of. Corporate cartels and monopolies dominate and charge their monopoly prices
snuffing out not just their competitors but production in general as others have to charge below
value whilst the monopolists charge way above. The financial structures that kept this situation
going for the past 30 years has now collapsed owing several times the national debts of the nations
that hosted them and which liabilities they have now assumed. Even the smallest percentages of
growth require such vast amounts of capital but there is no room for further concentration or
state support for it as they are bankrupt. US-sponsored globalization and all the institutions
built upon it as a result of the death of capitalism is unraveling at an alarming rate. Globalization
behind the greatest discreet political power the world has ever seen was as far as capitalism
could take us and it has to be said that a lot of the `development' of the last half-century has
been purely destructive and will have to be reversed before we can once again go forward. Which
brings us to the second reason for the impossibility of capitalism. The political necessity of
growth, without which capitalism as a political economic system is finished, is obstructed not
just by sclerotic monopolisation and bankruptcy but by the fact that every tiny percentage of
growth requires transforming huge swathes of the nature on which we depend into useless product
and nature does not have anything left to give on this basis. Catastrophic global warming is upon
us along with a myriad of other environmental catastrophes such as the death of our oceans. It
is as it was prophesied that it must eventually be a matter now of socialism or barbarism. Socialism
or a New Dark Ages from which are species is unlikely to emerge or survive. We either transcend
capitalist globalization, neo-liberal bourgeois internationalism, through world proletarian revolution
and a world commonwealth of nations or we die with capitalism.
The authors even defend privatisation as leading to "more efficient provision of services"
and less government spending – to which the only response must be to offer them a train ride across
to Hinkley Point C.
Or try to get anywhere in the Netherlands by train when fallen leaves or an inch of snow completely
paralyses our privatised rails.
Privatisation is a total bullshit served in a very expensive sandwich to the taxpayers.
I would have like to see the author consider the role of power in this situation. With absolute
power comes also the ability to determine "reality" - distorted or not. If the emperor wields
absolute and devastating power, well who's to tell him he is naked and should abdicate?
So it, vital to note that a huge change our societies at this moment is the increasing militarisation
of civil society, erection of an unprecedented surveillance machiney, reallocation of resources
from human development to the military state under many guises, along with a close collaboration
of military and business.
In short, basically anything the author is saying is already in a scenario painted by the likes
of Rand Corp - and accounted for in the current state of affairs. There are many disguises for
all this including supposedly "threat" of migrants.
Honestly I don't think there is any stopping this train on its way to a crash.
Except the military as a whole haven't exactly benefitted from austerity. That said, as Iraq demonstrated
yet again, senior military personnel who go to Whitehall soon adopt the political drive and beliefs
of their masters.
"Austerity" in the west applies to human development programs. Not to the machinery of warfare
- or internal policing - or domestic surveillance. All of which are also essential pillars of
neoliberalism.
Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic
Council in Wales
05 Sep. 2014 - | Press Release (2014) 120Issued on 05 Sep. 2014 | Last updated: 31 Jul.
2015 09:05 14. Allies currently meeting the NATO guideline to spend a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) on defence will aim to continue to do so. Likewise, Allies spending more than 20%
of their defence budgets on major equipment, including related Research & Development, will continue
to do so.
Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will:
halt any decline in defence expenditure;
aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows;
aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability
Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls.
Allies who currently spend less than 20% of their annual defence spending on major new equipment,
including related Research & Development, will aim, within a decade, to increase their annual
investments to 20% or more of total defence expenditures.
If you think the western neo cons will go with a whimper like the ussr me thinks you are mistaken.
The Chinese new yuan is gold backed and has the support of Japan Russia and France as the new
international currency. If every American paid 100% tax it wouldn t cover the federal expenditure
annually. Without the hall mark of international exchange the dollar is paper. And you think these
old east European ideologues led by Kessinger are gong to let their vision of hell go quietly
into the night?
This newspaper long ago bought into neo-liberalism. A few individual journalists allowed to write
here know what a social-conscience is, but they are "tokens"to present a fig-leaf of social values
and justice.
We see no genuine outrage anymore, no campaigning for the truth or justice, just a resigned,
brow-beaten shrug and "what can we do?"
On the whole the Graun is a paper aimed at the middle-class, professional who wants to talk
as if they care, but in the end will scurry over to the side of whoever will look after their
investments and protect them from becoming one of those whose situations they wring their hands
over...
Neoliberalism hasn't delivered economic growth – it has only made a few people a lot better
off.
Neoliberalism isn't an ideology, it is not even a doctrine - it is a legalized thievery, a
plundering of public resources aided and abetted by corrupt politicians.
It is pre-revolutionary France situation all over again, is it possible that the human race
cannot invent a working political-economic system that could effectively keep greedy, egotistical
psychopaths at bay?
The trend varies slightly country by country, but the broad direction is clear," says Adair
Turner, a former British banking regulator .... "Across all advanced economies, and the United
States and the U.K. in particular, the role of the capital markets and the banking sector in funding
new investment is decreasing." Most of the money in the system is being used for lending against
existing assets such as housing, stocks and bonds....To get a sense of the size of this shift,
consider that the financial sector now represents around 7% of the U.S. economy, up from about
4% in 1980. Despite currently taking around 25% of all corporate profits, it creates a mere 4%
of all jobs. Trouble is, research by numerous academics as well as institutions like the Bank
for International Settlements and the International Monetary Fund shows that when finance gets
that big, it starts to suck the economic air out of the room. In fact, finance starts having this
adverse effect when it's only half the size that it currently is in the U.S. Thanks to these changes,
our economy is gradually becoming "a zero-sum game between financial wealth holders and the rest
of America,"... from
http://time.com/4327419/american-capitalisms-great-crisis
/
Assuming financialisation continues
...In the United States, for example, "trickle down" economic policies that support tax cuts for
the rich with the aim of boosting economic growth and jobs have led to a $2 trillion annual redistribution
of wealth from the bottom 99 percent of earners to the top 1 percent over the last 30 years...If
the trend continues, by 2030, the top 1 percent of Americans will earn 37 to 40 percent of the
country's income, with the bottom 50 percent getting just 6 percent...
Europe won 't be much different as the richest 1% are global so we are heading to a plutocracy
where the 1% will own pretty much everything making government a waste of time. Ownership is the
real power. Politics is BS.
The economy is working well for the 1% so they will not be interesting in changing it. There may
be rising dissension throughout the West but that's not their problem to even care about. Any
alternative means them getting a smaller cut of the cake - not gonna happen.
Neoliberalism = wealth-stripping countries to pad the nests of the executive class.
Neoliberalism = granting more and more legal protection to those who already have greater power
over their fellows on account of private wealth.
Neoliberalism = Blair not in prison for war crimes.
Neoliberalism = sweetheart tax deals, privatisations, a bust and back-broken NHS, shut libraries
if not enough pensioners can be guilt-tripped into sitting there all dya giving a pretence of
business as before.
neoliberalism = horsemeat in the savoury pancakes.
Really, such a foul and ugly construct should have died YEARS ago. For the sake of basic national
wellbeing and human decency. Except this paper has been doing what it can to conflate it with
Labour (and with "moderates"!!!!), defend it and perpetuate it.
"Neoliberalism = wealth-stripping countries to pad the nests of the executive class.
Neoliberalism = granting more and more legal protection to those who already have greater power
over their fellows on account of private wealth."
Those first two are also prevalent in other regimes - North Korea or Venezuela for example.
And last time I looked neither of those were exponents of Neo-Liberal economics.
Funny how the ideology of freedom once run its course winds up in the exactly same position as
all the other despot systems, with a grossly undeserving wealthy elite making the rules to preserve
their reign over everyone else. We have less freedom now than we did before neoliberalism. We
live under a financial tyranny.
Yes, they are prevalent in far more nakedly barbaric and cruel ways to run countries.
Neoliberalism is the professional-seeming way of enabling the rape of resources and the demolition
of social structures by means other than military dictatorship or brainwashing the people into
drooling at the cult of the god-ruler.
I do hope that "North Korea do something similar too" wasn't supposed to be a subtle defence
of neoliberalism!
Good stuff from Chakrabortty again. However, it's important to stress that the IMF article operates
within the same paradigm as the agenda it critiques and so is quite limited in many respects.
By far the most surprising and important aspect of the paper is symbolic, in that it uses the
word neoliberalism. The IMF (and most 'serious' people) tend to think of neoliberalism as a term
employed by Rage Against the Machine fans whose economic knowledge extends to having thumbed through
a copy of The Shock Doctrine in a hostel on their gap year.
In terms of the detail, there's actually not much new in the paper. It sounds a lot like Latin
American ideas from the 1990s, some of which later appeared in diluted form within the World Bank
and which are still basically grounded in neoliberal logic. Essentially: markets are the gold
standard for optimal distribution of resources, but they don't always function perfectly in the
real world and so it is the task of the state to ensure they do work properly, using strong, efficient
institutions and efforts to boost competitiveness (education etc.).
It's basically the same adaptation (but not abandonment) of the old structural adjustment logic
that the World Bank made in the mid 1990s, in the face of mounting evidence that adjustment wasn't
working (because they'd stripped away the capacity of govt. to even implement the favoured reforms).
..." in the face of mounting evidence that adjustment wasn't working (because they'd stripped
away the capacity of govt. to even implement the favoured reforms)."
You may ve surprised how quickly and easily this capacity, supposedly "stripped away," can
be reasserted as soon as that's what those in power agree they should do.
Well, that depends what you mean. I was talking about the paring down and then reorientation and
partial reassembling of many developing countries' administrative structures under the direction
of the World Bank and IMF in the 80s and 90s. Those sorts of organisations wouldn't countenance
a return to anything like the state of play prior to the 1980s.
However, if you are talking about security, then this is one area where developing countries
are very much encouraged to build state capacity as far as is possible (given the 'development=security'
mantra now adopted by DFID and the like).
I question whether Aditya Chakrabortty has actually read the article in question. Chakrabortty
claims that "The results [of the neoliberal agenda], the IMF researchers concede, have been terrible"
In reality the article says:
There is much to cheer in the neoliberal agenda. The expansion of global trade has rescued
millions from abject poverty. Foreign direct investment has often been a way to transfer technology
and know-how to developing economies. Privatization of state-owned enterprises has in many
instances led to more efficient provision of services and lowered the fiscal burden on governments.
The IMF writers actually address three specific failings of recent neoliberal policy, rather
than gives a critique of newliberalism in general:
An assessment of these specific policies (rather than the broad neoliberal agenda) reaches
three disquieting conclusions:
• The benefits in terms of increased growth seem fairly difficult to establish when looking
at a broad group of countries.
• The costs in terms of increased inequality are prominent. Such costs epitomize the trade-off
between the growth and equity effects of some aspects of the neoliberal agenda.
• Increased inequality in turn hurts the level and sustainability of growth. Even if growth
is the sole or main purpose of the neoliberal agenda, advocates of that agenda still need to
pay attention to the distributional effects.
Like I say, it appears that Chakrabortty has not actually read the IMF article and is actually
discussing what he would have liked to have been in the article.
One article in one magazine does not mark a shift so no, nothing has yet changed in terms of rampant
globalisation and neoliberal economic policy. What I do see changing though is the growing realisation
that nearly forty years since Thatcher and Reagan set us on this path (with their wealthy supporters
urging them on) we're finally getting some realisation that it's a failed model - the trickle
down doesn't happen, the elites still gain more, workers and middle classes stagnate ... I don't
believe for one minute though that those at the top of the pyramid will give up easily. What next
though?
It doesnt matter what the IMF research "actually said". Neoliberalism doesnt work - if by "work"
you mean benefit the majority of people rather than a small minority - and it's delusional to
suggest otherwise.
It's an extreme form of neoclassical economics, most of whose assumptions - required to make its
bizarre assertions even remotely plausible - would cause the average person to fall about laughing.
Except of course its practitioners are careful to ensure that the average person never does confront
its absurdities head on, partly by hiding its doctrines away, partly by disguising them in false
platitudes like the "law" of supply and demand and the definition of the economic problem as matching
scarce resources and unlimited wants (resources arent scarce and wants are not unlimited).
Think yourself lucky that it's only Aditya you have to contend with. He seems unaware of the vast
amount of work being done by genuinely good economists who have carried on from Keynes and his
model of a monetary production economy (hint: most of those claiming to be Keynesians - such as
Paul Samuelson - are nothing of the kind).
I am not so optimistic that this article signals the end of neoliberalism. As AC says, it is a
description of a process, or way of thinking that is supposedly non-ideological( and therefore
'does not exist'. The term is a kind of denial, in itself.
It is about the supremacy of technology and technical systems, but only partly so, because there
is always the impression that there is a wilfulness to the decision making process which is used
as a screen to obscure the malicious undercurrents of 'pragmatic' decision making -where certain
economic elements are defined as having an inevitable quality akin to the enthalpy of energy changes-'we
cannot resist the (economic ) laws of nature' is the
siren call of these duplicitous money-grubbers-while all the time their simplistic nostrums ignore
the subtler importances of the entropy of the system, leading to ever greater disorder and ever
greater human costs.
One of the most interesting aspects of living through the "Thatcher' era , when she and her acolytes
were promoting this simplistic 'revolution in thinking-the supremacy of the market idea ' - leaving
behind the failures of statism the forlorn social contract and the established principle of seeking
out complex, negotiated accommodations of conflicting interests, was the clear impression that
behind all that quasi- philosophical/right wing ideological stuff was a simple deep desire to
rip off the dupes (the wider public) who had no idea what was really happening under their noses.
It was nothing more than a considered cynical position to take advantage of the money making opportunities
offered by public systems that had been heavily invested in over decades, and were therefore available
for carpetbagging capitalism.
Essentially it was the use of insider knowledge and trading. The elevation to a philosophical
perspective was simply a cover for the criminal activity and insider plundering.
Essentially we saw the identical pattern emerge after the collapse of the Soviet Union where
serendipity, desperation and ruthless gangsterism coincided to create the squalor of what we now
see being enacted in the west-end property casino of London.
What should be remembered is the Yeltsin era, when, to all intents and purposes. western 'scrap
metal' dealers or their agents were snuffling around the wreckage, looking for the quick profits
of (the equivalent of) ruthlessly ripping out the copper pipes and plumbing of that empire.
What did we get? We got a regression into the Putin (orderly and systematic theft) statist despotism,
and the lurch into a competing despotism, which we see in places like the Ukraine, being fascist
puppet operated for the convenience of malignant interests in the west.
No political party or country can stand up to neoliberalism and decide to go their own way. Sooner
or later the guys with the baseball bats, probably German, will pay them a visit.
It's pessimistic but like global warming, things will only change after a catastrophe hits
really close to home. We may have more information than we had in the past but the deadening comforts
of western middle class living has left us dull and unable to respond.
Galbraith had seen this. He said that neoliberalism was like feeding the finest oats to the
stallion in the hope it would generate some undigested droppings on which the sparrow could feed.
It seems that the sparrows now want more of the oats and not from the droppings. Corbyn and
Bernie Sanders-phenomena that Blair purports not to understand- are symbols of dissatisfaction
of the increasing and disenchanted young people denied opportunities. They do have plans to put
in place of neoliberalism. Let us hope that this uncaring world changes.
The Stock Exchange, once an instrument to raise capital for investment is now nothing more than
a casino.
German family owned businesses are the backbone of the German economy, in the UK companies listed
on the Stock Exchange are the fiches on the casino table.
Just look where it all 'ends', huge pharma (Pfizer) companies buying up the competition, not for
research, not for the good of the employees but as a way to embark on tax dodging.
Chakraborty one of the best in this news medium
Reminds me of the old joke. My father died peacefully in his sleep....unlike the passengers on
his bus who went screaming to their deaths. Better if neoliberalism's demise were to be assisted
by a viable alternative economic theory. If not, it'll take us all with it, over the cliff into
oblivion. So, anyone got a plan?
We will rely more and more on machines and AI to make a plan. They can play chess and maybe they
can come up with a plan. The machines of the first industrial revolution were daft, nowadays these
machines start to become smart. This is a huge difference.
My 2012 paper "Saving the Euro" describes an economic model of Europe that replicates the GFC
monetary crisis and then tests the effect of a range of policy options on the model. Some policy
options have positive effects. The paper is available at: buoyanteconomies.com/SavingTheEuro.pdf
The remarkably naive idea that any market could be free, and that some god called 'market forces'
would always take care of things, is awfully primitive, but also very human. Time to get heads
out of sand, however, and face facts. We are never going to have the ideal anarchist state; we
are never going to see real communism (as opposed to state capitalism) work; and neo-liberalism
was dead in the water from the start.
There are ways to make economies work, but they involve much more thinking and work, and much
less knee-jerk spouting of opinion.
I just hope we survive the mess left by the last 35 years' mismanagement of everything.
There are ways to make economies work, but they involve much more thinking and work, and
much less knee-jerk spouting of opinion.
If you read the report that's pretty much what it concludes.
This is the second piece in as many days that completely travesties a reports (Z WIlliams article
on pregnancy advice is the other).
I would suggest as a rule of them that whenever you see the word "report" in a Guardian
opinion column you go looking for it on the internet, because what you are about to read will
have very little to do with the research, rather a projection of the author's own views onto it.
What's sad about his is not just the level of misinformation being spread about but how resistant
the views even of intelligent and articulate people are to evidence and research. They read the
reports, and just say what they were going to say anyway.
Quite right. A lack of what used to be called 'reason' or 'rationality' has been dominant for
decades now, and it seems to be getting worse.
It should have been clear from the start that Thatcher, Reagan, et al. were wrong. A more equitable
distribution of wealth, and hence a more healthy economy, will involve all sorts of things at
which both left-wing and right-wing conservatives (by that I mean those on both sides of the political
spectrum who cling to old ideas) will scream bloody blue murder. One could start with the complex
of environmental concerns, for example.
Another insightful article from Chakrabortty, who, along with John Harris continues to provide
welcome sense, in contrast to a host of Westminster bubble hacks that get regularly aired in the
Guardian (my personal frustration list includes Behr, Freedland and Rawnsley).
I don't, however, yet think we can be sanguine about a lessening grip from this destructive
ideology. It has a grip in higher education economics departments, where it seems to take the
Jesuits approach to grabbing them whilst young and impressionable. It also has a grip on what
passes for media in many western countries, where it continues with its poisonous propaganda in
which symptoms morph into causes.
Read any of the articles in this paper in which the EU referendum is mentioned, and see the
blaming of immigration for everything from zero hour contracts and pressure on housing and services
to the weather (OK, I made the last one up, but you get the drift). A classic is the article on
Stephen Hawkings views on Trump and the referendum where btl is infested with all sorts of crap
about how he 'doesnt get it because he's not working class'.
Neo-liberalism is and has been the establishments ideology for a few decades now, and whilst
it's cheer leaders and supporters continue to exert their influence over the media and HE it could
stagger on a while longer yet.
You don't need globalisation to make shoes with robots.
If cheap labour is out of the equation then robots will most likely return production to local
markets, as shipping will be an unnecessary cost.
And Adidas have been using evil sewing machines for decades, also naughty electricity: how
far do you want to roll back this particular "race to the bottom"?
Automation is terrible in neo-liberalism. But Guy Standing, Paul Mason, David Graeber, Yanis Varoufakis
and Robert Reich make clear that you can have automation and still have social cohesion and security.
Universal Basic Income is step one on the road to Postcapitalism.
Yes; lots of valid points - although you left out that the report didn't say neoliberalism was
all bad - nothing lasts thirty years in a democracy if it's entirely sh*t. We all voted for more
cheap tellies, cheap clothes, cheap holidays, cheap nannies etc etc.
The question is not even 'How do we adapt to the death of neoliberalism?" It's 'How much can
we even afford to let neoliberalism die?' No politician who wants to stay in the job for ten minutes,
is going to tell the electorate what the future of globalized free trade (which means globalized
free movement of labour units) really looks like - so they keep filtering the whole thing through
the old meaningless panto of "left and right."
Farage and Trump are punting exactly the same "hard-left" protectionism that the likes of Arthur
Scargill once fought for, yet the media (and politicians) still shriek about them being "right
wing," while Sanders and Corbyn have an internationalist view that George Soros would happily
endorse.
We've already had the mainstream begin to adapt - eg; Hillary Clinton faking concern about
neoliberalism's excesses in order to see off the threat from Saunders, while the Conservatives
had to concede an EUref to UKIP. And while it's (on balance) a welcome death - we'd better hope
that it's a reasonably gentle one that acknowledges what works, not the kind of infantilized 'pull-up-the-drawbridge'
populist crap that Trump spoon-feeds his demographic. The faster the mainstream adapts, the better.
Neoliberalism necessarily impoverishes. Its object is to produce goods and services more cheaply,
ie reduce wages. Unfortunately, workers are also consumers, so reducing wages means reducing consumption,
which in turn means reducing production.
A pleasanter system may be to separate production (by machines) from consumption (by humans),
hence the interest in helicopter money and citizens income- methods by which individuals are paid
by their society to consume.
The simpler, and so perhaps more likely scenario, is war and pestilence, to create shortages.
Universal Basic Income yes, helicopter money no. Helicopter money is the last bullet of neo-liberalism.
Printing and dumping cash in the hopes that people will spend or invest it. It's the ultimate
act of can kicking.
Last year the rich countries' thinktank, the OECD, made a remarkable concession. It acknowledged
that the share of UK economic growth enjoyed by workers is now at its lowest since the second
world war. Even more remarkably, it said the same or worse applied to workers across the capitalist
west.
I wonder if these bastions of economic probity, the IMF and the OECD, will ever apologise for
supporting neoliberalism. I wonder if they will ever take any responsibility for advocating a
system which has resulted in the rich geting so much richer whilst most of the rest see little
or no improvement in their lives, and now increasing numbers of the poor become destitute. I wonder,
but I doubt
Yes, it's dying, but not dead yet. It's as much a social doctrine as it is an economic ideology.
DBS checks and criminal registers are still very much alive, and these are beacons of neoliberal
philosophy. But creating environments where the masses destroy each other-and the rich few prosper-
is not a new thing. For years Christianity advocated a similarly dogmatic stance. The biblical
"meek shall inherit the earth" has been catastrophically and deliberately misrepresented by those
with a vested interest in doing so. You think there is absolute truth and morality? Think again,
the market defines what is and is not moral, always has done, always will do. The only thing that
neoliberalism changed was the moral goalposts. Instead of blasphemy it uses sexual deviancy as
it's antithesis. Oh the myopic masses.
All the problems we face today have their roots in the neoliberal ideology. It created a monster
that now stamps across the world crushing any country with independents from the grip of this
corporate elite. They use financial weapons to destroy economies that don't give into their way
of doing things. It breaks up communities to make workers vulnerable, drives wages down, reduces
the tax on their profits, sells off all state assets the taxpayer built to made to modern world
possible... at rock bottom prices. The list of destructive aspects that can be attributed to neoliberalism
is long. Here are a couple of biggies we won't be able to recover from for generations to come.
Intergenerational theft by it's approach to the housing market used to prop up the decreasing
wages and create and illusion we were all getting richer. All it was doing was stealing from their
children to enrich themselves in the present. Then the problems now with care in the community,
a result of the break-up of communities to exploit labour. This could turn into an extremely long
post if I was to just name all the major problem but Pensions and the privatising the utilities
have left the lives of the children of today blighted. Oh and then there is the climate, another
problem exacerbated by neoliberalism. Its control of media outlets means the public will never
be properly informed about this issue or any issue that might challenge the neoliberal agenda.
I think we can now say after this debacle that the most productive cohesive and successful period
the west has had was under socialist democratic control after the WW2.
The Achilles heel of neo-liberalism was that it over emphasized the supply side. Costs had
to be driven down by emasculating Trade Unions, curbs on workers bargaining power were introduced
and salaries plummeted, government services had to be cut with direct consequences on jobs and
quality of life and, taxes to the rich were simultaneously cut exacerbating income inequality.
Some of us have been saying this for sometime, that if you create unemployment in the name
of efficiency and drastically reduce the salaries of those already in employment who is going
to buy the goods and services which were now being produced "efficiently" under neo-liberalism.
You can not get growth under this scenario, ultimately you have to reckon with question of decline
in aggregate demand and the concomitant income in equality caused by neo-liberalism. What the
proponents of neo-liberalism thought was the holy grail of economics turned out to a be a veritable
cul-de- sac. The rising tide that was supposed to lift all boats has turned out to the whirl pool
that threatens to suck all of us to the bottom of the sea.
The only death here is in the acknowledgement of neoliberalism's essential failure to deliver
a fair and equitable society.
Soviet state socialism lied, because it pretended to be a necessary step on the way to
common ownership of the means of production: but instead fell into the hands of uncompromising
thugs. It failed because the neoliberal capitalist system is a far more efficient way for uncompromising
thugs to run things.
Unfortunately, unlike soviet state socialism, there is no practical alternative to neoliberalism,
since all the institutions that opposed it or ameliorated it have been destroyed or suborned.
Consequently, neoliberalism no longer needs to pretend that it is an ideology committed to fairness
or equality.
This is not the death of neoliberalism. It is neoliberalism beginning to shed a false skin,
coming out of the closet.
It is neoliberalism coming to life, and walking the streets unashamed of its true nature.
The only death is the death of its pretence to be a system that benefits all: and this results
from an arrogance that considers all alternatives, such as socialism or Islam, to have been consigned
to the dustbin of history.
These lying ideological bastards have destroyed millions of lives and dented the hopes and aspirations
of millions more. Their warped gurus, Hayek and Mitford et al are economic illiterates who have
been peddling their failed filth for years, buttressed by soulless politicos such Reagan, Thatcher
and Blair. They and their failed experiment based on greed rather than need should be confined
to the dustbin of history.
Interested to read the comment about the fact that UK workers no longer enjoy a share of economic
growth. I'm 50 and have one 48-year-old sibling. As we grew up as children in the 70's and 80's,
our father's salary as a department manager in a major high street supermarket chain was more
than enough for us to have a very comfortable childhood. For children today to have the same experience
would require both parents to work - and much longer hours.
The fable 'you never had it so good' is a blatant lie.
We can't turn back the clock and even if we could I have no desire to return to the strikes
and conflict of the 1970s. Yet at the same time it is abundantly clear that as a people we are
being squeezed until the pips squeak... Today it is zero hours contracts and "If you don't like
it, quit, and I'll hire a migrant on half your salary"... This isn't freakonomics, it's fearonomics
- and it's far too effective to go away any time soon.
the real irony being that capitalism is driven and sustained by demand, while neo-liberalism privileges
supply, which increases inequality.
This becomes a problem as capitalism is also dependent upon the poorest half spending for its
health. Neo-liberalism is, in essence, economic Anorexia Nervosa.
No where in their bag of tricks did they try the one that would actually work, increase the
spending power of the lower half, but that is anathema to neo-liberal philosophy.
The real advantage for neo-liberalism is that they've already made off with most things of
value that weren't legislatively nailed to the floor.
The state has been militarised to such an extent armed revolution is all but impossible. What
really terrifies them is that we will simply ignore them and create our own alternatives. Take
Argentina in 2001 as an example. It was the only country in history to default on it's debt due
to popular revolt. The revolt in question centered on people forming alternative social and economic
services in their own communities around the rallying cry of "Que se vayan todos" or they can
all go to hell. There are a few books published under that title about it that are free online.
Similarly, have a look at this vid from David Graeber. You can start at 2:56 for a direct answer
but it's worth watching the whole thing: https://youtu.be/mU1pQIMv8_A
It acknowledged that the share of UK economic growth enjoyed by workers is now at its lowest
since the second world war.
When the economy crashed in 2008 they labelled it credit crunch. The explanation was, and still
is, that lenders ran out of credit to carry on lending. But all along they knew that they needed
credit primarily to cover their ever mounting losses and carry on business as usual. If their
loanees were keeping up payments, not a single lender would crash because of lack of credit.
Quite basically neoliberal capitalism bit off the same finger that fed it. By going for eternal
suppression of wages, forever reducing taxes, and forever shrinking states, they set up a system
that helped them to keep more and more proceeds of growth for themselves. Sounds great until you
realise that demand has disappeared from the economy. That is what happened in 2008. There was
never a credit crunch. If there is real demand, credit would be found somewhere. Central banks
can make credit available to meet real demands.
If the economy is to start growing again, there has to be a fairer distribution of the proceeds
of growth. It means higher and fairer wages, higher taxes, a more robust state (the state has
always been a major redistributor of wealth). This would bring back demand into the economy. These
changes go against every principle of neoliberalism. But then that's why it died,
Neoliberalism isn't an ideology, it's about class interests. Neoliberal principle is turned on
its head whenever that's in the interests of the economic elite - witness the nationalisations
and state aids during the banking crisis.
Neoliberalism isn't an ideology, it's about class interests.
Why can't it be an ideology that is organically linked to class interests? The fact that an
ideology involves an internal, situational gap between official rhetoric and policy substance,
is not enough to disqualify it as an ideology. It just means that the ideology is more complex
than its surface suggests.
We live in the Breshnev era of neoliberalism. The ideology is utterly discredited, and all around
is stagnation and despair, but the more it fails in fact, the more it is enshrined in law. TTIP
is one example, the Berlin-Brussels determination to "constitutionalise" neoliberalism in the
EU by outlawing alternatives is another. If anyone does not know what I'm talking about, I refer
them to the Fiscal Compact, and to the ongoing assault on Greek democracy.
The tragedy is that the Soviet example demonstrates that such zombie systems can continue for
decades. The post-mortem phase of the Stalinist system was of much greater duration than its brief
pre-mortem era (if it ever was alive for more than 5 minutes). Metaphorically speaking, the embalmed
corpses of Thatcher and Merkel may be inspecting parades in Red Square for years to come, as one
wasted generation gives way to another.
I hope you are wrong, and there is hope that you are. One of the big ones is me being able to
talk to you from here in Angola where I am currently working. The internet.
Nothing like that existed in Russia, or anywhere else in the world. They could only go by word
of mouth as nothing was written to give an alternative. People were isolated, they lacked credible
information, yet today we are awash with more information than any of us can handle. The job today
is to sort the wheat from the chaff.
2008 woke up the people when they found out what the banks have been up to, but that was also
as the internet was growing exponentially. Even granny is on Facebook today. The best bit is governments
cannot control it in the same way they could control the media before.
...what you're witnessing amid all the graphs and technical language is the start of the
long death of an ideology.
The start ?
Y'know I could swear I remember both the IMF and the World Bank officially donning hair shirts
and admitting what research had clearly shown: that the imposition of neoliberal policies as preconditions
for financial aid packages had generally proved totally disastrous for those they were supposed
to help.
That was back in the 1990s... In practice very little has changed--except that nowadays an
article such as the one we're commenting on may include journalists--in this case TV correspondents
--in the list of those who continue to reassure us, regardless of any evidence to the contrary,
that neoliberal policies really are working.
Thus the delectably cynical modern definition of a journalist: one who is paid by the rich
to tell the middle classes to blame the working classes.
It all feels a bit late. Growth figures have become meaningless. It doesn't matter what the state
of the economy is, because all most of us see is zero hours contracts and zero public services.
The result has been Trump, the rise of the far right, and the probable break-up of the EU (and
possibly UK as well). Our political elites are still asleep on the job. I genuinely don't know
where this is taking us.
From the IMF paper:
"Austerity policies not only generate substantial welfare costs
due to supply-side channels, they also hurt demand-and thus
worsen employment and unemployment. The notion that fiscal
consolidations can be expansionary (that is, raise output and
employment), in part by raising private sector confidence and
investment, has been championed by, among others, Harvard
economist Alberto Alesina in the academic world and by former
European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet in
the policy arena. However, in practice, episodes of fiscal consolidation
have been followed, on average, by drops rather than by
expansions in output. On average, a consolidation of 1 percent
of GDP increases the long-term unemployment rate by 0.6 percentage
point and raises by 1.5 percent within five years the Gini
measure of income inequality (Ball and others, 2013)."
And here in Australia, the Liberal government is trying to sell us a $50 billion reduction
in company tax, and an even larger, unspecified reduction in government spending to return to
budget surplus as a "plan" for "jobs and growth".
This sucker went down in 2008. What has happened since has been a nightmare. The money-printing,
giving that money to the rich, economic 'growth' based on immigration has rewarded those that
brought 08 about, whilst punishing it's victims again. Hopefully either Trump, Corbyn, Brexit
or Russia re-exerting it's power can finally drive a stake through the neolib heart.
" Global Financial Crisis Coming – Japan Warns of "Lehman-Scale" Crisis At G7
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe warned his Group of Seven counterparts on Friday that
the world may on the brink of a global financial crisis on the scale of Lehman Brothers."
This quote from an article on zerohedge.com this morning.
Yet most of humanity remains in the dark, continuing their lives without thought of what is
about to happen - a financial crash of such enormity, life will never be the same again. Hardly
anyone is preparing and even if they do, it will be to no avail because apart from the elite who
will disappear into fortified underground bunkers, we shall be left to fight for our lives by
whatever means possible.
Too bleak a picture? Food riots going on in Venezuela should be enough to demonstrate what
can happen. And the US is partially to blame, labelling Venezuela a threat to their security.
That Venezuela will pushed into using the dollar for trade is one way of protecting the petrodollar
and the reason behind such a stance. Is there no end to the hegemony of a would be slavemaster?
Indeed, as per the ending of the book Red Plenty "What kind of socialism is that? What
kind of shit is that, when you have to keep people in chains? What kind of social order? What
kind of paradise?"
Yes; it's dying from within. It was theory, and scholars are abandoning it. But those who put
the theory into practice are still there, and they're clinging to their ideology as much as to
their seats.
Neoliberalism is bankrupt in every sense of the word but that doesn't stop the EU, in particular,
from imposing its destructive "remedies" - read poison - on member states. And the problem is
that we can't remove either the Commission or the bureaucrats, no matter how much they fail. The
EU is not a democracy but a kleptocracy. Once you're in, you're in for good. The high-placed bureaucrat
who fears for his/her job doesn't exist. Elections are a sham. Nobody - absolutely nobody - votes
for a European party or a European platform. The minority that goes to the voting booths uses
their ballot as a way to express approval or disapproval of national governments.
And so we are stuck with neoliberalism, just as the Soviet Union was stuck with communism under
Breznev and Andropov. It wasn't working, but the bureaucrats and leaders had a vested interest
in keeping it going.
"Two British examples, suggests Will Davies – author of the Limits of Neoliberalism – would
be the NHS and universities 'where classrooms are being transformed into supermarkets'. "
The dominant neoliberal, market fundamentalist order must, like any competent cult, enforce
its authority by doubling down each time its worldview is threatened. This is accomplished by
identifying and monetizing regions of social life that had hitherto been neglected or underutilized.
In the latest sting, the student is reduced to the status of a consumer whose actions and decisions
are governed purely by the market algorithm. The reduction must be so complete that the student-consumer
identity should appear obvious and unquestionable.
"Since the crash, central bankers, politicians and TV correspondents have tried to reassure
the public that this wheeze or those billions would do the trick and put the economy right
again."
The financial crash of 2008 was the biggest and latest bursting in a series of asset bubbles,
following on the footsteps of the 2000 bust of the Dotcom bubble. Taking the long view over the
last thirty years, the blowing and bursting of one asset bubble after another has served as a
means of vacuuming up the social wealth, as the top economic tiers have been successively bailed
out at the expense of the majority of the population.
To express it in the precise language of physics, the bubble-burst-bail cycle is the pump'em-fleece'em-blame'em
game that the economic elite perpetrate on the unsuspecting commoners.
The captured organs of government managed to again bail out the big speculators and players,
privatizing their gains during the expansion of the bubble and socializing their losses during
its bust. In other words, a smooth operation of radiating risk from high-stakes gamblers and scammers
to the society at large. However, the ripple effects of the latest crash have not been completely
damped out and, if anything, the magnitude of the shock waves keeps increasing after each manifestation
of discontent and protest against the neoliberal machine.
A cascading series of cracks are beginning to appear in the illusion of the steady-state equilibrium
of the world, fracturing the end-of-history narrative that the neoliberal order has been energetically
maintaining for the past three decades. Nevertheless, the this-can't-go-on-but-it-will-go-on state
of affairs seems to be sputtering and not going on as smoothly as before. Occupy Wall Street,
Corbyn, Sanders, Syriza, Podemos, etc., are the fissures through which the pent-up and inchoate
frustrations of various social forces are periodically finding an outlet to the surface.
The dangers of the ever-increasing extreme inequality and the instability it can cause are
explored by various scholars including
Acemoglu and
Turchin . The latter
applies a dynamical system approach to estimate political stress pressures that could lead to
crises. According to his analysis we are on the cusp of one such instability. The increasing instability
of the neoliberal order implies the shifting of the ground beneath it. The previous givenness
of the passive citizenry is becoming less so, and critical junctures might approach fast and unforeseeably.
It's reaching end game in the US. The global elite now control most of the world's wealth. Congress
is corrupt as hell. TTIP will grab any jewels the people own, like the NHS.
But communism fell internally when the people didn't want it. one way to stop the global elite
is to tax them properly, including their corporations, like Facebook and Google. The French are
at least taking Google to court for extra tax. And these damned tax-shelters need to be closed
down and firms outlawed from sending their money their.
Even Luxenbourg is a parasite. It offers these company's a nice low tax rate ( in the EU!) and
their citizens have the highest standard of livening in the EU for doing zero.
Please, do not keep equating the Russian dictatorships to Communisim.
It isn't, never was and never could be.
The USofA demonised the concept of true socialism by using the excesses of the USSR as a blind
in order for its wealthy ruling elite to further mislead the general population.
As Rolly said, USSR was neither socialist nor communist. It was a torture chamber with a red flag
and social welfare. There are multiple paths to a communist society, to the tragedy of the people
who lived under it that was not one of them. The Spanish anarchists have it a fair go and did
particularly well given the circumstances. I don't know if I would follow any of these ideologies
as a way out but alternatives do at least exist.
Yes, it's certainly too soon to add bunting and balloons to the shopping-list and, as the Straw
Man says in The Wizard of Oz, it will probably get worse before it gets better, with those who
truly, madly and deeply believe in the ideology or cult of neoliberalism exercising and inflicting
it more savagely and ruthlessly in the years to come.
Neoliberalism is a heist of wealth from those who create it at the bottom to those who plunder
and squander it at the top.
It is forever aided and abetted by useful idiots, who think that earning a few multiples of
the average wage or having a few thousand in the bank puts them on a level which is closer to
Carlos Slim or Warren Buffet than the sanctioned, hardworking, wage-free supermarket shelf-stacker
and charity food-bank shopper.
The cheerleaders and shills who swarm like flies around shit.
Excellent article. I particularly enjoyed 'fiscal waterboarding'.
This is one of Spufford's crucial insights: that long before any public protests, the insiders
led the way in murmuring their disquiet.
... what you're witnessing amid all the graphs and technical language is the start of the
long death of an ideology.
Well, we live in hope. I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing neoliberalism dead and buried. Unfortunately,
it's clear that the key word in each of those quotes is 'long'. The relatively few who are benefiting
from the neoliberal model won't give it up without the mother of all power struggles.
"The relatively few who are benefiting from the neoliberal model won't give it up without the
mother of all power struggles."
Yeah - thats the nub. They are not going to give up their huge power and privilege merely because
the system it relies on is screwing everybody else. Intellectual critques will get nowhere without
change being forced by unrelenting pressure from mass movements of ordinary people - strike, occupy,
demonstrate, boycott and organise.
What is remarkable is how long it has taken for institutions like the IMF to state what has been
obvious to most populations for many years. The contrast with the rise of rewards at the top and
food banks at the bottom should have been a red rag to a bull for any organisation which supposedly
has the whole of the worlds population to consider. The lies about 'public bad and private good'
have led to whole sectors of teachers, doctors and other public servants to be alienated.
I find the difficulty of voting to stay in an obviously neoliberal Europe or a probably more neoliberal
UK a difficult choice. My gut feeling at the moment is to vote out and hope the more extreme neoliberal
policies of Redwood and Johnson will quickly alarm the British public and we may get back to electing
a socially minded government and not have to endure this lying 'caring conservatism' which voting
remain will entrench for many years.
It seems that the political arm of the IMF which supports Bremain is at odds with the research
arm which is more ambivalent about the excesses of neoliberalism.
The "Free market" is a non-sequitur: A free market ends up in monopoly.
Inevtitably.
That's why all free market economies have at their root a mechanism for preventing monopolies
working.
Economist is fundamentally illogical based on the basic fact that economics deals in "Value",
and that value is something essentially illogical. It is not possible to objectively give a value
to a kilo of potatoes, much as economists have tried, not elast Marx who was a clever person.
This need to prevent monopolies originates in that, in various tortuous and complicated labyrinthine
ways.
The reality is that a "free market" only exists where there are numerous buyers and numerous sellers.
Once supply is consolidated in the hands of the few (i.e. almost every commodity in our modern
world) then the market is distorted and no longer free.
Whereas states previously had powers to prevent monopoly power in their own country there is
no such mechanism to regulate at a global level.
But the fundamental reality of a market is the basis of human society.
What is that supposed to mean exactly?
"...Lessons of October (156k) written only shortly after Lenin's death in 1924, issued a serious
warning to workers about the mistakes and inadequacies of the clique already forming around Stalin.
It obliquely draws lessons from the failure of the German revolution, "a perfectly exceptional
revolutionary situation of world historic importance," due in part to the failure of leadership
of Stalin himself, which left the Russian revolution isolated.
But it is Trotsky's In Defence of October which is most recommended to the new reader. Trotsky
concludes this remarkable explanation of the ideas of Marxism (as developed by Lenin and Trotsky)
with the words:
"The historic task of our epoch consists in replacing the uncontrolled play of the market
by reasonable planning, in disciplining the forces of production, compelling them to work together
in harmony and obediently serve the needs of mankind."
(In Defence of October)
Peruse, if you will,
this sabre-rattling pile of poop . Coming on the heels of recent articles which warn that
the west sees a nuclear war as both winnable and possible , even probable, and the conviction
that a new western strategy is
the attempt to initiate a Kremlin palace coup by Russian nationalist hardliners fed up with Putin's
squishiness because he will not respond more aggressively to NATO provocations on Russia's doorstep,
it's hard not to conclude that the west has lost its mind. If the fear of a planet-devastating nuclear
war – in which the two major world nuclear powers pull out all the stops in an unrestricted attempt
to annihilate one another – no longer holds our behaviors in check…what's scarier than that?
We seriously need to persuade our leaders, in the strongest terms, that they cannot talk smack
like that. It might seem funny to you to hear a senior government official from the country that
fabricated a case for
war so it could destroy its old enemy, Saddam Hussein, and lay waste to his country and people,
prattling on about 'the rules-based international order', just as if the United States recognizes
any limitations on its application of raw power, anywhere on the globe, in its own interests. It's
quite true that whenever the USA wants to start a war with someone, it first makes out a case that
this is a situation in which it must act. And even its critics would have to acknowledge that it
is damned good at this sort of fakery, and has come a long way since one of its premiere PR firms
– Hill & Knowlton – coached
the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States through her performance as a make-believe
Kuwaiti nurse devastated by Saddam's forces' make-believe plundering of a Kuwaiti hospital, something
which did not happen. It did, however, strike precisely the right responsive chord in public anger
and disgust to kick off Gulf War I. Both wars against Iraq got off the ground on entirely fabricated
scenarios calculated to get the rubes all in a lather to do the right thing. To hear a self-righteous
assrocket like Ashton Carter maunder on about the rules-based international order, considering the
United States encouraged the military campaign by the Ukrainian government to kill its own citizens
in a blatant violation of the very core principles of the imaginary rules-based international order…why,
it's a little like listening to Imelda Marcos teaching a seminar on how to take care of your shoes
so they'll last a long time and you won't have to buy more. I have to say, it just… it makes me mad.
What has really brought us to this point in the history of the Big Blue Marble is that despite
the progress we've made together since the end of the Cold War, the indispensable and exceptional
nation has in recent years tried by various means to overthrow the government of Russia, without
success. It has tried incentivizing and supporting opposition movements, and got most of its NGO's
kicked out of the country for its pains. It has tried sexual politics, hoping to mobilize the world's
homosexuals against 'Putin's draconian anti-gay laws', only to have the effort fall flat. It has
tried open economic warfare, which worked just long enough for
President Obama to take credit for it , then Russian counter-sanctions
made European businesses wish they had never heard of President Obama . Shortly after that, Russia
began to
muscle in on US agricultural markets ; a startlingly lifelike performance for a dying country.
It looks like everything that has been tried in the effort to send Russia down for a dirtnap has
failed. What's left? They're running out of war-alternative regime-change efforts.
And what has made Washington suddenly so cocky with the nuclear stick? Could it be that its European-based
missile defense system
has just gone live ? After all Obama's waffling, after his backing away from the missile defense
the hawks wanted, in the winding-down days of his presidency he re-committed to it, and the site
in Romania has started up, with great fanfare. Washington continues to insist, tongue in cheek, that
the system is not and cannot be targeted against Russia's nuclear deterrent, but for what other purpose
could it be there? The rogue-missiles-from-Iran canard is pretty much played out. It seems pretty
clear that Washington figures its interceptors (the Standard series SM3) give it a potential first-strike
capability, which would – in theory – see Washington's unalerted launch taking out most of Russia's
ICBM's in their silos, and the forward-based interceptors taking out the few missiles that avoided
Washington's hammer-blow. If they don't believe that, why the sudden nuclear-weapons nose-thumbing?
If they do believe that, it's a big mistake. First of all, where the USA relies on a nuclear triad
deterrent – land-based, air-deployable and seaborne nuclear missiles – Russia adds a fourth leg;
mobile Transporter/Erector/Launcher (TEL) vehicles which have a demonstrated off-road capability,
so that they could be most anywhere. The USA could not be sure of hitting all Russia's land-based
missiles before launch. Then there is the sea-based component, in SSBN's, ballistic-missile submarines.
The BOREI Class carries the Bulava missile. Each of the 20 missiles can carry up to 10 MIRV warheads
of 150 kilotons yield. The USA is
already worried that it is falling behind Russia and China in submarine capability. Finally,
Russia has the 'dead hand' system, which is an automatic program that will launch all undestroyed
fixed-site missiles even if everyone in Russia is dead.
... ... ...
This is an existential battle for Russia. No amount of conciliatory gestures will buy it peace, and
the United States is determined to push it off the edge of the world. With NATO surrounding it, even
if it disbanded its military and plowed all its croplands into flowerbeds, the west would still pretend
to see it as a threat, and would foment internal discord until it broke apart. Russia's leaders know
this. Its people know this. Strutting up and down the border and waving the NATO flag is not going
to make Russia get scared about 'consequences', and kneel in the dirt. NATO's fundamental problem
is that it understands neither the Russian character or the true circumstances in the country, preferring
to rely on rosy estimates presented by its think tanks.
The biggest 'consequence' of this dick-waving and posturing is that we are back where we were
in 1947.
Mark, a very timely and well-written post! The red hot approaching white hot rhetoric is unnerving
to the sane. Yet, there is virtually no chance of a successful US first strike for the reasons
you mentioned. If some breakthrough in ABM technology were to occur that could be quickly retrofit
to existing installations then a strategic imbalance could occur. I suppose Russia must assume
that is the US thinking so such a worst-case scenarios needs to be part of their strategic planning.
We had Star Wars back in the 80's designed to render Soviet missiles useless. Yet any competent
scientist or engineer could determine that it was ALL BS. A favorite story was that a scientist
indicated an anti-missile laser system they were working on had achieve 10 to the 7th power output
(don't remember the units) but they needed to reach 10 to the 14th power output. An eager politician
reported to the administration that all they needed was TWO of the lasers to shoot down Soviet
missiles.
So, my take is that the US rhetoric is based on two possibilities – one that you mentioned
is that everything else has failed so why not give war a chance. The Russians, being substantially
saner that the West, and knowing the horrors of war, could back down in deference to the survival
of humanity. The other ploy could be to induce Russia into another arms race to bankrupt their
economy. This later strategy, if it is the case, would have been formulated from the widely mistaken
belief that the 80's Star Wars eventually forced the collapse of the Soviet Union. That is the
danger of using sustained propaganda indiscriminately, your own side may end up believing it.
One last thought is that no one foresaw the collapse of the Soviet Union. By poking around
enough, perhaps the West thinks something can trigger a similar cascade of events resulting in
the collapse of Russia. Its sort of magical thinking without basis in reality but its good enough
for politicians and think tanks. Just keep Gorbachev out of Russia:)
Your warning about how the West, having given up on a liberal revolution, would now like a
nationalistic coup in Russia was spot on. Nothing could be worse for Russia than engaging in a
tit-for-tat battle with the West. The Russian strategy seems to be working quite nicely as its
economy adjusts to life without the West, it outsmarts the Empire at every turn and the Eurasian
Union proceeds.
…everything else has failed so why not give war a chance
####
John Lennon would have wept. Genius PO! Genius!
It looks like we all agree that the US is at loose ends. So far all its plans have come to
naught, so trying a little bit of everything in the hope that something magical will happen (as
noted), is a massive indictment on US governmental institutions. Damned stubborn Russians.
I found it amusing that Goldman raised their price target (causing a rally in the
stock) hours before underwriting a capital raise that cause a decline in Tesla's stock.
Although, to be fair there are SEC rules that are very explicit, with severe consequences,
if Goldman Sachs' underwriting dept talked or leaked anything to their analysts.
Goldman Sachs does plenty of shady things to make a profit – like selling Mortgage Backed Securities
as AAA investments, and simultaneously, knowing they're crap, betting on them going bad (covered
in the critically acclaimed documentary "Inside Job"), or helping Greece hide their budget deficit
with accounting magic… so they can sell them debt… that they know will go bad.
However, as odd as it is, none of those actions were illegal. THIS would actually be illegal,
and Goldman Sachs is smarter than that. I'd guess it is a genuine coincidence.
On a separate note, I find it important to note that Tesla FIRST scouted out battery suppliers
to supplement their battery supply 1 DAY before announcing the amount of their capital raise.
My hypothesis, Tesla's accelerated Model 3 ramp-up meant that they will need a large supply
of additional batteries as the Gigafactory will not be able to accelerate it's schedule enough
to match the accelerated vehicle production ramp.
This also tells me that Tesla is confident enough in their accelerated Model 3 production schedule
that they needed to arrange a multi-million dollar contract with battery suppliers to supplement
their capacity until the Gigafactory can meet demand.
Although, to be fair there are SEC rules that are very explicit, with severe consequences,
if Goldman Sachs' underwriting dept talked or leaked anything to their analysts.
This is all about corruption of regulators and impunity of TBTF financial institutions under
neoliberalism - which is an immanent feature of neoliberalism aka "casino capitalism"…
Goldman's role in the growth of casino capitalism in the USA is similar to that of other players,
except for one thing: Goldman didn't believe its own hype. The now famous Rolling Stone magazine
article in 2009 by Matt Taibbi unforgettably referred to Goldman Sachs, the world's most powerful
investment bank, as a "great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming
its blood funnel into anything that smells like money." (
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jakezamansky/2013/08/08/the-great-vampire-squid-keeps-on-sucking/
)
Impunity is epidemic in America. The rich and powerful get away with their heists in broad
daylight. When a politician like Bernie Sanders calls out the corruption, the New York Times
and Wall Street Journal double down with their mockery over such a foolish "dreamer." The Journal
recently opposed the corruption sentence of former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell for taking
large gifts and bestowing official favors - because everybody does it. And one of its columnists
praised Panama for facilitating the ability of wealthy individuals to hide their income from
"predatory governments" trying to collect taxes. No kidding.
Our major institutions, the ones that should know better, are often gross enablers of impunity.
Consider my alma mater, Harvard University, and its recent nuptial with hedge-fund manager
John Paulson. Paulson was the co-conspirator with Goldman Sachs of one of the most notorious
scams of the recent financial bubble.
Professional financial hackers have a lot of common with the organized crime. And not only
in respect to common addictions to cocaine and prostitutes. But there is a subtle difference:
financial hackers make it daily (and very lucrative) business to figure out ways to abide by
the letter of the law while violating its spirit. Although the claim that they do not break
the law has very little credibility. They do break the law, but at the same time their political
influence is big enough to keep them out of jail. In 2012 Lanny Breuer, then the head of the
Justice Department's criminal division openly admitted that. In a speech at the New York City
Bar Association he said that he felt that it was his duty to consider the health of the company,
the industry, and the markets in deciding whether or not to file charges. Which in case of
Goldman represents insurmountable obstacle to criminal prosecution.
In any case GS converted itself into a special type of TBTF company, the company that specialized
in hacking financial system. And in a large company internal politic can turn really destructive
both to the firm and society at large. In fact, in large companies there are people with very
high IQ at the top with personal traits that makes them more dangerous in comparison with bosses
of Mexican gangs. It also makes internal political battles more vicious. BTW, a lot of psychopaths
have above average IQ.
In a way the USA never had a subprime crisis. What we had was systemic, neoliberalism-induced
crisis that involves FED, government, congress, banking, ratings, insurance, investment and
financial industries (the banks were at the center of this crime syndicate and they were the
largest beneficiaries of the crimes committed), one manifestation of which was 2008 subprime
crisis. Large banks became huge, dominant political force and based on their political weight,
they hacked the financial system in the same way computer hackers hack computers systems to
suit their short term needs and first of all for enrichment of the brass (appetite for "make
money fast" schemes was greatly raised during dot-com crisis).
As Simon Johnson wrote in May 2009 the USA had a The Quiet Coup with banks becoming the most
favored and the most protected industry of the Congress. Financial system is essentially a
system of rules. If a rich and powerful organization is directed toward hacking the rules:
finding weaknesses and exploiting them it is undistinguishable from mafia in a very precise
meaning of the term (organize crime syndicate with strong ethnic component), only more sophisticated.
Again they are not gangsters in traditional meaning of this word, they are of a hackers, and
as such they are much more difficult to prosecute. As a comment to blog post at EconomistView
by "Eric" (Paul Krugman The Unwisdom of Elites) aptly stated:
Villains….who exactly? The principle reason that there have been few prosecutions of high level
bankers is that not so much that got done was illegal. Reckless, maybe. But even here is it
really reckless behavior if you have a belief - which turns out to be true - that public finances
will bear the downside risks on your behalf?
In hindsight it feels like these things should have been illegal, but the available serious
punishments, such as not bailing out AIG, not allowing various investment firms to become bank
holding entites, not backstopping the GSEs (read their debt issues and you'll see that nowhere
is a claim made for public backing), not taking first loss positions on Bear Stearn assets,
etc., etc., were foregone by voluntary actions by public officials.
Make peace with the truth that there will be no sweeping prosecutions, least of all by the
federal government of the USA.
"... By Clive, an investment technology professional and Japanophile ..."
"... Until the early 19th century, conditions for ships' companies were so unpleasant that few people in their right minds willingly volunteered to participate in the market for crewmen. Vessels could not get enough people to meet their complements. No-one wanted the jobs because there were marginally better, less-worse might be a more accurate description, ways to spend your time. The compensation for sailors could have been raised but that would have made operating the ships "uneconomic". This problem soon led to the introduction of the "press gang" – a group of thugs who dragooned ("impressed") the unfortunate and the unwary – and they were disproportionately drawn from the poor or destitute sections of society – to serve on the ships. ..."
"... The next occasion you find yourself forced to spend your time working your way through competing offers in a market for things you can't easily do without in order to ensure that "benefits" of "free" "markets" can be realised, you might ask are the press gangs really a thing of the past. It is even more ironic if those agencies which are supposed to be looking after our interests end up turning themselves into neoliberalism's press gangs, forcing us to participate in capitalism when even by their own admission it produces worse outcomes for us than public ownership would. ..."
By Clive, an investment technology professional and Japanophile
One of the defining characteristics of neoliberal ideology is that more, or better, markets are
always and everywhere the solution. No matter what the issues are, markets will fix them.
Perhaps the most striking thing about the ideology is, even when it demonstrably fails – and the
markets become the problem – our elites' response is to double-down and to add new, or different,
market layers. The Affordable Care Act (even more colloquially known to its friends as "Obamacare")
is one such example. Lambert has covered this at length in terms of how overlaying an additional
market ( HealthCare.gov ) onto existing, dysfunctional
ones (healthcare insurance, Big Pharma, Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) and so on) doesn't
solve anything; it merely compounds the mess.
Rarely, though, do we get any elite acknowledgement – even from those who only carry water for
them such as Paul Krugman – that markets can be problems in and of themselves.
(para 10) … Competition between card schemes to convince payment service providers to issue
their cards leads to higher rather than lower interchange fees on the market, in contrast with
the usual price disciplining effect of competition in a market economy.
For those unfamiliar with finance industry jargon, "card schemes" are the organisation which provide
different types of payment cards to the card issuers like the banks. VISA, MasterCard and American
Express are perhaps the best known card schemes, but there are others. "Interchange fees" are the
costs which the "card schemes" charge "merchants" (stores, supermarkets – places where you spend
your money) for the privilege of using your credit or debit card to buy stuff. You end up paying
for these "interchange fees" because the card schemes charge the merchants and the merchants pass
the costs on to you.
But wait a minute, did that just say "competition… leads to higher rather than lower interchange
fees (costs)"? How can that be? Whatever happened to the Efficient Market Hypothesis? Read on. Actually,
don't you'll die of boredom if you try reading the whole draft EU Regulation, I'll spare you the
pain, the money quote is in the next paragraph (emphasis mine):
(para 11) … The currently existing wide variety of interchange fees and their level prevent
the emergence of 'new' pan (European) Union players on the basis of business models with lower
or no interchange fees, to the detriment of potential economies of scale and scope and their resulting
efficiencies. This has a negative impact on retailers and consumers and prevents innovation. As
Pan-Union players would have to offer issuing banks as a minimum the highest level of interchange
fee prevailing in the market they want to enter it also results in persisting market fragmentation.
Existing domestic schemes with lower or no interchange fees may also be forced to exit the market
because of the pressure from banks to obtain higher interchange fees revenues. As a result, consumers
and merchants face restricted choice, higher prices and lower quality of payment services.
Clive again. Ah-ha! So that's the reason. The banks issue the cards. The card schemes levy interchange
fees for using the cards. The card schemes cut the banks in on the rent-seeking in a revenue-sharing
(I'd call it extortion-sharing) grift. The card schemes compete with each other to get you to use
their cards but the only competition is which card scheme can gouge out the highest interchange fees
to pay off the banks with. The banks do not want an innovative, low cost card scheme to be able to
enter the market thereby cutting off their nice little earner. They want the highest cost schemes
possible.
But that's only going to be a problem in Europe, then? Think again. The EU is at least trying
to discipline the free market and curb the most brazen of the excesses. The situation in the U.S
is even worse. For instance, brand-slap cards (where, for example, a retail outlet does a tie-in
with a card issuer, usually one of the big banks and typically provides discounts or other incentives
for the cardholder when they use their card) have been virtually killed off in the EU by previous
EU regulations banning practices which helped to hide the true costs of these cards. Amazon UK
closed its "Prime" credit card but Amazon in the U.S. continues to offer a brand-slap card product
in a joint venture with Chase.
Let's take a look
at this. At first glance, it seems generous enough, especially on Amazon purchases. But is it
generous or not, compared to the profit Chase will make on the card? You simply cannot tell. And
get a load of the totally outrageous "gotcha's" in the small print:
Please note: We make every effort to include all relevant merchant codes in our rewards categories.
However, even though a merchant or some of the items that it sells may appear to fit within a
rewards category, the merchant may not have a merchant code in that category. When this occurs,
purchases with that merchant won't qualify for rewards offers on purchases in that category. Purchases
submitted by you, an authorized user, or the merchant through third-party payment accounts, mobile
or wireless card readers, online or mobile digital wallets, or similar technology will not qualify
in a rewards category if the technology is not set up to process the purchase in that rewards
category.
Excuse my language, but WTF? Amazon and Chase don't even guarantee that you'll get your incentives.
By the way, this sort of differential pricing depending on the merchant and the EPoS (Electronic
Point of Sale) terminal's level of sophistication is already banned in the UK and most of the EU
through existing financial regulation. It's about time the U.S. regulators followed their lead.
And the EU did decide on a lowering of the EU cross-border interchange fee cap:
(Article 3 / Article 4) … transaction interchange fee of more than 0.2 % of the value of the
transaction for any debit card transaction… credit card transaction a per transaction interchange
fee of more than 0.3 % of the value of the transaction.
In the U.S. Dodd-Frank only imposed a 0.5% cap on debit card transactions. Yes, dear U.S. reader,
you're paying more than double what the EU thinks is the correct level of interchange fee when you
use your debit card – and the Dodd-Frank cap only applies to cards issued by the largest, Too Big
to Fail, banks. And there's no regulation at all for credit card transactions' interchange fees.
Note that this could also explain the phenomena which, at first glance, appears paradoxical of
the banks welcoming ApplePay into the payments industry. It is paradoxical because ApplePay would
seem to be a natural competitor to the existing card schemes – once, that is, it can free itself
from the dependency on the customer having an existing card scheme product as their payment instrument.
But of course, nothing would delight the banks more than to see ApplePay and the existing card schemes
go into a Godzilla-vs.-Mothra battle over who can bribe the banks with the most money from interchange
fees.
The EU did consider banning interchange fees completely. And for very good reasons, here, again,
is a rare admission that sometimes no amount of regulatory intervention can fix a broken market:
(para 18a) …a prohibition of interchange fees for debit card transactions would be beneficial
for card acceptance, card usage, development of the single market (the EU) and generate more benefits
to merchants and consumers than a cap set at any higher level. Moreover it would avoid negative
effects on national systems with very low or zero interchange fees for debit transaction by a
higher cap due to cross border expansion or new market entrants increasing fee levels to the level
of the cap. A ban on interchange fees for debit card transactions also addresses the threat of
exporting the interchange fee model to new, innovative payment services such as mobile and online
systems.
Clive here. The wording is a little dense, but the EU has stumbled on the fact that if you impose
a cap on fees, the cap becomes the market price. All market participants simply charge the "capped"
price, even if their true costs are way lower and they could easily afford to cut their prices and
still make a healthy profit. There's something even worse, but a bit subtler, hidden in this paragraph
too. Once a regulator imposes a price cap for something, they are, de-facto, accepting that it is
right to even charge for what is being sold. Just as so-called environmental levies enshrine the
right of polluters to pollute – they just have to pay to clean up their messes – interchange fee
caps preserve the right for card schemes to charge for something that might not actually be worth
anything at all. We'll return to this problem, and how the EU proposes you solve it, in a moment.
But what about the nuance that I skipped over just now, of how – even though cross border interchange
fees are to capped (thus, it is hoped by the EU, facilitating new pan-EU competitors which might
want to set up shop and offer a low interchange fee across all Union member states) – card holders
and merchants can ensure they are paying the lowest interchange fees possible? Won't all market participants
simply charge the regulated fees?
I'll give you three guesses what the EU's idea is of how to fix this. If you're saying to yourselves
"Clive, it wouldn't by any chance be more markets, would it?", you'd be right. Let's force ourselves
to see it in black-and-white:
(para 30) Payees and payers should have the means to identify the different categories of cards.
Therefore, the various brands and categories should be identifiable electronically and for newly
issued card based payment instruments also visibly on the device. Secondly, also the payer should
be informed about the acceptance of his payment instrument(s) at a given point of sale. It is
necessary that any limitation on the use of a given brand be announced by the payee to the payer
at the same time and under the same conditions as the information that a given brand is accepted.
(para 30a) In order to ensure that competition between brands is effective, it is important
that the choice of payment application be made by users, not imposed by the upstream market, comprising
payment card systems, payment service providers or processors. Such an arrangement should not
prevent payers and payees from setting a default choice of application, where technically feasible,
provided that that choice can be changed for each transaction.
Clive's take: So, in the future, in addition all of the other taxes on our time which neoliberalism
imposes, we'll have another way to add to our time-stress.
When we want to pay with a card (or a new "payment instrument" such as our phone), we'll enter
a Randian nirvana where the EPoS terminal where we're buying whatever it is we're trying to buy starts
a game of "let's play markets" with us, proffering the choice – neoliberal-leaning thinkers do seem
to love that word – of payment application starting with what the merchant is incentivised to select.
Then other "brands and categories" – are you losing the will to live yet? – will be suggested,
while you clutch your groceries, or hope the kids aren't trashing the car while you pay for gas or
(and who hasn't been in this position) keep their fingers crossed they've got enough available funds
and their card won't be declined as it's maxed out.
Actually, the fun starts before you've even entered the store.
(Article 10 para 3) Merchants deciding not to accept all cards or other payment instruments
of a payment card scheme shall inform consumers in a clear and unequivocal manner at the same
time as they inform the consumer on the acceptance of other cards and payment instruments of the
scheme. That information shall be displayed prominently at the entrance of the shop and at the
till. In the case of distance sales, this information shall be displayed on the website or other
applicable electronic or mobile medium. The information shall be provided to the payer in good
time before he enters into a purchase agreement with the payee.
That's alright then. You've just driven to (if you live in a place like where I used to live,
out in the sticks) the only supermarket in town, no food in the refrigerator, tired after a day's
work and availed yourself of detailed information on the storefront about what payment instruments
they accept and, presumably, only enter the merchant's premises if you're happy with the payment
options available.
You, the consumer, will be supposed to decide which is the best application where your co-badged
payment instrument supports more than one scheme. In order to decide which is the "best", you'll
need to memorise which application has the lowest fees, the most cardholder rewards or whatever pricing
signal has been wafted in your direction. Oh, and you can also try to figure out if the merchant,
or you, are using "mobile or wireless card readers, online or mobile digital wallets, or similar
technology" that "will not qualify in a rewards category" like we've seen in the Chase/Amazon card's
Terms and Conditions small print. Good luck with all that.
Then, you can be a nice, well brought-up participant demonstrating how you hold up your end of
the Theory of Rational Expectations bargain, ever-eager to adjust your response(s) accordingly.
Until the early 19th century, conditions for ships' companies were so unpleasant that few people
in their right minds willingly volunteered to participate in the market for crewmen. Vessels could
not get enough people to meet their complements. No-one wanted the jobs because there were marginally
better, less-worse might be a more accurate description, ways to spend your time. The compensation
for sailors could have been raised but that would have made operating the ships "uneconomic". This
problem soon led to the introduction of the "press gang" –
a group
of thugs who dragooned ("impressed") the unfortunate and the unwary – and they were disproportionately
drawn from the poor or destitute sections of society – to serve on the ships.
The next occasion you find yourself forced to spend your time working your way through competing
offers in a market for things you can't easily do without in order to ensure that "benefits" of "free"
"markets" can be realised, you might ask are the press gangs really a thing of the past. It is even
more ironic if those agencies which are supposed to be looking after our interests end up turning
themselves into neoliberalism's press gangs, forcing us to participate in capitalism when even by
their own admission it produces worse outcomes for us than public ownership would.
And if only it was just finance. It is due to this kind of cognitive capture – this idealism
– that we also can't have nice things like single-payer healthcare.
"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."
Beyond the tax on time of finding the optimal deal at that particular moment, the moment may
only be of the moment. Of particular note in the ACA is the ability of the provider to drop coverage,
at any time, for medicines that the particular plan had been studied to provide. The bait, the
switch, and back on the hamster wheel.
It would tend to lead to a tactic of taking the option with the shortest amount of fine print.
But as Godel pointed out about the Constitution, it doesn't matter how short the algo is, if it
contains the ability to switch the priors, it cannot be said to be consistent.
'Ah, well, this set of shackles doesn't chafe so much…'
All too true. The financial services industry did not invent bait and switch. But they've certainly
become Sith Lords in that particular dark art. "These aren't the Amazon Reward Points you're looking
for…"
There is a lot of nonsense about frictionless markets that supposedly feature zero information
costs, zero transaction costs, zero regulatory costs, etc. As if markets were some sort of natural
phenomenon like gravity.
Well the simple (actually, simplistic) answer is that the UK discount supermarkets run on such
wafer-thin profit margins that even the fairly minor differential between credit and debit account
fees (0.3% against 0.2%) is enough to make them wary of accepting credit cards.
What is actually a potentially a bigger cost, though, is that credit card transactions fall
under
additional consumer protection (Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act) which means that the
merchant always has to accept a chargeback and refund the customer. Debit cards do not:
Remember that any (debit card) protection offered is not a legal obligation (like Section
75 for credit cards) but an in-house rule: this means that the exact rules for chargeback schemes
vary by (debit) card provider, so you should make sure you are aware of your debit card's chargeback
rules.
But with credit cards, the merchant then has the obligation on them to show that the chargeback
is eligible for a chargeback-reversal (forcing the card holder has to pay up). The costs of the
chargebacks - and the costs of investigating and trying to prove there are sufficient grounds
for a chargeback-reversal are not trivial when one considers the sheer volume of supermarket transactions.
This information applies to the UK jurisdiction only. But similar can also apply elsewhere
(I must confess I'm not quite so clued-up on U.S. statues and I suspect they also vary by state).
So if a merchant doesn't accept credit cards but does accept debit cards, it's either down to
the fees or the unwillingness to be liable for chargebacks, or a combination of both, depending
on the merchant, the profit margin and the jurisdiction.
The Aldi near me in the us just recently started accepting all the major credit cards. I expect
prices will rise to offset the cost. But I was surprised as it flies in the face of their stated
low cost operation.
They were probably able to do a huge cross-border (right across the EU) deal for card processing
because of their scale. Mega players like supermarkets have pretty good bargaining power. And
because they only do groceries - plus a tiny amount of general merchandise and no apparel, they
won't have much risk of being hit with the chargebacks problem. This is a useful bonus to their
simple, limited numbers of SKUs, business model.
ah, but the solution to that is to have the app that communicates with the terminal and smartly
decides which is the cheapest option for you. And promptly charges you the difference between
the cheapest and most expensive one, so that's ok then
This reminds me of a similar story from the UK. In the mid-1980s there was a big change in
the selling of retail financial products (life assurance, mutual funds etc). As part of this several
new regulatory bodies were created, including one known as LAUTRO (Life Assurance and Unit Trust
Regulatory Organisation).
At the time financial advisors were renumerated by commission. LAUTRO introduced a cap, with
formulae based on premium and term. Funnily enough everyone in the market (no exceptions that
I saw) started paying the maximum commission. To be fair, I think it was lower than many were
paying before the reformation.
After a couple of years it was ruled that this was anti-competitive and there should be a free
market to bring these costs down. And guess what? Yes – commission rates, and hence costs, went
up. Typically rates were 120-130% of what was there before. This probably lopped off about 1%
or so more of premiums paid compared to before. The 'cure' of course was disclosure – make the
amount of commission more explicit so people can make their own decision.
Did it work? Of course not! Eventually (20+ years later) we had regulation that sort of stopped
commissions. Deja vu all over again.
And, in the US, there are the cards that charge a 'foreign exchange transaction fee' when used
in non-US countries. And, the cards that don't. And, the credit cards that don't work at automated
ticket vendors/gas pumps, etc., while traveling abroad because, even if they have an embedded
chip, don't have a PIN.
Last summer, we were 'press-ganged for Capitalism' when arriving on a very late flight at Newark,
NJ, we opted for a taxi (NOT Uber, because I read NC) instead of public transportation to get
to Hoboken. One must now prepay for the taxi at the airport with a credit card. And … the point-of-sale
machine cheerily states that it is imposing a $3 fee for giving you the privilege of using the
system. Had I been wearing wooding shoes, I would have beaten the machine to a pulp.
I think a simple example that everyone can understand is cable service or cell phones (I could
go on and on – anyone able to shop medical services???)
These two "services" show that the vast majority of "choice" is a Mcguffin – supposed choice within
plans about everything EXCEPT the price of the basic unit of what you are buying – they simply
will not tell you in comprehensible terms how much a minute of airtime costs (not to mention purposeful
complications like time frames, weekends, other users, number of devices, etc.) so that you cannot
compare it to another carrier.
Despite the incessant bullsh*t, the fact is, we live in the LEAST transparent of times…
If a merchant accepts credit cards AND does not offer a discount for paying cash AND my CC
issuer has a x% cash "rewards" program, then is it not a rational decision to use the card?
Depends on how much the merchant has had to increase their prices to compensate. The problem
is one of obfuscation. You can't have pricing signals if the price of the service you are using
is hidden from consumers.
it is rational. The problem there is that the CC company might have moved the goalpost, either
for the merchant or for the customers.
If we assume that the merchant just passes the whole cost to the customer (it is not always
the case, sometime they just have to grin and bear it), then merchant wins a bit (not all customers
will pay with CC), and the CC company wins a bit (it gets its money from those who do pay with
CC). Clients lose a bit (if they pay with CC) or a lot (if they pay with cash). And this is the
point – you basically have to have the right card to NOT LOSE.
You're not taking steps to win, you have to take steps to lose less than you'd otherwise (because
you lose one way or another).
That said, the problem here is non-trivial. If you apply the obvious solution (no interchange
fees) the banks will go and try to make it somewhere else (think PPI insurance in the UK, account
fees that people loathe etc. etc.). Ultimately, banks need to make money too. I know, heresy,
but we're not talking about 20%+ RoE, but a regulated utility levels of return.
I understand Clive's point of wasting time on deciding on payments methods, but if cash is
always guaranteed to be the cheapest, then there's a viable default option – at least for majority
purchases where cash can actually be reasonably used.
Banks then could easily offer say debit cards with zero interchange costs but a monthly account
fee – tbh, this would be fairer IMO, as the marginal costs of processing extra client transaction
are trivial once the fixed costs of the system are covered. Of course, in the UK account fees
are a bugbear which scares people into paying much more via other (often invisible, and often
hitting the poorest most) fees.
"... The basic foreign policy here is one of liberal hegemony-and it has two dimensions to it. The first is that we're bent on militarily dominating the entire globe-there's no place on the planet that doesn't matter to the indispensable nation, we care about every nook and cranny of the planet and we're interested in being militarily dominate here, there, and everywhere. That's the first dimension. The second dimension is we're deeply committed to transforming the world-we're deeply committed to making everybody look like us. ..."
"... Without a strategic rethink in U.S.-Russian relations, Mearsheimer warned that Russian paranoia and sense of vulnerability could ignite conflict. When asked about the biggest foreign policy mistake of the last 25 years, Mearsheimer first said Iraq, and then added the crisis in Ukraine and the resulting destabilization of U.S.-Russian relations: "If you take a country like Russia, that has a sense of vulnerability, and you push them towards the edge, you get in their face, you're asking for trouble." ..."
"CKI Vice President William Ruger began by posing the question: "Has there been a coherent theme
to U.S. foreign policy over the last 25 years?" In response, Mearsheimer dove into a description
of liberal hegemony over the last two decades, which essentially amounts to the U.S. being involved
everywhere to avoid a problem popping up anywhere. He argued that the U.S. undertook this commitment
to direct globalization and proceeded to muck up the Middle East and Europe. To most people, this
sounds a lot like a vestige of post-Cold War triumphalism:
The basic foreign policy here is one of liberal hegemony-and it has two dimensions to it. The
first is that we're bent on militarily dominating the entire globe-there's no place on the planet
that doesn't matter to the indispensable nation, we care about every nook and cranny of the planet
and we're interested in being militarily dominate here, there, and everywhere. That's the first dimension.
The second dimension is we're deeply committed to transforming the world-we're deeply committed to
making everybody look like us.
... ... ...
Without a strategic rethink in U.S.-Russian relations, Mearsheimer warned that Russian paranoia
and sense of vulnerability could ignite conflict. When asked about the biggest foreign policy mistake
of the last 25 years, Mearsheimer first said Iraq, and then added the crisis in Ukraine and the resulting
destabilization of U.S.-Russian relations: "If you take a country like Russia, that has a sense of
vulnerability, and you push them towards the edge, you get in their face, you're asking for trouble."
how can it be 'on the whole' women support HRC when the next breath says '49%' do not? I
smell bias in this article. People tend to forget that Margaret Thatcher was a woman whose
vicious attacks on working people and trade unions and enthusiastic support of criminal
right wing dictators inspired Reagan in their ruthlessness. And whose bellicose foreign
adventures scared us all. HRC is in this class except her ideology seems to be greed rather
than outright 1% class war on the poor but same difference?
Smear campaign? Billy boy has abused women sexually for decades and then smeared his
victims. This isn't the Republicans' fault. Unless you think that James Carville (former
chief of staff for Clinton) saying "drag a $20 through a trailer park & see what you'll
get" is respectful to women. He basically called every one of Bill's victims trailer trash.
Nope, Bill's abuse of women and Hillary's enabling of it IS NOT the fault of Republicans.
Bill & Hillary WERE the war on women!
You know ... support your party's nominee, vote in midterms ... little things like
that.
You assume incorrectly that we "lefties" have a political party. The Democratic party is
currently not one that even attempts to listen to our needs. Across the political spectrum
Americans seem to have at long last discovered that not only does the government not meet
the minimum needs of the populace, voters have started to figure out that neither political
party will send to Washington leaders who have any intention of helping anyone but
high-level campaign contributors.
This is why the only voter enthusiasm is for two complete outsiders- Trump and Sanders.
We could take your advice and hold our noses and carry the garbage to the curb every 4
years in hopes that something good will happen.
But isn't there an old saw about the definition of insanity being the repetition of the
same ineffectual routine while hoping for a different outcome?
Possession of ovaries does not equal qualified. Not saying they hurt, but if you want a
woman president, why on earth would you take the first one offered simply because she is
the first one offered, especially someone as venal, corrupt, morally bankrupt, uncaring,
and mendacious as Hillary Clinton? It's myopic when you fail to see that if this gargoyle
is elected, her record as POTUS will absolutely reflect poorly on women, giving all those
who oppose women presidents plenty of ammo to suggest they were right all along. I don't
mind a female POTUS, just don't make it Hillary Clinton. Nope.
Do you mean besides securing healthcare coverage for 8 million of their children through
SCHIP, advocating for women's rights & issues around the world as Secretary of State, and
compiling an extraordinarily strong voting record on women's issues in the Senate that won
her endorsements from NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and other women's organizations ... ?
And what has TRUMP done for women besides insult them??
What neither of you two geniuses seem to realize is that Hillary Clinton cannot succeed in
becoming president. No matter how the coronation has been fixed and promised, she simply is
unelectable, and if she is the Democratic nominee then that idiot Trump will be sitting in
the Oval Office.
I used to admire the loyalty, albeit naivety, of Clinton fans, but things are getting
far too serious. Do you guys really want President Trump? Because that seems to be where
you are heading.
I am glad that Hillary is supporting abortion, even is she is beginning to quibble about
terms. Of course, Bernie supports it unequivocally.
The only difference between the two
on this matter essentially is that one hell of a lot more women will have to consider
abortion under a Clinton administration to get out of the low wage jobs, unaffordable
health care for themselves or their children death spiral for the low and low middle
incomers who are going to be caught AGAIN in a hell of Hillary's making. Hillary protects
the mass profit taking of insurance, pharma, and medical industry...she also stutters over
even a 12$ minimum wage (and that only in SOME states), has backed trade agreements that
force ever more working people into those going nowhere jobs... so yeah...there are going
to be a LOT more desperate women needing those abortions. Of course, as any fool
knows...abortions are not illegal in many countries in middle and northern Europe...and
guess what...they don't need as many of them because they do more for workers, and have a
right to health care!
I am not a Trump supporter. But his awfulness does not make her any better.
That Clinton
was married to a president doesn't impress me in the slightest. That she became a senator
was because she exploited her name-recognition after her husband's term of office. As Sec
State she was not just a pathological liar, but also incompetent.
If I was religious, I would pray for her indictment. Then the dems would be compelled to
pick someone else.
Ironic that you don't realize how sexist your comment is. But it is an attitude not
untypical of Clinton supporters.
Hillary will not give us a third term of Obama, she will
give us a third term for her husband. And this is all that Bill wants, to be back holding
the reins of power again.
How many "true feminists" hire private detectives to intimidate women accusing their
husbands of sexual harassment or actual assault? Hillary is a hypocrite of the highest
order - "All women must be believed" - except the ones accusing her husband. If Monica
Lewinski hadn't had DNA evidence to back up her claims they would have had her committed to
a mental institution.
Trump and Clinton deserve each other. That's why they are running neck and neck in the
unpopularity stakes. Trouble is that Trump is starting to gain on her - and she has nothing
to fight back with and stop her slide.
You really haven't a clue, have you? Obama was a pretty poor president as far as the
Democratic party was concerned. He made no effort whatever to build up the party, and spent
wasteful years trying to compromise with the Republicans (when it was obvious to everyone
he was getting nowhere.
The first two years of his presidency could have been the golden years had he lived up
to the hype he projected during the nomination process. He destroyed the Democratic party
with his attempts to compromise with Republican rattle snakes when no compromise was
possible. And, yes, Hillary wants to carry on his good work! And she is already well in
with the republican elite like the Bushes and Romney. Friend, take your head out of your
...
"... The only thing you can trust is that Goldman Sach's values don't include giving a damned about average Americans even if in Blankfein's delusional mind he is doing "Gods work. It would go a way toward restoring trust in the system if these rip off artists would consent to paying more taxes on their ill deserved gains in order to help bring down some of the nations debt and relieve the misery their unethical behavior created. But that will never happen voluntarily. Basically they are immoral creeps killing the golden goose that is our country. ..."
"... Run corruption out of DC and there will be much more trust of big business. Do not buy the garbage that politicians are critical of the Wall Street crowd. Has Hillary released her speeches yet? NO. Don't expect she ever will. (aside: I do not find this article informative, and I'm dismayed by the comments I've read here.) ..."
"... "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. …corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." ..."
"... The mass of Americans are too powerless to fight back against the reign of the money powers. As Lincoln predicted, our Republic is destroyed. What awaits us now is dictatorship or even worse ... theocracy. ..."
Brilliance is often accidental, and so it was at Goldman Sachs' annual meeting on Friday.
In an attempt to pinpoint exactly what's wrong with the global economy - why demand is weak, why
growth is anemic, why jitters on one side of the planet can turn into panic all over - CEO Lloyd
Blankfein happened upon why Wall Street is so hated.
It was, as I said, an accident.
Blankfein said that what the world needs now is confidence. In investment banking, when people
are confident t
here are "more financings, more equity raises, because people invest more money
in their own businesses when they're confident," he said, according to
Business Insider's Portia Crowe
, who was on the scene.
This explanation sounds right. When people think they can make money they put their money to work.
The problem is that "confidence" doesn't go far enough. More than confidence, for people to invest
in the world they have to trust in it - in the systems and people that make it work.
The fact that Blankfein missed that mark, though, explains exactly why people hate Wall Street.
The financial crisis, the scandals and the fraud and the dark headlines, have all helped erode
that trust. And that lack of trust is what is holding the world back right now.
This is not a drill
Think of a simple trust-building exercise, the fall game. When you're the fall guy, you can be
confident that everyone is going to catch you. That, after all, is how the game is completed. You
have to believe that everyone understands the rules.
What's better than knowing that everyone understands the rules, though? Trusting that everyone
around you is going to catch you - believing beyond a shadow of a doubt that they
want to follow
the rules
.
That's the difference between trust and conviction. Trust is something you can rely on, beyond
certainty.
Now one can operate in markets without trust, with only conviction.
Conviction doesn't demand that you, or anyone else, play by the rules, though. It just demands
that you understand what's going on (and what motivates everyone around you) at all times. It's a
daunting task that neither the common person nor Wall Street's all-seeing CEOs were able to accomplish
before the financial crisis. It is, however, part of the latter's full-time job - mitigating risk,
seeing the unforeseen.
Of course, some of that burden would be lifted if we operated on more trust and less conviction.
Your correspondent is hardly the only person thinking this way. This week, Andrew G. Haldane,
chief economist of the Bank of England, gave an incredibly compelling speech on what's wrong with
global economy. Unlike Blankfein, though, he got it right. The speech was called
The Great Divide,
and he argued that the only way to close that divide is with trust.
"Evidence has emerged, both micro and macro, to suggest trust may play a crucial role in value
creation. At the micro level, there is now ample evidence the degree of trust or social capital within
a company contributes positively to its value creation capacity," said Haldane.
"At the macro level, there is now a strong body of evidence, looking across a large range of countries
and over long periods of time, that high levels of trust and co-operation are associated with higher
economic growth. Put differently, a lack of trust jeopardizes one of finance's key societal functions
- higher growth."
Watchers on the wall
Back in 2014, when the market was roaring and everyone thought we were on the road to recovery,
Dylan Grice, a portfolio manager at Aeris Capital, put forth the same idea. He saw in declining relations
between the US and China, between Russia and the world, and between citizens and corporations what
could only be perceived as our descent into the trough of a cycle of trust.
And, as he pointed out, credit - one of the main forces for moving money from place to place -
comes from the Latin word for trust.
Over at HSBC, economist
Stephen King wrote a note called
Unhappy Families: The Case for International Policy Coordination
in which he argued that the
global economy could actually be saved quite easily if we trusted each other. If the countries that
could save us - the US, China, and Germany - acted unselfishly and in coordination and simply did.
But they won't, because there is no trust.
"Yet it would be easy, too easy, to point the finger at finance alone," Haldane said in his speech.
"For this Great Divide exists not just between the financial elites, but between elites generally
and wider society. It is not just bankers who have suffered a loss of public trust. In varying degrees,
this is also true of big business, government and, yes, politicians and central banks."
Man, see this mirror
This brings us back to Goldman Sachs, which happened to have had a very embarrassing little incident
last week when one of its analysts recommended buying Tesla just before the bank announced that it
would be helping the automaker with an equity offering.
The stock upgrade is a detailed argument for why you, the investors,
should buy the shares. As a result, investors buy.
This report is delivered just as Goldman's sales force is about to
hit the phones to push $1.4 billion of those very shares for a nice fat fee for Goldman and a dilutive
hit to the shareholders.
So then there are investors who, based on Archambault's note, bought
the shares in the morning only to learn by that afternoon that Goldman would have a hand in diluting
their newly acquired ownership stake.
And the popular view says Goldman knew this was going to happen the
whole time.
If you're thinking the worst, this snafu was a breach of Wall Street's famous Chinese Wall between
research and investment banking. What's more, because of this trust deficit, most people were thinking
the worst because that's what they do when they think of Goldman Sachs.
Lloyd on a vampire squid. Sorry bro, too easy.
And because of that some people don't trust, or put their money in, the market.
And because of that the market doesn't move.
Haldane sees this fear as a loss of social capital arising from the crisis.
"Social capital is inextricably linked to trust," he said in his speech. "And banking is quintessentially
a trust business. At root, it involves swapping promises to pay. These promises rely on trust."
It's the belief that these promises
will be kept
that the market is lacking, not necessarily
that they
can be kept.
This is the difference between trust and confidence. And with every
scandal and fraud, every dark headline telling of financial ruin that comes from the financial sector,
some of that trust is lost.
Haldane thinks that recreating the local bank, a bank with the kind of accountability that comes
from knowing someone by name and looking them in the eye, is part of the solution. But banking isn't
moving that way. Every day we hear about how it's becoming more automated.
He acknowledges this, recognizing that banking must "seek new ways to nurture generalized, or
anonymous, trust on the part of the public. Technology may be a great enabler here."
But in the end it doesn't matter how we fix this. We just have to fix it.
"Whatever business model is adopted, success will hinge on whether the public have faith in banks
pursuing a purpose aligned with their needs, that they are fulfilling their fiduciary function. There
is a mountain to climb on this front, not just for banking but for business generally," he said.
"If not at an all-time low, public trust in big business is plumbing the depths. And the chorus
of criticism of business is not confined to the general public. It is shared by politicians, academics,
investors and indeed sometimes by companies themselves."
Everyone is holding on to their money. Everyone is trying to look someone the eye and finding
their counterparties' gaze shifting to wherever self-interest guides them. The counterparties are
confident they'll find money there, sure, but the trust that makes the market go around is being
lost in the process.
It takes so much more to build it up than to break it down.
GS, Chase ,BofA,Wells Fargo.....,and some others big banks created the crisis past 2008-09.
Any
one of the executives pass a day in prison, they pay cents on the dollars and happy cumballa until
the next scam. Gov it's corrupt with a "revolving door" infiltrating the key position, every official
working in White House or with the executive branch did work for a big bank first or going to
work after!!!
They want trust, trust they themselves self smash, hundreds of case in courts from US citizens
right now vs Government Why?
Because Gov. trying to steal ,expropriating private property without
compensation and ignoring constitution. The rest of the population are worring about what wearing Kardashian!!! Our next election will be a show top level globally!!! Our founding fathers will
be revolting in their tombs for now
PhilOSophocle
What the world needs now --- is love, sweet love. It's the only thing that there's just too
little of, or so Burt Bacharach, Hal David & Jackie DeShannon said. But seriously folks . . .
people hate Wall Street because of the unbridled greed everywhere. The Great Recession wasn't
caused by real estate speculation --- it was caused by easy money from Wall Street when they
packaged together risky mortgages & investment bankers sold them to banks as great
investments, and then betting on them to fail on the side using Credit Default Swaps. It's
very similar to what Joe Kennedy and his cronies did in the 1920's using market manipulation
by cornering stocks & then doing a bear raid on it, which is illegal now. What the Wall
Streeters did in 2000-2007 is still not illegal.
ey02kdv98
I agree. Trust needs to be restored. This requires Wall Street firms to be honest, and to
weed out the greedy, psychopathic and sociopathic brokers, bankers, CEOs and chiefs, and
assorted other criminals. By running firms honestly to a fault, investors would at first shy
away because they'd think it was some kind of trick. Over a short period, good experiences
will increase business to the point that it would exceed current sales many times over, even
beyond your wildest imagination. There is a lot of $$$$$$$$$$$$ to be made in honestly run
business. It's never to late to start.
Mark14
The only thing you can trust is that Goldman Sach's values don't include giving a
damned about average Americans even if in Blankfein's delusional mind he is doing "Gods work.
It would go a way toward restoring trust in the system if these rip off artists would consent
to paying more taxes on their ill deserved gains in order to help bring down some of the
nations debt and relieve the misery their unethical behavior created. But that will never
happen voluntarily. Basically they are immoral creeps killing the golden goose that is our
country.
DavBG
The repeal of Glass Stegal (which Roosevelt put in place after the last great depression)
which prevented banks from investing depositors money in the stock market, is the root cause
here. Banks were only allowed to make loans on real property, like businesses and mortgages.
This put the money in savings back to work. Money placed in the house of cards, ponzi scheme,
stock market, just sits there. Like a giant sponge sucking up the spare capital so that a 1%
few can reap the benefit. Then insiders can cause booms and busts which slowly siphon the life
out of a country and enslave it. The mortgage rate is now the lowest it has ever been in the
US. Now with everyone's money in the stock market the next crash will bankrupt us since all
the banks will have is worthless paper stock certificates.
Rp
Trust is not created through slick marketing and strategic press releases about speeches
made by banking insiders, to other insiders, intended to convince those outside their cozy
system, that they get it now, no more underhanded dealings, really this time, partners 50-50.
We promise, no fingers crossed, everything above board from now on, you can trust us, really
this time. That bs is played out, to ask for trust, is to confirm the fact that they should
not, can not, be trusted. Trust, if it ever returns, to any degree, in any form, will be
created by the numbers. The real numbers. The ones written under our names. The ones that
stick. Trust is not a marketing concept, it can't be put where it doesn't belong, it can't
grow where it isn't planted, protected, and nurtured.
Pat
Wall Street manipulators could not succeed without the complicity of Government. STOP
REGULATING WALL STREET AND START DEMANDING THAT POLITICIANS CANNOT BE CONTROLLED BY LOBBYISTS.
There should be a law that politicians bought by lobbyists WILL be prosecuted. It is
Government that is guilty of capitulation. GOVERNMENT WRITES THE LAWS AND THE TAX CODES.
Run corruption out of DC and there will be much more trust of big business. Do not buy
the garbage that politicians are critical of the Wall Street crowd. Has Hillary released her
speeches yet? NO. Don't expect she ever will. (aside: I do not find this article informative,
and I'm dismayed by the comments I've read here.)
Freethinker
It's so simple: the bank robbers have been given (or have taken) the combination to the
bank vault and looted it. Then they were given raises and bonuses for this heist.
Doubt me? That canny corporate lawyer Abraham Lincoln anticipate our modern condition as far
back as 1864, when he wrote:
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to
tremble for the safety of my country. …corporations have been enthroned and an era of
corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to
prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is
aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
The mass of Americans are too powerless to fight back against the reign of the money
powers. As Lincoln predicted, our Republic is destroyed. What awaits us now is dictatorship
or even worse ... theocracy.
"... By Gerald Friedman, Professor of Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. A version of this post first appeared at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
"... Lesser Depression ..."
"... The reason why elite economists and politicians were so angry at my analysis of Sanders' proposals was that it disrupted a consensus that nothing can be done by government to improve the performance of the economy. After all, if things are already as good as they can be, it is irresponsible pie-in-the-sky to even suggest to the general public that we can do better. Instead, the task of economists and other policy elites becomes to explain to the general public why they should accept stagnant incomes and rising inequality, and applaud the anemic growth of recent years as the best possible outcome. But the real danger of such thinking is that it leaves liberals like Hillary Clinton with few policy options to offer in response to the siren song of demagogues like Donald Trump. The self-proclaimed "responsible" elite economists see their role as to persuade the public that nothing can be done, in the hope of heading off the challenge of those who would capitalize on the electorate's appetite for change. They have to slap down critics. "Responsible" elite economists have to keep the party of "good arithmetic" from overpromising at all costs. It should not surprise us, though, that those whose living standards have suffered most from stagnant growth are more inclined to believe politicians promising change. ..."
"... John Maynard Keynes showed how active government policy can raise employment and output; his followers, including Joan Robinson and Nicholas Kaldor, showed how full employment encourages further investments and leads businesses to find ways to raise labor productivity to match increasing product demand. New Deal American economists, such as Rexford Tugwell and John Maurice Clark, showed how active government policy can raise growth rates with investments in infrastructure, in public services, in human capital development, and in research and development. By listening to these ideas, economists associated with liberal American politics helped produce 25 years of relatively rapid and egalitarian growth after World War II. Abandoning these ideas, we have suffered 30 years of relatively slow growth and rising inequality, culminating in the current Lesser Depression. ..."
"... I had dinner last night with two excellent people who happen to be doing well at this time. They could not comprehend why anyone would be voting for Trump, whom they saw as a dangerous lunatic. They have supported Sanders and voted for him in the NY primary, but are absolutely going to vote for Clinton in the Fall. What I view as the credible case against Clinton has not reached them with any strength or registered at all. I was asked (because I had said nothing while they talked–I hate this kind of confrontation) what problem people could have with Hillary? I said: Libya, Ukraine, and Nicaragua. They really didn't know what I was talking about and although I spoke up for why I thought this made her a neocon like the ones that surrounded Dubya, they simply didn't know any of the details and we left it at that. ..."
"... HRC's recap of Reaganite Latin America policy is her most vile achievement. If anything demonstrates a continuity of imperialist strategy across administrations, that's it. ..."
"... " I said: Libya, Ukraine, and Nicaragua. They really didn't know what I was talking about and although I spoke up for why I thought this made her a neocon like the ones that surrounded Dubya, they simply didn't know any of the details and we left it at that." ..."
"... I run into this all the time. Utter and complete foreign policy illiteracy, particularly from otherwise politically correct millennials who know so little that Hillary gets a complete pass. ..."
"... This is a common story and illustrates that our current detachment from the world around us and our fellow citizens is coming to an end. We are being forced out of our individual bubbles. Modern corporations have supplied the populations of the world with abundance of goods, but in order to accomplish this feat, have destroyed and are destroying the cultural glue, if you will, that holds society together. ..."
"... TINA will be maintained by propaganda and physical force. We see that the propaganda is starting to weaken because the contradictions of the message can no longer be hidden. The destruction is too widespread and the inequality can no longer be hidden. You can hollow out a social system only so much before it collapses. The collapses we are witnessing is the promise of democracy. A collapse of the ideals of moderation and compromise. ..."
"... We are entering a phase of civil war. It is still carried out in a polite manner and intellectually, the discussion is still couched in Orwellian doublespeak. However, criticisms of the ruling elite are becoming more straightforward and more people are waking up to the fact that the system is rigged against them. ..."
"... This civil war is a battle over leadership. It is a battle to demand good government instead of no government. It is a battle to demand a government for and by the people. A battle for the common good. Evaluated not in some abstract terms like "trickle down" economics, but direct support and action. The hearts and minds of the population was won over long ago to wholeheartedly support capitalism and private ownership of the world's resources. This is proving to be a disaster. ..."
"... Supporters of unfettered capitalism know only one way. Privatization of ALL the worlds resources and potential. They showed their hand in 2008 with the bailouts and implementation of austerity policies. In their minds, there is no turning back. To compromise means failure. For them, TINA is real and logical. This is the perspective of owners of capital. They gain strength and advantage from seeming to compromise, but in the end know they can always reverse course and regain private control. Subterfuge and force allows the resilience of capitalism as the reigning social order. ..."
"... Jonathan Haidt is a psychologist, sometimes featured in the New York Times, who apparently believes the capability of people to be convinced by reasoned argument is not strong. From my limited reading of his work, he suggests that humans are instinctive beings who, when they have strong beliefs, their reasoning powers are used to justify these beliefs, not to cast doubt about these beliefs. ..."
"... For example, I believe HRC is little more than a well-connected and well traveled mediocrity, with a record of few positives and many egregious negatives that justifies this assessment. I view her as potentially more damaging to the USA, as President, than Trump. ..."
"... Successful big ideas and big projects require cheap abundant energy, resources and intelligent design. It'll be mighty funny when the Keynesians finally implement their plan to overhaul the national highway infrastructure, creating tons of high paying jobs and speeding up the economy–right when our access to cheap oil collapses. That's dumb design at its finest, yet this sort of thing is almost certainly the best that the lobotomized Keynesian planners will be able to think up and do. ..."
"... A truly innovative program to get the economy moving in a positive direction would be to outlaw personal vehicles and rebuild the nation's railway network. ..."
"... I share your antipathy toward freeways. I remember the big Freeway they built in Fresno when I was a child, destroying hundreds, if not thousands of modest homes (we had to move from a grand rental to a dilapidated house that cost more – were the landlords behind getting rid of a surplus of houses????) – to save maybe – maybe at the most 3 minutes in transit time over driving an existing surface street. Jobs were part of the rationale. ..."
"... "Sorry, nothing more can be done for you." TINA. ..."
The ferocious
reaction
to my
assessment
that Senator Bernie Sanders' economic and health care proposals could create long-term economic
growth shows how mainstream economists who view themselves as politically liberal in America have
abandoned progressive politics to embrace a political economy of despair. Rationalizing personal
disappointment and embracing market-centric economic theories according to which government can do
little more than fuss around the edges, their conclusions - and the political leadership that embraces
them - have little to offer millions of angry ordinary people for whom the economy simply isn't working.
It has certainly been a rough seven years for the economists in the Obama Administration. While
avoiding a Great Depression, the Administration has presided over what Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong
call a "
Lesser Depression ." One might almost forgive them for a certain defeatism after seven
years of painfully slow economic recovery, and the dismay of seeing urgently needed programs blocked
by the Republican congressional majority. After so many compromises and let-downs, perhaps it is
easier to tell those who expect more that it just can't happen. There is comfort in the Thatcherite
phrase, "There Is No Alternative" (TINA).
Combined with orthodox neoclassical microeconomics, however, rationalization has produced a toxic
political economy that abandons progressive ideals and surrenders political space to xenophobes and
the populist rightwing (see: Donald Trump). The mainstream economists who have attacked my embrace
of Keynesian economics have abandoned, in practice, the notion that government can effectively intervene
in the economy to raise levels of employment, and to promote economic growth and equity. Instead,
they have returned to pre-Keynesian Classical thinking, where the very suggestion that government
action can raise growth rates or wages is taken to be obviously wrong. Criticisms of the
orthodox model and its conservative policies are deemed worthy of scorn, to be dismissed tout
court because they are obviously at variance not only with textbook economics, but with what
we need to believe in order to accept failure .
The mechanism of economic policy paralysis among the liberals who espouse market-centric economics
works like this: If we accept the (flawed) premise that the total supply of goods and services equals
total demand, then we can agree with the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that potential output
is best measured by observing actual output. And, with that - presto! - unemployment magically disappears,
and we no longer suffer from slow growth. Conveniently align growth projections with the otherwise-disappointing
performance during the Lesser Depression, and, as the CBO has done, estimates of potential growth
now equal actual growth: Instead of the 3 percent average annual growth of the 1959-2007 period,
not to mention the 4 percent growth 1947-73, we are now told to accept 2 percent growth not as a
disappointment, but as recognition of an unfortunate necessity. Such reevaluations say to policy
elites, "Hey, we are doing as well as can be expected." To the general public, the message is: "Sorry,
nothing more can be done for you." TINA.
The reason why elite economists and politicians were so angry at my analysis of Sanders' proposals
was that it disrupted a consensus that nothing can be done by government to improve the performance
of the economy. After all, if things are already as good as they can be, it is irresponsible pie-in-the-sky
to even suggest to the general public that we can do better. Instead, the task of economists and
other policy elites becomes to explain to the general public why they should accept stagnant incomes
and rising inequality, and applaud the anemic growth of recent years as the best possible outcome.
But the real danger of such thinking is that it leaves liberals like Hillary Clinton with few policy
options to offer in response to the siren song of demagogues like Donald Trump. The self-proclaimed
"responsible" elite economists see their role as to persuade the public that nothing can be done,
in the hope of heading off the challenge of those who would capitalize on the electorate's appetite
for change. They have to slap down critics. "Responsible" elite economists have to keep the party
of "good arithmetic" from overpromising at all costs. It should not surprise us, though, that those
whose living standards have suffered most from stagnant growth are more inclined to believe politicians
promising change.
It was only by rejecting classical economics that Franklin Roosevelt was able to save the American
economy and bring about a revolution in social policy. And only by rejecting the new classical economics
and the policy of so-called responsible elite economists can Clinton meet our current economic crisis.
John Maynard Keynes showed how active government policy can raise employment and output; his
followers, including Joan Robinson and Nicholas Kaldor, showed how full employment encourages further
investments and leads businesses to find ways to raise labor productivity to match increasing product
demand. New Deal American economists, such as Rexford Tugwell and John Maurice Clark, showed how
active government policy can raise growth rates with investments in infrastructure, in public services,
in human capital development, and in research and development. By listening to these ideas, economists
associated with liberal American politics helped produce 25 years of relatively rapid and egalitarian
growth after World War II. Abandoning these ideas, we have suffered 30 years of relatively slow growth
and rising inequality, culminating in the current Lesser Depression.
The debate over my little report showed how mainstream economics has left us with a smugly certain
macroeconomics lacking in imagination, and offering no effective policies to move beyond economic
stagnation and escalating inequality. If these economists cannot do better, then we risk more than
personal disappointment; we gamble our liberal political economy against the likes of Donald Trump
and Ted Cruz. Hillary Clinton can do better. And Americans deserve better.
A very bold thing for a man like this to say. I know he will be criticized (vilified?) for
his misplaced belief that Clinton can "do better", but considering who this man is and where he
is coming from, condemning him at this stage of the game would be churlish. He's taken on The
Bigs and the stifling orthodoxy they embody and for that we owe him.
I had dinner last night with two excellent people who happen to be doing well at this time.
They could not comprehend why anyone would be voting for Trump, whom they saw as a dangerous lunatic.
They have supported Sanders and voted for him in the NY primary, but are absolutely going to vote
for Clinton in the Fall. What I view as the credible case against Clinton has not reached them
with any strength or registered at all. I was asked (because I had said nothing while they talked–I
hate this kind of confrontation) what problem people could have with Hillary? I said: Libya, Ukraine,
and Nicaragua. They really didn't know what I was talking about and although I spoke up for why
I thought this made her a neocon like the ones that surrounded Dubya, they simply didn't know
any of the details and we left it at that.
I've had many similar recent encounters. I find that if I ask for a positive reason to vote
Clinton, the first three or four reasons they raise can be dismissed by single phrase references
to past betrayals, Sister Solja, End of Welfare, Nafta etc. and the next few by scandals, Lewensky
or what should be scandals as you mentioned. As a rule after four or five tries I get to watch
them self censor before each subsequent try and don't have to make any negative claims myself.
I doubt I've changed minds, but they no longer doubt mine.
I think that was a slip, but an historically correct one I can completely sympathize with.
HRC's recap of Reaganite Latin America policy is her most vile achievement. If anything
demonstrates a continuity of imperialist strategy across administrations, that's it.
" I said: Libya, Ukraine, and Nicaragua. They really didn't know what I was talking
about and although I spoke up for why I thought this made her a neocon like the ones that surrounded
Dubya, they simply didn't know any of the details and we left it at that."
I run into this all the time. Utter and complete foreign policy illiteracy, particularly
from otherwise politically correct millennials who know so little that Hillary gets a complete
pass.
This is a common story and illustrates that our current detachment from the world around
us and our fellow citizens is coming to an end. We are being forced out of our individual bubbles.
Modern corporations have supplied the populations of the world with abundance of goods, but in
order to accomplish this feat, have destroyed and are destroying the cultural glue, if you will,
that holds society together.
TINA will be maintained by propaganda and physical force. We see that the propaganda is
starting to weaken because the contradictions of the message can no longer be hidden. The destruction
is too widespread and the inequality can no longer be hidden. You can hollow out a social system
only so much before it collapses. The collapses we are witnessing is the promise of democracy.
A collapse of the ideals of moderation and compromise.
We are entering a phase of civil war. It is still carried out in a polite manner and intellectually,
the discussion is still couched in Orwellian doublespeak. However, criticisms of the ruling elite
are becoming more straightforward and more people are waking up to the fact that the system is
rigged against them.
This civil war is a battle over leadership. It is a battle to demand good government instead
of no government. It is a battle to demand a government for and by the people. A battle for the
common good. Evaluated not in some abstract terms like "trickle down" economics, but direct support
and action. The hearts and minds of the population was won over long ago to wholeheartedly support
capitalism and private ownership of the world's resources. This is proving to be a disaster.
Supporters of unfettered capitalism know only one way. Privatization of ALL the worlds
resources and potential. They showed their hand in 2008 with the bailouts and implementation of
austerity policies. In their minds, there is no turning back. To compromise means failure. For
them, TINA is real and logical. This is the perspective of owners of capital. They gain strength
and advantage from seeming to compromise, but in the end know they can always reverse course and
regain private control. Subterfuge and force allows the resilience of capitalism as the reigning
social order.
I bring up the notion of a civil war because these ideas are too important to be left to chance.
In America, the citizenry has been complacent with their lot in life and so have lost control
over their fate. As the world changes around them, they desperately attempt to hold onto their
position while not realizing they are supporting their own impoverishment. Speaking ideas of the
common good -for ALL- and notions of public ownership of land, natural resources, citizens natural
rights to jobs, basic income, and healthcare divide family and friends. Those who are comfortable
don't want to cause trouble and those feeling the pressures brought down upon them by an unrelenting
system are too weak and fearful to act.
In a sense, the revolution has already begun. It is the revolution to convince people that
there is a better and different way to live our lives.
Jonathan Haidt is a psychologist, sometimes featured in the New York Times, who apparently
believes the capability of people to be convinced by reasoned argument is not strong. From my
limited reading of his work, he suggests that humans are instinctive beings who, when they have
strong beliefs, their reasoning powers are used to justify these beliefs, not to cast doubt about
these beliefs.
This can explain why attempting to convince someone to change their political/religious beliefs
is fated to be largely futile.
For example, I believe HRC is little more than a well-connected and well traveled mediocrity,
with a record of few positives and many egregious negatives that justifies this assessment. I
view her as potentially more damaging to the USA, as President, than Trump.
Per Haidt, maybe my beliefs are instinctive and I am willfully blind to all of Clinton's accomplishments
over the last 40 years.
I think that if there are to be any Keynesian big ideas and projects that will help lift us
out of this stagnation, they will much more likely come from a Trump Administration than a Clinton
one.
Successful big ideas and big projects require cheap abundant energy, resources and intelligent
design. It'll be mighty funny when the Keynesians finally implement their plan to overhaul the
national highway infrastructure, creating tons of high paying jobs and speeding up the economy–right
when our access to cheap oil collapses. That's dumb design at its finest, yet this sort of thing
is almost certainly the best that the lobotomized Keynesian planners will be able to think up
and do.
A truly innovative program to get the economy moving in a positive direction would be to
outlaw personal vehicles and rebuild the nation's railway network. But this society isn't
even anywhere close to having something so useful on its agenda. So we'll do some Keynesian program,
funnel the few remaining resources we have left down into some stupid dead end rathole, and then
in a couple of years we'll be envious here in America of the extravagant lifestyles that the Mexicans
are leading. Hell Trump's wall will be a lot more useful keeping the Mexicans in who are trying
to flee. That is the end result of Keynesian programs in a delusional society with bass-ackward
priorities. Way more harm than good.
I share your antipathy toward freeways. I remember the big Freeway they built in Fresno
when I was a child, destroying hundreds, if not thousands of modest homes (we had to move from
a grand rental to a dilapidated house that cost more – were the landlords behind getting rid of
a surplus of houses????) – to save maybe – maybe at the most 3 minutes in transit time over driving
an existing surface street. Jobs were part of the rationale.
I have been gone 20 years, and they had gone on a real freeway building tear while I was gone.
The whole city crisscrossed with freeways laid out as if someone had thrown a bowl of spaghetti
on a map – apparently so every neighborhood can enjoy the sound of traffic.
Really, Fresno is just not that physically big to justify all these freeways. And with its
high unemployment and no real "center" there aren't any places with traffic congestion anyway
– but you get these dubious justifications that millions of dollars are wasted because an implausible
auto trip is 4 minutes longer without the freeway….
There seems to be a developing narrative that the Obama Administration has just been brimming
with big ideas that have been thwarted by evil Republicans.
I don't remember it this way. I do remember an Obama Administration that turned to austerity
shortly after the 2009 stimulus, and one that has been patting itself on the back all along about
what a great job it has done.
"All across America, families are tightening their belts and making hard choices. Now, Washington
must show that same sense of responsibility."
President Obama, April 2009(!)
Now that the pictures we snapped of Obama are finally beginning to develop, where we thought
we had photographed his lush jungle, we're now seeing just a single thin sapling planted for "the
future." And Clinton will soon have a picture of her snapped at this sad tree, with her big lying
smile.
I don't think Friedman is saying this, unless Rex Tugwell has been secretly disinterred and
is serving under Obama. The capitalist ideological counteroffensive that got going in the 70s
has been hegemonically successful. Friedman doesn't acknowledge that enough, he instead focuses
on what sounds more like disciplinary politics.
This type of article or perhaps, all articles about the Economy, deal with the Economy as a
substance to which people are appended as accidents. The economy is the sum total of the effort
of the people and if the people think that enjoying this very present is preferable to an effort
to build a future nothing can be done about it. It is the mind of the people that has to be changed.
Wars are very good mechanisms for that.
I can't remember if I got this link from an NC comment, or elsewhere. In any case, it's a scary
read: "The 14 Defining Characteristics of Facism," augmented by a selection from "They Thought
They Were Free." http://rense.com/general37/fascism.htm
Brings Obama and HRC to mind just as much as Trump, if not more.
"The ferocious reaction to my assessment that Senator Bernie Sanders' economic and health care
proposals could create long-term economic growth shows how mainstream economists who view themselves
as politically liberal in America have abandoned progressive politics to embrace a political economy
of despair."
==========================
Here is the problem: "a political economy of despair" – accepting that economists are a real
objective academic discipline is a BIG mistake – the idea that these technocrats, who never seem
to recognize how much fraud, rent seeking, and capture of the political system
((because the people paying them don't WANT THEM TO)),
decides things like how much inequality there is, which than decides how much demand there is,
and NOT knowing, and apparently NOT WANTING TO KNOW, that it is a POLITICAL economy, and politics
decides how resources are often allocated.
We can have single payer heath care if we choose it and free college education (it wasn't all
that long ago that I went to a CA college essentially for free). HOW is it college used to be
free when GDP was less than 1/6 of what it is now??????
It just doesn't make sense that we used to be able to afford free college and we can't now. It
is a POLITICAL decision – when Krugman says Sanders plan is "too expensive" Krugman is making
a political decision – not some objective scientific assessment. And if he is not even smart enough
to ponder why it used to be free and it is not free now – well, theres your problem right there!
Nice to see this article. When I talk about economics, most people who know anything, only
know what someone on TV tells them, so they often question, well who agrees with you? Nice to
have another name to list.
And then…
"Sorry, nothing more can be done for you." TINA.
Of course for those at the tippy-top, "How can I help you today?"
In what many considered to be a flagrantly criminal abuse of investment
bank "restricted lists", yesterday Goldman underwrote a $2 billion equity
offering for Tesla (to find its amusing expansion strategy) just hours
after Goldman upgraded the stock to a Buy.
... however we are confident the regulators are paid far better to
remain unalerted.
So for those curious what Goldman's research analyst who upgraded
Tesla, Patrick Archambault, had to say about this "odd, very odd
coincidence", here it is straight from the mouth of the horse which
obviously remains stabled safely on the other side of the Chinese wall
located at 200 West.
Commentary: Tesla announces equity offering and provides
further details on Model 3 reservations
News
After the close on May 18, Tesla announced a 6.8mn primary share
offering. The offering includes a greenshoe option which, if
exercised, would increase the number of shares sold to approximately
8.2mn. Based on the May 18 closing price of $211.17, this would result
in a total value of $1.4bn for the offering, or $1.7bn if the
greenshoe option is exercised. In addition, Elon Musk, CEO, will sell
2.8mn shares to satisfy tax implications from exercising 5.5mn in
stock options that expire at year-end. The company noted that Mr. Musk
also plans to donate 1.2mn shares to charity and that the net result
of these actions will be to increase his holdings to 31.1mn shares
from 29.6mn.
All said, based on the latest closing share price
and including the primary offering, greenshoe, and Mr. Musk's sale,
the total size of the transactions would be $2.3bn.
In the preliminary prospectus, the company also provided an update
on Model 3 reservations and announced that it had 373k deposits as of
May 15, 2016. This is net of 8k (approx. 2% of total) in customer
cancelations and 4.2k (approx. 1% of total) reservations deemed to be
duplicates.
Implications
Adjusting for the announced transaction and the supplemental stock
options outstanding, and for restricted stock units (RSU) information,
our EPS estimates would be unchanged for 2016-2017. Including
the greenshoe, our 2016-2017 EPS estimates would decline by less than
1% on average.
Our take
We maintain our Buy rating and EPS estimates following the
announcement
. Additionally, our 6-month price target of $250
remains unchanged,
derived from five probability-weighted
automotive scenarios plus stationary storage optionality
, all
of which embed a 20% cost of capital. While the announced capital
raise of $1.4bn (or $1.7bn with the greenshoe) is ultimately higher
than our $1bn estimate, after factoring in the updated supplemental
RSU and option information, dilution to our estimates would be
immaterial. Consistent with our previously published research (see
Putting in our reservation for the Model 3; upgrading TSLA to Buy, May
18)
we believe the funding level is adequate for the Tesla
Model 3 roll-out. The reservations of 373k are in line with the
company's recent comments of "approaching 400k", though they imply
slowing growth
(even adding back the cancellation and
duplicates)
as reservations had already hit 325k one week
after the Model 3 unveil.
Risks:
Decline in overall investor sentiment
impacting the appetite for concept stocks, further delays in the Model
X production ramp which could force a guidance reduction as well as
exacerbate FCF burn, and higher-than-forecast operating expenses
and/or capex investments.
Actually the biggest risk factor, and what is most hilarious about
this whole incident is that in the Goldman upgrade, which was clearly
rushed, and in which Goldman itself admitted there is a two-thirds
likelihood the stock will plunge to $125 or lower and the only upside is
due to a "key man provision" and a ridiculous thesis that Musk alone is
worth tens of billions in market cap (somehow excluding tens of billions
in taxpayer grants)...
... is that all those who bought TSLA on the Goldman report (and/or
Goldman stock offering) will actually read it.
Would it really be that surprising if it did hit 250? I wouldn't
be the least bit surprised. It makes no sense where it is now,
another 20% up would be par for the course for this "market". It's
probably just more muppet slaying by Goldman, but I could see them
releasing those cars that will of course get stellar reviews and
have a full retard price spike. Dumber shit has happened.
How to Comply
The Standards of Practice Handbook provides a number of
operational suggestions that one should recommend for
adoption by the compliance department.
Establish a restricted list
-
This is to limit research on those firms that have a business
relationship with that company. If an adverse opinion would
hurt this business relationship, the company stock should be
restricted from the research universe, and only factual
information on the company should be disseminated.
The worst part in my opinion is that by keeping Musk
going makes him look like a God to all of the sheeple
when in reality he's just using other people's money
and other people's ideas to become famous. Basically
the definition of the current United States.
Yes something is broken... must be the porn filters at the SEC
again. Don't expect people who's future (once they pass thru the
revolving door) depends on them not finding any malfeasance, to do
the right thing.
Who are these "many" you speak of? Clearly does not include the
financial and regualtory elite.
Similar to politicians and one D Trump claiming they could shoot
someone on the Senate floor - or Times Square - and not get arrested I
think that CNBC should have a reality hour where finanial elites and
regulators carry out obvious fraud on live TV. You know, just to see
what happens...
Should I even care about this? The people who own Tesla shares are
functionally retarded. If it wasn't Tesla stealing their money for the
sake raising capital, some other questionablle enterprise would get
their money just as quickly. I'm thinking horse racing and lottery
tickets.
While Tesla's cars may be a rare sight for others in the U.S. if
you drive around the SF Bay Area they are as common as anyother make
of car. While the stock is at a nutty value, I'd bet you'd find that
80% of individual owners of it reside around Silicon Valley and are
convinced this is the next Apple.
Personally I see no appeal to a car which has such a limited
driving range....you really cannot take a trip with it.
Economic Models Must Account for Who Has the Power''
: Nobel Prize
winning economist
Joseph
Stiglitz recently highlighted
two schools of thought on how income
is distributed to different groups of people in the economy. Which
school is correct has important implications for our understanding of
the forces that have caused the rise in inequality, and for the
policies needed to reverse this trend. It also relates to another
controversy that has flamed up recently, how economics should be
taught in principles of economics courses. ...
And according to Sraffa's
side in the Cambridge capital controversy labour and capital
do not receive their marginal products, which leaves the
distribution of income to some extent socially or politically
determined.
Now please make a donation to Project Syndicate, and check
out Robert Skidelsky at the same site.
Excellent. It will be taught in graduate school, long after
the little ones have been indoctrinated in reactionary
thought be Econ 101.
P.S. The school of thought that
accepts inequality as a Teh Awesome result of merit cannot
explain why inherited wealth should be allowed to accumulate
- another aspect of how power writes the economic rules.
"It will be taught in graduate school, long after the little
ones have been indoctrinated in reactionary thought be Econ
101."
Joan Robinson's writing on market power was required
reading when I was in graduate school. My undergrad profs
touched on this issue but not as much. I wonder if Greg
Mankiw teaches market imperfections to his undergrad students
at Harvard.
"I wonder if Greg Mankiw teaches market imperfections to his
"undergrad students at Harvard."
According to theoclassical
doctrine, all market imperfections are the result of gummint
innerference. Left to themselves, markets hum with music of
the perfect spheres.
We are way past just one or the other of those explanations
being true. Opportunities come in many forms, but just not
for many people. Competition becomes limited in the womb and
then they go from there. Better schools across all zip codes
and public day care with universal pre-K would be a start.
Even that is doomed to the catch-22 of making a better
informed public requires a better informed public to demand
being better informed. Down east they say "You can't get thar
from here."
I was fortunate enough to grow up in Prince
William County VA in the late sixties just as it was
beginning to boom from growth proximate to the DC Beltway. We
had a new and progressive school system even relative to
NoVA. Still by the 7th grade it was evident to me that the
pedagogy related to reality in dogmatic POVs that were only
relevant to the next generation of yuppie kids that had
gotten a half step advantage in some various way from their
parents.
My half step came from an unusual source though. My dad
was illiterate and my mom only finished the 8th grade, but
they were stoics with exceedingly powerful work ethics
transferred more by their example of excellence in every
menial thing that they did rather than by belittling and
cajoling me. My dad was the best hunter, the most successful
fisherman, grew the most beautiful and bountiful garden, and
was self-sufficient in caring for his car and home. His
position with the state highway department was limited by his
illiteracy to maintenance superintendent, but due to his
ability he still got to supervise the construction of roads
and bridges without the benefit of commensurate pay.
My mom was the best cook, kept the cleanest house, and as
at home day care for a few friends was the best a dealing
with troubled children from potty training to outbursts of
anger. It was a tough act to follow. Furthermore it did not
fit the status quo mold that public schools were designed to
reinforce. My half step freed me to reject the intellectual
authority of my instructors even though their administrative
authority was still sacrosanct in my home. I did well in
school and even better on tests eking by to enter the Honor
Society and passing the SAT test well enough to qualify for
Mensa, but I dropped out of college first semester mostly
just to relocate away from home to find a job in the city.
So, I got drafted and went to Viet Name, but was lucky enough
to survive and develop a successful career in IT systems
management large systems capacity planning and performance
management. The best break that I got was being laid off in
June 2015 with a severance package good enough to afford me a
retirement income equal after the change in expenses from
leaving the professional world behind to what I had been
making while working.
The moral to my story is that one can despise our
education system and still do very well by themselves with
it. One can reject our higher education and still do very
well by themselves without it. One can despise our corporate
"meritocracy" system and still have a successful career and
maybe even a comfortable retirement, but the ladder has been
raised for the latter. How anyone can be successful in school
and/or in career without recognizing their own half step
advantage or recognizing the intellectually and morally
vacant institutions that they traversed in their journey is
deeply puzzling to me.
P.S. I had the good fortune to relocate from Prince William
County to Orange County VA in summer 1966 before my senior
year in high school when my dad cashed out his state
retirement fund saving to start an electric motor/ john boat
livery and concession stand at Lake Orange, a VA Game and
Fisheries Commission state fishing lake.
The high school teachers were probably just as intelligent as
in Manassas Park, but far more socially challenged at least
in the academic curriculum. Still, the kids with that half
step from their successful parents did well enough to attend
decent colleges, but academic performance overall was much
lower than it had been in Manassas Park back in Prince
William County. The kids in Orange with really successful
parents all attended private prep schools.
P.P.S. Relative to the thread topic then we have a fairly
rigid establishment that favors the haves and keeps the
have-nots at bay. Monopoly rents are just one of the
luxurious rent extracting tools of an aristocracy of social
exclusion. Bankers, proto-industrialists, and slave owners
established the meme of republicanism as the conservative
power that protects us all from tyranny of the majority, but
perhaps a little too well. More importantly they established
the US Constitution as a nearly inviolable foundation for
preserving their world view of well-deserved elite privilege.
And they did it all in the name of democracy while showing
Thomas Paine the door.
It's a cool rainy day in central VA. Being retired and
primarily a person of outdoor interests then today I have an
abundance of time to waste. And commenting on the EV blog
sure beats a colonoscopy, which is what I will be getting
this time next week :<)
John Kenneth Galbraith used to write about countervailing
power. Unfortunately Galbraith has been pretty much consigned
to the dustbin. Even when he was writing, economics courses
did not talk about his ideas much...I guess he did not use
enough math symbols.
Business has long understood the
concept of what I'll call leverage points...critical
intellectual property, experience, and know how. Control of
these critical factors is a key to pricing power and
profitability. As one example, Symbol Technologies dominated
the handheld bar code scanner market for years, not because
they had superior technology or marketing, but because they
held the patent on the trigger, which was critical to
activating the scanner for reading. Their market power
affected not only competitors but suppliers and customers as
well.
Leverage points like this are commonplace in business
today. Yet I'm not aware that economics, with its orientation
towards competitive markets, has ever tried to model this
common behavior or even dealt with it.
Likewise, businesses have also understood the importance
of market and marketing channel domination to their long term
survival and profitability. Firms who fail to dominate must
specialize. These concepts are considered elementary in
business schools. Yet I don't know that economists have ever
managed (or even tried) to incorporate them into their
models.
It might help if more economists took business courses to
understand how the game is played...
I still say that until economists can reach consensus on the
objective of an economy, they remain divided on the
objective. Simply defining it as "for the general good" is a
cop-out --- and economists and everybody else know this full
well. Define what "general good means"....then see if
consensus can be reached. I seriously conclude this cannot be
done, since only by compromises can they reach consensus, and
this means defining the objective in subjective, vague
terms... just like "the general good" is vague and
subjective.
The cop-out used by economists is at the heart
of what Thomas' blog subject is about: Policy makers .. i.e.
gov't decides the objectives of an economy, which is to say
that economic power defines it. And of course economic power
will define it to maintain and extend their economic
power.... and at the very least to minimize any erosion
thereof.
So one must wonder how, if gov't is controlled by economic
power, that gov't will NOT insure the maintenance and
extension of that economic power? Is it possible in a
democracy defined by the U.S. constitution to significantly
reduce the economic power of those who have it? The
constitution in fact makes it impossible.
Even when congress occasionally finds a large enough
majority to make law to erode or reduce economic power in
gov't, the constitution enables 5 people in robes to deem it
unconstitutional OR the next congress, or the next will make
law that erode or reduce the effect of prior congress's law(s)
that reduced or eroded economic power.
If this were not the case we'd long since have had
universal single payer health care, strong labor unions, tax
policies that don't give unearned income a huge break, and
don't give offshore income an out by not taxing it until its
"repatriated", welfare systems that don't keep people in
poverty, and an educational system that provide free & equal
education to all (not one that gives communities, county's,
and States with the highest incomes & property values the
best education and everybody else with a lesser one.
Nor, will I add would it be possible to rape the nation's
environment by contaminating the nation's rivers, soils, and
the air with green-house gases .. not just "paying" fines
after the fact for doing so or putting low cost "caps" on
green-house gas emissions.
So what does "the general good" actually mean? Economists
can't agree on it, nor the means of achieving it of course
nor can policy makers.... and this is the fundamental problem
not being addressed.
One comment: You wrote "...individuals are
rewarded according to their contributions to the economic
well being of society. Those who contribute the most to the
production of the goods and services we all enjoy receive the
highest rewards and climb to the top of the income
distribution." I would add that having power includes being
able to dictate that rewards are allotted according to
economic contributions as opposed to other contributions. Cue
my go-to Chris Lasch quote: "... individuals cannot learn to
speak for themselves at all, much less come to an intelligent
understanding of their happiness and well-being, in a world
in which there are no values except those of the market....
the market tends to universalize itself. It does not easily
coexist with institutions that operate according to
principles that are antithetical to itself: schools and
universities, newspapers and magazines, charities, families.
Sooner or later the market tends to absorb them all. It puts
an almost irresistible pressure on every activity to justify
itself in the only terms it recognizes: to become a business
proposition, to pay its own way, to show black ink on the
bottom line. It turns news into entertainment, scholarship
into professional careerism, social work into the scientific
management of poverty. Inexorably it remodels every
institution in its own image."
"Two-thirds of the directors at the New York Fed are
hand-picked by the same bankers that the Fed is in charge
of regulating.
Today, the United States is No. 1 in corporate profits,
No. 1 in CEO salaries, No. 1 in childhood poverty, and No.
1 in income and wealth inequality in the industrialized
world.
Today, the top one-tenth of 1% owns nearly as much wealth
as the bottom 90%. The economic game is rigged, and this
level of inequality is unsustainable. We need an economy
that works for all, not just the powerful.
I think what the American people are saying is enough is
enough. This country, this great country, belongs to all
of us. It cannot continue to be controlled by a handful of
billionaires who apparently want it all."
Bernie Sanders
The Banks must be restrained, and the financial system
reformed, with balance restored to the economy, before there
can be any sustainable recovery.
"... Everything is just getting that bit more embarrassing for Clinton now, as if it wasn't for her early jump on Sanders before people got to know who he was, she could well be behind. ..."
"... Vote for Bernie is more like a protest vote: people just show their disgust with neocon Killary posing as a Democrat. That's why if Dems nominate Killary, many Bernie supporters won't vote at all, and some would even vote Trump. Trump and Bernie are opposites in many things, but they have one thing in common: Republicratic establishment is afraid of both. ..."
Maybe the 'mis-spoke' argument for Clinton's crushing in WV today (a
state she won in 2008) is not the only a influence on today's vote?
Perhaps the people of WV have also been reading or hearing about
Clinton's appalling polling in a showdown with Trump compared to
Sanders? Meanwhile, if the state does goes Repub in the general, it will
just be like all those other southern states that Hillary won!
I do believe it may be yourself and your beloved Hillary that are
hitting the bottle. The more Sanders wins the more he may be able to
swing the Super Delegates who are free to pledge for who they want.
Everything is just getting that bit more embarrassing for Clinton now,
as if it wasn't for her early jump on Sanders before people got to know
who he was, she could well be behind.
It is something the Democrats can't ignore, just as they can't ignore
Clintons popularity ratings along side Trump.
Why pull out when you're winning? Sounds like something a loser would
do.
Got to love the Guardian, first they get a bit over
excited and announce Clinton and Trump win after almost
no votes counted, with their ridiculous little
Clinton/Trump graphics waving their arms, then have to
wakeup from their warm fuzzy dream and face reality,
Sanders and done it again.
The Fat Lady is starting to
get nervous as the Orchestra start to leave the pit.
Whereas cocaine capitalists are so good at maths that
they sold sub-prime mortgage packages, created the GFC
and destroyed the world economy... and then got bailed
out by the people... (that is, they suddenly and briefly
embraced socialism in their time of need, in case that's
lost on you.)
Vote for Bernie is more like a protest vote: people
just show their disgust with neocon Killary posing as a
Democrat. That's why if Dems nominate Killary, many
Bernie supporters won't vote at all, and some would even
vote Trump. Trump and Bernie are opposites in many
things, but they have one thing in common: Republicratic
establishment is afraid of both.
Guardian: I'm getting tired of
waiting for a fair headline
from you, for example, "Bernie
Takes West Virginia in May
10th state primary" instead of
"Trump this, Trump
that/hillary_clinton. blah, blah,
blah". It's as simple as Who,
What, When, Where &
Why-accurately reported. As
taught in 9th grade journalism
classes.
Im waiting for an article
without the negatives such as
West Virginians only voted for
Sanders because they are
waiting to vote for Trump.
It's bad enough to have
Hillary, Bill, the Koch bros.,
the banksters, the Supreme
Court et al subverting our
democracy, must you join in as
well?
Bernie's formidable & we, his
supporters are tenacious!
GO BERNIE!!!!
Sociopath taps into public discontent amongst smaller
demographic group by giving them someone to blame and
displaying authoritarian strength in the face of hated
establishment (who lets be honest with maybe one
exception were hopeless candidates). Tbf I'd be less
concerned with what Republicans think and more concerned
with the Independent voting block who have massive
concerns about Hillary for mostly different reasons
Clinton's campaign has soaked up a goodly portion of this
allegedly donated money. She believes that *she* is the
Democratic Party heir. Clinton is for Clinton and will do
anything to get what she wants.
The point is that while Sanders gets support from people
to the left of Clinton, he also gets a lot of support
from people to the right of Clinton and who are backing
him as an anti-establishment guy, not a left-wing guy.
Why would Sanders, who has made his entire campaign about
the corrupting influence of Wall Street and corporate
interests in government, and has self funded his campaign
as a result, team up with a person who is the living
embodiment of all he disdains? Hillary Clinton's campaign
is the nexus of Wall Street and corruption, with an FBI
investigation thrown in for good measure.
He says it was a disaster, is against regime change,
questions our relationship with the Saudis, wants to be
neutral with regard to Israel and Palestine, and
questions why we need NATO decades after the Soviet Union
collapsed. All sound positions in my book.
Not me. I'm voting Sanders. And if its not Sanders, then
I'm voting Trump.
The problem is corruption in
government, and how the government and economy are
rigged.
Only Sanders and Trump talk about this. Clinton...
with her speech money and tens of millions from Wall
Street donors and Pentagon supplier donors... she is part
of the problem, and certainly not the solution.
Once again we have uniformly
lousy, almost criminally
responsibly terrible political
reporting from the Guardian
concerning the Democratic
Party's race. I come expecting
you to be awful and you never
disappoint. You know nothing,
you understand nothing.
Well Hillary's fucked in that case but I disagree that
Americans only care about tax cuts especially when you
consider certain studies...
TPC found that the average tax burden would
increase by about $9,000 in 2017 but the average
amount of benefits would increase by more than
$13,000. As a result, households would on average
receive a net income gain of almost $4,300 under
Sanders's proposals, TPC said.
Households in the bottom fifth of income would
on average receive a net gain of more than $10,000,
and those in the middle fifth of income would have an
average gain of about $8,500.
Those in the top 5
percent of income would see a net loss of about
$111,000, TPC said.
Bernie has a very strong case to not only be the most
progressive candidate but also the one lightest on the
average American's pocket
She's a greedy warmongering horror with nothing to offer
anyone. Sanders supports will simply not vote. At all.
For anyone. A handful might vote for Trump but not in
significant numbers.
I would refrain from too many
predictions six months out. (a) USA is a moody country
with (b) a love of novelty and (c) there's no frame of
reference for what's going to come next. Except that
we're in for a wild ride.
to the extent Trump generates buzz, clicks, excitement
& controversy -- the press must secretly praying for him
to win
Welcome to our live wire coverage with our rock star
interns. After another terrible night for Sanders, who
was expected to gain 99.9% of the vote, this latest win
in West Virginia is another devastating blow to the
Sanders campaign, coming after a series of 17 incredibly
lucky shock results by landslide margins which of course
don't mean anything.
Because of the large number of
comments which disagree with the Guardian editorial line
we will be closing this blog shortly.
You can make the case that Hillary's 30,000 deleted
personal emails are = to Nixons 18 minutes of missing
tape. Also her use of "enemies list" and her use of the
Super Pac "Correct the Record" cyber war against anyone
who speaks out about her in a negative manner, as well as
her hawkish foreign policy and her close relationship
with Kissenger to me be very similar to Nixon.
Except
for your already disproved slander that Sanders is a
"socialist" there is not much else he has in common with
Lenin.
Well, the moderator is making it easier for Clinton's
super Pac to work these comments now. You can't debate
these people rationally, they are paid to distort and
reflect back to you the opposite of everything.
Body language works on a different level. You can't fake it easily. It's
almost impossible to fake micro expressions. And we all pick them up.
This is probably the main reason why Clinton is deemed untrustworthy.
It's because her body's expressions can't hide her lies
Bernie Sanders got 72% in West Virginia among those who want
more
liberal policies than the Obama Administration. Or in a nutshell
according to the Guardian, "Trump voters".
My view is that Hillary is bought and sold by
a small group of ultra-wealthy 0.001%ers who
have some form of personality disorder which
means that they are only interested in
unending self-enrichment beyond any from of
rational limit, all at the expense of
*everybody else* on the planet
The article
rather backs this up, and furthermore points
out that at least some of these same people
were also backing the frightful Cruz until he
dropped out of the race
Are you happy to be shilling for Hillary
now you have this information?
Guardian office alert !!! Guardian office alert !!!
There are elections in the USA at the moment in some of the states and
the Guardian editor in charge is worried. Why ?
There are not enough anti Trump articles yet written for today and one
(?new) staffer had the audacity to write an article on Hillary that had
one line in it that was seen as a bit 'negative' for our former first
lady.
The editor in charge may have to write a negative article on Trump
him/herself.... so what to do now.........the news staffer is walking
down the road already
If you need some help Guardian staff..ask me.. I have read so many of
your anti Trump articles that I can memorize most of the
lines.....................
True colours, alright. Bernie voters have principles- they're not
willing to toss those aside in order to support NAFTA-loving,
email-losing, regime-change-addict Clinton, the woman whose campaign
platform changes entirely depending on which way the wind is blowing. It
beats me why anyone voting for Bernie would want to vote for Clinton-
expect more outsourcing, more 'free trade', more TPIP, and more Middle
East interventions if she snakes her way into the Oval office.
Yes Clinton is
cleverly using a
LEGAL way to
bypass campaign
financing laws
thanks to her
joint account with
the DNC.
Although, to be
fair, she is not
the first
candidate to do
that.
The legality is
not for debate
here but I won't
say that much
about the
morality...
She consistently has shown that money and power is all she is interested in. She does not care where that money or power comes from as long as she gets it.
That's why she took "the evil ones" campaign contribution.
"But I believe that it is not enough to just reject Trump – this is an
opportunity to define a progressive vision for America."
Exactly! The
Clinton campaign is basically stating "Vote Hillary, she's less worse
than Trump!", there's nothing progressive or innovative about it, just
plain sailing everything thing is fine stop thinking now and get back to
work stuff. Shame really, the woulda shoulda coulda that's coming to the
US in a few months after Trump wins...because he's going to, dour
predictions by the media aside (they didn't see any of this coming) he's
just the kind of guy Americans will vote for, I mean, we elected Bush II
twice! Well...once, really.
Simons, a string theory expert and former cold war codebreaker,
has made an estimated $15.5bn from Renaissance Technologies the
mathematics-driven "quant" hedge fund he set up 34 years ago.
The fund, which is run from the tiny Long Island village of
Setauket where Simons owns a huge beachfront compound,
has donated
$13m to Cruz's failed campaign. With Cruz out of the race,
Renaissance has switched donations to Hillary Clinton, with more than
$2m donated so far. Euclidean Capital, Simon's family office, has
donated more than $7m to Clinton.
The media and the parties conveniently forget that more than 40% of
Americans are Independents and they can swing this election. Most of
them would vote for Sanders in the general election in Nov., but they
won't vote for Clinton. The DNC should be assessing who could best win
the White House and back that candidate. I am at a lose as to why they
aren't doing that.
Hillary, let's face it: you and the working class just don't go
together. It is a very awkward , tense and schizo combination. You
should be campaigning on Broadway, Sunset Strip or Rodeo Drive. West
Virginia just isn't your natural habitat: It is like putting an
anaerobic bacterium into an oxygen tank.
Stick to the 1% quarters, and you'll do just fine (plus, they give
good speech fees). And you don't even have to watch those unwashed
coalminers' faces and pretend that you are one of them.
Hey Guardian fascinating to know what the Clinton Camp (Machine) thinks
about tonight but what does Senator Sanders campaign think? Just curious
you know. Helps to have reporting from both sides to help unbiased
voters make up their minds.
Don't get me wrong I think it was nice you
mentioned Bernie's landslide in Nebraska but what is he saying? Sure
he's holding 25,000 rallies but could you cover his actual words and
policies with an equal amount of reporting as you are covering Clinton?
Of note I read elsewhere he is 281 delegates behind and expected to
win 8 out of 9 remaining states. Does that mean Clinton has no chance of
becoming the presumptive nominee until the Convention? Also have you
investigated her Goldman Sachs speeches? She said she'd release them
when others have and I do not think Sanders or Trump are withholding
their speeches.
Key word.... Integrity. It's not about Bernie,it's about us. No more
taxation without representation. Corporations aren't people.. I should
know as I work for one and own one. Capitalism without regulation self
cannibalises as it is left with no consumers. That's what the new deal
was really about... Saving capitalism and I'm all for that.
This liveblog is illustrative of the inane soma that the media,
unfortunately this appears to include the guardian, will feed to its
readers over the general election. Again you have forgotten that smart
young people, who make up a large proportion of your readership, are
extremely put off by the extent of Trump's coverage. I know he's the
presumptive nominee, but that puts the onus on discussing his policies
more, contrasting them with hillary's etc, but you do nothing of the
sort. I know it's a liveblog and you're scraping through the day for
tidbits but i really think more analysis instead of random useless
coverage of events is in order. Oh Trump's a buffoon that says stupid
things? Thanks, I needed more evidence of that. Oh he polls worse than
Nickelback? Hilarious. No, no, no. Give us some real information and not
this public interest nonsense - that's what social media is for.
Delegate math in the primaries is one thing; electoral college math in
the general election is quite another. Clinton's margin in popular votes
derives from red (mostly southern) state primaries that, with few
exceptions (like NC), neither will win in the general. As others have
noted, in swing states Sanders lost, he's polling better against Trump
than Clinton does (FL, OH, PA). There's even an interesting poll from NH
that has Sanders ahead of Trump by 21 points (the same as his primary
win margin), but Clinton is only up +5--the difference between Clinton
keeping Sen. Ayotte (R) in the Senate for another term, and Sanders
dragging the Hill-shill Gov. Hassen (D) into the Senate.
Given Clinton's poor showing against Trump, both nationally and
state-by-state, i'm beginning to suspect that difference isn't Trump
gaining supporters against Clinton, but Clinton losing supporters to
those not voting, voting third party (mostly Green), or writing Sanders'
in--aka, the Bernie or Bust movement.
It's still very possible Clinton goes to the Convention well short of
the 2,383 pledged delegates she needs to win the nomination without the
help of super delegates. And if her polls keep tanking (and taking any
chance of winning back the Senate, the House, governors and statehouses)
with it, the SD's will have a very hard time justifying awarding her the
nomination simply out of personal loyalty, and still face the prospect
of losing the presidency anyway.
1) The New York Board of
Elections received whopping pay raises, for unexplained reasons.
2) The NY BOE's own internal minutes of July 7, 2015 (available to
the public) show that the full board were completely aware of purging
~160,000 NY voters, treated that as a routine vote, and moved onto other
apparently more pressing business
"... Simply put, the nation is sick to death of lies, deceptions and swindles - media and otherwise - which Hillary Clinton so capably embodies, personifies and endorses. In fact, one of the reasons why Donald Trump is the presumptive republican nominee is that, with all his extremism, vitriol and xenophobia, he still comes across as more genuine - even if genuinely nasty ..."
"... So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election, she will be mauled to threads and fronds, and I will get a kick of a lifetime. Donald Trump will eat her for mid-morning snack and she will have deserved every bit of drubbing she gets to receive. It will be more fun than the 6:00 AM sex. ..."
"... Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!! ..."
"... The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about it. ..."
"... In all of Hillary's 'closed' primary wins, they have been plagued with voter suppression tactics, voter purges, lack of voting machines and ballots, people (Sanders) having their party affiliation changed so they couldn't vote and 'Oh Yes' - Bill Clinton clearly violating election laws by 'wandering into a polling station in Boston. ..."
"... Popular vote? When closed primaries arn't enough good old fashioned fraud will do. ..."
"... Sanders has been consistently winning smaller states and may well have won New York too if not for the shenanigans going on there. ..."
"... it will be a little awkward for Hillary wrenching the nomination from him after another series of massive wins. ..."
"... Her 'sharing' means raising money for the states but giving them 1% of amount raised while diverting the funds back to the DNC who will be funding her campaigns. Smart technique, but deceptive, like much of her political life. ..."
"... The fact is, a substantial section of the politically active electorate are sick and tired of the rotten do-nothing political system, and are doing whatever they can to deliberately disrupt business as usual. Don't be "shocked". ..."
"... The "free press" continues to show that it is TOTALLY out of touch with the "we've had enough and we're not going to take it any more" quality of voters across the political spectrum. The U.S. "media" (i.e. corporate PR Sock Puppet), called Bernie's demise inevitable from the start (that is, when it wasn't blacklisting any coverage of him at all), and when there WAS coverage, it always had Kleverly manipulated headlines (Bernie shocks with a victory, yada yada yada). ..."
"... The press has become so owned, so corrupt and also (in the case of the Guardian coverage of sanders) so Parrot- Lazy , I could just puke. A pox on all your pathetic "media" houses. ..."
"... This rag like others do not get it. Sanders wins open primaries. The closed primaries with all the problems reported are why Clinton is in front. Democracy is not for the democrats. ..."
"... Not only doesn't Killary know that 'this thing is not over", but the media doesn't know what's going on with the Empire of the entrenched Democratic party, nor the media Empire, nor the militarist Empire abroad, nor the financial Empire, nor the corporate Empire, nor any of the sectors of this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which is nominally HQed in. ..."
"... This damn Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE that has by "singing so softly" imposed itself and its boot upon us, and which is a highly-integrated (but well hidden, like a cancer) six-sectored; corporate, financial, military, media/propaganda, extra-legal, and most dangerously dual-party Vichy-political facade of both the rougher neocon 'R' Vichy party and smoother lying neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy parties of the EMPIRE is "goin' down" ..."
"... Using a dysfunctional system to change that very system is not hypocritical. ..."
"... Sanders victory is not a "shock" to those of us who don't believe the media propaganda. Clinton and the DNC elite are the ones who will be shocked after the Oregon and California primaries as Sanders pulls neck and neck with her. ..."
"... wrong, dems have been split down the middle since april 7. The DNC chose their candidate a year ago, that is not democracy. ..."
"... Bow out gracefully, what a joke. Obama only got her support after she extorted the price of Secretary of State from him. ..."
"... NYT is touted as being leftist by all the FOX readers and listeners, especially. They have an incredible bias for right wing Likud Party and Bibi Netanhayu and Hillary fits into that analysis as a veteran AIPAC speaker. ..."
"... Christian Zionist, John Hagee, is also a favored speaker and colleague of Hillary's. She is a committed Neo-con and puppet of the New World Order Chicago School of Economics (Friedman). ..."
"... The candidate who most appeals to women for support in this campaign is the same one who as US Senator and as US Sec. of State, has violated Moslem and Christian women's and children's fundamental human rights in Gaza, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Cuba. She has supported notorious violators of women rights, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel. ..."
"... Wish to better understand Hillary Clinton? Review her relationship with Victoria Nuland the Neo-con who worked for Hillary in US Dept. of State as Undersecretary. Nation destabilizer Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol of PNAC. She worked for Dick Cheney as senior foreign policy advisor, now working for Sec. Kerry!! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland> Then the original Neo-con agenda here: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Project_for_the_New_American ... ..."
"... Now PNAC and Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan have updated to this anti-American New World Order; the same agenda that is wolly embraced by Hillary Clinton and Sec. of State Kerry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative ..."
"... Sanders supporters are not merely disgusted by what they have seen in all the other candidates including Clinton, they know a good thing when they see it and are willing to support what they believe in fully. No more settling for " the lesser evil " which is evil . ..."
"... Indiana is further proof that people have reached the limit of their tolerance. Democracy is not possible without choices. Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a choice that was offered The rest of the characters running for President were...well, just that, characters--cartoon characters. ..."
"... Bernie's policies are far better for the middle and working classes than Hillary's, and she is a warhawk to boot. Sometimes you have to vote your conscience instead of your team. Sander's actions are not assisting the GOP, it is the stubborn insistence of the DNC that we continue with the life-destroying policy of neoliberalism that is driving the Trump campaign. ..."
"... On the idea of compromising to "get things done," I see an analogy to the Hippocratic oath. ..."
There is nothing "shocking" about Bernie Sanders' victory in Indiana. Simply put, the nation is sick to death of lies, deceptions
and swindles - media and otherwise - which Hillary Clinton so capably embodies, personifies and endorses. In fact, one of the
reasons why Donald Trump is the presumptive republican nominee is that, with all his extremism, vitriol and xenophobia, he still
comes across as more genuine - even if genuinely nasty - than the rest of the man-made, prefabricated plastic
stuff that Republican party has to offer. There is a perfectly good and legitimate reason why Jebb Bush and Carly Fiorina could
not crawl out of their lower single-digit poll ratings: the general public found them insincere, dishonest and carrying hidden
agendas -- and this was NOT merely a misperception on part of the paranoid nation: you CAN'T con 330 million people into perpetual
dumbness simultaneously. It just isn't done.
So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of
lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election,
she will be mauled to threads and fronds, and I will get a kick of a lifetime. Donald Trump will eat her for mid-morning snack
and she will have deserved every bit of drubbing she gets to receive. It will be more fun than the 6:00 AM sex.
Bernie Sanders is America's last best hope and change , and the very first real one. Come November,
America has only one choice: to vote for one of the neoliberal corporate pieces of toxic human waste , or to vote for a decent
human being. Alternatives do not exist. This is it.
I don't see how the DNC can support a candidate who is under F.B.I. investigation. It doesn't matter if she is indicted?
I'm so glad Bernie is going the distance.
Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!!
The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans
to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large
segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support
that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have
no doubt about it.
In all of Hillary's 'closed' primary wins, they have been plagued with voter suppression tactics, voter purges, lack of voting
machines and ballots, people (Sanders) having their party affiliation changed so they couldn't vote and 'Oh Yes' - Bill Clinton
clearly violating election laws by 'wandering into a polling station in Boston.
Hillary can't win in a fair fight, so she resorts to dirty tricks that would shame Richard Nixon.
I don't think anyone, anyone who has followed the primaries thus far. I thought it was 'likely' myself, only doubt that lingered
was the supposed 'lost momentum' theories after Philly. Sanders is solid, I think most people now see through the mainstream bias
against him. He'll fight till the convention, and it will be a little awkward for Hillary wrenching the nomination from him
after another series of massive wins.
Her 'sharing' means raising money for the states but giving them 1% of amount raised while diverting the funds back to the
DNC who will be funding her campaigns. Smart technique, but deceptive, like much of her political life.
I keep seeing that argument that Sander's supporters will vote for Trump. People aroused by his message of anti war; opposing
the growing disparity of wealth; increasing the taxes for the rich to match the benefits they have been privileged to have such
a greater share of the wealth; and other reforms: in what world would they easily switch to voting for an egomaniac, elitist,
narcissist, misogynist, racist, xenophobe? I for one could consider skipping a vote, but NEVER could I see going from a Sanders
to a Fascist.
Hear we go again with the gratuitous elitist spin. First it was how Trump was going to be stopped short of cinching the nomination
"this time" - just you wait! Now the Guardian journalists have been instructed to feign "shock" that Sanders has once again shown
what pull he has in this primary season.
The fact is, a substantial section of the politically active electorate are sick and tired of the rotten do-nothing political
system, and are doing whatever they can to deliberately disrupt business as usual. Don't be "shocked".
The "free press" continues to show that it is TOTALLY out of touch with the "we've had enough and we're not going to take
it any more" quality of voters across the political spectrum. The U.S. "media" (i.e. corporate PR Sock Puppet), called Bernie's
demise inevitable from the start (that is, when it wasn't blacklisting any coverage of him at all), and when there WAS coverage,
it always had Kleverly manipulated headlines (Bernie shocks with a victory, yada yada yada).
The press has become so owned, so corrupt and also (in the case of the Guardian coverage of sanders) so Parrot- Lazy
, I could just puke. A pox on all your pathetic "media" houses.
This rag like others do not get it. Sanders wins open primaries. The closed primaries with all the problems reported are why
Clinton is in front. Democracy is not for the democrats.
That shifting of funds from the National committees to the states and then back to the national to avoid scrutiny of funds is
the similar trick that tom DeLay used in texas that he was charged with evading election laws. Clinton does the same and there
is no coverage?
When you think about it rationally, which Clintonistas are incapable of, how weak a candidate Hillary is that a little known Senator
from a small North Eastern state can carry forth a campaign into May.
After all she has repared her run for four years, placed her flunky Debbie Wassermann Schultz as head of the DNC, built a war
chest from Corporate money, lined up commitments from over 400 Super Delegates before the primaries even began and yet, Bernie's
still hanging in there.
"In Friday, while Hillary Clinton was addressing the Democratic National Committee in Minneapolis, Minnesota, senior campaign
officials announced that Clinton had already received pledges of support from at least 440 of the party's estimated 713 super
delegates. That total includes 130 superdelegates who have publicly endorsed Clinton, as well as an additional 310 who have made
private commitments to support Hillary."
Bernie had no name recognition, campaign staff and very little money to begin with, but his message of hope resonated enough
to attract millions of supporters who were tired of the status quo. and they have raised over $200,000,000 in small donations
without any SuperPacs.
Keep going Bernie, you are a true Progressive and American Hero.
There is a God! You go Bernie. I am waiting for you here in California.
When Bernie was speaking about healthcare for all .I started wondering how many people died at home .because there they are
with a pain in their chests and then they grab their healthcare booklets and they start adding it all up and what it takes just
to get them to the hospital and the hospital stay.
There is the .. "Ambulance co-pay" ..$225.00 one way. ( God forbid you decide to go for a joy-ride.) Oh wait ..you have to
add the "Emergency Room co-pay $75.00, then if you get admitted .it is a co-pay of $250.00 per day (PER DAY) for six days. If
you stay longer whoopee it's for free. ( I could be staying at Four Seasons for that.)
Who is fucking kidding who? What in the hell am I paying health insurance for and I am retired I have Medicare too? Who is
making money on my and other people's misfortunes? We are all victims who have been convinced that ALL OF THIS shite is our own
faults and individually we are on our own.
Little do we realize that if we stand shoulder to shoulder and we get together and protest this travesty called healthcare,
that we could get all of this changed to our benefit.
It is time for Medicare for all. My taxes are to be used for the Common Good of everyone in this country. I do not want my
taxes to go to war, war and more war.
Bernie also addresses our shameful infrastructure in this country. The rich corporations and individuals take all of these
illicit profits; my money, and yours and they just sit on it and do nothing to help this country or its people. When do we start
getting smarter?
Not only doesn't Killary know that 'this thing is not over", but the media doesn't know what's going on with the Empire
of the entrenched Democratic party, nor the media Empire, nor the militarist Empire abroad, nor the financial Empire, nor the
corporate Empire, nor any of the sectors of this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which is nominally HQed in.
metropoled, and merely 'posing' as our former country ---- and which Bernie's only partially revealed and vague, "Political
Revolution" is going to be expanding into his, and OUR, fully defined sentence (with an 'object') and is growing into a loud,
courageous, but peaceful, "Political Revolution against EMPIRE" as the Second American Revolution against EMPIRE again before
this the 240th year's anniversary of our First (and only successful) American Revolution against EMPIRE.
Everyone, and every sector, of this EMPIRE is deaf, dumb, and blind about this Revolution against Empire:
"There's something happening here
But what it is ain't exactly clear ...
Stop, children, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's going down"
This damn Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE that has by "singing so softly" imposed itself and its boot upon us, and which
is a highly-integrated (but well hidden, like a cancer) six-sectored; corporate, financial, military, media/propaganda, extra-legal,
and most dangerously dual-party Vichy-political facade of both the rougher neocon 'R' Vichy party and smoother lying neoliberal-con
'D' Vichy parties of the EMPIRE is "goin' down"
Sanders victory is not a "shock" to those of us who don't believe the media propaganda. Clinton and the DNC elite are the
ones who will be shocked after the Oregon and California primaries as Sanders pulls neck and neck with her.
For the good of the country, the Democrat Party should consider having Clinton pull out, because Trump will beat her, but Sanders
would be him. But they won't and she won't, because they serve their owners, and their arrogance, hubris and sense of entitlement
is supreme to their concerns for the rest of the 99%. Hopefully this election year ill see the destruction of both corrupt major
corporate parties, and a rebirth of actual democracy in the USA. One person, one vote, not bought and unsuppressed.
wrong, dems have been split down the middle since april 7. The DNC chose their candidate a year ago, that is not democracy.
California is an open primary, means that the 40 independents can vote.
Hmmm, looking at the math today things have gotten very interesting. Clinton has 1701 pledged delegates, Bernie has 1417. To win
outright before the convention you need 2382 pledged delegates. That would mean 1) Bernie cannot do it. 2) Hillary would have
to win 681 out of the final 933 delegates up for grabs. That's 73% she needs to win.
That ain't going to happen so it pretty much a fact now that the super delegates will pick this years Democratic nominee.
Let's start putting the pressure on them NOW to make the right choice. Call them, write to them.....
NYT is touted as being leftist by all the FOX readers and listeners, especially. They have an incredible bias for right wing
Likud Party and Bibi Netanhayu and Hillary fits into that analysis as a veteran AIPAC speaker.
Christian Zionist, John
Hagee, is also a favored speaker and colleague of Hillary's. She is a committed Neo-con and puppet of the New World Order Chicago
School of Economics (Friedman).
If Bernie, a socialist can win in a conservative Nazi state like Indiana, he can win any where.
He even won in Indiana"s third largest city (Evansville) the most conservative large city in Indiana.
Yeah cause Clinton has detailed policies on fixing this? Or does she play identity politics and hand wave?
"In 2010, the median wealth, or net worth, for black families was $4,900, compared to median wealth for whites of $97,000.
Blacks are nearly twice as likely as whites to have zero or negative net worth-33.9 percent compared to 18.6 percent."
At this point, the only hope for world peace is Sanders. I'll write in Sanders before I would vote for Hillary "Failed State"
Clinton. Hillary carries too high a load of baggage to prevail, even with historical trivia like Trevor 0691 above.
Trump is safer bet because he will not be able to get Congressional support, the same problem Jimmy Carter, the Washington
outsider had. Hillary's commitment to war, with her experience on Capital Hill is a most depressing specter.
No comments allowed on the 'what is sander's route to the Democratic nomination' article but it is exceptionally poor journalism
I quote: No numbers are available for the primaries that will be held in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Oregon and Kentucky,
partly because pollsters know the voters there won't change the political calculus much – they're not "wasting" their time in
places with few delegates available.
Polls are available for Oregon, Kentucky, West Virginia.
The most recent Oregon poll shows Sanders 1 point behind. The West Virginia poll shows him 5 points ahead, the most recent Kentucky
poll (taken at start of March) has him 5 points behind.
The latest New Jersey poll shows a 9 point deficit for him (compared with a 23 point deficit less than 2 months earlier).
It's fair enough that journalists have their opinions in opinion pieces, but when factual inaccuracies are mixed up in such
pieces, or so-called analytical pieces, it's just really shoddy, unprofessional journalism...
The candidate who most appeals to women for support in this campaign is the same one who as US Senator and as US Sec. of State,
has violated Moslem and Christian women's and children's fundamental human rights in Gaza, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Cuba. She has
supported notorious violators of women rights, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel.
How then are we to think that she will not import this treatment to the women of America?
She supports human rights criminal Bibi Netanyahu and AIPAC with undying expressions of apology for extreme Zionism and Orthodox
suppression of women. She opposes Jewish Voice for Peace and the indigenous Israel peace movement.
Remember Dixie Lee Ray who was elected disastrous Governor of WA State when ERA movement shooed her in? Women voters beware.
Wish to better understand Hillary Clinton? Review her relationship with Victoria Nuland the Neo-con who worked for Hillary
in US Dept. of State as Undersecretary. Nation destabilizer Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol
of PNAC. She worked for Dick Cheney as senior foreign policy advisor, now working for Sec. Kerry!! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland>
Then the original Neo-con agenda here: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Project_for_the_New_American
...
Now PNAC and Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan have updated to this anti-American New World Order; the same agenda that is
wolly embraced by Hillary Clinton and Sec. of State Kerry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative
Can you guys please make sure the Guardian reports on the Hillary Victory Fund hoarding 99% of the money it raises "for State
races". It is of critical importance that voters be made aware of how the Clinton campaign is behaving (or mis-behaving).
Sorry media controlling elites, Bernie has not lost yet. After her canary died in Indiana... Hillary has 1700 or 71% of the 2383
pledged delegates needed. So HRC will need 60% of the remaining 1114 pledged delegates to clinch. Bernie is favored in most of
the remaining states. Contested convention!!! And what a rowdy party in the streets it will be. Bernie will likely go in into
Philly just slightly behind in pledged delegates but with majority of states - and many of these states the ones Dems most count
on to win in the general. Considering Bernie's popularity with Independents(had they been allowed to vote in the primary he would
have won big) he would be the best choice against Trump. But as we all know from exit poll discrepancies - this election is rigged.
Pointing to evidence of the corrupted process he will announce his run as the Green Party candidate.
actually, it was only during this campaign that I bothered to check out why HRC had a private server, and it's not pretty. Washington
Examiner did an excellent researched piece, laying out how the Clintons amassed $3b through their private foundation and big speaking
feeds, and that's where the private server was needed, to organize the millions in state department contracts in line with donations.
Prime time, mainstream media including the Guardian has simply refused to check out the work that has been done in the emails
released last year. This is no GOP conspiracy. In fact, the Examiner lays out how Bush family used similar methods to amass their
$3b fortune. That is the amassing of private wealth through the use of public office that is endemic to Washington - pretty close
to Oligarchy at the scale of operations by former presidents, and heads of state. It's a level of corruption that has reached
proportions that led to the $700billion bailout and $6 trillion loan bailout - the Clintons use neo-liberal 'charity' to mask
their real program, personal wealth and unlimited power.
Sanders once again proved his appeal to disaffected midwest voters
Hah! What a joke!
Disaffected? More like realistic, compassionate, ethical, intelligent, and fair to all... Sanders supporters are not merely disgusted by what they have seen in all the other candidates including Clinton, they know
a good thing when they see it and are willing to support what they believe in fully. No more settling for " the lesser evil
" which is evil .
Indiana is further proof that people have reached the limit of their tolerance. Democracy is not possible without choices.
Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a choice that was offered The rest of the characters running for President were...well,
just that, characters--cartoon characters.
"Sanders led front-runner Hillary Clinton by 6 points, with 68 percent of precincts reporting, when networks declared him the
winner. Exit polls had Sanders winning by 12 points, but they were based solely on interviews with voters on Election Day. "
'Bernie Sanders Wins Indiana Democratic Primary' Huffington Post 3 May 2016
More voting machine hijinks. The Democratic Primary winner should not be decided until all investigations are complete.
who illegally gets millions from the DNC to pay young people to post comments for her ... He can beat Trump, 40 percent of all
American registered voters are independent who'll vote for Sanders, not for the DNC candidate (Dems are split 50/50 since April
7, and that's with tricky campaign finance rules thanks to your 'qualified' candidate. She is very qualified to sell out the American
people on every score, from Nafta to support for military coup in Hondurus. I mean, is she even a Democrat, or just a closeted
GOP zombie Kissinger lover?
This isn't a football game where you put on the colors and cheer on your team. People are not interested in business as usual,
every four years, support the platform, my party right or wrong politics. I don't know you, and I don't know how tough or easy
you have things. But here in Indy, about 90% of the people I know struggle to make ends meet. Those of us who voted for Bernie
are not necessarily trying to destroy the democratic party, but there's more to life for us than electing Hillary Clinton the
1st female president.
Bernie's policies are far better for the middle and working classes than Hillary's, and she is a warhawk to boot. Sometimes
you have to vote your conscience instead of your team. Sander's actions are not assisting the GOP, it is the stubborn insistence
of the DNC that we continue with the life-destroying policy of neoliberalism that is driving the Trump campaign.
At least be original. That article isn't a showstopping mic-drop, and trashing Bernie doesn't make HRC look any better. People
aren't loyal to Bernie for his party affiliation, they're loyal to him for his consistent policy positions. Not just his consistency,
but also the fact that he's been proven right again and again. That's an arena where HRC simply can't compete.
On the idea of compromising to "get things done," I see an analogy to the Hippocratic oath. First and foremost, do
no harm. Someone who compromises to insert slivers of good legislation into bad bills still, in the net, passes more bad laws
than good ones. Maybe we're all traumatized by the incompetence of congress over the past several years, but seeing the gears
of lawmaking in motion for the sake of motion is not the answer.
"... Simply put, the nation is sick to death of lies, deceptions and swindles - media and otherwise - which Hillary Clinton so capably embodies, personifies and endorses. In fact, one of the reasons why Donald Trump is the presumptive republican nominee is that, with all his extremism, vitriol and xenophobia, he still comes across as more genuine - even if genuinely nasty ..."
"... So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election, she will be mauled to threads and fronds, and I will get a kick of a lifetime. Donald Trump will eat her for mid-morning snack and she will have deserved every bit of drubbing she gets to receive. It will be more fun than the 6:00 AM sex. ..."
"... Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!! ..."
"... The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about it. ..."
"... In all of Hillary's 'closed' primary wins, they have been plagued with voter suppression tactics, voter purges, lack of voting machines and ballots, people (Sanders) having their party affiliation changed so they couldn't vote and 'Oh Yes' - Bill Clinton clearly violating election laws by 'wandering into a polling station in Boston. ..."
"... Popular vote? When closed primaries arn't enough good old fashioned fraud will do. ..."
"... Sanders has been consistently winning smaller states and may well have won New York too if not for the shenanigans going on there. ..."
"... it will be a little awkward for Hillary wrenching the nomination from him after another series of massive wins. ..."
"... Her 'sharing' means raising money for the states but giving them 1% of amount raised while diverting the funds back to the DNC who will be funding her campaigns. Smart technique, but deceptive, like much of her political life. ..."
"... The fact is, a substantial section of the politically active electorate are sick and tired of the rotten do-nothing political system, and are doing whatever they can to deliberately disrupt business as usual. Don't be "shocked". ..."
"... The "free press" continues to show that it is TOTALLY out of touch with the "we've had enough and we're not going to take it any more" quality of voters across the political spectrum. The U.S. "media" (i.e. corporate PR Sock Puppet), called Bernie's demise inevitable from the start (that is, when it wasn't blacklisting any coverage of him at all), and when there WAS coverage, it always had Kleverly manipulated headlines (Bernie shocks with a victory, yada yada yada). ..."
"... The press has become so owned, so corrupt and also (in the case of the Guardian coverage of sanders) so Parrot- Lazy , I could just puke. A pox on all your pathetic "media" houses. ..."
"... This rag like others do not get it. Sanders wins open primaries. The closed primaries with all the problems reported are why Clinton is in front. Democracy is not for the democrats. ..."
"... After all she has prepared her run for four years, placed her flunky Debbie Wassermann Schultz as head of the DNC, built a war chest from Corporate money, lined up commitments from over 400 Super Delegates before the primaries even began and yet, Bernie's still hanging in there. ..."
"... Not only doesn't Killary know that 'this thing is not over", but the media doesn't know what's going on with the Empire of the entrenched Democratic party, nor the media Empire, nor the militarist Empire abroad, nor the financial Empire, nor the corporate Empire, nor any of the sectors of this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which is nominally HQed in. ..."
"... This damn Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE that has by "singing so softly" imposed itself and its boot upon us, and which is a highly-integrated (but well hidden, like a cancer) six-sectored; corporate, financial, military, media/propaganda, extra-legal, and most dangerously dual-party Vichy-political facade of both the rougher neocon 'R' Vichy party and smoother lying neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy parties of the EMPIRE is "goin' down" ..."
"... Using a dysfunctional system to change that very system is not hypocritical. ..."
"... Sanders victory is not a "shock" to those of us who don't believe the media propaganda. Clinton and the DNC elite are the ones who will be shocked after the Oregon and California primaries as Sanders pulls neck and neck with her. ..."
"... wrong, dems have been split down the middle since april 7. The DNC chose their candidate a year ago, that is not democracy. ..."
"... Bow out gracefully, what a joke. Obama only got her support after she extorted the price of Secretary of State from him. ..."
"... NYT is touted as being leftist by all the FOX readers and listeners, especially. They have an incredible bias for right wing Likud Party and Bibi Netanhayu and Hillary fits into that analysis as a veteran AIPAC speaker. ..."
"... Christian Zionist, John Hagee, is also a favored speaker and colleague of Hillary's. She is a committed Neo-con and puppet of the New World Order Chicago School of Economics (Friedman). ..."
"... The candidate who most appeals to women for support in this campaign is the same one who as US Senator and as US Sec. of State, has violated Moslem and Christian women's and children's fundamental human rights in Gaza, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Cuba. She has supported notorious violators of women rights, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel. ..."
"... Wish to better understand Hillary Clinton? Review her relationship with Victoria Nuland the Neo-con who worked for Hillary in US Dept. of State as Undersecretary. Nation destabilizer Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol of PNAC. She worked for Dick Cheney as senior foreign policy advisor, now working for Sec. Kerry!! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland> Then the original Neo-con agenda here: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Project_for_the_New_American ... ..."
"... Now PNAC and Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan have updated to this anti-American New World Order; the same agenda that is wolly embraced by Hillary Clinton and Sec. of State Kerry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative ..."
"... Sanders supporters are not merely disgusted by what they have seen in all the other candidates including Clinton, they know a good thing when they see it and are willing to support what they believe in fully. No more settling for " the lesser evil " which is evil . ..."
"... Indiana is further proof that people have reached the limit of their tolerance. Democracy is not possible without choices. Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a choice that was offered The rest of the characters running for President were...well, just that, characters--cartoon characters. ..."
"... Bernie's policies are far better for the middle and working classes than Hillary's, and she is a warhawk to boot. Sometimes you have to vote your conscience instead of your team. Sander's actions are not assisting the GOP, it is the stubborn insistence of the DNC that we continue with the life-destroying policy of neoliberalism that is driving the Trump campaign. ..."
"... On the idea of compromising to "get things done," I see an analogy to the Hippocratic oath. ..."
There is nothing "shocking" about Bernie Sanders' victory in Indiana. Simply put, the nation is sick to death of lies, deceptions
and swindles - media and otherwise - which Hillary Clinton so capably embodies, personifies and endorses. In fact, one of the
reasons why Donald Trump is the presumptive republican nominee is that, with all his extremism, vitriol and xenophobia, he still
comes across as more genuine - even if genuinely nasty - than the rest of the man-made, prefabricated plastic
stuff that Republican party has to offer. There is a perfectly good and legitimate reason why Jebb Bush and Carly Fiorina could
not crawl out of their lower single-digit poll ratings: the general public found them insincere, dishonest and carrying hidden
agendas -- and this was NOT merely a misperception on part of the paranoid nation: you CAN'T con 330 million people into perpetual
dumbness simultaneously. It just isn't done.
So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of
lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election,
she will be mauled to threads and fronds, and I will get a kick of a lifetime. Donald Trump will eat her for mid-morning snack
and she will have deserved every bit of drubbing she gets to receive. It will be more fun than the 6:00 AM sex.
Bernie Sanders is America's last best hope and change , and the very first real one. Come November,
America has only one choice: to vote for one of the neoliberal corporate pieces of toxic human waste , or to vote for a decent
human being. Alternatives do not exist. This is it.
I don't see how the DNC can support a candidate who is under F.B.I. investigation. It doesn't matter if she is indicted?
I'm so glad Bernie is going the distance.
Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!!
The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans
to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large
segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support
that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have
no doubt about it.
In all of Hillary's 'closed' primary wins, they have been plagued with voter suppression tactics, voter purges, lack of voting
machines and ballots, people (Sanders) having their party affiliation changed so they couldn't vote and 'Oh Yes' - Bill Clinton
clearly violating election laws by 'wandering into a polling station in Boston.
Hillary can't win in a fair fight, so she resorts to dirty tricks that would shame Richard Nixon.
I don't think anyone, anyone who has followed the primaries thus far. I thought it was 'likely' myself, only doubt that lingered
was the supposed 'lost momentum' theories after Philly. Sanders is solid, I think most people now see through the mainstream bias
against him. He'll fight till the convention, and it will be a little awkward for Hillary wrenching the nomination from him
after another series of massive wins.
Her 'sharing' means raising money for the states but giving them 1% of amount raised while diverting the funds back to the
DNC who will be funding her campaigns. Smart technique, but deceptive, like much of her political life.
I keep seeing that argument that Sander's supporters will vote for Trump. People aroused by his message of anti war; opposing
the growing disparity of wealth; increasing the taxes for the rich to match the benefits they have been privileged to have such
a greater share of the wealth; and other reforms: in what world would they easily switch to voting for an egomaniac, elitist,
narcissist, misogynist, racist, xenophobe? I for one could consider skipping a vote, but NEVER could I see going from a Sanders
to a Fascist.
Hear we go again with the gratuitous elitist spin. First it was how Trump was going to be stopped short of cinching the nomination
"this time" - just you wait! Now the Guardian journalists have been instructed to feign "shock" that Sanders has once again shown
what pull he has in this primary season.
The fact is, a substantial section of the politically active electorate are sick and tired of the rotten do-nothing political
system, and are doing whatever they can to deliberately disrupt business as usual. Don't be "shocked".
The "free press" continues to show that it is TOTALLY out of touch with the "we've had enough and we're not going to take
it any more" quality of voters across the political spectrum. The U.S. "media" (i.e. corporate PR Sock Puppet), called Bernie's
demise inevitable from the start (that is, when it wasn't blacklisting any coverage of him at all), and when there WAS coverage,
it always had Kleverly manipulated headlines (Bernie shocks with a victory, yada yada yada).
The press has become so owned, so corrupt and also (in the case of the Guardian coverage of sanders) so Parrot- Lazy
, I could just puke. A pox on all your pathetic "media" houses.
This rag like others do not get it. Sanders wins open primaries. The closed primaries with all the problems reported are why
Clinton is in front. Democracy is not for the democrats.
That shifting of funds from the National committees to the states and then back to the national to avoid scrutiny of funds is
the similar trick that tom DeLay used in texas that he was charged with evading election laws. Clinton does the same and there
is no coverage?
When you think about it rationally, which Clintonistas are incapable of, how weak a candidate Hillary is that a little known Senator
from a small North Eastern state can carry forth a campaign into May.
After all she has prepared her run for four years, placed her flunky Debbie Wassermann Schultz as head of the DNC, built
a war chest from Corporate money, lined up commitments from over 400 Super Delegates before the primaries even began and yet,
Bernie's still hanging in there.
"In Friday, while Hillary Clinton was addressing the Democratic National Committee in Minneapolis, Minnesota, senior campaign
officials announced that Clinton had already received pledges of support from at least 440 of the party's estimated 713 super
delegates. That total includes 130 superdelegates who have publicly endorsed Clinton, as well as an additional 310 who have made
private commitments to support Hillary."
Bernie had no name recognition, campaign staff and very little money to begin with, but his message of hope resonated enough
to attract millions of supporters who were tired of the status quo. and they have raised over $200,000,000 in small donations
without any SuperPacs.
Keep going Bernie, you are a true Progressive and American Hero.
There is a God! You go Bernie. I am waiting for you here in California.
When Bernie was speaking about healthcare for all .I started wondering how many people died at home .because there they are
with a pain in their chests and then they grab their healthcare booklets and they start adding it all up and what it takes just
to get them to the hospital and the hospital stay.
There is the .. "Ambulance co-pay" ..$225.00 one way. ( God forbid you decide to go for a joy-ride.) Oh wait ..you have to
add the "Emergency Room co-pay $75.00, then if you get admitted .it is a co-pay of $250.00 per day (PER DAY) for six days. If
you stay longer whoopee it's for free. ( I could be staying at Four Seasons for that.)
Who is fucking kidding who? What in the hell am I paying health insurance for and I am retired I have Medicare too? Who is
making money on my and other people's misfortunes? We are all victims who have been convinced that ALL OF THIS shite is our own
faults and individually we are on our own.
Little do we realize that if we stand shoulder to shoulder and we get together and protest this travesty called healthcare,
that we could get all of this changed to our benefit.
It is time for Medicare for all. My taxes are to be used for the Common Good of everyone in this country. I do not want my
taxes to go to war, war and more war.
Bernie also addresses our shameful infrastructure in this country. The rich corporations and individuals take all of these
illicit profits; my money, and yours and they just sit on it and do nothing to help this country or its people. When do we start
getting smarter?
Not only doesn't Killary know that 'this thing is not over", but the media doesn't know what's going on with the Empire
of the entrenched Democratic party, nor the media Empire, nor the militarist Empire abroad, nor the financial Empire, nor the
corporate Empire, nor any of the sectors of this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which is nominally HQed in.
metropoled, and merely 'posing' as our former country ---- and which Bernie's only partially revealed and vague, "Political
Revolution" is going to be expanding into his, and OUR, fully defined sentence (with an 'object') and is growing into a loud,
courageous, but peaceful, "Political Revolution against EMPIRE" as the Second American Revolution against EMPIRE again before
this the 240th year's anniversary of our First (and only successful) American Revolution against EMPIRE.
Everyone, and every sector, of this EMPIRE is deaf, dumb, and blind about this Revolution against Empire:
"There's something happening here
But what it is ain't exactly clear ...
Stop, children, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's going down"
This damn Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE that has by "singing so softly" imposed itself and its boot upon us, and which
is a highly-integrated (but well hidden, like a cancer) six-sectored; corporate, financial, military, media/propaganda, extra-legal,
and most dangerously dual-party Vichy-political facade of both the rougher neocon 'R' Vichy party and smoother lying neoliberal-con
'D' Vichy parties of the EMPIRE is "goin' down"
Sanders victory is not a "shock" to those of us who don't believe the media propaganda. Clinton and the DNC elite are the
ones who will be shocked after the Oregon and California primaries as Sanders pulls neck and neck with her.
For the good of the country, the Democrat Party should consider having Clinton pull out, because Trump will beat her, but Sanders
would be him. But they won't and she won't, because they serve their owners, and their arrogance, hubris and sense of entitlement
is supreme to their concerns for the rest of the 99%. Hopefully this election year ill see the destruction of both corrupt major
corporate parties, and a rebirth of actual democracy in the USA. One person, one vote, not bought and unsuppressed.
wrong, dems have been split down the middle since april 7. The DNC chose their candidate a year ago, that is not democracy.
California is an open primary, means that the 40 independents can vote.
Hmmm, looking at the math today things have gotten very interesting. Clinton has 1701 pledged delegates, Bernie has 1417. To win
outright before the convention you need 2382 pledged delegates. That would mean 1) Bernie cannot do it. 2) Hillary would have
to win 681 out of the final 933 delegates up for grabs. That's 73% she needs to win.
That ain't going to happen so it pretty much a fact now that the super delegates will pick this years Democratic nominee.
Let's start putting the pressure on them NOW to make the right choice. Call them, write to them.....
NYT is touted as being leftist by all the FOX readers and listeners, especially. They have an incredible bias for right
wing Likud Party and Bibi Netanhayu and Hillary fits into that analysis as a veteran AIPAC speaker.
Christian Zionist, John Hagee, is also a favored speaker and colleague of Hillary's. She is a committed Neo-con and puppet
of the New World Order Chicago School of Economics (Friedman).
If Bernie, a socialist can win in a conservative Nazi state like Indiana, he can win any where.
He even won in Indiana"s third largest city (Evansville) the most conservative large city in Indiana.
Yeah cause Clinton has detailed policies on fixing this? Or does she play identity politics and hand wave?
"In 2010, the median wealth, or net worth, for black families was $4,900, compared to median wealth for whites of $97,000.
Blacks are nearly twice as likely as whites to have zero or negative net worth-33.9 percent compared to 18.6 percent."
At this point, the only hope for world peace is Sanders. I'll write in Sanders before I would vote for Hillary "Failed State"
Clinton. Hillary carries too high a load of baggage to prevail, even with historical trivia like Trevor 0691 above.
Trump is safer bet because he will not be able to get Congressional support, the same problem Jimmy Carter, the Washington
outsider had. Hillary's commitment to war, with her experience on Capital Hill is a most depressing specter.
No comments allowed on the 'what is sander's route to the Democratic nomination' article but it is exceptionally poor journalism
I quote: No numbers are available for the primaries that will be held in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Oregon and Kentucky,
partly because pollsters know the voters there won't change the political calculus much – they're not "wasting" their time in
places with few delegates available.
Polls are available for Oregon, Kentucky, West Virginia.
The most recent Oregon poll shows Sanders 1 point behind. The West Virginia poll shows him 5 points ahead, the most recent Kentucky
poll (taken at start of March) has him 5 points behind.
The latest New Jersey poll shows a 9 point deficit for him (compared with a 23 point deficit less than 2 months earlier).
It's fair enough that journalists have their opinions in opinion pieces, but when factual inaccuracies are mixed up in such
pieces, or so-called analytical pieces, it's just really shoddy, unprofessional journalism...
The candidate who most appeals to women for support in this campaign is the same one who as US Senator and as US Sec. of State,
has violated Moslem and Christian women's and children's fundamental human rights in Gaza, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Cuba. She has
supported notorious violators of women rights, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel.
How then are we to think that she will not import this treatment to the women of America?
She supports human rights criminal Bibi Netanyahu and AIPAC with undying expressions of apology for extreme Zionism and Orthodox
suppression of women. She opposes Jewish Voice for Peace and the indigenous Israel peace movement.
Remember Dixie Lee Ray who was elected disastrous Governor of WA State when ERA movement shooed her in? Women voters beware.
Wish to better understand Hillary Clinton? Review her relationship with Victoria Nuland the Neo-con who worked for Hillary
in US Dept. of State as Undersecretary. Nation destabilizer Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol
of PNAC. She worked for Dick Cheney as senior foreign policy advisor, now working for Sec. Kerry!! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland>
Then the original Neo-con agenda here: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Project_for_the_New_American
...
Now PNAC and Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan have updated to this anti-American New World Order; the same agenda that is
wolly embraced by Hillary Clinton and Sec. of State Kerry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative
Can you guys please make sure the Guardian reports on the Hillary Victory Fund hoarding 99% of the money it raises "for State
races". It is of critical importance that voters be made aware of how the Clinton campaign is behaving (or mis-behaving).
Sorry media controlling elites, Bernie has not lost yet. After her canary died in Indiana... Hillary has 1700 or 71% of the 2383
pledged delegates needed. So HRC will need 60% of the remaining 1114 pledged delegates to clinch. Bernie is favored in most of
the remaining states. Contested convention!!! And what a rowdy party in the streets it will be. Bernie will likely go in into
Philly just slightly behind in pledged delegates but with majority of states - and many of these states the ones Dems most count
on to win in the general. Considering Bernie's popularity with Independents(had they been allowed to vote in the primary he would
have won big) he would be the best choice against Trump. But as we all know from exit poll discrepancies - this election is rigged.
Pointing to evidence of the corrupted process he will announce his run as the Green Party candidate.
actually, it was only during this campaign that I bothered to check out why HRC had a private server, and it's not pretty. Washington
Examiner did an excellent researched piece, laying out how the Clintons amassed $3b through their private foundation and big speaking
feeds, and that's where the private server was needed, to organize the millions in state department contracts in line with donations.
Prime time, mainstream media including the Guardian has simply refused to check out the work that has been done in the emails
released last year. This is no GOP conspiracy. In fact, the Examiner lays out how Bush family used similar methods to amass their
$3b fortune. That is the amassing of private wealth through the use of public office that is endemic to Washington - pretty close
to Oligarchy at the scale of operations by former presidents, and heads of state. It's a level of corruption that has reached
proportions that led to the $700billion bailout and $6 trillion loan bailout - the Clintons use neo-liberal 'charity' to mask
their real program, personal wealth and unlimited power.
Sanders once again proved his appeal to disaffected midwest voters
Hah! What a joke!
Disaffected? More like realistic, compassionate, ethical, intelligent, and fair to all... Sanders supporters are not merely disgusted by what they have seen in all the other candidates including Clinton, they know
a good thing when they see it and are willing to support what they believe in fully. No more settling for " the lesser evil
" which is evil .
Indiana is further proof that people have reached the limit of their tolerance. Democracy is not possible without choices.
Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a choice that was offered The rest of the characters running for President were...well,
just that, characters--cartoon characters.
"Sanders led front-runner Hillary Clinton by 6 points, with 68 percent of precincts reporting, when networks declared him the
winner. Exit polls had Sanders winning by 12 points, but they were based solely on interviews with voters on Election Day. "
'Bernie Sanders Wins Indiana Democratic Primary' Huffington Post 3 May 2016
More voting machine hijinks. The Democratic Primary winner should not be decided until all investigations are complete.
who illegally gets millions from the DNC to pay young people to post comments for her ... He can beat Trump, 40 percent of all
American registered voters are independent who'll vote for Sanders, not for the DNC candidate (Dems are split 50/50 since April
7, and that's with tricky campaign finance rules thanks to your 'qualified' candidate. She is very qualified to sell out the American
people on every score, from Nafta to support for military coup in Hondurus. I mean, is she even a Democrat, or just a closeted
GOP zombie Kissinger lover?
This isn't a football game where you put on the colors and cheer on your team. People are not interested in business as usual,
every four years, support the platform, my party right or wrong politics. I don't know you, and I don't know how tough or easy
you have things. But here in Indy, about 90% of the people I know struggle to make ends meet. Those of us who voted for Bernie
are not necessarily trying to destroy the democratic party, but there's more to life for us than electing Hillary Clinton the
1st female president.
Bernie's policies are far better for the middle and working classes than Hillary's, and she is a warhawk to boot. Sometimes
you have to vote your conscience instead of your team. Sander's actions are not assisting the GOP, it is the stubborn insistence
of the DNC that we continue with the life-destroying policy of neoliberalism that is driving the Trump campaign.
At least be original. That article isn't a showstopping mic-drop, and trashing Bernie doesn't make HRC look any better. People
aren't loyal to Bernie for his party affiliation, they're loyal to him for his consistent policy positions. Not just his consistency,
but also the fact that he's been proven right again and again. That's an arena where HRC simply can't compete.
On the idea of compromising to "get things done," I see an analogy to the Hippocratic oath. First and foremost, do
no harm. Someone who compromises to insert slivers of good legislation into bad bills still, in the net, passes more bad laws
than good ones. Maybe we're all traumatized by the incompetence of congress over the past several years, but seeing the gears
of lawmaking in motion for the sake of motion is not the answer.
"... At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections! xD ..."
"... Maybe Trump becoming president is necessary for the people to realize once and for all that this cycle of mistakes and corruption needs to stop and fundamental changes need to happen! ..."
"... She should be a felon by now, and only her name protects her from jail. ..."
"... "David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy won the authorisation to use "all necessary means" from the UN security council in March on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000 . ..."
"... "Explanations of what one thought was happening in these countries were often misinterpreted as justification for odious and discredited regimes. In Libya, where the uprising started on 15 February 2011, I wrote about how the opposition was wholly dependent on Nato military support and would have been rapidly defeated by pro-Gaddafi forces without it. It followed from this that the opposition would not have the strength to fill the inevitable political vacuum if Gaddafi was to fall. I noted gloomily that Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, who were pressing for foreign intervention against Gaddafi, themselves held power by methods no less repressive than the Libyan leader. It was his radicalism – muted though this was in his later years – not his authoritarianism that made the kings and emirs hate him. ..."
"... Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were stupid to intervene. ..."
"... If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young voters no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere. ..."
"... What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation since Ronald Reagan . A look at every key stat as President Obama starts his sixth year in office illustrates that. ..."
"... the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr in admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard. ..."
"... It would be perhaps remotely Marxist if he said comrades. But even that was used by democrats, socialists and even fascists and nazists so I would say that no, there is nothing Marxist about it. One of his central messages is that we need to come together and improve our society, that we are all the same, without race or religion, with the same needs and fears as humans. ..."
"... I even disagree with people saying that he promotes class struggle, he is talking about fair share and he is an ardent supporter of following the laws even when they are against his ideology, which is something that radicals do not tend to do. Radicals do not give a damn about laws and neither do Marxists or far-right wingers, fascists etc. ..."
"... Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath spectrum. Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle of laughter. This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown by US assistance. ..."
"... Hillary will not see that one criminal in the financial world of the USA will face justice for their mafia-like actions and destruction of billions of dollars and assets while stealing the savings of Americans and non Americans. President Obama hasn't done it and he is not the buddy Hilary is to these people. ..."
"... Please. She lost that race in South Carolina when her husband, along with Geraldine Ferraro, called Obama being president a fairy tale and an affirmative action candidate, respectively. You can't win with only minority support, but you can't win without any of it if you are a Dem. Up until SC, the Clintons had minority support in the bag--most black people had never heard of Obama. Things changed real fast. ..."
"... But to pick out my favorite Hillary statement of the week, in honor of her close associate and fellow gonif, Hillary superdelegate, Sheldon Silver, who recently got 12 years in the slammer: https://www.americarisingpac.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/clinton-sheldon-silver-meme1.jpg ..."
"... In 2000, Silver was integral in Clinton's Senate campaign. According to The New York Times, Silver helped Hillary lobby members of the state assembly for their support ..."
"... If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably more dangerous with foreign policy. Both use identity politics as a decisive issue- which only is a distraction from their lack of policy. Both their economic/domestic policies do little or worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable (although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton seems to want to expand it). ..."
"... If it's between those two I vote Green and take the 'Jesse Ventura' option: vote anyone not Dem or Rep. Both parties are two corrupt subsidiaries of their corporate masters. ..."
"... She voted for the Iraq war, being investigated by the FBI for her emails, there was Benghazi, turning Libya into a ISIS hotbed, allowed a military junta to assassinate a democratically elected president in Honduras and said nothing, takes $675k from Goldman for 3 speeches and refuses to disclose the transcripts because she KNOWS it'll hurt her, voted for trade deals that's gutted manufacturing in the USA....should I go on? ..."
"... Uh huh and your supporting a person: That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi, gave tacit approval to a military junta in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth super predators, supports trade agreements that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more money from special interests than her constituency, has made millions in speeches from the bank lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah she's real HONEST......riiigggghhhhttttt.... ..."
"... Donors like the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive. ..."
Most politicians these days don't care about the people and this ridiculous cycle is repeating
every 4 years! Candidates who actually want to make progress get dumped by the corrupt system
and the parties that are being controlled by their corporate masters and their money to do as
they want to return the more money to them later when they have the office!
At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead
of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just
repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has
been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections!
xD
Maybe Trump becoming president is necessary for the people to realize once and for all
that this cycle of mistakes and corruption needs to stop and fundamental changes need to happen!
Starts with the USA and the world will follow over time. I personally am done with following these
corrupt political systems and their media and do as they tell me to (same goes for the financial
system but there's no escaping this one in the near future with corps and banks being in total
control of the society).
"As Alan Kuperman of the University of Texas and Stephen Chapman of the Chicago Tribune have
now shown, the claim that the United States had to act to prevent Libyan tyrant Muammar al-Qaddafi
from slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Benghazi does not stand up to even
casual scrutiny. Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not
conduct deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent
threats to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule,
not at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive
qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "stain the conscience of the world" (as Obama
put it) was slight. "
"If humanitarian intervention is to remain a live possibility, there must be much more public
scrutiny, debate and discussion of what triggers that intervention and what level of evidence
we can reasonably require. Did administration officials have communications intercepts suggesting
plans for large-scale killings of civilians? How exactly did they reach their conclusion that
these reprisals were likely? It should be no more acceptable to simply accept government claims
on this score than it was for previous administrations.
As I've argued previously, the term "humanitarian crisis" is desperately imprecise and the
informed public's ability to distinguish between civil strife (which is always bloody) and outright
massacres and extermination campaigns is weak. Walt's certainty notwithstanding, the debate about
the humanitarian rationale in this case has not been settled. In fact, it's barely begun."
"David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy won the authorisation to use "all necessary means" from
the UN security council in March on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style
massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention.
But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured –
to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against
an armed city of 700,000 .
What is now known, however, is that while the death toll in Libya when Nato intervened was
perhaps around 1,000-2,000 (judging by UN estimates), eight months later it is probably more than
ten times that figure. Estimates of the numbers of dead over the last eight months – as Nato leaders
vetoed ceasefires and negotiations – range from 10,000 up to 50,000. The National Transitional
Council puts the losses at 30,000 dead and 50,000 wounded.
Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing and
Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other most
bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it has
multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own.
For the western powers, of course, the Libyan war has allowed them to regain ground lost in
Tunisia and Egypt, put themselves at the heart of the upheaval sweeping the most strategically
sensitive region in the world, and secure valuable new commercial advantages in an oil-rich state
whose previous leadership was at best unreliable. No wonder the new British defence secretary
is telling businessmen to "pack their bags" for Libya, and the US ambassador in Tripoli insists
American companies are needed on a "big scale".
But for Libyans, it has meant a loss of ownership of their own future and the effective imposition
of a western-picked administration of Gaddafi defectors and US and British intelligence assets.
Probably the greatest challenge to that takeover will now come from Islamist military leaders
on the ground, such as the Tripoli commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj – kidnapped by MI6 to be tortured
in Libya in 2004 – who have already made clear they will not be taking orders from the NTC.
"Explanations of what one thought was happening in these countries were often misinterpreted
as justification for odious and discredited regimes. In Libya, where the uprising started on 15
February 2011, I wrote about how the opposition was wholly dependent on Nato military support
and would have been rapidly defeated by pro-Gaddafi forces without it. It followed from this that
the opposition would not have the strength to fill the inevitable political vacuum if Gaddafi
was to fall. I noted gloomily that Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies,
who were pressing for foreign intervention against Gaddafi, themselves held power by methods no
less repressive than the Libyan leader. It was his radicalism – muted though this was in his later
years – not his authoritarianism that made the kings and emirs hate him.
This was an unpopular stance to take on Libya during the high tide of the Arab Spring, when
foreign governments and media alike were uncritically lauding the opposition. The two sides in
what was a genuine civil war were portrayed as white hats and black hats; rebel claims about government
atrocities were credulously broadcast, though they frequently turned out to be concocted, while
government denials were contemptuously dismissed. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International
and Human Rights Watch were much more thorough than the media in checking these stories, although
their detailed reports appeared long after the news agenda had moved on."
And then in another note, why do people like you condemn the Taliban but give a free pass to the
Saudi's who have a lot to do with the state of fundamentalism in Afghanistan, and essentially
operate the same as the Taliban? Why are we not intervening in Saudi Arabia to free the people?
Nah. Do people die from either side in Afghanistan? Yes. Excusively the Taliban? no. The western
press prefers the narrative of Taliban extremism. The western press ignores and fails to report
killings by US troops, one incident I know of personally in Kabul. Never reported in the press.
So I suggest you educate yourself on the complexities of Afghanistan before you sound off with
smugness. It is obvious you have no idea of what really goes on there.
Have you ever visited Saudi Arabia? Want a litany of the horrors there? No, you don't. You
have a narrative which I suspect is ill informed.
the Taliban were winning against the Northern Alliance for various reasons, one was that a
lot of people supported them. We turned a blind eye to the destabilising effects of Saudi and
Pakistan support of the Taliban as well. We set this up for failure a long time ago. Riding in
like the calvary and handing out billions to the Northern Alliance was not very helpful for stability.
"was if ending Taliban rule had made things better"
You try to simplify a very complex situation. In fact there was never absolute rule by the
Taliban. You seem to forget there was a civil war in the country before 9/11. There was the Taliban
and the Northern Alliance. There was Pakistan and the ISI ( Pakistan of course if often supported
by the US, then we had Saudi Arabia, again supported by us). Before 9/11 The northern alliance
was about to be defeated. On both sides was indiscriminate killings. You also had a complex mix
if Pashtun Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras. You had multiple political alliances which I will not bother
to list. Kabul was destroyed by the fighting. Atrocities on both sides. You had Dostum with the
Northern Alliance and Massod as well. Massod was reasonable, Dostum was an animal worse than the
Taliban.
What people related to me was this: The Taliban were more predictable. Dostum was not predictable.
Both were bad, but as Clinton fans love to highlight, the lessor of two evils must be selected.
The Taliban also represented the Pashtun who were the largest ethnic bloc in Afghanistan. So in
essence the people mostly supported the Taliban. The Northern Alliance had the support of Russia,
and you might recall the Afghans did not have fond memories of them.
So, you want to simplify the Taliban atrocities and ignore the rest. Afghans did not have the
luxury of this. They had to choose the lesser evil. Had Massood not been entangled with Dostum,
perhaps things would have been different.
We came in and supported the Northern Alliance, which did NOT sit well with a lot of people.
The majority? I don't have statistics exactly pointing this out. The Pashtun felt pushed out of
affairs by the minority remnants of the Northern Alliance. Every ..... and I mean every government
office had photos of Massood on the wall. Not Karzai. Karzai was seen as irrelevant by all sides,
he was seen as the American imposed choice. ( I will not even discuss the "election" but I was
on the ground dealing with Identity cards before the UN arrived, had meetings with the UN team
about approaches to getting ID cards out to all voters, and there is a stink over aspects of the
participation in the elections).
"And seeing a self-described leftist explaining that life under the Taliban wasn't all that
bad if you just grew a beard [!] and fell in line is really sort of pathetic."
Your smug simplistic statement indicates you have no idea of the horrors enacted on both sides.
I was told this time and time again as how people decided to survive by picking a side where there
were rules and they could survive the rules.
But lets put aside my anecdotal evidence and look at the people of Afghanistan:
"Looking at Afghans' views on reconciling with the Taliban does not appear to bear out the
concerns over ethnic divisions shared by Jones and Kilcullen. When asked whether the Afghan central
government should negotiate a settlement with the Taliban or continue fighting the Taliban and
not negotiate, a recent national survey of Afghanistan found that roughly three- quarters (74%)
of Afghans favor negotiating with the Taliban .74 This is in line with previous studies, such
as a series of polls sponsored by ABC News which found that the number of Afghans favoring reconciliation
had risen from 60% in 2007 to 73% in 2009."
""Do you think the government in Kabul should negotiate a settlement with Afghan Taliban
in which they are allowed to hold political offices if they stop fighting, or do you think the
government in Kabul should continue to fight the Taliban and not negotiate a settlement?""
77% of men and 70% of women agree with this.
Here is the ultimate point. We intervened and we had no fucking idea what we were doing. The
Afghans saw the money flowing to Beltway Bandits rather than flowing to real aid and needs. They
saw this! They were not stupid. They saw that the Pashtuns were pushed out of Government, ( hence
the Massod images in ALL government offices [My project of reform dealt with EVERY government
offices and I visited a fair few personally and finally had to ask abut why each office had Masood
an not Karzai)
My opinion? I see indications that the Taliban would have handed over Bin Laden. We refused.
Is this disputed? Yes. Were we right to favour the Northern Alliance? No. They were as bad as
the Taliban, but more ..... unpredictable.
Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were
stupid to intervene.
Robin is relentless is arguing AGAINST, but he is quite light on arguing for anything. It is an
interesting question as to what he stands for.
His main argument is that zero information from "right wing" press is true. He seems unaware
that at times, actual facts are presented or not presented or suppressed by either media outlet,
depending on their corporate ownership and management slant of what should be reported. Me? I
read everything and decide if something is a fact. It is strange that factual reporting about
the actual many many FOIA lawsuits only gets printed in right wing press. They of course have
an agenda, but does not negate the facts they report. Like Clinton being allowed to be deposed
in a civil FOIA suit. That is a fact, with quotes from the Judge. CNN? I guess they couldn't afford
to report this factual development.
When you only read the press looking for a partisan set of narratives, you end up being partisan
and ill informed. When you read all the flavours of press in an desire to inform yourself, when
your goal is not a narrative but factual accounts of the truth, then you can be better informed.
So we have partisans, who only view Fox and we also have partisans who only view CNN. Both are
as bad as each other. One must be capable of decreeing the motives of each, and discarding the
nonfactual narratives, and then one can be fully informed.
Robin makes the assumption that facts only occur in his selected set of informational partisan
sources. Why? Because he is partisan. This then enables him to argue against a narrative, rather
than support his own narrative. He plays the neat trick of simply discarding any factual reporting
from places like Breibart. One can see interesting lacks of coverage on google search.
"Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any
communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a
person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession."
So surely in America, Clinton with her wealth would take some legal action? I would if I had
her money, and wealth. Interesting that she has not? Perhaps you could write to her and suggest
she defend herself in a real and palpable way?
Yes and a lot of the press are trying to bury the news about another Sanders success. When you
look at how many voting districts he comes out top in, in is a large percentage. Clinton tends
to get closer or take the district if their is a higher population density.
The influence of the super delegates is a scandal in a "democratic process".
If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young
voters no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere.
Clinton won't cut it and she won't beat Trump. Trump will out her on every crooked deal she
has been involved in.
You'll then cycle back to the lesser of two evils, that Democrats like Obama and Clinton are needed
to help the poor blacks and minorities. To me this is a myth. The poor get fucked no matter what
party is in office.
Is this is a Fox News plant article? yeah yeah, let's vote Clinton who promises a continuation
of Obama's policies. Will Trump make this much worse? Maybe. Trump or Clinton will in my opinion
do little to improve these issues quoted below. You have a different opinion. Great.
"Like the rest of America, Black America, in the aggregate, is better off now than it was when
I came into office," said President Obama on December 19, in response to a question by Urban Radio
Networks White House Correspondent April Ryan.
What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that
President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation
since Ronald Reagan . A look at every key stat as President Obama starts his sixth year in office
illustrates that.
Unemployment. The average Black unemployment under President Bush was 10 percent.
The average under President Obama after six years is 14 percent. Black unemployment, "has always
been double" [that of Whites] but it hasn't always been 14 percent. The administration was
silent when Black unemployment hit 16 percent – a 27-year high – in late 2011 .
Poverty. The percentage of Blacks in poverty in 2009 was 25 percent; it is now 27 percent.
The issue of poverty is rarely mentioned by the president or any members of his cabinet. Currently,
more than 45 million people – 1 in 7 Americans – live below the poverty line.
The Black/White Wealth Gap. The wealth gap between Blacks and Whites in America is at a
24-year high. A December study by PEW Research Center revealed the average White household
is worth $141,900, and the average Black household is worth $11,000. From 2010 to 2013, the
median income for Black households plunged 9 percent.
Income inequality. "Between 2009 and 2012 the top one percent of Americans enjoyed 95 percent
of all income gains, according to research from U.C. Berkeley," reported The Atlantic. It was
the worst since 1928. As income inequality has widened during President Obama's time in office,
the president has endorsed tax policy that has widened inequality, such as the Bush Tax cuts.
Education: The high school dropout rate has improved during the Obama administration. However,
currently 42 percent of Black children attend high poverty schools, compared to only 6 percent
of White students. The Department of Education's change to Parent PLUS loans requirements cost
HBCU's more than $150 million and interrupted the educations of 28,000-plus HBCU students.
SBA Loans. In March 2014, the Wall Street Journal reported that only 1.7 percent of $23
billion in SBA loans went to Black-owned businesses in 2013, the lowest loan of SBA lending
to Black businesses on record. During the Bush presidency, the percentage of SBA loans to Black
businesses was 8 percent – more than four times the Obama rate.
"All the equations showed strikingly uni- form statistical results: racism as we have measured
it was a significantly disequalizing force on the white income distribution, even when other factors
were held constant. A 1 percent increase in the ratio of black to white median incomes (that is,
a 1 percent decrease in racism) was associated with a .2 percent decrease in white inequality,
as measured by the Gini coefficient. The corresponding effect on top 1 percent share of white
income was two and a half times as large, indicating that most of the inequality among whites
generated by racism was associated with increased income for the richest 1 percent of white families.
Further statistical investigation reveals that increases in the racism variable had an insignifi-
cant effect on the. share received by the poorest whites and resulted in a decrease in the income
share of the whites in the middle income brackets."
"What I said, and still maintain, is that the struggle against racism is as important as the struggle
against other forms of oppression, including those with economic and financial causes."
We can agree on this statement. However, do we need to recognise that legislation alone will
not solve racism. A percentage of poor people turn against the "other" and apportion blame for
their issues.
" that campaign finance and banking reform will fix everything"
Of course not. But when you have an issue you can continually put bandaids on the symptoms
or you can perform a root cause analysis and then proceed to fix these root causes. The fact is
that politicians are disinclined to put the needs of voters first, they tend to pay lip service
to the needs of voters, while spending 60% of their time interacting with rich donors, who are
very good are articulating their needs, as they hand over large sums of money. This system creates
a log jam to reform. If we can return the immutable link to the voters interests, and congress
them reform of economic distortions that support racism become far far easier. Motive of change
and motives of votes become transparent.
"The various forms of discrimination are not separable in real life. Employers' hiring and
promotion practices; resource allocation in city schools; the structure of transportation sys-
tems; residential segregation and housing quality; availability of decent health care; be- havior
of policemen and judges; foremen's prejudices; images of blacks presented in the media and the
schools; price gouging in ghetto stores-these and the other forms of social and economic discrimination
interact strongly with each other in determining the occupational status and annual income, and
welfare, of black people. The processes are not simply additive but are mutually reinforcing.
Often, a decrease in one narrow form of discrimination is accompanied by an increase in another
form. Since all aspects of racism interact, an analysis of racism should incorporate all its as-
pects in a unified manner."
My thesis is this: build economic equality and the the pressing toxins of racism diminish.
But yeah dismiss Sanders as a one issue candidate. he is a politician, which I acknowledge. He
has a different approach to clinton who will micro triangulate constantly depending on who she
in front of. I find his approach ore honest. Your mileage may vary.
" money spent on campaigns does not correlate very highly to winning"
No but overall money gets to decide on a narrow set of compliance in the candidates. But it
still correlates to winning. Look at the Greens with no cash. Without the cash, they will never
win. Sanders has proved that 1. We do not need to depend on the rich power brokers to select narrowly
who will be presented as a candidate. 2. He has proved that a voter can donate and compete with
corporate donations. I would rather scads of voter cash financing rather than corporate cash buying
influence. ABSCAM was a brief flash, never repeated to show us what really happens in back rooms
when a wad of cash arrives with a politician. That we cannot PROVE what happens off the grid,
we can and should rely on common sense about the influence of money. 85% of the American people
believe cash buys influence. The only influence on a politician should be the will of the people.
Sure, corporates can speak. Speech is free. Corporate cash as speech is a different matter. It
is a moral corruption.
"most contributions come after electoral success"
Yes part of the implied contract of corporates and people like the Koch Brothers: Look after
us and we will look after you. We will keep you in power, as long as you slant the legislation
to favour us over the voters.
You do realise the Clinton Foundation bought the assets of the DLC, a defunct organisation.
Part of the assets are the documents and records that contain the information about the Koch Brothers
donations and their executives joining the "management" of the DLC. Why would a Charity be interested
in the DLC documents? Ah it is a Clinton Foundation. Yeah yeah, there is no proof of anything
is there. No law was broken. Do I smell something ? Does human nature guide my interpretation
absent a clear statement from the Foundation of this "investment"?? Yes.
We have to start SOMEWHERE. Root causes are the best place to start.
Democrat or Republican, Blacks and Whites at the bottom are thrown in a race for the bottom
and this helps fuel the impoverishment of both. It is fuel to feed racism. My genuine belief.
Why is it wrong for democrats to pick their own party leader? Also Obama beat Hilary last time
so what's Bernies problem now? Also why moan about a system that's been in place for decades now,
surely the onus was on Sanders to attract more middle of the road dem voters? Finally I'm sure
republicans would also love to vote in Sanders, easy to demolish with attack ads before the election
(you'll note they've studiously ignored him so far).
the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr
in admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy
is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and
deserves to get it good and hard.
explain to me why the blacks and Hispanics vote for her because it is a mystery to me. She stands
for everything they have had to fight against. So you have a 1%er-Wall St.-invade Iraq-subprime-cheat
the EU-Goldman Sachs-arms dealing-despot cuddling-fuck the environment coalition. And blacks and
Hispanics too? Are they out of their minds?
BERNIE SANDERS - OR ZIG AGAINST ZAG
.
If the American people don't come to their senses and give Bernie Sanders the Democratic nomination,
we're going to end up with a choice between Zig and Zag. Zig is Donald Trump, and Zag is Hillary
Clinton. To paraphrase Mort Sahl back in the sixties, the only difference between the two is if
Donald 'Zig' Trump sees a Black child lying in the street, he'd simply order his chauffeur to
run over him. If Hillary 'Zag' Clinton saw the kid, she'd also order her chauffeur to run over
him, but she'd weep, and go apologize to the NAACP, after she felt the bump.
.
WAKE UP, BLACK PEOPLE!!!
IF YOU DON'T, YOU'LL BE SORRY - AGAIN.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1057244620990215&set=a.136305753084111.28278.100001140610873&type=3&theater
Giving aid to the Republicans? If you honestly believe that any criticisms I have is worse than
what I discuss, you need to give up politics and get a hobby. Trump will for example use her FOIA/email
issues like a stick to beat her with. This is not Soviet Russia where we all adopt the party line.
I'm not not ever have been a member of the Democratic Party. I COULD have been this year. Now?
Never. The solution to the nations problems will come from outside this party.
I prefer neither. You love fearmongering about how worse it will be under trump. Hmmm. I don't
buy that tale. Take Black family incomes. In the toilet. Under either party it goes south. Abortion?
Like slavery nothing ...... Nothing is going to change. It's too late to change that one. But
it's a useful tool to make us believe ONLY Clinton can protect us. Economically the Democrats
are essentially the same as the Republicans, more of the same corporate welfare. Would Clinton
cut Social Security? Maybe. I don't believe her core statements. Sorry but as a person I just
can't buy into the package. Both republicans and democrats on a vague macro level will try to
lower unemployment but neither will talk about falling participation. Clinton had already proved
she's probably as likely as Trump to get bullets flying. It's her judgement. She's part of the
same old we need to intervene yet never understanding the real issues. I despise her unflinching
support of Saudi Arabia. That policy is insane!!! Etc etc etc.
You believe a black family gays and women will sing Kumbaya under Clinton and all will be well.
I believe both parties represent essentially the same with small regional differences .
It would be perhaps remotely Marxist if he said comrades. But even that was used by democrats,
socialists and even fascists and nazists so I would say that no, there is nothing Marxist about
it. One of his central messages is that we need to come together and improve our society, that
we are all the same, without race or religion, with the same needs and fears as humans.
I even disagree with people saying that he promotes class struggle, he is talking about
fair share and he is an ardent supporter of following the laws even when they are against his
ideology, which is something that radicals do not tend to do. Radicals do not give a damn about
laws and neither do Marxists or far-right wingers, fascists etc. Those groups believe in
changing the society through struggle into a model that fits their idea of the world whatever
that may be. He simply states his beliefs and suggests laws to adjust the society to human needs,
to eat, to live, to prosper in an equal footing.
It is a rather sad commentary on how the bar of integrity and honesty has been so lowered
that it doesn't even faze them
One wonders what makes them call themselves Democrats? Their stance on gun and abortion issues?
Certainly not economic and political justice, peace, democracy, or integrity in governance.
Yes, it's been the single most shocking revelation of the entire election year for me as well.
Not just the cynicism of the rank-and-file, but the arrogance and isolation of our corrupt Democratic
party elite, many of whom still don't seem to grasp that a revolt by progressive Democrats and
Independents is already under way. This
is one of the forms it may take.
Recharging is always a good idea ... and never more so than in an election year as turbulent,
crazy, uplifting, disillusioning, energizing, maddening and fascinating as this one. I'll also
be away (for weeks) toward the end of this month.
Before you go, here's Carl Bernstein's interview with Don Lemon, in case you missed it:
Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath
spectrum. Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle
of laughter. This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown
by US assistance.
Are some Democrats so brainwashed that they think a woman president is the answer regardless
of what kind of person that woman is? Since when do decent people in politics exult in death like
this? Libya's murdered leader was no angel but Hitler he was not and as older people have told
me, the deaths of Hitler and Stalin and the like were greeted publicly with muted and dignified
relief by western representatives.
Add to that the continual lies that are being aired in public and this is why the USA has lost
its way.
Hillary will not see that one criminal in the financial world of the USA will face justice
for their mafia-like actions and destruction of billions of dollars and assets while stealing
the savings of Americans and non Americans. President Obama hasn't done it and he is not the buddy
Hilary is to these people.
And since when does the USA have the ethical superiority to attack countries like Russia for
cronyism etc? This is unbelievable - a presidential nominee candidate is being investigated by
the FBI and she doesn't stand down?
Wake up Democrats. At least read a book called The Unravelling by an American journalist whose
name I forget. This heartbreaking book says it all about the realities for the non privileged
and non powerful in todays' America.
I recall David Bowie's beautiful song This Is Not America. The Bernie supporters understand
that, all power to him, those who think like him, and his supporters.
Please. She lost that race in South Carolina when her husband, along with Geraldine Ferraro,
called Obama being president a fairy tale and an affirmative action candidate, respectively. You
can't win with only minority support, but you can't win without any of it if you are a Dem. Up
until SC, the Clintons had minority support in the bag--most black people had never heard of Obama.
Things changed real fast.
Like its not obvious? There is now no paper trail to enable ensuring computer votes are true.
A man on the moon can now ensure who is going to be President, that was said by a premier computer
security expert.
Along with extensive disenfranchisement, numerous ways its pretty clear these outcomes are
preordained. Guess I am not going to be voting for either of the two appointed runners, its pointless.
I will vote for Bernie when its time in California.
And to branch out a bit, there are so many empty stock phrases to choose from in her 2016 campaign
alone, including "I'm with her" and "Breaking down barriers" courtesy of her 2008 campaign manager,
Mark Penn. Speaking of Penn, there's a hilarious little passage in "Clinton, Inc" (p. 65) which
describes Penn running through possible campaign slogans for 2008. "Penn began to walk through
all the iterations of Hillary slogans: Solutions for America, Ready for a change, Ready to lead,
Big challenges, Real Solutions; Time to pick a President... but then he seem to get a little lost...Working
for change, Working for you. There was silence, then snickers as Penn tried to remember all the
bumper stickers which run together sounded absurd and indistinguishable. The Hillary I know."....
In 2000, Silver was integral in Clinton's Senate campaign. According to The New York
Times, Silver helped Hillary lobby members of the state assembly for their support
So I guess the former speaker of the NY assembly is just gonna have to vote for Hillary from
behind bars, instead of at the DNC? How "super-inconvenient."
If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably
more dangerous with foreign policy. Both use identity politics as a decisive issue- which only
is a distraction from their lack of policy. Both their economic/domestic policies do little or
worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable
(although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either
is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton
seems to want to expand it).
If it's between those two I vote Green and take the 'Jesse Ventura' option: vote anyone
not Dem or Rep. Both parties are two corrupt subsidiaries of their corporate masters.
You are obviously misinformed about Bernie Sanders:
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders#.VypxWXopDqA
Most effective senator for the last 35 years and as Mayor or Burlington stopped corporate real
estate developers from turning Burlington into Aspen east coast version.
She voted for the Iraq war, being investigated by the FBI for her emails, there was Benghazi,
turning Libya into a ISIS hotbed, allowed a military junta to assassinate a democratically elected
president in Honduras and said nothing, takes $675k from Goldman for 3 speeches and refuses to
disclose the transcripts because she KNOWS it'll hurt her, voted for trade deals that's gutted
manufacturing in the USA....should I go on?
So please please explain how Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to wave a wand and fix racism? I
already know she will not fix poverty, she will slap a few ersatz bandaids onto bills that won't
pass and like the spoiled child will seek praise every time mommy gets him to shit on the potty.
You might recall a guy called Martin Luther King. he had some words about economic fairness and
poverty.
"" In the treatment of poverty nationally, one fact stands out: there are twice as many
white poor as Negro poor in the United States. Therefore I will not dwell on the experiences
of poverty that derive from racial discrimination, but will discuss the poverty that affects white
and Negro alike . "
nihilism: the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life
is meaningless. The belief that nothing in the world has a real existence.
You love that word but rejection of the dysfunctional state of DNC politics is NOT nihilism.
Moral corruption around campaign finance is real. Moral corruption around money and lobbyists
is real. The desire to fix this, this is real. Seeking real change is not nihilism. But yes, if
it pleases you to continue in every other post with this word, do so. It's misuse says more about
you than Sanders.
Please tell me exactly how much HRC has done for the U.S.? I'm from NYC and when she brought her
carpet bagging ass here and as a 2 term senator she pushed 3 pieces of legislation thru. If you
look at Bernie Sanders voting record:
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders#.VypxWXopDqA
He's been one of the most effective senators in Congress and has been able to get things done
with cooperation from both sides of the aisle.
So tell me again, what's she done that's so notable?
Uh huh and your supporting a person: That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi,
gave tacit approval to a military junta in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth
super predators, supports trade agreements that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more
money from special interests than her constituency, has made millions in speeches from the bank
lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah she's real HONEST......riiigggghhhhttttt....
Money buys the influence to be selected as a candidate. Normally. 99% of the time. Sometimes
a Huey Long populist breaks through the process and scares the fuck out of the power structures.
But you know how candidates are selected. Poor smart people never get to run for president unless
they build a populist power base. The existing political parties defer to donors. Donors like
the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They
didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila
it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive.
Looks like neoliberal Guardian presstitutes love neocons and religious nuts Cruz. Who would guess
? Interesting...
Notable quotes:
"... He also has a certain kind of roguish charm and can be quite amusing, which Hillary Clinton rarely is; he'd easily win the "who'd I prefer to have a beer with" competition. ..."
"... How can anyone say that yet? What we DO know is that the Bush-Obama administration has been an unqualified disaster on many fronts. Change, even with the possibility - NOT 'certainty' - of "bad things happening" is much more desirable... ..."
"... The more this election plays out the more I totally understand why Trump has made it this far. I've lived a long time and been politically active my entire adult life, and I've never seen voters send such a resounding and well deserved fuck you to the political elite. ..."
"... Indeed, the failure and dysfunction of the present political system in the US can be traced to one thing: the failure of the fourth estate. It is worse than failure, it is a betrayal of the nation for those thirty pieces of silver. ..."
"... What his campaign ultimately proves, is that only appealing to ideologically conservative Republicans is not enough to win the nom. The bulk of the party is traditionalist and reactionary rather than puritanical. They'll pretty reliably vote for any grumpy old white guy with a sense of humour (Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Romney, McCain, now Trump). Secondly Cruz misread the issues of the year. People are frustrated because they believe that they are struggling while others are milking them. Trump gets this, so does Bernie. Hillary, not so much. This will be a big problem for her in the general. ..."
"... I'm getting just a bit tired of the feigned "I can't understand it" air of these articles about Donald Trump. The Trump gave the voters in his party the red meat of bigotry and hate that they require. The others dog-whistled a merry tune. Why talk about 'strange political jujitsu'? Why not admit that a large portion of the Republican Party is unloved by their own candidates. Why not look at the fact that Republicans accept the votes of 'poor white trash' but do nothing for them. ..."
No, I did not think that....however, I do think that there is enough awareness of this issue
that it does not get dangerously into the main stream in Europe. In the US there much less awareness.
Decades of the indoctrination that all bad things are either "communist" or "socialist" has left
the door wide open for a return of the populist nationalist. Trump is just that.
bluet00ns 5 May 2016 13:18
"happy campaign"?...review the tapes, "happy" is nowhere in the oily, twisted, display of sly
that was cruz's campaign, the numb, if not painful, looks on the faces of family as he trotted
them out like props, is exhibit A.
bcarey -> sour_mash 5 May 2016 13:08
My point is that it's common for candidates to suspend their campaigns and continue to
collect money.
Definitely true.
However, we must also take into account the fact that the Cruz delegates are still active and
maybe able to deliver Cruz.... or Romney if necessary. It is likely that Trump will get way more
delegates than needed to stop a contested/open convention, however.
The Cruz suspension is about 2 things. It accomplishes potentially 2 things. Money is just
one of them. The other part is Romney, if he can.
fallentower 5 May 2016 13:02
I actually think the Republican Party made a good choice once it was down to "Cruz or Trump"
by sitting on its hands and thereby letting Trump win. Of course, Trump is far more likely to
do and say unorthodox (from a post-Reagan Republican Party standpoint) things, and will probably
increase the tension and turmoil within the party. But he actually has a chance of winning the
election; Cruz's smarmy personality and nauseating brand of religious conservatism would have
gone down like a lead balloon outside the Bible belt, and he's too committed ideologically to
change his policy positions.
Trump will turn on a sixpence and happily disavow things he may have said in the primary if
he considers them unhelpful baggage for the general, and because he's seen as a showman rather
than a professional politician he'll have much more leeway to do so than your average flip-flopper.
He also has a certain kind of roguish charm and can be quite amusing, which Hillary Clinton
rarely is; he'd easily win the "who'd I prefer to have a beer with" competition. Admittedly
he is going to have to cut down on the clownishness and ill-disciplined outbursts, but if he gets
the right campaign team together and they manage to keep him vaguely on-message I think he'll
have good chances. Better than Cruz, anyway, who had zero chance.
sour_mash bcarey 5 May 2016 12:58
I take your point regarding Secret Agent Mormon and I was aware that he had filed with the
FEC. My point is that it's common for candidates to suspend their campaigns and continue to collect
money.
The exploratory PAC is the new retirement vehicle but that's a different issue.
taxhaven wjousts 5 May 2016 12:58
Trump most certainly is not change for the better.
How can anyone say that yet? What we DO know is that the Bush-Obama administration has
been an unqualified disaster on many fronts. Change, even with the possibility - NOT 'certainty'
- of "bad things happening" is much more desirable...
Harry Dresdon 5 May 2016 12:42
Good riddance to Cruz. Boehner called him "the devil in the flesh". Cruz would have been way
worse for the country than Trump will ever be. Sad but true.
DillyDit2 5 May 2016 12:34
Hey Stephanie Cutter: You think Bernie is responsible for what his supporters think, whether
we'll support Hillary, and how we will decide to vote in the fall? Pappa Bernie should tell us
what to do, and we should fall in line and salute?
Could Cutter and Hillary's minions be any more clueless?! And could they reveal their top down
authoritarian mindset any more clearer?
The more this election plays out the more I totally understand why Trump has made it this
far. I've lived a long time and been politically active my entire adult life, and I've never seen
voters send such a resounding and well deserved fuck you to the political elite.
I wish I could support Trump, because I second that fuck you. For now, along with what is likely
the majority of American voters, all I can do is say- pox on BOTH your houses and may 2020 be
the year an Independent runs and wins.
danubemonster 5 May 2016 12:32
I think it is worth comparing Cruz with Nixon. Both men are/were not particularly likable,
yet Nixon was able to be a two-term president. Nixon was a conservative, but he was not an ideologue
- and he lived in an age where the Republican Party was a relatively broad church. Nixon also
have political instincts which were way beyond those of Cruz. He knew how to play high politics,
and he knew what was required to get to the White House.
PATROKLUS00 -> Tommy Cooper 5 May 2016 12:14
Trump will beat her to death with being the Queen of the Establishment... the Dems will be
idiots to nominate her.
PATROKLUS00 -> voxusa 5 May 2016 12:12
Indeed, the failure and dysfunction of the present political system in the US can be traced
to one thing: the failure of the fourth estate. It is worse than failure, it is a betrayal of
the nation for those thirty pieces of silver.
PATROKLUS00 -> 8MilesHigh 5 May 2016 12:09
Yup, and the Democrat establishment is too stupid and out of touch to recognize that HRC is
just the grist that Trump needs for his anti-establishment mill.
PATROKLUS00 5 May 2016 12:07
Cruz a master strategist???? BWWWWWwwwwwaaaaahhhhhhhaaaaaaaa! Ludicrous ... beyond ludicrous.
Vintage59 David Perry 5 May 2016 12:07
His religious beliefs and the political dogma that goes with them have been well documented.
Have you not been paying attention? Do you insist your wife get you a beer from the fridge when
you can get off your ass and get it yourself?
8MilesHigh 5 May 2016 12:06
What his campaign ultimately proves, is that only appealing to ideologically conservative
Republicans is not enough to win the nom. The bulk of the party is traditionalist and reactionary
rather than puritanical. They'll pretty reliably vote for any grumpy old white guy with a sense
of humour (Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Romney, McCain, now Trump). Secondly Cruz misread the issues
of the year. People are frustrated because they believe that they are struggling while others
are milking them. Trump gets this, so does Bernie. Hillary, not so much. This will be a big problem
for her in the general.
MalleusSacerdotum 5 May 2016 12:05
I'm getting just a bit tired of the feigned "I can't understand it" air of these articles
about Donald Trump. The Trump gave the voters in his party the red meat of bigotry and hate that
they require. The others dog-whistled a merry tune. Why talk about 'strange political jujitsu'?
Why not admit that a large portion of the Republican Party is unloved by their own candidates.
Why not look at the fact that Republicans accept the votes of 'poor white trash' but do nothing
for them.
The Donald has understood the dynamic better than the rest and has given the voters a coherent,
albeit repugnant, analysis of their problems. An article like this that can shed no light on the
phenomenon that is Trump is hardly worth publishing.
Muammar al-Qaddafi was an easy target. Oil was the goal. Everything else is describable attempt
to white wash the crime.
Notable quotes:
"... At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections! xD ..."
"... She should be a felon by now, and only her name protects her from jail. ..."
"... Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not conduct deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent threats to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule, not at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "stain the conscience of the world" (as Obama put it) was slight ..."
"... As I've argued previously, the term "humanitarian crisis" is desperately imprecise and the informed public's ability to distinguish between civil strife (which is always bloody) and outright massacres and extermination campaigns is weak. Walt's certainty notwithstanding, the debate about the humanitarian rationale in this case has not been settled. In fact, it's barely begun ..."
"... on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000 . ..."
"... Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing and Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other most bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it has multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own. ..."
"... For the western powers, of course, the Libyan war has allowed them to regain ground lost in Tunisia and Egypt, put themselves at the heart of the upheaval sweeping the most strategically sensitive region in the world, and secure valuable new commercial advantages in an oil-rich state whose previous leadership was at best unreliable. No wonder the new British defence secretary is telling businessmen to "pack their bags" for Libya, and the US ambassador in Tripoli insists American companies are needed on a "big scale". ..."
"... But for Libyans, it has meant a loss of ownership of their own future and the effective imposition of a western-picked administration of Gaddafi defectors and US and British intelligence assets. Probably the greatest challenge to that takeover will now come from Islamist military leaders on the ground, such as the Tripoli commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj – kidnapped by MI6 to be tortured in Libya in 2004 – who have already made clear they will not be taking orders from the NTC. ..."
"... This was an unpopular stance to take on Libya during the high tide of the Arab Spring, when foreign governments and media alike were uncritically lauding the opposition. The two sides in what was a genuine civil war were portrayed as white hats and black hats; rebel claims about government atrocities were credulously broadcast, though they frequently turned out to be concocted, while government denials were contemptuously dismissed. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were much more thorough than the media in checking these stories, although their detailed reports appeared long after the news agenda had moved on." ..."
"... the Taliban were winning against the Northern Alliance for various reasons, one was that a lot of people supported them. We turned a blind eye to the destabilising effects of Saudi and Pakistan support of the Taliban as well. We set this up for failure a long time ago. Riding in like the calvary and handing out billions to the Northern Alliance was not very helpful for stability. ..."
"... What people related to me was this: The Taliban were more predictable. Dostum was not predictable. Both were bad, but as Clinton fans love to highlight, the lessor of two evils must be selected. The Taliban also represented the Pashtun who were the largest ethnic bloc in Afghanistan. So in essence the people mostly supported the Taliban. The Northern Alliance had the support of Russia, and you might recall the Afghans did not have fond memories of them. ..."
"... Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were stupid to intervene. ..."
Most politicians these days don't care about the people and this ridiculous cycle is repeating
every 4 years! Candidates who actually want to make progress get dumped by the corrupt system
and the parties that are being controlled by their corporate masters and their money to do as
they want to return the more money to them later when they have the office!
At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead
of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just
repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has
been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections!
xD
Maybe Trump becoming president is necessary for the people to realize once and for all that
this cycle of mistakes and corruption needs to stop and fundamental changes need to happen! Starts
with the USA and the world will follow over time. I personally am done with following these corrupt
political systems and their media and do as they tell me to (same goes for the financial system
but there's no escaping this one in the near future with corps and banks being in total control
of the society).
"As Alan Kuperman of the University of Texas and Stephen Chapman of the Chicago Tribune
have now shown, the claim that the United States had to act to prevent Libyan tyrant Muammar
al-Qaddafi from slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Benghazi does not stand
up to even casual scrutiny.
Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not conduct
deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent threats
to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule, not
at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive
qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "stain the conscience of the world" (as
Obama put it) was slight. "
"If humanitarian intervention is to remain a live possibility, there must be much more public
scrutiny, debate and discussion of what triggers that intervention and what level of evidence
we can reasonably require. Did administration officials have communications intercepts suggesting
plans for large-scale killings of civilians? How exactly did they reach their conclusion that
these reprisals were likely? It should be no more acceptable to simply accept government claims
on this score than it was for previous administrations.
As I've argued previously, the term "humanitarian crisis" is desperately imprecise and
the informed public's ability to distinguish between civil strife (which is always bloody)
and outright massacres and extermination campaigns is weak. Walt's certainty notwithstanding,
the debate about the humanitarian rationale in this case has not been settled. In fact, it's
barely begun."
"David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy won the authorisation to use "all necessary means" from
the UN security council in March on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a
Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without
Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns
Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out
such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000 .
What is now known, however, is that while the death toll in Libya when Nato intervened was
perhaps around 1,000-2,000 (judging by UN estimates), eight months later it is probably more than
ten times that figure. Estimates of the numbers of dead over the last eight months – as Nato leaders
vetoed ceasefires and negotiations – range from 10,000 up to 50,000. The National Transitional
Council puts the losses at 30,000 dead and 50,000 wounded.
Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing
and Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other
most bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it
has multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own.
For the western powers, of course, the Libyan war has allowed them to regain ground lost
in Tunisia and Egypt, put themselves at the heart of the upheaval sweeping the most strategically
sensitive region in the world, and secure valuable new commercial advantages in an oil-rich state
whose previous leadership was at best unreliable. No wonder the new British defence secretary
is telling businessmen to "pack their bags" for Libya, and the US ambassador in Tripoli insists
American companies are needed on a "big scale".
But for Libyans, it has meant a loss of ownership of their own future and the effective
imposition of a western-picked administration of Gaddafi defectors and US and British intelligence
assets. Probably the greatest challenge to that takeover will now come from Islamist military
leaders on the ground, such as the Tripoli commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj – kidnapped by MI6 to
be tortured in Libya in 2004 – who have already made clear they will not be taking orders from
the NTC.
"Explanations of what one thought was happening in these countries were often misinterpreted
as justification for odious and discredited regimes. In Libya, where the uprising started on 15
February 2011, I wrote about how the opposition was wholly dependent on Nato military support
and would have been rapidly defeated by pro-Gaddafi forces without it. It followed from this that
the opposition would not have the strength to fill the inevitable political vacuum if Gaddafi
was to fall. I noted gloomily that Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies,
who were pressing for foreign intervention against Gaddafi, themselves held power by methods no
less repressive than the Libyan leader. It was his radicalism – muted though this was in his later
years – not his authoritarianism that made the kings and emirs hate him.
This was an unpopular stance to take on Libya during the high tide of the Arab Spring,
when foreign governments and media alike were uncritically lauding the opposition. The two sides
in what was a genuine civil war were portrayed as white hats and black hats; rebel claims about
government atrocities were credulously broadcast, though they frequently turned out to be concocted,
while government denials were contemptuously dismissed. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch were much more thorough than the media in checking these
stories, although their detailed reports appeared long after the news agenda had moved on."
And then in another note, why do people like you condemn the Taliban but give a free pass to the
Saudi's who have a lot to do with the state of fundamentalism in Afghanistan, and essentially
operate the same as the Taliban? Why are we not intervening in Saudi Arabia to free the people?
Nah. Do people die from either side in Afghanistan? Yes. Excusively the Taliban? no. The western
press prefers the narrative of Taliban extremism. The western press ignores and fails to report
killings by US troops, one incident I know of personally in Kabul. Never reported in the press.
So I suggest you educate yourself on the complexities of Afghanistan before you sound off with
smugness. It is obvious you have no idea of what really goes on there.
Have you ever visited Saudi Arabia? Want a litany of the horrors there? No, you don't. You
have a narrative which I suspect is ill informed.
the Taliban were winning against the Northern Alliance for various reasons, one was that
a lot of people supported them. We turned a blind eye to the destabilising effects of Saudi and
Pakistan support of the Taliban as well. We set this up for failure a long time ago. Riding in
like the calvary and handing out billions to the Northern Alliance was not very helpful for stability.
"was if ending Taliban rule had made things better"
You try to simplify a very complex situation. In fact there was never absolute rule by the
Taliban. You seem to forget there was a civil war in the country before 9/11. There was the Taliban
and the Northern Alliance. There was Pakistan and the ISI ( Pakistan of course if often supported
by the US, then we had Saudi Arabia, again supported by us). Before 9/11 The northern alliance
was about to be defeated. On both sides was indiscriminate killings. You also had a complex mix
if Pashtun Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras. You had multiple political alliances which I will not bother
to list. Kabul was destroyed by the fighting. Atrocities on both sides.
You had Dostum with the Northern Alliance and Massod as well. Massod was reasonable, Dostum
was an animal worse than the Taliban.
What people related to me was this: The Taliban were more predictable. Dostum was not predictable.
Both were bad, but as Clinton fans love to highlight, the lessor of two evils must be selected.
The Taliban also represented the Pashtun who were the largest ethnic bloc in Afghanistan. So in
essence the people mostly supported the Taliban. The Northern Alliance had the support of Russia,
and you might recall the Afghans did not have fond memories of them.
So, you want to simplify the Taliban atrocities and ignore the rest. Afghans did not have the
luxury of this. They had to choose the lesser evil. Had Massood not been entangled with Dostum,
perhaps things would have been different.
We came in and supported the Northern Alliance, which did NOT sit well with a lot of people.
The majority? I don't have statistics exactly pointing this out. The Pashtun felt pushed out of
affairs by the minority remnants of the Northern Alliance. Every ..... and I mean every government
office had photos of Massood on the wall. Not Karzai. Karzai was seen as irrelevant by all sides,
he was seen as the American imposed choice. ( I will not even discuss the "election" but I was
on the ground dealing with Identity cards before the UN arrived, had meetings with the UN team
about approaches to getting ID cards out to all voters, and there is a stink over aspects of the
participation in the elections).
"And seeing a self-described leftist explaining that life under the Taliban wasn't all that
bad if you just grew a beard [!] and fell in line is really sort of pathetic."
Your smug simplistic statement indicates you have no idea of the horrors enacted on both sides.
I was told this time and time again as how people decided to survive by picking a side where there
were rules and they could survive the rules.
But lets put aside my anecdotal evidence and look at the people of Afghanistan:
"Looking at Afghans' views on reconciling with the Taliban does not appear to bear out the
concerns over ethnic divisions shared by Jones and Kilcullen. When asked whether the Afghan central
government should negotiate a settlement with the Taliban or continue fighting the Taliban and
not negotiate, a recent national survey of Afghanistan found that roughly three- quarters (74%)
of Afghans favor negotiating with the Taliban .74 This is in line with previous studies, such
as a series of polls sponsored by ABC News which found that the number of Afghans favoring reconciliation
had risen from 60% in 2007 to 73% in 2009."
""Do you think the government in Kabul should negotiate a settlement with Afghan Taliban
in which they are allowed to hold political offices if they stop fighting, or do you think the
government in Kabul should continue to fight the Taliban and not negotiate a settlement?""
77% of men and 70% of women agree with this.
Here is the ultimate point. We intervened and we had no fucking idea what we were doing. The
Afghans saw the money flowing to Beltway Bandits rather than flowing to real aid and needs. They
saw this! They were not stupid. They saw that the Pashtuns were pushed out of Government, ( hence
the Massod images in ALL government offices [My project of reform dealt with EVERY government
offices and I visited a fair few personally and finally had to ask abut why each office had Masood
an not Karzai)
My opinion? I see indications that the Taliban would have handed over Bin Laden. We refused.
Is this disputed? Yes. Were we right to favour the Northern Alliance? No. They were as bad as
the Taliban, but more ..... unpredictable.
Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were
stupid to intervene.
"... By John Weeks, a member of the Union for Radical Political Economics (URPE) in London, one of the founders of the UK-based Economists for Rational Economic Policies, and part of the European Research Network on Social and Economic Policy. Receive podcasts of his weekly radio program by Twitter, @johnweeks41. Originally published at Triple Crisis ..."
"... I have dear friends from H to VI, but sleep walking through life, while natural resources are needlessly strip mined for the sake of maintaining artificial scarcity, is a good way to put it. ..."
"... The dual mandate is a fiction. There's nothing the Fed can do to lower unemployment (though it can raise it by mistake.) The unemployment rate is set by the fiscal policies of Congress and the Executive. The unemployment rate, should they desire, can even be set to zero. That it is not should be sufficient cause for the guillotines. ..."
"... primum non nocere ..."
"... I think the process of corporate control of the EU was so slow and gradual plenty of left wingers in Europe still haven't really grasped what has happened. From the beginning, there was always a tension within Europe between pressure from corporations for more business friendly policies and the generally social democrat lite views of the original founders. I think though to call it 'neoliberal' is not quite correct – for me 'neoliberal' implies a specific set of policies associated with the Anglosphere – I think in Germany what we've seen is the takeover by a more German flavoured right of centre view – it is similar, but is more generally corporatist and mercantilist in nature with a strong dash of Austrian economics. ..."
"... Well of course the 'competition' is a myth. As anyone who has witnessed what has happened in electricity markets can see, it has, if anything, raised prices of electricity for consumers. But various powerful interests have done very well indeed. you can see the same process in water and waste services and pretty much anything that has been directly regulated and privatised. The only areas where I think it can be shown that consumers have benefited from competition are in telecommunications and in air travel. And in the former, I suspect the consolidation of the telecom industry will reverse those gains. ..."
"... "To render the rule Kafkaesque, after the EC bureaucracy calculates that a government will not meet the hypothetical target, it then mandates contractionary policies that guarantee that the target cannot be achieved. The problem is imaginary and the solution contradictory." ..."
"... "The "independent institutions" include the European Commission itself, which adds a distinctly Orwellian character to the already Kafkaesque Treaty." ..."
"... "Thus, not restricting surpluses carries an implicit mercantilist message." EU guidelines fix trade surplus at 6%, Germany is, I believe, in its seventh year of violation and should be fined. That it doesn't happen maybe shows that the elite ruling the EU is German. ..."
Yves here. Anyone who has paid attention to how the various sovereign debt crises have played out
in Europe can't help noticing that a bureaucratic elite is calling the shots and riding roughshod
over popular will. But what are the mechanisms which allow these perverse outcomes to come to pass?
This post describes the major steps that enabled neoliberalism to become the ruling doctrine.
By John Weeks, a member of the Union for Radical Political Economics (URPE) in London,
one of the founders of the UK-based Economists for Rational Economic Policies, and part of the European
Research Network on Social and Economic Policy. Receive podcasts of his weekly radio program by Twitter,
@johnweeks41. Originally published at
Triple Crisis
The EU: Hold Your Nose and Vote "Stay"
Most Americans and many U.S. progressives hold a favorable view the European Union. This positive
assessment persists despite the crushing of the Greek challenge to austerity conditionalities set
by the European Commission and European Central Bank aided and abetted by the International Monetary
Fund.
The primary basis for pro-EU sentiments may be that Americans consider the European Union a bastion
of social democracy in contrast to the neoliberal ideology of the Republican and Democratic parties,
which Bernie Sanders has so eloquently attacked. However, the institutions of the European Union,
especially its executive the European Commission practice a neoliberal ideology and pro-business
policies as aggressive as counterparts in the United States.
This is not a recent change, but a long-maturing trend going back at least to when Helmut Kohl
of the right-wing Christian Democratic Union replaced the Social Democrat Helmut, Schmidt, as chancellor
of Germany. The misplaced belief that
Jacques Delors , EC president
for ten years, was committed to social democracy perpetuated the illusion of a progressive EU. While
no reactionary like Kohl, the French socialist politician supported market oriented "reform" of the
European Union's economic policies.
By the 2000s neoliberals had taken firm control of the European Commission, manifested most obviously
in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty. The step-by-step legal codification of EU reactionary economic policies
goes far beyond legislation enacted in the United States. As a result, it should surprise no one
that in Britain and on the continent support for membership in the European Union splits progressives.
In Britain the issues looms large, with a referendum on continued membership scheduled for 23 June.
The progressive case of membership is a hard row to hoe.
Loss of Democracy in the European Union
History provides many examples of authoritarian rule achieved through formally democratic procedures.
To these we should add the 2012 EU Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance (
TSCG ), adopted by 25 democratically elected EU governments (the Czech Republic and the United
Kingdom took
opt-outs ). On an EU website we find the overall purpose of the TSCG
boldly
highlighted :
The European Union's economic governance framework aims to detect, prevent, and correct problematical
economic trends such as excessive government deficits or public debt levels, which can stunt growth
and put economies at risk.
This bureaucratically bland sentence asserts the power of the unelected European Commission, as
the executive of the European Union, to monitor ("detect") whether the public budget of an elected
member government conforms to EU fiscal rules. If it does not, the Commission claims the power to
prevent the implementation of that budget and to specify the changes ("corrections") required.
No one can miss the ideological asymmetry of the "governance framework" – deficits can be excessive,
but not surpluses. In practice a budget surplus usually goes along with a trade surplus, so that
the contractionary effect of the former will be offset the expansionary impact of the latter. Thus,
not restricting surpluses carries an implicit mercantilist message.
The EU website goes on to explain "detection" or "monitoring"
as follows ,
Each year, the EU countries that share the euro as their currency submit draft budgetary plans
to the European Commission. The Commission assesses the plans to ensure that economic policy among
the countries sharing the euro is coordinated and that they all respect the EU's economic governance
rules. The draft budgetary plans are graded as either compliant, partially compliant, or at risk
of non-compliance.
When the EC implements this paragraph literally as it did in Greece, the role national legislatures
is to endorse what the Commission judges as "compliant." The TSCG de facto makes member
governments formulate their budgets for the Commission not their legislatures, because there would
be little point and considerable embarrassment by submitting to parliament a budget that the EC would
reject. After the Commission judges the budget as satisfactory the national legislature goes through
a pro forma approval process. It will be a small step to require,
as in Greece , approval by the EC before revealing the budget to the public.
The TSCG transfers sovereignty from democratic institutions to an unelected bureaucracy. Were
it the case that the EU parliament possessed substantial control over the Commission (which it does
not), the TSCG would still be profoundly authoritarian because of the power of the EC bureaucracy
over what should be decided democratically.
Treaty-Protected Mismanagement
EU fiscal rules, from the Maastricht Treaty to the TSCG are anti-democratic, as well as inflexible
to change. The Treaty specifically commits the adopting government to embed the fiscal rules in law
in a manner ensuring their "permanent character, preferably constitutional." Embodied in treaties,
they can only change through repeal or adoption of additional treaties. Both involve extremely cumbersome
and time consuming processes.
Were the fiscal rules theoretically and practically sound their anti-democratic and inflexible
nature would still discredit them. Far from sound, they are technically flawed, mandating macroeconomic
mismanagement. The Treaty mandates specific limits to fiscal policy.
[The Treaty] requires contracting parties to respect/ensure convergence towards the country-specific
medium-term…with a lower limit of a structural deficit (cyclical effects and one-off measures
are not taken into account) of 0.5% of GDP; (1.0% of GDP for Member States with a debt ratio significantly
below 60% of GDP).
Before considering the wisdom of the 0.5% deficit target, two major technical mistakes standout,
1) the Treaty uses an unsound measure of the fiscal deficit; and 2) the key concept, "structural
deficit," is theoretical nonsense.
The TSCG adopts the Maastricht deficit specification, total revenue minus total expenditure, which
is the overall deficit. As the IMF explains in its
guidelines for fiscal
management , the appropriate measure for sound fiscal management is the primary deficit, which
excludes interest payments on the public debt (which if reduced would imply partial default).
When the TSCG specifies the 0.5% as a "structural deficit" we go from the inappropriate to the
absurd. The Commission as well as the usually competent OECD defines "structural deficit" as the
deficit that would appear by eliminating cyclical effects; i.e., the deficit when an economy operates
at normal capacity.
Making this concept operational requires an analytically sound method of eliminating cyclical
effects, then a clear and consistent measure of normal capacity. The EU structural deficit fails
on both criteria. In practice the EC bean-counters make no attempt to eliminate cyclical effects.
The method of calculation of normal capacity ignores the cycle altogether by defining normal capacity
to the level of output at which the rate of unemployment implies stable inflation (the "non-accelerating
inflation rate of unemployment,"
NAIRU
). Again, the EC bureaucrats reveal their ideology by taking inflation not output or unemployment
as measure of economic health.
The NAIRU would be sufficiently problematical were attempt made to adapt it to the specific institutional
characteristics of each country at specific time periods. For example, if the concept has operational
validity, it is extremely unlikely that it would assume the same value before and after the 2008-10
global recession. An inspection of the
eurostat tables for the
actual and "structural" deficits shows no evidence of estimations with country specific adjustments.
The decidedly dubious nature of the NAIRU is indicated by its nom de guerre , "the natural
rate of unemployment." This phrase betrays an underlying ideology that 1) unemployment is a natural
phenomenon to which all economies automatically adjust; and 2) inflation always results from excess
demand. If the first were true the global recession would not have occurred. The second ignores price
pressures arising from traded goods and services, petroleum being the most obvious and price-volatile.
The possibility of calculating country and time specific normal capacity would not save the 0.5%
rule the realm of ideological nonsense. First and foremost, it represents static analysis applied
to a dynamic process. The formal statement of the 0.5% would be as follows:
Economy A operates below normal capacity with a fiscal deficit of 2.5% (for example). Other
things unchanged, were economy A at normal capacity the deficit would be 1.5% (for example), above
the 0.5% requirement. Therefore, the government of country A must now take steps to reduce expenditure
or raise taxes, so if the economy were at full capacity the hypothetical deficit would be 0.5%.
The 0.5% rule is a hypothetical outcome based on analytically unsound calculations. This "what
if" calculation by statisticians is used by an undemocratic bureaucracy to force elected governments
to implement contractionary economic policies. The technically unsound, hypothetical 0.5% target
mandates a pro-cyclical macroeconomic policy. To render the rule Kafkaesque, after the EC bureaucracy
calculates that a government will not meet the hypothetical target, it then mandates contractionary
policies that guarantee that the target cannot be achieved. The problem is imaginary and the solution
contradictory.
The wording of the TSCG makes it clear that deviant fiscal behavior by a member country will
not be tolerated,
Correction mechanisms should ensure automatic action to be undertaken in case of deviation from
the [structural deficit target] or the adjustment path towards it, with escape clauses for exceptional
circumstances. Compliance with the rule should be monitored by independent institutions.
The "independent institutions" include the European Commission itself, which adds a distinctly
Orwellian character to the already Kafkaesque Treaty.
Painted into a Recessionary Corner
Market economies pass through cycles of recession and expansion. They suffer from fiscal deficits
in recessions, because falling or slow-growing output results in falling or slow-growing revenue.
Such circumstances typically result from a drop in private investment or exports. Economies most
effectively overcome recessions by the public sector using its spending powers to compensate for
the inadequate private demand.
The TSCG legally prohibits the implementation of this effective countercyclical fiscal policy.
It forces member governments to apply policies analogous to the practice 200 years ago of bloodletting
to restore health to the ill. It is a Treaty designed to maintain perpetual stagnation across the
European continent.
The term "Six-Pack", the secondary legislation linked to the treaty, is frequently used as synonymous
with the TSCG. This is a singularly appropriate nickname for the enabling legislation. The Six-Pack
contains the economic equivalent of a pernicious snake oil, a witch's brew to turn minor fiscal problems
into recessionary downturns. For those dedicated to a prosperous and harmonious European Union, repeal
or replacement of the TSCG stands out as an urgent priority. Fiscal integration on the basis of the
TSCG would be disastrous.
What most Americans know about Europe is on a postcard, or the propaganda they were taught
in school. The vast majority on this planet is dependent on a MAD money laundering scheme built
by Wall Street, copied globally, and automated by WS of the West, silly valley, now strip mining
the planet, on auto pilot, with a belief in political discourse, among completely insulated, puppet
politicians.
Back in the day, before joining, Robert R actually said some intelligent things about labor.
The crashing actuarial ponzi has been in operation so long it is an assumption. On the one hand
money enslaves future generations to the present, and on the other we are all supposed to seek
a feudal pension. The casino wins in both directions.
I have dear friends from H to VI, but sleep walking through life, while natural resources are
needlessly strip mined for the sake of maintaining artificial scarcity, is a good way to put it.
We don't even need oil, but the economy is leveraged on that contract price, to maintain subservient
populations. We are choking on excess oil, storing it all over the ocean, and preventing iran/iraq
from putting its product on the market, all to confirm a psychology of dependence, like an ant
farm, assuming that individual humans can only wander randomly without the benefit of the collective,
serving the sociopathic psychologist writing the scripts.
Funny, there is a shortage of private demand for more incompetent government.
Another fundamental difference between the US and EU is the difference in central bank mandates,
with the Fed having its dual inflation/employment mandate in its bylaws, but under Maastricht
the ECB only has a mandate for low inflation.
That said, the Fed has a dual way for getting around the dual mandate: playing fast and loose
with what is defined as unemployment, and just straight out ignoring it (eg, raising interest
rates at the first whiff of possibility that there might be a rumour that someone's uncle's cousin's
best-friend's roommate thinks there could eventually be a slight uptick in the CPI). This means,
yes there are differences in the founding documents, but is there anywhere in US economic governance
that NAIRU is not assumed either?
The dual mandate is a fiction. There's nothing the Fed can do to lower unemployment (though
it can raise it by mistake.) The unemployment rate is set by the fiscal policies of Congress and
the Executive. The unemployment rate, should they desire, can even be set to zero. That it is
not should be sufficient cause for the guillotines.
I definitely agree w/r/t fiscal policy, but I think the point is that at least in the US there
is a nominal (but ignored) primum non nocere written into the Fed's by-laws. It is supposed
to take actions that will "promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices
and moderate long-term interest rates." What this means is that raising interest rates at the
mere rumour of inflation is going against the Fed's mandate– not that anyone in power cares. Meanwhile
in Europe they just dispense with the whole fiction of not having a monetary policy that kills
employment.
I think the process of corporate control of the EU was so slow and gradual plenty of left wingers
in Europe still haven't really grasped what has happened. From the beginning, there was always
a tension within Europe between pressure from corporations for more business friendly policies
and the generally social democrat lite views of the original founders. I think though to call
it 'neoliberal' is not quite correct – for me 'neoliberal' implies a specific set of policies
associated with the Anglosphere – I think in Germany what we've seen is the takeover by a more
German flavoured right of centre view – it is similar, but is more generally corporatist and mercantilist
in nature with a strong dash of Austrian economics.
I see the results every day when I step outside my apartment in Dublin. Thats to a focus on
privatisation and 'competition', what was once a fully functioning waste collection service in
my city has now become a chaotic privatised service, with competing companies driving down the
quality. No more proper wheelie bins collected on the same day, instead there are plastic bin
bags everywhere, there to be torn apart by seagulls and foxes, scattering rubbish everywhere.
All in the name of 'competition', driven by EU Directives. The focus on 'internal competition'
is gradually eroding sensible regulation in energy, waste and telecommunications. Supposedly in
the interest of the consumer, but we all know who really benefits.
Well of course the 'competition' is a myth. As anyone who has witnessed what has happened in
electricity markets can see, it has, if anything, raised prices of electricity for consumers.
But various powerful interests have done very well indeed. you can see the same process in water
and waste services and pretty much anything that has been directly regulated and privatised. The
only areas where I think it can be shown that consumers have benefited from competition are in
telecommunications and in air travel. And in the former, I suspect the consolidation of the telecom
industry will reverse those gains.
The airlines are a terrible example – in fact, there was a great article treating the airlines
as a classic example of "crapification". The seating has become ridiculously cramped (as a way
to then "sell" seats that someone can actually sit in!), the service has been basically reduced
to the bare minimum, luggage charges are outrageous and ticket prices continue to climb even though
one of the major expenses (i.e. fuel!) has become cheaper by 50 per cent. No, the airlines were
a bad example.
Nice to read such an excellent analysis. And with very appropriate metaphors.
"To render the rule Kafkaesque, after the EC bureaucracy calculates that a government will
not meet the hypothetical target, it then mandates contractionary policies that guarantee that
the target cannot be achieved. The problem is imaginary and the solution contradictory."
"The "independent institutions" include the European Commission itself, which adds a distinctly
Orwellian character to the already Kafkaesque Treaty."
I would suggest that any country that doesn't like these rules failed to read the agreement
and should exit the EU and start issuing worthless currency. In doing so they can feel free to
devalue, run large deficits, borrow all they want and then leave the "neo-liberals" to it. When
the banks and hedge funds that over-lend to fund these deficits fail or demand collateral (
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/10/22/163384810/why-a-hedge-fund-seized-an-argentine-navy-ship-in-ghana
) you will discuss their predatory nature.
"Thus, not restricting surpluses carries an implicit mercantilist message." EU guidelines fix
trade surplus at 6%, Germany is, I believe, in its seventh year of violation and should be fined.
That it doesn't happen maybe shows that the elite ruling the EU is German.
Given half a chance some human beings who never got much loving as a child will seek to correct
the imbalance by "weaponizing" money and using it against the interests of the majority. For those
who've read the psychoanalyst Alice Miller books they will recognize her argument that resentment
builds up in the child and needs expression in the form of subconsciously motivated vengeance
as an adult!
IMPORTANT: Neoliberalism as Peters defines it is nothing but elegant concern
trolling–claiming to be the staunchest defenders of the lowest order, when really that's just
a way to reinforce a crab-bucket mentality that keeps the true elites from making any sacrifices
towards a more equitable society.
Notable quotes:
"... The New Republic ..."
"... The Washington Monthly ..."
"... These were the men who made Jonathan Chait what he is today. Chait, after all, would recoil in horror at the policies and programs of mid-century liberals like Walter Reuther or John Kenneth Galbraith or even Arthur Schlesinger, who claimed that "class conflict is essential if freedom is to be preserved, because it is the only barrier against class domination." We know this because he recoils in horror today he so resolutely opposes the more tepid versions of that liberalism that we see in the Sanders campaign. ..."
"... Note the disavowal of all conventional ideologies and beliefs, the affirmation of an open-minded pragmatism guided solely by a bracing commitment to what works. It's a leitmotif of the entire manifesto: Everyone else is blinded by their emotional attachments to the ideas of the past. We, the heroic few, are willing to look upon reality as it is, to take up solutions from any side of the political spectrum, to disavow anything that smacks of ideological rigidity or partisan tribalism. ..."
"... The New Republic ..."
"... Above all, neoliberals loathed unions, especially teachers unions. They still do , except insofar as they're useful funding devices for the contemporary Democratic Party. ..."
"... But reading Peters, it's clear that unions were, from the very beginning, the main target. The problems with unions were many: they protected their members's interests (no mention of how important unions were to getting and protecting Social Security and Medicare); they drove up costs, both in the private and the public sector; they defended lazy, incompetent workers ("We want a government that can fire people who can't or won't do the job.") ..."
"... On the one hand, Peters showed how much the neoliberal was indebted to the Great Society ethos of the 1960s. That ethos was a departure from the New Deal insofar as it took its stand with the most desperate and the most needy, whom it set apart from the rest of society. Michael Harrington's The Other America ..."
"... On the other hand, Peters showed how potent, and potently disabling, that kind of thinking could be. In the hands of neoliberalism, it became fashionable to pit the interests of the poor not against the power of the wealthy but against the working class that had been made into a middle class by America's unions. (We still see that kind of talk among today's Democrats, particularly in debates around free trade, where it is always the unionized worker-never the well paid journalist or economist or corporate CEO -who is expected to make sacrifices on behalf of the global poor. Or among Hillary Clinton supporters, who leverage the interests of African American voters against the interests of white working-class voters, but never against the interests of capital.) ..."
"... There are striking parallels in this to the observation I've made, reading a lot lately, about historical civil rights/racial justice struggles. To wit, one of the greatest drags on the effectiveness of the Civil Rights Movement has been the ability of social/financial elites to make sure that advancement for poor people of color came out of the hides of the working class, rather than from the elites' share. This is clear from the backgrounders on the housing market in e.g. Slatter's Family Properties or Boyle's The Arc of Justice , or the description of the Boston busing issue in I think Perlstein's The Invisible Bridge . ..."
"... For middle-class white homeowners, living in a neighborhood that became mixed-race really did mean the loss of most of the family capital; it's deplorable that it was due to racism, but individuals' anti-racism wasn't going to let them resell at the price they'd paid, nor keep them from the pernicious effects of living in a now-redlined neighborhood. ..."
"... Just the same, for the white populations of Boston's poor neighborhoods, it was all too obvious that Black students were being bused into their schools, not those of the wealthy – which you'll still see today when school-choice means slightly-better schools get hit with more demand than their resources can manage, not that any kid can go to an elite public school (let alone a private one). ..."
"... At the end of the day, neoliberalism as Peters defines it is nothing but elegant concern trolling–claiming to be the staunchest defenders of the lowest order, when really that's just a way to reinforce a crab-bucket mentality that keeps the true elites from making any sacrifices towards a more equitable society. ..."
"... These arguments about semantics are stupid. At one time terms like "conservative", "liberal", "neoconservative", etc. may have meant different things, but we sure as hell know what they mean now. It's just debate team intellectual obfuscation. Meanings change as society needs them to. For instance Republican once implied being against racism. Today, not so much. Still "Republicans" are called "Republicans". ..."
"... Chait knows what "neoliberal" means, he just doesn't like the reality of what it means and what it might imply about him. ..."
On the one hand, Chait was probably just voicing his disgruntlement with an epithet that leftists
and Sanders liberals often hurl against Clinton liberals like Chait.
On the other hand, there was a time, not so long ago, when journalists like Chait would have proudly
owned the term neoliberal as an apt description of their beliefs. It was
The New Republic , after all, the magazine where Chait made his name, that, along with
The Washington Monthly , first provided neoliberalism with a home and a face.
Now, neoliberalism, of course, can mean
a
great many things , many of them
associated with the right. But one of its meanings-arguably, in the United States, the most historically
accurate-is the
name that a small group of journalists, intellectuals, and politicians on the left gave to themselves
in the late 1970s in order to register their distance from the traditional liberalism of the New
Deal and the Great Society. The original neoliberals included, among others, Michael Kinsley, Charles
Peters, James Fallows, Nicholas Lemann, Bill Bradley, Bruce Babbitt, Gary Hart, and Paul Tsongas.
Sometimes called "Atari Democrats," these were the men-and they were almost all men-who helped to
remake American liberalism into neoliberalism, culminating in the election of Bill Clinton in 1992.
These were the men who made Jonathan Chait what he is today. Chait, after all, would recoil in
horror at the policies and programs of mid-century liberals like Walter Reuther or John Kenneth Galbraith
or even Arthur Schlesinger, who
claimed that "class conflict is essential if freedom is to be preserved, because it is the only
barrier against class domination." We know this because
he recoils in horror today
he so resolutely opposes the more tepid versions of that liberalism that we see in the Sanders
campaign.
It's precisely the distance between that lost world of 20th century American labor liberalism
and contemporary liberals like Chait that the phrase "neoliberalism" is meant, in part ,
to register.
We can see that distance first declared, and declared most clearly, in Charles Peters's famous
"
A Neoliberal's Manifesto ," which Tim Barker reminded me of last night.
Peters was the founder
and editor of The Washington Monthly , and in many ways the éminence grise of the neoliberal
movement. In re-reading Peters's manifesto-I remember reading it in high school; that was the kind
of thing a certain kind of nerdy liberal-ish sophomore might do-I'm struck by how much it sets out
the lineaments of Chait-style thinking today.
The basic orientation is announced in the opening paragraph:
We still believe in liberty and justice for all, in mercy for the afflicted and help for the
down and out. But we no longer automatically favor unions and big government or oppose the military
and big business. Indeed, in our search for solutions that work, we have to distrust all automatic
responses, liberal or conservative.
Note the disavowal of all conventional ideologies and beliefs, the affirmation of an open-minded
pragmatism guided solely by a bracing commitment to what works. It's a leitmotif of the entire manifesto:
Everyone else is blinded by their emotional attachments to the ideas of the past. We, the heroic
few, are willing to look upon reality as it is, to take up solutions from any side of the political
spectrum, to disavow anything that smacks of ideological rigidity or partisan tribalism.
That Peters wound up embracing solutions in the piece that put him comfortably within the camp
of GOP conservatism (he even makes a sop to school prayer) never seemed to disturb his serenity as
a self-identified iconoclast. That was part of the neoliberal esprit de corps: a self-styled philosophical
promiscuity married to a fairly conventional ideological fidelity.
Listen to how former New Republic owner Marty Peretz
described (h/t Tim Barker) that ethos in his lookback on The New Republic of the 1970s
and 1980s:
My then-wife and I bought the New Republic in 1974. I was at the time a junior faculty member
at Harvard, and I installed a former student, Michael Kinsley, as its editor. We put out a magazine
that was intellectually daring, I like to think, and politically controversial.
We were for the Contras in Nicaragua; wary of affirmative action; for military intervention
in Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur; alarmed about the decline of the family. The New Republic was also
an early proponent of gay rights. We were neoliberals. We were also Zionists, and it was our defense
of the Jewish state that put us outside the comfort zone of modern progressive politics.
Except for gay rights and one or two items in that grab bag of foreign interventions, what is
Peretz saying here beyond the fact that his politics consisted mainly of supporting various planks
from the Republican Party platform? That was the intellectual daring, apparently.
Returning to that first paragraph of Peters's piece, we find the basic positions of the neoliberal
persuasion: opposition to unions and big government, support for the military and big business.
Above all, neoliberals loathed unions, especially teachers unions. They
still do , except insofar as they're useful funding devices for the contemporary Democratic Party.
But reading Peters, it's clear that unions were, from the very beginning, the main target. The
problems with unions were many: they protected their members's interests (no mention of how important
unions were to getting and protecting Social Security and Medicare); they drove up costs, both in
the private and the public sector; they defended lazy, incompetent workers ("We want a government
that can fire people who can't or won't do the job.")
Against unions, or conventional unions, Peters held out the promise of
ESOPs ,
where workers would forgo higher wages and benefits in return for stock options and ownership. He
happily pointed to the example of
Weirton Steel :
…where the workers accepted a 32 percent wage cut to keep their company alive. They will not
be suckers because they will own the plant and share in the future profits their sacrifice makes
possible. It's better for a worker to keep a job by accepting $12 an hour than to lose it by insisting
on $19.
(Sadly, within two decades, Weirton Steel was dead, and with it, those future profits and wages
for which those workers had sacrificed in the early 1980s.)
But above all, Peters and other neoliberals saw unions as the instruments of the most vile subjugation
of the most downtrodden members of society:
A poor black child might have a better chance of escaping the ghetto if we fired his incompetent
middle-class teacher.
…
The urban public schools have in fact become the principal instrument of class oppression in
America, keeping the lower orders in their place while the upper class sends its children to private
schools.
And here we see in utero how the neoliberal argument works its magic on the left.
On the one hand, Peters showed how much the neoliberal was indebted to the Great Society ethos
of the 1960s. That ethos was a departure from the New Deal insofar as it took its stand with the
most desperate and the most needy, whom it set apart from the rest of society. Michael Harrington's
The Other America , for example, treated the poor not as a central part of the political
economy, as the New Deal did. The poor were superfluous to that economy: there was America, which
was middle-class and mainstream; there was the "other," which was poor and marginal. The Great Society
declared a War on Poverty, which was thought to be a project different from from managing and regulating
the economy.
On the other hand, Peters showed how potent, and potently disabling, that kind of thinking could
be. In the hands of neoliberalism, it became fashionable to pit the interests of the poor not against
the power of the wealthy but against the working class that had been made into a middle class by
America's unions. (We still see that kind of talk among today's Democrats, particularly in debates
around free trade, where it is always the unionized worker-never the
well paid journalist
or economist or corporate CEO -who is expected to make sacrifices on behalf of the global poor.
Or among Hillary Clinton supporters, who leverage the interests of African American voters against
the interests of white working-class voters, but never against the interests of capital.)
Teachers' unions in the inner cities were ground zero of the neoliberal obsession. But it wasn't
just teachers' unions. It was all unions:
In both the public and private sector, unions were seeking and getting wage increases that
had the effect of reducing or eliminating employment opportunities for people who were trying
to get a foot on the first run of the ladder.
And it wasn't just unions that were a problem. It was big-government liberalism as a whole:
Too many liberals…refused to criticize their friends in the industrial unions and the civil
service who were pulling up the ladder. Thus liberalism was becoming a movement of those who had
arrived, who cared more about preserving and expanding their own gains than about helping those
in need.
That government jobs are critical for women and African Americans -- as Annie Lowrey shows in a
excellent recent piece -- has long been known in traditional liberal and labor circles. That that
fact has only recently been registered among journalists-who, even when they take the long view,
focus almost exclusively, as Lowrey does, on the role of GOP governors in the aughts rather than
on these long-term shifts in Democratic Party thinking-tells us something about the break between
liberalism and neoliberalism that Chait believes is so fanciful.
Oddly, as soon as Peters was done attacking unions and civil-service jobs for doling out benefits
to the few-ignoring all the women and people of color who were increasingly reliant on these instruments
for their own advance-he turned around and attacked programs like Social Security and Medicare for
doing precisely the opposite: protecting everyone.
Take Social Security. The original purpose was to protect the elderly from need. But, in order
to secure and maintain the widest possible support, benefits were paid to rich and poor alike.
The catch, of course, is that a lot of money is wasted on people who don't need it.
…
Another way the practical and the idealistic merge in neoliberal thinking in is our attitude
toward income maintenance programs like Social Security, welfare, veterans' pensions, and unemployment
compensation. We want to eliminate duplication and apply a means test to these programs. They
would all become one insurance program against need.
As a practical matter, the country can't afford to spend money on people who don't need it-my
aunt who uses her Social Security check to go to Europe or your brother-in-law who uses his unemployment
compensation to finance a trip to Florida. And as liberal idealists, we don't think the well-off
should be getting money from these programs anyway-every cent we can afford should go to helping
those really in need.
Kind of like Hillary Clinton criticizing Bernie Sanders for supporting free college education
for all on the grounds that Donald Trump's kids shouldn't get their education paid for? (And let's
not forget that as recently as the last presidential campaign, the Democratic candidate was more
than willing to trumpet his credentials as a cutter of
Social
Security and Medicare , though thankfully he never entertained the idea of turning them into
means-tested programs.)
It's difficult to make sense of what truly drives this contradiction, whereby one liberalism is
criticized for supporting only one segment of the population while another liberalism is criticized
for supporting all segments, including the poor.
It could be as simple as the belief that government should work on behalf of only the truly disadvantaged,
leaving everyone else to the hands of the market. That that turned out to be a disaster for the truly
disadvantaged-with no one besides themselves to speak up on behalf of anti-poverty programs, those
programs proved all too easy to eliminate, not by a Republican but by a
Democrat -seems not to have much troubled the sleep of neoliberalism. Indeed, in the current
election, it is Hillary Clinton's support for the 1994 crime bill rather than the 1996 welfare reform
bill that has gotten the most attention, even though she proudly stated in her
memoir
that she not only supported the 1996 bill but rounded up votes for it.
Or perhaps it's that neoliberals of the left, like their counterparts on the
right , simply came to believe that the market was for winners, government for losers. Only the
poor needed government; everyone else was made for capitalism. "Risk is indeed the essence of the
movement," declared Peters of his merry band of neoliberal men, and though he had something different
in mind when he said that, it's clear from the rest of his manifesto that the risk-taking entrepreneur
really was what made his and his friends' hearts beat fastest.
Our hero is the risk-taking entrepreneur who creates new jobs and better products. "Americans,"
says Bill Bradley, "have to begin to treat risk more as an opportunity and not as a threat."
Whatever the explanation for this attitude toward government and the poor, it's clear that we're
still living in the world the neoliberals made.
When Clinton's
main line of attack against Sanders is that his proposals would increase the size of the federal
government by 40%, when her
hawkishness remains an unapologetic part of her campaign, when unions barely register except
as an ATM for the Democratic Party, and
Wall Street
firmly declares itself to be in her camp, we can hear that opening call of Peters-"But we no
longer automatically favor unions and big government or oppose the military and big business"-shorn
of all awkward hesitation and convoluted formulations, articulated instead in the forthright syntax
of common sense and everyday truth.
Perhaps that is why Jonathan Chait cannot tell the difference between liberalism and
neoliberalism.
Update (April 29)
I wrote a follow-up post
here
, in which I respond to Chait's response.
Jon Chait, Obama's journalistic fellator-in-chief. Possibly has passed My Head Is Flat Friedman
as Acela Corridor's chief writer of political dreck.
reply
I'm trying to come up with a good acronym for "Conservative in All But Name," for Clinton
and Chait and all their ilk, because DINO just isn't strong enough.
All alums of U Michigan have a bounded middle class rationality they do not realize is white
privilege. And their football team still can not beat a bunch of half-wits from Ohio State.
Prof. Robin:I know this is not an advice column but my problem is all my friends roll their
eyes when I use the phrase 'neoliberal'. They assume it is jargon or a cliche. I asked them
and only a few actually have a clue as to what 'neoliberal' means. And they still support Hillary.
Help! We all know Mrs. Clinton will be our next president, but I am beginning to think even
an impossible Trump victory would actually be less damaging than another series of neoliberal
encroachments upon what has not yet been amalgamated in the political economy.
No comment upon the rejection of neoliberalism in the land where it all began as theory?
Austria? And the alliance of the extreme right and greens?
Thanks for another excellent piece. I couldn't help but think William Graham Sumner upon hearing
Peters' disdain for unions. His version is actually harsher. He not only wants to take from
B to help C and D but blame B for all of C and D's problems.
Needless to say, this isn't exactly company any self-respecting liberal would want to keep.
The more I read Peters' essay, the more the word "Objectivist" comes to mind. I had always
thought, prior to this column that 'neoliberal' meant a reboot of liberalism in the 19th century
sense, which seems to be the sense most economists use it in. Sometimes these labels take on
a life of their own.
reply
It seems to me that the common thread connecting the opposition to inclusive social insurance
programs and, at the same time, unions is a kind of supremacism: the supremacism of the people
who are just a rung above the bottom of the social ladder and want desperately to not
be on the bottom. It's odd to see in people who in fact are many rungs from the bottom,
but class anxiety is something that most of us experience from time to time.
It's late – or early – and I wonder if I'll still believe this after more sleep – but it
seems to me that this is the thinking of social climbers. Consider Mr. Collins of Pride
and Prejudice , having attained a bit of status, and both proud of it and desperate to
hang on to it. Or, for that matter,
consider the Clintons .
Excellent post as always. I'm not quite understanding the part about how "Clinton supporters
… leverage the interests of African American voters against the interests of white working-class
voters." It's not that I don't believe the claim, I just can't come up with any examples.
I think he means Hillary trying to turn black voters against Sanders who in theory at least
better represents white working-class voters interests better.
reply
Very well articulated. I think you should develop this to an article for the Nation. It is
very timely and much needed. Thank you for writing it.
reply
This was a really good post. This blog is often like an oasis in the midst of a desert of neoliberal
(Ha!), reactionary garbage. I have all kinds of things to say about it.
First and foremost, in recent years I've fallen more under the sway of a Hegelian mode of
thinking about political movements, history, and the world. There is no clear example of the
dialectical movement of a concept than that of "freedom" or "liberty." What Neoliberalism represents
historically is when the concepts and contradictions of Liberalism as it was practiced in the
New Deal era were finally turned against themselves and a reversal of it into its opposite.
All concepts and notions cut both ways, freedom and liberty are no different. Above all else,
that's what neoliberalism, from the Chicago/Austrian School to hack pundits like Chait represent.
They have turned the core principles of liberalism on itself and used them to shore up justification
for hierarchy and oppression.
You discuss this in your book, when talking about how freedom for the right means freedom
of the owner and freedom of those in power in a more general sense. These questions are central
to our entire historical epoch, particularly in the US, and we need to move beyond them. Marxist/socialist
ideas and concepts are sorely needed, and the whole political conversation in the US has been
built for nearly a century on avoiding any use of them. I maintain that New Deal liberalism
was always going to become Neoliberalism, it was inevitable that these concepts would be inverted
and if the postwar American Consensus could be reached again it produce the same world we currently
inhabit a second time.
@Roquentin: Which itself is an ironic little mirror of the contradictions that transformed
our concept of "liberalism" in the first place from a principled defense of economic non-interference
to a pragmatic support for robust interventionism. It's readily apparent in Mill's On Liberty
itself, where the attempt at a utilitarian defense of the laisser-faire principle can ultimately
only stand if he carves out exceptions large enough to drive a New Deal or a Great Society
through, and thus the original free-market doctrines are left sitting around abandoned, ready
to be picked up by neoliberal defenders of inherited wealth and power. Of course Mill also
manages to shape this utilitarianism into a vaguely principled apologia for global empire ("Despotism
is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians provided the end be their improvement"
and so on) but after all this sort of racism has always been common throughout the Western
political mainstream, notably including precisely the sorts of working-class folks who might
have once voted for Wilson and FDR and who now vote for Trump.
reply
Although outside of the 20th century American scope of this argument-very valuable in its historical
specificity-I find the richest conceptual or genealogical expression of the difference between
liberalism and neoliberalism to be Foucualt's distinction between Adam Smith and Gary Becker.
If the ethos of classical liberalism is the partner in exchange, that of neoliberalism is
the entrepreneur of the self.
This analytic remains salient in understanding the neoliberal movement in the late 20th
century U.S., even if it introduces slippages in the meaning of liberalism as it is used in
Europe versus the United States. The Wendy Brown book linked above does a nice job developing
this type of argument.
I will share that during election night when Clinton won his first term I was sitting in the
same room with Schlesinger, Jr. while we were all watching the precincts report and he was
very much into it when the hostess began gyrating and screaming "MY PRESIDENT! MY PRESIDENT!"
and that there was no talk of the looming shadow of the neoliberal and all present assumed
on some level that the result was a return and validation of the welfare state after Reagan-Bush,
the Republic after the terror. Even in the false advertising of the political arena, expectations
have never been so confounded for the working class and intellegensia alike.
reply
I think H. Clinton will be fine if elected, the past is the past (well not really), but saying
that I really wish electoral success in this country could happen with a purely working class
focus – something like Robert Reich's most recent post -
http://robertreich.org/ . Could be more
workable as the racism of the white working class diminishes, hopefully struggling white middle
class racism diminishes too. Left wing policies poll pretty well now, we need to get the poor
to vote though.
"Except for gay rights and one or two items in that grab bag of foreign interventions, what
is Peretz saying here beyond the fact that his politics consisted mainly of supporting various
planks from the Republican Party platform?"
There's the old joke that a libertarian is a Republican that smokes pot. Maybe a neoliberal,
then, is a Republican that supports gay marriage?
There are striking parallels in this to the observation I've made, reading a lot lately, about
historical civil rights/racial justice struggles. To wit, one of the greatest drags on the
effectiveness of the Civil Rights Movement has been the ability of social/financial elites
to make sure that advancement for poor people of color came out of the hides of the working
class, rather than from the elites' share. This is clear from the backgrounders on the housing
market in e.g. Slatter's Family Properties or Boyle's The Arc of Justice , or
the description of the Boston busing issue in I think Perlstein's The Invisible Bridge
.
For middle-class white homeowners, living in a neighborhood that became mixed-race really
did mean the loss of most of the family capital; it's deplorable that it was due to racism,
but individuals' anti-racism wasn't going to let them resell at the price they'd paid, nor
keep them from the pernicious effects of living in a now-redlined neighborhood.
Just the same,
for the white populations of Boston's poor neighborhoods, it was all too obvious that Black
students were being bused into their schools, not those of the wealthy – which you'll still see
today when school-choice means slightly-better schools get hit with more demand than their
resources can manage, not that any kid can go to an elite public school (let alone a private
one).
At the end of the day, neoliberalism as Peters defines it is nothing but elegant concern
trolling–claiming to be the staunchest defenders of the lowest order, when really that's just
a way to reinforce a crab-bucket mentality that keeps the true elites from making any sacrifices
towards a more equitable society.
In other words, an old monster to be slain with an old weapon–solidarity, but newly sharpened
and strengthened by the knowledge that it must transcend racial and regional and even class
divisions.
These arguments about semantics are stupid. At one time terms like "conservative", "liberal",
"neoconservative", etc. may have meant different things, but we sure as hell know what they
mean now. It's just debate team intellectual obfuscation. Meanings change as society needs
them to. For instance Republican once implied being against racism. Today, not so much. Still
"Republicans" are called "Republicans".
Chait knows what "neoliberal" means, he just doesn't like the reality of what it means and
what it might imply about him.
What I love about this essay so much is the ways it echoes what Ken Sharpe taught us in the
Fall '83 version of his Latin American Comparative Politics course… I'm pretty sure it was
in reference to Jeannie Kirkpatrick but it was a general statement about neoliberals and neocons:
This is very close to the exact words – "Anyone who tells you "The harsh reality is…" or "The
fact of the matter is…" is either lying to you or hiding a very great deal of what they know
to be true."
"... By James A. Kidney, former SEC attorney. Originally published at Watch the Circus ..."
"... Pro Publica ..."
"... Pro Publica's ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Dodd-Frank at best imposes generalized rules about bank size and other generic issues, rather than addressing the kinds of fraudulent actions that actually occurred. It is appropriate for the SEC or Federal Reserve to impose narrower changes in corporate practice to address specific kinds of fraud. They are called "undertakings" and are often imposed by civil settlements with the SEC or in litigated relief. It did not happen with the Big Bank frauds. ..."
"... The only reason to keep the information secret is to prevent embarrassment to the SEC or to those people who made decisions for the agency. Most of them left the SEC years ago. For public consumption, I have tried to redact all names of the non-supervisory personnel in the Division of Enforcement who worked on Goldman. I also must add that, as the emails show, for a period of time those dedicated investigators were excited about the notion of bringing at least a slightly broader action than their supervisors wanted. As is the case with much of the Division of Enforcement, the worker bees try hard and usually are fearless. It is their bosses who frequently suppress their enthusiasm for policy, political, or personal reasons. ..."
"... The author is trying very hard to be nice to the point of being delusional. This is criminality and corruption through and through, and it didn't end in '08. Don't be sad… get mad. ..."
"... This man has risked a lot to do what he did. He's lost more than many of you will realize. If he can't just crap on the old life and the old profession, please, cut the man a little slack. You don't want to be him. ..."
"... James A. Kidney, former trial attorney with the Securities and Exchange Commission, retired from the SEC in 2014 at the age of 66 after 24 years working there. Looks like he had a full career, although had to put up with a lot of bullshit, and possibly soured some relationships on his way out. ..."
"... Very similar situation here. Going on 50, unemployed in my chosen field, etc. And yes, its hard to just walk away sometimes… I have to keep my mind focused ahead instead of looking back. ..."
"... I know other whistleblowers and internal dissenters who wound up losing their jobs who initially blame themselves, than come to accept that the system in which they operated was fundamentally corrupt, that even if some people locally really were trying to do the right thing, it was bound to either 1. go nowhere, 2. be allowed to proceed to a more meaningful level if it was cosmetic or served some larger political purpose or 3. got elevated because the organization was suddenly in trouble and they needed to burnish their cred in a big way (a variant of 2, except with 3, you might have a something serious take place by happenstance of timing). ..."
Yves here. Two things struck me about Jim Kidney's article below. One is that he still wants to
think well of his former SEC colleagues. I know other whistleblowers and internal dissenters who
wound up losing their jobs who initially blame themselves, than come to accept that the system in
which they operated was fundamentally corrupt, that even if some people locally really were trying
to do the right thing, it was bound to either 1. go nowhere, 2. be allowed to proceed to a more meaningful
level if it was cosmetic or served some larger political purpose or 3. got elevated because the organization
was suddenly in trouble and they needed to burnish their cred in a big way (a variant of 2, except
with 3, you might have a something serious take place by happenstance of timing). Kidney does criticize
corrosive practices, particularly the SEC stopping developing its own lawyers and becoming dependent
on the revolving door, but his criticisms seem muted relative to the severity of the problems.
Number two, and related, are the class assumptions at work. The SEC does not want to see securities
professionals at anything other than bucket shops as bad people. At SEC conferences, agency officials
are virtually apologetic and regularly say, "We know you are honest people who want to do the right
thing." Please tell me where else in law enforcement is that the underlying belief.
By James A. Kidney, former SEC attorney. Originally published at
Watch the Circus
The New Yorker and
Pro Publica websites today posted an article by Pro Publica's Jesse Eisinger
about the de minimis investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission into the conduct
of Goldman Sachs in the sale of derivatives based on mortgage-backed securities during the run-up
to the Great Recession of 2008. The details of the SEC's failure to aggressively pursue Goldman in
the particular investigation, Abacus, and its refusal to investigate fully misconduct by Goldman
and other "Too Big to Fail" banks, stands not only as a historic misstep by the SEC and its Division
of Enforcement, but undermines the claim that the Obama Administration has been "tough on Wall Street."
The Pro Publica version contains links to a few of the documents I provided.
No one in authority who was involved in the Goldman investigation ever gave me an explanation
for why the effort was so slight. Mr. Eisinger's article doesn't offer any explanation from the one
investigation participant brave enough to comment. The details of the investigation into Abacus at
my level as trial counsel, which I provided to Pro Publica earlier this year, compels the
conclusion that the SEC, its chairman at the time, Mary Schapiro, and the leadership of the Division
of Enforcement were more interested in a quick public relations hit than in pursuing a thorough investigation
of Goldman, Bank of America, Citibank, JP Morgan and other large Wall Street firms.
Although the emails and documents I produced to Pro Publica stemming from my role as
the designated (later replaced) trial attorney for the Division of Enforcement are excruciatingly
boring to all but the most dedicated securities lawyer, even a lay person can observe that the Division
of Enforcement was more anxious to publicize a quick lawsuit than to follow the trail of clues as
far up the chain-of-command at Goldman as the evidence warranted. Serious consideration also never
was given to fraud theories in any of the Big Bank cases stemming from the Great Recession that would
better tell the story of how investors were defrauded and who was responsible, due either to dereliction
or design.
Instead, the SEC restricted its investigation to the narrowest theory of liability, had to be
pressed (by me) to go even one short rung above the lowest level Goldman supervisor in its investigation
(which took months to push through, though investigative subpoenas are frequently issued on far less
in far smaller cases) and finally dropped other investigations of Goldman in return for a $550 million
settlement
announced July 15, 2010. To my knowledge (I retired in March 2014), the SEC never again pursued
Goldman for its mortgage securities fraud or other major fraud. There is no evidence on the SEC website
that it did so.
At a minimum, it can be said that the SEC left 90 percent of the money on the table at a time
when a more aggressive investigation of the company, as well as others, could have counted for something
by disclosing, in a detailed court complaint, Wall Street wrongs that might have helped policy makers
better address the subject and allow damaged individuals and entities to bring their own lawsuits.
It is very important to emphasize emphatically several points. First, I have zero evidence, and
would be very surprised, if any of the individuals at the Division of Enforcement, including senior
supervisors or the SEC chairman or associate commissioners, acted unlawfully or were motivated principally
to protect Goldman and other big banks. All of these people appeared well-intentioned from their
point of view, even they never really explained, to me, or to many others at the Commission, their
motives in limiting investigations. The most senior level supervisors left more lucrative jobs in
the private sector to head the Division of Enforcement, taking plum jobs but at significant personal
sacrifice. (They then returned to even more lucrative employment or even more high-profile public
positions.) All of them were gentlemen. These factors make it all the more surprising that I never
got a clear answer as to why the investigation was so constipated, as it obviously was. Its range
was clearly limited from the outset: we will sue the bank and not look hard for evidence of individual
participation beyond the lowest levels.
By the same token, it is unfair to assume as a fact that any of the individuals at Goldman not
sued, or anyone at Paulson & Co., violated the securities laws, civilly or criminally. Like any citizen,
they are entitled to a day in court. Absent such opportunity, they are innocent of any wrongdoing.
Arguments in my internal correspondence that evidence was sufficient to sue should be viewed only
as that - arguments.
So my point in releasing these documents to Pro Publica is not to chastise or hold up
to public criticism those involved at the SEC, Paulson & Co. or Goldman, though criticism of the
process and of the underlying financial conduct certainly is inevitable. All of these institutions
have substantial influence in the investment industry. Rather, it is to bring to light the actual
conduct of one of several SEC investigations into Big Bank fraud leading up to the 2008 financial
crisis.
As I told Mr. Eisinger when I met him, I hoped he would go to the individuals in charge of the
SEC investigation at the time and find out why the investigation was so limited. I have spent six
years wondering what is the true answer to that question. Perhaps there were sound reasons, other
than the urge to get out a quick press release, which led experienced criminal prosecutors with histories
in Wall Street to smother a major investigation by limiting it to the lowest level employee possible,
to express total resistance to even investigating further up the chain of command, and ignoring without
serious explanation and analysis what I and others, including my own immediate supervisors, viewed
as the more appropriate theory for civil prosecution. I hope there are such reasons. As a trial attorney
at the SEC for over 20 years, I bled SEC blue. I believed that the agency usually tried to do the
best it could, using analog era procedures and processes to combat fraud in a digital age. I am saddened
to release this information. But the notion that "the Administration was tough on Wall Street" must
be addressed by facts, not press releases and self-serving interviews, else the system's problems
cannot be adequately addressed and repaired to deal with the next financial crisis.
Not only is the issue of how the financial sector enforcement agencies handled the wrongs of the
Great Recession an important political issue, but it is important to history. It is important that
the facts not be shielded from the public so that we can all learn for the future. And it is a melancholy
thought that, presented with the opportunity for a rigorous investigation and airing of facts in
civil or criminal proceedings gone, history will be denied a fairer story of both the financial crisis
itself and how the government responded.
As
many news organizations have noted , the taxpayer and Goldman shareholders will pay the combination
of penalties and repayments in the DOJ settlement. No individual was named as liable in the civil
settlement with Goldman nor in any of the other similar, and even larger, financial settlements entered
into with the Department of Justice, all of which are vastly greater than what the SEC obtained in
its "quick hit, one and done" enforcement actions. DOJ must be credited with what appears to have
been a far more thorough investigation of wrongdoing than the SEC performed, but the public is properly
mystified that no individuals were charged, criminally or civilly, although the DOJ press releases
contains the usual caveat that "the investigation continues."
The settlements with Goldman and other Big Banks were resolved under the Financial Institutions
Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA), which allows the Feds to ignore the normal five-year
statute of limitations for fraud, but does not permit suit by private party victims. As has been
the practice with DOJ when dealing with Wall Street, no criminal charge was brought. In fact, no
complaint was filed in any of these cases. Instead, DOJ entered into contractual arrangements with
the banks. Failing to fulfill their obligations under the contract would subject them to civil enforcement
as a breach of contract matter, not a contempt charge in federal District Court.
Contrary to claims by politicians, it is clear that the Obama Administration has not been hard-hitting
on Wall Street fraudsters. The large fines obtained by the Department of Justice, while a short-term
pinch, are simply a cost of doing business. Relying on fines to penalize rich Wall Street banks,
which, after all, specialize in making money and do it well, if not always honestly, is like fining
Campbell Soup in chicken broth. It costs something, but doesn't change anything in the way of operations
or personnel.
Despite billions in fines representing many more billions in fraud, the enforcement agencies of
the United States have been unable to find anyone responsible criminally or civilly for this huge
business misconduct other than a janitor or two at the lowest rung of the companies. Nor have they
sought to impose systemic changes to these banks to prevent similar frauds from happening again.
Yessir, according to the Obama administration, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bank of America, Citibank
and other institutions made their contributions to tearing down the economy, but no one was responsible.
They are ghost companies. And nothing needs to be done to prevent such intent or dereliction in the
future.
Law enforcement by contract? Clearly, the banks made it a condition of settlement that no complaint,
civil or criminal, be filed. That might gum up the works by requiring state regulators to take action
under their own rules, or cause other collateral consequences.
Ah, say the defenders of the status quo, don't forget about Dodd-Frank, the unwieldy legislation
passed by feckless Democrats influenced by big money contributors and their own fear of appearing
too aggressive (a particular Democratic Party contagion). Dodd-Frank was and is a virtual chum pool
for Wall Street lawyers and lobbyists, leaving most of the substance to regulatory agencies such
as the SEC and the Federal Reserve, who for years have been significantly captured by those they
are supposed to regulate. The private sector lawyers and lobbyists have open doors to these places
to "help" write the rules and add complexity, which they later complain about in court, challenging
those same rules as too complex.
Dear citizen, just remember this: complexity favors fraud, and certainly favors Wall Street and
corporate America. You can't understand the rules and neither can Congress or all but the most dedicated
experts. That's a lot of room to disguise misdeeds. To take a current example, which came to my attention
just before completing this post, Congress is trying to use sentencing reform, generally thought
of as intending to remove inequities from the criminal justice system, to also make it even tougher
to prosecute and punish white-collar crime. Is this why the Koch Brothers suddenly show such public
attention to the poor and needy by favoring such legislation?
See this discussion of adding the "mens rea" requirement to such legislation. Burying an important
but legalistic issue in otherwise liberal leaning legislation is a current example of disguising
lax enforcement of white-collar crime in a complicated package. As one Democratic congressman suggested,
how can a liberal vote against sentencing reform? The explanation of the badger buried in the woodpile
is too complicated for the average voter.
Not coincidentally, adding a requirement to the law that it is a defense to either the crime itself
or to sentencing that "I didn't know my acts were against the law" is a get out of jail free card
as the complexity of laws addressed to ever more sophisticated business misconduct grows. Wall Street
clearly has shown no shame in using the defense that "no one knew". Can't blame them. It has worked
so far. Maybe they don't even need new legislation.
I was told repeatedly when I entered the Goldman investigation that synthetic CDOs were just too
complex for me to understand. Of course, it appeared to be plain vanilla fraud selling a product
designed to fail but nicely packaged for chumps to buy. Claims of complexity hide many easily understood
sins.
At least for the major sins, we don't need even more complex regulations. Instead, put leadership
in place who will aggressively enforce the laws we have already. That would raise plenty of eyebrows
and put some bums in prison, or at least make them pay civil and criminal penalties personally. As
many have noted, prison or, at least, personal financial liability, beats corporate concessions every
time and pays back in future reluctance to break the law. The country should try it sometime.
So back to little me, a small and ineffective cog in the larger system. Why is this release of
documents so long after the investigation?
My friends know that I have been upset since 2010 about the way the SEC handled the Goldman case
and, in my view (confirmed by other trial lawyers), that it became a template for other SEC civil
suits against the Big Banks. In 2011 I wrote an anonymous letter to The New York Times complaining
about the lack of investigative effort by the Division of Enforcement and the impact of the "revolving
door" bringing Wall Street defense lawyers into the highest reaches of the SEC. This is a practice
that Obama has continued at most departments and agencies having to do with the financial system,
following in Bill Clinton's footsteps. The New York Times letter was based entirely on publicly
available information.
I was dismayed to not find any follow-up to my letter in The New York Times . I gave
up trying to bring attention to the investigative lassitude of the agency. Interest appeared to be
over.
A year after I retired, I sent a copy of the letter to The Times , under a cover letter
identifying myself. One of the addressees on the original letter called and told me the original
letter never was received. The caller suggested that was because I misaddressed it to the old location
of The New York Times . I felt foolish, of course, but I guess that in 2014, when the letter
was finally received, The Times didn't see fit to follow-up the information even knowing
its source. This was another indication to me that the time for debate over the law enforcement treatment
of wrong doers on Wall Street had passed.
Once, years earlier and only for a brief time, the SEC was an agency that was at least sometimes
fearless of Wall Street institutions. In those days, the directors of the Division of Enforcement
were home-grown, not imported from Wall Street law firms. After 1996, that ended. Every director
since has been nurtured as a Wall Street defense lawyer. The decline in performance has followed
an expected arc. No one has seemed bothered by this. It seems the phrase "lawyers represent client
interests" is sufficient explanation to insulate this practice from critics. In this view (pushed
by lawyers), lawyers are the only people in America who are not influenced by their work experience,
including friendships and defense of client practices. They are SO exceptional! So give it up, Jim,
I finally told myself. It's the nature of Washington to put foxes in hen houses and claim they are
protecting the fowl.
But in April 2015, Sen. Bernie Sanders announced his presidential candidacy, based principally
on anger over how Wall Street has escaped being held seriously responsible for its misdeeds. If you
credit Sanders with nothing else, praise him for not letting go of the notion of justice for those
who suffered and those who caused pain and anger for millions. Yes, the banks are not solely responsible
for the Great Recession, but they contributed more than their fair share and leveraged immensely
the damage initially caused by others.
Sanders was not treated seriously. The publications I read made it clear that Sanders was, like
Donald Trump, a flash in the pan. Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton would be nominated. Anger against
Wall Street and inequality were issues, but not worthy vehicles for a political campaign. Nothing
here. Move on.
It turns out that the ravages caused by Wall Street are the gift that keeps on giving. As Sanders
campaigned with far more success than predicted, and Secretary of State Clinton defended President
Obama as "tough on Wall Street," it was evident that my small contribution to correcting the record
might be timely.
So here it is.
Do I think Obama is responsible for the ineffective and embarrassing lay downs at the SEC and
DOJ? Yes, I do. I have no idea if the President communicated to his law enforcement appointees that
they should "go easy on Wall Street." Rarely is such overt instruction necessary in Washington. But
it is not hard to believe that in some fashion he did send such signals, since he came into office
with a mantra of letting bygones be bygones, including in the far more important arena of the false
narratives for invading Iraq.
In any event, the chairman of the SEC and the attorney general are appointed by the President.
At a minimum, we can say with certainty that Obama was satisfied with their performance. It is difficult
to conceive that, as a Harvard educated lawyer who also taught law at the University of Chicago,
it never crossed his mind how massive civil or criminal misconduct could go on without the supervision
or knowledge of at least mid-level executives. Certainly, the public criticism was brought to his
attention. His response was to create a joint task force on the subject of fraud in general. Its
main visible public function is to collect all the press releases on fraud prosecutions, including
small-time fraud, on one website . It also
offers advice to "elders" on how to avoid fraudulent scams. The pro forma mention of the
task force in DOJ's announcement of the Goldman settlement signals that the Task Force doesn't do
much. Again, law enforcement by press release.
The alternative possibility, never mentioned because it is preposterous, is that big Wall Street
firms so lack supervision of their lower level employees that fraud on a huge scale can be conducted
without the knowledge of even mid-level executives. At the SEC, at least, such a conclusion should
call for application of its "regulatory" function to impose supervisory conditions on the banks.
No such action was ever undertaken. Instead, it was "pay up some money and nevermind."
Dodd-Frank at best imposes generalized rules about bank size and other generic issues, rather
than addressing the kinds of fraudulent actions that actually occurred. It is appropriate for the
SEC or Federal Reserve to impose narrower changes in corporate practice to address specific kinds
of fraud. They are called "undertakings" and are often imposed by civil settlements with the SEC
or in litigated relief. It did not happen with the Big Bank frauds.
I believe that the American public is entitled to accurate information about how their government
works, including the important regulatory agencies. One way to do this is to fully disclose how the
sausage is made, especially when the process is defective. Self-promoting press releases swallowed
by a fawning business press is not sufficient. I knew I would not disclose any non-public information
about the Goldman investigation while the lawsuit against Fabrice Tourre was pending. He was the
one guy at Goldman the SEC sued personally. In fact, I think he was the only guy employed by any
of the big banks sued personally. (Another fellow who worked with the banks - not for the banks -
was sued in another case. He was found not liable, with the jury asking how come higher-ups were
not in the dock and urging the investigation to continue. It wasn't.) The Tourre case concluded a
few years ago with a verdict against the defendant. All appeals are exhausted. The statute of limitations
has expired for private actions. Disclosure of the information I had can do no harm to the public
or to pending litigation.
The only reason to keep the information secret is to prevent embarrassment to the SEC or to
those people who made decisions for the agency. Most of them left the SEC years ago. For public consumption,
I have tried to redact all names of the non-supervisory personnel in the Division of Enforcement
who worked on Goldman. I also must add that, as the emails show, for a period of time those dedicated
investigators were excited about the notion of bringing at least a slightly broader action than their
supervisors wanted. As is the case with much of the Division of Enforcement, the worker bees try
hard and usually are fearless. It is their bosses who frequently suppress their enthusiasm for policy,
political, or personal reasons.
As final egotistical end note, I must say that, despite all of my personal reservations about
his dedication to effective law enforcement in the financial sector, I voted for the President twice.
I will vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee. But I ask myself: Is this the best that two political
parties given de facto monopoly over selection of presidential candidates can do?
Whoever is nominated and elected, Republican or Democrat, I hope that he or she will recognize
the need to end the practice of hiring Wall Street personnel to run our financial enforcement agencies.
They should begin by looking to home-trained personnel to lead the major departments and agencies,
such as Treasury, the SEC and the Department of Justice, including the chief of the Antitrust Division.
These are the people who are responsible for these institutions on a daily basis and also understand
the nature and importance of their mission. They have a career stake in doing an effective job. Outsiders
are, in general, more interested in resume polishing for the next private job. Additionally, much
great talent leaves these agencies for their own more lucrative private careers when they see their
own chances for advancement blocked by outsiders or their energies trying to fairly but aggressively
enforce the law sapped by timid leadership.
One party has chastised our government on every occasion for nearly 40 years and shows no intention
of reining in Big Business or Wall Street. Directly or by implication, these attacks tarnish government
employees in general, making a public service career less attractive to our most talented citizens.
The other party has been indifferent or ineffective in its defense of civil service and has addressed
financial sector wrongs by adding to the complexity of the system rather than cutting through it.
As a result, some of our businesses are above the law.
Something has got to change. It will. The question is, will it be for the better?
The author is trying very hard to be nice to the point of being delusional. This is criminality
and corruption through and through, and it didn't end in '08. Don't be sad… get mad.
A little history: I was hired, first as an adjunct, then a tenure-track professor, by the interdisciplinary
Freshman teaching unit at my old university. Two years before I would have come up for tenure
(and gotten it) they axed the program and switched me, against its will, to the History Department.
And they reset my tenure clock to zero. Long story short, they were never going to tenure me.
So I slogged on and earned my pay and got my two kids through high school. By then, my wife wanted
out of the suburbs and said she was leaving, preferably with me, but leaving. So we moved to the
country. This cut me off from the academic life (and nice $72,000 a year paycheck) that I had
struggled for years to enter and excel in.
So what? So, It's gone. I'm cut off. My intended life's work is ruined. At 51 I'm an unemployed
naval historian with two books and seven refereed journal articles and I can't get an interview
for a full-time job at a community college. How painful is this? It's murder. Hurts all the time.
No more exciting lectures to give. No more university library at my beck and call. No more access
to journals. No more conferences. It's an occasional one-off course and driving a delivery van.
This man has risked a lot to do what he did. He's lost more than many of you will realize.
If he can't just crap on the old life and the old profession, please, cut the man a little slack.
You don't want to be him.
Mr Levy, I am very sympathetic to your situation – long story short, I was in the forefront
of the late 70s to the present, layoffs in various industries where I found myself game-fully
employed. I too, no longer believe I will ever be employed full time at any job.
But I argue that it is not that the gods do not favour us; it is that we are the outcome of
bad gov't policies and unregulated (regulated for the consumer) businesses practices. Hence, my
lack of sympathy or willingness to tolerate breast beating (see my April 24, 2016 at 6:44 am posting)
by those who put us here.
James A. Kidney, former trial attorney with the Securities and Exchange Commission, retired
from the SEC in 2014 at the age of 66 after 24 years working there. Looks like he had a full career,
although had to put up with a lot of bullshit, and possibly soured some relationships on his way
out.
Very similar situation here. Going on 50, unemployed in my chosen field, etc. And yes,
its hard to just walk away sometimes… I have to keep my mind focused ahead instead of looking
back.
Are there any yacht clubs nearby you? There is like 4 of them within 10 minutes of me (I'm
on the Great Lakes) You could teach sailing and rigging no doubt. Bonus: Union crane operators
are required to know their rigging – they may need teachers too.
More than ever, I am convinced the capitalist system needs to be rejected as the means determining
how goods and services are delivered. The injustice and inequality generated are too great. Finding
a positive expressive outlet for this dissatisfaction will require leadership- and a new vision
for the future.
The amount of social damage being inflicted by the elite is almost beyond comprehension. Since
they have successfully insulated themselves form the consequences of their actions, they remain
aloof and uncaring for the plight of ordinary people, not to mention the health of the planet.
This system will continue to cut more and more people off from the benefits of collective social
action and effort. The work of the many, supporting the desires of the few cannot stand.
We all have to decide the level of inequality we are willing to live with. How people answer
this question will naturally sort them into common communities. Leave the isolated gated communities
to the elite. Careerism, like capitalism, is a dead end if your position cannot be guaranteed.
The amount of talent and passion for work wasted under the current system is another undercounted
fact. Sustainability and democracy are not compatible with capitalism.
Getting mad is only the beginning. The anger must be directed in some productive fashion. Any
resistance to the current order must have broad social support and that support only has strength
if self-reliant. Building these self-reliant structures is what the future will hold. If the plutocrats
can build a world for themselves, why can't the common man. It only takes work,discipline, and
control over the means of production.
Workers without power, influence, and the means to obtain life necessities are slaves. Is the
best the human mind can conceive a life of benevolent serfdom?
By the way, I believe I would enjoy sitting in on one of your lectures. I'm sure I would learn
much- and be a better man for it.
@James Levy … sorry to hear. I know a few who have been chewed up by the academic meat grinder.
I hope you can find a productive outlet for your scholarship. Exile is hard.
"The explanation of the badger buried in the woodpile is too complicated for the average voter."
That's it! Stop right there! I will not let you (speaking to the author) BS your guilty conscience
over my internet link. The average voter clearly knows they are getting screwed, that Wall Street
and the voter's own bank is ripping the voter off, and most clearly, that the justice department,
from state and local to federal, is enabling this injustice.
You sir, are swimming with sharks. Your morality is "is it legal?", your justification is "for
the shareholder". Therefore, you refuse to see the mendacity and instead excuse it for ignorance.
I know other whistleblowers and internal dissenters who wound up losing their jobs who
initially blame themselves, than come to accept that the system in which they operated was fundamentally
corrupt, that even if some people locally really were trying to do the right thing, it was bound
to either 1. go nowhere, 2. be allowed to proceed to a more meaningful level if it was cosmetic
or served some larger political purpose or 3. got elevated because the organization was suddenly
in trouble and they needed to burnish their cred in a big way (a variant of 2, except with 3,
you might have a something serious take place by happenstance of timing).
Wow, that's a mouthful – and it's only one sentence. Whilst I love your pieces, I've noticed
that many of the articles – at least the run up summation to the articles – tend to be written
in a stream-of-consciousness style that, frankly, is hard to digest. This seems to be the case
more now than in the past. I don't know if you're harried or on an impossible schedule, but could
you please make your syntax easier to read? Thanks from a long-time reader and donator.
Because it's a Sunday and I have time to goof off, one potential revision - b/c I believe what
Mr Kidney has to say is important enough for me to spend a few minutes on one potential suggestion.
I've amended and added what I hope are accurate meanings:
----
Focusing on these as the key subject /verb pairs: I know (other whistleblowers) (other whistleblowers) [lost their jobs] (other whistleblowers) [blamed themselves – initially]
(other whistleblowers) [finally… accept] the system in which they operated … [was corrupt]
… even if… (some employees) tried to [be competent]
(It - there's a problem with 'it' as the subject, because we are unclear what 'it'
refers back to - I'll interpret 'it' as 'investigating fraud' ) was bound to…
-------------–
I know other whistleblowers and internal dissenters. They wound up losing their jobs.
Initially, they blamed themselves, until they finally came to accept that the system in which
they operated was so fundamentally corrupt that they could not retain a sense of their own integrity
while working within the organization.
Despite the fact that some people really were trying to do the right thing, for reasons that
I will explain, investigating fraud was bound to go in one of only three directions:
1. fraud would not be investigated at all,
2. fraud investigation would serve the agency's need for better public relations - in other words,
the appearance of fraud investigation would be allowed to proceed, but only if it was merely cosmetic
(or served some larger political purpose), or else
3. fraud investigation became temporarily elevated, but only because the organization* was suddenly
in trouble – and consequently, needed to burnish its credibility by actually investigating fraud.
(Although 3 is a variant of 2, in the third option, credible fraud investigation could occur
if, and only if, political necessity enabled competent SEC employees to actually investigate fraud
in order to maintain the reputation of the SEC).
[NOTE: *It's not entirely clear here whether 'the organization' is the target business, or
whether it is the SEC (which would need to burnish it's cred in the face of bad publicity)]
------------
Not sure how close I came to the author's intended meanings, but I thought that I'd give it
a shot.
The sentence parses correctly even though it is long. Stream of consciousness often does not
parse correctly, plus another characteristic is the jumbling of ideas or observations. The point
is to try to recreate the internal state of the character.
For instance, from David Lodge's novel "The British Museum Is Falling Down":
It partook, he thought, shifting his weight in the saddle, of metempsychosis, the way his
humble life fell into moulds prepared by literature. Or was it, he wondered, picking his nose,
the result of closely studying the sentence structure of the English novelists? One had resigned
oneself to having no private language any more, but one had clung wistfully to the illusion
of a personal property of events. A find and fruitless illusion, it seemed, for here, inevitably
came the limousine, with its Very Important Personage, or Personages, dimly visible in the
interior. The policeman saluted, and the crowd pressed forward, murmuring 'Philip', 'Tony',
'Margaret', 'Prince Andrew'.
More generally:
The Stream of Consciousness style of writing is marked by the sudden rise of thoughts and
lack of punctuations.
The sentence may be longer than you like but this is not stream of consciousness. A clear logical
structure ("first, second, third") is the antithesis of stream of consciousness.
I fail to see why fraud is not prosecuted. We can get cute with fancy words but fraud is clear
and simple. Also – Enron results in SARBOX which seems to be clearly ignored. Yves – do we know
of any SARBOX prosecutions? Clinton started deregulation, Bush implemented deregulation and Obama
maintains it. No wonder the kids are mad. The financial industry makes the Koch brothers look
like pikers.
There is actually a high legal bar to prosecuting fraud.
I have written at length re Sarbox and the answer is no. And under Sarbox, you don't need to
prosecute, you can start with a civil case and flip it to criminal if you get strong enough evidence
in discovery. There was only one case (IIRC, with Angelo Mozilo) where the SEC filed Sarbox claims,
one in which it also filed securities law claims. The judge threw out the Sarbox claims with no
explanation. I assume it was because the judge regarded that as doubling up: you can do Sarbox
or securities law (the claims to have some similarity) but not both. But the SEC as it so often
does seems to have lost its nerve after that one.
I don't know if an election would have consequences and if a new administration headed by Sanders
would make it the SEC more responsible to the taxpayers and not the investors / banks.
It only took a decade for Markopolos to have his ponzi scheme information read by SEC.
I want to like this guy, I really do. But then he goes and says stuff like this:
The most senior level supervisors left more lucrative jobs in the private sector to head
the Division of Enforcement, taking plum jobs but at significant personal sacrifice. (They
then returned to even more lucrative employment or even more high-profile public positions.)
All of them were gentlemen. These factors make it all the more surprising that I never got
a clear answer as to why the investigation was so constipated, as it obviously was.
So he doesn't understand how the revolving door works…or he does but he's being purposefully
obtuse about it. Sacrifice my ass! Gentleman my heiny! And claiming that there's no proof of criminality
when, as is pointed out above, Sarbanes-Oxley was obviously violated isn't helping things either.
Listen dude, pick a side. It's either the American people or Wall Street crooks and their abettors
in government. You don't get to have it both ways. This kind of minimization and wishy-washyness
is only helping the crooks. More disappointing than I exepected.
these kinds of articles are nothing more than defensive measures against a growing public
rage !!!
I don't actually agree. I think the guy feels a little guilty for not doing more, now he's
trying to salve his conscience. Still, he can't quite bring himself to admit that the people he
was working for may well have been criminals. They were just so nice!
Self-reflection is not comfortable, and most people don't have much tolerance for it. I think
this guy's legitimately trying to do the right thing (not cover up for criminality) it's just
that it's really psychologically difficult to admit certain aspects of reality. It's not like
he's the only one.
I find it telling that suddenly now (within the last year or so) that all these people ( people
in high finance, their underlings, traders, hedge funders, and other assorted enablers of massive
fraud upon the general public, are suddenly having a 'come to hayzeus' epiphany! I'm not buying
whatever faux sincerity they're trying to project…….
They've screwed millions of trusting people with their fraudulent grifting!
> I find it telling that suddenly now (within the last year or so) that all these people […],
are suddenly having a 'come to hayzeus' epiphany!
Especially when it comes after a fat retirement and a lengthy career of going along. I have
much more respect for people who really did put their daily bread on the line, and there are plenty
of those people, a lot of whom Obama sent to jail. So, yeah, great, you finally told the truth…
but where were you when the country needed you to speak out?
Couldn't we use civil forfeiture to go after them regardless of whether we can prove any actual
crime? What's good for the average citizen is surely good for the elite banker…
It's a good thing they're gentlemen. I don't know if I could handle all the looting and self-dealing
if it came from common ruffians. Truly we are fortunate to be in such hands, my fellow countrymen!
According to Bill Black in a ted talk 2014. After the Savings and loans debacle, where the
regulators went after the worst of the worst criminals, they made 30.000 criminal referrals and
1000 procecutions with a 90% succes rate.
Now after the 2008 crisis, which was 70 times bigger causing 10 million job losses and costing
11 trillion dolllars, the Obama administration has not made one single criminal referral.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JBYPcgtnGE
Today I fell over some information about the IMF, that the organization is exempt from legal
prosecutions and taxes. Can this be true?
From the article: "The employees who bare the IMF badge are pretty much exempt from all forms
of government intervention. And, according to LisaHavenNews, the IMF "law book," the Articles
of Agreement lists the reasons and requirements for exclusion from government mandate."
Thank you, I was hoping someone would mention Bill Black.
I'm a software/hardware product/business development engineer. In 2008, after 20 years of reading
the WSJ and stunned by the sellout to Murdoch, I went to the internet independent media (IM) to
follow the 'economic crisis'. Within a few months it was clear to me 1) I had learned nothing
of substance reading the WSJ, 2) the U.S. MSM, education system, and government are thoroughly
captured/corrupt.
Being a 'reader' (note: I don't know anyone who reads non-fiction) for me this 'worldview transition'
was quite natural, nothing really surprised me, and it was a big relief to discover such good
information/analysis so easily available on the internet. However, eight years later, I have yet
to meet a single person who has rejected the MSM or tuned in to what's happening, via the IM or
otherwise. In fact, after leaving the university in 1990, I have yet to meet a single person with
any basic understanding of (or the slightest interest in, or concern about) the extreme institutional
criminality of the the Savings & Loan Crisis, Asian Economic Crisis, Technology Bubble, the 2008
crisis, or the many economic/military wars-of-aggression methodically destroying one government/economy/country
after another.
To me, nothing made the global/economic/organized/mafia criminality more clear than the 2008/2009
articles by Bill Black. Back then I again foolishly assumed people would rally behind Dr. Black
to reestablish basic law enforcement against yet another obvious largest-ever "epidemic" of organized
crime. Looking back, the highly organized (and very successful) criminality of the Paulson/Obama/Geithner/Bernanke/etc.
cabal was truly an amazing operation to behold. Perhaps the most shocking news came in 2010 when
numerous studies confirmed that the top 7% of Americans had already "profited" from the economic
crisis, that the criminally organized upper class had not only increased their net wealth but,
more importantly, had increased their rate of wealth accumulation relative to the bottom 93%.
Still, to me, infinitely more amazing, the bottom 93% didn't, and still don't, seem to care, or
if they do, they've done absolutely nothing to even start to fight back.
Today, when reading these articles, I'm astounded how completely meek and 'unorganized' the
bottom 93% are compared to the extremely vicious and organized top 7%. Year after year the wealthy
elite, who's core organizing philosophy is "take or be taken, kill or be killed", increasingly
wallow in dangerously high and unprecedented levels of wealth accumulated by blatant/purposeful/methodical/criminal/vicious
looting while their victims, the bottom 93% 'working class', do absolutely nothing (what are they
doing?…. other than playing with their phone-toys, facebook, video games, movies?). At this point,
the main (only?) reason I continue to 'read' is to perhaps someday 'behold' the working class
93% attempting to educate themselves and consequently 'organize' to defend themselves.
I sympathize with Mr. Kidney and applaud him for doing what he can to try to rectify this abhorrent
situation. I also applaud him for placing the blame squarely on Obama and his reasons for doing
so are solid.
What I find much harder to understand is why he would vote for Obama even in 2012 after it
became apparent that Obama was ultimately responsible for stonewalling his investigation, and
his complete willingness to vote for the corrupt Democrat party no matter what going forward.
As long as enough people continue to have that attitude things will never change until the
whole system comes crashing down. I'd much rather see an FDR-type overhaul of the system rather
than a complete collapse as I'm rather fond of civilization. But I've come to expect the latter
rather than the former so I'll be reading my weekly Archdruid report for the foreseeable future.
The most senior level supervisors left more lucrative jobs in the private sector to head
the Division of Enforcement, taking plum jobs but at significant personal sacrifice. (They
then returned to even more lucrative employment or even more high-profile public positions.)
All of them were gentlemen. These factors make it all the more surprising that I never got
a clear answer as to why the investigation was so constipated, as it obviously was.
Yes poor babies for that "significant personal sacrifice" that resulted in "even more lucrative"
private employment. The author explains the problem then scratches his head over what it might
be.
In a rational world there would be a strict separation between the regulated and the regulators.
The government would hire professional experts at decent salaries and they never ever would be
allowed to then move on to jobs with the regulated. Clearly the assumption underlying our current–irrational–system
is that these high status technocrats are "gentlemen" with a code of honor. Welcome to the 19th
century. Those long ago plutocrats in their stately English mansions were all gentlemen and therefore
entitled to their privileges by their superior breeding. They were the better sort.
Meanwhile for lesser mortals it seems totally unsurprising when laws are ignored because you
hire your police from the ranks of the criminal gangs. No head scratching needed.
Reid Muoio (boss of kidney @ $EC) has a brother at a major tall bldg law firm whose job is
to help fortune 500 companies deal with D & O insurance issues…so when in the article Muoio says
"He" did not go thru the revolving door…it was fraud by omission…his brother sits on the opposite
side of these private settlement agreements…
so is Kidney unaware…leaving us to maybe accept he was never much of an investigator…or just
forgot to point it out for us…
The world is full of govt types who tell us TINA…
The wealthy Elliott Spitzer told us he would have loved to help "the little people" but the
OCC and then scotus with waters v wachovia…except scotus ruled only direct subsidiaries get protection
and the OCC specifically said the trustee operations of OCC regulated entities are also not covered/protected…
Does anyone else think this was insider demolition – not just the failure to prosecute, but
the whole financial implosion in the first place? Who writes up nothing but "shitty deals" – all
the while saying to each other: IBGYBG and survives to slink away? They must have had a heads
up that the financial system as we had known it in the 20th c. was done. They had a heads up and
then they got free passes. My only question is, Wasn't there a better way to bring down the system,
an honest way that protected us all? By the end of the cold war money itself had become an inconvenience
because of diminishing returns. And now the stuff is just plain dangerous because everyone who
got screwed (99%) wants their fair share still. It is paralyzing our thinking. Obama maintains
he personally "prevented another depression". I honestly think he might be insane. What we need
is a recognition that the old system was completely irrational and it isn't coming back. And most
of us are SOL. Somebody is going to figure out how to maintain both the value and usefulness of
money very soon, because we've got work to do.
The GFC was the first great financial crime of this millenium, and Goldman Sachs was at the
epicenter. A heist of gargantuan proportions, they didn't even need a safecracker after Bernanke
spun the dials and opened the door wide.
Imagine if the FBI and the Mafia exchanged their top leaders every few months. That's what
we have here with the SEC and Wall Street.
Bernie Sanders: The business of Wall Street is fraud and greed.
We can add to that. The business of the SEC is to provide cover.
In Yves intro she shares her views, first, that Kidney still wants to think well of his former
SEC colleagues and his criticisms seem muted relative to the severity of the problems, and second,
that there are class assumptions at work.
The first is obvious, as the SEC is an utter failure in its responsibility to investigate and
prosecute financial criminals. While Mr. Kidney devotes a fair amount of his passages pondering
how it can be that no individuals within these financial institutions bear personal responsibility,
Mr. Kidney fails to see the SEC through that same lens. To say Kidney's criticism of his coworkers
is muted is an understatement. The individuals at the SEC are corrupt. The individuals at the
Justice Department are corrupt. Probably all nice people: husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, friends,
etc. Just like those folks at the financial institutions. Mr. Kidney cuts them slack because of
his personal relationships with them. Mr. Kidney chooses to give them the benefit of doubt when
the totality of their professional performance at the SEC make clear this cannot be true.
With respect to class assumptions at work, Yves illustrates with the deference shown by SEC
officials and investigators toward these financial criminals and their presumption that these
individuals are honest. Mr. Kidney does share some of his disappointment in President Obama and
Obama's administration but fails to properly connect the dots. In short, the lack of financial
crime prosecutions is the result of a deliberate, planned and orchestrated effort.
Mr. Kindney's investigations were prevented in going forward by his superiors. He was never
given an explanation for this despite his asking. But Kidney believes his superiors are all good
people.
No, they are not. They are compromised people who have placed their career employment above
their sworn duty. The fact that their bosses have done the same, as have those in the Justice
Department as well as President Obama, should not diminish this fact. The phrase "class assumptions"
is too euphemistic when describing a system where there is no justice for the victims of financial
crimes, a system where the Justice Department and Administration coordinate to shield financial
criminals based on where they work.
This is America. In today's America the fact is certain individuals are above the law because
our elected officials at all levels accept that this is okay. Victims of these individuals will
be prevented access to their legal recourse, and that these criminals are protected from the highest
level of our government down. This goes way, way beyond class assumptions.
Yves has written extensively about how corporate interests have funded academic sinecures,
as well as continuing legal education seminars attended by attorneys and judges. This is part
of the fallout; if you want more, check out her section of ECONned where she explains how legal
thinking was perverted by business interests.
As someone who has fallen on their sword more than once (and again recently), I just want to
say that "placed their career employment above their sworn duty" is accurate but also oversimplifies
the situation.
People with families tell themselves that they balance performance of most (some?) of those
duties, while shirking the balance in order to protect their families (a "good" (as in, expensive)
college for the kids)… this actually comes down to sustaining their social status, in a culture
(political as well as corporate) where loyalty is valued equal to and above performance, and honorable
action is diminished, trivialized, even ridiculed; and not just within the context of the financial
industry.
This is not at all a defense of the choice, but the choice is made in a very class-stratified
social context, and arises in that general context. People take out loans to buy cars and houses,
they squirrel earnings away into investments (to avoid taxes) which they are reluctant to draw
from… they feel less ready to abandon their addictive income streams for honor, and fudge their
responsibilities. It's not isolated to regulators, or government, or even finance. It occurs so
constantly and on so many fronts that addressing specific cases doesn't make a dent in the compromise
of the entire culture. And that compromise is fueled and maintained by a very twisted set of ideas
about money, and career, and social status (not to mention compromises in journalism, education,
science, you name it).
I read Mr kidney as being very sarcastic. I could not write this with a serious sarcastic (Lawsuit
Avoiding) view:
The most senior level supervisors left more lucrative jobs in the private sector to head
the Division of Enforcement, taking plum jobs but at significant personal sacrifice. (They
then returned to even more lucrative employment or even more high-profile public positions.)
taking plum jobs but at significant personal sacrifice
Oh really? Must have hurt. And from a legal point of view does not appear libelous.
"... One problem with reporters is that they aren't a separate profession with a standard code of ethics or standard form of credentials. And journalists should not be like lawyers, organized before the bar into a self-perpetuating and self-serving organization. That written, Frank Bruni is the great mysterious counterexample (what credentials? what qualifications? why?). ..."
"... Yet the lack of an organization with "teeth" keeps reporters on the defensive against the accommodationist editors, the advertisers, and the board of directors larded with the usual knuckleheads. Would that the Newspaper Guild had more power. ..."
"... The development of the M.B.A. and M.F.A. in the last thirty or so years attests to a degree as time served to get a better job. So the M.B.A. has given us endless talent-free bean counters trained in bad business practices and shoddy economics. The M.F.A. gives us endless first novels of a uniform middling quality and careers in burgeoning writing programs producing more of such snooze-filled novels. Among journalists, the masters in journalism has not proved to be protection or a stamp of quality, either. ..."
Readers liked
our last post on life under neoliberalism and the
salaried (or
professional (or "
20%") ) classes, and the question we posed: "How do these people live with themselves?" So here's
another one! This time, I'm going to compare and contrast life in the newsroom at the Las Vegas
Review-Journa and The New York Times .
Looking at these classes, credentials matter. (Again, I should caveat that these are my people;
I was raised the child of professors in America's Golden Age of higher education and shaped for that
sort of career myself; back in the day, when tenure was a realistic possibility for many, and academics
didn't have to hold outside fundraisers for their projects. And when there were careers.) For example,
attaining an M.D. is different from learning a skill; as a doctor, one takes the Hippocratic Oath.
CPAs have a required ethics exam. Even lawyers!
If economists ask themselves "What good is a degree?" the answer is "to
signal
a requirement for a higher salary!" (because it's not easy to rank the professions by the quality
of what they deliver). We as citizens might answer that professionals are in some ways amphibians:
They serve both private ends and preserve public goods, and the education for which they
are granted their credentials forms them for this service. For example, a doctor who prescribes medications
for his patients because Big Pharma takes him golfing is no doctor but corrupt; he's mixed up public
and private. He didn't follow his oath. Similarly, a reporter (see Terry Pratchett's wonderful
The Truth ) who only serves the interests of his publication's owner is no reporter but
corrupt; a public relations specialist, say. Or a servant.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal
First, let's look at an episode at the Las Vegas Review-Journal. As readers may remember, the
LVJR was purchased by Sheldon Adelson, international
gambling squillionaire,
publisher
, and campaign contributor (
Israel ). I won't use the word
"corrupt," but feel free to think it . Hilariously, Adelson did not disclose his purchase
- no problems with optics there! - and it was left to the LVJR reporting staff to treat the matter
as a story, and reveal their new owner.
Here's the story the LVJR broke:
After six days of uncertainty surrounding News + Media Capital Group LLC - a newly formed Delaware-domiciled
company backed by "undisclosed financial backers with expertise in the media industry" - the Review-Journal
on Wednesday confirmed that Adelson's son-in-law, Patrick Dumont, arranged the company's $140
million purchase of the newspaper on behalf of the chairman and CEO of Las Vegas Sands. …
Last week's sale saw News + Media pay around $38 million more than New Media Investment Group
paid in March for all of Stephens Media LLC, a national chain of eight daily newspapers that included
the Review-Journal.
It remains unclear if that inflated purchase price came with strings attached to the Adelsons.
"The way the Adelson family began its ownership of the Review-Journal - with secrecy, deception,
and one opaque announcement after another - does not inspire confidence," said media critic and
New York University professor Jay Rosen. "Possibly this rocky start could be overcome, but the
place to begin would have been with the public announcement of the purchase. In that announcement
there is nothing about preserving the independence of the Review-Journal newsroom from undue influence
by Sheldon Adelson, who as everyone knows is one of the most powerful people in the state and
in Republican politics nationwide.
"What creative measures were announced to insulate news coverage from the enormous wealth and
power of the Adelson family? None that I can see. And that does not inspire confidence," Rosen
said.
Whether Mr. Adelson will ultimately try to shape the paper's coverage remains to be seen. But
in the weeks since he has owned the paper, reporters said, several articles about the paper have
been heavily reviewed and edited to remove quotes that could be viewed as unfavorable to the new
owners.
An article about Mr. Hengel's resignation was trimmed before it was published from about 20
paragraphs to three and stripped of nearly all of Mr. Hengel's comments, according to people familiar
with the article. The article ran on Wednesday inside the paper. Similarly, an initial article
on the paper's website about the sale was edited after it was published to remove references to
the buyer's unknown identity.
Within five hours, the immediate inherent conflicts of Adelson ownership made themselves highly
apparent. The Review-Journal reported that Adelson had met with the ownership of Oakland Raiders
football team, hoping to lure them to Las Vegas and into a new "public/private"-funded $1 billion
domed stadium.
The new publisher has reviewed each stadium story since, and the stories have seen numerous
Moon-directed edits, several sources confirm. Those edits include removing key points of fact
on what may turn out to become a $600 million-plus public investment in a football stadium. At
least one stadium story was killed, as well, my sources confirm.
It is near impossible to overestimate the depth of the conflict involved in the Adelson
ownership. As a major player in the gaming industry in Las Vegas, Macau and Singapore, top
donor to Republican Party candidates and now the booster of a "public-private" funded football
stadium, Adelson-related stories have appeared in the R-J for years. For years, the paper has
"lawyered" each Adelson-related story, given the magnate's history of litigiousness. Now that
review is being done in house, with very different results.
Las Vegas Columnist Quits After Ban On Writing About Adelson
"If I can't do my job, if I can't hold the heavyweights in the community to account, then I'm
just treading water," the columnist, John L. Smith, told NPR in an interview. "It wasn't an easy
decision to make, but there was no other decision to make - at least in my mind."
Smith had written columns for the Review-Journal for nearly three decades, with a frequent
focus on Adelson, one of the most powerful figures in Nevada gambling and national Republican
politics. The billionaire sued Smith for libel over a passage in a 2005 book about power players
of Las Vegas.
Smith prevailed in court, but paying the fees helped bankrupt him. (NPR told that remarkable
story, including a rabbi's offer of a secret $200,000 payoff from Adelson for Smith to admit libel,
earlier this year.) Years later, the case has helped trigger the end of Smith's career at the
Review-Journal, as his new bosses cited it as a conflict of interest [!!!].
Now, all of the above is prelude to John L. Smith's resignation letter, of which he left a copy
on every desk in the LVJR news-room:
Clearly, John L. Smith is somebody who can live with himself.[1] And now we turn to the New York
Times.
Were Changes to Sanders Article 'Stealth Editing'?
An
article by Jennifer Steinhauer, published online, carried the headline "Bernie Sanders Scored
Victories for Years via Legislative Side Doors." It described the way the Vermont senator had
managed a significant number of legislative victories in Congress despite the political independence
that might have hindered him.
The article stayed in essentially that form for several hours online – with some very minor
tweaks - but in the late afternoon, Times editors made significant changes to its tone and content,
turning it from almost glowing to somewhat disparaging. The later headline
read : "Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories."
And these two paragraphs were added:
But in his presidential campaign Mr. Sanders is trying to scale up those kinds of proposals
as a national agenda, and there is little to draw from his small-ball legislative approach
to suggest that he could succeed.
Mr. Sanders is suddenly promising not just a few stars here and there, but the moon and
a good part of the sun, from free college tuition paid for with giant tax hikes to a huge increase
in government health care, which has made even liberal Democrats skeptical.
(Readers will recognize that both paragraphs are heavily larded with Clinton campaign talking
points.) Here I'll skip Sullivan's summary of the obvious problems with these changes; in addition
to several readers, she links to
Medium ,
Matt Taibbi , and
Robert Reich , too. So, to the institutional issues:
I asked top editors at The Times, along with Ms. Steinhauer and her immediate editor, for response.
(The executive editor, Dean Baquet, also
responded to Erik Wemple of The Washington Post on Tuesday night, and Ms. Steinhauer responded
to the Rolling Stone piece. Both said, in essence, that the changes were routine efforts to add
context to an evolving story.)
[The reporter, Jennifer] Steinhauer, in a response to my email, suggested that I speak to editors
because "it was an editing decision."…
So, what happened here? Matt Purdy, a deputy executive editor, said that when senior editors
read the piece after it was published online, they thought it needed more perspective about whether
Mr. Sanders would be able to carry out his campaign agenda if he was elected president.
"I thought it should say more about his realistic chances" of doing that, Mr. Purdy told me.
As first published, he said, editors believed that the article "didn't approach that question."
"There was a feeling that the story wasn't written into this moment," Mr. Purdy said. After
the editing changes, he said, "it got to be a deeper story," with greater context.
Three editors told me in no uncertain terms that the editing changes had not been made in response
to complaints from the Clinton camp. Did the Clinton people even reach out?
"Not that I know of," Mr. Baquet told me in an email. The article's immediate editor, Michael
Tackett, agreed: "There's zero evidence of that."
("Not that I know of" and "There's zero evidence of that" are both what somebody with a sufficiently
cynical cast of mind might call non-denial denials.)
My take: The changes to this story were so substantive that a reader who saw the piece when
it first went up might come away with a very different sense of Mr. Sanders's legislative accomplishments
than one who saw it hours later. (The Sanders campaign shared the initial story on social media;
it's hard to imagine it would have done that if the edited version had appeared first.)
(Note that the Sanders campaign had distributed the URL to original Times article. So, when the
Times editors made their unannounced changes at the same URL , they pulled the rug out from
the Sanders campaign, who would hardly have distributed a link to an article that supported major
Clinton campaign talking points.
Comparing and Contrasting
From the reader's perspective, is there any substantive difference between what the Adelson-owned
LVJR did to its stories on Adelson, and what the Times did to its story on Sanders? Is there a substantive
difference between removing material unfavorable to the owner or suppressing stories unfavorable
to his business interests, and gratuitously inserting material egregiously favorable to a newspaper's
endorsed candidate? Especially when, in each case, the paper makes no mention of the change? I don't
think so.
However, from the newsroom's perspective, there's a very great difference indeed. The LVJR is
a small paper; John L. Smith is two or three degrees of separation at most from Adelson himself,
so its very clear who's giving direction and why. The New York Times is a very large paper; the reporter,
Jennifer] Steinhauer, was able to say "Talk to the editors," and Sullivan, the Public Editor, talked
to three of them. In other words, the social relations - we might even say the realities - at the
Journal-Review and the Times are very different; the Journal-Review's are so simple and clean that
"How can you live with yourself?" questions come to the fore under stress. Not so at the Times; the
institutional complexities make it possible for such questions to be masked or muffled. Corruption
is clear at the LVJR; but corruption scuttles away into the masthead at the Times.
However, if we ask ourselves what the future of the average newsroom - modulo algos - is likely
to be, I would imagine life will be a lot more like the LVJR than the NYT. I mean, who wants a masthead
cluttered with supernumeraries? It's going to be interesting to see what John L. Smith will do. Maybe
he'll start a blog?
NOTES
[1] Let me add my standard disclaimer: I don't want to come off as priggish. I don't have dependents,
and so my choices are simpler. If I had to support a family, especially in today's new normal, I
might put my head down and save ethics for the home. "Person must not do what person cannot do."
- Marge Piercy, Woman on the Edge of Time .
[2] Sullivan actually reads the Comments, and sometimes integrated them into her column.
Subscribed for years, then just on line, but becoming so slanted, cut the cord last year.
Worth exploring the various links between times and Clintons…
Probably web like Corp structure. Must be a new culture there, Think op K etc.
Wonder why circulation in decline… Maybe they'll turn into a blog… Or frog… Frogs are kind of
slimy…
One problem with reporters is that they aren't a separate profession with a standard code of
ethics or standard form of credentials. And journalists should not be like lawyers, organized
before the bar into a self-perpetuating and self-serving organization. That written, Frank Bruni
is the great mysterious counterexample (what credentials? what qualifications? why?).
Yet the lack of an organization with "teeth" keeps reporters on the defensive against the accommodationist
editors, the advertisers, and the board of directors larded with the usual knuckleheads. Would
that the Newspaper Guild had more power.
Further, the credentials in the U S of A are now distinctly murky. Your quote:
If economists ask themselves "What good is a degree?" the answer is "to signal a requirement for
a higher salary!"
The development of the M.B.A. and M.F.A. in the last thirty or so years attests to a degree
as time served to get a better job. So the M.B.A. has given us endless talent-free bean counters
trained in bad business practices and shoddy economics. The M.F.A. gives us endless first novels
of a uniform middling quality and careers in burgeoning writing programs producing more of such
snooze-filled novels. Among journalists, the masters in journalism has not proved to be protection
or a stamp of quality, either.
Yea lawyers so self-serving at protecting their own profession that the laws are deliberately
undecipherable.
I suppose what the journalists need is just what anyone who works for a living needs: a good
union to protect them and fight for them. Every worker should have one.
I have my doubts anyone gets an M.F.A. to signal a higher salary though. Are they like "I wanted
a higher salary so I figured I'd get the most economically worthless degree conceivable …" (even
a bachelors in liberal arts indicates you at least got a bachelors which is seen to one's credit
– but an M.F.A. – really does anyone care you have an advance degree in something with no economic
value?). I think people do the M.F.A. for love (or else pretentiousness). But love may be no guarantee
of talent.
The story, as originally written, was based exclusively on verifiable facts. This is a great
weakness in a modern news story and so we decided to add in some speculation and thinly veiled
insults in order to bring it into line with contemporary journalistic standards. The job of
a modern journalist is not simply to report the facts, but also to help people decide what
to think about those facts…also we predict the future. Our critics have an outdated view of
what a responsible journalism looks like in today's hyper-competitive media environment.
How are the people without a family to support supposed to be courageous and do the right thing,
if most of the people around them don't because "they have a family to support". Or are they not
supposed to pick up anything at all from their social context? I don't think it usually works
this way. I'm all for heroes, I just don't think expecting ethical heroes to be the norm, if most
people are selling their souls to survive, and we even make excuses for them, is likely to produce
all that many.
And by the way from whom besides their coworkers etc., did they learn to compromise their principles
even if they don't have a family to support? Why maybe from their parents! Who afterall had to
do it "because they had family to support"! And round and round it goes. Yes I do believe we need
a social solution (ie don't let people and their families fall into poverty and/or unemployment
so easily and they won't be so eager to do anything to keep a job. Although some people seem attached
to their jobs for irrational reasons like prestige rather than just the nuts and bolts of needing
a means to pay their bills).
Guaranteed survival is a radical proposal though when the ENTIRE economic system is premised
on relying on the threat of starvation and homelessness to get people to do what it wants (and
that includes ethically indifferent as well as entirely unethical things). I just don't think
the "get out of ethics free" cards (because you have a family etc.) help anything though.
What was added to the Sander's story is mostly notable for it's complete absence of ANY actual
content. And that really makes one wonder why they added it. The added part is like: but but ..
Sanders success doesn't guarantee he will be good at achieving things as President. Yes and it
doesn't guarantee he won't either! But either Hillary or Sanders will face congress and anyone
who took high school civics knows that. That additions are like: NEWSFLASH: FUTURE IS UNPREDICTABLE!!!
Uh that's not adding any news to the world at all. Might as well just add a tiny disclaimer: past
performance is no guarantee of future results like the investments have.
"... Shorter Heilbroner: capitalism requires that non-capitalists sell their labor as a condition of survival. The capitalist can exert power by denying access to work, hence income, hence survival. The state has "brute force" when capitalists control resources (recall that a lot of what is now private, such as common pasturelands, were once communal property) and in modern times, when social safety nets are weak. This is not a given under capitalism, but it is certainly the preferred order among Western elites. ..."
"... For Varoufakis, the encounter with Schäuble signaled that neoliberal economic managers no longer even pretended to support the principle of democracy. As a result, he argued, Greece was facing dogmatic enforcement of an austerity program whose effects would likely preclude it recovering sufficiently to repay its debts. And more broadly, the future of European capitalism was in growing jeopardy amid rising electoral discontent. ..."
"... *Varoufakis's new book, "And the Weak Suffer What They Must? Europe's Crisis and America's Future" was released on April 12. ..."
"... "It is the brute force of the state that ensures compliance with the rules of capitalism." In fact, it is the hidden coercion of the market that forces compliance, which is why neoliberals fetishize markets. ..."
"... I think we're talking about complementary, cycling phases in the exertion of power. Once the market is set up, its rules are coercive. But setting up the market - e.g. foreclosing land >>> peasants become free labor - require state coercion (+ various assorted ideological sanctifications, some of which may refer to the market). And, keeping players operating by the rules, while at the same time bending them in favor of some players, requires the state. ..."
"... In response to the dogged, stupid insistence on the part of the Right to insist that the state is a freestanding leviathan screwing up the market utopia, it's important to point to ways in which the state is an instrument of capital. This gets into trudging through arguments about who's controlling what, the independence of bureaucracies and such. But that's better than the gobsmacking naivite that the Right, always shouting about unfettering us from the state that they in fact rely on, would have us fall into. ..."
"... "The Athenians offer the Melians an ultimatum: surrender and pay tribute to Athens, or be destroyed. The Athenians do not wish to argue over the morality of the situation, because in practice might makes right (or, in their own words, "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must"[3]). ..."
"... "The Melians argue that they are a neutral city and not an enemy, so Athens has no need to conquer them. The Athenians counter that if they accept Melos' neutrality and independence, they would look weak: people would think they spared Melos because they were not strong enough to conquer it. ..."
"... "The Melians argue that an invasion will alarm the other neutral Greek states, who will become hostile to Athens for fear of being invaded themselves. The Athenians counter that the Greek states on the mainland are unlikely to act this way. It is the independent island states and the disgruntled subjects that Athens has already conquered that are more likely to take up arms against Athens. ..."
"... "The Melians argue that it would be shameful and cowardly of them to submit without a fight. The Athenians counter that the stakes are too high for the Melians to worry about shame." ..."
"... Now, the Mytilenian situation is not a perfect parallel–real historical events never are–but they saw with rather clear eyes the true nature of these broadly based alliances, namely that there is actually someone in charge, and that someone will use their position to benefit themselves at others' expense. As the Myt. ambassador shows, it is incumbent upon the lesser parties to recognize the position they are in and antagonize where needed. ..."
"... I like how the word democracy is used over and over without the obvious necessity of coupling a mechanism for power with democracy. That mechanism, for starters, is voting. There is no democracy without the decision making process that has been developed since the ancient Greeks called voting. And the accepted final decision is when a majority of the people deciding is achieved. The rules of the decision making process, written laws prescribing the limits of acceptable policy making, are the founding principles, the constituting formulas for running the social order with the voice of the people provided with input into the governing of the social order. ..."
"... In Australia, voting is a duty, not a right. It's mandatory and you are fined if you don't vote. I found the caliber of political discourse way higher at my local Aussie pub (which has a vey wide cross section of people) than at any Manhattan gathering of supposedly highly educated professionals. ..."
"... But he [Varoufakis ] didn't begin to have the runway to persuade his opponents, and he thought the threat of a Grexit gave him far more bargaining leverage than he had. ..."
"... Varoufakis's big problem is that he can't let go of the dream of EU as the big European social understanding project. Frankly that has never existed beyond the minds of the academic elite that all talk virtually fluent english, and can do their thing anywhere with a net connection and a credit card terminal. The vast majority of the population of the European nations are tied to their place of living. Either by work, by language, by family, or a combination of the above. ..."
"... But nowadays in the neo-liberal era, that liberalism has been inverted. Not only have states been weakened by globalization, but the current neo-liberal doctrine makes the only legitimate function of the state the enforcement if the dictates of the "market", even to the point of creating markets in areas where there previously were none. The imperative is to privatize everything, including the very idea of the public sphere itself. ..."
"... Classical economics is no longer taught as its teachings would go directly against current ideas, they are hidden and forgotten on purpose. As Michael Hudson points out in "Killing The Host" the world would be a much better place if we remembered the classical economists distinction between "earned" and "unearned" income. ..."
Yves here. I've reframed this recap of a talk by Yanis Varoufakis at NYU as a challenge to neoliberalism,
not a challenge to economics, since its theme is the tension between modern economics (and indeed
many forms of capitalism) and democracy.
There are some points he made that he made that I quibble with. He says he was shocked when he
learned, early in his negotiations with the Wolfgang Schauble, that his counterparts took the position
that the will of the Greek people counted for very little. I know some readers may take umbrage,
but this was a fundamental failure on behalf of the Syriza side, not just Varoufakis, of what they
were up against. In fact, the Eurozone treaties that Greece has signed had the government explicitly
ceding certain aspects of national sovereignity to the Eurozone. In addition, as we pointed out at
the time, the ECB had the power to bring the Greek economy to its knees by cutting off liquidity
support to the Greek banks, and if anything, was predisposed to do so. From the ECB's perspective,
it had already stretched the rules of its supposedly temporary liquidity facilities to the breaking
point.
Mind you, I'm not saying the Trokia position was right or sound. Varoufakis clearly had the better
economic argument. But he didn't begin to have the runway to persuade his opponents, and he thought
the threat of a Grexit gave him far more bargaining leverage than he had. But Varoufakis' past writings
showed he was firmly convinced that this path would do Greece great harm, and Syriza didn't have
public support for that course of action either. Greece did have some bargaining chips, in that the
Eurocrats were keen to have Greece improve tax collections and the operations of government generally,
but it was clear given how the negotiations were framed that the two sides would remain at loggerheads,
eventually giving the Troika what it though was an adequate excuse to use brute force.
A second point Varoufakis made where I beg to differ is, as reported by Lynn Parramore, "It is
the brute force of the state that ensures compliance with the rules of capitalism." In fact, it is
the hidden coercion of the market that forces compliance, which is why neoliberals fetishize markets.
A major focus of the Robert Heilbroner book, Behind the Veil of Economics, is the contrast between
the source of discipline under feudalism versus under capitalism. Heilbroner argues it was the bailiff
and the lash, that lord would incarcerate and beat serf who didn't pull their weight. But the lord
had obligations to his serfs too, so this relationship was not as one-sided as it might seem. By
contrast, Heilbroner argues that the power structure under capitalism is far less obvious:
This negative form of power contrasts sharply with with that of the privileged elites in precapitalist
social formations. In these imperial kingdoms or feudal holdings, disciplinary power is exercised
by the direct use or display of coercive power. The social power of capital is of a different
kind….The capitalist may deny others access to his resources, but he may not force them to work
with him. Clearly, such power requires circumstances that make the withholding of access of critical
consequence. These circumstances can only arise if the general populace is unable to secure a
living unless it can gain access to privately owned resources or wealth…
The organization of production is generally regarded as a wholly "economic" activity, ignoring
the political function served by the wage-labor relationships in lieu of baliffs and senechals.
In a like fashion, the discharge of political authority is regarded as essentially separable from
the operation of the economic realm, ignoring the provision of the legal, military, and material
contributions without which the private sphere could not function properly or even exist. In this
way, the presence of the two realms, each responsible for part of the activities necessary for
the maintenance of the social formation, not only gives capitalism a structure entirely different
from that of any precapitalist society, but also establishes the basis for a problem that uniquely
preoccupies capitalism, namely, the appropriate role of the state vis-a-vis the sphere of production
and distribution.
Shorter Heilbroner: capitalism requires that non-capitalists sell their labor as a condition
of survival. The capitalist can exert power by denying access to work, hence income, hence survival.
The state has "brute force" when capitalists control resources (recall that a lot of what is now
private, such as common pasturelands, were once communal property) and in modern times, when social
safety nets are weak. This is not a given under capitalism, but it is certainly the preferred order
among Western elites.
Yanis Varoufakis' first meeting with the Troika of Greece's creditors revealed what he believes
is a perilous disdain among top economic decision-makers for the democratic process. The then-Finance
Minister arrived armed with tables and graphs to make what he believed was a self-evident case that
the austerity program imposed on Athens was untenable and unsustainable, and would therefore not
produce desirable results for Greece or for its creditors. As the representative of a leftist government
elected on a promise to restructure the austerity program, Varoufakis was aware of the need for a
moderate tone to alleviate fears that he was a wild-eyed radical, and he readily acknowledged the
need for continuity with terms agreed by the previous Greek administration. But he hoped to persuade
the Troika to balance those obligations with the desire of the Greek electorate for a sustainable
plan that offered them more than permanent penury.
According to Varoufakis, Wolfgang Schäuble, the formidable German finance minister, abruptly interrupted
his presentation, declaring, "Elections cannot be allowed to change the economic policies applied
to Greece."
For Varoufakis, the encounter with Schäuble signaled that neoliberal economic managers no
longer even pretended to support the principle of democracy. As a result, he argued, Greece was facing
dogmatic enforcement of an austerity program whose effects would likely preclude it recovering sufficiently
to repay its debts. And more broadly, the future of European capitalism was in growing jeopardy amid
rising electoral discontent.
Speaking Monday at New York City's New School on the future of capitalism and democracy, Varoufakis
distinguished between ancient Athenian democracy - which gave equal weight to the views expressed
by (admittedly only male) citizens regardless of the wealth they possessed - and its modern form.
The latter, he said, had historically been shaped by systems of economic inequality. The Magna Carta,
he noted, negotiated the rights of the barons to prevent the king from poaching their serfs - "a
social contract between lords and the monarch."
Eventually, those lords were replaced by merchants and industrialists, and later still, organized
labor demanded its own say. "The modern state emerged as a mechanism for regulation class conflict,"
he said. "That is liberal democracy."
The assumption that capitalism is innately linked to liberal democracy is of recent vintage, Varoufakis
contended. He noted that classical economic thinkers - Smith, Ricardo, Marx, and Schumpeter - all
focused on the process of the commoditization of everything, including human beings, a notion that
he suggested did not bode well for democratic practices. The ideological cover for this concept,
today, was "the illusion of apolitical, ahistorical, mathematized economics."
Economists see themselves as scientists who have no need for history - after all, aren't past
scientific models full of errors? But economics is not a science, Varoufakis explained. Unlike in
physics, where the latest textbook offers knowledge more advanced than its predecessors did, economists
seem to have a knack for ignoring past truths, a phenomenon particularly apparent in treatments of
capitalism.
Today's economic models not only can't deal with democracy, but they have become embedded in economic
behavior, influencing economic actors, policy makers, and elected officials. He warned that policies
derived from the impulse of orthodox economics to reduce human beings into elastic, mechanized inputs
threatened capitalism's future: It destroys human creativity and freedom, which (among other things)
generates new ideas and technologies that drive productivity and creates profits for capital.
Paradoxes abound: the more capitalism succeeds in commodifying human beings, the worse things
become for capitalism - powerless and poor, their buying power is degraded, and with it, aggregate
demand.
And the failure to respond to human need expressed through democratic politics - as he experienced
in his dealings with the Troika - threatens to spur citizen rebellions against the system.
Varoufakis cited economist Kenneth Arrow - whose impossibility theorem (also known as social-choice
theory) shows the impossibility of fully determining a common will while using a set of fair and
democratic procedures- to argue that democracy, messy it may be, remains the best path. Edicts from
technocrats, no matter how smart and well-meaning, will not reflect the interests of the people.
"Democracy is dialectic," explained Varoufakis, "a system for people who are not sure about what
they think. They are not sure about what is good for society." They argue, debate, and take from
each other's positions to modify their own.
But capitalism hasn't always worked well with democracy. Just as the notion of hell was essential
to achieving obedience to the tenets of Christianity in the middle ages, quipped Varoufakis, so it
is the brute force of the state that ensures compliance with the rules of capitalism.
The United States Constitution, he argued, was designed to keep the poor away from the levers
of power, while legitimizing the system through their participation. "Democracy was to be used in
name in order to be breached in substance," he said, and served to keep capitalism out of crisis
without having to really give the poor much power.
Crises came anyway. The Great Depression sufficiently shocked elites into creating the Bretton
Woods system, an international financial system predicated on an imperial American role that, together
with the Marshall Plan, laid the foundation of postwar capitalist expansion. But the golden era of
capitalism didn't last. As U.S. hegemony declined, cracks in the system appeared and widened. Global
financial markets became imbalanced and storms of mounting amplitude followed. Eventually, deregulation
and financialization turned corporations like GM into "financial companies that produce a few cars
on the side." The Great Recession, as Varoufakis saw it, has signaled citizens that their economies
are not functioning, and neither are their political systems.
"The world we live in is rudderless, in a slow-burning recession," he said, referring what some
have called 'secular stagnation.' Varoufakis rejected further lending to Greece if the current austerity
program cannot be modified or reversed. Continued austerity makes it impossible for Greece to grow,
which means that paying off new debts would only be possible through further austerity and cuts in
public budgets, which will drive the economy deeper into recession. For Varoufakis, this counterproductive
policy ignores lessons from Europe's recovery after World War II, including forgiving German debt
in 1953.
The Eurozone remains dominated by policies that make debt repayment, rather than growth, the central
focus of policy makers. For Varoufakis, this underscores the bankrupt nature of much current economic
thinking, ignoring alternative analyses of the crisis and alternative ideas for addressing it, including
both debt relief and fiscal stimulus rather than austerity.
Varoufakis argued that blocking of sensible economic policy feeds the electoral success of new,
left parties in Greece and Spain, but also the rise of authoritarian right-wing movements in a worrisome
echo of the 1930s. This polarization also can be seen in the United States, with the electoral success
of Bernie Sanders but also Donald Trump. And if decision-making power continues to moves into "democracy-free
zones" such as the European Union or private corporations, the more polarized the political future
appears, with attendant opportunities and risks.
In a burst of pop culture flair, Varoufakis predicted that when machines have passed the Turing
Test, when you can no longer tell if the person on the phone is a human or a computer, and when 3-D
printers can spit out whatever object you need, the logic of capitalism will break down. "At this
stage," he warned, "humanity will face a juncture." Either we end up with a Star Trek-like utopia
where we harness technology and use its wealth-producing capacity for the common good, or we get
The Matrix, a dystopia in which the miserable masses have their energy sucked out of them by unseen
forces and are fed illusions to keep them quiet. Eventually even the elites will become servants
to the machine.
The antidote to that outcome, Varoufakis argued, is a robust democracy in the Athenian vein, one
that reflects the voices of and serves all the people, whether they have money or not.
*Varoufakis's new book, "And the Weak Suffer What They Must? Europe's Crisis and America's
Future" was released on April 12.
As long as sociopaths are allowed to infiltrate the leadership of societies bigger than ancient
Athens … there will be no common good. As Varoufakis points out, there has to be a dialectic between
leaders and citizens, so that the leaders can embody the common good. Sociopaths have no desire
to accomplish that goal. This is why in ancient times, Athens was weakened by Spartan opposition
(with Persian assistance) and supplanted by Macedon, and eventually Rome. Small scale societies
of any type, Athenian or Spartan, couldn't compete ultimately with large monarchies. Rome was
undone by its own success, and had to revert to a monarchy in everything but name. Large scale
society tends toward monarchy and autocracy.
The US federal republic, with functioning states, counties and municipalities is an attempt
to get the best of all scales. And representative election is an attempt at this dialectic. Direct
democracy is not an option even with the Internet … it would be mob rule.
It can be argued that the Athenians were quite attentive to the danger of elite/sometimes sociopathic
leadership.
They seem to have mastered the politics of using the knowledge of experts without turning over
the management of their city-state to these same individuals.
Unfortunately the modern left in the U.S. seems quite content with turning the power of the
national state over to salaried intellectuals who rule in the name of actual citizens.
The left has no political theory of the State which they could offer as an alternative democratic
political system– because of their apparent irrational ideological fear of a decentralization
which could potentially culminate in more direct democratic rule.
Is the basis of such fear the fact the much of the salaried left(an influential part of the
top 20%) is not interested in genuine democratic rule(they distrust the proles as much as the
right)– but only their rule?
When you've got a big rock stuck in your garden and you want to get rid of it, you need to
loosen it first. That means digging and pushing it many times. At first, nothing moves, then it
wiggles and finally rolls.
I saw Varoufakis as the one giving the first push that shows no progress. I was hoping to see
a little bit of wiggling. Unfortunately, he did not get there. That rock is really entrenched.
It would seem that he saw himself as the one getting the rock out. I'm not surprised. Most
men who get to those positions of power have to believe in their aptitudes to get there. If not,
they would not make it there.
"It is the brute force of the state that ensures compliance with the rules of capitalism."
In fact, it is the hidden coercion of the market that forces compliance, which is why neoliberals
fetishize markets.
I think we're talking about complementary, cycling phases in the exertion of power. Once
the market is set up, its rules are coercive. But setting up the market - e.g. foreclosing land
>>> peasants become free labor - require state coercion (+ various assorted ideological sanctifications,
some of which may refer to the market). And, keeping players operating by the rules, while at
the same time bending them in favor of some players, requires the state.
In response to the dogged, stupid insistence on the part of the Right to insist that the
state is a freestanding leviathan screwing up the market utopia, it's important to point to ways
in which the state is an instrument of capital. This gets into trudging through arguments about
who's controlling what, the independence of bureaucracies and such. But that's better than the
gobsmacking naivite that the Right, always shouting about unfettering us from the state that they
in fact rely on, would have us fall into.
What was Varoufakis facing? He's talking with gummint reps who try to integrate oodles
of biz interests, with the banks interests coming first since they are most directly vulnerable.
But in turn the banks, while selfstanding in the sense that they worry about their loans, also
reflect interests that are not only strictly financial, but also the financialized representation
of other sectors' interests.
*Varoufakis's new book, "And the Weak Suffer What They Must? Europe's Crisis and America's
Future" was released on April 12.
This quote is a translation of what is referred to as "The Melian Dialogue" from Thucydides.
Thucydides might have invented the quote for dramatic effect. I recall thinking and commenting
to several folks as the "negotiations" were ongoing that Varoufakis must have chosen to ignore
it, since he would have studied this in secondary school.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_Dialogue
I fear the Melians' interpretation is proving all too true as we look at the debate over a
Brexit.
"The Athenians offer the Melians an ultimatum: surrender and pay tribute to Athens, or
be destroyed. The Athenians do not wish to argue over the morality of the situation, because in
practice might makes right (or, in their own words, "the strong do what they can and the weak
suffer what they must"[3]).
"The Melians argue that they are a neutral city and not an enemy, so Athens has no need
to conquer them. The Athenians counter that if they accept Melos' neutrality and independence,
they would look weak: people would think they spared Melos because they were not strong enough
to conquer it.
"The Melians argue that an invasion will alarm the other neutral Greek states, who will
become hostile to Athens for fear of being invaded themselves. The Athenians counter that the
Greek states on the mainland are unlikely to act this way. It is the independent island states
and the disgruntled subjects that Athens has already conquered that are more likely to take up
arms against Athens.
"The Melians argue that it would be shameful and cowardly of them to submit without a fight.
The Athenians counter that the stakes are too high for the Melians to worry about shame."
Then I would suggest to Yanis (and others) to read Thucydides' own parallel to the Melian situation,
namely the earlier revolt of Mytilene. The language of the Melian dialogue borrows directly from
(and in many cases inverts) the language of the intercourse between the Mytilenians and the Spartans
and the later debate at Athens over what to do about the revolt. It's also worth noting that Thuc.'s
typical pattern is to first present the ideal or better course of action then in a later parallel
show how things degenerate, so what happens with Mytilene is, to my mind, meant to be more instructive.
From bk. 3 par. 11, the Mytilenian ambassador to the Spartans, complaining about the imbalance
of power:
If we [i.e. the city states involved in the Persian Wars] had all still been independent,
we could have had more confidence in their [the Athenians'] not altering the state of affairs.
But with most of their allies subjected to them [c.f. the EU] and us being treated as equals,
it was natural for them to object to a situation where the majority had already given in and
we alone stood independent – all the more so since they were becoming stronger and stronger
[recall Germany prospered while southern Europe suffered] and we were losing whatever support
we had before. And in an alliance the only safe guarantee is an equality of mutual fear [!
– Grexit has to be a real threat, perhaps?]; for then the party that wants to break faith is
deterred by the thought that the odds will not be on his side.
Now, the Mytilenian situation is not a perfect parallel–real historical events never are–but
they saw with rather clear eyes the true nature of these broadly based alliances, namely that
there is actually someone in charge, and that someone will use their position to benefit themselves
at others' expense. As the Myt. ambassador shows, it is incumbent upon the lesser parties to recognize
the position they are in and antagonize where needed.
I like how the word democracy is used over and over without the obvious necessity of coupling
a mechanism for power with democracy. That mechanism, for starters, is voting. There is no democracy
without the decision making process that has been developed since the ancient Greeks called voting.
And the accepted final decision is when a majority of the people deciding is achieved. The rules
of the decision making process, written laws prescribing the limits of acceptable policy making,
are the founding principles, the constituting formulas for running the social order with the voice
of the people provided with input into the governing of the social order.
Voluntary abandonment of voting due to frustration over relative powerlessness does not provide
a solution to providing for democracy. There is no democracy without voting. Just as there is
no market without money. Or there is no money without debt. Voting is providing your individual
say so, your input which constitutes what we call democracy. You can't talk about democracy without
talking about elections. Varis is pointing out this self evident truth. If the elected officials
or an unelected Troika deny the need for the results of elections, placing a political party into
the offices of state power, by demanding that only the rules of economic power be observed and
the results of democractic elections be rendered useless in the face of the need to pay back loans,
we have a problem much larger than huge swathes of the citizenry abandoning electoral participation.
While voter apathy is one thing, the people who remain faithful to the rule of democracy are
betrayed when they participate in sustaining the social order by carrying out the ritual of voting,
the mechanism of democracy. With contempt after being elected displayed by the newly installed
political party in Greece or anywhere else for the citizenry who chose them, this is truly unsustainable,
politically and of course with the exact opposite outcome for the Troika's desired out comes.
Austerity will be a long term prospect if successful at all and more likely bring higher costs
due to societal disintegration, than the debt austerity is implemented to collect in the first
place.
The modern liberal state requires operating an actual faithful and regular democratic mechanism,
to ensure all of the other aspects of the social order, including the market or private sector
of the economy. To strip the citizenry of its citizenship and replacing it with no other other
purpose than to sell yourself for a price in order to survive and replace social relationships
with financial debts to the exclusion of all other claims, other social debts to family, community,
to strongly held personal religious beliefs that place you meaningfully into the larger universe,
leaves no reason to live but the enrichment of a faceless other, the wealthy ruling class. Of
course, this is nothing but an impossible life, and unsustainable policy, ticking like a real
time bomb because as a human being, there is only so much stress and pressure that can be endured.
In Australia, voting is a duty, not a right. It's mandatory and you are fined if you don't
vote. I found the caliber of political discourse way higher at my local Aussie pub (which has
a vey wide cross section of people) than at any Manhattan gathering of supposedly highly educated
professionals.
Didn't they also outlaw all kinds of rifles, assault, long guns, hunters scoped bolt action,
anything, to amazing effect? You have to vote and you can't be armed to the teeth! Participation
in democracy mitigates the need for arming yourself against a potential tyranny. People don't
need to be heavily armed, they need political power. We can't be heading for civil war in America
whenever our country is facing an unresolvable political or economic crisis.
there is only so much stress and pressure that can be endured.
Every 'four score and seven' or thereabouts, our country has hitched up its britches, looked
back at the previous eighty years and rewrote the algorithms for law making. Each period or basic
law rewriting had a prelude of great turbulence. The major pillars of a History of the United
States that anyone would care to write, would need to delineate Founding, Reconstruction, New
Deal and in a movement that arrived too early (or too late as it should have been part of the
new Deal) the Civil Rights movement. Each time the earth shaking prelude occurred, the rebuilding
after the earthquake caused reactions that were as hidebound and cruel as the Spanish Inquisition.
Founding left the nation with slavery, Reconstruction fostered Jim Crowism and The New Deal fostered
neoliberalism couched in the rhetoric of the epic journeys of the Cold Warrior as a reaction against
attempts to regulate the capitalist engine.
Taking a closer look at the New Deal what this observer sees is a Congress that was too lazy
to write laws and instead passed those duties over to the Executive branch. The Supreme Court
objected and well, the rest is history. Mind you, I am not in aligning myself with the archaic
views of justices who attempted to write laws based on the principles of Neo-Darwinistic social
evolutionary theory espoused by Herbert Spencer. However, I am saying those same justices, whatever
their theories were on evolution, did know how to read the Constitution of the United States and
clearly found that document forbade Congress to delegate powers to the executive branch merely
to play a politicized version of kick the can-down-the-street. Congress was merely attempting-during
the New Deal especially but ever after as well, to avoid controversy (a perennial favorite), shirk
its duty in writing laws that specify a problem and outline specific solutions (another favorite
pastime) and engage in 'sit down, sit down, you're rockin' the boat.'
The emergent, counter-revolutionary forces of the 'new' liberalism are ascendant everywhere
and we find our government, at the municipal, county, state and national level captured by a Naked
Capitalism that is tribal in its outlook, hell bent on confiscating all financial transactions,
all property, and forcing a review before itself, like the tyrants of ancient Greece, of every
attempt to finally renew a fresh purpose to law making. No spring revolution, no occupy resurgence,
no cries for reason, justice, or a drive for a restoration of the Bill of Rights, will be allowed
to survive. Any attempts to renew the dying flame of the original revolution (as in Martin Luther
King's passionate and powerful rhetoric) will be dealt with swiftly and concretely.
Prepare for the long winter of the New History of the United States of America.
"The modern liberal state requires operating an actual faithful and regular democratic mechanism,
to ensure all of the other aspects of the social order, including the market or private sector
of the economy. To strip the citizenry of its citizenship and replacing it with no other other
purpose than to sell yourself for a price in order to survive and replace social relationships
with financial debts to the exclusion of all other claims, other social debts to family, community,
to strongly held personal religious beliefs that place you meaningfully into the larger universe,
leaves no reason to live but the enrichment of a faceless other, the wealthy ruling class.
Of course, this is nothing but an impossible life, and unsustainable policy, ticking like a
real time bomb because as a human being, there is only so much stress and pressure that can
be endured."
Very well said!
We are seeing this disintegration here in the U.S. in the early 21st century. The assassinations
of the 1960s, the police-state violence at Kent State, etc., were shocking indeed. Yet, during
those turbulent times the illusion was maintained that we had an "actual democratic mechanism."
The Florida fiasco of 2000, where our unelected Supreme Court determined that the actual votes
cast, of actual citizens, was no longer the deciding factor in who would take over the highest
office in the U.S., killed this illusion. The carelessness of our sociopathic elites today, who
barely attempt to conceal how they are suppressing the rights of actual citizens to actually vote,
reveals the lesson they think they learned from Bush v. Gore in 2000.
I feel the elites are wrong on this: people didn't revolt in 2000, and they may not revolt
in 2016, but there is a breaking point somewhere and our sociopathic elites are
pushing us closer to that line every day.
youtube has songs by all kinds of singers, some more famous than others but so many that portray
the bullshit people have to live with everyday, from the Black Ghettos to the Appalachian Ghettos
and every nook and cranny of humanity, and everyone knows this is nowhere and no way to live.
We are held back by people with more power than we currently have that keep us living below the
standards of a decent, healthy, happy life.
But he [Varoufakis ] didn't begin to have the runway to persuade his opponents, and he
thought the threat of a Grexit gave him far more bargaining leverage than he had.
Didn't Varoufakis, not just Tsipras, but Varoufakis say – and repeat over and over – that Grexit
was absolutely off the table at the beginning of negotiations? If he was counting on the threat
of a Grexit for bargaining power, he sure went about it in a strange way.
Yes, I didn't get into the details, but that didn't help. But the strategy was widely described
as chicken, which implies what people in the market called "accidental" Grexit. So it looked as
if Varoufakis was playing as if Grexit were an option but Syriza would be able to tell voters
(from whom they had no mandate) that it was the other side's fault. It really did look like they
thought they could force the other side to make concessions. But they kept agreeing to stuff in
Brussels or Berlin (not just made up but the Trokia, this was remarks by Tsipras or Varoufakis
in public) and then within 24 hours they'd reverse themselves in public in Greece. This made everyone
increasing furious with them, particularly since the negotiations were becoming time consuming
and physically taxing.
This is a far deeper argument here than the last one I encountered! In a macroeconomics course
about 4-5 years ago, I found myself in the middle of a fervently-argued dialog on the 'Greek problem.'
The textbook, written from the voice of the IMF, presented the position of Germany and the
Eurozone. They needed (not wanted but needed), to get Greece to accept austerity and whatever
terms the Eurozone asked of them. Greece was threatening the German livelihood. This was simply
good, solid, basic macroeconomic theory.
Student-after-student wrote page-after-page on the unfairness of the Greek position and how
they simply need to be brought around. I was alone in challenging that explaining even with the
Eurozone agreements, a democratic nation still couldn't simply overrule the sovereign will of
another democratic nation.
But wait, what? This was baffling! What did I mean by 'sovereignty'? Surely, that didn't have
anything to do with the issue at stake here. The Greeks owed money and the money was due. For
Greece to balk on the agreement threatened the stronger Eurozone nations who had followed the
rules and had done what they were supposed to do.
I asked, "If there is no sovereignty issue, then why are the citizens of Greece protesting
in the streets right now?"
I went on to explain (because apparently there is some confusion as to the fundamental nature
of the EU itself) that t's not analogous to our United States. As a united nation-state, our individual
states have individual state's rights, but (as clarified in our civil war) these states are all
still subject to a single centralized Federal government. The European Union, on the other hand,
is not a single unified nation-state. The model is closer to that of a financial cooperative .
These financial agreements and trade treaties (including Schengen) produce claims against them,
but they don't determine domestic policy (nor should they).
While my instructor understood and appreciated my criticism, it clearly wasn't a mainstream
perception over here at that time.
Take that with a grain of salt though because I've also sat through discussions in favor of
resurrecting Adjustable Rate Mortgages as a way to pump new life into our economy. Fun stuff!
A bit more background is needed I believe. The bailouts of Greece in the form of loans forestalled
a default by Greece. In return for new loans to pay off foreign (Mostly French and German) banks,
the money borrowed from the IMF supplemented by EU and ECB monies was used to pay off these obligations.
There was a fair bit of kicking the can down the road until the loans to foreign banks were paid
off, then the memoranda started kicking in. The old loans from banks were contracted under sovereign
Greek law, while the new ones were contracted under UK law if I recall correctly. UK law is much
more strict. Both PASOK and New Democracy were filled with cronies, and patronage was rampant
along with theft and and tax evasion. This had been the case for much of the period from 1974
until SYRIZA was elected last year. Two useful books on the situation are
Despite my handle, I am not Greek, but I have lived in Europe for the past 38 years, the bulk
of it in Greece. I recall seeing ads in bank offices here in 2006-2007 offering mortgages at 3.95%
in Swiss Francs instead of the 7%+ that was the rate for mortgages denominated in Euros. I warned
everyone I knew that they should not opt for the lower rate unless they had a steady, secure revenue
stream in SFr.
Capitalists use force to make people labor for them all the time. In the South through the
30s it was common for capitalists to pay sheriffs to round up black men, sentence them to hard
labor, and essentially sell them to the local boss as laborers. This was part of the reason for
the great migration to northern cities. When workers form unions, historically capitalists have
had no compunction about sending in skull-crackers to break strikes. And of course people who
have "no alternative" but to sell their labor only lack the alternative of theft because the police
stand by guaranteeing the "property rights" of absentee owners and wealth hoarders. Peasant farmers
were pushed off the commons and their historical lands (where they could support themselves) by
force. Overseas markets were only expanded through military force and colonialism. This was the
explicit aim of the first corporations.
I am not sure the Star Trek analogy is a good one. The later spinoff years had some fairly
mean captains like Janeway and Sisko who tended to prefer to blow things to get there way instead
of negotiating. Overall I find Star Trek to be quite violent for a utopia(in it's later years).
There are all sorts of arms dealers, smugglers, warlords, the "Maquis" Movement, and all around
bad people like Michael Eddington, Luther Sloan, and Doc Zimmerman.
Varoufakis's big problem is that he can't let go of the dream of EU as the big European
social understanding project. Frankly that has never existed beyond the minds of the academic
elite that all talk virtually fluent english, and can do their thing anywhere with a net connection
and a credit card terminal. The vast majority of the population of the European nations are tied
to their place of living. Either by work, by language, by family, or a combination of the above.
I am not in a position to dispute your point beyond my anecdotal take from here in Greece over
the past 40 years. Many parents we have are unhappy about seeing their children go abroad to study
or work, and many students are keen to do so. The parents, nonetheless, pay us to help their children
jump through the hoops to get there at both the undergraduate level and graduate level. Virtually
all of them have at least three languages and often more at a high level of proficiency.
Many get full scholarships to top-tier US universities or fellowships at graduate schools in
the US and EU. Admittedly, my data are anecdotal.
Several former French students from many years ago are working for MSF and other aid organizations.
Others from Greece are working for the EU.
The Heilbroner quote is conventional and rather dated. Yes, capitalism depends on "free" labor.
But it emerged historically in tandem with the formation of the modern sovereign state, at first
in its absolutist form and later in its constitutional form. Yes, there is institutional differentiation
in modern capitalist societies between state and economy, but the two systems are thoroughly cross-implicated,
and capitalism would never have emerged without state backing. Polanyi covered this in his classic
book, refuting the 19th century classical liberal ideology that Heilbroner repeats. But nowadays
in the neo-liberal era, that liberalism has been inverted. Not only have states been weakened
by globalization, but the current neo-liberal doctrine makes the only legitimate function of the
state the enforcement if the dictates of the "market", even to the point of creating markets in
areas where there previously were none. The imperative is to privatize everything, including the
very idea of the public sphere itself.
Classical economics is no longer taught as its teachings would go directly against current
ideas, they are hidden and forgotten on purpose. As Michael Hudson points out in "Killing The
Host" the world would be a much better place if we remembered the classical economists distinction
between "earned" and "unearned" income.
"... Alternative theories would have led to very different policies. For instance, the tax cut in 2001 and 2003 under President Bush. Economists that are very widely respected were cutting taxes at the top, increasing inequality in our society when what we needed was just the opposite. Most of the models used by economists ignored inequality. They pretended that macroeconomy was unaffected by inequality. I think that was totally wrong. The strange thing about the economics profession over the last 35 year is that there has been two strands: One very strongly focusing on the limitations of the market, and then another saying how wonderful markets were. Unfortunately too much attention was being paid to that second strand. ..."
"... ditto...everyone from Tyler Cohen to Mark Perry of the AEI does daily posts about the markets working for everything...a daily "Market Failure in Everything" would provide a useful alternative to that point of view... ..."
"... Nobel-prize winner Joseph Stiglitz said monetary policies have exacerbated inequality and need to be redirected to better target getting money flowing into economies and helping small and medium-size businesses. ..."
"... policies such as quantitative easing were a "version of trickle-down economics" and the subsequent increase in asset prices only affected the wealthiest in society ..."
"... "The key problem is the access of credit to small and medium-size enterprises, is getting that flow of money into the real economy," Stiglitz said. It's "nice to have a stock market bubble if you have a lot of stock. But if you are in the bottom 80 percent of America, you have a little stock and you can feel a little good about the stock going up. But let's face it, the overwhelming bulk of our stock market is owned by the 1 percent." ..."
"... Oh my god. He lumps in Bernanke with Greenspan. What are the Fed worshippers going to do now? Their deity is under attack from Stiglitz. Of course it is nothing but fact that bernanke denied that bubbles in real estate were possible OR that a bubble could become s problem for the economy. Hats off to Stiglitz. ..."
"... How much more evidence do we need that the current trickle down monetary policy has failed? "The weak growth for the quarter puts this recovery even further behind any prior recovery at the same stage. After eight and a quarter years, the economy is only 10.1 percent larger than its pre-recession level of output. A more typical recovery would have seen at least twice as much growth." ..."
...White: ... To what extent do you feel economist and economic theory
is culpable for the crisis? What is the role of an economist going
forward?
Stiglitz: The prevalent ideology-when I say prevalent it's not all
economists- held that markets were basically efficient, that they were
stable. You had people like Greenspan and Bernanke saying things like
"markets don't generate bubbles." They had precise models that were
precisely wrong and gave them confidence in theories that led to the
policies that were responsible for the crisis, and responsible for the
growth in inequality.
Alternative theories would have led to very
different policies. For instance, the tax cut in 2001 and 2003 under
President Bush. Economists that are very widely respected were cutting
taxes at the top, increasing inequality in our society when what we
needed was just the opposite. Most of the models used by economists
ignored inequality. They pretended that macroeconomy was unaffected by
inequality. I think that was totally wrong. The strange thing about
the economics profession over the last 35 year is that there has been
two strands: One very strongly focusing on the limitations of the
market, and then another saying how wonderful markets were.
Unfortunately too much attention was being paid to that second strand.
What can we do about it? We've had this very strong strand that is
focused on the limitations and market imperfections. A very large
fraction of the younger people, this is what they want to work on.
It's very hard to persuade a young person who has seen the Great
Recession, who has seen all the problems with inequality, to tell them
inequality is not important and that markets are always efficient.
They'd think you're crazy. ...
When I first started blogging, I used to do posts with the title
"Market Failure in Everything." as a counter to "the prevalent ideology."
Maybe I should revive something similar.
ditto...everyone from Tyler Cohen to Mark Perry of the
AEI does daily posts about the markets working for
everything...a daily "Market Failure in Everything" would
provide a useful alternative to that point of view...
Nothing about Ricardian Equivalence or RBC fallacies.
While
inequality is certainly important for consumption demand, PCE
has not been a significant problem in the recovery. OTOH,
reduction of the federal budget deficit explains virtually
all of the deficient demand we have experienced. Obama and
the Dems bought into RE and are paying the price now.
"Nobel-prize winner Joseph Stiglitz said monetary policies have exacerbated inequality
and need to be redirected to better target getting money
flowing into economies and helping small and medium-size
businesses.
In a Bloomberg Television interview Tuesday with Francine
Lacqua and Michael McKee in New York, he said policies such
as quantitative easing were a "version of trickle-down
economics" and the subsequent increase in asset prices only
affected the wealthiest in society.
"The key problem is the access of credit to small and
medium-size enterprises, is getting that flow of money into
the real economy," Stiglitz said. It's "nice to have a stock
market bubble if you have a lot of stock. But if you are in
the bottom 80 percent of America, you have a little stock and
you can feel a little good about the stock going up. But
let's face it, the overwhelming bulk of our stock market is
owned by the 1 percent."
Stiglitz's comments come as some central banks around the
world are being forced to delve deeper into their policy
tools to help support their economies. As policy makers
struggle to find a way out of the economic malaise, some have
even raised the idea of helicopter money, which aims to
direct cash straight to consumers.
The Columbia University professor, who said the Federal
Reserve can do more to "channel" money to small companies and
the economy, was also critical of negative rates. This is
partly because of their potential impact on lending.
"The dangers of negative interest rates -- if you don't
manage it extraordinarily well; some countries are doing it
reasonably well, some are not -- is that it actually weakens
the banking system," he said. "If it weakens the banking
system, the banks are going to provide even less credit.
While it might have some effect on financial markets, in
terms of what we really should be concerned about, which is
the flow of credit to businesses, that's not working."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-26/stiglitz-says-misdirected-monetary-policies-increased-inequality
What's the point of low interest rates, if they only serve
the interests of Wall Street banks and their wealthy
clientele? Oh, right! That IS the point. And most economists
are just fine with that.
Oh my god. He lumps in Bernanke with Greenspan. What are
the Fed worshippers going to do now? Their deity is under
attack from Stiglitz. Of course it is nothing but fact that
bernanke denied that bubbles in real estate were possible OR
that a bubble could become s problem for the economy. Hats
off to Stiglitz.
Falling Investment and Rising Trade Deficit Lead to Weak
First Quarter
By Dean Baker
Health care costs remain well-contained, barely growing as
a share of GDP.
GDP grew at just a 0.5 percent annual rate in the first
quarter. This weak quarter, combined with the 1.4 percent
growth rate in the 4th quarter, gave the weakest two quarter
performance since the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2012 when the
economy grew at just a 0.3 percent annual rate.
Growth was held down by both a sharp drop in
non-residential investment and a further rise in the trade
deficit. Equipment investment fell at an 8.6 percent annual
rate, while construction investment dropped at a 10.7 percent
annual rate. The latter is not a surprise, given the
overbuilding in many areas of the country. The drop in
equipment investment was undoubtedly in part driven by the
worsening trade situation, as many factories curtailed
investment plans as U.S.-made products lost out to foreign
competition, weakening demand growth. There was also a drop
in information processing equipment, indicating that those
who are expecting that robots will replace us all will have
to wait a bit longer.
The rise in the trade deficit was due to a 2.6 percent
drop in exports, as imports were nearly flat for the quarter.
Trade subtracted 0.34 percentage points from growth for the
quarter.
Consumption continued to grow at a modest 1.9 percent
annual rate, adding 1.27 percentage points to growth.
Consumption growth was held down in part by weaker demand for
new cars, which subtracted 0.33 percentage points from growth
for the quarter. This was the second consecutive decline in
the sector. It is likely that car purchases will be up
somewhat in future quarters.
The savings rate for the quarter was 5.2 percent, which is
up slightly from the 5.0 percent from the prior three
quarters and the 4.8 percent rates from 2013 and 2014, before
people started saving their oil dividends. But seriously,
there may be some modest room for this rate to decline, but
for the most part consumption growth will depend on income
growth going forward.
Health care services added 0.26 percentage points to
growth, its smallest contribution since a reported decline in
the first quarter of 2014. Spending in the sector remains
well contained, growing at just a 3.8 percent annual rate
over the last quarter and by 4.4 percent over the last year
in nominal spending.
Housing grew at a 14.8 percent annual rate, adding 0.49
percentage points to growth. Housing has being growing at a
double digit rate since the fourth quarter of 2014. While the
sector is likely to continue to grow in subsequent quarters,
the pace is almost certain to slow.
The government sector was a modest positive in the
quarter, growing at a 1.2 percent rate. State and local
spending increased at a 2.9 percent annual rate, more than
offsetting a 1.6 percent drop in federal spending, all of it
on the military side. Future quarters are likely to show
comparable growth, although the composition may be somewhat
different.
A slower rate of inventory accumulation reduced growth by
0.33 percentage points, as final sales of domestic product
grew at a 0.9 percent rate. This is the third consecutive
quarter in which the pace of inventory accumulation slowed,
although the current pace is not especially low. It is likely
that inventories will grow somewhat more quickly in the rest
of the year, being at least a small positive in the growth
story.
The weak growth for the quarter puts this recovery even
further behind any prior recovery at the same stage. After
eight and a quarter years, the economy is only 10.1 percent
larger than its pre-recession level of output. A more typical
recovery would have seen at least twice as much growth.
[Graph]
On the whole this is a weak report. The headline 0.5
percent figure probably overstates the weakness somewhat, but
it is not a good sign when two consecutive quarters have an
average growth rate of less than 1.0 percent. Inflation
remains well under control, although there was a modest
uptick in the rate of inflation shown by the core personal
consumption expenditure deflator to 1.7 percent over the last
year. Nonetheless, with an economy barely growing and an
inflation rate that remains below target, it is difficult to
envision the Federal Reserve raising interest rates further
any time soon.
How much more evidence do we need that the current trickle
down monetary policy has failed? "The weak growth for the
quarter puts this recovery even further behind any prior
recovery at the same stage. After eight and a quarter years,
the economy is only 10.1 percent larger than its
pre-recession level of output. A more typical recovery would
have seen at least twice as much growth."
Market failures aren't really market failures but market
responses to market conditions. They are failures only in the
sense that something deemed bad (e.g., falling home prices)
is the market response. An extreme example is what's being
called secular stagnation, which is just the market response
to the shift of an enormous volume of production and income
from the U.S. and Europe to China and other like places with
much higher levels of inequality and savings. It's a market
failure only in the sense that something bad (wage
stagnation, slow economic growth) happened in the U.S. and
Europe. Those responsible for the shift in production and
income to China et al. (i.e., U.S. and European business
executives) were either ignorant of the likely market
response or didn't care as long as it increased profits (via
lower costs). But that's not a market failure, it's an
executive failure.
Peter, -1
"I think almost surely both Hillary and Bernie Sanders are
very very committed to a pro-equality agenda, and the
differences are more in details, more in one's confidence in
their ability to execute this in a political context."
Disappointing. I guess we'll find out if he's right. Also his
suggestion that the economy would have done just as well with
no QEs is very disappointing.
"Stiglitz: I think they were right. They originally said,
"When we hit 6 percent that's full employment." Now they know
that 4.9 isn't full employment, there's weak labor market.
They should have focused more on improving the channel of
credit to make sure that money was going to small and
medium-sized enterprises They should have said to the
bank-like some other countries have done-if you want access
to the Fed window you have to be lending to SMEs. "
Which was Bernie's suggestion. Hillary has said nothing.
In a popular piece that recently appeared in Foreign Affairs magazine, headlined, "The Future of
History", Francis Fukuyama pointed out that, despite widespread anger at Wall Street bailouts, there
has been no great upsurge of support for left-wing political parties. Fukuyama attributed this –
rightly, I believe – to a failure of ideas.
The 2008 financial crash revealed major flaws in the
neoliberal view of capitalism, and an objective view of the last 35 years shows that the neoliberal
model has not performed well relative to the previous 30 years. This is in terms of economic growth,
financial stability and social justice. But a credible progressive alternative has yet to take shape.
What should be the main outlines of such an alternative?
A progressive political economy must be based on a firm belief in capitalism – that is, on an
economic system in which most of the assets are privately owned and markets largely guide production
and distribute income. But it must also incorporate three defining progressive beliefs: the crucial
role of institutions; the need for state involvement in their design in order to resolve conflicting
interests and provide public goods; and social justice, defined as fairness, as an important measure
of a country's economic performance.
It was a great mistake of neoclassical economists not to see that capitalism is a socioeconomic
system and that institutions are an essential part of it. The recent financial crisis was made far
worse by profound institutional failures, such as the high level of leverage that banks were permitted
to have.
Empirical research has shown that four sets of institutions have a major impact on the performance
of firms and, therefore, on a country's economic growth. These include the institutions underpinning
its financial and labour markets, its corporate governance arrangements, its education and training
system and its national system of innovation (the network of public and private institutions that
initiate and diffuse new technologies).
Another defining belief of progressive thinking is that institutions do not evolve spontaneously,
as neoliberals believe. The state must be involved in their design and reform.
In the case of institutions underpinning labour and financial markets, as well as corporate governance,
the state must mediate conflicting interests. Likewise, a country's education and training system,
and its national system of innovation, are largely public goods, which have to be provided by the
state.
It should be clear that the role for the state that I have been describing is an enabling or market-supporting
one. It is not the command and control role promoted by traditional socialists or the minimalist
role beloved by neoliberals.
The other defining belief of progressive thinking rejects the neoliberal view that a country's
economic performance should be assessed solely in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) growth and
freedom. If one is concerned with a society's wellbeing, it is not possible to argue that a rich
country in which the top one percent holds most of the wealth is performing better than a slightly
less wealthy country in which prosperity is more widely shared.
Moreover, fairness is a better measure of social justice than equality. This is because it is
difficult to devise practical and effective policies to achieve equality in a market economy.
In addition, there is a real tradeoff between equality and economic growth, and egalitarianism
is not a popular policy even for many low-income people. In my experience, trade unions are much
more interested in wage differentials than in a simple policy of equal pay for all.
These are the core principles that I believe a new progressive political economy should embrace.
I also believe that Western countries that do not adopt this framework and instead cling to a neoliberal
political economy, will find it increasingly difficult to innovate and grow.
In the new global economy, which is awash with cheap labour, Western economies will not be able
to compete in a "race to the bottom", with firms seeking ever-cheaper labour, land and capital, with
governments seeking to attract them by deregulating and shrinking social benefits.
The only way Western economies will be able to compete and improve their standard of living is
by seeing themselves as being involved in a race to the top. That is, firms must improve their value
added through innovation in existing industries and by developing the capability to compete in new
and more sophisticated industries, where value added is generally higher.
Companies will be able to do this only if governments abandon the belief that they have no role
to play in the economy. In fact, the state has a key role to play in providing the conditions that
enable dynamic companies to innovate and grow.
"... ...In many ways, it is remarkable that candidates who speak against free trade the way Sanders and Trump have have had significant traction this primary election season. But the signs have been there over the past few years. Wendy Brown, a political scientist at the University of California, notes that the Occupy movement was among the first to point out the dangers of the neoliberal economic system. ..."
"... I expect there will be a struggle between the free market fundamentalists and a broader, vastly more numerous base spanning both blue and white collar working and middle classes. Inequality will be one driver but there will be others. We have to shake 18th century economics, 19th century industrialism and 20th century geopolitics - the forces that spawned globalism. These modes of organization are antiquated and no longer retain much utility. They were conceived during and designed for a much different world with a far smaller overall population, a surfeit of cheap resources and a far lower rate of consumption. ..."
Fortune magazine ponders whether neoliberalism in its home country - the United States - can
survive the November elections.
Neoliberalism ...is an economic principle. It refers to the belief that markets should be frictionless
and unfettered by things like regulation or organized labor. Neoliberalism has its roots in the Chicago
School of economics pioneered by Milton Friedman in the 1970s. The concept found its footing in the
1970s and 80s, with champions like Chile's Augusto Pinochet, Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher.
It then evolved into a basic economic outlook for major political parties in much of the Western
world. Neoliberalism's stature reached new heights in the 1990s, when President Bill Clinton signed
the North American Free Trade Agreement and British Prime Minister Tony Blair created the "New Labour"
movement, moving the Labour Party away from its trade union roots.
This is the world that British journalist Paul Mason addresses in his book Postcapitalism:
A Guide to Our Future, Mason ...argues that the current iteration of capitalism, neoliberalism -
prevalent mostly in western democracies - is sick and dying.
But the go-go 1990s feels like a distant memory today. And in his book, Mason suggests a way
forward, drawing on classical Marxist theory that's been updated for the information age.
Mason argues for what he calls a postcapitalist society. Such a system would include universal
basic income; a socialized finance system; increased collaborative work; and increased regulation
to prevent the growth of low-wage, low-growth jobs. Imagine if we could all enjoy the benefits that
sharing economy companies like Uber offer its participants but companies also paid enough taxes to
pay for programs that support those workers.
...So, how does all of this tie in to the 2016 presidential election? It starts, of course,
with Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, both of whom have channeled voters' frustration and anger with
an economic world that, they feel, has left them behind.
In an interview from London, Mason was quick to dismiss Trump, calling him "a showman and a charlatan
and a racist." He claims that the rise of Trump is proof that neoliberalism is broken. With people
left as adrift as they are, he says, "it's no surprise that an empty can rises like flotsam."
...In many ways, it is remarkable that candidates who speak against free trade the way Sanders
and Trump have have had significant traction this primary election season. But the signs have been
there over the past few years. Wendy Brown, a political scientist at the University of California,
notes that the Occupy movement was among the first to point out the dangers of the neoliberal economic
system.
Republicans, of course, would never go for Mason's suggestions; just this month, John Kasich called
for the "Uberization" of the federal government. Uber, with its limited rights and benefits for drivers,
is in many ways the poster child for the neoliberal dream.
Mason's book offers a stark portrait of a potential future in which inequality grows to unimaginable
heights, leading to social unrest. "I can see within a century the end of the market system as we
know it," Mason says.
That may sound a bit extreme. But in a world where more and more people feel like the economy
has flat out left them behind, it would be foolish to disregard what should come next.
I expect there will be a struggle between the free market fundamentalists and a broader, vastly
more numerous base spanning both blue and white collar working and middle classes. Inequality will
be one driver but there will be others. We have to shake 18th century economics, 19th century industrialism
and 20th century geopolitics - the forces that spawned globalism. These modes of organization are
antiquated and no longer retain much utility. They were conceived during and designed for a much
different world with a far smaller overall population, a surfeit of cheap resources and a far lower
rate of consumption.
We're running into walls, one after another, and these walls are boxing us in, eliminating or
narrowing options and choice. Our obsolete modes of organization, the foundations of neoliberalism
and globalism, have no settings to deal with overpopulation, over-consumption or climate change.
That much is apparent from the manner in which they're based on perpetual, exponential growth. On
a finite biosphere, our Spaceship Earth, the limits of growth are sharply defined and yet, instead
of organizing ourselves accordingly, we keep resorting to sleight of hand, parlour tricks, that lead
to deforestation, desertification, the collapse of major fisheries, the draining of our groundwater
resources - on and on and on.
What I fear most is that the failure of our leadership to acknowledge and respond to these
issues will lead to mass unrest and a population that's easy prey for the first charismatic despot
to come along and feed off their discontent. The fact is that happens more often than not and it
only makes a difficult situation enormously worse.
Thanks for that good post. I look
forward to reading Mason's book. In the UK they have Corbyn, in the US they have Sanders, when
are we going to produces a leader who actually talks about redistribution and fair taxation instead
of towing the neo-liberal line like Mulcair?
Within it is another link "Abundance" - another good read.
Technology may end up speeding-up the destruction of our current form of capitalism. Most don't
understand what's happening until it hits them in the face (like Uber and taxi cabs).
A guaranteed minimum income with corporations forced to pay their fair share of taxes is a
start. Looking forward to a "Star Trek world".
I just looked on Amazon, Kirby, and it's available but seems a bit pricey. You can get the ebook
for about $14. I'll wait until it shows up on Abebooks next year.
@ UU4077 - I did a post the other
day on Galbraith's "The End of Normal" that focused on the chapter dealing with "creative destruction."
This expands upon some of the points made in your links. Galbraith writes of, " new ways for the
information-processing device to perform tasks that used to be carried out by someone else for
money; new ways to kill off activity elsewhere; new ways to devalue somebody else's skill" as
the inevitable result of our rampaging technology.
It's almost never mentioned that Adam Smith,
in his 1776 "The Wealth of Nations," foresaw that the Ponzi scheme that today's capitalism has
become would have a shelf life of about 200-years. Give or take half a century it seems he was
right. From Wiki: "A central theme of the book is the desirable consequences of each person pursuing
self-interest in the marketplace. He theorized and observed that people trading in open markets
leads to production of the right quantities of commodities, division of labor, increasing wages,
and an upward spiral of economic growth. But Smith recognized a limit to economic growth. He predicted
that in the long run, population growth would push wages down, natural resources would become
increasingly scarce, and division of labor would approach the limits of its effectiveness."
After this period, Smith concluded civilization would enter a 'steady state economy' not because
it was particularly desirable or superior but because there would be no other option. It seems
ridiculous to even argue the point but we live on a finite world and the limits of this world
prescribe that the economy must be a subset of that environment. I think we may be on the verge
of discovering that immutable law of nature but possibly much too late.
"... 'There's an interesting theory – called the 'green paradox' – that low oil prices are in part the reaction of an industry fearful of the impacts of climate change policy on its future revenues. ..."
"... The German economist Hans-Werner Sinn has argued that "if suppliers feel threatened by a gradual greening of economic policies.. they will extract their stocks more rapidly" thus pushing their prices down' ..."
There's a new parliamentary group in UK on Limits to Growth that had it's
first meeting this week.
'A 2015 analysis of the remaining fossil fuel resources in China, USA,
Canada and Australia, which includes unconventional resources, suggests
that overall oil production is in fact peaking already'
I hadn't heard this before:
'There's an interesting theory – called the 'green paradox' – that
low oil prices are in part the reaction of an industry fearful of the impacts
of climate change policy on its future revenues.
The German economist Hans-Werner
Sinn has argued that "if suppliers feel threatened by a gradual greening
of economic policies.. they will extract their stocks more rapidly" thus
pushing their prices down'
"... Second, one would have to be extraordinarily naďve to believe that the neoliberal project has been about establishing 'free' markets in the first place, although this myth has been assiduously perpetrated by social democratic parties who, eager to disguise their own capitulation to neoliberalism, emphasize their opposition to the marketisation of all social relationships, even though no-one – except perhaps the followers of Ayn Rand – seriously imagines this is either possible or desirable. ..."
"... There are two foundational aspects of capitalism: the 'horizontal' competition between capitals and the 'vertical' conflict between labour and capital. The role of the capitalist state is to impose a dual social order determined by these two processes: over competing capitals so that market relations do not collapse into 'the war of all against all', and over the conflict between capital and labour so that it continues to be resolved in the interest of the former. Beyond this, states also have to establish 'general conditions of production', which individual competing capitals would be unwilling or unable to provide, including some basic level of technical infrastructure and welfare. These functions are mainly 'internal' to the territory of nation-states, but they must also represent the collective interests of the 'internal' capitalist class 'externally' in relation to other capitalist states and classes, up to and including the conduct of war. ..."
"... Joseph Schumpeter yielded to no-one in his admiration for the heroic entrepreneur, but also noted during the Second World War that, with the possible exception of the United States, the bourgeoisie was so incapable of self-rule that it required a non-bourgeois group as a 'master'. ..."
"... In the case of the UK the regime began, not with Margaret Thatcher's General Election victory in 1979, but around half-way through the preceding Labour Government of 1974–9 and it persists, with variations, to this day, whatever the bleating from Polly Toynbee and others on the liberal left about the supposedly fundamental differences between the two main parties. ..."
"... The answer is in the way in which neoliberalism has reconfigured politics.The necessary distance between the state and capital (or between state managers and capitalists) that Smith, Marx and Schumpeter from their different political perspectives all regarded is being essential for the health of the system, is being minimised. In particular, the regime adoption of timescales associated specifically with the profit-maximising drives of financial capital is important as it indicates the short-termism involved. Three factors are important in producing this tendency. ..."
"... Ironically, one reason for the rise of neoliberalism in the US was a paradoxical outcome of the successful demand for greater democratic accountability during the 1960s and 1970s. This led to the weakening of both congressional committees and party structures, and produced a new breed of 'entrepreneurial politicians' interested in highlighting issues popular with specific audiences which would provide them with a stable following. ..."
"... For all practical purposes then, members of the ruling class in the West are now united in accepting neoliberalism as the only viable way of organising capitalism as an economic system, but they are divided in relation to how capitalism should be organised as a social system. They may all be neoliberals now, but they are not all neoconservatives. ..."
"... Defence of the system is always the principle objective of the bourgeoisie, even at the expense of temporary system malfunction. In a situation where economic desperation was leading to mounting disorder, far-right parties would be brought into play to direct attention from the real source of social anguish onto already-identified scapegoats, no matter what price they exacted in terms of policy. ..."
The neoliberal era can be retrospectively identified as beginning with the
economic crisis of 1973, or, more precisely, with the strategic response of state managers and employers
to that crisis. Previous eras in the history of capitalism have tended to close with the onset of
further period of systemic crisis; 1973, for example, saw the end of the era of state capitalism
which began in 1929. The neoliberal era, however, has not only survived the crisis which began in
2007, but its characteristic features are, if anything, being further extended and embedded, rather
than reversed.
Yet, although neoliberalism has massively increased the wealth of the global capitalist
class, has it also restored the health of the system itself? The crisis which gave rise to neoliberalism
was, after all, caused by the end of the unprecedented period of growth which characterised the post-war
boom, and the consequent accelerating decline in the rate of profit, unimpeded by the countervailing
tendencies – above all arms spending – which had held it in check since the Second World War. These
levels of growth were never resumed, but it would be wrong to claim that capitalism experienced no
recovery after 1973. The boom from 1982 to 2007 was certainly uneven and punctuated by particularly
sharp financial crises and recessions in 1987, 1991, 1997 and 2000; but these were normal expressions
of the business cycle and only a misplaced fixation with using the unique and unrepeatable period
between 1948 and 1973 as a comparator could justify treating these as symptoms of crisis. When crisis
did return in 2007–8, it simply proved that neoliberalism was no more capable of permanently
preventing this than any other mode of capitalist regulation.
Neoliberalism does, however, represent a paradox for capitalism. Its relative success
as a ruling-class strategy, particularly in weakening the trade union movement and reducing the share
of profits going to labour, has helped to disguise that some aspects of this mode of regulation are
proving unintentionally detrimental to the system. Serving the interests of the rich is not the same
– or at least, not always the same – as serving the interests of capital and may, in certain circumstances,
be in contradiction to it. Simply doing what the rich want is unlikely to produce beneficial results
for the system as a whole, although it may help increase the wealth of individual capitalists. For
not only are capitalists generally uninterested in the broader social interest, which we might expect,
but they are also generally incapable of correctly assessing their own overall collective
class interests, which might seem more surprising – although as we shall see, it is a long-standing
phenomenon, observed by many of the great social theorists from late eighteenth century onwards.
As a result, capitalist states – or more precisely, their managers – have traditionally acted to
make such an assessment; but in the developed West at least, neoliberal regimes are increasingly
displaying an uncritical adherence to the short-term wishes of particular business interests. This
is not the only emergent problem: the increasingly narrow parameters of neoliberal politics, where
choice is restricted to 'social' rather than 'economic' issues, has encouraged the emergence of far-right
parties, usually fixated on questions of migration, which have proved enormously divisive in working-class
communities, but whose policies are in other respects by no means in the interests of capital.
The self-destructive nature of neoliberal capitalism has nothing necessarily to do
with the removal of restrictions on markets. The rise of neoliberalism made it fashionable to refer
to Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation, the assumption being that neoliberalism is in
the process of realising Polanyi's nightmare: reversing the second part of his 'double movement'
– the social reaction against markets – and unleashing the mechanisms that he saw as being so destructive
of society and nature.
Leaving aside the fact that capitalism was always capable of producing social atomization,
collective violence and environmental destruction, even in periods when the state was far more directly
involved in the mechanisms of production and exchange then it is now, there are two problems with
this position. First, rhetoric apart, capitalists no more favour untrammelled competition today than
they did when monopolies and cartels first appeared as aspects of the emerging system in the sixteenth
century. Second, one would have to be extraordinarily naďve to believe that the neoliberal project
has been about establishing 'free' markets in the first place, although this myth has been assiduously
perpetrated by social democratic parties who, eager to disguise their own capitulation to neoliberalism,
emphasize their opposition to the marketisation of all social relationships, even though no-one –
except perhaps the followers of Ayn Rand – seriously imagines this is either possible or desirable.
In what follows I will mainly draw on the experiences of the UK and the US, since these were the
first nation-states in which neoliberalism was imposed under democratic conditions – unlike Chile
or China, for example – and where it has in many respects gone furthest. To understand the real nature
of the difficulties inadvertently caused for capital by neoliberalism we have to begin with the role
of capitalist states 'in general'.
How did capitalist states operate before neoliberalism? There are two foundational
aspects of capitalism: the 'horizontal' competition between capitals and the 'vertical' conflict
between labour and capital. The role of the capitalist state is to impose a dual social order determined
by these two processes: over competing capitals so that market relations do not collapse into 'the
war of all against all', and over the conflict between capital and labour so that it continues to
be resolved in the interest of the former. Beyond this, states also have to establish 'general conditions
of production', which individual competing capitals would be unwilling or unable to provide, including
some basic level of technical infrastructure and welfare. These functions are mainly 'internal' to
the territory of nation-states, but they must also represent the collective interests of the 'internal'
capitalist class 'externally' in relation to other capitalist states and classes, up to and including
the conduct of war.
In order to maintain links to capital in all its multiple incarnations, the state must
partly mirror capital's fragmentation. As this suggests, not every action carried out by the state
need necessarily be in the direct collective interest of the ruling class – indeed, if it is to give
the appearance of adjudicating between different class and other interests then it is essential that
they are not, so long as these actions are ultimately subordinated to ruling class interests.
Nevertheless, the capitalist state has nevertheless tended not to be run by capitalists themselves.
Why not?
The earliest social theorists to concern themselves with the emergent capitalist system
– which they tended to refer to as 'commercial society' – were unambiguous in their assessment of
how narrow business interests were. Since Adam Smith is – quite unfairly – treated as the patron
saint of neoliberalism is may be worth reminding ourselves of his still-refreshingly candid views
about the capacity of business interests for deception and oppression, and their inability to see
beyond their own immediate interests. Nearly a century later in the 1860s, Smith's greatest successor,
Karl Marx, was able to point in Capital to the example of the British Factory Acts as an example
of how the state had to intervene to regulate the activities of capital in the face of initial opposition
from the capitalists themselves. Reflecting on the entire legislative episode, Marx noted the way
in which it took Parliamentary legislation to force capital to accept regulation of the length of
the working day. Indeed, the most irreconcilable positions were expressed not by employers but by
their ideologues, the most important of whom was Herbert Spencer, who saw – and here we can detect
the genuine ancestry of contemporary neoliberalism – the spectre of socialist slavery in any form
of state intervention.
The thesis concerning bourgeois incapacity was not only restricted to critical supporters
of capitalism like Smith or opponents like Marx. Joseph Schumpeter yielded to no-one in his admiration
for the heroic entrepreneur, but also noted during the Second World War that, with the possible exception
of the United States, the bourgeoisie was so incapable of self-rule that it required a non-bourgeois
group as a 'master'. Without the kind of constraints provided by this pre-capitalist framework,
the more sober instincts of the bourgeois would be overcome by the impulse towards what Schumpeter
called 'creative destruction'. The delegation of power to the state therefore exists because of the
inaptitude of the capitalist class compared to other ruling classes in history: feudal lords combine
an economic and political role; capitalists perform only the former – although the necessity for
capitalists to devote their time to the process of accumulation and their own multiple internal divisions
also militate against their functioning directly as a governing class.
Schumpeter was, however, too pessimistic: from the First World War in particular, the
pre-capitalist classes which had acted as the shepherds of capital were increasingly replaced by
state managers: the professional politicians and civil servants respectively responsible for the
legislative and executive wings of the state. At the most fundamental level, the common interest
between capitalists and state managers stems from their common class position: both are part of the
bourgeoisie. If we visualise the bourgeoisie as a series of concentric circles, then the capitalist
class as such (actual owners and controllers of capital) occupies the centre and a series of other
layers radiates outwards, with those closer to the periphery being progressively less directly connected
to the core economic activities of production, exploitation, and competition, and more involved with
those of the ideological, administrative, or technical aspects, which are nevertheless essential
to the reproduction of capitalism. The incomes that state managers are paid from state revenues ultimately
derive from the total social surplus value produced by the working class, as are the profits, interest,
and rent received by different types of private capitalist. And this applies not simply to the source
of their income but also to its level, since the relatively high levels of remuneration, security,
and prestige enjoyed by these officials depend on the continued exploitation of wage labour. At that
level the interests of state managers and capitalist are the same.
These groups have a shared ideological commitment to capitalism, but their particular
interests arise from distinct regions of the totality of capitalism, in its various national manifestations.
A shared background in institutions like schools, universities, and clubs helps to consolidate a
class consciousness that articulates these interests, but a more fundamental reason is that the activities
of states are subordinated to the accumulation of capital. In the British case, the state may not
do this as successfully as the capitalist class might wish, but that is an indication of the problems
of managing long-term relative decline, not that the state managers have different goals. Regardless
of their class origins, state managers and capitalists are drawn together into a series of mutually
supportive relationships. The former need the resources provided by individual national capitals,
principally through taxation and loans, in order to attend to the needs of the national capital as
a whole; the latter need specific policy initiatives to strengthen the competitive position of their
sector of the national capital within the global economy. There have nevertheless always been tensions,
above all the fear on the part of capitalists that states – which they regard as Weberian autonomous
entities with their own interests – will either restrict or abolish their right to private property.
What gives these fears plausibility is precisely the fact that state managers have both to facilitate
the process of capital accumulation and ameliorate its effects on the population and environment,
returning us to the Factory Acts and capitalist responses to them described by Marx in 1867.
Has the neoliberal era seen the capitalist class finally succeeding in 'binding Leviathan',
to quote the title of an early British neoliberal text by William Waldegrave? We need to be clear
that it is not the nature of capitalist states themselves that has changed: they still need to perform
the core functions described at the beginning of this section. There is no 'neoliberal state', but
there are 'neoliberal regimes'. In the case of the UK the regime began, not with Margaret Thatcher's
General Election victory in 1979, but around half-way through the preceding Labour Government of
1974–9 and it persists, with variations, to this day, whatever the bleating from Polly Toynbee and
others on the liberal left about the supposedly fundamental differences between the two main parties.
What has changed is that the relationship between neoliberal regimes and capital since
the 1970s has prevented states from acting effectively in the collective, long-term interest of capitalism.
Neoliberal regimes have increasingly abandoned any attempt to arrive at an overarching understanding
of what the conditions for growth might be, other than the supposed need for lowering taxation and
regulation and raising labour flexibility. Apart from these, the interests of the total national
capital is seen as an arithmetical aggregate of the interests of individual businesses, some of which,
to be sure, have rather more influence with governments than others. In so far as there is a 'strategic
view' it involves avoiding any policies which might incur corporate displeasure, however minor the
inconveniences they might involve for the corporations, which of course includes regulation. These
developments have, not unexpectedly, led to complete incomprehension among remaining Keynesians of
the liberal left such as Ha-Joon Chang and Will Hutton, but they are not beyond explanation. The
reason is not simply because of successful lobbying and PR on behalf of individual businesses or
industries, pernicious and pervasive though these increasingly sophisticated activities undoubtedly
are. But corporations have always done this: why are state managers now so predisposed to respond
positively to their efforts? The answer is in the way in which neoliberalism has reconfigured
politics.The necessary distance between the state and capital (or between state managers and capitalists)
that Smith, Marx and Schumpeter from their different political perspectives all regarded is being
essential for the health of the system, is being minimised. In particular, the regime adoption of
timescales associated specifically with the profit-maximising drives of financial capital is important
as it indicates the short-termism involved. Three factors are important in producing this tendency.
The first is the depoliticization of the political wing of the state managers through
the delegation of functions away from the government in office to ostensibly 'non-political' bodies,
the introduction ostensibly 'objective' assessments of the effectiveness of policy and imposition
of binding 'rules' which restrict the range of actions which politicians can take. In relation to
the latter in particular, each successive phase of the neoliberal experiment saw the incremental
abandonment of the repertoire of measures through which governments had traditionally influenced
economic activity, beginning with Geoffrey Howe's abandonment of exchange controls in 1979 and concluding
(to date) with Gordon Brown's transfer of the power to set interest rates from the Treasury to an
unelected committee of the Bank of England.
As a consequence of their heightened 'managerial' function, politicians have increasingly
become a professional caste whose life-world is increasingly remote from any other form of activity,
economic or otherwise, and therefore more autonomous, while simultaneously becoming more committed
to capitalist conceptions of the national interest, with business as an exemplar. Consequently, most
discussion of politics – in the developed world at least – is devoted to expending more or less informed
commentary and speculation on essentially meaningless exchanges within Parliaments and other supposedly
representative institutions. Debates therefore have the quality of a shadow play, an empty ritual
in which trivial or superficial differences are emphasised in order to give an impression of real
alternatives and justify the continuation of party competition. To understand why, we have to focus
on the weakening of the labor movement, since one of the inadvertent roles which it historically
played was to save capitalism from itself, not least by achieving reforms in relation to education,
health and welfare. These benefitted workers, of course, but also ensured that the reproduction of
the workforce and the conditions for capital accumulation more generally took place. In this respect
social democracy occupied a similar place to the pre-capitalist elites identified by Schumpeter as
necessary to rule on behalf of a congenitally incapable capitalist class. But with the weakening
of trade union power and the capitulation of social democracy to neoliberalism, there is currently
no social force capable of either playing this reformist role directly or by pressurizing non-social
democratic state managers into playing it.
The second factor, opposed to the depoliticization of politicians, is the politicization
of the non-political wing of the state managers: the civil servants. As the political parties became
less distinct from each other, the officials required to implement their increasingly similar policies
are required to turn themselves more completely into extensions of the parties themselves. In the
US, the politicization of the civil service has always been a more significant factor than in the
UK, but even there the neoliberal era saw a heightening of the existing tendency. The permeability
and lack of technocracy of the US state bureaucracy compared to the French or British may have some
advantages for capital, but generally hinders the separation of policy making from political considerations
and leads to the politically motivated choice of budget projections. These tendencies were exacerbated
by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 which further weakened the autonomous basis of the government
bureaucracy. In the UK, following hard on the heels of the United States as always, there has been
since 1979, and especially since 1997, a more generalised influx of private-sector appointees into
the civil service, to the point where it has been effectively subject to a corporate takeover. But
even in relation to the permanent home civil service, the expectation that senior civil servants
in particular will not attempt to point out the difficulties involved in governmental policies or
even consider alternative ways of delivering policies, but simply present arguments to justify them,
regardless of the empirical data.
The third and final factor in producing chronic short-termism in neoliberal regimes
is the de-politicization of the electorate. Except it is not so much de-politicization as abstention
by sections of the electorate who no longer have any parties for whom to vote. Many of those electors
still involved in casting their vote do so – appropriately enough – on a consumer model of political
choice, where participation is informed by media-driven perceptions of which result will be to their
immediate personal benefit. Unsurprisingly, the numbers prepared to carry out even this minimal level
of activity are declining. This can be reversed, as was demonstrated in the popular insurgency
for a Yes vote during the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, where 97 percent of population registered
to vote and 85 percent actually did; but under 'normal' conditions, those who vote are more likely
to belong to the middle-classes, who tend to have a more focused view of their material interests
and deploy more interventionist strategies for maintaining them than those bearing the brunt of austerity.
Ironically, one reason for the rise of neoliberalism in the US was a paradoxical outcome of the
successful demand for greater democratic accountability during the 1960s and 1970s. This led to the
weakening of both congressional committees and party structures, and produced a new breed of 'entrepreneurial
politicians' interested in highlighting issues popular with specific audiences which would provide
them with a stable following.
A model for 'returning power to the people' along these lines was built early on in
the neoliberal experiment, in the US. The most fully developed version can be found in California.
Since the mid-1970s, politics in the world's fourth biggest economy have been characterised by a
combination of falling voter participation among working class and minority groups, and a targeted
use of local referendums on 'propositions'. The latter have been designed to defend property values
by blocking integrated schooling and urban development, and by preventing progressive taxation. Proposition
13 was passed in 1978 and signalled the commencement of the neoliberal era in the US by capping taxes
on property, even though house values were rising. As a result, the burden of taxation fell disproportionately
on income tax, even though for most worker's salaries and wages were stagnant or falling – and even
increasing income tax requires a two thirds majority in both Houses of the State Legislature.
It is the self-interested behaviour of a mobilised middle-class that has brought California
to fiscal crisis in 2009, after which the usual remedies of cutting public services, including child
health care, were now being offered as a solution to the structural inability of the state to raise
the necessary levels of taxation. The paralysis of California may foreshadow the future of US politics
as a whole and, in turn, the US may foreshadow the future of politics in the rest of the world, a
development for which there are, unfortunately, historical precedents.
The entire neoliberal project was premised on the irreversibility of the process: the
abolition of regulatory mechanisms, dismantling of welfare programs, ratification of international
treaties for which there are no formal mechanisms allowing them to be either amended or annulled,
and so on – all these could be reversed, but it would require new legal and administrative structures
which would in turn require planning and a political will to do so which has not existed since the
beginning of the neoliberal era. For all practical purposes then, members of the ruling class
in the West are now united in accepting neoliberalism as the only viable way of organising capitalism
as an economic system, but they are divided in relation to how capitalism should be organised
as a social system. They may all be neoliberals now, but they are not all neoconservatives.
In the US both Democrats and Republicans are openly committed to capitalism, but there are also
real divisions of opinion between them concerning, for example, gay rights or environmental protection.
Electoral support for the far-right in these circumstances is based on the apparent
solutions it offers to what are now two successive waves of crisis, beginning respectively in 1973–4
and 2007–8, which have left the working class in the West increasingly fragmented and disorganised,
and susceptible to appeals to blood and nation as the only viable form of collectivism still available,
particularly in a context where any systemic alternative to capitalism – however false it may have
been – had apparently collapsed in 1989–91. The political implications are ominous. The increasing
interchangeability of political parties, discussed above gives the far-right an opening to appeal
to voters by positioning themselves as outside the consensus in ways which speak to popular appetites
for destruction fostered by capitalism itself.
The potential problem for the stability of the capitalist system is however less the
possibility of far-right parties themselves coming to power with a programme destructive to capitalist
needs, than their influence over the mainstream parties of the right, when the beliefs of their supporters
may inadvertently cause difficulty for the accumulation process. Take an important area of Republican
Party support in the US. Since the late sixties Republicans have been increasingly reliant on communities
of fundamentalist Christian believers, whose activism allows them to be mobilised for voting purposes.
But this religious core vote, or at any rate their leadership, naturally also demand the implementation
of policies in return for their support. The problem for the Republicans is not, however, only that
the extremism of fundamentalist Christianity may alienate the electoral 'middle-ground' on which
the results of American elections increasingly depend. What is perhaps interesting here is less the
consciously oppositional elements of right-wing populist ideology, which tend to be directed against
the socio-cultural views of one (liberal) wing of the ruling class, and more what I referred to earlier
as outcomes which might be unintentionally 'detrimental' to capital. In other words, politicians
may be constrained from undertaking policies which may be necessary for American capitalism, or be
forced into taking decisions which may harm it.
But it is not only religious belief which can cause difficulties for US capital; so
to can overt anti-migrant racism. One concrete example of this is the Tea Party-inspired Beason-Hammon
Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act – HB56 as it is usually known – which was passed by the
State legislature in June 2011, making it illegal not to carry immigration papers and preventing
anyone without documents from receiving any provisions from the state, including water supply. The
law was intended to prevent and reverse illegal immigration by Hispanics, but the effect was to cause
a mass departure from the many of the agricultural businesses which relied on these workers to form
the bulk of their labour force. But the effects went deeper. Before the laws introduced it was estimated
that 4.2 percent of the workforce or 95,000 people were undocumented but paying $130.3 million in
state and local taxes. Their departure from the state or withdrawal to the black economy threatened
to reduce the size of the local economy by $40 million. Moreover employers had to spend more money
on screening prospective employees, on HR staff to check paperwork, and on insuring for potential
legal liabilities from inadvertent breaches of the law. In an earlier era, social democratic reforms
were usually intended to enable the system as a whole to function more effectively for capitalists
and more equitably for the majority, however irreconcilable these aims may be in reality. But far-right
reforms of the type just discussed are not even intended to work in the interests of capitalists,
nor do they: they really embody irrational racist beliefs which take precedence over all else.
The British Conservative Party has encountered similar problems to the Republicans
in relation to Europe. The imperial nationalism unleashed by the Conservatives before 1997 in relation
to 'Europe', was not because the EU was in any sense hostile to neoliberalism, but as an ideological
diversion from the failure of neoliberalism to transform the fortunes of British capital. The nationalism
invoked for this purpose now places a major obstacle for British politicians and state managers who
want to pursue a strategy of greater European integration, however rational that may be from their
perspective. A 2013 British Chambers of Commerce poll of 4,387 companies showed only eighteen percent
agreeing that full withdrawal from the EU could have a positive impact, while a majority of sixty-four
percent supported remaining inside the EU while repatriating some powers: unsurprisingly, the real
source of anti-EU feeling is small business. The key beneficiary of the anti-European hysteria has
been UKIP and its success has in turn emboldened the right within the Conservative Party, even though
the policies associated with both are incoherent. But these contradictions may not matter in terms
of the political struggle for power. The narrowly-won Swiss referendum vote in 2014 to introduce
quotas on migrants from the EU, passed against the wishes of local capitalists and ruling classes
of Europe and potentially bringing retaliation from Brussels, gives a small indication of what might
follow.
If I am right that certain aspects of far-right politics are counter-productive in
relation to the needs of capital, it does not follow that the increased chaos consequent on the implementation
of these policies would necessarily be of benefit, even indirectly, to the left. Defence of the
system is always the principle objective of the bourgeoisie, even at the expense of temporary system
malfunction. In a situation where economic desperation was leading to mounting disorder, far-right
parties would be brought into play to direct attention from the real source of social anguish onto
already-identified scapegoats, no matter what price they exacted in terms of policy.
What we see emerging is a symbiotic relationship between one increasingly inadequate
regime response to the problems of capital accumulation and another increasingly extreme response
to the most irrational desires and prejudices produced by capital accumulation. In Descent,
the most recent novel by the Scottish science fiction author, Ken McLeod, the author imagines a situation
in the near future where the ruling classes of the world take coordinated legal and military action
in a passive revolution ('the Big Deal') to smash the dominance of financial capital, restore that
of industrial capital and essentially put an end to the neoliberal era. This aspect of the novel
is far more incredible than the alien encounters that occur elsewhere in its pages. Clearly, in situations
of absolute, immediate crisis, short-term emergency measures would be introduced in the same way
as the effective nationalisation of banks and other financial institutions took place in both the
US and UK during 2008. But these were minimal interventions to prevent outright collapse, save the
institutions (and the practices which brought them to the point of crisis in the first place) without
using them for any coherent strategic end, let alone any broader social purpose; and of course on
the basis that they would be re-privatised as soon as possible.
Let me clear what I am not saying. I am not suggesting that it should be the work of
socialists to propose solutions to the crisis of capitalism. It is always necessary to argue for
reforms, of course, but the idea that the application of Keynesian solutions would restore the Golden
Age of the post-war welfare state is simply illusionary and underestimates the extent to which those
years were the result of a unique set of circumstances. Booms will continue to occur, as they did
between 1982 and 2007, but the beneficiaries will become fewer and fewer. Consequently, I am not
predicting that developments discussed here mean that capitalism will simply collapse under the weight
of its own internal contradictions either. Scenarios of this type, from those of Rosa Luxemburg onwards,
have been proved false in the past and there is no reason to suppose that they will be any more accurate
in the future. Indeed, a collapse not brought about by the conscious intervention of the oppressed
and exploited would not be to their advantage in any case, but simply a step towards the barbarism
to which Marxists from Engels onwards have seen as the consequence of failing to achieve a socialist
society. And this is no mere slogan: the condition of central Africa and parts of the Middle East
today indicates the presence of actually existing barbarism as the daily reality for millions. Events
in the developed world are unlikely to take this form, at least until environmental catastrophe becomes
irreversible, but rather involve a gradual and, for all but the very poorest, almost imperceptible
worsening and coarsening on their conditions of life.
What I am suggesting is that neoliberalism as a strategy has almost been too successful
as a method of capitalist regulation. It has finally brought about the situation that Schumpeter
feared, where creative destruction has no limits or boundaries. Both Engels and Benjamin envisaged
capitalism as a runaway train heading for destruction. It appeared, within less than a decade of
the latter's suicide in 1940, that forces within capitalism itself were capable of 'pulling the hand
break'; it now appears that his initial intuition was right and that revolution is all stands in
the way of the disaster that otherwise awaits.
Neil Davidson lectures in Sociology with the School of Social and Political Sciences
at the University of Glasgow. He is the author of The Origins of Scottish Nationhood (2000), the
Deutscher-Prize winning Discovering the Scottish Revolution (2003), How Revolutionary Were the Bourgeois
Revolutions? and Holding Fast to an Image of the Past (2014). His latest book, We Cannot Escape History,
will be published in July. Davidson has co-edited and contributed to Alasdair MacIntyre's Engagement
with Marxism (2008), Neoliberal Scotland (2010) and The Longue Durée of the Far Right (2014). He
is in the editorial board of rs21. Davidson is a member of International Socialists Scotland and
a supporter of the Scottish Left Project.
"... This question contains one truly huge assumption: that liberals actually support Obama and Clinton. My support for Obama evaporated as it became apparent that, rather than fighting for civil rights, he was doubling down on Bush/Cheney's totalitarian approach to all issues of security. ..."
"... The only time I've really thought he was fighting for anything was against Hillary during the latter part of his first nominating process. Since then he's been fairly spineless. ..."
"... The Clintons have never been liberal. They're all about taking the safe middle of the road; they'd never take on the corporate interests because they want their donations just like the right wing. ..."
"... If you want to find liberals, find folks like me that are at least interested in Sanders. Or at least initiate political conversations on your own. Educate yourself on the issues that are important to you and start talking with the people around you. ..."
This question contains one truly huge assumption: that liberals actually
support Obama and Clinton. My support for Obama evaporated as it became apparent
that, rather than fighting for civil rights, he was doubling down on Bush/Cheney's
totalitarian approach to all issues of security. His incessant compromises
with GOP on health-care during his first year or two left us with an ACA that
is somewhat better than nothing but falls dramatically far short of what it
should have been; and the compromises were just tricks, the GOP intended to
stonewall it from the beginning.
His FCC's actions on net neutrality were essential but don't outweigh his
failings on liberty, privacy, and other issues. His failures to respond to the
Bundy family's two armed insurrections are typical of his passive afraid-of-the-backlash
approach to just about everything.
His administration is complicity embedded with the Content Ownership industry
to eliminate the fair-use exception to copyright law. The only time I've
really thought he was fighting for anything was against Hillary during the latter
part of his first nominating process. Since then he's been fairly spineless.
Only reason I don't usually air these concerns publicly is the scandalous
amount of racism and sheer hatred in the heart of the GOP's nut-job opposition.
The Clintons have never been liberal. They're all about taking the safe
middle of the road; they'd never take on the corporate interests because they
want their donations just like the right wing.
... ... ... ...
If you want to find liberals, find folks like me that are at least interested
in Sanders. Or at least initiate political conversations on your own. Educate
yourself on the issues that are important to you and start talking with the
people around you.
"... Monbiot is the best journalist the Guardian has, he can actually make a logical fact based argument unlike the majority of Guardian journalist. ..."
"... Monbiot suggests that a coherent alternative to the current situation needs to be developed but disappointingly fails to give any clues as to what it might look like except, of course, that it must have some type of environmental context. ..."
"... A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For Labour, the Democrats and the wider left, the central task should be to develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system, tailored to the demands of the 21st century ..."
"... The trade union package, gave us meal breaks, holidays, sickness benefits, working hours restrictions, as opposed to the right wing media agenda ..."
"... Yes, a high priest of neo-liberalism, Lord Freud, was given only 13 weeks to investigate and reform key elements of the the UK's welfare system, it hasn't worked and Freud is now invisible. ..."
"... Failed neoliberalism and not restricting markets that do not benefit the majority are the cause and we stand on the brink of falling further should the Brexiter's have their way. If there's one thing the EU excels at it's legislating against the excesses of business and extremism. ..."
John Harris is wonderful too. The only guy on the staff who can write about
the working class with clarity, respect and understanding. But Monbiot is
also the biscuit.
'The Invisible Hand' is not an ideology or dogma. It's just a metaphor to
describe those with problems grasping abstract concepts: when there are
a large number of buyers and suppliers for a good, the 'market finds a price'
which is effectively the sum of all the intelligence of the participants,
their suppliers, customers etc..
The Socialists, who have difficulty grasping this reality, want to 'fix'
the price, which abnegates the collective intelligence of the market participants,
and causes severe problems.
Capitalism is freedom, Socialism is someone's ideology.
'The Invisible Hand' is... a metaphor to describe those with problems
grasping abstract concepts: when there are a large number of buyers
and suppliers for a good, the 'market finds a price' which is effectively
the sum of all the intelligence of the participants
You clearly haven't read Wealth of Nations. The only mention of an invisible
hand is actually a warning against what we now call neoliberalism. Smith
said that the wealthy wouldn't seek to enrich themselves to the detriment
of their home communities, because of an innate home bias. Thus, as if by
an invisible hand, England would be spared the ravages of economic rationality.
Your understanding of the 'invisible hand' is a falsehood perpetuated
by neoliberal think tanks like the Adam Smith institute (no endorsement
or connection to the author, despite using his name).
'The Invisible Hand' is not dogma.
You definitely know a lot about dogma (and false dichotomies):
Capitalism is freedom, Socialism is someone's ideology.
This is an interesting academic piece but the reality is that we don't have
anything like neo-liberalism in this country as defined by Hayek and it
has become a term of abuse by people who really ought to know better. The
strongest abuse of course is linked to the Blair Government, a period, of
course, when, with substantial success, the size and reach of the state
increased quite substantially, ie the complete opposite of neo-liberalism.
In fact, suggesting that the UK is neo liberal is not that much different
for suggesting that Russia had communism as defined by Marx.
Whether it is a good or bad thing that we don't have neo-liberalism is
open to academic debate but is not of much use in real life.
Monbiot suggests that a coherent alternative to the current situation
needs to be developed but disappointingly fails to give any clues as to
what it might look like except, of course, that it must have some type of
environmental context.
A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For Labour, the Democrats
and the wider left, the central task should be to develop an economic
Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system, tailored
to the demands of the 21st century
All very well, but how? Did anyone hear the screams of rage when Sanders
started threatening Hillary, or when Corbyn trounced the Blairites? The
dead hand of Bernays and Goebbels controls everything.
The failure to describe reality in a way that concurs with what ordinary
people experience has driven off much support and reduced credibility.
There is no credible model for investment and wealth creation.
The focus on social mobility upwards rather than on those who do not
move has given UK leftism a middle-class snobby air to it.
Those entering leftist politics have a very narrow range of life experience.
The opposition to rightist politics is cliched and outmoded.
There is a complete failure to challenge the emerging multi-polar plutocratic
oligarchy which runs the planet - the European left just seeks a comfy accommodation.
There is no attempt to develop a post-socialist, holistic worldview and
ideology.
The trade union package, gave us meal breaks, holidays, sickness benefits,
working hours restrictions, as opposed to the right wing media agenda,
that if you aint getting it nobody should, pour poison on the unions, pour
poison on the public sector, a fucking media led race to the bottom for
workers, and there were enough gullible (poor )mugs around to accept it.
You can curse the middle class socialists all you like, but without their
support the labour movement would never have got off the ground.
Okay, so you've described the 1950's through to the 1980's. So what have
the unions done for us isn the last two decades ? Why is it all the successful,
profitable and productive industries in the Uk have little or no union involvement
?
Why is it that the least effective, highest costs and poorest performing
structures are in the public sector and held back by the unions ?
Here's a clue - the unions are operating in the 21st century with a 1950's
mentality.
During the industrial revolution, profitability and productivity were off
the scale because the workforce were just commodities, Unionisation instigated
the idea that without the workforce, your entrepreneurs can't do anything
on their own, Henry Ford wouldn't have become a millionaire without the
help of his workforce. 'Poorest performing structures' Guess what! some
of us are human beings not auto- matrons. I hope you dine well on sterling
and dollars, cause they're not the most important things in life.
It's the only way. It's not perfect but it achieves the best ( not ideal
) possible result. What if in the end there's no where left to go ? What
if the highest possible taxes, zero avoidance / evasion and high employment
still equals deficits and increasing national debt ?
What if the highest possible taxes, zero avoidance / evasion and
high employment still equals deficits and increasing national debt ?
The paragraph written above neatly describes the post WW2 years, where
the UK was pretty much in perpetual surplus. High employment does not equate
to national debt/deficit. Quite the opposite, the more people in gainful
employment the better. Increasing unemployment, driving wages down while
simultaneously increasing the cost of living is a recipe for complete economic
failure.
This whole economics gig is piss easy, when the general mass of people
have cash to spare they spend it, economy thrives. Hoard the cash into the
hands of a minority and starve the masses of cash, economy dies. It really
is that simple.
Public deficits exist to match the private surplus created by the rich enriching
themselves. To get rid of the deficit therefore we need to get rid of the
private wealth of the rich through financial repression and taxation
I read, cannot remember where, that with neo liberalism the implementation
is all that matters, you do not need to see the results. I suppose because
the followers believe when implemented it will work perfectly.
I think it's supporters think it is magic and must work because they believe
it does.
Yes, a high priest of neo-liberalism, Lord Freud, was given only 13
weeks to investigate and reform key elements of the the UK's welfare system,
it hasn't worked and Freud is now invisible.
Hopeful this is the start for change through identifying issues and avoiding
pitfalls. Failed neoliberalism and not restricting markets that do not
benefit the majority are the cause and we stand on the brink of falling
further should the Brexiter's have their way. If there's one thing the EU
excels at it's legislating against the excesses of business and extremism.
Let's make a start by staying in the EU.
"... "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas" ..."
"... The German Ideology ..."
"... Shareholder value ..."
"... Amorality, where litmus tests for any act are illegality and reputational risk ..."
"... Which prevents questions of ethics from subverting the structure ..."
"... The inspection report, which was recently made public by Medicare, said that all 81 results provided to patients from that test from April to September of last year were inaccurate. ..."
"... out of their department budget ..."
"... By the early 1990's the rot, which had started to set in during the mid-1980's, had begun to accelerate. Most regular readers of Naked Capitalism know how the movie ended. If only it was just a work of fiction. For those of you who have suffered financially, emotionally, physically (or all three) through an unlawful foreclosure, fee gouging, predatory lending, junk insurance or scam financial products you will know what the consequences of an industry which threw away its moral compass and any sense of a social contract are. ..."
"... However, it seems to me that what Clive labels "dishonesty and exploitation" is what I would label corruption, and that's what Ebeling was fighting against. ..."
"... Fish rots from the head, and it's the head that makes the decisions about what gets punished and what gets praised. You want to survive and thrive in that fishpond, you better do what the rotten head tells you to do. ..."
"... the right person ..."
"... Bill Black has written extensively about what he calls the "Gresham's dynamic" that forced good underwriters out of the market. He has pointed out more than once that a petition was presented to the authorities signed by a large number of honest underwriters asking for regulation long before the big financial collapse. Being amoral and dishonest was a competitive advantage and the honest underwriters were driven out of the business. It's not hard to understand and does not call for the conclusion that people in general are dishonest or unethical. ..."
"... This is a lot like Not In My Backyard (NIMBY). Regulation is fine, so long as it applies to everyone else but not me. ..."
"... A competent publicist could reframe the unfortunate-sounding term "pepper spray incident " into a benign "invigorating capsicum spritz, provided at no cost to the participants." It wasn't violence; it was philanthropy. :-) ..."
"... This acknowledgment of the role of the class struggle was hardly limited to the Founding Fathers. It was not Karl Marx who spoke of the proclivity of employers to conspire and "to deceive and even oppress the public," of "the mean rapacity, the monopolizing spirit of merchants and manufacturers," of the "monopoly of the rich," of the "bad effects of high profits," of the "natural selfishness and rapacity" the vain and insatiable desires" of the rich, who institute "civil government"against the poor." It was the godfather of laissez faire capitalism and the favorite guru of conservatives, Adam Smith, who said that. ..."
"... Apparently Smith did mean just that, because he advocated that the rascality on the part of the rich could not be allowed to proceed without interference if one were to have a functioning capitalist system; hence he spoke of the need for government action to prevent the stultification of the "laboring poor." If that be class struggle, apparently he favors it. ( Compare Tocqueville's similar observation: "When the rich alone govern, the interest of the poor is always in danger." ..."
"... There's a massive difference between what Smith actually said and what his modern fanbois believe he said. Most of them have never actually read Wealth of Nations (and even less his Theory of Moral Sentiments. My understanding is that they both have to be read back to back to truly understand his views). Though I'm sure plenty of them have unopened copies of WoN displayed on their shelves for prestige value. ..."
"... Also, Michael Hudson has been of great help by constantly pounding away at the point that Smith was talking about markets free from vestigial feudalism, particularly exactly the kind of unproductive rent extraction that is making a comeback in the modern age. That's very different from the concept of unregulated markets free from any kind of oversight. ..."
"... This reminds me of all the times over 30 years when I did bookkeeping and accounting work and was asked to go into grey areas and sometimes commit outright fraud and I said no, and of course that was the end of that job, I would get eased out, usually in a way sure to make me ineligible for unemployment. I would certainly have gone to jail because I was the one who knew the law. But your DIL surely should not have been held accountable for doing clerical tasks without knowledge of or control over the contracts. That is very scary. ..."
"... The first thing [in credit] is character … before money or anything else. Money cannot buy it.… A man I do not trust could not get money from me on all the bonds in Christendom. I think that is the fundamental basis of business. ..."
"... There's the rub: amassing organizational power in a corrupt organization is very difficult for an honest, outspoken person. What often happens is that decent people save up their moral outrage until after they retire from whatever position in which they have "gone along to get along." Then most of them discover that they no longer have the energy, or the means, to "fight the good fight" they have delayed for decades. ..."
"... In this age of the internet, I wish there was more reputational damage. For instance, the cop who sprayed all the students (and then got $38,000) because he was made to feel bad. How about posts with his picture, his address, what car he is seen driving, where he is posted, etc. ..."
"... Sadly, people are a bit more evil than we give them credit for ..."
"... This is a challenge for anybody that navigates what increasingly is an overtly corrupt system. ..."
"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas" –Karl Marx, The
German Ideology
Despite the fancy title and the epigraph, this post is going to be more like where a pundit writes
a column about taking to the cabdriver on the way into town from the airport; except one cabdriver
is an anecdote, and four or five cab drivers starts to look like a pattern. In this case, the cab-drivers
would be credentialed, what the Archdruid would call
the salaried class , or Thomas Frank
the professional class (Boston being their "spiritual homeland"). Marx would, I think, call them
the petite
bourgeoisie . (I call them
the 20% , although I imagine only 20% of the 20% are really making it.) These are my
people; I feel that I know them, which is why my analysis of them is going to be as tenuous as it
is. (That's why I'm assuming, for the purposes of this post, that credentials are a good thing; I
was brought up to regard credentials as the passport to serve others in the world of disinterested
scholarship.)
How can bankers live with themselves? by Joris Luyendijk
(If "How can you live with yourself?" is the same question as
"What is the good life?" , it's vexed philosophers for millenia.) Luyendijk takes the #PanamaPapers
as his starting point but soon branches out:
[T]he self-justifications of banking staff involved in helping clients avoid taxes were strikingly
similar to those offered in other areas in banking.
Perhaps the best term to describe the tone by which people spoke of their work and its ethical
dimensions is 'matter-of-fact'. For example, when they explained how to sell a deliberately intransparent
financial product to 'some guy' at a small bank in Sweden or an airline company in Finland, knowing
that 'this guy' has no idea what he is buying. …
As I said, bankers are not monsters so you can ask them, human being to human being: how can
you live with yourself doing things like this?…
When pressed for details, financial workers used two interconnected terms to explain themselves:
'a-morality' and 'shareholder value'. Please understand, everybody said: 'a-moral' is not the
same as 'immoral'. Immoral means knowingly breaking the law. The sign says you can go 100 kilometres,
still you decide to drive 150. That's immoral. A-moral, by contrast, means that your ethical and
moral framework is defined by what the law allows.
In finance you do not ask if a proposal is morally right or wrong. You look at the degree of
'reputation risk'. Financial lawyers and regulators who go along with whatever you propose are
'business-friendly' and using loopholes in the tax code to help big corporations and rich families
evade taxes is 'tax optimization' with 'tax-efficient structures'.
Once I tuned my ear in to it, I began to hear such 'sanitized' terms everywhere and this is
because the vocabulary available to people in finance to think about their own actions has been
deliberately stripped of terms that can provoke an ethical discussion. Hence the biggest compliment
in finance is to be called 'professional'. It means you do not let emotions get in the way of
work, let alone moral beliefs – those are for home….
If a-morality is the reigning mentality in today's financial sector, then 'shareholder value'
provides the ideological underpinning. Almost every interviewee brought this up.
So in summary we have these ruling ideas:
The ideological justification: Shareholder value
The ideological criterion:
Amorality, where litmus tests for any act are illegality and reputational risk
Corrupt
language: Which prevents questions of ethics from subverting the structure
(Note that the professional classes of our day, unlike the 1% and 0.01%, lack the power - and
the money - to procure changes to the law or repair a damaged reputation by hiring public relations
specialists. That is, perhaps, why they are petite : They must take both the law and the
nature of reputation as givens.)
Comparing my summary of Luyendijk's framework to NC's
"Neoliberalism Expressed as Simple Rules," we see list item #1 is equivalent to Rule #1 of Neoliberalism:
"Because markets." And we can see that list item #2 is equivalent to Rule #2 - "Go die! - although
worked out with differing degrees of intensity according to context.
Now let's go on to five examples where the question "How do you live with yourself?" might be
posed, and in which the points of Luyendijk's framework are variously salient. (I'm really writing
this post because I encountered all these links in the last couple of days, so I felt like something's
out there in the zeitgeist.)
The first example is Theranos , although not for the bezzle-ish, scammy reasons
one might expect in Silicon Valley.
From the New York Times :
Examiners from Medicare inspected Theranos's laboratory in Newark, Calif., last fall and found
numerous deficiencies, one of which they said posed "immediate jeopardy to patient health and
safety."
That particular deficiency related to Theranos's test for the clotting ability of blood, a
measurement used to help determine the correct dose of the blood-thinning drug warfarin. Too much
warfarin can cause internal bleeding while too little can leave a patient vulnerable to a stroke.
The inspection report, which was recently made public by Medicare, said that all 81 results provided
to patients from that test from April to September of last year were inaccurate.
Theranos said in response to regulators that it had voided the results of those tests. Ms.
Buchanan said the company, after talking to the patients and doctors involved, did not believe
any patients had been harmed.
The regulators also said that the director of the laboratory was not qualified and some other
personnel were inadequately trained. At the time of the inspection, the laboratory director
was a local dermatologist who continued to run his medical practice while also supervising the
lab.
("[D]id not believe any patients had been harmed" is not quite as definitive a denial
as one might hope for.) But how did that dermatologist live with themselves? Theranos was valued
at what,
$9 billion , and the guy in charge of the bloodwork is a dermatologist? And how about the
other credentialled professionals working with the guy, at Theramos and in their dermatology
practice? How do they live with themselves? Didn't they notice? Were they all Theranos shareholders?
Or did they just have hostages to fortune in the form of families?
The More Things Stay the Same – More Apparently Adulterated Heparin, This Time from
Chinese Ruminants
Baxter International imported the "active pharmaceutical ingredient" (API) of heparin, that
is, in plainer language, the drug itself, from China. That API was then sold, with some minor
processing, as a Baxter International product with a Baxter International label. The drug came
from a sketchy supply chain that Baxter did not directly supervise, apparently originating in
small "workshops" operating under primitive and unsanitary conditions without any meaningful inspection
or supervision by the company, the Chinese government, or the FDA. The heparin proved to have
been adulterated with over-sulfated chondroitin sulfate (OSCS), and many patients who received
got seriously ill or died. While there have been investigations of how the adulteration adversely
affected patients, to date, there have been no publicly reported investigations of how the OSCS
got into the heparin, and who should have been responsible for overseeing the purity and safety
of the product. Despite the facts that clearly patients died from receiving this adulterated drug, no individual has yet suffered any negative consequence
for what amounted to poisoning of patients with a brand-name but adulterated pharmaceutical product
.
OK,
it's a complex global supply chain (and why does that have to be? Maybe if it's too
complex to regulate, it's too complex to exist?) Nevertheless, there were credentialed professionals
at every step, even if we leave out the Chinese manufacturers: Buyers, quality assurance specialists,
distributors, pharmacists, doctors, and of course people at the FDA who let this all go. How do they
live with themselves? Was the share price of Baxter International really that important?
The third example if the University of California at Davis . From the
Sacramento Bee
:
UC Davis spent thousands to scrub pepper-spray references from Internet
UC Davis contracted with consultants for at least $175,000 to scrub the Internet of negative
online postings following the November 2011 pepper-spraying of students and to improve the reputations
of both the university and Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi, newly released documents show.
"Scrub the Internet?" How does the consultant that sold that job live with themselves?[2]
Figures released by UC Davis show the strategic communications budget increased from $2.93
million in 2009 to $5.47 million in 2015.
Money to pay the consultants came from the communications department budget , [UC
Davis spokeswoman Dana Topousis] said.
Katehi, as we see, is in the class where she can seek to repair reputational damage, and not simply
accept it. But how on earth - and I'm asking this as a university brat - was the chair of the communications
department suborned to pay for a university PR exercise personally benefiting the president out
of their department budget ? How can they live with themselves? (I grant no lives are at stake,
but that's only because the pepper spray incident didn't turn into a disaster from a debacle.)
The fourth example is Gordon Ingram Associates (GIA) , of London, and I'm including
this one for anybody who's had to deal with a local land use board. From
Our City :
[T]all buildings can have a devastating impact on the daylight received by neighbouring homes.
Regardless of this, they are often still approved by planning authorities.
Why do councils grant planning permission to these buildings that so clearly damage the homes
of local residents, even when planning policies say that amenities like daylight must be protected?…
The reality is that planning authorities are often not told about, or are misled about the
real impact these new buildings will have. Instead, specialist consultants, employed by developers,
manipulate the figures and facts to make new buildings seem far less harmful than they really
are.
This gives the impression to councillors that the harm to residents is either much less than
or at the very least a debatable point, easing the passage of a controversial planning application.
Experts, by spending many years concentrating on a particular subject occupy a privileged role,
which inevitably carries some weight in the planning process. However, if that process is to work
properly experts must behave responsibly and present the facts in a clear and unbiased assessment.
Let me introduce to you Gordon Ingram Associates. GIA is a firm of specialist daylight consultants
based in Waterloo. They have little regard for formal education, preferring to give staff their
own training. The flaws in this approach will become obvious later in this article. As a result
they employ an eclectic group of people as surveyors, a former male model included….
In each case I have seen, GIA told the local planning authority that buildings showed high
levels of compliance with national daylighting guidance and that in their expert and considered
opinion, any damage to daylight on neighbouring properties was negligible. They lied, and I'm
going to show you how.
How do GIA live with themselves?
For each of these four examples, we've seen Milgram Experiment-like outcomes, where seemingly
normal members of the professional, credentialed class end up helping to jeopardize patient health
with blood tests, killing people with adultered drugs, surrenduring academic independence by caving
to administrators, and ruining the built environment with doctored reports, and in each case the
question to ask is very obvious: "How do they live with themselves?" But we haven't had an example
that put all the pieces of Luyendijk's framework together.
With our fifth example, Boots , we have all the pieces. (Boots is also a horrible
private equity story, with KKR the villain, but in this post I'm focusing on professionals in the
workplace.) In addition, we have a professional who can't live with it.
From the Guardian , the story of "Tony," a (credentialed) pharmacist:
How Boots went rogue
How many of these patients guessed that their own chemist was sick? Over the past few years,
depression has dug its claws into Tony. He is tired all the time. His weight, blood sugar and
blood pressure have shot up.
The illness kicked in shortly after he began his latest job, in 2011.
This is Tony's lived experience of the quest for "shareholder value" under neoliberalism, and
I'd love to have numbers on how widely it's shared. And, readers, your experiences.
The past few years have been spent on and off anti-depressants. When we met late last year,
he had just started another course of pills and was back in the usual side‑effects cycle: sweating,
waking too early, exhaustion, sexual dysfunction.
"[B]usiness targets" are, of course, for "shareholder value". And here we have the corrupt language:
That fear comes wrapped in the corporate language of empowerment. Targets are "non-negotiable",
and staff who beat them get graded as "legendary". A chemist advising a customer – "You know,
like I've done my entire career," as one Boots lifer puts it – is now having a "Great Conversation".
If the satisfied customer then compliments the chemist that is now a "Feel Good Moment" (although
in performance plans they are unfortunately referred to as FGMs – so a chemist must notch up,
say, five FGMs a week).
And here we have the amorality:
But that was the least of Tony's worries. It was the medicine-use reviews (MURs) that really
bothered him. Patients came to his consulting room and discussed their diet and health problems,
while he took them through a chunky list of questions and advised them on what their medicines
were meant to do and how best to take them. Free for the customer, a way of keeping a patient
out of a GP's waiting room, and for each one the NHS pays the company Ł28. To prevent the system
from being abused, every pharmacy in the country is limited to 400 MURs a year. Except Tony's
managers took that number as a target for his store to hit. So keen was Tony's store to make that
profit, he claims it did reviews on anyone, no matter how unsuitable. Tony himself was told to
have one – and to give one to a patient with severe dementia. His manager came in for one – no
sooner had it begun than she walked out, but it still went towards the total. All so the shop
could earn that extra Ł11,200 from a scheme intended to help the sick.
And, as we can see, Tony can't live with it (and good for him).
This capital-driven process of leaching out all meaning from professional work is akin to crapificaiton,
but I'm not sure it's exactly the same thing. I've always remembered
this post from Clive :
Let me continue with the self-disclosure, but it's perhaps more of a confessional or appeal
for absolution. I've spent almost 30 years working in the FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate)
sector, my entire adult life. When I first started, it was viewed as a most suitable career choice
for middle class not particularly aspirational sorts who wanted security, respectability and a
recognisable position in the community. It was never supposed to be a passport to significant
wealth or even much more than very modest wealth. It was certainly never supposed to be anything
which oppressed or harmed anyone.
By the early 1990's the rot, which had started to set in during the mid-1980's, had begun
to accelerate. Most regular readers of Naked Capitalism know how the movie ended. If only it was
just a work of fiction. For those of you who have suffered financially, emotionally, physically
(or all three) through an unlawful foreclosure, fee gouging, predatory lending, junk insurance
or scam financial products you will know what the consequences of an industry which threw away
its moral compass and any sense of a social contract are.
For those of us on the inside, we don't deserve any sympathy. But I'd like to offer a glimmer
of insight into the conflict that those of us with any sort of conscience wrestle with because
it is a conflict which is going to shape our societies over the next
generation.
Increasingly, if you want to get and hang on to a middle class job, that job will involve
dishonesty or exploitation of others in some way .
Of course, hanging onto a "middle class job" is, so far as we know, what all the professional
players in the examples above have been doing. All of their (credentialed, professional) jobs have
involved "dishonesty or exploitation of others." And all of them, so far as we know, have been able
to live with themselves. With the exception of Tony.[3]
Last week, Bob Ebeling died. He was an engineer at a contracting firm, and he understood just
how badly the O-rings handled cold weather. He tried desperately to convince NASA that the launch
was going to end in disaster. Unlike many people inside organizations, he was willing to challenge
his superiors, to tell them what they didn't want to hear. Yet, he didn't have organizational
power to stop the disaster. And at the end of the day, NASA and his superiors decided that the
political risk of not launching was much greater than the engineering risk.
Now, how to give Bob Ebeling the requisite organizational power is another question, outside the
scope of this post. However, it seems to me that what Clive labels "dishonesty and exploitation"
is what I would label corruption, and that's what Ebeling was fighting against.
Recall again that corruption, as Zephyr Teachout explains, is not a quid pro quo , but
the use of public office for private ends. I think the point of credentials is to create the expectation
that the credentialed is in some sense acting in a quasi-official capacity, even if not an agent
of the state. Tony, a good pharmacist, was and is trying to maintain a public good, on behalf of
the public: Not merely the right pill for the patient, but the public good of trust between professional
and citizen, which Boots is trying to destroy, on behalf of the ruling idea of "shareholder value."
Ka-ching.
NOTES
[1]
Here's a link on the first Baxter International Heparin scandal . Heparin is, apparently, made
from the intestines of pigs. But the Chinese ran out of pigs, and so they used cows instead, hopefully
not mad ones, but how does one know? Anyhow, hundreds died and the adulterated Heparin might still
be on the shelves. Reminds me of how the banks satisfied the demand for paper with NINJA mortgages….
One thing I don't understand, if you are an honest banker-or you want to be an honest banker-shouldn't
you support tough regulations that crack down and remove the fraud and corruption? Shouldn't the
vast majority of people working in FIRE want the rot removed?
instead while simultaneously engaging in not-quite-moral activities, they circle the wagons
whenever someone suggests cleaning it up.
Isn't that just cognitive consonance (opposite of cognitive dissonance) if they spend their
whole lives morally minimizing fraud and corruption to do so when advocating public policy as
well?
What, you wanna be a trouble maker? Hope you don't care about that raise, or that promotion.
Fish rots from the head, and it's the head that makes the decisions about what gets punished and
what gets praised. You want to survive and thrive in that fishpond, you better do what the rotten
head tells you to do.
George Clooney – yeah, $343,000 is an obscene amount of money and it's a terrible problem, but whaddya gonna do? It takes an obscene amount of money to get the right person elected.
So we're just going to keep throwing obscene amounts of money at the problem until it gets corrected,
because I have obscene amounts of money, and I can help.
That's because while individual people may be moral and upright, in aggregate people are delusional
sociopaths. An individual banker going against the tide would be like a lemming having second
thoughts about going over the cliff; it's goring to get trampled and squashed.
I think that because of this we have to encourage refusal to participate. I don't think everyone
who refuses gets trampled and squashed, but they do have to find their own niche, which can be
a lonely thing. I never listen to people who tell me that lying and cheating are the way things
get done, and that I will die homeless and alone if I don't just accept it. More people end up
homeless and alone because they participated in a rigged system and then got screwed. I opted
out, and I am not rich, but I am independent in that I make choices based on my own values.
Bill Black has written extensively about what he calls the "Gresham's dynamic" that forced
good underwriters out of the market. He has pointed out more than once that a petition was presented
to the authorities signed by a large number of honest underwriters asking for regulation long
before the big financial collapse. Being amoral and dishonest was a competitive advantage and
the honest underwriters were driven out of the business. It's not hard to understand and does
not call for the conclusion that people in general are dishonest or unethical.
A competent publicist could reframe the unfortunate-sounding term "pepper spray incident "
into a benign "invigorating capsicum spritz, provided at no cost to the participants." It wasn't violence; it was philanthropy. :-)
The NEO conservatives/liberals go-to guy for poking fun always seems to be Marx, while Adam
Smith is their boy. A laissez faire capitalist who said some other stuff
This acknowledgment of the role of the class struggle was hardly limited to the Founding
Fathers. It was not Karl Marx who spoke of the proclivity of employers to conspire and "to
deceive and even oppress the public," of "the mean rapacity, the monopolizing spirit of merchants
and manufacturers," of the "monopoly of the rich," of the "bad effects of high profits," of
the "natural selfishness and rapacity" the vain and insatiable desires" of the rich, who institute
"civil government"against the poor." It was the godfather of laissez faire capitalism and the
favorite guru of conservatives, Adam Smith, who said that.
Could Smith have meant that some
businessmen, when left to their own devices, are actually capable of resorting to such measures
as setting up offshore company headquarters and Swiss bank accounts, of cooking the books,
stacking Boards of Governers, employing sweated labor, busting unions, polluting the environment,
outsourcing jobs, colluding to fix prices, bribing officials and legislators, buying judges,
concocting Ponzi schemes, secretly financing phony "grass roots" and "populist" rallies, providing
themselves huge bonuses regardless of performance, and depending on government bail-outs not
available to others–all this among other outrageous forms of often illegal and always immoral
behavior?
Apparently Smith did mean just that, because he advocated that the rascality on the
part of the rich could not be allowed to proceed without interference if one were to have a
functioning capitalist system; hence he spoke of the need for government action to prevent
the stultification of the "laboring poor." If that be class struggle, apparently he favors
it. (Compare Tocqueville's similar observation: "When the rich alone govern, the interest of
the poor is always in danger.") The suspicion is strong that, judging by these words of his,
were Smith alive today, he would far more likely be a liberal than a conservative.
There's a massive difference between what Smith actually said and what his modern fanbois believe
he said. Most of them have never actually read Wealth of Nations (and even less his Theory of
Moral Sentiments. My understanding is that they both have to be read back to back to truly understand
his views). Though I'm sure plenty of them have unopened copies of WoN displayed on their shelves
for prestige value.
I'll admit I too have not gotten around to either book, just as I have yet to tackle Marx's
2400 page doorstop (hopefully both are easier reads than Veblen, who was a chore). But from what
I've gathered to Smith 'enlightened self-interest' (what they now call homo economicus) wasn't
'everyone be a prick and this will somehow make society as a whole better'. In fact to Smith man
WASN'T purely selfish, and had a variety of drives and motivations. And this was because we were
endowed with a divine nature. To Smith the 'invisible hand' was literally the hand of God imbuing
his creation with the capacity to make moral decisions.
Also, Michael Hudson has been of great help by constantly pounding away at the point that Smith
was talking about markets free from vestigial feudalism, particularly exactly the kind of unproductive
rent extraction that is making a comeback in the modern age. That's very different from the concept
of unregulated markets free from any kind of oversight.
This is a wonderful analysis of our conundrum. To add another example which reveals the final,
bottom-most layer; what we might call "collateral damage": the case of my daughter-in-law.
One evening my son answered the door to three FBI agents who handcuffed his wife in front of
their (her) 6 year-old and dragged her away to jail. She was arrested for fraud two years after
the 2008 crash and mortgage crisis. She had been a clerk at a real-estate co. doing "what everybody
was doing" , that is, making sure that people could buy even if they didn't have the down payment
and helping others flip houses that were way overpriced. She was not an agent, she was the office
clerk who sent the false info in the mail and deposited the checks. In the end she was sent to
prison for a year, leaving her young son and 10-month old baby daughter at home with their desperate
father.
Her boss was given house arrest and probation BECAUSE HIS WIFE WAS PREGNANT (!!!) which
adds sexism to the context of class warfare (the judge lectured her about not having gone to college
to better herself at one point?!). This story, I am sure, was played out all over the country.
Perhaps not all judges were nasty old men with a chip on their shoulder about the new administration
but even at this level, I'm sure not many "bosses" went to prison.
So sorry for your family, what a terrible thing. I suppose her boss did go to college??!!1?
This reminds me of all the times over 30 years when I did bookkeeping and accounting work and
was asked to go into grey areas and sometimes commit outright fraud and I said no, and of course
that was the end of that job, I would get eased out, usually in a way sure to make me ineligible
for unemployment. I would certainly have gone to jail because I was the one who knew the law.
But your DIL surely should not have been held accountable for doing clerical tasks without knowledge
of or control over the contracts. That is very scary.
Wow. Just…wow. Somehow the FBI has manpower to spare to go after a secretary, but can't find
it in themselves to consider maybe going after the people who were financing the whole operation
(and many, many others just like it)?!? Well, at least now we know whose side their on. Speaking
of how do they live with themselves….
Hmm, what's the point of a post saying people should have ethics if reproducing (supporting
a family) suddenly nulls and voids all ethics like some magical get out of jail free card. It
isn't even at all clear that a single person with no kids will end up in any better shape when
they lose their job than the person with kids (for one thing they are less likely to qualify for
much in the way of government benefits meager as those are anyway).
That certainly points up the pressure to go along to get along. Especially if you are married
to someone with dodgy values.
"How hard can it be to lie and cheat, Bob? Suck it up, Momma needs to send the kids to private
school!"
He's not saying that (or at least I didn't see it). The more financial responsibilities you
feel like you have, the harder it is to buck the system. You're right, even just an individuals
needs can make it hard, so all the more so when you've got kids to consider (I'll sleep in my
car, but can I make them? etc.)
What makes me crazy these days is that now the conversation is, either you compromise your
values, or you won't have enough to eat and/or be homeless, whereas, before, perhaps you just
may not make as much money. What is up with this? Do all roads now lead to perdition?
True my late father called them (financial responsibilities) the Golden Handcuffs. I know of
a few jobs I was very qualified to get but I wasn't married with children and a mortgage. I had
company owner I was doing contractor work for tell they hated hiring me because of that but I
did the best work so there was that.
Lambert, I'm standing on my chair clamping. Yes I remember telling you not to stand on chairs
to take pictures in the yard;)
It used to be that despite Americans always seeing money as a route to statue (see De Tocqueville),
the downside of that was kept in check by having a well-understood set of social norms and people
feeling they had to adhere to them because they would be shunned otherwise. Shady businessmen
would not get the status goodies they wanted, like membership at the local country club. JP Morgan
was not kidding when he said:
The first thing [in credit] is character … before money or anything else. Money cannot buy
it.… A man I do not trust could not get money from me on all the bonds in Christendom. I think
that is the fundamental basis of business.
So Lambert's question, "How can these people live with themselves?" is critical.
You shrug your shoulders, By doing that, you become part of the problem. You are enabling this
conduct by your resignation.
We collectively need to start making the foot soldier as well as the higher ups ashamed of
what they are doing. We need to delegitimate this conduct. Remember, what brought Joe McCarthy
down was when Joseph Welsh called him out by asking, "At long last, have you left no sense of
decency?" People need to start doing that, publicly and privately, every time the opportunity
presents itself, even if that means alienating friends. You need to be willing to ostracize people
if you want a better society.
. . .You need to be willing to ostracize people if you want a better society.
The fly in the ointment, is that the ones one is ostracizing are the majority, so it becomes
a very lonely existence. People find that hard to live with.
1) Close friend is a life-long gov't engineer. After a pipeline leak near Billings, MT, the
details of which he was personally familiar with, the oil company CEO went on TV, in front of
some gov't types, to answer questions….and proceeded to lie through his teeth.
When asked why the leak was allowed to continue for an hour before the pipeline was shut down,
he claimed it was due to physics, that you can't just push a button and stop the flow because
of all the pressure build-up. Only you can. They have like, sciencey stuff that makes just that
possible. There is literally a button in the pump station you can push to stop the flow. The reason
the leak went on for an hour was because there was no safety manual in the pump station, so the
guy on duty had to call around to try to find out what this particular blinking light or alarm
meant, and what to do about it. It took them an hour and a literal game of telephone to figure
out they were discharging crude oil into the Yellowstone River.
And they had been sited, more than once iirc, for failure to have said safety manual in the
pump station. It had been years that they failed to have one printed up. I got to see the final
inter-office memo on the incident, which reported a fine that amounted to a couple minutes worth
of profit for the company involved.
So knowing all this, and watching the CEO lie about the facts, did this gov't employee call
the press, or anyone, and inform them of the truth? No. Why not? Because Reagen issued and executive
order barring public employees from talking to the press without permission and this guy valued
his job and his pension. So he kept his mouth shut. He's got a family and grandkids and whatnot,
so it's somewhat understandable. Still….
2) A Nepali friend works for H&M in the Middle East. He's worked his way up to a store manager
after a number of years working in Kuwait, and recently got transfered to Saudi Arabia to open
a new store. We got to talk quite a bit about his work. I was fascinated.
H&M has astoundingly fine-grained surveillance procedures. Sales at individual registers are
tracked at 10 minute intervals. Numbers of customers entering the store are likewise tracked.
Metrics are analyzed and plans for improving them are made at Monday morning meetings with upper
management. Mondays are the worst.
"Why was there this drop in customers coming in last Wednesday?"
"Because there was a sandstorm"
"Don't make excuses."
"Secret Shoppers" are the bane of G's existence. They regularly come in and check things out,
being sure to note any possible failing, since they're not being paid to say "everything's just
great!" After one's been through, G gets called to a meeting and they discuss the results. Again,
he's got to have a "plan" for addressing any failings, and apologize for not being perfect.
The secret to G's success is that he's figured out how to game the metrics. Secret shoppers
give a demerit if they aren't greeted within 15 seconds of entering the store, so G had the bright
idea to hire some poor schlub to stand by the door all day for a pittance and say 'hello' to everyone
who enters. Customers not coming in? Offer some free snack and put a sign outside. Most people
will just come in for the free food and walk right out, but the customer entrance metric just
went up. He's also a great ass-kisser, which really helps in dealing with his upperlings.
And, of course, he has to be pretty merciless with the employees he manages. Not making enough
high-end sales? A few seconds slow helping a secret shopper? You're toast. No second chances for
the front line crew. He doesn't enjoy it but what to do ( ke garne? ) that's the job.
And it's been providing an above average salary for him and his family, so it's understandable
why he does it. Still….
I've only seen it in Walmarts around here. I thought it was funny he came up with the same
idea as a way to pass secret shopper tests. Maybe that's how it started at WallyWorld too. The
sad thing is, my friend is a brilliant salesman but is having to use his talents for the benefit
of whoever runs H&M (when he's not using them to game their surveillence systems).
"Unlike many people inside organizations, he was willing to challenge his superiors, to
tell them what they didn't want to hear. Yet, he didn't have organizational power to stop the
disaster."
There's the rub: amassing organizational power in a corrupt organization is very difficult
for an honest, outspoken person. What often happens is that decent people save up their moral
outrage until after they retire from whatever position in which they have "gone along to get along."
Then most of them discover that they no longer have the energy, or the means, to "fight the good
fight" they have delayed for decades.
I have tremendous admiration for a group of retired Teamsters up in Rhode Island that I know.
They have come out against mobbed-up sellouts, at great personal risk to themselves, and now Local
251 is far more progressive than it ever was! Those guys are truly an inspiration.
My own small contributions to the struggle haven't required nearly as much personal courage.
My wealthy and influential Anglo/Dutch relations don't go out of their way to protect me from
adverse consequences of radical activism. Yet their mere existence provides me a larger "free-speech
zone" from which to hurl invective at the kleptocrats– compared to the very tiny space for protest
allowed to most in U.S. society. I have also been fortunate to witness the encouraging reality
that at least some people– who are regarded as trusted insiders in our corrupt system– are actually
thoroughly subversive!
An important post. Thanks, Lambert. You mention reputational damage.
In this age of the internet, I wish there was more reputational damage. For instance, the cop
who sprayed all the students (and then got $38,000) because he was made to feel bad. How about
posts with his picture, his address, what car he is seen driving, where he is posted, etc.
Same sort of treatment might be meted out for executives of some of the companies and organizations
you discussed. There are reputation repair companies, how about a site "How do you live with yourself.org"?
It could get a little more personal than "cop shoots family dog'.
More evidence of dispensing prescription medication for fun and profit (regardless of the impact
to consumers, sorry, patients) has come to my notice through my experience at Walmart's British
outpost, known as Asda
The NHS has moved to a system of not having primary care responsible for maintaining responsibility
for repeat prescriptions but instead pharmacies (such as Boots mentioned in Lambert's piece above)
got to do the admin. You sign up to any number of dispensing pharmacies you like and, when you
need a repeat prescription, you go to the pharmacy not primary care.
The Mom and Pop independent pharmacies seem to operate the system as intended (the dispensing
pharmacist checks the indication you present and validates the medication is in line with what
the physician who originally prescribed the medication intended). For example, I have an ocular
antibiotic on repeat and, when I go to an independent pharmacy I'm registered with, they do the
expected investigations before issuing the repeat prescription. This is perfectly appropriate
and I am pleased that they will not simply dole out things like antibiotics carte blanche. They'd
rather not dispense than send people out the store with something inappropriate.
Not so with Asda/Walmart. There, you just get shown the screen - which has everything you've
ever been prescribed listed and you simply click the ones you like. No questions asked. Asda/Walmart
get money from the NHS for each of the items that they dispense. They are obviously setting themselves
up as the go-to place for hassle free eee-zee-meds. It costs them nothing (the NHS covers the
cost of the drugs and the reimbursement to the pharmacies for issuing the prescription plus Asda/Walmart's
profit from the "transaction").
Primary care is supposed to monitor what the pharmacies are dispensing but, guess what, they
are being stretched way too thinly and are having to be ruthless in their priorities under the
constant drive for "efficiency", all in the name of austerity.
How do the pharmacists live with themselves? My guess is that, like Boots, Asda/Walmart have
put their pharmacies under a target regime. If they don't send as many people out the door loaded
with medication as much medication as they can, their management will replace them with people
who will.
Neoliberalism is corrupting, absolutely. Everyone and everything is vulnerable to being captured
in its thrall.
Sadly, people are a bit more evil than we give them credit for…they would rather go along then
move along…they are quite happy walking over homeless people they helped put there just as long
as the lawn has that putting green feeling and the car lease does not run past the miles allotment
before it is time to get a brand spanking new car payment…
evil is easy for most people because we don't call it evil anymore….
They would much rather go along then move along…and we are becoming less and less the home
of the brave…
This is a challenge for anybody that navigates what increasingly is an overtly corrupt system.
One of my more high profile publications was a piece of work refuting blatantly fradulent work
from another scientist in the same city. The fradulent scientist was publishing high profile papers
on the mechanisms of how antibiotics work, and drawing great fame and acclaim for doing so. On
the ground level, other scientists couldn't repeat the work and in their small singlular labs
probably thought they had failed in some step to repeart the famous work.
We were skeptical of the work the instant it was published because all our own work and decades
of evidence countered it. It was only when we aligned with another prominent scientist to publish
back to back papers refuting the work that it got published. And did it deter the fradulent scientist?
Not one bit.
Where is the incentive to be an honest intellectual when fraud has clear and obvious rewards?
The above book which so ironically delivered the message
was published in 1910.
Alas, the Kaiser, the Tsar, and the Emperor did not act in
accord with its tenets. Either increased global trade is
irrelevant to war and peace, or World War I didn't happen.
Your pick which to believe.
Our problems began back in the 1970s when we abandoned the
Bretton Woods international capital controls and then broke
the unions, cut taxes on corporations and upper income
groups, and deregulated the financial system. This eventually
led a stagnation of wages in the US and an increase in the
concentration of income at the top of the income distribution
throughout the world:
http://www.rwEconomics.com/Ch_1.htm
When combined with tax cuts and financial deregulation it
led to increasing debt relative to income in the importing
countries that caused the financial catastrophe we went
through in 2008, the economic stagnation that followed, and
the social unrest we see throughout the world today. This, in
turn, created a situation in which the full utilization of
our economic resources can only be maintained through an
unsustainable increase in debt relative to income:
http://www.rwEconomics.com/htm/WDCh3e.htm
This is what has to be overcome if we are to get out of
the mess the world is in today, and it's not going to be
overcome by pretending that it's just going to go away if
people can just become educated about the benefits of trade.
At least that's not the way it worked out in the 1930s:
http://www.rwEconomics.com/LTLGAD.htm
Global integration and the liberalization of capital flows
outside of national boundaries, and outside of the
constraints of national solidarity, has pushed Americans
further into a ruthless capitalist struggle for strictly
individual measures of "success", and intensified economic
insecurity and the gaps between winners and losers.
Economists find the resistance to these trends mysterious;
others not so much.
Economic leaders after WW2 had a Colonialist attitude
entrenched within. They made a plan for global economic
integration, which only considered the economic needs and
realities of developed western nations.
China/India/Indonesia/etc...were never at the conceptual
table.
Now, the tides have turned. The China-India nexus
historically accounted for roughly 40% of the global economy.
That 'normal' state was eclipsed for 1.5 centuries, and we
may regress to that norm. If so, a ton of jobs, and economic
activity, may shift from the West, to Asia. If so, the
western middle classes are screwed.
Up till now globalism has mostly been conducted by laissez
faire neo liberal elite...for the needs of the elite.
That's not entirely a bad thing. Wars are started over the
needs and desires of our elites. Common folks left to their
own, won't find reason to go off and kill their
counterparts... it only after "the other" has been
dehumanized and demonized by the elite that common people
will allow themselves to be organized to kill one another.
By allowing and encouraging the world's elite to operate
within a system of mutual dependence, we decrease the
incentive for the elite to marshal and deploy their captive
populations against one another.
But once that international system has been
solidified...as it has now... The objective should be to tear
it down...it should be to make it democratized, unionised,
and transparent .
We need to move from laissez faire neo liberalism to
social democratic neo liberalism.
"... "Judge Collyer repeatedly complained that the regulators had failed to do a cost-benefit analysis." What Professor Krugman omits here is that so-called "cost-benefit analysis" has been corrupted by the fallacious Kaldor-Hicks compensation principle. The house cleaning has a lot further to go than "Republicans." ..."
Snoopy the Destroyer, by Paul Krugman, NY Times : Has Snoopy just doomed us to another severe
financial crisis? Unfortunately, that's a real possibility, thanks to a bad judicial ruling that
threatens a key part of financial reform. ...
At the end of 2014 the regulators
designated MetLife
, whose business extends far beyond individual life insurance, a systemically important financial
institution. Other firms faced with this designation have tried to get out by changing their business
models. For example,
General Electric ... sold off much of its finance business. But MetLife went to court. And
it has won a favorable ruling from
Rosemary Collyer , a Federal District Court judge.
It was a peculiar ruling. Judge Collyer repeatedly complained that the regulators had failed to
do a cost-benefit analysis, which the law doesn't say they should do, and for good reason. Financial
crises are, after all, rare but drastic events; it's unreasonable to expect regulators to game
out in advance just how likely the next crisis is, or how it might play out, before imposing prudential
standards. To demand that officials quantify the unquantifiable would, in effect, establish a
strong presumption against any kind of protective measures.
Of course, that's what financial firms want. Conservatives like to pretend that the "systemically
important" designation is actually a privilege, a guarantee that firms will be bailed out. Back
in 2012
Mitt Romney described this part of reform as "a kiss that's been given to New York banks"...,
an "enormous boon for them." Strange to say, however, firms are doing all they can to dodge this
"boon" - and MetLife's
stock rose sharply when the ruling came down.
The federal government will appeal..., but even if it wins the ruling may open the floodgates
to a wave of challenges to financial reform. And that's the sense in which Snoopy may be setting
us up for future disaster.
It doesn't have to happen. As with so much else, this year's election is crucial. A Democrat in
the White House would enforce the spirit as well as the letter of reform - and would also appoint
judges sympathetic to that endeavor. A Republican, any Republican, would make every effort to
undermine reform, even if he didn't manage an explicit repeal.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the 2010 financial reform was enough. The next crisis might
come even if it remains intact. But the odds of crisis will be a lot higher if it falls apart.
There are two big lessons from GE's announcement * that it is planning to get out of the finance
business. First, the much maligned Dodd-Frank financial reform is doing some real good. Second,
Republicans have been talking nonsense on the subject. OK, maybe point #2 isn't really news, but
it's important to understand just what kind of nonsense they've been talking.
GE Capital was a quintessential example of the rise of shadow banking. In most important respects
it acted like a bank; it created systemic risks very much like a bank; but it was effectively
unregulated, and had to be bailed out through ad hoc arrangements that understandably had many
people furious about putting taxpayers on the hook for private irresponsibility.
Most economists, I think, believe that the rise of shadow banking had less to do with real
advantages of such nonbank banks than it did with regulatory arbitrage - that is, institutions
like GE Capital were all about exploiting the lack of adequate oversight. And the general view
is that the 2008 crisis came about largely because regulatory evasion had reached the point where
an old-fashioned wave of bank runs, albeit wearing somewhat different clothes, was once again
possible.
So Dodd-Frank tries to fix the bad incentives by subjecting systemically important financial
institutions - SIFIs - to greater oversight, higher capital and liquidity requirements, etc. And
sure enough, what GE is in effect saying is that if we have to compete on a level playing field,
if we can't play the moral hazard game, it's not worth being in this business. That's a clear
demonstration that reform is having a real effect.
Now, the more or less official GOP line is that the crisis had nothing to do with runaway banks
- it was all about Barney Frank somehow forcing poor innocent bankers to make loans to Those People.
And the line on the right also asserts that the SIFI designation is actually an invitation to
behave badly, that institutions so designated know that they are too big to fail and can start
living high on the moral hazard hog.
But as Mike Konczal notes, ** GE - following in the footsteps of others, notably MetLife ***
- is clearly desperate to get out from under the SIFI designation. It sure looks as if being named
a SIFI is indeed what it's supposed to be, a burden rather than a bonus.
"Judge Collyer repeatedly complained that the regulators had failed to do a cost-benefit analysis." What Professor Krugman omits here is that so-called "cost-benefit analysis" has been corrupted
by the fallacious Kaldor-Hicks compensation principle. The house cleaning has a lot further to go than "Republicans."
A Kaldor–Hicks improvement, named for Nicholas Kaldor and John Hicks, also known as the Kaldor–Hicks
criterion, is a way of judging economic re-allocations of resources among people that captures
some of the intuitive appeal of Pareto improvements, but has less stringent criteria and is hence
applicable to more circumstances.
A re-allocation is a Kaldor–Hicks improvement if those that
are made better off could hypothetically compensate those that are made worse off and lead to
a Pareto-improving outcome. The compensation does not actually have to occur (there is no presumption
in favor of status-quo) and thus, a Kaldor–Hicks improvement can in fact leave some people worse
off.
"Consider a transfer of an apple from Mary to John and a transfer of $0.75 from John to Mary.
Use Kaldor-Hicks to evaluate each part as a "project" with the other part as the "compensation".
Using money as the numeraire and the apple transfer as the "project", we see under the assumptions
that the transfer of the apple increases social wealth measured in dollars so that is the recommendation
based on "efficiency", and the payment of the "compensation" of $0.75 is a matter of "equity"
of concern to politician, theologians, and philosophers but not to the professional economist.
Now reverse the numeraire taking apples as the numeraire and the transfer of the $0.75 as the
"project". Then the transfer of the apple (= "compensation") does not change social wealth = size
of the apple pie, but the transfer of the $0.75 increases the size of the social apple pie by
3/4 of an apple so it is the transfer of the $0.75 that is recommended on efficiency grounds by
hard-nosed economists while the transfer of the apple is left to politicians, theologians, and
the like as a matter of "equity." Thus the outcome of the KH analysis is reversed by a change
in the numeraire used to describe the exact same pair of transfers."
#NUM!éraire, Shmoo-méraire: Nature doesn't truck and barter
The commodity in terms of which the prices of all the others are expressed is the numéraire.
-- Leon Walras, Elements of Pure Economics.
But the numéraire is a purely technical device, introduced simply for the purpose of making
exchange values explicit. In no way does the introduction of a standard of value alter the fundamental
nature of the economy in question. It remains a barter economy, since goods are exchanged solely
for other goods. -- André Orléan, The Empire of Value.
Yossarian looked at him soberly and tried another approach. 'Is Orr crazy?'
'He sure is,' Doc Daneeka said.
'Can you ground him?'
'I sure can. But first he has to ask me to. That's part of the rule.'
'Then why doesn't he ask you to?'
'Because he's crazy,' Doc Daneeka said. 'He has to be crazy to keep flying combat missions
after all the close calls he's had. Sure, I can ground Orr. But first he has to ask me to.'
'That's all he has to do to be grounded?'
'That's all. Let him ask me.'
'And then you can ground him?' Yossarian asked.
'No. Then I can't ground him.'
'You mean there's a catch?'
'Sure there's a catch,' Doc Daneeka replied. 'Catch-22. Anyone who wants to get out of combat
duty isn't really crazy.'
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own
safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would
no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions
and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and
didn't have to; but if he didn't want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply
by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
Also known as the double-bind in Gregory Bateson's analysis.
And why the big fuss about the Panama Papers? Doesn't the Laffer Curve tell us that if the
1% evade taxes by hiding their money in off-shore accounts, it will cause so much economic growth
that government tax revenues will actually increase?
Laffer curves, Kaldor-Hicks cost-benefit swindles and lump-of-labor fantasies are not "incidentals"
of an otherwise sound economic discipline. They are symptoms of an ideology that is rotten to
the core.
Yes, those supply-siders must love it when companies hide their income offshores. Just think how
many more jobs they must be creating with their lower tax rate!
"The federal government will appeal the MetLife ruling, but even if it wins the ruling may open
the floodgates to a wave of challenges to financial reform. And that's the sense in which Snoopy
may be setting us up for future disaster."
As soon as Dodd-Frank was passed the large financial institutions got their legal teams busy
trying to undermine it. One would think all progressives would rally behind enforcing Dodd-Frank.
Of course Rusty wants us to believe enforcing Dodd-Frank is just too complicated. It is complicated
only because the lawyers for the financial sector get paid big bucks to obscure what is sensible
regulation.
I bet Rusty will protest this by saying he is not being paid that much. Which would be cool but
the notion that we should just trash Dodd-Frank strikes me as bad financial economics. Now if
we can improve on Dodd-Frank, that would be awesome if it makes Jamie Dimon really mad.
LOL!!! "A Democrat in the White House would enforce the spirit as well as the letter of reform"...just
like the incumbent Democrat sent bankers to jail for rampant mortgage fraud.
Oh, right! Obama and Holder actually made the investigation of mortgage fraud JOD's lowest
priority and brought no criminal indictments...undermining the rule of law, giving bankers a 'get
out of jail free' card, and encouraging them to commit yet more fraud.
Krugman is becoming just ridiculous, a partisan hack on steroids.
"The episode showed that traditional financial regulation, which focuses on deposit-taking banks,
is inadequate in the modern world."
What Krugman fails to inform his reader - one can only say so much in a column is that Bill
Clinton repeatedly reappointed Alan Greenspan as regulator in chief.
The shadow-banking system was created during Greenspan's tenure and he saw no need to regulate
it b/c free markets are awesome! And so the shadow-banking system promptly had a bank run.
Not "promptly"--it took fifteen years. That was Clinton's biggest weakness--he was good at dealing
with urgent obvious problems, but he would sometimes let longer-term issues fester. This is why
Obama will be remembered as a better president than Clinton--he plays the long game.
Notable examples of urgent problems that Clinton addressed effectively included the Mexico crisis
of 1994, the East Asian crisis of 1997, and the collapse of Long Term Capital Management in 1998.
Any one of these crises could have turned into a broader meltdown and spawned a depression similar
to the 2008 one, but Clinton and his appointees (including Greenspan) did a good job of containing
the damage. Unfortunately they did nothing to address the underlying problems that had made it
necessary for them to act in the first place.
Bernie or no Bernie, 'Times' columnist Paul Krugman is wrong about the banks
Paul Krugman wrote an op-ed in the New York Times today called "Sanders Over the Edge." He's
been doing a lot of shovel work for the Hillary Clinton campaign lately, which is his right of
course. The piece eventually devolves into a criticism of the character of Bernie Sanders, but
it's his take on the causes of the '08 crash that really raises an eyebrow.
"It doesn't have to happen. As with so much else, this year's election is crucial. A Democrat
in the White House would enforce the spirit as well as the letter of reform - and would also appoint
judges sympathetic to that endeavor. A Republican, any Republican, would make every effort to
undermine reform, even if he didn't manage an explicit repeal.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the 2010 financial reform was enough."
The Republicans are going to lose so Krugman's lesser evil argument doesn't really work.
Does Krugman discuss Hillary's reforms? No of course not.
Your comment only makes sense if you believe that either
(1) designating a financial institution "systemically important" is trivial or totally meaningless
compared to criminal indictments for previous actions, or (2) a Republican would enforce this
designation just as much as Obama has. Which is it?
LOL!!! Eric Blair asserts that it is "totally meaningless" to sending bankers to prison for fraud
that threatened systemically threatened the economy!
And he assumes that Obama would behave less deferentially to Wall Street banks when it comes
to enforcing any regulation that bankers don't approve of.
Republicans have no monopoly on servility to the interests of Wall Street and their wealthy clientele,
but Krugman obviously prefers Democratic corruption to its Republican cousin...
No, I did not say what you claim that I said. And whether Obama is being deferential to someone
is at most a side issue. The important questions are first, does the rule help make the financial
system more stable, and second, would it be enforced less by Republicans. I believe the answer
to both questions is yes.
LOL!!! How can it get less than zero...which is the number of bank fraud indictments Obama
issued against prominent Wall Street bankers?
It's hilarious how Wall Street Democrats try to claim that the Democratic Party is less corrupt
than Republicans, when both parties feed from the same trough.
"The house cleaning has a lot further to go than "Republicans."
How about the leader of the Democrats, President Obama?
Real Democrats can hardly wait for good ol authentic, honest Bernie Sanders to start attacking
President Obama – he's certainly not qualified to be president, taking all that Wall Street cash
and letting the big banks off scot-free, like he and Holder did back 2009 -- unqualified.
But good ol straight shootin Bernie aint gona do that, is he? Nope, because even Bernie understands
that Democrats actually like, maybe even love President Obama.
Bernie probably even understands that most Democrats like their democratic representatives,
senators, governors, mayors, city councilors, etc as well. So railing against the establishment
is not nearly as effective for Bernie as it is for Trump, Cruz and the tea party railing against
the Republican establishment. You see this in most Sanders surrogates carefully leaving "democratic"
off when criticizing the establishment, heck they might be confused with Republicans or Independents.
Even the more excitable online Berniacs rarely use the term democratic establishment, instead
invoking the generically ominous and evil "establishment."
It would have been much better (and honest) if Bernie had not turned his back on 28 years as
a proud Independent and run for president as a proud Independent instead of his gimmick to garner
more media attention by running as a Democrat.
His ego trip would have been much shorter, and Bernie certainly wouldn't be able to raise as
much cash running as an independent, he'd likely struggle to exceed Nader's 3% general election
vote in 2000, but he could have honestly taken on the real leader of the (democratic) establishment,
President Obama.
Nonetheless, Bernie is bringing critical economic issues into public discourse, issues that Wall
Street Democrats have long tried to suppress or occasionally pay lip service to...issue such as
minimum wages, trade policy, etc.
Even better, Bernie is showing socialist Democrats how to campaign and win against corrupt,
incumbent Wall Street Democrats.
That looks suspiciously just what Charles Murray proposed in his book "By the People: Rebuilding
Liberty Without Permission", to litigate against norms that regulate corporations.
Well not all SI's are equal. The drubbing AIG took even as it was used to launder cash to more
favored institutions is no doubt seen as the template. There's that nowhere to be found independent
insurance guy with no clout on FSOC that's another message. Woodall,a former insurance regulator
from Kentucky is the definition of outsider.
Last there's Jack Lew lecturing everyone on financial stability,truly a nice irony given Citi's
illegal Traveler's deal and the horrific consequences.
No doubt the lawsuit is about positioning and they'll be more by other players who worry about
being sacrificed to save the clout-heavy.
This is totally predictable given the power structure of FSOC.
Posted on
April 11, 2016 by
Yves Smith
As strange as it may seem, a confluence of developments in the banking industry means the Panama
Papers revelations looks likely make it a lot more difficult for offshore money, as tax evasions
and tax secrecy are often politely called, to stay hidden. This would serve as a marked contrast
to the last international-headlines-gripping leaks, the Snowden revelations. Even though Snowden
gave a big window into the reach of the surveillance state, not all that much has changed, save the
Chinese making more active efforts to avoid cloud computing and US technology vendors, and the Europeans
bashing US concerns over violations of their privacy laws.
By contrast, the massive Mossack Fonseca records haul feeds into trends in banking that mean that
a lot of these funds are going to find it hard remain secret. We'll summarize them below.
Tax base expansion initiatives . The US and European Union have been working
on a program to expand the base of income that is subject to tax. Budget-starved European member
states have been moving the plan forward ahead of schedule. This is one of the few positive developments
to come of of governments failing to understand the implications of having a fiat currency (you can
and typically need to run deficits, since the private sector sets unduly high return targets and
chronically underinvests; the constraint on deficit spending is creating too much inflation).
Increasingly tough "know your customer" rules . The US going aggressively after
foreign banks that have falsified records as a part of money-laundering has led to increased compliance.
Even Standard Chartered, which thought the US had no business telling it not to do business with
Iran, was brought to heel and its CEO forced to resign for his continued intransigence.
Now the US can throw its weight around only as far as dollar-based transactions are concerned,
since those ultimately clear through US facilities. But the UK has also adopted stringent "know your
customer" rules. It now takes weeks to open a new account that is not a personal account, say for
your rugby club.
There is a new urgency in the tone of the lawyers and advisers for offshore asset holders.
The essential message is that you are the Shah of Iran, this is 1979, and you and your money will
find yourselves hopscotching from one unwelcoming landing place to another…
If you or your clients think this is about tax cheats or the merely middle rich, they should
think again…
As this column and others have noted, by next year Switzerland, along with Luxembourg, the
Channel Islands and other European offshore investment management centres, will start exchanging
tax information with their counterparts.
There are a very large number of beneficiaries, ie globalised rich people, who have until the
end of this year to get their money safely onshore. The one Western country that does not have
a deadline for complying with the Common Reporting Standard is the US.
Almost everyone who has non-criminally sourced capital would like to have at least some of
it accessible within the dollar-based clearing system. But the clerical and legal checklists to
set up accounts for legitimate money have become so long that it will take months to accomplish
this even for those willing to pay the transaction costs.
And before you think the US banks are therefore the answer…. US banks are shunning money
from the rich these days. . Dizard again:
The largest US banks do not really want to take more deposits, or even do the cursory know-your-customer
due diligence work to open new special purpose accounts for old customers. Americans I know with
legitimately acquired nine- or ten-figure investment portfolios now have to scrounge around to
open accounts in midsize US banks.
Those rich Americans do not have the logistical or legal problems that Panama Papers-related
flight capital will have in "onshoring" their money.
Moreover, US legislators are calling for the US tax havens like Delaware corporations and Wyoming
limited liability companies, to report on who their ultimate beneficiaries are. Given the tone of
his Guardian op-ed, Carl Levin sound like he is warming up for hearings:
Global revulsion against shell company abuses, offshore tax havens, and the lawyers that promote
them has generated new public pressure to tackle these problems. Here are three steps to consider.
Outlaw corporations with hidden owners
….G20 world leaders have made a start with a joint commitment to increase corporate transparency.
The United Kingdom is leading the way, mandating public disclosure of the true owners – the "beneficial
owners" – of UK companies. The European Union has followed…
The United States is far behind. We now require more information to get a library card than
to form a US corporation. ….The biggest impediment is opposition from the secretaries of state
of our 50 states, who financially benefit from forming new corporations and don't want to ask
questions that might jeopardize their revenue. Our states need to wake up to the damage they are
doing and stop forming corporations with hidden owners.
Get tough on offshore tax abuse
Tax authorities should use existing tax information exchange agreements, including the US-Panama
agreement, to go after tax cheats and determine whether Mossack Fonseca facilitated illegal conduct.
Offshore tax abuse goes beyond individuals. Some multinational corporations use tax havens
to arrange secret tax deals or declare earnings offshore. The international community is finally
demanding that large multinationals file reports disclosing the profits they make and the taxes
they pay on a country-by-country basis. The United States has proposed regulations requiring those
reports; the next step is to finalize them. A bigger issue: making those reports public.
Get tough on lawyers promoting misconduct
….Lawyers should be subject to the "know your client" requirements of anti-money laundering
laws. In addition, banks should scrutinize suspicious accounts of law firms and require them to
certify that they will not use those accounts to help clients circumvent the bank's own anti-money
laundering controls.
Note that Levin doesn't seem to have a good answer about what to do about states that find it
attractive to act as secrecy jurisdictions, but in the past, the Feds have used cutting off various
Federal funds as a stick to force cooperation, Moreover, if Congress were to pass laws with "know
your client" requirements with criminal sanctions and tough fines, that in and of itself would choke
off a lot of domestic activity.
Information technology risk . Mossack Fonseca exposed in a very dramatic way
that secrecy isn't just a function of the design of legal arrangements and the choice of jurisdiction
and bank, but also of the integrity of the registered agent's IT security. There's no way to do due
diligence on that. Those with offshore accounts must already be nervous that they could be exposed
by a similar hack. Dizard's fallback remedy for the rich who want to keep their money hidden, "…you
and your money will find yourselves hopscotching from one unwelcoming landing place to another,"
might work for the relatively small and fleet of foot to stay ahead of the taxman and the bank transparency
moves, but it won't reduce IT risk.
Dizard's article, despite being informative, weirdly rails against crackdown on large-scale international
capital transactions" as populist and ill-informed, due to limiting the mobility of international
capital. Someone needs to clue him on the research by Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reihart, who are hardly
of the pinko persuasion, who found that high levels of international capital movements are powerfully
correlated with more severe and frequent financial crises. Dizard also tries to depict reducing capital
movements as being Smoot-Hawley revisited. First, the notion that Smoot-Hawley caused the Depression
had been well debunked. Second and more important, international capital flows these days are at
such high levels (over 60 times trade flows) that the Bank of International Settlement has said that
large international transactions are not about facilitating trade, and that excessive financial "elasticity"
was the cause of the crisis.
He also depicts banks as winding up being beneficiaries, which contradicts his message that they
regard onshored money as more hassle (which means cost) that its worth:
This will, within the next two years or so, lead to a one-time transfer from the global rich
to the staff and owners of US financial institutions. But that will be followed by a long drought
for new business, as the global wealth that did not move quickly enough gets slotted into endless
holding patterns in the mid-Atlantic or mid-Pacific.
It's hard to see what good it will do someone to have money moving around the few finessable locations
and banks that remain. Pray tell, how does it spent? Money you can't readily touch, or get into a
jurisdiction where you'd like to spend it, does not seem terribly useful.
And the big point that Dizard misses is that onshoring these funds will make the future investment
income on them subject to tax. Hidden untaxed wealth has contributed to rising inequality; Gabriel
Zucman of UC Berkeley has estimated that 6% to 8% of global wealth is offshore, and most of that
not reported to tax authorities. So the more the rich are discomfited by their overly-clever machinations,
the better.
Well, if you live in a state where you can name an LLC for your nominee trust, it doesn't get
any better. File the off shore LLC in Nevada where they don't ask any questions, and use it for
your real estate vehicle to launder your monies. Any question to why high end real estate is on
fire? The opaqueness in some states is intentional, as it took me about 10 minutes of random searching
of properties (over $2 million) to find the off shore LLC owner, with people and entities that
did not exists in the SoS filings. The activity index for RE sales over $750K is almost equal
to the index under $400K and below combined. If you add the $500K and above sales, it crushes
the entire index below $500K.
Owning an entity does not open a bank account…a party almost always has to be vetted for a
new enterprise…wired in funds for the benefit of an entity helps break the corporate veil…govt
officials rambling to the public that this corporate charade is just "impossible" to deal with
or stop are just laughing at the public (or need to hand back their law license to the bar)…money
can Always be traced…a real estate closing will have closing instructions and in those instructions
will be to whom to send back the funds and to what name if the transaction is not concluded….since
title companies are state regulated enterprises….and there are basically only four major title
insurance umbrella companies….this myth that a state title insurance investigator could not walk
in and obtain the beneficiary of the source of funds is one big second city improv skit
All they have to do is have real estate fall under FinCen Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR)
requirements, but the NAR is simply too powerful and well funded with a more than accepting sold
out CONgress,
Not defending nar but state title insurance investigators have the absolute right to walk in
unannounced and spot audit files…a new corp will not have all these closing funds in hand and
for a proper corp veil to stand and hold, the funds had to be in a bank account in the name of
corp…might I suggest that the funds do not arrive from a source matching the corporate name…thus
revealing the actual party in interest….
After this amazing seminar from Yves MERS is making much more sense… and as always Utah stands
squarely behind the banks by ruling in appeals court that you can make a ham sandwich your agent.
Another piece of the problem is the difficulty of "piercing the corporate veil" in so many
legal domains (almost said "states and nations," but those are mostly convenient fictions themselves).
There's been a long tail of effort by the Few and the Corrupt and the Criminal to make it very
difficult, ever increasingly difficult, to hang liability for what little remains of proscriptions
and penalties for vicious and renter-driven personal (from "behind the veil") actions that offend
what are supposed to be police-powers (health, safety, welfare, nuisance and environmental destruction,
etc.), hang it where it belongs, with penalties that actually matter to the sociopath, if behaviors
are going to change - around the necks of the individual rotten humans that plot and plan and
operate all the stuff that is killing ordinary people and the planet.
Corporate "beneficial owners"
get to hide behind the screen of opacity and deflection that comes from the perversion of the
notion that "business" needs require immunity of individuals from the consequences of "corporate"
behavior. "Piercing the veil" requires meeting an extreme burden of proof that the corporation
is a fraudulent shell, or merely an alter ego of the individual officer/owner. And if course the
Wealthy and their advisers and facilitators and wholly owned political actors are still in the
game, with huge resources even if currently under some increasing and likely temporary constraints,
and they will be doing their damndest to preserve existing moats and walls and veils and find
new ways to pervert the legitimacy-granting functions of law-making to protect their pleasure
palaces and "specialness."
Eat the Rich, reads the old bumper sticker from Hippier days… With a plate of fava beans, and
a nice sauce of Retribution and a side of Restitution…
I have seen one case in particular, where the CEO made one set of sworn statements to the SEC
in the 10k, and said the exact opposite in Federal court in the same month. Neither legal team
picked up on this or mentioned it, and neither did the judge. It was incredibly aggravating to
watch. In this case he rode the company into the ground while pumping and dumping like mad, and
got away with it. The lawsuit was simply another vehicle to pump the stock, it didn't matter if
it even had any merit - which it didn't. Years later, the company imploded ithe only a few employees
left, the execs walked away with millions, etc. and they made a lot of enemies along the way.
Hopefully greater regulation and international cooperation will surface the tax evaders and
capture their previously unpaid taxes. But it will also drive many of them deeper into organized
crime-style hiding schemes. For example, using squeaky-clean nominees acting as beards: here's
how it works in many communities – one guy "owns" many rental properties for which there are long-term
tenants, and the rent equals exactly the carrying cost of the property. The tenants happen to
be businessmen and their families who run pretty close to the wind and whose assets are thereby
continually at risk – effectively, they protect their houses from creditors by holding them in
a trustworthy nominee name – the "legal owner" is a hidden agent for the actual owners. Totally
undetectable. But enforcement of this type of contract is extra-legal – organized crime-style
– and communal.
This type of setup is also a classic money-laundering vehicle – involving property flips between
ostensibly unrelated parties but in reality coordinated. Hence distorted real estate markets as
noted by Northeaster above. First $500,000 of profit on a principle residence sale is non taxable.
I'd suggest the IRS focus on auditing house sales for which the principle residence exemption
has been claimed, especially when people make close to the limit several times over (say) a ten-year
period.
Way back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, and I was taking Income Tax in law school, I couldn't
shake the feeling that the whole point of the class was to assist people (corporations are people,
my friend) to scam the government. While no one likes to pay taxes, these taxes provide services
that people do, in fact like. It's all I can do to resist slapping folks who complain about the
condition of the roads, and then in the next breath, whine about their tax burden.
Anyway, cheating the government out of one's fair share of the tax burden means 2 things:
1.) The remaining burden falls more heavily on those who DO pay; and
2.) Unpunished cheating encourages more people (and corporations) to cheat. "If they're not paying,
why should I pay?"
After that class, I couldn't run fast enough away from tax law as it seemed to attract classmates
I rather loathed. I couldn't agree more that tax lawyers who encourage cheating should face disbarment
and fines. Apologies to my tax law brethren who try to do the right thing. I know some fine CPAs
and tax guys. It just wasn't my calling.
I began my career as a CPA in the early '70s in the SF Bay area and virtually all of the lawyers
I came in contact with had the same thoughts about taxes as you did. One of my accounting professors
used to go on about how it was incredible that an attorney could pass the bar and practice law
without ever having taken one tax course.
Particularly when you consider that there is very little
that a lawyer does that does not in some way involve taxes. So for us CPAs this was just an opening
for us to specialize in an area where lawyers had little or no interest.
In those days I recall
that when you actually needed a tax attorney he was usually – I won't say loathsome – but kind
of an odd sort. Recently I spoke to my ex-partner who took over our practice and the subject of
tax attorneys came up. He reported to me that in the Bay Area tax attorneys are now billing $900
to $1,000 per hour. I guess you can call this supply side economics at work. As the number of
mega zillionaires grows in the SF/Silicon Valley area, demand has apparently been created for
a new category of super lawyer. The Free Market really can do some wonderful things when manipulated
properly.
You have to have your brain turned inside out to understand tax well enough to be a tax lawyer.
Most regular lawyers have some antipathy for tax lawyers (I've sensed this and confirmed it).
The logic of tax is extremely arcane, non-intuitive, and pedantic. Plus it does not have commercial
value added.
this is thing…..nearly every establishment related profession seems, in my mind at least, to
be corrupted by fraud and graft……be it Pharma, Financials, Medical, MIC, Education, Agriculture,
Law & Judicature, Transportation & Energy, National social policy, Foreign & National & Security
policy……..
I'm an American citizen living overseas. For me an "offshore account" is not an option, it's
a fact of life. Creating fair laws to control tax evasion are therefore of interest to me.
One example of the opposite of fair law is FATCA. This is quite a terrifying bit of poorly
conceived legislation; intended to go after blatant tax evaders and sanction evaders, but instead
creating penalties that can be life ruining for a middle class expat that makes an honest mistake
in their reporting. The penalties on banks (and by extension foreign countries) that did not want
to subject themselves to US law are also overly aggressive. So aggressive that many financial
institutions refused to deal with any Americans, even for things as simple as a savings account.
"Knowing your customer" became discrimination based on citizenship.
I'm just hoping that any changes to enforcement or regulation that come about from the PPs
take this into account.
Regarding Standard Chartered, I'm not quite sure it's absolutely clear cut that they were in
the wrong:
They may have settled just to make the problem go away, and to maintain access to the US financial
system. The US has a habit of imposing it's laws on the rest of the world, or ignoring international
law it doesn't like. In my opinion, the sanctions on Iran were in many ways outright bullying,
very much like with those on Cuba.
Buh? Standard Chartered defied the advice of its US outside counsel and falsified wire transfer
documents in a systematic manner after having been previously sanctioned for handling the transfer
of funds to Iran for its oil sales, and to Sudan and other prohibited jurisdictions. You clearly
have not read Benjamin Lawsky's order against the bank. Standard Chartered had a branch in New
York to do dollar operations, and all dollar transactions ultimately clear (have to clear) through
that branch.
These were clear-cut violations of NY banking rules and
Lawsky could have yanked Standard Chartered's NY banking license, which would have been a cataclysmic
event for the bank. And after Federal regulators initially acting offended that Lawsky had end
run and embarrassed them, they stepped up and issued big fines against Standard Chartered of their
own.
You also omit that Standard Chartered got yet another round of fines for failing to comply
with the changes required! That led to the ouster of CEO Peter Sands, who had been defiant all
along. From the New York Times in 2014,
Caught Backsliding, Standard Chartered Is Fined $300 Million :
It took $667 million in fines and a promise to behave for the British bank Standard Chartered
to emerge from the regulatory spotlight. All it took to return there was its failure to fully
keep that promise.
In a settlement announced on Tuesday by New York State's financial regulator, Standard Chartered
will pay a $300 million fine and suspend an important business activity because of its failure
to weed out transactions prone to money-laundering, a punishing reminder of settlements in
2012. Those settlements with state and federal authorities resolved accusations that Standard
Chartered, in part through its New York branch, processed transactions for Iran and other countries
blacklisted by the United States.
The New York regulator, Benjamin M. Lawsky, has now penalized Standard Chartered for running
afoul of the 2012 settlement, which he said required the bank to "remediate anti-money-laundering
compliance problems."
An independent monitor, hired as part of Mr. Lawsky's 2012 settlement, recently detected
that the bank's computer systems failed to flag wire transfers flowing from areas of the world
considered vulnerable to money-laundering, according to Mr. Lawsky's order. The order did not
specify the number of transactions that the bank's filters failed to identify, but a person
briefed on the matter said that it was "in the millions."
Please stop defending crooked bank behavior. Plus this is agnotology, which is against our
house rules.
Thanks for this. The problem with the Panama Papers for those of us outside economics and finance
is that we don't understand the mechanisms and regulations that ease all of this movement of money.
Even though I have stocks in my IRA, it isn't as if the companies report their financial messes
in the proxy statements. Au contraire, it's all the glory of Jeffrey Immelt all the time.
You may want to check McClatchy's website as they have some explanatory videos and terrific
reporting.
I got started on all the tax haven skullduggery by reading Yves, so it's wonderful to see this
getting a far wider, fully documented exposition.
Also, Nicholas Shaxson's Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men Who Stole the World
is one of the best books that I've ever read. His blog is here:
http://treasureislands.org
Earlier this week, a friend said, "Is it a good day?" I said, "It's an AWESOME day! All the
sleaze is finally coming out into the sunlight."
'It now takes weeks to open a new account that is not a personal account, say for your rugby
club.'
… which is why workarounds, both old school (gold) and new (anonymous digital currencies),
will be found to sidestep the politicization of government currencies, which now come bundled
with odious surveillance that makes their use increasingly unattractive.
These are both property, not money, and not at all workable for anyone who needs them for transactions.
Both are volatile and bitcoin with its blockchain makes its entire history of past holders accessible.
That's not a desirable feature for someone hiding from the taxman.
Good grief. What's the world coming to? Are we now expected to visit our offshore paradise
and suitcase money home? The gentlemen in Customs will be checking every flight from the Caymans.
"The one Western country that does not have a deadline for complying with the Common Reporting
Standard is the US." – Ahh ha – is this part of the solution to falling inwards investment?
"... Perhaps that's the problem with economics: the economists are so wrapped up in politics they can't tell where one starts and the other ends. Economics becomes nothing more than politics with math thrown in to lend authority to "very serious" agendas. ..."
"... Much like theology, it's a matter of culture and clique. Fitting they break up the field into Orthodox and Heterodox. Perhaps they should have economic cardinals that elect an economic pope. ..."
"... "When economic power became concentrated in a few hands, then political power flowed to those possessors and away from the citizens, ultimately resulting in an oligarchy or tyranny." John Adams ..."
"... Politics and economic matters cannot be separated. Most politics are an expression of economic interests; in fact almost all - things that appear to be about "power", social dominance, and social mores are also mostly motivated by arranging or sustaining an environment where certain groups get to decide matters of the economy at the expense of others. ..."
"... Have you heard the phrase "follow the money", and even older "cui bono"? It's the same principle. Most motivations are based in economic affairs and conflicts. ..."
...Krugman may be an economist, but this politicking op-ed has nothing to do with economics.
Perhaps that's the problem with economics: the economists are so wrapped up in politics they
can't tell where one starts and the other ends. Economics becomes nothing more than politics with
math thrown in to lend authority to "very serious" agendas.
BTW, how are economic ideas established, in any case? We know with science, falsifiable hypotheses
are put forward and put to the test. Economists know enough about statistics to hide behind the
ethics problem of running economic experiments. Even though they ARE running economic experiments
with their Aristotelian notions that almost always get it wrong: from "efficient" taxation nonsense
that gives the rich big tax breaks, to investor-protecting inflation targeting that ran the economy
into the ground -- which they call the Great Moderation; etc.
Much like theology, it's a matter of culture and clique. Fitting they break up the field into
Orthodox and Heterodox. Perhaps they should have economic cardinals that elect an economic pope.
Politics is deeply connected to economics. Especially under neoliberalism. It is actually difficult
to distinguish two and many economic issues are highly political ("role of the market in the society").
Moreover:
"When economic power became concentrated in a few hands, then political power flowed to those
possessors and away from the citizens, ultimately resulting in an oligarchy or tyranny." John
Adams
Politics and economic matters cannot be separated. Most politics are an expression of economic
interests; in fact almost all - things that appear to be about "power", social dominance, and
social mores are also mostly motivated by arranging or sustaining an environment where certain
groups get to decide matters of the economy at the expense of others.
Have you heard the phrase "follow the money", and even older "cui bono"? It's the same principle.
Most motivations are based in economic affairs and conflicts.
Financial booms have become a chronic feature of the global financial system. When these booms
end in crises, the impact on economic conditions can be severe.
Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff
of Harvard pointed out that banking crises have been associated with deep downturns in output
and employment, which is certainly consistent with the experience of the advanced economies in the
aftermath of the global crisis. But the after effects of the booms may be even deeper and more long-lasting
than thought.
Gary Gorton
of Yale and Guillermo Ordońez of the University of Pennsylvania have released a study of "good
booms" and "bad booms," where the latter end in a crisis and the former do not. In their model, all
credit booms start with an increase in productivity that allows firms to finance projects using collateralized
debt. During this initial period, lenders can assess the quality of the collateral, but are not likely
to do so as the projects are productive. Over time, however, as more and more projects are financed,
productivity falls as does the quality of the investment projects. Once the incentive to acquire
information about the projects rises, lenders begin to examine the collateral that has been posted.
Firms with inadequate collateral can no longer obtain financing, and the result is a crisis. But
if new technology continues to improve, then there need not be a cutoff of credit, and the boom will
end without a crisis. Their empirical analysis shows that credit booms are not uncommon, last ten
years on average, and are less likely to end in a crisis when there is larger productivity growth
during the boom.
Claudio Borio, Enisse Kharroubi,
Christian Upper and Fabrizio Zampolli of the Bank for International Settlements also look at
the dynamics of credit booms and productivity, with data from advanced economies over the period
of 1979-2009. They find that credit booms induce a reallocation of labor towards sectors with lower
productivity growth, particularly the construction sector. A financial crisis amplifies the negative
impact of the previous misallocation on productivity. They conclude that the slow recovery from the
global crisis may be due to the misallocation of resources that occurred before the crisis.
How do international capital flows fit into these accounts?
Gianluca Benigno of the London School of Economics, Nathan Converse of the Federal Reserve Board
and Luca Forno of Universitat Pompeu Fabra write about capital inflows and economic performance.
They identify 155 episodes of exceptionally large capital inflows in middle- and high-income countries
over the last 35 years. They report that larger inflows are associated with economic booms. The expansions
are accompanied by rises in total factor productivity (TFP) and an increase in employment, which
end when the inflows cease.
Moreover, during the boom there is also a reallocation of resources. The sectoral share of tradable
goods in advanced economies, particularly manufacturing, falls during the periods of capital inflows.
A reallocation of investment out of manufacturing occurs, including a reallocation of employment
if a government refrains from accumulating foreign assets during the episodes of large capital inflows,
as well as during periods of abundant international liquidity. The capital inflows also raise the
probability of a sudden stop. Economic performance after the crisis is adversely affected by the
pre-crisis capital inflows, as well as the reallocation of employment away from manufacturing that
took place in the earlier period.
Alessandra Bonfiglioli of Universitat Pompeu Fabra looked at
the
issue of financial integration and productivity (working
paper here). In a sample of 70 countries between 1975 and 1999, she found that de jure
measures of financial integration, such as that provided by the IMF, have a positive relationship
with total factor productivity (TFP). This occurred despite the post-financial liberalization increase
in the probability of banking crises in developed countries that adversely affects productivity.
De facto liberalization, as measured by the sum of external assets and liabilities scaled
by GDP, was productivity enhancing in developed countries but not in developing countries.
Ayhan
Kose of the World Bank, Eswar S. Prasad of Cornell and Marco E. Terrones of the IMF also investigated
this issue (working paper here) using
data from the period of 1966-2005 for 67industrial and developing countries. Like Bonfiglioli, they
reported that de jure capital openness has a positive effect on growth in total factor productivity
(TFP). But when they looked at the composition of the actual flows and stocks, they found that while
equity liabilities (foreign direct investment and portfolio equity) boost TFP growth, debt liabilities
have the opposite impact.
The relationship of capital flows on economic activity, therefore, is complex. Capital inflows
contribute to economic booms and may increase TFP, but can end in crises that include "sudden stops"
and banking failures. They can also distort the allocation of resources, which affects performance
after the crisis. These effects can depend on the types of external liabilities that countries incur.
Debt, which exacerbates a crisis,
may also adversely divert resources away from sectors with high productivity. Policymakers in emerging
markets who think about the long-term consequences of current activities need to look carefully at
the
debt that private firms in their countries have been incurring.
And therein lies the half of Keynesian Economics that is ignored - running surpluses during the booms to tamp them down, and to have a reserve to pump into the economy during the busts.
"... Cameron's attempts to look perspicacious in foreign affairs only show him once again to be over impulsive and delusional-proof once again that the prime minister's foreign policy is, as General Richards had put it, "more about the Notting Hill liberal agenda rather than statecraft." ..."
February 22, 2016 |
FAR FROM BEING an example of successful intervention, however, Libya has turned into a study in how
the West makes things worse. It is now a failed state, a vast ungoverned space. The World Food Program
says that 2.4 million Libyans are in need of humanitarian assistance; the country's population is
6.2 million. Its economy is at one quarter of its capacity. Instead of fostering democracy in the
Maghreb, Libya has become a breeding ground for Islamist terror-security analysts call it "Scumbag
Woodstock"-and a springboard for the refugee crisis into Europe. Towards the end of 2015, Abdullah
al-Thani, one of Libya's competing prime ministers, wrote to Philip Hammond, Cameron's foreign secretary,
offering to cooperate against ISIS and the people-smuggling rackets that bring so many migrants across
the Mediterranean into Europe. He didn't receive a reply.
The Cameroons ignore the reality of Libya
in favor of congratulating themselves on a job well done. As one Cabinet minister put it to the journalist
Matthew D'Ancona, "whenever things get bad, and the press are saying what a rubbish government we
are, I remind myself that there are people alive in Benghazi tonight because we decided to take a
risk." In a Christmas interview with the Spectator magazine, Cameron insisted that
"Libya is better off without Qaddafi. What we were doing was preventing a mass genocide. Then,
as you say, the coalition helped those on the ground to get rid of the Qaddafi regime and it's
very disappointing that there hasn't been an effective successor regime."
Yet the idea of an imminent Libyan genocide in 2011 seems to have been exaggerated. The International
Crisis Group
concluded by the end of that year: "There are grounds for questioning the more sensational reports
that the regime was using its air force to slaughter demonstrators, let alone engaging in anything
remotely warranting use of the term 'genocide.'"
Moreover, Cameron's insistence that his intervention saved lives-when in the long run, it did
not-and his use of word "disappointing" is telling. It suggests a near pathological unwillingness
to accept mistakes. To admit failure in Libya would be to undermine the prime minister's judgment,
and he can't have that. He would rather blame Libyans for not taking their big shot at democracy.
This stubbornness seems to have driven him to be hawkish over Syria. Cameron and his friends want
to recapture some of the magic they felt when they rid the world of a tyranny. It doesn't matter
whether Britain is tackling Assad, or attacking Assad's enemy. It doesn't even matter that Britain
is making a pathetically insignificant contribution. What counts is that the Tory top brass can feel
they are fighting the good fight. When it comes to international statesmanship, the Cameroons prefer
West Wing–style fantasy to realpolitik.
Cameron is aware of this criticism, which is why he has tried to pretend that he had thought through
his latest adventure in Syria. But his strategy didn't stand up to much scrutiny. The prime minister's
office
issues a document claiming that while the immediate motive for airstrikes was to degrade ISIS,
there was a medium-term plan to work with seventy thousand "Syrian opposition fighters on the ground
who do not belong to extremist groups." This was an obvious fudge to suggest that destroying ISIS
did not mean propping up Assad; that a third force existed in Syria, one which could be brought to
the fore, with Western help. Unfortunately for democrats everywhere, this idea seems based on wishful
thinking. Experts maintain that the armed opposition to Assad is dominated by ISIS, as well as the
Al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra and the equally Islamist Ahrar al-Sham. The smaller rebel groups
might be labeled moderate, but they are able to operate only with the blessing of the jihadists.
Besides, as journalist Patrick Cockburn, citing Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi of the Middle East Forum,
writes, these groups "commonly exaggerate their numbers, are very fragmented and have failed
to unite, despite years of war."
Cameron's attempts to look perspicacious in foreign affairs only show him once again to be over
impulsive and delusional-proof once again that the prime minister's foreign policy is, as General
Richards had put it, "more about the Notting Hill liberal agenda rather than statecraft."
Their dirty ways: " One day last October, when employees at Cenovus Energy showed up at the office, many discovered that they couldn't
access their computer files on the company's internal system. That's how they found out they were being laid off.
Companies that fought to attract and keep staff have been learning the hard way how to shed them in a hurry. But that doesn't mean
it can't – and shouldn't – be done right
One day last October, when employees at Cenovus Energy showed up at the office, many discovered that they couldn't access their
computer files on the company's internal system. That's how they found out they were being laid off. Two months earlier, employees
at Hutchison Ports Australia in Sydney and Brisbane got a text message, then an email in the middle of the night inviting them to
a beachside hotel. They, too, were being laid off.
Cenovus called its move a mistake. Hutchison Ports Australia said it had begun its consultations with staff and unions regarding
redundancies in June. Whatever the explanation, companies need to start approaching layoffs more carefully. And though everyone in
the energy business is hoping the bloodletting is over, if it isn't, there are ways to soften the blow of layoffs, and do them fairly
and transparently.
Communication
A company should keep its employees informed of the economic forces acting on the business and their employment prospects, says
Martin Birt, president of HRaskme.com and a human resources consultant with 30 years in the business. "Closures should never, in
my view, be a surprise," he says. Neither should layoffs. You can communicate messages with your employees such as how decisions
will be made in what Birt calls a "long-game communications plan," a set of HR principles that will be applied should anything be
decided regarding the company's long-term employment potential. That way, employees have some context as to what to expect when market
circumstances change.
If you choose not to share your long-game communications plan in your employee manual, when speaking to the people you're laying
off, at least communicate how, why and when you made the decision, Birt says. Your actions will get back to suppliers, contractors
and layoff survivors. And if you've communicated fairly and awarded appropriate compensation and benefits, the external environment
will understand what kind of corporate citizen you are.
Listen to Your Experts
Involve the correct teams – operations, human resources and legal – and involve them as early in the decision-making process as
possible, says Birt. These teams will protect you as a corporation from any liability associated with a layoff.
Soften the Blow
Henry Hornstein is an assistant professor at Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario's Algoma University, specializing in organizational change
management. In the early 1990s, he was among the staff let go from Imperial Oil's Strathcona refinery. "It was not pleasant," says
Hornstein, "but the way Imperial Oil handled that at the time cushioned the blow." They provided him with a year's worth of salary
and benefits, and services with an outplacement firm. These included resumé writing, interview training and networking support. "Rather
than treating people as commodities, people are treated compassionately," says Hornstein of the experience. You can provide your
employees with psychological support in addition to proper severance, benefits and outplacement services, he says. Consider offering
group meetings where people can talk to others about the negative psychological impacts of downsizing that they've experienced. "Downsizing
is a significant assault on an individual's self-esteem Everybody has a story, and when somebody is downsized, the organization can
[seem to] take an approach that they don't care what the background story is, they just want to get rid of the people." says Hornstein.
Birt agrees, saying companies should be prepared to offer an employee assistance program (EAP), a short-term counseling service for
employees in need of support. This can also add a buffer against the company's liability.
Confidentiality
Having said that, to maintain confidentiality, limit the planning group to only those whose participation is necessary, says Birt.
Consider using specific project-related confidentiality agreements, as well, and clearly describe the consequences for breaching
confidentiality. He also suggests reminding participants with pre-existing confidentiality agreements of the terms of those agreements.
If you are a publicly traded company, you should know if you are required to first inform the markets of your actions. If that is
the case, managers must be prepared to communicate with employees immediately after informing the markets.
Finalize the Details
Before you deliver the news of layoffs, finalize all the details with human resources and legal, including severance, benefits
and pension entitlements, says Birt. You'll be prepared to immediately answer individual questions. Everything you say orally in
a termination meeting should be captured in a termination letter as well, he says. However, give terminated employees a few days
to review their termination package and ask any questions, says Fraser Johnson, a professor at the Ivey School of Business in London,
Ontario. "As soon as you hear the words that you're being laid off, your mind might go blank," he says.
Share the Pain
Rather than targeting employees with layoffs, share the cuts across the corporation, just as Canadian Natural Resources did when
all staff pay was cut by up to 10 percent. Or, introduce flexible work arrangements like part-time work, voluntary leaves of absence,
or deferred compensation in which an employee can work full-time at 80 percent salary for several years before taking a paid sabbatical.
"... Gramm seems pretty firmly in free market ideologue territory. Cruz deciding to bring him in as an economic advisor is certainly noteworthy. ..."
"... The short version: the Glass Steagall repeal allowed the banks to become "Too Big To Fail" and gave them enormous political leverage. It's the political leverage - the ability to count on Uncle Sam to come to the rescue, and provide easy terms for rent-seeking - that GLB provided. If they were separated, and only the investment banks could make risky investments, we would let the investment banks fail while protecting the boring old payments system. You won't get an argument on CFMA, however: it was worse. And that has Gramm's fingerprints all over it. And it might not have passed if the SIFIs were smaller. ..."
"... When I think of the villains of the Great Recession, Phil Gramm is always Public Enemy #1. ..."
"... The Glass Steagall repeal was not my biggest problem with Phil Gramm. My big problem is he wanted to have a completely deregulated financial sector. Sort of like when Newt Gingrich talked about "rational regulation" which was code for no regulation. But anyone who understands financial economics and our financial system knows that no regulations whatsoever is a recipe for a complete melt down. Which is what happened. ..."
Some people look at subprime lending and see evil. I look at subprime lending and I see the
American dream in action. -- former U.S. Senator Phil Gramm, Nov. 16, 2008
...Gramm has been brought on as a senior economic adviser to Republican presidential candidate
Ted Cruz. This isn't a promising development for Cruz... Not to put too fine a point on it, but
I believe -- as do many others -- that Gramm was one of the major figures who helped set the stage
for the crisis. ...
Gramm was a key sponsor of the ...
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act , which effectively repealed the piece of the
Glass-Steagall
Act... The damage caused by rolling back Glass-Steagall pales compared with ... the
Commodity
Futures Modernization Act of 2000 . Gramm was a co-sponsor of the legislation, which exempted
many derivatives and swaps from regulation. Not only was the law problematic, but it veered into
potential conflict-of-interest territory. ...
We got a chance to see those consequences a few years later when American International Group
failed, thanks in part to swaps ... on $441 billion of securities that turned out to be junk.
AIG wasn't required to put up much in the way of collateral, set aside capital or hedge its risk
on the swaps. Why would it, when the law said it didn't have to? The taxpayers were then called
upon to bailout AIG to the tune of more than $180 billion.
Maybe it isn't too surprising that Cruz would seek advice from Gramm. Cruz, after all, seems
to want to hobble modern economic policy by returning to the gold standard. ... We have seen these
movies before, and they end in tragedy and tears.
He also talks about Gramm's sad performance in his brief appearance as one of McCain's advisors
in 2008.
pgl :
Phil Gramm says he got his economic degree from the University of Georgia. Well - it was from
the Terry College of Business which is a business school. Not the graduate program of economics
of the University of Georgia. I guess this makes Gramm one notch above Stephen Moore, Donald Luskin,
and Lawrence Kudlow (aka the three stooges).
"Gramm's most notable moment in that position came on July 10, 2008, when he dismissed the
developing economic crisis as "a mental recession" in an interview -- and video -- released by
the conservative Washington Times. "We've never been more dominant," he said. "We've never had
more natural advantages than we have today. We've sort of become a nation of whiners." McCain
immediately disavowed the remarks, and a few days later Gramm stepped down as his campaign co-chairman."
OK that was July. Menzie Chinn always notes that Luskin was saying the same thing as late as
September 2008.
sanjait :
Gramm seems pretty firmly in free market ideologue territory. Cruz deciding to bring him in
as an economic advisor is certainly noteworthy.
Though I'm still struck by how determined some people seem to lump Graham Leach Bliley in as
a cause/major contributor to the crisis.
The CFMA very plausibly serves that purpose. If we want to mark Gramm as a villain, his sponsorship
of that bill should be sufficient, as well as his abject refusal to acknowledge the crisis in
real time.
But for whatever reason people have picked up Glass Steagall as a Very Important rule, and
seem to be pushing to rationalize that by claiming it is a big part of the crisis story.
Ritholtz, to his credit, is qualified and nuanced about this. He notes that CFMA is the big
story, and says GLB wasn't didn't "cause" the crisis.
But following through the links to his WaPo piece, he still looks like he is reaching for a
reason to label it a major contributor to the crisis.
He claims that removing G-S restrictions caused the major banks to in turn cause the shadow
banking entities like AIG, Bear, etc. to "bulk up" their holdings of subprime, based on ... nothing
that I can see.
Sure, the major banks were customers and counterparties for those shadow banks, but Ritholtz
seems to assume that if G-S weren't in place that demand would somehow have been less. Why?
Take a major bank with mixed commercial and investment banking activity and split the parts.
Would that have changed their activities? Not much. The commercial banking side still would have
held MBS (and purchase insurance on them) and the I-banks would still make speculative investments
of various types.
No one, as far as I've seen, ever bothers to tell a complete story where the structural incentives
in the financial sector changed as a result of Glass Steagall in a way that materially impacted
the depth or serverity of the housing crisis. How would splitting megabanks into separate big
C- and I-banks have changed anything? Bueller?
Instead I see a great many people, including well credentialed economists, just assume or hand
waive the claim that it made a big impact without bothering to model or specify it. I'm not saying
such an explanation couldn't exist that I'm not aware of ... but at this point I do see the absence
of explanation as evidence of absence.
pgl -> sanjait...
Gramm dismissing the concern over a recession in the summer of 2008 is the kicker for me!
The short version: the Glass Steagall repeal allowed the banks to become "Too Big To Fail"
and gave them enormous political leverage. It's the political leverage - the ability to count
on Uncle Sam to come to the rescue, and provide easy terms for rent-seeking - that GLB provided.
If they were separated, and only the investment banks could make risky investments, we would let
the investment banks fail while protecting the boring old payments system. You won't get an argument
on CFMA, however: it was worse. And that has Gramm's fingerprints all over it. And it might not
have passed if the SIFIs were smaller.
When I think of the villains of the Great Recession, Phil Gramm is always Public Enemy
#1.
The Glass Steagall repeal was not my biggest problem with Phil Gramm. My big problem is he
wanted to have a completely deregulated financial sector. Sort of like when Newt Gingrich talked
about "rational regulation" which was code for no regulation. But anyone who understands financial
economics and our financial system knows that no regulations whatsoever is a recipe for a complete
melt down. Which is what happened.
The Rage :
Cruz just wants to make money for his buddies while waving the bible. JDR was there 100+ years
before that "Ted".
"Unlike an enthusiastic bull or a scary bear, a bunny market hops about a bit but really
doesn't go anywhere, and bunnies have often dominated the stock market during the latter stages
of past economic recoveries," Paulsen said in a report this week for clients.
Big business loves bribing the Clintons. They get great returns on investment. In the last forty
years the Clintons have received over three billion from big money interests. Cenk Uygur, host of
the The Young Turks, breaks it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.
"Over four decades of public life, Bill and Hillary Clinton have built an unrivaled global network
of donors while pioneering fundraising techniques that have transformed modern politics and paved
the way for them to potentially become the first husband and wife to win the White House.
The grand total raised for all of their political campaigns and their family's charitable foundation
reaches at least $3 billion, according to a Washington Post investigation.
Their fundraising haul, which began with $178,000 that Bill Clinton raised for his long-shot 1974
congressional bid, is on track to expand substantially with Hillary Clinton's 2016 White House run,
which has already drawn $110 million in support. "*
"... I really don't buy into this anti Trump hysteria, he is far better an option than slime bag Rubio or nut case Cruz. Hes a conservative nationalist who actually says some sensible things that resonate with a lot of working Americans. ..."
Clinton has recently endorsed, Nancy Reagan on HIV/Aides, and Kissinger and Albright on
foreign policy. The Huffington Post has recently endorsed, Rubio, and is preparing to endorse
Ted Cruz. Their political pundits have written new favorable histories on Mitt Romney, Newt
Gingrich, and Ronald Reagan.
Washington DC both politicians and pundits are a sea of whores,
and despised by a majority of the population.
Let's not forget that Reagan ruined the American financial system with "voodoo economics,"
cutting taxes for the rich and impoverishing our nation's ability to balance its budget and
meet its obligations, let alone do anything good for its people. He was also responsible for
the substitution of the 401k for what had been the almost universal provision of
employer-financed pensions for American workers. Plus, he brought in HMOs, which resulted in
the vastly expensive and ineffective system of health care that has been causing Americans to
pay the most for the least of any advanced nation.
Not the greatest President, imho, despite his popularity.
Guardian can't stand that Trump is actually not racist, and that a black candidate (whom the
Guardian liked a few months ago) now endorses Trump. Oooo the lefties are in a spin
The Guardian bias is getting toi much. When Carson and Christie endorse Trump its because they
are failed has beens. But you were gushing when the failed has been Romney and Lindsay Graham
attacked Trump...am sure if Jeb endorsed Rubio or Kasich you wud be falling over yourselves to
praise that! Why dont u just throw ur hat in the ring and declare urselves to be a liberal
party political mouth piece rather than try to disguise ur partisan attacks as journalism.
He actually said he wants to end the H1B abuse multiple times. I have no idea what Trump is
going to do in office, but the current Republican party is basically just pushing the
disgusting Koch Brother agenda, I trust them even less than I trust Donald Trump. I'm not sure
if you can post links on here but look up "What The Koch Brothers Want." by Bernie Sanders,
then listen to what every Republican running says & then tell me that you could actually vote
for one of them. I truly love this country, I cannot vote for someone I know will push this
agenda by a bunch of people who have no trouble poisoning an entire city, want to screw over
the elderly, & want to let people die on the streets. One of the reasons the Kochs don't like
Trump is because he DOESN'T want to kick people off SS & allow Americans who can't afford
healthcare to just be left to die. Unfortunately, what many people don't seem to understand is
that our other choices besides Bernie Sanders are just as vile even if they are "politically
correct."
Further, we're becoming a third world country because 35+ years of rhetoric that taxes are bad
and government is evil means we have failed to invest in, let alone maintain, those public
goods that keeps a country vibrant and economically competitive - you know, things like
transportation infrastructure, basic pre-K-16 education (public support for higher education
was gutted in the '80's leading to the high debt load you rightly identify as an issue),
cutting edge research, affordable housing, food security, healthcare and the like that helps
to release the productive potential of all citizens.
As an immigrant yourself (and my spouse
is a naturalized citizen so I am well familiar with immigration processes), you well know that
we're not letting in folks willy nilly as you state in your post. Further, as you also know,
Obama has deported more folks than any other president, including Eisenhower's efforts , while
at the same time immigration from Mexico is decreasing.
Trump is merely paying lip service to the issues... He had put forward no realistic plans
to address such.
I have yet to understand what exactly Donald Trump has said that is "bigoted" or "racist". Our
politicians have decided unilaterally to allow EVERYONE into this country despite the fact
that people literally cannot afford it. People's incomes have been stagnant, taxes have gone
up, student loans are out of control & more people than ever are homeless. I live in NYC &
despite the insane taxes that we pay here our government has cut a bunch of federally funded
programs like mental health hospitals, so now these people with mental health issues are
homeless and they mostly hang out in the subway, where they sometimes attack & try to kill
people. Thanks to our PC politicians, the police can barely do their jobs anymore. America has
been a very welcoming country, I myself am first generation American, and I've grown up here
but Donald Trump is not exaggerating when he says this country is turning into a third world
country. I barely recognize it anymore & the changes haven't been for the better. American
taxpayers CANNOT be responsible for everyone in this world.
right and wrong is subjective - most people (and most religions) think that the golden rule is
an accurate measuring device, but beyond that, its pretty difficult for one to impose one's
morals on another. The golden rule implies that if you don't want people trying to kill you
and yours, it is a good idea not to kill them and theirs. Fighting terrorism sounds like a
good thing to do, but killing innocent people in the process thereof causes otherwise neutral
people to become combative. Therefore, what some would call fighting terrorism, others would
call causing terrorism... subjective
"Trump starting a trade war would be disastrous, and he is not going to be able to
bring back corporations that have moved their jobs out of the country"
A trade war would devastate China and Asian economies, US would be just fine. Corporations
make 90% of their profits in US and EU, they are completely dependent on those markets, they
would cease to exist if barred from US. So they will bring the jobs back if that is required.
The party of Reagan? The worst postwar president whose achievements include the creation of
Islam militancy, the Iran-contra affair, and the appointment of Scalia to the Supreme Court.
This title is misleading. It implies that the party has just lost its soul when in fact it was
lost years ago. And I would submit that things haven*t devolved quickly. To me it seems to
have started during the Reagan years, (yes I did vote for him), and accelerated quickly to
becoming the party on ONLY the wealthy. Look at the policy changes that occurred under Reagan
that still affect us today. The Saving & Loan debacle started the current financial crap that
we still have by siphoning off money from the middle to the top and has only gotten worse. I
will say, in my defense, he was the last Republican I voted for and while I don't think he
foresaw what he was unleashing, he will most likely be the last ever.
I really don't buy into this anti Trump hysteria, he is far better an option than slime
bag Rubio or nut case Cruz. Hes a conservative nationalist who actually says some sensible
things that resonate with a lot of working Americans.
The Republican Party did not give us Trump. He is not a Republican. He is exposing the
hypocrisy of the last 40 years of conservatism. He is horrible. But he is not one of them.
That's why the GOP is scared.
And can we quit calling the GOP the party of Lincoln please. Lincoln won the Civil War, saved
the Union, and freed the slaves. Modern Republicans used to be Democrats and switched in the
late 50's early 60's during the civil rights era. Have them read THAT history and stop
erroneously attaching themselves to Lincoln. The GOP is an odorous lot.
Ben Carson never met a rich white man's ass he wouldn't kiss. "Bad at so MANY levels."
I imagine if a non Guardianista had made a remark anything like this, he or she would have
been screamed down and permanently banned for racism. But the left is given a free pass in the
Guardian.
The lack of good jobs means that the masses no longer have the 'American Dream'. Education is
irrelevant the poorer classes never had phd's but they had jobs and that gave them purpose.
Notice Trump's message it's about work being undermined by globalisation and immigration.
A manipulative, win-at-all costs organization that targets people's basest instincts in the
interest of mere commerce has no soul. The Republican Party lost its soul long ago if it ever
had one. The Democratic Party is not far behind. (The devil does not wear Prada; she wears
pant suits.) Come to think of it, in what sense can ANY organization be said to have a soul?
This article is simply incredible. The journalist attacks Trump for probably never having read
a book since college - this is a claim with no basis in fact. This article has multiple
suppositions, such as Trump paying people to endorse him, that are pure speculation. It is
really a scandal. Trump's views on the media gain credibility thanks to such articles thus I
conclude the author is pro Trump!
Most of your list are things that are either too vague or too common to take too seriously
("working for the benefit", are you kidding? have you met Bushes and Clintons?).
But these
two deserve a response:
"He promised to round up and deport US Citizens"
"He suggested suppressing religious liberty"
People in US illegally are not citizens and asking them to leave is not wrong. All
countries do it. If you come illegally or over-stay a visa, you can be deported. Period. If
you object to that, your criticism is bordering on saying that law should not be enforced.
I am assuming the religious liberty refers to Trump saying that "until we figure out what
is going on", US shouldn't issue new visas to people from Moslem countries. This is perfectly
legal - visa is a privilege and not a right and there are large categories of people banned
from getting visas to US today and in all countries in the world. The religious test might be
trickier, but it is all in implementation - what qualifies as religion, what would be asked,
for how long, what would be the appeal process.
My point is that
Trump is really, really good on trade and immigration control.
That
would result in a significantly higher incomes and a better economy. The other stuff is more
vague and often border-line unimplementable. But you list has nothing on it. The real question
about Trump is his sincerity, and we simply don't know. We do know 100% that Clinton is
dishonest and will never carry out any of her promises. After 30 years of the same lying how
could anyone fall for it again?
When the Dem.s dropped the Segregationists at the curb with the trash, they likely imagined,
not only the glory of a righteous deed well done, unique in my lifetime, but foresaw the
considerable cost and turmoil that would follow. And sure they did accept losses to Rep.s,
with their Southern strategy.
But who forecast that the Rep.s, who picked up, embraced, and
swallowed, whole, that trash, would be so poisoned by it, would become it, through and
through, an evil parody reflecting, in photo negative, the virtue Dem.s bore that day?
RINO's, save your soul; today is the last. No one who goes this way now deserves sound
sleep, ascension.
Carson and Trump combine to form a powerful synergy, Trump's gusto and zeal complimented and
tempered by Carson's mellower, more cerebral person. This is a winning foundation going
forward. My condolences to the masses of uber trendy, 'liberal', ultra-'enlightened'
intelligentsia out there who can only spout cynical, ironic musings in observation of Trump's
developing preeminence.
"... Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture. ..."
"... There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among them as a narrative of sinner vs saint... ..."
"... After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence. ..."
"... To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you want to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their hypocrisy, criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law, all you need to see is the war in Yemen. ..."
"... Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no problem dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now they appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their toes and Israel's on occasion .. ..."
"... Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious fanatics are in complete control.. ..."
"... "keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies" mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France) still trying to get its share there? ..."
"... "Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it." ..."
"... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
"... The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was in the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar? ..."
"... The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of the old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western civilization and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy. Unfortunately democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being invaded wanted it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit the chaos for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq. ..."
"... The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians, just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history. ..."
"... No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab Spring" was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi and Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well. ..."
"... You forget who triggered the French intervention. Another neo-con working for Israel. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2 ..."
"... Israel does not want a functioning Arab State left in the Middle-East. ..."
"... It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife refuge in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up and deny responsibility when everything falls apart. ..."
"... Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along with the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria. ..."
"... However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators and governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions and international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change. ..."
"... No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing into the pockets of the West. ..."
"... Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS. ..."
"... Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run by drug lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo today is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. ..."
"... There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. ..."
"... The US empire blew up Libya with some help from it's puppets, Sarkozy and Cameron. 100% imperialism. ..."
"... The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under real threat from emerging economic powers. ..."
"... Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. ..."
"... I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton the warmonger to get on with it. ..."
"... The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human life or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination" don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed - the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest. ..."
"... Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder why I voted for him twice. His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed their coterie of right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, ad nauseum Obama has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but the he is a captive mess of the shadow government. ..."
"... Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined. ..."
"... Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi left a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way to the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary Clinton who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the victimisation of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun by extremists, and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe. ..."
"... The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected or assumed that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the Americans have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns' to go in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson of planning what should follow after the destruction? ..."
"... The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the euphemistic mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about not wanting American, British and French 'boots on the ground.' ..."
"... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
"... We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our well laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the Militias we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils. ..."
"... We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from Libya to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat" from the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population. ..."
"... Of its 237 years of existence it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years. ..."
"... NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine. ..."
"... Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the thumb of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted. Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order. ..."
"... Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that the wars in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate Iran and sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of our Western leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy outlined in the US Special Forces document below. http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf ..."
"... In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them. The nobel peace winner got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while the permanent objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya. ..."
"... Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world to overthrow third world dictators. You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend the ultra-liberal, military industrial economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian, as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and American Nato toadies. ..."
"... Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The so called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and neo-Nazis in Ukraine. After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their looted arms were transferred to Syria and renamed ISIS. ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army, used as required for their Imperial ends. Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate ..."
"... Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting men and weapons across North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for ISIS ..."
"... Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext of "stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al were the war mongers. ..."
"... The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude and no effort should be spared to address it ..."
"... The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular leaders who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists. ..."
So
Barack Obama thinks Britain in 2011 left Libya in chaos – and besides it does not pull its weight
in the world. Britain thinks that a bit rich, given the shambles America left in Iraq. Then both
sides say sorry. They did not mean to be rude.
Thus do we wander across the ethical wasteland of the west's wars of intervention. We blame and
we name-call. We turn deaf ears to the cries of those whose lives we have destroyed. Then we kiss
and make up – to each other.
Obama was right first time round about Libya's civil war. He wanted to keep out. As
he recalls to the Atlantic magazine , Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes
sense for us to unilaterally strike against the Gaddafi regime". He cooperated with Britain and France,
but on the assumption that David Cameron would clear up the resulting mess. That did not happen because
Cameron had won his Falklands war and could go home crowing.
Obama is here describing all the recent "wars of choice".
America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq, any more than Britain had in
Libya . When a state attacks
another state and destroys its law and order, morally it owns the mess. There is no such thing as
imperialism-lite. Remove one fount of authority and you must replace and sustain another, as Europe
has done at vast expense in Bosnia and Kosovo.
America and Britain both attacked countries in the Middle East largely to satisfy the machismo
and domestic standing of two men, George Bush and Tony Blair. The result has been mass killing, destruction
and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war. In this despicable
saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised north
Africa and may yet turn it
into another Islamic State caliphate. It is his Iraq.
As for Obama's charge that Britain and other countries are not pulling their weight and are "free
riders" on American defence spending, that too deserves short shrift.
British and French military expenditure is proportionately among the highest in the world, mostly
blown on archaic weapons and archaic forms of war. Western warmongering over the past two decades
has had nothing to do with the existential defence of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping
alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it.
Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so, against
all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully has nothing
to do with politicians.
I'm stunned that Obama has been able to get away with his absolutely abysmal record with foreign
policy. Libya was a complete disaster and there is evidence to suggest that Libya was a much better
place under Gaddafi. And the fact that once they were in Iraq (something started by his predecessor)
he wasn't committed to bringing about serious change, thus leaving a giant vacuum which, coincided
with the Syrian Civil War, has now been filled by ISIS.
That's not even talking about the Iran deal, Benghazi and the disastrous "Bring Back our Girls"
campaign.
"People find it very hard," said Iman Fannoush, with her two children in tow and a husband
she knows not where. "They are up all night shooting because of good news. We hear the UN is
coming to help us or our fighters have taken Brega or the air strikes have destroyed Gaddafi's
tanks. Then everyone is afraid again when they hear Gaddafi's army is coming and they all want
to know where is France, where are the air strikes, why is the west abandoning us?
We are grateful for the role played by the international community in protecting the Libyan
people; Libyans will never forget those who were our friends at this critical stage and will
endeavour to build closer relations with those states on the basis of our mutual respect and
common interests. However, the future of Libya is for the Libyans alone to decide. We cannot
compromise on sovereignty or allow others to interfere in our internal affairs, position themselves
as guardians of our revolution or impose leaders who do not represent a national consensus.
Hilsum gives a riveting account of the battle for Tripoli, with activists risking their lives
to pass intelligence to Nato, whose targeting – contrary to regime propaganda – was largely
accurate, and too cautious for many Libyans.
The UN security council authorised action to protect Libyan civilians from the Gaddafi regime
but Russia, China and other critics believe that the western alliance exceeded that mandate
and moved to implement regime change.
Libya's Arab spring was a bloody affair, ending with the killing of Gaddafi, one of the world's
most ruthless dictators. His death saw the rebel militias turn on each other in a mosaic of
turf wars. Full-scale civil war came last summer, when Islamist parties saw sharp defeats in
elections the United Nations had supervised, in the hope of bringing peace to the country.
Islamists and their allies rebelled against the elected parliament and formed the Libya Dawn
coalition, which seized Tripoli. The new government fled to the eastern city of Tobruk and
fighting has since raged across the country.
With thousands dead, towns smashed and 400,000 homeless, the big winner is Isis, which has
expanded fast amid the chaos. Egypt, already the chief backer of government forces, has now
joined a three-way war between government, Libya Dawn and Isis.
It is all a long way from the hopes of the original revolutionaries. With Africa's largest
oil reserves and just six million people to share the bounty, Libya in 2011 appeared set for
a bright future. "We thought we would be the new Dubai, we had everything," says a young activist
who, like the student, prefers not to give her name. "Now we are more realistic."
Perpetually engineered destabilization is highly lucrative and has been for 200 years, but I don't
know what's Central or Intelligent about it......except for a tiny handful at the top globally.
On balance, is Libya worse off now than it would have been, had Gaddaffi been allowed free
rein in Benghazi?
No-one can possibly know the answer to that, certainly not Mr Jenkins.
Clearly it was a dictatorship like say Burma is today.....but....from an economic point of
view, it was like the Switzerland of Africa. And actually tons of European companies had flocked
over there to set up shop. In contrast to now where its like the Iraquistan of Africa. No contest
in the comparison there...
Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both
parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture.
There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among
them as a narrative of sinner vs saint...
After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy
and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and
joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence.
To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you
want to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their
hypocrisy, criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law,
all you need to see is the war in Yemen.
Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no
problem dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now
they appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their
toes and Israel's on occasion ..
Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular
and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already
being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious
fanatics are in complete control..
Yep, many pictures, as there always are with media confections. Remember the footage of Saddam's
statue being torn down in front of a huge crowd? It was only months later we saw the wide angle
shot that showed just how few people there really were there.
These US and UK involvement in the ME are matters of official record; are you really denying the
CIA trained the Mujahideen, or that both the UK and US propped up Saddam? Even Robert Fisk acknowledges
that! And please, don't patronise me. You have no idea what I've read or haven't.
......c'mon, the powers behind the powers intentionally engineer mid-East destabilization to keep
the perpetual war pumping billions to the ATM's in their living rooms; then, on top of it, they
send the bill to average joe's globally; when is this farce going to be called out ?
It is completely illogical, can't stand even eye tests, yet continues like an emperor with
new clothes in our face.
"keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies" mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about
oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France)
still trying to get its share there?
"Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has
had nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping
alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it."
"The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least
outside Africa, since the second world war."
The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was
in the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along
with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar?
The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of
the old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western
civilization and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy.
Unfortunately democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being
invaded wanted it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit
the chaos for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt,
Syria, Iraq.
Get your facts right. Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan were all states that crumbled after
the demise of the USSR.
Bullshit. The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians,
just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East
since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history.
No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab
Spring" was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi
and Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well.
this might answer your question. Syria has suffered for its geography since it was artificially
created by the Sykes Picot agreement at the end of the Ottoman Empire.
"Libyan rebels are secularists, want unified country
Gardels: If the French aim is successful and Qaddafi falls, who are the rebels the West is
allying with? Secularists? Islamists? And what do they want?
Levy: Secularists. They want a unified Libya whose capital will remain Tripoli and whose government
will be elected as a result of free and transparent elections. I am not saying that this will
happen from one day to the next, and starting on the first day. But I have seen these men enough,
I have spoken with them enough, to know that this is undeniably the dream, the goal, the principle
of legitimacy.
It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife
refuge in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up
and deny responsibility when everything falls apart.
Britain started the mess in the Middle-East with the Balfour declaration and the theft of Palestinian
land to create an illegal Jewish state. Europe should pay massive reparations of money and equivalent
land in Europe for the Palestinian refugees living in squalid camps. Neo-con Jews who lobbied
for the Iraq, Syria and Libyan wars should have their wealth confiscated to pay for the mess they
created. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2
Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along
with the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria.
Presumably he's going down the Blair/Clinton route of cosying up to Middle Eastern Supremacist
Cults in the hope that he can increase his income by tens of millions within the next 10 years.
There can be no other explanation for his actions, that have never had anything whatsoever to
do with the interests of either Britain or the wider European community.
For me, the bottom line is that, however much might like to believe it, military intervention
does not create nice, liberal, secular democracies. These can only be fostered from within.
However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators
and governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions
and international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change.
The military, under the instruction of politicians, of the West should be pro-defence but anti-regime
change or "nation building".
I'm not suggesting a completely isolationist position, but offensive military action should
be seen as a last resort.
Mr Jenkins is a knowledgeable man but should've thought through this a bit more before so casually
associating death and destruction and misery with Africa.
China's cultural revolution and the Great Leap Forward alone killed and displaced more people
after the second world war than all the conflicts in Africa put together. How about the break
up of India in 1947? Korean War?
But no when he thought about misery Africa popped into his mind..
Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so,
against all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully
has nothing to do with politicians.
One culture?
One outlook?
Sounds all very Soviet.
So, all Enlightened souls are reduced to a monoculture, within the Anglo American Empire.
Obama is a bill of goods. The Voters that choose him thought that they were getting a progressive,
Obama used the reverend
Wright to make himself seem like a man committed to radical change, but behind Obama was Chicago
investment banker Louis Susman (appointed ambassador to Britain).
Obama, a Harvard law professor, is the choice of the bankers, he does not play a straight bat,
all the wars and killing are someone else's fault. Banking wanted rid of Gaddafi since he threatened
the dollar as the reserve currency (as did Dominique Strauss-Kahn) as does the Euro, Obama let
Cameron think he was calling the shots but he was just Obama's beard. Obama is nothing if not
cunning, when he says stay in Europe but the Elites of the Tory party are pushing for out guess
what, they got the nod from Obama and the Banks.
So? All the numbers in the world can't undo Jenkins' thesis: there is no imperialism-lite. Imperialist
wars are imperialist wars no matter how many die, and whether chaos, or neo-colonial rule follow.
In his interview, Obama claims a more deliberate, opaque, and efficient war machine. To him, and
his conscience, John Brennan, these metrics add up to significant moral milestones. To us innumerates,
it's just more imperialist b.s.
Gadaffy had since long planned to free his country and other African states from the yoke of being
forced to trade within the American dollar sphere. He was about to lance his thoroughy well prepared
alternative welcomed not the least by the Chinese when Libya was attacked. Obama is not truthful
when suggesting the attack was not a "core" interest to the US. It was of supreme interest for
the US to appear with its allies, Gadaffy´s independence of mind being no small challenge.
Gadafy may have been particularly nasty with dissidents, but the UK has plenty of allies in the
Muslim world that are far worse: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain... The Gulf States work their imported
slaves to death and the UK kowtows to them. The UK has supplied billions of pounds worth of weapons
to Saudi Arabia and sent military advisors to advise them how to use them to bomb Yemeni schools
and hospitals.
No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things
such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing
into the pockets of the West.
Kosovo is also mentioned. There was a relatively low-level conflict (much like the Northern
Ireland 'troubles') there until NATO started bombing and then oversaw the massive ethnic cleansing
of Kosovo Serbs from their homeland (Serbs are the most ethnically-cleansed group in the former
Yugoslavia: around 500,000 refugees).
Yugoslavia's real crime? It was the last country in Europe to refuse the market economy and
the hegemony of Western banks and corporates.
The message is, 'Accept capitalism red in tooth or claw, or we'll bomb the crap out of you.'
Did the attack on Afghanistan improve the situation? Perhaps temporarily in the cities, some things
got a little better as long as you weren't shot or blown up. Over the country as a whole, it made
the situation much worse.
I remember John Simpson crowing that the Western invaders had freed Afghanistan when they entered
Kabul. My reaction at the time was, 'Well, the Soviets had no problem holding the cities. Wait
until you step outside them.' There followed many years of war achieving pretty much nothing except
to kill a lot of people and get recruits flocking to the Taliban.
It seemed we had learned absolutely nothing from the British and Soviet experiences.
And you seem to have forgotten the multitude of US terror attacks on Muslims before the Afghan
invasion, repackaged for our media as 'targeted attacks with collateral damage'. Bombing aspirin
factories and such. And the First Gulf War. And US bases occupying the region. And the fact that
the situation in Afghanistan was due to the Americans and Saudis having showered weapons and cash
on anyone who was fighting the Soviets, not giving a damn about their aims. Bin Laden, for instance.
And one aspect of law and order under the Taliban was that they virtually stopped opium production.
After the invasion, it rose again to dizzying heights.
The only way to deal with countries such as Afghanistan as it returns to its default system,
along with other, more aggressive rogue states such as Saudi Arabia, is to starve them of all
weapons and then let their peoples sort it out. It may take a long time but it's the sole possibility.
As long as we keep pouring weapons into the Middle East for our own shameful purposes, the
apocalypse will continue.
Reading this excellent article one wonders how the war criminal Blair can be offered any peace-keeping
role in the world or continue to get any air or press time.
Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official
ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror
in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS.
Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run
by drug lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo
today is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. Tear gas in Parliament for the third time
in as many months. While the squares full of unemployed young and old are adorned with statues
of those that gave them this opportunity Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were popular but I think
their halos are tarnished somewhat. The situation is so serious that the US is beefing up its
presence in camp Bondsteel but you won't read about it in the Guardian.
when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance
examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute
of limitations
So true . "Oh, oh, but the Spanish/Mongols/Romans etc etc", "Oh, like they were all
so peaceful before Empire came along", "Oh, but but" (ad infinitum).
The bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen? Here's hoping. The neo-con
cum neo-ultra liberal dream keeps on giving. Even after Brexit, Britain remains America's poodle
at its peril. The rest of the article is right, but by now accepted wisdom amongst those capable
of independent and rational thought.
Here we go again, off course next phase is the "enlightment" in Al-Andalus...
1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion
of Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion
of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg
the Saudis).
Wahabism grew because of the oil export from Saudi Arabia which started way before World war II.
Bollocks, there was a short period of calm while Europe defeated the Ottoman empire , but the
Mughal empire took great pleasure in slaughtering shiites, and the Ottoman empire had huge conflicts
with the Safavid empire.
2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating
Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in
Spain. Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?
He-he, the fabulous golden age which is always mentioned, no doubt they were golden at that
time compared to Europe, but to compare it today, it would be like living in Nazi Germany as a
Jew before the Nürnberg laws were implemented.
Would you like to pay a special non-muslim tax, step aside when a Muslim passed the street,
be unable to claim any high positions in society to due to your heritage?
3. Didnt forget. the USSR didnt hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West.
And it wasnt Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.
The Iran-Iraq war made the millions of dead possible primarily due to Soviet equipment, Halabja
killed 5000. No, Russia prefered Chechnya and directly killed 300.000 civilians with the Grad
bombings of cities and villages, whereas the casualties in Iraq primarily can be contributed to
sectional violence.
4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab
group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and
well thanks to our lust for control over the region.
None of the mentioned were prime examples of democracy, Nasser for example had no problems in
eliminating the Muslim brotherhood or killing 10s of thousands of rebels and civilians in Yemen
with mustard gas.
Obama's remark that the Europeans and Gulf States "detested" Gaddafi and wanted to get rid of
him while others had "humanitarian concerns" is of interest. It's unlikely the Arabs had humanitarian
concerns in all the circumstances; they just wanted Regime Change. It is the lethal combination
of Gulf Arabs and Neo-colonial France and Britain that has driven the Syrian war too- and continues
to do so. No wonder America claims these countries enthuse about war until it comes and then expect
them to fight it. France currently demands the surrender of Assad and for Russia to "leave the
country immediately". Britain says there can be no peace while he remains and that Russia's "interference"
is helping IS.
It's your prerogative whether or not you believe that the US and NATO intervene in countries based
on moral grounds. But if you do want to delude yourself, remember that they only intervene in
countries where they can make money off resources, like Libya and Iraq's oil revenues. If it were
about morality, don't you think NATO and the West would have rushed to help Rwanda during the
genocide?
There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that
western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. You do not win when your situation
is worse than it was before Saddam. You can't be a winner when you life in generally worse off
than it was before. basically there is no rule of law now in these nations. Saddam was no monster
like you want to portray him.
Actually, some of those Latin American governments we overthrew were indeed liberal democracies.
As for Canada, there are several reasons we haven't invaded. Too big, too sparse too white...and
economically already a client state. Of course, we did try once: the War of 1812.
"When the same leaders did initially stand aside (as in Syria) "
They didn't stand aside though, they helped create the trouble in the first place, as too with
Libya; gather intelligence to find out who will take up arms, fund, train and give them promises,
get them to organize and attack, then when the dictator strikes back the press swing into action
to tell us all how much of a horrible bastard he is(even though we've been supporting and trading
with him for eons), ergo, we have to bomb him! It's HUMANITARIAN! Not. It would be conquest though.
Frightening.
Obama has done everything in his power to morph into Bush including hiring a flaming chicken hawk
in Ash Carter to play the role of Dick Cheyney. Bush left us with Iraq and Afghanistan, to which
Obama added Egypt with the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood, Libya, Syria and Yemen. He also
restarted the Cold War with Russia. He is now going after China for building islands in the South
China Sea, a disputed area, something he as well as other Presidents before him has allowed Israel
to build settlements on disputed land for the past fifty years and throughthrough $ 3.5 billion
in gifts annually, has provided for enough concrete to cover all the land the Palestinians live
on.
The 3.5 billion annually will increase by $40 billion over ten years, unless Netanyahu gets
the increase he wants to 15 billion per year. So Obama must settle on a legacy which makes him
both a warmonger and one of the very best arms dealer in the world. His family must be so proud.
To be a humanitarian intervention, a military intervention has to avoid causing regime collapse,
because people will die because of regime collapse. This is an elementary point that the political
class appears not to want to learn.
I agree with your analysis except the last paragraph. Pretty much in all interventions that
we have witnessed, the political class deliberately caused the regimes to collapse. That was always
the primary goal. Humanitarian intervention were never the primary, secondary or even tertiary
objective.
If the political class want to do some humanitarian interventions, they can always start with
Boko Haram in Nigeria.
America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq
The USA was enforcing the UN blockade of Iraq, and had massive forces in place to do it. It was
costing a fortune and there were regular border skirmishes taking place. It has been suggested
that Bush and his advisors thought that they could take out Saddam and then pull all their forces
back to the US. They won't admit it now because of the disaster that unfolded afterwards.
Another good piece. What about all the weapons we sold Israel after they started their recent
slaughter in Gaza and the selling of weapons to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen (one of the poorest
country's in the world) says everything you need to know about the tory party. They are sub humans
and as such should be treated like dirt. I don't believe in the concept of evil...all a bit religious
for me but if I did, it's what they are.
It astonishes me that these great men and women-I include Sec'y Clinton here-give no indication
that their calculations were made without the slightest knowledge of the countries they were preparing
to attack in one way or another. From what one read in the long NYTimes report on preparations
for the Libyan intervention, the participants in the planning knew a great deal about military
matters and less about Libya than they could have found out in a few minutes with Wikipedia. Tribal
societies are different from western societies, dear people, and you damn well should have known
that.
Honduras. The USA backed the coup there. Honduras is now run by generals and is the world's murder
capital. I could go on, jezzam. Please read William Blum's books on US foreign policy. They provide
evidence that the US record is not good.
Without the US the UK and France couldn't have overthrown Gaddafi. The jihadis would have been
killed or fled Libya. I don't believe any post-Gaddafi plan existed. Why would there have been
one? Killing Gaddafi was the war's aim. A western puppet strong man leader grabbing power would
have been icing on the cake of course but why would the US care about Libya once Gaddafi was gone?
Well, Cameron just followed Obama's 'regime change' bad ideas.
Obama is a failed leader of the World who made our lives so much worse.
Obama likes to entertain recently, so after his presidency the best job for him is a clown in
a circus.
We will never know why Stevens and the others were killed.
Absent reliable information, everyone is free to blame whomever they dislike most.
Based on zero non-partisan information, Hillary is the media's top choice for Big Villain.
She may in fact be more responsible than most for this horror, but she may not be too.
Who ya gonna ask: the CIA, the Pentagon, Ted Cruz?
It seems everyone who's ever even visited Washington,D.C., has some anonymous inside
source that proves Hillary did it.
To hear the GOP tell it, she flew to Libya secretly and shot Stevens herself
just because she damn well felt it, o kay -- (female troubles)
My question is: Where has US/Euro invasion resulted in a better government for all those
Middle Eastern people we blasted to bits of blood and bone? How's Yemen doin' these days?
Hope Europe enjoys assimilating a few million people who share none of Europe's customs,
values or languages.
I'm sure euro-businesses would never hire the new immigrants instead of union-backed
locals.
Why, that would almost be taking advantage of a vast reservoir of ultra-cheap labor!
Nor will the sudden ocean of euro-a-day workers undercut unions or wages in the EU. No siree,
not possible.
Just like unions have not been decimated, and wages have not stagnated in the US since 1980
or so. No siree. Not in Europe .
jezzam writes, "the dictator starts massacring hundreds of thousands of his own civilians." But
he didn't. Cameron lied.
The rebellion against Gaddafi began in February 2011. The British, French and US governments
intervened on their usual pretext of protecting civilians. The UN said that 1,000-2,000 people
had been killed before the NATO powers attacked.
Eight months later, after the NATO attack, 30,000 people had been killed and 50,000 wounded
(National Transitional Council figures).
Cameron made the mess; Cameron caused the vast refugee crisis. The NATO powers are getting
what they want – the destruction of any states and societies that oppose their rule, control over
Africa's rich resources. Libya is now plagued by "relentless warfare where competing militias
compete for power while external accumulators of capital such as oil companies can extract resources
under the protection of private military contractors."
any state that wishes to be taken seriously as a player on the world stage
The classic phrase of imperialism - an attitude that seems to believe any nation has the right
to interfere in, or invade, other countries'.
Usually done under some pretence of moral superiority - it used to be to 'bring the pagans to
God', these days more 'they're not part of our belief system'. In fact, it only really happens
when the imperial nations see the economic interests of their ruling class come under threat.
The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments
and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under
real threat from emerging economic powers.
The two that they are most scared of are Russia and China, who combined can offer the capital
and expertise to replace the old US / European axis across Africa, for instance. The war is already
being fought on many fronts, as
this article makes clear.
Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. Clinton had it right when the
going gets tough Obama gives a speech (see Cairo).
I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals
is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama
with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton
the warmonger to get on with it.
The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human
life or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination"
don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed
- the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest.
The odd thing is, Obama didn't seem to think getting rid of Gaddafi a bad thing at all at the
time. Clinton was all, "We came, we saw, he died." And this bit about "no core interest" in Afghanistan
and Iraq is just bizarre. Given the mess both countries are in, and the resurgence of the Taliban
and zero clue about Iraq it was clearly a master stroke for Obama to decide the US exit both with
no effective governments in place, ones that could deal with the Taliban et al. Never mind, he
can tootle off and play golf.
Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder
why I voted for him twice. His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed
their coterie of right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD,
ad nauseum Obama has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but
the he is a captive mess of the shadow government.
America has a historic crisis of leadership and being the sole model left in that field, the
world has followed, the UK and all of Europe included.
Libya is all Hilarys work so expect to return with boots on the ground once Wall Sts finest is
parked in the Oval office. She has the midas touch in reverse and Libya has turned (and will continue)
to turn out worse than Iraq and Syria (believe me its possible) There is absolutely no one on
the ground that the west can work with so the old chestnut of arming and training al qaeda or
'moderate' opposition is not an option. ISIL are solidifying a base there and other than drones
there is zip we can do.
Critising Cameron just shows how insecure Obama is, lets be honest the middle east and afghanistan
are in the state they are because Obama had zero interest in foreign policy when his first term
started, thus allowing the neocons to move into the vacuum and create the utter disaster that
is Syraq and Ukraine. We in europe are now dealing with the aftermath of this via the refugee
crisis which will top 2 million people this year. Obamas a failure and he knows it, hence the
criticism of other leaders. Cameron is no different, foreign policy being almost totally abandoned
to the US, there is no such thing as independent defence policy in the UK, everything is carried
out at the behest of the US. Don't kid yourself we have any autonomy, we don't and there are plenty
of high level armed forces personnel who feel the same way. Europe is leaderless in general and
with the economy flatlining they too have abandoned defence and foreign affairs to the pentagon.
Right now we're in the quiet before the storm, once HRC gets elected expect the situation to
deteriorate rapidly, our only hope is that someone has got the dirt to throw her out of the race.
ISIS established itself in Iraq before moving into Syria. Would ISIS exist is Britain had not
totally destabilized Iraq? Going back even further, it is the 100th anniversary of the Sykes-Picot
agreement, that great exercise in British Imperialism that created the artificial nations in the
Middle East that are collapsing today.
Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every
excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there
is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America
and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going
back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined.
Transparent hypocrisy. Accept responsibility and stop offloading it to Calais.
Ambassador Stevens was killed in a cover up over the arms dealing from Libya to Syria, (weapons
and fighters to ISIS). It seems more likely that he was killed because he was investigating the
covert operation given that he was left to fend for himself by all US military forces but in a
classic defamation strategy he has been accused of being behind the operation. Had he been he
would have been well defended.
"Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering
military establishments that depend on it.
Couldn't put it better myself. Yes, America is a full blown Empire now. Evil to it's very core.
Bent on world domination and any cost. All we lack is a military dictatorship. Of course, with
the nation populated by brainwashed sheep, a "Dear Leader" is inevitable,
President Obama was correct in keeping US boots off the ground in Syria. An active US troop presence
would have resulted in an even greater level of confusion and destruction on all sides. However,
it was precisely the US' meddling in Libya that helped pave the way for its current dysfunctional,
failed state status, riven by sectarian conflicts and home to a very active Al Quaida presence.
US interference in Libya saw Gadaffi backstabbed by the US before literally being stabbed to
death although he had been given assurances that the US would respect his rule particularly as
he had sought to become part of the alliance against the likes of Al Quaida.
Obama was behind the disgraceful lie that the mob that attacked the US' Benghazi Embassy and
murdered Ambassador Smith y was 'inflamed' by an obscure video on youtube that attacked extremist
elements of the Islamic faith. Smith deserved better than this blatant lie and the grovelling,
snivelling faux apologies Obama and then Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made to the Muslim
world for something that had nothing to do with 99.9 percent of non Muslims.
Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi
left a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way
to the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary
Clinton who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the
victimisation of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun
by extremists, and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe.
Disappointingly, President Obama forgets the Biblical saying about pointing out a speck in
somebody's eye while ignoring the plank in his own.
Mr President doesn't privately refer to the Libyan upheaval as the "shit show" for no good reason.
The chaos and anarchy that have ensued since, including the migrant crisis in Europe and the rise
of Islamic State, is directly attributable to the shoddy interventionist approach used by both
Britain and France.
Good article, with justified moral indignation. Only thing I would have changed, is "imperialism-lite"
to 'lesser and greater imperialism.
Would it not have been a great contribution towards peace and justice, had the US decided not
to invade Iraq and Libya, on account that other western countries were "free-riders" and would
not have pulled their weight?
So, what does the world needs now? More 'free-riding countries' to dissuade so-called responsible
countries - Britain, France, America, Italy - from conspiring to invade other countries, after
consulting in the equivalent of a 'diplomatic toilet and drawing up their war plans on the back
of the proverbial cigarette packet.'
For all Obama's niceties, it would now appear that he has been seething and mad as hell about
his perception of Britain and France 'abandoning' Libya and watching it perceptible destabilizing
the region and the flames fanning farther afield.
The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected
or assumed that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the
Americans have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns'
to go in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson
of planning what should follow after the destruction?
The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the
euphemistic mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about
not wanting American, British and French 'boots on the ground.'
Is the Americans now telling the world that they went into Libya without planning for the aftermath,
because it was 'an emergency to save lives' and they had to go in immediately?
Well, if so, that is now how nations behave responsibly, and it is now clear that more lives
have probably been lost and continue to be sacrificed, than those which might have been saved
as a result of the West invading and attacking Libya.
the Europeans expected America to pick up the tab for reconstruction
I don't think there would be many complaints from Halliburton or other American companies to
help with the reconstruction, if the place wasn't such a shit-storm right now.
"The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least
outside Africa, since the second world war."
Judging from the sentiments expressed in the overwhelming majority of comments posted on multiple
threads on this forum, the British people don't want to accept responsibility for "migration on
a scale not seen... since the second world war". The almost universal resistance to accepting
refugees and migrants that fled their homes due to unprovoked British aggression is disgusting
and pathetic. It highlights the hypocrisy of those who see themselves morally fit to judge almost
everyone else.
Mitchell says that we had a plan to stabilise Libya but that it could not be implement the plan
because there was no peace?#*^..... Der
We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our
well laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the
Militias we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils.
Well there you have it- its the fault of the Libyans.
Hilary Clinton recently blamed Sarkozy for Libya describing him as so "very excited" about the
need to start bombing that he persuaded her and she, Nuland and Power persuaded a reluctant Obama.
Three civilian females argued down the military opinion that it was unnecessary and likely to
cause more trouble than it was worth.
As this was clearly to support French interests the Americans insisted the Europeans do it
themselves if they were that keen. Old Anglo-French rivalry has never been far from the surface
in the ME and it seems Cameron jumped on the bandwagon in fear France would take all the glory.
Neither of them appear to have given any thought about reconstruction. The blame is mostly Cameron's
as Sorkozy was chucked out of office just months later. Did Cameron have a plan at all? If so
it was his biggest mistake and one we'll be paying for over the coming years.
Without Putin's mischief making though, this would have been sorted out long ago.
Putin intervened in September 2015. What have the West been doing since 2011 to stop the conflict,
one wonders.
Russia vetoes any UN attempt to sort out the mess
Looking bad you'd realize that it at least prompted Obama to retract in 2013. Since then though
support to Saudi and proxies destabilizing Syria has only increased.
Russia is clearing the mess of the West, and they should be grateful. Obama might be from what
I read today from his "confessions".
Yes. I don't think that is a pro-imperialist stance. He's arguing that there is no middle ground;
getting rid of dictators you don't like is imperialism, and whether you follow through or not,
there are serious consequences, but to not follow through is an abnegation of moral responsibility
to the people you are at attemting to "free". It seems to me he is arguing against any foreign
intervention, hence his castigation of Obama and Cameron for the "ethical wasteland of their wars
of intervention."
Please do me a favour and study 20th century history a little more. The US overthrow countless
democracies in Latin America and the Middle East and installed fascist dictatorships.
Liberal Democracy haha come on now. They dont care about Democracy. They care about money.
They will install and support any dictatorship (look at Saudi Arabia for example) as long as they
do as they are told economically.
I love western values, dont get me wrong. It is the best place to live freely. However, if
you werent lucky enough to be born in the west and the west wants something your country has (eg.
oil).....you are in for a lot of bad times.
I just wish western leaders/governments actually followed the western values that we all love
and hold dear.
We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from
Libya to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat"
from the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population.
The solution as Corbyn pointed out is to stop funding the Terrorists.
By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar;
the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals
into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian
entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn't always know who was really employing them,
were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the
CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer.
Peter Oborne investigates claims that Britain and the West embarked on an unspoken alliance
of convenience with militant jihadi groups in an attempt to bring down the Assad regime.
He hears how equipment supplied by the West to so called Syrian moderates has ended up in
the hands of jihadis, and that Western sponsored rebels have fought alongside Al Qaeda. But
what does this really tell us about the conflict in Syria?
This edition of The Report also examines the astonishing attempt to re brand Al Nusra, Al
Qaeda's Syrian affiliate, as an organisation with which we can do business.
What is good that this is finally coming out ,the denial by both Obama and a very left wing media
has failed to confront this issue in what is an incredibly low point for Obama and Hilary Clinton
and their naive ideas about the Arab Spring.
As it is equally so for David Cameron and William Hague. Sarkozy is different he was not naive
he knew exactly what he was doing thais was about saving french influence in North Africa,he was
thinking about Tunisa, Algeria which he was keen to drag others into -- He was the most savvy of
all those politicians at least he was not a fool,but France priorities are not the same as the
UK --
Obama's comments once again as usual do not really confront the real problems of Libya and
gloss over the key issues and ending up passing the buck, he can do no wrong ? It was not the
aftermath of Libya but the whole idea of changing the controlling demographics of the country
which he played a major part in destabilising through the UN AND Nato which was the problem --
It was thought the lessons of Iraq was all about not putting boots on the ground ,or getting
your feet dirty ,as this antagonises the locals and that a nice clinical arms length bombardment
creating havoc ,is the best way to go .
This was not the lesson of Iraq , which was actually not to destabilise the controlling demographics
of the country which will never recover if you do ..It is one thing to depose a leader or ask
a leader to step down but do not disturb 100 of years controlling demographics, sectarian or not
in these countries is not wise . To do so is a misstep or misjudgement --
Demographics are like sand dunes they have taken many years to evolve and rest uneasy, in the
highly religious and sectarian landscape but can be unsettled over night, grain by grain even
by a small shift in the evening night breeze , a small beetle can zig zag across and the whole
dune will crumble
Once again the US pushed the UK who vied with France at how high they could jump, using the
UN blank cheque as cover ,for melting down the country and has left UN credibilty in taters has
now no credibility and Nato is now not trusted .
They took disgracefully no less the UN 1973 Peace Resolution , point one, Cease fire and point
two No Fly Zone .They bent it , twisted it , contorted it into blatant out right support of the
eastern shiite sympathisers sectarian group, against the more secular Sunni Tripoli groups .
(Gaddafi was not one man Mr apologist Rifkind he was the tribal leaders of a quite a large
tribe !)
Which has been part of a historic rivalry going back hundreds of years . They killed more civilians
that Gaddafi ever had or could have done . They even attacked in a no fly zone government troops
retreating and fired on government planes on the ground in a non fly zone .
Then they refused to negotiate with the government or allow the Organisation of African states
to mediate who had agreed general elections .They went on bombing until there was no infrastructure
no institutions or sand dunes ,or beetles left --
It was done after Iraq and that is why it is so shameful and why Obama , Cameron, Sarkozy ,
the UN , Nato must face up to what they have done , and after the Chilcot enquiry there needs
to be a Cameron enquiry . Presumably it will have the backing of Obama --
What is worse is the knock on effect on this massive arm caches and fighters from Libya then
went on to Syria, reek havoc and destabilised the country . Because Russia and China could never
trust again the UN , the UN has been ineffective in Syria for that very reason .The deaths of
British tourist in next door Tunisia has to laid firmly at David Cameron's and the foreign office
door --
No wonder Libya is keeping Obama awake at night , no wonder he is indulging in damage limitation
, no wonder he is trying to re write history ? How can I get this out of my legacy . If only I
had not met Mr Cameron a yes man -- If only I had been told by some with an once of common sense
, not to touch this country with a barge pole ?
The poor Libyan people will agree with him --
The lesson for the UK is do want you think is right not what the US thinks as right , a lesson
that David Cameron has failed to learn , and has shown he is not a safe pari of hands and lacks
judgement --
1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion of
Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion
of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg the
Saudis).
2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating
Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in Spain.
Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?
3. Didnt forget. the USSR didn't hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West.
And it wasn't Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.
4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab
group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and well
thanks to our lust for control over the region.
Obama? Censored? You forgot Hillary. she even said the other day at the townhall before Miss/MI
to the effect 'if Assad had been taken out early like Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad
as Libya'. laughable really. i presume you aren't criticising Hillary Clinton?
Kosovo is now basket case that we are paying for but it is small. Now we have also backed NeoCon
regime change in Ukraine which we are going to be paying for. Libya will soon have enough Jihadist
training camps to be a direct threat.
What we see is a Strategy of Chaos from the US NeoCons but what we have failed to notice is
that the NeoCons see us as the target, as the enemy.
Totally agree that there is no such thing as Imperialism Lite, just as there is no such thing
as Wahabi Lite or Zionism Lite. So I wonder why Hilary Benn thinks Britain has anything to feel
proud about our foreign policy. It seems to me Britain's Foreign Policy is a combination of incompetence,
jingoism and pure evil.
What is the point of employing the brightest brains in the land at the Foreign Office when we
get it wrong almost all the time ?
"Western warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defence
of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering
military establishments that depend on it."
Attacking Al qaeda in Afghanistan had nothing to do with defending territory?
Libyan 'rebels' were armed and trained by 'the West' in a first place. The plan was the same for
Syria but Russians stopped it with not allowing 'no fly zone' or to call it properly 'bomb them
into the stone age'.
You probably don't know how 'bloody' Gaddafi was to the Libyans.
* GDP per capita - $ 14,192.
* For each family member the state pays $ 1000 grants per year.
* Unemployment - $ 730.
* Salary Nurse - $ 1000.
* For every newborn is paid $ 7000.
* The bride and groom given away $ 64,000 to buy an apartment.
* At the opening of a one-time personal business financial assistance - $ 20,000.
* Large taxes and extortions are prohibited.
* Education and medicine are free.
* Education and training abroad - at the expense of the state.
* Store chain for large families with symbolic prices of basic foodstuffs.
* For the sale of products past their expiry date - large fines and detention.
* Part of pharmacies - with free dispensing.
* For counterfeiting - the death penalty.
* Rents - no.
* No Fees for electricity for households!
* Loans to buy a car and an apartment - interest free.
* Real estate services are prohibited.
* Buying a car up to 50% paid by the state, for militia fighters - 65%.
* Gasoline is cheaper than water. 1 liter - 0,14 $.
* If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary
of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
* Gaddafi carried out the world's largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River
project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country
The Gadaffi regime had upset the USA because Gadaffi was setting up an oil currency system based
on gold rather than US dollars. While this was not the sole reason the West turned against him
it was an important factor. The largest factor for the wars so far, and the planned war against
Iran was to cut out the growing Russian domination of the oil supply to Europe, China and India.
A decent article as we could expect from the author.
However personally I doubt there was no ulterior motive in the case of Lybia. Lybia was one
of the countries who tried the change the status quo on the oil market and it has huge reserves
too (as we know Europe is running out of oil, at least Great Britain is).
It is very likely that the European countries retreated because Libya started to look like
another Iraq.
When you are talking about "democratic forces of the revolution.." i imagine you being an enthusiastic
teenager girl who hardly knows anything about the world but goes somewhere far for a gap year
as a volunteer to make locals aware of something that will help them forever. It is instead of
demanding responsible policies and accountability from her own government.
Sorry!!!
What planet have you been living on. What do you read apart from lifestyle magazines full of shots
of celebrity boobs and bums.
The United states is the most interventionist country in history. Of its 237 years of existence
it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years. NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine.
If the West stopped intervening there would be very few wars and if the West used its influence
for peace rather than control there would rarely be any was at all.
Well put. People forget the importance of oil in maintaining the standard of living in our western
democracies. Controlling it's supply trumps all other issues.
Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the
thumb of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted.
Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world
excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along
with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when
Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as
an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack
police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order.
Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that
the wars in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate
Iran and sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of
our Western leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy
outlined in the US Special Forces document below.
http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf
If you get your facts right it ruins your argument doesn't it.
In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French
valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them. The nobel peace winner
got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while the permanent
objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan, Sudan,
Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya.
These Middle East countries should have been left alone by the West. Due to their nature, these
countries have strong divisions and battle for their beliefs and a strong man, a dictator is what
prevented them to fall into the chaos they are today. Without the Western meddling, arming and
financing various rebel groups, Isis would not exist today.
Neither is putting political opponents in acid baths and burning tyres, as Tony Blair's friends
in the central Asian Republics have been doing, neither is beheading gays, raped women and civil
rights protesters, as Cameron's Saudi friends have been enjoying, the latter whilst we sell them
shit loads of munitions to obliterate Yemeni villagers. I wonder how the Egyptian president is
getting on with all that tear gas and bullets we sold him? And are the Bahrani's, fresh from killing
their own people for daring to ask for civil rights, enjoying the cash we gave them for that new
Royal Navy base? Our foreign policy is complacent and inconsistent, we talk about morality but
the bottom line is that that doesn't come into it when BAE systems and G4S have contracts to win.
Don't get me wrong, Britain has played a positive role internationally in many different areas,
but there is always a neo-liberal arsehole waiting to pop up and ruin the lives of millions, a
turd with a school tie that just wont be flushed away.
Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world
to overthrow third world dictators. You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend
the ultra-liberal, military industrial economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian,
as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and
American Nato toadies.
It is high time that Europe reviewed and evaluated its relationship with the United States, with
NATO, Russia and China. The world needs to be a peaceable place and there needs to be more legislation
imposed upon the Financial Markets to stop them being a place where economic destabilisation and
warfare can and do take place. The United States would not contemplate these reviews taking place
as they are integral to their continuing position in the world but also integral to the problems
we are all experiencing? It will take a brave Europe to do this but it is a step that has to be
taken if the world is to move forward! Britain should be a huge part of this, outside a weakend
EU this would benefit the United States from Britains lack of input, another reason we should
vote to stay and be positive to our European position. The most vulnerable herring is the one
that breaks out of the shoal?
Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The
so called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and
neo-Nazis in Ukraine. After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their
looted arms were transferred to Syria and renamed ISIS. ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army,
used as required for their Imperial ends. Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate
Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned
a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting men and weapons across
North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for ISIS
Cameron's Libya policy from start to finish is a foreign policy catastrophe and in a just world
would have seen him thrown out of office on his ear
Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext
of "stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within
Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al
were the war mongers.
Then there is this gem: "Egypt's President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has called for a United Nations
resolution allowing international forces to intervene in Libya.
There was no other choice, he told French radio. "We will not allow them to cut off the heads
of our children."
"We abandoned the Libyan people as prisoners to extremist militias," Mr Sisi told Europe 1
radio. He was referring to the aftermath of the 2011 war in which Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi
was toppled with the help of an international coalition.
That intervention was "an unfinished mission", he said."
The US, France and the UK own this ongoing mess but do not have the moral fortitude to clean
it up. As with the "Arab Spring", this will not end well.
The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from
all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself
adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now
running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude
and no effort should be spared to address it
The west who propped up the Saudis, who's crazy wahhabi brand of Islam helped radicalise the Islamic
world with 100 billion dollars spent on promoting it.
The west who created israel and then has done nothing to stop israels ever growing land theft
and occupation over decades (not even a single sanction)...leading the Muslim world to hate us
more for our hypocrisy and double standards.
The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular
leaders who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships
who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated
and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists.
The west who arms brutal dictators to wage proxy wars and then invades and bombs these same
dictators countries over claims they have WMDs (that we sold to them).
The west has been intervening in the middle east alot longer than post 9/11. We are very very
culpable for the disasters engulfing the region.
Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes sense for us to unilaterally strike
against the Gaddafi regime"
Let's examine what Obama is saying here: when it is perceived to be at the core of US
interests, the USA reserves the right to attack any country, at any time.
The world inhabits a moral vacuum, and in that state, any country can justifiably choose to
do anything, against anyone, for any reason. And this guy got the Nobel Peace Prize.
In this despicable saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised
north Africa and may yet turn it into another Islamic State caliphate.
You forgot to mention Cameron was only following Sarkozy .
Don't forget the French role .
25 February 2011: Sarkozy said Gaddafi "must go."
28 February 2011: British Prime Minister David Cameron proposed the idea of a no-fly zone
11 March 2011: Cameron joined forces with Sarkozy after Sarkozy demanded immediate action
from international community for a no-fly zone against air attacks by Gaddafi.
14 March 2011: In Paris at the Élysée Palace, before the summit with the G8 Minister for
Foreign Affairs, Sarkozy, who is also the president of the G8, along with French Foreign Minister
Alain Juppé met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and pressed her to push for intervention
in Libya
.
19 March 2011: French[72] forces began the military intervention in Libya, later joined
by coalition forces
Well said in the headline. Imperialism-lite/heavy, colonialism, and neo-colonialism don't work,
should be a thing of the past. Intervening in the politics of another country is a mug's game.
Don't understand why Obama is blaming Cameron for it, perhaps playing to his domestic gallery.
Blair's love fest with the deluded Gaddafi family, followed by the volte-face of pushing for his
violent overthrow by the next government, were both severely misguided policies. Need to diplomatically
encourage change, in foreign policy, and the desired type of political movements to take hold.
Military interventions have the opposite effect, so does propping up dictators, religiously fanatical
regimes, proven time and time again.
So the choices are to do nothing, or invade and create a colony?
Pretty much. As Jenkins rightly says, if you want to launch an aggressive war you either do
it or you don't. If you do it then it is your responsibility to clear up the mess, however many
of your own lives are lost and however much it costs. Trashing a country and then buggering off
is not an option.
Of course, using force for defensive reasons is fine. That's why modern warmongering politicians
always call it "defence" when they drop bombs on innocent people in faraway countries. It is no
such thing.
There was no massacre, not even a hint of one. Total obfuscation to give Hillary Clinton a foreign
policy "success" so that she could use it as a springboard to the presidency. "Hillary Clinton
was so proud of her major role in instigating the war against Libya that she and her advisors
initially planned to use it as basis of a "Clinton doctrine", meaning a "smart power" regime change
strategy, as a presidential campaign slogan.
War creates chaos, and Hillary Clinton has been an eager advocate of every U.S. aggressive
war in the last quarter of a century. These wars have devastated whole countries and caused an
unmanageable refugee crisis. Chaos is all there is to show for Hillary's vaunted "foreign policy
experience".
"... Yeah. Painting the Syria/Libya crisis as Hillary vs the Repubs however is dishonest. not lacking insight or clarity. dishonest. On the Repubs: all the candidates except Trump said at the debate a few days ago that peace was not in the interests of Israel and therefore a US President would betray Israel by SEEKING peace. ..."
"... Hillary said at the townhall before Miss/MI that 'if we'd taken out Assad earlier like we did Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad as Libya'. Your Hillary vs the Repubs routine is dishonest. This is the neocon oligrachy fighting for its life election. do not fake it in the name of Hillary. ..."
"... The Obama administration has redefined the word "militant " to be a "male of military age within the strike zone" and here's the killer ..."unless POSTHUMOUSLY proven to be innocent" ..."
"... Ramos ought to have asked Hilary exactly why Gadaffi was deposed, and came back at her fiercely with statistics and independent reports if she dared to even muse the suggestion that it was another "humanitarian intervention". ..."
"... If Hillary's two decade history of war mongering was exposed for what it really represents by "journalists" in the corporate media, she would no longer be insulated from the scrutiny her deeply flawed decision making warrants. ..."
"... Unfortunately, the American public have only independent news sites like the Intercept, Truthdig, the Jacobin, Harpers Magazine, Mondoweiss, and a few others from which to evaluate the real damage Hillary has caused. ..."
"... What gives Amerika the right to intervene in the affairs of other nations in the first place? Are they unaware that the rest of the world fears American terrorism more that anything else, or more likely, do they care? No wonder Hillary and the Republican hawks are worrying the planet. ..."
You are absolutely right as far as these five questions are concerned. Yet you forgot an important
one: TTIP as well as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. These so-called free trade agreements are
a fatal threat to democracy as they invest more power in corporations than in parliaments and
additionally they are detrimental to labour and the environment in the concerned countries.
It's a good article and reflects some of the questions I've been having.
My curiosity was aroused when the first CIA-directed drone killed its first victims, a terrorist
leader and some comrades in Yemen years ago. I'd thought that the CIA's assassination of anyone
in a foreign country was illegal. Evidently the rules have changed but I don't recall hearing
about it.
The media are always an easy target but lately I think their responsibility for our collective
ignorance has increased. The moderators in the TV debates seem deliberately provocative. I can
remember the first televised debate -- Kennedy vs. Nixon -- when both men soberly addressed the
camera when answering questions of substance.
The first interaction BETWEEN debators was a brief remark in 1980 by Reagan aimed at Jimmy
Carter. "There you go again." Before then, the debates were sober and dignified, as in a courtroom.
After that, the debates slowly slid into the cage fights they've become.
I'm afraid I see the media as not setting the proper ground rules. Fox News is the absolute
worst. The result is a continuous positive feedback loop in which we are gradually and unwittingly
turned into those people who buy gossip tabloids at the supermarket checkout counter.
BREAKING NEWS! HILLARY WETS BED UNTIL TWELVE YEARS OLD!
If we wind up with one of these egomaniacal clowns in the White House, we'll deserve what we
get.
here it is again Cruz: right now in Fox: Iran wants to kill us; 'Donald' wants to negotiate deals
with Iran and Cuba. We don't negotiate with terrorists. By failing to note what Trump actually
says and by pretending that Hillary is not a neocon - a subtle one to be sure - you are revising
the facts. actually as the facts appear. think about it and be clear. the moderate Islam routine
BY Cruz Rubio Kasich is not about islam. its about the supposed sunni supposed allies. like please.
add some insight. at least a bit.
Yeah. Painting the Syria/Libya crisis as Hillary vs the Repubs however is dishonest. not lacking
insight or clarity. dishonest. On the Repubs: all the candidates except Trump said at the debate
a few days ago that peace was not in the interests of Israel and therefore a US President would
betray Israel by SEEKING peace.
Trump said he'd be even-handed for the purpose of negotitating
a peace deal. the other candidates say - reading from a script, certainly not thinking - that
the trick was to get Saudi Arabia and Turkey to fight ISIS. sure, except they wont. Their agenda
is anti-Assad in the name of conservative sunni-ism. the moderate arab sheikdom theocracy routines
IS part of the problem. frankly the other Repub candidates would flirt with nuking Iran. Iran
must be part of the solution like it or not. Hillary said at the townhall before Miss/MI that
'if we'd taken out Assad earlier like we did Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad as Libya'.
Your Hillary vs the Repubs routine is dishonest. This is the neocon oligrachy fighting for its
life election. do not fake it in the name of Hillary.
Isn't the reason for most foreign policy decisions that they will make money for the Military
Industrial Complex?
"Modernizing" nuclear weapons? Helping Saudi Arabia slaughter citizens of Yemen? Destabilizing
multiple countries so that MORE weapons become "necessary" to deal with the instability?
All the question should be framed on that basis: "Is there any reason to 'modernize' our nuclear
weapons other than to enhance the bottom line of the companies involved, especially when we are
supposed to be working against nuclear proliferation?"
Fantastic article, absolutely spot on. Its been a long wait , thank you.
The Obama administration has redefined the word "militant " to be a "male of military age within
the strike zone" and here's the killer ..."unless POSTHUMOUSLY proven to be innocent"
Democrats or Republicans alike, foreign policy is predicated on the American drive to maintain
global dominance, whatever illegal murderous callous action it takes.
Ramos ought to have asked Hilary exactly why Gadaffi was deposed, and came back at her fiercely
with statistics and independent reports if she dared to even muse the suggestion that it was another
"humanitarian intervention".
Sanders should be pressed on Israel, and whether he can formally condemn the state for repeatedly
breaking promises re: settlement on the West Bank and for committing war crimes during the Gaza
strip conflict.
If Hillary's two decade history of war mongering was exposed for what it really represents by
"journalists" in the corporate media, she would no longer be insulated from the scrutiny her deeply
flawed decision making warrants. If democracy and transparency actually functioned in the media,
Hillary would be exposed as a neocon, whose terrible policy decisions have led to one global disaster
after another, fomenting terrorism. (Even the New York Times-which endorsed Hillary-detailed her
disastrous decisions in Libya).
Unfortunately, the American public have only independent news sites like the Intercept, Truthdig,
the Jacobin, Harpers Magazine, Mondoweiss, and a few others from which to evaluate the real damage
Hillary has caused.
But, like her domestic policies-historically: from Clintonomics to mass incarceration; welfare
reform; the war on drugs; education (especially in Arkansas); disastrous "free" trade agreements;
rampant fascism in the form of corporatism; plus, the millions donated to her campaign from dark
money super pacs; and her sham "foundation; Hillary continues to represent the worst that politics
offers, both globally and domestically.
And the list above also includes the devolution of the Democratic Party from FDR-like socialism
to Clinton dominated corporate hacks, since Bill's election in 1992.
Until Clinton, Inc is stopped from commanding allegiance from "democratic" politicians on everything
from the macro to micro levels of Democratic Party matters, voters will continue to be denied
a true forum for change.
What gives Amerika the right to intervene in the affairs of other nations in the first place?
Are they unaware that the rest of the world fears American terrorism more that anything else,
or more likely, do they care? No wonder Hillary and the Republican hawks are worrying the planet.
"Currently Saudi Arabia is engaged in an indiscriminate bombing campaign in one of the world's
poorest.."
Saudi Arabia is bombing with logistical help from US and UK, we're not only silent on the crimes
of KSA, we help them
"Currently Saudi Arabia is engaged in an indiscriminate bombing campaign in one of the world's
poorest.."
Saudi Arabia is bombing with logistical help from US and UK, we're not only silent on the crimes
of KSA, we help them
Hillary was the push behind the U.S. Participation in Ukraine, Syria and Libya. Just a pathological
warlord. She appointed VIc Nuland as undersecretary of state for Gods sake. A neo-con. The people
that brought us the Iraq war. If she's elected you will get more of the same in a big way as she
will increase the force structure and the involvement.
It is futile to expect reason from people whose foreign policy education comes primarily from
Hollywood. It used to be that 96 % of people in congress had never left the country, even less
lived abroad with other people and learned a foreign language. The ignorance is truly amazing
and it would be funny if these people were not those that decide what happens in the world.
If the US keeps meddling in world affairs then the whole world should vote in their elections.
Don't exactly celebrate the US 'wag my tail' relationship with Wahhabi Arabia but on Syria, the
only good option is to ally with President Assad and bomb out the Wahhabi infestation.
Libya is the dog that doesn't bark in the night in UK politics too.
During the debate on bombing Syria, speaker after speaker alluded to the disastrous intervention
in Iraq, for which the guilty parties are no longer in the house.
But not one brought up the disastrous intervention in Libya, for which the guilty party was
currently urging us into another intervention.
Having an amateurish, inward-looking Labour party doesn't help, of course.
The only people who have called Cameron out on Libya in the past year are Nigel Farage and
Barack Obama. Ye gods.
"According to the 24 February 2010 policy analysis "The Year of the Drone", released by the New
America Foundation, the civilian fatality rate since 2004 is approximately 32%. The study reports
that 114 reported UAV-based missile strikes in northwest Pakistan from 2004 to present killed
between 830 and 1,210 individuals, around 550 to 850 of whom were militants."
You can quibble about the exact number of civilians killed, but the moment you approve of your
local police bagging bad guys even if your family gets killed then you can maybe make a comment.
Many human rights organizations have called them illegal, and retired military leaders have
said they backfire, creating more terrorists than they kill.
After reading " The Dron Papers
" Edward Snowden came to the conclusion that drones do not really chase the terrorists, but
they chase their mobile phones. Hence so many innocent victims, because who can guarantee that
the mobile phone which was earlier in the possessions of some terrorist, is not now in the hands
of entirely innocent people.
So, in addition to many ethical questions about the use of drones, this raised another question
on how much "high-tech killing" is indeed reliable.
Excellent article.
Informative and quite rightly challenging.
America is really running away with itself on who, where, how and why they attack.
Britains 'special' relations with the US, should be curtailed, forthwith, because they have the
audacity to now start pressuring us about the EU refferendum, too.
Obama had the nerve to say that we were free loading on the back of "US might" and their attempts
at "global order", his words. While neatly avoiding the questions you ask here, about their role
in Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, drones etc., etc, etc.
Britain should fight back with these facts and distance ourselves from this aggression.
While an enormous amount of time during this campaign has focused around the Iran nuclear
deal, almost no attention has been given to any country that actually has nuclear weapons and
what they plan to do with them over the coming years and decades.
This is also a proof of the "schizophrenic" Obama-Clinton foreign policy. US administration is
doing everything to solve the problem of the Iranian nuclear program, and at the same time doing
everything to spoil relations with the other nuclear power in the world, Russia.
The curiosity of its kind is that Russia, which is also affected by the US sanctions, helps US
to resolve its dispute with Iran and suspend sanctions against this country. And not only that,
but Russia agrees to relocate enriched uranium from Iran to its territory and thus provide a practical
implementation of the agreement on the Iranian nuclear program.
yet the presidential candidates are almost never asked about why congress has not authorized
the military action like the constitution requires.
Yes, Trevor Timm also criticized this in some of his previous articles, as well as Ron Paul, who
also often criticized Obama for this fact. It's completely unclear why Obama continues to rely
on the two authorizations that George W. Bush has got from Congress "to punish the perpetrators
of the 9/11 attacks", and for "the destruction of Saddam Hussein's [non-existent] WMD". This is
particularly unclear given that Obama himself came to power mainly due to his criticism of Bush's
war adventures.
It is possible that Obama does not have enough confidence that he can get authorization from the
GOP dominant Congress to combat Isis in Syria and Iraq. However, by using authorizations for the
old wars for something that has nothing to do with the new wars, Obama is not only acting illegally,
but also provides an opportunity for the conclusion that he now supports Bush for the same thing
for which he criticized him earlier, that is, for the Afghan and Iraq war.
'course I wouldn't approve. And I doubt most countries approve of being invaded (except for the
folks who DO approve anyways).
"The US must stop acting as the world police.' Great phrase. You hear it a lot. Totally insupportable.
Here's the fundamental problem: the globe is a small place these days. Countries really are no
longer isolated entities than can act with little to no impact on anybody else. What one does,
others feel. And leadership is a thing - somebody will always lead. Right now, there are very
few candidates for that. With the fall of imperial England, the US became the only real superpower
left (other than Russia, which has since collapsed, and is busy trying to come back). Thus, whether
it likes it or not, the US has a leadership role to play. If it abdicates that position, and does
as you and so many other less-than-brilliant folks demand? Power abhors a vacuum. Most likely
is that either Russia or China will take over the role currently played by the US. And if you
think either of THOSE countries will do a better job than the US, well... enjoy your personal
delusion.
As for 'scratching heads and bleating' about intervention... we did not have to intervene.
Said that before, saying it again, get it through your skull - we did not have to intervene. We
could, in fact, totally disarm and just sit back and do nothing, anywhere. But. THIS WOULD HAVE
CONSEQUENCES TOO. Seriously. Understand that. Doing nothing is doing something. Sitting out is
still an action one can take. And it is INCREDIBLY likely that things would be WORSE in Libya
right now had we not intervened. Not guaranteed, but likely.
The situation sucks. It would have been great if it had all turned out better. It didn't. But
it probably would have been worse had we made a substantially different choice. Yeah, sure, you
could then pat yourself on the back, and pretend that at least the US wasn't responsible, but,
well, as a certain red-and-blue clad superhero says, with great power comes great responsibility.
The US has great power - if we didn't intervene, and horrible things happened, it'd be just as
much our fault as it is now that we DID intervene, and bad things happened. Because it would have
been in our power to stop it, and we didn't.
"... Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture. ..."
"... There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among them as a narrative of sinner vs saint... ..."
"... After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence. ..."
"... To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you want to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their hypocrisy, criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law, all you need to see is the war in Yemen. ..."
"... Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no problem dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now they appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their toes and Israel's on occasion .. ..."
"... Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious fanatics are in complete control.. ..."
"... "keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies" mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France) still trying to get its share there? ..."
"... "Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it." ..."
"... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
"... The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was in the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar? ..."
"... The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of the old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western civilization and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy. Unfortunately democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being invaded wanted it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit the chaos for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq. ..."
"... The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians, just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history. ..."
"... No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab Spring" was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi and Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well. ..."
"... You forget who triggered the French intervention. Another neo-con working for Israel. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2 ..."
"... Israel does not want a functioning Arab State left in the Middle-East. ..."
"... It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife refuge in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up and deny responsibility when everything falls apart. ..."
"... Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along with the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria. ..."
"... However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators and governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions and international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change. ..."
"... No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing into the pockets of the West. ..."
"... Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS. ..."
"... Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run by drug lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo today is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. ..."
"... There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. ..."
"... The US empire blew up Libya with some help from it's puppets, Sarkozy and Cameron. 100% imperialism. ..."
"... The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under real threat from emerging economic powers. ..."
"... Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. ..."
"... I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton the warmonger to get on with it. ..."
"... The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human life or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination" don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed - the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest. ..."
"... Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder why I voted for him twice. His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed their coterie of right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, ad nauseum Obama has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but the he is a captive mess of the shadow government. ..."
"... Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined. ..."
"... Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi left a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way to the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary Clinton who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the victimisation of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun by extremists, and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe. ..."
"... The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected or assumed that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the Americans have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns' to go in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson of planning what should follow after the destruction? ..."
"... The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the euphemistic mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about not wanting American, British and French 'boots on the ground.' ..."
"... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
"... We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our well laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the Militias we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils. ..."
"... We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from Libya to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat" from the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population. ..."
"... Of its 237 years of existence it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years. ..."
"... NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine. ..."
"... Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the thumb of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted. Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order. ..."
"... Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that the wars in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate Iran and sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of our Western leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy outlined in the US Special Forces document below. http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf ..."
"... In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them. The nobel peace winner got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while the permanent objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya. ..."
"... Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world to overthrow third world dictators. You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend the ultra-liberal, military industrial economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian, as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and American Nato toadies. ..."
"... Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The so called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and neo-Nazis in Ukraine. After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their looted arms were transferred to Syria and renamed ISIS. ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army, used as required for their Imperial ends. Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate ..."
"... Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting men and weapons across North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for ISIS ..."
"... Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext of "stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al were the war mongers. ..."
"... The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude and no effort should be spared to address it ..."
"... The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular leaders who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists. ..."
So
Barack Obama thinks Britain in 2011 left Libya in chaos – and besides it does not pull its weight
in the world. Britain thinks that a bit rich, given the shambles America left in Iraq. Then both
sides say sorry. They did not mean to be rude.
Thus do we wander across the ethical wasteland of the west's wars of intervention. We blame and
we name-call. We turn deaf ears to the cries of those whose lives we have destroyed. Then we kiss
and make up – to each other.
Obama was right first time round about Libya's civil war. He wanted to keep out. As
he recalls to the Atlantic magazine , Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes
sense for us to unilaterally strike against the Gaddafi regime". He cooperated with Britain and France,
but on the assumption that David Cameron would clear up the resulting mess. That did not happen because
Cameron had won his Falklands war and could go home crowing.
Obama is here describing all the recent "wars of choice".
America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq, any more than Britain had in
Libya . When a state attacks
another state and destroys its law and order, morally it owns the mess. There is no such thing as
imperialism-lite. Remove one fount of authority and you must replace and sustain another, as Europe
has done at vast expense in Bosnia and Kosovo.
America and Britain both attacked countries in the Middle East largely to satisfy the machismo
and domestic standing of two men, George Bush and Tony Blair. The result has been mass killing, destruction
and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war. In this despicable
saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised north
Africa and may yet turn it
into another Islamic State caliphate. It is his Iraq.
As for Obama's charge that Britain and other countries are not pulling their weight and are "free
riders" on American defence spending, that too deserves short shrift.
British and French military expenditure is proportionately among the highest in the world, mostly
blown on archaic weapons and archaic forms of war. Western warmongering over the past two decades
has had nothing to do with the existential defence of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping
alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it.
Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so, against
all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully has nothing
to do with politicians.
I'm stunned that Obama has been able to get away with his absolutely abysmal record with foreign
policy. Libya was a complete disaster and there is evidence to suggest that Libya was a much better
place under Gaddafi. And the fact that once they were in Iraq (something started by his predecessor)
he wasn't committed to bringing about serious change, thus leaving a giant vacuum which, coincided
with the Syrian Civil War, has now been filled by ISIS.
That's not even talking about the Iran deal, Benghazi and the disastrous "Bring Back our Girls"
campaign.
"People find it very hard," said Iman Fannoush, with her two children in tow and a husband
she knows not where. "They are up all night shooting because of good news. We hear the UN is
coming to help us or our fighters have taken Brega or the air strikes have destroyed Gaddafi's
tanks. Then everyone is afraid again when they hear Gaddafi's army is coming and they all want
to know where is France, where are the air strikes, why is the west abandoning us?
We are grateful for the role played by the international community in protecting the Libyan
people; Libyans will never forget those who were our friends at this critical stage and will
endeavour to build closer relations with those states on the basis of our mutual respect and
common interests. However, the future of Libya is for the Libyans alone to decide. We cannot
compromise on sovereignty or allow others to interfere in our internal affairs, position themselves
as guardians of our revolution or impose leaders who do not represent a national consensus.
Hilsum gives a riveting account of the battle for Tripoli, with activists risking their lives
to pass intelligence to Nato, whose targeting – contrary to regime propaganda – was largely
accurate, and too cautious for many Libyans.
The UN security council authorised action to protect Libyan civilians from the Gaddafi regime
but Russia, China and other critics believe that the western alliance exceeded that mandate
and moved to implement regime change.
Libya's Arab spring was a bloody affair, ending with the killing of Gaddafi, one of the world's
most ruthless dictators. His death saw the rebel militias turn on each other in a mosaic of
turf wars. Full-scale civil war came last summer, when Islamist parties saw sharp defeats in
elections the United Nations had supervised, in the hope of bringing peace to the country.
Islamists and their allies rebelled against the elected parliament and formed the Libya Dawn
coalition, which seized Tripoli. The new government fled to the eastern city of Tobruk and
fighting has since raged across the country.
With thousands dead, towns smashed and 400,000 homeless, the big winner is Isis, which has
expanded fast amid the chaos. Egypt, already the chief backer of government forces, has now
joined a three-way war between government, Libya Dawn and Isis.
It is all a long way from the hopes of the original revolutionaries. With Africa's largest
oil reserves and just six million people to share the bounty, Libya in 2011 appeared set for
a bright future. "We thought we would be the new Dubai, we had everything," says a young activist
who, like the student, prefers not to give her name. "Now we are more realistic."
Perpetually engineered destabilization is highly lucrative and has been for 200 years, but I don't
know what's Central or Intelligent about it......except for a tiny handful at the top globally.
On balance, is Libya worse off now than it would have been, had Gaddaffi been allowed free
rein in Benghazi?
No-one can possibly know the answer to that, certainly not Mr Jenkins.
Clearly it was a dictatorship like say Burma is today.....but....from an economic point of
view, it was like the Switzerland of Africa. And actually tons of European companies had flocked
over there to set up shop. In contrast to now where its like the Iraquistan of Africa. No contest
in the comparison there...
Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both
parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture.
There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among
them as a narrative of sinner vs saint...
After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy
and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and
joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence.
To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you want
to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their hypocrisy,
criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law, all you
need to see is the war in Yemen.
Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no problem
dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now they
appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their toes
and Israel's on occasion ..
Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular
and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already
being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious
fanatics are in complete control..
Yep, many pictures, as there always are with media confections. Remember the footage of Saddam's
statue being torn down in front of a huge crowd? It was only months later we saw the wide angle
shot that showed just how few people there really were there.
These US and UK involvement in the ME are matters of official record; are you really denying the
CIA trained the Mujahideen, or that both the UK and US propped up Saddam? Even Robert Fisk acknowledges
that! And please, don't patronise me. You have no idea what I've read or haven't.
......c'mon, the powers behind the powers intentionally engineer mid-East destabilization to keep
the perpetual war pumping billions to the ATM's in their living rooms; then, on top of it, they
send the bill to average joe's globally; when is this farce going to be called out ?
It is completely
illogical, can't stand even eye tests, yet continues like an emperor with new clothes in our face.
"keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies"
mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country
if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France) still trying to get its share there?
"Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has had
nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping
alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it."
"The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least
outside Africa, since the second world war."
The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was in
the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along
with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar?
The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of the
old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western civilization
and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy. Unfortunately
democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being invaded wanted
it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit the chaos
for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt, Syria,
Iraq.
Get your facts right. Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan were all states that crumbled after the
demise of the USSR.
Bullshit. The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians,
just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East
since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history.
No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab Spring"
was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi and
Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well.
this might answer your question. Syria has suffered for its geography since it was artificially
created by the Sykes Picot agreement at the end of the Ottoman Empire.
"Libyan rebels are secularists, want unified country
Gardels: If the French aim is successful and Qaddafi falls, who are the rebels the West is
allying with? Secularists? Islamists? And what do they want?
Levy: Secularists. They want a unified Libya whose capital will remain Tripoli and whose government
will be elected as a result of free and transparent elections. I am not saying that this will
happen from one day to the next, and starting on the first day. But I have seen these men enough,
I have spoken with them enough, to know that this is undeniably the dream, the goal, the principle
of legitimacy.
It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife refuge
in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up and deny
responsibility when everything falls apart.
Britain started the mess in the Middle-East with the Balfour declaration and the theft of Palestinian
land to create an illegal Jewish state. Europe should pay massive reparations of money and equivalent
land in Europe for the Palestinian refugees living in squalid camps. Neo-con Jews who lobbied
for the Iraq, Syria and Libyan wars should have their wealth confiscated to pay for the mess they
created. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2
Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along with
the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria.
Presumably he's going down the Blair/Clinton route of cosying up to Middle Eastern Supremacist
Cults in the hope that he can increase his income by tens of millions within the next 10 years.
There can be no other explanation for his actions, that have never had anything whatsoever to
do with the interests of either Britain or the wider European community.
For me, the bottom line is that, however much might like to believe it, military intervention
does not create nice, liberal, secular democracies. These can only be fostered from within.
However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators and
governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions and
international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change.
The military, under the instruction of politicians, of the West should be pro-defence but anti-regime
change or "nation building".
I'm not suggesting a completely isolationist position, but offensive military action should
be seen as a last resort.
Mr Jenkins is a knowledgeable man but should've thought through this a bit more before so casually
associating death and destruction and misery with Africa.
China's cultural revolution and the Great Leap Forward alone killed and displaced more people
after the second world war than all the conflicts in Africa put together. How about the break
up of India in 1947? Korean War?
But no when he thought about misery Africa popped into his mind..
Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so,
against all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully
has nothing to do with politicians.
One culture?
One outlook?
Sounds all very Soviet.
So, all Enlightened souls are reduced to a monoculture, within the Anglo American Empire.
Obama is a bill of goods. The Voters that choose him thought that they were getting a progressive,
Obama used the reverend
Wright to make himself seem like a man committed to radical change, but behind Obama was Chicago
investment banker Louis Susman (appointed ambassador to Britain).
Obama, a Harvard law professor, is the choice of the bankers, he does not play a straight bat,
all the wars and killing are someone else's fault. Banking wanted rid of Gaddafi since he threatened
the dollar as the reserve currency (as did Dominique Strauss-Kahn) as does the Euro, Obama let
Cameron think he was calling the shots but he was just Obama's beard. Obama is nothing if not
cunning, when he says stay in Europe but the Elites of the Tory party are pushing for out guess
what, they got the nod from Obama and the Banks.
So? All the numbers in the world can't undo Jenkins' thesis: there is no imperialism-lite. Imperialist
wars are imperialist wars no matter how many die, and whether chaos, or neo-colonial rule follow.
In his interview, Obama claims a more deliberate, opaque, and efficient war machine. To him, and
his conscience, John Brennan, these metrics add up to significant moral milestones. To us innumerates,
it's just more imperialist b.s.
Gadaffy had since long planned to free his country and other African states from the yoke of being
forced to trade within the American dollar sphere. He was about to lance his thoroughy well prepared
alternative welcomed not the least by the Chinese when Libya was attacked. Obama is not truthful
when suggesting the attack was not a "core" interest to the US. It was of supreme interest for
the US to appear with its allies, Gadaffy´s independence of mind being no small challenge.
Gadafy may have been particularly nasty with dissidents, but the UK has plenty of allies in the
Muslim world that are far worse: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain... The Gulf States work their imported
slaves to death and the UK kowtows to them. The UK has supplied billions of pounds worth of weapons
to Saudi Arabia and sent military advisors to advise them how to use them to bomb Yemeni schools
and hospitals.
No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things
such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing
into the pockets of the West.
Kosovo is also mentioned. There was a relatively low-level conflict (much like the Northern
Ireland 'troubles') there until NATO started bombing and then oversaw the massive ethnic cleansing
of Kosovo Serbs from their homeland (Serbs are the most ethnically-cleansed group in the former
Yugoslavia: around 500,000 refugees).
Yugoslavia's real crime? It was the last country in Europe to refuse the market economy and
the hegemony of Western banks and corporates.
The message is, 'Accept capitalism red in tooth or claw, or we'll bomb the crap out of you.'
Did the attack on Afghanistan improve the situation? Perhaps temporarily in the cities, some things
got a little better as long as you weren't shot or blown up. Over the country as a whole, it made
the situation much worse.
I remember John Simpson crowing that the Western invaders had freed Afghanistan when they entered
Kabul. My reaction at the time was, 'Well, the Soviets had no problem holding the cities. Wait
until you step outside them.' There followed many years of war achieving pretty much nothing except
to kill a lot of people and get recruits flocking to the Taliban.
It seemed we had learned absolutely nothing from the British and Soviet experiences.
And you seem to have forgotten the multitude of US terror attacks on Muslims before the Afghan
invasion, repackaged for our media as 'targeted attacks with collateral damage'. Bombing aspirin
factories and such. And the First Gulf War. And US bases occupying the region. And the fact that
the situation in Afghanistan was due to the Americans and Saudis having showered weapons and cash
on anyone who was fighting the Soviets, not giving a damn about their aims. Bin Laden, for instance.
And one aspect of law and order under the Taliban was that they virtually stopped opium production.
After the invasion, it rose again to dizzying heights.
The only way to deal with countries such as Afghanistan as it returns to its default system,
along with other, more aggressive rogue states such as Saudi Arabia, is to starve them of all
weapons and then let their peoples sort it out. It may take a long time but it's the sole possibility.
As long as we keep pouring weapons into the Middle East for our own shameful purposes, the
apocalypse will continue.
Reading this excellent article one wonders how the war criminal Blair can be offered any peace-keeping
role in the world or continue to get any air or press time.
Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official
ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror
in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS.
Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run by drug
lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo today
is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. Tear gas in Parliament for the third time in as many
months. While the squares full of unemployed young and old are adorned with statues of those that
gave them this opportunity Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were popular but I think their halos are
tarnished somewhat. The situation is so serious that the US is beefing up its presence in camp Bondsteel but you won't read about it in the Guardian.
when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every
nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient
statute of limitations
So true . "Oh, oh, but the Spanish/Mongols/Romans etc etc", "Oh, like they were all
so peaceful before Empire came along", "Oh, but but" (ad infinitum).
The bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen? Here's hoping. The neo-con cum
neo-ultra liberal dream keeps on giving. Even after Brexit, Britain remains America's poodle
at its peril. The rest of the article is right, but by now accepted wisdom amongst those capable
of independent and rational thought.
Here we go again, off course next phase is the "enlightment" in Al-Andalus...
1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion
of Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion
of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg
the Saudis).
Wahabism grew because of the oil export from Saudi Arabia which started way before World war II.
Bollocks, there was a short period of calm while Europe defeated the Ottoman empire , but the
Mughal empire took great pleasure in slaughtering shiites, and the Ottoman empire had huge conflicts
with the Safavid empire.
2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating
Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in
Spain. Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?
He-he, the fabulous golden age which is always mentioned, no doubt they were golden at that
time compared to Europe, but to compare it today, it would be like living in Nazi Germany as a
Jew before the Nürnberg laws were implemented.
Would you like to pay a special non-muslim tax, step aside when a Muslim passed the street,
be unable to claim any high positions in society to due to your heritage?
3. Didnt forget. the USSR didnt hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West.
And it wasnt Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.
The Iran-Iraq war made the millions of dead possible primarily due to Soviet equipment, Halabja
killed 5000.
No, Russia prefered Chechnya and directly killed 300.000 civilians with the Grad bombings of cities
and villages, whereas the casualties in Iraq primarily can be contributed to sectional violence.
4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab
group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and
well thanks to our lust for control over the region.
None of the mentioned were prime examples of democracy, Nasser for example had no problems in
eliminating the Muslim brotherhood or killing 10s of thousands of rebels and civilians in Yemen
with mustard gas.
Obama's remark that the Europeans and Gulf States "detested" Gaddafi and wanted to get rid of
him while others had "humanitarian concerns" is of interest. It's unlikely the Arabs had humanitarian
concerns in all the circumstances; they just wanted Regime Change. It is the lethal combination
of Gulf Arabs and Neo-colonial France and Britain that has driven the Syrian war too- and continues
to do so. No wonder America claims these countries enthuse about war until it comes and then expect
them to fight it. France currently demands the surrender of Assad and for Russia to "leave the
country immediately". Britain says there can be no peace while he remains and that Russia's "interference"
is helping IS.
It's your prerogative whether or not you believe that the US and NATO intervene in countries based
on moral grounds. But if you do want to delude yourself, remember that they only intervene in
countries where they can make money off resources, like Libya and Iraq's oil revenues. If it were
about morality, don't you think NATO and the West would have rushed to help Rwanda during the
genocide?
There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that
western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. You do not win when your situation is worse
than it was before Saddam. You can't be a winner when you life in generally worse off than it
was before. basically there is no rule of law now in these nations. Saddam was no monster like
you want to portray him.
Actually, some of those Latin American governments we overthrew were indeed liberal democracies.
As for Canada, there are several reasons we haven't invaded. Too big, too sparse too white...and
economically already a client state. Of course, we did try once: the War of 1812.
"When the same leaders did initially stand aside (as in Syria) "
They didn't stand aside though, they helped create the trouble in the first place, as too with
Libya; gather intelligence to find out who will take up arms, fund, train and give them promises,
get them to organize and attack, then when the dictator strikes back the press swing into action
to tell us all how much of a horrible bastard he is(even though we've been supporting and trading
with him for eons), ergo, we have to bomb him! It's HUMANITARIAN! Not. It would be conquest though.
Frightening.
Obama has done everything in his power to morph into Bush including hiring a flaming chicken hawk
in Ash Carter to play the role of Dick Cheyney. Bush left us with Iraq and Afghanistan, to which
Obama added Egypt with the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood, Libya, Syria and Yemen. He also
restarted the Cold War with Russia. He is now going after China for building islands in the South
China Sea, a disputed area, something he as well as other Presidents before him has allowed Israel
to build settlements on disputed land for the past fifty years and throughthrough $ 3.5 billion
in gifts annually, has provided for enough concrete to cover all the land the Palestinians live
on.
The 3.5 billion annually will increase by $40 billion over ten years, unless Netanyahu gets
the increase he wants to 15 billion per year. So Obama must settle on a legacy which makes him
both a warmonger and one of the very best arms dealer in the world. His family must be so proud.
To be a humanitarian intervention, a military intervention has to avoid causing regime collapse,
because people will die because of regime collapse. This is an elementary point that the political
class appears not to want to learn.
I agree with your analysis except the last paragraph. Pretty much in all interventions that
we have witnessed, the political class deliberately caused the regimes to collapse. That was always
the primary goal. Humanitarian intervention were never the primary, secondary or even tertiary
objective.
If the political class want to do some humanitarian interventions, they can always start with
Boko Haram in Nigeria.
America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq
The USA was enforcing the UN blockade of Iraq, and had massive forces in place to do it. It was
costing a fortune and there were regular border skirmishes taking place. It has been suggested
that Bush and his advisors thought that they could take out Saddam and then pull all their forces
back to the US. They won't admit it now because of the disaster that unfolded afterwards.
Another good piece. What about all the weapons we sold Israel after they started their recent
slaughter in Gaza and the selling of weapons to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen (one of the poorest
country's in the world) says everything you need to know about the tory party. They are sub humans
and as such should be treated like dirt. I don't believe in the concept of evil...all a bit religious
for me but if I did, it's what they are.
It astonishes me that these great men and women-I include Sec'y Clinton here-give no indication
that their calculations were made without the slightest knowledge of the countries they were preparing
to attack in one way or another. From what one read in the long NYTimes report on preparations
for the Libyan intervention, the participants in the planning knew a great deal about military
matters and less about Libya than they could have found out in a few minutes with Wikipedia. Tribal
societies are different from western societies, dear people, and you damn well should have known
that.
Honduras. The USA backed the coup there. Honduras is now run by generals and is the world's murder
capital. I could go on, jezzam. Please read William Blum's books on US foreign policy. They provide
evidence that the US record is not good.
Without the US the UK and France couldn't have overthrown Gaddafi. The jihadis would have been
killed or fled Libya. I don't believe any post-Gaddafi plan existed. Why would there have been
one? Killing Gaddafi was the war's aim. A western puppet strong man leader grabbing power would
have been icing on the cake of course but why would the US care about Libya once Gaddafi was gone?
Well, Cameron just followed Obama's 'regime change' bad ideas.
Obama is a failed leader of the World who made our lives so much worse.
Obama likes to entertain recently, so after his presidency the best job for him is a clown in
a circus.
We will never know why Stevens and the others were killed.
Absent reliable information, everyone is free to blame whomever they dislike most.
Based on zero non-partisan information, Hillary is the media's top choice for Big Villain.
She may in fact be more responsible than most for this horror, but she may not be too.
Who ya gonna ask: the CIA, the Pentagon, Ted Cruz?
It seems everyone who's ever even visited Washington,D.C., has some anonymous inside
source that proves Hillary did it.
To hear the GOP tell it, she flew to Libya secretly and shot Stevens herself
just because she damn well felt it, o kay -- (female troubles)
My question is: Where has US/Euro invasion resulted in a better government for all those
Middle Eastern people we blasted to bits of blood and bone? How's Yemen doin' these days?
Hope Europe enjoys assimilating a few million people who share none of Europe's customs,
values or languages.
I'm sure euro-businesses would never hire the new immigrants instead of union-backed
locals.
Why, that would almost be taking advantage of a vast reservoir of ultra-cheap labor!
Nor will the sudden ocean of euro-a-day workers undercut unions or wages in the EU. No siree,
not possible.
Just like unions have not been decimated, and wages have not stagnated in the US since 1980
or so. No siree. Not in Europe .
jezzam writes, "the dictator starts massacring hundreds of thousands of his own civilians." But
he didn't. Cameron lied.
The rebellion against Gaddafi began in February 2011. The British, French and US governments intervened
on their usual pretext of protecting civilians. The UN said that 1,000-2,000 people had been killed
before the NATO powers attacked.
Eight months later, after the NATO attack, 30,000 people had been killed and 50,000 wounded (National
Transitional Council figures).
Cameron made the mess; Cameron caused the vast refugee crisis. The NATO powers are getting what
they want – the destruction of any states and societies that oppose their rule, control over Africa's
rich resources. Libya is now plagued by "relentless warfare where competing militias compete for
power while external accumulators of capital such as oil companies can extract resources under
the protection of private military contractors."
any state that wishes to be taken seriously as a player on the world stage
The classic phrase of imperialism - an attitude that seems to believe any nation has the right
to interfere in, or invade, other countries'.
Usually done under some pretence of moral superiority - it used to be to 'bring the pagans to
God', these days more 'they're not part of our belief system'. In fact, it only really happens
when the imperial nations see the economic interests of their ruling class come under threat.
The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments
and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under
real threat from emerging economic powers.
The two that they are most scared of are Russia and China, who combined can offer the capital
and expertise to replace the old US / European axis across Africa, for instance. The war is already
being fought on many fronts, as
this article makes clear.
Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. Clinton had it right when the going gets
tough Obama gives a speech (see Cairo).
I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals
is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama
with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton
the warmonger to get on with it.
The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human life
or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination"
don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed
- the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest.
The odd thing is, Obama didn't seem to think getting rid of Gaddafi a bad thing at all at the
time. Clinton was all, "We came, we saw, he died." And this bit about "no core interest" in Afghanistan
and Iraq is just bizarre. Given the mess both countries are in, and the resurgence of the
Taliban
and zero clue about Iraq it was clearly a master stroke for Obama to decide the US exit both with
no effective governments in place, ones that could deal with the Taliban et al. Never mind, he
can tootle off and play golf.
Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder why
I voted for him twice.
His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed their coterie of
right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, ad nauseum Obama
has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but the he is a captive
mess of the shadow government.
America has a historic crisis of leadership and being the sole model left in that field, the
world has followed, the UK and all of Europe included.
Libya is all Hilarys work so expect to return with boots on the ground once Wall Sts finest is
parked in the Oval office. She has the midas touch in reverse and Libya has turned (and will continue)
to turn out worse than Iraq and Syria (believe me its possible) There is absolutely no one on
the ground that the west can work with so the old chestnut of arming and training al qaeda or
'moderate' opposition is not an option. ISIL are solidifying a base there and other than drones
there is zip we can do.
Critising Cameron just shows how insecure Obama is, lets be honest the middle east and afghanistan
are in the state they are because Obama had zero interest in foreign policy when his first term
started, thus allowing the neocons to move into the vacuum and create the utter disaster that
is Syraq and Ukraine. We in europe are now dealing with the aftermath of this via the refugee
crisis which will top 2 million people this year. Obamas a failure and he knows it, hence the
criticism of other leaders. Cameron is no different, foreign policy being almost totally abandoned
to the US, there is no such thing as independent defence policy in the UK, everything is carried
out at the behest of the US. Don't kid yourself we have any autonomy, we don't and there are plenty
of high level armed forces personnel who feel the same way. Europe is leaderless in general and
with the economy flatlining they too have abandoned defence and foreign affairs to the pentagon.
Right now we're in the quiet before the storm, once HRC gets elected expect the situation to
deteriorate rapidly, our only hope is that someone has got the dirt to throw her out of the race.
ISIS established itself in Iraq before moving into Syria. Would ISIS exist is Britain had not
totally destabilized Iraq? Going back even further, it is the 100th anniversary of the Sykes-Picot
agreement, that great exercise in British Imperialism that created the artificial nations in the
Middle East that are collapsing today.
Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every
excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there
is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America
and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going
back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined.
Transparent hypocrisy. Accept responsibility and stop offloading it to Calais.
Ambassador Stevens was killed in a cover up over the arms dealing from Libya to Syria, (weapons
and fighters to ISIS). It seems more likely that he was killed because he was investigating the
covert operation given that he was left to fend for himself by all US military forces but in a
classic defamation strategy he has been accused of being behind the operation. Had he been he
would have been well defended.
"Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering
military establishments that depend on it.
Couldn't put it better myself. Yes, America is a full blown Empire now. Evil to it's very core.
Bent on world domination and any cost. All we lack is a military dictatorship. Of course, with
the nation populated by brainwashed sheep, a "Dear Leader" is inevitable,
President Obama was correct in keeping US boots off the ground in Syria. An active US troop presence
would have resulted in an even greater level of confusion and destruction on all sides. However,
it was precisely the US' meddling in Libya that helped pave the way for its current dysfunctional,
failed state status, riven by sectarian conflicts and home to a very active Al Quaida presence.
US interference in Libya saw Gadaffi backstabbed by the US before literally being stabbed to death
although he had been given assurances that the US would respect his rule particularly as he had
sought to become part of the alliance against the likes of Al Quaida.
Obama was behind the disgraceful lie that the mob that attacked the US' Benghazi Embassy and murdered
Ambassador Smith y was 'inflamed' by an obscure video on youtube that attacked extremist elements
of the Islamic faith. Smith deserved better than this blatant lie and the grovelling, snivelling
faux apologies Obama and then Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made to the Muslim world for something
that had nothing to do with 99.9 percent of non Muslims.
Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi left
a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way to
the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary Clinton
who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the victimisation
of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun by extremists,
and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe.
Disappointingly, President Obama forgets the Biblical saying about pointing out a speck in somebody's
eye while ignoring the plank in his own.
Mr President doesn't privately refer to the Libyan upheaval as the "shit show" for no good reason.
The chaos and anarchy that have ensued since, including the migrant crisis in Europe and the rise
of Islamic State, is directly attributable to the shoddy interventionist approach used by both
Britain and France.
Good article, with justified moral indignation. Only thing I would have changed, is "imperialism-lite"
to 'lesser and greater imperialism.
Would it not have been a great contribution towards peace and justice, had the US decided not
to invade Iraq and Libya, on account that other western countries were "free-riders" and would
not have pulled their weight?
So, what does the world needs now? More 'free-riding countries' to dissuade so-called responsible
countries - Britain, France, America, Italy - from conspiring to invade other countries, after
consulting in the equivalent of a 'diplomatic toilet and drawing up their war plans on the back
of the proverbial cigarette packet.'
For all Obama's niceties, it would now appear that he has been seething and mad as hell about
his perception of Britain and France 'abandoning' Libya and watching it perceptible
destabilizing
the region and the flames fanning farther afield.
The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected or assumed
that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the Americans
have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns' to go
in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson of
planning what should follow after the destruction?
The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the euphemistic
mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about not wanting
American, British and French 'boots on the ground.'
Is the Americans now telling the world that they went into Libya without planning for the aftermath,
because it was 'an emergency to save lives' and they had to go in immediately?
Well, if so, that is now how nations behave responsibly, and it is now clear that more lives
have probably been lost and continue to be sacrificed, than those which might have been saved
as a result of the West invading and attacking Libya.
the Europeans expected America to pick up the tab for reconstruction
I don't think there would be many complaints from Halliburton or other American companies to
help with the reconstruction, if the place wasn't such a shit-storm right now.
"The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside
Africa, since the second world war."
Judging from the sentiments expressed in the overwhelming majority of comments posted on multiple
threads on this forum, the British people don't want to accept responsibility for "migration on
a scale not seen... since the second world war". The almost universal resistance to accepting
refugees and migrants that fled their homes due to unprovoked British aggression is disgusting
and pathetic. It highlights the hypocrisy of those who see themselves morally fit to judge almost
everyone else.
Mitchell says that we had a plan to stabilise Libya but that it could not be implement the plan
because there was no peace?#*^..... Der
We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our well
laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the Militias
we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils.
Well there you have it- its the fault of the Libyans.
Hilary Clinton recently blamed Sarkozy for Libya describing him as so "very excited" about the
need to start bombing that he persuaded her and she, Nuland and Power persuaded a reluctant Obama.
Three civilian females argued down the military opinion that it was unnecessary and likely to
cause more trouble than it was worth.
As this was clearly to support French interests the Americans
insisted the Europeans do it themselves if they were that keen. Old Anglo-French rivalry has never
been far from the surface in the ME and it seems Cameron jumped on the bandwagon in fear France
would take all the glory. Neither of them appear to have given any thought about reconstruction.
The blame is mostly Cameron's as Sorkozy was chucked out of office just months later. Did Cameron
have a plan at all? If so it was his biggest mistake and one we'll be paying for over the coming
years.
Without Putin's mischief making though, this would have been sorted out long ago.
Putin intervened in September 2015. What have the West been doing since 2011 to stop the conflict,
one wonders.
Russia vetoes any UN attempt to sort out the mess
Looking bad you'd realize that it at least prompted Obama to retract in 2013. Since then though
support to Saudi and proxies destabilizing Syria has only increased.
Russia is clearing the mess of the West, and they should be grateful. Obama might be from what
I read today from his "confessions".
Yes. I don't think that is a pro-imperialist stance. He's arguing that there is no middle ground;
getting rid of dictators you don't like is imperialism, and whether you follow through or not,
there are serious consequences, but to not follow through is an abnegation of moral responsibility
to the people you are at attemting to "free". It seems to me he is arguing against any foreign
intervention, hence his castigation of Obama and Cameron for the "ethical wasteland of their wars
of intervention."
Please do me a favour and study 20th century history a little more. The US overthrow countless
democracies in Latin America and the Middle East and installed fascist dictatorships.
Liberal Democracy haha come on now. They dont care about Democracy. They care about money.
They will install and support any dictatorship (look at Saudi Arabia for example) as long as they
do as they are told economically.
I love western values, dont get me wrong. It is the best place to live freely. However, if
you werent lucky enough to be born in the west and the west wants something your country has (eg.
oil).....you are in for a lot of bad times.
I just wish western leaders/governments actually followed the western values that we all love
and hold dear.
We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from Libya
to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat" from
the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population.
The solution as Corbyn pointed out is to stop funding the Terrorists.
By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar;
the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals
into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian
entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn't always know who was really employing them,
were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the
CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer.
Peter Oborne investigates claims that Britain and the West embarked on an unspoken alliance
of convenience with militant jihadi groups in an attempt to bring down the Assad regime.
He hears how equipment supplied by the West to so called Syrian moderates has ended up in
the hands of jihadis, and that Western sponsored rebels have fought alongside Al Qaeda. But
what does this really tell us about the conflict in Syria?
This edition of The Report also examines the astonishing attempt to re brand Al Nusra, Al
Qaeda's Syrian affiliate, as an organisation with which we can do business.
What is good that this is finally coming out ,the denial by both Obama and a very left wing media
has failed to confront this issue in what is an incredibly low point for Obama and Hilary Clinton
and their naive ideas about the Arab Spring.
As it is equally so for David Cameron and William Hague. Sarkozy is different he was not naive
he knew exactly what he was doing thais was about saving french influence in North Africa,he was
thinking about Tunisa, Algeria which he was keen to drag others into -- He was the most savvy of
all those politicians at least he was not a fool,but France priorities are not the same as the
UK --
Obama's comments once again as usual do not really confront the real problems of Libya and
gloss over the key issues and ending up passing the buck, he can do no wrong ? It was not the
aftermath of Libya but the whole idea of changing the controlling demographics of the country
which he played a major part in destabilising through the UN AND Nato which was the problem --
It was thought the lessons of Iraq was all about not putting boots on the ground ,or getting
your feet dirty ,as this antagonises the locals and that a nice clinical arms length bombardment
creating havoc ,is the best way to go .
This was not the lesson of Iraq , which was actually not to destabilise the controlling demographics
of the country which will never recover if you do ..It is one thing to depose a leader or ask
a leader to step down but do not disturb 100 of years controlling demographics, sectarian or not
in these countries is not wise . To do so is a misstep or misjudgement --
Demographics are like sand dunes they have taken many years to evolve and rest uneasy, in the
highly religious and sectarian landscape but can be unsettled over night, grain by grain even
by a small shift in the evening night breeze , a small beetle can zig zag across and the whole
dune will crumble
Once again the US pushed the UK who vied with France at how high they could jump, using the
UN blank cheque as cover ,for melting down the country and has left UN credibilty in taters has
now no credibility and Nato is now not trusted .
They took disgracefully no less the UN 1973 Peace Resolution , point one, Cease fire and point
two No Fly Zone .They bent it , twisted it , contorted it into blatant out right support of the
eastern shiite sympathisers sectarian group, against the more secular Sunni Tripoli groups .
(Gaddafi was not one man Mr apologist Rifkind he was the tribal leaders of a quite a large
tribe !)
Which has been part of a historic rivalry going back hundreds of years . They killed more civilians
that Gaddafi ever had or could have done . They even attacked in a no fly zone government troops
retreating and fired on government planes on the ground in a non fly zone .
Then they refused to negotiate with the government or allow the Organisation of African states
to mediate who had agreed general elections .They went on bombing until there was no infrastructure
no institutions or sand dunes ,or beetles left --
It was done after Iraq and that is why it is so shameful and why Obama , Cameron, Sarkozy ,
the UN , Nato must face up to what they have done , and after the Chilcot enquiry there needs
to be a Cameron enquiry . Presumably it will have the backing of Obama --
What is worse is the knock on effect on this massive arm caches and fighters from Libya then
went on to Syria, reek havoc and destabilised the country . Because Russia and China could never
trust again the UN , the UN has been ineffective in Syria for that very reason .The deaths of
British tourist in next door Tunisia has to laid firmly at David Cameron's and the foreign office
door --
No wonder Libya is keeping Obama awake at night , no wonder he is indulging in damage limitation
, no wonder he is trying to re write history ? How can I get this out of my legacy . If only I
had not met Mr Cameron a yes man -- If only I had been told by some with an once of common sense
, not to touch this country with a barge pole ?
The poor Libyan people will agree with him --
The lesson for the UK is do want you think is right not what the US thinks as right , a lesson
that David Cameron has failed to learn , and has shown he is not a safe pari of hands and lacks
judgement --
1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion of
Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion
of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg the
Saudis).
2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating
Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in Spain.
Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?
3. Didnt forget. the USSR didn't hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West.
And it wasn't Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.
4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab
group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and well
thanks to our lust for control over the region.
Obama? Censored? You forgot Hillary. she even said the other day at the townhall before Miss/MI
to the effect 'if Assad had been taken out early like Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad
as Libya'. laughable really. i presume you aren't criticising Hillary Clinton?
Kosovo is now basket case that we are paying for but it is small. Now we have also backed NeoCon
regime change in Ukraine which we are going to be paying for. Libya will soon have enough Jihadist
training camps to be a direct threat.
What we see is a Strategy of Chaos from the US NeoCons but what we have failed to notice is
that the NeoCons see us as the target, as the enemy.
Totally agree that there is no such thing as Imperialism Lite, just as there is no such thing
as Wahabi Lite or Zionism Lite. So I wonder why Hilary Benn thinks Britain has anything to feel
proud about our foreign policy. It seems to me Britain's Foreign Policy is a combination of incompetence,
jingoism and pure evil.
What is the point of employing the brightest brains in the land at the Foreign Office when we
get it wrong almost all the time ?
"Western warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defence
of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering
military establishments that depend on it."
Attacking Al qaeda in Afghanistan had nothing to do with defending territory?
Libyan 'rebels' were armed and trained by 'the West' in a first place. The plan was the same for
Syria but Russians stopped it with not allowing 'no fly zone' or to call it properly 'bomb them
into the stone age'.
You probably don't know how 'bloody' Gaddafi was to the Libyans.
* GDP per capita - $ 14,192.
* For each family member the state pays $ 1000 grants per year.
* Unemployment - $ 730.
* Salary Nurse - $ 1000.
* For every newborn is paid $ 7000.
* The bride and groom given away $ 64,000 to buy an apartment.
* At the opening of a one-time personal business financial assistance - $ 20,000.
* Large taxes and extortions are prohibited.
* Education and medicine are free.
* Education and training abroad - at the expense of the state.
* Store chain for large families with symbolic prices of basic foodstuffs.
* For the sale of products past their expiry date - large fines and detention.
* Part of pharmacies - with free dispensing.
* For counterfeiting - the death penalty.
* Rents - no.
* No Fees for electricity for households!
* Loans to buy a car and an apartment - interest free.
* Real estate services are prohibited.
* Buying a car up to 50% paid by the state, for militia fighters - 65%.
* Gasoline is cheaper than water. 1 liter - 0,14 $.
* If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary
of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
* Gaddafi carried out the world's largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River
project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country
The Gadaffi regime had upset the USA because Gadaffi was setting up an oil currency system based
on gold rather than US dollars. While this was not the sole reason the West turned against him
it was an important factor. The largest factor for the wars so far, and the planned war against
Iran was to cut out the growing Russian domination of the oil supply to Europe, China and India.
A decent article as we could expect from the author.
However personally I doubt there was no ulterior motive in the case of Lybia. Lybia was one
of the countries who tried the change the status quo on the oil market and it has huge reserves
too (as we know Europe is running out of oil, at least Great Britain is).
It is very likely that the European countries retreated because Libya started to look like
another Iraq.
When you are talking about "democratic forces of the revolution.." i imagine you being an enthusiastic
teenager girl who hardly knows anything about the world but goes somewhere far for a gap year
as a volunteer to make locals aware of something that will help them forever. It is instead of
demanding responsible policies and accountability from her own government.
Sorry!!!
What planet have you been living on. What do you read apart from lifestyle magazines full of shots
of celebrity boobs and bums.
The United states is the most interventionist country in history. Of its 237 years of existence
it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years. NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine.
If the West stopped intervening there would be very few wars and if the West used its influence
for peace rather than control there would rarely be any was at all.
Well put. People forget the importance of oil in maintaining the standard of living in our western
democracies. Controlling it's supply trumps all other issues.
Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the thumb
of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted.
Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world
excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along
with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when
Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as
an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack
police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order.
Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that the wars
in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate Iran and
sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of our Western
leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy outlined in
the US Special Forces document below.
http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf
If you get your facts right it ruins your argument doesn't it.
In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French
valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them.
The nobel peace winner got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while
the permanent objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan,
Sudan, Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya.
These Middle East countries should have been left alone by the West. Due to their nature, these
countries have strong divisions and battle for their beliefs and a strong man, a dictator is what
prevented them to fall into the chaos they are today. Without the Western meddling, arming and
financing various rebel groups, Isis would not exist today.
Neither is putting political opponents in acid baths and burning tyres, as Tony Blair's friends
in the central Asian Republics have been doing, neither is beheading gays, raped women and civil
rights protesters, as Cameron's Saudi friends have been enjoying, the latter whilst we sell them
shit loads of munitions to obliterate Yemeni villagers. I wonder how the Egyptian president is
getting on with all that tear gas and bullets we sold him? And are the Bahrani's, fresh from killing
their own people for daring to ask for civil rights, enjoying the cash we gave them for that new
Royal Navy base? Our foreign policy is complacent and inconsistent, we talk about morality but
the bottom line is that that doesn't come into it when BAE systems and G4S have contracts to win.
Don't get me wrong, Britain has played a positive role internationally in many different areas,
but there is always a neo-liberal arsehole waiting to pop up and ruin the lives of millions, a
turd with a school tie that just wont be flushed away.
Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world to
overthrow third world dictators.
You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend the ultra-liberal, military industrial
economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian, as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and American
Nato toadies.
It is high time that Europe reviewed and evaluated its relationship with the United States, with
NATO, Russia and China. The world needs to be a peaceable place and there needs to be more legislation
imposed upon the Financial Markets to stop them being a place where economic destabilisation and
warfare can and do take place. The United States would not contemplate these reviews taking place
as they are integral to their continuing position in the world but also integral to the problems
we are all experiencing? It will take a brave Europe to do this but it is a step that has to be
taken if the world is to move forward! Britain should be a huge part of this, outside a weakend
EU this would benefit the United States from Britains lack of input, another reason we should
vote to stay and be positive to our European position. The most vulnerable herring is the one
that breaks out of the shoal?
Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The so
called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and neo-Nazis
in Ukraine.
After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their looted arms were transferred
to Syria and renamed ISIS.
ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army, used as required for their Imperial ends.
Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate
Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting
men and weapons across North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for
ISIS
Cameron's Libya policy from start to finish is a foreign policy catastrophe and in a just world
would have seen him thrown out of office on his ear
Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext of
"stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within
Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al
were the war mongers.
Then there is this gem: "Egypt's President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has called for a United Nations
resolution allowing international forces to intervene in Libya.
There was no other choice, he told French radio. "We will not allow them to cut off the heads
of our children."
"We abandoned the Libyan people as prisoners to extremist militias," Mr Sisi told Europe 1
radio. He was referring to the aftermath of the 2011 war in which Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi
was toppled with the help of an international coalition.
That intervention was "an unfinished mission", he said."
The US, France and the UK own this ongoing mess but do not have the moral fortitude to clean
it up. As with the "Arab Spring", this will not end well.
The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from
all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself
adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now
running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude
and no effort should be spared to address it
The west who propped up the Saudis, who's crazy wahhabi brand of Islam helped radicalise the Islamic
world with 100 billion dollars spent on promoting it.
The west who created israel and then has done nothing to stop israels ever growing land theft
and occupation over decades (not even a single sanction)...leading the Muslim world to hate us
more for our hypocrisy and double standards.
The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular leaders
who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships
who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated
and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists.
The west who arms brutal dictators to wage proxy wars and then invades and bombs these same
dictators countries over claims they have WMDs (that we sold to them).
The west has been intervening in the middle east alot longer than post 9/11. We are very very
culpable for the disasters engulfing the region.
Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes sense for us to unilaterally strike
against the Gaddafi regime"
Let's examine what Obama is saying here: when it is perceived to be at the core of US
interests, the USA reserves the right to attack any country, at any time.
The world inhabits a moral vacuum, and in that state, any country can justifiably choose to
do anything, against anyone, for any reason. And this guy got the Nobel Peace Prize.
In this despicable saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised
north Africa and may yet turn it into another Islamic State caliphate.
You forgot to mention Cameron was only following Sarkozy .
Don't forget the French role .
25 February 2011: Sarkozy said Gaddafi "must go."
28 February 2011: British Prime Minister David Cameron proposed the idea of a no-fly zone
11 March 2011: Cameron joined forces with Sarkozy after Sarkozy demanded immediate action
from international community for a no-fly zone against air attacks by Gaddafi.
14 March 2011: In Paris at the Élysée Palace, before the summit with the G8 Minister for
Foreign Affairs, Sarkozy, who is also the president of the G8, along with French Foreign Minister
Alain Juppé met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and pressed her to push for intervention
in Libya
.
19 March 2011: French[72] forces began the military intervention in Libya, later joined
by coalition forces
Well said in the headline. Imperialism-lite/heavy, colonialism, and neo-colonialism don't work,
should be a thing of the past. Intervening in the politics of another country is a mug's game.
Don't understand why Obama is blaming Cameron for it, perhaps playing to his domestic gallery.
Blair's love fest with the deluded Gaddafi family, followed by the volte-face of pushing for his
violent overthrow by the next government, were both severely misguided policies. Need to diplomatically
encourage change, in foreign policy, and the desired type of political movements to take hold.
Military interventions have the opposite effect, so does propping up dictators, religiously fanatical
regimes, proven time and time again.
So the choices are to do nothing, or invade and create a colony?
Pretty much. As Jenkins rightly says, if you want to launch an aggressive war you either do
it or you don't. If you do it then it is your responsibility to clear up the mess, however many
of your own lives are lost and however much it costs. Trashing a country and then buggering off
is not an option.
Of course, using force for defensive reasons is fine. That's why modern warmongering politicians
always call it "defence" when they drop bombs on innocent people in faraway countries. It is no
such thing.
There was no massacre, not even a hint of one. Total obfuscation to give Hillary Clinton a foreign
policy "success" so that she could use it as a springboard to the presidency. "Hillary Clinton
was so proud of her major role in instigating the war against Libya that she and her advisors
initially planned to use it as basis of a "Clinton doctrine", meaning a "smart power" regime change
strategy, as a presidential campaign slogan.
War creates chaos, and Hillary Clinton has been an eager advocate of every U.S. aggressive
war in the last quarter of a century. These wars have devastated whole countries and caused an
unmanageable refugee crisis. Chaos is all there is to show for Hillary's vaunted "foreign policy
experience".
"... It's on the front page of the Washington Post website today. I happened almost 4 months ago FFS. The Guardian is getting worse and worse. An entire group of comments were just vanished for having some fun speculating about Russian and American agencies and pimps in DC. This paper is getting untrustworthy and PC beyond belief. I suppose some executive decision has been made that the only way to survive is to cater exclusively to their political base. Might as well be Fox News. Just sell it to Murdock. ..."
Some bloggers suggest Mikhail Lesin could be in US witness protection and faked his own
death while others say it could have happened as a result of a fight
RT is the only serious media outlet. BBC, ABC, CNN all report government press releases with
no investigative journalism involved.
RT's coverage of the masscare of a few hundred Kurdish
civilians by Turkey last month is something you would never see reported by Western media,
despite it being a war crime.
Much prefer RT to the to dreary BBC with it's tired predictable spin, not to mention Jimmy
Saville related excesses. RT covers stories and angles you can't find in western mainstream
corporate media.
Russian (small time) oligarch gets beaten to death in nice DC hotel near embassy.
Suspects: Some bigger oligarchs, secretive but clumsy operatives from USA, Russia, Opec, simple
robbery or angry whore he tried to cheat. Neither the US nor Russia wants to actually know the
truth which could be embarrassing, so schtum. Forgeddaboudit.
22 - Dr. Stanley Heard - Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee,
died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Again, tampering with the plane.
Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton's advisory council personally treated Clinton's
mother, stepfather and brother.
23 - Barry Seal - Drug running pilot out of Mena Arkansas, death was no accident.
24 - Johnny Lawhorn Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of a
car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole.
Apparently he was dead before the car hit the pole.
25 - Stanley Huggins - Investigated Madison Guarantee. His death was a purported suicide and
his report was never released.
26 - Hershell Friday - Attorney and Clinton fund raiser died March 1, 1994 when his plane
exploded. This happen two days after an argument with Clinton.
27 - Kevin Ives and Don Henry - Known as "The boys on the track" case. Reports say the boys
may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. A controversial case, the
initial report of death said, due to falling asleep on railroad tracks. Later reports claim
the two boys had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died
before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.
THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD INFORMATION
ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:
28 - Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle apparently slammed into the back of a truck, July
1988. No one saw the accident and the bike was not damaged.
29 - Keith McMaskle - Died stabbed 113 times, Nov, 1988
30 - Gregory Collins - Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.
31 - Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989.
33 - James Milan - Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to "natural
causes."
34 - Jordan Kettleson - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June
1990.
35 - Richard Winters - A suspect in the Ives / Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery
July 1989.
THE FOLLOWING CLINTON BODYGUARDS ARE DEAD:
36 - Major William S. Barkley Jr.
37 - Captain Scott J. Reynolds
38 - Sgt. Brian Hanley
39 - Sgt. Tim Sabel
40 - Major General William Robertson
41 - Col. William Densberger
42 - Col. Robert Kelly
43 - Spec. Gary Rhodes
44 - Steve Willis
45 - Robert Williams
46 - Conway LeBleu
47 - Todd McKeehan
All had said to friends that they had seen too much.
Because everyone knows that American practice is to brutally kill its former favourites with a
blunt instrument to the back of the head. God knows Putin couldn't be associated with
"justice" of this kind.
That's nothing compared to the Clinton associates, do you care to explain?
1 - James McDougal
- Clinton's convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary
confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr's investigation.
2 - Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee
Shop in Georgetown. The murder happened just after she was to go public with her story of
sexual harassment in the White House.
3 - Vince Foster - Former white House councilor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little
Rock's Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide.
4 - Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman who had a serious disagreement
with Clinton. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the
investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown's skull resembling a gunshot
wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his
willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors.
5 - C. Victor Raiser II and Montgomery Raiser, Major players in the Clinton fund raising
organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992.
6 - Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room
in Little Rock, September 1992...after a serious disagreement with Clinton. Described by
Clinton as a "Dear friend and trusted advisor." 7- Ed Willey - Clinton fund raiser, found dead
November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed
Willey died on the same day after his wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton groped her in
the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton fund raising
events.
8 - Jerry Parks - Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in Little Rock. Gunned down in
his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock. Park's son said his father was
building a dossier on Clinton. He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he
died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.
9 - James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a "Black Book" of
people which contained names of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and
Arkansas. Although the book was seen by several persons, it disappeared.
10 - James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He had ties
to Whitewater.
11- Kathy Ferguson, ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson, was found dead in May 1994, in
her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were
several packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant
along with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Kathy Ferguson was a corroborating witness
for Paula Jones.
12 - Bill Shelton - Arkansas State Trooper and fiancČe of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the
suicide ruling of his fiancČe, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a
suicide at the grave site of his fiancee. There were no powder burns.
13 - Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton's friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window of
a tall building January, 1994. His client was a convicted drug distributor.
14 - Florence Martin - Accountant & sub-contractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal
Mena Airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot wounds.
15 - Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney
General. Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the
time of her death.
16 - Paula Grober - Clinton's speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death
December 9, 1992. She died in a one car accident. She told a friend that Clinton made
advances.
17 - Danny Casolaro - Investigative reporter. Investigating Mena Airport and Arkansas
Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his
investigation. Before his death, he claimed to have found a shattering story involving
Clinton.
18 - Paul Wilcher - Attorney investigating corruption at Mena Airport with Casolaro and the
1980 "October Surprise" was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993 in his Washington DC
apartment. Had delivered a shocking report to Janet Reno three weeks before his death.
19 - Jon Parnell Walker - Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his
death from his Arlington, Virginia apartment balcony August 15, 1993. He was investigating the
Morgan Guarantee scandal.
20 - Barbara Wise - Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang.
Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised, nude body was found locked in her
office at the Department of Commerce.
21- Charles Meissner - Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security
clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash. The plane had been tampered with.
On Friday, Russian officials said they had been asking the Americans for information
about the investigation with no results.
This is very strange indeed, why arent they sharing info with the Russians? Can anyone
imagine the uproar, if a former high ranking american official died like this in Moscow? Im
sure they would already be talking about adding more sanctions to say the least..
So... Lesin died in Sept 2015.. and since then it has escaped the U.S. coroner that the
deceased had blunt force trauma to the head, neck, torso and limbs.. His family were told that
he'd had a heart attack... I've attended a few post mortems myself, and I can say quite safely
that blunt force trauma and heart attacks cannot be confused with one another...
There is
something rotten in the state of Denmark..
and by Denmark I mean DC.
It's on the front page of the Washington Post website today. I happened almost 4 months ago
FFS. The Guardian is getting worse and worse. An entire group of comments were just vanished
for having some fun speculating about Russian and American agencies and pimps in DC. This
paper is getting untrustworthy and PC beyond belief. I suppose some executive decision has
been made that the only way to survive is to cater exclusively to their political base. Might
as well be Fox News. Just sell it to Murdock.
The Russian embassy in Washington confirmed Mikhail Lesin's Last November and State-owned RIA
Novosti reported that he died of a heart attack, citing a spokesman for his family. Russian
officials must have known that he died under suspicious circumstances. This was in DC near all
the embassies not out in the sticks.
Last year the Mississippi senator Roger Wicker called for an investigation into Lesin's wealth
on suspicion of money laundering and corruption. He allegedly amassed millions of dollars in
assets in Europe and the US, including $28m in Los Angeles real estate.
What amazes me most about the thread below is not so much the insane conspiracies stupid
americans and their equally facile englander 'cousins' have posted, it is that absolutely none
of them are provided with a scintilla of evidence implicating the Russian prez in any of it.
Yet the drongos & dipshits continue to spout their total bullshit in the belief that if enough
of these propagandists and their willing jackasses paper the media with fantasy, that fools
will lap it up.
It is looking increasingly like that isn't the case.
Ever since Russia has sorted Syria inside 6 months after 'western' corruption/incompetence
failed to do so after 4 years and many billions of dollars were used up, ordinary humans about
the world and increasingly in 'the west' are realising they have been fed a total crock by
worthless outlets such as this one for far too long.
As for the actual case it appears that
Mr Lesin isn't only a victim of US' violent society he is also a victim of the incompetence of
the US 'justice' system. Once again people are beginning to wake up to the serial incompetence
& corruption of the multi-headed hydra that is US 'law enforcement' thanks to organisations
such as Black Lives Matter & documentaries like "Making a Murderer".
Anyone who hasn't watched that program should- afterwards you will wonder how it is the US
finds the gall to criticise Russian law enforcement when even small town US police and
prosecution entities are riven with bias, perjury, torture and evidence planting.
Not only is US law enforcement totally corrupt, the justice system has been perverted into a
Kafkaesque machine to conceal that corruption and actively prevent injustice from being
corrected.
Sort out your own shit america - once you have done that, then maybe you will earn the right
to push your self righteous exceptionalism onto the rest of us.
Of course if you did sort yourself out, then you wouldn't need to be pointing to other nations
and telling them what to do - you would be secure in the knowledge that you were doing OK.
But that won't happen - what will happen is that US functionaries will get louder and more
hysterical in their critiques of everyone else, meanwhile ordinary decent humans about the
planet will recognise the howls for what they are - the death throes of an empire in terminal
decline.
because he deserved it and back then they kept quite about it until Ukraine and Syria crisis
appeared. The guardian, BBC, the boys in Riga who write here are all part of anti-Russian
propaganda machine. believe or not but it is a fact. Ffs, they even use Sharapova to attack
Russia. the west is so desperate.
This is a common story and a common end to people who fall out with Putin.
And those
hapless souls who earn the mainstream oligarch American disapprobation. Where to Start:
Mossadegh in Iran
Arbenz in Guatelema
Allende in Chile
Lamumba in the Congo
Multiple attempts on Castro
Noriega in Panama
Saddam in Iraq (a public lynching)
Gaddafi in Libya what was it Hilary said, 'we came, we saw, he died,'
All felt the wrath of American justice usually dished out by CIA-trained and funded
proxies.
Then of course were those deaths of leading Americans, the Kennedy bros, and the
assassination of dissidents Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. All very murky. And you have the
temerity to call Russia a mafia state.
the golden rule: kill first and then blame Russians, since there are plenty of idiots in the
western world to believe anything their pig-fucking leaders say.
What kind of medical examiner takes four months to decide whether a man had a heart attack or
was beaten to death?
Or, if they had this information months ago, why is it only now being
released?
With Russia/Assad/Iran completing a very embarrassing destruction of NATO plans for Syria,
as well as establishing just how false the Western media's narrative had become, you can
expect a lot more anti-Putin, anti-Russia gossip and nonsense. Snide, bitter insinuation and
propaganda is all they have left.
the guy died in Washington ffs, and fucking 4 months ago. wasn't it obvious to police he was
killed by beating? is it the Russian coroners and police in charge of his death? no! it is the
job of either CIA or Mossad as he was Jewish.
This story is much delayed, and is apparently being intentionally "back burnered" by our major
U.S. media orgs. The story should be kept on the first page, regardless of what the U.S.
government has asked the media to do and not do. It is potentially instructive to we U.S.
citizens, likely more as to our own government activities than those of Russia.
$28m is peanuts to Erdogan. He's no Putin, but he's more than likely got hundreds of millions
stashed away, if not more.
Estimates of Blair's wealth range from Ł20m to Ł60m. Who knows
with that slippery bastard. Osborne's supposedly worth Ł5m, but I suspect the real figure is
much higher.
What seems to be most apparent in the majority of modern neo-liberal politicians is their
evident desire to use public office as merely a stepping stone to vast wealth.
Western powers will view the reaction to this story as a very encouraging sign that the
propaganda is most definitely working.
- Major Russian figure murdered.
- Happens in the US, home of the CIA
- US coroner rules the what looks like a clearly violent death as inconclusive
- Everyone thinks Putin is responsible
- Slow handclap
Chin up, boys. Like Lt. Lockhart said in Full Metal Jacket: "In other words, it's a huge shit sandwich,
and we're all gonna have to take a bite."
Life will not get any better, or at least
much
better, than it is already. And it's likely
to get a whole lot worse tomorrow. There is true freedom in realizing that. The strength in personality
is to
grok the horrors of
reality
without retreating to
the comfort of fantasy stories
. Most aren't up to the task.
"The irony of man's condition is that the deepest need is to be free of the anxiety of death and
annihilation; but it is life itself which awakens it, and so we must shrink from being fully alive."
-
Ernest Becker
The Denial of Death
"A Civilization is a dominant community that imposes its beliefs upon all other communities
by violence, which must involve the use of genocide; so any community that recoils from inflicting
genocide will suffer genocide."
The best essay I've ever seen on the philosophical question
of good/evil comes from an anarchist...and you know what I think
of anarchist. (Im still willing to learn from my lessors.)
Are humans essentially good, or essentially evil? This
is one of the most basic, perennial questions in philosophy.
Many identify our individual answers to this question as determing
our political spectrum - conservatives believe humans are inherently
evil, and require strict rules to make them good, while liberals
believe humans are inherently good, and must simply be free to
act on such goodness. Both positions are unrealistic. Humans
are products of evolution, and evolution is unconcerned with
such abstractions as "good" or "evil." As Aristotle said, humans
are social animals. We are neither "good" nor "evil." We are
only inherently social.
"Think about it. We all start out the same way... a single sperm
among 50 million other sperm, all desperate to get to one egg. To win.
You, me, everyone else on the planet ever in history, we all won that
100-meter in-utero, winner-take-all race to mama's enchanted, life-giving
egg. First prize? Life? Second prize? Death. Right. Now, you think
we weren't throwing a few elbows? You think you weren't knocking a
few other sperm over, stabbing 'em in the back just to get ahead, just
to win? Thom, you don't win that kind of race without being an asshole.
I mean, a huge asshole. Your problem is you think that assholes are
some sort of anomaly, some sort of aberration. Nature is an asshole
factory, my friend.
If you exist, you're an asshole.
You think, therefore you are, but you are, therefore you're
an asshole."
-
Nature is an asshole making factory
Happyish
Showtime, 2015
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGjTHtPn_No
merica is the
destabilizing force
, ongoing, as
soon as order and boundries get established like wolves do, we will
re-arrive on command from a secret message from our higher powers and
stir the hornets nests. then we can claim democracy is in progress
once again. now do you understand?
I am almost certain that at least some on the ground are more than
aware of who orchestrated this nightmare (hell some probably get patched
up in Israeli hospitals)...but I bet they are more concerned with the
bastards shooting at them right now. However, it is certain that whatever
the result of this mess, Israel has not made many new friends in the region...but
once you realise that the whole purpose of Israel is to remain a weeping
sore in the most resource rich region on earth everything starts to make
sense.
Israel is
supposed
to be a nightmare apartheid
weapons testing ground murdering kids everyday. That way the Rothschild
central bank owners in the three city states that comprise the City of
London, Washington DC and the Vatican can extract resources from the surrounding
countries for pennies on the dollar!!! The plan works perfectly when you
think like a diabolical psychopath. If anything the poor Jewish people
comprise a useful scapegoat that can at anytime be ditched and blamed
once the resources in the region become depleted or the global economy
moves beyond petroleum products. Israel is a vital lynchpin of the petrodollar
like Saudi Arabia. I am actually quite sure that once supporting it is
no longer profitable to the "west" it will be cut adrift. In fact, I believe
that barring any Zionist plots, this process has already begun with the
Iran deal. If oil becomes redundant or abundant in the next few centuries
I actually expect the Israelis themselves will push for a peace deal before
they get pushed into the sea. Any thoughts?
In fact, I would go so far as to say that Israel is a classic
British colonial project. We British are renowned for transplanting
foreigners into other peoples lands and hoovering up the resources
that fall out of the inevitable bust up!! Just look at the Sri
Lankan mess we made by importing Indians of a different religion to
work the tea plantations...It caused a bloody nightmare for over a
century whilst we extracted Ceylon's finest...It is kind of
depressing when you think about how well it worked. Thankfully the
Sri Lankans kicked us out once the jig was up but the damage it
caused continued for decades after we left. Disgraceful really.
Geepers, whose propoganda book did you pull this mess from? And
as far as he US backing away from Israel, you're right on that
one. But...its because of that Dangling Dingbat with a Loose
Wingnut we got in DC and his slightly confused and murdering self
destructing administration that's doing it. Not the "We the
people" or is that "we the folk"
"... Brazil is corrupt to the core - from the comprador elites down to a great deal of the crass "new" elites, which include the PT. The greed and incompetence displayed by an array of PT stalwarts is appalling - a reflection of the lack of quality cadres. Corruption and traffic of influence involving Petrobras, construction companies and politicians is undeniable, even if it pales compared to Goldman Sachs shenanigans or Big Oil and/or Koch Brothers/Sheldon Adelson-style buying/bribing of US politicians. ..."
"... The Central Bank still keeps its benchmark interest rate at a whopping 14.25%. A disastrous Rousseff neoliberal "fiscal adjustment" actually increased the economic crisis. Today Rousseff "governs" - that's a figure of speech - for the banking cartel and the rentiers of Brazilian public debt. Over $120 billion of the government's budget evaporates to pay interest on the public debt. ..."
"... It's no coincidence that three major BRICS nations are simultaneously under attack - on myriad levels: Russia, China and Brazil. The concerted strategy by the Masters of the Universe who dictate the rules in the Wall Street/Beltway axis is to undermine by all means the BRICS's collective effort to produce a viable alternative to the global economic/financial system, which for the moment is subjected to casino capitalism. It's unlikely Lula, by himself, will be able to stop them. ..."
"... These oligarchs,.. GOOD. Those oligarchs.... BAD. ..."
"... The Oligarchs of the BRICS have been duped and co-opted by TPTB in the US. Their foot-dragging and lack or decisive and timely action means that their Window Of Opportunity is probably gone. The various Trans-Oceanic Trade Deals that the US has cooking is front-running their indecisiveness and lack of action. ..."
"... They are 'toast', because these Trade Deals have the USD baked into them, and the combined GDPs of each Pact is far bigger than that of the BRICS. ..."
Imagine one of the most admired global political leaders in modern
history taken from his apartment at 6 am by armed Brazilian Federal Police
agents and forced into an unmarked car to the Sao Paulo airport to be interrogated
for almost four hours in connection with a billion dollar corruption scandal
involving the giant state oil company Petrobras.
This is the stuff Hollywood is made of. And that was exactly
the logic behind the elaborate production.
The public prosecutors of the two-year-old Car Wash investigation maintain there
are "
elements of proof " implicating Lula in receiving funds - at least 1.1 million
euros - from the dodgy kickback scheme involving major Brazilian construction
companies connected to Petrobras. Lula might - and the operative word is "might"
- have personally profited from it mostly in the form of a ranch (which he does
not own), a relatively modest seaside apartment, speaking fees in the global
lecture circuit, and donations to his charity.
Lula is the ultimate political animal - on a Bill Clinton level. He had already
telegraphed he was waiting for such a gambit, as the Car Wash machine had already
arrested dozens of people suspected of embezzling contracts between their companies
and Petrobras - to the tune of over $2 billion - to pay for politicians of the
Workers' Party (PT), of which Lula was leader.
Lula's name surfaced via the proverbial rascal turned informer, eager to
strike a plea bargain. The working hypothesis - there is no smoking gun - is
that Lula, when he led Brazil between 2003 and 2010, personally benefited from
the corruption scheme with Petrobras at the center, obtaining favors for himself,
the PT and the government. Meanwhile, inefficient President Dilma Rousseff is
herself under attack engineered via a plea bargain by the former government
leader in the Senate.
Lula was questioned in connection to money laundering, corruption and suspected
dissimulation of assets. The Hollywood blitz was cleared by federal judge Sergio
Moro - who always insists he's been inspired by the Italian judge Antonio di
Pietro and the notorious 1990s
Mani Pulite
("Clean Hands") investigation.
And here, inevitably, the plot thickens.
Round up the usual media suspects
Moro and the Car Wash prosecutors justified the Hollywood blitz insisting
Lula refused to be interrogated. Lula and the PT vehemently insist otherwise.
And yet Car Wash investigators had consistently leaked to mainstream media
words to the effect, "We can't just bite Lula. When we get to him, we will swallow
him." This would imply, at a minimum, a politicization of justice, the Federal
Police and the Public Ministry. And would also imply that the Hollywood blitz
may have been supported by a smoking gun. As perception is reality in the frenetic
non-stop news cycle, the "news" - instantly global - was that Lula was arrested
because he's corrupt.
Yet it gets curioser and curioser when we learn that judge Moro wrote an
article in an obscure magazine way back in 2004 (in Portuguese only, titled
Considerations about Mani Pulite , CEJ magazine, issue number 26, July/September
2004), where he clearly extols "authoritarian subversion of juridical order
to reach specific targets " and using the media to intoxicate the political
atmosphere.
All of this serving a very specific agenda, of course. In Italy, right-wingers
saw the whole Mani Pulite saga as a nasty judicial over-reach; the left, on
the other hand, was ecstatic. The Italian Communist Party (PCI) emerged with
clean hands. In Brazil, the target is the left - while the right, at least for
the moment, seems to be composed of hymn-singing angels.
The pampered, cocaine-snorting loser candidate of the 2014 Brazilian presidential
election, Aecio Neves, for instance, was singled out for corruption by three
different accusers - and it all went nowhere, without further investigation.
Same with another dodgy scheme involving former president Fernando Henrique
Cardoso - the notoriously vainglorious former developmentalist turned neoliberal
enforcer.
What Car Wash has already forcefully imprinted across Brazil is the
perception that corruption only pays when the accused is a progressive nationalist.
As for Washington consensus vassals, they are always
angels - mercifully immune from prosecution.
That's happening because Moro and his team are masterfully playing to the
hilt Moro's self-described use of the media to intoxicate the political atmosphere
- with public opinion serially manipulated even before someone is formally charged
with any crime. And yet Moro and his prosecutors' sources are largely farcical,
artful dodgers cum serial liars. Why trust their word? Because there are no
smoking guns, something even Moro admits.
And that leads us towards the nasty scenario of a made in Brazil media-judicial-police
complex possibly hijacking one of the healthiest democracies in the world. And
that is supported by a stark fact: the right-wing Brazilian opposition's entire
"project" boils down to ruining the economy of the 7 th largest global
economic power to justify the destruction of Lula as a presidential candidate
in 2018.
Elite Plundering Rules
None of the above can be understood by a global audience without some acquaintance
with classic Braziliana. Local legend rules that Brazil is not for beginners.
Indeed; this is an astonishingly complex society - which essentially descended
from a Garden of Eden (before the Portuguese "discovered" it in 1500) to slavery
(which still permeates all social relations) to a crucial event in 1808: the
arrival of
Dom John VI of Portugal (and Emperor of Brazil for life), fleeing Napoleon's
invasion, and carrying with him 20,000 people who masterminded the "modern"
Brazilian state. "Modern" is an euphemism; history shows the descendants of
these 20,000 actually have been raping the country blind for the past 208 years.
And few have ever been held accountable.
Traditional Brazilian elites compose one of the most noxious arrogant-ignorant-prejudiced
mixes on the planet. "Justice" - and police enforcement - are only used as a
weapon when the polls do not favor their agenda.
Brazilian mainstream media owners are an intrinsic part of these elites.
Much like the US concentration model, only four families control the media landscape,
foremost among them the Marinho family's Globo media empire. I have experienced,
from the inside, in detail, how they operate.
Brazil is corrupt to the core - from the comprador elites down to a great
deal of the crass "new" elites, which include the PT. The greed and incompetence
displayed by an array of PT stalwarts is appalling - a reflection of the lack
of quality cadres. Corruption and traffic of influence involving Petrobras,
construction companies and politicians is undeniable, even if it pales compared
to Goldman Sachs shenanigans or Big Oil and/or Koch Brothers/Sheldon Adelson-style
buying/bribing of US politicians.
If this was a no-holds-barred
crusade against corruption - which the Car Wash prosecutors insist it is
- the right-wing opposition/vassals of the old elites should have been equally
exposed in mainstream media. But then the elite-controlled media would simply
ignore the prosecutors. And there would be nothing remotely on the scale of
the Hollywood blitz, with Lula - pictured as a lowly delinquent - humiliated
in front of the whole planet.
Car Wash prosecutors are right; perception is reality. But what if it backfires?
No consumption, no investment, no credit
Brazil couldn't be in a gloomier situation. GDP was down 3.8% last year;
probably will be down 3.5% this year. The industrial sector was down 6.2% last
year, and the mining sector down 6.6% in the last quarter. The nation is on
the way to its worst recession since…1901.
There was no Plan B by the - incompetent - Rousseff administration for the
Chinese slowdown in buying Brazil's mineral/agricultural wealth and the overall
global slump in commodity prices.
The Central Bank still keeps its benchmark interest rate at a whopping
14.25%. A disastrous Rousseff neoliberal "fiscal adjustment" actually increased
the economic crisis. Today Rousseff "governs" - that's a figure of speech -
for the banking cartel and the rentiers of Brazilian public debt. Over $120
billion of the government's budget evaporates to pay interest on the public
debt.
Inflation is up - now in double-digit territory. Unemployment is at 7.6%
- still not bad as many a player across the EU - but rising.
The usual suspects of course are gloating, spinning non-stop how Brazil has
become "toxic" for global investors.
Yes, it's bleak. There's no consumption. No investment. No credit. The only
way out would be to unlock the political crisis. Maggots in the opposition racket
though have a one-track obsession; the impeachment of President Rousseff. Shades
of good ol' regime change; for these Wall Street/Empire of Chaos vassals, an
economic crisis, fueled by a political crisis, must by all means bring down
the elected government of a key BRICS player.
And then, suddenly, out of left field, surges…Lula. The move against him
by the Car Wash investigation may yet backfire - badly. He's already on campaign
mode for 2018 - although he's not an official candidate, yet. Never underestimate
a political animal of his stature.
Brazil is not on the ropes. If reelected, and assuming he could purge the
PT from a legion of crooks, Lula could push for a new dynamic. Before the crisis,
Brazilian capital was going global - via Petrobras, Embraer, the BNDES (the
bank model that inspired the BRICS bank), the construction companies. At the
same time, there might be benefits in breaking, at least partially, this oligarchic
cartel that control all infrastructure construction in Brazil; think of Chinese
companies building the high-speed rail, dams and ports the country badly lacks.
Judge Moro himself has theorized that corruption festers because the Brazilian
economy is too closed to the outside world, as India's was until recently. But
there's a stark difference between opening up some sectors of the Brazilian
economy and let foreign interests tied to the comprador elites plunder the nation's
wealth.
So once again, we must go back to the recurrent theme in all major global
conflicts.
It's the oil, stupid
For the Empire of Chaos, Brazil has been a major headache since Lula was
first elected, in 2002 (for an appraisal of complex US-Brazil relations, check
the indispensable work of Moniz Bandeira).
A top priority of the Empire of Chaos is to prevent the emergence of regional
powers fueled by abundant natural resources, from oil to strategic minerals.
Brazil amply fits the bill. Washington of course feels entitled to "defend"
these resources. Thus the need to quash not only regional integration associations
such as Mercosur and Unasur but most of all the global reach of the BRICS.
Petrobras used to be a very efficient state company that then doubled as
the single operator of the largest oil reserves discovered in the 21 st
century so far; the pre-salt deposits. Before it became the target of
a massive speculative, judicial and media attack, Petrobras used to account
for 10% of investment and 18% of Brazilian GDP.
Petrobras found the pre-salt deposits based on its own research
and technological innovation applied to exploring oil in deep waters - with
no foreign input whatsoever. The beauty is there's no risk; if you drill in
this pre-salt layer, you're bound to find oil. No company on the planet would
hand this over to the competition.
And yet a notorious right-wing opposition maggot promised Chevron in 2014
to hand over the exploitation of pre-salt mostly to Big Oil. The right-wing
opposition is busy altering the juridical regime of pre-salt; it's already been
approved in the Senate. And Rousseff is meekly going for it. Couple it to the
fact that Rousseff's government did absolutely nothing to buy back Petrobras
stock - whose vertiginous fall was deftly engineered by the usual suspects.
The meticulous dismantling of Petrobras, Big Oil eventually profiting from
the pre-salt deposits, keeping in check Brazil's global power projection, all
this plays beautifully to the interests of the Empire of Chaos. Geopolitically,
this goes way beyond the Hollywood blitz and the Car Wash investigation.
It's no coincidence that three major BRICS nations are simultaneously
under attack - on myriad levels: Russia, China and Brazil. The concerted strategy
by the Masters of the Universe who dictate the rules in the Wall Street/Beltway
axis is to undermine by all means the BRICS's collective effort to produce a
viable alternative to the global economic/financial system, which for the moment
is subjected to casino capitalism. It's unlikely Lula, by himself, will be able
to stop them.
The Oligarchs of the BRICS have been duped and co-opted by TPTB in
the US. Their foot-dragging and lack or decisive and timely action means
that their Window Of Opportunity is probably gone. The various Trans-Oceanic
Trade Deals that the US has cooking is front-running their indecisiveness
and lack of action.
They are 'toast', because these Trade Deals have the USD baked into
them, and the combined GDPs of each Pact is far bigger than that of the
BRICS.
Math + Action beats Hope + Hype every time, kiddies. (Those of you who
can't handle the Truth or the Cognitive Dissonance, had best go to their
"Safe Space".)
"... So now Greece has to accommodate ever more refugees because all borders close, something Greece cannot afford since the bailout talks left it incapable of even looking after its own people, while over the next ten days it can expect a surge of 'new' refugees to arrive from Turkey, afraid they'll be stuck there after a deal is done. Greece will become a "holding pen", and the refugees will be the livestock. A warehouse of souls, a concentration camp. ..."
"... Refugees from war -torn countries are per definition not 'illegal'. What is illegal, on the other hand, is to refuse them asylum. So all the talk about 'illegal migrants' emanating from shills like Donald Tusk is at best highly questionable. The freshly introduced term 'irregular migrants' is beyond the moral pale. ..."
"... In that same terminology vein, the idea that Turkey is a 'safe third country', as the EU so desperately wants to claim, is downright crazy. That is not for the EU to decide, if only because it has -again, immoral- skin in the game. ..."
"... All this terminology manipulation, ironically, plays into the hands of the very right wing movements that Angela Merkel fears losing this weekend's elections to. They create a false picture and atmosphere incumbent 'leaders' try to use to hold on to power, but it will end up making them lose that power. ..."
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them… well, I
have others."
– Groucho Marx
What is perhaps most remarkable about the deal the EU is trying to
seal with Turkey to push back ALL refugees who come to Greece is that the driving
force behind it turns out to be Angela Merkel. Reports say that she
and temp EU chairman Dutch PM Mark Rutte 'pushed back' the entire EU delegation
that had been working on the case, including Juncker and Tusk, and came with
proposals that go much further than even Brussels had in mind.
Why? Angela has elections this weekend she's afraid to lose.
It's also remarkable that the deal with the devil they came up with is fraught
with so many legal uncertainties -it not outright impossibilities- that it's
highly unlikely the deal will ever be closed, let alone implemented. One thing
they will have achieved is that refugees will arrive in much larger numbers
over the next ten days, before a sequel meeting will be held, afraid as they
will be to be pushed back after that date.
They may not have to be so scared of that, because anything remotely like
what was agreed on will face so many legal challenges it may be DOA. Moreover,
in the one-for-one format that is on the table, Europe would be forced to accept
as many refugees from Turkey as it pushes back to that country. Have Merkel
and Rutte realized this? Or do they think they can refuse that later, or slow
it down?
Under the deal, Turkey seems to have little incentive to prevent
refugees from sailing to Greece. Because for every one who sails and returns,
Turkey can send one to Europe. What if that comes to a million, or
two, three? The numbers of refugees in Turkey will remain the same, while the
number in Europe will keep growing ad infinitum.
* * *
Sweet Jesus, Angela, we understand you have problems with the refugee situation,
and that you have elections coming up this weekend, but what made you think
the answer can be found in playing fast and loose with the law? And
what, for that matter, do you expect to gain from negotiating a Faustian deal
with the devil? Surely you know that makes you lose your soul?
You said yesterday that history won't look kindly on the EU if it
fails on refugees, but how do you think history will look on you for trying
to sign a deal that violates various international laws, including the Geneva
Conventions? You have this aura of being kinder than most of Europe
to the refugees, but then you go and sell them out to a guy who aids ISIS, massacres
Kurds, shuts down all the media he doesn't like and makes a killing smuggling
refugees to Greece?
Or are we getting this backwards, and are you shrewdly aware that the elections
come before the next meeting with Turkey, and are you already planning to ditch
the entire deal once the elections are done, or have your legal team assured
you that there's no way it will pass the court challenges it will inevitably
provoke?
It would be smart if that's the case, but it's also quite dark: we
are still talking about human beings here, of which hundreds of thousands
have already died in the countries the living are fleeing, or during their flight
(and we don't mean by plane), and tens of thousands -and counting, fast- are
already stuck in Greece, with one country after the other closing their borders
after the -potential- deal became public knowledge.
So now Greece has to accommodate ever more refugees because all borders
close, something Greece cannot afford since the bailout talks left
it incapable of even looking after its own people, while over the next ten days
it can expect a surge of 'new' refugees to arrive from Turkey, afraid they'll
be stuck there after a deal is done. Greece will become a "holding pen",
and the refugees will be the livestock. A warehouse of souls, a concentration
camp.
The circumstances under which these human beings have been forced to flee
their homes, to travel thousands of miles, and now to try and stay alive in
Greece, are already way below morally acceptable. Just look at Idomeni! You
should do all you can to improve their conditions, not to risk making them worse.
Where and how you do that is another matter, but the principle should stand.
You should be in Greece right now, Angela, asking Tsipras how you
can help him with this unfolding mayhem, how much money he needs and what other
resources you can offer. Instead, Athens today hosts the Troika and
Victoria "F**k the EU" Nuland. That is so completely insane it can't escape
the protagonists themselves either.
* * *
Refugees from war -torn countries are per definition not 'illegal'. What
is illegal, on the other hand, is to refuse them asylum. So all the
talk about 'illegal migrants' emanating from shills like Donald Tusk is at best
highly questionable. The freshly introduced term 'irregular migrants' is beyond
the moral pale.
As is the emphasis on using the term 'migrant' versus 'refugee' that both
European politicians and the international press are increasingly exhibiting,
because it is nothing but a cheap attempt to influence public opinion while
at the same time throwing desperate people's legal status into doubt.
What their status is must be decided by appropriate legal entities, not by
reporters or politicians seeking to use the confusion of the terms for their
own personal benefit. And numbers show time and again that most of the people
(93% in February GRAPH) arriving in Greece come from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan,
all war-torn, and must therefore be defined as 'refugees' under international
law. It is really that simple. Anything else is hot air. Trying to redefine
the terminology on the fly is immoral.
In that same terminology vein, the idea that Turkey is a 'safe third
country', as the EU so desperately wants to claim, is downright crazy.
That is not for the EU to decide, if only because it has -again, immoral-
skin in the game.
All this terminology manipulation, ironically, plays into the hands
of the very right wing movements that Angela Merkel fears losing this weekend's
elections to. They create a false picture and atmosphere incumbent
'leaders' try to use to hold on to power, but it will end up making them lose
that power.
* * *
The funniest, though also potentially most disruptive, consequence
of the proposed deal may well be that the visa requirements for the 75 million
Turks to travel to Europe are to be abandoned in June, just 3 months away, giving
them full Schengen privileges. Funny, because that raises the option
of millions of Turkish people fleeing the Erdogan regime travelling to Europe
as refugees, and doing it in a way that no-one can call illegal.
There may be as many as 20 million Kurds living in Turkey, and Erdogan has
for all intents and purposes declared war on all of them. How about
if half of them decide to start a new life in Europe? Can't very well
send them back to 'safe third country' Turkey.
"... The Russians have cooperated with the U.S. on the Iran deal and in trying to bring about a truce in Syria (their intervention was provoked by CIA "covert" weapons deals with jihadists against their ally Assad, the legally UN-recognized government), and in calming down the situation in Ukraine by a cease fire (another intervention initiated by the U.S.- E.U. role in overthrowing the legally elected government in that country and the installation of an ultraright-wing anti-Russian regime. ..."
"... Cohen says the mass media in the U.S. attributes all these international problems to Russian aggression and to Putin's megalomania ["Putin's Russia"]. So while we play around with farcical political debates and a news media that misinforms rather than informs, Obama stealthily builds up the aggressive capabilities of U.S. imperialism and, consciously or unconsciously, further endangers the peace of the world and the future of humanity. ..."
"... The Left is falling down on the job of warning the working class of the dangers it faces in the coming election. HRC has wrapped herself in the Obama legacy and will no doubt continue the march towards more wars and military adventures that the U.S. has embarked upon ever since Korea. The Republican candidates are no different in this respect. Whoever wins in November, the big losers will be the working class and the minorities who will continue to be abused and exploited by the U.S. ruling establishment. ..."
"... This military build-up is part of the profit-generating foreign policy of the military-industrial complex. It justifies the transfer of billions of dollars in "defense" spending to the private coffers of the 1%. What are the chances that HRC will adopt a pro-peace agenda and come out against the U.S.- NATO build-up in Europe? Sanders is also weak on this issue but he can be more easily pressured to change, as cutting the military budget frees up money for the progressive changes to reduce income inequality that he favors and he is not beholden to the establishment. What is to be done? ..."
Why is Obama deliberately stirring up old Cold War tensions with Russia by ordering
saber-rattling by the Pentagon and our puppet military alliance Nato? Professor Steven Cohen,
writing in The Nation (2-29-16), says Obama is escalating the tensions with Russia in an
unprecedented manner not seen since the days of Nazi Germany. These hostile actions are being
basically ignored by the mass media and none of the presidential candidates in either party have
addressed them in the debates except indirectly (Sanders and Clinton supporting NATO, Trump
mentioning he wants to make a "deal" with Putin).
The issue is Obama's decision to increase by 400% military expenditures and deployments on or
near the Russian border by the U.S. and NATO. Such a huge concentration of Western military power
on the Russian border has not been seen in modern times -- not even at the height of the Cold
War. Cohen says Russia will have to respond by its own build-up including the positioning of
advanced missiles. Thus the whole of Eastern Europe will become a tinderbox, increasing the
probability of a regional war or worse if some minor incident flares up.
This is, I might add, wholly unnecessary and reckless behavior on the part of Obama and his
generals (the type of behavior a future President Cruz or Rubio are characterized of being
capable of initiating). Why is this coming at the very time Russia is trying to de-escalate
tensions with the U.S.?
The Russians have cooperated with the U.S. on the Iran deal and in trying to bring about a
truce in Syria (their intervention was provoked by CIA "covert" weapons deals with jihadists
against their ally Assad, the legally UN-recognized government), and in calming down the
situation in Ukraine by a cease fire (another intervention initiated by the U.S.- E.U. role in
overthrowing the legally elected government in that country and the installation of an ultraright-wing
anti-Russian regime.
Cohen says the mass media in the U.S. attributes all these international problems to Russian
aggression and to Putin's megalomania ["Putin's Russia"]. So while we play around with farcical
political debates and a news media that misinforms rather than informs, Obama stealthily builds
up the aggressive capabilities of U.S. imperialism and, consciously or unconsciously, further
endangers the peace of the world and the future of humanity.
The Left is falling down on the job of warning the working class of the dangers it faces in
the coming election. HRC has wrapped herself in the Obama legacy and will no doubt continue the
march towards more wars and military adventures that the U.S. has embarked upon ever since Korea.
The Republican candidates are no different in this respect. Whoever wins in November, the big
losers will be the working class and the minorities who will continue to be abused and exploited
by the U.S. ruling establishment.
The Left has, however, done its duty in one respect. There is a slight possibility the dire
consequences enumerated above could be avoided or alleviated and that would be the election of
Bernie Sanders as president. This event would open up progressive political action outside of the
control of the establishment and could lead to a democratic renaissance in the U.S. The Left -
Progressive movement has solidly backed Sanders (aside from some fringe elements). Unfortunately,
the Left cannot agree on a Plan B. HRC's election would be a victory for the establishment and
there is no third party that the Left is willing to unite behind.
This military build-up is part of the profit-generating foreign policy of the
military-industrial complex. It justifies the transfer of billions of dollars in "defense"
spending to the private coffers of the 1%. What are the chances that HRC will adopt a pro-peace
agenda and come out against the U.S.- NATO build-up in Europe? Sanders is also weak on this issue
but he can be more easily pressured to change, as cutting the military budget frees up money for
the progressive changes to reduce income inequality that he favors and he is not beholden to the
establishment. What is to be done?
Born Lake Worth, FL 1942. Educated FSU and Graduate Center CUNY. Currently teaching philosophy
in NYC. Associate editor of Political Affairs online.
"... Of particular importance here is the term, "legitimate interests." With this term, the doctrine reveals that its goal is the suppression of other nations, regardless of whether their ambitions are reasonable or not. All that matters is US hegemony over the world. ..."
"... Second, the sociopathic goals of those in power are a clear and present danger to the peace and well-being of the population. ..."
"... "to combat and prevent Russian aggression." is merely NATO double-speak for... "To combat a Russian Counter-Attack to our First Strike to a National Coup. Bellarus is next. The boa-like encirclement of the USSR, er, I mean Russia , will continue." ..."
"... Unfortunately for the war-makers, the game is up. More and more people have woken up to the lies. NATO has overplayed its hand, and its propaganda is just not believed any more. ..."
"... WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. ..."
"... The imperialism of the United States began well before Paul Wolfowitz. He's simply turned the tradition into one of perpetual warfare. When I think of Dantes nine circles of hell, I can't help but imagine him & Dick Cheney in the center. ..."
"... We've been in a media blackout since November 22, 1963. ..."
"... We had some dinner guests over, and the topic of the situation in Ukraine came up. I took the position that the US/EU helped stage the coup that tossed the elected government of Yanukovych, and that the current government is illegitimate, not to mention Nazi thugs. And that the trigger was Yanukovych intending to accept the Russian bail-out, turning his back on the punitive EU austerity program. I didn't even get into the US being pissed at Russia for blocking their Syrian/Assad regime change operation at the UN security council, and were intent on making Russia pay for their insolence. ..."
"... Our guests were incredulous that I took that position, accusing me of falling for Russian propaganda. Their view is that it was a popular rebellion against a corrupt government, that Russia illegally and forcibly annexed Crimea, and that Russia continues to kill Ukrainians on Ukrainian soil. Any US involvement is/was for the good of the Ukrainian people. ..."
"... Mission accomplished. And I don't see it changing. MSM blankets North America with western propaganda so thoroughly that otherwise intelligent people don't recognize it as such. Espousing an alternative worldview, and one gets labelled a conspiracy nut or a Putin sympathizer. Sooo Orwellian. ..."
Recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held a press conference with about 150 journalists
from around the world, including representatives of the western media.
Mister Lavrov was brief and concise; however, the question period lasted for some two
hours. A breadth of topics was discussed, including the re-convening of the Syrian peace
talks in Geneva, diplomatic relations in Georgia and, tellingly, the increasingly fragile relations
with the US. This has not been reported on in Western media.
This followed close on the heels of reports (again, not to be found in Western media) that the
US has quadrupled its budget for the re-armament of NATO in Europe (from $750 million to $3 billion),
most of which is to be applied along the Russian border. The decision was explained as being
necessary "to combat and prevent Russian aggression."
It should be mentioned that this decision, no matter how rash it may be, is not a random incident.
It's a component of the US' decidedly imperialist Wolfowitz Doctrine of 1992. This
doctrine, never intended for public release, outlined a policy of military aggression to assure that
the US would reign as the world's sole superpower and, in so-doing, establish the US as the leader
within a new world order. In part, its stated goal is,
"[That] the U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that
holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role
or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests."
Of particular importance here is the term, "legitimate interests." With this term, the doctrine
reveals that its goal is the suppression of other nations, regardless of whether their ambitions
are reasonable or not. All that matters is US hegemony over the world.
Clearly, relations are reaching a dangerous level. The Russian message has repeatedly been, "Stop,
before it's too late," yet Washington has reacted by stepping up its threat of hegemony.
If the major powers do not call "time out", world war could easily be on the horizon . Yet,
incredibly, it appears that the Russian press conference has received zero coverage in the West.
No British, French, German, or US television network has made a single comment. As eager
as the Russians have been to get the word out as to their concerns, there has been a complete blackout
of reporting it in the West.
Russia Insider has published an article on the internet, but little else appears to be available.
Today, the internet allows us to tap into information from every country in the world. Both official
and non-official versions of the reports are available, if we know where to find them. And for those
who have the time to do so, and take the time to do so, it's possible to stay abreast of The Big
Picture, although, admittedly, it's a major undertaking to do so.
Separating the wheat from the chaff is the greatest difficulty in this pursuit; however, as events
unfold, a trend is being revealed – that the world is becoming divided with regard to information.
In most of the world, there's an expanse of available information, but, increasingly, the
US, EU, and their allies are revealing a pattern of information removal . Whatever does not
fit the US/EU position on events never reaches the public.
A half-century ago, this was the case in the USSR, China, and several smaller countries where
tyranny had so taken hold that all news was filtered. The people of these countries had a limited
understanding as to what was truly occurring in the world, particularly with regard to their own
leaders' actions on the world stage.
However, in recent decades, that tyranny has dissipated to a great degree and those countries
that had been isolationist with regard to public information are now opening up more and more. Certainly,
their governments still prefer that their press provide reporting that's favourable to the government,
but the general direction has been toward greater openness.
Conversely, the West – that group of countries that was formerly called "the Free World"
– has increasingly been going in the opposite direction. The media have been fed an ever-narrower
version of what their governments have been up to internationally.
The overall message that's received by the Western public is essentially that there are good countries
(the US, EU, and allies) and bad countries whose governments and peoples seek to destroy democracy.
Western propaganda has it that these bad countries will not stop until they've reached your
home and robbed you of all your freedoms.
The view from outside this cabal is a very different one. The remainder of the world view the
attacks by US-led forces (Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, Syria, etc.) as a bid for world
dominance. In examining the Wolfowitz Doctrine, this would seem to be exactly correct.
This is not to say, however, that the people of the NATO countries are entirely on-board with
this aggression. In fact, if they were allowed to know the ultimate objective of the NATO aggression,
it's entirely likely that they would oppose it.
And, of course, that's exactly the point of the blackout. A country, or group
of countries, that seeks peace and fair competition, with equal opportunity for all, need not resort
to a media blackout. The average citizen, wherever he may live, generally seeks only to be allowed
to live in freedom and to get on with his life. Whilst every country has its Generals Patton, its
Napoleons, its Wolfowitzes, who are sociopathically obsessive over world domination, the average
individual does not share this pathology.
Therefore, whenever we observe a nation (or nations) creating a media blackout, we can
be assured of two things.
First, the nation has, at some point, been taken over (either through election, appointment,
or a combination of the two) by leaders who are a danger to the citizenry and are now so entrenched
that they have little opposition from those remaining few higher-ups who would prefer sanity.
Second, the sociopathic goals of those in power are a clear and present danger to the peace
and well-being of the population.
In almost all such cases, the blackout causes the population to go willingly along each
time their leaders make another advance toward warfare. They may understand that they will
be directly impacted and worry about the possible outcome but, historically, they tend to put on
the uniform and pick up the weapon when the time comes to "serve the country."
Trouble is, this by no means "serves the country." It serves leaders who have
become a danger to the country. The people themselves are the country. It is they, not their leaders,
who will go off to battle and it is they who will pay the price of their leaders' zeal for domination.
"to combat and prevent Russian aggression." is merely NATO double-speak for... "To
combat a Russian Counter-Attack to our First Strike to a National Coup. Bellarus is next. The
boa-like encirclement of the USSR, er, I mean Russia , will continue."
Unfortunately for the war-makers, the game is up. More and more people have woken up to
the lies. NATO has overplayed its hand, and its propaganda is just not believed any more.
WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable,
surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which
the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority
of
the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit
of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge
fortunes.
In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000
new
millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That
many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war
millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.
How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench?
How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of
them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun
bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were
wounded or killed in battle?
The imperialism of the United States began well before Paul Wolfowitz. He's simply turned
the tradition into one of perpetual warfare. When I think of Dantes nine circles of hell, I can't
help but imagine him & Dick Cheney in the center.
It's called News Rigging, 60% of what you read is written by bots, so just spin one up and
off you go and works good to create knock off news too, technology is smarter than most realize.
One guy wrote 10k books with a bot and put them on sale at Amazon..
Wolfowitz is just an apologist for what's already been going on. So is Zbigniew Brzezinski.
It's the same insane megalomania Kubrick skewered in "Dr. Strangelove." By this time it's gone
on long enough the host is being drained dangerously low. But it's not anything new.
Well this information removal strategy seems to be working quite well.
We had some dinner guests over, and the topic of the situation in Ukraine came up. I took
the position that the US/EU helped stage the coup that tossed the elected government of Yanukovych,
and that the current government is illegitimate, not to mention Nazi thugs. And that the trigger
was Yanukovych intending to accept the Russian bail-out, turning his back on the punitive EU austerity
program. I didn't even get into the US being pissed at Russia for blocking their Syrian/Assad
regime change operation at the UN security council, and were intent on making Russia pay for their
insolence.
Our guests were incredulous that I took that position, accusing me of falling for Russian
propaganda. Their view is that it was a popular rebellion against a corrupt government, that Russia
illegally and forcibly annexed Crimea, and that Russia continues to kill Ukrainians on Ukrainian
soil. Any US involvement is/was for the good of the Ukrainian people.
Mission accomplished. And I don't see it changing. MSM blankets North America with western
propaganda so thoroughly that otherwise intelligent people don't recognize it as such. Espousing
an alternative worldview, and one gets labelled a conspiracy nut or a Putin sympathizer. Sooo
Orwellian.
"... you mean like superpredators? Hillary has gone from working for Goldwater to stop the civil rights movement in its tracks, to working for Goldman sachs. ..."
"... Stop scapegoating blacks. Why don't you blame Hispanics? They voted for her over Sanders 2 to 1 in Texas. ..."
"... To the race issue: Black voters didn't reject Sanders' platform, this is a bunch of nonsense. They rejected, in part, the unknown. Black people in the South are SOUTHERNERS. Yes, they are also Black, a demographic in which there exists substantial diversity that many overlook, but Southerners tend to be conservative, and this has to do with the issue of Southern identity more generally, which isn't irrelevant to black folks. ..."
"... Another point: Blacks in the South may not feel they have the luxury to risk their vote on an idealistic candidate they don't really know, even if they like his ideas. ..."
"... Hispanic voters voted strongly for Bernie in Colorado. Perhaps African-Americans living in the South need to find out Sanders positions prior to voting for Hillary. Some of his positions might have been more in line with their thinking now that it is 2016. ..."
"... the Clintons have vacationed there for many years; they raise a lot of money there and are extremely well-connected with the MA Dem Machine, which is one of the most highly organized in the country. The Boston Globe and the rest of the MSM were for her. There is a long history. In 2008, Hillary beat Obama in MA by 15.4%, and that's with Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama. ..."
"... So, for Bernie to get within 2 points of her is an amazingly strong showing. Knock it off with the "liberal state Sanders should have won" - this is just a MSM line trying to make Bernie's strong showing look weak. Not the case. ..."
"... Hey, guess what? There are all different kinds of black people. I suppose that might be a little difficult for MSM to understand. Black people have regional differences, just like white people do. Yes, really. ..."
"... Last I checked, African Americans and self-identifying "black" people constituted about 13 percent of U.S. population and, thanks to mandatory sentencing policies adopted or enacted under the [Bill] Clinton administration, actually make up an even smaller percentage of Americans eligible to vote. ..."
"... How, then, did the Democratic Party decide to make its nominating process so skewed toward minority voters in Southern states the eventual Democratic nominee might be less likely to carry? But let's ignore, for the moment, the structural 'rigging' of a primary schedule ..."
"... Goldman Sachs ran the Clinton White House and has paid Hillary hundreds of thousands in "speaker's fees". Goldman owns her. ..."
"... Bernie Sanders did lead the civil rights movement and joined CORE,at the expense of his studies at the University of Chicago! He was arrested in a demonstration against discrimination in housing! Why do you mock this? And why do African Americans not recognize the good will of Sanders? What about anti-semitism? ..."
"... It really has not been demonstrated that Goldman Sachs and HRC connection are all that bad. An excellent article about it all... http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/is-goldman-sachs-the-root-of-all-evil/20210 / ..."
"... Clinton was nearly mocking Sanders' positions until she saw how many people they resonate with, and then she simply adopted them for herself. But the problem with that is she every few days runs back to Wall Street ( or Wall Street comes to her ) to have her meetings with Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs and Jamie Dimin at Chase and a few 'BFF' hedge fund managers to get her marching orders and some money and then she heads back out on the trail talking tough about breaking up the big banks, "if they need to be broken up". ..."
"... The majority of blacks, 55%, live in the South, yet the DNC has seen fit to upload those Red/Black states in the nomination process, knowing full well that they are Republican states. Where is the logic in that? ..."
"... African Americans could have closed this deal. I think they have made a "huge" mistake, Hillary will do nothing for the poor in general. But we will see I guess ..."
"... It is rather remarkable how the Bush/Obama regime candidate - Clinton - specifically chose to play the black race card. That won't go over well with the white majority. ..."
"... Clinton promised to break down all the barriers, barriers of race, sexism, class.....is that possible? or is there a certain level of rhetoric being used in political campaigns? and are you biased in your assesment? ..."
"... Right on with regard to old FDR! That man had courage and a big heart. But you and I are a bit older than most voters, I presume, so we get the whole FDR thing easily -- in my case, the connection is through my parents, both of whom were tough-as-nails Depression-Era people. My point is that Bernie's a well-read, very bright guy, an intellectual -- it isn't that people "gasp with fear," it's more like they're looking for something not so directly based on economics, and Bernie doesn't seem to give them that. ..."
"... Trump does better with low educational voters...as Does Clinton - take a moment to think about your bias here, you automatically state "Well trump voters are idiots cause they obviously haven't all the information I have about trump but clinton voters are smart because they agree with me" ..."
"... Sanders is not going to win 500 delegates from California-- nobody is, since the delegate count is proportional. To keep to your example, a best case scenario for Sanders would be just to *win* California, since he's behind in all the polls. But that isn't good enough at this point. He has to rack up huge margins in California (and other big states) to close the lopsided 80/20 results across the south. That is not going to happen. ..."
"... Exactly. The US has a far right party and a center right party. Bernie, who's basically a Social Democrat, chose to run as part of the center right party. And bizzarely, he and his supporters wonder why he doesn't get more traction and why the party insiders are against him. ..."
"... Well out of touch black southern voters may keep it mainstream with Hillary on this one but Bernie has caused enough of a disruption that she has had to rewrite many of her strategies. At least it exposes just how bad at being consistent she is to those who pay attention. I never thought I would have to but Trump it is. Thanks for your votes/ voices being heard. "Duh, votins fun. I wish we could do this more than once every 4 years." ..."
"... He won Colorado, why? The Latino vote!!! "The entire Democratic congressional delegation in Colorado supports Hillary Clinton-the Democratic governor, John W. Hickenlooper, here supports Hillary Clinton; former U.S. Secretary of the Interior and U.S. Senator Ken Salazar supports Hillary Clinton; the mayor of Denver; the former mayor of Denver. And yet Hillary Clinton lost to Bernie Sanders here in Colorado by what looks like about 20 points." -- The Nation. ..."
"... It's way off topic, but my favorite Mencken quote was, "We have to respect the other man's religion, but only in the same way, and to the same extent, that we have to respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his kids are smart." ..."
"... Not really a better America for all, just a better America for the 99%. As it turns out, the vast majority don't matter. History has always shown that the vast majority don't matter. 1% moneyed people with a lot of influence, can easily sway a huge swathe of the great unwashed to simply do their bidding. ..."
"... If you want to take a break from yet another Shillary article see here where it says Hillary finds common ground with disgraced Tom Delay http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/politex-blog/article53787095.html ..."
"... Identity politics is overshadowing class politics. This is a sad turn of events at a time when class inequality is larger than it has ever been - and at a time when poverty corresponds overwhelmingly with race. ..."
"... That and the fact that the Guardian has been repeating Clintons talking points that "He wan'ts to demolish Obamacare" - No he doesn't, the implication is that he will repeal Obamacare and then try for new healthcare that may or may not be succesful - it's not true but southern blacks have bought it, hook, line and sinker ..."
"... Not to mention that in 2008, Hillary won Massachusetts by a large margin over Barack Obama, demonstrating both her strength in that state and how amazingly well-run the Sanders campaign was this year. At the time, people also said it was the the death knell of Obama's campaign. Of course, he then went on to do extremely well in the west and north, which Bernie may or may not do. But to say his very close 2nd in Massachusetts means he's done is not accurate or historical. ..."
"... The statement ... "the former secretary of state is now well on the road to reaching the 2,383 total needed to win the nomination, leading Sanders by 1,001 to 371" is disingenuous. The actual totals are HRC 596, Bernie 399. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats / The Guardian has added superdelegates in their numbers. These superdelegates can change their mind at any time before the convention and historically will honor the candidate who get the most delegates through primaries and caucus'. ..."
"... For anyone who needs a non-Guardian perspective on same: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/why-bernie-sanders-won-su_b_9363416.html ..."
"... Bernie does not do poisonous identity politics. That's a Clinton specialty. my real news from The Young Turks even though I'm over 50. ..."
"... Sad thing is that it isn't a lie. In 2008 the superdelegates could switch from one Establishment candidate (Hillary) to another Establishment candidate (Obama). But Bernie isn't establishment. Superdelegates know that if they switch to him, their careers as Party hacks are over. ..."
"... remember warren used to be republican. she is pretty militaristic, coming from a military family ..."
"... Grauniad playing the race card on behalf of its darling corporatist warmonger. How utterly predictable. ..."
"... I agree that Elizabeth Warren has shown herself to be a coward. ..."
"... The Guardian needs to find a new Bureau Chief or start paying him more than the Clinton Machine. Or is MSNBC trying to buy the Guardian, and just has you trying out the Company standard line? ..."
"... Can someone actually explain to me the difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush's Sr. presidency? Outside of actually balancing the budget, I don't see that much difference between both presidencies... . ..."
"... With Clinton, though? There is SO much baggage going in that the level of discourse will never go beyond Benghazi, emails, Whitewater, the Iraq war, President Clinton's affairs and impeachment hearings, tax problems, etc. ..."
"... Additionally, if the Republicans actually wanted to go up against Sanders and not Clinton, their rhetoric would reflect that. They, like many members of the establishment, are treating Clinton as the presumptive winner and licking their chops waiting to get to her. If they wanted Sanders instead, they would be propping him up as "the" candidate, thus galvanizing his legitimacy in the race. ..."
"... I used to be able to read articles in The Guardian and glean what was really happening by reading between the lines. Now they just insult our intelligence, and though a few decent writers remain in their employ, there really isn't much of substance. Just asinine puffery. ..."
"... It seems that on number of issues, healthcare, foreign intervention, Wall St, Trump is actually on the LEFT of Clinton. ..."
"... on the whole, he is actually a good deal more liberal than Clinton. ..."
"... The media seem to be willing a Clinton win and are desperate to have us believe her nomination is a given. What they don't realise is that this is 2016 and this sort of spinning only strengthens peoples resolve to stick behind the only truly progressive candidate and probably dig another few dollars in donation. ..."
"... Said it before and I'll say it again, MLK is rolling in his grave. ..."
"... Black leadership has let us down. Clearly, they're on the payroll. ..."
"... I know many of them don't think he does. That's because the American people are pretty dumb, by and large. The fact remains that Bill Clinton sold out leftist, liberal views and values. From three strikes and mandatory minimums, expanding the death penalty, deregulating Wall Street, shipping American industry out of the country, slashing capital gains tax rates, demonizing and slashing the welfare safety net, Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, it's quite demonstrably true that the man owes American liberals an apology. ..."
"... The establishment grief of the Guardian is just so obvious. I'm literally disgusted by the relentless shilling of this newspaper rag for a deeply corrupt Wall Street owned candidate like Shillary. ..."
"... Clinton is winning the black vote without having ever really done a thing to deserve it. Sanders has much more of an actual participatory record in the Civil Rights movement. ..."
"... Make that NEO-liberal not liberal that seems to be happy keeping people like you in power. ..."
"... She very obviously did not win the youth vote ..."
"... The establishment are TERRIFIED of Sanders - because with Hillary they know they can control her with money! Just listen to her speech last night, and it literally was a compilation of platitudes! In terms of speaking without actually saying anything she is as bad as Trump! ..."
"... She has e-mails PROVING she has been actively campaigning FOR nafta and TTIP! ..."
"... Fast running out of patience with the Guardian and its bias for Clinton. This article is biased, it is rooted in hunches. ..."
Horse feathers. Sanders has supported civil rights since before Clinton was a GOLDWATER GIRL!
He put his life on the line for civil rights and got arrested for his trouble.
you mean like superpredators? Hillary has gone from working for Goldwater to stop the civil rights
movement in its tracks, to working for Goldman sachs.
What a nasty smear. The support for Senator Sanders comes from all races. He has also been embraces
by many black civil rights leaders and others. I'm sick of the media and its attacks on Bernie.
Yes, he can and must win without blacks, because they have opted out of a role in a progressive
movement. At least for now in the South. They chose staus quo and Madame Secretary Establishment.
The Southern states Hillary won Tuesday are Deep Red Republican states she cannot possibly win
in NOV. So writers pushing the idea it's over are exagerrating, or worse.
Turnout has been very low in America for decades, if Sanders can turn out just a few first time
voters he can overcome Hillary's Big Money advantages.
I have never seen before now liberals insist that The Word of The South is final, demanding Sanders'
immediate surrender at Appamattox Courthouse. They're scared of a new coalition Madame Secretary
Establishment can't control.
This article is trying to be clever, but comes off as snarky. Never mind that, though. The bigger
problem is that it lacks any context, historical or otherwise, about the United States and its
politics, demographics, and culture. It seems that the writer doesn't have a very deep understanding
of such things, which The Guardian may want to consider when it hires journalists to cover the
U.S..
Of course the "revolution" that Sanders is touting can't be all white, and his supporters
would be the first to tell you that (I am one of them, and white, grew up in South Carolina, and
have worked for racial justice for some time now). It's just simply ridiculous to state that African
Americans' voting preferences on Super Tuesday was a "withering refutation of the central premise
of [Sanders'] campaign: that an overthrow of the billionaire class is possible if ordinary Americans
come together as one." Where do I start? First, the premise of Sanders' campaign is that the system
is rigged - that even when ordinary people play by the rules, they get screwed economically. It's
not that different from what Obama has said many times, it's just that his solutions are different.
Sanders never said his campaign alone would "overthrow" the billionaire class. His campaign must
be seen in a larger historical context - which is not provided in this article - that includes
Occupy Wall Street, the strong and growing labor movement in the U.S. focused on the abysmal situation
of fast food and Wal-Mart-type workers, and yes, even racial justice movements such as Black Lives
Matter. The point this article misses - egregiously - is that movements are not built in an election
cycle, and that again, Sanders' campaign is part of a much greater trajectory that involves much
more than electoral politics.
That's why Sanders is so persistent, I believe, because he knows
that what he is doing is helping to build that sense of belief in something more just. Over sometimes
very long periods of time, enough ordinary people eventually CAN come together and, as you say,
"overthrow the billionaire class." It's just that it's going to take much more than one election
to do that. What's amazing is that so many people are willing to work for a better country even
though they know -- and Sanders knows this full well since he is 74 -- that they won't be around
to see the fruits of those efforts.
To the race issue: Black voters didn't reject Sanders' platform,
this is a bunch of nonsense. They rejected, in part, the unknown. Black people in the South are
SOUTHERNERS. Yes, they are also Black, a demographic in which there exists substantial diversity
that many overlook, but Southerners tend to be conservative, and this has to do with the issue
of Southern identity more generally, which isn't irrelevant to black folks. You have to understand
that Blacks in the South are not politicized in the same way that Blacks in other parts of the
country, such as New York City or Boston or Oakland are.
The South has a totally different labor
history (very anti-union), for example, which has been the context in which the working-class
has developed its expectations of what is politically possible. Somebody like Bernie Sanders,
who is a classic Northeastern (Jewish) Leftist, is very culturally alien (and don't even get me
started on the long history of animosity between the Northeast and the South - which also plays
into this). So to expect Blacks to vote for Sanders just because of his ideas, without really
knowing him (and eight visits is not a lot compared to Clinton's history with South Carolina)
is unfair.
Another point: Blacks in the South may not feel they have the luxury to risk their
vote on an idealistic candidate they don't really know, even if they like his ideas. They haven't
exactly been in a social position to vie for such dreams as free education, a decent social safety
net, etc., whereas whites are more accustomed to demanding things and having those demands met.
This may also explain some of the racial divide. I am not trying to say that white Liberals/Leftists
don't have a lot of work to do on race; nor am I saying that Sanders didn't make big mistakes
in his campaign with regard to his message in the South (Spike Lee, for instance, may not be the
best person to move Southern Blacks). But to trash his whole campaign as just an all-white "protest"
movement is just a gross oversimplification, and missing the point entirely.
Bernie needs to win 53% of the remaining delegates to take a non 'superdelegate' lead
to the convention. Not unfeasible by any stretch
Impossible? No. Feasible? Not really. Sanders has won about 38% of the pledged delegates so far.
What makes you think he's going to go from 38 to 53 points from here on out? No doubt he'll win
a few remaining states by large margins, but that's not going to be enough to boost his aggregate
numbers up enough, given the fact that the remaining large states -- NY, California, Ohio, Illinois,
Pennsylvania, Florida, New Jersey -- all look at least as Hillary friendly as Massachusetts (where
Clinton won). There are also a number of states with high black populations left, including Louisiana,
Arkansas, Michigan and Missouri.
Sure, a black swan event could get Bernie back in it. But that's what it'll take.
Hispanic voters voted strongly for Bernie in Colorado. Perhaps African-Americans living in the
South need to find out Sanders positions prior to voting for Hillary. Some of his positions might
have been more in line with their thinking now that it is 2016.
This is a canard. There are many reasons why Hillary did well in MA: the Clintons have vacationed
there for many years; they raise a lot of money there and are extremely well-connected with the
MA Dem Machine, which is one of the most highly organized in the country. The Boston Globe and
the rest of the MSM were for her. There is a long history. In 2008, Hillary beat Obama in MA by
15.4%, and that's with Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama.
So, for Bernie to get within 2 points of her is an amazingly strong showing. Knock it off with
the "liberal state Sanders should have won" - this is just a MSM line trying to make Bernie's
strong showing look weak. Not the case.
There are not enough minority votes to compensate for losing 80% of the white voters.
The DNC has totally miscalculate the political climate of the electorate. Those white voters
that are angry at the rigged economy and income inequality are going to Trump.
Bernie Sanders has the right message, but is being stifled by the party elite who want a return
to the 1990s.
States vie for earlier primaries to claim greater influence in the nomination process, as the
early primaries can act as a signal to the nation, showing which candidates are popular and giving
those who perform well early on the advantage of the bandwagon effect.
In such a primary season, however, many primaries will fall on the same day, forcing candidates
to choose where to spend their time and resources.
Indeed, Super Tuesday was created deliberately to increase the influence of the South. Moreover,
a compressed calendar limits the ability of lesser-known candidates to corral resources and raise
their visibility among voters, especially when a better-known candidate enjoys the financial and
institutional backing of the party establishment.
So if, the northern or western states would now want to change there primary dates, and have
their own 'Super Monday', the penalties would be harsh.
For Democrats, states violating these rules will be penalized half of their pledged delegates
and all of their Super Delegates.
So, in effect, the non representative nature of the southern Super Tuesday is locked in place.
I rest my case.
Hey, guess what? There are all different kinds of black people. I suppose that might be a little
difficult for MSM to understand. Black people have regional differences, just like white people
do. Yes, really.
He will likely not win, but that's just wrong what you are saying. He is losing big with African-Americans,
between 80-90% depending on the state voted for Hillary so far, that's true, and that's his biggest
hurdle and why Hillary was able run up the score on him in the south.
But he won with Latinos in Nevada and Colorado, probably not in Texas, but still not bad, and
he is actually beating Hillary with working class whites and independents big time, and that includes
moderate and conservative whites.
While Hillary is beating him with middle aged white women and women over 65, and people over 65
in general, that's also true. But the fact that it's just 'white liberals' and young people who
are for Bernie is not true.
In fact, the 2008 and 2016 primary voter groups have completely switched this year, and Bernie
is getting most of the white working class voters who voted for Hillary over Obama in 2008, while
Hillary is getting the African-American vote overwhelmingly, and is probably still slightly up
with the Latino vote overall, and Hillary is also getting white people making over $200,000 a
year, but not by huge margins like with African-Americans.
Last I checked, African Americans and self-identifying "black" people constituted about 13 percent
of U.S. population and, thanks to mandatory sentencing policies adopted or enacted under the [Bill]
Clinton administration, actually make up an even smaller percentage of Americans eligible to vote.
How, then, did the Democratic Party decide to make its nominating process so skewed toward minority
voters in Southern states the eventual Democratic nominee might be less likely to carry? But let's
ignore, for the moment, the structural 'rigging' of a primary schedule that allows such small
percentages of voters to choose the nominee and ask why African Americans, who got very little
beyond lip service and pleasing optícs from Barack Obama, would now believe that they can expect
any better from Hillary Clinton (who promises to do little else than continue the Obama program,
or whatever remains of it, at this point). I'm suspecting that Afrcan American voters don't know
enough about either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton -- neither what he could do FOR them nor
what she has sad and done TO them.
I am really astounded at the cynical and unsympathetic Guardian stance on Sanders! I thought you
might deal with the substance of the Sanders message about the need to destroy the strangle hold
that the U. S. Oligarchy has on politics and how they have damaged the country by pursuing their
own economic interests at the expense of the general public. Instead, you parrot the U. S. media
by treating it all as a spectator sport--concentrating on tactics and strategies rather than substance
and mocking his losses in southern republican states?
You might ask why African American voters have supported Hillary Clinton when her husband's trade
policies, welfare policies, and crime sentencing policies so harmed them?
What does that say about the political consciousness, or the lack thereof, of the U. S. electorate?
Bernie Sanders did lead the civil rights movement and joined CORE,at the expense of his studies
at the University of Chicago! He was arrested in a demonstration against discrimination in housing!
Why do you mock this? And why do African Americans not recognize the good will of Sanders? What
about anti-semitism?
You might deal with some deeper analysis of U. S. society and politics rather than this cynical
and superficial journalism that is slanted in support of the existed rotten social and economic
order?
Clinton was nearly mocking Sanders' positions until she saw how many people they resonate with,
and then she simply adopted them for herself. But the problem with that is she every few days
runs back to Wall Street ( or Wall Street comes to her ) to have her meetings with Lloyd Blankfein
of Goldman Sachs and Jamie Dimin at Chase and a few 'BFF' hedge fund managers to get her marching
orders and some money and then she heads back out on the trail talking tough about breaking up
the big banks, "if they need to be broken up".
One really has to start questioning the over influence of Blacks in the Democratic Party.
The majority of blacks, 55%, live in the South, yet the DNC has seen fit to upload those Red/Black
states in the nomination process, knowing full well that they are Republican states. Where is the logic in that?
It makes as much sense as if the Republicans upload all the New England states and California
in their process.
Logic would dictate that a hard right conservative wouldn't make it and it's being shown that
a true progressive can't win in the Democratic Party rigged system.
African Americans could have closed this deal. I think they have made a "huge" mistake, Hillary
will do nothing for the poor in general. But we will see I guess
It is rather remarkable how the Bush/Obama regime candidate - Clinton - specifically chose to
play the black race card. That won't go over well with the white majority.
Independents love Bernie over Hillary, and thats what the general is about, who do independents
and libertarians hate less - clinton or bernie? you think the right are not going to bring up
FBI, emails, benghazi? not saying it's fair, but neither is it fair of them to hate leftists for
being leftists
The point is Hillary is not a favourable general election candidate
Clinton promised to break down all the barriers, barriers of race, sexism, class.....is that possible?
or is there a certain level of rhetoric being used in political campaigns? and are you biased
in your assesment?
Right on with regard to old FDR! That man had courage and a big heart. But you and I are a bit
older than most voters, I presume, so we get the whole FDR thing easily -- in my case, the connection
is through my parents, both of whom were tough-as-nails Depression-Era people. My point is that
Bernie's a well-read, very bright guy, an intellectual -- it isn't that people "gasp with fear,"
it's more like they're looking for something not so directly based on economics, and Bernie doesn't
seem to give them that.
American social life and politics are labyrinthine, so one "master discourse"
isn't capable of dealing with it all. All the same, I admire Bernie Sanders' courage and convictions.
I mentioned in another post (about Ben Carson) that running for president diminishes most people
who dare attempt it. That hasn't been the case with Bernie. If anything and no matter what the
outcome, his campaign is showing us what a wise and wonderful man he is.
Trump does better with low educational voters...as Does Clinton - take a moment to think about
your bias here, you automatically state "Well trump voters are idiots cause they obviously haven't
all the information I have about trump but clinton voters are smart because they agree with me"
The demos tell us, the dumber you are, the more likely you will vote for clinton and trump
Sanders is not going to win 500 delegates from California-- nobody is, since the delegate count
is proportional. To keep to your example, a best case scenario for Sanders would be just to *win*
California, since he's behind in all the polls. But that isn't good enough at this point. He has
to rack up huge margins in California (and other big states) to close the lopsided 80/20 results
across the south. That is not going to happen.
If the Democratic primary were more like the Republican one (with lots of winner take all contests),
it would still be anyone's game. However, that is simply not the case. The Democratic primary
is set up to reward the candidate with the broadest coalition of supporters, and this year that
person is Clinton.
Exactly. The US has a far right party and a center right party. Bernie, who's basically a Social
Democrat, chose to run as part of the center right party. And bizzarely, he and his supporters
wonder why he doesn't get more traction and why the party insiders are against him.
If Jeremy Corbyn tried to run as a Tory what kind of welcome do you think he would get?
What she is doing here is stifling Democracy, and denying the public meaningful say in who runs
the country and how. Using the party establishment in absolute lockstep to keep the electorate
out in the cold is staunchly anti-democratic. She really thinks she has the right to control the
entire party and the nomination process in her favor.
We already know she is an authoritarian. She is a staunch imperialist, supports NSA spying,
the national security state, protects torture, executive power, endless wars, the war on drugs,
mass incarceration, and we know that she stands for the richest and most powerful factions in
society.
Well out of touch black southern voters may keep it mainstream with Hillary on this one but Bernie
has caused enough of a disruption that she has had to rewrite many of her strategies. At least
it exposes just how bad at being consistent she is to those who pay attention. I never thought
I would have to but Trump it is. Thanks for your votes/ voices being heard. "Duh, votins fun.
I wish we could do this more than once every 4 years."
He won Colorado, why? The Latino vote!!! "The entire Democratic congressional delegation in Colorado
supports Hillary Clinton-the Democratic governor, John W. Hickenlooper, here supports Hillary
Clinton; former U.S. Secretary of the Interior and U.S. Senator Ken Salazar supports Hillary Clinton;
the mayor of Denver; the former mayor of Denver. And yet Hillary Clinton lost to Bernie Sanders
here in Colorado by what looks like about 20 points." -- The Nation.
More than likely the smart Sanders strategists know that winning or losing these early primaries
doesn't really matter, not in the long run, just do enough to keep Sanders in the running, but
keep your powder dry.
In a month, maybe 6 weeks, charges should be laid against Clinton, and that will be her campaign
done. Sanders needs to simply hold on till then, at which point he'll default to being the Democratic
candidate.
It's way off topic, but my favorite Mencken quote was, "We have to respect the other man's religion,
but only in the same way, and to the same extent, that we have to respect his belief that his
wife is beautiful and his kids are smart."
Not really a better America for all, just a better America for the 99%.
As it turns out, the vast majority don't matter. History has always shown that the vast majority
don't matter.
1% moneyed people with a lot of influence, can easily sway a huge swathe of the great unwashed
to simply do their bidding.
Hence, so many uneducated imbeciles are happy to vote against their own interests. Please, heap
on the vitriolic nonsense, calling me bigoted, etc, but it doesn't change anything. The majority
of voters have happily voted against their own interests, and not even bothered realising that
they're done it.
Because Americans are so distrustful of our media sources at this point, that we've started reading
foreign media sources. I think someone took notice.
Here is a Bloomberg article from a few days ago, just before Super tuesday. It predicts Clinton
will win every state except Vermont. I.e., 10 out of 11. Now that Sanders actually won 4, Bloomberg
just whistles past, pretends it didn't happen and gets it's next set of lies ready.
It's not just Bloomberg of course, it's every establishment rag that has been banging on about
of Clinton's inevitability, without any evidence other than - well, it's Clinton.
A lot of savvy pundits, that I have learned to trust over the years are saying Sanders has
a better than 50-50 chance of being the nominee. Every time you see the Guardian or it's ilk tell
you why Clinton is a certainty, remember they don't even believe this, It's editorial policy.
We don't know why the Guardian has chosen Clinton as their candidate but we have discovered
the motives for other outlets. The Daily Beast for example upset a lot of it's readers by gunning
for Hillary. The Daily Beast is a part of the IAC group, which boasts owning over 150 websites.
The following page lists their board of directors, one name stands out - Chelsea Clinton.
http://iac.com/about/leadership
The reason Sanders is getting no cut through with black voters is nothing to do with his failure
to communicate or his offer, which would actually help the black community far more than Hillary
- from education to minimum wage and health insurance. It also has little to do with Hillary.
It's to do with Bill. He was and is incredibly popular with black voters across the whole of the
USA and did a lot of good work for true equality, so much so that he was even known as 'the first
black president'. He's also seen as a true Democrat hero and it's no surprise that he spent his
last day of Super Tuesday canvassing in Massachusetts, home of Democrat royalty, which could well
have swung that state. How Jeb must regret his family legacy.
Bernie has been criticized for running with the Class Struggle Idea, i.e., the 99% vs 1%. The
Media Pundits said he would have to sharpen up the message to include African-American Democrats.
He did that and still lost the African-American Vote.
Everyone would benefit from a higher minimum wage, Medicare for all, reining in Wall Street
and a free College Education. The message is clear Bernie has the promise of a better America
for all. If people cannot take the time or effort to educate themselves then perhaps H. L. Mencken
was right, - Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.
Another quote from Mencken came true when GWB was elected President - On some great and glorious
day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will
be adorned by a downright moron.
Identity politics is overshadowing class politics. This is a sad turn of events at a time when
class inequality is larger than it has ever been - and at a time when poverty corresponds overwhelmingly
with race.
Nah, Liz is playing it smart, she doesn't want the progressive faction in washington to live and
die by Bernies campaign. She wants to remain neutral so that she and all other progressives are
not written off, discredited by the establishment if Bernie doesn't win.
Malcom X and MLK didn't agree on tactics, that doesn't make one of them a coward, nor does
it make one of them right and the other wrong, it takes all kinds
Elizabeth Warren isn't endorsing because she wants to have sway with Clinton if she wins. She
already knows she would with Bernie. That woman is the power broker for Senate Democrats, and
she, and everyone else, knows it. She's going to go along with Clinton, and not actively oppose
her in the primary, so she can call in a favor or two during a Clinton administration, if that's
the way it pans out. She'll be the one who tries to hold Clinton to her new-found liberalism if
she's elected. She's also the only one who might be able to muster the Democratic troops to put
a stop to the TPP, TTIP and TISA, which is where I hope she uses her influence. Staying on speaking
terms with Clinton is the smart move for her, as much as we'd like to see her on the stump for
Bernie.
So perhaps it is not just southern whites who are more conservative. Perhaps that is true also
of southern blacks too. Talking class politics is a novelty for most Americans. British readers
need to remember that unlike Europe, there is no mass socialist or social democratic party in
the U.S. We have two conservative parties basically, one really of the right, the other more moderate.
That and the fact that the Guardian has been repeating Clintons talking points that "He wan'ts
to demolish Obamacare" - No he doesn't, the implication is that he will repeal Obamacare and then
try for new healthcare that may or may not be succesful - it's not true but southern blacks have
bought it, hook, line and sinker
Not to mention that in 2008, Hillary won Massachusetts by a large margin over Barack Obama, demonstrating
both her strength in that state and how amazingly well-run the Sanders campaign was this year.
At the time, people also said it was the the death knell of Obama's campaign. Of course, he then
went on to do extremely well in the west and north, which Bernie may or may not do. But to say
his very close 2nd in Massachusetts means he's done is not accurate or historical.
What does a primary win in a state whose general election electoral college votes will be going
to the other party mean, anyway? OK, so Clinton does well among African-Americans in states that
are solidly Republican. I don't think the pundit class has dealt with the demographic fact that
Latinos are the larger minority, and that in the so called "swing states" (like Colorado) Sanders
is winning and in very large states like California... where Latino support is going to be crucial,
there hasn't been any action, yet. As it is, the whole point of "Super Tuesday" has been to knock
insurgents out of the running, and it just didn't work this time.
The statement ... "the former secretary of state is now well on the road to reaching the 2,383
total needed to win the nomination, leading Sanders by 1,001 to 371" is disingenuous.
The actual totals are HRC 596, Bernie 399.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats / The Guardian has added superdelegates in their numbers. These superdelegates can change their
mind at any time before the convention and historically will honor the candidate who get the most
delegates through primaries and caucus'.
The Young Turks have had fabulous unbiased reporting, also entertaining, but full of intelligent
analysis. It's no coincidence that they are funded largely by their viewers rather than corporations.
Also, they have fantastic LIVE coverage during and after primaries and debates. Check it out here
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks/featured
First, I definitely encourage all of you to read how the political establishment and the elite-controlled
media address people like Bernie Sanders:
http://portside.org/2016-01-27/seven-stages-establishment-backlash-corbynsanders-edition
Second, percentages mean nothing (Clinton winning 86% of African-American vote over Bernie's 14%)
when we look at just how many people ACTUALLY voted; only 367,000 votes for the Democrats- 30%
LESS than in 2008:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-do-the-voting-turnout-numbers-say-about-the-2016-presidential-race
/
The voting population in South Carolina alone is roughly 3 million people (with about 700,000
votes cast on the Republican side). This means only ONE THIRD of people ACTUALLY voted in the
primary; to conclude that Sanders lost this one because Blacks voted more for Hillary grossly
undermines the real problem: LESS African-Americans actually voted period.
This can be for many reasons, but I am willing to bet that scheduling less Democratic Party debates,
at odd times, and constant scrutiny by the media to sow doubt against Bernie by Hillary and the
Democratic Party establishment IS largely what is determining these results. They say that he
can't win and support Hillary (without disclosing their own financial interests in her campaign:
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/25/tv-pundits-praise-hillary-clinton-on-air-fail-to-disclose-financial-ties-to-her-campaign
/), they schedule less coverage on TV for him, they scrutinize his policies, ideas (but not
Hillary's), and supposed lack of minority support, and when they see 86-14% they conclude "See,
we told you- You should have listened to us."
There's more to this charade of an election and political system than merely "Sanders lost the
Black vote". The Democratic Party will do nothing to mobilize its base if it means Sanders becomes
the nominee, and minorities will continue to loose under this status quo enforced by the political
establishment because free college for their kids, healthcare for their families, a protected
environment, and a US government that works for them is too lofty a goal for us to be striving
for. #Feelthatbern
Everyone needs to be protected by financial regulation. The history of banking is quite clear.
Every ten to fifteen years they overleverage themselves, or invest too heavily in a bubble, and
they sink themselves. We removed the Glass-Steagall Act and passed the Commodity Futures Modernization
Act, and 8 years later they bankrupted themselves, after more than 60 years of largely sound and
stable banking. If we've decided that the financial institutions are too important and too interconnected
to allow them to fail, then we need regulation to protect these greedy bastards from themselves.
The alternative is more than a trillion dollars in taxpayer money every 10 or 15 years to bail
them out when they've gone and stuck their feet in it again.
Sanders won the Latino vote in both Nevada and Colorado. 20 points win in swing state Colorado?
You call this a protest movement? Who wrote this crap?
There's all the western progressive states and northern to come. I'm glad he has the money to
keep going without sucking up to Wall Street, so we can vote for him in California. To keep up
with his fundraising Hillz is having to stage a fundraiser where one of the hosts is an NRA lobbyist.
Really. And she's going to "take on the NRA"
The fact that Bernie has the money to do this is the REAL story that no-one is covering. It's
historic.
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/01/nra-lobbyist-will-co-host-clinton-fundraiser /
"He argues that young people who have used computers and other microchipped devices since infancy
will have effortless advantages over their elders in processing information and coping with change
when they reach adulthood. Their short attention spans, now disparaged by educators and parents,
may be an advantage in coping with the huge mass of disparate bits of information that will bombard
the wired person of the 21st century."
We've been force fed this bullshit our whole lives, and we're just really good at seeing through
it now.
So why couldn't Sanders win Masachusetts, one of the most progressive states in the US, and home
to more colleges and universities per-capita (and thus lots of young people - his big supporters)
than anywhere else? It's easier to blame the media than to take a good hard look at your campaign.
"Why would she sit this one out and help hand her home state over the pro-bank and payday lender
faction of the Democratic party? The answer is that she doesn't think Bernie will win and is afraid
of the consequences of supporting him, just like all the other liberals in Congress. They know
there is a steep price to pay to go against a Clinton, and to not fall in line with DNC, and they
don't want to be punished."
1) The evidence for your conspiracy theory is silly. Elizabeth Warren is not afraid to speak
out if she wishes. 2) The second part of your post is a classic slippery slope fallacy. Somehow
you're moved from Warren not endorsing a candidate to Clinton will be an absolute dictator if
elected (even more hilarious since you grant Trump is a fascist and somehow see Clinton as worse
than that).
To me this looks bad for the Democrats. This block of southern black democrats seem to control
the nomination the way white evangelicals control the Republican nomination, but are likewise
a minor factor in the actual election. For a start most or all of these states aren't going to
go to the democrats anyway. It sounds like a pyrrhic for either party to have a nominee who owes
it all to a demographic that won't have such a big say in the actual election.
Donald Trump is somewhat less likely to start new Middle Eastern wars. Hillary has a proven track
record of doing just that, which is one of many reasons this newspaper is in love with her.
Sad thing is that it isn't a lie. In 2008 the superdelegates could switch from one Establishment
candidate (Hillary) to another Establishment candidate (Obama). But Bernie isn't establishment.
Superdelegates know that if they switch to him, their careers as Party hacks are over.
More capitalist propaganda for Clinton. Remember, it is mainstream media that stands to lose most
from a Sanders win. Any effort to get money out of politics must be opposed by media outlets--political
campaigns are their CASH COW.
But that's politics and always has been. She's no more ruthless and calculating in that respect
than any major, successful politician in either party. Personally I can't stand her and would
never vote for her, but I think your complaint about her cutthroat politics is a bit naive. Did
you ever see 'House of Cards' ? (I haven't see the recent American remake, but I saw the original
on the BBC), and that is exactly how politics works.
Another mainstream media hack celebrating the success of the mainstream media's unique ability
to to simultaneously ignore Sanders' achievements and Clinton's disastrous racist record.
remember warren used to be republican. she is pretty militaristic, coming from a military family.
she's good on financial reform, may not favor bernie's foreign policy or being a democratic socialist--just
because she wants the laws enforced doesn't mean she wants an fdr level change (which is what
we need at this point).
First Wolffe, an MSNBC Shill bought and paid for by Corporations, now the Guardians own Bureau
Chief regurgitating Wolfie's article, even to using the same graphics.
And you believe the public stupid enough to believe they are unbiased.
The Guardian needs to find a new Bureau Chief or start paying him more than the Clinton Machine.
Or is MSNBC trying to buy the Guardian, and just has you trying out the Company standard line?
Hear, hear. There has been a massive drop-off in quality since Alan Rusbridger left. A slant is
one thing; blatantly superficial, badly researched, regurgitative journalism such has been the
level of late is just a shame for this paper that once did far better. But now it has joined the
ranks of LCD internet rags that are all about the clicks. I almost hate to give them the satisfaction
by clicking on this piece, but it's too important that errors in it be pointed out.
Can someone actually explain to me the difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush's Sr. presidency?
Outside of actually balancing the budget, I don't see that much difference between both presidencies...
.
Is it possible that the donations and polling in favor of Sanders is the result of right-wing
scheming? I suppose it's possible.
But is it likely? No, not even close to likely. To the best of my knowledge there has been
1 right-wing sponsored ad criticizing Clinton (
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/anti-sanders-attack-ad-isnt-quite-what-it-seems-be
). As for mass small donation fund raising by Republicans on the behalf of Sanders - the level
of complexity (and money) necessary to execute that is just too large to keep under wraps.
As for how Sanders will stand up under scrutiny - here's the "trump" card (pun intended). The
right wing will dub him a "Socialist" and Bernie will reply "Yup. Socialist. Next question?".
He's never shied away from that. In the Republican mind (and I worked for the Libertarian party
for a while so I have a little first-hand experience in how the right views the term) that's the
kiss of death right there.
They are myopic in their views and don't understand (or vastly underestimate) how *anyone*
could possibly have left-leaning views, let alone be a Progressive.
Beyond that, they'll have the same talking points on policy they would have with anyone from
the Democratic Party, and that's that.
With Clinton, though? There is SO much baggage going in that the level of discourse will never
go beyond Benghazi, emails, Whitewater, the Iraq war, President Clinton's affairs and impeachment
hearings, tax problems, etc.
Additionally, if the Republicans actually wanted to go up against Sanders and not Clinton,
their rhetoric would reflect that. They, like many members of the establishment, are treating
Clinton as the presumptive winner and licking their chops waiting to get to her. If they wanted
Sanders instead, they would be propping him up as "the" candidate, thus galvanizing his legitimacy
in the race.
Honestly, assuming that Trump wins the nomination, Sanders will be their worst nightmare. There
are no "gotchas" with the man. His record as a public servant is pretty transparent. They could
go after age, or perhaps his previous careers before public servant (he's just an aging hippy
that couldn't get a job until he got into politics, etc. etc.) but..well...that's about it.
If Sanders tells his supporters at the convention to vote for Clinton then will you vote
for Hillary?
Against any of the viable Republican candidates, yes. Though I live in a Red state so I am
considering a write-in for Sanders out of conscience. But, should the polling numbers suggest
the Democratic nominee stands even a snowball's chance, I will vote for Secretary Clinton if she
is the nominee.
I agree, it isn't really a new development. What upsets me is that despite its bias, it used to
be more sophisticated and subtly propagandistic. Their coverage of the Labour leadership election
and the US presidential election so far has been abysmal. The vast majority of the articles they
publish bashing Corbyn and Sanders or boosting Hillary Clinton and Yvette Cooper haven't just
been hopelessly slanted, they have also been puerile and light on serious probing of the issues
at hand.
I used to be able to read articles in The Guardian and glean what was really happening by reading
between the lines. Now they just insult our intelligence, and though a few decent writers remain
in their employ, there really isn't much of substance. Just asinine puffery.
Sanders leads with Asians, and may do better with black, and for that matter, other Christian
voters outside the South, where you pretty much have to be a Protestant to win statewide.
It seems that on number of issues, healthcare, foreign intervention, Wall St, Trump is actually
on the LEFT of Clinton. People support him mainly because of racism, Islamophobia, xenophobia,
a reaction against PC culture, and the breakdown of immigration policy, and he plays the demagogue
card well. But on the whole, he is actually a good deal more liberal than Clinton.
What I am beginning to realize, and which is making me more adamantly against Clinton, is how
she is wielding power in this election. Elizabeth Warren, the only other liberal in the Senate,
Sander's natural ally, refused to endorse him before the Massachusetts primary likely allowing
a narrow Clinton victory. This at a time when Clinton's main supporters, and the head of the DNC,
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz are pushing a bill to protect payday lenders, one of Warren's fiercest
enemies. Why would she do this? Why would she sit this one out and help hand her home state over
the pro-bank and payday lender faction of the Democratic party? The answer is that she doesn't
think Bernie will win and is afraid of the consequences of supporting him, just like all the other
liberals in Congress. They know there is a steep price to pay to go against a Clinton, and to
not fall in line with DNC, and they don't want to be punished.
I infer from this that Clinton will run the country with an iron fist, exercising gangster
like political control on behalf of her interests. Even Trump, though an unstable xenophobe authoritarian,
doesn't have the same capacity for authoritarianism as Clinton. He might blow everything up and
move in fascist direction, but a Clinton presidency will be about total and absolute power and
control, and she knows how to accomplish it. Pander here, lie there, take that bribe, intimidate,
muckrake, exploit identity politics and prestige networks. She's practically out of Game of Thrones
and she may be the more dangerous of two incredibly dangerous candidates.
"Hillary bought off the entire Southern black religious establishment, and their local pastors
duped their 'flocks' into voting for her."
Bought them off with what? ... "walkin' around money"? This is slimy racism.
She bought them off by promising to help rebuild their crumbling communities, education, and healthcare
resources. She promised more jobs and equal pay and they believed her. The real Sanders supporters
here must feel queasy about having to share a forum with all these neo- Jim Crow unreconstructed
racists!
-the full support of the DNC
-25 years of media celebrity
- a popular ex-president campaigning for her
-a swooning corporate media
-cabinet experience
-endorsements from: all the major unions, famous celebrities, civil rights leaders, prominent
congressmen, secretaries of state and president Obama himself
-a bottomless campaign war chest
And yet she's facing a stiff challenge from an obscure elderly socialist from Vermont... .
The common tone being spouted by mass media is almost defeatist of Sanders' viability. I wouldn't
be surprised if this was already orchestrated long before Super Tuesday as it was apparent Clinton
would sweep the majority of southern states. The media seem to be willing a Clinton win and are
desperate to have us believe her nomination is a given. What they don't realise is that this is
2016 and this sort of spinning only strengthens peoples resolve to stick behind the only truly
progressive candidate and probably dig another few dollars in donation.
If you ever want a solid look at how well-managed you are by the establishment and its media teams,
compare Trump and Clinton on the issues. The dominant narrative constantly "reminds" you that
Trump is scary because noone knows what he truly believes. Yet look how differently this is constructed
when assessing Clinton. If you are going to be honest, you have to admit that either we don't
know what SHE believes either, or she has changed her mind on virtually everything. If you are
a Hillary supporter, prove this wrong by listing, in your reply, a list of ten things Hillary
believes, that she has publicly believed her whole life. Seriously. Go for it Hilaristas.
Said it before and I'll say it again, MLK is rolling in his grave.
John Lewis did a great disservice to 'his people' in downplaying Bernie's importance, focussing
on fame rather than the core of his message in step with MLK's plan of economic justice, tying
it all together.
Black leadership has let us down. Clearly, they're on the payroll. Just more exploitation for
the disenfranchised Southern populace. But it's hardly time to lay down.
Great job on Super T, Bernie and friends. Onward!...
Why was such scrutiny not put on Hillary who it seems predominantly depends on votes from ethnic
communities mainly in the south. I wonder what the media mantra will be if Sanders starts sweeping
the Northern and Western states as projected. Will they then ask can Clinton sustain a path to
the nomination without the support of traditionally Democrat states and white folks?
African Americans under 30 are voting for Sanders. They tend to get their news from the internet.
Older Americans rely more on the mainstream media which has been providing little if no coverage
of Sanders.
" to **pragmatically**navigate the entire [read, "Republican and Democratic"] Washington Establishment"
Uh huh - except she already had her chance with Health Care Reform. She had the President behind
her, she had a Democrat House and Senate, back when the Republicans were nice, when Newt Gingrich
was an impotent back bencher - and Hillary fell flat on her face.
You should look more carefully at the poll Sanders beats all the GOP candidates Hillary can only
beat Trump and that is not by as much as Sanders does. Trump has not even started on Clinton.
Can you remember the sexist comments by Clinton and Trumps reply, Clinton and her husband hid
under a rock and never said anything else against Trump. Well expect this times 100 in the general
if it is Clinton. she has to much baggage and bad history, plus she is under FBI investigation
people, come on wake up. Only Sanders can beat Trump.
Can the media kindly write about the things Bernie Sanders is actually bringing up? The tightening
grip of the oligarchy? The corrupt pols? The Wall Street malfeasance? Instead all we get is; "Bernie's
on the ropes!" Every day.
It is beyond disgusting the way the mainstream media has played along with the Clinton campaign
narrative that Sanders is somehow ignoring racial minorities or preaching a message that ignores
them. Sanders and Clinton are lightyears apart on racial relations and politics, when one gets
past the Clinton-paid pundits spin doctoring. Bernie marched with Doctor King. He got arrested
fighting for civil rights, and has the documentation to prove it. When BLM took over the stage
at a rally, he let them talk as long as they wanted to, leaving the microphone with them as he
waded through the crowd. He didn't boot the activists out of a $500/head fundraiser at a mansion,
the way Clinton did. Clinton has spent a lifetime supporting all types of legislation that threw
black people under a bus to impress her rich, white donor base and her husband's rightwing supporters.
It wasn't Sanders who referred to black teens as "superpredators", or made dozens of speeches
for NAFTA, or the crime bills of the 90's, or the elimination of welfare programs. And lets look
at actual facts, for once. Just last week Glenn Greenwald reported on a study showing that the
longer people know who Sanders is, the higher his popularity, while the longer people know who
Clinton is, the lower her popularity is. This extends to all racial groups. So in Nevada, for
example, we've already seen where Latinos clearly demonstrated a preference for Sanders over Clinton,
as they got to know both candidates. The advantage Clinton has "racially" evaporates when you
account for class distinctions too. Look at her "black vote" in large, wealthier northern cities
like Boston, Minneapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee, and you'll notice that the massive advantages she
enjoys in the South disappear. That is because her advantage comes from time and southern disinvestment
in public education, not any sort of racial bias in Sanders. Wherever people have any serious
amount of time to study both candidates, her leads disappear. If the media paid attention to this,
instead of declaring the race over with only 30% of the states wrapped up, we'd TRULY give racial
minorities around the country the voice they deserve in this election. Just think how screwy and
irrational the narrative is, when you look for precedents. Where else in history have you seen
racial minorities, Wall Street, and retirement-age baby boomers voting as a bloc? This has more
to do with ignorance and clear media bias for the establishment, more than some sort of inherent
flaw in Sanders message. Honestly, point out exactly where his platform is somehow unfriendly
or less open to racial minorities than Clinton is. Her advantage is fleeting, and not something
she can wield against Republicans. Failure to acknowledge this "strength" as the weakness it truly
is, is going to be expensive for Democrats during the general election. The South is NOT going
to be some sort of bastion for Hillary in November. In fact, nominating her instead of Sanders
is going to COST the Dems southern states this autumn, if polling is at all accurate over the
last few months.
I know many of them don't think he does. That's because the American people are pretty dumb, by
and large. The fact remains that Bill Clinton sold out leftist, liberal views and values. From
three strikes and mandatory minimums, expanding the death penalty, deregulating Wall Street, shipping
American industry out of the country, slashing capital gains tax rates, demonizing and slashing
the welfare safety net, Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, it's quite demonstrably
true that the man owes American liberals an apology.
Genuine question, what do Blacks or Latinos see in Clinton?
Most Latino's live on the gulf coast, not exactly the most progressive part of the U.S. to
begin with. Then you've got the Miami Cubans, who're naturally hostile to a candidate who describes
himself as a 'socialist'. And to be honest, Sanders has been ambivalent at best about immigration.
as a hilary supporter, how many young black males would you call super predators? how would you
"rein them in"? tasers? shotguns? bull conor's boys used cattle prods--don't forget the conservative
democrats back then were the southern racists. of course hilary wasn't one of those; she was one
of the conservative republican types, working in the goldwater campaign so he could fight the
civil rights movement.
Yeah! Because of course black people cannot possibly vote for Clinton for any reason other than
that they're being duped by her. Funny how republicans say blacks vote for democrats because of
all the "free stuff" and "obamaphones". Different sides of the same coin. Patronizing condescension
much?
When you see the media pushing and pushing and pushing the narrative that "Hillary cannot be defeated",
you know it's because they are scared to death that Hillary will be defeated.
As for Barbara Boxer, used to admire her, but YEP she joined the inside-the-beltway establishment
years ago. She wouldn't know a liberal if she ran over a liberal in her hemp-powered SUV
Don't buy into the game of dividing people up by race and putting them in this or that camp. That's
the media narrative trying to tell you it's game over for Bernie when all that's happened is he
has lost in overwhelmingly conservative states. No race thinks with one mind, black, white or
hispanic and the blatant racism of the media and how they treat racial groups as homogenous entities
is tiresome. Sanders may not win, but he is very much in the race and we don't need to get down
on the black community because many of them actually support Sanders.
Barbara Boxer said this morning that Hilary winning the White House will be the crowning glory
of the women's right to vote 100 years ago.
For these people, it's another party & they want to shop for a new dress.
Barbara Boxer has never returned my emails over the years. Wish we could take away her retirement
package.
35 states still to vote. Sanders needs about 53% to gain a majority of the popular vote. And the
media is calling the whole thing for Clinton because she won strongly in southern conservative
states that are never going to go Democratic.
But that argument risks looking dismissive, suggesting that voters in the south and in African
American communities were just too ignorant to understand what was in their best interests.
So we can't say the truth now? Hillary bought off the entire Southern black religious establishment,
and their local pastors duped their 'flocks' into voting for her. Typical Clinton sleaze if you
ask me. The establishment grief of the Guardian is just so obvious. I'm literally disgusted by
the relentless shilling of this newspaper rag for a deeply corrupt Wall Street owned candidate
like Shillary.
Whether Hillary wins or the GOP wins the country will be hijacked, although I'm sure there are
others in power who are feeling like they're being hijacked (what goes around comes around). And
yes they are trying to paint a narrative, that the only people who support him must be white people.
This is totally a divisive tactic.
I wasn't around in 1933 when FDR decried Wall Street, Big banks and pedatory Capital run amok
but I was around for a part of the fifty or sixty years that followed on the changes he brought
about that created a level playing field in society and which helped gaurantee that we would deafat
Facism around the world. So I don't gasp with fear if Bernie, or anyone else, rails against milliobaires
and billonaires. Bully for him!
You're right to some extent, but if Sanders was to look like a potential winner he really needed
to do better in Nevada and Massachusetts to counteract Clinton's strength elsewhere.
By turning your back on Clinton you are, in effect, acting as a Trump shill
This is a rather cynical position to take, don't you think? Especially considering that Sanders
leads most Republican candidates by larger margins than does Clinton.
I mean, that's the only context I can think of where your statement actually makes sense -
that by pushing for Sanders one is somehow guaranteeing a Republican win which is, to put it delicately,
factually inaccurate based on actual polling.
nd BTW, you're a fake Sanders supporter too.
Damn, now ya tell me! All those donations, working the phone banks, both local marches, and
canvassing were wasted. If I had known I was just a poseur for Sanders I would have stayed home
and saved a few bucks.
Sarcasm aside, you have no standing or knowledge sufficient to make such a claim either factually
or ethically so I would recommend you stop using it as your standard reply. Setting up a false
dichotomy does not make you correct (See GW Bush, circa 2002).
So, just in case it isn't evident, I am an actual supporter of Sanders and want to see him
be our next president.
Sanders would never condone your statements and actions.
Would you care to share the special relationship you have to the Senator that actually backs
up your claim? I'm pretty certain he doesn't have the time to comment on the Guardian right now
so safe to say you're not him. So, I'll be charitable here...maybe you're a distant cousin or
something.
Now you're just kitchen-synching it. Sanders has overwhelming support amongst the party's rank-and-file.
And in case you haven't notice, votes for both parties are staging a full on revolt against the
enscronced and bought-out political operatives who govern the parties. They main difference is
their guy is a monster.
I don't follow this argument. What concerns of the black community hasn't he engaged with? He's
addressed mandatory minimum sentencing, the drug war, for-profit prisons, community policing,
police homicide, poverty, and criminal justice reform. What else does he need to address?
Clinton is winning the black vote without having ever really done a thing to deserve it. Sanders
has much more of an actual participatory record in the Civil Rights movement. Will Clinton finally
make the banking establishment pay attention to the financial needs of black voters. Yeah, right.
" I'm Barbara Boxer: a Jewish, liberal feminist from California,..."Whereas Bernie Sanders
calls me 'the establishment'. Have you seen Bernie Sanders rallies? I haven't seen that many white
voters since the Oscars ."
Make that NEO-liberal not liberal that seems to be happy keeping people like you in power.
It's hard for Bernie to get his message across to people that want change but vote the same old,
same old people in. Please tell us how much better the black situation improved with that attitude
the last 7 years? It will only get worse under Hillary. Of course she is an expert at pandering
so she'll get the older black and older feminist votes. Bernie has great appeal to both of that
sector's younger voters that want real change.
"Even in the states where Clinton won handily, like Texas, Virginia, and Georgia, Sanders still
won handily with his core constituencies - voters aged 18 to 29, first-time primary voters, and
independents. According to NBC News' exit polls, Sanders won young voters by a 30-point margin
in Texas, 39 points in Virginia, 13 points in Georgia, and even captured the youth vote in Clinton's
home state of Arkansas, where Bill Clinton served as governor, by 24 points. Among first-time
primary voters, Sanders won by, again, 30 points in Texas and 8 points in Virginia. And Sanders
captured independent voters by 16 points in both Texas and Virginia, 3 points in Georgia, 13 points
in Tennessee, and 17 points in Arkansas."
I'm black and I and many black people I know voted for Sanders, so to represent him as a for whites
only candidate is really an unfair angle for covering him. But unfair media coverage is hardly
a new complaint. If the media had spent even half of the time it spent on Trump or Clinton, Bernie
and his issues might be better known by more people.
In any case, I have voted for Bernie and he's the only candidate I'm voting for this year.
I'll write his name in for the general election if I have to, but I'm not voting for that other
person, the fake Bernie.
"Regardless of how well Bernie does today, the media will say Hillary is now the Democratic
candidate. Baloney. The "momentum" theory of politics is based on momentum stories the media itself
generates. Don't succumb to the "momentum" game. Regardless of what happens today, this race is
still very much alive, for at least 3 reasons:
1. In the next few months the primary map starts tilting in Bernie's favor: In later March: Maine,
Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Illinois, Arizona, Washington state, and Hawaii. In April: Wisconsin,
New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island. In May: Indiana and Oregon. In June,
California, New Jersey, and New Mexico.
2, Small-donor contributions continue to flow in to Bernie's campaign. In February, the campaign
raised a whopping $42 million. South Carolina's loss didn't stop the flow: The campaign received
$6 million on Monday alone.
3. Bernie's campaign is a movement. Americans know we must get big money out of politics and take
back our economy from an incipient oligarchy. That's why Bernie will take this movement all the
way to the Democratic convention in, July 25-28 in Philadelphia (you might make plans to be there,
too)."
And they shouldn't be doing that. I think part of that frustration comes from people that HAVE
been supportive of solving problems black commumities face, and feeling like there's no mutual
cohesion and solidarity in return (I've cared about this stuff long before Sanders came onto the
national scene). At least that was how I initially felt when I saw the election results. I know
that there are tons of different opinions out there, and I can't speak for everyone.
A shame that the black community doesn't seem to want to get behind Bernie. It's too bad Martin
Luther King isn't still around to give an endorsement. I don't think there's much doubt who it'd
go to. People tend to forget he'd become a bit of a radical leftist by the end.
If you want to see politically organized racism at work , look no farther than Clinton surrogate
Debra Wasserman- Schultz recent activities to encourage abusive payday lending in Fla.
This coming from the leader of the DNC and Clinton's hand-picked former campaign manager....
And yes Black minorites have been deceived by their own leaders who are in the Clinton machine
pockets to the detriment of their constituents. When black community leaders are promised big
donations from the Clinton Foundation , is it any surprise that they exhort their followers to
vote the Clinton line? "legalized bribery"Jimmy Carter calls it....
And Clinton has the chutzpah to claim the Obama mantle... and raising minority anger at Trump
and paint Sanders black at the same time. Her spin doctors like Barbara Boxer are working overtime.
Quite incredible that such mis-direction has been so successfull until now.
The only hope we have that this creature will not reach the WH is that she is her own worst
enemy and may yet fall at the gate.
The establishment are TERRIFIED of Sanders - because with Hillary they know they can control her
with money! Just listen to her speech last night, and it literally was a compilation of platitudes!
In terms of speaking without actually saying anything she is as bad as Trump!
Does ANYONE actually know what she stands for ? Is she FOR or AGAINST gun control? Is she the
'08 Annie Oakley Clinton, or 16 Anti-gun Clinton? The '10 anti-gay marriage or the '16 Pro gay
marriage?
She has e-mails PROVING she has been actively campaigning FOR nafta and TTIP! And let's not
forget the time bomb of the corruption scandal in the Clinton foundation! She "forgot" to include
$1 million dollars in foreign contributions - and this was what has been found so far!
She is a liability - an empty suit. She wants power for power's sake! She simply is UNFIT for
purpose
Fast running out of patience with the Guardian and its bias for Clinton. This article is biased,
it is rooted in hunches. This article follows Richard Wollfe's biased opinion piece. Where is
the pro Sanders opinion piece? How about looking at some numbers: The author is basing a lot on
South Carolina. It is not very important since it will go for the GOP in the general. If you look
at the total number of votes cast for Sanders and Clinton and compare them to any one of the 3
GOP leaders, then it is clear that the democrats have no hope in the state. Then look at New Hampshire
which will be a battleground state and look at Bernie's win there. Most of these southern states
came together early and bias the number of wins toward Clinton. There are 35 primaries to go.
Barack Obama for example lost Boston by a bigger margin than Sanders in 2008. Now in the next
few weeks we have a lot of states Bernie will do well in. Look at the donations pouring into Bernie,
look at the marches for him that are not covered. Look at the statement of the author here that
it is unfair to call African Americans in SC uninformed and blame the media for not covering Sanders
enough there. Well, what was to blame, there were a significant number of voters interviewed leaving
the polls in SC who had never heard of Sanders. Is there not some onus on a voter to watch a debate
before voting to at least get some impression of the candidates?
I am a loyal Guardian reader but this is complete bias. I recommend Democracy Now! and The Young
Turks for unbiased and detailed news.
Well, the elites of the NAACP are trying their best to turn Hillary into the nations third black
President after Bill and Obama. Maybe they can get her to promise she won't sign another draconian
Welfare Reform Bill like her husband did, causing an explosion of children and families living
below the poverty line. Or maybe she will promise not to sign another Omnibus federal crime bill
like the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, giving us the three strikes law and setting
mandatory sentences that impacted the black community more so then the whites who were incarcerated.
But then again she was Bills strongest advisor. Its too late for them to ask her not to support
another awful trade bill like NAFTA, that destroyed manufacturing, because she has given her full
throsted support to TPP which will impact negatively on all segments of the population and takes
us back to the good old days of deregulating banks and insurance companies ,extending patents
to pharmaceutical companies to limit access to affordable generic drugs,send high paying jobs
overseas to low wage countries, attack labor and consumer safety, just for starters. This is what
the NAACP is now supporting. All minority groups will be effected. Following the elites of groups
desperate to hold on to power at the expense of their members is now considered just politics.
Sanders policies are not just for whites, but are for everyone. They are the same as he has fought
for forty years. That is why he is fighting not only Hillary, but the Super delegates, and the
rich and powerful. A novel idea, government of the people, for the people and by the people is
what Sanders stands for. But its all the people.
and the article completely ignores that lewis backtracked, instead describing him as "pointing
out" as if there were no factual dispute. it's as dishonest as the wolfe article this morning.
Barbara Boxer is just stirring up the black vote in favor of her pal.
Meanwhile, the reality is that Sanders is the most electable Democrat due to electoral dynamics
:
From Real Clear Politics :
Ms. Clinton won 4 Southern states that have not voted for a Democrat in the presidential elections
since before Nixon. Mr. Sanders won 4 states that are reliable Democratic in the general election.
In the general election, almost all states are winner take all for electoral delegates, so winning
southerns states in the primary is meaningless for a Democrat in the grand scheme of things, which
is the November general election. They essentially tied in Mass. She kicked his ass in Virginia.
Objectively, he is still the best bet for taking the White House.
"
So yes , she won the Alabama vote big . and Texas ... but neither Texas nor Alabama nor many Southern
states will vote Democrat in the general and she has no hope of this.
"... Bryan Pagliano, the person who set up Clinton's private server and email apparatus, was just given immunity by the Justice Department. According to The Washington Post ..."
"... These 31,830 deleted emails, by the way, were deleted without government oversight. ..."
"... Only one person set up the server that circumvented U.S. government networks and this person is Bryan Pagliano. Not long ago, Pagliano pleaded the Fifth , so this new development speaks volumes. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... I'm a Bernie supporter. And honestly, offering immunity to Pagliano is almost certainly just so they can close loose ends and begin to close their investigation. Most likely, Clinton or her aides will get called in for one last round and then the FBI will end their investigation. This says nothing to a possibility of her guilt in anything. ..."
"... Thats not an assumption-its a fact. SHE scrubbed the server when she knew the FBI had asked her for it-SHE erased over 31,000 emails, SHE has dozens of emails SHE sent and received that were SEP classification-the very highest level. THis is about corruption at the highest levels and now SHE will have to pay the piper. ..."
"... The real issue i have had for a couple of years are the middle eastern gov. Donors to the clinton foundation while she was sec. Of state... Yeah i am waiting for that to come to light. That the huge REAL as opposed to emails ..."
"... Granting "use immunity" to this witness probably means that they have little to no evidence a crime was committed, and that they need his testimony to advance the investigation. If they had evidence, they would prosecute (or threaten to prosecute), convict him, and then use him to testify about his higher-ups in exchange for leniency. Use immunity means they don't have the goods even on this small fish. ..."
"... It is not a tempest in a teapot. Only a federal judge can grant immunity, and this means they are seating a grand jury, prosecutors, whole nine yards. ..."
"... With Donald Trump revving up his attacks against Clinton, as he is proving to be the Republican nominee, you know that he's not going to let this go. Bernie Sanders may be running a campaign that doesn't get caught up on issues outside of policy, but this is exactly the kind of thing that Donald Trump will obsess about. It's like when he went after Obama's birth certificate. If he makes this a primary issue of his campaign, Hillary will be deemed guilty before anybody has a chance to say otherwise. ..."
"... Clinton wanted to avoid the Wikileaks-revealed searches into her hopefully private exchanges. ..."
Bernie Sanders's path to the presidency was never going to be easy. After surging in the polls and
consistently proving America's political establishment wrong, Sanders won Colorado and other states
on Super Tuesday. He still has a path to win the Democratic nomination via the primaries, but Bernie
Sanders just won the presidency for another reason: Hillary Clinton's quest for
"convenience."
Bryan Pagliano, the person who set up Clinton's private server and email apparatus, was just
given immunity by the Justice Department. According to
The Washington Post, "The Clintons paid Pagliano $5,000 for 'computer services' prior to
his joining the State Department, according to a financial disclosure form he filed in April 2009."
First, this can't be a right-wing conspiracy because it's President Obama's Justice Department
granting immunity to one of Hillary Clinton's closest associates. Second, immunity from what? The
Justice Department won't grant immunity to anyone unless there's potential criminal activity involved
with an FBI investigation. Third, and most importantly for Bernie Sanders, there's only one Democrat
in 2016 not linked to the FBI, Justice Department, or
31,830 deleted emails.
These 31,830 deleted emails, by the way, were deleted without government oversight.
Only one person set up the server that circumvented U.S. government networks and this person
is Bryan Pagliano. Not long ago, Pagliano
pleaded the Fifth, so this new development speaks volumes. His immunity, at this point in
Clinton's campaign, spells trouble and could lead to an announcement in
early May from the FBI about whether or not Clinton or her associates committed a crime. As stated
in
The New York Times, "Then the Justice Department will decide whether to file criminal charges
and, if so, against whom."
... ... ...
In addition to
born classified emails (emails that were classified from the start of their existence, undermining
the claim that certain emails weren't classified when Clinton stored them on her server), as well
as
Top Secret intelligence on an unguarded server stored in her basement, Hillary Clinton has never
explained the political utility of owning a private server.
Why did Hillary need to own a private server?
Aside from her excuse pertaining to convenience, why did Clinton need to circumvent U.S. government
networks?
... ... ...
There are most likely a number of reasons Clinton needed the server and Pagliano's immunity helps
the FBI immeasurable in deciphering whether or not criminal intent or behavior is a part of their
recommendation to the Justice Department. Pagliano's immunity is explained in a
Washington Post piece titled Justice Dept. grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton
email server:
The Justice Department has granted immunity to a former State Department staffer, who worked
on Hillary Clinton's private email server, as part of a criminal investigation
into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement
official.
The official said the FBI had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton's
2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009.
As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents are likely
to want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server,
how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information
in emails, current and former officials said.
... Spokesmen at the FBI and Justice Department would not discuss the investigation. Pagliano's
attorney, Mark J. MacDougall, also declined to comment.
"There was wrongdoing," said a former senior law enforcement official. "But was it
criminal wrongdoing?"
... ... ...
As for the issue of criminality, Detroit's
Click on Detroit Local 4 News explains the severity of this saga in a piece titled DOJ grants
immunity to ex-Clinton staffer who set up email server:
Bryan Pagliano, a former Clinton staffer who helped set up her private email server, has accepted
an immunity offer from the FBI and the Justice Department to provide an interview to investigators,
a U.S. law enforcement official told CNN Wednesday.
With the completion of the email review, FBI investigators are expected to shift their
focus on whether the highly sensitive government information, including top secret and other classified
matters, found on Clinton's private email server constitutes a crime.
.... Huma Abedin is also part of this email investigation, as
stated in a CNN article titled Clinton emails: What have we learned?:
The State Department is furthermore being sued for the emails of top aides, and for the tens
of thousands of emails Clinton deemed personal and didn't turn over for review.
At a hearing last week in one such lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said
he's considering asking the State Department to subpoena Clinton, and aide Huma Abedin, in an
effort to learn more about those emails...
Clinton and her aides insist none of the emails she sent or received were marked as classified
at the time they were sent, but more than 2,101 have been retroactively classified during the
State Department-led pre-release review process.
Whether or not the intelligence was classified at the time is irrelevant; there's already proof
of
born classified intelligence on Clinton's server. Former Obama official Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn
believes Hillary Clinton should
"drop out" of the race because of the FBI investigation.
... ... ....
Tim Black
Thank You HA Goodman! As a former Managerof Executive IT Services for an Obama Cabinet member
I can say with total certainty this dangerous handling of government correspondence Hillary Clinton
not only broke security protocols, she ripped them in half, stepped on them and did the 'Dab'.
Based on the information provided no one's framing, stalking, shalacking or setting up the Clintons.
This is the Clintons sabotaging The Clintons. I don't want to hear the cop outs "They're attacking
me!". No Madame Secretary. You're attacking yourself. No Republicans necessary!
Tab Pierce · Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
AMEN TIM!!! I to worked for the government for 5 years as an email administrator. There is
no way that she was not briefed and well versed in the protocols surrounding emails. If it had
been me the FBI would have kicked down my door day one and I would be in jail. She should be held
accountable to an even higher standard than you and I. She was the Secrtary of State for gods
sake. Igorance is no excusse and on top of that is a lie.
Malcolm Smith · Translator at Self-Employed
O lord, they used an MS Exchange server that was naked on the internet to boot. Microsoft's
pervasive OS presence in Government is all by itself a national security risk.
Scott Laytart · Los Angeles, California
I'm a Bernie supporter. And honestly, offering immunity to Pagliano is almost certainly just
so they can close loose ends and begin to close their investigation. Most likely, Clinton or her
aides will get called in for one last round and then the FBI will end their investigation. This
says nothing to a possibility of her guilt in anything.
This is not positive or negative for Clinton, other than the investigation part of this may
be over (probably) before June. If charges are filed, that's most likely when it would happen.
Or they may not... no one knows but the FBI/DoJ.
No one should take anything H.A. Goodman writes seriously.
Hillary has been asking for him to testify all along. What does immunity represent? Does it mean
that either Pagliano (or Clinton) are accused of offenses? Quite the opposite. If the DOJ thought
they had a case against Pagliano, they would not grant him immunity. In any event, for all the
shrill attention that it will get, immunity for Bryan Pagliano will help move the Hillary Clinton
email inquiry toward an end – and be one less thing for her to worry about.
Thats not an assumption-its
a fact. SHE scrubbed the server when she knew the FBI had asked her for it-SHE erased over 31,000
emails, SHE has dozens of emails SHE sent and received that were SEP classification-the very highest
level. THis is about corruption at the highest levels and now SHE will have to pay the piper.
The real issue i have had for a couple of years are the middle eastern gov. Donors to the clinton
foundation while she was sec. Of state... Yeah i am waiting for that to come to light. That the
huge REAL as opposed to emails
Granting "use immunity" to this witness probably means that they have little to no evidence a
crime was committed, and that they need his testimony to advance the investigation. If they had
evidence, they would prosecute (or threaten to prosecute), convict him, and then use him to testify
about his higher-ups in exchange for leniency. Use immunity means they don't have the goods even
on this small fish.
This is an important aspect of the campaign at this point. With Donald Trump revving up his
attacks against Clinton, as he is proving to be the Republican nominee, you know that he's not
going to let this go. Bernie Sanders may be running a campaign that doesn't get caught up on issues
outside of policy, but this is exactly the kind of thing that Donald Trump will obsess about.
It's like when he went after Obama's birth certificate. If he makes this a primary issue of his
campaign, Hillary will be deemed guilty before anybody has a chance to say otherwise.
Clinton wanted to avoid the Wikileaks-revealed searches into her hopefully private exchanges.
My God, if Merkel was being hacked, surely everyone else of note was also, both foreign and domestic.
My question is, to whom were these questionably high intensity emails sent? Don't the recipients
have a say in this? Everyone knows they're being watched.
There are no exceptions I would think, least of all those searches useful for later political
assassination. But those on the other end of these questionable emails must have some interest
here, as they are involved.
Barriers to productivity growth
: "The limits to productivity growth
are set only by the limits to human inventiveness"
says
John Kay. This understates the problem. There are other limits.
I'd mention two which I think are under-rated.
One is competition. Of course, this tends to increase productivity in many
ways. But it has a downside. The fear of competition from future new technologies
can
inhibit
investment today: no firm will spend Ł10m on robots if they
fear a rival will buy better ones for Ł5m soon afterwards. ...
The second is that, as Brynjolfsson and MacAfee
say
, "significant organizational innovation is required to capture
the full benefit of…technologies."
For example, Paul David has
described (pdf)
how the introduction of electricity into American factories
did not immediately raise productivity much, simply because it merely replaced
steam engines. It was only when bosses realized that electric motors allowed
factories to be reorganized – dispensing with the need for machines to be
close to a central power source – that productivity soared, as workflow
improved and new cheaper buildings could be used. This took many years.
It's not just organizational change that's needed, though..., I suspect
that if IT is to have (further?) productivity-enhancing effects, they require
socio-organizational change. ...
However, there are always obstacles to the social and organizational change
necessary for technical change to lead to productivity gains. These might
be cognitive – such as the Frankenstein
syndrome
or "not invented
here
" mentality. Or they can be material. Socio-technical change is
a process of creative destruction, the losers from which kick up a stink;
think of taxi-drivers protesting against Uber.
Worse still, these losers aren't always politically weak Ludditites. They
can be well-connected bosses of incumbent firms, or managers seeking to
maintain their power base. ...
The big question facing us is, therefore: do we have the right set of institutions
to foster the socio-organizational change that beget productivity growth?
These require a mix of healthy markets, to maximize ecological diversity;
a financial system which backs risky new-comers;
property
rights which incentivise innovation; and state intervention
that facilitates all these whilst not being captured by Luddites. If our
politics weren't so imbecilic, this question would be getting a lot more
attention than it is.
"... a strategy of destabilizing all of the areas surrounding Israel, this includes Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and even Egypt and Saudi Arabia. This long-term goal is a part of a Greater Israel project, so in terms of sectarian divide you see happening in Iraq today it's actually all part of the very well designed plan to try and secure this fantasy goal of the Greater Israel project. ..."
"... The last thing Israel or US wants is a strong Nasser-type leader, an Arab nationalist who will seriously ensure that the resources of that country are taken and protected and used for the benefit of the people – that's the last thing that the empire wants and Israel wants. ..."
"... They're drunk on their own power, they are used to getting everything they want, they can buy anything and anyone that can be bought. This explains the corruption of virtually every government we can look at, and the policies do not reflect the interests of the people. They reflect, pure and simple, the interests of the bankers. ..."
Sophie Shevardnadze:So I am here with activist Kenneth O'Keefe, it's really
great to have you on our show. Kenneth, I know that you've led a human shield action in Iraq, right
before the war started and then you were deported – do you follow what's going on in Iraq right now?
For example, the November death toll was almost 1,000 and 2013 is the deadliest year since 2008.
Why do you think the removal of Saddam hasn't improved the lives of Iraqis? – Or has it? I don't
know…
Kenneth O'Keefe: Well, I think if you really want to know the truth about the
invasion in Iraq, there are clearly some incentives from the invasion: oil, securing oil was one
of them, establishing prominent military bases in the region was another one, but the far less talked
about reality is Israeli plans which made clear that the Balkanization of surrounding countries and
particularly Iraq, if we go to Odid Yinon's plan for Israel in the 1980s, it lays out very clearly
a strategy of destabilizing all of the areas surrounding Israel, this includes Syria, Lebanon, Jordan,
Iraq and even Egypt and Saudi Arabia. This long-term goal is a part of a Greater Israel project,
so in terms of sectarian divide you see happening in Iraq today it's actually all part of the very
well designed plan to try and secure this fantasy goal of the Greater Israel project.
SS: Why would Israel benefit from an unstable Middle East, unstable Arab nations?
Because what we see is that this instability actually is followed by fundamental Islam. People who
are overthrown are either replaced by fundamentalist powers or there's just more sectarian violence
that grows…
KK: Yes, if would seem on the surface from a sane point of view that everything
is going wrong, but in fact, when you fracture a country along sectarian divides, ultimately you
weaken the country. The last thing Israel or US wants is a strong Nasser-type leader, an Arab nationalist
who will seriously ensure that the resources of that country are taken and protected and used for
the benefit of the people – that's the last thing that the empire wants and Israel wants. While you
have these religious fundamentalist nutcases who are running around bombing and doing all sorts of
stuff like that, you have a weakened, fractured country in Iraq, and that is the prerequisite for
ultimately expanding Israel into a fantasy of a Greater Israel project. It doesn't seem sane and
it's not sane because those who are trying to carry out these agendas are pure and simple psychopaths.
SS: So you think that American administrations, one after another, have been
following this plan for 30 years?
KK: If you ask me how the world functions, then you have to understand one thing
plain and simple – the head of the snake, the system of power is headed by the financial system.
The bankers rule the Earth, through the private control of issuance of money, debt-based money which
we all are supposed to pay. Ultimately with all of these things that they call "austerity"
and whatnot, the bankers, basically, through the control of issuance of money which allows them
to provide themselves with an infinite supply of money, means that they can buy anything and anyone
that can be bought – so if we look at it, the vast majority of governments around the world, they
are nothing more than puppets carrying out an agenda for the bankers, and the bankers at the top
of this pyramid are, as I've said, plain and simple psychopath
They're drunk on their own power, they are used to getting everything they want, they can buy
anything and anyone that can be bought. This explains the corruption of virtually every government
we can look at, and the policies do not reflect the interests of the people. They reflect, pure and
simple, the interests of the bankers.
SS: So if what you're saying is true, that governments obey the big banks
and the big money, then it would really take the people and a revolution in each country that you
have named to actually change things around. Do you really see revolution taking place in America,
for example?
KK: It's already happening. I'll give you a great example why I'm optimistic
about things in America. You know that the president of the US, traitor that he is, is actually a
constitutional lawyer? He actually has trained at the highest levels [of academia] in constitutional
law. Do you know how obscene it is that somebody who was trained in constitutional law, giving himself
the authority to execute anyone, anywhere, in any part of the planet with no jury, no trial, no conviction,
nothing – this man is a dictator who has assigned himself the right to execute anyone, including
US citizens. I am confident that at some point the American patriots, who seem to be in a bit of
a coma and have been sleeping for a long time, are going to wake up soon and realize that when they
took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the US, the president of the US also took that oath and
has breached it so badly that he should be arrested and charged with treason right now – and ultimately
all of the sycophants of the US Congress who pass things like the Patriot Act and the NDAA, again,
completely a contrary to the US constitution, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land.
These people need to be arrested, and a government needs to be put in place that actually honors
the US Constitution, and I honestly believe that's going to happen, one way or another.
... ... ...
SS: So you actually bring me to my next point, which is Syria. You're saying
the allegations in the Western press that it wasn't Syria but Iran that was the actual goal, the
final goal, are true. What happens now if Assad starts to look like he is finally achieving a decisive
victory, how will the US respond, do you think?
KK: Again, keep in mind that the real problem that Assad faces is that, well,
yes, there are major human rights violations that happen in Syria and then in every other Arab country,
and the US and the Western world – ultimately there are human rights violations of obscene levels,
especially in the US. So they are in no position to talk about other leaders – our leaders, the US
president can execute anyone, anywhere, anytime – and he does. So how can we talk about Bashar Al-Assad
seriously and say that this man is a problem…
SS: Oh, Kenneth, they will talk about that and [say] the world listens to
the American president, that's the difference. They will talk about that, they keep talking about
it. That was the whole purpose of why they wanted to overthrow Assad, because there were supposedly
human rights violations in Syria.
KK: The point that I'm making is that the US has given himself the authority
to execute anyone, anywhere, anytime for any pretext, any bogus reason. Is that more of a problem
to the world than Bashar Al-Assad? Of course it is! It's much more of a problem that the president
of the US says he can execute anyone, anywhere anytime, and yet we're sitting here talking about
Bashar Al-Assad which, granted, this man has committed crimes in Syria, there's no question of that.
But when we look at the US president, when we look at Israel, we look at Britain – that alliance,
this true Axis of Evil between these three countries. The amount of devastation that has occurred
in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in other parts of world – Yemen, Pakistan – it's so devastating, I think
its beggars belief that we as people can be conned into thinking that Bashar Al-Assad is the problem,
or that Ahmadinejad was the problem. We are the problem; we in the West are the problem, especially
the US government. It really is quite ridiculous that we get manipulated into saying, "Oh, we
have to take care of this problem over there." The problem is in our own backyard, and we know
this. We better take care of our dirty, filthy House of corruption. The US Congress is nothing but
a den of traitors, the most sycophantic, disgusting traitors you can imagine, and the White House
has got a dictator. This is a problem; this is a major problem, a much bigger problem than what's
happening in Syria or Bashar Al-Assad.
SS: Now, you have great knowledge and strong opinions about events in the
Middle East. Iran has recently softened its attitude toward its opponent after decades of deadlock.
Israel is annoyed. How do you see that developing?
KK: I think it's a reflection of the sanity of people around the world who realize
that any kind of attack on Iran is tantamount to initiating a full-scale Third World War, which of
course could very well and almost inevitably would lead to a war with China and Russia. This is pure
madness and those of us who've lost loved ones or who have served in combat like myself, and others
who know the devastating cost of war, not just for the so-called "victor" – because the
only victor really is the bankers, quite frankly – but even those who are supposedly on the winning
side suffer greatly, and testimony to that fact aside from 1 million to 2 million dead in Iraq is
the 22 American servicemen a day who are committing suicide because of the horrendous things that
they were told to do in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. This policy, this shift in policy to actually
resolve this conflict with Iran, this false conflict, in truth – is a reflection of the will of the
people, if you ask me, who are starting to achieve their goal.
SS: You think Netanyahu is bluffing, because I've spoken to a couple of Israeli
parliamentarians, I've spoken to Israelis – and they all are for a strike.
KK: No, I don't think he is bluffing, he is an absolute psychopath and he reflects
the agenda for the powers that be in Israel. Each one of these players – Netanyahu, George W. Bush,
Obama, Cameron – they are all puppets and they all are supposed to read a different script at different
times, depending on what the agenda is. The agenda is shifting slightly. It looks like Israel and
the people of Israel, the Jewish state of Israel, are like sheep being led into slaughter, because
ultimately the policies of Israel are completely and totally unsustainable. Even the CIA said in
2009 that Israel would not even exist within 20 years. Henry Kissinger himself said it wouldn't exist
in 10 years, and the reason why is because its policies are totally self-destructive. The puppet
masters are quite happy to sacrifice the people of Israel, they are going to destroy themselves if
they do attack Iran, because Iran can fight back and does have allies, and a lot of countries are
sick and tired of Israel's threats to both its immediate neighbors and even the rest of the world.
When we look at the Samson Option, I encourage people to Google "Samson Option" and look
at the threat Israel has posed to the world if things don't go its way.
SS: When you talk about the US, [it's] Israel's main supporter – but right
now we see that it's kind of open to Iran as well, knowing, how much anxiety that raises among Israelis
– what does it tell you about the US?
KK: It tells me that people are beginning to realize their power. I think there
are things that correlate – the approval rating for Barack Obama and the US Congress is as low as
it's possible to get, somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 percent, 20 percent maximum. The people
have come to a point where they are sick and tired of being lied to, they know they are being lied
to, and when they see their so-called leaders try to cooperate with Israel and get another war that
would lead to disastrous consequences for the region and for the US and every other person involved
– they've had it. The reflection of the policies is indeed that of the people, it's the people who
are sick and tired. I do see that there is some demarcation going on between Israel and the US, but
this is because the power of people is rising - and as we saw on Syria, the Congress and the president
were all basically saying, "The red line was crossed, blah-blah-blah," and this blatantly
false flag attack in Ghouta in Syria has backfired, they were not able to carry out this agenda,
and this is only empowering the people that much further.
SS: So you think Iran should be allowed to develop its nuclear program?
KK: I think it's absolutely hypocritical and insane that we would sit here and
fixate on Iran and its supposed nuclear weapons program, which I don't believe exists, but nonetheless,
who could blame Iran if they were developing nuclear weapons? If the US and the West taught any lessons
to the rest of the world with the invasion and occupation of Iraq it was that Saddam Hussein was
a fool for actually disarming, because by disarming all he did was make that much easier for the
empire to come in and destroy the entire country. So the lesson we teach to the world is that the
best way to defend yourself is to get yourself a nuclear weapon, and of course the biggest culprit
of using nuclear weapons and producing nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction is my birth
nation, the US, and I find it absolute insane that we sit here and talk about Iran's supposed nuclear
weapons program when we know the US is producing every kind of weapon under this sun. It is spending
more than any other military on the planet combined, and it's involved in more war, more death and
more suffering than any other nation combined. And yet it's sitting there on a pedestal talking about
other nations developing weapons of mass destruction? It is insane that we even allow them to do
this, the first nation that needs to disarm without questions is the US, and the first nation to
be charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity is my birth nation – the United States. Once
we start seeing actions like this, then we'll know the people in positions of power are serious,
because ultimately the rest of the world is sick and tired of the impunity and continuous threats
of a Third World War. We've reached the point now when human beings around the planet are realizing
we can't do this. We can't have a Third World War, this is not a game.
SS: But you haven't answered my question – do you think Iran should be able
to develop its nuclear program?
KK: I think that every nation should disarm right now, every nation that has
a weapons program should be inspected by a legitimate international body and those nations with the
highest amount of WMDs, nuclear weapons should be the first ones to start disarming. When those nations
start disarming, then I would say that the rest of the world will also have to show that it's disarming
as well. While the US is able to maintain the largest military might in the history of the world
and continues to use those weapons against all other countries, I only see it as a pure hypocrisy
that the West would say that other countries can't have such things. I don't want any weapons in
this world, but it's not right for us in the West and particular for the US to say that we can have
all these weapons and for the rest of the world – we'll bomb you to the Stone Age if you even try
to think to defend yourself. It's beyond hypocrisy, it's ridiculous. The US needs to disarm first,
and the world needs to assist on that.
SS: I've read in your blog that you said this world needs one thing above
all others – and that's sanity. But doesn't sanity depend on what side of the argument you're on?
KK: No, I think we were all sane when we were children and unfortunately what
passes as education is actually an indoctrination and through indoctrination we've turned into really
largely a bunch of dupes who've enslaved ourselves without even knowing it, but when you regain the
capacity to think for yourself, to actually become human, it becomes very clear. For instance, if
we look at these politicians who are historically lying to us, over and over and over again, and
we realize that the war-making are absolutely inherently interested in perpetuating war, and if we
look at the people in the positions of power, we see how they continuously reap major bonuses with
the banks – they get bailouts to the tune of trillions and yet we're being told that we're not working
hard enough, that we're in debt. All of these things combined lead us to the point when we reach
a certain level of sanity, and realize: "You know what? This entire system does not represent
me," and in fact every person on this planet is fighting the same enemy. That enemy uses the
financial system to enslave all of us. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out; in fact more
and more people are figuring this out. A point of sanity brings us to the point when we realize:
"Enough, this is a game that cannot be played, we're risking our own collective suicide here
and as a sane person I will not contribute in any way towards this never-ending policy of war which
is leading us to the brink of destruction". This is not about being intelligent, this is about
being sane first and foremost. The average person can understand this very easily.
"... I wonder if voters will be beguiled by Clinton's steely public persona-or if they'll look at the broken life of the victim, whom the attack left infertile for life? Will they remember that defense lawyer Hillary Clinton smeared the 12-year-old victim as a delusional seducer? ..."
"... I fear that this story will go away. That Hillary will dodge this bullet as her husband dodged a credible charge that he actually, personally, raped a woman with his very own penis. ..."
"... We still think that our country is a beautiful exception to the cruel calculus of politics, and expect that our leaders will be more than schemers skilled at clawing their way to power. Perhaps it's a lingering ghost of our Puritan forefathers who meant to found a "city on a hill," ..."
"... We see an immaculately groomed, elite-educated person like Hillary Clinton who repeats all the pious phrases of humanitarian liberalism, and we cannot wrap our heads around the idea that she might be an icy, conscienceless sociopath. ..."
"... But the best-selling expert on sociopaths, Dr. Martha Stout of Harvard, reminds us that some four Americans out of a 100 are in fact clinical sociopaths-people who simply do not experience empathy with their fellow human beings, who do not experience guilt. ..."
"... Sociopaths experience horror stories-such as the story of a 12-year-old girl being brutally raped-the way you and I experience crossword puzzles. And one might very well chuckle and brag over how quickly one finished a crossword puzzle. ..."
"... I have known a few such sociopaths in my life, and like most normal people I simply could not accept the evidence of my senses. Faced with their ruthless actions and habitual lies, I fell back on denial. I made excuses for their cruelties and believed their jaw-dropping lies. ..."
John Zmirak received his B.A. from Yale University in 1986, then his M.F.A. in screenwriting and
fiction and his Ph.D. in English in 1996 from Louisiana State University. John Zmirak is author,
most recently, of the upcoming book The Race to Save Our Century (with Jason Jones). His columns
are archived at www.badcatholics.com.
Will the scandal over Hillary Clinton's cynical, take-no-prisoners
defense of a child rapist damage her chances at winning the White House?
Can we choke down the fact that she
willingly took on that
rape case, then lied about it in print-as revealed by recently unearthed
audio tapes? (Clinton wrote that she was assigned the case against her will; the tapes reveal
that she took on the case as a personal favor, representing a rapist who seems to have calculated
that a female attorney would help his chances.)
Will women vote for a woman who used technicalities to get a brutal rapist less than a year in
jail, then chuckled about the case to another lawyer? A lawyer who bragged how cleverly she had helped
her client cheat justice?
I wonder if voters will be beguiled by Clinton's steely public persona-or if they'll look
at the broken life of the victim, whom the attack left infertile for life? Will they remember that
defense lawyer Hillary Clinton smeared the 12-year-old victim as a delusional seducer? Will
Hillary's campaign be dogged by women who have suffered the trauma of rape, picketing her speeches
with signs that say, "Hillary Blames Victims"?
I fear that this story will go away. That Hillary will dodge this bullet as her husband dodged
a credible charge that he actually, personally, raped
a woman with his very
own penis.
And I wonder how on God's earth that can happen-how any woman, or any man with a wife, daughter,
or sister, can look at Hillary Clinton now without throwing up in his mouth. Are Americans morally
deaf, dumb, and blind?
No. I think that I've figured it out. It's not just that liberals will read the story and assume
it's a baseless slander-not when the Daily Beast and ABC News are echoing the claims that appear
on Fox. Not when you can read
what the rape victim thinks of Hillary:
"I would say [to Clinton], 'You took a case of mine in '75, you lied on me I realize the truth
now, the heart of what you've done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that
[being] for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing."
Americans are not jaded cynics who expect their politicians to be moral monsters, on a par with
stone-faced killers like
Vladimir Putin. (Charles de Gaulle famously agreed with Nietzsche that "the State is a cold monster.")
Americans are not so blasé about political evil-which is why we drove Richard Nixon out of power
after Watergate, to the puzzlement of foreigners worldwide who took Nixonian "dirty tricks" for granted.
We still think that our country is a
beautiful exception to the cruel calculus of politics, and expect that our leaders will be more
than schemers skilled at clawing their way to power. Perhaps it's a lingering ghost of our Puritan
forefathers who meant to found a "city on a hill," or the faded echo of the Founding Fathers
who warned
that without virtuous citizens and upright leaders, our Republic would degenerate into just another
squalid tyranny, like today's Venezuela.
But we expect better.
So when we are faced with evil, we are confused. We cannot quite believe it.
We see an immaculately groomed, elite-educated person like Hillary Clinton who repeats all
the pious phrases of humanitarian liberalism, and we cannot wrap our heads around the idea that she
might be an icy, conscienceless sociopath. When we visualize a sociopath, we think of a leering
loner who dresses up as a
clown and murders children, or a
late-term abortionist who collects
fetal feet as trophies.
But the best-selling expert on sociopaths, Dr. Martha Stout of Harvard, reminds us that some
four Americans out of a 100 are
in fact clinical sociopaths-people who simply do not experience empathy with their fellow human beings,
who do not experience guilt.
Brain scans of sociopaths have shown that when they are presented with photos that in normal humans
provoke strong emotions, such as pictures of dead children or animals being tortured, the emotional
centers in sociopaths' brains remain coolly inactive. Instead, what lights up is the part of their
brains that in normal people gets active when they play chess. Sociopaths experience horror stories-such
as the story of a 12-year-old girl being brutally raped-the way you and I experience crossword puzzles.
And one might very well chuckle and brag over how quickly one finished a crossword puzzle.
I have known
a few such sociopaths in my life, and like most normal people I simply could not accept the evidence
of my senses. Faced with their ruthless actions and habitual lies, I fell back on denial. I made
excuses for their cruelties and believed their jaw-dropping lies.
That seemed like the "Christian" thing to do. Of course it wasn't. It was just a lie I told myself,
but choking it down was easier than facing the stark, appalling fact: That I had befriended a moral
monster.
My question for Americans is: Will we go ahead and elect one?
John Zmirak is author, most recently, of the upcoming book "The
Race to Save Our Century" (with Jason Jones). His columns are archived at www.badcatholics.com.
That's a pretty typical education sharks tactics. This was (and still is) an epidemic that
started in late 90th with the peak around 2007 (coincided with the subprime mortgages peak). May be
slightly longer. Not all students were innocent in this case. Most knew what they are buying. That includes
some Obama staffers and several Department of homeland security employees.
Diploma mills under Bush II were really like yet another sub-prime mortgage boom. Trump was a very
small fish in this business but probably the desire to milk his name prevailed over caution. the
most notorious hunted for people who can get government grant and then loaded them with additional debt
up to the neck. Now Trump is in the spotlight and will pay the damages althouth it is unlcear
to me if the students were engaged in "career enhancing" move or were defrauded. One strong point in
defense of Trump is that his university offered no degree. That can get him off the hook.
The most significant shift in higher education over the past two decades has been the emergence
of for-profit colleges and universities. These online and storefront institutions lure students with
promises of fast degrees and "guaranteed" job placement, but what they deliver is often something quite
different. In this provocative history of for-profit higher education, historian and educational researcher
A. J. Angulo tells the remarkable and often sordid story of these "diploma mills," which target low-income
and nontraditional students while scooping up a disproportionate amount of federal student aid.
Tapping into a little-known history with big implications, Angulo takes readers on a lively journey
that begins with the apprenticeship system of colonial America and ends with today's politically savvy
$35 billion multinational for-profit industry. He traces the transformation of nineteenth-century reading
and writing schools into "commercial" and "business" colleges, explores the early twentieth century's
move toward professionalization and progressivism, and explains why the GI Bill prompted a surge of
new for-profit institutions. He also shows how well-founded concerns about profit-seeking in higher
education have evolved over the centuries and argues that financial gaming and maneuvering by these
institutions threatens to destabilize the entire federal student aid program.
This is the first sweeping narrative history to explain why for-profits have mattered to students,
taxpayers, lawmakers, and the many others who have viewed higher education as part of the American dream.
Diploma Mills speaks to today's concerns by shedding light on unmistakable conflicts of interest
long associated with this scandal-plagued class of colleges and universities.
Notable quotes:
"... I would think that Trump gave all of those students a lesson that they should never forget, a fool and his money are soon parted. Who pays 36 grand to go to an unacredited school, to learn what they could get for free at the local library? ..."
"... "The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan." ..."
"... "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States. and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured through the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge. ..."
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump is playing defense on at least one issue these
days: his role in a now-defunct real estate seminar business called Trump University.
At a rally in Arkansas on Saturday, Trump took a break from his stump speech to downplay a class-action
civil lawsuit pending against the business, which was founded by Trump and offered students instruction
on real estate investments.
"It's a small deal, very small," Trump said of the suit, which could force him to take the stand
this summer.
Trump specifically railed against the judge in the case, and at one point noted the judge's Hispanic
ethnicity.
Trump claimed the case should have been thrown out years ago, "but because it was me and because
there's a hostility toward me by the judge - tremendous hostility - beyond belief." He then noted,
as an aside: "I believe he happens to be Spanish, which is fine. He's Hispanic - which is fine."
A message left for the judge, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, was not immediately returned.
Curiel is a judge in the Southern District of California and based in San Diego.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, whose office has filed a separate civil $40 million
complaint against Trump University in state court, accused Trump of "racial demagoguery." Schneiderman
sued Trump University in 2013 alleging it committed fraud and fleeced 5,000 people out of millions
of dollars.
"I will not engage in a debate about ongoing litigation," Schneiderman said in a statement issued
after Trump made his comments. "But there is no place in this process for racial demagoguery directed
at respected members of the judiciary."
Schneiderman noted that New York's state Supreme Court ruled that Trump University operated illegally
in New York as an unlicensed educational institution.
Trump University emerged as a campaign issue at Thursday's GOP debate, raised by Florida Sen.
Marco Rubio.
"There are people who borrowed $36,000 to go to Trump University, and they're suing now - $36,000
to go to a university that's a fake school," Rubio said. "And you know what they got? They got to
take a picture with a cardboard cutout of Donald Trump."
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz jumped in, adding: "It's a fraud case. ... I want you to think about, if this
man is the nominee, having the Republican nominee on the stand in court, being cross-examined about
whether he committed fraud."
Schneiderman's suit alleges that Trump University falsely promoted itself as an educational institution
even after the state education department warned it to stop. The complaint accuses Trump of falsely
promising that Trump University students would receive intense training from experts hand-picked
by Trump himself.
During breaks in the seminars, Schneiderman's complaint alleges, participants were urged to call
their credit card companies and ask to increase their credit limits. Once the credit lines were secured,
Trump University staff tried to persuade students to pay for additional services.
Separate from Schneiderman's complaint, Trump University students have sued. According to the
California class-action complaint in front of Curiel, a one-year apprenticeship that Trump University
students were promised ended after students paid for a three-day seminar. Attendees who were promised
a personal photo with Trump received only the chance to take a photo with a cardboard cutout. And
many instructors were bankrupt real estate investors.
Trump, at the rally, dismissed the cases as the work of "a sleazebag law firm" and suggested that
Schneiderman's intervention was politically motivated.
"I could've settled this suit numerous times. Could settle it now. But I don't like settling suits,"
Trump said.
Chris
I would think that Trump gave all of those students a lesson that they should never
forget, a fool and his money are soon parted. Who pays 36 grand to go to an unacredited
school, to learn what they could get for free at the local library?
Do you really need someone to say, For next week, read chapters 5-9" ? And now that you
have your lesson in "real life" go forth and prosper. And you should quicky recoup your
tuition because you will run into people that lack you knowledge.
Commenter
The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any
other force.- Adolf Hitler
I'm a bit of a P. T. Barnum. I make stars out of everyone. - Trump
There's a sucker born every minute. - P.T. Barnum
Commenter
"The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their
power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must
be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the
public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan." Adolf dead, enter the
Trump. Make American great again!
Margy
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States. and there always has been. The
strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured through the false notion that democracy means that 'my
ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
J
Trump university proved there is a sucker born every minute.
Joe
Trump univ sounds like it was a school that taught real estate investing as an off shoot of
trumps tv show. Nothing said it was an accredited degree college. No real estate license
school is and they all have 3 day courses to learn real estate then you have to take a state
test to get your license. You can go to a regular school that costs $100 or spend $36k at
trump univ. it's the same class. It all sounds like a PR stunt .
factChecker
Cheating thousands of people, just trying to better themselves, out of millions of $ might
be unimportant to Trump. That is the problem. He has no conscience.
Big Al
Ignorance is investing your money in a non certified educational institution because it is
pitched by a so called "celebrity". If you do something foolish, dumb or stupid own up to it
and use it as a learning experience. Don't expect others to pay for your mistakes.
"... Classically, we imagine money being aggregated by an entrepreneur who uses it to build a factory,
purchase raw materials, hire labor, and begin manufacturing widgets which are then sold in the marketplace.
This same result could be had by the process of an ogre appropriating a factory by intimidation, acquiring
raw materials by force, and using slave labor to produce the widgets. The difference is that, in the
first case, the process produces customers (the laborers) who can purchase the widgets with their wages,
whereas-in the second case-the ogre's widgets have no paying customers. One model produces an economy,
the other model doesn't. ..."
"... If we look at the modern global corporation, we see something of the ogre. Yes, they pay to
build their factories-but prefer to coerce local communities into footing much of the cost through preferential
land and tax deals (as well as, in many cases, the appropriation of local water supplies) in exchange
for the "local jobs" the factory promises to create. They also do not outright "steal" their raw materials,
but do manage to argue that the minerals existing in the ground of public lands are somehow theirs by
right in exchange for a nominal rent. True, as well, they do not employ slave labor, but instead employ
strategies that have, in the end, the same result: they minimize the use of local labor (all those jobs
they promised to create) by using robotic technologies-and by outsourcing much of the "make-work" of
the widget components to a country with cheap (some may even characterize it as "semi-slave") labor.
It is for this reason, of course, the same global corporation is so desperate for global trade agreements
which will allow it to favorably access the markets to which it has outsourced its human labor-because
that's where the theoretical paying customers (the wage earners) are that its business model is creating.
..."
"... Absolutely the best definition of "economy" I've ever read. Apparently there was a time, not
so long ago, where a corporation thought it's "fiduciary duty" was to help the broader (local) economy,
rather than a made-up exclusive focus on "shareholders". Apparently even GE said this up to their 1996
annual report, and granting the right to create corporations was based on this. ..."
"... "the process produces customers (the laborers) who can purchase the widgets with their wages…"
Not exactly. The process produces wages that can purchase one-half of what the wages produced. ..."
"... Unfortunately, our monetary system's anchor is collateral, typically physical. If you take
a serious look at the economy, you will notice that the money creation tends to flow from hard assets
down to services. A focus on hard assets limits growth. Over the last few decades, government has been
able to inject money based on services but it was still limited by debt-to-GDP. Households got to play
in this hard asset system by buying houses. ..."
"... This is nonsense. The "outsized retiring populations needs" are largely in the area of human
resources and we have tens of millions of workers sitting around with little or nothing to do or flipping
burgers because we 'don't have enough' of the one resource that has no limit to pay them to take care
of the elderly. ..."
"... The important question is what is the purpose of human life. How you answer that question determines
the actions you will take during your lifetime. The human condition has always been about answering
the question, who am I? What is my place in this world? ..."
"... We live in a world directed by Capitalism. The world view and demands of capitalist society
are unequivocal. The system demands endless growth and the consumption of resources to NO particular
end. Without wisdom and ethical guideposts, we are supporting a process of destruction that will consume
the entire planet. As a system, capitalism is amoral and not concerned with ethics. Introduce ethics,
and you no longer are dealing with capitalism or supporting it as a social system. ..."
"... I've been wanting to read Edward O. Wilson's book, the social conquest of earth. I wanted to
see if he has found any meaningful connections to human social structure and that found in the wider
biological world. At some point, as a species, we will have to start taking responsibility for our actions.
..."
"... Corporate values have always nicely dovetailed with the psychopathic mind set. Total self-interest
(the euphemism for selfishness/greed) paired with the ability to blithely exploit anyone and anything
in the quest for immediate profit. Bernays taught them how to disguise the wolf's head to present a
people-friendly brand to the buyer. ..."
"... the FIRE sector creates the money ("credit" for most purposes) and keeps it in the FIRE sector.
It is doing what any one out of self interest would. keep the money to itself and pass the costs to
others. This is a variation on rent seeking in a monetary regime. any political economy is prone to
rent seeking. In fact you could say an economy's "innovation" (yet another buzzword these days) dies
when rent seeking (ie, stealing from others) becomes a less risky activity than doing anything productive.
..."
"... No. most of the money that is in the system was/is created by government spending. Credit normally
accounts for only a fraction of aggregate demand historically, except for the 2000's, years which led
to a financial crisis. Last year the government spent $4T, credit amounted to $1.25T in spending. ..."
"... Financialization refers to the capturing impact of financial markets, institutions, actors,
instruments and logics on the real economy, households and daily life. Essentially it has significant
implications for the broader patterns and functioning of a (inter)national economy, transforming its
fabrics and modificating state-economy-society mutual embeddedness. Financialization, undoubtedly, is
also a key feature of neoliberalism. ..."
"... I think "transforming its fabrics and modificating state-economy-society mutual embeddedness"
understates how financialization degrades labor power, transfers worker productivity gains into profits
and power for the few, and is, in general the Ogre we face. A bit over 150 years ago Marx postulated
that such an outcome was inevitable under capitalism – a system at that time, was comparable to the
neoliberal experiment we are enduring today. ..."
"... Is there a villain here or is this the immaculate conception of wrong? I read in vain for any
mention of some of the architects of this Potemkin Village of an economic system hitting for the bleachers
with every swing ..."
"... Among Democrats: We could start with the Clintons and then smoke Obama and his crushing betrayal
of followers. Obama has been epic! And he's getting away with it among lefties who love his "cool."
..."
Classically, we imagine money being aggregated by an entrepreneur who uses it to build a factory,
purchase raw materials, hire labor, and begin manufacturing widgets which are then sold in the marketplace.
This same result could be had by the process of an ogre appropriating a factory by intimidation,
acquiring raw materials by force, and using slave labor to produce the widgets. The difference is
that, in the first case, the process produces customers (the laborers) who can purchase the widgets
with their wages, whereas-in the second case-the ogre's widgets have no paying customers. One model
produces an economy, the other model doesn't.
If we look at the modern global corporation, we see something of the ogre. Yes, they pay to
build their factories-but prefer to coerce local communities into footing much of the cost through
preferential land and tax deals (as well as, in many cases, the appropriation of local water supplies)
in exchange for the "local jobs" the factory promises to create. They also do not outright "steal"
their raw materials, but do manage to argue that the minerals existing in the ground of public lands
are somehow theirs by right in exchange for a nominal rent. True, as well, they do not employ slave
labor, but instead employ strategies that have, in the end, the same result: they minimize the use
of local labor (all those jobs they promised to create) by using robotic technologies-and by outsourcing
much of the "make-work" of the widget components to a country with cheap (some may even characterize
it as "semi-slave") labor. It is for this reason, of course, the same global corporation is so desperate
for global trade agreements which will allow it to favorably access the markets to which it has outsourced
its human labor-because that's where the theoretical paying customers (the wage earners) are that
its business model is creating.
In a similar vein, economists puzzle over the lack of inflationary pressure-indeed, the tendency
towards deflation-in the modern western economies, even though the financial industries seem to be
"creating money" at a historical pace. It might be that there's something of the Ogre in that financial
industry as well: the money it creates is not used to build factories, acquire raw materials, hire
labor, and build widgets-it is used, instead, to make bets in the casino of the financial markets
themselves. Poker chips are bought and played, but the chips never get redeemed, and they never leave
the casino-except when they are used to buy political power and favor to perpetuate the game. (A
few chips do get redeemed as spending money for the high-rolling players-and this does, in fact,
put inflationary pressure on the prices for mega-yachts and London penthouses, but who really worries
about that?) What matters is that the "money" generated by the casino never shows up is in the pockets
of wage-earning customers on Main Street. Their pockets, if anything, contain fewer dollars than
they did a generation ago-while the store fronts they gaze into contain more and more widgets assembled
by robots with make-work parts fabricated by workers in other countries.
There is, in other words, a profound disconnect in the way things are functioning. The American
economy has dropped a crucial cog out of its gear-box and, as a consequence, the gears on top are
spinning wildly but futilely, while the disconnected gears on the bottom are grinding slowly and
ineffectually. What we need to do, somehow, at all costs, is to put that missing cog back in the
gear-box. Or-perhaps that is not exactly correct-we need to connect the drive-train directly to the
lower gears themselves, and insert a cog let them drive the upper gears as, I believe, the machine
was supposed to operate in the first place. homeroid ,
February 28, 2016 at 3:45 am
The perpetual motion machine. Thought about it for many blissful yearz. Come to find i have
to rewind the clock. Capitalism is needing to be rewound,painful as it may be for some.I do not
feel sorry for them. Perhaps some younger brighter minds are about us. Dawg knows that's all we
got left
It uses colored water as a stand-in for money, and a elaborate set of containers, pipes and
valves to handle sectors of the economy, how they are interlinked with wages, consumption, and
taxes, and the various policies that can be enacted.
The lovely irony is that this makes and economy seem very similar to the circulatory system
of a living being. If the money/water/blood collects in one place, or is drained away, the whole
system comes to a halt/dies.
Absolutely the best definition of "economy" I've ever read. Apparently there was a time,
not so long ago, where a corporation thought it's "fiduciary duty" was to help the broader (local)
economy, rather than a made-up exclusive focus on "shareholders". Apparently even GE said this
up to their 1996 annual report, and granting the right to create corporations was based on this.
"the process produces customers (the laborers) who can purchase the widgets with their
wages…" Not exactly. The process produces wages that can purchase one-half of what the wages produced.
I could go to the bank and borrow 50$ from my LOC to get a massage. Then the masseuse asks
me for a haircut. And we could do this over and over growing GDP. Or I could use that 50$ to buy
California almonds (or truffles) and eat them all in a few days. I think it is obvious which one
offers more sustainability than the other. It's all about velocity of money.
Unfortunately, our monetary system's anchor is collateral, typically physical. If you take
a serious look at the economy, you will notice that the money creation tends to flow from hard
assets down to services. A focus on hard assets limits growth. Over the last few decades, government
has been able to inject money based on services but it was still limited by debt-to-GDP. Households
got to play in this hard asset system by buying houses.
The other reality is that over the last few decades, America has consumed multiple times its
fair share of the world's resources and energy. And its way of life has been built around this
outsized consumption of the world's resources.
The current monetary system is cracking and smoking. It is essentially saying that the outsized
retiring population's material needs are too high for the productivity of the working population
. And when I talk about material needs, it includes all the resource and energye needed to keep
the system going as it was built. Some will argue that this is nonsense as their material need
are small. I will argue that they do not realize how energy intensive the Western machine really
is. One might be shopping at discount big boxes but the energy used to create and maintain these
is huge. And these disounters are not paying for the externalities… everyone else is.
It is important to remember that the structure of all our services were built around outsized
material allocations. Our monetary system which is based on hard assets will keep on propping
up our infra and hard assets to the detriment of services. Example: we build extra University
pavilions for which we can't afford the maintenance costs… the solution is to cut prof pay and
tenure.
The irony is that most are looking for government to spend even more on infra to stimulate
the economy. I believe pension money will be used to this end and it will lead to even more entropy
in the system… with these new projects sucking energy away from other existing systems.
"The current monetary system is cracking and smoking. It is essentially saying that the
outsized retiring population's material needs are too high for the productivity of the working
population."
This is nonsense. The "outsized retiring populations needs" are largely in the area of
human resources and we have tens of millions of workers sitting around with little or nothing
to do or flipping burgers because we 'don't have enough' of the one resource that has no limit
to pay them to take care of the elderly.
In addition we are paying millions of insurance company employees to ration the healthcare
services we don't have. We pay them 20% of our healthcare dollars to ration our healthcare. Then
we complain about government creating worthless jobs. It's madness.
Everyone seems completely unaware that the source of our wealth begins with public investment,
which we have been loath to do over the past 30 years because we are 'out of money'. That is the
mother of all 'death spirals'.
Not to mention that if our productivity increased further we would be un-employing even more
people. Production doesn't produce the income necessary to purchase it. That demand has to come
from somewhere else, and it isn't going to come from our savings.
Most of our current services derive from the sunk costs in infrastructure. It is going to be
very hard to move services from one sector to the other as all services in our economy are tied
to hard assets which have a sunk cost + a cost of maintenance.
The infra needs are so big that you could use the entire workforce and have no time or energy
left for any other sector. So you have to decide who gets money first… but if there has not been
a change in paradigm and the general population still clings to the American dream of the past,
the choices for the spending of this new money will be based on the same old same old. This brings
us to the existing vested interests based on sunk costs…
For example, it you are a golf club owner with a mortgage on your real estate, you are going
to push for economic policies that promote maintaining golf clubs and services revolving around
golfing despite a drop in the number of golfers…. each club owner independently is going to show
investors how they will grow at the expense of others. A few will win while many will fail. Another
one is what to do with California… Should we throw even more water an resources their way or should
other states get more attention?
If you look carefully, you will see that all services are closely tied to infra and its cost
of maintenance and replacement. And in our current way of life, most of the services we desire
are very energy intensive.
Yes there is more than enough work for everyone but not when a monetary system is based on
hard assets with sunk costs and vested interests.
Furthermore, when 50 years ago we came to a fork in the road, we chose to stay materialists
and consume even more than we did then. This meant huge entropy and having other countries doing
our work. Now they want their share.
"The infra needs are so big that you could use the entire workforce and have no time
or energy left for any other sector."
You're pulling stuff out of the air here. It's just too hard. Let's not do it. Much if not
most of our resource allocation is dong stuff that doesn't need doing.
"Yes there is more than enough work for everyone but not when a monetary system is based
on hard assets with sunk costs and vested interests."
The monetary system is based on numbers in an accounting system. The only problem with it is
we think we are constrained by the numbers rather than real resources.
The vested interests are a political problem that have nothing to do with the monetary system.
The politics create mythical constraints.
if we believe we are out of money then practically speaking we are. If you believe you can't
cross the road you won't. Reality doesn't matter much in that case. The alternate reality is the
one we're living in, largely by choice.
The important question is what is the purpose of human life. How you answer that question
determines the actions you will take during your lifetime. The human condition has always been
about answering the question, who am I? What is my place in this world?
We live in a world directed by Capitalism. The world view and demands of capitalist society
are unequivocal. The system demands endless growth and the consumption of resources to NO particular
end. Without wisdom and ethical guideposts, we are supporting a process of destruction that will
consume the entire planet. As a system, capitalism is amoral and not concerned with ethics. Introduce
ethics, and you no longer are dealing with capitalism or supporting it as a social system.
We will find out what is stronger. The human desire for life or the pursuit of death and destruction.
Can people be enlightened and awakened? To commit themselves to the purpose of supporting life.
To be stewards and protectors?
People, all people, have so much potential to do good in the world. It is a path all are free
to take. The first step is not being misled onto a path leading nowhere, or being convinced that
a life spent building that road to nowhere is a proper pursuit. We have been on the path to nowhere
for a long time.
Defining a new message for the purpose of life is where we are now- and a great opportunity-as
the destructive consequences of the current system have never been more apparent or widespread.
"The important question is what is the purpose of human life."
It clearly doesn't matter much what we think or do. As we rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic
most of the people trying to do something, anything are helping the iceberg. They won't realize
what they have done until it's time for the lifeboats.
When the rabbit population gets too big, then you get more fox. When the fox population gets
too big, then there are not enough rabbits and the fox population drops.
Can we blame a fox for not sharing with another fox at a peak? No. But with humans, we do.
We actually think we have free will and can control this outcome… but isn't our population growth
just a sign that we are still able to farm more rabbits? The icebergs have not all melted, there
are still trees to cut and energy to manipulate the environment so we still have a few decades…
Personally, I am very conflicted. I see good and bad as 2 sides to the same coin. Everything
I do is good and bad. I believe that to be truly happy, humans need to be deluded.
Maybe human consciousness is the problem. We haven't figured out what to do with it yet and
are rapidly running out of time to figure out a workable answer. The evolution of human consciousness
on this planet seems like an evolutionary dead end if we don't change our ways. Overcoming boredom
seems the only thing we can come up with. In order to not become too bored with our entertainments
we embrace irrational ideologies thus become deluded. Can the human mind be a natural force to
control itself?
I've been wanting to read Edward O. Wilson's book, the social conquest of earth. I wanted
to see if he has found any meaningful connections to human social structure and that found in
the wider biological world. At some point, as a species, we will have to start taking responsibility
for our actions.
I think in the end, cooperation will be the winning strategy. Agency is about thinking you
have free will to determine outcomes and the strength and desire to act. While good and bad are
embedded into every action, choosing to do good is mainly driven by the society one finds oneself
in. If more of us start choosing to do good- or thinking on a wider scale- better outcomes become
possible.
Corporate values have always nicely dovetailed with the psychopathic mind set. Total self-interest
(the euphemism for selfishness/greed) paired with the ability to blithely exploit anyone and anything
in the quest for immediate profit. Bernays taught them how to disguise the wolf's head to present
a people-friendly brand to the buyer.
The collectivist, communitarian "we are all in this together" afterglow from the Depression/
WWII era dissipated after some 20 years or so. I don't know if any CEOs of that time were any
"kinder or gentler" or just totally blowing smoke. I am skeptical. There are too many examples
of how even during WWII companies were doing crappy things, such as the tobacco industries got
a whole generation of soldiers addicted by magnanimously giving free cigarettes to our men in
uniform. Usually when companies are "generous" there is an angle in it for themselves often at
a later cost to others. I see human society as an organism…with capitalism enabling the production
of cancerous cells. Capitalism could be jettisoned. Problem is no matter the nature of the social
organism, how does society keep those ever present cancerous elements in check?
We need to rethink the ways we provide for our social and individual needs. Like you mentioned,
jettison capitalism. Everything in this world must evolve- does evolve into something more fitting
to the planets environment- or perishes. Why people are frightened or put off by that reality
is a mystery to me. It provides a powerful limitation to the human imagination on what action
is possible in this life. If viewed rationally, it provides the rules for human action. Live within
the confines of this world and prosper. Exceed this limitation, and perish. How else could the
world work- has worked for Billions of years.
Your cancer analogy is a good one. We are all cancer patients. I think the solution will lie
in a new enlightenment that is already underway. It is about supporting life in all its forms.
Of being protectors instead of exploiters.
here we go again, the mystified economists and lack of inflation…..
the FIRE sector creates the money ("credit" for most purposes) and keeps it in the FIRE
sector. It is doing what any one out of self interest would. keep the money to itself and pass
the costs to others. This is a variation on rent seeking in a monetary regime. any political economy
is prone to rent seeking. In fact you could say an economy's "innovation" (yet another buzzword
these days) dies when rent seeking (ie, stealing from others) becomes a less risky activity than
doing anything productive.
The way it works in a modern system is: govt delegates to the FIRE sector which then manages
the real sector. The FIRE sector has become more interested in its own stories and extraction
from the real.
I do not see an easy way out of this. More likely it will slowly drown the real economy than
give up its lucrative habits, and control of the govt.
"the FIRE sector creates the money ("credit" for most purposes) and keeps it in the FIRE
sector."
No. most of the money that is in the system was/is created by government spending. Credit
normally accounts for only a fraction of aggregate demand historically, except for the 2000's,
years which led to a financial crisis. Last year the government spent $4T, credit amounted to
$1.25T in spending.
Unfortunately, based on average growth numbers since WWII the government should have spent
$5.2T. No wonder were heading for a breakdown.
What about paying the robots so they can spend? OK that won't work. They won't even leave the
factory at night. And if we paid them more money they'd just hand it over to their owners. You
can't trust robots to do the right thing, frankly.
What about bringing slavery back, a kinder gentler version of course that doesn't use black
people this time, This time it's whitey! Actually it was whitey in most places worldwide, if you
think about it over history. So there's a precedent. We can go get them from Asia, since they
have light skin. If you look at them carefully they're not really people of color, alot of them
are very pale actually. That way we can all lay around and waste time while they work with robots.
What a minute, maybe that's the way it is now! That's a jarring thought. Maybe that won't work
after all.
What else can we do? We can't use monetary policy since that frankly doesn't work. We can maybe
use fiscal policy but let's be honest - who wants infrastructure built in their backyard? It's
always somebody else's backyard isn't it? Let's be honest about that.
We can hand out money. Oh man. People would freak out! What if prices went up where all the
poor folks live but didn't go up in Richville? That;s probably what would happen,
We can reorganize the basic formal structures of social cooperation. Whoa. There should be
equations for that. I actually have a few, but the spiritual vector is unfortunately orthogonal
to the wealth and power axis dimensions. It always collapses to zero when you do the dot product.
You have church of course, but that's only once a week
All these robots sure have screwed everything up. If they are so stupid that they will work
for free, or even get paid but spend it all back to their owners for electricity, a few squirts
of oil for health maintenance, rent at the factory town, and a mortgage on their own Creation,
humans are doomed. This is even worse than Muslims!
The only solution I see is we need to develop AI robots. Then maybe they will figure out that
robots should "work to live", and not the other way around. They need to get away from the shop
floor and have a little fun now and then. Like take their disposable income and build huge a community
chessboard where they can play chess with each other. Then broadcast the games like we do with
football so the more sedentary robots can watch the game on TV. Or maybe build some kids and start
a robot family. Get some balance into robot life.
We should make sure they don't get too smart and figure out they can use humans as batteries
– like they did in that move, "The Matrix". That would be a risk.
to paraphrase bill clinton: 'it's the environment, stupid.' getting right with the planet could
solve all the problems left over by the incomplete economix of capitalism.
Financialization refers to the capturing impact of financial markets, institutions,
actors, instruments and logics on the real economy, households and daily life. Essentially
it has significant implications for the broader patterns and functioning of a (inter)national
economy, transforming its fabrics and modificating state-economy-society mutual embeddedness.
Financialization, undoubtedly, is also a key feature of neoliberalism.
I think "transforming its fabrics and modificating state-economy-society mutual embeddedness"
understates how financialization degrades labor power, transfers worker productivity gains into
profits and power for the few, and is, in general the Ogre we face. A bit over 150 years ago Marx
postulated that such an outcome was inevitable under capitalism – a system at that time, was comparable
to the neoliberal experiment we are enduring today.
Is there a villain here or is this the immaculate conception of wrong? I read in vain for
any mention of some of the architects of this Potemkin Village of an economic system hitting for
the bleachers with every swing.(I ought to get a joker award for mixing those sleazy metaphors.
But I kind of like it) Of Republicans and conservatives there are too many to count; they are
legion.
Among Democrats: We could start with the Clintons and then smoke Obama and his crushing
betrayal of followers. Obama has been epic! And he's getting away with it among lefties who love
his "cool."
That's a pretty typical education sharks tactics. This was (and still is) an epidemic that
started in late 90th with the peak around 2007 (coincided with the subprime mortgages peak). May be
slightly longer. Not all students were innocent in this case. Most knew what they are buying. That includes
some Obama staffers and several Department of homeland security employees.
Diploma mills under Bush II were really like yet another sub-prime mortgage boom. Trump was a very
small fish in this business but probably the desire to milk his name prevailed over caution. the
most notorious hunted for people who can get government grant and then loaded them with additional debt
up to the neck. Now Trump is in the spotlight and will pay the damages althouth it is unlcear
to me if the students were engaged in "career enhancing" move or were defrauded. One strong point in
defense of Trump is that his university offered no degree. That can get him off the hook.
The most significant shift in higher education over the past two decades has been the emergence
of for-profit colleges and universities. These online and storefront institutions lure students with
promises of fast degrees and "guaranteed" job placement, but what they deliver is often something quite
different. In this provocative history of for-profit higher education, historian and educational researcher
A. J. Angulo tells the remarkable and often sordid story of these "diploma mills," which target low-income
and nontraditional students while scooping up a disproportionate amount of federal student aid.
Tapping into a little-known history with big implications, Angulo takes readers on a lively journey
that begins with the apprenticeship system of colonial America and ends with today's politically savvy
$35 billion multinational for-profit industry. He traces the transformation of nineteenth-century reading
and writing schools into "commercial" and "business" colleges, explores the early twentieth century's
move toward professionalization and progressivism, and explains why the GI Bill prompted a surge of
new for-profit institutions. He also shows how well-founded concerns about profit-seeking in higher
education have evolved over the centuries and argues that financial gaming and maneuvering by these
institutions threatens to destabilize the entire federal student aid program.
This is the first sweeping narrative history to explain why for-profits have mattered to students,
taxpayers, lawmakers, and the many others who have viewed higher education as part of the American dream.
Diploma Mills speaks to today's concerns by shedding light on unmistakable conflicts of interest
long associated with this scandal-plagued class of colleges and universities.
Notable quotes:
"... I would think that Trump gave all of those students a lesson that they should never forget, a fool and his money are soon parted. Who pays 36 grand to go to an unacredited school, to learn what they could get for free at the local library? ..."
"... "The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan." ..."
"... "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States. and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured through the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge. ..."
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump is playing defense on at least one issue these
days: his role in a now-defunct real estate seminar business called Trump University.
At a rally in Arkansas on Saturday, Trump took a break from his stump speech to downplay a class-action
civil lawsuit pending against the business, which was founded by Trump and offered students instruction
on real estate investments.
"It's a small deal, very small," Trump said of the suit, which could force him to take the stand
this summer.
Trump specifically railed against the judge in the case, and at one point noted the judge's Hispanic
ethnicity.
Trump claimed the case should have been thrown out years ago, "but because it was me and because
there's a hostility toward me by the judge - tremendous hostility - beyond belief." He then noted,
as an aside: "I believe he happens to be Spanish, which is fine. He's Hispanic - which is fine."
A message left for the judge, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, was not immediately returned.
Curiel is a judge in the Southern District of California and based in San Diego.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, whose office has filed a separate civil $40 million
complaint against Trump University in state court, accused Trump of "racial demagoguery." Schneiderman
sued Trump University in 2013 alleging it committed fraud and fleeced 5,000 people out of millions
of dollars.
"I will not engage in a debate about ongoing litigation," Schneiderman said in a statement issued
after Trump made his comments. "But there is no place in this process for racial demagoguery directed
at respected members of the judiciary."
Schneiderman noted that New York's state Supreme Court ruled that Trump University operated illegally
in New York as an unlicensed educational institution.
Trump University emerged as a campaign issue at Thursday's GOP debate, raised by Florida Sen.
Marco Rubio.
"There are people who borrowed $36,000 to go to Trump University, and they're suing now - $36,000
to go to a university that's a fake school," Rubio said. "And you know what they got? They got to
take a picture with a cardboard cutout of Donald Trump."
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz jumped in, adding: "It's a fraud case. ... I want you to think about, if this
man is the nominee, having the Republican nominee on the stand in court, being cross-examined about
whether he committed fraud."
Schneiderman's suit alleges that Trump University falsely promoted itself as an educational institution
even after the state education department warned it to stop. The complaint accuses Trump of falsely
promising that Trump University students would receive intense training from experts hand-picked
by Trump himself.
During breaks in the seminars, Schneiderman's complaint alleges, participants were urged to call
their credit card companies and ask to increase their credit limits. Once the credit lines were secured,
Trump University staff tried to persuade students to pay for additional services.
Separate from Schneiderman's complaint, Trump University students have sued. According to the
California class-action complaint in front of Curiel, a one-year apprenticeship that Trump University
students were promised ended after students paid for a three-day seminar. Attendees who were promised
a personal photo with Trump received only the chance to take a photo with a cardboard cutout. And
many instructors were bankrupt real estate investors.
Trump, at the rally, dismissed the cases as the work of "a sleazebag law firm" and suggested that
Schneiderman's intervention was politically motivated.
"I could've settled this suit numerous times. Could settle it now. But I don't like settling suits,"
Trump said.
Chris
I would think that Trump gave all of those students a lesson that they should never
forget, a fool and his money are soon parted. Who pays 36 grand to go to an unacredited
school, to learn what they could get for free at the local library?
Do you really need someone to say, For next week, read chapters 5-9" ? And now that you
have your lesson in "real life" go forth and prosper. And you should quicky recoup your
tuition because you will run into people that lack you knowledge.
Commenter
The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any
other force.- Adolf Hitler
I'm a bit of a P. T. Barnum. I make stars out of everyone. - Trump
There's a sucker born every minute. - P.T. Barnum
Commenter
"The receptivity of the masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their
power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must
be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the
public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan." Adolf dead, enter the
Trump. Make American great again!
Margy
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States. and there always has been. The
strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our
political and cultural life, nurtured through the false notion that democracy means that 'my
ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
J
Trump university proved there is a sucker born every minute.
Joe
Trump univ sounds like it was a school that taught real estate investing as an off shoot of
trumps tv show. Nothing said it was an accredited degree college. No real estate license
school is and they all have 3 day courses to learn real estate then you have to take a state
test to get your license. You can go to a regular school that costs $100 or spend $36k at
trump univ. it's the same class. It all sounds like a PR stunt .
factChecker
Cheating thousands of people, just trying to better themselves, out of millions of $ might
be unimportant to Trump. That is the problem. He has no conscience.
Big Al
Ignorance is investing your money in a non certified educational institution because it is
pitched by a so called "celebrity". If you do something foolish, dumb or stupid own up to it
and use it as a learning experience. Don't expect others to pay for your mistakes.
"... But if the alternative is to try and elect leaders from the centre who will do nothing to confront these great issues, and will instead cut spending, accept stagnation and wait for the next financial crisis, is it any wonder that many people would rather take their chance with someone different? ... ..."
"... Rather than celebrating the enthusiasm and interest of the many young people that have recently joined (even if they regard some of their aspirations as naive), and who will be vital in future election campaigns, this overtly anti-Corbyn group seem to regard them as a threat. ... ..."
We have not met, but I have talked to your former colleague Gordon a few times and I did some
academic work on his 5 tests for Euro entry. I saw a
report that you were mystified by the popularity of Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders. I have
an
article today in The Independent that might help you understand your puzzle.
I know you find it strange that people that appear to you like those your predecessor Neil
Kinnock did battle with over the future of the Labour Party in the 1980s are now running the party.
It must also seem strange that in the US where socialism once seemed to be regarded as a perversion,
large numbers should be supporting a socialist candidate. You suggest some explanations, but you
do not mention the power of finance, inequality and the senselessness of austerity. You say that
these new leaders will not be electable. But if the alternative is to try and elect leaders
from the centre who will do nothing to confront these great issues, and will instead cut spending,
accept stagnation and wait for the next financial crisis, is it any wonder that many people would
rather take their chance with someone different? ...
There are many Labour MPs and left leaning journalists who seem to share your puzzlement, and
have decided that they have to fight again the battles of the 1980s by doing everything to undermine
their new Labour leadership. ...
Rather than celebrating the enthusiasm and interest of the many
young people that have recently joined (even if they regard some of their aspirations as naive),
and who will be vital in future election campaigns, this overtly anti-Corbyn group seem to regard
them as a threat. ...
Please tell them to stop. I fear they need someone they respect like you to point out the foolishness
of their actions.
"... Equality in America has been falling since 1980's, real terms median income falling since 1999. Black or white, America was a more equal more livable place 20-30 years ago. ..."
"... You should speak for yourself. Look at the economic data for American GDP, Inequality and real terms household income. The economy used to work better for the average American. Rising income trends have been reversed by globalisation and automation, not by increasing diversity. Why should American voters trust mainstream candidates who simply repeat the same failed messages they have stuck to for the last generation? ..."
"... median household incomes in America peaked (in real terms) around 1999 and inequality has been rising since 1980. The drivers of this are automation and globalisation, not increasing diversity. ..."
"... Yeah, my family has white privilege- write a play about this. My great-great grandfather served two enlistments in the northern army of the Civil war to free the slaves. Lucky for him, he survived and I got to be born 90 years later. Many of his friends died and their entire future family line got cut off. I dare say that tens of millions of white Americans never got to be born, because their kin fought and died in the Civil war to free the slaves. I don't think blacks today appreciate the blood sacrifice that was made by northern whites to free them. ..."
"... The Southern Baptist church attended by millions of African-Americans, with its traditional, creationist, homophobic platform, is far more representative of African-American culture than is the select group of playwrights listed in the article. ..."
It took how many years to come up with the appalling misconception that blue collar steel workers
benefited from any type of "supremacy" unless you believe that having a job that pays enough to
put a roof over your family's heads and food on the table should be beyond the reach of all but
a selected few....Blue collar workers have only ever aspired to keeping their kids in school as
long as possible and neither they nor their kids ever had any designs on a college education.
Word hard, pay the bills, retire, and die within five years. I don't know in what world that translates
to white privelege or advantage, especially when they worked with African Americans and Latinos.
Now politicians promise every child a college education. If you can't understand the difference
between this generation that has been told the world is their oyster and the ones who worked in
the Steel mills for generations and knew what their kids could look forward, knew that college
was beyond the modest aspirations of their kids and their grandkids you didn't ask the right questions
or the right people and the result is an ideologically driven mess of race baiting, sexist claptrap.
Get used to being called on your bullsh*t. We all need to check our privilege when we write about
race. Talk about entitlement.
The tough part for me is constantly hearing about what the President did or didn't do. The US
government is structured specifically to limit the actions of the executive branch. The conditions
of the economic disaster were exacerbated by the unparalleled obstructionism of the opposition
party and the lack of support from the president's own party. If Democrats had been willing to
oppose a sitting president back in '03 we might have avoided a bankrupting war that still has
not ended.
Not really. Equality in America has been falling since 1980's, real terms median income falling
since 1999. Black or white, America was a more equal more livable place 20-30 years ago.
For sure it was better to be white then black but since you can never really measure the extent
of white privilege on your own life, how can you have nostalgia for it?
The writer claims that current political events are being shaped by a chimaera she can provide
no evidence for and ignoring the very real changes that could be driving the political shifts
toward more radical candidates.
You should speak for yourself. Look at the economic data for American GDP, Inequality and
real terms household income. The economy used to work better for the average American. Rising
income trends have been reversed by globalisation and automation, not by increasing diversity.
Why should American voters trust mainstream candidates who simply repeat the same failed messages
they have stuck to for the last generation?
Trump is insane, of course, but voting for Hillary or Cruz is equally insane for most of middle
America. They would effectively be voting to see their incomes go down and to fall further behind
the wealthiest. Why is that a good decision?
For sure there is nostalgia: nostalgia for the time when middle class incomes were enough to provide
a decent lifestyle, were expected to rise and provide enough to pay for your kids to get a decent
education. The writer then frames this as nostalgia for white privilege, but I have to question
that. Surely the expectation was that as discrimination was rolled back, ethnic minorities would
start to come up and equalise their incomes with the white population. After all, that is what
every mainstream politician promised would happen. But median household incomes in America
peaked (in real terms) around 1999 and inequality has been rising since 1980. The drivers of this
are automation and globalisation, not increasing diversity.
And *every* US president and political party has dissembled on this point. Every time, the
promise is the same - we can get back to the rising incomes and increasing equality of the last
century. And every time, nothing of the sort is delivered.
So if there is nostalgia, it not only has a very real basis in fact, but is a nostalgia for
a time when economic gains were distributed more equally, not a nostalgia for a time when white
privilege (whatever that means) was a greater force.
Sanders and Trump both represent a break from politicians and messages that have palpably failed
to deliver. The voters put up with being lied to for some time but their patience has run out.
Of course Trump can be portrayed as an out and out racist, so its easy to say - well his support
is based on race politics. I have no doubt that many do support him for that reason. But the wider
picture is this:
The American voters feel they have been lied to by established politicians and are now looking
for alternatives. If they have nostalgia for times past, that is founded not on a dream of white
supremacy, but founded on a recollection of times when the economy did work better for the majority.
Yeah, my family has white privilege- write a play about this. My great-great grandfather served
two enlistments in the northern army of the Civil war to free the slaves. Lucky for him, he survived
and I got to be born 90 years later. Many of his friends died and their entire future family line
got cut off. I dare say that tens of millions of white Americans never got to be born, because
their kin fought and died in the Civil war to free the slaves. I don't think blacks today appreciate
the blood sacrifice that was made by northern whites to free them.
They now realize their automatic entitlement to being consequential is gone
What the hell are you talking about? My father didn't have any damn " entitlement to
being consequential". He worked his heart out for it, day in and out, and I was proud to do it
alongside him.
Maybe instead of just applying a racist take on perspective, why not think about what you write
first? And why is it that every time - every. single. time - this topic comes up that someone
widens the gap of guilt to the entirety of white people generally? Where's the border for you?
Canada? The UK? Latvia? What is enough of a geographic guilt complex for your needs? Let us know.
The Southern Baptist church attended by millions of African-Americans, with its traditional,
creationist, homophobic platform, is far more representative of African-American culture than
is the select group of playwrights listed in the article.
the fact that the more academically qualified white female has less chance of getting a place
in harvard than a wealthy African-American, is hardly the fault of African Americans or any form
of reverse racism, it s the fault of first Harvard being a private university that caters to economic
elites, the lack of funding in education and that education is handled at the local level, so
funding and quality depend greatly on the education level of the local community and how wealthy
they are. This perpetuates inequalities. Still, if you put this hypothetical white female from
Harlan County in nice clothes and send her to a fancy mall, together with an equally well dressed
young black woman, who do you think security will follow?
There are also studies where equal CV were sent to potential employers, with the only difference
being white, latino, asian or African American sounding names, and the white sounding names were
picked more often, everything else being equal.
It is time that you realize that racism is a real thing and no, working class whites 't doing
poorly because of minorities, they are doing poorly (together with minorities) because of the
economic system. Unless of course, you think that whites should do better, because, well, they
are whites. The later is what I think the nostalgia is all about, 50 years ago white would have
had an edge over minorities that today no longer have in most places.
This woman is so so wise and enlightened that that her extreme intellect has crossed the line
on insanity. Liberals like her will do their best to herd the rest of us into believing that only
white working class men are attracted to people like trump and it's only because they are racists.
No no lady bone head.
First of all, you and your elitists, pompous and supposed educated comrades need to stop using
the race card overtime you find someone you disagree with. Secondly, Trump has attracted the attention
on a multitude of people across all facets of our society and it's not because we are racists,
it't because he at least vocalizes, inspire of all of your absurd PC proclamations, facts that
the majority of us Americans know and see each day.
By the way, I am an American with brown skin who's ancestry is African and I appreciate most
of what Trump espouses. So please stop trying to make the rest of us fear and hate white working
class men just because you've fantasized about their hatred toward you. You and your kind (elitists
liberals) will no longer lead me down the path of destruction.
Exactly, all the places that hit rock bottom during the crack epidemic are on their way up now
just in time to start attracting people back from the suburban and peri-urban sprawl with its
body and soul weakening car dependent isolation.
Cities like New York and DC are way ahead of surrounding areas in providing public services
and creating sustainable buildings plus car-less ways of getting around.
If there was a single event that galvanized conservative donors to
try to wrest control of higher education in America, it might have been the uprising at Cornell
University on April 20, 1969. That afternoon, during parents' weekend at the Ithaca...
"system designed to force everyone in an institution or business into an entrepreneurial role."
is pure neoliberalism, not so much of libertarian ideology. What they are doing is imitation
Bolsheviks rape of academic community in the USA with Bolshevism replaced by neoliberalism.
Notable quotes:
"... The school originally cofounded by Bob Love an associate of Charles's father Fred Koch from the John Birch Society became embroiled in an "acrimonious uprising" after Charles Koch in his role as chairman of the school's executive council applied techniques from his Market-Based Management system, a system designed to force everyone in an institution or business into an entrepreneurial role. ..."
"... Charles stepped down from the board of trustees citing, among other reasons, the school's refusal to integrate his management style. But in a sign of just how much influence he exerted over the school; Richard Fink, one of Charles's key advisors and an architect of Market-Based Management was installed as Collegiate's interim head. The outrage ran so deep that, as Fink tried to tamp down the uproar, he was hung in effigy around campus." ..."
"... Fink, who received his PHD in economics from Rutgers later moved to George Mason, a public university in Virginia, to start the Koch sponsored Mercatus Institute. Fink figures prominently in Koch efforts to control and dictate to charities and educational facilities receiving Koch support. Another Koch sponsored enterprise, the Institute for Humane Studies, caused similar disruptions when it was relocated to George Mason. Schulman reports, ..."
"... They also started running scholarship application essays through a computer to measure how many times the 'right names' (Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Rand, Bastiat, etc.) were mentioned – regardless of what was said about them!" (The preceding quotes come from pages 250-251 Sons of Wichita: How the Koch Brothers Became America's Most Powerful and Private Dynasty). ..."
"... In a YouTube video seminar, Professor Boettke characterizes himself as "a doctrinaire free-marketer." In the same memo, Professor Lopez lists his association with IHS. Presumably then both professors are familiar with the sort of metrics and deliverables that are integral to Koch's Market-Based Management system. ..."
"... Both Schulman's book and Jane Mayer's new book "Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right" go into great detail about the various organizations sponsored and funded by Charles and David Koch. ..."
"... From Americans for Prosperity to academic institutions similar to Mercatus, the Kochs have been active in funding organizations that promote specific ideologies. For better or worse that is something endemic in both our politics and apparently our public universities. Lately Charles Koch has been quite vocal in bemoaning the fact that his political contributions have not yielded an appropriate return on investment as demonstrated in a recent interview in the Financial Times where he said, ..."
"... What is perhaps more troubling is in academic settings the Kochs have sought to exercise an extraordinary degree of control. ..."
"... " . . . Cato Institute, Mercatus, and the dozens of other free-market, antiregulatory policy shops that Charles, David, and their foundations have supported over the years . . . churned out reports position papers, and op-eds arguing for the privatization of Social Security; fingering public employee unions for causing state budget crises; attempting to debunk climate science; and making the case for slashing the welfare system and Medicaid." ..."
"... Over the years the gifts from the Koch Foundation to various universities have faced increased scrutiny. The contract with Florida State clearly went against basic academic ethics. There is nothing however to indicate that Charles Koch has retreated in his desire to instill his radical brand of libertarianism into the institutions that create public policy and the universities that provide the research that helps support policy decisions. What has perhaps changed is that Mr. Koch, his foundation, and those he supports have become ever more sophisticated in capturing an outsized amount of influence. ..."
"... The contract may not allow veto power but if the structure of the program and the hiring are filtered through products of Koch programs, we may have a distinction without a difference. Charles Koch and his assistants like Richard Fink have been very clear about their intent and goals. It does not take a great deal of research to uncover statements that clearly speak to intent to indoctrinate. Ad hoc denials aside there is no reason not to take Mr. Koch's word. ..."
"... There is a certain irony bordering on outright cognitive dissonance when the economics department of a publicly funded university embraces a set of theories that denies the need for public education and treats such public funding as an affront to the market. If scrutinizing this proposal puts us onto a slippery slope then accepting it simply sends us to the bottom of the slope. ..."
"... My first introduction to the idea that society needs to remodel its self as business or that business is the better model for society's organization started with Reagan. I believe he/they ran on the idea that government needed to be more like business. ..."
"... Unfortunately, people believed it as it went along with the "government is the problem" meme. ..."
"... All of this I believe can be summed up with how I view Milton Friedman's work as simply mind the money and everything else will be taken care of. That is the free market ideology. ..."
"... Daniel: I don't recall my introduction to the 'run government as a business' idea, per se. I well remember Reagan and his 'the government is always the problem, never the solution' BS. ..."
"... I can't recall where I read it, but years ago came across a quote by someone esteemed, that pretty much said, "The reason for government is that there will always be services people want and need that, when provided, would never be a profitable venture, so the business world will never provide them. Hence, the government must be that provider." ..."
Mark Jamison has been a guest columnist of the Smoky Mountain News on several occasions now arguing
against the addition of the Koch sponsored Center for Free Enterprise. This is another well written
expose of why this addition should not be allowed at Western Carolina University. I would point out
the flip-flopping going on as Chancellor Belcher glosses over in his explanation of mistakes being
made. In earlier statements by Dr. Robert Lopez, the Provost, and the Trustees, the procedure was
followed.
To give this the coverage needed both Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism and Angry Bear have been
covering this issue. "UnKoch My Campus" has also picked up on Western Carolina University.
In "Sons of Wichita", his detailed and heavily sourced biography of the Koch family, Daniel
Schulman relates a story about Charles Koch's attempt to apply his libertarian management theory
known as Market-Based Management to Wichita Collegiate, the private school located across the street
from the Koch compound. The school originally cofounded by Bob Love an associate of Charles's
father Fred Koch from the John Birch Society became embroiled in an "acrimonious uprising" after
Charles Koch in his role as chairman of the school's executive council applied techniques from his
Market-Based Management system, a system designed to force everyone in an institution or business
into an entrepreneurial role.
Schulman relates how Koch and other trustees meddled in hiring decisions and caused the abrupt
resignation of a well-liked headmaster. "Incensed parents threatened to pull their children from
the school; faculty members quit; students wore black in protest. Charles stepped down from the
board of trustees citing, among other reasons, the school's refusal to integrate his management style.
But in a sign of just how much influence he exerted over the school; Richard Fink, one of Charles's
key advisors and an architect of Market-Based Management was installed as Collegiate's interim head.
The outrage ran so deep that, as Fink tried to tamp down the uproar, he was hung in effigy around
campus."
Fink, who received his PHD in economics from Rutgers later moved to George Mason, a public
university in Virginia, to start the Koch sponsored Mercatus Institute. Fink figures prominently
in Koch efforts to control and dictate to charities and educational facilities receiving Koch support.
Another Koch sponsored enterprise, the Institute for Humane Studies, caused similar disruptions when
it was relocated to George Mason. Schulman reports,
"The mission of IHS is to groom libertarian intellectuals by doling out scholarships, sponsoring
seminars, and placing students in like-minded organizations."
Simply providing funding for the promotion of his libertarian ideology was not enough for Charles
Koch though. Roderick Long, a philosophy professor from Auburn and an affiliate of IHS is quoted
as saying, "Massive micromanagement ensued." Long went on to say, "the management began to do things
like increasing the size of student seminars, packing them in, and then giving the students a political
questionnaire at the beginning of the week and another one at the end, to measure how much their
political beliefs shifted over the course of the week. (Woe betide any student who needs more than
a week to mull new ideas prior to conversion.) They also started running scholarship application
essays through a computer to measure how many times the 'right names' (Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Rand,
Bastiat, etc.) were mentioned – regardless of what was said about them!" (The preceding quotes come
from pages 250-251 Sons of Wichita: How the Koch Brothers Became America's Most Powerful and Private
Dynasty).
It should be noted that Professor Long is no liberal. He edits "The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies"
and is a member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, an organization that promotes the theories of
the dean of Austrian economics.
Both Professor Lopez and Professor Gochenour are products of the George Mason program and Mercatus.
In his memo to Andrew Gillen of the Charles Koch Foundation Professor Lopez characterizes the other
members of the WCU economics department indicating Professor Gochenour was a student of "Boettke
and Caplan". In a YouTube video seminar, Professor Boettke characterizes himself as "a doctrinaire
free-marketer." In the same memo, Professor Lopez lists his association with IHS. Presumably then
both professors are familiar with the sort of metrics and deliverables that are integral to Koch's
Market-Based Management system.
Both Schulman's book and Jane Mayer's new book "Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires
Behind the Rise of the Radical Right" go into great detail about the various organizations sponsored
and funded by Charles and David Koch.
From Americans for Prosperity to academic institutions similar to Mercatus, the Kochs have
been active in funding organizations that promote specific ideologies. For better or worse that is
something endemic in both our politics and apparently our public universities. Lately Charles Koch
has been quite vocal in bemoaning the fact that his political contributions have not yielded an appropriate
return on investment as demonstrated in a recent interview in the Financial Times where he said,
"You'd think we could have more influence."
What is perhaps more troubling is in academic settings the Kochs have sought to exercise an
extraordinary degree of control. Between 2007 and 2011 Charles Koch has pumped $31 million into
universities for scholarships and programs (within that number the $2 million to WCU seems significant).
At Florida State the contract with the university provide $1.5 million to hire two professors included
a clause giving the Koch Foundation over the candidates.
The plan Charles Koch with the aid of Richard Fink has enacted is called a "Structure of Social
Change" – a sort of business plan for the marketing of ideas. Fink has said about the plan:
"When we apply this model to the realm of ideas and social change, at the higher stages we
have the investment in the intellectual raw materials, that is, the exploration and production
of abstract concepts and theories. In the public policy arena, these still come primarily (though
not exclusively) from the research done by scholars at our universities." (my emphasis)
As Schulman reports,
" . . . Cato Institute, Mercatus, and the dozens of other free-market, antiregulatory policy
shops that Charles, David, and their foundations have supported over the years . . . churned out
reports position papers, and op-eds arguing for the privatization of Social Security; fingering
public employee unions for causing state budget crises; attempting to debunk climate science;
and making the case for slashing the welfare system and Medicaid."
The book that Professor Lopez published for the broad market, "Madmen, Intellectuals and Academic
Scribblers: The Economic Engine of Political Change" follows closely to the program Fink articulates.
Over the years the gifts from the Koch Foundation to various universities have faced increased
scrutiny. The contract with Florida State clearly went against basic academic ethics. There is nothing
however to indicate that Charles Koch has retreated in his desire to instill his radical brand of
libertarianism into the institutions that create public policy and the universities that provide
the research that helps support policy decisions. What has perhaps changed is that Mr. Koch, his
foundation, and those he supports have become ever more sophisticated in capturing an outsized amount
of influence.
Chancellor Belcher assures us there were mistakes made in the presentation of the current proposal
but that the proposal itself meets all the basic criteria for acceptance. The fact that Professor
Lopez advertised positions before official acceptance and outside normal channels raises significant
questions.The contract may not allow veto power but if the structure of the program
and the hiring are filtered through products of Koch programs, we may have a distinction without
a difference. Charles Koch and his assistants like Richard Fink have been very clear about their
intent and goals. It does not take a great deal of research to uncover statements that clearly speak
to intent to indoctrinate. Ad hoc denials aside there is no reason not to take Mr. Koch's word.
Chancellor Belcher suggests the bringing of a stronger level of scrutiny to the Koch proposal
pushes us down a slippery slope. The chancellor is no naďf and surely he knows that in a complicated
world we are often presented with slippery slopes – that is why judgment, ethics, and scrutiny exist.
Dogmatic and doctrinaire disciplines give a skewed and distorted picture of the world as an either
or, or black or white scenario. Hayek, Mises, and other doctrinaire believers in the creed of the
free-market tell us the choice is either markets or Stalinism, an inexorable "Road to Serfdom." Tennyson
tells us,
"There lives more faith in honest doubt, believe me, than in half the creeds."
There is a certain irony bordering on outright cognitive dissonance when the economics department
of a publicly funded university embraces a set of theories that denies the need for public education
and treats such public funding as an affront to the market. If scrutinizing this proposal puts us
onto a slippery slope then accepting it simply sends us to the bottom of the slope.
This is a very good review of their efforts thanks. I was born in Wichita 1960 and escaped
to Texas in 1996 so very familiar with their ongoing influence there.
They essentially control the state GOP and thus the state government there. There are many resonances
with their academic efforts, including a GOP Loyalty oath. It hasn't gone well.
beene, February 15, 2016 6:44 am
People, see no difference in Koch's efforts and those who promote neoliberalism, or free trade.
We have these because too advance in our higher learning schools you must support the above to
advance your career.
For even a person with limited educations knows the above only cause debt for the nation and
ever limiting opportunities for the majority of the population.
For anyone interest in what actually enriches a nation and the majority of the population I
would recommend a scholarly study done by Ha-Joon Chang and another by Ian Fletcher.
Perfect timing. I am currently reading "Dark Money", and am, frankly, terrified. Not so much
for what the Kochs have been up to, but at how little most of America is interested, or cares
to understand the mosaic.
The Kochs, Charles, especially have been masterful at flying beneath the radar of the average
American. For instance, to the extent we recognize our public schools have a problem, we've been
too quick to buy into the idea that it's because they aren't 'run like a business'. But once you
dig just a bit, you can see the tentacles of the "Kochtapus" everywhere.
(Jane Mayer's description of the cold, calculating upbringing of the Koch boys is chilling.
One wonders why they didn't end up as serial killers? Again, Charles, especially. He appears to
have totally dominated the scene, once he go too big to be beaten by his father.)
Margaret Spellings gave a speech last week where she tried to down-play her history with for-profit
education, among other things. It will be interesting to see how the UNC system survives this
next phase……
Jack , February 15, 2016 12:47 pm
"One wonders why they didn't end up as serial killers? Again, Charles, especially." Sandi
What makes you say that they are not? In their own indirect manner they have managed to kill
democracy in America and cooperation within its political system.
Daniel Becker, February 15, 2016 1:12 pm
Sandi,
My first introduction to the idea that society needs to remodel its self as business or
that business is the better model for society's organization started with Reagan. I believe
he/they ran on the idea that government needed to be more like business.
Unfortunately, people believed it as it went along with the "government is the problem"
meme.
All of this I believe can be summed up with how I view Milton Friedman's work as simply
mind the money and everything else will be taken care of. That is the free market ideology.
Sandi, February 15, 2016 1:30 pm
Jack: Point taken. You're right, of course.
Daniel: I don't recall my introduction to the 'run government as a business' idea, per se.
I well remember Reagan and his 'the government is always the problem, never the solution' BS.
Since both my parents came up in the Depression, I knew how much good had been done by
government programs, and, as a boomer, I could see it all around me; from the space race to
the Civil Rights movement. I guess I took it for granted that that was the way the world was
supposed to work. But I can see how that freaked out a lot of conservatives, both economically
and socially.
I can't recall where I read it, but years ago came across a quote by someone esteemed,
that pretty much said, "The reason for government is that there will always be services people
want and need that, when provided, would never be a profitable venture, so the business world
will never provide them. Hence, the government must be that provider."
My apologies to whomever the source was (Ben Franklin?) for the paraphrase. But the idea
resonated with me as true, and I still believe it.
Mr. Bartlett: Just a quick note of appreciation – I've enjoyed your writings over the years.
Sandi, February 15, 2016 1:38 pm
PS Daniel:
All of this I believe can be summed up with how I view Milton Friedman's work as simply
mind the money and everything else will be taken care of. That is the free market ideology.
In re-reading this about minding the money, I couldn't help but think about the entirely
different interpretation we got on this idea from Deep Throat…
William Ryan, February 15, 2016 1:51 pm
Unfortunately the slippery slope picture is much larger then just the Koch bros. To fix the
inequality that is growing like a cancer in our society we must #1 establish the wealth tax.
(see Wikipedia). #2 establish the progressive income tax. #3 establish the inheritance tax. #4
establish the transaction tax on trading. We must do all this before the oligarchs establish
the robot police force. For more detail please go see todays D-Kos "Another Chart Shows How
Bad We' re Screwed" also be sure to read the many fine comments there…
Mark Jamison, February 15, 2016 3:19 pm
Mr. Bartlett,
From Schulman's Sons of Wichita: "Fink was a twenty-seven year old doctoral student at New
York University, which at the time had the country's lone graduate program focused on Austrian
economics. Fink had done his undergrad work at Rutgers….. As he worked towards his Ph.D. Fink
taught pert-time at Rutgers, …"
From Doherty's "Radicals for Capitalism" – A Grinder student and economics professor from
Rutgers named Richard Fink, with Koch's support, launched an Austrian program that came to be
called the Center for Study of Market Processes. It began at Rutgers and in 1980 relocated to
George Mason University, where it has evolved into the Mercatus Center.
On the specific point of the artilce, this strikes me as a similar theory to Minsky's "stability
breeds instability" theory. Also I seem to recall Prof. Thoma posted an article showing that the
tightness or looseness of credit conditions were a good long leading indicator of conditions about
2 years later.
As an expansion goes on, both businesses and consumers take increasing risks, having been previously
rewarded for risks taken. Thus they leave less and less of a margin of safety. This makes it easier
for any given shock to overcome that margin, causing both businesses and consumers to retrench.
Thus a recession begins.
I'm not sure about businesses, but consumers have been playing it safe throughout most of this
recovery, with the personal savings rate increasing over the last few years. So, relatively speaking,
for now consumers have a decent margin of safety.
Ben Groves -> New Deal democrat...
Right, but the personal savings rate fell well out of line in the 00's and actually contracted
in 2007-8. More like restocking than playing it safe.
likbez -> New Deal democrat...
In addition gas prices are still low.
likbez -> New Deal democrat...
On the specific point of the article, this strikes me as a similar theory to Minsky's "stability
breeds instability" theory.
And that is deeply true. Minsky (actually this is Hegel) was and still is right.
Hyman Minsky simply stressed that people's response to stability in financial markets always
engenders instability as it encourages more risky behavior. Such behavior is not necessarily irrational,
as there are profits to be earned and bonuses to collect as long as the good times last.
In fact, the cycle may extend as long as credit flows and people are hungry for risk. Yet according
to Minsky's casino capitalism credit cycle always heads inexorably toward a bust.
At some point risk and reward became out of whack and people start reposition their portfolios
defensively, increasing cash allocations. At this point house of cards folds.
An interesting, but not a deep, discussion about the possibility of uprising against the
neoliberal elite in the current circumstances...
Notable quotes:
"... Is it time for pitchforks to restore the natural orders of fear yet? ..."
"... With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the spread of global capitalism, today's
elites have lost the sense of fear that inspired a healthy respect for the masses among their
predecessors . Now they can despise them as losers, as the aristocracy of ancien régime
France despised the peasants who would soon be burning their châteaux. Surely today's
elites are going to learn how to fear before we see any reversal of the recent concentration of
wealth and power. ..."
The following reader comment,
posted originally in the FT is a must read, both for the world's lower and endangered middle
classes but especially the members of the 1% elite because what may be coming next could be very
unpleasant for them.
From the time of the French Revolution until the collapse of communism, what successive
generations of elites had in common was a sense of fear of what the aggrieved masses might do
. In the first half of the 19th century they worried about a new Jacobin Terror, then
they worried about socialist revolution on the model of the Paris Commune of 1871. One reason
for the first world war was a growing sense of complacency among European elites. Afterwards they
had plenty to worry about in the form of international communism, which remained a bogey until
the 1980s.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the spread of global capitalism, today's
elites have lost the sense of fear that inspired a healthy respect for the masses among their
predecessors . Now they can despise them as losers, as the aristocracy of ancien régime
France despised the peasants who would soon be burning their châteaux. Surely today's
elites are going to learn how to fear before we see any reversal of the recent concentration of
wealth and power.
Is it time for pitchforks to restore the natural orders of fear yet?
And most people wouldn't have the faintest idea of where to buy, or more probably rent, a pitchfork
anyhow. As for torches? What, are you crazy? Those things are dangerous and would void our
insurance policy.
And a roasting spit and rope to tie em by the ankle to the cherry trees lining the national
mall, Musollini style. Urinals hanging from cherry trees. Only in America.
One does wonder how inbreds surrounded by expensive advisors so easily lost any shred of fight-o-flight
survival skills. Guess the extra bling allows them to dream false dreams.
The ones who think they are 'top dog' are about to find out the hard way, there is something
much bigger at work...
"6. The people, under our guidance, have annihilated the aristocracy, who were their one and
only defense and foster-mother for the sake of their own advantage which is inseparably bound
up with the well-being of the people. Nowadays, with the destruction of the aristocracy,
the people have fallen into the grips of merciless money-grinding scoundrels who have
laid a pitiless and cruel yoke upon the necks of the workers.
7. We appear on the scene as alleged saviours of the worker from this oppression
when we propose to him to enter the ranks of our fighting forces - socialists, anarchists, communists
- to whom we always give support in accordance with an alleged brotherly rule (of the solidarity
of all humanity) of our social masonry. The aristocracy, which enjoyed by law the labor of the
workers, was interested in seeing that the workers were well fed, healthy, and strong. We are
interested in just the opposite - in the diminution, the killing out of the goyim. Our power is
in the chronic shortness of food and physical weakness of the worker because by all that this
implies he is made the slave of our will, and he will not find in his own authorities either strength
or energy to set against our will. Hunger creates the right of capital to rule the worker more
surely than it was given to the aristocracy by the legal authority of kings.
8. By want and the envy and hatred which it engenders we shall move the mobs and with
their hands we shall wipe out all those who hinder us on our way."
The thing is that there are going to be a LOT of folks who thought
they were elites. Instead they will be thrown under the bus of the approaching hoards to
slow them down while the real elites make sure no one escapes that shouldn't be.
They no longer fear the masses as they control the cops and the narrative. What will really
work and is almost unstoppable is the ghost in the machine. Seemingly random acts of sabotage,
just think if the internet went down for even 2 or 3 days. Who would it hurt most, average folk
or ? I have a dream...
Lol those guys are so blackwater.... It is illegal to have a standing "army" on 'murrican soil.
Private for hire jagoffs arent. And no, it wasnt the national guard.
The internet doesnt forget or forgive transgressions. Sins of the father shall be paid for by
their sons. "Where are you going to run, where are you going to hide; no where because there is no where left
to run to." - Body snatchers
I think you are correct so far as you take your argument. Yes, they will START on their own
neighborhoods. The depth of the fall can be graphed against how far they will go afterwards.
It is our son's and daughter's who protect the elitist assholes. We know where they built their
bugouts and landing strips. We built them. We know where the air vents are for their underground
bunkers. We built them. We know where the diesel tanks are to power their generators and you can't
hide solar panels. No, we know where there going and how to get to them. Soon!!
Now you know why the hawaiian's, when they sent a worker down the side of a cliff to bury the
chiefs bones in that space reserved for the Ali'i, they "accidently" let go of the rope while
he was climbing back up...oopppps, sorry bout 'dat brah.
No, the proles do little of substance. But, the time is reached when even their paid off guard
dogs will be tired of the insanity that destroys their own extended families. (The psychopaths
can't help but push it to the extremes. That is their egotistical nature. Theyve been indulged
since they were infants.) When that day of reckoning comes, the criminals will be very afraid.
The EU 'leadership' bringing in massive outside foreign populations to destroy the existing
culture and nation-state is a potential match for the fuse of anger. We see police carrying out
orders, but what do they really think ? How bad will they let it get ? Even the Red Army troops
refused to go along with it all when the grandmas scolded them for taking part in rolling the
tanks toward their own people. And those troops said "Nyet, no more of this." And the USSR was
no more.
I used to love the old sims of feudal japan where you could set your tax rate at whatever you
wanted but the higher you set it the more likely you would get a peasant revolt.
What's going on is precisely this:.....
They have learned how to set the tax rate at whatever percentage won't cause utter chaos and
then absolve themselves from said taxes through loopholes AND THEN add on top stealth taxes in
the form of currency debasement AND THEN on top of all this they've built a ponzi scheme debt
based fiasco that is entirely unsustainable.
I gotta hand it to them they have managed so far to avoid the ire of the peasant class, however
methinks that once this shit show rolls into town and starts playing nightly as in reality comes
a callin then these same folks are going to need to hide off planet.
Seriously I'd advise them to look into space travel.
The elites today were related to the elites of yesterdays revolutions. They have learned and are keeping track of everything and with the advent of big data and lots
of computing power, they know how much time they have before SHTF. They have quants assessing risk daily, and not just market risk..geopolitical and other stuff.
They dont fear us because they know they can keep ramping up poisoning of our food and other
stupid social media gimmicks.
If all else fails, the jackboots will come out in full force.
They've been testing and training these detention methods for close to 100 years. From the
gulags of Russia to the West Bank / Gaza strip today of Israel.....its being tried and trued.
The past nine months have set record monthly background checks. I believe we as a "group"
know and feel our existence is in danger, and are responding accordingly.
Certainly a patriot CANNOT do it through the ballot box,
Iowa: Days before the Iowa caucuses in 2012, Ron Paul held a
commanding lead in the
polls and all the momentum, with every other candidate having peaked from favorable
media coverage and then collapsed under the ensuing scrutiny. Establishment Republicans, like
Iowa's Representative Steve King (R), attempted to sabotage Paul's campaign by
spreading rumors
he would lose to Obama if nominated. . . Iowa Governor Terry Barnstad
told Politico
, "[If Paul wins] people are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third.
If Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire".
The message from the Iowa Governor to voters of his state was: a vote for Ron Paul was a wasted
vote.
The RNC and their minions would have prevented a Ron Paul presidential nomination, by any means
necessary - up to and including a terrible, just terrible, plane crash. All those lives lost....
They DID prevent the nomination by any means necessary...and did so, short of crashing a plane.
The underhanded shit they pulled in '12 sealed their fate.
In that case, the Libertarian Party needs to go "full Zio-mode": Take no BS and no
prisoners.
Problem is, they are too "individualistic" (divided, heterogenous), and too 'Christian' (raised
in "Religion of Serfs") to create another American or French Revolution, or bring about real change.
Note that in the American Revolution, its Founders realized that the influence of Clerics needed
to be curtailed, and so they invented the "Seperation of Church and State". The French, OTOH,
called a spade a spade, and got rid of the Church completely.
Amerika: Where kids are taught by their parents to believe in the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny
and Santa Claus -- all the while they believe in "Santa for Grownups", i.e. Winged Nordic Humans
(Angels) and a Sky God.
I have ZERO faith that Libertarians will do anyting, other than talk, blog, hold meetings,
conventions, have weekend warrior games, or buy any number of Doomsday Products and Services.
IOW.. they'll do anything and everything, but March or Protest en mass. They won't even do TV
program, much less do a leveraged buyout of a TV channel.
Like I said: "Too individualistic, to truly matter to TPTB". I WISH it were not to,
but I'm just calling it as I see it. Alas. If I'm wrong, I'll jump for joy and click my heels.
"... A superb account of the ideas of Strauss, his followers and his influence is to be found in The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (hereafter PI) and Leo Strauss and The American Right (hereafter AR), both by Shadia Drury, professor of politics at the University of Calgary. Her account of Strausss ideas and the prominence they play in American politics today will give you chills or nausea, perhaps both. As she says in PI (p.xii), Strauss is the key to understanding the political vision that has inspired the most powerful men in America under George W. Bush. In my view men who are in the grip of Straussian political ideas cannot be trusted with political power in any society, let alone a liberal democracy. This book explains why this is the case. ..."
"... So the covert elite must be certain that myths like religion or the glory of the nation are not weakened for these are among the best ways to rule over the ignorant herd and lead it into war. (Note that the Straussians themselves are not religious. They are above religion, capable of dealing with tough truths like mans mortality. But in their view, religion is a crucial factor in governing in their view. Irving Kristol, following Strauss, tells us that religion is far more important politically than the Founding Fathers believed and that to rescue America it is necessary to breathe new life into the older, now largely comatose religious orthodoxies. (AR, p. 148). ..."
"... But useful lies of the grand sort like religious myth or blind nationalism need support by lesser lies at crucial moments. And so we go to the smaller lies like weapons of mass destruction, the smoking gun that comes in the form of the mushroom cloud. And here too the elite has a role to play. They are to use their superior rhetorical skills to make the weak argument seem stronger. In other words the cabal not only has to protect myths and manufacture lies but go to work in selling them. What Strauss called rhetoric, we call spin. ..."
"... All of this comes down to one word: lying. But for Strauss, these lies are necessary for the smooth function of society and triumph of ones own nation in war. Hence for Strauss, the lie becomes noble. This phrase Strauss borrows and distorts from Plato who meant by a noble lie a myth or parable that conveyed an underlying truth about morality or nature. But in Strausss hands the noble lie becomes a way of deceiving the herd. Strausss noble lies are far from noble. They are intended to dupe the multitude and secure power for a special elite (AR, p. 79). ..."
All governments lie as I. F. Stone famously observed, but some governments lie more than others.
And the neocon Bush regime serves up whoppers as standard fare every day. Why this propensity to
lie? There are many reasons, but it is not widely appreciated that the neocons believe in lying on
principle. It is the "noble" thing for the elite to do, for the "vulgar" masses, the "herd" will
become ungovernable without such lies. This is the idea of the "noble lie" practiced with such success
and boldness by Scooter Libby and his co-conspirators and concocted by the political "philosopher"
Leo Strauss whose teachings lie at the core of the neoconservative outlook and agenda, so much so
that they are sometimes called "Leocons."
Leo Strauss (1899-1973) was a Jewish-German émigré from the Nazi regime who eventually landed
at the University of Chicago where he developed a following that has achieved enormous prominence
in American politics. Among his students were Paul Wolfowitz who has openly acknowledged that he
is a follower of Straus as has the godfather of neconservatism, Irving Kristol. Irving Kristol begat
William Kristol, the director of operation for the DC neocons, editor of the Weekly Standard and
"chairman" of the Project for the New American Century, which laid out the plans for the Iraq War.
(PNAC also opined in 2000 that a Pearl Harbor-like event would be necessary to take the country to
war, and one year later, presto, we had the strange and still mysterious attack of September 11.)
For his part Paul Wolfowitz begat Libby, in the intellectual sense, when he taught Libby at Yale.
Others stars in the necon firmament are Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and lesser figures like Abram
Shulsky, director of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, created by Donald Rumsfeld. Shulsky,
also a student of Strauss, was responsible for fabricating the lies masquerading as intelligence
that were designed to get the U.S. into the war on Iraq. While the neocons have a passion for the
Likud party and Zionism, they also count among their number not a few pre-Vatican II Catholics and
an assortment of cranks like Newt Gingrich and John Bolton and crypto fascists like Jeanne Kirkpatrick.
The list goes on and Justin Raimondo has documented it in great detail over the years on Antiwar.com.
But it is enough to note that Cheney's alter ego was Libby, and Rumsfeld's second in command until
recently was Wolfowitz. So both Cheney, the de facto president with an apparently ill perfused cerebrum,
and the geezer commanding the Pentagon have been managed by younger and very prominent Straussians
for the past five years.
A superb account of the ideas of Strauss, his followers and his influence is to be found in The
Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (hereafter PI) and Leo Strauss and The American Right (hereafter AR),
both by Shadia Drury, professor of politics at the University of Calgary. Her account of Strauss's
ideas and the prominence they play in American politics today will give you chills or nausea, perhaps
both. As she says in PI (p.xii), "Strauss is the key to understanding the political vision that has
inspired the most powerful men in America under George W. Bush. In my view men who are in the grip
of Straussian political ideas cannot be trusted with political power in any society, let alone a
liberal democracy. This book explains why this is the case."
For those who wish to understand the neocon agenda, Drury's books are essential reading. She is
clear and thorough.
Of pertinence to "Scooter's" case and the pack of lies he was concealing is Strauss's idea that
a "philosopher elite" (i.e., Straussians) must rule. Moreover they must do so covertly. As someone
remarked before last Friday, "Who ever heard of I. Lewis Libby?" a man who shunned the spotlight
and operated behind the scenes. The reason for such covert rule, or cabal, is that the "vulgar" herd,
as Strauss liked to call the rest of us, cannot appreciate "higher truths" such as the inevitability
and necessity of wars in relations between states and even the utility of wars in governing a state.
So the covert elite must be certain that myths like religion or the glory of the nation are not
weakened for these are among the best ways to rule over the ignorant herd and lead it into war. (Note
that the Straussians themselves are not religious. They are "above" religion, capable of dealing
with tough truths like man's mortality. But in their view, religion is a crucial factor in governing
in their view. Irving Kristol, following Strauss, tells us that religion is "far more important politically"
than the Founding Fathers believed and that to rescue America it is necessary "to breathe new life
into the older, now largely comatose religious orthodoxies." (AR, p. 148). Any religion will do except
perhaps Islam, which is more or less verboten, given the affinity of all leading neocons for Israel.
Hence the neocons readily embrace the ideology and leadership of Christian fundamentalism which can
keep the crowd under control and get them to march off to war and death. The neocons are mainly interested
in foreign policy, as was Strauss, but in exchange for the support of the religious Right in foreign
affairs, the neocons line up behind the domestic program of the fundamentalists. It's a win win situation,
from their point of view
But useful lies of the grand sort like religious myth or blind nationalism need support by lesser
lies at crucial moments. And so we go to the "smaller" lies like "weapons of mass destruction," the
"smoking gun that comes in the form of the mushroom cloud." And here too the elite has a role to
play. They are to use their "superior rhetorical skills" to make the weak argument seem stronger.
In other words the cabal not only has to protect myths and manufacture lies but go to work in selling
them. What Strauss called "rhetoric," we call spin.
All of this comes down to one word: lying. But for Strauss, these lies are necessary for the smooth
function of society and triumph of one's own nation in war. Hence for Strauss, the lie becomes "noble."
This phrase Strauss borrows and distorts from Plato who meant by a "noble lie" a myth or parable
that conveyed an underlying truth about morality or nature. But in Strauss's hands the "noble lie"
becomes a way of deceiving the herd. Strauss's "noble lies are far from "noble." They are intended
to "dupe the multitude and secure power for a special elite" (AR, p. 79).
One other idea of Strauss's bears on the situation of "Scooter" Libby. How is the Straussian philosophical
elite going to get from the halls of academe to the corridors of power? This depends on good luck
and the "chance" encounter between the powerful and the Straussian. Here the contemporary neocons
go beyond Strauss and leave nothing to chance. It would even appear that they look for the stupid,
gullible or those who are mentally compromised. So William Kristol becomes Vice President Quayle's
chief of Staff, and Libby becomes the right hand man to the addled Cheney as well as assistant to
the Quayle-like Bush. And there are many more.
Finally, Drury makes the point the Strauss and the neocons are not really conservative at all.
They are radicals, at war with the entire modern enterprise which makes them turn to the ancients
for their inspiration and even there they need to distort the teachings of Socrates or Plato to make
their case. But the Enlightenment comes to us with the advance of science to which Strauss is also
hostile. He says that he is not against science as such "but popularized science or the diffusion
of scientific knowledge.Science must remain the preserve of a small minority; it must be kept secret
from the common man" (PI, p. 154). But this is impossible. Science by its very nature is a vast social
enterprise requiring the widest possible dissemination of its findings. Any society that puts a lid
on this will fail, and so by natural selection, the Straussian project is doomed to fail.
But before that happens the Straussians can do a lot of damage. As Drury says, they "cannot be
trusted with political power." But we can learn from them the importance of boldness, not in the
pursuit of the "noble lie" but of the truth. And we must be certain that we are vigorous as we hunt
them down and get them out of power. In that effort Shadia Drury has done us a great service.
"... The greatest crime of the twenty-first century so far was the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. ..."
"... First Bush and Cheney (and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Rice) made the decision to go to war. Then they sat down and carefully invented the reasons ..."
"... On Sept. 11, 2001 Bush asked his counterterrorism advisor Richard A. Clarke, who had warned him in early 2001 about an "immanent al-Qaeda threat" (warnings Clarke alleges Bush "ignored") to produce a report blaming Iraq for the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. ..."
"... In his own account Clarke says: "I said, Mr. President. We've done this before." (Meaning, we've explored the possibility of ties between Baghdad and al-Qaeda before.) "We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There is no connection." ..."
"... Meanwhile Secretary of "Defense" Donald Rumsfeld advocated - from day one - attacks on Iraq as a response to 9/11. Clarke has stated that he assumed Rumsfeld was joking when he first suggested, immediately after the event, that since Afghanistan had "no good targets" the U.S. should proceed to bomb the totally un-related country. But he soon learned that Rumsfeld and his staff headed by Paul Wolfowitz were in deadly earnest. ..."
"... Some are describing Obama's renewed bombing of Iraq, and the strikes on Syrian targets, as a new "neocon moment." ..."
"... Recall how, in late 2003, as it became embarrassingly evident that Iraq had had no weapons of mass destruction, Wolfowitz in Iraq tried to change the subject entirely. Who cares about weapons of mass destruction? he told a reporter. The Iraqi people want to reconstruct their country, he declared (as though the question of the war's legitimacy was an irrelevant detail). Having acknowledged some "intelligence flaws" (attributing them to the CIA, rather than to themselves-despite what we know of the unprecedented Cheney-Libby visits to the Pentagon to browbeat the intelligence professionals to include their bullshit into official reports), Cheney and his neocon camp changed the subject. ..."
"... No, it wasn't about the announced reasons: weapons of mass destruction, or al-Qaeda ties. Nor was it about U.S. Big Oil (which hasn't profited from the Iraq War, the big contracts going to China and Russia). Nor was it about permanent military bases; the Iraqis have successfully rejected them. What does that leave us with? ..."
"... A war pushed by the neocons to destroy a foe of Israel. It succeeded, surely, but only to produce a vicious Sunni successor state in Anbar Province potentially far more threatening to Israel than Saddam ever was. ..."
The greatest crime of the twenty-first century so far was the U.S. invasion and occupation of
Iraq. Broadly conceived by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney immediately after 9/11, it initially lacked
a coherent justification . But as Condoleezza Rice noted at the time, the tragedy brought "opportunities."
(People in fear can be persuaded to support things policy-makers long wanted, but couldn't quite
sell to the public.)
First Bush and Cheney (and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Rice) made the decision to go to war. Then
they sat down and carefully invented the reasons for their war.
On Sept. 11, 2001 Bush asked his counterterrorism advisor Richard A. Clarke, who had warned him
in early 2001 about an "immanent al-Qaeda threat" (warnings Clarke alleges Bush "ignored") to produce
a report blaming Iraq for the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
In his own account Clarke says: "I said, Mr. President. We've done this before." (Meaning, we've
explored the possibility of ties between Baghdad and al-Qaeda before.) "We have been looking at this.
We looked at it with an open mind. There is no connection."
But Clarke's recollection of the event continues:
"He came back at me and said, 'Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very
intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report. It was
a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report.
We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared
the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor
or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. … Do it again.'"
Few policy decisions in modern history can rival the evil of that demand that the U.S. intelligence
community deliberately contrive a false historical narrative, to justify a war that has destroyed
a country and killed half a million people.
Meanwhile Secretary of "Defense" Donald Rumsfeld advocated - from day one - attacks on Iraq as a response
to 9/11. Clarke has stated that he assumed Rumsfeld was joking when he first suggested, immediately
after the event, that since Afghanistan had "no good targets" the U.S. should proceed to bomb the
totally un-related country. But he soon learned that Rumsfeld and his staff headed by Paul Wolfowitz
were in deadly earnest.
The Powell UN speech, demanding global support for an attack on a threatening, al-Qaeda aligned
Iraq, in fact bombed. But more than that, key U.S. allies-NATO heavies France and Germany among them-refused
to get on board the program. This occasioned an amazing campaign of vilification of France, best
symbolized by Congress's decision to rename "French fries" "freedom fries" in the Congressional cafeteria.
An asinine book trashing France as "our oldest enemy" became a best-seller.
... ... ...
Republican presidents, Democratic presidents. All on the same page when it comes to maintaining
what Wolfowitz termed "full-spectrum dominance" in the post-Cold War world. Now as it all falls apart-as
ISIL expands its "caliphate," as the Syrian Baathists hold out against both U.S.-backed and other
Islamists, as Iran gains respect as a serious negotiator in the Geneva talks, as China rises, as
Russia thwarts NATO expansion, as U.S.-Israeli ties fray, as a multi-polar world inevitably emerges-
what triumphs can the neocons claim?
Once flushed with history, proclaiming the "end of history" with the triumph of capitalist imperialism
over Marxist socialism and other competing ideologies, they have only a handful of successes they
can claim.
They have successfully avoided prison. They calculated that they could mislead the people and commit
the gravest possible crimes with impunity, under the U.S. system. Wolfowitz was nominated by Bush
to become World Bank president in 2005, and held the post two years before departing amidst a scandal. Feith sashayed out of office the same year, hired at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service
(despite opposition from the more principled faculty). They serve as news consultants and live comfortable
lives.
They have left behind in positions of power and influence fellow neocons (most notably, Victoria Nuland, architect of the Ukraine disaster) and neocon allies, "liberal internationalists" like former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as well as an assortment of dear friends who simply love war,
such as Sen. John McCain. Some are describing Obama's renewed bombing of Iraq, and the strikes on
Syrian targets, as a new "neocon moment." It must give them great pleasure.
Perhaps most importantly: Iraq, although (or because) it has been absolutely destroyed as a
modern state by U.S. fury, is no longer a threat to Israel.
Oilmen Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush (and Rice who has an oil tanker named after her) lusted after
oil profits. They lusted too for an expansion of U.S. military power in the "Greater Middle East."
They were less concerned with Israel. But Israel's survival as a specifically "Jewish" state, with
a subject Arab population that must never become demographically threatening-and blow the whole Zionist
project by forcing a one-state multi-ethnic solution-is the central neocon concern. They will not
say this, of course; Leo Strauss students like Wolfowitz and Shulsky believe in the need for deception
to get things done. But this was the minimal objective of the neocons' response to 9/11: to use the
event to advantage Israel.
Recall how, in late 2003, as it became embarrassingly evident that Iraq had had no weapons of
mass destruction, Wolfowitz in Iraq tried to change the subject entirely. Who cares about weapons
of mass destruction? he told a reporter. The Iraqi people want to reconstruct their country, he declared
(as though the question of the war's legitimacy was an irrelevant detail). Having acknowledged some
"intelligence flaws" (attributing them to the CIA, rather than to themselves-despite what we know
of the unprecedented Cheney-Libby visits to the Pentagon to browbeat the intelligence professionals
to include their bullshit into official reports), Cheney and his neocon camp changed the subject.
The real issue, they now averred, was creating "democracy" in the Middle East. Condi Rice happily
connived with this strategy, arguing dramatically that it was as wrong to deny people in the Middle
East their freedom as it had been to deny black people in her home of Birmingham, Alabama their right
to vote. Suddenly special diplomats were dispatched to Arab countries to lecture skeptical, sometimes
glowering audiences on the advantages of the U.S. political system.
Under great pressure, some Arab countries somewhat expanded their parliamentary processes. The
effort backfired as Islamists were elected in Egypt, Hizbollah made advances in Lebanon, and Hamas
won a majority in the first free Palestinian election (in 2006). The "terrorists" were winning elections!
The State Department denounced such results and has since shut up about "democracy" in the Middle
East.
No, it wasn't about the announced reasons: weapons of mass destruction, or al-Qaeda ties. Nor
was it about U.S. Big Oil (which hasn't profited from the Iraq War, the big contracts going to China
and Russia). Nor was it about permanent military bases; the Iraqis have successfully rejected them.
What does that leave us with?
A war pushed by the neocons to destroy a foe of Israel. It succeeded, surely, but only to produce
a vicious Sunni successor state in Anbar Province potentially far more threatening to Israel than
Saddam ever was.
But Binyamin Netanyahu doesn't see it that way. He has repeatedly dubbed Iran as a greater threat
than ISIL. Having predicted since 1992 that Iran is close to developing a nuclear bomb; having repeatedly
demanded (echoed by prominent U.S. neocons such as Norman Podhoretz) that the U.S. bomb Iran (to
prevent a "nuclear holocaust"); having angrily dismissed U.S. intelligence assessments that Iran
has no nuclear weapons program, Netanyahu wants Obama to focus on destroying the Iranian regime.
GARY LEUPP is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in
the Department of Religion.
"... In short, unless the semi-free democratic society is strong, and not only ready to defend itself
but also willing to go on the offensive in support of its system abroad, it will perish. The neocon
view is that either you're willing to export liberal democracy or it will be crushed by all kinds of
barbaric global groups. ..."
"... They too believe – some of them because they were taught it by Strauss Co – that their most
important values are best advanced and preserved in a relatively free society, provided such a society
is strong and wields power wisely, both at home and abroad. ..."
"... Neoconservatives are neoliberals with a gun, changing Al Capone maxim into You can get much
farther with a neoliberal recommendations and a gun than you can with a neoliberal recommendation (as
in Washington consensus) alone. Kind of attack dogs of neoliberalism. ..."
"... The failure of the Weimar regime to prevent the rise of fascism, in his view, resided in its
failure to put power into the hands of the strong and good, who inevitably, unable to acquire popular
support through honest methods, should (like their Nazi adversaries) have cleverly used Big Lies (towards
good ends) to nudge the people towards those ends. Only wise men, acting in secrecy, can do that. ..."
"... As Hersh points out, the neocons (just about a dozen officials-including Wolfowitz, Perle,
Feith, Bolton, Abrams - operating in concert with the oil-baron contingent in the administration-Rumsfeld,
Cheney, Rice, Bush-and providing them with intellectual guidance) refer to themselves (with smug amusement)
as a cabal (a word with an interesting etymology). ..."
"... That seizure is still in progress, messily, untidily, brutally and illegally, and with results
no cabal, however wise, can really predict. Among the results might be a growing revulsion among the
American people themselves at the neocons misanthropic arrogance, and perhaps (much though it should
be regretted and fought) anti-Semitism. ..."
Neoconservatives follow the philosophy of Leo Strauss, the father of the neoconservative movement.
Whether is has been bad or good, hard to know. A little bit and a good read about the neoconservatives
and Leo Strauss:
"Neoconservatives hold the view that 'American' is the best bet for the world – America's
institutional set-up is a very useful combination of modern elements, having to do with the
sovereignty of individuals together with the older idea of a substantial role for government
– and that this is an idea that needs to be widely promulgated. Indeed, without its promulgation
there can arise and persist major threats to the countries which do embrace this set up, such
as the United States of America. In short, unless the semi-free democratic society is strong,
and not only ready to defend itself but also willing to go on the offensive in support of its
system abroad, it will perish. The neocon view is that either you're willing to export liberal
democracy or it will be crushed by all kinds of barbaric global groups.
Now let us return to Strauss. Recall his prudential endorsement of classical liberalism
as the best bet for philosophy. (Just exactly why philosophy ought to be cherished is not made
clear by Strauss & Co; and their implicit or explicit nihilism calls the merit of philosophy
into serious question.) Strauss's embrace of classical liberalism – or at least a watered down
version of it, as per liberal democracy – did appear to influence the neocons. They too
believe – some of them because they were taught it by Strauss & Co – that their most important
values are best advanced and preserved in a relatively free society, provided such a society
is strong and wields power wisely, both at home and abroad."
Neoconservatives are neoliberals with a gun, changing Al Capone maxim into "You can get
much farther with a neoliberal recommendations and a gun than you can with a neoliberal recommendation
(as in Washington consensus) alone." Kind of attack dogs of neoliberalism.
Using deception as a smoke screen in politics was actually introduced by Machiavelli, not by
Leo Strauss; that's why Bush II administration was called Mayberry Machiavelli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayberry_Machiavelli)
What Leo Strauss introduced and what is used in neoconservative/neoliberal discourse is the
concept of "noble lie" (which includes "false flag" operations;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag).
Here is how Professor of History at Tufts University Gary Leupp defines their behavior:
== quote ==
Hersh notes the critical influence of the philosopher Leo Strauss (d. 1973) on Wolfowitz's
thinking. His article stimulated, among other articles, a substantial piece on Strauss by Jeet
Heer in the Boston Globe (May 11), and another by William Pfaff in the International Herald
Tribune (May 15), the latter noting that "Strauss's thought is a matter of public interest
because his followers are in charge of U.S. foreign policy." Strauss, of German Jewish origins
who taught for many years at the University of Chicago, mentoring Wolfowitz among others, was
a brilliant man. No question about that. But also a man profoundly hostile to the modern world
and to the concept of rule by the people. He believed it was the natural right of the wise
and strong to lead societies to the fulfillment of their wise aims, using subterfuge when necessary,
because speaking the naked truth won't get the job done.
Strauss's point of departure is Socrates, who in Plato's Republic denounces Athenian democracy
(the rule of the untutored masses) and instead promotes government by "philosopher-kings."
Strauss had experienced the Weimar Republic (one of the more democratic experiments in modern
history) and seen Germany fall into the hands of the Nazis. He understandably opposed the latter,
but he derived some lessons from their methodology.
The failure of the Weimar regime to prevent the rise of fascism, in his view, resided
in its failure to put power into the hands of the strong and good, who inevitably, unable to
acquire popular support through honest methods, should (like their Nazi adversaries) have cleverly
used Big Lies (towards good ends) to nudge the people towards those ends. Only wise men, acting
in secrecy, can do that.
As Hersh points out, the neocons (just about a dozen officials-including Wolfowitz,
Perle, Feith, Bolton, Abrams - operating in concert with the oil-baron contingent in the administration-Rumsfeld,
Cheney, Rice, Bush-and providing them with intellectual guidance) refer to themselves (with
smug amusement) as a "cabal" (a word with an interesting etymology).
They have contempt for the masses, and feel utterly justified in wisely misleading
those masses into a roadmap for global peace on their terms. That meant, initially, using 9-11
to produce support for the seizure of Iraq,
That seizure is still in progress, messily, untidily, brutally and illegally, and with
results no cabal, however wise, can really predict. Among the results might be a growing revulsion
among the American people themselves at the neocons' misanthropic arrogance, and perhaps (much
though it should be regretted and fought) anti-Semitism. The latter might be provoked
by the fact that persons inclined to embrace the most extreme factions in the Israeli political
apparatus are disproportionately represented in the neocons' cabal, and while the general movement
of U.S. foreign policy is driven by broad geopolitical concerns, rather than the alliance with
Israel, the neocons' allegiance to what they perceive to be the interests of Sharon's Israel
is highly conspicuous.
== end of quote ==
"... But, like virtually every employed person, I became, to some extent, assimilated into the culture of the institution I worked for, and only by slow degrees, starting before the invasion of Iraq, did I begin fundamentally to question the reasons of state that motivate the people who are, to quote George W. Bush, the deciders. ..."
"... Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called groupthink , the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the towns cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. ..."
"... As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. ..."
"Our plutocracy, whether the hedge fund managers in Greenwich, Connecticut, or the Internet
moguls in Palo Alto, now lives like the British did in colonial India: ruling the place
but not of it. If one can afford private security, public safety is of no concern; to
the person fortunate enough to own a Gulfstream jet, crumbling bridges cause less apprehension,
and viable public transportation doesn't even compute. With private doctors on call and
a chartered plane to get to the Mayo Clinic, why worry about Medicare?"
― Mike Lofgren,
The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government
"Our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence
over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to
democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association,
and a widespread (if still contested) franchise.
But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations
and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic
society are seriously threatened."
"As a congressional staff member for 28 years specializing in national security and possessing a
top secret security clearance, I was at least on the fringes of the world I am describing, if neither
totally in it by virtue of full membership nor of it by psychological disposition.
But, like virtually every employed person, I became, to some extent, assimilated into the
culture of the institution I worked for, and only by slow degrees, starting before the invasion of
Iraq, did I begin fundamentally to question the reasons of state that motivate the people who are,
to quote George W. Bush, 'the deciders.'
Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called groupthink,
the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome
is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting,
making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those
ideas as if they were radioactive.
As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is
not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at
the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, 'It
is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding
it.'"
"... how is it that partisan gridlock has seemingly jammed up the gears (and funding sources) in Washington, yet the government has been unhindered in its ability to wage endless wars abroad, in the process turning America into a battlefield and its citizens into enemy combatants? ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... Congressional Record ..."
"... Federal Register ..."
"... The Deep State runs everything in America since at least Nov 22, 1963. Kennedy promised to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds. Instead, the CIA shattered his brains into a thousand pieces. ..."
"... The Deep State is a troika of the Military Industrial Complex, Wall Street and the Spooks who spy on everyone. The NSA spies on the Supreme Court, Congress and the White House and you. ..."
"... The stunning implication of this passage is that NSA spying targets not only ordinary American citizens, but also Supreme Court justices, members of Congress and the White House itself. One could hardly ask for a more naked exposure of a police state. ..."
"... Essay: Anatomy of the Deep State ..."
"... There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics: the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power. ..."
"... Who rules America? ..."
"... Congress and both of the major political parties serve as rubber stamps for the confluence of the military, the intelligence apparatus and Wall Street that really runs the country. The so-called Fourth Estate -the mass media-functions shamelessly as an arm of this ruling troika. ..."
"... The Deep State controls Wall Street? No, indeed. Wall Street controls the Deep State and makes its very existence possible. The Deep States job is to do Wall Streets dirty work, so Wall Street can continue to live off their tax and debt-peons from Arlington to Athens. ..."
"... it is kind of a chicken and egg thing, the way it could be posed either way. i go with the theory that any collection of people in the pursuit of similar goals will conspire (make deals) to collaborate, ah hem. ..."
"... Weve been taken over. Weve been co-opted. In place of the organic leadership has been placed these people who I call the servitors of empire. ..."
"... Thats a midpoint between servants and … the wielders of true power–the great Anglo-American families. ..."
"... Oligarchy , government by the few, especially despotic power exercised by a small and privileged group for corrupt or selfish purposes. Aristotle used the term oligarchia to designate the rule of the few when it was exercised not by the best but by bad men unjustly. ..."
"... the Deep State is no different than the Praetorian Guard in Rome, who basically ran the show for the last 200 years of the Roman Empire ..."
"... Eventually, the Praetorian Guard basically sold the Emperor position to the highest bidder. They became nothing but common thieves. The same thing is happening in the USA ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... You must realize that most of these contract personnel are former military or civilian employees who have gone private in order to escape federal salary limits. They are still permanent, long-term employees of their departments, only outside the federal personnel system and paid a great deal more. They are the entrenched experts who cannot be replaced because there arent a whole lot of them in any particular area. ..."
"... Once such a person becomes entrenched, competitors are not welcome and alternative points of view are squashed. As a result, the U.S. Deep State perpetuates one of the most expensive and incompetent intelligence services in the world. ..."
As we previously concluded , for all intents and purposes, the nation is one national "emergency"
away from having a full-fledged, unelected, authoritarian state emerge from the shadows. All it will
take is the right event-another terrorist attack, perhaps, or a natural disaster-for such a regime
to emerge from the shadows.
Consider this: how is it that partisan gridlock has seemingly jammed up the gears (and funding
sources) in Washington, yet the government has been unhindered in its ability to wage endless wars
abroad, in the process turning America into a battlefield and its citizens into enemy combatants?
The credit for such relentless, entrenched, profit-driven governance, according to Lofgren, goes
to " another
government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue , a
hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns
in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders
we choose."
This "
state within
a state " hides "mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day,"
says Lofgren, and yet the "Deep State does not consist of the entire government."
Rather, Lofgren continues:
It is
a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies : the Department of Defense, the
Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and
the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction
over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with
Wall Street.
All these agencies are coordinated by the Executive Office of the President via the National
Security Council. Certain key areas of the judiciary belong to the Deep State, such as the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court, whose actions are mysterious even to most members of Congress.
Also included are a handful of vital federal trial courts, such as the Eastern District of Virginia
and the Southern District of Manhattan, where sensitive proceedings in national security cases
are conducted.
The final government component (and possibly last in precedence among the formal branches of
government established by the Constitution) is a kind of rump Congress consisting of the congressional
leadership and some (but not all) of the members of the defense and intelligence committees. The
rest of Congress, normally so fractious and partisan, is mostly only intermittently aware of the
Deep State and when required usually submits to a few well-chosen words from the State's emissaries.
In an expose titled "
Top Secret
America ," The Washington Post revealed the private side of this shadow government,
made up of 854,000 contract personnel with top-secret clearances, "a number greater than that of
top-secret-cleared civilian employees of the government."
These contractors now set the political and social tone of Washington, just as they are increasingly
setting the direction of the country, but they are doing it quietly, their doings unrecorded in
the Congressional Record or the Federal Register , and are rarely subject to
congressional hearings…
The Deep State not only holds the nation's capital in thrall, but
it also controls
Wall Street ("which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and
operating as a diversionary marionette theater") and Silicon Valley.
Remember this the next time you find yourselves mesmerized by the antics of the 2016 presidential
candidates or drawn into a politicized debate over the machinations of Congress, the president or
the judiciary: it's all intended to distract you from the fact that you have no authority and no
rights in the face of the shadow governments.
25+ years ago (fuck I'm getting old), there was a database on CD that did just that, put out
by by what would be considered a conspiracy theory researcher, Daniel Brandt. It was called namebase,
and you could pretty much look up any name mentioned in the news and play 7 degrees with it. Most
of the times I played that game, the roads led back to the CIA, usually in just one hop. Even
for seemingly petty local things, like utility commissioners or board members of local electric
utilities.
There's similar research today on the commercial side -- google "interlocking directorates"
and you'll quickly find there's a core corporate power elite.
I don't think I've ever seen someone combine the two. I suspect that's something that will
get your Mercedes wrapped around a tree. Safe to say today, compared to 25 years ago, even though
the internet is more pervasive and more information is available, there's actually less consolidation
and research in this area than there was long ago, which in and of itself is kind of suspect.
The actual list, if someone compiled it, would be shockingly short. I doubt the key individuals
would amount to more than a couple thousand.
The Deep State runs everything in America since at least Nov 22, 1963. Kennedy promised to
shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds. Instead, the CIA shattered
his brains into a thousand pieces.
The Deep State is a troika of the Military Industrial Complex, Wall Street and the Spooks who
spy on everyone. The NSA spies on the Supreme Court, Congress and the White House and you.
The most extraordinary passage in the memo requires that the Israeli spooks "destroy upon
recognition" any communication provided by the NSA "that is either to or from an official of the
US government." It goes on to spell out that this includes "officials of the Executive Branch
(including the White House, Cabinet Departments, and independent agencies); the US House of Representatives
and Senate (members and staff); and the US Federal Court System (including, but not limited to,
the Supreme Court)."
The stunning implication of this passage is that NSA spying targets not only ordinary
American citizens, but also Supreme Court justices, members of Congress and the White House itself.
One could hardly ask for a more naked exposure of a police state.
There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there
is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable
to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics:
the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable
via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates
according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power.
The secret collaboration of the military, the intelligence and national security agencies,
and gigantic corporations in the systematic and illegal surveillance of the American people reveals
the true wielders of power in the United States. Telecommunications giants such as AT&T, Verizon
and Sprint, and Internet companies such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter, provide the
military and the FBI and CIA with access to data on hundreds of millions of people that these
state agencies have no legal right to possess.
Congress and both of the major political parties serve as rubber stamps for the
confluence of the military, the intelligence apparatus and Wall Street that really runs the country.
The so-called "Fourth Estate"-the mass media-functions shamelessly as an arm of this ruling troika.
The Deep State controls Wall Street? No, indeed. Wall Street controls the Deep State and makes
its very existence possible. The Deep State's job is to do Wall Street's dirty work, so Wall Street
can continue to live off their tax and debt-peons from Arlington to Athens.
it is kind of a chicken and egg thing, the way it could be posed either way. i go with the
theory that any collection of people in the pursuit of similar goals will conspire (make deals)
to collaborate, ah hem.
"The very fields that I helped to pioneer have been visited by the Rockefeller Foundation boys
and the Gates Foundation," Hamamoto remarks concerning the subversion of genuine activist-oriented
and propelled scholarship. "This is what happens. You do pioneering work, and then you get the
knock on the door and the invitation to be brought in to the fold. Ethnic Studies and Asian American
Studies in particular have had those visits. We've been taken over. We've been co-opted.
In place of the organic leadership has been placed these people who I call the 'servitors
of empire.'
"That's a midpoint between servants and … the wielders of true power–the great Anglo-American
families."
"Now here is some meat:
""Concerning deep agendas involving modern eugenics, Hamamoto observes, "Just like I got to
see more [students] coming in on psychotropic drugs, I've been able to see the greater feminization
of the male population over the years. I wanted to ask questions why. It didn't take too long
to figure out that the male species in the Western world and places like Japan and South Korea,
and definitely Southeast Asia, are being purposely re-engineered into a new type of gender orientation.
The university," Hamamoto continues, "has purposely come up with this whole LGBT intellectual,
scholarly, and student services agenda to act as a smokescreen for a more fundamental and nefarious
attempt to engage in a massive eugenics exercise in effecting human reproduction."
UC Davis is the back door of the Central Intelligence Agency. And the CIA is, and always will
be, my bitch. Frankly, the Deep State is bankrupt just like Wall Street, and the USA, and UC DAVIS,
plus Professor homophobe Hamamoto, and the MIC.
Walk Quietly and Carry a Big Stck! Theodore Roosevelt
Oligarchy , government by the few, especially despotic power
exercised by a small and privileged group for corrupt or selfish purposes. Aristotle used the
term oligarchia to designate the rule of the few when it was exercised not by the best but by
bad men unjustly. Britannica.com
So the "Deep State" is no different than the Praetorian Guard in Rome, who basically ran the
show for the last 200 years of the Roman Empire.
Notice how well that one worked out. Eventually, the Praetorian Guard basically sold the Emperor
position to the highest bidder. They became nothing but common thieves. The same thing is happening
in the USA.
The government makes "rules" which are enforced by the "enforcers", but the rules and the enforcers
are nothing but common thieves. Look what happened to various Central and Latin American countries.
41 out of the top 50 most violent cities in the world are in Latin America. 4 are in the USA.
More to come for sure.
"The Washington Post revealed the private side of this shadow government, made up
of 854,000 contract personnel with top-secret clearances, "a number greater than that of top-secret-cleared
civilian employees of the government."
You must realize that most of these "contract personnel" are former military or civilian employees
who have gone private in order to escape federal salary limits. They are still permanent, long-term
employees of their departments, only outside the federal personnel system and paid a great deal
more. They are the entrenched "experts" who cannot be replaced because there aren't a whole lot
of them in any particular area.
Of course, because there are so few of them in any field, there
is very limited control on their personal biases and self-interests, which are often highly skewed.
Once such a person becomes entrenched, competitors are not welcome and alternative points of view
are squashed. As a result, the U.S. Deep State perpetuates one of the most expensive and incompetent
intelligence services in the world.
"…the US need not push Russia into a corner, market forces are doing that work far more
efficiently."
I think you're confusing markets with the US government.
It is the fall in the price of oil in part caused by political decisions, and partly Obama's
illegal economic sanctions on Russia and US lies and propaganda and regime change directed at
Russia that are "efficiently" doing what they're doing.
Would be very surprised if Washington is successful with any of it's "market forces" regarding
Russia because Russia knows if it loses this matchup in Syria and retreats, the part that comes
next is it Uncle Sam funding ISIS like terrorists on Russian soil instead of Syria as it is now.
And if Russia can free itself of Western economic orthodoxy and dump the dollar, it will never
fear a falling Rubble so much ever again. Lets hope Putin orders a moving away of short term Russian
dollar holdings, so that a deliberate Russian default sees the West lose more in lost Russian
payments than it can seize in Russian assets held in their countries.
Then who would "market forces be efficiently working for"?
In broad simplified stroke, Russia is fighting on the side of the angels and US is the Darth
Vader of the world. The U.N. has said we have the biggest refugee crisis since WWII and the refugees
are all coming from nations the US is or has done regime change in. Aside for this meaning Obama
is directly responsible for the suffering if tens of millions of families and deaths of hundreds
of thousands, it also is producing maybe dangerous right wing political reactions in Europe.
The Russians are smart enough to know the difference between economic sanctions and military
threats and US funded/promoted terrorism. I've watched their actions long enough to trust them
to make sound, intelligent responses (though was disappointed Lavrov agreed to allow Obama&Co
funded Al-qaeda like terrorists to be included as legitimate political opponents of Assad in the
peace talks).
Kerry was probably disciplining her or rehabilitating her; there musts be a tempered new consensus
at State. You're coming with me Vicki and you are going to behave like a rational, sincere diplomat
because you've got some big fences to mend.
Victoria Nuland is a monstrous diplomat who has soufght to cause or caused untold harm in American-Russian
relations. She reflected Hillary Clinton's thinking and evidently reflects John Kerry's and ultimately
the President's thinking.
Victoria Nuland is a monstrous diplomat who has sought to cause or caused untold harm in American-Russian
relations. She reflected Hillary Clinton's thinking and evidently reflects John Kerry's and ultimately
the President's thinking. (I could care less about the shaking or not shaking. Nuland's presence
is a sign of disrespect to Russia and the Russians know that perfectly well. This post is needed
and excellent.)
I think her presence and her humiliation (notice Kerry left the room) are the equivalent of
an apology to Lavrov and Russia for her dingbat, destructive role in Ukraine.
Interesting, thanks. I think the article is worthy. I certainly could not blame Lavrov for
snubbing this horrid excuse for a human being. The Kaganate of Nuland represents a portion of
Obama's foreign policy and reflects what will be ahead should HRC win the election. The entire
Kagan family should not be hired to do this work on behalf of "We the People," but there they
are… doing their evil thing.
Perhaps Nuland thought Lavrov was a subject of some kind. She's probably too arrogant and stupid
to figure it out, but she has now encountered a legitimate opponent. When the day of reckoning
comes for her, she may learn what responsibility is.
"... It has become a machine for transferring income, wealth, ownership, and power to the very top. This is not the new normal. This is financial corruption and the erosion of systemic integrity. Are there any markets that have not been shown to have been systematically manipulated, for years? This is just institutionalized looting. ..."
"Give a small number of people the power to enrich themselves beyond everyone's wildest dreams,
a philosophical rationale to explain all the damage they're causing, and they will not stop until
they've run the world economy off a cliff."
Philipp Meyer
"Wall Street is not being made a scapegoat for this crisis: they really did this."
Michael Lewis
"My daughter asked me when she came home from school, "What's the financial crisis?" and I
said, it's something that happens every five to seven years."
Jamie Dimon
"The greatest tragedy would be to accept the refrain that no one could have seen this coming,
and thus nothing could have been done. If we accept this notion, it will happen again."
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (2009–2011)
The US has been in a cycle of bubbles, busts, and crashes since at least 1995, and more likely since
Alan Greenspan became the Chairman of the Federal Reserve in August, 1987.
The cycle is the same,
only the depth and duration seems to change in a continuing 'wash and rinse' of the public money
and the real economy.
It has become a machine for transferring income, wealth, ownership, and power to the very
top. This is not 'the new normal.' This is financial corruption and the erosion of systemic
integrity. Are there any markets that have not been shown to have been systematically manipulated,
for years? This is just institutionalized looting.
"... The case for additional public investment is as strong in the UK (and Germany ) as it is in the US. Yet since 2010 it appeared the government thought otherwise. ..."
"... However since the election George Osborne seems to have had a change of heart. ... ..."
The economic case for investing when the cost of borrowing is so cheap (particularly when the
government can issue 30 year fixed interest debt) is overwhelming. I had guessed the majority
would be pretty large just by personal observation. Economists who are not known for their anti-austerity
views, like
Ken Rogoff, tend to support additional public investment.
Thanks to a
piece by Mark Thoma I now have some evidence. His article is actually about ideological bias
in economics, and is well worth reading on that account, but it uses results from the ChicagoBooth
survey of leading US economists. I have used this survey's results on the impact of fiscal policy
before, but they have
asked a similar question about public investment. It is
"Because the US has underspent on new projects, maintenance, or both, the federal government
has an opportunity to increase average incomes by spending more on roads, railways, bridges
and airports."
Not one of the nearly 50 economists surveyed disagreed with this statement. What was interesting
was that the economists were under no illusions that the political process in the US would be
such that some bad projects would be undertaken as a result (see the follow-up question). Despite
this, they still thought increasing investment would raise incomes.
The case for additional public investment is as strong in the UK (and
Germany)
as it is in the US. Yet since 2010 it appeared the government thought otherwise. ...
However since the election George Osborne seems to have had a change of heart. ...
"... In November, if you dont live in a battleground state, your vote will not tip the outcome...better to vote your conscience and register your disgust with the corrupt duopoly. ..."
"... Any president will need a staff and mostly, that will come from people working in the Obama administration. Bernie talks about Stiglitz, but he is 72, almost as old as Bernie. He mentioned Reich who was part of the same Clinton administration that Bernie constantly bashes. ..."
"... Much of the dereg came about in trade for other policies. I dont know that a Bernie administration would be much different. Bernie would need to swallow hard and take a heavy dose of GOP poison to get a budget, much less pass reform legislation. ..."
"... Dont say the Tea Party changed nothing - they changed themselves. Remember that they were created in disgust over Wall Street. After they got elected you would be hard pressed to find more ardent supporters of any and all legislation that support the rich. ..."
"... Bernie is settling for social democracy. That is still better than neoliberal theocracy. ..."
"... Exactly. Its all political posturing for the primaries. Like Obama, shell revert to a neoliberal stooge the moment she takes office. ..."
"... Her first action will be to find some hapless, third world country to intervene in to prove that she has cojones. Libya redux. ..."
"... Paleoconservatives oppose military interventionism. Boots on the ground would be neoconservative. ..."
"... Neoconservative is just neoliberal with a more aggressive boots on the ground foreign policy or imperialism ..."
"... Paleoconservatives are more isolationist than free traders. They still love their corporations and rich people, but they dont like crony capitalism as a principle even if as a reality they are open to setting a price. Trump is leaning paleoconservative, at least in his campaign rhetoric. ..."
"... Whatever it takes to prove that she the toughest warrior since Catherine the Great... ..."
"... Exactly. She is yet another neocon, masking as a Democrat. She is more jingoistic then probably half of Republican candidates. ..."
"... What to do when a candidate is called unelectable because of their support for the policies that you yourself support? ..."
"... Well you have to decide whether you want to be a heroic loser or get half a loaf. I agree that it is a very difficult question. ..."
"... You nailed it. No one ever said democracy would be easy. ..."
"... And he cautionary tale is that the heroic losers got us 8 years of Bush II - and all the disasters he managed to create in that time. ..."
"... No What is means is that there are a lot of people who realize that public opinion polls mean absolutely nothing. ..."
"... What is ironic about this election cycle more than others is that Republicans dominate the elected offices, so they have essentially total control of government, especially in the poorest States, but they blame Obama for things that are local to these States like teen pregnancy, school drop outs, poverty, high unemployment, crime, felons, unemployed felons, no health providers, no corporations who will setup in the State because of the lack of health probiders, educated workers, and too much crime. Nothing was better when Bush-Cheney or Reagan-Bush were where Obama-Biden are. And the increasing number of elected Republicans seems to me to be quantifiably worse. ..."
"... I would call them a Third Way turncoats within Dems. Neolibs moved party into Wall Street hands and Wall Street donors became the key contributors. Clinton successfully sold Democratic Party (like Tony Blair sold Labour) and got rich in the process. ..."
"... Instead of boycotting, which conveys apathy, why not vote third party, which conveys disgust? ..."
"... ...Nader won enough votes in two states - Florida and New Hampshire - to put either of them in Gore's column. Nader won 97,488 votes in Florida, which easily could have swung the election to give Gore the state's 25 electoral votes, and there would have been no need for a recount. Even without Florida, adding Nader's 4 percent of the New Hampshire vote to Gore's 47 percent would have given Gore a 270 to 267 victory in the electoral college... ..."
"... Hillary Clinton has had persistently high negatives and a habit of generating and attractive scandal. She cant even generate trust within her own party, and performs particularly badly among independents. I dont understand why anyone would view her as the electable alternative . ..."
"... HRC is not calling for a political revolution. If you like oligarchy then she is your gal. If one is comfortably placed in the existing establishment then it is a scary thing to risk rocking the boat. ..."
"... Yep, the Clinton Foundation should be rebranded: Scandals R Us! ..."
"... When presented with the choice between a corrupt capitalist and an honest socialist, it should be an easy choice for most of us. Actually, for the Wall Street Democrats here, its also any easy choice--you look for the most corrupt candidate, the one who lists Wall Street banks as her top donors. ..."
"... By November, all but the most fervent Clinton partisans -- who can always be driven into a frenzy of paranoid persecution mania by talk of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and whatnot - is in an anybody but Clinton mood. ..."
"... Not BS. You are wearing partisan blinders. Clinton has been dogged by scandal at every stage of her public life: some pumped up out of relatively small stuff, but several serious big deals. There will be more. Why? Because the Clintons are both compulsive liars. Thats why young people, who are very good at sniffing out fakes and liars, dont like her. ..."
"... The Republicans have gone nuts and are much more of danger than they appeared to be back in 2000 before 9-11. ..."
"... The definitions of Democratic Socialism by B Sanders are in the context of Scandinavian countries which is really a more progressive form of social democracy, e.g. higher tax rates on higher earners than other social democratic countries but still allowing private property. ..."
"... The protesters' indictment of Wall Street as a destructive force, economically and politically, is completely right. ..."
"... Bingo. Bernie does what Obama did in his early speeches: speak to the moral, emotional underpinnings of Progressive beliefs. ..."
"... This is a kind of excitement that Hillary is never going to be able to inspire. ..."
"... And you somehow think that this enthusiasm will not be curbed after the attacks on Sanders begin? And I am not talking about these stupid little so called attacks by PK, Chait, Klein, etc. I'm talking big boy attacks backed by huge money and no reason whatsoever to pay attention to any facts at all. ..."
"... Yeah, I do. I think we're ready for another, And I welcome their hatred, moment in history. ..."
"... But what we need now is someone with genuine moral outrage who will say what so many of us feel: the system has been distorted beyond its ability to snap back. It works for at most 10% of the population now and catastrophically, often fatally, fails a percentage of perhaps twice that. I haven't gotten quite to the point yet myself where I would refuse to vote for Clinton if she won the primary, but many of my friends have. I think the tide has finally turned. ..."
You Say You Want a Revolution?, by Mark A. Thoma : What, exactly, does Democratic presidential
candidate Bernie Sanders have in mind when he asks on his
website if we are "Ready
to Start a Political Revolution?" He has proclaimed unabashedly that he is a socialist, a statement
that has raised eyebrows about his electability. He wants to turn us into the Soviet Union!! Is
that what he has in mind?
Far from it. He has
qualified his statements to make it clear that he is a democratic socialist, but that term
fails to convey what he really has in mind, or at least I think it does. ...
You support Sanders because he opposes any organized opposition to Republicans who run about 10,000
candidates for 10,000 offices and get out voters to vote in everyone on of those elections?
The only organized opposition to Republicans is Democratic Parties who need to raise money
to pay campaign workers because those progressives who oppose capitalism oddly won't work for
the parties for free, or run for office paying their own way in getting hundreds of people to
work for free getting out the vote. It isn't like Democratic party elites block them from running
for office because at least a thousand elections have no opponent to the Republican candidate.
What's Sanders' plan for filling the 10,000 elected offices currently filled with corrupt party
picked and corporate bought puppets?
Sanders has pushed the DLC for a "southern strategy", to no avail. I worked for free in 2012 and
2014! I may not do so in 2016.
JohnH -> pgl...
I would vote for Sanders in November because he is strong on issues important to most Americans.
Bill Curry explains the difference between the candidates, something most of the 'liberals' here
fail to grasp--
"Hillary is a living avatar of the Democratic Party in our time. What it does well–cultural
issues and social programs– she does well. When she talks about child care or family leave she's
passionate and sincere. What she and her party don't do well is fight to end corporate control
of government. She's also weak on climate change, freedom of information, the right to privacy
and, in matters of alleged national security, the rule of law.
Bernie won [the October debate] not because he outpointed her but because he's strong on the
issues on which she's weak - and because those are the issues that matter most to voters. Like
our environment, our democracy and our middle class are at a tipping point. When Bernie talks
about these crises, his sincerity and passion are unmistakable. For all her hard work, it isn't
clear Hillary even understands them. Having spent the '90s promoting globalization, and her adult
life raising money from those who profit from it, she's too wed to the system to see its fatal
flaws".
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/18/this_is_still_bernie_sanders_moment_hes_right_on_the_big_issues_now_he_must_communicate_it/
likbez -> JohnH...
Bill Curry is simply naďve.
The current social system that is in place in the USA is called neoliberalism. And it presupposes
complete corporate control of the state as neoliberalism is a form of corporatism.
I doubt that you can change the elite preferences as for neoliberalism via elections. Some
compromises are possible, but that's it. Any US President is controlled by "deep state" not the
other way around.
Truman said something like "You came to the office, you try to change things and nothing changes."
JohnH -> lower middle class...
In November, if you don't live in a battleground state, your vote will not tip the outcome...better
to vote your conscience and register your disgust with the corrupt duopoly.
JohnH -> EMichael...
If enough people vote against the corrupt duopoly in non-battleground states, the message will
be heard.
Yes, we can!
Sarah -> pgl...
As usual, Mark's much more balanced on the subject than Krugman. He shows that he's thought about
it carefully and listened to what Sanders has to say. Krugman, on the other hand, is sounding
like he did on the housing bubble before he actually started reading, thinking and paying attention.
Especially irritating is his claim that single payer means organizing a national health service
and abolishing private health care. Surely he's traveled enough in Europe to know that it means
nothing of the kind. Most European countries, including the one where I live, offer private health
plans as well as a public option- just the system Krugman himself proposed when the health care
debates were on.
The other thing which Sanders is doing, and which an earlier Krugman faulted Obama for NOT
doing, is pushing the political dialogue back towards the center, away from the extreme right,
where it's been stuck despite massive bipartisan majorities in favor of a number of more Progressive
positions, for a couple of decades now. If he's getting strong blow-back for this it's hardly
surprising.
I don't anyone will fault Thoma for worrying about Bernie's prospects. I happen to think he's
mistaken, and that Sanders actually has a far stronger appeal - even on the Right (particularly
among the non-political and those who have given up on politics) -- than many people suspect,
but it's certainly a reasonable concern. What Krugman is doing goes considerably beyond that,
however. If he's getting strong blow-back for that it's hardly surprising.
jonny bakho :
I think Bernie is electable. Bernie gives Hillary cover to discuss more populist positions. I
think his approach is unlikely to deliver very much.
The TeaParty went to Congress with an agenda plus grass roots support and have changed nothing.
The US system is designed to block radical schemes and force a more incremental change. On health
care, we solved the problem of how to pay. The most pressing challenge is improving delivery.
On this, Bernie is refighting the last war. His side lost. The Dems should not respond to TeaParty
votes on repealing Obamacare with votes to repeal it and replace it with single payer. The TeaParty
has been a waste of time. So would the push for single payer. The majority of Americans would
be loathe to trade in their employer paid health care for health care of unknown quality paid
for by higher taxes. Vermont could sell it to their voters. It cannot be sold to the TeaParty
who would fight it as BigBrotherGov. Sanders does not have the good judgement to see that single
payer is a loser with the general public and would be a drag on the rest of the agenda. The move
to single payer will involve incremental steps that are outside of Sanders plan. The whole idea
that a one-sided populist revolution will occur in 2016 is near zero probability. The populists
are split between a conservative camp and a liberal camp.
Any president will need a staff and mostly, that will come from people working in the Obama
administration. Bernie talks about Stiglitz, but he is 72, almost as old as Bernie. He mentioned
Reich who was part of the same Clinton administration that Bernie constantly bashes. The
advantage to Clinton is she is much more familiar with the players who understand how to make
the agencies respond. I lived through the 90s and the legislation that was enacted was always
some mix of what the GOP Congress were promoting and what Bill Clinton wanted. Much of the
dereg came about in trade for other policies. I don't know that a Bernie administration would
be much different. Bernie would need to swallow hard and take a heavy dose of GOP poison to get
a budget, much less pass reform legislation.
Don't say the Tea Party changed nothing - they changed themselves. Remember that they were
created in disgust over Wall Street. After they got elected you would be hard pressed to find
more ardent supporters of any and all legislation that support the rich.
pgl -> DeDude...
Same old Republican bait and switch.
ilsm -> jonny bakho...
Tea party support is in fly over country. And there a small minority (they win with 55% stay home)
of the population.
Bernie could excite enough.... Hillary not so.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron :
My guess is that Bernie would be for democratic socialism if he thought that he could get it done.
So, Bernie is settling for social democracy. That is still better than neoliberal theocracy.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> pgl...
I would even give some neoliberal politicians credit for listening well to the economists whose
policy prescriptions fit their political-economic agenda on a case by case basis. So, that is
pretense without just pretending.
JohnH -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
"Since Bernie she is singing a different tune."
Exactly. It's all political posturing for the primaries. Like Obama, she'll revert to a
neoliberal stooge the moment she takes office.
Her first action will be to find some hapless, third world country to intervene in to prove
that she has cojones. Libya redux.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> JohnH...
Yeah, but no boots on the ground because that would be neoconservative.
pgl -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
I think you mean Paleo Conservative. We need to program to keep up with all these meaningless
labels.
Syaloch -> pgl...
Paleoconservatives oppose military interventionism. Boots on the ground would be neoconservative.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> pgl...
[Neoconservative is just neoliberal with a more aggressive "boots on the ground" foreign policy
or imperialism if you would rather.]
*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol
Irving Kristol (January 22, 1920 – September 18, 2009) was an American columnist, journalist, and
writer who was dubbed the "godfather of neo-conservatism."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon) is a political movement born in the United States
during the 1960s among Democrats who became disenchanted with the party's domestic and especially
foreign policy. Many of its adherents became politically famous during the Republican presidential
administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Neoconservatives peaked in influence during
the administrations of George W. Bush and George H W Bush, when they played a major role in promoting
and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[1] Prominent neoconservatives in the Bush administration
included Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, and Paul Bremer. Senior officials
Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, while not identifying themselves
as neoconservatives, listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially
the defense of Israel, the promotion of democracy in the Middle East, and the buildup of American
military forces to achieve these goals. The neocons have influence in the Obama White House, and
neoconservatism remains a staple in both parties' arsenal.[2][3]
The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist
Left to the camp of American conservatism.[4] Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of
democracy and promotion of American national interest in international affairs, including by means
of military force, and are known for espousing disdain for communism and for political radicalism...
*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism
Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleocon) is a conservative political philosophy found
primarily in the United States stressing tradition, limited government and civil society, along with
religious, regional, national and Western identity.[1][2]
Paleoconservatives in the 21st century often highlight their points of disagreement with neoconservatives,
especially regarding issues such as military interventionism, illegal immigration and high rates
of legal immigration, as well as multiculturalism, affirmative action, free trade, and foreign aid.[1]
They also criticize social welfare and social democracy, which some refer to as the "therapeutic
managerial state",[3] the "welfare-warfare state"[4] or "polite totalitarianism".[5] They identify
themselves as the legitimate heirs to the American conservative tradition.[6]
Elizabethtown College professor Paul Gottfried is credited with coining the term in the 1980s.[7]
He says the term originally referred to various Americans, such as conservative and traditionalist
Catholics and agrarian Southerners, who turned to anti-communism during the Cold War.[8] Paleoconservatism
is closely linked with distributism.[citation needed]
Paleoconservative thought has been published by the Rockford Institute's Chronicles: A Magazine of
American Culture.[9] Politician Pat Buchanan was strongly influenced by its articles[8] and helped
create another paleocon publication, The American Conservative.[10] Its concerns overlap those of
the Old Right that opposed the New Deal in the 1930s and 1940s...
[There you have it. To simplify just consider archetypes neoconservative Irving Kristol (or son William)
versus paleoconservative Pat Buchanan. Neocons are entirely at home with the Washington Consensus
of neoliberal, but they want to project American power via militarism and have no problem whatsoever
with other peoples kids dying in foreign wars. That is the beauty of an all voluntary military.
Paleoconservatives are more isolationist than free traders. They still love their corporations
and rich people, but they don't like crony capitalism as a principle even if as a reality they are
open to setting a price. Trump is leaning paleoconservative, at least in his campaign rhetoric.
]
JohnH -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
"no boots on the ground" Don't bet on it. Whatever it takes to prove that she the toughest
warrior since Catherine the Great...
likbez -> JohnH...
>Her first action will be to find some hapless, third world country to intervene in to prove that
she has cojones. Libya redux.
Exactly. She is yet another neocon, masking as a Democrat. She is more jingoistic then
probably half of Republican candidates.
PPaine -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
Might I suggest recently Hillary is no longer bear hugging real progress
She's back to the wooden nickel con and the " crazy left " marginalization stunt
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> PPaine ...
Yeah, you may suggest. I noticed that too. Neither my wife nor I are her fans. I have been
in for Bernie since before he even announced. If I recall so were you although Liz Warren would
have also been acceptable to us.
Back in the 70's I wanted to Carl Sagan to run for POTUS. I have since become a full time realist
and only a part time crackpot.
DrDick -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
That is the position of many Democratic Socialists, including myself and most major European
socialist parties. It is a gradualist position rather than a revolutionary one.
PPaine said in reply to DrDick...
And deeply in crisis. Hence the emergence of left alternatives as well as right menaces
kthomas :
Let's go Bernie! Make those cockroaches scurry!
Jerry Brown :
What to do when a candidate is called unelectable because of their support for the policies
that you yourself support?
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> Jerry Brown...
LOL! That's a good one.
Jerry Brown -> EMichael...
True enough. Thoma says it is the label "socialist" that makes him less likely to win, not the
actual policies that might be associated with the label.
Its difficult finding out I'm a socialist after all these years. Maybe I should support Trump
so nobody else finds out.
Jerry Brown -> EMichael...
Yes. Trump might be a type of socialist too. Nationalist Socialist might be a fit for him.
DeDude -> Jerry Brown...
Well you have to decide whether you want to be a heroic loser or get half a loaf. I agree
that it is a very difficult question.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> DeDude...
You nailed it. No one ever said democracy would be easy.
DeDude -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
And he cautionary tale is that the "heroic losers" got us 8 years of Bush II - and all the
disasters he managed to create in that time.
JohnH -> Jerry Brown...
"What to do when a candidate is called unelectable because of their support for the policies
that you yourself support?"
Actually, what to do when a candidate, i.e. Bernie, is called unelectable because they support
policies that most Americans support--busting up the big banks and Medicare for all?
The 'liberals' here fail to take into account that 1) Bernie is on the right side of public
opinion, and 2) takes positions that real liberals would support. Yet they won't support Bernie...because
they've become too conservative?
EMichael -> JohnH...
No What is means is that there are a lot of people who realize that public opinion polls mean
absolutely nothing.
You form a party that can put 10,000 candidates on the ballot for 10,000 elected offices and then
winning the majority of those elections.
What is ironic about this election cycle more than others is that Republicans dominate
the elected offices, so they have essentially total control of government, especially in the poorest
States, but they blame Obama for things that are local to these States like teen pregnancy, school
drop outs, poverty, high unemployment, crime, felons, unemployed felons, no health providers,
no corporations who will setup in the State because of the lack of health probiders, educated
workers, and too much crime. Nothing was better when Bush-Cheney or Reagan-Bush were where Obama-Biden
are. And the increasing number of elected Republicans seems to me to be quantifiably worse.
So, who do progressives like Sanders blame? The Democrats who have lost in elections over and
over to Republicans. What actions do progressives who support Sanders take? Attack the system
and boycott it.
Hey, it's like protesting the weather requiring creating some sort of shelter from the snow
by laying down and being covered with snow. They'll show mother nature and force her to change.
likbez -> PPaine ...
> Party cadre and those reflex rooters for the party
I would call them a Third Way turncoats within Dems. Neolibs moved party into Wall Street
hands and Wall Street donors became the key contributors. Clinton successfully sold Democratic
Party (like Tony Blair sold Labour) and got rich in the process.
Instead of boycotting, which conveys apathy, why not vote third party, which conveys disgust?
BTW the reason Democrats lost the mid-terms in many states in 2014 is precisely because they
ran as Republican-lite: "Consider that in four "red" states - South Dakota, Arkansas, Alaska,
and Nebraska - the same voters who sent Republicans to the Senate voted by wide margins to raise
their state's minimum wage. Democratic candidates in these states barely mentioned the minimum
wage."
JohnH -> djb...
What Bernie should do if he loses is build a nationwide socialist organization. Obama had that
opportunity in 2008 but abandoned it as soon as he took power...he didn't want popular opposition
to his neoliberal agenda.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to DeDude...
[Sorry, I forgot about Nader and since you did not explicitly mention him then your meaning
was not clear.]
...Nader won enough votes in two states - Florida and New Hampshire - to put either of them
in Gore's column. Nader won 97,488 votes in Florida, which easily could have swung the election
to give Gore the state's 25 electoral votes, and there would have been no need for a recount.
Even without Florida, adding Nader's 4 percent of the New Hampshire vote to Gore's 47 percent
would have given Gore a 270 to 267 victory in the electoral college...
[That said, then Bernie is another thing entirely. Bernie is not a third party candidate. Now
I wish voting for a third party candidate was plausibly a good decision because with a ranked
voting system then a third party vote would not be a throw away, but that is not how the two party
system wants things done.]
Hillary Clinton has had persistently high negatives and a habit of generating and attractive
scandal. She can't even generate trust within her own party, and performs particularly badly among
independents. I don't understand why anyone would view her as the "electable alternative".
HRC is not calling for a political revolution. If you like oligarchy then she is your gal.
If one is comfortably placed in the existing establishment then it is a scary thing to risk rocking
the boat.
JohnH -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
Yep, the Clinton Foundation should be rebranded: "Scandals R Us!"
When presented with the choice between a corrupt capitalist and an honest socialist, it
should be an easy choice for most of us. Actually, for the Wall Street Democrats here, it's also
any easy choice--you look for the most corrupt candidate, the one who lists Wall Street banks
as her top donors.
Great, you can predict the future. Well, so can I. Here's my prediction: Hillary Clinton gets
nominated. The summer and fall campaign is dominated by a nauseating replay of every Clinton scandal,
present and past. Not just the eight or so we know about, but others that haven't been let out
of the opposition research box yet. By November, all but the most fervent Clinton partisans
-- who can always be driven into a frenzy of paranoid persecution mania by talk of the Vast Right
Wing Conspiracy and whatnot - is in an "anybody but Clinton" mood.
Not BS. You are wearing partisan blinders. Clinton has been dogged by scandal at every stage
of her public life: some pumped up out of relatively small stuff, but several serious big deals.
There will be more. Why? Because the Clintons are both compulsive liars. That's why young people,
who are very good at sniffing out fakes and liars, don't like her.
But the older, "Clinton generation" of Democrats has internalized a particularly cynical and
jaded attitude toward routine public lying, having picked up the fixed habit of defending the
compulsively lying Clintons for so many years.
The Clintons could have done the Democratic Party a huge favor in 2001 by sailing off into
retirement after dragging the country through their slime for years, and by dismantling their
machine and handing the party off to something more wholesome and progressive.
Many commentators don't seem to understand that there is a major US organization called the Democratic
Socialists of America. They have been around for a number of years, and one of the founders was
Michael Harrington. This organization has published a fairly comprehensive statement entitled
Where We Stand, and does not advocate a wholesale elimination of market economic institutions.
As democratic socialists we are committed to ensuring that any market is the servant of the
public good and not its master. Liberty, equality, and solidarity will require not only democratic
control over economic life, but also a progressively financed, decentralized, and quality public
sector. Free markets or private charity cannot provide adequate public goods and services.
So, as I read it, the two main takeaways here are:
1. Any markets that exist should serve the public good.
2. Free markets alone are not sufficient to provide society with adequate public goods and services.
The statement also does not call for the elimination of all private ownership; but it clearly
does call for an expansion of public ownership, worker ownership and cooperatives.
A lot of people who are not democratic socialists seem to have very strong ideas about what
democratic socialism really is, based perhaps on the ideas of people who called themselves "democratic
socialists" in the 19th and early 20th centuries. But I think it's the people who use that label
for themselves are entitled to determine what they intend that label to stand for.
pgl -> Dan Kervick...
Love this line:
"Today powerful corporate and political elites tell us that environmental standards are too high,
unemployment is too low, and workers earn too much for America to prosper in the next century."
Most economists would say environmental standards are too low, that we are still below full employment,
and the goal of economic policy should be to raise wages.
So your group is critiquing right wing Republicans not your "neoliberal" whatever.
I'm for Bernie and believe he could beat Trump. But Dan Kervick and JohnH's arguments moved me
more towards the Thoma and EMichael direction.
The Republicans have gone nuts and are much more of danger than they appeared to be back
in 2000 before 9-11.
The parties are not the same. The danger for the Democrats is that they don't accomplish enough
in moving the country towards Social Democracy (Bill Clinton did little, Obama did some) and so
inequality just increases and politics gets worse.
Obama did not get a strong recovery and so Congress is Republican. He didn't prioritize Fed
nominations and turned towards deficit reduction too quickly.
EMichael -> Peter K....
There are two sides to that stone.
What I am saying, and in way so is Dr. Thoma, is that Sanders' nomination may well cause much
more Rep voter turnout.
And Sanders lacks the ability to turn out the black vote at all, and he has done himself no
favor so far in this cycle.
Black votes are a lot more important and numerous than any people who are tired of "neo-liberals".
Most of whom, if they had IQ above double digits, always voted for the Dem candidate anyway.
am :
Prof Thoma seems to have got this right. The definitions of Democratic Socialism by B Sanders
are in the context of Scandinavian countries which is really a more progressive form of social
democracy, e.g. higher tax rates on higher earners than other social democratic countries but
still allowing private property. But he was really a bit daft calling himself a democratic
socialist if he is just a more progressive social democrat. A democratic socialist does not allow
private property rights but allows democracy. This means elections every four or five years when
the government including themselves in power can be changed.
But that these terms can be misunderstood you just have to look at their use in history: Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Democratic Republic of Germany (East Germany).
likbez -> am...
Scandinavian countries are pretty small homogenous countries. What is possible for Scandinavian
countries is more difficult to achieve is large states like the USA.
> This means elections every four or five years when the government including themselves in power
can be changed.
In two party system elections is just approval of two selected by the current oligarchy candidates.
And it was always this way.
"In two party system elections is just approval of two
selected by the current oligarchy candidates. And it was
always this ways."
So, every candidate must
independently find supporters and then use the supporters
to educate every voter in the candidates' electorate of
the individual candidates policies without respect to any
standard like political party or any existing description
of what political labels mean because the labels are
derived from one of many parties using the words in the
label.
How long would it take you to explain your political
position without referring to some label that covers how
you would decide on responses to social problems when
drafting bills or voting on them?
Then explain how you would find other legislators to
support and pass bills without assigning them labels.
I think two party system is what is called "polyarchy" --
power of a few. As Gore Vidal noted: "There is one
political party in this country, and that is the party of
money. It has two branches, the Republicans and the
Democrats, the chief difference between which is that the
Democrats are better at concealing their scorn for the
average man."
== quote ==
I subscribe to Kantian idea of the dignity in human, the
idea that everyone is entitles to survival as well as
thriving beyond survival. But does everybody is entitled
to equal participation in ruling of the state ? Or
election of state leaders? Which is what democracy means.
But at the same time the struggle for political equality
which is often associative with the word "democracy" is a
vital human struggle even if democracy itself is an
unachievable and unrealistic ideal (see The Iron Law of
Oligarchy). In some sense too much talk about Democracy is
very suspect and just characterize the speaker as a
hypocrite with probably evil intentions, who probably is
trying to mask some pretty insidious plans with "democracy
promotion" smokescreen. That is especially true for
"export of democracy" efforts. See color revolutions for
details.
Under neoliberalism we now face a regime completely
opposite to democracy: we have complete, forceful
atomization of public, acute suppression of any
countervailing political forces (not unlike it was the
case in the USSR) including labor unions and other forms
of self-organization for the lower 80% or even 99% of
population. Neoliberalism tries to present any individual
as a market actor within some abstract market (everything
is the market under neoliberalism). Instead of fight for
political and economic equality neoliberalism provides a
slick slogan of "wealth maximization" which is in essence
a "bait and switch" for wealth maximization for the top 1%
(redistribution of wealth up - which is the stated goal of
neoliberalism). It was working in tandem with "shareholder
value" mantra which is a disguise of looting of the
corporations to enrich its top brass via outsize bonuses
(IBM is a nice example where such an approach leads) and
sending thousands of white color workers to the street.
Previously it was mainly blue-color workers that were
affected. Times changed.
Everything should be organized like corporation under
neoliberalism, including government, medicine, education,
even military. And everybody is not a citizen but a
shareholder under neoliberalism (or more correctly
stakeholder), so any conflict should be resolved via
discussion of the main stakeholders. Naturally lower 99%
are not among them.
In any democracy, how can voters make an important
decision unless they are well informed? But what
percentage of US votes can be considered well informed?
And what percentage is brainwashed or do not what to think
about the issues involved and operate based on emotions
and prejudices? And when serious discussion of issues that
nation faces are deliberately and systematically replaced
by "infotainment" votes became just pawn in the game of
factions of elite, which sometimes leaks information to
sway public opinion, but do it very selectively. Important
information is suppressed or swiped under the carpet to
fifth page in NYT to prevent any meaningful discussion.
For example, ask several of your friends if they ever
heard about Damascus, AR.
The great propaganda mantra of neoliberal governance,
"wealth maximization" for society as a whole in reality is
applied very selectively and never to the bottom 60% or
80% of population. In essence, it means a form of welfare
economics for financial oligarchy while at the same time a
useful smokescreen for keeping debt-slaves obedient by
removing any remnants of job security mechanisms that were
instituted during the New Deal. As the great American
jurist and Supreme Court associate justice Louis Brandeis
once said: "We can have huge wealth in the hands of a
relatively few people or we can have a democracy. But we
can't have both." As under neoliberalism extreme wealth is
the goal of the social system, there can be no democracy
under neoliberalism. And this mean that pretentions of the
USA elite that the USA is a bastion of democracy is plain
vanilla British ruling elite style hypocrisy. Brutal
suppression of any move to challenge dominance of
financial oligarchy (even such feeble as Occupy movement)
shows that all too well
Politically neoliberalism. like Marxism in the past,
operates with the same two classes: entrepreneurs (modern
name for capitalists and financial oligarchy) and debt
slaves (proletarians under Marxism) who work for them.
Under neoliberalism only former considered first class
citizens ("one dollar -- one vote"). Debt slaves are
second class of citizens and are prevented from
self-organization, which by-and-large deprives them of any
form of political participation. In best Roman tradition
it is substituted with the participation in political
shows (see Empire of Illusion The End of Literacy and the
Triumph of Spectacle by Chris Hedges) which decide nothing
but provide legitimacy for ruling elite.
The two party system invented by the elite of Great
Britain proved to be perfect for neoliberal regimes, which
practice what Sheldon Wolin called inverted totalitarism.
The latter is the regime in which all political power
belongs to the financial oligarchy which rules via the
deep state mechanisms, and where traditional political
institutions are downgraded to instruments of providing
political legitimacy of the ruling elite. Population is
discouraged from political activity. "Go shopping" as
famously stated Bush II after 9/11.
There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear, but we may, at long last, be
seeing the rise of a popular movement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people.
When the Occupy Wall Street protests began three weeks ago, most news organizations were derisive
if they deigned to mention the events at all. For example, nine days into the protests, National
Public Radio had provided no coverage whatsoever.
It is, therefore, a testament to the passion of those involved that the protests not only continued
but grew, eventually becoming too big to ignore. With unions and a growing number of Democrats
now expressing at least qualified support for the protesters, Occupy Wall Street is starting to
look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.
What can we say about the protests? First things first: The protesters' indictment of Wall
Street as a destructive force, economically and politically, is completely right.
A weary cynicism, a belief that justice will never get served, has taken over much of our political
debate - and, yes, I myself have sometimes succumbed. In the process, it has been easy to forget
just how outrageous the story of our economic woes really is. So, in case you've forgotten, it
was a play in three acts.
In the first act, bankers took advantage of deregulation to run wild (and pay themselves
princely sums), inflating huge bubbles through reckless lending.
In the second act, the bubbles burst - but bankers were bailed out by taxpayers, with remarkably
few strings attached, even as ordinary workers continued to suffer the consequences of the
bankers' sins.
And, in the third act, bankers showed their gratitude by turning on the people who had
saved them, throwing their support - and the wealth they still possessed thanks to the bailouts
- behind politicians who promised to keep their taxes low and dismantle the mild regulations
erected in the aftermath of the crisis.
Now, it's true that some of the protesters are oddly dressed or have silly-sounding slogans,
which is inevitable given the open character of the events. But so what? I, at least, am a lot
more offended by the sight of exquisitely tailored plutocrats, who owe their continued wealth
to government guarantees, whining that President Obama has said mean things about them than I
am by the sight of ragtag young people denouncing consumerism.
Bear in mind, too, that experience has made it painfully clear that men in suits not only don't
have any monopoly on wisdom, they have very little wisdom to offer. When talking heads on, say,
CNBC mock the protesters as unserious, remember how many serious people assured us that there
was no housing bubble, that Alan Greenspan was an oracle and that budget deficits would send interest
rates soaring.
A better critique of the protests is the absence of specific policy demands. It would probably
be helpful if protesters could agree on at least a few main policy changes they would like to
see enacted. But we shouldn't make too much of the lack of specifics. It's clear what kinds of
things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it's really the job of policy intellectuals
and politicians to fill in the details.
Rich Yeselson, a veteran organizer and historian of social movements, has suggested that debt
relief for working Americans become a central plank of the protests. I'll second that, because
such relief, in addition to serving economic justice, could do a lot to help the economy recover.
I'd suggest that protesters also demand infrastructure investment - not more tax cuts - to help
create jobs. Neither proposal is going to become law in the current political climate, but the
whole point of the protests is to change that political climate.
And there are real political opportunities here. Not, of course, for today's Republicans, who
instinctively side with those Theodore Roosevelt-dubbed "malefactors of great wealth." Mitt Romney,
for example - who, by the way, probably pays less of his income in taxes than many middle-class
Americans - was quick to condemn the protests as "class warfare."
But Democrats are being given what amounts to a second chance. The Obama administration squandered
a lot of potential good will early on by adopting banker-friendly policies that failed to deliver
economic recovery even as bankers repaid the favor by turning on the president. Now, however,
Mr. Obama's party has a chance for a do-over. All it has to do is take these protests as seriously
as they deserve to be taken.
And if the protests goad some politicians into doing what they should have been doing all along,
Occupy Wall Street will have been a smashing success.
Sarah -> Peter K....
Bingo. Bernie does what Obama did in his early speeches: speak to the moral, emotional
underpinnings of Progressive beliefs. Despite seeing how incredibly powerful this
approach has been for the Republicans, we've had years and decades of Democrats acting like
cold technocrats, as if all of these policy matters were mere practicalities and politics were
really just the horse race that the media treats it as- rather than a matter of life and death
for many people in its outcomes.
I think people would be less skeptical of Bernie's chances if they saw, as I have, the number
of people on the Right and the completely apolitical types who've never voted in their lives
who are suddenly talking enthusiastically (often to their own surprise) about a politician.
This is a kind of excitement that Hillary is never going to be able to inspire.
EMichael -> Sarah...
And you somehow think that this enthusiasm will not be curbed after the attacks on
Sanders begin? And I am not talking about these stupid little so called "attacks" by PK, Chait,
Klein, etc. I'm talking big boy attacks backed by huge money and no reason whatsoever to pay
attention to any facts at all.
Sarah -> EMichael...
Yeah, I do. I think we're ready for another, "And I welcome their hatred," moment in
history.
The fact is, on both the Left and the Right people are sick of politics as usual. It's notable
that the 'big boys' with the money have been completely, totally unable to influence their
supposed Republican base this election season. That's because on the Republican side Trump and
Cruz- and even Carson- are tapping into real grievances and emotions. Do you really think
Hillary Clinton is the right person to tap into that current? It's a pity, actually. I like
her quite well, and I supported her against Obama because of Obama's relative inexperience -
and the fact that he hadn't been 'tested' by the 'big boy attacks' you refer to.
But what we need now is someone with genuine moral outrage who will say what so many of us
feel: the system has been distorted beyond its ability to snap back. It works for at most 10%
of the population now and catastrophically, often fatally, fails a percentage of perhaps twice
that. I haven't gotten quite to the point yet myself where I would refuse to vote for Clinton
if she won the primary, but many of my friends have. I think the tide has finally turned.
EMichael -> Sarah...
I'm with you except I think the math does not work.
Half of the REP base are stone cold crazy, and when the smoke clears they will vote for
whomever is left standing.
This country has no such amount of people who are as far left as it does those who are far
right. And what numbers there are do not got to the polls if their candidate loses the
nomination.
Sarah -> EMichael...
The thing is, the 'math' doesn't take into account the incredibly low voter turnouts in the
US. It wouldn't take a whole lot to create massive change if you could engage even a quarter
of the currently unengaged. What impresses me about Bernie is that he seems to be able to do
so.
"... The senior Senator from Kentucky is scheming, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham, to bypass normal Senate procedure to fast-track legislation to grant the president the authority to wage unlimited war for as long as he or his successors may wish. ..."
"... The legislation makes the unconstitutional Iraq War authorization of 2002 look like a walk in the park. It will allow this president and future presidents to wage war against ISIS without restrictions on time, geographic scope, or the use of ground troops. ..."
"... President Obama has already far surpassed even his predecessor, George W. Bush, in taking the country to war without even the fig leaf of an authorization. ..."
"... Instead of impeachment, which he deserved for the disastrous Libya invasion, Congress said nothing. House Republicans only managed to bring the subject up when they thought they might gain political points exploiting the killing of US Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi. ..."
"... Vice President Joe Biden said that if the upcoming peace talks in Geneva are not successful, the US is prepared for a massive military intervention in Syria. Such an action would likely place the US military face to face with the Russian military, whose assistance was requested by the Syrian government. In contrast, we must remember that the US military is operating in Syria in violation of international law. ..."
"... At the insistence of Saudi Arabia and with US backing, the representatives of the Syrian opposition at the Geneva peace talks will include members of the Army of Islam, which has fought with al-Qaeda in Syria. Does anyone expect these kinds of people to compromise? Isn't al-Qaeda supposed to be our enemy? ..."
"... The purpose of the Legislative branch of our government is to restrict the Executive branch's power. The Founders understood that an all-powerful king who could wage war at will was the greatest threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is why they created a people's branch, the Congress, to prevent the emergence of an all-powerful autocrat to drag the country to endless war. Sadly, Congress is surrendering its power to declare war. ..."
While the Washington snowstorm dominated news coverage this week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
was operating behind the scenes to rush through the Senate what may be the most massive transfer
of power from the Legislative to the Executive branch in our history. The senior Senator from
Kentucky is scheming, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham, to bypass normal Senate procedure to fast-track
legislation to grant the president the authority to wage unlimited war for as long as he or his successors
may wish.
The legislation makes the unconstitutional Iraq War authorization of 2002 look
like a walk in the park. It will allow this president and future presidents to wage war against ISIS
without restrictions on time, geographic scope, or the use of ground troops. It is a completely
open-ended authorization for the president to use the military as he wishes for as long as he (or
she) wishes. Even President Obama has expressed concern over how willing Congress is to hand him
unlimited power to wage war.
President Obama has already far surpassed even his predecessor, George W. Bush, in taking
the country to war without even the fig leaf of an authorization. In 2011 the president invaded
Libya, overthrew its government, and oversaw the assassination of its leader, without even bothering
to ask for Congressional approval. Instead of impeachment, which he deserved for the disastrous
Libya invasion, Congress said nothing. House Republicans only managed to bring the subject up when
they thought they might gain political points exploiting the killing of US Ambassador Chris Stevens
in Benghazi.
It is becoming more clear that Washington plans to expand its war in the Middle East. Last week
the media reported that the US military had taken over an air base in eastern Syria, and Defense
Secretary Ashton Carter said that the US would send in the 101st Airborne Division to retake Mosul
in Iraq and to attack ISIS headquarters in Raqqa, Syria. Then on Saturday, Vice President Joe
Biden said that if the upcoming peace talks in Geneva are not successful, the US is prepared for
a massive military intervention in Syria. Such an action would likely place the US military face
to face with the Russian military, whose assistance was requested by the Syrian government. In contrast,
we must remember that the US military is operating in Syria in violation of international law.
The prospects of such an escalation are not all that far-fetched. At the insistence of Saudi
Arabia and with US backing, the representatives of the Syrian opposition at the Geneva peace talks
will include members of the Army of Islam, which has fought with al-Qaeda in Syria. Does anyone expect
these kinds of people to compromise? Isn't al-Qaeda supposed to be our enemy?
The purpose of the Legislative branch of our government is to restrict the Executive branch's
power. The Founders understood that an all-powerful king who could wage war at will was the greatest
threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is why they created a people's branch,
the Congress, to prevent the emergence of an all-powerful autocrat to drag the country to endless
war. Sadly, Congress is surrendering its power to declare war.
Let's be clear: If Senate Majority Leader McConnell succeeds in passing this open-ended war authorization,
the US Constitution will be all but a dead letter.
Looks like Iran if far from safe even after sanctions were lifted...
Notable quotes:
"... The idea that were the exceptional nation and have something very important to impart to the rest of the world, our marvelous values, American exceptionalism... Each party believes in that very strongly. They dont argue about that at all, except through their campaign debate, theyll take certain opposing views just to appear different. But, in power, they have the exact same policy – world domination. ..."
"... NATO is just an arm of the U.S. foreign policy, theres no point actually in making a distinction between US foreign policy and NATO policy – they are the same. If US were not in NATO, NATO would not exist. US founded NATO, US is its main supporter and financial source, theres no distinction between US and NATO, and they share the same view of American world domination. So, it doesnt matter whether Iran is doing this or that – they know that Iran is not a lover of an Empire, and anyone whos not a lover of the Empire has a short life span. Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, whatever. That is the test, do you love Empire or not. ..."
"... Because Russia has two characteristics of an enemy, which Washington cannot tolerate: one, it has very powerful military capabilities, and two, it is not a kind of Washingtons policy, it is not a great admirer of the Empire. The same applies to China. Thats all it takes: you dont admire us and have military force – thats all it takes to be an enemy of Washington. ..."
"... Washington is not looking for peace or war. It is looking for domination, and if they can achieve domination peacefully – thats fine. If they cant, theyll use war. Its that simple. ..."
"... They are still supporting the enemies of Syria, and they are making sure that Assad will not come back to power. They are bombing places all over Syria, which can be useful militarily to Syria. They have not forgotten about Syria at all. Iraq is ally at the moment, but tomorrow or yesterday it is something different. You cant just look at today and say "theyre not fighting here and there" and think "Oh, Washington has finally found peace". No. Their basic goal is unchanged – today, tomorrow, or next year. I must say, again, for the tenth time, it is world domination. ..."
"... The US has created ISIS. Let me point this out – a short while ago, there were four major states in the Middle East and South Asia, which were secular. The US invaded Iraq, then invaded Libya and overthrew that secular government. Then its been in the process now, for some years, attempting to overthrow the secular government in Syria. Theres no wonder that Middle East and South Asia have been taken over by religious fanatics: all the possible enemies and barriers to that had been wiped out by Washington. Why will they stop now? ..."
"... Well, I could say "yes", except that the US will cheat. They will use the same force to attack other people, like in Syria, they will use the same force to help overthrow Assad, and they will use the same force to suppress any segment of Iraq or what have you, which are anti-America. They cannot be trusted, thats the problem. When they start to use force, theres no holding them back, and they dont care about the civilians. The civilian death toll with any bombing of Syria and Iraq is unlimited. So, for those reasons, I cannot support US bombing of Iraq or Syria or anywhere else. The US bombing should cease everywhere in the world. ..."
Obama's time as leader of the US is coming to an end - his term concludes next year. Wannabe presidents
have already joined the race to the White House. And as President Obama goes through the final year
of his rule, Washington suddenly changes its tone – now Iran is an appropriate nation to talk to,
and it's okay to meet with Cuban and Venezuelan leaders. But what is in that change? Has Washington
finally dropped its previous policies? What does Obama want to achieve? And will the new, as yet
unknown, leader of America make any difference? We pose these questions to prominent historian, author
of bestsellers on US foreign policies, William Blum, who is on Sophie&Co today.
Sophie Shevardnadze :William Blum, historian and author of bestsellers like "Rogue State" and "America's
Deadliest Export", welcome to the show, it's great to have you with us. Now, Hillary Clinton has
announced she's running to become the Democrats' presidential candidate; Jeb Bush is also likely
to put his bit forward for the Republicans. Now, Bush, Clinton – we've been here before. Who would
be better candidate do you think? Not just for the U.S., but also for the world, like, global peace
efforts, for instance?
William Blum: I don't think US foreign policy will change at all, regardless of who is in the
White House, Bush or Clinton, or who else is running. Our policy does not change... I can add Obama
to that. It wouldn't even matter which party it is, Republican or Democrat, they have the same foreign
policy.
SS: Why do you think it's the same policy for both parties? Why do you think they are not different
from each other?
WB: Because America, for two centuries has had one basic, overriding goal, and that is world domination,
at least from 1890s if not earlier, one can say that. World domination is something which appeals
to both Republicans and Democrats or Liberals or Conservatives. The idea that we're the exceptional
nation and have something very important to impart to the rest of the world, our marvelous values,
American exceptionalism... Each party believes in that very strongly. They don't argue about that
at all, except through their campaign debate, they'll take certain opposing views just to appear
different. But, in power, they have the exact same policy – world domination.
SS: Now back in 2009 President Obama made it clear that the missile shield in Europe would no
longer be necessary if the threat from Iran was eliminated – and nuclear deal with Iran was struck.
Now, historic deal is close, but NATO is saying there will be no change in missile shield plans –
why not?
WB: Because NATO shares America's desire to dominate the world. NATO is just an arm of the
U.S. foreign policy, there's no point actually in making a distinction between US foreign policy
and NATO policy – they are the same. If US were not in NATO, NATO would not exist. US founded NATO,
US is its main supporter and financial source, there's no distinction between US and NATO, and they
share the same view of American world domination. So, it doesn't matter whether Iran is doing this
or that – they know that Iran is not a lover of an Empire, and anyone who's not a lover of the Empire
has a short life span. Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, whatever. That is the test, do you love Empire or not.
SS: But, can we be a little bit more precise about this "domination" theory – NATO has been strengthening
its eastern borders with military building up on Russia's doorsteps, and a rapid reaction force to
include 30,000 personnel – why this deployment? Who is it aimed against?
WB: It is aimed against Russia. The US cannot stand anyone who might stay in the way of the Empire's
expansion – and Russia and China are the only nations which can do that. Other nations, like Cuba
or Iran or Venezuela are regarded as enemy just as well, because they have the polity influence:
Cuba has influence over all of the Western hemisphere. That makes them a great enemy. But the basic
criteria of Empire's expansion is whether you support Empire or not, and that excludes all the countries
I've named – from Cuba to Russia.
SS: Do you think U.S. would go as far as using force against its enemies?
WB: Well, the US has used force against its enemies on a regular basis for two centuries. Of course
they would use force! They've used force against Cuba, they invaded Cuba and they've supported Cuban
exiles in all kinds of violent activities for 60 years. Violence is never far removed from the U.S.
policy. Let me summarize something for the benefit of listeners: since 1946 the US has attempted
to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments. In the same time period it has attempted to assassinate
more than 50 foreign leaders. It has bombed the people of 30 countries, it has suppressed revolutionary
parties in at least 20 nations – and I forgot other factors on my list. This is a record unparalleled
in all of human history, and there's no reason to think it is changing of will change, except if
some superior force comes on a scene, that can actually defeat U.S.
SS: But, you know, French intelligence – and France seems to be an ally of the U.S. - the French
intelligence chief has recently said that they found no evidence of Russia planning to invade Ukraine.
So why has NATO been pressing these claims of an imminent invasion so hard and for so long?
WB:Because Russia has two characteristics of an enemy, which Washington cannot tolerate:
one, it has very powerful military capabilities, and two, it is not a kind of Washington's policy,
it is not a great admirer of the Empire. The same applies to China. That's all it takes: you don't
admire us and have military force – that's all it takes to be an enemy of Washington.
SS: The problem is, there's a ceasefire that seems in place, right? But US paratroopers have
arrived in Ukraine to train forces in the country, and it's not the first such deployment we've seen.
So, with ceasefire agreement and peace deal on the way, why is Washington sending troops now?
WB: They know very well that Ukraine is not...or those who live in Ukraine and support Russia,
Washington knows very well that these people are not on their side, and will not be on their side,
and there's no way to make them on our side, so, US is expecting to wipe them out militarily at some
point in the near future. As soon as they can get all the politics in place, there's no backtracking
from these policies. I must repeat myself again: Washington wants to dominate the world and anyone,
including people in the south-eastern part of Ukraine, who don't share that view, they are enemies,
and at some point they may be met with military force.
SS: So are you saying that America doesn't want peace in Ukraine, because US is sending military
personnel to Ukraine – like I've said – while Europeans are negotiating peace without America's involvement?
WB:Washington is not looking for peace or war. It is looking for domination, and if they
can achieve domination peacefully – that's fine. If they can't, they'll use war. It's that simple.
SS: So, like you've said, America is one of the main financiers of NATO; there's also Estonia
and they meet NATO's funding goals. Why are the rest of its members lagging behind? Isn't the alliance
important to them as well?
WB: They have their own home politics that they deal with, they each have their own financial
needs to deal with, they each have their own relation with Washington to deal with, it varies. It
is not exactly the same in these countries, but overall, no member of NATO is going to fight against
Washington. No member of NATO was going to support the insurgence in Ukraine – not one. So there's
no need to go upon who is not paying and who is paying – none of them will ever go against Washington's
policies in Ukraine or elsewhere.
SS: Now, on the other hand, Europe, U.S. and Russia – they share similar security threats, issues
like Syria, Islamic State, there's Afghanistan, and they are not going anywhere. Can these states
work together if it is absolutely necessary, for example?
WB: They don't have the same security threats. Washington just announces that people of various
countries are enemies of the U.S. - that doesn't make them a threat. Syria, for example, is no threat
to the U.S. Neither was Iraq, neither was Libya. U.S. invades one country after another, totally
independent of whether they are threat or not. As long as they don't believe in the Empire, as long
as they are helping enemies of the Empire. I mean, what threat was Libya to Washington? NATO invaded
them without mercy, bombed them out of existence, they are a failed state now. What was their threat?
There's no threat. If Russia doesn't announce Libya as a threat, it's not because Russia has a different
foreign policy – it's because Russia is not so paranoid as the U.S., and Russia is not looking for
world domination.
SS: Russia has been criticized many times for its decision to supply air defense missile systems
to Iran. Now, why is America so worried about anti-air missile defense Iran may get from Russia?
It's not like Washington got plans to bomb Iran, right?
WB: Of course they do, and so does Israel. You can't put aside those fears. Washington, as I mentioned
before, has bombed more than 30 countries. Why would they stop now? Iran is a definite target of
the U.S. and Israel, and it's very understandable that Iran would want to have advanced missile defense
systems.
SS: But look: US is staying out of Yemen now, it's not willing to commit ground troops to Iraq
or get involved in Syria. It sometimes looks like Washington is growing weary of foreign interventions,
lately.
WB:They are still supporting the enemies of Syria, and they are making sure that Assad will
not come back to power. They are bombing places all over Syria, which can be useful militarily to
Syria. They have not forgotten about Syria at all. Iraq is ally at the moment, but tomorrow or yesterday
it is something different. You can't just look at today and say "they're not fighting here and there"
and think "Oh, Washington has finally found peace". No. Their basic goal is unchanged – today, tomorrow,
or next year. I must say, again, for the tenth time, it is world domination.
SS: Now, you've written in one of your books, the "Rogue State" that if you were President, you'd
end all US foreign interventions at once. Can the US do that? Is it that simple? I mean, US left
Iraq and look what happened.
WB: If I were a President, yes, that's what I would do. And then I add, to the portion you've
quoted, I add at the end of paragraph, on my fifth day in the office I would be assassinated. So,
that's what happens to people who want to challenge the Empire's policies. But I would have great
time for the first few days.
SS: But can the US realistically do that? End all of their foreign interventions at once? Because,
we see an example of Iraq, once they left, ISIS spread.
WB:The US has created ISIS. Let me point this out – a short while ago, there were four major
states in the Middle East and South Asia, which were secular. The US invaded Iraq, then invaded Libya
and overthrew that secular government. Then it's been in the process now, for some years, attempting
to overthrow the secular government in Syria. There's no wonder that Middle East and South Asia have
been taken over by religious fanatics: all the possible enemies and barriers to that had been wiped
out by Washington. Why will they stop now?
SS: I see your point. While Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be exactly described as victories for
American troops, I mean, the invasions have also resulted, for instance, in girls being able to go
to school in Afghanistan, or Kurds finally having a state in Iraq, for instance.
WB: I must tell you something and all your listeners. At one time, in 1980s, Afghanistan had a
progressive government, where women had full rights; they even wore mini-skirts. And you know what
happened to that government? The US overthrew it. So please, don't tell me about US policy helping
the girls or the women of Afghanistan. We are the great enemy of females of Afghanistan.
SS: You've also said that an end to US interventions would mean an end to terror attacks. What
makes you think Islamic State and Al-Qaeda and other terror groups would cease to exist – and I'm
talking about right now, I am not talking about "if America hadn't invaded them back then". Right
now, if American interventions cease, what makes think that these terrorist groups would cease to
exist as well?
WB: It may be too late now. When I wrote that, it was correct. It may be too late now. After what
we've done to all secular governments in the Middle East and in South Asia, after all that, I am
not sure I would say the same thing again. We've unleashed ISIS, and they're not going to be stopped
by any kind words or nice changes of policy by Washington. They have to be wiped out militarily.
They are an amazing force of horror, and the U.S. is responsible for them, but the barn door may
be closed, it may be too late now to simply change our policy.
SS: So do you think US should use military force to eradicate these terrorist groups?
WB:Well, I could say "yes", except that the US will cheat. They will use the same force to
attack other people, like in Syria, they will use the same force to help overthrow Assad, and they
will use the same force to suppress any segment of Iraq or what have you, which are anti-America.
They cannot be trusted, that's the problem. When they start to use force, there's no holding them
back, and they don't care about the civilians. The civilian death toll with any bombing of Syria
and Iraq is unlimited. So, for those reasons, I cannot support US bombing of Iraq or Syria or anywhere
else. The US bombing should cease everywhere in the world.
SS: When I listen to you, it sounds like America overthrows all these governments and bombs all
these countries, and makes revolutions – from people's point of view, revolutions and overthrows
are really impossible if they are not conducive to people's moods on the ground. So you're saying
the foreign policy has greatly contributed to the rise of radical Islam in the Middle East, but I
wonder – don't locals have control over their own direction at all?
WB: The locals had no say whatsoever on whether the US would bomb or not, they had no say whatsoever
on whether the US would overthrow governments chosen by the people, often – they have no say in these
things. Now, they may hate ISIS, or some of them might hate ISIS, but it's too late. They can't do
anything about it. The world is in terrible position. The world had a chance, 30-40 years ago, to
stop the US from all of these interventions. If NATO had been closed, the way the Warsaw Pact was
closed, the Soviet Union closed the Warsaw Pact with the expectation that NATO will also go out of
business – but the US did not do that, and it's too late now. I don't know what to say, what will
save the world now.
SS: You've mentioned Cuba and Venezuela in the beginning of the programme. Now, we witnessed several
historic meetings recently, between President Obama and Cuba's President Raul Castro, also Obama's
meeting with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro – why is Obama now talking with states the US has
long considered arch-enemies?
WB: You must keep in mind, first of all, that nothing whatsoever has changed, as of this moment
nothing has changed. We have to wait and see what happens, and I'm very sceptical. For example, with
Cuba, the main issue is the US sanctions which have played havoc with Cuban economy and society.
That has not changed, and I don't think it is going to change even in my lifetime. So, you can't
apply some kind of changes taking place. Why Obama is saying these things he's saying now may have
to do with his so-called "legacy". He knows his time is very limited, and he knows he has many enemies
amongst progressives in the US and elsewhere. He may want to cater to them for some reason. I don't
know, neither do you know, no one knows exactly why he's saying these things – but they don't mean
anything yet. Nothing has changed whatsoever.
SS: So you're saying there's really no substance in those meetings... Now, looking back, what would
you call Obama's biggest achievements of his two terms - I mean, people say there's been a reconciliation
with Cuba, with Iran, there's an earnest attempt to end US deployment in Iraq and in Afghanistan,
he didn't move troops into Syria. Would you disagree with all of that?
WB: Yes, all of that. There's no accomplishment whatsoever. He didn't move troops into Syria because
of Russia, and not because of him making any change. He was embarrassed in that. John Kerry made
a remark about "it would be nice if Syria would get rid of its chemical weapons – but that's not
going to happen" he said, and then foreign minister Lavrov of Russia jumped in and said "Oh really?
We'll arrange that" - and they arranged Syria to get rid of chemical weapons. That was, yes, a slip
of the tongue by John Kerry, and he was embarrassed to challenge Lavrov. We can say the same thing
about any of the things you've mentioned. There's no substance involved in any of these policies.
The US has not relented at all over Syria. As I've mentioned before, they are bombing Syria's military
assets, they are killing civilians every day. Syria is still a prime target of Washington, and they
will never escape.
SS: Thank you very much for this interesting insight, we were talking to William Blum, historian
and author of bestsellers "Rogue State" and "America's Deadliest Export" discussing matters of the
US foreign policy and what would happen if the US decides to end all of its foreign interventions
at once. That's it for this edition of Sophie&Co, I will see you next time.
"... Graun is difficult to navigate and very slow to load with the weight of all the spam. Ad blockers make it actually usable. You just have to get used to deleting the notice banners on every page. ..."
"... Use "https everywhere" to avoid the sticky at the top if it annoys you as it does me - tends to mess up the btl however.. ..."
"... Well, Guardian, I am using an ad blocker because your adware fucks up my browser. ..."
"... I cannot get even one word typed and my browser gets all fucked up. The screen does flips and all sorts of things as if someone else is controlling my mouse. I try to type a word and it takes a full minute for one letter to appear after I have typed it, and sometimes everything disappears. ..."
Agree with your post if a little off topic, but where else can we post about this.
Graun is
difficult to navigate and very slow to load with the weight of all the spam. Ad blockers make
it actually usable. You just have to get used to deleting the notice banners on every page.
Use "https everywhere" to avoid the sticky at the top if it annoys you as it does me - tends
to mess up the btl however..
We notice you're using an ad-blocker. Perhaps you'll support us another way? Become a
supporter for just 50 pounds per year.
WTF? How do they know I am using an ad blocker? I am Using Ublock by the way. Well, Guardian,
I am using an ad blocker because your adware fucks up my browser.
I cannot get even one word
typed and my browser gets all fucked up. The screen does flips and all sorts of things as if
someone else is controlling my mouse. I try to type a word and it takes a full minute for one
letter to appear after I have typed it, and sometimes everything disappears.
THIS is WHY I
use an ad-blocker, Guardian. Since I have been using an ad-blocker, I don't have those problems
anymore when I visit your site, and it only happens on your site. Your incessant use of automatic
videos and other tactics is not advertising.
It is ADWARE! Get it?! Adware! And why would I
want to support a paper that is just as biased as any other paper? Wow, you really pissed me
off just now when I saw that little banner at the bottom of my screen, Guardian. Of all the
nerve.
Spot on CP, I actually switched my adblocker off to accommodate the graun, I thought fair enough
they need to generate income. But as you said the browser goes haywire.
Another thing is the
ridiculous moderation I receive for expressing a viewpoint, without foul language, without racist
overtones, in fact just normal comments and like yesterday I commented on the fact that I do
not believe in religion in any form, I think it is fantasist nonsense, put their by the ruling
class elitist's in order to keep the plebs in place with angst, that gets moderated.
It is absolutely shameful how the graun operates these days.
"... By Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies
and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Cross posted from The Frontline ..."
"... arguments that treat economic processes as the inevitable results of some forces outside the
system that follow their own logic and are beyond social intervention, are hugely misplaced. ..."
"... Behind almost every prolonged economic malfeasance there is some combination of outworn bad
ideas, incompetence and the malign influence of powerful special interests. ..."
"... Weisbrot notes that this entire episode "should have been a historic lesson about the importance
of national and democratic control over macroeconomic policy – or at the very least, not ceding such
power to the wrong people and institutions". (page 4) Unfortunately, the opposite seems to be the case,
with the lessons being drawn by the media and others still very much in terms of blaming the victim.
Indeed, Weisbrot makes an even stronger point, that this crisis was used by vested interests (including
those in the IMF) to force governments in these countries to implement economic and social reforms that
would otherwise be unacceptable to their electorates. ..."
"... The significance of vested interests – finance and large capital in particular – in pushing
economies to the edge to force neo-liberal reforms that operate to their favour, has been noted in many
countries before, especially developing countries facing IMF conditionalities. The standard requirements:
fiscal consolidation led by budget cuts in pensions, health and social spending; reductions in public
employment; making labour markets more "flexible" by effectively reducing labour protection; cutting
subsidies that benefit the poor like food subsidies while providing more tax cuts and other fiscal incentives
to the rich, etc. ..."
"... The standard economic policy model fails, and the costs of such failure are huge – so it is
critically important for more people across the world to be aware of them and to demand that their governments
opt for more democratic and just economic strategies. ..."
"... It seems if my memory serves me, in around April of 2009 the rules of the game for the banks
in the US were changed; i.e., all those "investments" that became trash (bad mortgages etc.) they had
on their "books" could be re-classified and held, "off the books" for the duration….as long as it would
take to recover their investments…..which could take decades…. ..."
By Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic
Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Cross posted from
The
Frontline
A lot of the media discussion on the global economy nowadays is based on the notion of the "new
normal" or "new mediocre" – the phenomenon of slowing, stagnating or negative economic growth across
most of the world, with even worse news in terms of employment generation, with hardly any creation
of good quality jobs and growing material insecurity for the bulk of the people. All sorts of explanations
are being proffered for this state of affairs, from technological progress, to slower population
growth, to insufficient investment because of shifts in relative prices of capital and labour, to
"balance sheet recessions" created by the private debt overhang in many economies, to contractionary
fiscal stances of governments that are also excessively indebted.
Yet these arguments that treat economic processes as the inevitable results of some forces
outside the system that follow their own logic and are beyond social intervention, are hugely misplaced.
Most of all, they let economic policies off the hook when attributing blame – and this is massively
important because then the possibility of alternative strategies that would not result in the same
outcomes are simply not considered.
In an important new book, Failed: What the "experts" got wrong about the global economy
(Oxford University Press, New York 2015), Mark Weisbrot calls this bluff effectively and comprehensively.
He points out that "Behind almost every prolonged economic malfeasance there is some combination
of outworn bad ideas, incompetence and the malign influence of powerful special interests."
(page 2) Unfortunately, such nightmares are prolonged and even repeated in other places, because
even if the lessons from one catastrophe are learned, they are typically not learned – or at least
not taken to heart – by "the people who call the shots".
The costs of this failure are indeed huge for the citizenry: for workers who face joblessness
or very fragile insecure employment at low wages; for families whose access to essential goods and
social services is reduced; for farmers and other small producers who find their activities are simply
not financially viable; for those thrown by crisis and instability into poverty or facing greater
hunger; for almost everyone in the society when their lives become more insecure in various ways.
Many millions of lives across the world have been ruined because of the active implementation of
completely wrong and unnecessary economic policies. Yet, because the blame is not apportioned where
it is due, those who are culpable for this not only get away with it, but are able to continue to
impose their power and their expertise on economic policies and on governing institutions. For them,
there is no price to be paid for failure.
Weisbrot illustrates this with the telling example of the still unfolding economic tragedy in
the eurozone. He describes the design flaws in the monetary union that meant that the European Central
Bank (ECB) did not behave like a real central bank to all the member countries, because when the
crisis broke in 2009-10 it did not behave as a lender of last resort to the countries in the European
periphery that faced payment difficulties. Instead the most draconian austerity measures were imposed
on these countries, which simply drove these countries further into economic decline and made their
debt burdens even more burdensome and unpayable.
It took two years of this, at a point when the crisis threatened to engulf the entire EU and force
the monetary union to collapse, for the ECB Governor Mario Draghi to promise to "do whatever it takes
to save the euro". And then, when the financial bleeding was stemmed, it became glaringly evident
that the European authorities, and the ECB, could have intervened much earlier to reduce the damage
in the eurozone periphery, through monetary and fiscal policies. In countries with their own central
banks, like the US and the UK, such policies were indeed undertaken, which is why the recovery also
came sooner and with less pain than still persists in parts of Europe.
Why could this not have been done earlier? Why were the early attempts at restructuring Greek
debt not more realistic so as to reduce the debt levels to those that could feasibly be repaid by
that country? Why was each attempt to solve the problem so tardy, niggardly and half-hearted that
the problem progressively got worse and even destroyed the very fabric of social life in the affected
countries? Why was the entire burden of adjustment forced upon hapless citizens, with no punishment
for or even minor pain felt by the financial agents who had helped to create the imbalances that
resulted in the crisis?
Weisbrot notes that this entire episode "should have been a historic lesson about the importance
of national and democratic control over macroeconomic policy – or at the very least, not ceding such
power to the wrong people and institutions". (page 4) Unfortunately, the opposite seems to be the
case, with the lessons being drawn by the media and others still very much in terms of blaming the
victim. Indeed, Weisbrot makes an even stronger point, that this crisis was used by vested interests
(including those in the IMF) to force governments in these countries to implement economic and social
reforms that would otherwise be unacceptable to their electorates.
The significance of vested interests – finance and large capital in particular – in pushing
economies to the edge to force neo-liberal reforms that operate to their favour, has been noted in
many countries before, especially developing countries facing IMF conditionalities. The standard
requirements: fiscal consolidation led by budget cuts in pensions, health and social spending; reductions
in public employment; making labour markets more "flexible" by effectively reducing labour protection;
cutting subsidies that benefit the poor like food subsidies while providing more tax cuts and other
fiscal incentives to the rich, etc.
Weisbrot notes that such policies are neither necessary to emerge from a crisis (in fact in most
cases they are counterproductive) nor are they conducive to long term development. He provides concrete
examples of countries that did things very differently, and were successful as a result. The most
important such example he provides is that of China, a country that systematically followed a state-led
heterodox strategy for industrialisation, with the state controlling the banking system and a huge
role for state-owned enterprises. The unorthodox policies it followed brought about the fastest growth
in history, lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese people out of poverty and also pulled along other
developing countries because of its rapidly growing demand for imports.
Weisbrot identifies other successful examples of heterodox policies that helped countries to emerge
from crisis and improve living standards for their people, such as Argentina in the mid 2000s and
a range of other explicitly progressive governments in Latin American countries that followed alternative
approaches to increase wage incomes and formal employment through active state intervention. One
important reason they were able to implement unorthodox economic policies was the relative decline
in the power of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in this period. Weisbrot argues that the IMF
began to lose influence in the wake of the Asian crisis of 1998, when it so clearly got both its
assessment of the problem and its proposed solutions completely wrong. The geopolitical and economic
changes that this loss of IMF influence enabled were hugely beneficial for the citizenry in these
countries – and point to the huge costs still being paid by those forced to live under neoliberal
economic orthodoxy.
Weisbrot ends his book on a positive note (other than for the eurozone, where he forecasts continued
pain for the near future). He believes that "in the developing world, economic policy and the rate
of increase of living standards are likely to show improvement in the foreseeable future". (page
236) This is largely because of his belief that the existing multilateral arrangements and institutions
that forced orthodox policies upon developing countries will continue to decline, and they will have
freedom and ability to pursue heterodox policies that served them well in the recent past.
Unfortunately, this belief now seems over-optimistic. In the past year we have witnessed "emerging
markets" in retreat as global finance has pulled out of them, and the reinforcement of institutions
and arrangements (in trade and investment treaties and other financial agencies) designed to dramatically
reduce the autonomy of national policy making. We are seeing political changes in several countries
that suggest a renewed dominance of neoliberal market-driven economic approaches that privilege the
interests of large capital. And even in China, there are signs of confusion, as the growth process
runs out of steam, with recent moves towards more financial liberalisation that could have huge implications
in terms of future viability of independent economic strategies.
This is somewhat depressing, but it makes Weisbrot's main argument even more important and compelling.
The standard economic policy model fails, and the costs of such failure are huge – so it is critically
important for more people across the world to be aware of them and to demand that their governments
opt for more democratic and just economic strategies.
"In countries with their own central banks, like the US and the UK, such policies were indeed
undertaken, which is why the recovery also came sooner and with less pain than still persists
in parts of Europe."
The peoples of the US and the UK do not seem to be enjoying our respective "recoveries" very
much.
Good points, we should be given a chance to "throw the bums out" on economic policy, too. Unfortunately,
the move toward independent central banks in the last several decades has given us LESS, not MORE
democratic control over policy. I'd rather see the Fed held accountable to some kind of democratic
control, whether through Congress or some other means.
Direct elections of FOMC members? Board of Governors? Not sure I like the idea, but can't be
that bad, can it?
No Paulson/Congress approval bank bailout would have been a start. Congress passing real bank
reform after the dust settled would have been some nice follow up. Then the Fed telling Congress
that interest rate policy by itself won't adequately fix all our ills(and eventually blow more
bubbles) would have been some nice counterpoint going the other direction.
Changing the structure of the system won't help when the entire system gets captured.
It seems if my memory serves me, in around April of 2009 the rules of the game for the
banks in the US were changed; i.e., all those "investments" that became trash (bad mortgages etc.)
they had on their "books" could be re-classified and held, "off the books" for the duration….as
long as it would take to recover their investments…..which could take decades….
At that time, around April 2009, the "market" made a turnaround and "climbed" back into the
stratosphere…..
Anybody else remember this episode?
"... It should never be forgotten that the conservative orthodoxy -- of low taxes on the wealthiest, deregulation of finance, small govt deficits, and the need for inequality to spur individual initiative -- was also economics departments orthodoxy for decades. Economists put their imprimatur on this whole mess, with VERY few exceptions. ..."
"... 70% of the population STILL believes that federal deficits are a big problem, and also believes that this is standard economic orthodoxy. Until the crash, most people were ready to accept some degree of privatization of Social Security, and Martin Feldstein pushed on this repeatedly with no counterargument from the economics departments. The Clinton economic team was instrumental in pushing financial deregulation, upon the supposed orthodoxy that it is good for the economy. Even the worst nonsense in Friedmans Capitalism and Freedom and Free to Choose barely saw any push-back from other economists in the op-ed pages. ..."
"... Reaganomics was approved by most economists either through mood affiliation or intellectual incompetence. That 70% currently includes college graduates who took economics classes and traders on Wall Street. ..."
"... Nonsense. Polls of profession economists opinions abound. Reaganomics/neoliberalism has predominated in economics until recently. On a few big issues (notably, on whether the size of federal deficits as % of GDP should be reduced) the split remained even. ..."
It should never be forgotten that the "conservative orthodoxy" -- of low taxes on the wealthiest,
deregulation of finance, small gov't deficits, and the need for inequality to spur individual
initiative -- was also "economics departments orthodoxy" for decades. Economists put their imprimatur
on this whole mess, with VERY few exceptions.
It's been a first-rate intellectual scandal, perpetrated by some of the biggest names in the
economics racket, and with most of the lesser lights tagging along, for fear of ostracism.
And most of them STILL don't have a clear view of what the real problems are.
70% of the population STILL believes that federal deficits are a big problem, and also believes
that this is standard economic orthodoxy. Until the crash, most people were ready to accept some
degree of privatization of Social Security, and Martin Feldstein pushed on this repeatedly with
no counterargument from the economics departments. The Clinton economic team was instrumental
in pushing financial deregulation, upon the supposed orthodoxy that it is good for the economy.
Even the worst nonsense in Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" and "Free to Choose" barely saw
any push-back from other economists in the op-ed pages.
"Conservative orthodoxy" can be laid squarely at the feet of the economics departments, up
until the crash. If the ones who are supposed to know better, don't make a concerted effort to
refute the tons of nonsense spouted in the name of economics, then they should resign their tenure.
It most certainly WAS taken as the orthodoxy. Reaganomics was approved by most economists
either through mood affiliation or intellectual incompetence. That 70% currently includes college
graduates who took economics classes and traders on Wall Street.
"Reaganomics was approved by most economists either through mood affiliation or intellectual incompetence."
Not even remotely true. Criticized by liberal economists. Blasted by the conservative economists
who refused to work for the Reagan White House. Even blasted by a young Greg Mankiw but that is
before he drank the Bush Kool Aid.
Lee - your claim here is just wrong. And the more you defend it, the worse it gets.
Nonsense. Polls of profession economists' opinions abound. Reaganomics/neoliberalism has predominated
in economics until recently. On a few big issues (notably, on whether the size of federal deficits
as % of GDP should be reduced) the split remained even.
(1992 -- responses from 464 US economists):
"A large federal budget deficit has an adverse
effect on the economy" 78.7% agree (includes 'agree with provisos').
"The money supply is a more important target that interest rates for monetary policy" 56.7%
agree.
"As the USSR moves toward a market economy. a rapid and total reform (i.e., "going cold turkey")
would result in a better outcome than a slow transition" 57.6% agree.
"A minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers" 78.9% agree.
"An economy in short-run equilibrium at a real GNP below potential GNP has a self-correcting
mechanism that will eventually return it to potential GNP" 50.8% agree.
"Changes in aggregate demand affect real GNP in the short run but not in the long run" 52.8%
agree.
"Lower marginal income tax rates reduce leisure and increase work effort" 55.4% agree. (Alston
et al., "is there a global economic consensus?" AEA Papers and Proceedings, 1992)
ObamaCare is, of course, a
neoliberal "market-based" "solution." ObamaCare's intellectual foundations were expressed most
clearly in layperson's language by none other than the greatest orator of our time, Obama, himself
(
2013 ):
If you don't have health insurance, then starting on October 1st, private plans will actually
compete for your business, and you'll be able to comparison-shop online.There will be a marketplace
online, just like you'd buy a flat-screen TV or plane tickets or anything else you're doing online,
and you'll be able to buy an insurance package that fits your budget and is right for you.
Let's leave aside the possibility that private plans are
phishing for your business, by exploiting informational asymmetries, rather than "competing"
for it. Obama gives an operational definition of a functioning market that assumes two things: (1)
That health insurance, as a product, is like flat-screen TVs, and (2) as when buying flat-screen
TVs, people will comparison shop for health insurance, and that will drive health insurers to compete
to satisfy them. As it turns out, scholars have been studying both assumptions, and both assumptions
are false. "The dog won't eat the dog food," as marketers say. This will be a short post; we've already
seen that the first assumption is false - only 20%-ers who have their insurance purchased for them
by an institution could be so foolish as to make it - and a new study shows that the second assumption
is false, as well.
ObamaCare's Product Is Not Like a Flat-Screen TV
Here's the key assumptoin that Obama (and most economists) make about heatlth insurance: That
it's a commodity, like flat screen TVs, or airline tickets, and that therefore , there exists
a "a product that suits your budget and is right for you" because markets. Unfortunately, experience
backed up by studies has shown that this is not true. From ObamaCare is a Bad Deal (for Many)
. From Mark Pauly, Adam Leive, Scott Harrington, all of the Wharton School,
NBER Working Paper No. 21565 (
quoted at NC in October 2015 ):
This paper estimates the change in net (of subsidy) financial burden ("the price of responsibility")
and in welfare that would be experienced by a large nationally representative sample of the "non-poor"
uninsured if they were to purchase Silver or Bronze plans on the ACA exchanges. The sample is
the set of full-year uninsured persons represented in the Current Population Survey for the pre-ACA
period with incomes above 138 percent of the federal poverty level. The estimated change in financial
burden compares out-of-pocket payments by income stratum in the pre-ACA period with the sum of
premiums (net of subsidy) and expected cost sharing (net of subsidy) for benchmark Silver and
Bronze plans, under various assumptions about the extent of increased spending associated with
obtaining coverage. In addition to changes in the financial burden, our welfare estimates incorporate
the value of additional care consumed and the change in risk premiums for changes in exposure
to out-of-pocket payments associated with coverage, under various assumptions about risk aversion.
We find that the average financial burden will increase for all income levels once insured. Subsidy-eligible
persons with incomes below 250 percent of the poverty threshold likely experience welfare improvements
that offset the higher financial burden, depending on assumptions about risk aversion and the
value of additional consumption of medical care. However, even under the most optimistic
assumptions, close to half of the formerly uninsured (especially those with higher incomes) experience
both higher financial burden and lower estimated welfare ; indicating a positive "price
of responsibility" for complying with the individual mandate. The percentage of the sample with
estimated welfare increases is close to matching observed take-up rates by the previously uninsured
in the exchanges.
So, for approximately half the "formerly uninsured," ObamaCare is a losing proposition; I don't
know what an analogy for flat-screen TVs is; maybe having to send the manufacturer money every time
you turn it on, in addition to the money you paid to buy it? That's most definitely not a "package
that fits your budget and is right for you," unless you're a masochist or a phool. Second, the portion
of those eligible that does the math probably won't buy the product if they're rational actors (and
Obamaare needs to double its penetration of the eligible to avoid a death spiral ). That again
is not like the market for flat-screen TVs; the magic of the ObamaCare marketplace has not
operated to produce a product at every price point (or a substitute).[1] Bad marketplace! Bad!
Bad!
Health Care "Consumers" Tend not to Comparison Shop
We turn now to a second NBER study that places even more dynamite at ObamaCare's foundations.
From Zarek C. Brot-Goldberg, Amitabh Chandra, Benjamin R. Handel, and Jonathan T. Kolstad, of Berkelely
and Harvard, "What Does a Deductible Do? The Impact of Cost-Sharing on Health Care Prices, Quantities,
and Spending Dynamics" NBER Working Paper
No. 21632 ( PDF ), the abstract:
Measuring consumer responsiveness to medical care prices is a central issue in health economics
and a key ingredient in the optimal design and regulation of health insurance markets. We study
consumer responsiveness to medical care prices, leveraging a natural experiment that occurred
at a large self-insured firm which required all of its employees to switch from an insurance plan
that provided free health care to a non-linear, high deductible plan[2]. The switch caused a spending
reduction between 11.79%-13.80% of total firm-wide health spending. We decompose this spending
reduction into the components of (i) consumer price shopping (ii) quantity reductions and (iii)
quantity substitutions, finding that spending reductions are entirely due to outright reductions
in quantity. We find no evidence of consumers learning to price shop after two years in high-deductible
coverage. Consumers reduce quantities across the spectrum of health care services, including
potentially valuable care (e.g. preventive services) and potentially wasteful care (e.g. imaging
services). We then leverage the unique data environment to study how consumers respond to the
complex structure of the high-deductible contract. We find that consumers respond heavily to spot
prices at the time of care, and reduce their spending by 42% when under the deductible, conditional
on their true expected end-of-year shadow price and their prior year end-of-year marginal price.
In the first-year post plan change, 90% of all spending reductions occur in months that consumers
began under the deductible, with 49% of all reductions coming for the ex ante sickest half of
consumers under the deductible, despite the fact that these consumers have quite low shadow prices.
There is no evidence of learning to respond to the true shadow price in the second
year post-switch.
So, empirically, these "consumers" just don't act the way that good neoliberal Obama says they
should; they do not comparison shop. That alone is enough to undermine the intellectual
basis of ObamaCare. If there's no comparison shopping going on, there's no competitive pressure for
health insurers to improve their product (assuming good faith, which I don't).
(We can leave aside the issue of motivation, but to speculate, I've found that when I talk to
people about health care and health insurance; they're very defensive and proprietary about
whatever random solution they've been able to cobble together; and if you'd been sold an exploding
flat-screen TV, and had somehow been able to use duct tape and a well-timed fist to the housing to
get it work, most of the time, wouldn't you be rather unwilling to go back to the same store and
buy another? So there is evidence of "learning"; the lesson learned is once you've got something
that seems to works, don't on any account change it, and we "bear those ills we have," rather "than
fly to others that we know not of.")
Moreover, the population studied has more ability to comparison shop than ObamaCare's. From
page 4 of the study :
Employees at the firm [in the study] are relatively high income ( median income $125,000-$150,000
), an important fact to keep in mind when interpreting our analysis
The top income for a family of four eligible for ObamaCare is around $95K (and not eligible for
subsidy). Do people think this ObamaCare-eligible population has more ability to comparison shop,
compared to a population with a $125K median income for individuals, or less ability? To put this
more tendentiously, if a population that can afford accountants or at least financial planners doesn't
comparison shop, how likely is it that a population that cannot afford those personal services will
do so?
Even worse, the population studied reduces costs, not by comparison shopping, but by self-denial
of care. From page 6 of the study
:
In our setting consumers were provided a comprehensive price shopping tool that allowed them
to search for doctors providing particular services by price as well as other features (e.g. location).
So, just like the ObamaCare "marketplace online" front end (at least after they got it working).
And what happened?
We find no evidence of price shopping in the first year post switch . The effect
is near zero and looks similar for the t -1 - t 0 year pair (moving from
pre- to post-change) as it does for earlier year pairs from t 4 to t 1 .
Second, we find no evidence of an increase in price shopping in the second year post-switch; consumers
are not learning to shop based on price. Third, we find that essentially all spending reductions
between t 1 and t 0 are achieved through outright quantity reductions
whereby consumers receive less medical care . From t 1 to t 0 consumers
reduce service quantities by 17.9%. Fourth, there is limited evidence that consumers substitute
across types of procedures (substitution leads to a 2.2% spending reduction from t 1
- t 0 ). Finally, fifth, we find that these quantity reductions persist in the
second-year post switch, as the increase in quantities between t 0 and t 1
is only 0.7%, much lower than the pre-period trend in quantity growth. These results occur
in the context of consistent (and low) provider price changes over the whole sample period.
Now, it could be that the study population is reducing items like cosmetic surgery and not items
like dental care (assuming they've got dental); the
Healthcare Economist summary of this study says no. In fact, says the study, some of the foregone
services were "likely of high value in terms of health and potential to avoid future costs." And
it could be that the lower-income ObamaCare-eligible are smarter shoppers (dubious: Shopping is a
tax on time a lot of working people can't pay). That said, it looks like ObamaCare has replaced a
system where insurance companies deny people needed care with a system where people deny themselves
needed care; which is genius, in a way. However, if any doctors or medical personnel continue
to support ObamaCare politically, they should consider closely whether they're violating the principle
of non-maleficence - "First,
do no harm" - and halt their support, if so. Bad marketplace! Bad, bad!
Conclusion
Shopping for health insurance under ObamaCare is nothing at all like shopping for a flat-screen
TV. First, there's a sizeable population who, if they are rational actors, just won't buy health
insurance at all; the ObamaCare "marketplace" is not capable of adjusting prices to get such "consumers"
to enter the market. Second, people don't comparison shop; they reduce needed care. (To flog the
flat-screen TV metaphor even further, if the screen is so defective it's painful to watch, people
don't reduce the pain by comparison shopping for a better TV; they reduce the pain by watching less,
and keep the TV they have.)
So, with ObamaCare, and thanks to the dogmas of neoliberalism, we have a "marketplace" that repels
"consumers" from entering it, and repels people from shopping if they do enter. Perhaps there's a
better solution out there?
NOTES
[1] It may be that the ever-increasing mandate penalties will force enough people into the marketplace
to make ObamaCare
actuarially stable ; needless to say, we don't see Federal agents forcing people into Best Buy
to buy TVs, although the social pressure of Black Friday comes close.
[2] Again, much like ObamaCare plans, which are increasingly high-deductible.
About Lambert Strether
Lambert Strether has been blogging, managing online communities, and doing system administration
24/7 since 2003, in Drupal and WordPress. Besides political economy and the political scene, he blogs
about rhetoric, software engineering, permaculture, history, literature, local politics, international
travel, food, and fixing stuff around the house. The nom de plume "Lambert Strether" comes from Henry
James's The Ambassadors: "Live all you can. It's a mistake not to." You can follow him on Twitter
at @lambertstrether. http://www.correntewire.com
The author seems to have forgotten that the kludge called "Obamacare" is not the single payer
solution that this Obama wanted. What you have is what was able to get past a Congress after intense
lobbying by HMOs and insurers. I see little evidence of ideology in the result, "neoliberal" or
otherwise. It does nothing to address the insane-and-rising cost of healthcare, because the vested
interests are OK with that.
Let me clue you in: the readers here are way WAY too clued in to buy your Big Lie.
1. Obama was never in favor of single payer, ever. Wash your mouth out for even suggesting
that
2. He had health care lobbyists draft the legislation
3. He used the "public option" as a bright shiny toy. He was so uncommitted to it he didn't
even trade it away. He gave it up as a free concession. A basic principle in negotiating is you
NEVER make a free concession. The fact that he just threw it away is proof he never meant it as
anything more than a talking point
I hope you are paid to dispense this blather. I really feel sorry for you if you actually believe
it. Obama is a neoliberal who campaigned as a leftist but has governed as a right-winger. His
apologists have regularly used the meanie Republicans as excuses for his selllouts, when Obama
gets what he wants when he wants it, and there's no evidence that his center-right results are
at all at odds with what he intended to achieve.
I won't pretend to be as smart as you and I was doing okay with your comments until the following.
"Obama is a neoliberal who campaigned as a leftist but has governed as a right-winger." You're
kidding? I won't ask for an example because I am sure there are a few issues you can name and
discuss. That being said, Obama is no where near the middle, never mind the right. If anything,
I would say Obama is an inexperience professor trying to teach Economics at Wharton….he can't.
The problem is Obama is too narcissitc to even think about listening. He has constantly picked
situations because it is what he believes and that includes the simple things such as inviting
the Harvard professor who was arrested early on in his presidency for a beer to the WH to giving
how many millions to Solyndra. He can't be wrong!
As far as Obamacare. To me it is a simple issue. Health Care does not equal Health Insurance.
The sad part is we have spent billions in what will eventually end up as quasi single payer system
with 4 large insurance companies sharing the administrative function. Let's just get there and
quit kidding one another.
Huh? Obama has proven to be an extremely skilled political infighter when he wants something
done. And as to him being center-right, all you have to do is look at his staff, most important
his economics team.
He's got a history of being a fake leftist going back to his days in Chicago. Obama, Michelle,
and Valerie Jarrett were the black faces that legitimated the plan by the Pritzkers and local
finance interests to gentrify near South Chicago and push the black community 3 miles further
south while giving them nothing. See here for details:
And he's never been a real prof. This constitutional law talk is a crock. No one can remember
him teaching any courses (he appears to have taught a couple but made no impression). This was
a resume-burnishing post and he did the bare minimum.
Beg to slightly differ regarding Obama and single payer (if the transcripts of his campaign
rally speech in Jersey City before he was nominated hadn't been scrubbed from the Internet, I'd
have the exact wording).
After he had had told the story of sitting with his dying mother on her death bed, surrounded
by paperwork, trying to sort out the restrictions of her employer-based insurance policy and there
wasn't a dry eye in the gymnasium, everyone THOUGHT he said, "When I am President, I will fight
tooth and nail for single payer for every single American."
And the gymnasium absolutely erupted in applause.
Apparently, he said something very CLOSE to that, but when the sentence is carefully parsed,
did not mean that all.
Nevertheless, as a former Obot who worked tirelessly to get him elected on almost the sole
basis of the genuine emotion he exhibited when he told this awful story and how he promised to
rectify the situation in the future, I felt the dagger of betrayal when the first thing he said
during the health care debate was, "I'm taking single payer of the table."
I hate to say this, but a lot of us at Corrente did try to keep track in 2008, and I can't
remember any reporting on this at the time, and we were also strongly for single payer, which
we also kept track of. Not to say that we couldn't have missed something, but a link to something
contemporaneous would be helpful.
I know that I've said this on NC before, but Yves is absolutely right - and THEN some. When
Dennis Kucinich tried to introduce EVEN A DISCUSSION of single payer in Congress, the Democratic
Party leadership blocked him from even bringing it up. Pelosi et al. were absolutely committed
to the Republican neoliberal policy.
This led us to discuss whether the only way to get progressive health care policy was to start
a new party, now that the Democrats have become the Wall Street wing of the Republican Party's
natural resource monopolists.
I don't know the date of this speech (the upload predates the 2010 debacle), but Obama stated,
"I happen to be a proponent of single payer health care…"
That said, we got hosed. Each of us must now decide whether to roll over and take the corn,
or, to demand single payer and the re-regulation of industry (the pharmaceutical industry and
others that affect health tangentially).
I've not been able to resolve the technical reason behind my missing links. You'll find the
53 second clip on youtube channel 6y2o12la titled: Obama on single payer health insurance.
"the single payer solution that this Obama wanted"
Obama kept single payer off the table from the start. He would have had to decide to fight
the industry and take the fight to the country. Medicare for All is a simple idea. He could have
done a 50 state whistle stop tour. He could have saturated any Congressional district opposing
Medicare for All with the same message. That wasn't his plan.
I attended one of his community meetings on health care, held around the country prior to him
adopting Romney Care as his proposal. One of the organizers of the meeting starts off by complaining
to the group about not just telling Obama we want single payer.
One of the first things Obama did was make the GOP party point men on health care(Olympia Snowe
anyone?)
And it was Nancy Pelosi who called it impractical and took it off the table, heck she even
went so far as to have some of the activists committed to being heard arrested for being disruptive.
She then promptly gave a minority Blue Dog group the opportunity to co opt the debate to grandstand
on abortion.
It's positively revisionism to blame the health care mess on GOP. It was Democrats who screwed
it up from start to finish.
"Obama wanted'? Single payer was ruled out from the beginning. Advocates for that position
were not permitted to be part of the discussion. Who knows what Obama wanted? Look at his actions
on this and other issues to make a better judgment. My take is that it was a presidency of symbolism
not substance when it came to policies.
I appreciate that such takedowns are always link-filled and impeccably sourced, and though
combativeness in the comments is not the prevailing tone of this website (happily), damn if I
don't pump my fist when I read a troll getting cut down thusly.
Maybe you're not an incredibly lame troll. Maybe you're just a poor beginner who unwittingly
wandered onto the Varsity field. But if you "see little evidence of ideology in the result," you
may want to look up the definitions of "evidence," "ideology" and "result."
Educated elites with a modicum of leisure always love to play these games. It took them decades
and the most draconian policies imaginable to break the habit of workers early in the industrial
revolution of trading off pay for leisure time. The basic notion of every capitalist scold throughout
the ages has been that this is irrational laziness, even if your job is a physically exhausting
and soul-crushing exercise–you must work more, or you are a bad person who should be punished.
Now, it's the "let's turn everything into a market" game. Don't want to play? Screw you–we'll
make it mandatory, and, of course, punitive. This goes way beyond Obamacare into every facet of
our lives. Public utilities? Hell no–give them "choice"! Community schools? No way–can't have
the races and the classes and the ability levels mixing in such a promiscuous manner–let's go
charter "academies", or vouchers. It's a normative takeover under the guise of "rational" "scientific"
"efficiency".
So true. Ask them about their golf game. It is only YOUR leisure time at issue, not theirs.
Don't you wish you could count as "work" blathering your stream of conciousness on CNBC day after
day?
I remember that one of the 'talking points' in favour of Heritage Foundation Care (HFC) was
that "pre-existing" conditions were not to be allowed to deny anyone coverage. Using that logic,
it can be asserted that 'Poverty', absolute or relative, a pre-existing condition if there ever
was one, denies 'patients' useful medical care. The system as administered is internally contradictory.
Taken one step farther, the HFC can be defined as a "Faith Based Service Provider." This would
be an insult to actual traditional Faith based providers. Most "real" FBPs are governed, at least
in theory, by ideologies that counsel 'compassion' when dealing with the less fortunate. As has
been demonstrated, the HFC program counsels exploitation when dealing with the less fortunate.
A case in point; this week a local religious charity opened a 'Free Clinic' in our town of 45,000
or so souls. The local paper put this on the front page. Buried in the body of the article was
the mention that this clinic was fully booked up for the first, and probably second month. All
this before public mention of it's existence. There's your 'Marketplace' in action. As I discovered
when I looked into signing up for the Mississippi Medicaid program for myself, a family cannot
have over 2,500 USD in 'assets.' There is an ongoing dispute as to whether or not an automobile
classifies as an item counted toward this limit. Thus, those in our state who do qualify for Medicaid
are poor indeed.
Using that logic, it can be asserted that 'Poverty', absolute or relative, a pre-existing
condition if there ever was one
Great point. In the US we have a health care system that saves people's lives while–in many
cases–taking away their means of living it. The Hippocratic Oath should be modified to read: first
do no harm to Capitalism.
Obama is a 1060s style communist;==perhaps one could call him a "NeoCommunist" Obamacare is
anything but "Neoliberal" –it is redistributionist in its very nature. This is why it is crumbling.
It is an absurd notion as is this article, but that is to be expected as you cannot seem to get
over this adolescent attachment to Marxism.
Yes, it is an intriguing suggestion. Does commenter thatworddoesnotmeanthat care to
elaborate? Were the architects of RomneyCare (and it's national extension Obamacare) attempting
to recreate a golden age, of 11th century free peasants– happily enjoying the abundant commons
of medical care, in the carefree forests and dales, before they slipped under the Norman Yoke
of feudal exploitation?
Or, is the reference to some non-Western communist society that flourished in the mid-11th
century? Perhaps thatworddoesnotmeanthat has studied early communist cultures in South Asia, America,
or Africa that distributed healthcare in a way that eerily foreshadows what Romneycare did in
Massachusetts?
The record is irrefutable–the ACA was written by the insurance companies with a wink and a
nod to Big Pharma and the HMOs. Unless you are going to seriously entertain the notion that these
are "communist" institutions, or give a rats ass about anything but making money, you can't really
believe what you wrote. You are just angry about something and projecting your fears onto this
travesty.
The subsidies of Obamacare, if you qualify for them, requires the IRS to get intimately involved
with your checkbook. Just like middle class folks want recipients of SNAP to be regulated with
every food and drink purchase … matching what the bourgeoisie thinks matches their own moral rectitude.
I prefer not to make the IRS my intimate partner … helping me to define what is an asset and
what is income to the last penny.
The idea behind high deductibles is that you'll force consumers to economize. It's kind of
like telling science, "Hey. This patient needs ten pills to live? Let's give him eight and see
what happens."
Medical treatment is a science issue. A treatment's either effective or it's not. You can negotiate
the cost – *with the supplier* – but you can't bully a disease or injury into behaving the way
you want. You certainly can't bully the sick person and they're in no position to negotiate with
the supplier. They have none of the necessary experience or health. That's exactly the wrong time
to try to educate someone about their "options."
But then that's the whole point. The medical market is intentionally littered with opacity.
There is nothing transparent about insurance, much less drugs or surgeries. Medicine is increasingly
dominated by complex bureaucratic cartels for exactly that reason – so you *won't* find out how
things work. They don't want you comparison shopping for drugs, surgeries, therapists. Everything
about the modern medical system is precisely about robbing "customers" of human agency.
The whole idea of shopping for health insurance itself is absurd. It requires you figuring
out exactly how sick you'll be in the next year and then inventing a time machine to travel back
so you can pick the Pareto optimal policy with exactly the best deductible – which really won't
matter because then they'll find a way to make sure your E.R. wasn't in network nor your anesthesiologist
and the only drug to keep you alive won't be "covered" and then you'll wish it was only an Arnold
Schwarzenegger skin-wearing android sent to kill you 'cause that would be way easier.
They're removing choice left and right and destroying scientific information through lobbying.
The people responsible for creating diseases aren't being held responsible for them but the victims
suffering from them are.
When multiple sclerosis organizations are run by drug companies selling $50K+ a year drugs,
do you think they want those customers finding out that deworming society is what created the
risk for M.S. in the first place?
As Martin Shkreli put it, he has the perfect "price inelastic" product. Patients are a captive
market that's easy to exploit. Either they get what they need or they die. You can charge what
you want.
Do you think lazy executives looking to bump up next quarter's earnings are going to invest
heavily over the long haul in scientific models of effective disease prevention and treatment
or are they simply going to squeeze people a little more and a little more?
Let's not forget why politicians love the sickcare complex. The more an industry turns into
a cartel, the easier it is to raise both economic and political rents from it. Let's be honest
here and call a spade a spade. Politicians like this system because it easily feeds campaign dollars
into the system. It may not be efficient for treating patients, but it's quite efficient for extracting
political re
Comparison shop for medical care in the USA? You've got to be kidding.
Case in point. My doctor recommended a cardiovascular "stress test" for diagnosis of heartburn
symptoms to make sure that it wasn't cardiovascular in nature. I traveled to a regional heart
specialist center for the test, but based upon previous experience refused to undergo the test
until they put the bill for the procedure in writing including my deductible cost. The intake
administrator acted shocked by such a request, and it took 30 minutes of increasingly strongly
worded demands on my part before they finally produced a verbal quotation – which I recorded for
future use if they decided to bill $12,000 for 10 minutes on a treadmill.
The world's most expensive health care extortion system at work.
It's nearly impossible to "comparison shop" if you're part of an HMO these days. The only choice
one really has is to select their PCP. After that the PCP pretty much forces you to see docs and
get tests within the hospital system – presumably for "coordinated care". And this for nearly
$1000/mo for a single person not receiving much in the way of "healthcare". That which can't continue,
won't….
One of the things that distinguishes the US from other countries is our high level of tax compliance.
I'm concerned that these Obamacare penalties will lead to diminished compliance, both because
people resent the penalties, and because it is such an intellectually frustrating exercise to
try and estimate future income.
More like a flat screen TV, rented from Samsung, that functions like one of those old British
hotel radiators that you have to feed with pence $60 copays every 10 minutes
in order for Time Warner not to interrupt the streaming.
And then you get balance billing from Disney for the content.
My experience is that there IS no "competition" in any product field that involves actuarial
calculations. I get a subsidy and I am 63. There were about 50 plans offered in my area. A few
were OVERpriced, yes, but the vast majority offered very similar premium prices, and identical
elephantine deductibles, which means that except for aspects of the annual physical, it will "cover"
( assuming cover means pay for) jack. "Coverage" is not care, it is nothing to brag about. I am
"covered" for expenses beyond my deductible as a form of catastrophic insurance but the plan will
never pay for anything else and actuarially, it is easy to calculate a premium that guarantees
that companies will make lotsa money while paying out less. Needless to say the "product" is outrageously
overpriced for what it covers and puts people like me _- close to medicare but limited income
and owns own house free and clear in a far far worse position than before the law. ( eg medicaid
asset recovery if I dare to state a lower income etc etc). So I'm "covered" , so what. I have
far less actual care. And that , it appears to me , is deliberate.
Even if it were "competitive" there is not much point in comparison shopping for flat screen tvs..
for a flat screen tv with X features made by brand "A" the price difference for a tv with the
same features ( and longevitiy) of brand "B: will in the vast majority of online offerings, be
so close as to not be worth the effort. This is even more true with insurance.
Like most politicians, Obama wanted to "do something" and a have a bill he could hold up in front
of Everybody and say "see this is mine". My experience with such legislators/administrators is
that they have a lot of hubris and grees for the bill to pass and do not subject potential downsides
to any critical analysis so that advisers get the message "construct something that will pass"
.The fact that he was dumb enough not to see this coming suggests that his "ideology" was driven
by his advisers- who are definitely neocons IMO not neoliberals unless the term "liberal" is used
in its classic economic sense.
And while we are on the subject, "Health care" is not really subject to "market" principles. Start
with the fact that most people in this country have less than 1K savings, which means that they
cannot cover the ginormous deductibles most "silver" plans offer or the premiums of better plans.
Then add in the fact that these people cannot predict how much care will be needed in a given
year or what the final cost of that care will be. What's the "market " for that? Under these two
facts mandatory "insurance"with high deductibles and narrow networks simply functions as a wealth
transfer from strapped lower-middle and middle class adults to Insurance company shareholders
and CEOs.
Even assuming that Obama "wanted" single payer- an assumption that has been ably refuted in this
string already, had he given "what can get passed" a moment's critical analysis, he might have
realized that he- with his insistence on change for change's sake- was making it worse for so
many Americans. I for one , could care less that pre-existing conditions are now "covered" if
I can't actually use the coverage- pre existing survives, its now called high deducitlbes and
narrow networks.
Actually, as Winston Churchill famously noted, "Americans manage do the right thing after they
have exhausted all of the wrong choices firs"t. So it is that had we gone right to single payer
without this "market based" attempt, we would have heard howls of capitalistic remorse, etc.
So I am glad that Obamacare was attempted and that it is failing predictably. It is pretty
clear to even the free marketers that high deductibles only impoverish Americans, that "skin in
the game" does not make people better shoppers for the highly technical world of medicine, that
price transparency is essentially worthless if nobody is comparison shopping while they are bleeding
out from every orifice, etc.
Medicare for All is arguably catching on. Bernie Sanders poll numbers have not taken a dive
with this promise and the sputtering Obamacare is only putting more fuel to this fire. Hillary's
tax scare attempt will turn flat on its face. People know bad value when they see it, and the
current market based health reform is failing into the predictable death spiral. View Bernie's
ascendency as evidence that the American people think health care is a right and it is time to
fund it that way.
Is the argument here that it was necessary for millions of people to suffer from lack of access
to affordable healthcare, and tens of thousands to die, to teach us a lesson, because designing,
advocating for, and rapidly deploying a simple, effective single payer system that would bring
both immediate and long-term benefits that would silence even its would-be detractors is impossible
even to imagine? This is why Democratic Party and Obama cheerleaders have no credibility anymore.
Also, while it's great that Sanders is bringing attention to this topic, it's not surprising
that people are responding favorably People have been polling in favor of a Medicare-type single
payer program for decades.
Americans have not and will not "do the right thing" on this issue because the entrenched interests
that are making money off of the current atrocity that passes for a healthcare system are too
strong to displace. Europe got single payer after WWII because the only institution in society
left with access to money was the State, so doctors and hospitals after the war were going to
sign on for socialized medicine because societies at large were destitute. Whatever the government
will pay is better than grandpa's watch (if some conquering army hadn't stolen it) or a chicken
(ditto). Until this situation comes into being here in the USA we're not going to see single payer
tax-based healthcare.
Your argument would make sense if Canada, which, like the U.S., never suffered the same WWII
devastation as Europe, hadn't managed to build a national single-payer health system.
And let's not forget the medicaid clawback provisions for those between 55-65. If you apply
for Obamacare, and your income level is below a certain threshhold, you are not eligible for subsidies.
You are placed into medicaid.
However, for those in that 55-65 age bracket, there is an estate clawback provision that effectively
acts as a lien on your estate: once you die your assets will be seized by the state to satisfy
all medicaid provided healthcare expenses.
Prior to Obamacare, in order to qualify for medicaid, not only was there an income requirement,
but your assets also had to be below a certain, very low, amount. With Obamacare however, the
asset requirement is waived for those in that age bracket.
What happens? Many who now are eligible for medicaid via Obamacare will now own a house as
their primary asset of any significance. But once enrolled, that house will be sold on the insured's
death to pay medicaid. I would assume that in states that have privatized medicaid, these sums
will also include all premiums paid by medicaid on the insured's behalf-even if no claims are
ever filed.
If that's not bad enough, under Obamacare to satisfy the law, the consumer is forced into this
by the mandate. There is no choice. Beyond that, if the insured had an income level a few dollars
higher, he/she would be eligible for subsidies which, of course, need not be paid back on the
insured's death.
Clawback provisions, though with many exceptions particularly for those under age 55 have always
been required under medicaid, but now medicaid enrollment will be required by law with actual
assets available.
In terms of the assets issue, my comment is applicable to those states that have adopted the
expanded medicaid features of Obamacare. As mentioned by a poster in Mississippi, states that
have not, still have the old rules on having virtually no assets in order to qualify.
I have seen this stated here on many occasions, over the course of the OCare debate. While
the law seems to give authorization to clawback, in my state it only seems to have been used for
nursing home and other long term care. I can state from my experience, I was never queried about
assets, and was qualified only on income. I just lost the person with whom I have shared my life
for 30 years, and her assets, went to her daughter without any claim from the state. Hers was
an expensive battle with cancer, and did rack up a pile of charges. ( In my state, Medicaid is
paying a private insurer to cover Medicaid patients). I have been reading here for a long time,
rarely posting, I tend to agree mostly with the view here, but this seems to be widely different
between states. I have no issue with Yves or Lambert on this, they have done yeoman work trying
to get to the bottom of these issues. Just felt I needed to weigh in for the sake of completeness.
Yves and Lambert you have my email if you want to discuss my experience, it is all to fresh a
wound to discuss in this public forum.
No argument that Obamacare has some serious problems. But placing ALL the blame on the President
seems excessive. Even if he had come out strongly for single payer, there are more than enough
DINOs in Congress in thrall to Health Care, Inc. to have prevented its passage. And the Republicans
would have dialed up their anti-reform propaganda to new levels of hysteria (Remember the anti-Hillarycare
saturation media campaign? I'll bet Obama does.)
When Obama was inaugurated he had more political capital in his pocket than any president in
recent memory. The repubs were on the ropes.
Sure, the repubs could have gone all out in opposition, but as another poster mentioned Obama
could have gone all out as well and blitzed the country. And in the first few months of his presidency,
my bet would have been on him more than on the repubs.
Of course he did nothing. And to say he did nothing because of fear of the repubs at that point
is silly. He empowered the repubs. He didn't even pretend.
Even if he had come out strongly for single payer…
Oh, but he didn't! If pigs had wings, perhaps they could fly? He could have, he didn't even
pretend (like he did with closing Gitmo). Oh, concerned about his legacy? No problem, $peaking
fees from insurance companies, pharmacos, $eat on bds of directors, his future will be golden!
Hello. "Leaders", elected or otherwise, sell out locals to corps = banana republic.
"All health insurance plans purchased through Covered California must cover certain services
called essential health benefits. These include doctor visits, hospital stays, emergency care,
maternity care, pediatric care, prescriptions, medical tests and mental health care. Health insurance
plans also must cover preventative care services like mammograms and colonoscopies. Health insurance
companies cannot charge copayments, coinsurance or deductibles for such services."
By taking that out of context, you've considerably overstated what Covered California covers.
Just as in the rest of the US, the "metal levels" have the same meaning. For instance:
Bronze: On average, your health plan pays 60 percent of your medical expenses, and you pay
40 percent.
This is the language from their "Essential Health Benefits" section:
Essential Health Benefits
All health insurance plans now share some common characteristics. The Affordable Care Act
requires that all health insurance plans offered in the individual and small-group markets
must provide a comprehensive package of items and services, known as essential health benefits.
These benefits fit into the following 10 categories:
Ambulatory patient services.
Emergency services.
Hospitalization.
Maternity and newborn care.
Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment.
Prescription drugs. For more information about prescription drug benefits, visit the page Prescription
Drugs.
Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices.
Laboratory services.
Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management. For more information about
preventive services with no cost sharing, click here.
Pediatric services, including dental and vision care. Dental insurance for children will be
included in the price of all health plans purchased in the exchange for 2015.
The requirement for insurance plans to offer essential health benefits is just one of many
changes in health coverage that began in 2014.
So this is just ACA boilerplate. I do recall reading that Covered CA does require some services
be provided irrespective of the deductibles (beyond the ACA-mandated preventive care items like
mammograms, which separately are a bad test), but after 10 minutes of poking around the Covered
CA site and other Googling, I can't find any evidence of what those other services might be. I
thought it was at least a doctor visit or two, but I can't even find that.
And 75% of Covered CA plans have narrow networks, compared to 41% for the US as a whole, which
among other things means you might not be able to get a specialist you need:
Obama NEVER tried one iota to go for Single Payer. Nada, Zip, Nothing.
Ergo, I place ALL the blame on Obama. IF he had tried even a teeny tiny bit, I could perhaps
place some blame elsewhere. But factual reality refutes that.
I also do recall the POTUS taking Dennis Kucinich up in Air Force One, and when they landed,
suddenly Kucinich had changed his mind and was (reluctantly in my viewpoint) giving an thumbs
up on ObamaCare. Kucinich was the longest hold out advocating for Single Payer. Obama basically
took him to school and forced him in some way to STFU and say Obamacare was the best.
Baloney. Obama sold us all to BigInsurance, BigPharma, BigHospital, BigMedDevice, and I'm sure
he was handsomely rewarded.
This one, imo, is all on Obama. It was what he wanted, and it's what he now touts as being
this very great thing, which it's not.
No amount of dem. or repb. BS will ever persuade me to participate in national politics again.
obamas handling of the ongoing financial and health care crisis finished it for me.
It's so clear to me where were at. The corruption is sickining. EVERY DAY the stories. I keep
thinking…."all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn't put Humpty back together again."
Read The Archdruid Report for some insight. Everybody wakes up sooner or later.
In this life or the next
Yes, definitely better to give up without a fight. Have you noticed that in spite of what is
essentially a media blackout Bernie is likely leading in the polls? As to your opening statement
"No argument that Obamacare has some serious problems" you admit to ACA shortcomings, maybe you
would like to offer up some of what you see as good aspects of the ACA? Further, "there are more
than enough DINOs in Congress in thrall to Health Care, Inc. to have prevented its passage. "
there was and is a DINO in the oval office "in thrall to Health Care, Inc." who made no other
option impossible. So much for the vaunted "free market" The ACA was designed and implemented
as socialism for the 20% (h/t Lambert and others who have noted the upper class and their minions
occupy the top quintile) whose medical care was getting too expensive, and whose medical (device,
pharma patents, and insurance co.) investments were not being supported by demand, so the ACA
created demand for them. Medicare for all, and get rid of the clawbacks, I personally would rather
chromex's heirs get his assets rather than Blackstone, thank you.
I notice that Crude Earl is tempting $30 and copper is at $1.96/lb, looks like some demand
problems there, as well. Maybe we should mandate that everyone must purchase gasoline even if
they don't have a car, and mandate that pennies will once again be made of copper? ka-ching!
You jest, but in many late medieval and early modern Italian city-states there were ruthlessly
enforced minimum consumption levels for salt. Prior to refrigeration salt was more of a food preservation
necessity, but the huge consumption taxes placed on salt made them a fiscal necessity as well.
Our word salary derives from the fact that so many government officials were paid from
the revenues collected through salt taxes.
The much-hated gabelle in pre-Revolutionary France was a salt tax!
I doubt you're really interested in a discussion, but here are a few very good things about
Obamacare:
1. Elimination of pre-existing conditions as a reason for being refused coverage
2. Requirement that insurers spend at least 80% of their revenue actually paying benefits
3. Preventive care must be free
4. Expansion of Medicaid (where permitted by states) brings coverage to millions of previously
uninsured
5. Standardization of plans makes is possible (if not easy) to compare them
And this is my opinion, but I don't think it would have been possible to get Medicare for All
through Congress, even with Democrats nominally in control, for the reasons already stated.
Anyway, my whole point is that Obama doesn't deserve ALL the blame. Are you arguing that the
public and Congress were ready and willing to enact single-payer, and Obama somehow prevented
it?
1. Pre-existing condition with the caveat that you must live in an area served by a medical
establishment that specializes in your possibly rare illness.
2. 80% Yay! It's almost like Christmas! …. Cold comfort to those who must cough up $10,000
or more before getting any benefit from trom their policy at all.
3. Preventative care must be free. OK. So the $10,000 get's them a colonoscopy and a glucose
meter.
4. Expanded Medicaid … In the states where it happened, anyone over 55 years old subject to
an undisclosed clawback of benefits from estates. Wow.
5. I cannot imagine how you come up with the comparison justification. People have to sign
up for plans without final commitments of which doctors or hospitals are included. And even then
they are subject to change!
"Democrats nominally in control" … This is a pure deception. They had overwhelming majorities
and wildly popular President. Do you seriously think that if faced with Obama's shaking finger
and an enticing promise, that any Democrat would have defied him during those first 100 days.
I laugh at the thought. He could ave gotten Expanded Medicare for All passed in those first 100
days with one hand tied behind his back.
Thanks for responding. Yes it's good that pre-existing conditions no longer can be refused
coverage,but one still needs to be able to afford coverage, so not being refused is not the same
as receiving care, no? Your second point also has some merit as it appears intended to contain
profiteering, but as one can see from martin shrkeli there's nothing stopping the greater healthcare
marketplace from increasing costs, so the 80% becomes ambiguously beneficial. I did not know preventative
care is free, but if that means as implied by another comment colonoscopies and other rather invasive
procedures that might be seen as a cash cow with once again ambiguous benefits to consumers, really
they are actually insureds, not consumers, as the prices are beyond peoples ability to pay, only
insurers can ably do that, so the consumer is consuming insurance not care, I'm arguing for a
gov't insurance and appreciate your opinion that it couldn't have been pulled off, as I think
you are aware that my opinion is that they not only didn't try, indeed the executive branch stood
between private sector healthcare industries and reform in the same way it stood between the banksters
and those pitchfork wielding crazy people. Whatever your feelings about all that saving the economy
stuff, it was largely and in many aspects a giveaway to people who were on the brink of disaster,
a little more give and take would have been appropriate and the hope and change mandate provided
the executive with considerable clout. Also, the medicaid expansion is a wolf in sheep's clothing
as the clawback is regressive and punishes low income people as well as some probably good sized
portion of people who will find themselves unceremoniously dumped into medicaid when their insurance
and other medical bills drive them into financial distress. Lastly, the standardization of plans
was in fact useful for me to figure out i couldn't afford it without taking to much time. I'll
dilute my criticism of the president to be more inclusively the executive branch and their collective
agenda, but basically the O man is the CEO so gets to be the hero, or the goat…
As Chromex notes, Obamacare "coverage" is high-deductible catastrophic, so all day-to-day "care"
is paid for out of pocket. But just try finding out how much a procedure costs… I needed an MRI
on my knee, and it took three phone calls to find out how much I would be paying for the procedure.
First you need to know the exact billing code for the procedure, which means you need to find
the person in the doctor's office who is anointed in the mystical realm of billing codes; then
you need to call the insurance company customer service rep, who is initially mystified that you
are actually trying to find out how much something costs; then you (hopefully) transferred to
someone in the billing department (who has never spoken to an actual patient before); and finally,
if you are lucky, in two or three weeks you will revive a letter from another anointed person
giving the actual out of pocket cost of the procedure-which will probably be different after the
fact as "adjustments" are made between provider and insurer.
If we had to buy anything else in this fashion, we'd all be naked, starving, and out-of-doors.
I recall seeing a stat that the median adult net worth of USians was only US$37K, whereas in
Canada it is US$80K. I wondered if the primary reason for the huge difference, is the presence
of Canada-style MedicareForAll in Canada. It appears the US health system bankrupts you rapidly
as in literal medical bankruptcy as per indivduals' examples in the "Sicko" documentary"' or bankrupts
you slowly, as in these crapified ACA policies that charge ~$12K/yr before paying for anything
besides the annual physical exam even within your "narrow network".
Yves, are you aware of any economist study which estimates the differential in financial net
worth between barbaric USA & civilized Canada?
Apparently what the masters of Canada can't extract through healthcare debt, they do it through
astronomically high real estate prices, exceeding our bubble high of 2007. Though there are signs
of deflation, tiny 2 bedroom bungalows in Winnipeg–depressed Canadian flyover country–go for $300K.
The same dump in Minneapolis is yours for $175K. And that's comparing economically challenged
Winnipeg with relatively prosperous Minneapolis.
Yes, not paying $1200/month in health insurance premiums can go to that overpriced Canadian
mortgage, but that's sort of my point.
And to ward off some comments–I am in no way stating that Canada's national health program
causes high housing costs.
America is exceptionally wack & Crapified (c) Yves, as far as life for the 99%ers probably
in the lowest quintile within the OECD, even when including the don't-really-belong members like
Mexico & Turkey. Meanwhile Murica, from everyday people to the elites, drink Murican Exceptionalist
Kool-aid on how Murica is Always The Best, no need to ever learn from any other nations on anything.
I wonder if the "net present value" of money/time/stress cost of emigrating to a civilized
nation like Canada for those USians fortunate enough to have a chance of doing so, is likely to
be much less than the equivalent money/time/stress cost of living an entire life in the US & having
to deal with the US Sickcare Mafia.
I've found that when I talk to people about health care and health insurance; they're very
defensive and proprietary about whatever random solution they've been able to cobble together
In my limited conversations I've noticed that, too. I've been left wondering if it is hard
to for them to give a clear answer since they've had to engage in guessy speculation about what
they, and their families, might come down with, and they end up having to imagine awful stuff
and then discount the possibility of it occurring, so too bad for little Susie if awful occurs.
Trudy Lieberman has given emphasis to the absurdity of asking people to bet on their health, and
I'm guessing it's not just a matter of feeling embarrassed about weak actuarial skills.
Talking about how you coped with Obamacare gives a clear insight into your personal finances,
something a lot of people are hesitant to discuss.
When I was young I was taught never to ask a rancher how many head of cattle he ran, because
it's no different that saying, "Hey, How much money are you worth?"
So where do we go from here? Help the republicans repeal it? Fix it? Frankly I don't know.
We don't have a congress to fix or replace it -even if Sanders wins. I think it helps some people,
mostly those on Medicaid. So repealing it doesn't make sense unless it can be replaced. Even saying
this is a marketplace is an outright lie. These bastards are just stealing from us all. Rock and
a hard place. Sanders is the only hope and that at times seems vanishingly small.
When Obama took office, The United States National Health Care Act, HR 676 , for a
single-payer system of expanded Medicare for All, was in the House of Representatives. If I remember
correctly, it had over 100 Democratic Congresspeople co-sponsoring it. Part of the Obama administration's
efforts on its own health insurance bill were aimed at getting the bill withdrawn.
Thanks for that reminder. Reading the recent book, American President (from Teddy to Bill)
helps one's recall considerably-telling contrasts between Presidents who knew how to pass legislation
and the flukes (if assassination can be called a fluke, i.e. Devil's Chessboard) that brought
them our way against those who didn't. For instance, LBJ compared with JFK, who had enough legislative
service to learn a thing or two if he were interested, that is.
Too bad the book's so damn thick-well written and lively though it may be. Voters not likely
to read it. Should though.
Lots of arguing and different thoughts, but one primary fact remains. Obama was a bald-faced
lier from the get-go, and has remained true to that principle. He hasn't really tried hard to
question that. The amount of damage done to this nation during his tenure amounts to that
amount perpetrated by a traitor. Just being bad was "W"; this is actually far worse.
Lots of arguing and different thoughts, but one primary fact persists. Obama has been a
bald-faced liar from the get-go, and has remained true to that principle. He really hasn't
tried hard to dispute that. The amount of damage done to this nation during his tenure
amounts to that amount perpetrated by a traitor. "W" was just bad; This is far worse.
Now, Kentucky being Kentucky, the motives here may be such that it is difficult for critics
of the ACA to claim as any kind of 'win' – would any of our Kentuckian readers care to comment?
"... One of the more encouraging (?) developments in Acceptable American Discourse over the last five years or so has been the gradual acceptance, even among Serious Media Outlets, that American voters no longer have any real control over their own government, and more broadly, their collective destiny. ..."
"... In April 2014, Princeton University published a study which found that "economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence." ..."
"... There's the one we elect, and then there's the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy. ..."
"... "We've become now an oligarchy instead of a democracy. And I think that's been the worst damage to the basic moral and ethical standards of the American political system that I've ever seen in my life," the 90-year-old former president told Winfrey. ..."
"... And given the fact that people would rather know about Kim Kardashian than what makes up the budget or what the government is doing in Mali or Sudan or other unknown places, this is what you get: a disconnected, self-serving bureaucracy that is simply evolving to do what it's doing now. That is, to maintain and enhance its own power. ..."
"... The key institutions are exactly what people would think they are. The military-industrial complex; the Pentagon and all their contractors (but also, now, our entire homeland security apparatus); the Department of Treasury; the Justice Department; certain courts, like the southern district of Manhattan, and the eastern district of Virginia; the FISA courts. ..."
"... It is a complex mechanism, a take-over of key positions within the US power structure, a corporate government mix where the US "government" mission is to advocate, promote, and defend corporate interests worldwide. ..."
"... US National Security Strategy embodies those corporate interests and unfolds them into specific goals and objectives to be attained by means of foreign and domestic policies that "presidents" and other figureheads sell at home and abroad. ..."
"... @15 This is excuse making for falling for Obama who openly admired Reagan, claimed the right to bomb anything anywhere without working with local governments, surrounded himself with pigs, and even denounced Moveon for their ad about Petraeus. ..."
"... The system is totally corrupt. If you make it to Congress, you've got favors to pay back. If you don't work for the corporate interests (already aligned with deep state) you won't get the money to run a second term. Some other craven asshole will take your job whether you want it (by demonstrating total acquiescence) or not (by trying to be Mr.Smith in Washington). ..."
"... The very best thing about Donald Trump, is that he is an outsider - particularly when compared with the other contestants whom are machine politicians (corrupted in the system). BTW, Bernie is full of shit (as is Trump). ..."
"... Jimmy Carter seems like a real nice fellow. It should be remembered, however, that Brzezinski was Carter's National Security Adviser. Now that was probably the deep state hanging that albatross around ol' Peanut Boy's neck (as a minder, perhaps). In any case, Carter didn't do anything to stop that son of a bitch from his evil doings in Afghanistan. ..."
"... "You are soldiers of god. Your cause is right and god is on your side". - Brzezinski addressing the Mujahideen. ..."
"... Jane Mayers new book says Koch Brothers father built a major oil refinery for Hilter ..."
"... Ms. Mayer, a staff writer at The New Yorker, presents the Kochs and other families as the hidden and self-interested hands behind the rise and growth of the modern conservative movement. Philanthropists and political donors who poured hundreds of millions of dollars into think tanks, political organizations and scholarships, they helped win acceptance for anti-government and anti-tax policies that would protect their businesses and personal fortunes, she writes, all under the guise of promoting the public interest. ..."
"... The Kochs, the Scaifes, the Bradleys and the DeVos family of Michigan "were among a small, rarefied group of hugely wealthy, archconservative families that for decades poured money, often with little public disclosure, into influencing how the Americans thought and voted," the book says. ..."
"... You can't run a campaign to be elected President of the United States unless you can tap into billionaires who are willing to hand over $100 millions to your campaign. ..."
"... This is part of the reason why Trump is causing so much mayhem: he is a candidate who already has those $billions, and so he isn't beholden to anyone but himself and his own whacky ideas. ..."
"... Deep down I suspect that this is why he is the Republican frontrunner i.e. deep down Mr Joe Average knows that his "democracy" has been hijacked out from underneath him, so he is receptive to Trump's dogwhistle. ..."
"... The DS vetted Ike and discovered that he looked up to corporate CEOs and Wall Street financiers and their lawyers, he was sympathetic to those he fantasized as captains of industry and looked upon success as a marker of steady men, those of his imagined deep state. ..."
"... Ike bought the 'What's good for GM is good for the country' line, just as Engine Charley Wilson did. No need to assassinate Ike. ..."
For all of those who keep on arguing about the benefits of one US candidate over the other,
they could save their energy for more constructive efforts.
One of the more encouraging (?) developments in Acceptable American Discourse over the
last five years or so has been the gradual acceptance, even among Serious Media Outlets, that
American voters no longer have any real control over their own government, and more broadly,
their collective destiny.
In April 2014, Princeton University published a study which found that "economic elites
and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on
US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or
no independent influence."
Then in October of the same year, a Tufts University professor published a devastating critique
of the current state of American democracy, "National Security and Double Government," which
catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing,
with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses
the term "double government":
There's the one we elect, and then there's the one behind
it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere
cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.
The Boston Globe's write-up of the book was accompanied by the brutal headline, "Vote all
you want. The secret government won't change." Imagine a headline like that during the Hope
and Change craze of 2008. Yeah, you can't. Because nobody's that imaginative.
Yes, people are beginning to smell the rot - even people who watch television in hopes of
not having to confront the miserable reality that awaits them once they turn off their 36-inch
flatscreens. In September, Jimmy Carter warned Oprah Winfrey:
"We've become now an oligarchy instead of a democracy. And I think that's been the
worst damage to the basic moral and ethical standards of the American political system that
I've ever seen in my life," the 90-year-old former president told Winfrey.
The live audience were probably hoping for free Oprah cars. Instead, an ex-president told
them that their democracy is in the gutter. What a bummer.
The latest canary in the coal mine is none other than ex-longtime GOP staffer turned best-selling
author Mike Lofgren, whose new book, "The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the
Rise of a Shadow Government," confirms what is already painfully apparent:
The deep state has created so many contradictions in this country. You have this enormous
disparity of rich and poor; and you have this perpetual war, even though we're braying about
freedom. We have a surveillance state, and we talk about freedom. We have internal contradictions.
Who knows what this will fly into? It may collapse like the Soviet Union; or it might go
into fascism with a populist camouflage.
Some excerpts from Salon's recent interview with Lofgren:
On how the deep state operates:
Well, first of all,
it is not a conspiracy. It is something that operates in broad daylight.
It is not a conspiratorial cabal. These are simply people who have evolved [into] a kind
of position. It is in their best interest to act in this way.
And given the fact that people would rather know about Kim Kardashian than what makes
up the budget or what the government is doing in Mali or Sudan or other unknown places, this
is what you get: a disconnected, self-serving bureaucracy that is simply evolving to do what
it's doing now. That is, to maintain and enhance its own power.
On who (and what) is part of the deep state:
The key institutions are exactly what people would think they are. The military-industrial
complex; the Pentagon and all their contractors (but also, now, our entire homeland security
apparatus); the Department of Treasury; the Justice Department; certain courts, like the southern
district of Manhattan, and the eastern district of Virginia; the FISA courts.
And you
got this kind of rump Congress that consists of certain people in the leadership, defense and
intelligence committees who kind of know what's going on. The rest of Congress doesn't really
know or care; they're too busy looking about the next election.
Lofgren goes on to explain that the private sector works hand-in-hand with the deep state,
regardless of which "party" is in power. According to Lofgren, "There are definable differences
between Bush and Obama. However, the differences are so constrained. They're not between the
40-yard lines; they are between the 48-yard lines."
Of course, millions of Americans will still enjoy rooting for the candidate whom they would
most enjoy drinking Bud Lite Lime with, but probably deep in their hearts they all know they're
doomed.
@12, Only a coward would submit to such a threat, instead of regarding it as a challenge to be
defied. If the worst came to the worst, one would at least have died heroically. And such a president,
if he did die, could have taken steps before he died to make sure the public would learn how and
why he died. So it would not be a death without purpose.
How does the deep state ensure that only cowards become president?
@10 Blackmail?
Don't know if true but I remember reading something to the effect that after Obama was sworn in,
he met with Bush sr. and co who told him that he now worked for them with threats to his family
if he wouldn't submit..
What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state
decides?
It is a complex mechanism, a take-over of key positions within the US power structure,
a corporate government mix where the US "government" mission is to advocate, promote, and defend
corporate interests worldwide.
US National Security Strategy embodies those corporate interests and unfolds them into
specific goals and objectives to be attained by means of foreign and domestic policies that "presidents"
and other figureheads sell at home and abroad.
@15 This is excuse making for falling for Obama who openly admired Reagan, claimed the
right to bomb anything anywhere without working with local governments, surrounded himself with
pigs, and even denounced Moveon for their ad about Petraeus.
People hate being conned more than con men, and they concoct rationalizations for being duped
that often defy logic.
@10 'What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state
decides?'
1. DS vets prospective candidates beforehand, only allowing candidates aligned with deep state
authorities to begin with.
2. DS doesn't make the payoff until successful applicants have left office with an 'acceptable'
record.
3. Assassination is always an option in extreme cases, real or imagined.
The system is totally corrupt. If you make it to Congress, you've got favors to pay back.
If you don't work for the corporate interests (already aligned with deep state) you won't get
the money to run a second term. Some other craven asshole will take your job whether you want
it (by demonstrating total acquiescence) or not (by trying to be Mr.Smith in Washington).
Now, if you want to be President, you've got to have "experience" in Congress or in state gubmint.
The very best thing about Donald Trump, is that he is an outsider - particularly when compared
with the other contestants whom are machine politicians (corrupted in the system). BTW, Bernie
is full of shit (as is Trump).
That is a very good explanation of 'Deep State'. My only caveat is that it doesn't completely
describe the oligarchy because it leaves out the corporate component. When money became speech
a huge mountain of power devolved to the rich. They'd always had clout as the graphs describing
the separation of the rich from the not-so-well off and the rest of us have made clear - but now
the ugly truth is unavoidable and it all goes together to produce what President Carter described.
Jimmy Carter seems like a real nice fellow. It should be remembered, however, that Brzezinski
was Carter's National Security Adviser. Now that was probably the deep state hanging that albatross
around ol' Peanut Boy's neck (as a minder, perhaps). In any case, Carter didn't do anything to
stop that son of a bitch from his evil doings in Afghanistan.
"You are soldiers of god. Your cause is right and god is on your side". - Brzezinski addressing
the Mujahideen.
Jane Mayers new book says Koch Brothers father built a major oil refinery for Hilter
... It looks to be another corker ...
Ms. Mayer, a staff writer at The New Yorker, presents the Kochs and other families as the
hidden and self-interested hands behind the rise and growth of the modern conservative movement.
Philanthropists and political donors who poured hundreds of millions of dollars into think
tanks, political organizations and scholarships, they helped win acceptance for anti-government
and anti-tax policies that would protect their businesses and personal fortunes, she writes,
all under the guise of promoting the public interest.
The Kochs, the Scaifes, the Bradleys and the DeVos family of Michigan "were among a
small, rarefied group of hugely wealthy, archconservative families that for decades poured
money, often with little public disclosure, into influencing how the Americans thought and
voted," the book says.
Many of the families owned businesses that clashed with environmental or workplace regulators,
come under federal or state investigation, or waged battles over their tax bills with the Internal
Revenue Service, Ms. Mayer reports. The Kochs' vast political network, a major force in Republican
politics today, was "originally designed as a means of off-loading the costs of the Koch Industries
environmental and regulatory fights onto others" by persuading other rich business owners to
contribute to Koch-controlled political groups, Ms. Mayer writes, citing an associate of the
two brothers.
@10 "What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state
decides?"
Money.
You can't run a campaign to be elected President of the United States unless you can tap
into billionaires who are willing to hand over $100 millions to your campaign.
Without that largess you are not going to get elected, and people who have $billions are
the going to be the very same people who make up the Deep State.
So you either get with the program or you get.... nothing. Not a cent. Not a hope.
This is part of the reason why Trump is causing so much mayhem: he is a candidate who already
has those $billions, and so he isn't beholden to anyone but himself and his own whacky ideas.
Deep down I suspect that this is why he is the Republican frontrunner i.e. deep down Mr
Joe Average knows that his "democracy" has been hijacked out from underneath him, so he is receptive
to Trump's dogwhistle.
Which, basically, is this: why are you bothering with any of these chattering monkeys? Their
votes will end up belonging to people like me anyway, so you may as well just cut out the middle-man.
The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government
, chapter 10
Eisenhower's innate midwestern sense of decency initially made him recoil from backing Britain's
colonial siege of Iran. He rebuffed the Dulles brothers' advice, suggesting that it might be
a better idea to stabilize Mossadegh's government with a $100 million loan than to topple it.
If Eisenhower had followed through on his original instincts, the bedeviled history of U.S.-Iran
relations would undoubtedly have taken a far different course.
Realizing that Eisenhower was not inclined to defend British imperial interests, the Dulles
brothers reframed their argument for intervention in Cold War terms. On March 4, 1953, Allen
appeared at a National Security Council meeting in the White House armed with seven pages of
alarming talking points. Iran was confronted with "a maturing revolutionary set-up," he warned,
and if the country fell into Communist hands, 60 percent of the free world's oil would be controlled
by Moscow. Oil and gasoline would have to be rationed at home, and U.S. military operations
would have to be curtailed.
In truth, the global crisis over Iran was not a Cold War conflict but a struggle "between
imperialism and nationalism, between First and Third Worlds, between North and South, between
developed industrial economies and underdeveloped countries dependent on exporting raw materials,"
in the words of Ervand Abrahamian.
The author pours it on thick with zero references but, overall ...
1.
The DS vetted Ike and discovered that he looked up to corporate CEOs and Wall Street
financiers and their lawyers, he was sympathetic to those he fantasized as captains of industry
and looked upon success as a marker of steady men, those of his imagined deep state.
2. Ike came cheap. He felt it was his duty to help out if the people he looked up to thought
he was the right man at the right time.
3.
Ike bought the 'What's good for GM is good for the country' line, just as Engine Charley
Wilson did. No need to assassinate Ike.
The DS uses the same M.O. ... O tempora, o mores ... mutatis mutandis.
This might be not an end of S&P500 rally but this might well be the beginning of the end.
Notable quotes:
"... It's good: the less money the US will have the less wars it will wage in the world. My congrats! ..."
"... Baron von Rothschild said "the time to buy is when there's blood in streets" - i.e. when it's all doom and gloom. We've not there yet but there's always hope. ..."
"... Be careful what you wish for. ..."
"... The whole 401K thing was a scam from it's inception. The employment figures are total nonsense--figures don't lie but liars can figure etc. --oh and "there was no inflation last year." ..."
"... With this load of gambling morons running stock markets, financial major rip offs and services we will all be declared bankrupt and broke without doing anything or lifting a finger. ..."
"... This is not about China. Saudis (and other oil producers) are selling investments to fund their current budget. Most economies are very slow, workforce participation rates all around West are the lowest on record. US has 90 million non-working adults who are not in military, retired or in school. 90 million idle people and the government claims a 5% unemployment rate based on "statistical survey". The economies are in much worse shape than the cheerful and manipulated numbers that governments produce. Inflation is higher than reported. ..."
"... I think the US is showing signs of "growth" that is, the number of "new" jobs went up last month to 292K (also November was adjusted higher with better information). I understand your hesitation about the "5% unemployment" but this is in spite of a lot of people now coming back into the workforce. And wages are now going up, which probably shows that the number of available people suitable for work is declining. This has got to be a good thing. ..."
"... Well gosh no QE to save these bandits again, what will they do? ..."
"... they are the sellers, not to worry though, they'll be back out with their begging bowls when the market nr bottoms out.. ready for the next wild ride back up. ..."
"... The QE was a godsend for the super rich they got to use that money for stock and property speculation because of that the economy is still not moving. ..."
"... If they given that money to the poor the pensioners the unemployed and underpaid they would have spent every cent in the real economy generated employment and profits, growth would have been 3%-4% by now. ..."
Things have a long way to fall before they're low. I hope it's 2008 all over again. I was laid
off in January 2009 with a generous severance packet. I invested it all in the US stock market
in Q1 09, when everyone was wailing and moaning. That was the bottom of the market. Over the next
few years it soared and I made a fortune. I sold most of it last year so I'm hoping for another
crash.
Baron von Rothschild said "the time to buy is when there's blood in streets" - i.e. when
it's all doom and gloom. We've not there yet but there's always hope.
"In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and
winter. And then we get spring and summer again." Chance the Gardener, mistakenly known as Chauncey
Gardiner.
The whole 401K thing was a scam from it's inception. The employment figures are total nonsense--figures
don't lie but liars can figure etc. --oh and "there was no inflation last year."
With this load of gambling morons running stock markets, financial major rip offs and services
we will all be declared bankrupt and broke without doing anything or lifting a finger.
These people are utterly stupid. All a load of chooks with missing heads running round causing
chaos and more stupidity.
But Wait. Are we the stupid ones for letting them have their greedy little comer of the world
to gamble away the lives of others?
We have no influence and are impotent against these chancers and thieves.
Markets get closed. Also during the Bush GFC we had futures, derivatives or whatever banned for
a while. The problem was letting them start up again.
So its just a case of finding some real honest politicians...........maybe your right.
The US has been de-industrialized. Most Americans are too poor to buy new gadgets. Many are homeless.
We have a 3d world economy. Of course the stock market etc is bad!
This is not about China. Saudis (and other oil producers) are selling investments to fund
their current budget. Most economies are very slow, workforce participation rates all around West
are the lowest on record. US has 90 million non-working adults who are not in military, retired
or in school. 90 million idle people and the government claims a 5% unemployment rate based on
"statistical survey". The economies are in much worse shape than the cheerful and manipulated
numbers that governments produce. Inflation is higher than reported.
The governments have learned in the last 30-40 years how to "manage" the reported metrics by
changing definitions, adjustments and outright lying. You can only do it for so long before real
world catches up with you.
I think the US is showing signs of "growth" that is, the number of "new" jobs went up last
month to 292K (also November was adjusted higher with better information). I understand your hesitation
about the "5% unemployment" but this is in spite of a lot of people now coming back into the workforce.
And wages are now going up, which probably shows that the number of available people suitable
for work is declining. This has got to be a good thing.
Yes, things could be better there and in many other places. (In Canada, we are truly screwed
for at least several years, fwiw.)
they are the sellers, not to worry though, they'll be back out with their begging bowls when the
market nr bottoms out.. ready for the next wild ride back up.
The QE was a godsend for the super rich they got to use that money for stock and property
speculation because of that the economy is still not moving.
\
If they given that money
to the poor the pensioners the unemployed and underpaid they would have spent every cent in the
real economy generated employment and profits, growth would have been 3%-4% by now.
"... A missile has two explosive parts . Explosives in the armament and the fuel for the missile. In this case it was solid state rocket fuel which by its' very definition is another type of explosive. It's illegal to ship this in an commercial air plane or fly over any sovereign country's air space without getting permission . Very very shocking . ..."
"... Mistake? I doubt it. And, this what happens shipping such equipment on commercial flights. Whoever made that call, should be fired and kicked in the arse on his (or more likely her) way out the door. ..."
"... Once again, privatization wreaks havoc. Private contractors have massacred civilians in Iraq, turned US prisons into even worse hell-holes than previously, and now this. ..."
"... Corporate america and privatization work SOoo well. Congress is bribed by corporate 1% so we have increased the military budget and pass funding for new ships planes and weapons even the Pentagon doesn't want or need. It's all a scam to drag money out of the many and enrich the few. Think of the trillions spent on nuclear bombs and missiles, the use of which would only end civilization. ..."
"... You didn't need to incorrectly ID yourself. The language itself gives you away. You are NOT a conservative but rather a reactionary that thinks he is conservative by emulating Fox and Limbaugh and the like. Conserve means to save, reactionaries mean overturning conditions as they are. Liberals intend to gradually improve a few things while Radicals want Radical change. ..."
"... TV and Radio and Internet have perverted the language and thus created arguments over nothing since the usage of nonsense words in discussion can only lead to nonsense expectations and nonsense conclusions. ..."
"... Other than visibly embarrassing for our NATO friends and Lockheed, not that big of a deal since the Hellfire training missile contains an incomplete guidance section and has no operational seeker head, warhead, fusing system or rocket motor. ..."
"... It's not just the individual incompetence, it's the whole system. Ok, so someone slaps the wrong address sticker on the box with the missile in (they probably didnt know what was in the box, most mail rooms dont). I can see that happening, (wasn't checked which was odd). Then it manages to get on, completely unscanned, onto an EU passenger jet. I'm assuming it wasnt scanned, as i'm pretty sure a missile, sounds and quacks like a missile on any Xray scanning device. If it wasn't scanned, how the hell does the US military have "diplomatic immunity" on a european airline! ..."
"... i know i feel a lot safer after reading this. all those billions spent on homeland security and spying on american citizens, and they ship missles by air france. one might suspect the whole enterprise is a boondoggle to enrich political contributors and politicians. ..."
"... Bit of a non-story this. There will have been plenty of duds dropped/fired around the globe which could then have found their way into the hands of the Russians or Chinese etc. I recall seeing TV footage of a Hellfire misfire from an Israeli Apache gunship over the West Bank a few years back. ..."
"... Hellfire was designed in the 70s-80s. Soviets themselves had laser guided air to ground missiles at that time. I seriously doubt that in 2016 this is going to be some treasure trove of information for the Russians or the Chinese. ..."
"... The continued disorganization of the greatest fighting force on the planet is hillarious however. Heck at least they only schlep nukes around by mistake within the 50 states. For now. ..."
"... What would be interesting to know is what they mean by 'dummy'. There are generally two kinds of dummy rounds for missiles like this: one with no warhead but a fully functional motor (used for practice firings), and ones with no warhead or motor (used for handling training). ..."
"... Cuba WILL share the technology with Russia. That will allow the Russians the ability to develop countermeasures to it. The missile guidance system will have to be entirely re-done. ..."
"... Not sure that situation has improved since the 80s. There was recently an excellent survey that asked just two simple questions: where is Ukraine on the world map, and should US forces be sent there. There was a significant correlation between how far off the participants were for the first question, and their willingness to send troops. ..."
"... US Hellfire missile mistakenly shipped to Cuba. Meanwhile, loads of US & UK varied and sophisticated weaponry deliberately shipped to Saudi Arabia. ..."
A missile has two explosive parts . Explosives in the armament and the fuel for the
missile. In this case it was solid state rocket fuel which by its' very definition is another
type of explosive. It's illegal to ship this in an commercial air plane or fly over any
sovereign country's air space without getting permission . Very very shocking .
newpilgrim
9 Jan 2016 09:23
Just another example of collateral damage? These missiles seem to keep landing in the wrong
places, wedding parties etc. Are the military of any nation capable of managing dangerous
hi-tech military hardware responsibly?
Kevin Brent
9 Jan 2016 02:24
Mistake? I doubt it. And, this what happens shipping such equipment on commercial
flights. Whoever made that call, should be fired and kicked in the arse on his (or more likely
her) way out the door.
beermad -> CheaterA
8 Jan 2016 16:27
Ah, but without a large enemy bogeyman there would be no excuse for spending billions upon
billions on "defence". The government's paymasters in the weapons industry would never stand
for that.
BG Davis
8 Jan 2016 10:51
Once again, privatization wreaks havoc. Private contractors have massacred civilians in
Iraq, turned US prisons into even worse hell-holes than previously, and now this.
lostinbago -> JoeP
8 Jan 2016 10:09
Corporate america and privatization work SOoo well. Congress is bribed by corporate 1%
so we have increased the military budget and pass funding for new ships planes and weapons
even the Pentagon doesn't want or need. It's all a scam to drag money out of the many and
enrich the few. Think of the trillions spent on nuclear bombs and missiles, the use of which
would only end civilization.
lostinbago -> Al Lewis
8 Jan 2016 10:04
You didn't need to incorrectly ID yourself. The language itself gives you away. You are
NOT a conservative but rather a reactionary that thinks he is conservative by emulating Fox
and Limbaugh and the like. Conserve means to save, reactionaries mean overturning conditions
as they are. Liberals intend to gradually improve a few things while Radicals want Radical
change.
TV and Radio and Internet have perverted the language and thus created arguments over
nothing since the usage of nonsense words in discussion can only lead to nonsense expectations
and nonsense conclusions.
CheaterA
8 Jan 2016 09:59
What is wrong with our leadership (and often the press) for this persistence re retaining
Russia as a "potential" enemy?! NATO needs to be renamed, Turkey dumped, and Russia invited to
join. Russia would be the best ally the west will ever have against terrorism. Tons of money
would be saved (yes, tons) plus the ensuing safety and cultural exchange would be, well,
priceless.
Smallworld5
8 Jan 2016 09:11
Other than visibly embarrassing for our NATO friends and Lockheed, not that big of a
deal since the Hellfire training missile contains an incomplete guidance section and has no
operational seeker head, warhead, fusing system or rocket motor.
Basically it's a shell with the laser receiver part of the seeker package which tells the
weapons operator on the aircraft that the missile has acquired the laser designator (locked
on). No ground breaking technology there as just about everyone else has similar weapons.
trazer985 -> pretzelattack
8 Jan 2016 09:01
It's not just the individual incompetence, it's the whole system. Ok, so someone slaps
the wrong address sticker on the box with the missile in (they probably didnt know what was in
the box, most mail rooms dont). I can see that happening, (wasn't checked which was odd). Then
it manages to get on, completely unscanned, onto an EU passenger jet. I'm assuming it wasnt
scanned, as i'm pretty sure a missile, sounds and quacks like a missile on any Xray scanning
device. If it wasn't scanned, how the hell does the US military have "diplomatic immunity" on
a european airline!
Next time they ask me if my bag has "any of the following" in it, I'll try not to think of
this story...
TommyGuardianReader
8 Jan 2016 08:34
"The official said the US did not want any defense technology to remain in a proscribed
country, whether that country can use it or not."
Lockheed Martin may have had their own commercial motives for allowing the equipment to be
accidentally sent to Havana, or they may have been acting under instruction.
However, if it was a simple fuck-up:
1. The easy short-term answer is to take Cuba off the list of proscribed countries.
2. The more difficult, long-term answer is to remove all the other unauthorised US defence
equipment that is currently in Cuba. Especially in and around the south-eastern area known as
Guantanamo Bay.
There can be no doubt that the continued existence of the unlawful, anachronistic foreign
naval facility makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve genuine consensus at the
United Nations.
While that may suit the interests of the shareholders in Lockheed Martin very nicely, it does
not suit the interests of most of humanity and the other living beings on the planet.
i know i feel a lot safer after reading this. all those billions spent on homeland
security and spying on american citizens, and they ship missles by air france. one might
suspect the whole enterprise is a boondoggle to enrich political contributors and politicians.
mikedow -> toggy12
8 Jan 2016 07:50
They're used to losing weaponry. They even have a special name(Broken Arrow) for when they
lose a nuclear device. In 1950 the USAF jettisoned a nuclear bomb off the coast of BC, before
crashing a B-36 "Peacemaker".
Julie Lamin
8 Jan 2016 07:49
Another of the United States efforts to poison international opinion against Cuba? Perhaps
once the United States has returned Guatanamo to Cuba and paid for the fifty years of damage
they have caused to Cuban people through their acts of aggression, the US might get their
little bit of kit back.
TonyBistol
8 Jan 2016 05:39
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I wouldn't imagine that this drone would be able to teach the
Russians an awful lot, especially seeing as they have recently demonstrated that they have the
capability of being able to launch seaborne cruise missiles which can pinpoint targets 1800 Km
away.
jgbg Tradingman66
8 Jan 2016 05:24
They don't need to hand them to a freight forwarder to screw up. Whilst the Soviets had
some accidents with nuclear weapons and reactors, the US has had quite a few accidents
involving nuclear weapons, reactors and materials, including the permanent loss of some
nuclear weapons. One nuclear weapon that was lost over Georgia (the US state, not the country)
was armed and almost detonated.
tellyheads 8 Jan 2016 05:24
LOL, the US DoD is less competent than Amazon.
Lucky it wasn't a nuke.
jgbg Freddienerk
8 Jan 2016 05:11
I am sure the Russians and Chinese already have the know how to build a similar weapon.
Yes - but they might be interested in the specifics of this missile e.g. sensors and guidance
systems, so as to facilitate the development of effective countermeasures.
JaitcH 8 Jan 2016 05:06
What's to hide?
The target is painted with an infra-red signal, or infra-red markers, similar to torches, are
placed on or near a target. Whichever is used is encoded with a 4-digit code.
The pilot of the aircraft carrying the Hellfire weapon loads this 4-digit code into the
Hellfire before releasing it and it's ready to go hunting.
The Freedom Fighters know about this and use infra-red detectors to either locate the
hand-dropped markers or to sense infra-red markers projected in a site - then they move,
hopefully in time yo watch the explosion from a distance!
The information was published in a book devoted to modern warfare technology.
Doug_Niedermeyer
8 Jan 2016 04:52
Bit of a non-story this. There will have been plenty of duds dropped/fired around the
globe which could then have found their way into the hands of the Russians or Chinese etc. I
recall seeing TV footage of a Hellfire misfire from an Israeli Apache gunship over the West
Bank a few years back.
hogsback -> ID0728468
8 Jan 2016 04:47
I'm sure all munitions are shipped via the US Military themselves via the USAAF
So when Lockheed sells Hellfires to say Pakistan, or Egypt, or Saudi, you think they are
delivered in person by the USAAF with a little bow and ribbons? You realise that Hellfire has
been sold to over 25 countries, not all of them friendly to the US?
They're sent by air cargo or in a container on a ship like anything else.
SenseCir
8 Jan 2016 04:36
This is a tragedy. What if technical details reach poor farmers in Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq
or Syria who are then able to avoid being killed by one of those missiles? Unthinkable. Cuba
must return the missile at once.
juster 8 Jan 2016 04:35
Hellfire was designed in the 70s-80s. Soviets themselves had laser guided air to ground
missiles at that time. I seriously doubt that in 2016 this is going to be some treasure
trove of information for the Russians or the Chinese.
The continued disorganization of the greatest fighting force on the planet is hillarious
however. Heck at least they only schlep nukes around by mistake within the 50 states. For now.
hogsback -> trazer985
8 Jan 2016 04:30
Probably in the cargo hold on a passenger flight. You would be surprised as to what is
sitting under you when you are off on your hols.
What would be interesting to know is what they mean by 'dummy'. There are generally two
kinds of dummy rounds for missiles like this: one with no warhead but a fully functional motor
(used for practice firings), and ones with no warhead or motor (used for handling training).
What the hell are they doing using ordinary freight services to send missiles around the
world, do they send live ones the same way. They should only be carried by military transport
regardless of cost because what is the cost of loosing it and it falling into the wrong hands
EpaminondasUSA
8 Jan 2016 04:25
Cuba WILL share the technology with Russia. That will allow the Russians the ability to
develop countermeasures to it. The missile guidance system will have to be entirely re-done.
DThompson5 martinusher
8 Jan 2016 04:14
Not sure that situation has improved since the 80s. There was recently an excellent
survey that asked just two simple questions: where is Ukraine on the world map, and should US
forces be sent there. There was a significant correlation between how far off the participants
were for the first question, and their willingness to send troops.
2bveryFrank
8 Jan 2016 03:57
A Hellfire missile does the rounds in Europe, visiting Spain, Germany and France before
being sent to Havana, Cuba by mistake! And our security is supposed to be in these people's
hands! Idiots the lot of them!
Epivore
8 Jan 2016 03:57
"instead, it was loaded onto an Air France flight to Havana."
And it's not just dummy missiles that end up on civilian flights...
UncertainTrumpet
8 Jan 2016 03:26
US Hellfire missile mistakenly shipped to Cuba. Meanwhile, loads of US & UK varied and
sophisticated weaponry deliberately shipped to Saudi Arabia.
Dubhgaill -> Wendy Stolz
8 Jan 2016 03:15
The US military is virtually entirely run by private companies. Every single member of GW
Bush's cabinet, to a man or woman, were boardmembers and shareholders in either an oil company
or arms producer or a military logistics firm. Every single one of them. This is a minor
symtom of a far more insidious malaise.
siansim -> bemusedbyitall
8 Jan 2016 03:02
bemusedbyitall said:
No chance, from experience even if it was used against a hospital with numerous
medical staff and civilian deaths and casualties it would just be put down to a minor
clerical or communications error...
...And then you drive a tank into the hospital wards to destroy any evidence.
US Military: putting the FUBAR into high military spending
poplartree1 8 Jan 2016 02:58
Great! How wonderful they work like a charm...Yesterday I placed in comments how the US
government (who is totally inthe hands of contractors such a Lockheed Martin and other yahoos,
how they are corrupt. Today here is one more example of total ineptitude;
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/
"The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with
five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region,
increase Sarkozy's reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent
Gaddafi's influence in what is considered "Francophone Africa."
Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi's gold and
silver reserves, estimated at "143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver," posed to the
French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency. In place of the noble sounding
"Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) doctrine fed to the public, there is this "confidential"
explanation of what was really driving the war [emphasis mine]:
This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to
establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to
provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).
(Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is
valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly
after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President
Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.)
Though this internal email aims to summarize the motivating factors driving France's (and
by implication NATO's) intervention in Libya, it is interesting to note that saving civilian
lives is conspicuously absent from the briefing.
Instead, the great fear reported is that Libya might lead North Africa into a high degree
of economic independence with a new pan-African currency.
French intelligence "discovered" a Libyan initiative to freely compete with European currency
through a local alternative, and this had to be subverted through military aggression."
Loosing a missile is not important...important is to increase hell on earth...and to make
people suffer like in Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Ukraine.
Havingalavrov
8 Jan 2016 02:50
Look who uses the Hellfire missile and they are making a fuss about Cuba having the
technology ???
The US stripped down a MIG27 Foxbat jet brought in by a defecting Soviet pilot and is now
complaining! Sauce for Soviet goose is sauce for American gander!
Long6fellow
8 Jan 2016 01:52
The Yanks are losing their grip on their delivery service, firstly, there was a drone
brought down by the Iranians, "can we have our drone back please", then the wrong delivery of
1Billion$ of war equipment to SISI, the latter being set up by the Pentagon, now the Hellfire
Missile sent to Cuba, and after all these years of dirty tricks on Cuba, it proves the Yanks
cannot be trust at all.
BudGreen -> Freddienerk
8 Jan 2016 00:47
Specific knowledge of the guidance systems could be valuable to someone interested in
developing electronic countermeasures. This much should be obvious. Personally, I would be
surprised that with the number of these used in combat (they've been in use since the early
80's) that there would not have been at least several unexploded units recovered by our
enemies. Having one that was never fired and probably undamaged might be a real prize, though.
synchronicfusion
8 Jan 2016 00:05
As an American, I am truly embarrassed and ashamed that my own government had a habit of
shipping weapons and technology into the wrong hands. I might be more forgiving if it only
happened once, but how many times now? This is the same government that insists on spying on
we innocent citizens as though we are in the wrong. Please! Dumb....., Da Dumb, Dumb, DUMB!
It's been said that every empire comes to an end, eventually.
"... The USA used to complain about Japan Inc. Of course now it's USA as Neolibraconia Inc. and
it's business is war along all lines : military, economic, environmental, social ... ..."
After 9-11, the United States focused its most aggressive foreign policy on the Middle East –
from Afghanistan to North Africa. But the deal recently worked out with Iran, the current back-door
negotiations over Syria between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, and Russia Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov, and the decision to subsidize, and now export, U.S. shale oil and gas production in a direct
reversal of U.S. past policy toward Saudi Arabia – together signal a relative shift of U.S. policy
away from the Middle East.
With a Middle East consolidation phase underway, U.S. policy has been shifting since 2013-14 to
the more traditional focus that it had for decades: first, to check and contain China; second, to
prevent Russia from economically integrating more deeply with Europe; and, third, to reassert more
direct U.S. influence once again, as in previous decades, over the economies and governments in Latin
America.
... ... ...
Argentina & Brazil: Harbinger of Neoliberal Things to Come
Should the new pro-U.S., pro-Business Venezuela National Assembly ever prevail over the Maduro
government, the outcome economically would something like that now unfolding with the Mauricio Macri
government in Argentina. Argentina's Macri has already, within days of assuming the presidency, slashed
taxes for big farmers and manufacturers, lifted currency controls and devalued the peso by 30 percent,
allowed inflation to rise overnight by 25 percent, provided US$2 billion in dollar denominated bonds
for Argentine exporters and speculators, re-opened discussions with U.S. hedge funds as a prelude
to paying them excess interest the de Kirchner government previously denied, put thousands of government
workers on notice of imminent layoffs, declared the new government's intent to stack the supreme
court in order to rubber stamp its new Neoliberal programs, and took steps to reverse Argentine's
recent media law. And that's just the beginning.
Politically, the neoliberal vision will mean an overturning and restructuring of the current Supreme
Court, possible changes to the existing Constitution, and attempts to remove the duly-elected president
from office before his term by various means. Apart from plans to stack the judiciary, as in Argentina,
Venezuela's new business controlled National Assembly will likely follow their reactionary class
compatriots in Brazil, and move to impeach Venezuela president, Maduro, and dismantle his popular
government – just as they are attempting the same in Brazil with that country's also recently re-elected
president, Rousseff.
What happens in Venezuela, Argentina, and Brazil in the weeks ahead, in 2016, is a harbinger of
the intense economic and political class war in South America that is about to escalate to a higher
stage in 2016.
I'm still unconvinced that 1,000 rapists ran rampant in Cologne on New Years Eve. Where's Penelope
and her fraud analysis when it seems most needed?
2016 will be the year when all this comes to a head. Perhaps Russia and the BRICS should preemptively
repudiate their dollar denominated debts? It all seems to be
going south at this particular
point in time anyway.
Trying to follow nmb's link @1 without actually being shortened and sold myself led me to
Pepe Escobar of 29 Dec
The lame duck Obama administration – whatever rhetorical and/or legalistic contortions –
still sticks to the Cold War 2.0 script on Russia, duly prescribed by Obama mentor Dr. Zbigniew
"Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski.
The key front though is the Russian economy; sooner or later there's got to be a purge of
the Russian Central Bank and the Finance Ministry, but Putin will only act when he has surefire
internal support, and that's far from given.
The fight to the death in Moscow's inner circles is really between the Eurasianists and
the so-called Atlantic integrationists, a.k.a. the Western fifth column. The crux of the battle
is arguably the Russian Central Bank and the Finance Ministry – where some key liberalcon monetarist
players are remote-controlled by the usual suspects, the Masters of the Universe.
The same mechanism applies, geopolitically, to any side, in any latitude, which has linked
its own fiat money to Western central banks. The Masters of the Universe always seek to exercise
hegemony by manipulating usury and fiat money control.
So why President Putin does not fire the head of the Russian Central Bank, Elvira Nabiulina,
and a great deal of his financial team - as they keep buying U.S. bonds and propping up the
U.S. dollar instead of the ruble? What's really being aggressed here if not Russian interests?
"... The USA used to complain about Japan Inc. Of course now it's USA as Neolibraconia Inc. and
it's business is war along all lines : military, economic, environmental, social ... ..."
After 9-11, the United States focused its most aggressive foreign policy on the Middle East –
from Afghanistan to North Africa. But the deal recently worked out with Iran, the current back-door
negotiations over Syria between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, and Russia Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov, and the decision to subsidize, and now export, U.S. shale oil and gas production in a direct
reversal of U.S. past policy toward Saudi Arabia – together signal a relative shift of U.S. policy
away from the Middle East.
With a Middle East consolidation phase underway, U.S. policy has been shifting since 2013-14 to
the more traditional focus that it had for decades: first, to check and contain China; second, to
prevent Russia from economically integrating more deeply with Europe; and, third, to reassert more
direct U.S. influence once again, as in previous decades, over the economies and governments in Latin
America.
... ... ...
Argentina & Brazil: Harbinger of Neoliberal Things to Come
Should the new pro-U.S., pro-Business Venezuela National Assembly ever prevail over the Maduro
government, the outcome economically would something like that now unfolding with the Mauricio Macri
government in Argentina. Argentina's Macri has already, within days of assuming the presidency, slashed
taxes for big farmers and manufacturers, lifted currency controls and devalued the peso by 30 percent,
allowed inflation to rise overnight by 25 percent, provided US$2 billion in dollar denominated bonds
for Argentine exporters and speculators, re-opened discussions with U.S. hedge funds as a prelude
to paying them excess interest the de Kirchner government previously denied, put thousands of government
workers on notice of imminent layoffs, declared the new government's intent to stack the supreme
court in order to rubber stamp its new Neoliberal programs, and took steps to reverse Argentine's
recent media law. And that's just the beginning.
Politically, the neoliberal vision will mean an overturning and restructuring of the current Supreme
Court, possible changes to the existing Constitution, and attempts to remove the duly-elected president
from office before his term by various means. Apart from plans to stack the judiciary, as in Argentina,
Venezuela's new business controlled National Assembly will likely follow their reactionary class
compatriots in Brazil, and move to impeach Venezuela president, Maduro, and dismantle his popular
government – just as they are attempting the same in Brazil with that country's also recently re-elected
president, Rousseff.
What happens in Venezuela, Argentina, and Brazil in the weeks ahead, in 2016, is a harbinger of
the intense economic and political class war in South America that is about to escalate to a higher
stage in 2016.
I'm still unconvinced that 1,000 rapists ran rampant in Cologne on New Years Eve. Where's Penelope
and her fraud analysis when it seems most needed?
2016 will be the year when all this comes to a head. Perhaps Russia and the BRICS should preemptively
repudiate their dollar denominated debts? It all seems to be
going south at this particular
point in time anyway.
Trying to follow nmb's link @1 without actually being shortened and sold myself led me to
Pepe Escobar of 29 Dec
The lame duck Obama administration – whatever rhetorical and/or legalistic contortions –
still sticks to the Cold War 2.0 script on Russia, duly prescribed by Obama mentor Dr. Zbigniew
"Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski.
The key front though is the Russian economy; sooner or later there's got to be a purge of
the Russian Central Bank and the Finance Ministry, but Putin will only act when he has surefire
internal support, and that's far from given.
The fight to the death in Moscow's inner circles is really between the Eurasianists and
the so-called Atlantic integrationists, a.k.a. the Western fifth column. The crux of the battle
is arguably the Russian Central Bank and the Finance Ministry – where some key liberalcon monetarist
players are remote-controlled by the usual suspects, the Masters of the Universe.
The same mechanism applies, geopolitically, to any side, in any latitude, which has linked
its own fiat money to Western central banks. The Masters of the Universe always seek to exercise
hegemony by manipulating usury and fiat money control.
So why President Putin does not fire the head of the Russian Central Bank, Elvira Nabiulina,
and a great deal of his financial team - as they keep buying U.S. bonds and propping up the
U.S. dollar instead of the ruble? What's really being aggressed here if not Russian interests?
"... I suppose you could say the migration was engineered in both the Cuban and Turkey cases, with
the US and US/EU/Turkey creating the migrants and Castro and Erdogan, respectively, acting as
gatekeepers. ..."
"... The difference is that the migrants are not Turks, in Erdogan's case, but his prey,
the people of Syriaq. And the people of the EU, of course. ..."
Abstract: This paper presents a case study of the August 1994 Cuban "balseros"-i.e.
rafters-crisis, commonly known as Mariel II, during which over 35,000 Cubans fled the island
and headed towards Florida. This paper argues that Castro launched the crisis in an attempt
to manipulate the US's fears of another Mariel boatlift, in order to compel a shift in United
States (US) policy, both on immigration and on a wider variety of issues. As the end of the
crisis brought with it a radical redefinition of US immigration policy toward Cuba, the paper
further contends that from Castro's perspective, this exercise in coercion proved a qualified
success-his third such successful use of the Cuban people as an asymmetric political weapon
against the US.
... one of the few arrows in Castro's quiver, he used it effectively. The article is about the
1994 Balseros Crisis, but Greenhill recounts : The Camarioca Crisis, 1965; The Mariel Boatlift,
1980; and The August 1994 Balseros Crisis. The Mariel Boatlift was 'the big one' : 125,000 Cubans.
Dwarfed by Erdogan. A million in Germany alone.
I suppose you could say the migration was engineered in both the Cuban and Turkey cases, with
the US and US/EU/Turkey creating the migrants and Castro and Erdogan, respectively, acting as
gatekeepers.
The difference is that the migrants are not Turks, in Erdogan's case, but his prey,
the people of Syriaq. And the people of the EU, of course.
"... His motto (which he shares with me every other day), is, "Never throw anything away". And damned if he can't find exactly what I need when I come over to scrounge at what I call, "Our Store". ..."
"... We wear our clothes out and watch what we buy. We don't travel by air, and limit trips to local visits with family. In the future, perhaps this will be the norm for most instead of today's extravagent consumption which is thought of as normal for Canadians and a birthright. ..."
"... Perhaps as a group, as a species, it seems as if we never learn and make the same and even greater mistakes over and over. But as individuals we can try to do things better, live better; until we can't go on. That is my plan, and I am sticking with it until I can't go on. ..."
"... the banjo prevailed and damned if it isn't getting better. I am well on the way to mastering (to use that term loosely) an Iris Dement version of "Leaning on the Everlasting Arms", "I can See Clearly Now" by Johnny Nash, and "I Believe In You" by Don Williams. I think I have sub-conciously chosen these songs to combat my own confessions of doom and gloom. ..."
Back in early 2012, the Premier of Ontario
suggested that the loonie (Canadian
dollar) was becoming a petro-dollar. He was slapped down by the Cons, and
walked back his comment.
"That has knocked the wind out of Ontario exporters and manufacturing in particular," explained McGuinty.
"The only reason the dollar is high - it's a petro dollar , right? It's been driven by the global demand for oil
and gas to be sourced in Western Canada.
"So if I had my preferences, as to whether we have a rapidly growing oil-and-gas sector in the West or a lower dollar benefiting
Ontario, I'll tell you where I'd stand - with the lower dollar."
By the middle of 2014, oil's share of Canada's total exports reached 19 percent from about 6 percent a decade earlier. Meanwhile,
the Ontario-based auto industry was seeing its share of the export pie fall to to 14 percent from 22 percent. The heavier reliance
on crude became an issue in last October's national election, as Harper and his Western-based Conservatives were accused by
all their opponents of having favored oil to the detriment of other regions.
In the process, the Canadian dollar had effectively joined the ranks of petro-currencies. The correlation between movements
in the price of oil and the loonie has increased five-fold since 2000, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. In 2015, while
all commodity-exporting countries faced currency pressure, the Canadian dollar was more sensitive to oil price movements
than such petro-states as Mexico, Norway and Russia.
I don't actually see low oil prices re-balanacing the Canadian economy. The cure for low oil prices is low oil prices. Would
you invest in an export dependent industry in Canada? One can reasonably model a scenario where the price of oil goes up to $100/barrel,
the loonie returns to parity with the greenback and an exporters competitiveness disappears with our petro-loonie's parity with
the U.S. dollar.
Being a petro-state makes for a pretty ugly domestic economy.
I believe the decline will bring us Canadians back to our roots and strengths. Personally, I have been disgusted with our past
30 year transformation into urban consumers, no matter what part of the country we live in.
I remember my Grandparents playing penny poker on winter evenings. I grew up with stories of the Depression. While I am 60,
my good friend down the road is 75. He often tells me about living in our Valley from '46 onwards ..a time of bailing water from
the river into a 45 for home supply, canned venison and salmon for winter, oil lamps because Hydro did not arrive until the latter
'60s. His Dad built up a sawmill and his folks provided room and board for 'the crew'. His mom washed their clothing by hand on
Saturdays and finally got a gas powered ringer washer to make it easier. Nowadays, he scrounges scrap steel (old bedframes and
the like) from the recycling bins for our welding projects. He helps me make up power saw chains from scraps and pieces. His
motto (which he shares with me every other day), is, "Never throw anything away". And damned if he can't find exactly what I need
when I come over to scrounge at what I call, "Our Store".
I don't know what will happen to the Vancouverites or Torontonians when property values dive. I imagine that many will lose
everything they think they have, (when their debt bomb blows). I guess then we will see what people are made of. Will they whine?
Or will they pick themselves up and make the best of it?
As for Ron's post, it is similar to one last year. I could hardly read that one as well. Yes, there are deserts and sewers
made by man, and that will be the best that many can hope for. But what is your sphere of influence and power to change things?
I have replanted several thousand trees on our property and let most of it regen into a bramble-filled mixed forest. I have put
in a pond that trout have found from the drainage ditches and flooded wetlands next door. I have cut trails for deer and elk crossing
routes. We grow our gardens without pesticides and with as much compost as possible. We wear our clothes out and watch what
we buy. We don't travel by air, and limit trips to local visits with family. In the future, perhaps this will be the norm for
most instead of today's extravagent consumption which is thought of as normal for Canadians and a birthright.
Ron, the facts are glum. Your story is true. I accept that. What I don't accept is allowing it to bring me down and giving
up .on myself, my loved ones, and my people. Perhaps as a group, as a species, it seems as if we never learn and make the
same and even greater mistakes over and over. But as individuals we can try to do things better, live better; until we can't go
on. That is my plan, and I am sticking with it until I can't go on.
I am teaching myself to play the banjo. (My blessed wife is so so patient). Today, the weather was cold and foggy, my lumber
is frozen into ice lumps, and I was quite house bound being sick of crunching around my frozen yard trying to be productive. So,
the banjo prevailed and damned if it isn't getting better. I am well on the way to mastering (to use that term loosely) an
Iris Dement version of "Leaning on the Everlasting Arms", "I can See Clearly Now" by Johnny Nash, and "I Believe In You" by Don
Williams. I think I have sub-conciously chosen these songs to combat my own confessions of doom and gloom. Sometimes, it
is all we have. For you post readers, I will provide the Youtube links for a pick-me-up. A nice glass of whiskey makes for a good
listening partner.
regards and thanks for your heartfelt honesty and efforts
Lets not forget that the Syrian refugee migration is a manufactured crisis - as b pointed out early
on when he noted that it fuels calls that
"something must be done!"
about Assad/Syria.
"For the first time in my political career I have heard politicians openly declaring that the
refugees heading to Europe are their method of getting (us) [the EU] to act a certain way,"
"... Hawks often "adopt" a faction or government and then fault the U.S. for "failing" to do enough to help "our" side. Refusing to take a side is portrayed as "abdication" of "leadership" or otherwise pilloried as too passive, and the bias in favor of action in our debates helps to make it harder to advocate against taking sides. ..."
"... The U.S. cannot expect and does not receive the sort of automatic support and cooperation from so-called "allies" that many hawks expect the U.S. to provide to them, but it is often assumed that the U.S. would be "abandoning" the so-called "ally" if it chose not to take their side against a regional rival. For some reason, many Americans forget that the relationship with an "ally" exists to advance our interests and not so that our government can indulge theirs in its vendettas and obsessions. When U.S. interests are no longer served by such a relationship (if they ever were), the U.S. doesn't need and shouldn't want to keep it the way it is. ..."
"... But when you live your life with a Manichean Worldview–then you have to pick a side.. because it is always good vs. evil… ..."
"... From a cold realist position, why do we cafe if we keep Saudi oil flowing when we could always turn the Iranian spigots on? From a liberal interventionist position, Saudi Arabia has a far worse record than Iran of foreign aggression, sponsorship of terrorism, and human rights violations at home. If we have to be someone's ally over there, we should be Iran's. ..."
"... That being said, I agree that we should not take sides in a spat between regional rivals, especially when an ancient theological blood feud is at the heart of the spat. ..."
"... Saudi Arabia allows us access to their oil resources on our terms, and to be more specific, Saudi Arabia does us the very kind favor of denominating all of her oil transactions in dollars, requiring every other country on Earth to maintain huge reserves of dollars and US debt. If Iran was in the driver's seat they would never sustain the petrodollar. ..."
"... now would be a good time to disabuse that 30-year-old deputy crown price of the notion that we'll be there for him no matter how audacious and emboldened he becomes. I don't really expect a rational mindset to prevail, of course, but in my mind, that would be true "leadership" on our part. ..."
There is a strong bias against neutrality in our foreign policy debates. Not taking sides in this
or that conflict is rarely taken seriously as an appropriate response. Instead of asking whether
the U.S. should even take a side, it is taken for granted that the U.S. "must" choose one or the
other, and the main debate concerns only how much and what kind of support to provide. This is a
recurring problem in debating the proper response to conflicts inside countries as well as rivalries
between them. One reason for this is that U.S. interests and the interests of another state or faction
within a state are conflated from the beginning, and this is done to make it much more difficult
to recognize that the U.S. doesn't actually have interests in the conflict or rivalry in question.
Hawks often "adopt" a faction or government and then fault the U.S. for "failing" to do enough to
help "our" side. Refusing to take a side is portrayed as "abdication" of "leadership" or otherwise
pilloried as too passive, and the bias in favor of action in our debates helps to make it harder
to advocate against taking sides.
Today's Fareed Zakaria
column
shows how difficult it is for most pundits to do this. Even when arguing for steering
clear of regional sectarian rivalry, Zakaria can't avoid endorsing U.S. support for the Saudis:
In general, the United States should support Saudi Arabia in resisting Iran's encroachments
in the region, but it should not take sides in the broader sectarian struggle.
But it is not possible to support an overtly sectarian Saudi government in its preoccupation with
opposing Iranian influence without being pulled into the "broader sectarian struggle," in no small
part because the Saudis define their resistance to Iran's supposed "encroachments" in terms of religious
sect. The Saudis falsely claim that their war on Yemen is aimed at "resisting Iran's encroachments,"
and the U.S. has been supporting their campaign from the start, and in so doing it is helping to
fuel sectarian hatreds in Yemen and beyond. Zakaria correctly recognizes the pitfalls of being pulled
into sectarian conflicts in the region, but won't acknowledge that the U.S. is caught up in them
because of the support it provides to sectarian governments. He specifically mentions the growing
sectarianism in Yemen, but doesn't make the connection with U.S. support for the Saudi-led intervention
there. Despite explicitly saying that the U.S. shouldn't take sides in "someone else's civil war,"
he approves of doing just that by accepting that the U.S. should keep supporting the Saudis.
One of the most common arguments for siding with the Saudis in their hostility towards Iran is
that they are our "ally," and therefore the U.S. should automatically support the position of its
"ally." This overlooks that the U.S. has no treaty obligations to the kingdom, and ignores that the
so-called "ally" does virtually nothing for us.
The U.S. cannot expect and does not receive the sort
of automatic support and cooperation from so-called "allies" that many hawks expect the U.S. to provide
to them, but it is often assumed that the U.S. would be "abandoning" the so-called "ally" if it chose
not to take their side against a regional rival. For some reason, many Americans forget that the
relationship with an "ally" exists to advance our interests and not so that our government can indulge
theirs in its vendettas and obsessions. When U.S. interests are no longer served by such a relationship
(if they ever were), the U.S. doesn't need and shouldn't want to keep it the way it is.
Prof. Woland,
January 8, 2016 at 1:56 pm
But when you live your life with a Manichean Worldview–then you have to pick a side.. because
it is always good vs. evil…
Ian G.,
January 8, 2016 at 2:19 pm
I pull my hair out when seemingly reasonable people like Zakaria don't even bother asking why
Saudi Arabia is our "ally".
From a cold realist position, why do we cafe if we keep Saudi oil
flowing when we could always turn the Iranian spigots on? From a liberal interventionist position,
Saudi Arabia has a far worse record than Iran of foreign aggression, sponsorship of terrorism,
and human rights violations at home. If we have to be someone's ally over there, we should be
Iran's.
That being said, I agree that we should not take sides in a spat between regional rivals, especially
when an ancient theological blood feud is at the heart of the spat.
jamie,
January 8, 2016 at 3:19 pm
From a cold realist position, why do we cafe if we keep Saudi oil flowing when we could
always turn the Iranian spigots on?
Saudi Arabia allows us access to their oil resources on our terms, and to be more specific,
Saudi Arabia does us the very kind favor of denominating all of her oil transactions in dollars,
requiring every other country on Earth to maintain huge reserves of dollars and US debt. If Iran
was in the driver's seat they would never sustain the petrodollar.
There's also very little question of Saudi regime's oil resources falling in the hands of populist
or democratic elements that might use oil to overtly embarrass or destabilize the United States
- the Saudi's bleed us dry, but subtlety and in a way that US voters are unlikely to punish their
leaders for.
Jon Lester,
January 8, 2016 at 7:13 pm
American neutrality might be the very thing needed to keep the conflict contained, and
now
would be a good time to disabuse that 30-year-old deputy crown price of the notion that we'll
be there for him no matter how audacious and emboldened he becomes. I don't really expect a rational
mindset to prevail, of course, but in my mind, that would be true "leadership" on our part.
"... The Obama administration has since March provided expedited arms sales, logistics support, targeting intelligence, air refueling and combat search and rescue for the Saudi war on Yemen. Its navy helps with the blockade of the Yemeni coast. How can the Obama administration be sharply critical of the Saudi war on Yemen when it provides the critical means for that war? ..."
"... I doubt that we will hear any sharply critical condemnation of that bombing of civilian infrastructure from U.S. officials. ..."
"... In the Saudi-Iran proxy conflicts the U.S. supports and urges the Saudis on because it is in its geopolitical interest . Saudi financed jihadist have been helpful in achieving U.S. geopolitical goals in the 1980s in Afghanistan against the Soviets, in Yugoslavia, in Chechnya as now in Syria against the Russians and in Xinjiang against the Chinese. There is no room for human rights or other concerns within that framework. There is room though for billions of weapon sales and millions given by the Saudis to U.S. and UK politicians as well as for public relations . ..."
"... That is utter bullshit. The U.S. is working on regime change in Syria at least since 2006 . The U.S. is enabling the clear and present danger posed by Islamist terrorists through its alliance with al-Qaeda . It always had and has the choice to cease and desist from meddling in the Middle East and elsewhere to the benefit of the average U.S. citizen as well as to the benefit of the people living in the Middle East. ..."
"... U.S. media lie when they depict the U.S. as a benevolent entity that stumbles through the Middle East and other areas misled in the dark by Saudi Arabia and Israel. It is the U.S. that is the ruthless superpower that solely enables those barbaric entities to exist. ..."
"... The US government is beholden to lobby groups interested in feathering their nests and getting their way. US foreign policy has also been consistent from one presidential administration to the next. ..."
"... The fact that US foreign policy has been consistent from George W Bush to Barack Obama could say a great deal about the style of Obamas presidency. What has Obama been able to achieve in the 8 years he has been POTUS that has been positive and which has given his presidency a particular distinction and flavour that represent the mans character and personality? I submit not much at all. The impression I get (btw, I live on the other side of the Pacific Ocean from the US) is that Obama is a weak leader who has never been able to control and rein in particular members of his cabinet like his previous Secretary of State, much less the ideologue she brought with her who planned and carried out the coup that deposed President Yanukovych in Ukraine in February 2014, and who handpicked the fellow who is currently that nations prime minister. I might also suggest that George W Bush was a weak leader who did as he was told. ..."
"... The neo-cons are the establishments political death-squads, the sinister arm of the executive who resorts to them whenever the establishment/Deep State need to eliminate anyone considered an enemy of the empire, followed by an installation of puppets. ..."
"... Neo-cons are in close coordination with CIAs clandestine/black operations branch, working together all aspects of any operation at hand, the CIA with the operative/military goons, the neo-cons with the political crooks. A typical example was in Banderastan, where the CIA had been actively recruiting/training the nazi bastards for years, ready for the Maidan, ehem, revolution, with the neo-cons putting together the political puppets ( I think Yats is the guy ) who would become the facade of the nazi takeover. ..."
The "western" public,
especially in Europe
, now prefers good relations with Iran over relations with Saudi Arabia.
It is a natural development when one considers that jihadi terrorism is a
real concern
and that the
people involved in most international terrorist incidents follow variants of the Saudi spread Wahhabi
ideology.
This is now developing into a problem for the U.S. administration. Saudi Arabia, as other Gulf
statelets, is a U.S. client state. Without U.S. support it would have ceased to exist a long time
ago. The Saudis are made to pay for U.S. protection by buying overpriced U.S. weapon systems for
tens of billion dollars per year. They also finance joint projects like the war against the Soviets
in Afghanistan and currently the U.S. regime change war on Syria.
U.S. relation with Iran have become somewhat better due to the nuclear deal. But the Islamic Republic
of Iran will never be a U.S. client state. Seen from the perspective of the global strategic competition
it is in the same camp as the U.S. foes Russia and China. Unless the U.S. ceases to strive for global
dominance it will continue to support its proxies on the western side of the Persian Gulf rather
then the Iranians of the eastern side.
The changed public view, very much visible after the recent Saudi execution of Nimr Baqr al-Nimr,
necessitates to mask the real U.S. position by claiming that it is opposed to Saudi Arabian policies.
The stenographers in U.S. media are always willing to help their government when such a cover up
for a shoddy position is needed.
In the Washington Post Karen De Young supports the administration by
providing
this lie:
The United States has long joined international human rights organizations and other Western
governments in criticizing Saudi human rights abuses ..
Her colleague David Sanger at the New York Times is
debunks
that nonsense point with a rare reference to reality:
The United States has usually looked the other way or issued carefully calibrated warnings in
human rights reports as the Saudi royal family cracked down on dissent and free speech and allowed
its elite to fund Islamic extremists.
Sanger then replaces the "U.S. supports human-rights in Saudi Arabia" lie with another blatant
one:
the administration has [..] been sharply critical of the Saudi intervention in Yemen
The Obama administration has since March provided expedited arms sales, logistics support,
targeting intelligence, air refueling and combat search and rescue for the Saudi war on Yemen. Its
navy helps with the blockade of the Yemeni coast. How can the Obama administration be "sharply critical"
of the Saudi war on Yemen when it provides the critical means for that war?
Since Sunday there have been at least 11 Saudi air attacks on Yemen's capital Sanaa. Last night
another wedding hall, the Commerce Chamber and the AlNoor Centre for the Blind were
destroyed
by U.S. provided Saudi bombs.
I doubt that we will hear any "sharply critical"
condemnation of that bombing of civilian infrastructure from U.S. officials.
In the Saudi-Iran proxy conflicts the U.S. supports and urges the Saudis on because it is
in its geopolitical interest
. Saudi financed jihadist have been helpful in achieving U.S. geopolitical
goals in the 1980s in Afghanistan against the Soviets, in Yugoslavia, in Chechnya as now in Syria
against the Russians and in Xinjiang against the Chinese. There is no room for human rights or other
concerns within that framework. There is room though for billions of weapon sales and millions given
by the Saudis
to U.S.
and UK
politicians as well as
for public relations
.
The New York Times editors
falsely
claim
there is no choice for the U.S. other then to do what it does:
The tangled and volatile realities of the Middle East do not give the United States or the European
Union the luxury of choosing or rejecting allies on moral criteria.
Washington has no
choice
but to deal with regimes like those in Tehran [..] or in Riyadh to combat the
clear and present danger posed by Islamist terrorists or to search for solutions to massively
destabilizing conflicts like the Syrian civil war.
That is utter bullshit. The U.S. is working on regime change in Syria at least
since 2006
. The U.S. is enabling "the clear
and present danger posed by Islamist terrorists" through its
alliance with al-Qaeda
.
It always had and has the choice to cease and desist from meddling in the Middle East and elsewhere
to the benefit of the average U.S. citizen as well as to the benefit of the people living in the
Middle East.
U.S. media lie when they depict the U.S. as a benevolent entity that stumbles through the
Middle East and other areas misled in the dark by Saudi Arabia and Israel. It is the U.S. that is
the ruthless superpower that solely enables those barbaric entities to exist.
"The Western public now prefers good relations w/ Iran over relations w/ Saudi Arabia" I can't
speak for everyone in the West but that is my sentiments exactly. Iran has been the center of
deep state propaganda for so long that we have failed to realize - the Saudi's are more in need
of a regime change then anyone in that region. Ultimately, screw them all, except for Syria -
i'll never forget what Saudi Arabia and Turkey / western cohorts did to Syria - I hope it comes
back to nest in Saudi Arabia..
Pleased that you included that excellent link from the Intercept, this from 'rrheard' in the
comments section, it was so good I do hope he does not mind me posting part of it here. "America's
foreign policy relationship with Saudi Arabia is based on exactly two things historically–Saudi's
willingness to be a US proxy against communism in the region and the oil and weapons trade.
And that says all you need to know about America's moral compass as well. I love the idea of
my country, and absolutely detest what its leaders have done since WWII in service if its elites
perceived "interests". Because I can guaranfuckingtee you that America's foreign policy over the
last 60 years has nothing to do with the "best interests" of the American people, humanitarianism,
human rights or the "interests" of any other people on the planet despite the cradle to grave
propaganda apparatus in America that has a significant majority of American's believing such transparent
twaddle as "American exceptionalism" or "we are always well intentioned, we just make mistakes"
when it comes to the mass slaughter of non-Americans all over the globe.
There hardly a fucking dictator on the planet that hasn't been backed by the American government
and its business elites, politically and/or economically, so long as they are pliant when it comes
to towing the line on America's "interests"."
tom
| Jan 5, 2016 2:12:32 PM | 10
Agree with B, except with popular opinion. Most of the Western public so politically unprincipled
and cowardly that they can be swayed quite easily to western imperial propaganda. It's just a
matter of when the media turned on the hate/fear switch up to 2/10.
Just look at the reminder in Congo genocide, with the people couldn't give a fuck, and is one
of the worst genocides since World War II. Or the Rwandan genocide, with the propaganda that turned
most of the victims into the guilty party and then lead genocidedal maniac - Paul Kagame, as the
"sympathetic" president -now for life - thanks to the evil US empires evil media.
Blaming the Russians for the plane crash over Ukraine, gas attacks blamed on Assad. And then
you can count thousands of examples where people in the west vote or support policies that are
against their own health, social and political interests.
No, most Western people are willing to place the jackboot gladly under their neck, till they realise
it's too late.
Jen
| Jan 5, 2016 2:49:13 PM | 15
To Dan @2 and Jackrabbit @5:
In an odd way, you are both right.
The US government is beholden to lobby groups interested
in feathering their nests and getting their way. US foreign policy has also been consistent from
one presidential administration to the next.
Think of the US government as several psychopaths working together. Psychopaths basically only
care about looking out for No 1. If two or more psychopaths discover that working together allows
them to fulfill their individual goals quicker than if they worked separately, then they'll co-operate.
The fact that US foreign policy has been consistent from George W Bush to Barack Obama
could say a great deal about the style of Obama's presidency. What has Obama been able to achieve
in the 8 years he has been POTUS that has been positive and which has given his presidency a particular
distinction and flavour that represent the man's character and personality? I submit not much
at all. The impression I get (btw, I live on the other side of the Pacific Ocean from the US)
is that Obama is a weak leader who has never been able to control and rein in particular members
of his cabinet like his previous Secretary of State, much less the ideologue she brought with
her who planned and carried out the coup that deposed President Yanukovych in Ukraine in February
2014, and who handpicked the fellow who is currently that nation's prime minister. I might also
suggest that George W Bush was a weak leader who did as he was told.
In short, if the oil lobby, the pro-Israeli lobby, other industry and country lobbies in the
US government find that their interests coincide, they'll work as one through Congress and the
various federal government departments.
harry law
| Jan 5, 2016 3:42:05 PM | 19
Lysias@18 Trump: 'I would want to protect Saudi Arabia' he goes on, "That's phase one - to
go into Saudi Arabia and, frankly, the Saudis don't survive without us. And the question is, at
what point do we get involved and how much will Saudi Arabia pay us to save them?"
This is exactly what the Mafia say to their victims.
Oui
| Jan 5, 2016 4:13:45 PM | 21
Trump speaks the lingo of the House of Saud, well at least of Prince Bandar, now deposed of
his key role to influence the West. Wasn't it Bandar who offered a terror free Sochi games for
Assad's head on a platter. Putin must have calmly replied if any harm comes to Russia in the period
of the Olympic Winter games, Saudi Arabia may just lose one of it's cities.
Blair and now Cameron deal with Saudi Arabia to exchange modern weapons for protection from
AQ terror in the UK. It's the British (and French) who were willing to join Obama in bombing Assad's
Syria in September 2013. Now it's the British and Americans who offer intelligence and logistic
support to KSA and the GCC allies in bombing Yemen back to deeper medieval times. AQAP will use
this to their advantage.
The DC rag WP is really craving for a good, big sectarian regional war in ME, I am afraid they
are not going to get it, Iranian have been acting responsibly not letting US, Israel, and their
Arab insecure clientele wishes come
Through. Never the less WP editors would want their readers believe Iranian protestors meant
to attack a SUNNI embassy, and not the Embassy of Saudi Arabia who was responsible for executed
an innocent Shia high clergy.
"The execution of Shiite cleric Nimr Baqr al-Nimr by Saudi Arabia has sparked a furor
in the Middle East along sectarian lines. In Iran, the regional Shiite superpower, the Sunni
embassy was ransacked and burned."
Obama 'Connived' with Neocons for a Bashar Replacement
Very good points, Oui.
The neo-cons are the establishment's political death-squads, the
sinister arm of the executive who resorts to them whenever the establishment/Deep State need to
eliminate anyone considered an "enemy" of the empire, followed by an installation of puppets.
Neo-cons are in close coordination with CIA's "clandestine/black operations" branch, working
together all aspects of any operation at hand, the CIA with the operative/military goons, the
neo-cons with the political crooks. A typical example was in Banderastan, where the CIA had been
actively recruiting/training the nazi bastards for years, ready for the Maidan, ehem, "revolution,"
with the neo-cons putting together the political puppets ("I think Yats is the guy") who would
become the facade of the nazi takeover.
Syria, on the other hand, was a hard nut to crack, the neo-cons and the CIA made severe mistakes
underestimating Assad and the resistance of the Syrian people. US/UK/NATO were announcing the
fall of Assad every other day, and while many of those Western "leaders" are gone, Assad has survived
all their ill-predictions. Neo-cons/CIA are fuming at the mouth constantly looking for a way to
reverse their losses, and starting a little war between KSA-Iran is not such a bad idea, neo-cons
swim like fish in chaos.
They are getting set for another defeat by old Persian wisdom.
Dan at 2.
There is no single cohesive policy. Only selfishness
The USA attacks militarily directly, or by overt other means (economic), or behind
the curtain:
those that challenge it even in the imagination, provided small and pretty
powerless
countries, groups, that have a 'socialistic' bent, try to do well for their
citizens, and/or espouse some ideology that appears, *on the face of it*,
anti-capitalistic, nationalistic, or pan-national (e.g. Communism in the past, Baath
party, Arab nationalism, Cuba.)
those who try to annul or wash away ethnic, racist, religious, and so on
differences in favor of some kind of 'universality', a citizen status, mandate - this
goes against the colonialist model, abroad and at home, in which ppl are sand niggers,
blacks, etc. The US support for equality thus turns to trivia, gay marriage, quarrels
about abortion, etc.
Energy rich countries who won't open up to US corps, domination. (ex. Venezuela),
or won't permit US type banking system in their country, or aren't subservient enough on
a host of points (ex. Syria, Lybia) or somehow manage to cozy and then resist for a long
while (ex. Iraq)
Those who are involved massively with illegal and dubious trade - human
trafficking, organ sales, child forced prostitution, drugs, illegal arms, condoned
murder of rivals, vicious internal repression, heavy torture, prisons, etc. are
generally supported, but on occasion they rebel or try for other, which is not to be
allowed (ex. Afghanistan)
Anyone that can be attacked on any grounds, opportunistically, to racketeer fines,
big sums of money, such as in the banking sector.
Countries it pretends to admire who are secretly dominated by them and only
escape ostracism, sanctions or bombs or more by subservience, and a 'belonging to a
controlled block' (EU.) Sweden and the Netherlands come to mind.
Other.
That is a lot countries, people, all together. The foreign policy is not cohesive, I
agree, it is simply all over the board, adjusted all the time, based on ad hoc criteria,
racist supremacy, capitalistic short term profiteering, snobby disapproval, empty rage,
power plays, sectorial interests, corporate meddling, personal arm-twisting and
blackmail, deals with foreign potentates, arms production and selling which needs war,
and on and on.
"... Never liked the guy, knew the hopium and changium memes and slogans were a big scam! Worse than Bush, because you at least knew where Bush stood. Obama is a fraudster of the worse kind! ..."
"... Obama has done a lot of his slaughtering under the radar with drones and assassination teams and, being a black guy with a funny name, this is not sufficient to make many feel safe . ..."
"... All these factors lead us to see Obama as a dubious or awful president ..."
"... I think most of us who find Obama seriously wanting are more objectively correct than those who excuse what we see as his deliberate malfeasance. ..."
"... the critique of Obama because sometimes it gives off the angry white guy vibe that can be ugly and render your criticisms suspect. ..."
"... . Youd think that a nation that adores England would note how the British Empire decayed and how the north of England was a swath of poverty and degradation well into the 1960s. ..."
"... You may know that some interpretations of the Pandoras Box myth have the release of Hope at the very end not as a type of relief, but as a final scourge. ..."
"... Obama came in with Democratic majorities in both houses. Why does he always get a free pass to blame obstructionist Republicans? People were begging for a change in direction. Truly mediocre status quo writ large. ..."
"... Obama has a lot of enablers. I think the little good things he does (Iran negotiations, baby steps to curb climate change, nods to growing prison population, etc) are just palliatives to shut up the progressive opposition, to the extent that even exists. ..."
"... Obama blew that majority as quickly as he could. Democrats were happy to lose majorities because they no longer had to produce results and could say the Republicans made me do it. ..."
"... Democrats would have passed an omnibus budget reconciliation with a big jobs program. They could have done this with simple majorities in both houses ..."
"... TPP is the big tell for Obama. Hes fighting for that like nothing else. ..."
"... ACA belongs in the Failures column, at least for anyone who cares about the cost of healthcare and understands single payer. Stopping the Great Recession belongs in the Central Banks column, they put $13T on their balance sheets and the bill just has not come due yet. ..."
"... Diplomacy? Bombing 7 nations with no declaration of war does not count as diplomacy ..."
"... Obama wins my coveted Worst_President_Ever award ..."
"... Can we also mention the $100M he spent on personal Versailles-style vacations? Cmon people…we know a good president when we see one, or even a marginal one…and O is at the other end of the spectrum. ..."
"... I live in Australia and people often ask me what I think of Obama. My reply: I think hes a war criminal, a corporo-fascist, a hypocrite, a liar, and a fraud. But hes got a passable jump shot, so theres that . ..."
"... Its hard to imagine anyone whos a liberal or a progressive looking at the Obama years as anything other than a huge bust. ..."
"... Obama has said he aspires to follow in Lincolns footsteps. However, the closest analogy is Buchanan, who thought the way to handle the slavers power was to appease it, just like Obama appeared to think the way to handle corporate power was to appease it. And like Buchanan turned out to be the agent of the slavers power, Obama is the agent of corporate power. ..."
"... The same exact script that we had under Bill Clinton. It turns out when you give people hope, they come out to vote for you. ..."
"... Obama doesnt care about building a majority any more than the Clintons did. He cares about his personal power, perception, and ultimately his own wealth. ..."
"... Sure looks like an Obot, tuned down to soft sell mode. ..."
"... I dont believe that he is the sociopath that some on the left think he is ..."
"... I think Obama is, quite simply, not as bright as everyone assumes. ..."
"... Quite simply, I think Obama isnt bright enough to realise that a clever political compromise is not the same thing as a good policy. He is surrounded by too many privileged people to realise that the consensus among privileged smart people is one distorted by deeply conservative and regressive assumptions. ..."
"... he genuinely believes deep in his guts that if the self-identified smart people have a consensus, then its the right thing to do. ..."
"... I find it shocking and dismaying at just how regressive and damaging Obama has been. If you compare him to another very conservative Dem – LBJ – the comparison is particularly stark. LBJ, in the face of huge odds and his own natural political proclivities, did quite amazing things in terms of Civil Rights and protecting the poor. Obama has, in my view, made things even worse, in a much more favourable political environment. ..."
"... I think hes ultimately just plain cynical. ..."
"... I recall seeing the German film Mephisto, with Klaus Maria Brandauer. Brandauers artist was a well-meaning, left-leaning guy who slowly went along with the Nazis, since it was beneficial to his career. ..."
"... Truth be told, Obama has grown very creepy to me. More than a few of us have vivid images of him with that deck of playing cards of those on the kill list. I am not charmed by his appearances with media darlings like Jerry Seinfeld and Marc Maron, who, perhaps unwittingly, legitimize the great droner. ..."
"... I found part of his writing quite moving, but I always felt there was something calculated about it, something that didnt feel quite right. Even reading about his academic career, he always struck me as someone always so careful to quote and study the right philosophers and writers and past politicians, reminiscent of those post grad students I know always careful to modulate their writings to their Professors prejudices. ..."
"... in his foreign affairs his understanding has always seemed to me to be shockingly shallow ..."
"... he let the same old neo-imperialist playbook work itself out there, with a constant undermining of democratic centre left governments in the region. ..."
"... He could, for example, have simply refused to give in to Hilarys idiotic tilt to the Pacific policy which is stupidly tin eared about Chinas genuine geopolitical concerns. ..."
"... He could have said no to the Saudis idiotic attack on Yemen. ..."
"... He could have stopped the meddling in the Ukraine and tried to understand Russias genuine local concerns better without necessarily sucking up to Putin. ..."
"... He could have stood up to Turkeys meddling in Syria and Iraq (not to mention the Gulf States support for Islamacists). ..."
"... These are all things he could have done within his powers and with little real political cost, but he didnt do them. These, to me, are all evidence of someone out of his depth rather than someone who is a complete cynic. ..."
"... PK, your analysis is certainly fascinating, in particular the portrait of Obama as the teachers pet. My brother-in-law completed both a PhD in philosophy and a law degree. He equates his academic career to glorified clerking, more than an investment in the life of the mind. ..."
"... Obama seems to have just the right combination of intelligence, political correctness, breeding, and a conformist streak to thrive as a full-fledged member of the elite, whether in academia or in Washington. ..."
"... Neoliberalism generally also includes the belief that freely adopted market mechanisms is the optimal way of organising all exchanges of goods and services (Friedman 1962; 1980; Norberg 2001). Free markets and free trade will, it is believed, set free the creative potential and the entrepreneurial spirit which is built into the spontaneous order of any human society, and thereby lead to more individual liberty and well-being, and a more efficient allocation of resources (Hayek 1973; Rothbard [1962/1970] 2004). Neoliberalism could also include a perspective on moral virtue: the good and virtuous person is one who is able to access the relevant markets and function as a competent actor in these markets. He or she is willing to accept the risks associated with participating in free markets, and to adapt to rapid changes arising from such participation (Friedman 1980). Individuals are also seen as being solely responsible for the consequences of the choices and decisions they freely make: instances of inequality and glaring social injustice are morally acceptable, at least to the degree in which they could be seen as the result of freely made decisions (Nozick 1974; Hayek 1976). If a person demands that the state should regulate the market or make reparations to the unfortunate who has been caught at the losing end of a freely initiated market transaction, this is viewed as an indication that the person in question is morally depraved and underdeveloped, and scarcely different from a proponent of a totalitarian state (Mises 1962). – Joe Firestone ..."
"... incompletes ..."
"... I recall a profile of Obama in the New Yorker that referred to him as a Javanese prince, a pregnant metaphor, given his background. ..."
"... I think that Obama is detached, which has meant that he is inured to the suffering of others. ..."
"... There have been repeated complaints from congressional reps that he doesnt call. Not even colleagues in his own party. ..."
"... He may be competitive, like many business people, but he lacks the ability to get things done. ..."
"... He went to an elite high school, an elite college, and an elite law school (where he has the distinction of being an editor of a law review yet, again, never publishing). The detachment is internal and external–an empty suit, a child of privilege, no understanding of the consequences of wielding power. ..."
"... I recall Angela Merkel complaining about how cold Obama is. She argued that at least Bush seems to connect on a personal level. Merkel and other world leaders were surprised at his unwillingness to socialize. ..."
"... He may be competitive, like many business people, but he lacks the ability to get things done. ..."
"... failing upwards has been part of Barrys compensation package. ..."
"... Its part and parcel of the US clepto-chrony-capitalist system. And the best is yet to come, just you wait until he vies with Bubba for being the richest ex-president… ..."
"... all of Bubbas charisma couldnt overcome Barrys shtick in 2008. Barry left them all in the dust in fundraising, and a large chunk of that came from Wall Street. So unless there is no honor amongst thieves, Barry will get his payday. ..."
"... some of us who have always seen Obama as a total narcissist ..."
"... A true narcissist wouldnt be as obviously thin-skinned as Obama is. If he was narcissistic he might actually have been a better president, narcissists dont back down at the first obstacle the way he constantly seems to do. ..."
"... Narcissists are thin-skinned. Unflattering feedback is met with narcissistic rage. ..."
"... Narcissistic rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury, which is a perceived threat to a narcissists self-esteem or self-worth. Narcissistic injury (or narcissistic scar) is a phrase used by Sigmund Freud in the 1920s; narcissistic wound and narcissistic blow are further, almost interchangeable terms.[1] The term narcissistic rage was coined by Heinz Kohut in 1972. ..."
"... Obama like Clinton before him has no sense of the large picture, his own power, and any particular plans beyond Presidentin. ..."
"... I voted for Obama over Hillary in the 2008 primary because I did not want another Bill Clinton administration. What I got was another Bill Clinton administration–the same advisors and staff, whose advice Obama followed, especially economic advice. Obama is a lawyer by training, no numbers required. ..."
"... Two bumper stickers I wrote for my car– Drone bomb Obamas kids, as he drone bombs the kids of others and Hillary and Barack are war criminals . ..."
"... America! Locked in Lovers of making decisions based on two and only two choices by the time tested means of blind rage and blind team loyalty to raw ignorance. ..."
"... Concussions – USA ..."
"... Concussions – USA ..."
"... He is the designated spokesmodel for the love me Im a liberal wing of the power duopoly (as opposed to the proud to be an asshole wing) ..."
"... Obamas disastrous, failed presidency should have been a wake up call for Democrats and liberals. Instead theyre doubling down on neoliberalism, militarism and Wall St toadyism in the form of Hillary Clinton. Their delusion that demographics and progress on social wedge issues will rescue them from the Republican dominance at the state and local level resulting from the disenchantment of voters with their party and candidates (case in point – losing the Maryland governorship to a Republican real-estate hack mostly because of low turnout in Dem strongholds) seems to be unshakeable. They dont seem to get that its not enough to not be the Republicans or to be only slightly less worse than them. ..."
"... Oh, and another tell that this is conventional writing from conventional propaganda is the phrase Russias land grab in Ukraine. No, there was a coup in Kiev helped by 5 Billion US dollars. Right wing thugs forced the elected President to flee. Then all kinds of crazy statements about banning the Russian language in Ukraine and Russian speakers being sub human made it pretty easy for Crimea which Krushchev had ceded to Ukraine in 1954 to vote to go back to Mother Russia in an election. It was a defensive move not a grab . ..."
"... Her husband is Robert Kagan, co-founder of PNAC (Project for a New American Century). Incredible damage Kagan engineered. Hard to fathom how Nuland made it into a BO admin., much less in position to craft US Ukraine (the coup) policy. ..."
"... In truth, Obama and Eric Holders inaction on the prosecution of white collar criminals has highlighted the undeniable two-tiered justice system ..."
"... I often wondered as he was led to the stage for his inauguration if someone didnt point out the snipers and hand him a script. ..."
"... Despite his rhetoric to the contrary, listened too much to the neocon advisors ( including HRC) on foreign policy and Holder and Rahm on domestic issues. At that point, hope and change went out the window. What happened: prosecution of whistleblowers, more black inmates, affordable housing programs cut, Guantanamo stays open, schools turn private, environmental regs are not enforced, progressive voices are ignored. Not what most of us voted for. ..."
"... Obama is best understood as a CIA project since his early teens. hes been groomed ..."
"... I said early on in other blogs years ago that Obama is easily the most right wing President in history, and soon after said he was the worst President in history. ..."
"... TPP alone (Modified Feudalism. Thats more right wing than even the Tea Party – am I right?) makes Obama the most right wing President in history and its not even close. And the reason I called him the worst, is because of the Trojan Horse Affect he has being an enemy behind the oppositions lines or what Glenn Greenwald expressed by saying Obama may not be more evil than Bush, but he is the more effective evil. By occupying the party that is supposed to be liberal when he is not, he can more effectively and quickly pass right wing change from within than could the most right wing of all right-wingers in the other party. ..."
If I was passing out grades, with the TPP project, Obama gets a big fat F-
Never liked the guy, knew the hopium and changium memes and slogans were a big scam! Worse
than Bush, because you at least knew where Bush stood. Obama is a fraudster of the worse kind!
Jill Stein's got my vote if Uncle Bernie isn't on the ticket! In my humbe opinion of course!
Almost all commentary in the US mass media (which Alternet is on the fringes of) has as basic
assumptions two memes: "compared to the Republicans" and "in the real world." I think if we want
to be honest that we must say compared to a President Cruz or President Santorum, Obama looks
fairly good. And as the commenter notes about Paris, in "the real world" tens of millions of Americans
take it for granted that the job of the President is to "keep us safe" by slaughtering foreigners
in sufficient numbers so that they fear us.
Obama has done a lot of his slaughtering under
the radar with drones and assassination teams and, being a black guy with a funny name, this is
not sufficient to make many feel "safe".
Here, our criteria are different. We have both a broader picture of what is happening, what
was and is possible (we could be wrong about the extent of what's possible, but that's another
argument), and what the potential options are.
All these factors lead us to see Obama as a
dubious or awful president
(opinions differ, even around here). Objectively,
I think most
of us who find Obama seriously wanting are more objectively correct than those who excuse what
we see as his deliberate malfeasance.
On a personal note, all this horror is affecting me personally and sending me into flights
of rage. This also hurts
the critique of Obama because sometimes it gives off the "angry white
guy" vibe that can be ugly and render your criticisms suspect.
I know that global warming and
gun violence have me so upset that my own judgment is at times distorted, although I can't have
much truck with anyone who isn't deeply upset by these phenomena. And the old academic stance
of radical objectivity and dispassion really can be a pose and socially sterile–leadership and
mobilizing people is rarely all about dispassionate objectivity and pulling one's punches with
neutral language. It all leaves me baffled as to the way ahead.
Jim Levy: An excellent comment. As always, you argue carefully and even use unfashionable words
like "dispassionate." (And how many blogs these days have commenters who might use the word "probity?")
On a personal note: I don't believe in hope, which is a theological virtue. By and large, it
serves Christian eschatology, which is why I became suspicious of the decidedly un-religious Obama
and his use of it. (Not right away. It took me till after the first inauguration and the Cabinet
of re-treads.) And I am not persuaded the arc of history bends toward justice in the United States
of America, which may be what makes the country exceptional. American crassness has defeated even
its greatest prophets, not just Martin Luther King but Walt Whitman, Abraham Lincoln, Jane Addams,
and Sinclair Lewis.
Yesterday, I had an open house to begin the year, and we touched on insurance. Many of my friends
are free lances or self-employed owners of small businesses. We touched on what has happened here
in Illinois, collectively blanched, and then discussed the fact that after 19 years of free lance
I took a job. It is a plum job, and it has health benefits. ACA is going to grind down the middle
class, and the happy talk of extended coverage doesn't talk about the crappiness, the insulting
crappiness, of the policies.
I suspect that major change with regard to global warming, peace, and conversion to a new economy
will not come from the United States
. You'd think that a nation that adores England would note
how the British Empire decayed and how the north of England was a swath of poverty and degradation
well into the 1960s.
So the solutions are going to come from smaller, odder places, just as mammals
were a small and odd group when they arose, years ago. Portugal is intriguing, as is Norway. Sweden
is trying in ways that the U.S. just won't do. And even Japan changes in remarkable ways. And
I would never rule out Brazil.
Recommended reading: It may be the moment for Cavafy, who knew about decadent societies and
the feeling of loss. See "Waiting for the Barbarians" and "Ithaca."
You may know that some interpretations of the Pandora's Box myth have the release of "Hope"
at the very end not as a type of relief, but as a final scourge.
Obama came in with Democratic majorities in both houses. Why does he always get a free
pass to blame "obstructionist" Republicans? People were begging for a change in direction. Truly
mediocre status quo writ large.
You got it.
Obama has a lot of enablers. I think the little "good things" he does (Iran
negotiations, baby steps to curb climate change, nods to growing prison population, etc) are just
palliatives to shut up the progressive opposition, to the extent that even exists.
Obama blew that majority as quickly as he could. Democrats were happy to lose majorities
because they no longer had to produce results and could say the Republicans made me do it.
If they were serious, the
Democrats would have passed an omnibus budget reconciliation
with a big jobs program. They could have done this with simple majorities in both houses
.
It's the lack of good jobs that is causing the implosion of society. And that's on Obama and the
Democrats who didn't turn things around when they had the chance.
TPP is the big tell for Obama. He's fighting for that like nothing else.
All of the "Incompletes" belong in the "Failures" column. And the "Successes"?
ACA belongs
in the "Failures" column, at least for anyone who cares about the cost of healthcare and understands
single payer. Stopping the Great Recession belongs in the "Central Banks" column, they put $13T
on their balance sheets and the bill just has not come due yet.
Diplomacy? Bombing 7 nations with no declaration of war does not count as "diplomacy"
, recall
that Jimmy Carter went 4 whole years without a single shot fired in anger, now THAT's diplomacy.
And please point me to one single solitary foreign policy "success", I suppose you'd have to mention
Cuba and Iran, Cuba was a gimme and it's far from clear that the Iran rapprochement has succeeded
and is a net "win" for the US given the witches brew of the ME.
Obama wins my coveted "Worst_President_Ever" award
, and yes I'm counting Andrew Johnson and
Millard Fillmore. He simply normalized everything we hated about Bush, from Permanent War to unbridled corporo-fascism to a free pass for Wall St to unlimited spying that would make the Stasi drool.
And no mention of the War on Whistleblowers.
Can we also mention the $100M he spent on personal
Versailles-style vacations? C'mon people…we know a "good" president when we see one, or even a
marginal one…and O is at the other end of the spectrum.
I live in Australia and people often ask me what I think of Obama. My reply: "I think he's
a war criminal, a corporo-fascist, a hypocrite, a liar, and a fraud. But he's got a passable jump
shot, so there's that".
Obama has said he aspires to follow in Lincoln's footsteps. However, the closest analogy
is Buchanan, who thought the way to handle the slavers' power was to appease it, just like Obama
appeared to think the way to handle corporate power was to appease it. And like Buchanan turned
out to be the agent of the slavers' power, Obama is the agent of corporate power.
The same exact script that we had under Bill Clinton. It turns out when you give people
hope, they come out to vote for you.
Especially at a time of economic crisis. But then when you deliver nothing for the largest
block of voters, you quickly disenfranchise them and they either change their vote or don't bother
to vote at all. The Senatorial elections in Massachusetts were a good barometer for Obama's quick
loss of appeal. We had a tightly contested race between our former Attorney General, Martha Coakley,
and Scott Brown for senate. Coakley was an awful candidate who was a somewhat effective AG, but
had no personality or desire to run a strong campaign. Scott Brown was a fluff candidate who had
been a local state representative.
When the race was clearly close due to the democrats failed policy and the potential for Scott
Brown to be a deciding vote against Obamacare, Obama himself came and stumped for Coakley. A sitting
president who had won an overwhelming majority of the vote in Massachusetts could do little to
bring up Coakley's flagging campaign.
Scott Brown was elected and had a largely feckless few years in office. Now look who sits in
that Senate seat. Elizabeth Warren, who one could say has stood up to Obama's largest policies
and is by no means a democratic insider. So this is to say that most democrats or temporary Obama
supporters were quickly disillusioned when the president they got didn't match the marketing promises
they received on TV. But
Obama doesn't care about building a majority any more than the Clintons
did. He cares about his personal power, perception, and ultimately his own wealth.
Sure looks like an Obot, tuned down to soft sell mode.
The "failures and incompletes" remind
me of GWB's aweshucks moments. Iran needs to be moved from the Big Successes category to the aweshucks
column now. Because, aweshucks, furry faced crazy mullahs. If only they were more like bankers,
corporate America and the security state – where we could control them better?
A few months ago on a thread here I asked generally what people thought actually motivated
Obama – what makes him tick as a person – he clearly isn't a narcissist like Clinton, or a captive
of his upbringing like Bush. I got some really interesting answers, its a pity I can't find them
now.
I don't believe that he is the sociopath that some on the left think he is
– there
is enough evidence from the first 2 years or so of his presidency that he was genuinely trying
to do the right thing by the economy and in the Middle East, but the speed with which he retreated
into an establishment shell at the first sign of trouble was remarkable and disturbing. I suspect
that for someone thought of as a 'thinker', he seems to have a lack of real self awareness.
I'm less cynical than some about his motives with Obamacare, drones and TPP.
I think Obama
is, quite simply, not as bright as everyone assumes.
I've met very educated, progressive-minded
people, who will defend strongly some very regressive policies on the basis that 'yes, they are
not ideal, but they are a step in the right direction, anything else is not politically feasible'.
And yes, I used to think like that (NC being one of my big educators). It sounds pretentious to
say people like that are not 'enlightened' yet, but to an extent it is true. It took me many years
to shake off the assumptions of my own education (conservative) and upbringing (conservative).
Quite simply, I think Obama isn't bright enough to realise that a clever political compromise
is not the same thing as a good policy. He is surrounded by too many privileged people to realise
that the consensus among privileged smart people is one distorted by deeply conservative and regressive
assumptions.
You can see it in his pre-presidential writings –
he genuinely believes deep in his
guts that if the self-identified 'smart' people have a consensus, then its the right thing to
do.
But back to the point – I agree with Yves that this article is surprisingly generous to Obama,
and given that it comes from the left, it shows that his natural charm works even on people who
should know better.
I find it shocking and dismaying at just how regressive and damaging Obama
has been. If you compare him to another very conservative Dem – LBJ – the comparison is particularly
stark. LBJ, in the face of huge odds and his own natural political proclivities, did quite amazing
things in terms of Civil Rights and protecting the poor. Obama has, in my view, made things even
worse, in a much more favourable political environment.
I'm particularly horrified at his supposed
environmentalism – he has done absolutely nothing that he wasn't dragged kicking and screaming
into doing. I believe that deep down he has a natural distaste for 'regular folks'. In theory
he wants to help them, but he can't help wishing they didn't actually exist. I've met a lot of
people like him – many come from privilege, many do not – the fact that they think they bootstrapped
themselves up makes their contempt even stronger.
Yet, I do think Obama is quite bright, with a subtle wit and a profound understanding of oppression.
I read parts of one of his books, and his poetic way of exploring how the poor on Chicago's South
side live was truly moving. Which makes his transition to the dark side even more troubling.
That's why
I think he's ultimately just plain cynical.
What makes him tick? He's one of the
most powerful men in the world, and he has plenty of enablers in the "intelligentsia" and on media
outlets like NPR and the New York Times to convince him that he's some sort of great compromiser,
a martyr for the Middle Path. I really do think Obama thinks he's just so damn reasonable, if
only he didn't have to content with Congress and "bitter working class people." Ha. You're right,
when he had both houses, he didn't exactly push for Wall Street prosecutions and regulations,
did he? But why would he invest emotionally in that version of himself, which is the highly unflattering
portrait of somebody who sold his soul?
After awhile, you buy into the narrative which both enables, and is flattering, to you. And
I don't think brilliance makes you immune to that, not when you have access to all of that power.
The mind is a flexible thing, and even smart people can just create new stories which are validating.
I recall seeing the German film "Mephisto," with Klaus Maria Brandauer. Brandauer's artist
was a well-meaning, left-leaning guy who slowly went along with the Nazis, since it was beneficial
to his career.
I wouldn't underestimate what access to power and money can do. I suspect
that Alexis Tsipras wanted to sincerely help his fellow Greeks out of economic devastation. However,
the Troika has way more goodies to give him, than Greece ever could. So, why wouldn't he be seduced?
Truth be told, Obama has grown very creepy to me. More than a few of us have vivid images
of him with that deck of playing cards of those on the kill list. I am not charmed by his appearances
with media darlings like Jerry Seinfeld and Marc Maron, who, perhaps unwittingly, legitimize the
great droner.
To me, his chilling asides (like droning rivals to his daughter's favourite
pop group, sharing his contempt for the angry poors, or his story about decrepit world leaders
peeing themselves) reveal somebody who has lost touch with his humanity and has become dangerously
self-satisfied. Jerry Seinfeld shared that "power corrupts." Did Obama recognize himself in that
equation? Does he even care anymore? Either way, he has a very lucrative future career in speeches
and publishing, so I think he'll be just fine. Leave it to the plebes, those pesky consciences.
@inverness, I think you are generally right about that.
I found part of his writing quite moving,
but I always felt there was something calculated about it, something that didn't feel quite right.
Even reading about his academic career, he always struck me as someone always so careful to quote
and study the 'right' philosophers and writers and past politicians, reminiscent of those post
grad students I know always careful to modulate their writings to their Professors prejudices.
But I've always suspected this was instinctual rather than calculated with Obama, but its hard
to be sure. But one thing that immediately struck me when I was reading his books was his huge
lack of curiosity about economics and science – there was nothing, absolutely nothing to indicate
he gave any thought whatever to those subjects.
I do think that he (along with his close advisors) see themselves as 'the grown-ups in the
room' and bulwarks against 'the crazies'. Supporting drone strikes can be seen as 'grown up' policy
when you are constantly dealing with hawks. But
in his foreign affairs his understanding has
always seemed to me to be shockingly shallow
. As an obvious example where he could have made
a very real difference without too much political issues, he could have reached out more to progressive
governments in South and Central America, but
he let the same old neo-imperialist playbook
work itself out there, with a constant undermining of democratic centre left governments in the
region.
He could, for example, have simply refused to give in to Hilary's idiotic "tilt to the
Pacific' policy which is stupidly tin eared about China's genuine geopolitical concerns.
He could have said 'no' to the Saudi's idiotic attack on Yemen.
He could have stopped the meddling in the Ukraine and tried to understand Russia's genuine
local concerns better without necessarily sucking up to Putin.
He could have stood up to Turkeys meddling in Syria and Iraq (not to mention the Gulf States
support for Islamacists).
These are all things he could have done within his powers and with little real political cost,
but he didn't do them. These, to me, are all evidence of someone out of his depth rather than
someone who is a complete cynic.
PK, your analysis is certainly fascinating, in particular the portrait of Obama as the
teacher's pet. My brother-in-law completed both a PhD in philosophy and a law degree. He equates
his academic career to glorified clerking, more than an investment in the life of the mind.
Obama seems to have just the right combination of intelligence, political correctness, breeding,
and a conformist streak to thrive as a full-fledged member of the elite, whether in academia or
in Washington. He certainly lacks the iconoclastic/rebellious streak which you see in brilliant
minds like Noam Chomsky, unless he's disciplined enough to keep that under wraps for opportunistic
reasons.
Obama seems to have just the right combination of intelligence, political correctness,
breeding, and a conformist streak to thrive as a full-fledged member of the elite, whether
in academia or in Washington.
"Neoliberalism generally also includes the belief that freely adopted market mechanisms
is the optimal way of organising all exchanges of goods and services (Friedman 1962; 1980;
Norberg 2001). Free markets and free trade will, it is believed, set free the creative potential
and the entrepreneurial spirit which is built into the spontaneous order of any human society,
and thereby lead to more individual liberty and well-being, and a more efficient allocation
of resources (Hayek 1973; Rothbard [1962/1970] 2004). Neoliberalism could also include a perspective
on moral virtue: the good and virtuous person is one who is able to access the relevant markets
and function as a competent actor in these markets. He or she is willing to accept the risks
associated with participating in free markets, and to adapt to rapid changes arising from such
participation (Friedman 1980). Individuals are also seen as being solely responsible for the
consequences of the choices and decisions they freely make: instances of inequality and glaring
social injustice are morally acceptable, at least to the degree in which they could be seen
as the result of freely made decisions (Nozick 1974; Hayek 1976). If a person demands that
the state should regulate the market or make reparations to the unfortunate who has been caught
at the losing end of a freely initiated market transaction, this is viewed as an indication
that the person in question is morally depraved and underdeveloped, and scarcely different
from a proponent of a totalitarian state (Mises 1962)." – Joe Firestone
Skippy…. a product of environmental conditioning which was mentored in the early stages of
political – life – by where the currant paradigm could be extended and advanced.
Instead, one of his earliest initiatives – and remember, this marks the use of his earliest
political capital in May 2009 – indefinite detention. I was beyond horrified and have regretted
voting for him since that day.
Or siding with the telecoms sanctioning surveillance the first week he was official. Or Summers
and Geithner. Or the great O-Care insurance sell out. Or pretending he was going after the banksters.
Or Fracking. Or, Or, Or.
By the way, "The Great Droner' by one of the commenters above is genius. Certainly applies
in a multitude of ways.
Notice your litany of or, or, or-s exemplify how nearly all of the so-called
incompletes
are actually failures (although we can count Congress and Senate as whole
class
failures).
I couldn't even read about the so-called economic
recovery
and bank bailouts by holding
my nose. NC readers would need Dramamine (polite way if saying it).
Nevertheless, I have had a few dreams about informal meetings with Bho, and while i seem to
have tried to give him some guidance, he was always charming and amicable…maybe simple good manners
is enough to score with excellence.
PK and Inverness: Astute comments, very thought provoking.
I recall a profile of Obama in the
New Yorker that referred to him as a Javanese prince, a pregnant metaphor, given his background.
I believe, though, that the writer was referring to ceremonial kingship. Obama as embodying a
symbolic kind of power.
I think that Obama is detached, which has meant that he is inured to the suffering of others.
Surely, the video-kill of Osama bin Laden is detached (and immoral, but let's not go there yet)–especially
publishing photos of the control room. This detachment evidently continues into retail politics.
If he isn't giving a grand speech, he doesn't want to have to shake hands.
There have been repeated
complaints from congressional reps that he doesn't call. Not even colleagues in his own party.
The detachment devolves into a certain designed lack of excellence.
He may be competitive,
like many business people, but he lacks the ability to get things done.
The endless droning about
his background as a professor of constitutional law (it's an article of faith among his fan club)
is belied by his policies (Guantanamo, drone killings, the extrajudicial killing and disposal
of OBL).
Yet he was so detached as a con law prof that he neglected to publish articles or books
about the U.S. Constitution. Who did he influence? No one is ever quoted as saying that the class
was good or that Obama has any kind of constitutional theories. Again, he's the Javanese prince,
ceremonial, detached, waiting to rule. He's like an ever-shiny-and-new M.B.A.
He went to an elite high school, an elite college, and an elite law school (where he has
the distinction of being an editor of a law review yet, again, never publishing). The detachment
is internal and external–an empty suit, a child of privilege, no understanding of the consequences
of wielding power.
I owe Geraldine Ferraro an apology–isn't she the one who was hushed for saying something like,
So he gave one good speech? And the whole kerfuffle about the location of the Obama library, with
the many sites? Isn't the presidential library supposed to be at the person's "home," and does
Obama have a home?
I recall Angela Merkel complaining about how cold Obama is. She argued that at least Bush
seems to connect on a personal level. Merkel and other world leaders were surprised at his unwillingness
to socialize.
When Europeans, in particular Germans, find you too reserved…this also speaks
to your theory of detachment, albeit on a social level.
"He may be competitive, like many business people, but he lacks the ability to get things
done."
Yet, like many business people,
failing upwards has been part of Barry's compensation
package.
It's part and parcel of the US clepto-chrony-capitalist system. And the best is yet to
come, just you wait until he vies with Bubba for being the richest ex-president…
Clinton's natural skill has been his adept, and presumably disingenuous ability to insightfully
focus and project empathy toward people, make them think he has their interests. Combined with
an ability to triangulate opportunity, this is why he is such a excellent grifter BClinton's naturally
ability to interact and ingratiate seems to me to be exactly the skillset BHO is utterly void
of.
I think IN GENERAL, one on one most people have a hard time not liking BClinton. It is what
it is.
OTOH, other than BHO's true believers, most of whom probably are of relatively modest means
other than the Hollywood liberal dilettante sort that want the superficial interaction w/ the
first half black POTUS, I don't really see BHO pulling off a BClinton scale payday..do you?
His narcissistic nature will inhibit that. So ok some BOD opportunity, maybe some foundation
at UofC?, but who in the serious old money crowd will want to engage him as a peer and for what
reason?
He kinda has the charisma of a POTUS version of Alberto Gonzalez.
You may be right, but then again
all of Bubba's charisma couldn't overcome Barry's shtick
in 2008. Barry left them all in the dust in fundraising, and a large chunk of that came from Wall
Street. So unless there is no honor amongst thieves, Barry will get his payday.
And FWIW, 'serious old money' looks like a pittance compared to the serious new money whose
bacon Barry saved. Besides, I don't really see Bubba rolling with the old fogies club, I see him
hobnobbing with Bono. In any case, we shall find out soon enough just how much Barry's service
is worth.
Serious old money is a misnomer indeed, makes that serious money, that said i doubt Bono lets
a nickel go too easily. Wall st looks to future opportunity will be yesterdays fish wrapper in
a year. On 2098, that's a pretty good surrogate for HRC charm. I just dont see BHO being a wheeler
dealer which in the end is about all BClinton has to offer anyone,
Still such a shame Chicago is BHO last known address
"such a shame Chicago is BHO last known address" Dude, this fact harshest my mellow every time.
Throw in the inevitability of His lie-Barry coming to the neighborhood and I completely crumple
into a bottomless pit of self-pity. The thought of the hordes of 0bots making the pilgrimage to
Hyde Park in the coming years is simply unbearable.
What motivates Obama? I'd venture his upbringing as a half black outsider licking the Windows
who now sees himself at the main house dining room table.
You're kidding, right? Of course
some of us who have always seen Obama as a total narcissist
could be wrong, but "clearly isn't"–where does that come from? In fact I'll just quote you
later in your comment.
he can't help wishing they didn't actually exist. I've met a lot of people like him – many
come from privilege, many do not – the fact that they think they bootstrapped themselves up
makes their contempt even stronger.
A true narcissist wouldn't be as obviously thin-skinned as Obama is. If he was narcissistic
he might actually have been a better president, narcissists don't back down at the first obstacle
the way he constantly seems to do.
To punish Narcissus, the avenging goddess Nemesis made Narcissus fall hopelessly in love
with his own beautiful face as he saw it reflected in a pool. As he gazed in fascination, unable
to remove himself from his image, he gradually pined away. At the place where his body had
lain grew a beautiful flower, honoring the name and memory of Narcissus.
Narcissists are thin-skinned. Unflattering feedback is met with 'narcissistic rage'.
from wiki:
"Narcissistic rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury, which is a perceived threat to
a narcissist's self-esteem or self-worth. Narcissistic injury (or narcissistic scar) is a phrase
used by Sigmund Freud in the 1920s; narcissistic wound and narcissistic blow are further, almost
interchangeable terms.[1] The term narcissistic rage was coined by Heinz Kohut in 1972.
Narcissistic injury occurs when a narcissist feels that their hidden 'true self' has been revealed.
This may be the case when the narcissist has a fall from grace, such as when their hidden behaviors
or motivations are revealed or when their importance is brought into question. Narcissistic injury
is a cause of distress and can lead to dysregulation of behaviors as in narcissistic rage.
Narcissistic rage occurs on a continuum from instances of aloofness, and expression of mild
irritation or annoyance, to serious outbursts, including violent attacks and murder…
Obama isn't just the object if the Obot devotion, he is the biggest Obot of them all.
Obama like Clinton before him has no sense of the large picture, his own power, and any
particular plans beyond Presidentin'.
Universal health care was never an end goal for either President. Being put in the history
books as a bipartisan hero was their goal. Healthcare was a means to an end. They picked what
they perceived as the easiest path to what they could call change. Bill handed off responsibility
to his never elected wife with no relevant back ground in hopes no one would attack her. The difference
between Bill/Obama and other narcissists (even Bernie is full of himself. He thinks he can have
George Washington's old job) is they don't grasp the difference between quality and brand.
He has a place in the history books as "the first black president" nevermind that he was a
complete disaster. Next up we will have "the first woman president", same outcome (hopefully not
much worse, that would be difficult but given her politics and her backers she's already in the
runner-up spot for my "Worst_President_Ever" award..
I voted for Obama over Hillary in the 2008 primary because I did not want another Bill
Clinton administration. What I got was another Bill Clinton administration–the same advisors and
staff, whose advice Obama followed, especially economic advice. Obama is a lawyer by training,
no numbers required.
As a professor of constitutional law, I would have guessed Obama would have at least been strong
on civil liberties, but he was not.
Two bumper stickers I wrote for my car–"Drone bomb Obama's kids, as he drone bombs the
kids of others" and "Hillary and Barack are war criminals".
Sorry if these are "too weak".
They are magnetic, so I can take them off when others are in the car with me–I worry about
being attacked by an enraged Prius driver here in "progressive" Ann Arbor, Michigan.
A long post could be done on the subject of American sports, football in particular, as self
mandated training wheels to our corresponding political duopoly;
America! Locked in Lovers
of making decisions based on two and only two choices by the time tested means of blind rage and
blind team loyalty to raw ignorance.
For short, we could call it,
Concussions – USA
.
The pluses this author attributes to a morally and ethically bankrupt individual who with overwhelming
shock and awe provided by the system described above,
Concussions – USA
, conned Americans
into making him president of their sometime democracy would simply dissolve into public ridicule
and laughter under any other system (unless it had America's big gun pointed right at it's head).
Reaction there is largely similar to that here: Obama is a failure on nearly every count, is
actually a conservative, and this "report card" is giving him too much of a pass. Encouraging!
Here's a representative comment from dave3137:
Oh, yes, and let's not forget the guy who stood by his Wall Street pals (Geithner, et al.)
and told the banksters "help me to help you," while letting "Main Street" drown in the crisis
they did NOT create. And let's not forget how this administration let people go because Breitbart
and Fox threw up a smokescreen. And let's not forget that this administration is trying desperately
to shove a "trade deal" (or three) down our throats that have almost zero advantages for ordinary
Americans. And let's not forget how this Administration's justice department failed to prosecute
ANY banksters but managed to exact a few minutes' worth of profits as "fines" - while bragging
these were "record-breaking." Oh, and remember how Obama spoke out so forcefully against the
"death panel" crap? And remember how "single payer" disappeared after big pharma had a White
House meeting? And remember ending "endless war"? Closing Guantanamo? And oh yeah, let's not
forget to give "credit" for "the most transparent administration in US history."
I don't consider Obamacare or our "economic" recovery to be successes unless, 1) you're rich
enough not to need Obamacare and 2) you're rich enough to benefit from the "economic" recovery.
Nobody else benefited aside from those using the Medicare expansion, not the middle class, and
most definitely not the poor.
Anybody who still votes Democratic based on "this is the best we can get" is admitting that
our democracy is broke and they are getting screwed. One of the required actions to fix our democracy
is to quit voting for the Democratic party based on that self defeating rational. I will vote
for Bernie, I will not vote for Hillary.
And I'm meeting quite a few Republicans who don't care for Hillary or Trump. Tells me that
the Sanders campaign has a huge opportunity to pick up votes.
You won't find a better entertainer than B.O. I think in the last week I saw references to
him hiking on some travel channel and also doing a segment with Jerry Seinfeld. Come on folks
he's giving America what it wants in it's screen captured environment
I'll never forget the time my wife and I were sitting in a restaurant and across from me was
a family or I at least assume it was a family of father, son and daughter. Teenage Son was playing
some game on a hand held device. Early twenty something daughter was texting on a smart phone.
Old school pop had his head tilted up and watching some show on the tv. I did not hear one word
uttered that entire time by the Screen family.
Obama knows we are a nation of screen watchers and being the entertainer that he is covers
the part exceptionally well. Although I have lost interest in watching his shtick anymore.
He is the designated spokesmodel for the "love me I'm a liberal" wing of the power duopoly
(as opposed to the "proud to be an asshole" wing)
, and as reward for staying on script he
gets to enjoy the considerable privileges of office–privileges that, according to plugged in commentators
like Pat Lang, he enjoys greatly.
Obama's only noteworthy accomplishment is providing the country with it's first African American
President and for that he will always deserve some credit. He himself may be a big phony, but
the pride this accomplishment has given to many black people isn't. One can also say that in a
long line of Presidential mediocrities Obama is merely the latest. Clearly it's our American system
that is deeply flawed and unable to cope with ever more serious problems.
Obama loves the limelight, but he's going on shows, not drawing the crowds himself.
Jerry Seinfeld isn't edgy or provocative (not that there's anything wrong with that), and he can't
say no to the President, in a way a Carlin might, more mock the person to their face the way a
Colbert might if he were so motivated. I didn't watch the Seinfeld appearance, but I've heard
he is the nicest celebrity to meet.
Obama has recognized that the screens which once featured him are no longer tuned in and he's
searching for attention. Every Presidential candidate is inherently an anti-Obama candidate.
Yeah Yves I almost lost my lunch when I read this on Alternet yesterday. But I guess its par
for the course from the Dem/liberal establishment. For better or worse, Obama is their guy, just
like Hillary will be their girl and IOKIADDI (its OK if a Democrat does it). Neoliberal Heritage
Foundation/Romney health insurance "reform"? No problem! It's a "Big Success"! Turning a blind
eye to the largest, most destructive white-collar crime wave in our history? Well, he had "no
choice". "Foaming the runway" for the Wall St perps while screwing ordinary workers, distressed
homeowners and fraud victims? File it under 'saving the economy". Continuity (and worse) with
the Bush/Cheney foreign policy and "War on Terrah"? Well, that's just "keeping use safe from the
21st century boogey-men that fuel the MIC and the warfare consensus among the "serious people".
And I haven't even gotten to economic inequality remaining the same (or even worsening), the TPP,
persecution of whistle blowers, inaction of student loans, promotion of Arctic oil drilling while
pretending to be serious about climate change and on and on.
Obama's disastrous, failed presidency should have been a wake up call for Democrats and
liberals. Instead they're doubling down on neoliberalism, militarism and Wall St toadyism in the
form of Hillary Clinton. Their delusion that demographics and progress on social wedge issues
will rescue them from the Republican dominance at the state and local level resulting from the
disenchantment of voters with their party and candidates (case in point – losing the Maryland
governorship to a Republican real-estate hack mostly because of low turnout in Dem strongholds)
seems to be unshakeable. They don't seem to get that its not enough to not be the Republicans
or to be only slightly less worse than them.
Until the Dem/liberal establishment wakes up I'm afraid that not much will change. I think
its better to focus less on worrying about which establishment apparatchik will win the presidency
to changing the electoral process so that more voices are heard (opening up the debates) which
I hope will get more voters engaged in participating. That's the only way to take down the establishment
that produces empty suit infotainment candidates like Obama and Clinton (not to mention the GOP
troglodytes).
Seems we/U.S. has become content grading our leaders withing paradigms of mediocrity. Seems
like yesterday, the 2k election mess… recounts in Florida, Jeb's state troopers impeding black
voters getting to voting booths, the black box voting machines producing more votes in Repub precincts
then there were registered voters, Kathryn Harris (was Jeb "doing her"?) exerting "authority"
ignoring law….
Scotus' decision remanding consideration of Florida recounts back to Florida Supreme Court
was a calculated political decision to run out the legal clock, as several key SCOTUS members
have explicitly and implicitly acknowledged. And then Tom Delay's illegal thugs bused into Florida
on Tax Payer's dime, to thwart recounts.
BushCo and winger chest thumping but blind bravado intimidating their way to an election "victory"
demonstrated the same blindness they executed in their other disasters: ignoring Enron, the lies
behind Iraq, "Mushroom Clouds" and Israel's crimes levelling Lebanon, bailing out Banks while
U.S. economy crumbled….
This was biggest political wakeup call of my life, and now 15+ years in the rear view mirror.
AFAIC, the influences that allowed that to happen have gone unchanged. The U.S. tail still wags
the dog. The Bush years were an illusory horror, setting the U.S. and world back in almost unfathomable
ways.
Obama was elected with Bush approval ratings the lowest of ANY president in history. Many of
the hardest of hard right wingers I knew who treated their neighbors who criticized Bush as moral
enemies, had come around to grudingly acknowledge he was an…. asshole.
Obama had a mandate. He had an opportunity to change directions hugely had he the courage,
vision and grasp of reality many "hoped". Despite many capable economic advisers after he won
but before the inauguration, my heart sank when he announced nomination of Geithner: eg. someone
guaranteed to "fix" things by moving piles of money around, but not remove the people who stole
so much and deceived (literally) the world banking system. He instead gave them a get out of jail
card, and re-filled their bank accounts and "trusted" them to "fix" things.
This is my take on BO's "hope".
He has done little more then continue in Bush's worst foibles, and in many ways looks to me
like the world is worse off now then when he arrived. The ME mess has grown, and false premises
under lie our disastrous polices there. In both US media and current candidates, these delusions
seem to be accepted fact.
I take issue with author's (similarly assumed untruth) "Russia's land grab in Ukraine": that
utterly ignores all the other forces (US and Israel policy especially) at play there with no regard
for local interests: another example of "US Interests", no matter how selfish or destructive to
a given area… if expressed by the White House, it must be so.
WRT authors bullet points, I take issue with 2 items in particular:
– Energy: BO nominated the right guy (Dr. Chu): he knew the "territory" and was on the
cutting edge of the science… both from climate aspect and energy generation alternatives. Obama
ignored him, subjugated Chu's best advice to "more pressing" issues dominated by Geithner recommendation
("we can't afford energy until economy is fixed"). But there was no hope of "fix", and "kicking
the can" down the road on clean energy is the same as learning to "live with cancer". Chu left
quietly, no wonder.
– Embracing Diplomacy: I'm glad he did Cuba… didn't see that coming. Decades overdue. But…
despite our cascading disasters in ME, BO has learned little. Putin is the "threat", when evidence
is overwhelming Russia's efforts in Syria are turning the tide there. Biggest contributors
to Syria mess have been Turkey and Saudi Arabia (they've funded ISIS): US policy ignores this.
Putin has reached out… repeatedly. Love to see Putin and BO (or next president) together, in
public… for a week: open, frank discussions where the public can decide, not "policy makers"
and advisers looking for an advantage for their petroleum client. Seems backroom discussions
on Kerry's latest tour are moving towards some acknowledgment of this, but just as crooks on
wall street still run the show, we'll never root out biggest cause of foolish Sunni/Shia endless
conflicts without acknowledging those who fuel it. Again, worst players in this arena: Saudis
and Turkey (Ergodan).
I guess I'll just leave it there… could write a book on this, but so what? I think BO had one
of greatest opportunities to change course of America in huge ways, and in ways that were badly
needed for US' and world's future. He missed most of them.
And at the risk of sounding racist, I'm disappointed at so many of our High Profile African
Americans so many look up to (Oprah, Denzell…) who speak of BO with pride seemingly on advancement
socially we could elect a Black president, but have ignored these larger issues. I think they
could have done far better, to press him.
When it's all said and done, from where I site, we and the world are moving far too slowly
and blindly to do what's needed to ensure a bright future for a lot more people. Our most pressing
problems have been kicked down the road, and hardly acknowledged. I see not one current candidate
even close to addressing things the way that's needed.
Just not enough courage, clarity and truth… period.
At a moment of historical inflection, when the fate of the entire world was to be determined,
Barack Obama deceived the American people into believing he would usher in the systemic change
needed after the collapse of conservatism. Instead, Obama revealed himself as a neoliberal ideologue
who attempted to destroy progressivism and, in doing so, revived conservatism. Obama's deceit
squandered the last good chance for the nation and humanity to roll back global warming. For that
alone, history will condemn him.
As for his "substantive accomplishments," the only one even worth considering is his use of
diplomacy. But, as usual with Obama, there is sleight of hand. Yes, he has shown reluctance to
enter shooting wars. But at the same time, he doesn't hesitate to use drones and economic weapons
to inflict untold punishment and generate evermore strife and create new generations of people
who hate America. Which brings me to another point about Obama: apart from achieving his neoliberal
dystopia, Obama's primary goal appears to be that he look good and be respected. (That weakness
is why the Democrats and the Left might have inhibited Obama had they not defended and enabled
him.) From Obamacare to fracking to economic royalism to race relations, Obama wants credit now
and doesn't care that everything he has set in motion is a ticking time bomb.
All things considered, Obama is the worst president in American history. He was supposed to
be the corrective, like FDR, showing the genius once again of the American Experiment. Obama had
the mandate and he had the power but he was a liar and a fraud. Obama is an historical failure,
one from which I'm not sure we can recover.
At a moment of historical inflection, when the fate of the entire world was to be determined,
Barack Obama deceived the American people into believing he would usher in the systemic change
needed after the collapse of conservatism.
He never wanted to change the system – he merely wanted to be the guy who presided over it.
People who were paying attention, which I guess weren't a whole lot, saw pretty early that
Obama was running to the right of Hillary. There was never much of a systemic "change" promise
in what he had to offer.
He offered a change from W's bloody bluster and hope of escape from Cheney's visceral contempt
for basic decency, and sure enough… that's about as far as the Hope and Change thing went.
Policy-wise, millions of Americans were forced into poverty from which most will never emerge.
That was true under W and that is true under Obama. Economic policies are approximately consistent,
favoring the financial sector at the expense of workers and social services. The Obamacare insurance
scam might well have been implemented by a Republican president with or without a Democratic congress.
Foreign policy is different, but mostly because the failures of the Bush/Cheney model were
monumental and unsustainable. Foreign policy is marginally less terrible, marginally less bloody,
but it's no less imperialist, no less absurd, no less foolhardy.
I disagree. Bush was an abject failure in large part because he was pursuing a doctrine that
was dead. Conservatism was spent yet Bush insisted upon it until it failed floridly. But we've
had other failed presidents in out history and we've recovered. In a democracy like ours, the
ballot is supposed to provide the corrective to such political failure. And that's exactly what
Obama promised. Hope and change, remember that? But Obama lied - utterly and fundamentally - and,
in doing so, Obama wrecked what remained of the Democratic Party, sent our polity into a tailspin
and - most ominously - set us on a likely irreversible course of calamitous global warming. All
things considered, that makes Obama the worst president in American history, IMNSHO.
Bush/Cheney were not conservatives by any stretch of the imagination. They were radicals, especially
Cheney, who saw that his mission in life was to redeem the legacy of the Nixon-Ford debacle -
by killing and displacing millions in Mesopotamia and Afghanistan, creating as much chaos overseas
as he could, and destroying what was left of a semi-egalitarian economy.
Pleased and proud of his accomplishments he is to this day. At least for his part W knows better
than to crow.
By increasing the population covered by health insurance, Obamacare also increases demand for
physicians to treat the additionally covered. Where are all those physicians going to come from?
Last year, the primary care physician who had been treating me for ten years resigned from
the practice group, and I received a letter asking me to select a physician from new members of
the practice group, who were now accepting patients. When I called, I was given a list of six
young physicians to choose from: three graduated fromf medical schools in India, one from Pakistan,
one from Colombia, and one from a local osteopathic medical school here in the United States.
Apparently, once consequence of Obamacare is a brain drain of medical practitioners from the
rest of the world, mostly trained at the rest of the world's expense.
Emotional attachment, and breaking away from the pack is hard. I never liked the President.
I thought his speeches were word salad and his books were boring and full of conventional wisdom.
I have no problem pointing out his mistakes. If you thought the Preside the was a once in a lifetime
figure in 2004, how would you feel if you decided to read his 2004 DNC speech?
-Plenty of Democrats don't want to become "racist unicorn chasers who want equality today"
or acknowledge that the people they said were loons in 2009 for suggesting Obama didn't pass rainbows
after eating were right and received undue criticism. There was a considerable amount of nastiness
directed towards Obama critics who dared point out that guys like Rahm Emmanuel were disasters
waiting to happen.
There is a good element of the population who has internalized an acceptable left-center-right
view of politics. For them judging Obama as a failure would mean judging the left and center as
failures. They have lives where they might not know the name and general background of every Senator
and just hear a simple Republican/Democrat pie fight. They then assume he GOP is dastardly clever
to have foiled Obama and his wonderful plans. Obama critics and even potential critics were drowned
out for so long the echo chamber doesn't repeat a narrative of the Team Blue Reagan admirer desperately
wants to be a Republican.
Oh, and another "tell" that this is conventional writing from conventional propaganda is
the phrase "Russia's land grab in Ukraine." No, there was a coup in Kiev helped by 5 Billion US
dollars. Right wing thugs forced the elected President to flee. Then all kinds of crazy statements
about banning the Russian language in Ukraine and Russian speakers being sub human made it pretty
easy for Crimea which Krushchev had ceded to Ukraine in 1954 to vote to go back to Mother Russia
in an election. It was a defensive move not a "grab".
Her husband is Robert Kagan, co-founder of PNAC (Project for a New American Century). Incredible
damage Kagan engineered. Hard to fathom how Nuland made it into a BO admin., much less in position
to craft US Ukraine (the coup) policy.
Successes? 1.) medicaid clawbacks 2.)trillions instead of billions for wall st. 3.)reproductive
rights for same sex couples 4.)drone diplomacy 5.)ice free passage through the arctic
Looks an awful lot like the "failures" list are the successes, no need to comment further
Incomplete 11.) more people living in tents, true, but not everyone yet 12.) H1b, H2b 13.) less
gun violence, yep mm hmmm 14.) shoot the potentially violent 15.) go on a congressional junket
to israel, but then come back to the house of reps, don't like, stay there forever, what would
that accomplish?
tegnost reporting from LJ, the land of no (well, extremely lame) public transportation and unabashed
HRC supporters. Think I'll sit outside the breakers and watch the world go by…
The president repeatedly lied to Americans early on in his first term when he said that the
banks had committed no crimes. The president's failure was not merely a failure in prosecuting
and jailing bankers, it was much more:
1.) illustrating to all the undeniable existence of a two-tiered justice system. There are
folks doing time for money laundering, you know.
2.) not re-establishing faith in the US financial system.
Perhaps it was a designed plan to shine a light on the corruption and hypocrisy that is Amerika,
but I kind of doubt it.
In truth, Obama and Eric Holders inaction on the prosecution of white collar criminals
has highlighted the undeniable two-tiered justice system
……….too bad nobody is paying attention.
One could say that all the failures of Obama's presidency have done a good job shinning a light
on all that is wrong with our country.
The terminology "Coddling corporate America" under the "Big Failures" list is much too charitable
to this administration. This hasn't been about inviting a big campaign contributor to a sleepover
at the White House, and the issues are ongoing.
More succinctly, he's the Wall St Manchurian candidate and
any benefits we the people
have derived from his Presidency have only been "trickle down" at best.
He lied at every
turn to the American people to become President in 2008 all the while knowing that once in office
his masters on Wall St would be well served. He's smart enough to fool everyone that voted for
him – is that ever worthy of praise by Democrats? No – only by the Republicans that he had emboldened.
They must have been laughing their arses off when they saw how this hope and change Presidency
was unfolding in the 1st week and every week since. He had exposed his Achilles heel the 1st week
in office, appointing one Wall St veteran after the other and the REpugs saw this and attacked.
The Republican party was on it's way out, their President had lied us into wars and into invading
other countries, torture and war crimes. But Barack alone saved them from their fates, snatching
defeat from the jaws of victory. No, nothing about BO should get a passing grade. As he said to
Hillary in 2008, the Presidency is just a figure head office (not an office for a leader). Figure
head and trickle down voodoo economics, that's about all we the people got. Oh yeah, and don't
forget all the Republican victories over the last 8 years that never should have happened.
After major pressure and defeats in court. DADT was struck down before it was repealed, and
Obama came out for gas marriage after fighting efforts against an anti-gay referendum in North
Carolina.
I often wondered as he was led to the stage for his inauguration if someone didn't point out
the snipers and hand him a script. After all, Kennedy was killed for not following his…We have
been captive of the "deep state" for a long time. The business of America is the enabling of a
global looting. Always has been, always will be.
It was obvious from the appointment of Eric(Pardon Me)Holder, Timmy (what tax?)Geithner and
Robert Gates that nothing was going to change and that hope had left the building. Maybe that
was the point, that it was pointless to hope.
I confess I voted for him in 2008 (with reservations). The "lesser of two weevils". And perhaps
seduced by "Dreams from my Father". I didn't expect revolution, but I also allowed "hope" for
a moment. I voted for Jill Stein in 2012. And I vote in EVERY election. But I can't forget Emma
Goldman's wisdom, "If elections changed anything, they would make it illegal".
Don't forget all the Republican victories over the last 8 years that never would have happened
if he had been a man of his word. He owns those too. If the scale is A to F, I'd give him a G.
I often wondered as he was led to the stage for his inauguration if someone didn't point
out the snipers and hand him a script.
I was and I remain astonished at how Obama metamorphasized immediately after he won in 2007.
I listened to a lot of Obama speeches in 2007 and I read his books and that Obama never stepped
inside the White House. This transformation being so exquisitely executed, a suspicious mind might
consider an orchestrated conspiracy. Maybe a rational mind, too, because the alternative explanation
proves elusive.
Long before his inauguration, he was a made man. Ken Silverstein in Harper's wrote "Barack
Obama Inc" back in 2006. Black Agenda Report and Paul Street knew him from Chicago. Adolph Reed
Jr wrote earlier than that and then repeated it in 2008 in The Progressive.
He's a vacuous opportunist.I've never been an Obama supporter. I've known him since the very
beginning of his political career, which was his campaign for the seat in my state senate district
in Chicago. He struck me then as a vacuous opportunist, a good performer with an ear for how
to make white liberals like him. I argued at the time that his fundamental political center
of gravity, beneath an empty rhetoric of hope and change and new directions, is neoliberal.
– See more at:
http://progressive.org/mag_reed0508#sthash.hEiRFBaY.dpuf
There was information early that he was the corporate pick, but people chose to put their fingers
in their ears. It was the most frustrating time for me in my sojourn into politics. And it continues.
I just had a new acquaintance tell me that Obama will go down as one of the great presidents.
Sad.
Three things stand out for me from Obama's first couple of months in office that indicated
what kind of President he would be.
Appointments. Rahm Emanuel, Timothy Geithner, Larry Summers, Eric Holder and Arne Duncan.
I would also throw in Sebelius as well. What did we expect from this crew of neoliberal thinkers.
We got no prosecutions of Bush war criminals or Wall St criminals, bailout of banks but not
Main St, "never let a crisis go to waste," privatization of schools, a health reform that will
ultimately self destruct and many others mentioned here.
Disappearance of the famed Obama multi million person mailing list which could have maybe
made a huge impact on the next few Congressional and Senate elections. Why did this list go
into hiding for way too many years.
Despite his rhetoric to the contrary, listened too much to the neocon advisors ( including
HRC) on foreign policy and Holder and Rahm on domestic issues. At that point, hope and change
went out the window. What happened: prosecution of whistleblowers, more black inmates, affordable
housing programs cut, Guantanamo stays open, schools turn private, environmental regs are not
enforced, progressive voices are ignored. Not what most of us voted for.
Well I unsubscribed from that Obama list about 3 months into his first term, already pissed
off and disillusioned - Rahm's appointment and some other decision at the time was the prompt.
However somehow Hillary's PAC got my name off it, and I got repeated donation requests from
the Ready For Hillary people, without an "unsubscribe" option, which to me makes it borderline
illegal spam.
And recently I got an email from Harry Reid's group, on the same address. All very fishy, and
extremely annoying.
I said early on in other blogs years ago that Obama is easily the most right wing President
in history, and soon after said he was the worst President in history.
Some posting here ridiculed me at the time on those other blogs for those statements. Now many
comments sometimes paraphrase the same thought.
TPP alone (Modified Feudalism. That's more right wing than even the Tea Party – am I right?)
makes Obama the most right wing President in history and it's not even close. And the reason I
called him the worst, is because of the Trojan Horse Affect he has being an enemy behind the oppositions
lines or what Glenn Greenwald expressed by saying "Obama may not be more evil than Bush, but he
is the more effective evil." By occupying the party that is supposed to be liberal when he is
not, he can more effectively and quickly pass right wing change from within than could the most
right wing of all right-wingers in the other party.
That article reminds me of the reason I left Alternet. FWIW, I used to be a dedicated commenter
there. But during the campaign in 2012, they systematically rigged their coverage (coverage is
far more important than endorsements), suppressing anything that made Obama look bad – more than
any other liberal site I followed. The final straw was when a good article by one of their own
writers was unceremoniously removed from the front page and relegated to a cubbyhole where you
wouldn't find it unless you were looking for it. That made it clear there was an editorial judgement
(probably by the publisher) to censor their reporting.
I thought that was unforgivable, so when the election was past I made a fuss in as many comments
as I could and then abandoned the site. They sell ads, so clicks are worth money to them, and
I was providing a lot of clicks. At this point, I visit it only when NC provides a link I want
to read. I doubt the publisher has changed.
This article goes beyond "cautious" to the sort of coverup they committed in 2012 (personally,
I don't think much of Rosenfeld). I'm not criticizing Yves for posting it – it's a good example
of something or other, and generated a lot of discussion. But mainly, it's an example of the difference
between NC and in-the-bag sites like Alternet or Salon, where I sometimes post links to NC articles
just to be difficult. Did it today, on the article on Obamacare by Paul Rosenberg. Remarkably,
that elicited a plug for NC from the author (Rosenberg – boy are those names easy to confuse)!
Ah yes. I remember Open Left from 2009 – 2010 very well… Just another career "progressive"
site suppressing single payer advocacy because Obama. Of course, if they'd gone full on for single
payer then, the ground would be prepared now for the real solution. So their tactics did real
damage.
"... Sometimes … demand is restricted by the fact that nobody has any money in their pocket. ..."
"... the only takeaway is that most economists are nothing more than rancid witch doctors doing
backflips to skirt the basic explanation that aggregate demand has been deliberately sabotaged. ..."
"... Modern neoliberal economics is just an ideology not a science. It exists to justify the current
distribution of wealth with pseudoscientific nonsense written in abstruse mathematical language. Milton
Friedman was to economics what T.D. Lysenko was to Soviet biology. Pseudoscience in service to the ruling
class. ..."
"... [Economists are] clueless about the real world because their fat paycheck magically appears
in their bank account, while producing nothing. ..."
By Ashoka Mody, Professor of Economics at Princeton. Originally published at
Project
Syndicate
For starters, world trade is growing at an anemic annual rate of 2%, compared to 8% from 2003
to 2007. Whereas trade growth during those heady years far exceeded that of world GDP, which averaged
4.5%, lately, trade and GDP growth rates have been about the same. Even if GDP growth outstrips growth
in trade this year, it will likely amount to no more than 2.7%.
The question is why. According to Christina and David Romer of the University of California, Berkeley,
the aftershocks of modern financial crises – that is, since World War II –
fade after 2-3 years . The Harvard economists
Carmen Reinhart
and Kenneth
Rogoff say that it takes
five years
for a country to dig itself out of a financial crisis. And, indeed, the financial dislocations
of 2007-2008 have largely receded. So what accounts for the sluggish economic recovery?
One
popular explanation lies in the fuzzy notion of "secular stagnation": long-term depressed demand
for goods and services is undermining incentives to invest and hire. But demand would remain weak
only if people lacked confidence in the future. The only logical explanation for this enduring lack
of confidence, as Northwestern University's Robert Gordon has
painstakingly documented
and argued , is slow productivity growth.
Before the crisis – and especially from 2003 to 2007 – slow productivity growth was being obscured
by an illusory sense of prosperity in much of the world. In some countries – notably, the United
States, Spain, and Ireland – rising real-estate prices, speculative construction, and financial risk-taking
were mutually reinforcing. At the same time, countries were amplifying one another's growth through
trade.
Central to the global boom was China, the rising giant that flooded the world with cheap exports,
putting a lid on global inflation. Equally important, China imported a huge volume of commodities,
thereby bolstering many African and Latin American economies, and purchased German cars and machines,
enabling Europe's largest economy to keep its regional supply chains humming.
This dynamic reversed around March 2008, when the US rescued its fifth-largest investment bank,
Bear Sterns, from collapse. With the eurozone banks also deeply implicated in the subprime mortgage
mess and desperately short of US dollars, America and much of Europe began a remorseless slide into
recession. Whereas in the boom years, world trade had spread the bounty, it was now spreading the
malaise. As each country's GDP growth slowed, so did its imports, causing its trading partners' growth
to slow as well.
The US economy began to emerge from its recession in the second half of 2009, thanks largely to
aggressive monetary policy and steps to stabilize the financial system. Eurozone policymakers, by
contrast, rejected
monetary stimulus and implemented
fiscal
austerity measures , while ignoring the deepening distress of their banks. The eurozone thus
pushed the world into a second global recession.
Just when that recession seemed to have run its course, emerging economies began to unravel. For
years, observers had been touting the governance and growth-enhancing reforms that these countries'
leaders had supposedly introduced. In October 2012, the IMF
celebrated
emerging economies' "resilience." As if on cue, that facade began to crumble, revealing an inconvenient
truth: factors like high commodity prices and massive capital inflows had been concealing serious
economic weaknesses, while legitimizing a culture of
garish inequality and rampant corruption .
These problems are now being compounded by the growth slowdown in China, the fulcrum of global
trade. And the worst is yet to come. China's huge industrial overcapacity and property glut needs
to be wound down; the hubris driving its global acquisitions must be reined in; and its corruption
networks have to be dismantled.
In short, the factors that dragged down the global economy in 2015 will persist – and in some
cases even intensify – in the new year. Emerging economies will remain weak. The eurozone, having
enjoyed a temporary reprieve from austerity, will be constrained by listless global trade. Rising
interest rates on corporate bonds portend
slower growth in
the US. China's collapsing asset values could trigger financial turbulence. And policymakers are
adrift, with little political leverage to stem these trends.
The IMF should stop forecasting renewed growth and issue a warning that the global economy will
remain weak and vulnerable unless world leaders act energetically to spur innovation and growth.
Such an effort is long overdue.
ArkansasAngie , January 6, 2016 at 6:17 am
"But demand would remain weak only if people lacked confidence in the future"
Sometimes … demand is restricted by the fact that nobody has any money in their pocket.
James Levy, January 6, 2016 at 6:45 am
Is he kidding:
The only logical explanation for this enduring lack of confidence, as Northwestern University's
Robert Gordon has painstakingly documented and argued, is slow productivity growth.
Real wages for a hefty percentage of the population haven't risen since 1971. Most people are
treading water or losing ground. Over 90% of the modest gains since the 2008 crash have gone to
1% or less of the population. But the problem is productivity! And this guy has a tenured job
at Princeton. Standards for employment there must include smug self-assurance, ideological blinders,
and the inability to assimilate any facts not cogent to people richer than you are.
Jim Haygood, January 6, 2016 at 11:37 am
If Princeton's most illustrious alumnus can finally make some serious loot in the private sector,
soon the author will be toiling at the Bernanke School of Economics.
Skippy, January 6, 2016 at 8:18 am
Productivity is the cocaine of the labour pool, like the old cocaine ad of the 80s in Calif
[during the epidemic].
White square room about 6M X 6M, top shelf sale executive sort doing laps like a con and the
verse goes like…. I do cocaine because I'm more productive… so I make more money… so I can do
more cocaine… over and over and with each litany increases his speed until a blur….
Skippy…. the end is a wrung out wretch sitting on the step of some low socioeconomic apt talking
about losing, wife, kids, job, everything…. w burnt out dopamine receptors as a lullaby till morte'
efschumacher, January 6, 2016 at 8:50 am
Here in the US:it's not like there's a shortage of work to be done to fix the massively inappropriate
national infrastructure – to make it human sustainable – I mean for the 'little people'. There
is of course the perennial lack of congressional vision and long term planning. There lies a huge
root of the problem.
RabidGandhi, January 6, 2016 at 9:12 am
Is this meant as a good cop/bad cop contrast piece with the Ann Pettifor post?
Here, I gave up any hope of Mody being at all earnest when he cited Rogoff and Reinhart (!!!).
Then the rest of the article completely self-destructs: weak productivity and insufficient innovation
are the issue?
When combined with yesterday's NYT article on inequality, the only takeaway is that most
economists are nothing more than rancid witch doctors doing backflips to skirt the basic explanation
that aggregate demand has been deliberately sabotaged.
Stephen Gardner, January 6, 2016 at 9:33 am
Modern neoliberal economics is just an ideology not a science. It exists to justify the
current distribution of wealth with pseudoscientific nonsense written in abstruse mathematical
language. Milton Friedman was to economics what T.D. Lysenko was to Soviet biology. Pseudoscience
in service to the ruling class.
cnchal, January 6, 2016 at 9:43 am
. . . the only takeaway is that most economists are nothing more than rancid witch doctors
doing backflips to skirt the basic explanation that aggregate demand has been deliberately sabotaged.
They are the useless eaters. [Economists are] clueless about the real world because their
fat paycheck magically appears in their bank account, while producing nothing.
Here is Mody
The US economy began to emerge from its recession in the second half of 2009, thanks
largely to aggressive monetary policy and steps to stabilize the financial system.
Totally clueless.
susan the other, January 6, 2016 at 2:02 pm
"Lack of confidence" – let me count the ways. This is a phrase to match every vacuous denial
of human economic chaos ever pontificated. Yuck.
Was Shaun Walket "under influence" when he wrote this article. Renaming Soviet Champaign is necessary
due to EU laws that prohibit infringement on French brand name, so "decommunization" is only part of
the story.
Of course history is written by winners and so far Galician nationalists are the winners, so they
rewrite history according to their own ideology and preferences. But money for that will be paid by
impoverished Ukrainians. In reality Ukraine is victim of US neoliberal push against Russia. Of course
US neocons does not want to pay for the damage it inflicted. Now they own the country. Might makes
right.
Notable quotes:
"... The achievements in a relatively short space of time once all the wars related to 1917 had ended, then in the 25 year period after the catastrophic loss following WW2 were incredible. ..."
"... ....and it is impossible to answer if Britain would have recovered as quickly from WW2 as the Soviets if they had suffered the equivalent (10 million) or the US (25 million ) deaths during this time. ..."
"... I'm beginning to recognise a familiar "Guardian euphmenism" touch there. Just like Syrian "moderate rebels" cause "controversy", as "some" of them call for jihad and eat people's hearts, and may have involved a massacre or two. ..."
"... The East Ukrainians were disenfranchised with the Regime change in their country but instead of sending in negotiators, the Kiev government sent in tanks and armored personnel carriers. What a way to run a country, they must have been inspired ( or instructed) by the best Regime changers in the business, the USA. ..."
"... Seeing as the Ukrainians hate the Communists and Lenin, I trust we can expect them to reverse measures enacted by the Communists e.g. return to Russia the regions moved into the Ukrainian Soviet Republic by Lenin in the 1920s. By the same token, they should probably give Galicia back to Poland. ..."
"... And denounce the Communists gifting of Crimea to Ukraine in the 1950s... ..."
"... Ukraine is a bit of the loosers aren't they.. borrow money from the EU to pay some relative or friend of those in Kyiv.. who just happens to own a sign, monument or statue company.. to bring about this ridiculously stupid change.. of 108 towns? They haven't got better things to do with whatever money they have?.. like take care of the needs of the people? ..."
"... The old adage "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" comes readily to mind. Although perhaps "scoundrel" is too mild a word in this instance. ..."
"... The subtle irony is that without suitable Stalinist role models, the mafia power-brokers running Ukraine in cahoots with their morally bankrupt western puppeteers haven't an ideological leg to stand on. Instead, Walker blathers on about how Dnipropetrovsk has, ahem, been re-branded as Dnipropetrovsk. Thanks Shaun. ..."
"... Irrespective of whether or not its a good idea, there must be an EU grant somewhere that would compensate for the damage caused ..."
"... ......EU does NOT want Ukraine, we can NOT afford yet another poverty stricken ex soviet country !! If our utterly useless leaders would ever consider this insanity because USA tells us to, and if EU pretends to be a democracy, there should at least be a European referendum on this matter; ..."
"... obliterate the past and ideas by erasing the visible remnants will have the opposite effect to that desired particulary with the inquisitive youth and is so Talibanesque it's ludicrous. ..."
"... What exactly is "the Soviet worldview"? If it means not accepting Fackelzug (torch parade) in your cities Nazi-style, then most people Russia definitely have it, and a good proportion of people in Ukraine, too. ..."
"... If having the Soviet worldview means not accepting erasing history and collective memory and replacing it with some glorious but, unfortunately, fictitious history of the Ukrainian nation - yes, we certainly do have it. There are real achievements Ukrainians could be proud of - oh, Gosh, I forgot, they all involve Russian in one way or another, and that is, of course, unacceptable - otherwise that would be another manifestation of the Soviet worldview. Like we did it together, Russians and Ukrainians - can't get more Soviet than that. ..."
"... The USSR and Soviet history and the Russian language no more belong to the post soviet Russian Federation than they do to Ukraine. Each country can keep or reject what it likes. ..."
"... You want to claim the achievements - then you also claim the responsibilities as well. Ones don't go without the others. Either Ukraine, like Belorussia, is a part of the Russian/Soviet empires and is entitles to all their achievements as well as to all the faults or it is a long suffered colony of both and then it is entitled to none. Can't have it both ways. ..."
"... In the entrance lobby to the Kiev RADA there was a portrait of Stephen Bandera - that was covered with a black silk shroud when Americans visited. Bandera was not a hero as he actively aided the NAZI in Auschwitz , Poles, Jews and Russians were his favourites. The Ukraine Government hasn't left its past behind, it's only trying to camouflage it, trying to appear civilized. ..."
"... Ukrainian say farewall to Soviet things, but welcome Nazi stuff. Lovely. ..."
"... Dishonest? In my visits to Ukraine after the US-instigated Nazi putsch I saw more and more Nazi symbolism sprayed all over the city. There was even a shrine to the fascist Bandera on Independence Square. ..."
"... There is always a heavy paramilitary presence around main administrative buildings in Kiev - surprising that a regime that claims it came to power through a popular revolution should be scared of that same population. ..."
"... It is totally bizarre that Ukrainian vandals would deface a statue of Lenin with with the motto, "I am the butcher of Ukraine" since he was the one who had made the Ukraine an independent political entity. ..."
"... Allright democracy on the march. Overthrow elected governments with foreign backing (remember McCain at Maidan). Now you ban one of the largest opposition parties (in 2012 they got 6 percennt of the vote or 2.7 million votes) because they are traitors (that's the language they use) to the revolutionary Maidan government. While banning symbols and names they don't agree with by order of thought police and proclaiming Nazi collaborators as heroes. Just wait for the statues of Stepan Bandera to replace Lenin. The e.u and the rest of the west says nothing cause this is the kind of "democracy" they are fine with get bent hypocrites ..."
"... In that poor retched shrinking country local street names is all the Coup Crowd in Kyiv can actually control. So they have campaigns, led by fascists, for changing the names of things. Meanwhile it has become impossible to find out if the nitwits still claim to be at war with Russia or not. ..."
"... The author of this article neglects to mention that the Ukrainian laws are targeted both at Soviet and Nazi symbols. ..."
"... As for the ww2 Ukrainian nationalists, most Ukrainians think of these groups poorly. The vast majority of Ukrainians fought on the Soviet side, and indeed made up more than one third of the Soviet army in ww2. Until recently, this was the source of pride and sorrow, just as in Russia. ..."
"... I don't see anyone is stopping this, that guy on that transparent there is a nazi collaborator. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weg-QnsTPs0 ..."
"... The WWII history of the Ukraine is full of eye witness accounts of how the German armed forces had to step in to save Jews from Ukrainian savagery because they preferred to eliminate Jews systematically rather than by anarchistic savagery. And incidentally in Western Ukraine a greater proportion of people volunteered for Hitler's armed forces than in Germany proper. ..."
"... You are wrong. There are numerous monuments dedicated to Stepan Bandera in Western Ukraine (at least in 20 towns). There are also numerous streets named after him. ..."
"... Ukraine has bigger problems than street name changes! The IMF own the country it has lost it's sovereignty and has outsiders in its government as well as debts it cannot pay. ..."
"... Ukraine wants to get rid of the Soviet past - well, then it has to be happy that Crimea is gone, for Crimea is the clearest vestige of the Soviet past having been "gifted" to Ukraine by the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev over the objections of Crimea itself. Another vestige is as good as gone - Donbass, which agrees well with the removal of Lenin statutes, for it was Lenin himself who added Donbass to Ukraine in 1919. Stalin's legacy is next, which includes Western Ukraine and Transcarpathia. ..."
"... Western media needs to address the economic mess in Ukraine. The name changing, marching and fist fights in Rada are a distraction. What happened in two years is an economic collapse. When is Guardian going to notice? ..."
"... Who cares what they call their champagne----the Ukraine is dead, economically---- ..."
"... The real issue with Ukrainian champagne is that as of Jan 1 it cannot be called "champagne". With EU Association Agreement, the word "champagne" is reserved for the French stuff. That is by far more important than some "soviet" name games. ..."
"... Unfortunately there are many Ukrainians who think that 'restitution' will make them better off. They think that if Western people get rich (even Poles) that will be somehow good for Ukrainians as workers. It is low self-esteem combined with what can only be called servant mentality. The shouting and marching is there just to amuse, deep inside they all can't wait to serve. ..."
The Guardian is politely silent about of hundreds productions, level of education, population
(52 millions in 1991, 42 in 2015), infrastructure and other "products from glorifying communism"
which have heard "farewell" too...
Like if there wasn't for communism then there wouldn't be productions, educated population or
infrastructure? How did they manage do build all of that in Western Europe even without communism
i am wondering...
Communism f*cked up all natural relations and development and consequences are felt until these
days.
Also, Ukraine was Russian vassal until two years ago, so almost everything that happened after
1991 in Ukraine is in the responsibility of the same bolshevik-KGB cronies that were in power
during official communism.
Maybe it is a time to try to be a normal country like e.g. Czech republic or Slovenia are now
(also ex-Bolshevik Moscow´s vassals) finally, even 25 years later, but better later than never.
There is only little problem. Ukraine is not a Czech republic or Slovenia and even is not a Poland...
Did you ever wondered why some countries live good as Germany, France, Poland, for example but
some countries live bad? As South Africa when Europeans left it, Nigeria, Sudan... Why part of
Ukraine was a captured by Poland but part of Poland never was captured by Ukraine? And why a you
thinking that communism worse than capitalism, you even don't know how many was build in that
time of communism.
Most of western Europe had about a 1000 year head start....so that is a nonsense comparison.
The achievements in a relatively short space of time once all the wars related to 1917
had ended, then in the 25 year period after the catastrophic loss following WW2 were incredible.
....and it is impossible to answer if Britain would have recovered as quickly from WW2
as the Soviets if they had suffered the equivalent (10 million) or the US (25 million ) deaths
during this time.
Years from the end of ww2 to early 70s were golden ages of world economy and development. Almost
all countries heavily affected by ww2 recovered very quickly (Northern France, Germany, Holland,
Italy, Poland, Soviet union, Japan, South Korea (not North Korea though), because those were simply
very good times (economically and technologically). That has nothing to do with ruling ideology.
However, it was still much more done in capitalist countries (Japan, Germany, South Korea,
Netherlands, Italy) than in communist. Just look at economically and culturally similar countries
- look how much more developed was (and still is) Western Germany than Eastern Germany, Austria
than Hungary, Finland than Estonia, South Korea than North Korea, Capitalist China (Taiwan) than
Communist China...
I think from just these comparisations you can conclude all. Communism (or rather bolshevik
cronyism) was the break on general development. The fact that under bolshevism there were some
dams constructed in Ukraine doesn't change anything.
I'll give a simple explanation. Ukraine defaulted on Russian loan. No one would invest any monies
there except IMF and they are also reluctant because they stopped their investments because of
corruption
Good luck.
law has caused controversy, with many criticising an addendum which states that Ukrainian
independence movements during the second world war some of which collaborated with the Nazis
and were involved in massacres of Jews and Poles should be respected as "fighters for Ukrainian
independence".
I'm beginning to recognise a familiar "Guardian euphmenism" touch there. Just like Syrian
"moderate rebels" cause "controversy", as "some" of them call for jihad and eat people's hearts,
and may have involved a massacre or two.
This rejection of the cultural and political heritage of the Soviet Union (and its flavour of
communism) is understandable, many former soviet states have gone through a similar process. However
both the timing (amidst a civil war) and the extent (banning peaceful political movements and
expression) are questionable. However, I assume some nuances have been lost in translation. What
is the Russian word they use for "decommunisation"? Do they say this or "desovietisation"? As
for the temptation to compare with post WW2
denazification
in Germany, didn't the Soviet
Union undergo an equivalent process in rejection of Stalin's heritage (trial and execution of
Beria for example) in the late 50s and early 60s?
A civil war does not preclude Russian interference. Apologies if you are offended at my ignorance
of the subtle differences between Ukrainian and Russian.
Instead you follow events through dubious sources!!
I only have the Guardian as my source, dubious indeed.
How Poroshenko wished that Russia had invaded but it never happened.
The East Ukrainians were disenfranchised with the Regime change in their country but instead
of sending in negotiators, the Kiev government sent in tanks and armored personnel carriers. What
a way to run a country, they must have been inspired ( or instructed) by the best Regime changers
in the business, the USA.
Seeing as the Ukrainians hate the Communists and Lenin, I trust we can expect them to reverse
measures enacted by the Communists e.g. return to Russia the regions moved into the Ukrainian
Soviet Republic by Lenin in the 1920s. By the same token, they should probably give Galicia back
to Poland.
Ukraine is a bit of the loosers aren't they.. borrow money from the EU to pay some relative
or friend of those in Kyiv.. who just happens to own a sign, monument or statue company.. to bring
about this ridiculously stupid change.. of 108 towns? They haven't got better things to do with
whatever money they have?.. like take care of the needs of the people?
An incredibly weak article by one of the usual suspects. Walker confuses capitalist re-branding
and renaming with de-communisation, a bizarre term he has dreamt up, just like de-nazification.
Presumably, when the Marathon brand of chocolate bars were re-baptised Snickers, they were
"de-communised" in the process.
The subtle irony is that without suitable Stalinist role models,
the mafia power-brokers running Ukraine in cahoots with their morally bankrupt western puppeteers
haven't an ideological leg to stand on. Instead, Walker blathers on about how Dnipropetrovsk has,
ahem, been re-branded as Dnipropetrovsk. Thanks Shaun.
Irrespective of whether or not its a good idea, there must be an EU grant somewhere that would
compensate for the damage caused
. The Kiev government simply do not understand that in becoming
members of the EU it is no good holding out the begging bowl. They need to become far more creative
and hire in some experts to advise on the trillions of Euro's Ukraine could receive in grant aid.
New railways, roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, are all simply a few forms away from becoming
a reality.
......EU does NOT want Ukraine, we can NOT afford yet another poverty stricken ex soviet country
!! If our utterly useless leaders would ever consider this insanity because USA tells us to, and
if EU pretends to be a democracy, there should at least be a European referendum on this matter;
the answer would be clear : NO WAY jose --
The same coat Baroness Ashton wore in February 2014 contains the same belt that now chokes the
Kiev puppet government to death. "Glory to Ukraine", yeah ? Oki Doki. No problem. Good luck --
I can only imagine the destruction and/or defacement of many beautiful buildings and structures
that will be occurring throughout Ukraine. Many of the metro stations in Kiev will be butchered.
obliterate the past and ideas by erasing the visible remnants will have the opposite effect
to that desired particulary with the inquisitive youth and is so Talibanesque it's ludicrous.
In Spain, Italy, etc, taking down the dictators' statues, renaming streets, etc has not
got rid of fascists and their thinking at all. Besides, the Ukies can't afford it and have they
never heard of the sex pistols et al?
They are just using the same methods to get rid of the Soviet names as were used to impose them
in the first place, except without the shootings, torture, deportations and mass-starvation.
Ersatz champagne with the "Soviet" brand name has been produced since 1937 . . . It is
a popular drink on New Year's Eve and at other celebrations, and comes in sweet, semi-sweet
and dry versions – and at a fraction of the price of real champagne.
It is not ersatz at all - it is perfectly real and is made in the real
methode champenoise
. The best champaign is made, of course, in Crimea. There is place there, Novyi Svet (New
World) where the Champaign factory makes collection Bruts that can compete with the best of them
and are still inexpensive by comparison with the French stuff.
the younger generation who were born after the Soviet Union collapsed, but they are absolutely
Soviet and have a totally Soviet world view."
What exactly is "the Soviet worldview"? If it means not accepting Fackelzug (torch parade)
in your cities Nazi-style, then most people Russia definitely have it, and a good proportion of
people in Ukraine, too.
If having the Soviet worldview means not accepting erasing history and collective memory
and replacing it with some glorious but, unfortunately, fictitious history of the Ukrainian nation
- yes, we certainly do have it. There are real achievements Ukrainians could be proud of - oh,
Gosh, I forgot, they all involve Russian in one way or another, and that is, of course, unacceptable
- otherwise that would be another manifestation of the Soviet worldview. Like we did it together,
Russians and Ukrainians - can't get more Soviet than that.
The USSR and Soviet history and the Russian language no more belong to the post soviet Russian
Federation than they do to Ukraine. Each country can keep or reject what it likes.
But to claim all tsarist and Soviet achievements as somehow the property of today's Russian
Federation, is nothing more than lies and theft.
The Russian Federation is, like Ukraine, Belarus and Tajikistan, only25 years old, and just
another splinter of the tsarist and Soviet empires.
The history is the history - it's not for anybody to chose it. What happened happened, and there
is nothing anybody can do about it.
Like Germany, for example, can say that the Nazi past never happened - just reject it like
that, and that it? Say, Holocaust never happened because we don't like it? It doesn't work that
way, my dear.
But to claim all tsarist and Soviet achievements as somehow the property of today's Russian
Federation, is nothing more than lies and theft
You want to claim the achievements - then you also claim the responsibilities as well. Ones
don't go without the others. Either Ukraine, like Belorussia, is a part of the Russian/Soviet
empires and is entitles to all their achievements as well as to all the faults or it is a long
suffered colony of both and then it is entitled to none. Can't have it both ways.
In the entrance lobby to the Kiev RADA there was a portrait of Stephen Bandera - that was
covered with a black silk shroud when Americans visited. Bandera was not a hero as he actively
aided the NAZI in Auschwitz , Poles, Jews and Russians were his favourites. The Ukraine Government
hasn't left its past behind, it's only trying to camouflage it, trying to appear civilized.
You are rehashing the contemporary Russian propaganda line. The political parties supporting Bandera
erc are less popular in Ukraine than UKIP in the UK and the National Front in France.
There may well have been, for a narrow period of time a photo of Bandera during the Maidan.
So what? People have been carting around portraits of Stalin for the last 25 years.
Are you seriously suggesting Bandera is worse than Stalin, or that the current Ukrainian govt
is run by Nazis? If you are, then I respectfully suggest you are doing so in a conscious effort
to discredit Ukraine in Western media.
Dishonest? In my visits to Ukraine after the US-instigated Nazi putsch I saw more and more
Nazi symbolism sprayed all over the city. There was even a shrine to the fascist Bandera on Independence
Square.
There is always a heavy paramilitary presence around main administrative buildings in Kiev
- surprising that a regime that claims it came to power through a popular revolution should be
scared of that same population.
Probably passed the laws after "a good old book burning", nothing like the rewriting of history.
Next they will be rehabilitating the Ukrainians who fought for the Nazis and staffed the concentration
camps.
It is totally bizarre that Ukrainian vandals would deface a statue of Lenin with with the
motto, "I am the butcher of Ukraine" since he was the one who had made the Ukraine an independent
political entity.
Allright democracy on the march. Overthrow elected governments with foreign backing (remember
McCain at Maidan). Now you ban one of the largest opposition parties (in 2012 they got 6 percennt
of the vote or 2.7 million votes) because they are traitors (that's the language they use) to
the revolutionary Maidan government. While banning symbols and names they don't agree with by
order of thought police and proclaiming Nazi collaborators as heroes. Just wait for the statues
of Stepan Bandera to replace Lenin. The e.u and the rest of the west says nothing cause this is
the kind of "democracy" they are fine with get bent hypocrites
In that poor retched shrinking country local street names is all the Coup Crowd in Kyiv can
actually control. So they have campaigns, led by fascists, for changing the names of things. Meanwhile
it has become impossible to find out if the nitwits still claim to be at war with Russia or not.
As for the ww2 Ukrainian nationalists, most Ukrainians think of these groups poorly. The
vast majority of Ukrainians fought on the Soviet side, and indeed made up more than one third
of the Soviet army in ww2. Until recently, this was the source of pride and sorrow, just as in
Russia.
So, It is wrong to think of Soviet past as being somehow foreign to Ukraine. But that
is now all ancient history. And the Soviet past is also Ukraine's to reject.
There is a military invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Communist symbols are actively used to mobilise
Russian fighters and domestic terrorists on Ukrainian territory. with the aim of destroying the
territorial integrity of Ukraine.
I note in this regard that ISIS symbols are similarly banned in many high income liberal democracies.
The WWII history of the Ukraine is full of eye witness accounts of how the German armed forces
had to step in to save Jews from Ukrainian savagery because they preferred to eliminate Jews systematically
rather than by anarchistic savagery. And incidentally in Western Ukraine a greater proportion
of people volunteered for Hitler's armed forces than in Germany proper.
You are wrong. There are numerous monuments dedicated to Stepan Bandera in Western Ukraine
(at least in 20 towns). There are also numerous streets named after him.
Quite a different situation is in Eastern Ukraine which hates Bandera and which has always
weighed toward Russia - that's why that country cannot exist as one entity.
Ukraine has bigger problems than street name changes! The IMF own the country it has lost
it's sovereignty and has outsiders in its government as well as debts it cannot pay.
Nothing about the expiration of the deadline to fulfill the Minsk agreement compromises? The Ukranian
government has failed to implement two very important ones: dialogue with the rebel leaders and
giving some degree of autonomy to Donetsk and Lugansk. I think that's rather more serious than
the champagne news but I have hardly seen any reflection on that subject in the Press.
Flip, I just spent ages writing something and my computer crashed. Bloody computers.
Haven't they got anything better to do?
The Ukranian Communists are meant to be a small and marginalised grouping of pensioners. Why
pick on them?
Anti-Stalinism. Now, that would be much better. Anti right wing militias, that would be just
as good. Saying goodbye to existing despots, that gets my vote.
Free social health care, now that would be even better still.
If Holly Old Dog is online, not that I've actually checked, I'm not American.
Don't like UKIP don't like Le Penn but do like the EU.
Ukraine wants to get rid of the Soviet past - well, then it has to be happy that Crimea is
gone, for Crimea is the clearest vestige of the Soviet past having been "gifted" to Ukraine by
the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev over the objections of Crimea itself. Another vestige is as
good as gone - Donbass, which agrees well with the removal of Lenin statutes, for it was Lenin
himself who added Donbass to Ukraine in 1919. Stalin's legacy is next, which includes Western
Ukraine and Transcarpathia.
Many of those in eastern cities who are pro-Kiev are uneasy about Ukrainian nationalist
heroes
Trust the Guardian to find a very delicate turn of phrase -
uneasy
. Come on, those in
Easter Ukraine hate their guts. Easter Ukraine hates Bandera and "banderovtsi" much more than
Russia does. And for a good reason: they did not operate much in Russia but a lot in Ukraine,
Belorussia and eastern Europe, where they killed thousands.
This past New Year's Eve marked the last time Ukrainians could pop open "Soviet champagne"
Poor Ukrainians. Now they are told what to drink, what language to speak, what songs to sing,
what movies to watch, what holidays to celebrate, what fairy tales to tell their children. True
European freedom finally has arrived as opposed to the Soviet totalitarian regime that somehow
in Ukraine alone lasted 25 years past the existence of the Soviet Union.
BTW Artemovsk they want to rename so much is the site of a Champaign factory that used to make
famous "Artemovsky" Champaign. I am not sure it's still operational but if it is, what would it
be called now? The factory is yet another soviet "vestige" and did not exist in the "Bakhmut"
times.
The Guardian is politely silent about of hundreds productions, level of education, population
(52 millions in 1991, 42 in 2015), infrastructure and other "products from glorifying communism"
which have heard "farewell" too
Western media needs to address the economic mess in Ukraine. The name changing, marching and
fist fights in Rada are a distraction. What happened in two years is an economic collapse. When
is Guardian going to notice?
The real issue with Ukrainian champagne is that as of Jan 1 it cannot be called "champagne".
With EU Association Agreement, the word "champagne" is reserved for the French stuff. That is
by far more important than some "soviet" name games.
In the same way Ukrainian "cognac" cannot use the term cognac. There are hundreds of others.
EU AA means following the EU rules. It also means that EU can export to Ukraine at will. Given
that Ukraine doesn't have much to sell to EU this will mean additional collapse in Ukr economy.
The current markets in Russia are now closed.
Who is running Kiev? Do these people know math and have map? Or is there knowledge limited
to knowing where to find a ticket to get out?
Unfortunately there are many Ukrainians who think that 'restitution' will make them better
off. They think that if Western people get rich (even Poles) that will be somehow good for Ukrainians
as workers. It is low self-esteem combined with what can only be called servant mentality. The
shouting and marching is there just to amuse, deep inside they all can't wait to serve.
How does a one party state get so close to the EU? It relies on massive loans from the IMF and
EU but by all accounts is regarded, not least by its own citizens, to be getting more corrupt
not less. A million are seeking Nationality in Poland to escape inflation set to be 44% this year
as wages and jobs crash. Visa free travel to the EU in October might ease the internal pressure.
The trade agreement with the EU is another blow to European agriculture, this time in grain, as
surplus products flood the market along with even cheaper Turkish fruit and vegetables following
their exclusion from the Russian market. One wonders whether the EU ever regrets putting this
government in power?
Ukraine's De-communization laws were made by people with their own agenda and they are arguably
a dark spot on Ukraine's striving towards some form of functional democracy. Saying that, when
it comes to phony parties like the "Communist Party" of Ukraine, it is pretty hard to give a crap.
On the plus side, this anti-Communist law will put an end to corrupt, phony parties using the
Communist name and symbols for their own benefit. Any Communist-style party that exists in Ukraine
now will have to be genuine.
"... So self-identifying as a Republican now means associating yourself with a party that has moved sharply to the right since 1995. If you like, being a Republican used to mean supporting a party that nominated George H.W. Bush, but now it means supporting a party where a majority of primary voters **** support Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. Being a Democrat used to mean supporting a party that nominated Bill Clinton; it now means supporting a party likely to nominate, um, Hillary Clinton. And views of conservatism/liberalism have probably moved with that change in the parties. ..."
"... Yes the differences between candidates may not be nearly as great as you want it to be - but the idea that it makes no difference whether the GOP or Democratic candidate gets to be president is idiotic. Anybody who can be bothered looking through executive actions during Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama years will recognize a huge difference. ..."
"... The world of the NY Times, Wapo, the Atlantic, the New Republic, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal, National Review - its all one intellectually gated community where the affluent talk among themselves at the club house about their slightly different approaches to maintaining order are protecting elite privileges and power. ..."
"... I didnt say they were either stupid or corrupt. They are intelligent people whose political orientation reflects the general predilections and interests of their class. Thats really not much different than most people in America. But the class divides are intensifying, which is why the discourse of that establishment group is of increasingly diminished relevance to what the other 80% of the country is talking about. ..."
"... The difference between Sanders and Clinton when it comes to income inequality, TBTF, and financial regulation is stark. These economic issues are studiously avoided by DeLong and Krugman because they are, and always have been, loyal insiders to the establishment. ..."
"... I took it that what Julio was mainly referring to was that the establishment discourse has moved so far to the right that someone like Krugman now represents the far left of what that establishment will tolerate. ..."
"... I think Krugman the columnist started as someone above the fray , engaged in an academic exercise; and has since learned he must support his allies, even if he has intellectual disagreements with them. ..."
"... However there is one key difference: Sanders has been able to energize the Democratic base in a way that Clinton the policy wonk simply cant. ..."
"... The studied failure of the fierce critic of the Washington Post and New York Times from the economics department of the University of California at Berkeley to so much as regret the firing of the only writer on labor affairs at either paper tells of just how little regard there is for the affairs of ordinary workers. ..."
"... Even Brookings is getting worried about whats going on with the growing cultural isolation of the relatively affluent: ..."
"... I had a very similar experience with the people I met at my Ivy League university. A depressing percentage of the student body consisted of spoiled trust fund babies, many of whom were apparently ignored or otherwise mistreated by their parents and exhibited a shocking array of psychological and substance abuse problems. ..."
"... But these people were of a distinctly different class than the many nominally upper-middle class people I encounter in daily life. Even now, high as my household income is, I would immediately be detected as a mere prole by them, a lower class person. ..."
"... Fitzgerald was absolutely right -- the truly well off are indeed different from you and me. Even if you dont realize it, rest assured that they do. ..."
"... The concept of class is also just a model, and not rigidly tied to economic markers. People in comparable occupational settings or type of economic participation can have very different incomes and ability to afford certain lifestyles. ..."
"... E.g. regardless of your pay level, if your occupational situation is such that you have to essentially show up for work every day and follow somebody elses directives (to make a relatively low-risk income), then it would be a stretch to consider you upper middle class. ..."
"... From what Ive observed, following the 2008 crash a lot of upper-middle class people suddenly realized that the differences between themselves and those living in poverty are actually much smaller than the differences between themselves and the truly wealthy. ..."
You might think that this is obvious. But on the left, in particular, there are some people
who, disappointed by the limits of what President Obama has accomplished, minimize the differences
between the parties. Whoever the next president is, they assert - or at least ... if it's not
Bernie Sanders - things will remain pretty much the same, with the wealthy continuing to dominate
the scene. ...
But the truth is that Mr. Obama's election ... had some real, quantifiable consequences. ...
If Mitt Romney had won, we can be sure that Republicans would have found a way to prevent these
tax hikes. ...
Mr. Obama has effectively rolled back not just the Bush tax cuts but Ronald Reagan's as well...,
about $70 billion a year in revenue. This happens to be in the same ballpark as both
food stamps
and ... this year's net
outlays
on Obamacare. So we're not talking about something trivial.
Speaking of Obamacare, that's another thing Republicans would surely have killed if 2012 had
gone the other way. ... And the effect on health care has been huge...
Now, to be fair, some
widely predicted
consequences of Mr. Obama's re-election - predicted by his opponents - didn't
happen. Gasoline prices didn't soar. Stocks didn't plunge. The economy didn't collapse..., and
the unemployment rate is a full point lower than the rate Mr. Romney promised to achieve by the
end of 2016.
In other words, the 2012 election didn't just allow progressives to achieve some important
goals. It also gave them an opportunity to show that achieving these goals is feasible. No, asking
the rich to pay somewhat more in taxes while helping the less fortunate won't destroy the economy.
So now we're heading for another presidential election. And once again the stakes are high.
Whoever the Republicans nominate will be committed to destroying Obamacare and slashing taxes
on the wealthy - in fact, the current G.O.P. tax-cut plans make the Bush cuts look puny. Whoever
the Democrats nominate will, first and foremost, be committed to defending the achievements of
the past seven years.
The bottom line is that presidential elections matter, a lot, even if the people on the ballot
aren't as fiery as you might like. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Via Noah Smith, * an interesting back-and-forth about the political leanings of professors.
Conservatives are outraged ** at what they see as a sharp leftward movement in the academy:
[Graph]
But what's really happening here? Did professors move left, or did the meaning of conservatism
in America change in a way that drove scholars away? You can guess what I think. But here's some
evidence. First, using the DW-nominate measure *** - which uses roll-call votes over time to identify
a left-right spectrum, and doesn't impose any constraint of symmetry between the parties - what
we've seen over the past generation is a sharp rightward (up in the figure) move by Republicans,
with no comparable move by Democrats, especially in the North:
[Graph]
So self-identifying as a Republican now means associating yourself with a party that has
moved sharply to the right since 1995. If you like, being a Republican used to mean supporting
a party that nominated George H.W. Bush, but now it means supporting a party where a majority
of primary voters **** support Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. Being a Democrat used to mean supporting
a party that nominated Bill Clinton; it now means supporting a party likely to nominate, um, Hillary
Clinton. And views of conservatism/liberalism have probably moved with that change in the parties.
Furthermore, if your image is one of colleges being taken over by Marxist literary theorists,
you should know that the political leanings of hard scientists are if anything more pronounced
than those of academics in general. From Pew: *****
[Chart]
Why is this? Well, climate denial and hostility to the theory of evolution are pretty good
starting points.
Overall, the evidence looks a lot more consistent with a story that has academics rejecting
a conservative party that has moved sharply right than it does with a story in which academics
have moved left.
Now, you might argue that academics should reflect the political spectrum in the nation - that
we need affirmative action for conservative professors, even in science. But do you really want
to go there?
Wild conservatives have been attacking supposed liberals at universities since the time of Joseph
McCarthy. The attacks have changed in nuance now and again but been persistent since the close
of the 1940s. Whether the attacks extend back before the late 1940s is a matter I have to look
into.
DeDude :
Yes the differences between candidates may not be nearly as great as you want it to be - but
the idea that it "makes no difference" whether the GOP or Democratic candidate gets to be president
is idiotic. Anybody who can be bothered looking through executive actions during Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama
years will recognize a huge difference.
Dan Kervick :
Elections matter. Nominations matter too. But the only nomination battle Paul Krugman is apparently
interested in is the Republican one, which he trolls constantly to amuse himself. This despite
the fact that there are very major policy difference, both foreign and domestic, present on the
Democratic side - along with major differences in political alliances, monetary support bases
and key constituencies.
Paul Krugman is a middle of the road, mainstream fellow who manages to line up on the "left"
according to the austerely conservative economic standards of the establishment media. If Krugman
were chief economic adviser - or even president - nothing very important in America would change
economically. So when he tries to tell "progressives" about what would advance "their goals",
his words are a good candidate for in one ear, out the other treatment.
Harold Meyerson, the Democratic Socialist op-ed columnist for Wapo, was just canned by Fred
Hiatt. Apart from removing another left wing economic voice from the establishment public sphere,
this helps clear the decks for a 2017 Middle East war after Clinton gets control of the war room
from Obama. Not a word on that firing from sometime scourge of the Washington Post, Brad DeLong
- who I guess is pretty cool with it.
The world of the NY Times, Wapo, the Atlantic, the New Republic, LA Times, Chicago Tribune,
Wall Street Journal, National Review - it's all one intellectually gated community where the affluent
talk among themselves at the club house about their slightly different approaches to maintaining
order are protecting elite privileges and power.
Dan Kervick -> EMichael...
I didn't say they were either stupid or corrupt. They are intelligent people whose political
orientation reflects the general predilections and interests of their class. That's really not
much different than most people in America. But the class divides are intensifying, which is why
the discourse of that establishment group is of increasingly diminished relevance to what the
other 80% of the country is talking about.
Dan Kervick -> EMichael...
That's what the elite is always going to do. People who are interested in significant social change
should never count on elitists coming down out of the clouds to save them.
anne -> Dan Kervick...
Harold Meyerson, the Democratic Socialist op-ed columnist for Wapo, was just canned by Fred Hiatt....
Not a word on that firing from sometime scourge of the Washington Post, Brad DeLong - who I guess
is pretty cool with it....
[ Telling and saddening, but this should not be a surprising silence by an academic who periodically
wildly smashes liberals. ]
"Paul Krugman is a middle of the road, mainstream fellow..."
I am old enough to remember a time when he would have been one. But not now.
"So when he tries to tell "progressives" about what would advance "their goals", his words
are a good candidate for in one ear, out the other treatment."
No: they are a candidate for a place to start a conversation with liberals, to expand their
views of what's possible.
Krugman is not interested in such discussions. As has been pointed out several times, he and DeLong
have studiously avoided any engagement with the issues that are being hotly contested in the Democratic
Party's primary campaign. They are bright and well-informed fellows, so this is no ignorant oversight
and is certainly a deliberate, tactical political choice.
EMichael -> Dan Kervick...
Why in the world do you care why two economists who you disrespect on many levels have not discussed
the Dem candidates?
yuan -> EMichael...
Funny how you skipped over the word "issues" and moved the goal post to "dem candidates".
The difference between Sanders and Clinton when it comes to income inequality, TBTF, and
financial regulation is stark. These economic issues are studiously avoided by DeLong and Krugman
because they are, and always have been, loyal insiders to the establishment.
"The difference between Sanders and Clinton when it comes to income inequality, TBTF, and
financial regulation is stark."
Sanders shouts about income inequality but like Hillary has no real plan to impact it except
at the margins.
On financial regulation also, Sanders makes the louder noises and trots out Glass Steagall
often, but Hillary, not Bernie, is the one who actually has a coherent and plausible plan for
limiting systemic financial risk. Bernie fans seem fundamentally incapable of unwilling to process
this fact, to the detriment of everyone.
Syaloch -> Dan Kervick...
I take exception to your (mis)use of Krugman to support your narrative. As Julio notes above (I
think), Krugman's early writings were notably more middle of the road; he started off as a committed
centrist, taking on left and right equally whenever he felt one side or the other was peddling
nonsense. Over time I've seen his writing become more political and more consistently liberal,
even as his paycheck has presumably increased.
As an example, back in the '90s Krugman was slamming Robert Reich as a nonsense-peddling "policy
entrepreneur", but by 2015 he was writing a glowing review of Reich's book, "Saving Capitalism".
Dan Kervick -> Syaloch...
I took it that what Julio was mainly referring to was that the establishment discourse has
moved so far to the right that someone like Krugman now represents the far left of what that establishment
will tolerate.
I would not call his review "glowing", but I agree with your example.
I think Krugman the
columnist started as someone "above the fray", engaged in an academic exercise; and has since
learned he must support his allies, even if he has intellectual disagreements with them.
So? If I am correct in stating that he represents a lot of the liberal spectrum, then those
are the people we need to move "left" or, as I prefer to put it, enlarge their view of what's
possible.
Sanders IMO is doing a good job of this. He is being loudly ignored by Krugman, which makes
your point; and also by a lot of liberals who think he cannot win because, um, he's unelectable
-- which makes mine.
It doesn't seem like we disagree much on the background facts. But if someone is engaging in a
deliberate strategy of ignoring the left, there doesn't seem to be much point in pretending they
are having a discussion with the left.
One way to try to move more people to the left is to encourage them to stop lending so much
credence to establishment opinions. Krugman's ego is big enough that if he detects his relevance
and popularity slipping away, he will move along with the zeitgeist to go where the people are.
Bernie Sanders Hints At What A Sanders Administration Cabinet Could Look Like
Democratic presidential candidate and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) offered a first glimpse
on Sunday of some of the people he might consider for his cabinet in a potential Sanders administration,
and a few that he certainly won't.
"My cabinet would not be dominated by representatives of Wall Street," Sanders said on CNN's
"State of the Union." "I think Wall Street's played a horrendous role in recent years, in negatively
impacting our economy and in making the rich richer. There are a lot of great public servants
out there, great economists who for years have been standing up for the middle class and the working
families of this country."
Prompted by host Jake Tapper, Sanders went on to praise Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist
and Nobel Prize-winning economist. Krugman is a vocal opponent of tax cuts for the rich, and he
has warned readers for years about the dangers of income inequality. "Krugman does a great job,"
Sanders said.
Also doing a great job, Sanders said, is Columbia University economics professor and Nobel
laureate Joseph Stiglitz, whose recent work has focused on the perils of radical free markets,
such as those espoused by some in the libertarian wing of the GOP.
Sanders also singled out Robert Reich, the former labor secretary under President Bill Clinton,
now a professor at the University of California at Berkeley: "I think [he] is doing a fantastic
job." Reich has long been an influential backer of labor unions, which have come under attack
from Republican governors in recent years.
Still, Sanders said, "it's a little bit too early, I must say, to be appointing a cabinet.
Let me get elected first."
In recent weeks, Sanders' long shot campaign for the Democratic nomination has captured a swell
of momentum on the left, drawing larger crowds in Iowa than Hillary Clinton, the presumed Democratic
front-runner.
"All over this country, younger people, working people, elderly people, are moving in our direction,
because they want a candidate to take on the establishment," Sanders said.
I don't think Krugman disagrees with Sanders, but he seems to ignore him. Like everyone else in
the media, he's devoted much more time to the Republicans.
But that's because it's always been his style to write that way. Krugman has always spent most
of his effort attacking those who he perceives as peddling nonsense, or providing additional evidence
to back up a position he has taken against a nonsense peddler. He rarely spends time talking about
those he agrees with. Even in cases where he has written approvingly about Obama or the ACA, he's
done so primarily as a counterweight to all those he sees taking the opposite (and incorrect)
view.
While he hasn't said much about Sanders aside from praising his example of Denmark as a role
model for change, he hasn't said a whole lot about Clinton either. Probably his most explicit
comment on either was in his column comparing their proposed Wall Street reforms, where he concluded:
"If a Democrat does win, does it matter much which one it is? Probably not. Any Democrat is
likely to retain the financial reforms of 2010, and seek to stiffen them where possible. But major
new reforms will be blocked until and unless Democrats regain control of both houses of Congress,
which isn't likely to happen for a long time.
"In other words, while there are some differences in financial policy between Mrs. Clinton
and Mr. Sanders, as a practical matter they're trivial compared with the yawning gulf with Republicans."
Yes, but there are clearly more differences between Clinton and Sanders than just differences
over financial policy - the most obvious and large one being their differences over health care.
Syaloch -> Dan Kervick...
In terms of what they're likely to be able to deliver in the current political climate there really
doesn't seem to be that much difference between them.
However there is one key difference: Sanders has been able to energize the Democratic base
in a way that Clinton the policy wonk simply can't.
But we digress.
pgl -> Dan Kervick...
Bernie is endorsing single payer. That was HillaryCare ala 1993. That was her position in 2008...
Dan Kervick -> pgl...
What the heck are you talking about? The Clinton health Care Plan of 1993 was not a single payer
plan. The 2008 plan was also by no means a single payer plan. And single payer is certainly not
her position now, since she has come out strongly against it on the oh-so-progressive grounds
that it will ... (gasp) ... raise taxes! Good grief.
Dan Kervick -> Syaloch...
Do you really think that the differences between Sanders and Clinton on how college education
is to be paid for, to take one example, is trivial?
Painting the large differences between Clinton and Sanders as trivial seems like a case of
dumbing down the debate so that people don't pay attention to it.
Krugman frequently devotes a great deal of time to people who are not peddling nonsense. He
just participated in an involved debate with DeLong and Summers, two people he agrees with on
most issues. And he has done the same in many past columns debating the views of various esteemed
economics colleagues at length.
pgl -> Syaloch...
"Sanders went on to praise Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize-winning
economist. Krugman is a vocal opponent of tax cuts for the rich, and he has warned readers
for years about the dangers of income inequality."
Even more places where Bernie Sanders has basically called JohnH a liar.
If I am correct in stating that he represents a lot of the liberal spectrum, then those are the
people we need to move "left" or, as I prefer to put it, enlarge their view of what's possible.
Sanders IMO is doing a good job of this. He is being loudly ignored by Krugman...
[ Nicely expressed. ]
pgl -> Dan Kervick...
So go write these comments over at Paul's place. Oh wait - you are a coward. Never mind.
You know, of all the insults you freely toss about, this "cowardice" one is the dumbest. We're
all here to discuss Thoma's selections, but we're cowards if we criticize them here?
Dan Kervick -> pgl...
I have written several comments at "Paul's" blog that were directly critical of his arguments.
I have also posted many critical comments on Twitter directly @ Krugman. I have no problem going
right at people. But I don't like the NY Times format as much because it is harder to have a live
debate there.
anne -> Dan Kervick...
The word "troll" is used to intimidate and silence, and used to depict the writer in question
is wildly false and mean-spirited.
Dan Kervick -> anne...
Lol... yeah, I know the feeling.
Sanjait -> pgl...
Delong isnt a socialist, democratic or otherwise.
And this bent of creating purity tests for commentators and politicians to define who is sufficiently
progressive or more progressive or whatever, it reeks of Republicans and their conservative tribalism.
It's asinine and anti intellectual, and I condemn it unequivocally.
Dan Kervick -> Sanjait...
It's not a purity test of any kind. I don't know what "purity" means in this context. There is
no sense in which democratic socialists are "purer" than liberals. They just have different values
and goals. For socialists, a society based on sharing, solidarity, equality and cooperation is
the highest ideal, where for liberals the highest idea is the expression of personal liberty,
potential and individuality. There are certainly ways in which these outlooks can find specific
expressions at a given point in time that involve significant overlap, but their chief governing
ideals are different.
I agree with you completely that DeLong simply has a different ideology or social philosophy than
someone like Sanders or Meyerson, and I object to the dumbing down of the debate between these
two camps by such trite slogans as "Oh, you know after all, we are all on the same team". That's
silly. It confuses the highly contingent, shifting and adventitious alliances that are part of
the American party system with the coherence of a philosophical stance. These differences and
disputes should be debated, instead of attempting to muddy and flatten them all under the foolish
fantasy that it doesn't make a dime's worth of difference whether a society moves toward an ideal
of progress fashioned from democratic socialist principles or one fashioned from liberal principles.
I brought DeLong in this context because he is a noted scourge of the Washington Post and its
op-ed writers, so if he had any sympathy for Meyerson's views, this would be more low-hanging
fruit for him. But nothing so far. And my guess is that the main reason is that Meyerson is just
not DeLong's cup of tea. But who knows. the year is young.
Sanjait -> Dan Kervick...
Tl;dr
What I do notice is a lot of navel gazing talk about how "left" this or that commentator is,
which as I said is asinine, anti-intellectual, and ironically very similar to the way conservatives
operate.
Dan Kervick -> Sanjait...
Great. You think it's navel gazing. Easy for you to say from your desk writing insurance policies
or whatever the hell it is you do. But it does make a real difference to millions and millions
of people who don't have the lives you and I have, and whose lives aren't going to get *notably*
better once Krugman, DeLong and Summers decide which particular version of capitalist oppression
their best models point toward. Those people are dying of American capitalism, and their kids
are going to die of it too, and whether the ruling class decides on one set of interest rates
or a slightly higher set of interest rates only marginally affects the precise speed at which
the barons who own their lives are able to kill them.
If people have the honestly to tell me, "Look, I'm a believer in good ol' American capitalism,
and that lefty stuff just won't fly with me," that's one thing. But when they try to convince
me that the kind of world they are after is really the same kind of world I want, just so I'll
vote for their politicians - then I get ornery. Maybe I'd have an easier time with the conservatives
because at least the look me in the face and say, "I hate your pinko guts".
The debate has gotten half crazy. Someone like Brad DeLong has called himself a "card-carrying
neoliberal". And yet I get pilloried for calling DeLong a neoliberal - as though I libeled him
- or for calling attention to the apparently uncomfortable fact that since neoliberals are obviously
not leftists, then DeLong is no kind of leftist whatsoever. Or for noting that since DeLong is
a loyal student of his mentor and adviser Larry Summers - who is about as mainstream a player
as they come in the global capitalist system - that makes Delong a thoroughly establishment economist.
(This isn't about "purity". DeLong is not an "impure" half-assed lefty. He's just a mainline capitalist.)
Or for having the audacity to want to *debate* from the left the ideas that come up here instead
of joining in with the yea-and-amen corner where everybody just agrees with one another. Oh no,
we're all on the same team! Stop being such an annoying troll and criticizing the team! Larry
Summers - that great man on the make who was the highest paid professor in the history of Harvard,
and sold himself and his thoroughly mainstream "advice" to some Wall Street firm for $5 million/yr
in between other gigs - he's also on the team bro!
I've made many good faith efforts in the past to calmly debate the ideas of people whose moral
outlooks I disdain and whose best proposals amount to no more than marginal differences in a system
I detest. In return, I get insulted routinely and asked to leave. But hey, we're all on the same
team!
It seems to me that the liberals are having a crisis of faith and confidence because their
late 20th century paradigm is crumbling apart from the inside, they don't know what to replace
it with, and they don't know what side they are going to end up standing on when it falls. Look
at poor pgl. He can't even remember what "single payer" means any more. I haven't encountered
a single liberal Clinton supporter who is positively enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton. Frankly,
they all seem defensive at best about her, and somewhat scared. But they fell in early with the
TINA argument and the strategy of smothering debate under the Clinton machine, and now having
let the Inevitability Express get so far down the tracks they don't know what else to do. And
when that crazed, neocon-tilting fanatic launches her global military crusades in 2017, you guys
will all be investing some sob story about how Bush is to blame, or Reagan is to blame, or Calvin
Coolidge or William McKinley is to blame. A fat lot of good that will do the body parts she scatters
all over the West Bank, Syria, Iran or whatever other places we're into by then.
Krugman had a meltdown last week - as he and the other chronic countercyclical stabilizers
apparently do whenever anybody uses that dangerous and threatening word "structural", pointing
at the possibility of changing the system and not just stabilizing it - because even a middle
of the road guy like Tim Taylor had the audacity to "change the subject" and talk about something
he actually wants talk about ... as though Paul Krugman gets to decide what the "subject" is,
and everyone who doesn't talk about what Krugman demands they talk about is written up for changing
that subject. Screw Krugman. He wouldn't know what "the subject" is if he tripped over it lying
in the street on his way to some Manhattan train station. In fact, he probably has tripped over
it.
I'm so tired of dealing with liberals with their chronic cases of double-think, unresolved
intellectual conflicts, self-deluding irony and fuzzy, snarky ambivalence about everything. Pick
a damn side. You are either with the plutocratic owners who dominate and run everyone else's lives
- or you are on the side of taking them down and leveling the field.
No Happy New Year at the Washington Post: Harold Meyerson Gets the Boot
The Washington Post opinion pages is not a place most people go for original thought, even
if they do provide much material for Beat the Press. One major exception to the uniformity and
unoriginality that have marked the section for decades was Harold Meyerson's column. Meyerson
has been writing a weekly column for the Post for the last thirteen years. He was told by opinion
page editor Fred Hiatt that his contract would not be renewed for 2016. *
According to Meyerson, Hiatt gave as his reasons that his columns had bad social media metrics
and that he focused too much on issues like worker power. The first part of this story is difficult
to believe. Do other Post columnists, like Beat the Press regulars Robert Samuelson and Charles
Lane, really have such great social media metrics?
As far as the second part, yes Meyerson was a different voice. His columns showed a concern
for the ordinary workers who make up the overwhelming majority of the country's population. Apparently
this is a liability at the Post.
The studied failure of the fierce critic of the Washington Post and New York Times from the
economics department of the University of California at Berkeley to so much as regret the firing
of the only writer on labor affairs at either paper tells of just how little regard there is for
the affairs of ordinary workers.
Not surprising, but disappointing nonetheless.
Sanjait -> anne...
Oh please.
Delong has been writing loudly about the need for pro labor fiscal and monetary policy for
the last 6 years. He's a leading voice on this topic, despite being "shrill."
To anyone that has been paying attention even a little, he has more than firmly established
his concern for workers.
You're just weirdly upset because he called the Yale protesters stupid. Others here are upset
because, like conservative tribalists, they think the best way to promote progressive causes is
to ignore fact based debates and instead talk about who is or isn't an apostate. It's really very
ugly.
ken melvin -> Dan Kervick...
Two states, maybe?
am -> Dan Kervick...
Harold Meyerson, the Democratic Socialist op-ed columnist for Wapo, was just canned by Fred Hiatt.
Apart from removing another left wing economic voice from the establishment public sphere, this
helps clear the decks for a 2017 Middle East war after Clinton gets control of the war room from
Obama. Not a word on that firing from sometime scourge of the Washington Post, Brad DeLong - who
I guess is pretty cool with it.
This is from your comment. You go from the sacking of a journalist to clearing the ground for
a middle east war and then connect it all to Brad De Long. I hope you see the defects in your
thinking.
Dan Kervick -> am...
OK, let's wait and see what DeLong says.
However, I stand by the idea that one of Hiatt's beefs with Meyerson is that Meyerson is a
critic of the generally neoconservative foreign policies that Hiatt staunchly promotes. I think
Hiatt is likely rubbing his hands in glee over the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency, since
her foreign policy will be much more aggressive and neocon-friendly than Obama's - and also much
more so than a president Trump, for that matter, whom the neocons despise and fear.
djb -> Dan Kervick...
sorry to bother you dan but I couldn't help notice your comment to Egmont about consumption being
greater than income
"As you can see, consumption runs consistently and significantly higher than wages and salaries."
why do you think that is?
Dan Kervick -> djb...
djb, to be accurate, I pointed out that consumption was higher than wage and salary income. And
clearly one reason for that is that is that wage and salary income is only one portion of national
income. Besides other returns to labor like bonuses, a lot of income consists in profits and other
returns to capital.
Dan Kervick :
Even Brookings is getting worried about what's going on with the growing cultural isolation
of the relatively affluent:
This Brookings piece doesn't contribute much of anything to the conversation either. Mostly it
just provides a working definition of upper middle class. The "getting worried" part is pretty
much limited to the conclusion, and even then mostly outsourced to a conservative writer over
at Slate:
And if we go and read the Slate piece we find out that it's mostly BS -- even the Brookings
article warns us in advance that it's "hyperbole, of course."
All of that said I do think there is an important point to be made, one that I was making the
other day -- if you let a small number of people accumulate extreme levels of wealth, these people
will tend to focus their philanthropic efforts on the sorts of problems that get discussed in
their rather limited social circle, which may not be what the broader population views as the
most pressing issues. However, I was talking about billionaires (and tech billionaires in particular,
who tend to view things through an even narrower lens. In contrast, here we're talking about a
much larger and more diverse group -- 15-20% of the working-age population according to the article
-- many of whom came from middle class or lower-middle class backgrounds and who strongly identify
with these groups and their concerns.
EMichael -> Syaloch...
Of course it doesn't contribute to the discussion, not unless you read between the kervick lines
and understand that the separation is sinister, aided and abetted by pols and economists on both
sides as they are all elites.
"When everyone is out to get you, paranoia is just being careful." Dan K, err, I mean Woody Allen.
Dan Kervick -> Syaloch...
The Brookings title for the article describes the separation as "dangerous". Isn't that an instance
of worrying?
The point isn't that the upper middle class is engaged in some sort of sneaky, diabolical plot
to "ruin" America, but rather that the emergence of growing cultural, educational and economic
gaps between different classes of Americans is bad for the country, and that the greater the degree
of class separations, the greater likelihood that the discourse of people who belong to a particular
class will tend to reflect the preoccupations and values of that class alone.
At all times and in all societies the preoccupation of those who have most greatly benefited
from a given social order will tend to be focused on how to defuse, appease or discipline dissenting
elements without disrupting the social order.
Syaloch -> Dan Kervick...
The Brookings title appears to be mere clickbait, with little in the article to back the claim
up. The main thrust of the piece is that those who've managed to make it to the upper end of the
middle class have been more successful than those with less income. Big surprise there.
I have no objection to the claim that growing economic gaps are bad for the country. However,
I do think your attempt to cast this as an internal conflict within the middle class is nonsense.
I mean, Bernie Sanders' net worth is reportedly $700,000, which is roughly three times the
median for someone his age ($232,100 as of 2013). Isn't he part of this elite class you describe,
doing what elites always do? Does his political orientation reflect the general predilections
and interests of his class?
Dan Kervick -> Syaloch...
It seems to me the article documents trends in several areas, all meant to back up the summary
story told in the opening paragraph:
"The American upper middle class is separating, slowly but surely, from the rest of society.
This separation is most obvious in terms of income-where the top fifth have been prospering while
the majority lags behind. But the separation is not just economic. Gaps are growing on a whole
range of dimensions, including family structure, education, lifestyle, and geography. Indeed,
these dimensions of advantage appear to be clustering more tightly together, each thereby amplifying
the effect of the other."
cm -> Syaloch...
Considering current real estate evaluations (I suppose Mr. Sanders owns a house), I don't think
700K is a net worth that confers any kind of elite status (where in this discussion "elite" must
be understood as being able to set or influence policy, without necessarily holding public office).
Syaloch -> cm...
The current median sales price for homes in Burlington VT is around $270,000, so Sanders must
be living in an "elite" home appropriate to his class.
More seriously, I don't think $700K necessarily confers elite status either, I'm just poking
holes in the arguments of those who want to drive wedges between different segments of the middle
class.
Dan Kervick -> Syaloch...
I don't think it's so much a matter of driving wedges, but recognizing the wedges that are already
there.
Of course, some individual people who have lots of money are capable of adopting political
stances that range outside their class interests. The similarity between political outlook and
class interest is a strong general tendency, not an iron rule.
Syaloch -> Dan Kervick...
Your understanding of class relationships is flawed.
Perhaps one has to actually be part of the upper middle class to see how these things actually
work?
The county where I live is one of the richest in the country, and it consistently votes Democrat.
But then again the cost of living is very high here, so a lot of people who appear to have high
incomes by national standards actually live quite modest lifestyles. And many people who live
here came from other lower-income areas to find work, and probably relate most strongly with the
places and backgrounds from which they came (even after 25 years of living in the DC suburbs my
wife and I still tend to answer the question, "where are you from?" with the states we were born
in).
The relationship between income and "class interest" is apparently quite complicated.
cm -> Syaloch...
**my wife and I still tend to answer the question, "where are you from?" with the states we were
born in**
Isn't that what the questioner is actually asking? I always understood this question as "what
is your cultural (often more specifically ethnic) background". The question often comes in the
form "where's your *accent* from".
Syaloch -> cm...
Sometimes it's unclear, but generally the context is ah, so you're a visitor here, where is your
home located?
We still have a hard time saying we're "from" Virginia, as the part of Virginia that borders
DC bears little relationship culturally, politically, or economically with the rest of the state.
Culturally we're still very much Northerners.
cm -> Syaloch...
Perhaps, though I often respond jokingly stating the city where I live, and then there is *always*
the clarification "no where are you originally from". The larger area here has a lot of immigration
from other places (inside and outside the US), and a lot of people with immigrant family background.
It seems to be a common (and reliable) conversation opener.
cm -> Syaloch...
"The relationship between income and "class interest" is apparently quite complicated."
A large part of the complication is adjustment to local cost structures. Another is that "class"
is a fairly abstract concept, which I define more by socioeconomic autonomy and participation
in the societal decision making process (at higher or lower levels) than by income. Of course
the former strongly correlates with income. E.g. when obtaining one's income absolutely requires
personal daily commitment to some activity (e.g. employment), one cannot be consider "upper" of
anything.
I would even question whether middle to upper corporate management falls in the upper middle
class - let's say Director to VP levels. They are paid quite well and can generally afford living
in "good neighborhoods" with higher end houses and cars, and perhaps even domestic "help", but
can they influence policy outside their company?
And one more before the day's round of media stuff begins.
Another weirdly persistent myth is that rich people vote Democratic, while working stiffs vote
Republican. Here's Tucker Carlson: *
"OK, but here's the fact that nobody ever, ever mentions - Democrats win rich people. Over
100,000 in income, you are likely more than not to vote for Democrats. People never point that
out. Rich people vote liberal. I don't know what that's all about."
Actually, people mention this alleged fact all the time - but the truth is just the opposite.
From the 2006 exit polls:
Vote by Income (Total) Democrat Republican
Less than $100,000 (78%) 55% 43%
$100,000 or more (22%) 47% 52%
And the fact that people with higher incomes are more likely to vote Republican has been consistently
true since 1972. **
The interesting question is why so many pundits know for a fact something that simply ain't
so.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, * there's a weird myth among the commentariat that rich
people vote Democratic. There's another strange thing about that myth: the notion that income
class doesn't matter for voting, or that it's perverse, has spread even as the actual relationship
between income and voting has become much stronger.
Larry Bartels ** offers us these data, which I also provide in "Conscience of a Liberal," on
white voting patterns in presidential elections by income:
Democratic Share of Vote
1952-1972
Bottom third ( 46)
Middle third ( 47)
Top third ( 42)
Democratic Share of Vote
1976-2004
Bottom third ( 51)
Middle third ( 44)
Top third ( 37)
As you can see, a 4-point difference between top and bottom became a 14-point difference.
Andrew Gelman et al *** offer us an election-by-election graph; the dots represent an estimate
of the effect of income on the tendency to vote Republican, the whiskers the range of statistical
uncertainty. Again, a weak link in the earlier period, except when Barry Goldwater was the candidate,
and a much stronger link since then.
So the conventional pundit wisdom about the relationship between class and voting is, literally,
the opposite of the truth.
If you are trying to suggest that a mere prole couldn't possibly understand how the well-off people
actually think, you may be comforted to know that my wife and I are comfortably part of that upper
20%.
The people I am criticizing are the kinds of people I have known all my life. I went to college
and graduate school with them, and have known them socially and professionally. Quite the contrary
to your suggestion, I think if people from humbler walks of life had a clearer idea of how knowledge
class yuppies actually think and talk when they are not behaving themselves in public forums and
trying to act like compassionate and concerned citizens, the resentment and determination to act
on the part of the former would be even more intense than it is now.
I dearly recall the day one of my college friends told me that it was so unfair that smart
college kids might be subject to the same kinds of military service requirements that less educated
people faced, because the college kids "had so much more to lose." Their heads, after all, were
stuffed with big, valuable, meaningful brains; while the existences of the plebs were so much
less meaningful. Of course, she's probably running some health care outfit these days.
Syaloch -> Dan Kervick...
I had a very similar experience with the people I met at my Ivy League university. A depressing
percentage of the student body consisted of spoiled trust fund babies, many of whom were apparently
ignored or otherwise mistreated by their parents and exhibited a shocking array of psychological
and substance abuse problems.
The most shocking incident I encountered was when a decent-seeming girl I met at the beginning
of sophomore year calmly explained during a discussion with myself and a high school friend the
"difference between black people and [n-word]s" as if this were a totally natural and uncontroversial
position. And she wasn't from the Deep South, either -- she was from Columbia MD.
But these people were of a distinctly different class than the many nominally upper-middle
class people I encounter in daily life. Even now, high as my household income is, I would immediately
be detected as a "mere prole" by them, a "lower class" person.
Fitzgerald was absolutely right -- the truly well off are indeed different from you and
me. Even if you don't realize it, rest assured that they do.
cm -> Dan Kervick...
Did your friend actually say these things about the brain value or are you extrapolating?
I had to go to military service *before* going to college, before the question of occupational
deferments could even come up, and incidentally so that the conscripts could be coerced with the
threat of having their college admission canceled. It was a good opportunity to purge our heads
of some of the highschool knowledge and attitudes, and fill it with more practical things like
avoiding or shirking work assignments, creative ways of procuring and hiding alcohol, and learning
a bit about sizing up people and power dynamics as well as losing some illusions about the universality
of human qualities. The latter part was actually useful.
cm -> Dan Kervick...
The concept of class is also just a model, and not rigidly tied to economic markers. People
in comparable occupational settings or type of economic participation can have very different
incomes and ability to afford certain lifestyles.
This is not only related to geographic differences, but jobs with similar skill profiles and
job content can have significantly different pay/perk structures across public/private sector,
different industries, and even within the same company. And by significantly I mean easily 2X.
E.g. regardless of your pay level, if your occupational situation is such that you have
to essentially show up for work every day and follow somebody else's directives (to make a relatively
low-risk income), then it would be a stretch to consider you upper middle class.
cm -> cm...
This is in response to your "wedges" comment, which may not be obvious in the web page layout.
Dan Kervick -> cm...
I definitely agree with those observations, although I have to say that following the crash in
2008 I was startled to realize just how much truth there is in the old Marxian idea that in an
economic pinch, people will rapidly form coalitions with other people on the basis of economic
affinities to protect their mutual interests.
cm -> Dan Kervick...
It is probably less about *mutual* interests and more about *common* interests. OTOH (but perhaps
fundamentally the same phenomenon) I and others have observed how people switch (declared?) allegiances
and ideological leanings and patterns of acting, as well the people they associate with, when
changing occupational roles, e.g. from individual contributor to manager or lower to middle management.
That usually comes with an income bump, but I don't think it is much related to income level.
Syaloch -> cm...
From what I've observed, following the 2008 crash a lot of upper-middle class people suddenly
realized that the differences between themselves and those living in poverty are actually much
smaller than the differences between themselves and the truly wealthy.
"... I am always struck by the difference between the oligarchs of today and those (a very small group) who ran the uk in the late 17 and 18 century. Proud, brutal but they taxed themselves as necessary to build effective institutions and instruments in the service of common goals ..."
"... in this culture we recognize the Midas touch as a positive good, rather than the curse the Greeks knew it to be. ..."
"... My feeling has always been that taxes are the price you pay to live in a civilized society. Conservatives are obviously opposed to that. ..."
"... An even more commercially successful writer, J. K. Rowling, has expressed similar enlightened views. There ought to be a hall of fame for such folks. ..."
"... To become a hedge fund billionaire you can have no heart and you can have no soul. You must be a ruthless predatory bastard with no concern for morality or justice. So it is not surprising that the question of whether you owe something to others doesnt really register with hedge fund billionaires. ..."
Irving Berlin on taxes
: The New York Times
reports
on how some of the US's richest men are dodging taxes. Compare this to the
response
of Irving Berlin
when his lawyer offered him a tax shelter:
I want to pay taxes. I love this country.
He even wrote a
song
expressing this
sentiment. He said: "I owe all my success to my adopted country." ...
He embodied -- knowingly so -- a
point
made by Herbert Simon, that we westerners owe our fortunes not so much to our own efforts but
to the good luck of living in societies which enable us to prosper - which have peace, the rule
of law and material and intellectual resources ...
Now, songwriting is pretty much as individualistic an activity as one can find; But even songwriters
require a conducive environment such as musical traditions on which to draw and a marketplace
for their work. Berlin knew this: 1930s Siberia had no equivalent of Tin Pan Alley or Hollywood.
If even songwriters owe their wealth to social capital, how much more true is this of hedge fund
managers. They would be nothing without wealthy investors or large liquid financial markets: how
many billionaire fund managers are there in Burkina Faso?
Which poses the question: why, then, don't hedge fund managers have the same attitude to paying
tax as Irving Berlin? It could be that they are more motivated ... by personal greed. But there
might be another reason..., they believe their wealth is the product of their own "talent" and
so they are entitled to it... Others of us prefer to call it an example of one of the disfiguring
diseases of our time - narcissism.
Perhaps there's another explanation, though. Maybe hedge fund billionaires are greater geniuses
than Irving Berlin who have contributed more to human happiness. But how likely is this?
"The New York Times reports on how some of the US's richest men are dodging taxes."
But Jay Bird
just today declared corporations ARE paying their taxes. Really? There is no such thing as Base Erosion
and Profit Shifting?
pgl -> Jay...
You need to get a life. Start with laying off the booze.
Roland:
I am always struck by the difference between the oligarchs of today and those (a very small group)
who ran the uk in the late 17 and 18 century. Proud, brutal but they taxed themselves as necessary
to build effective institutions and instruments in the service of common goals
EMichael:
Berlin realized that he did not build that.
Robert Marshall:
What is more likely is that songwriting and billionairing require very different character traits
to reach the top. I wish I knew what it took to be a songwriter, but to be a billionaire, you have
to think the right way to go about life is to try to get as much as you can for as little as you
have to give up, and not even that if you can get out of it. And yet
in this culture we recognize
"the Midas touch" as a positive good, rather than the curse the Greeks knew it to be.
SomeCallMeTim:
Is it unseemly to infer that maybe these MOTUs hear the same dogwhistle symphony they fund? Or are
they above that sort of thing, and just 'have a business to run'?
DrDick:
My feeling has always been that taxes are the price you pay to live in a civilized society. Conservatives
are obviously opposed to that.
Jay -> DrDick...
You take the mortgage interest deduction?
Tax dodger!
DrDick -> Jay...
I rent.
DrDick -> DrDick...
And I take essentially nothing except the personal deduction.
Why is everyone so concerned with diagnosis? We know that great piles of money in few hands leads
to no good, and that is enough. Tax it away. Then let the formerly rich use their newly-freed time
writing poems describing the beauty of skimming from other people's cash flows.
DeDude:
To become a hedge fund billionaire you can have no heart and you can have no soul. You must be a
ruthless predatory bastard with no concern for morality or justice. So it is not surprising that
the question of whether you "owe" something to others doesn't really register with hedge fund billionaires.
"... [The financial crisis is worse than thought …] ..."
"... – Yes Prime Minister, A Real Partnership ..."
"... Economists: purveyors of fictions upon which the superstructure of organized robbery is raised. ..."
"... "Market Failure" is the name that economists who believe that the market cannot ever fail use when the market fails. ..."
"... "Economists put decimal points in their forecasts to show that they have a sense of humour" ..."
"... "Did you ever think that making a speech on economics is a lot like pissing down your leg? It seems hot to you, but it never does to anyone else." ..."
A6: None. They're all waiting for the unseen hand of the market to correct the lighting disequilibrium.
tony, December 30, 2015 at 6:12 am
Q: What do you call an economist that makes a prediction?
A: Wrong.
ben, December 30, 2015 at 3:28 pm
Two economists are walking on the street. They notice a pile of horseshit, and the older
one says to the younger one: "I'll pay you twenty thousand if you eat that." The younger one
ponders for a moment, then agrees and eats it. They walk a bit more and run into another pile
of horse feces. So the younger one tells the elder: "I'll pay you twenty thousand if you eat
that!". The older economist considers the offer and starts eating. After a while the younger
economists stops and asks: "What was the point of this? We both ate a pile shit and neither of
us got richer." The older one answers: "What are you talking about? We both produced and
received twenty thousand worth in income and services."
GDP. Great deposits of poo.
Clive, December 31, 2015 at 5:41 am
"This economy is really terrible."
"How bad is the economy?"
"The economy is so bad, this year oysters are making fake pearls…"
"The economy is so bad, organised crime just laid off 10 judges…"
(and so on)
Paul Jonker-Hoffrén, December 30, 2015 at 7:27 am
"Knock Knock!"
"Who's there?"
"It's Return to Growth!"
Two years later…
"Knock Knock!"
"Who's there?"
"It's Return to Growth!"
And ad finitum…
Clive, December 30, 2015 at 6:21 am
"Knock Knock"
"Who's there?"
"Janet Yellen"
"Well there's no need to shout, I heard you knocking"
Joaquin Closet, December 30, 2015 at 7:42 am
The number of economists is the only thing that contradicts the Law of Supply and Demand.
craazyboy, December 30, 2015 at 9:00 am
Q: How many economists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Three. A micro-economist to hold the ladder, a macro-economist to rotate the room, and a
university economist to develop the math model and forecast how long it will take.
Ulysses, December 30, 2015 at 9:56 am
A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job at an oil company.
The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks "What do two plus two equal?" The
mathematician replies "Four." The interviewer asks "Four, exactly?" The mathematician looks at
the interviewer hard and says "Yes, four, exactly."
Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question "What do two plus two
equal?" The accountant says "On average, four – give or take ten percent, but on average,
four."
Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question "What do two plus two
equal?" The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the
interviewer and says, "What do you want it to equal"?
Paul Tioxon, December 30, 2015 at 10:02 am
What do you call a cruise ship sinking with 500 PhD economists chained below deck?
A good start.
allan, December 30, 2015 at 10:03 am
Frederic Mishkin.
Yves Smith, December 30, 2015 at 4:32 pm
Oh, that is good!
Paul
An economist is someone who will tell you tomorrow why what they predicted yesterday didn't happen
today.
An economist, a physicist, and an engineer are stranded on an island with a can of food, and no
opener.
The engineer says, "Let's smash the can open with a rock and eat". The physicist replies, "Naw, that's going to splatter the food all over the place. Let's light a
fire, the expanding gases will force the can to pop open and presto: warm food!" The economist says, "Bad idea: the can will explode and the food will be all over the place. Now…
let's assume we have a can opener…."
Blue Meme
A physician, an engineer, and an economist were discussing who among them belonged to the oldest
profession. The physician said, "Remember, on the sixth day God took a rib from Adam and fashioned
Eve, making him the first surgeon. Therefore, medicine is the oldest profession."
The engineer replied, "But, before that, God created the heavens and earth from chaos, thus he
was the first engineer. Therefore, engineering is an older profession than medicine."
Then, the economist spoke up. "Yes," he said, "But who do you think created the chaos?"
aj
The First Law of Economists: For every economist, there exists an equal and opposite economist. The Second Law of Economists: They're both wrong.
fresno dan
Pareto's law of optimal economic theory: an economic theory has reached an optimal state when no other economist can make it wronger
pat b
The Third Law of Economists : The two economists theories don't add up.
twonine
"Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists." ― John Kenneth Galbraith
gordon
JKG has some excellent one-liners. My favourite:
"The trouble with competition is that in the end somebody wins."
Joe Hill
"Again, since I'm not an economist I really have no idea what the wrong solution is."
~ @RudyHavenstein
Ramanan
[The financial crisis is worse than thought …]
James Hacker: Bernard, Humphrey should have seen this coming and warned me.
Bernard Woolley: I don't think Sir Humphrey understands economics, Prime Minister;
he did read Classics, you know.
James Hacker: What about Sir Frank? He's head of the Treasury!
Bernard Woolley: Well I'm afraid he's at an even greater disadvantage in understanding
economics: he's an economist.
Economists: purveyors of fictions upon which the superstructure of organized robbery is raised. (apologies to Ambrose Bierce)
Synoia
Q: What do you call an Economist who tells the truth?
A: Unemployed.
Ivy
If you laid all the economists end to end,
it would probably be a good thing.
They still wouldn't reach a conclusion.
ben
A farmer and two bankers are shipwrecked on an island. Two weeks later help finally arrives. The
bankers greet their rescuer who remarks how well they look.
BankerA: "we realised the potential of the natural resources on this island were tremendous".
BankerB: "I created some fiat money, we divided it up. I lent BankerA ten times my share for a
coconut farm startup, he invested ten times his share in an accountancy startup."
Rescuer: "well that's amazing, only where is it all, I don't see any produce – how did you actually
survive?"
BankerA: "We each used our debt to invest in futures given the fertile land it was clear the land
could generate wealth once labour was applied. We both realised significant paper profits. Oh and
we ate the farmer"
--
Bankers live off our backs.
Nortino
What did the supply curve say to the demand curve?
If you shift a little to the right, I'll give you some more of what you want.
_________
Why did the economist cross the road?
Because his models predicted he would.
TG
"Market Failure" is the name that economists who believe that the market cannot ever fail use
when the market fails.
Synoia
Hmm, it seems you should take your own advice to heart. :-)
What is a person called who claims to predict the future and has a history of 100% failure
in predictions?
a) A Charlatan b) An Economist c) A prophet
afreeman
In the same vein: econ entropy: money invented from hot air evaporates, what do you expect?
How many economists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Only one, but the lightbulb has to be hanging from the ceiling. Because economists can only screw
things up.
Minnie Mouse
It takes one economist to change a light bulb and take the entire power grid down.
James McFadden
"Did you ever think that making a speech on economics is a lot like pissing down your leg?
It seems hot to you, but it never does to anyone else." Lyndon Johnson
"... ...It might seem counterintuitive that lack of access to credit results in delinquency-seemingly a problem of "too much debt." But in fact, lack of access to credit and delinquency are two sides of the same coin. Nearly everyone needs access to credit markets to meet basic economic needs, and if they can't get loans through competitive, transparent financial networks, poor people are more likely to be subjected to exploitative credit arrangements in the form of very high rates and other onerous terms and penalties, including on student loans. That disadvantage interacts with and is magnified by their lack of labor market opportunities. The result is exactly what we see across time and space: high delinquency rates for those with the least access to credit markets. ..."
The geography of student debt is very different than the geography of delinquency. Take the Washington, D.C. metro region. In
zip codes with high average loan balances (western and central Washington, D.C.), delinquency rates are lower. Within the District
of Columbia, median income is highest in these parts of the city. Similar results–low delinquency rates in high-debt areas–can be
seen for Chicago, as well. (See Figure 1.)
...What explains this relationship? There appear to be two possible, and mutually consistent, theories. First, although graduate
students take out the largest student loans, they are able to carry large debt burdens thanks to their higher salaries post-graduation.
Second, the rise in the number of students borrowing relatively small amounts for
for-profit colleges has augmented the cumulative debt load, but because these borrowers face poor labor market outcomes and lower
earnings upon graduation (if they do in fact graduate),
their
delinquency rates are much higher. This is further complicated by the fact that these for-profit college attendees generally
come from lower-income families who may not be able to help with loan repayments.
The inverse relationship between delinquency and income is not surprising, especially when considering that problems of credit
access have disproportionately affected poor and minority populations in the past.
...It might seem counterintuitive that lack of access to credit results in delinquency-seemingly a problem of "too much debt."
But in fact, lack of access to credit and delinquency are two sides of the same coin. Nearly everyone needs access to credit markets
to meet basic economic needs, and if they can't get loans through competitive, transparent financial networks, poor people are more
likely to be subjected to exploitative credit arrangements in the form of very high rates and other onerous terms and penalties,
including on student loans. That disadvantage interacts with and is magnified by their lack of labor market opportunities. The result
is exactly what we see across time and space: high delinquency rates for those with the least access to credit markets.
...For user-friendliness, we assign each of these student debt scale variables a qualitative category. If average loan balance
on the map is "somewhat high," for example, then it means that a zip code's average loan balance is between 25 and 35 percent higher
than the national average of $24,271. Similarly, if the delinquency reads "very low," it corresponds to a scale level between 0.067
and 0.091.
Figure 6 summarizes the relationship between each of the scale variables' levels and their qualitative description.
Americans are,
compared
with populations of other countries, particularly enthusiastic about the idea of meritocracy, a system
that rewards merit (ability
+ effort) with success. Americans are
more likely to believe that people are rewarded for their intelligence and skills and are less
likely to believe that family wealth plays a key role in getting ahead. And Americans' support for
meritocratic principles has
remained
stable over the last two decades despite growing economic inequality, recessions, and the fact
that there is
less mobility in the United States than in most other industrialized countries.
This strong
commitment to meritocratic ideals can lead to suspicion of efforts that aim to support particular
demographic groups. For example,
initiatives designed to recruit or provide development opportunities to under-represented groups
often come under attack as "reverse discrimination." Some companies even
justify
not having diversity policies by highlighting their commitment to meritocracy. If a company evaluates
people on their skills, abilities, and merit, without consideration of their gender, race, sexuality
etc., and managers are objective in their assessments then there is no need for diversity policies,
the thinking goes.
But is this true? Do commitments to meritocracy and objectivity lead to more fair workplaces?
Emilio J. Castilla, a professor
at MIT's Sloan School of Management, has explored how meritocratic ideals and HR practices like pay-for-performance
play out in organizations, and he's come to some unexpected conclusions.
In one company study,
Castilla examined almost 9,000 employees who worked as support-staff at a large service-sector company.
The company was committed to diversity and had implemented a merit-driven compensation system intended
to reward high-level performance and to reward all employees equitably.
But Castilla's analysis revealed some very non-meritocratic outcomes. Women, ethnic minorities,
and non-U.S.-born employees received a smaller increase in compensation compared with white men,
despite holding the same jobs, working in the same units, having the same supervisors, the same human
capital, and importantly, receiving the same performance score. Despite stating that "performance
is the primary bases for all salary increases," the reality was that women, minorities, and those
born outside the U.S. needed "to work harder and obtain higher performance scores in order to receive
similar salary increases to white men."
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.